This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्टी से डी. एल. (एन ) 04/0007/2003-05

REGD. NO.D.LAND 04/ 0007 /2003-05 भारतका राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUHLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 21] No. 21 ]

नई दिल्ली, मई 20 मई26, 2007 , शनिवार/वैशाख 30- अपेष्ठ 5 , 1929 NEW DELHI, MAY 20 MAY 26, 2007, SATURDAY/VAISAKHA 30- JYAISTHA 5, 1929 इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग II-खण्ड 3- उप-काण्ड ( II ) PART II Section 3-Sub-section ( 4)

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

कार्मिक, लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training) (कार्मिक भऔर प्रशिक्षण विभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 11 मई , 2007

NewDelhi , the 11th May, 2007 5 .

का.आ. 1477 ,-केंद्रीय सरकार एतदृ‌द्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए पटना उच्छ्व न्यायालय में केन्द्रीय अन्वेषण म्यूरो के रिटेनर काउंसेल श्री बिपिन कुमार सिन्हा, अधिवक्ता को पटना उच्च न्यायालय में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना द्वारा अन्वेषित मामलों से उद्भूत अभियोजन , अपीलों, पुनरीक्षणों अथवा अन्य विषय का संचालन करने के लिए विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

8.О. 1477.-In exercise of the powers conferred by the provisions of sub -section ( 8 ) of Section 24 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Vipin Kumar Sinha, Advocate, Paina, a Retainer Counsel of the Central Bureau of Investigation in the Patria High Court as Special PublicProsecutor for conducting prosecutions , appeals, revisions or other matters arising out of the cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the Patna High Court,

[सं. 225/ 18/2007- एबीडी- II ] चंद्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव

[No. 225/18/2007-AVD- II CHANDRA PRAKASH, Under Secy.

2394 GI/2007

(3271) [PART II-SBC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/JYAISTHA 5, 1929

3272

नई दिल्ली, 17 मई , 2007

तथा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्‌भूत किन्हीं अन्य अपराधों का अन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण तमिलनाडु राज्य पर करती है ।

[सं. 228/25/2007 - एवीडी- II ]

चंद्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव का.आ. 1478, -केंद्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए निम्नलिखित अपराधों को दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना द्वारा अन्वेषित किए जाने वाले अपराधों के रूप में विनिर्दिष्ट करती है , अर्थात्:-

New Delhi , the 17th May, 2007 ( क ) तमिलनाडु संपत्ति ( नुकसान और हानि निरोधक ) अधिनियम , 1992 की धारा 4 ,

(ख) उपर्युक्त अपराधों में से एक अथवा अधिक से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त प्रयत्नों, दुष्प्रेरणों और षडयंत्रों तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किसी अन्य अपराध अथवा अपराधों को ।

[सं 228/25/2007- एवीडी-11 ]

चंद्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 17th May, 2007

S.O. 1479. In exercise of the powers conferred bySub-section ( 1 ) of Section 5, read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Tamilnadu, Home (SC) Department videNotification No. SC/2816-2/2007 dated 10-5-2007 bereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Tamilnadu for investigation in Crime No.226/2007 of Othakadai Police Station ,Madurai District, Tamilnadu under Sections 147 , 148 , 120-8, 436, 449, 332, 307 and 302 IPCz/w . Section 4 & 5 of theExplosive Substances Act regarding attack on Tamil Daily 'Dinakaran ' and Sun TV office premises on 09-05-2007 and abetments , attempts and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the said offences and any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .

[No. 228/25/2007 -AVD -11 ) 1.0.1478 - n exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 ( Act No. 25 ol 1946) , the Central Government hereby specify the following offences which are to be investigated by the Delhi Special Establishment namely:-

CHANDRA PRAKASH , Under Secy.

(1 ) Section 4 of the Tamilnadu Property (Prevention ofDamage and Loss ) Act, 1992,

कार्यालय आयुक्त , केन्द्रीय उत्पाद एवं सीमा शुल्क

भोपाल , 4 मई, 2007

सं. 12/2007

(2) Attempts , abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the offences imentioned above and any other offence or ioffences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .

[No. 228/25/2007- AVD - II ]

CHANDRA PRAKASH , Under Secy .

का.आ. 1480.- श्री रामप्रसाद रजक , हेड हवलदार, समूह ' घ ' , केन्द्रीय उत्पाद एवं सीमा शुल्क , आयुक्तालय भोपाल, ऐच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति पर, दिनांक 07-02-2007 को पूर्वान्हमें शासकीय सेवा से निवृत्त हुये ।

नई दिल्ली , 17 मई , 2007

[सी. सं. 11 ( 25)/01/2000/स्था.-1/5820 ]

बी. डी. बोरकर , अपर आयुक्त ( का. /स. )

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE

Bhopal, the 4th May, 2007

No. 12/2007

S.O. 1480.- Shri Ramprasad Rajak . Head Hawaklar, Group ' D ' Central Excise & Customs, Bhopal Commissionerate has retired voluntarily from Government Service in the forenoon of 7th February,2007.

(C. No. II (25)/01 /2000/Et- 1/ 5820 ) B.D. BORKAR, Addl. Commissioner (P &V) का.आ. 1479. -केंद्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करतें हुए तमिलनाडु सरकार गृह ( एससी ) विभाग के दिनांक 10-05-2007 की अधिसूचना सं. एससी/2816-2/2007 के द्वारा दी गई सहमति से उतकड़ई पुलिस स्टेशन , जिला मदुरै , तमिलनाडु में विस्फोटक पदार्थ अधिनियम की धारा 4 एवं 5 के साथ पठितः भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 147 , 148, 120- बी, 436 , 449, 332, 307 एवं 302 के अंतर्गत दिनांक 09-05-2007 को तमिल दैनिक ' दिनाकरन ' और सन टी.वी. कार्यालय परिसर में हुए हमले से संबंधित तथा उपर्युक्त अपराधों से संबंधित संसक्त प्रयत्नों, दुष्प्रेरणों और षड़यंत्रों तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए [ भाग II--खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत की राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

3273

वित्त मंत्रालय

(राजस्व विभाग)

(केन्द्रीय प्रवकर कोर्ट )

नई दिल्ली, 16 अप्रैल, 2007

(आयकर)

का. आ. 1481 , जबकि आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का.43 ) ( यहां आगे उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 80 क्ष क की उपधारा (4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार ने 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च, 2002 को समाप्त होने वाली अवधि के लिये संख्या का, आL 193 ( अ ) दिनांक 30 मार्च, 1999 के जरिए तथा । अप्रैल, 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च , 2006 को समाप्त अवधि के लिए संख्या का आ. 354 ( अ) के जरिए भारत सरकार , वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय ( औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग ) की अधिसूचनाओं द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की योजना निर्मित और अधिसूचित की है ;

और जबकि मैसर्स गब्वा एस्टेट्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , लक्ष्मी साइबर सेंटर , 8-2-682 , एवेन्यू-1 ( भार्ग सं 12 ) कंजारा हिल्स, हैदराबाद -500034 लक्ष्मी चिल्डिग , 1-8-48 , एस. पी. रोड, तालुका एंड डिस्ट्रिक्ट सिकदराबाद , आन्ध्र प्रदेश में एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास कर रहा है;

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखत नियम और शतों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक5-12-2006 के पत्र सं 15/171/2005- आई डी के अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क अनुमोदित किया है ;

अब इसलिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 80 क्ष क को उपधारा (4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एवद्‌द्वारा उक्त खंड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ औद्योगिक पार्क के रूप में मैसर्स गव्या एस्टेट्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , हैदराबाद द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

अनुबंध

शर्तें जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स गष्या एस्टेट्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , हैराबाद द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है ।

1. ( i ) औब्लेगिक उपक्रम का नाम

: गव्या एस्टेट्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , हैदराबाद

( ii ) प्रस्तावित स्थान

: लक्ष्मी बिल्डिंग , 1-8-448 , एस पी रोड , तालुका एंड डिस्ट्रिक्ट सिकन्दराबाद, आन्ध्र प्रदेश -500034

(iii ) औद्योगिक पार्क का क्षेत्रफल

20847.50 वर्ग फीट

(iv ) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप :

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

एन आई सी संहिता

विवरण

क्रम सं 1R

प्रभाग

अनुभाग

श्रेणी

समूह

क

संचार सेवाएं

892

डाटा प्रोसेसिंग साफ्टवेयर विकास तथा कम्प्यूटर कंसलटेंसी सेवाएं ग

893

कारोबार तथा प्रबंधन कंसलटेंसी कार्यकलाप

घ

894

वास्तुशिल्पीय तथा इंजीनियरी एवं अन्य तकनीकी कंसलटेंसी कार्यकलाप

895

तकनीकी परीक्षण एवं विश्लेषण सेवाएं

90.56%

( २ ) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए प्रस्तावित आबंटनीय क्षेत्र का प्रविशत [PART II-SEC. 3( i ) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26, 2007/JYAISTHA 5, 1929

3274

(vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित : 9.44% भूमिका प्रतिशत

(vii ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की न्यूनतम संख्या 03 यूनिटें

(viii ) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश ( राशि रु. में ) : 3.00 करोड

(ix ) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित : 1.80 करोड़ स्थान पर निवेश ( राशि रुपये में )

(x) अवसौरचनात्मक विकास पर निवेश : 2.75 करोड़ जिसमें औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मितां स्थान पर निवेश भी शामिल है (राशि रूपए में )

(xi ) औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने की प्रस्तावित तिथि : अप्रैल, 2005

2. किसी औद्योगिक पार्क में अवसंरचना विकास पर न्यूनतम निवेश कुल परियोजना लागत के 50 % से कम नहीं होगा । ऐसे औद्योगिक पार्क जो औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थल प्रदान करता है , के मामले में औद्योगिक स्थल के निर्माण कार्य की लागत सहित विकास अवसरंचना पर स्यूनतम खर्च कुल परियोजना लागत के 60 % से कम नहीं होगा।

3. सोचना विकास में सड़क ( सम्पर्क सड़क सहित ) , जलापूर्ति तथा सीवरेज , दूषित जल शोधन सुविधा, टेलिकॉम नेटवर्क , विद्युत उत्पादन एवं विवरण , वातानुकुलन तथा ऐसी अन्य सुविधाएं जो औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप हेतु सामान्य उपयोग के लिए हैं जो वाणिज्यिक दृष्टि से निर्धारणीय एवं प्रयुक्त हैं ।

4. दिनांक 1 अप्रैल , 2002 की का.आ. 354 ( अ ) के पैराग्राफ 6 के उप पैराग्राफ ( ख ) में निर्दिष्ट तालिका के कालम ( 2 ) में उल्लिखित कोई एकल इकाई किसी औद्योगिक पार्क के लिए नियत आद्योगिक क्षेत्र का 50 % से अधिक हिस्सा धारित नहीं करेगी । इस प्रयोजनार्थ किसी इकाई का आशय एक या एक से अधिक राज्य अथवा केन्द्रीय कर कानून के प्रयोजन के लिए किसी अलग तथा भिन्न कम्पनी से है । 5. आवश्यक अनुमोदनों जिनमें विदेशी निवेश संवर्धन बोर्ड के द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश अथवा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अथवा यथा समय प्रवृत्त किसी कानून के अन्तर्गत विनिर्दिष्ट कोई प्राधिकरण भी शामिल हैं, को प्रवृत्त नीति तथा प्रक्रियाओं के अनुसार अलग से लिया जाएगा ।

6. इस अधिसूचना के पैरा ( vii ) में विनिर्दिष्ट संख्या में इकाइयों के औद्योगिक पार्क में अवस्थित होने के उपरान्त ही इस अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत कर लाभ प्राप्त हो सकते हैं ।

7. मैंसर्स गव्वा एस्टेट्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , हैदराबाद उस अवधि के दौरान औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन जारी रखेगा जिस अवधि में आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) के अन्तर्गत लाभ लिए जाने हैं ।

8. यदि उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने में इस अधिसूचना के पैरा । ( xi ) में निर्दिष्ट तिथि से एक वर्ष से ज्यादा विलम्ब होता है तो आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 ल क की उपधारा 4 ( iii ) के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त करने के लिए औद्योगिक पार्क योजना, 2002 के अंतर्गत नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा ।

9. यह अनुमोदन अवैध हो जाएगा और मैसर्स गव्वा एस्टेट्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , हैदराबाद ऐसी किसी प्रतिक्रिया की अवैधता के लिए स्वयं ही जिम्मेदार होगा , यदि

(i ) आवेदन पत्र जिसके आधार पर केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है , में गलत सूचना/सूचना अथवा कतिपय तथ्यपरक सूचना न दी गई हो ।

( ii ) यह उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क की अवस्थिति हेतु है जिसके लिए अनुमोदन किसी अन्य उपक्रम के नाम में पहले ही प्रदान किया गया है ।

: 10. यदि मैसर्स गब्बा एस्टेट्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , हैदराबाद ( अर्थात् अन्तरणकर्ता उपक्रम ) औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन और अनुरक्षण किसी दूसरे उपक्रम ( अर्थात् अंतरिती उपक्रम ) को हस्तांतरित करेगा तो अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपर्युक्त हस्तांतरण के लिए अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपक्रम के बीच निष्पादित करार की प्रति के साथ औद्योगिक सहायता सचिवालय, औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग , उद्योग भवन , नई दिल्ली-11 की उच्द्यमशीलता सहायता यूनिट संयुक्त रूप से सूचित करेंगे ।

11. इस अधिसूचना में उल्लिखित शर्तों के साथ -साथ औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम , 2002 में शामिल उन शर्तों का अनुपालन उस अवधि के दौरान किया आना चाहिए जिसके लिए इस स्कीम के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त किए जाने हैं । केन्द्र सरकार उपर्युक्त अनुमोदन को वापस ले सकती है 3275

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

[भाग -खण्ड 3Gi) ]

यदि पैसर्स गष्वा एस्टेट्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , हैदराबाद औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम , 2002 में विहित शों अथवा इस अधिसूचना की किसी भी शर्त के अनुपालन में असफल रहता है ।

12. केन्द्र सरकार के अनुमोदन के बिना प्रोजेक्ट प्लान में किया गया कोई भी संशोधन अथवा भविष्य में पक्त लगाना अथवा किसी ठोस तथ्य का उद्घाटन करने में आवेदक का असफल रहना , औद्योगिक पार्क के अनुमोदन को अवैध बना देना ।

[अभिसंचूना सं. 149/2007/फा. सं. 178/29/2007-आ.क.नि.३ ]

दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department ofRevenue)

(CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES)

NewDelhi, the 16thApril,2007

(INCOME- TAX)

S.O. 1481-Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clanse ( iii) of sub-section (4)ofSection 80- IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961 ) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ), has framed and notified ascheme for industrial park , by the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion) vide Number S.O. 193 (E) , dated the 30th March, 1999, for the period begining on the 1st day ofApril, 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2002 and vide number S.O. 354 (E) dated the 1st day ofApril, 2002 for the period begining on thie 1st day of April, 1997 and ending on the 31st day ofMarch, 2006;

Andwhereas M/'s . Gavva Estates Private Limited, Laxmi Cyber Centre, 8-2-682, Avenue- 1 (Road No. 12), Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500034 is developing an Industsrial Park at Laxmi Building, 1-8-448 , SP Road, Taluka & District-Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh-500034;

And whereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park,vide Ministry of Commerceand Industry letter No. 15/171/2005- ID dated 5-12-2006 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii) of sub- section (4) of section 80-1A of the said Act, the Central Government hereby notifies the undertaking, being developed and being maintained and operated by M/s.Gavva Estates Private Limited, Hyderabad, as an industriat park for the purposes of the said clause (iii) .

ANNEXURE

TheTerms and conditions on which the approval of the Government of India has been accorded for setting up of an industrial park by M/ s . Gavva Estates Private Limited, Hyderabad.

GavvaEstates Private Limited.

(i) Name of the Industrial Undertaking

(ⅱ) Proposed location

Laxmi Building , 1-8-448 , S P Road , Taluka & District Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh-500034 Area of Industrial Park

20847.50 Square Feet

(iv) Proposed activities

Nature of Industrial Activity with NIC code

Description SL. No.

Section

NICCode Division

Class

Group

Communication sevices .

892

Data Processing , software development and computer consultancy services .

893

Business and management consultancy activities .

894

Architectural and engineering and other technical consultancy activities.

895

Technical testing and analysis services.

3276

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26, 2007/JYAISTHA 5, 1929

[PART II-SBC. 3( i) )

90.56%

(v) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for industrial use

9.44%

(vi) Percentage of allocable area carmarked for commercial use

03Units

(vii) Minimum number of Industrial Units

3.00 Crore

(viii) Total investment proposed (Amount in Rupees)

1.80 Crone

(ix) Investiment on built up space for industrial use (Amount in Rupees )

:

2.75Crore

(x) Investment on infrastructure Development including investment onbuilt up space for industrial use (Amount inRupees)

April, 2005

(xi) Proposed date of dominencement of the Industrial park

2.The minimum investment on infrastructure development in an Indsutrial Park shall not be less than 50% ofthe total projectcost. In the case of an Industrial Park which provides built- up space for industrial use , the minimum expenditure on infrastructure development including cost of construction of industrial space, shall not be less than 60 % of the total project cost.

3. Infrastructure development shall include, roads (including approach roads ), water supply and sewerage, common effluent treatment facility, telecom network, generation and distribution of power, air - conditioning and such other facilities as are for common use for industrial activity which are identifiable and are provided on commercialterms .

4. No single unit referred to in coloum (2 ) of the Table given in sub- paragraph (b ) ofparagraph 6 of 5.0 . 354 (Ε) dated the 1st April , 2002 , shall occupy more than fifty per cent of the allocable industrial area of an Industrial Park. For this purpose a unit means any separate and distinct entity for the purpose ofone and more state or Central tax laws .

5.Necessary approvals, including that for foreign direct investment or non-resident Indian investment by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board -or Reserve Bank of India or any authority specified under any law for the time being inforce, shall be taken separately as per the policy and procedures in force.

6. The lax benefits under the Act can be availed of only after the number of units indicated in Para 1 (vii) of this Notification , are located in the Industrial Park.

7.M/s. Gavva Estates Private Limited, Hyderabad, shall continue to operate the Industrial Park during the period inwhich the benefits under clause (iii ) of sub - section ( 4) of Section 80-1A of the Income - tax Act, 1961 are to be availed.

8. In case the commencement of the Industrial Park is delayed by more than one year from the date indicated in Para 1 (xi ) of this notification , fresh approval will be required under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002, for availing benefits under sub- section 4( iii ) of Section 80 -IA of the Income Tax Act , 1961 .

9.The approval will be invalid and M/s . Gavva Estates Private Limited, Hyderabad, shall be solely responsible for any repercussions of such invalidity, if

(i) the application on the basis of which the approval is accorded by the Central Government contains wrong information/misinformation or some material information has not been provided in it .

(ii) it is for the location of the industrial park for which approval has already been accorded in the name of another undertaking.

10. In case M/ s.Gavva Estates Private Limited, Hyderabad, transfers the operation and maintenance of the industrial park ( Le . , transferor undertaking ) to another undertaking ( i.e. , the transferee undertaking ) , the transferor and transferee shall jointly intimate to the Entrepreneurial Assistance Unit of the Secretariat for Industrial Assistance, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi - 11 along with a copy of the agreement executed between the transferor and transferee undertaking for the aforesaid transfer.

भारत का राजपत्र मई 26, 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

3277 withdraw the above approval in case M/s . Gavva Estates Private Limited, Hyderabad, fails to comply with any of the conditions.

12.Any amendment of the project plan without the approval of the Central Government or detection in fumre, or failure on the part of the applicant to disclose my material fact, will invalidate the approval of the industrial park.

[Notification No. 149/2007 /F.No . 178/29/2007 -ΙΤΑ- Π

DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 16 अप्रैल, 2007

( आयकर )

का . आ. 1482, जबकि आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( 1961 कर 43 ) ( यहां आगे उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 80 स क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड (iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार ने 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च, 2002 को समाप्त होने वाली अवधि के लिये संख्या का. आ. 193 ( अ ) दिनांक 30 मार्च, 1999 के जरिए तथा । अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर कथा 31 मार्च , 2006 को समाप्त अवधि के लिए संख्या का आ 354 ( अ ) के जरिए भारत सरकार , वाणिज्य और उधोग मंत्रालय ( औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभ्रग ) की अधिसूचनाओं द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की योजना निर्मित और अधिसूचित की है ;

और जबकि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड जिसका पंजीकृत कार्यालय उद्योग भवन, तिलक मार्ग, जयपुर-302005 है जो इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया उद्योग विहार , रीको लिमिटेड , श्रीगंगानगर , जिला - श्रीगंगानगर , राजस्थान-335002 में एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास कर रहा है ।

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखित नियम और सयों के अधीनं वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रलय के दिनांक 26-10-2006 के पत्र स्वं 15 / 143/2005 - आई पी एंड आई डी के अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क अनुमोदित किया है ;

अब इसलिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 80 स क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों के प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा उक्त खखंड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ औद्योगिक पार्क के रूप में मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कापरिशन लिमिटेछ , जयपुर द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे वक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

अनुबंध

शों जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कापेरिशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क को गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है ।

1. ( i ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम

रावस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, ( ii ) प्रस्तावित स्थान

: इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया उद्योग विहार , सैंको लिमिटेड, श्रीगंगानगर, जिला- श्रीगंगानगर, राजस्थान-313003

( ii ) औद्योगिक पार्क का क्षेत्रफल

308.73 एकड

( iv ) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप

एन आई सी संहिता के सत्य औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

एन आई सी संहिता

विवरण क्रम सं.

प्रभाग

श्रेणी

अनुभाग

समूह

2और 3

विनिर्माण

97.42%

( v ) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए प्रस्तावित आबंटनीय क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

00.42%

( vi ) काणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित भूमि का प्रतिशत

(vii) औधोगिक यूनिटों की प्रस्तावित संख्क

289 यूनिटें

721.15 लाख

(viii ) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश ( राशि रूपए में )

सून्य

(ix) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश ( राशि रूपये में ) [PART JI-Sac. 3( ⅱ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/ JYAISTHA 5, 1929

3278

अवसंरचनात्मक विकास पर निवेश : 577.09 लाख

(x)

जिसमें औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश भी शामिल है

(राशि रुपए में)

(xi ) प्रस्वावित तिश्थि

2. किसी औद्योगिक पार्क में अवसंरचना विकास पर न्यूनतम निर्वेश कुल परियोजना लागत के 50% से कम नहीं होगा । ऐसे औद्योगिक पार्क ओ औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थल प्रदान करता है, के मामले में औद्योगिक स्थल के निर्माण कार्य की लागत सहित विकास अक्सरंचना पर न्यूनतम खर्च कुल परियोजना लागत के 60 % से कम नहीं होगा ।

3. संरचना विकास में सड़क ( सम्पर्क सड़‌क सहित ) , जलापूर्ति तथा सीवरेज , दूषित जल शोधन सुविधा , टेलिकॉम नेटवर्क, विद्युत उत्पादन एवं वितरण, वातानुकूलन तथा ऐसी अन्य सुविधाएं जो औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप हेतु सामान्य उपयोग के लिए हैं जो वाणिज्यिक दृष्टि से निर्धारणीय एवं प्रयुक्त हैं ।

4. दिनांक 1 अप्रैल, 2002 की का.आ. 354 ( अ ) के पैराग्राफ 6 के उप पैराग्राफ ( ख ) में निर्दिष्ट तालिका के कालम ( 2 ) में उल्लिखित कोई एकल इकाई किसी औद्योगिक पार्क के लिए नियत औद्योगिक क्षेत्र का 50 % से अधिक हिस्सा धारित नहीं करेगी । इस प्रयोजनार्थ किसी इकाई का आशय एक या एक से अधिक राज्य अथवा केन्द्रीय कर कानून के प्रयोजन के लिए किसी अलग तथा भिन्न कम्पनी से है । 5..आवश्यक अनुमोदनों जिनमें विदेशी निवेश संवर्धन बोर्ड के द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश अथवा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अथवा यथा समय प्रवृत्त किसी कानून के अन्तर्गत विनिर्दिष्ट कोई प्राधिकरण भी शामिल है, को प्रवृत्त नीति तथा प्रक्रियाओं के अनुसार अलग से लिया जाएगा ।

6. इस अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 ( vii ) में विनिर्दिष्ट संख्या में इकाइयों के औद्योगिक पार्क में अवस्थित होने के उपरान्त ही इस अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत कर लाभ प्राप्त हो सकते हैं ।

7. पैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर उस अवधि के दौरान औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रधालन जारी रखेगा जिस अवधि में आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) के अन्तर्गत लाभ लिए जाने हैं।

8.; यदि उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने में इस अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 ( xi ) में निर्दिष्ट तिथि से एक वर्ष से ज्यादा विलम्ब होता है तो आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा 4 ( iii ) के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त करने के लिए औद्योगिक पार्क योजना , 2002 के अंतर्गत नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा ।

9. यह अनुमोदन अवैध हो जाएगा और मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, जयपुर ऐसी अवैधता की किसी प्रतिक्रिया के लिए स्वयं ही जिम्मेदार होगा , यदि

(i ) आवेदन पत्र जिसके आधार पर केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है, में गलच सूचना/सूचना अथवा कतिपय तथ्यपरक सूचना न दी गई हो ।

( ii ) यह उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क की अवस्थिति हेतु है जिसके लिए अनुमोदन किसी अन्य उपक्रम के नाम के पहले ही प्रदान किया गया है ।

في 10. यदि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर ( अर्थात् अन्तरणकर्ता उपक्रम) औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन और अनुरक्षण किसी दूसरे उपक्रम ( अर्थात् अंतरिती उपक्रम ) को हस्तांतरित करेगा तो अंवरणकर्ता और अंतरित्ती उपर्युक्त हस्तांतरण के लिए अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपक्रम के बीच निष्पादित करार की प्रति के साथ औद्योगिक सहायता सचिवालय , औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग , उद्योग भवन, नई दिल्ली-11 की उद्यमशीलता सहायता यूनिट संयुक्त रूप से सूचित करेंगे ।

-4 11. इस अधिसूचना में उल्लिखित शर्तों के साथ- साथ औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम , 2002 में शामिल उन शर्तों का अनुपालन उस अवधि के दौरान किया जाना चाहिए जिसके लिए इस स्कीम के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त किए जाने हैं । केन्द्र सरकार अनुमोदन को वापस ले सकती है यदि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम , 2002 में विहित शतों अथवा इस अधि सूचना की किसी भी शर्त के अनुपालन में असफल रहता है ।

12. केन्द्र सरकार के अनुमोदन के बिना प्रोजेक्ट प्लान में किया गया कोई भी संशोधन अथवा भविष्य में पता लगाना अथवा किसी ठोस तथ्य का उद्द‌घाटन करने में आवेदक का असफल रहना , औद्योगिक पार्क के अनुमोदन को अवैध बना देगा ।

[अधिसचूना सं. 150/2007/फा. सं. 178/33/2007-आ.क.नि. ] ]

दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव [ भाग ॥ खप्प 3 (ii) ]

3279

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

NewDelhi the 16th April, 2007

(INCOME-TAX

S.O. 1482.-Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii ) of sub-section (4) of Section 80-1A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961 ) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , has framed and notified a scheme for industrial park, by the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion) vide Number S.O. 193 (E ), dated the 30th March, 1999, for the period beginning on the 1st day of April, 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2002 and vide number S.O. 354 (E) dated the 1st day ofApril , 2002 for the period beginning on the lat day of April 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March . 2006;

And whereas M/ s , Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, having registered office at Udyog Bhawan , Tilak Marg , Jaipur- 302005 is developing an Industrial park at Industrial Area Udyog Vihar, RIICO Limited, Sriganganagar , District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan-335002:

And whereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No. 15/ 143/2005- IP & ID dated 26-10-2006 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to this notification ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii ) of sub- section (4 ) of section 80-1A of the said Act, the Central Government hereby notifies the undertaking, being developed and being maintained and operated by M/s. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur, as an industrial park for the purposes of the said clause ( iii) .

ANNEXURE

Theterms and conditions on which the approval of the Government of India has been accorded for setting up of an industrial park by M/s. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited , Jaipur, 1. (1) Name of the Industrial Undertaking

Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited.

(in) Proposed location

Industrial AreaUdyog Vihar, RIICO Limited, Sriganganagar , District-Sriganganagar , Rajasthan -335002

(ii) Area of Industrial Park

308.73 Acres

(iv) Proposed Activities

Nature of Industrial Activity with NIC code

NICCode

Description Sl. No.

Section

Division

Class

Group

2&3

Manufacturing

97.42%

(v) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for industrial use

00.42%

(vi) Percentage of allocable area carmarked for commercial use

289 Unita

(vii ) Minbnum number of Industrial Units

721.15Lakha

(viii) Total investment proposed (Amount in Rupees)

(ix) Investment on built up space for industrial use (Amount in Rupees)

577.09Lakhs

(x) Investment on infrastructure Development including investment onbuilt up space for industrial use (Amount inRupees)

31-03-2006

(xi) Proposed date of conimencement of the IndustrialPark

2394 G1/07-2 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ) 3280

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007 / JYAISTHA 5, 1929

2. The minimum investment on infrastructure development in an Indsutrial Park shall not be less than 50 % of the total project opst . In the case of an Industrial Park which provides built-up space for industrial use , the minimum expenditre on infrastructure development inchiding cost of construction of industrial space, shall not be less than 60 % of the total project cost.

3. Infrastructure development shall include , roads ( including approach roads ) , water supply and sewerage, common effluent treatment facility, telecom network , generation and distribution of power, air -conditioning and such other facilities asare for common use for industrial activity which are identifiable and are provided on commercial terins .

4.No single unit referred to in coloum ( 2 ) of the Table given in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 6 of S.O. 354 (E) dated the 1st April , 2002 , shall occupy more than fifty percent of the allocable industrial area of an Industrial park . For this purpose a unst means any separate and distinct entity for the purpose of one and more state or Central tax laws .

5.Necessary approvals , including that for foreign direct investment or non- resident Indian investment by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board or Reserve Bank of India or any authority specified under any law for the time being in force, shall be taken separately as per the policy and procedures in force.

6. The tax benefits under the Act can be availed of only after the number of units indicated in Para 1 (vii ) of this Notification , jare located in the Industrial Park.

7. M/ s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur, shall continue to operatethe Industrial Park during the period in which the benefits under clause (iii ) of sub- section (4 ) of section 80 - LA ofthe Income- taxAct, 1961 are to be availed .

8. In case the commencement of the Industrial Park is delayed by more than one year from the date indicated in Para 1 (xi ) ofthis notification , fresh approval will be required under the Industrial Park Scheme , 2002, for availing benefits under sub - section 4( iii ) of Section 80 - IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 .

9. The approval will be invalid and Ms. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur, shall be solely responsible for any repercussions ofsuch invalidity, if

(i): the application on the basis of which the approval is accorded by the Central Government contains wrong information/misinformation or some material information has not been provided in it.

(ii) it is for the location of the industrial park for which approval has already heen accorded in the name of another undertaking.

10. In case M/s.Rajasthan State industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur , transfers the operation and maintenance of the industrial park ( ie . , transferor undertaking) to another undertaking ( i.e. , the transferce undertaking) , the transferor and transferee shall jointly intimate to the Entrepreneurial Assistance Unit of the Secretariat for Industrial Assistance , Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion , Udyog Bhawan , New Delhi - 11 along with a copy of the agreement executed between the transferor and transferee undertaking for the aforesaid transfer.

11. The conditions mentioned in this notification as well as those included in the Industrial Park Scheune , 2002 should be adhered to during the period for which benefits under this scheme are to be availed. The Central Government may withdraw the above approval in case M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Linuted. Jaipur, fails to comply with any of the conditions .

12. Any amendment of the project plan without the approval of the Central Government or detection in future , or failure on the part of the applicant to disclose any material fact, will invalidate the approval of the industrial park.

[Notification No. 150/2007 /F.No . 178/33/2007 - ITA - 1 ] DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 25 अप्रैल , 2007

(आयकर )

कर . आ. 1483.-जबकि आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 ) ( यहां आगे उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्यिों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार ने । अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च, 20(12 को समाप्त होने वाली अवधि के लिये संख्या का.आ. 193 ( अ ) दिनांक 30 मार्च, 1999 के जरिए तथा 1 अप्रैल, 1997 से शुरू हांकर तथा 31 पार्च, 2006 को समाप्त अवधि के लिए संख्या का, आ. 354 ( अ ) के जरिए भारत सरकार , वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय ( औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग) की अधिसूचनओं द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की योजना निर्मित और अधिसूचित की है ।

औरः जबकि मैसर्स सुपा शिल्प लिमिटेड , ' सुमा शिल्प 93 /5 ए , एरान्डवाने , पुणे -411004 " सुमा सेन्टर इंडस्ट्रियल पार्क ". सर्वे संख्या 8+13/1/2 , एरीन्डवाने , जिला पुणे , महाराष्ट्र-411004 में एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास कर रहा है । 3281

भारत का राजापत्र : माई 26, 2007/ज्येष्ठ. 5 ,.1929

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखत नियम और रातों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक. 5-12-2006 के पत्र सं. 15/215 /2005 - आई पी एंड आई डी के अन्तर्गत तवत औद्योगिक पार्क अनुमोदित किया है ;

अब इसलिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 80 स क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों के प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा उक्त खखंड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ औद्योगिक पार्क के रूप में मैसर्स सुम्प्र शिल्प लिमिटेड, पुणे द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

अनुबंध

गया है । शर्तें जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स सुमा शिल्प लिमिटेड , पुणे द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया

( i ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम

मैसर्स सुमा शिल्प लिमिटेक,

(ii ) प्रस्तावित स्थान

" सुमा सेन्टर इंडस्ट्रियल पार्क " , सर्वे संख्या 8 + 13/1/2, एरान्डवाने , जिला पुणे, महाराष्ट्र-411004

1622 वर्गफीट

( iii ) औद्योगिक पार्क का क्षेत्रफल

( iv ) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

विवरण एन सी आई संहिता

श्रेणी

प्रभाग

क्रम सं.

समूह

अनुभाग

क

विद्युत, गैस तथा जल 7

ख

संबार सेवाएं

892

ग

डाय प्रोसेसिंग , साफ्टवेयर विकास तथा कम्प्यूटर कंसलटैसी सेवाएं घ

893

कारोबार तथा प्रबंधन कंसलटेंसी कार्यकलाप

894

वास्तुशिल्पीय तथा इंजीनियरी एवं अन्य तकनीकी कंसलटेंसी कार्यकलाप

895

च

तकनीकी परीक्षण एवं विश्लेषण सेवाएं

100%

( v ) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए प्रस्तावित आबंटनीय क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

शून्य

( vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित भूमिका प्रतिशत

04यूनिटें

(vii ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की प्रस्तावित संख्या

प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश ( राशि रूपए में )

8,27,00,000

( viii )

शून्य

(ix ) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश ( राशि रुपये में)

6,99,00,000

(x) अवसंरचनात्मक विकास पर निवेश जिसमें औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश भी शामिल है (राशिरुपए में)

15-03-2006

(xi ) औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने की प्रस्तावित विधि 3282

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2007 /JYAISTHA 5, 1929 、

[PART I-Sec . 3( i) ] 2. किसी पौधोगिक पार्क में अवसंरचना विकास पर न्यूनतम निवेश कुल परियोजना लागत के 50 % से कम नहीं होगा । ऐसे औधोगिक पार्क जो औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थल प्रदान करता है, के मामले में औद्योगिक स्थल के निर्माण कार्य की लागत सहित विकास अवसरंचया पर न्यूनतम वर्ष कुल परियोजना लागत के 60% से कम नहीं होगा।

3. सरधना विकास में सड़क ( सम्पर्क सड़क सहित ) , जलापूर्ति तथा सीवरेज , दूषित जल शोधन सुविधा , टेलिकॉम नेटवर्क, विद्युत उत्पादन एवं वितरण, वातानुकुलम तथा ऐसी अन्य सुविधाएं जो औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप हेतु सामान्य उपयोग के लिए हैं जो वाणिज्यिक दृष्टि से निधर्धारणीय एवं प्रयुक्त हैं ।

4.1 दिनांक 1 अप्रैल , 2002 की का.आ. 354 ( अ ) के पैराग्राफ 6 के उप पैराग्राफ ( ख ) में निर्दिष्ट तालिका के कालम ( 2 ) में उल्लिखित भाई एकल इकाई किसी औद्योगिक पार्क के लिए नियत आधोगिक क्षेत्र का 50 % से अधिक हिस्सा घारित नहीं करेगी । इस प्रयोजनार्थ किसी इकाई का आशय एक या एक से अधिक राज्य अथवा केन्द्रीय कर कानून के प्रयोजन के लिए किसी अलग तथा भिन्न कम्पनी से है । 5. ! आवश्यक अनुमोदनों जिनमें विदेशी निवेश संवर्धन बोर्ड के द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश अथवा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अथवा यथा समय प्रवृत्त किसी कानून के अन्तर्गत विनिर्दिष्ट कोई प्राधिकरण भी शामिल हैं , को प्रवृत्त नीति तथा प्रक्रियाओं के अनुसार अलग से लिया जाएगा ।

6. इस अधिसूचना के पैरा ( vii ) में षिनिर्दिष्ट संख्या में इकाइयों के औद्योगिक पार्क में अवस्थित होने के उपरान्त ही इस अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत कर लाभ प्राप्त हो सकते हैं ।

?.: मैसर्स सुमा शिल्प लिमिटेड , पूणे उस अवधि के दौरान औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन जारी रखेगा जिस अवधि में आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 ल क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) के अन्तर्गत लाभ लिए जाने हैं ।

8. यदि उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने में इस अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 ( xi ) में निर्दिष्ट तिथि से एक वर्ष से ज्यादा विलम्ब होता है तो आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धास 80 झ क की उपधारा 4 ( iii ) के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त करने के लिए औद्योगिक पार्क योजना , 2002 के अंतर्गत नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा ।

होगा, यदि 9. यह अनुमोदन अवैध हो जाएगा और पैसर्स सुमा शिल्प लिमिटेड , पुणे ऐसी अवैधता की किसी प्रतिक्रिया के लिए स्वयं ही जिम्मेदार ( i ) आवेदन पत्र जिसके आधार पर केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है, में गलत सूचना/सूचना अथवा कतिपय तथ्यपरक सूचना न दी गई हो ।

(ii ) यह उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क की अवस्थिति हेतु है जिसके लिए अनुमोदन किसी अन्य उपक्रम के नाम के पहले ही प्रदान किया गया है ।

14. यदि मैसर्स सुमा शिल्प लिमिटेड , पुणे ( अर्थात अन्तरणकर्ता उपक्रम ) औधोगिक पार्क का प्रचालन और अनुरक्षण किसी दूसरे उपक्रम ( अर्थात अंतरिती उपक्रम ) को हस्तांतरित करेगा तो अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपर्युक्त हस्तांतरण के लिए अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपक्रम के बीच निष्पादित करीर की प्रति के साथ औद्योगिक सहायता सचिवालय , औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग , उद्योग भवन , नई दिल्ली-11 की उद्यमशीलता सहायता यूनिट संयुक्त रूप से सूचित करेंगे ।

II. इस अधिसूचना में उल्लिखित शर्तों के साथ- साथ औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम , 2002 में शामिल उन शतों का अनुपालन उस अवधि के दौरान किया जाना चाहिए जिसके लिए इस स्कीम के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त किए जाने हैं । केन्द्र सरकार उपर्युक्त अनुमोदन को वापस ले सकती है यदि मैसर्स सुंमा शिल्प लिमिटेड, पुणे औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम, 2002 में विहित शतौं अथवा इस अधिसूचना की किसी भी शर्त के अनुपालन में असफल रहता है ।

13. केन्द्र सरकार के अनुमोदन के बिना प्रोजेक्ट प्लान में किया गया कोई भी संशोधन अथवा भविष्य में पता लगाना अथवा किसी ठोस तथ्य का उ‌द्घाटन करने में आवेदक का असफल रहना, औद्योगिक पार्क के अनुमोदन को अवैध बना देना ।

[अधिसूचना सं. 152/ 2007/फा सं. 178/40/2007- आ.क.नि.। ]

दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the25thApril ,2007

(INCOME-TAX)

S.O. 1483- Whereas the Central fewermuent in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii) of sub- section (4) ofSection 80- IA of the income -tax Act, 1961 ( 43 of 1961 ) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , has framed and notified a scheme for Industrial Park , by the polifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Departinent of Industrial Policy and Promotion, vide Nuraber S.O. 193 (E) , dated the 30th March , 1999 , for the period [ भाग खण्ड 3(1 ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007 /बेष्ठ 5 , 1929

3283 beginning on the 1st day ofApril, 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2002 and vide mumber S.O. 354 (E) dated the Ist dayof April, 2002 for the period beginning on the Ist day of April 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2006;

Andwhereas M/s. Suma Shilp Limited, ' Suma Shilp' , 93/5A, Erandawane, Pune-411004, is developing an Industrial Parkat " Surma Conter Industrial Park " , Survey No. 8+ 13/ 1 /2, Erandawane, District -Pune, Maharashtra-411004;

And whereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No. 15/215/2005- ID dated 5-12-2006 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to this notification :

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii ) of sub- section (4) of Section 80-1A of the said Act, the Central Government hereby notifies the undertaking , being developed and being maintained and operatedby M/s . Suma Shilp Limited , Pune, as an Industrial Park for the purposes of the said clause (iii) .

ANNEXURE

The Terms and conditions on which the approval of the Govemment of Iodia has been accorded for settingup of an Industrial Park byM/s . Suma Shilp Limited, Pune,

1. (1) Name of the Industrial Undertaking

Suma Shilp Limited,

(ii ) Proposed location

"Suma Center Industrial Park " , Survey No. 8+13/1/2. Erandawane, District - Pune, Maharashtra-411004 (i) Area of Indwatrial Park

: 1622 Square Meters

(iv) Proposed Activities

Nature of Industrial Activity with NIC code

NICCode

Description Sl .No.

Section

Division

Class.

Group

Electricity, Gas and Water Communication Services C

892

Data processing, software development and computer consultancy services D

893

Business and management consultancy activities E

894

Architectural and engineering and other technical consultancy activities F

895

Technical testing and analysis services

100%

(v) Percentage of allocable area carmarked for industrial use

: Nil

(vi) Percentage of allocable area carmarked forcommercial use

04Units

(vii) Minimum number of industrial units

8,27,00,000

(vii) Total investment proposed (Amount in Rupees)

(ix) Investment on built up space for industrial use (Amount in Rupees)

6,99,00,000

(x) Investment on infrastructure Development including investment on built up space for industrial use (Amount in Rupees)

15-3-2006

(xi) Proposed date of commencement of the Industrial park [PART II-SEC. 3(ii)) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26, 2007/ JYAISTHA 5, 1929

3284

2. The minimum investment on infrastructure development in an Industrial Park shall not be less than 50% of the totalproject post . In the case of an Industrial Park which provides built- up space for industrial use , the minimum expenditure on infrastructure development including cost of construction of industrial space, shall not be less than 60 % of the total project cost.

3. Infrastructure development shall include , roads ( including approach roads ) , water supply and sewerage, common effluent treatment facility, telecom network, generation and distribution of power, air - conditioning and such other facilities as are for common use for industrial activity which are rüentifiable and are provided on commercial terms .

4. No single umt referred to in cojomum of the Table given in sub - paragraph ( 1 ) of paragraph 6 of S.O. 354 (E) dated the 1st April, 2002 , shall occupy more than tirty per cent of the allocable industrial area of an Industrial Park. For this purpose a unit means any separate and distinct my for the purpose of one and more state or Central tax laws .

5. Necessary approvals , including that w foreign direct investment or non resident ladian investment by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board or Reserve Bank of India or any authority specified under any law for the time being in force, shall be taken separately as per the polical procedures in force.

6. The tax benefits under the Aut car: be avaited of only after the number of units indicated in Para- 1 (vii ) of this Notification , are located in the Industrial Park.

7. M/s . Suma Shilp Limited, Pune, shall continue to operate the Industrial Park during the period in which the benefis under clause ( iii ) of sub -section ( 4 ) of Section 30 /A of the Income- tax Act, 1961 are to be availed.

8. In case the commencement of the dustial Pack is delayed by more than one year from the date indicated m Para 1 (xi ) of this notification, fresh approval will be required under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 , for availing benefits under sub-section 4 ( iii ) of Section 80-1A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 .

9. The approval will be invalid and Ms. Sama Shilp Limited, Pune, shall be solely responsible for any repercussions ofsuch invalidity, it

(i) the application on the basis of the approval is accorded by the Central Goverminent contains wrong information/misinformation or the material mformation has not been provided in it .

i) it is for the location of the industri park for which approval has already been accorded in the name of another undertaking.

10. In case Mis . Suma Shilp Limited , Pune, tansfers the operation and maintenance of the industrial park (1.c.. transferor undertaking) to another undertaking ( 1 e.. the transferee undertaking) , the transferor and transferee shall jointly intimate to the Entrepreneurial Assistance Und of the Secretariat for Industrial Assistance . Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion. Udyog Bhawan . New Delhi - li dag with a copy of the agreement exccuted between the transferor and transferce undertaking for the aforesaid transici

11. The conditious mentioned in this usefication as well as those included in the Industrial Park Scheine , 2002 should be adhered to during the period for which benefits under this scheme are to be availed . The Central Government may withdraw the above approval in case Mis . Suna Shiip Limited. Pune , fails to comply with any of the conditions .

12. Any amendment of the projem plan without the approval of the Central Government or detection in future, or failure on the part of the applicant to disclose my material fact, will invalidate the approval of the industrial park .

[Notification No. 152/2007 /F.No . 178/40/2007- ITA - 1 | DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy .

नह दिल्ली, 30 अप्रैल, 2007

{आयकर )

का. आ. 1484. जबकि आवकर अधिनियम ,196 : 1961 का 43 ) ( यहां आगे उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 8 ) झ क को उपधारा के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियां नः प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार ने । अप्रैल, 1997 में शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च , 2002 कोसमाप्त होने वालो अवधि के लिये संख्या का दिनांक 30 मार्च , 1999 के जरिए तथा । अप्रैल, 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च, 2006 को सम्मान अवधि के लिए संख्या का २१०७ अ के तरिए भारत सरकार, वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय ( औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभागः की अधिसूचनाओं द्वारः औद्योगिक एकांना निर्मित और अधिसूचित की है :

और जर्नाक मैममं राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल सगुण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कापोरेशन लिमिटेड जिसका पंजीकृत कार्यालय उद्योग भवन, तिलक मार्ग, जयपुर-302005 है औद्योगिक बोहनंदा ग्राम बारनंदा, तहझील लूनी, जिला- जोधपुर , राजस्थान -342001 में एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास कर रहा है । [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 26, 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

3285 और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखित नियम और शतों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उधोग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 20-10-2006 के पत्र सं. 15 / 125/2005- आई पी एंड आई डी के अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क अनुमोदित किया है ;

अब इसलिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों के प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा उक्त खंड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ औद्योगिक पार्क के रूप में मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, जयपुर द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

अनुबंध

शर्तेंजिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, जयपुर द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया है ।

1.11 ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम

: राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कापरिशन लिमिटेड, ( ii ) प्रस्तावित स्थान

: एत्रो फूड पार्क बोरनंदा, ग्राम- बोरनंदा, तहसील- लूनी, जिला-ओधपुर, राजस्थान-342001 ( iii ) औद्योगिक पार्क का क्षेत्रफल

193.54 एकड

( iv ) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

एन आई सी संहिता

विवरण

क्रम सं.

अनुभाग

प्रभाग

श्रेणी

समूह

क

2 और 3

विनिर्माण

93.81%

(v ) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए प्रस्तावित आबंटनीय क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

6.19%

( vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित भूमि का प्रतिशत

( vii )

औद्योगिक यूनिटों की प्रस्तावित संख्या

158 यूनिटें

( viii )

प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश ( राशि रुपए में)

1350.73 लाख

शून्य

( ix) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश ( राशि रुपये में)

1158.92 लाख

( x ) अवसंरचनात्मक विकास पर निवेश जिसमें औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश भी शामिल है (राशि रुपए में)

31-3-2006

(xi ) औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने की प्रस्तावित तिथि

2. किसी औद्योगिक पार्क में अवसंरचना विकास पर न्यूनतम निवेश कुल परियोजना लागत के 50 % से कम नहीं होगा । ऐसे औद्योगिक पार्क जो औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थल प्रदान करता है , के मामले में औद्योगिक स्थल के निर्माण कार्य की लागत सहित विकास अवसरंचना पर न्यूनतम खर्च कुल परियोजना लागत के 60% से कम नहीं होगा।

3. संरचना विकास में सड़क ( सम्पर्क सड़क सहित ) , जलापूर्ति तथा सीवरेज, दूषित जल शोधन सुविधा, टेलिकॉम नेटवर्क, विद्युत उत्पादन एवं वितरण , वातानुकुलन तथा ऐसी अन्य सुविधाएं जो औद्यौगिक कार्यकलाप हेतु सामान्य उपयोग के लिए हैं जो वाणिज्यिक दृष्टि से निर्धारणीय एवं प्रयुक्त हैं ।

4. दिनांक 1 अप्रैल , 2002 की का.आ. 354 ( अ ) के पैराग्राफ 6 के उप पैराग्राफ ( ख ) में निर्दिष्ट तालिका के कालम ( 2 ) में उल्लिखित कोई एकल इकाई किसी औद्योगिक पार्क के लिए नियत आद्योगिक क्षेत्र का 50 % से अधिक हिस्सा धारित नहीं करेगी । इस प्रयोजनार्थ किसी इकाई का आशय एक या एक से अधिक राज्य अथवा केन्द्रीय कर कानून के प्रयोजन के लिए किसी अलग तथा भिन्न कम्पनी से है । 5. आवश्यक अनुमोदनों जिनमें विदेशी निवेश संवर्धन बोर्ड के द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश अथवा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अथवा यथा समय प्रवृत्त किसी कानून के अन्तर्गत विनिर्दिष्ट कोई प्राधिकरण भी शामिल हैं, को प्रवृत्त नीति तथा प्रक्रियाओं के [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26, 2007 /JYAISTHA 5, 1929

3286

अनुसार अलग में लिया जाएगा ।

6. इस अधिसूचना के पैरा । ( vii ) में विनिर्दिष्ट संख्या में इकाइयों के औद्योगिक पार्क में अवस्थित होने के उपरान्त ही इस अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत कर लाभ प्राप्त हो सकते हैं ।

t 7. मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कापर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, जयपुर उस अवधि के दौरान औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन जारी रखेगा जिस अवधि में आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) के अन्तर्गत लाभ लिए जाने हैं ।

8. यदि उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने में इस अधिसूचना के पैरा ] ( xi ) में निर्दिष्ट तिथि से एक वर्ष से ज्यादा विलम्ब होता है तो आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा 4 ( iii ) के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त करने के लिए औद्योगिक पार्क योजना , 2002 के अंतर्गत नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा ।

( i ) आवेदन पत्र जिसके आधार पर केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है , में गलत सूचना/सूचना अथवा कतिपय तथ्यपरक सूचना न दी गई हो ।

10. यदि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर ( अर्थात अन्तरणकर्ता उपक्रम ) औधोगिक पार्क का प्रचालन और अनुरक्षण किसी दूसरे उपक्रम ( अर्थात अंतरित्ती उपक्रम ) को हस्तांतरित करेगा तो अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपर्युक्त हस्तांतरण के लिए अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपक्रम के बीच निष्पादित करार की प्रति के साथ औद्योगिक सहायता सचिवालय , औद्योगिक नीतिं और संवर्धन विभाग , उद्योग भवन , नई दिल्ली-11 की उद्यमशीलता सहायता यूनिट संयुक्त रूप से सूचित करेंगे ।

11. इस अधिसूचना में उल्लिखत शतों के साथ साथ औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम, 2002 में शामिल उन शर्तों का अनुपालन उस अवधि के दौरान किया जाना चाहिए जिसके लिए इस स्कीम के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त किए जाने हैं । केन्द्र सरकार उपर्युक्त अनुमोदन को वापस ले सकती है यदि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, जयपुर औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम , 2002 में विहित शर्ती अथवा इस अधिसूचना की किसी भी शर्त के अनुपालन में असफल रहता है ।

12. केन्द्र सरकार के अनुमोदन के बिना प्रोजेक्ट प्लान में किया गया कोई भी संशोधन अथवा भविष्य में पता लगाना अथवा किसी ठोस तथ्य का उद्घाटन करने में आवेदक का असफल रहना, औद्योगिक पार्क के अनुमोदन को अवैध बना देना ।

[अधिसचूना सं. 153/2007/फा. सं. 178/44/2007- आ.क.नि. [ ] दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव

NewDelhi the 30th April, 2007

(INCOME- TAX)

S.O. 1484. Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (iii) ofsub-section (4) ofSection 80-1A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( 43 of 1961 ) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , has framed and notified a scheme for industrial park , by the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion ) vide Number S.O. 193 (E) , dated the 30th March, 1999, for the period begining on the 1st day of April , 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2002 and vide number S.O. 354 ( E) dated the 1st day ofApril, 2002 for the period begining on the 1st day of April 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2006;

Andwhereas M/ s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, having registered office at Udyog Bhawan , Tilak Marg , Jaipur- 302005 is developing an Industrial park at Industrial Area Agro FoodPark, Boranada, Village- Boranada, Tehsil-Luni, District- Jodhpur , Rajasthan- 342001;

Andwhereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park viele Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No. 15 ( 125 )/2005 - IP and ID dated 20-10-2006 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to this notification ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii ) of sub- section (4 ) of Section 80-1A of the said Act, the Central Government hereby notifies the undertaking, being developed and being maintained and operated by M/s. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investinent Corporation Limited, Jaipur , as an industriat park for the purposes of the said clause (iii ) .

3287

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

[ भाग 11 खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

TheTerms and conditions on which the approval of the Government of India has been accorded for setting up of an industrial park by M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur, 1. (1) Name of the Industrial Undertaking

Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited,

(ii) Proposed location

Industrial AreaAgro Food Park, Boranada, Village-Boranada, Tehsil-Luni , District- Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342001

193.54Acres

Area of Industrial Park

(ii)

(iv) Proposed Activities

Nature of Industrial Activity with NIC code

NICCode

Description

Class

Section

Sl . No.

Division

Group

Manufacturing 2&3

93.81%

(v) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for industrial use

6.19%

(vi) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for commercial use

:

158Units

(vii) Minimum number of Industrial Units

1350.73Lakhs

(

viii) Total investment proposed (Amount in Rupees)

: N

(ix) Investment on built up space for industrial use (Amount in Rupees)

1158.92Lakhs

(x) Investment on infrastructure Development including investment on built up space for industrial use (Amount in Rupees)

31-03-2006

(4) Proposed date of commencement of the Industrialpark

2. The minimum investment on infrastructure development in an Indsutrial Park shall not be less than50% of the total project cost. In the case of an Industrial Park which provides built- up space for industrial use, the minimum expenditre on infrastructure development including cost of construction of industrial space, shall not be less than 60 % of the total projectcost .

3. Infrastructure development shall include, roads (including approach roads ), water supply and sewerage, common effluent treatment facility, telecom network , generation and distribution ofpower, air -conditioning and such other facilities asare for common use for industrial activity which are identifiable and are provided on commercial terms .

4.No single unit referred to in coloum ( 2) of the Table given in sub- paragraph(b ) ofparagrap 6 of S.O. 354(E) dated the 1st April , 2002, shall occupy more than fifty percent ofthe allocable industrial area of an Industrial park. For this purpose a unit means any separate and distinct entity for the purpose of one and more state or Central tax laws .

5.Necessary approvals, including that for foreign direct investment or non -resident Indian investment by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board or Reserve Bank of India or any authority specified under any law for the timebeing in force, shallbe taken separately as per the policy and procedures in force.

6. The tax benefits under the Act can be availed of only after the number of units indicated in Para 1 (vii) of this Notification, are located in the Industrial Park.

7. M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur , shall continue to 'operate the Industrial Park during the period in which the benefits under clause ( iii ) of sub-section (4) ofSection 80- LA of the Income- tax Act, 1961 are to be availed.

2394 GL07-3 3288

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26, 2007/JYAISTHA 5, 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] 8. In case the commencement of the Industrial Park is delayed by more than one year from the date indicated in Para 1 ( xi ) of this notification , fresh approval willbe required under the Industrial Park Scheme , 2002 , for availing benefits under subisection 4( iii ) of Section 80-1A of the Income Tax Act , 1961 .

9. The approval will be invalid and Ms. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur, shalt be solely responsible for any repercussions of such invalidity, if

(i) the application on the basis of which the approval is accorded by the Central Government contains wrong information/ misinformation or some material information has not been provided in it .

( u) it is for the location of the industrial park for which approval has already been accorded in the name of another undertaking.

10. In case M/s.Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited. Jaipur, transfors the operation and maintenance of the industrial park ( i.e. , transferor undertaking ) to another undertaking ( i.e. , the transferee undertaking) , the transferor and transferee shall jointly intimate to the Entrepreneurial Assistance Unit of the Secretariat for IndustrialAssistance, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Udyog Bhawan. New Delhi - 11 along with a copy of the agreement executed between the transferor and transferee undertaking for the aforesaid transfer.

11. The conditions mentioned in this notification as well as those included in the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 should be adhered to during the period for which benefits under this scheme are to be availed. The Central Government inay withdraw the above approval in case M/ s. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited. Jaipur, fails to comply with any of the conditions .

12.Any amendment of the project plan without the approval of the Central Governinent or detection in future , or failure on the part of the applicant to disclose any material fact, will invalidate the approval of the industrial park.

[Notification No. 153/2007 /F.No . 178/44/2007 - ITA- [ ]

DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 30 अप्रैल, 2007

(आयकर )

का. आ. 1485.-जबकि आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 ) ( यहां आगे उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्यिों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार नें । अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च, 2002 को समाप्त होने वाली अवधि के लिये संख्या का. आ. 193 ( अ ) दिनांक 30 मार्च , 1999 के जरिए तथा 1 अप्रैल, 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च , 2004 को समाप्त अवधि के लिए संख्याका. आ. 354 ( अ ) के जरिए भारत सरकार , वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय ( औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग ) की अधिसूचनओं द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की योजना निर्मित और अधिसूचित की है ;

और जबकि मैसर्स आर जी ए साफ्टवेयर सिस्टम्स प्रा. लिमिटेड जिसका पंजीकृत कार्यालय सं. 26 , 8/ ही, शेक्सपीयर सारणी , डिम्पल कोर्ट, कोलकाता में है सर्वेक्षण सं. 91-93 , वरीसांद्रा गाँव , अट्टीबेले हुबली , बंगलौर में एक औधोगिक पार्क का विकास कर रहा है । और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखित नियम और शतों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 11-04-2006 के पत्र सं. 15/34/2005- आई पी एंड आई डी के अन्तर्गत उक्त औधोगिक पार्क अनुमोदित किया है ;

अब इसलिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा ४० न क की उपधारा (4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा उक्त खखंड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ औधोगिक पार्क के रूप में मैसर्स आर जी ए साफ्टवेयर सिस्टम्स प्रा. लिमिटेड , कोलकाता द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

अनुबंध

शर्तेंजिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स आर जी ए साफ्टवेयर सिस्टम्स प्रा. लिमिटेड, कोलकाता द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया है ।

1. ( i ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम

: आर जी ए साफ्टवेयर सिस्टम्स प्रा. लिमिटेड , कोलकाता

(ii ) प्रस्तावित स्थान

: सर्वेक्षण सं. 91-93 , वीरासांद्रा गाँव अट्टीबेले हुबली, बंगलौर

( iii ) औद्योगिक पार्क का क्षेत्रफल

: 3,63,911.17 वर्ग फुट

( iv ) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप [ भाग ॥ खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

3289 एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

एन आई सी संहिता

विवरण

क्रम सं.

प्रभरण

अनुभाग-

श्रेणी

समूह

892

892.2

साफ्टवेयर आपूर्ति सेवाएं

95%

( २ ) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए प्रस्तावित आबंदनीय क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

(vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित : भूमि का प्रतिशत

(vi ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों कीन्यूनतम संख्या : 03 यूनिटें

(vii ) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश (राशि रुपए में) :

30,53,24,063

( ix ) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित : 22,53,77,237 स्थान पर निवेश ( राशि रुपये में)

(x ) अवसंरचनात्मक विकास पर निवेश 29,49,79,592 जिसमें औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश भी शामिल है (राशिरुपए में)

(xi ) औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने की प्रस्तावित तिथि : 1-4-2005

2. किसी औद्योगिक पार्क में अवसंरचना विकास पर न्यूनतम निवेश कुल परियोजना लागत के 50 % से कम नहीं होगा । ऐसे औद्योगिक पार्क जो औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थल प्रदान करता है , के मामले में औद्योगिक स्थल के निर्माण कार्य की लागत सहित विकास अवसरंचना पर न्यूनतम खर्ष कुल परियोजना लागत के 60 % से कम नहीं होगा ।

3. संरचना विकास में सड़क ( सम्पर्क सड़क सहित ) , जलापूर्ति तथ्था सीवरेज , दूषित जल शोधन सुविधा, टेलिकॉम नेटवर्क, विद्युत उत्पादन एवं वितरण, वातानुकूलन तथा ऐसी अन्य सुविधाएं जो औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप हेतु सामान्य उपयोग के लिए हैं जो वाणिज्यिक दृष्टि से निर्धारणीय एवं प्रयुक्त हैं ।

i 5. आवश्यक अनुमोदनों जिनमें विदेशी निवेश संवर्धन बोर्ड के द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश अथवा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अथवा यथा सपय प्रवृत्त किसी कानून के अन्तर्गव विनिर्दिष्ट कोई प्राधिकरण भी शामिल हैं, को प्रवृत्त नीवि तथा प्रक्रियाओं के अनुसार अलग से लिया जाएगा ।

7. मैसर्स आर जी ए साफ्टवेयर सिस्टप्स प्रा. लिमिटेड , कोलकाता उस अवधि के दौरान औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन जारी रखेगा जिस अवधि में आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 श क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) के अन्तर्गत लाभ लिए जाने हैं ।

8. यदि उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने में इस अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 ( xi ) में निर्दिष्ट तिथि से एक वर्ष से ज्यादा विलम्ब होता है वो आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 न क की उपधारा 4 ( iii ) के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त करने के लिए औद्योगिक पार्क योजना , 2002 के अंतर्गत नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा ।

9. यह अनुमोदन अवैध हो जाएगा और मैससें अगर जी ए साफ्टवेयर सिस्टम्स प्रा. लिमिटेड, कोलकाता ऐसी अबैधता की किसी प्रतिक्रिया के लिए स्वयं ही जिम्मेदार होगा , यदि

(ii ) यह उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क की अवस्थिति हेतु है जिसके लिए अनुमोदन किसी अन्य उपक्रम के नाम के पहले ही प्रदान किया गया है । [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ) 3290

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/ JYAISTHA 5, 1929

10. यदि पैसर्स आर जी ए साफ्टवेयर सिस्टम्स प्रा. लिमिटेड , कोलकाता ( अर्थात अन्तरणकर्ता उपक्रम ) औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन और अनुरक्षण किसी दूसरे उपक्रम ( अर्थात अंतरिती उपक्रम ) को हस्तांतरित करेगा तो अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपर्युक्त हस्तांतरण के लिए अंतरणकर्ताी और अंतरिती उपक्रम के बीच निष्पादित करार की प्रत्ति के साथ औद्योगिक सहायता सचिवालय , औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग , उद्योग भवन , नई दिल्ली -11 की उद्यमशीलता सहायता यूनिट संयुक्त रूप से सूचित करेंगे ।

11. इस अधिसूचना में उल्लिखत शतों के साथ-साथ औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम , 2002 में शामिल उन शर्तों का अनुपालन उस अवधि के दौरान किया जाना चाहिए जिसके लिए इस स्कॉम के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त किए जाने हैं । केन्द्र सरकार उपर्युक्त अनुमोदन को वापस ले सकती है यदि मैसर्स आर जी ए साफ्टवेयर सिस्टम्स प्रा. लिमिटेड, कोलकाता औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम, 2002 में विहित शर्तों अथवा इस अधिसूचनाक की किसी भी गर्त के अनुपालन में असफल रहता है ।

12. केन्द्र सरकार के अनुमोदन के बिना प्रोजेक्ट प्लान में किया गया कोई भी संशोधन अथवा भविष्य में पता लगना अथवा किसी ठोस तथ्य का उद्घाटन करने में आवेदक का असफल रहना , औद्योगिक पार्क के अनुमोदन को अवैध बना देगा ।

[अधिसचूना में 154/2007/फा. सं. 178/47/2007- आ.क.नि. 1 ]

दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 30th April, 2007

(INCOME -TAX)

S.O. 1485. Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii ) ofsub- section (4) ofSection 80-1A of the Income -tax Act , 1961 ( 43 of 1961 )thereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , has framed and notified a scheme for industrial park, by the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Departnient of Industrial Policy and Promotion ) vide number S.O. 193 ( E) , dated the 30th March , 1999, for the period beginning on the Ist day of April , 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2002 and vide number S.O. 354 (E ) dated the 1st day of April . 2002, for the period beginning on the 1st day ofApril , 1997 antl ending on the 31st day ofMarch, 2006;

And whereas M/s. RGA Software Systems Private Limited , having registered office at No. 26, 8/D , Shakespeare Sarani , Dimple Court , Kolkata, is developing an industrial Park at Sy. No. 91-93, Veerasandra Village, Attibele Hobli , Bangalore;

And whereas the Contral Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No. 15/ 34/05 - IP&ID dated 11-04-2005 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to this notification;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferredby clause ( iii ) of sub-section (4 ) of Section 80-1A of the said Act, the Central Government hereby notifies the undertaking , being developed and being maintained and operated by M/ s .RGA Software Systems Private Limited , Kolkata, as an industrial park for the purposes of the said clause (iii).

ANNEXURE

The terms and conditions on which the approval of the Government of India has been accorded for setting up of an Industrial Park by M/s , RGA Software Systems Private Limited, Kolkata .

: RGA Software Systems Private Limited 1. ( i) Name of the Industrial Undertaking

( ) Proposed location

: Sy. No.91-93, Veerasandra Village, Attibele Hobli Bangalore

: 3,63,911.17 Square Fect

( ii ) Arca of Industrial Park

( iv ) Proposed activities

Nature of Industrial activity with NIC code

NICCocke

Description

Class

Division

Section

S.N.

Group

892.2

Software supply services

: 95%

( v) Percentage of allowable

uca cannarked for

Industrial use 3291

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007 /ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

[ भाग -खाण्ड 3(ii) ]

: 5%

(vi) Percentage ofallorable arca carmarked for commercial use

: 3 Units

(vii) Minimum number of industrial units

: 30,53,24,063

(vii) Total investments proposed (Amount in Rupees)

: 22,53,77237

(ix) Investment on built up space: for Industrial use (Amount in Rupees)

: 29,49,79.592

(x) Investment on Infrastructure Development including investment on built up space for industrial use (Amount in Rupees)

: 1-4-2005

(xx) Proposed date of commencement of the Industrial Park

2. The minimum investment on infrastructure development in an Industrial Park shall not be less than 50% of the total project cost . In the case of an Industrial Park which provides built-up space for industrial use , the minimum expenditure on infrastructure development including cost of construction of industrial space, shall not be less than 60 % of the total project cost.

3. Infrastructure development shall include, roads ( including approach roads ) , water supply and sewerage , common effluent treatment facility, telecom network, generation and distribution of power , air - conditioning and such other facilities as are for common use for industrial activity which are identifiable and are provided on commercial terms .

4. No single unit referred to in column (2 ) of the Table given in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 6 of 5.0. 354(E) dated the 1st April, 2002, shall occupy more than fifty per cent of the allocable industrial area of an Industrial Park. For this purpose a unit means any separate and distinct entity for the purpose of one and more state or Central tax laws .

5. Necessary approvals, including that for foreign direct investment or non - resident Indian investment by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board or Reserve Bank of India or any authority specified under any law for the time being in force, shall be taken separately as per the policy and procedures in force.

6. The tax benefits under the Act can be availed of only after the number of units indicated in Para 1 ( vii ) of this Notification, are located in the Industrial Park.

7. M/s. RGA Software Systems Private Limited, Kolkata, shall continue to operate the Industrial Park during the period in which the benefits under clause ( iii ) of Sub- section (4) of Section 80 - IA of the Income- tax Act, 1961 are to be availed.

8. In case the commencement of the Industrial Park is delayed by more than one year from the date indicated in Para 1 (xi) of this notification, fresh approval will be required under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002, for availing benefits under Sub- section 4( iii ) of Section 801A of the Income- tax Act, 1961.

9. The approval willbe invalid and M/s . RGA Software Systems Private Limited, Kolkata, shall be solely responsible for any repercussions of such invalidity, if

(1) the application on the basis of which the approval is accordedby the Central Government contains wrong information /misinformation or some material information has not been provided in it.

(ii) it is for the location of the industrial park for which approval has already been accorded in the name of another undertaking .

10. In case M/ s . RGA Software Systems Private Limited , Kolkata, transfer the operation and maintenance of the industrial park ( i.ce. , transfer or undertaking) to another undertaking ( i.e. , the transferee undertaking ), the transferor and transferoe shall jointly intimate to the Entrepreneurial Assistance Unit of the Secretariat for Industrial Assistance , Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Udyog Bhawan , New Delhi - 11 along with a copy of the agreement executed between the transferor and transferee undertaking for the aforesaid transfer.

11. The conditions mentioned in this notification as well as those included in the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 should be adhered to during the period for which benefits under this scheme are to be availed. The Central Government may withdraw the above approval in case M/ s . RGA Software Systems Private Limited, Kolkata , fails to comply with anyof the conditions.

12. Any amendment of the project plan without the approval of the Central Government or detection in future, or failure on the part of the applicantto disclose any material fact, will invalidate the approval of the industrial park .

[Notification No. 154/2007/F. No. 178/47/2007 - ITA.J]

DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy.

[PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii) ) 3292

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26, 2007 /JYAISTHA 5. 1929

नई दिल्ली, 30 अप्रैल, 2007

आयकर )

का.आ. 1486.- जबकि आयकर अधिनियम क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का को समाप्त होने वाली अधि के लिये संख्या का.आ. 19.3 मार्च , 2006 को समाप्त अवधि के लिए संख्या का. ग्रा. 354: संवर्धन विभाग ) की अधिसूचनाओं द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क २०० का 43 ) ( यहां आगे उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 80 झ प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार ने । अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च , 2002 दिनांक 30 मार्च , 1999 के जरिए तथा 1 अप्रैल, 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 अ ) के जरिए भारत सरकार , वाणिज्य और तचांग मंत्रालय औद्योगिक नीति और जना निर्मित और अधिसूचित की है ;

और जबकि पैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लि., जिसका पंजीकृत कार्यालय उद्योग भवन , तिलक मार्ग , जयपुर -302005 में है, औद्योगिक क्षेत्र संगरिया फेम्जला अनुमानगढ़ , राजस्थान में एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास कर रहा है । और जबकि कंन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिरुचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखित नियम और शतों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 26-10-2006 के पत्र सं. 15/ 148 /2005 - आई में एंड आई डी के अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क अनुमोदित्त किया है:

अब इसलिए उक्त आयकर अधिनियम की धागा का की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा उक्त खंड ( iii ) कं प्रयोजनार्थ औद्यागिक पार्क के रूप में मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लि. , जमपुर द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रधान किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

अनुबंध

शर्ते जित पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स राजस्थान डान्ट्रयल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लि. , जयपुर द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क गठित किए जाने इंतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया है ।

1. ( i ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम

: मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लि. ,

: औद्योगिक क्षेत्र संगरिया फेस II ,

(ii ) प्रस्तावित स्थान

जिला हनुमानगढ़, राजस्थान

(iii ) औद्योगिक पार्क का क्षेत्रफल

: 58.19 एकड़

(iv ) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

विवरण

एन आई सी सहिता

श्रेणी

प्रभाग

क्रम सं.

अनुभाग

सभी विनिर्माण गतिविधियाँ

क

2 एवं 3

: 96.44%

(v ) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए प्रस्तान्त्रित आबंटनीय क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

: 3.56%

( vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित भूमि का प्रतिशत

: 37 यूनिटें

(vii ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की न्यूनतम संख्या

: 1,75,49,000

(vii ) प्रस्तावितं कुल निवेश ( राशि रुपए में )

: शून्य

( x) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर नित्वंश (राशि रुपए में)

: 1,20,75,000

( x ) अवसंरचनात्मक विकास पर निवंश जिसमें औद्य लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश भी शामिल है ग

: 31-3-2006

(A ) औद्योगिक पार्क को आधा की प्रस्तावित

2. किसी औद्योगिक पार्क में अवसंरचना विकास पार्क जो औद्योगिक उपयोग कः लिए निर्मित स्थल प्रदान अवसंरचना पर न्यूनतम खर्च झुल परियोजना लागत निवेश कुल परियोजना लागत के 500 % से कम नहीं होगा । ऐसे औद्योगिक के मामले में औद्योगिक स्थल के निर्माण कार्य की लागत सहित विकास नहीं होगा । भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007 /ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

3293 3. संरचना विकास में सड़क ( सम्पर्क सड़क सहित ) , जलापूर्ति क्या सीवरेज़ , दूषित जल शोधन सुविधा, टेलिकॉम नेटवर्क , विद्युत उत्पादन एवं वितरण , वातानुकूलन तथा ऐसी अन्य सुविधाएं जो औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप हेतु सामान्य उपयोग के लिए हैं जो वाणिज्यिक दृष्टि से निर्धारणीय एवं प्रयुक्त हैं ।

4. दिनांक 1 अप्रैल, 2002 की का.आ. 354 ( अ ) के पैराग्राफ 6 के उप पैराग्राफ ( ख ) में निर्दिष्ट तालिका के कालम ( 2 ) में उल्लिखित कोई एकल इकाई किसी औद्योगिक पार्क के लिए नियत औद्योगिक क्षेत्र का 50 % से अधिक हिस्सा धारित नहीं करेगी । इस प्रयोजनार्थ किसी इकाई का आशय एक या एक से अधिक राज्य अथवा केन्द्रीय कर कानून के प्रयोजन के लिए किसी अलग तथा भिन्न कम्पनी से है । 5. आवश्यक अनुमोदनों जिनमें विदेशी निवेश संवर्धम बोर्ड के द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश अथवा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अथवा यथा समय प्रवृत्त किसी कानून के अन्तर्गत विनिर्दिष्ट कोई प्राधिकरण भी शामिल है , को प्रवृत्त नीति तथा प्रक्रियाओं के अनुसार अलग से लिया जाएगा ।

7. मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लि. , जयपुर उस अवधि के दौरान औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन जारी रखोगा जिस अवधि में आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 80 ल क की उपधारा के खंड ( iii ) के अन्तर्गत लाभ लिए जाने हैं । 8. यदि उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने में इस अधिसूचना के पैरा । ( xi ) में निर्दिष्ट तिथि से एक वर्ष से ज्यादा विलम्ब होता है तो आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा 4 ( iii ) के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त करने के लिए औद्योगिक पार्क योजना , 2002 के अंतर्गत नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा ।

9. यह अनुमोदन अवैध हो जाएगा और मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लि. , जयपुर ऐसी अवैधता की किसी प्रतिक्रिया के लिए स्वयं ही जिम्मेदार होगा, यदि

( i ) आवेदन पत्र जिसके आधार पर केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है , में गलत सूचना/ सूचना अथवा कतिपय तथ्यपरक सूचना न दी गई हो ।

10. यदि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लि. , जयपुर ( अर्थात् अन्तरणकर्ता उपक्रम ) औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन और अनुरक्षण किसी दूसरे उपक्रम ( अर्थात् अंतरिती उपक्रम ) को हस्तांतरित करेगा तो अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपर्युक्त हस्तांतरण के लिए अंतरप्मकर्ता और अंतरिती उपक्रम के बीच निष्पादित करार की प्रति के साथ औद्योगिक सहायता सचिवालय , औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग , उद्योग भवन , नई दिल्ली -11 की उद्यमशीलता सहायता यूनिट संयुक्त रूप से सूचित करेंगे ।

11. इस अधिसूचना में उल्लिखित शर्तों के साथ- साथ औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम, 2002 में शामिल उन शर्तों का अनुपालन उस अवधि के दौरान किया जाना चाहिए जिसके लिए इस स्कीम के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त किए जाने हैं । केन्द्र सरकार उपर्युक्त अनुमोदन को वापस ले सकती है यदि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड कार्पोरेशन लि. , जयपुर औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम, 2002 में विहित शर्तों अथवा इस अधिसूचना की किसी भी शर्त के अनुपालन में असफल रहता है ।

12. केन्द्र सरकार के अनुमोदन के बिना प्रोजेक्ट प्लान में किया गया कोई भी संशोधन अथवा भविष्य में पता लगना अथवा किसी ठोस तथ्य का उ‌द्घघाटन करने में आवेदक का असफल रहना , औद्योगिक पार्क के अनुमोदन को अवैध बना देगा ।

[ अधिसूचना सं. 155/2007/फा. सं. 178/34/2007- आ.क. नि. -1 ]

दीपक गर्ग, अवर सचिव

NewDelhi, the 30thApril, 2007

(INCOME-TAX)

S.O. 1486-Whereas the Central Governizent in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii ) of sub - section (4) of Section 80- IA of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (43 of1961 ) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), has framed and notified a scheme for industrial park , by the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion ) vide number S.O. 193 (E) , dated the 30th March, 1999, for the period beginning on the Ist day ofApril , 1997 and ending on the 31 st day of March, 2002 and vide number 5.0.354 (E) dated the 1 st day of April , 2002, for the period beginning on the 1st day of April , 1997 and ending on the 31 st day of March, 2006;

And whereas M/ s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, having registered office at Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur-302005 is developing an Industrial Park at Industrial Area Sangaria Phase- II , District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan ;

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007 /JYAISTHA 5, 1929

3294

And whereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No. 15/ 148 /2005- IP & ID dated 26-10-2006 subsect to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to this notification;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred t y clause ( iii ) of subsection (4) of Section 80- IA of the said Act, the Central Government hereby notifies the undertakirį , being developed and being maintained and operated by M/s. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur , as an industrial park for the purposes of the said cla... ( iii) .

ANNEXURE

: The terms and conditions on which the approval of the Government of India has been accorded for setting up ofan industrial park by M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur.

1. (i) Name of the Industrial Undertaking,

: Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited

(ii) Proposed location

: Industrial Area Sangaria Phase II , District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan

: 58.19 Acres

(in) Area of Industrial Park

(iv) Proposed activities

Nature of Industrial acticvity with NIC code

NICCode

Description

Division

Class

S. No.

:Section

Group

Ali Manufacturing Activities

: 96.44%

(v) Percentage of allocable area earmarked f Industrial use

: 3.56%

(vi ) Percentage of allowable area earmarked for commercial use

: 37 Units

(vii) Minispum number of industrial units

: 1,75,49,000

(viii) Total investments proposed (Amount in Rupees)

: Ni

(x) Investment on built up space: for Industrial use (Amount in Rupees )

: 1,20,75,000

(x) Invesiment on Infrastructure Developinent including investment on built up space for industrial use (Amount in Rupees)

: 31-03-2006

(xi) Proposed date of commencement of the Industrial Park

2. The minimum investment on infrastructure devel: pment in an Industrial Park shall not be less than 50 % of the total project cost. In the case of an Industrial Park which provices built-up space for industrial use , the minimum expenditure on infrastructure development including cost of construction of industrial space , shall not be less than 60% of the total project cost.

3. Infrastructure development shall include, roads (in Muding approach roads ), water supply and sewerage, common effluent treatment facility, telecom network, generation and distribution of power , air -conditioning and such other facilities as are for common use for industrial activity which are identif .able and are provided on commercial terms .

4. No single unit referred to in column ( 2 ) of the Table given in sub - paragraph ( b ) of paragraph 6 of S.O. 354(E) dated the 1 st April , 2002, shall occupy more than fifty percent of the allocable industrial arca of an Industrial Park. For this purpose a unit means any separate and distinct entity for the purpose of one and more state or Central tax laws.

5. Necessary approvals , including that for foreign direct investment or non- resident Indian investment by the Foreign investment Promotion Board or Reserve Bank of hudia or any authority specified under any law for the time being in force, shall be taken separately as per the policy and procedures in force.

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

3295

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

6. The tax benefits under the Act can be availed of only after the number of units indicated in Para 1 ( vii ) of this Notification , are located in the Industrial Park.

7. M/ s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur, shall continue to operate the Industrial Park during the period in which the benefits under clause ( iii ) of sub- section (4) of Section 801A of the Income- tax Act, 1961 are to be availed.

8. In case the commencement of the Industrial Park is delayed by more than one year from the date indicated in Para t ( xi ) of this notification , fresh approval will be required under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002, for availing benefits under sub- section 4(iii ) ofSection 801A of the Income Tax Act, 1961

9. The approval will be invalid and M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur , shall be solely responsible for any repercussions of such, invalidity, if

(1) the application on the basis of which the approval is accorded by the Central Government contains wrong information/misinformation or some material information has not been provided in it.

(i) it is for the location ofthe industrial park for which approval has already been accorded in the name of another undertaking.

10. In case M/s . Rajasthan Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur, transfers the operation and maintenance of the industrial park ( i.c. , transferor undertaking ) to another undertaking ( i.e. , the transfcree undertaking) , the transferor and transfcree shall jointly intimate to the Entrepreneurial Assistance Unit of the Secretariat for Industrial Assistance , Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi - 11 along with a copy of the agreement executed between the transferor and transferee undertaking for the aforesaid transfer.

11. The conditions mentioned in this notification as well as those included in the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 should be adhered to during the period for which benefits under this scheme are to be availed . The Central Government may withdraw the above approval in case M/ s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur, fails to comply with any of the conditions.

12.Any amendment of the project plan without the approval of the Central Government or detection in future, or Failure on the part of the applicant to disclose any material fact, will invalidate the approval of the industrial park.

[Notification No. 155/2007/F. No. 178/34/2007 - ГТА - 1 )

DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 30 अप्रैल , 2007

(आबकर )

का.आ. 1487. जबकि आयकर अधिनियम 1961 ( 1961 का 43 ) ( यहां आगे उक्त अधिनियम , कहा गया है ) की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केंन्द्र सरकार ने 1 अप्रैल, 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च, 2002 को समाप्त होने वाली अवधि के लिये संख्या का. आ. 193 ( अ ) दिनांक 30 मार्च, 1999 के जरिए तथा 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च, 2006 को समाप्त अवधि के लिए संख्या का. आ. 354( अ ) के जरिए भारत सरकार, वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय ( औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग ) की अधिसूचनाओं द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की योजना निर्मित और अधिसूचिद की है;

और जबकि मैसर्स आर जी ए साफ्टवेयर सिस्टम्स प्रा. लिमिटेड जिसका पंजीकृत कार्यालय सं. 26 , 8 /डी , शेक्सपीयर सारणी , डिम्पल कोर्ट, कोलकाता-700 017 में है , प्लाट सं. 3 , सर्वेक्षण सं. 20 एवं 22, । फेज, इलेक्ट्रानिक सिटी , होसुर रोड, बंगलौर में एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास कर रहा है ।

और जबकि कंन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनबंध में उल्लिखित नियम और शर्तों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 03-05-2005 के पत्र सं. 15/35/2005- आई पी एंड आई डी के अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क अनुमोदित किया है;

अब इसलिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 80 न क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा उक्त खंड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ औद्योगिक पार्क के रूप में मैसर्स आर जी ए साफ्टवेयर सिस्टम प्रा. लिमिटेड , कोलकाता द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

2394 G1.07--4 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] 3296

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/JYAISTHA 5, 1929

अनुबंध

शर्तेजिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स आर जी ए साफ्टवेयर सिस्टम्स प्रा. लिमिटेड, कोलकाता द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क गठित कि जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया है ।

1. ( i ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम

: आर जी ए साफ्टवेयर सिस्टम्स प्रा. लिमिटेड , (ii ) प्रस्तावित स्थान

: प्लाट सं. 3 , सर्वेक्षण सं. 20 एवं 22, 1 फेज, इलेक्ट्रानिक सिटी, होसुर रोड , बंगलौर

( iii ) औद्योगिक पार्क का क्षेत्रफल

: 3,63,153.33 वर्ग फुट

(iv ) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप :

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

विवरण

एन आई सी संहिता

श्रेणी

प्रभाग

क्रम सं

समुह

अनुभाग

क

892

8922

साफ्टवेयर आपूर्ति सेवाएं

: 95%

(v ) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए प्रस्तावित आबंटनीय क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

: 5%

(vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित भूमि का प्रतिशत

: 03 यूनिटें

( vii ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की न्यूनतम संख्या

: 34,06,34,636

(vii ) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश ( राशि रुपए में)

: 23,71,34,636

(ix ) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश (राशि रुपए में)

: 32,50,95.576

( x ) अवसंरचनात्मक विकास पर निवेश जिसमें औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश भी शामिल है । राशि रुपए में )

: 31 दिसम्बर 20005

(xi ) औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने की प्रस्तावित तिथि

2. किसी औद्योगिक पार्क में अवसंरचना विकास पर न्यूनतम निवेश कुल परियोजना लागत के 50% से कम नहीं होगा । ऐसे औद्योगिकः पार्क जो औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थल प्रदान करता है , के मामले में औद्योगिक स्थल के निर्माण कार्य की लागत सहित विकास अवसंरचना पर न्यूनतम खर्च कुल परियोजना लागत में 60 % से कम नहीं होगा ।

3. संरचना विकास में सड़क ( सम्पर्क सड़क सहित ) , जलापूर्ति तथा सीवरेज़ , दूषित जल शोधन सुविधा, टेलिकॉम नेटवर्क, विद्युत उत्पादन एवं वितरण , वातानुकूलन तथा ऐसी अन्य सुविधाएं जो औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप हेतु सामान्य उपयोग के लिए हैं जो वाणिज्यिक दृष्टि गे निर्धारणीय एवं प्रयुक्त हैं ।

4. दिनांक 1 अप्रैल , 2002 की का. आ. 354 ( अ ) के पैराग्राफ 6 के उप पैराग्राफ ( ख ) में निर्दिष्ट तालिका के कालम ( 2 ) उल्लिखित कोई एकल इकाई किसी औद्योगिक पार्क के लिए नियत औद्योगिक क्षेत्र का 50 % से अधिक हिस्सा धारित नहीं करेगी । इम प्रयोजनार्थ किसी इकाई का आशय एक या एक से अधिक राज्य अथवा केन्द्रीय कर कानून के प्रयोजन के लिए किसी अलग तथा भिन्न कम्पनी से है । 5. आवश्यक अनुमोदनों जिनमें विदेशी निवेश मंवर्धन बोर्ड के द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश अथवा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अथवा यथा समय प्रवृत्त किसी कानून के अन्तर्गत विनिर्दिष्ट कोई प्राधिकरण भी शामिल हैं . को प्रवृत्त नीति तथा प्रक्रियाओं के. अनुसार अलग से लिया जाएगा ।

7. मैसर्स आर जी ए साफ्टवेयर सिस्टम्स प्रा. लिमिटेड , कोलकाता उस अवधि के दौरान औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन जारी रखूंगा जिग अवधि में आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खखंड ( iii ) के अन्तर्गत लाभ लिए जाने हैं ।

3. यदि उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने में इस अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 ( xi ) में निर्दिष्ट तिथि से एक वर्ष से ज्यादा विलम्ब होता है तो आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा 4 ( iii ) के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त करने के लिए औद्योगिक पार्क योजना , 2002 अं अंतर्गत नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा । 3297

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

[भाग-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

9. यह अनुमोदन अवैध हो जाएगा और मैसर्स आर जी ए साफ्टवेयर सिस्टम्स प्रा. लिमिटेड , कोलकाता ऐसी अवैधता की किसी प्रतिक्रिया के लिए स्वयं ही जिम्मेदार होगा, यदि

( i ) आवेदन पत्र जिसके आधार पर केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है , में गलत सूचना/सूचना अथवा कतिपय तथ्यपरक सूचना न दी गई हो ।

(ii ) यह उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क की अवस्थिति हेतु है जिसके लिए अनुमोदन किसी अन्य उपक्रम के नाम में पहले ही प्रदान किया गया है ।

10. यदि पैसर्स आर जी ए साफ्टवेयर सिस्टम्स प्रा. लिमिटेड, कोलकाता ( अर्थात् अन्तरणकर्ता उपक्रम ) औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन और आरक्षण किसी दूसरे उपक्रम ( अर्थात् अंतरिती उपक्रम ) को हस्तांतरित करेगा तो अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपर्युक्त हस्तांतरण के लिए अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपक्रम के बीच निष्पादित करार की प्रति के साथ औद्योगिक सहायता सचिवालय , औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग , उद्योग भवन , नई दिल्ली -11 की उद्यमशीलता सहायता यूनिट संयुक्त रूप से सूचित करेंगे ।

.11 . इस अधिसूचना में उल्लिखित शतों के साथ- साथ औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम , 2002 में शामिल उन रातों का अनुपालन उस अवधि यो दौरान किया जाना चाहिए जिसके लिए इस स्कीम के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त किए जाने हैं । केन्द्र सरकार उपर्युक्त अनुमोदन को वापस ले सकती है यदि मैसर्स आर जी ए साफ्टवेयर सिस्टम्स प्रा. लिमिटेड , कोलकाता औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम, 2002 में विहित शर्तों अथवा इस अधिसूचना की किसी भी शर्त के अनुपालन में असफल रहता है ।

1.2. केन्द्र सरकार के अनुमोदन के बिना प्रोजेक्ट प्लान में किया गया कोई भी संशोधन अथवा भविष्य में पता लगनत अथवा किसी ठोस राध्य मा उद्घाटन करने में आवेदक का असफल रहना , औधोगिक पार्क के अनुमोदन को अवैध बना देगा ।

[ अधिसूचना सं. 156/2007/फा. सं. 178/46/2007- आ.क. मि. - 1 ]

दीपक गर्ग, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 30thApril, 2007

(INCOME - TAX)

S.O. 1487 Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii ) of sub-section( 4) of Section 80- LA of the Income - tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961 ) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , has framed and notified a scheme for industrial park , by the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion) vide number S.O. 193 (E) , dated the 30th March, 1999, for the period beginning on the 1st day of April. 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March , 2002 and vide number S.O. 354(E) datedthe Ist day of April , 2002, for the period beginning on the 1st day of April , 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2006;

And whereas M...RGA Software Systems Private Limited, having registered office at No. 26, 8/D , Shakespeare Sarani , Dimple Court, Kolkata- 700017 , is developing an Industrial Park at Plot No. 3. Sy. No. 20 & 22, 1 Phase , ElectronicCity, Hosur Road, Bangalore:

And whereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No. 15/35/05 - IP& ID dated 3-05-2005 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii ) of sub- section (4) ofSection 80 - IA of the said Act, the Central Government hereby notifies the undertaking , being developed and being maintained and operatedbyM/ 3. RGA Software Systems Private Limited, Kołkata, as an industrial park for the purposes of the said clause (iii).

ANNEXURE

The terms and conditions on which the approval of the Government of India has been accorded for setting up of ar.industrial park by M/s. RGA Software Systems Private Limited, Kolkata.

: RGA Software Systems Private Limited 1. ti Name of the Industrial Undertaking

(ii) Proposed location

: Plot No. 3. Sy. No. 20 & 22, I Phase, Electronic City,HosurRoad, Bangalore

(iii) Area of Industrial Park

: 3,63,153.33 Square Feet 3298

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/JYAISTHA 5, 1929

PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii) | (iv) Proposed activities :

Nature of Industrial activity with NIC code

NIC Code

Description

S.No.

Section

Division

Class

Group

892

Software supply services

: 95%

(v) Percentage of allocable area carmarked for Industrial use

: 5%

(vi ) Percentageof allocable area earmarked for commercial use

(vii) Minimum number of industrial units

: 3 Units

: 34.06.34,636

(viii) Total investments proposed (Amount in Rupees)

: 23.71,34,636

(ix) Investment on built up space for Industrial use (Amount in Rupces )

: 32.50,95,576

(x) Investment on Infrastructure Developinent including investment on built up space for industrial use (Amount inRupees)

(xi) Proposed date of commencement of the Industrial Park : 31 December . 2005

2. The minimum investment on infrastructure development in an Industrial Park shall not be less than 50 % of the total project cost . In the case of an Industrial Park which provides built- up space for industrial use, the minitnum expenditure on infrastructure development including cost of construction of industrial space, shall not be less than 60 % of the total project cost.

3. Infrastructure development shall include , roads (including approach roads ), water supply and sewerage , comפית effluent treatment facility, telecom network. generation and distribution of power , air - conditioning and such other facilities as are for common use for industrial activity which are identifiable and are provided on commercial terms .

4. No single unit referred to in column ( 2 ) of the Table given in sub -paragraph ( b ) of paragraph 6 of S.O. 354( E) dated the 1st April , 2002 , shall occupy more than fifty percent of the allocable industrial area of an Industrial Park. For this purpose a unit means any separate and distinct entity for the purpose of one and more state or Central tax laws .

5. Necessary approvals , including that for foreign direct investment or non - resident Indian investment by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board or Reserve Bank of ludia or any authority specified under any law for the time beng in force, shall be taken separately as per the policy and procedures in force.

6. The tax benefits under the Act can be availed of only after the number of units indicated in Para 1 ( vii ) of this Notification , are located in the Industrial Park.

7. M/ s . RGA Software Systems Private Limited, Kolkata, shall continue to operate the Industrial Park during the period in which the benefits under clause ( in ) of sub -section (4) of Section 80 - IA of the Income - tax Act . 1961 are to be availed. :

8. In case the commencement of the Industrial Park is delayed by more than one year from the date indicated in Para 1 (xi) of this notification , fresh approval willbe required under the Industrial Park Scheme , 2002 , for availing benefits under sub- spetion 4( iii) of, Section 80-1A of the Income Tax Act , 1961 .

9. The approval will be invalid and M/ s . RGA Software Systems Private Limited , Kolkata, shall be solely responsible for any repercussions of such invalidity, if

i) the application on the basis of which the approval is accorded by the Central Governinent contains wrong information/misinformation or soine material information has not been provided in it .

(1) it is for the location of the industrial park for which approval has already been accorded in the name of other undertaking

ADARUA Some Syses Limited , Kolkata, transfer the operation and maintenance of the industani pak zie Notetor undersakingadertaking ( i.e. , the translerce undertaking ) , the transferor and transferee shall poatly intimate os the Barberce Unit ofthe Secretariat for Industrial Assistance, Department [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

3299 ofIndustrial Policy and Promotion, Udyog Bhawan , New Delhi- 11 along with a copy of the agreement executed between the transferor and transferee undertaking for the aforesaid transfer .

11. The conditions mentioned in this notification as well as those included in the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 shouldbe adhered to during the period for which benefits under this scheme are to be availed. The Central Government may withdraw the above approval in case M/s . RGA Software Systems Private Limited, Kolkata , fails to comply with any of the conditions .

12. Any amendment of the project plan without the approval of the Central Government or detection in future, or failure on the part of the applicant to disclose any material fact, will invalidate the approval of the industrial park.

[Notification No. 156/2007/F . No. 178/46/2007- ГТА -1 ]

DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy.

नईदिल्ली , 30 अप्रैल , 2007

(आयकर )

कर.आर. 1488,-जबकि आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 196 ] का 43 ) ( यहां आगे उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा BO- झक की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार ने अप्रैल, 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च, 2002 को समाप्त होने वाली अवधि के लिये संख्या का. आ. 193 ( अ ) दिनांक 30 मार्च, 1999 के जरिए तथा । अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 3: मार्च , 2006 को समाप्त अवधि के लिए संख्या का.आ. 354 ( अ ) दिनांक 1 अप्रैल , 2002 के जरिए भारत सरकार, वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय (औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग ) की अधिसूचनाओं द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की योजना निर्मित और अधिसूचित की है;

और जबकि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टंट इंडस्ट्रियल डवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जिसका पंजीकृत कार्यालय उद्योग भवन, तिलक मार्ग , जयपुर-302005 में है , इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया ईपीआईपी, चोरानाडा, ग्राम बोरानाडा, तहसील- लूनी , जिला जोधपुर , राजस्थान में एक ' औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास कर रहा है ।

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखित शर्तों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के. दिनांक 20-10-2006 के पत्र सं. 15/124/2005- आई पी एंड आई डी के अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क अनुमोदित किया है;

अब इसलिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 80 -झ क की उपधारा (4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा उक्त खंड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ औद्योगिक पार्क के रूप में मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, जयपुर द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

अनुबंध

शर्तेंजिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है ।

1. (ⅰ ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम

: राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड,

( ii ) प्रस्तावित स्थान

: इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया ईपीआईपी , चोरानाडा, ग्राम- बोरानाडा, तहसील-लूनी , जिला जोधपुर , राजस्थान

(iii ) औद्योगिक पार्क का कुल क्षेत्रफल

: 207.00 एकड़

( iv ) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप

एन आई सी सहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

एन आई सी संहिता

विवरण

क्रम सं.

प्रभाग

अनुभाग

श्रेणी

समूह

क

2 एवं 3

विनिर्माण

: 95.46%

(v ) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए प्रस्तावित आबंटनीय क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

: 4.54%

(vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित भूमि का प्रतिशत

(vii ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की न्यूनतम संख्या

: 107 यूनिटें [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ) 3300

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2007/ JYAISTHA 5, 1929

: 2191.27 लाख

(viii) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश ( राशि रुपए में )

: शून्य

(ix ) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवंश (राशि रूपए में)

: 1939.98 लाख

(x ) अवसंरचनात्मक विकास पर निवेश जिसमें औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित्त स्थान पर निवेश भी शामिल है ( राशि रुपए में )

: 31-03-2006

( xi ) औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने की तिथि

2. किसी औद्योगिक पार्क में अवसंरचना विकास पर न्यूनतम निवेश कुल परियोजना लागत के 50 % से न.ए नहीं होगा । ऐसे औद्योगिक पार्क जो औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थल प्रदान करता है, के मामले में औद्योगिक स्थल के निर्माण की लागत सहित विकास अवसंरचना पर न्यूनतम खर्च कुल परियोजना लागत के 60 % से कम नहीं होगा ।

3. अवसंरचना विकास में सड़क ( सम्पर्क सड़क महित ) , जलापूर्ति तथा सीवरेज , दूषित जल शोधन सुबिधा, टेलिकॉम नेटवर्क, विद्युत उत्पादन एवं वितरण , वातानुकूलन तथा ऐसी अन्य सुविधाएं जो औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप हेतु सामान्य उपयोग के लिए हैं जो निर्धारणीय हैं एवं वाणिज्यिक दृष्टि से उपलब्ध कराई जाती हैं ।

4. दिनांक 1 अप्रैल , 2002 की का.आ. 354 ( अ ) के पैराग्राफ 6 के उप पैराग्राफ ( ख ) में निर्दिष्ट तालिका के कालम ( 2 ) में उल्लिखित कोई एकल इकाई किसी औद्योगिक पार्क के लिए नियत औद्योगिक क्षेत्र का 50 से अधिक हिस्सा धारित नहीं करेगी । इस प्रयोजनार्थ किसी इकाई का आशय एक या एक से अधिक राज्य अथवा केन्द्रीय कर कानून के प्रयोजन के लिए किसी अलग तथा भिन्न कम्पनी से है । 5. आवश्यक अनुमोदनों जिनमें विदेशी निवेश संवन यार्ड अथवा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अथवा यथा ममय प्रवृत्त किसी कानून के अंतर्गत विनिदिष्ट किसी प्राधिकरण के द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश भी शामिल हैं, को प्रवृत्त नीति तथा प्रक्रियाओं के अनुसार अलग से लिया जाएगा ।

6. इससे अधिसूचना के पैरा । ( vii ) में विनिर्दिषत संख्या में इकाइयों के औद्योगिक पार्क में अवस्थित होने के उपरान्त ही इस अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत कर लाभ प्राप्त हो सकते हैं ।

7. पैलर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कापर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर उस अवधि के दौरान औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन जारी रखेगारखेगा जिस अवधि में आयकर अधिनियम , २०। को धारा ४० - झ क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) के अन्तर्गत लाभ लिए जाने हैं ।

8. यदि उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ हाने में अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 ( xi ) में निर्दिष्ट तिथि से एक वर्ष से ज्यादा विलम्ब हांगा तो आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा ४०- झ क की उपधाग + ( iii ) के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त करने के लिए औद्योगिक पार्क योजना , 2002 के अंतर्गत नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा ।

9. यह अनुमोदन अवैध हो जाएगा और मैससं राजम्यान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, जयपुर ऐसी किसी अवैधता की प्रतिक्रिया के लिए स्वयं ही जिम्मेदार हांगा , यदि

(i ) आवेदन पत्र जिसके आधार पर केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है , में गलत सूचना/त्रुटिपूर्ण सूचना अथवा कतिपय तथ्यपरक सूचना न दी गई हो ।

( ii ) यह उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क की अवस्थित हेतु हो जिसके लिए अनुमोदन किसी अन्य उपक्रम के नाम में पहले ही प्रदान किया गया हो

10. यदि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर ( अर्थात् अन्तरणकर्ता उपक्रम ) औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन और अनुरक्षण किसी दूसरं नृपक्रम अर्थात् अंतरिती उपक्रम ) को हस्तांतरित करेगा तो अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिसी उपर्युक्त हस्तांतरण के लिए अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपक्रम के बीच निष्पादित करार की प्रति के साथ औद्योगिक सहायता सचिवालय , औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग , उद्योग भवन , नई दिल्ली । की उद्यमशीलता सहायता यूनिट को संयुक्त रूप से सूचित करेंगे । 11. इस अधिसूचना में उल्लिखित शतों के साथ नाथ औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम , 2002 में शामिल शर्तों का अनुपालन उस अवधि कं दौरान किया जाना चाहिए जिसके लिए इस स्कीम के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त किए जाने हैं । केन्द्र सरकार उपर्युक्त अनुमोदन को वापस ले सकती है यदि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट करिशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर किसी भी शर्त के अनुपालन में असफल रहता है । 12. कंन्द्र सरकार के अनुमोदन के बिना प्रोजेक्ट प्लान में किया गया कोई भी संशोधन अथवा भविष्य में पता लगना अथवा किसी डांस तथ्य का उ‌द्घाटन करने में आवेदक का असफल रहना, औद्योगिक पार्क के अनुमोदन को अवैध बना देना ।

[ अधिसूचना सं. 157/2007/फा. सं. 178/42/2007- आ.क. नि.- 1 ] दीपक गर्ग, अवर सचिव [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

3301

New Delhi, the 30th April,2007

(INCOME -TAX)

S.O. 1488 -Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii) of sub - section (4) of Section80-1A of the Income- tax Act , 1961 (43 of 1961 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , has framed and notified a scheme for Industrial Park, by the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion) vide number 5.0.193 (E) , dated the 30th March, 1999, for the period beginning on the 1st day of April , 1997 and ending on the 31st day ofMarch, 2002 and vide number S.O. 354(E) dated the Ist day of April, 2002, for the period beginning on the Ist day ofApril, 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2006;

And whereas M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, having registered office at Udyog Bhawan , Tilak Marg , Jaipur -302 005 is developing an Industrial Park at Industrial Area EPIP, Boranada, Village-Boranada, Tehsil - Luni , District Jodhpur , Rajasthan;

And whereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No. 15/124/2005- IP& ID dated 20-10-2006 subjectto the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to this notification;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (iii ) of sub section (4) of Section 80-1A of the said Act, the Central Government hereby notifies the undertaking, being developed and being maintained and operated by M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur, as an Industrial Park for the purposes of the said clause ( iii) .

ANNEXURE

The terms and conditions on which the approval of the Government of India has been accorded for setting up of an Industrial Park by M/s. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur.

1. (i ) Nanic of the Industrial Undertaking.

: Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, ( i) Proposed location

: Industrial Area EPIP, Boranada, Village-Boranada, Tehsil -Luni, District-Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

( iii) Area of Industrial Park

: 207.00 Acres

(iv) Proposed activities

Nature of Industrial activity with NIC code

NIC Code

Description

S. No.

Section

Division Group

Class

2&3

Manufacturing

: 95-46%

(v) Percentage of allocable area carmarked for Industrial use

: 4.54%

(vi) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for commercial use

( vii) Minimum number of industrial units

: 107 Units

: 2191.27 lakhs

(vii ) Total investments proposed (Amount in Rupees)

: NI

(ix) Investment on built up space : for Industrial use (Amount in Rupees)

: 1939.98 lakhs

(x) Investment on Infrastructure Development including investment on built up space for industrial use (Anount in Rupees)

(xi ) Proposed date of commement of the Industrial Park

: 31-03-2006

2. The minimum investment on infrastructure development in an Industrial Park shall not be less than 50 % of the total project cost. In the case of an Industrial Park which provides built-up space for industrial use , the minimum expenditure [PART 11-SEC . 3( ii ) ] 3302

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26 , 2007 / JYAISTHA 5, 1929

on infrastructure development including cost of construction of industrial space, shall nothe less than 60 % of the total project cost.

3. Infrastructure development shall include , wads ( including approach roads ) , water supply and sewerage, common effluent treatment facility, telecom network , generation and distribution of power , air - conditioning and such other facilities as are for comihon use for industrial activity which are identifiable and are provided on commercial terms .

1: 4. No single unit referred to in column ( 2 ) of the Table given in sub-paragraph (b ) of paragraph 6 of S.O. 354(E) dated the istApril , 2002 , shall occupy more than fifly percent of the allocable industrial area of an Industrial Park. For this purpose a unit means any separate and distinct entity for the purpose of one and more State or Central Tax laws.

5.Necessary approvals , including that for foreign direct investment or nou resident Indian investment by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board or Reserve Bank of India or any authority specified under any law for the time being in force, shall be taken separately as per the policy and procedures in force .

6. The tax benefits under the Act can be avdied of only after the number of units indicated in Para 1 ( vii ) of this Notification , are located in the Industrial Park.

7. M/s. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited , Jaipur shall continue to operate the industrial Park during the period in which the benefits under clause (iii) of sub- section (4) of Section 80 - JA of the Income-tax Act. 1961 are to be availed.

8. tri case the commencement of the Industrial Park is delayed by more than one year from the date indicated in Para 1 ( xi ) of this notification, fresh approval will be required under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 , for availing benefits under sub - section 4 ( iii ) of Section 80 - IA of the Income tax Act . 1961

9. The approval will be invalid and M's . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur, shall be solely responsible for any repercussions of such invalidity, if

(i ) the application on the basis of whith the approval is accorded by the Central Government contains wrong :information /misinformation or some material inforination has not been provided in it .

( i ) it is for the location of the industrial park for which approval has already heon accorded in the name of ! another undertaking . :

10. Incase M /s . Rajasthan State Enduste Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur , transfer the operation and maintenance of the industrial park .c .. transferor undertaking ) to another undertaking ( i.e. , the transferce undertaking) , the transferor and transferee shall jountty ntinuate to the Entrepreneurial Assistance Unit of the Secretariat for Industrial Assistance , Departnient of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Udyog Bhawan , New Delhi - 11 along with a copy of the agreement executed between the transferor and transfcroo undertaking for the aforesaid transfer .

11. The conditions mentioned in this ocudicaton as well as those included in the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 should be adhered to during the period for which benetus noder this scheme are to be availed. The Central Government may withdraw the above approval in case M/ s. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur, fails 10 comply with any of the conditions .

12. Any amendment of the project plan without the approval of the Central Governuncut or detection in future , or failure on the part of the applicant to disclose any maternal fact, will invalidate the approval of the industrial park.

Notification No. 157 /2007 /F, No. 178/42/2007 - ITA- 11 DEEPAKGARG, Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली अप्रैल , 2007

(अशवकर )

का. आ. 1489.- जबकि आयकर अधिनियम की उपधारा ( 4 ) कं खंड ( ii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार ने अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च , 2002 को समाप्त होनें वाली अवधि के लिये संख्या का. आ. ४ ( अ ) दिनांक 30 मार्च , 1999 के जरिए तथा । अप्रैल 1997 से शुरु होकर तथा 3। मार्च , 2006 को समाप्त अवधि के लिए संख्या का.आ. 3541 अ ) दिनांक अप्रैल , 2002 के जरिए भारत सरकार , वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय ( औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग ) की अधिसूचनाः द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की योजना निर्मित और अधिसूचित की है: 1961 का 43 ) ( यहां आगे उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा ४० झ क और जबकि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लि. , जिसका पंजीकृत कार्यालय उद्योग भवन , तिलक मार्ग , जयपुर 302 005 में है , ग्रोथ सेन्टर धौलपुर, जिलः धौलपुर, राजस्थान में एक ग्रोथ संन्टर का विकास कर रहा है । 3303 [ भाग 1]-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : माई 26, 2007 /म्पेष्ठ 5, 1929

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखित नियम और शतों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 25-09-2006 के पत्र सं. 15/120/2005 - आई पी एंड आई डी के अन्तर्गत उक्त ग्रोथ सेन्टर को अनुमोदित किया है ;

अब इसलिए उक्त आयकर अधिनियम की धारा 80 न क की उपधारा (4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार एतद्द‌द्वारा उक्त सांड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ औद्योगिक पार्क के रूप में मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, जयपुर द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

अनुबंध

शर्तें जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर द्वारा ग्रोथ सेन्टर गडित किए आने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया है ।

1. ( 1 ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम

: राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड,

(i ) प्रस्तावित स्थान

: ग्रोथ सेन्टर धौलपुर , जिला- धौलपुर, राजस्थान (ii ) ग्रोम सेन्टर का कुल क्षेत्रफल

: 237.75 एकड़

( iv ) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

एन आई सी संहिता

विवरण

प्रभाग

क्रम सं.

श्रेणी

अनुभाग

समूह

क

2एवं 3

विनिर्माण

: 87.19%

( v ) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए प्रस्तावित आबंटनीय क्षेत्र का प्रतिशय

: 08.22%

( vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित भूमि का प्रतिशत

: 57 यूनिटें

(vii ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की न्यूनतम संख्या

: 888.49 लाख

(vii) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश ( राशि रुपए में)

: सून्प

(ix) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मिद स्थान पर निवेश (राशि रुपए में)

: 670.13 लाख

(x ) अवसंरचनात्मक विकास पर निवेश जिसमें औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश भी शामिल है ( राशि रुपए में)

: 31-3-2006

( xi ) प्रोथ सेन्टर के आरंभ होने की तिथि

2. किसी ग्रोथ सेन्टर में अवसंरचना विकास पर न्यूनतम निवेश कुल परियोजना लागत के 50% से कम नहीं होगा । ऐसे औद्योगिक पार्क जो औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थल प्रदान करता है, के मामले में औधोगिक स्थल के निर्माण कार्य की लागत सहित अवसंरचना विकास पर न्यूनतम खर्च फुल परियोजना लागत के 60% से कम नहीं होगा ।

3. अब संरचना विकास में सड़क ( सम्पर्क सड़क सहित ) , जलापूर्ति तथा सौवरेण , दूषित जल सोय सुविधा, टेलिकॉम नेटवर्क, विद्युत उत्पादन एवं वितरण , वातानुकूलन तथा ऐसी अन्य सुविधाएं जो औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप हेतु सामान्य उपयोग के लिए हैं जो निर्धारणीय हैं एवं वाणिज्यिक दृष्टि से उपलब्ध कराई जाती हैं ।

4. दिनांक 1 अप्रैल, 2002 की का.आ. 354 ( अ ) के पैराग्राफ 6 के उप पैराग्राफ ( ख ) में निर्दिष्ट तालिका के कालम ( 2 ) में सल्लिखित कोई भी एकल इकाई किसी ग्रोथ सेन्टर के लिए निक्स औद्योगिक क्षेत्र का 50 % से अधिक हिस्सा धारित नहीं करेगी । इस प्रयोजनार्थ किसी इकाई का आशय एक वा एक से अधिक राज्य अधवा केन्द्रीय कर कानून के प्रयोजन के लिए किसी अलग तथा भिन्न कम्पनी से है । 5. आवश्यक अनुमोदनों जिनमें विदेशी निवेश संवर्धन बोर्ड अथवा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अथवा यथा समय प्रवृत्त किसी कानून के अन्तर्गत विनिर्दिष्ट किसी प्राधिकरण के द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश भी शामिल हैं, को प्रवृत्त, नीति तथा प्रक्रियाओं के अनुसार अलग से लिया जाएगा ।

2394GI07-5 3304

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26 , 2007 /JYAISTHA 5, 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )) ६. इस अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 ( vii ) में विनिर्दिष्ट संख्या में इकाइयों के प्रोथ सेन्टर में अवस्थित होने के उपरान्त ही इस अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत कई लाभ प्राप्त हो सकते हैं ।

7. मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर उस अवधि के दौरान ग्रोथ सेन्टर का प्रचालन जारी रखेगा जिस अवधि में आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा ४० झ क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) के अन्तर्गत लाभ लिए जाने हैं । 8. यदि उक्त ग्रोथ सेन्टर के आरंभ होने में इस अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 ( xi ) में निर्दिष्ट तिथि से एक वर्ष से ज्यादा विलम्ब होगा तां आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा 4 ( iii ) के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त करने के लिए औद्योगिक पार्क योजना , 2002 के अंतर्गत नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा ।

१ यह अनुमोदन अवैध रहेगा और मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, जयपुर ऐसी किसी अवैधता की प्रतिक्रिया के लिए स्वयं ही जिम्मेदार होगा , यदि

(i ) आवेदन पत्र जिसके आधार पर केंन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है, में गलत सूचना/त्रुटिपूर्ण सूचना अथवा कतिपय तथ्यपरक सूचना न दी गई हो ।

( i ) यह उक्त ग्रोथ सेन्टर की अवस्थिति हेतु हो जिसके लिए अनुमोदन किसी अन्य उपक्रम के नाम में पहले ही प्रदान किया गया हो ।

10. यदि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर ( अर्थात अन्तरणकर्ता उपक्रम ) ग्रोथ सेन्टर का प्रचालन और अनुरक्षण किसी दूसरे उपक्रम ( अर्थात् अंतरित्ती उपक्रम ) को हस्तांतरित करेगा तो अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपर्युक्त हस्तांतरण के लिए अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपक्रम के बीच निष्यादित करार की प्रति के साथ औद्योगिक सहायता सचिवालय, औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग , उद्योग भवन, नई दिल्ली ।। को उद्यमशीलता सहायता यूनिट को संयुक्त रूप से सूचित करेंगे ।

11. इस अधिसूचना में उल्लिखित शर्तों के साथ साथ औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम , 2002 में शामिल शर्तों का अनुपालन उस अवधि के दौरान किया जाना चाहिए जिसमें इस स्कीम के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त किए जाने हैं । केन्द्र सरकार उपर्युक्त अनुमोदन को वापस ले सकती है यदि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर किसी शर्त के अनुपालन में असफल रहता है । 12. केन्द्र सरकार के अनुमोदन के बिना प्रोजेक्ट प्लान में किया गया कोई भी संशोधन अथवा भविष्य में पत्ता लगना अथवा किसी ठोस तथ्य का उद्‌घाटन करने में आवेदक का असफल रहना , ग्रोथ सेन्टर के अनुमोदन को अवैध बना देगा ।

[अधिसूचना सं. 158/2007/फा, सं 178/38/2007-अ.क. नि. - 1 ] दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 30th April , 2007

(INCOME - TAX)

SO.1489. Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii ) of sub-section (4) ofSection 80-1A of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ( 43 of 1961 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , has framed and notified a scheme for industrial park, by the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and ladustry (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion ) vide number S.O. 193 (E ) , dated the 30th March , 1999, for the period beginning on the 1 st day of April, 1997 and ending on the 31 st day of March, 2002 and vide number S.O. 354(E ) dated the 1stday of April, 2002, for the period beginning on the 1st day of April, 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2006;

And whereas M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, having registered office at Ullyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg , Jaipur - 302005 is developing a Growth Centre at Growth Centre Dholpur, District- Dholpur, Rajasthan ;

And whereas the Central Government has approved the said Growth Centre vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No. 15/ 120/2005- IP & ID dated 25-9-2006 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii ) of sub - section (4 ) of Section 80-1A of the said Act, the Central Government hereby notifies the undertaking , being developed and being maintained and operated by M/s. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur , as an industrial park for the purposes of the said clause (iii) .

ANNEXURE

The terms and conditions on which the approval of the Government of India has been accorded for setting up ofGrowth Centre by M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur.

3305

भारत का सजपत्र : मई 26, 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5 ,1929

[ भाग II-खण्ड ( ii) ]

1. (i) Name of the Industrial Undertaking,

: Rajasthan State Industrial Development& Investment Corporation Limited

(n) Proposed location

: GrowthCentre Dholpur , District- Dholpur, Rajasthan

: 237.75 Acres

(in) Area ofGrowth Centre

(iv) Proposed activities

Nature ofIndustrial activity with NIC code

NIC Code

Description

Division

Class

S. No.

Section

Group

2&3

Manufacturing

: 87.19%

(v) Percentage of allocable arca carmarked for Industrial use

: 08.22%

(vi) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for commercial use

: 57 Units

(vi) Minimum number of industrial units

: 888.49 Lakhs

(vid) Total investments proposed (Amount inRupees)

: N

(ix) Investment on built up space: for Industrial use (Amount in Rupees)

: 670.13 lakhs

(x) Investment on Infrastructure Development including investment on built up space for Industrial use (Amount in Rupees)

: 31-03-2006

(xi ) Proposed date of commencement for theGrowth Centre

2. The minimum investment on infrastructure development in a Growth Centre shall not be less than 50 % of the total project cost . In the case of a Growth Centre which provides built - up space for industrial use, the minimum expenditure on infrastructure development including cost of construction of industrial space , shall not be less than 60 % of the total project cost.

3. Infrastructure development shall include , roads (including approach roads) , water supply and sewerage, common efluent treatment facility, telecom network , generation and distribution of power, air-conditioning and such other facilities as are for common use for industrial activity which are identifiable and are provided on commercial terms.

4. No single unit referred to in column (2 ) of the Table given in sub- paragraph (b) of paragraph 6 of S.O. 354 (E) dated the 1 st April , 2002 , shall occupy more than fifty percent of the allocable industrial area of a Growth Centre. Forthis purpose a unit means any separate and distinct entity for the purpose of one and more state or Central tax laws.

5. Necessary approvals , including that for foreign direct investment or non resident Indian investment by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board or Reserve Bank of India or any authority specified under any law for the time being in force, shall be taken separately as per the policy and procedures in force.

6. The tax benefits under the Act canbe availed of only after the number of units indicated in Para 1 (vii ) of this Notification, are located in the Growth Centre .

7. M/s. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur , shall continue to operate theGrowth Centre during the period in which the benefits under clause ( iii) ofsub-section (4) of section 80-1 A of the Income -tax Act, 1961 are to be availed,

8. In case the commencement of the Growth Centre is delayed by more than one year from the date indicated in Para I (xi ) of this notification, fresh approval will be required under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002, for availing benefits under sub - section 4 ( iii ) of Section 80-1 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 .

9. The approval will be invalid and Mrs. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur, shall be solely responsible for any repercussions of such invalidity, if

(i) the application on the basis of which the approval is accorded by the Central Government contains wrong information/misinformation or some material information has not been provided in it .

3306

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/JYAISTHA 5, 1929

[PART II Sec. 3 (ii)) (i) it is for the location of the industrial park for which approval has already been accorded in the name of another ulertaking .

10. In case M/s . Rajasthan Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur , transfer the operation andmaintenance of the Growth Centre (i.e. , transferor undertaking ) to another undertaking ( ie., the transferce undertaking). the transferor and transferee shall jointly intimate to the Entrepreneurial Assistance Unit of the Secretariat for Industrial Assistance. Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi- 11 along with a copy of the agreement executed between the transferor and transferee undertaking for the aforesaid transfer.

11.The conditions mentioned in this notification as well as those included in the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 should be adhered to during the period for which benefits under this scheme are to be availed. The Central Government may withdraw the above approval in case M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur, fails to comply with any of the conditions .

12.Any amendment of the project plan without the approval of the Central Government or detection in future, or failure on the part of the applicant to disclose any material fact, will invalidate the approval of the Growth Centre.

[Notification No. 158/2007/F. No. 178/38/2007 -ITA- 1 ]

DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 30 अप्रैल , 2007

(आयकर )

कर .आ . 1490,--जबकि आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( 1961 का 43 ) ( यहां आगे उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 80 हर क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार ने 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च, 2002 को समाप्त होने वाली अवधि के लिये संख्या का. आ. 193 ( अ ) दिनांक 30 मार्च, 1999 के जरिए तथा 1 अप्रैल, 1997 से शुरु होकर तथा 31 मार्च, 2006 को समाप्त अवधि के लिए संख्या का.आ. 354 ( अ ) के जरिए भारत सरकार , वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय ( औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग) की अधिसूचनाओं द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की योजना निर्मित और अधिसूचित की है;

और जबकि पैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशम स्थि , जिसका पंजीकृत कार्यालय उद्योग भवन, तिलक मार्ग, जयपुर-302005 में है, औद्योगिक क्षेत्र भीलवाड़ा IV फेज, जिला- भीलवाड़ा, राजस्थान -311 001 में एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास कर रहा है । :

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखित नियम और शतों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 0-9-2006 के पात्र सं. 15/137/2005- आई पी एंड आई डी के अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क अनुमोदित किया है;

अब इसलिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 80 श क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा उक्त खंड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ औद्योगिक पार्क के रूप में मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लि. , जयपुर द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

अनुबंध

शर्ते जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कापर्पोरेशन लि. , जयपुर द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया है ।

1. ( 1 ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम

: मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड

( ii ) प्रस्तापित स्थान

: औद्योगिक क्षेत्र भीलवाड़ा IV फेप्त , जिला - पीलवाड़ा, राजस्थान-311001

(i) औद्योगिक पार्क का कुल क्षेत्रफल

: 118.81 एकड़

( iv ) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

एन आई सी सहिता

विवरण

क्रम सं

प्रभाग

श्रेणी

अनुभाग

समूह

क

2 एवं 3

विनिर्माण [ भाग II साण्ड 3( ii) ]

3307

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2007 / पेष्ठ 5, 1929

: 82.64%

(४ ) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए प्रस्तावित आबंटनीय क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

: 00.18%

(vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित भूमि का प्रतिशत

(vi ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की न्यूनतम संख्या

: 76यूनिटें

(viii ) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश ( सशि रुपए में)

: 727.00 लाख

: शून्य

(ix) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश (राशिरुपए में)

: 441.94 लाख

(x ) अक्संरचनात्मक विकास पर निवेश जिसमें औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश भी शामिल है ( राशि रुपए में)

(xi ) औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने की प्रस्तावित तिथि

: 31-3-2006

2. किसी औधोगिक पार्क में अवसंरचना विकास पर न्यूनतम निवेश कुल परियोजना लागत के 50% से कम नहीं होगा । ऐसे औद्योगिक पार्क जो औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थल प्रदान करता है, के मामले में औद्योगिक स्थल के निर्माण कार्य की लागत सहित विकास अनसंचना पर न्यूनतम खर्च कुल परियोजना लागत के 60 % से कम नहीं होगा ।

3. संरचना विकास में सड़क ( सम्पर्क सड़क सहित ) , जलापूर्ति तथा सीवरेज , दूषित जल शोधन सुविधा , टेलिकॉम नेटवर्क, विद्युत उत्पादन एवं वितरण, वातानुकूलन तथा ऐसी अन्य सुविधाएं जो औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप हेतु सामान्य उपयोग के लिए हैं जो वाणिज्यिक दृष्टि से निर्धारणीय एवं प्रयुक्त हैं ।

4. दिनांक 1 अप्रैल, 2002 की का.आ. 354 ( अ) के पैराग्राफ 6 के उप पैराग्राफ ( ख ) में निर्दिष्ट तालिका के कालम ( 2 ) चें उल्लिखित कोई एकल इकाई किसी औद्योगिक पार्क के लिए निक्त औद्योगिक क्षेत्र का 50 % से अधिक हिस्सा धारित नहीं करेगी । इस प्रयोजनार्थ किसी इकाई का आशय एक या एक से अधिक राज्य अथवा केन्द्रीय कर कानून के प्रयोजन के लिए किसी अलग तथा भिन्न कम्पनी से है । 5. आवश्यक अनुमोदनों जिनमें विदेशी निवेश संवर्धन बोर्ड के द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश अथवा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अथवा स्था समय प्रवृत्त किसी कानून के अन्तर्गत विनिर्दिष्ट कोई प्राधिकरण भी शामिल हैं, को प्रवृत नीति तथा प्रक्रियाओं के अनुसार अलग से लिया जाएगा ।

7. मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कापरिशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर उस अवधि के दौरान औदोगिक पार्क का प्रचालन जारी रखेगा जिस अवधि में आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 ह क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) के अन्तर्गच लाभ लिए जाने है ।

8. यदि उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने में इस अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 ( xi ) में निर्दिष्ट तिथि से एक वर्ष से ज्यादा विलम्ब होता है तो आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 80 न क की उपधारा 4 ( ii ) के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त करने के लिए औद्योगिक पार्क योजना , 2002 के अंतर्गत नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा ।

9. यह अनुमोदन अवैध हो जाएगा और मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर ऐसी अवैधता की किसी प्रतिक्रिया के लिए स्वयं ही जिम्मेदार होगा , यदि

(i ) आवेदन पत्र जिसके आधार पर केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है , में गलत सूचना सूचना अथवा कतिपय तथ्यपरक सूबना न दी गई हो ।

(ii ) यह उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क की अवस्थिति हेतु है जिसके लिए अनुमोदन किसी अन्य उपक्रम के नाम में पहले ही प्रदान किया गया है ।

10. यदि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेटः इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर ( अर्थात अन्तरणकर्ता उपक्रम) औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन और अनुरक्षण किसी दूसरे उपक्रम ( अर्थात अंतरिती उपक्रम ) को हस्तांतरित करेगा तो अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपर्युक्त हस्तांतरण के लिए अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपक्रम के बीच निष्पादित करार की प्रति के साथ औद्योगिक सहायता सचिवालय , औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग, उद्योग भवन, नई दिल्ली -11 की उद्यमशीलता सहायता. यूनिट संयुक्त रूप से सूचित करेंगे । 3308

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/JYAISTHA 5, 1929

(PART II-SBC. 3 ( ii ) ] 11. इस अधिसूचना में उल्लिखित शतों के साथ- साथ औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम, 2002 में शामिल उन शर्तों का अनुपालन उस अवधि के दौरान किया जाना चाहिए जिसमें लिए इस स्कीम के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त किए जाने हैं । केन्द्र सरकार उपर्युक्त अनुमोदन को वापस ले सकती है यदि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, जयपुर औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम , 2002 में विहित शर्तों अथवा इस अधिसूचना की किसी भी शर्त के अनुपालन में असफल रहता है ।

12. कन्द्र सरकार के अनुमोदन के बिना प्रोजेक्ट प्लान में किया गया कोई भी संशोधन अथवा भविष्य में पता लगना अथवा किसी ठोस तथ्य का उद्‌घाटन करने में आवेदक का असफल रहना, औद्योगिक पार्क के अनुमोदन को अवैध बना देना ।

[ अधिसूचना सं. 159/2007 /फा. सं. 178/37/2007-आ.क. नि. -1 ]

दीपक गर्ग, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 30th April , 2007

( NCOME -TAX)

S.O. 1490.-Whereas the Contral Governancat in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii ) of sub- section (4) ofsection 80-1A of the income - tax Act , 1961 ( 43 of 1961 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , has framed and notified a scheme for industrial park, by the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion) vide number S.O. 193 (E) , dated the 30th March , 1999, for the period beginning on the 1st day ofApril , 1997 and ending on the 31 st day of March , 2002 and vide number S.O. 354(E) dated the 1stday of April, 2002, for the period beginning on the 1st day of April, 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March. 2006:

And whereasM/ s .Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, having registered office atUdyogBhavan , Tilak Marg, Jaipur-302005 is developing an Industrial Park al Industrial Area Bhilwara IV Phase, District-Bhilwara, Rajasthan-311001;

And whereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No. 15/137/2005 - IP & ID dated 6-9-2006 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers comerred by clause (iii) of sub section (4) of section 80 - IA of the said Act, the Central Government hereby notifies the undertaking, being developed and being maintained and operated by M/s. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur, as an industrial park for the purposes of the said clause ( iii ) .

ANNEXURE

The terms and conditions on which the approval of the Government of India has been accorded for setting up ofan industrial park by M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur .

1. (3) Name of the Industrial Undertaking.

: Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited

(6) Proposed location

: Industrial Arca Bhilwara IVPhase, Districı - Bhilwara, Rajasthan-311001 ;

(in) Area of Industrial Park

: 118.81 Acres

(iv) Proposed activities

Nature of Industrial activity with NIC code

NIC Code

Description

S.No.

Division

Class

Group

Section 283

Manufacturing

: 82.64%

(v) Percentage ofallocable area earmarked for Industrial use

: 00.18%

(vi) Percentage of allocable commercial use area carmarked for

(vii) Minimum number of industrial units

: 76 Units 3309

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) )

: 727.00 Lakhs

(viii ) Total investments proposed (Amount in Rupees)

: N

(ix) Investment on built up space: for Industrial use (Amount in Rupees)

: 441.94 lakhs

investment on built up space for industrial use (Amount inRupees) (x) Investment on Infrastructure Development including

: 31-03-2006-

(xi) Proposed date of commencement of the Industrial Park

2. The minimure investment on infrastructure development in an Industrial Park shall not be less than 50 % ofthe total project cost . In the case of an Industrial Park which provides built-up space for incdhustrial use, the minimum expenditure on infrastructure development including cost of construction of industrial space, shall not be less than 60% of the total project cost.

3. Infrastructure development shall include, roads (inchoding approach roads ) , water supply and sewerage, common effluent treatment facility, telecom network, generation and distribution of power , air - conditioning and such other facilities as are for common use for industrial activity which are identifiable and are provided on commercial terms .

4. No single unit referred to in column (2) of the Table given in sub-paragraph (b ) of paragraph 6 of S.O. 354 (E) dated the 1 st April , 2002, shall occupy more than fifty percent of the allocable industrial area of an Industrial Park. For this purpose a unit means any separate and distinct entity for the purpose of one and more state or Central tax laws .

5. Necessaryapprovals, including that for foreign direct investment or non resident Indian investment by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board or Reserve Bank of India or any authority specified under any law for the time being in force, shall be taken separately as per the policy and procedures in force.

6. The tax benefits under the Act can be availed of only after the number of units indicated in Para I (vii ) of this Notification, are located in the Industrial Park.

7. M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur, shall continue to operate the Industrial Park during the period in which the benefits under clause (iii ) of sub- section (4) of section 801 Aof the Income-tax Act, 1961 are to be availed.

8. In case the commencement of the Industrial Park is delayed by more than orie year from the date indicated in Para 1 (xi ) of this notification, fresh approval will be required under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002, for availing benefits under sub- section 4( iii ) of Section 80 IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 .

9. The approval will be invalid and M/s. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur , shall be solely responsible for any repercussions of such invalidity, if

(1) the application on the basis of which the approval is accorded by the Central Government contains wrong information/misinformation or some material information has not been provided in it.

(ii) it is for the location of the industrial park for which approval has already been accorded in the name of another undertaking.

10. In case M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur , transfer the operation and maintenance of the Industrial Park (i.c. , transfaror undertaking) to another undertaking ( i.e. ,the transferce undertaking) , the transferor andtransferee shall jointly intimate to the Entrepreneurial Assistance Unit of the Secretariat for Industrial Assistance , Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi - 11 along with a copy of theagreement executed between the transferor and transferee undertaking for the aforesaid transfer.

11.The conditions mentioned in this notification as well as those included in the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 shouldbe adheredto during the period for which benefits under this scheme are to be availed. The Central Government may withdraw the above approval in case M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur, fails to comply with any of the conditions .

12.Any amendment of the project plan without the approval of the Central Government or detection in future, or failure on the part of the applicant to disclose any material fact, will invalidate the approval ofthe Industrial Park.

[Notification No. 159/2007/F. No. 178/37/2007 - ITA-

DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy.

3310

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2007/JYAISTHA 5, 1929

[PART II-SBC . 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 30 अप्रैल, 2007

(आयकर)

का.आ. 1491, -जबकि आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 ) ( यहां आगे उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 80 न क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार ने 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च, 2002 को समाप्त होति वाली अवधि के लिये संख्या का.आ. 193 ( अ ) दिनांक 30 मार्च , 1999 के जरिए तथा । अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च , 2006 को समाप्त अवधि के लिए संख्या का. आ. 354 ( अ ) के जरिए भारत सरकार, वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय ( औद्योगिक नीवि और संवर्धन विभाग ) की अधिसूचनाओं द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की योजना निर्मित और अधिसूचित की है;

और जबकि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लि. , जिसका पंजीकृत कार्यालय उद्योग भवन, तिलक मार्ग ,जयपुर-302005 में है, आईआईडी सेंटर महुआ रोड़- हिंडॉम्सिटी , जिला करौली , राजस्थान में एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास कर रहा है । और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखित नियम और शवों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 26-10-2006 के पात्र सं. 15/ 123/2005- आई पी एंड आई डी के अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क अनुमोदित्त किया है;

अब इसलिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा (4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा उक्त खंड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ औद्योगिक पार्क के रूप में मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडिस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लि. , जयपुर द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

अनुबंध

शतौंजिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कापरिशन लि, जयपुर द्वारा औधोगिक पार्क गठित किये जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया है ।

1. ( i ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम

(ii) प्रस्तावित स्थान

: आईआईडी सेंटर मशुआ रोड - हिंडॉम्सिटी , जिला करौली , राजस्थान

(ii ) ग्रोथ सेन्टर का कुल क्षेत्रफल

: 76.48 एकड़

( iv ) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

एन आई सी संहिता

विवरण

क्रम सं

प्रभाग

श्रेणी

अनुभाग

समूह

क

2एवं 3

विनिर्माण

9106%

( v ) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए प्रस्तावित आबंटनीय क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

: 8.93%

( vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित भूमि का प्रतिशत

(vii ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की न्यूनतम संख्या.

: 93 यूनिटें

(viii ) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश ( राशि रुपए में)

: 694.00 लाख

: शून्य

(ix ) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश (राशि रुपए में)

: 516.00 लाख

(x ) अवसंरचनात्मक विकास पर निवेश जिसमें औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश भी शामिल है ( राशि रुपए में )

(xi ) औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने की प्रस्तावित तिथि

: 31-3-2006

2. किसी औधोगिक पार्क में अवसंरचना विकास पर न्यूनतम निवेश कुल परियोजना लागत के 50 % से कम नहीं होगा । ऐसे औद्योगिक पार्क जो औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थल प्रदान करता है, के मामले में. औद्योगिक स्थल के निर्माण कार्य की लागत सहित विकास अवसंरचना पर न्यूनतम खर्च कुल परियोजना लागत के 60% से कम नहीं होगा । 3311 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

3. संरचना विकास में सड़क ( सम्पर्क सड़क सहित ) , जलापूर्ति तथा सीवरेज़, दूषित जल शोधन सुविधा, टेलिकॉम नेटवर्क, विद्युत उत्पादन एवं वितरण , वातानुकूलन तथा ऐसी अन्य सुविधाएं जो औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप हेतु सामान्य उपयोग के लिए हैं जो वाणिज्यिक दृष्टि से निर्धारणीय एवं प्रयुक्त हैं ।

4. दिनांक 1 अप्रैल , 2002 की का.आ. 354 ( अ ) के पैराग्राफ 6 के उप पैराग्राफ ( ख ) में निर्दिष्ट तालिका के कालम (2 ) में उल्लिखित कोई एकल इकाई किसी औद्योगिक पार्क के लिए नियत औद्योगिक क्षेत्र का 50 % से अधिक हिस्सा धारित नहीं करेगी । इस प्रयोजनार्थ किसी इकाई का आशय एक या एक से अधिक राज्य अथवा केन्द्रीय कर कानून के प्रयोजन के लिए किसी अलग तथा भिन्न कम्पनी से है । 5. आवश्यक अनुमोदनों जिनमें विदेशी निवेश संवर्धन बोर्ड के द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश अथवा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अथवा यथः समय प्रवृत्त किसी कानून के अन्तर्गत विनिर्दिष्ट कोई प्राधिकरण भी शामिल हैं , को प्रवृत्त नीति तथा प्रक्रियाओं के अनुसार अलग से लिया जाएगा ।

7. मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर उस अवधि के दौरान औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन जारी रखेगा जिस अवधि में आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 ल क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) के अन्तर्गत लाभ लिए जाने हैं।

8. यदि उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने में इस अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 ( xi ) में निर्दिष्ट तिथि से एक वर्ष से ज्यादा विलम्ब होता है तो आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 न क की उपधारा 4 ( iii ) के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त करने के लिए औद्योगिक पार्क योजना, 2002 के अंतर्गत नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा ।

9. यह अनुमोदन अवैध हो जाएगा और मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्यरिशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर ऐसी अवैधता की किसी प्रतिक्रिया के लिए स्वयं ही जिम्मेदार होगा , यदि

( i ) आवेदन पत्र जिसके आधार पर केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है , में गलत सूचना/सूचना अथवा कतिपय तथ्यपरक सूचना न दी गई हो ।

(ii ) यह उक्त औड़ोगिक पार्क की अवस्थिति हेतु है जिसके लिए अनुमोदन किसी अन्य उपक्रम के नाम में पहले ही प्रदान किया गया है ।

10. यदि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, जयपुर ( अर्थात अन्तरणकर्ता उपक्रम ) औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन और अनुरक्षण्ण किसी दूसरे उपक्रम ( अर्थात अंतरिती उपक्रम) को हस्तांतरित करेगा वो अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपर्युक्त हस्तांतरण के लिए अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपक्रम के बीच निष्पादित करार की प्रति के साथ औद्योगिक सहायता सचिवालय, औधोगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग , उद्योग भवन, नई दिल्ली-11 की उद्यमशीलता सहायता यूनिट को संयुक्त रूप से सूचित करेंगे । 11. इस अधिसूचना में उल्लिखित शर्तों के साथ - साथ औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम, 2002 में शामिल उन शर्तों का अनुपालन उस अवधि के दौरान किया जाना चाहिए जिसके लिए इस स्कीम के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त किए जाने हैं । केन्द्र सरकार उपर्युक्त अनुमोदन को वापस ले सकती है यदि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम , 2002 में विहित शतों अथवा इस अधिसूचना की किसी भी शर्त के अनुपालन में असफल रहता है ।

12. केन्द्र सरकार के अनुमोदन के बिना प्रोजेक्ट प्लान में किया गया कोई भी संशोधन अथवा भविष्य में पता लगना अथवा किसी दोस तथ्य का उ‌द्घाटन करने में आवेदक का असफल रहना, औद्योगिक पार्क के अनुमोदन को अवैध बना देना ।

[अधिसूचना सं. 160/2007/फा. सं. 178/36/2007- आ.क. नि. -1 ]

दीपक गर्ग, अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the30th April,2007

(INCOME-TAX)

S.O. 1491.-Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (iii) of sub-section (4) ofSection 80-1A of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961 ) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , has framed and notified a scheme for industrial park, by the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion) vide number S.O. 193 (E) , dated the 30th March, 1999, for the period beginning on the 1 st day of April , 1997 and ending on the 31 st day ofMarch, 2002 and vide number S.O. 354(E) datedthe 1st day of April, 2002, for the period beginning on the Ist day ofApril , 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2006;

2394 GL07-6 3312

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007 / JYAISTHA 5, 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii)] Andwhereas M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, having registered officeatUdyogBhavan , Tilak Marg, Jaipur -302005 is developing an Industrial Park at IID Centre Mahuwa Road Hindauncity. District-Karauli , Rajasthan:

And whereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No. 15/ 123 /2005 - IP & ID dated 26-10-2006 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to this notification;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (iii ) of sub - section ( 4 ) of Section 80 - IA of the said Act, the CentralGovernment hereby notifies the undertaking, being developed and being maintained and operatedby M/ s.Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur , as an industrial park for the purposes of the said clause ( iii) .

ANNEXURE

The terms and conditions on which lic approval of the Government of India has been accorded for setting up of an industrial park by M/s .Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur .

1. (1) Name of the Industrial Undertaking ,

: Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited

(ii ) Proposed location

: IID Centre Mahuwa Road Hindaurncity, District Karauli , Rajasthan:

( ⅲ) Area of Industrial Park

: 76.48 Acres

(iv) Proposed activities

Nature of Industrial activity with NIC code

NICCode

Description

S. No.

Section

Division

Class

Group

2&3

Manufacturing

: 91.06%

area carmarked for

(v) Percentage of allocable Industrial use

(vi) Percentage of allocable

: 8.93 %

arcu carmarked for

comunercial use

(vii) Minimum number of industrial units

: 93Units

: 694.00 Lakhs

(viii) Tolal investments proposed (Amount in Rupees)

: N

(ix) Investment on built up space : for Industrial use (Amount in Rupees)

: 516.00 lakhs

(x) Investment on Infrastructure Development including investment on built up space for industrial use (Amount in Rupecs )

: 31-03-2006

(xi ) Proposed date of commencement for the Industrial Park

2. The minimum investment on infrastructure development in an Industrial Park shall not be less than 50 % of the total project cost . In the case of an Industrial Park which provides built - up space for industrial use, the minimum expenditure on infrastructure development including cost of construction of industrial space , shall not be less than 60 % of the total project cost.

3 Infrastructure development shall include , roads ( including approach roads ) , water supply and sewerage , common effluent treatment facility, telecom network. generation and distribution of power, air-conditioning and such other facilities as are for common use for industrial activity which are identifiable and are provided on commercial terms.

4. No single unit referred to in column (2) of the Table given in sub -paragraph ( b ) of paragraph 6 of S.O. 354 ( E) dated the 1st April , 2002 , shall occupy more than fifty percent of the allocable industrial area of an Industrial Park. For this purpose a unit means any separate and distinct entity for the purpose of one and more state or Central tax laws .

3313

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

6. The tax benefits under the Act can be availed of only after the number of units indicated in Para 1 (vii ) of this Notification, are located in the Industrial Park.

7. M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited , Jaipur, shall continue to operate the Industrial Park during the period in which the benefits under clause (iii ) of sub- section (4) of section 801 A ofthe Income-tax Act, 1961 are to be availed.

9. The approval will be invalid and M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur, shall be solely responsible for any repercussions of such invalidity, if

(1) the application on the basis of which the approval is accorded by the Central Government contains wrong information/misinformation or some material information has not been providedin it.

(i) it is for the location of the industrial park for which approval has already been accorded in the name of another undertaking.

10. In case M/s. Rajasthan Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur, transfers the operation and maintenance of the Industrial Park ( i.e. , transferor undertaking ) to another undertaking (i.e., the transferee undertaking ), the transferor and transferee shall jointly intimate to the Entrepreneurial Assistance Utiit of the Secretariat for Industrial Assistance , Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion , Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi - 11 along with a copy of the agreement executed between the transferor and transferee undertaking for the aforesaid transfer.

11. The conditions mentioned in this notification as well as those included in the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 should be adheredto during the period for which benefits under this scheme are to be availed. The Central Governmunent may withdraw the above approval in case M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Faipur, fails to comply with any of the conditions .

12.Any amendment of the project plan without the approval of the Central Government or detection in future, or Failure on the part of the plicant to disclose any material fact , will invalidate the approval of the Inchustrial Park.

[Notification No. 160/2007/F . No. 178/36/2007 -ΓΙΑ- I ) DEEPAKGARG,Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 30 अप्रैल , 2007

(आयकर)

का. आ. 1492.-जबकि आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 ) ( यहां आगे उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्यिोंका प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार ने 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च, 2002 को समाप्त होने वाली अवधि के लिये संख्या का. आ. 193 ( अ ) दिनांक 30 मार्च, 1999 के ज़रिए तथा 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च , 2006 को समाप्त अवधि के लिए संख्या का. आ. 354 ( अ ) के जरिए भारत सरकार, वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय ( औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग ) की अधिसूचनाओं द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की योजना निर्मित और अधिसूचित की है ;

और जबकि मैसर्स बीएसईएल इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर रिअल्दी लिमिटेड ( पूर्व में बीएसईएल इन्फॉर्मेशन सिस्टम्स लिमिटेड के नाम से जाना जाता था) जिसका पंजीकृत कार्यालय बीएसईएल टेक पार्क, प्लॉट सं. 39/5 एवं 39/5 ए, सेक्टर 30 ए, वाशी रेलवे स्टेशन कॉम्लैक्स के सामने , वाशी , नवी मुम्बई-400 705 है, में एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास कर रहा है ।

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखव नियम और शतों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 31-12-2002 के पत्र सं. 15( 10 )/2002- आई पी एंड आई डी के अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क अनुमोदित किया है ;

अब इसलिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 80 हा क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंद ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों के प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा उक्त खंड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ औद्योगिक पार्क के रूप में मैसर्स बीएसईएल इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर रिअल्टी लिमिटेड , नवी मुम्बई द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्छ उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

अनुबंध

शर्तें जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स बीएसईएल इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर रिअल्टी लिमिटेड , नवी मुम्बई द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है । 3314

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/JYAJSTHA 5, 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ) 1. ( i ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम : बीएसईएल इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर रिअल्टी लिमिटेड ( पूर्व में बीएसईएल इन्फॉर्मेशन सिस्टम्स लिमिटेड के नाम से जाना जाता था )

( ii ) प्रस्तावित स्थान 30 ए, वाशी i

प्लॉट सं. 39/5 एवं 39/5 ए, सेक्टर रेलवे स्टेशन कॉम्प्लैक्स के सामने , वाशी नवी मुम्बई -400 705

( iii ) औद्यागिक पार्क का क्षेत्रफल

24253.8 वर्गमीटर

( iv ) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

एन आई सी संहिता

विवरण

क्रम सं.

प्रभाग

अनुभाग

श्रेणी

समूह

क

892

डाटा प्रोसेंसिंग, साफ्टवेयर डेवलपमेंट एंड कम्प्यूटर कन्सल्टेंसी सर्विसिज 8

893

कारोबार तथा प्रबंधन कंसलटेंसी कार्यकलाप

894

वास्तुशिल्पीय तथा इंजीनियरी एवं अन्य तकनीकी कंसलटेंसी कार्यकलाप म

895

तकनीकी परीक्षण एवं विश्लेषण सेवाएं

(

91%

v ) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए प्रस्तावित आबंटनीय क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

( vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित भूमि का प्रतिशत

( vii ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की प्रस्तावित संख्या

71 यूनिटें

(viii ) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश ( राशि रूपए में )

56.75 करोड़ रु.

(

36.0 करोड़ रु.

is) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थाति पर निवेश ( राशि रुपये में )

(

50.25करोड़ रु.

x) अवसंरचनात्मक विकास पर निवेश जिसमें औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश भी शामिल है (राशि रुपए में)

(

31-03-2004

xi ) औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने की प्रस्ताविततिथि

2. किसी औद्योगिक पार्क में अवसंरचना विकास पर न्यूनतम निवेश कुल परियोजना लागत के 50 % से कम नहीं होगा । ऐसे औद्योगिक पार्क जो औद्योगिक उपयोग कं लिए निर्मिव स्थल प्रदान करता है, के मामले में औद्योगिक स्थल के निर्माण कार्य की लागत सहित विकास अवसरंचना पर न्यूनतम खर्च कुल परियोजना लागत के 60 % से कम नहीं होगा ।

3. संरचना विकास में सड़क ( सम्पर्क सड़क सहित ) , जलापूर्ति तथा सीवरेज , दूषित जल शोधन सुविधा, टेलिकॉम नेटवर्क, विद्युत उत्पादन एवं वितरण, वातानुकुलन तथा ऐसी अन्य सुविधाएं जो औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप हेतु सामान्य उपयोग के लिए हैं जो वाणिज्यिक दृष्टि से निर्धारणीय एवं प्रयुक्त हैं ।

4. दिनांक 1 अप्रैल , 2002 की का.आ. 354 ( अ ) के पैराग्राफ 6 को उप पैराग्राफ ( ख ) में निर्दिष्ट तालिका के कालम ( 2 ) में उल्लिखित कोई एकल इकाई किसी औद्योगिक पार्क के लिए नियत औद्योगिक क्षेत्र का 50% से अधिक हिस्सा धारित नहीं करेगी । इस प्रयोजनार्थ किसी इकाई का आशय एक या एक से अधिक राज्य अथवा केन्द्रीय कर कानून के प्रयोजन के लिए किसी अलग तथा भिन्न कम्पनी से है । 5. आवश्यक अनुमोदनों जिनमें विदेशी विन्दा बांट के द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश अथवा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अथवा यथा समय प्रवृत्त किली ककये विनिर्दिष्ट कोई प्राधिकरण भी शामिल हैं, को प्रवृत्त नीति तथा प्रक्रियाओं के अनुसार अलग से लिया जाएगा । 3315

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

7. मैसर्स बीएसईएल इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर रिअल्टी लिमिटेड, नवी मुम्बई उस अवधि के दौरान औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन जारी रखेगा जिस अवधि में आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 80 न क की उपधारा ( 4 ) को खंड ( iii ) के अन्तर्गत लाभ लिए जाने हैं ।

8. यदि उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने में इस अधिसूचना के पैरा । (xi ) में निर्दिष्ट तिथि से एक वर्ष से ज्यादा विलम्ब होता है तो आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा 4 ( iii ) के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त करने के लिए औद्योगिक पार्क योजना, 2002 के अंतर्गत नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा ।

9. यह अनुमोदन अवैध हो जाएगा और मैसर्स बीएसईएल इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्बर रिअल्टी लिमिटेड , नवी मुम्बई ऐसी अवैधता की किसी प्रतिक्रिया के लिए स्वयं ही जिम्मेदार होगा, यदि

(1 ) आवेदन पत्र जिसके आधार पर केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है, में गलत सूचना/सूचना अथक कतिपय तथ्यपरक सूत्रमा न दी गई हो ।

(ii ) यह उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क की अवस्थिति हेतु है जिसके लिए अनुमोदन किसी अन्य उपक्रम के नाम में पहले ही प्रदान किया गया है ।

10. यदि मैसर्स बीएसईएल इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्बर रिअल्टी लिमिटेड, नवी मुम्बां ( अर्थात अन्तरणकर्ता उपक्रम ) औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन और अनुरक्षण किसी दूसरे उपक्रम ( अर्थात अंतरिती उपक्रम ) को हस्तांतरित करेगा तो अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपर्युक्त हस्तांतरण के लिए अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपक्रम के बीच निष्पादित करार की प्रति के साथ औद्योगिक सहायता सचिवालय , औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग , उद्योग भवन , नई दिल्ली-11 की उद्यमशीलता सहायता यूनिट संयुक्त रूप से सूचित करेंगे ।

11. इस अधिसूचना में उल्लिखत शों के साथ - साथ औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम, 2002 में शामिल उन शवों का अनुपालन उस अवधि के दौरान किया जाना चाहिए जिसके लिए इस स्कीम के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त किए जाने हैं । केन्द्र सरकार उपर्युक्त अनुमोदन को वाफ्स ले सकी है यदि मैसर्स बीएसईएल इन्फ्रास्ट्रस्वर रिअल्टी लिमिटेड , नवी मुम्बई में विहित शों अथवा इस अधिसूचना की किसी भी शर्त के अनुपालन में असफल रहता है ।

12. केन्द्र सरकार के अनुमोदन के बिना प्रोजेक्ट प्लान में किया गया कोई भी संशोधन अथवा भविष्य में पता लगना अथवा किसी ठोस तथ्य का उ‌द्घाटन करने में आवेदक का असफल रहना , औद्योगिक पार्क के अनुमोदन को अवैध बना देना ।

[ अधिसबूना सं. 161 /2007/फा. सं. 178/55/2007- आ.क.नि. 1 ]

दीपक गर्ग, अवर सचिव

NewDelhi, the 30thApril,2007

(INCOME-TAX)

S.O. 1492-Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (ii ) of sub-section (4) of Section80- LA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961 ) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , has framed and notified ascheme for industrial park, by the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion ) vide Number S.O. 193 (E) , dated the 30th March, 1999, for the period begining on the 1st day of April , 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2002 and vide Number 3.0. 354 (E) dated the 1st day of April, 2002 for the periodbegining on the 1st day of April, 1997 and ending on the 31st day ofMarch, 2006;

Andwhereas M/s . BSEL Infrastructure Realty Limited (Earlier known as BSEL Information Systems Limited) having its registered office at BSEL Tech Park, Plot No. 39/5 & 39/5A, Sector 30A, Opp . Vashi Railway Station Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai -400705 is developing an Industrial Park at Plot No. 39/5 & 39/5A, Sector 30A, Opp . Vashi Railway Station Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai -400705;

Andwhereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No. 15 ( 10 )/2002 - IP and ID dated 31-12-2002 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to this notification ;

Now, therefore , in exercise ofthe powers conferred by clanse (iii ) of sub-section (4) of Section 80 - IA of the said Act, the Central Government hereby notifies the undertaking, being developed and being maintained and operated by M/s . BSEL Infrastructure Realty Limited, Navi Mumbai , as an industrial park for the purposes of the said clause ( ii ).

ANNEXURE

TheTerms and conditions on which the approval of the Govemment of India has been accorded for setting up of an industrial park by M/s . BSEL Infrastructure Realty Limited, Navi Mumbai .

3316

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26 , 2007/JYAISTHA 5, 1929

[PART II-SEC. i) ] I.

(1) Name of the Industrial Undertaking

BSEL. Infrastructure Realty Limited (earlier known as BSEL Information Systems Limited)

(i) Proposed location

Plot No. 39/5 & 39/5A, Sector 30A, Opp. Vashi Railway Station Complex , Vashi , Navi Mumbai -400705

;

(iii) Area of Industrial Park

24253.8 SquareMeters

(iv) Proposed Activities

Nature of Industrial Activity with NIC code

NICCode

Description

Sl . No.

Section

Division

Class

Group

892

Data Processing , software development and computer consultancy services B

893

Business and management consultancy activities C

894

Architectural and engineering and other technical consultancy activities D

895

Technical testing and analysis services

91%

(v) Percentage of altocable area earmarked for industrial usc

: 9%

(vi) Percentage of allocable area carmarked for commercial use

: 71Units

(vii) Minimum number of Industrial Units

(viii)

Rs.56.75 Crores

Total investment proposed (Amount inRupees )

Rs . 36.0 Crores

(ix) Investment on built up space for industrial use (Amount in Rupees )

Rs. 50.25 Crores

(x) Investment on infrastructure development including investment jon built up space for industrial use (Amount in Rupees)

:

31-03-2004

(xi) Proposed date of commencement of the Industrialpark

2. The minimum investment on infrastructure development in an Indsutrial Park shall not be less than 50 % of the total project cost. Inthe case of an Industrial Park which provides built-up space for industrial use , the minimum expenditure on infrastructure development including cost of construction of industrial space , shall not be less than 60 % of the total project cost.

3. Infrastructure development shall include , roads ( including approach roads ), water supply and sewerage , common effluent treatment facility, telecom network, gencration and distribution of power , air - conditioning and such other facilities as are for common use for industrial activity which are identifiable and are provided on commercial terms .

4. No single unit referred to in coloum (2) of the Table given in sub -paragraph (b ) of paragraph 6 of S.O. 354 ( E) dated the 1st April , 2002, shall occupy more than fifty percent of the allocable industrial arca of an Industrial park . For this purpose a unit means any separate and distinct entity for the purpose of one and more staic or Central tax laws .

5.Necessary approvals , including that for foreign direct investment or non - resident Indian investment by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board or Reserve Bank of India or any authority specified under any law for the time being in force, shall be taken separately as per the policy and procedures in force .

3317

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (i) )

6.The tax benefits under the Act can be availed of only after the number of units indicated in Para (vii) of this Notification, are located in the Industrial Park.

7. M/ s. BSEL Infrastructure Realty Limited, Navi Mumbai, shall continue to operate the Industrial Park during the period in which the benefits under clause ( iii ) of sub- section (4) of Section 80- IA of the Income- tax Act, 1961 are to be availed .

8. In case the commencement of the Industrial Park is delayed by more than one year from the date indicated in Para 1 (xi ) ofthis notification, fresh approval will be required under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002, for avallingbenefits under sub- section 4(iii ) of Section 80- IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

9. The approval will be invalid and M/ s . BSEL. Infrastructure Realty Limited, Navi Mumbai, shall be solely responsible for any repercussions of such invalidity, if:

(i) the application on the basis of which the approval is accorded by the Central Government contains wrong information/ misinformation or some material information has not been provided in it.

(ii) it is for the location of the industrial park for which approval has already been accorded in the name of another undertaking .

10. In case M/s. BSEL Infrastructure Realty Limited, Navi Mumbai, transfers the operation and maintenance ofthe industrial park ( i.e. , transferor undertaking) to another undertaking ( i.c. , the transferee undertaking ) , the transferor and transferee shalljointly intimate to the Entrepreneurial Assistance Unit ofthe Secretariat for Industrial Assistance, Department ofIndustrial Policyand Promotion, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi- 11 along with a copy of the agreement executed betweenthe transferor and transferee undertaking for the aforesaid transfer.

11. The conditions mentioned in this notification as well as those included in the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 should be adbered to during the period for which benefits under this scheme are to be availed. The Central Government may withdraw the above approval in case M/s . BSEL Infrastructure Realty Limited, Navi Mumbai, fails to comply with anyof the conditions .

12.Any amendment of the project plan without the approval of the Central Government or detection in future , or failure onthe part of the applicant to disclose any material fact, will invalidate the approval ofthe industrial park.

[Notification No. 161/2007/F.No. 178/55/2007-ГТА-1]

DEEPAK GARG,Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 30 अप्रैल, 2007

(आयकर)

का.आ. 1493. - जबकि आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 ) ( यहां आगे उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 80 क की उप- धारा (4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार ने 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च , 2002 को समाप्त होने वाली अवधि के लिये संख्या का. आ. 193 ( अ ) दिनांक 30 मार्च , 1999 के जरिए तथा 1 अप्रैल, 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च, 2006 को समाप्त अवधि के लिए संख्या का. आ . 354 ( अ ) दिनांक 1 अप्रैल , 2002 के सारिए भारत सरकार, वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय ( औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग ) की अधिसूचनाओं द्वारा औधोगिक पार्क की योजना निर्मित और अधिसूचित की है;

और जबकि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कापरिशन लिमिटेड, जिसका पंजीकृत कार्यालय उद्योग भवन, तिलक मार्ग, जयपुर-302005 में है, एग्रो फूड पार्क, रनपुर, जिला कोटा , राजस्थान में एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास कर रहा है । और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखित शवों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 26-10-2006 के पत्र सं. 15/130/2005 - आई पी एंड आई की के अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क को अनुमोदित किया है;

अब, इसलिए , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 80झक की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार एतद्दारा उक्त खंड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ औद्योगिक पार्क के रूप में मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है।

अनुबंध

शर्तेंजिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, जयपुर द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है । 3318

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26, 2007 /JYAISTHA 5, 1929

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii) ) 1. ( i ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम

: राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड (ii ) प्रस्तावित स्थान

: एग्रो फूड पार्क , रनपुर, जिला- कोटा, राजस्थान

(ii ) औद्योगिक पार्क का कुल क्षेत्रफल

139.80 एकड़

(iv ) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप :

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

एन आई सी संहिता

विवरण

क्रम सं.

प्रभाग

अनुभाग

श्रेणी

समूह

क

2 एवं 3

सभी विनिर्माण कार्य- कलाप ( v )

99.68%

औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए प्रस्तावित : आबंटनीय क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

(

0.32%

vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित भूमि का प्रतिशत

(vii ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की न्यूनतम संख्या

126 यूनिटें

( viii) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश ( राशि रूपए में ) :

1047.83 लाख

(

ix) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित शून्य स्थात पर निवेश ( राशि रुपये में )

1003.95 लाख

निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश भी शामिल है

(x ) अवसंरचनात्मक विकास पर निवेश जिसमें औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए (राशि रुपए में)

(xi ) औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने की तिथि : 31-03-2006

2. किसी औद्योगिक पार्क में अवसंरचना विकाभ पर न्यूनतम निवेश कुल परियोजना लागत के 50 % से कम नहीं होगा । ऐसे औद्योगिक पार्क जो औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित्त स्थल प्रदान करता है के मामले में औद्योगिक स्थल के निर्माण कार्य की लागत सहित अवसंरचना विकास पर न्यूनतम खर्च कुल परियोजना लागत के 60 % से कम नहीं होगा।

3. अवसंरचना विकास में सड़क ( सम्पर्क सड़क सहित ) जलापूर्ति तथा सीवरेज , दूषित जल शोधन सुविधा, टेलिकॉम नेटवर्क, विद्युत उत्पादन एवं वितरण , बातानुकूलन तथा ऐसी अन्य सुविधाएं जो औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप हेतु सामान्य उपयोग के लिए हैं जो निर्धारणीय हैं एवं वाणिज्यिक दृष्टि से उपलब्ध कराई जाती हैं ।

4. दिनांक । अप्रैल, 2002 की का,आ. 354 ( अ ) के पैराग्राफ 6 के उप- पैराग्राफ ( ख ) में निर्दिष्ट तालिका के कालम (2 ) में उल्लिखित कोई भी एकल इकाई किसी औद्योगिक पार्क के लिए नियत औद्योगिक क्षेत्र का 50 % से अधिक हिस्सा धारित नहीं करेगी । इस प्रयोजनार्थ किसी इकाई का आशय एक या एक से अधिक राज्य अथवा केन्द्रीय कर कानून के प्रयोजन के लिए किसी अलग तथा भित्र कम्पनी सेहै ।

5. अवश्यक अनुमोदनों जिनमें विदेशी निवेश संवर्धन बोर्ड अथवा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अथवा यथा समय प्रवृत्त किसी कानून के अंतर्गत विनिर्दिष्ट किसी प्राधिकरण के द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश भी शामिल हैं , को प्रवृत्त नीति तथा प्रक्रियाओं के अनुसार अलग से लिया जाएगा।

6. इस अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 ( vii ) में विनिर्दिष्ट संख्या में इकाइ‌यों के औद्योगिक पार्क में अवस्थित होने के उपरान्त ही इस अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत कर लाभ प्राप्त हो सकते हैं ।

7. मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, जयपुर उस अवधि के दौरान औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन जारी रखेगा जिस अवधि में आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) के अन्तर्गत लाभ लिए आने 8. यदि उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने में इस अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 ( xi ) में निर्दिष्ट विधि से एक वर्ष से ज्यादा विलम्ब होगा तो आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा 4 ( iii ) के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त करने के लिए औद्योगिक पार्क योजना , 2002 के अंतर्गत नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा। 3319 भारत का राजपुत्र : मई 26 , 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ji ) ]

9. यह अनुमोदन अवैध रहेगा और मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल उसलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर ऐसी किसी अवैधता की प्रतिक्रिया के लिए स्वयं ही जिम्मेदार होगा , यदि

( ii ) यह उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क की अवस्थित हेतु हो जिसके लिए अनुमोदन किसी अन्य उपकर्म के नाम में पहले ही प्रदान किया गया हो ।

10. यदि मैसर्स राशस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर ( अर्थात् अन्तरणकतां उपक्रम ) औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन और अनुरक्षण किसी दूसरे उपक्रम ( अर्थात अंतरिती उपक्रम) को हस्तांतरित करेगा तो अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपर्युक्त हस्तांतरण के लिए अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपक्रम के बीच निष्पादित करार की प्रति के साथ औद्योगिक महायता सचिवालय , औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग , उद्योग भवन, नई दिल्ली -11 की उद्यमशीलता सहायता यूनिट को संयुक्त रूप से सूचित करेंगे । 11. इस अधिसूचना में उल्लिखित शतों के साथ- साथ औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम, 2002 में शामिल उन शतों का अनुपालन उस अवधि के दौरान किया जाना चाहिए जिसमें इस स्कीम के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त किए जाने हैं । केन्द्र सरकार उपर्युक्त अनुमोदन को वापस ले सकती है यदि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर किसी भी शर्त के अनुपालन में असफल रहता है । 12. केन्द्र सरकार के अनुमोदन के बिना प्रोजेक्ट प्लान में किया गया कोई भी संशोधन अथवा भविष्य में पता लगना अध्या किसी ठोस तथ्य का उद्घाटन करने में आवेदक का असंफल रहना , औद्योगिक पार्क के अनुमोदन को अवैध बना देना ।

[ अधिसूचना सं. 162/2007 /फा. सं. 178/45/2007- आ.क.नि. - 11

दीपक गर्ग, अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 30thApril,2007

(INCOME TAX)

S.O. 1493-Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( ii ) of sub-section (4) ofSection80-1A of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961 ) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , has framed and notified a scheme for Industrial Park, by the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion ) vide Number S.O.193 (E) , dated the 30th March, 1999, for the period beginning on the 1st day ofApril , 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2002 and vide Number S.O. 354(E) dated the 1st day ofApril ,2002, for the period beginning on the Ist day of April, 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2006;

Andwhereas M/ s. Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited, having registered office at Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg , Jaipur -302005 is developing an Industrial Park at Agro Food Park, RampurDistrict Kota, Rajasthan;

Andwhereasthe Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry ofCommerce and Industry letter No. 15/ 130/2005- IP& ID , dated 25-10-2006 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure, to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (iii ) of sub-section (4) of Section 80- IA of the said Act, the Central Government hereby notifies the undertaking, being developed and being maintained and operated by M/s. Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur as an Industrial Park for the purposes of the said clause (iii) .

ANNEXURE

Theterms and conditions on which the approval of the Government of India has been accorded for setting up of an Industrial Park by Mis . Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur .

1. (1) Name of the Industrial Undertaking

M/s .Rajasthan State Industrial Developinent and Investment CorporationLimited

Agro Food Park, Ranpur, District -Kota, Rajasthan (ii) Proposed location

139.80Acres

(iii) Area of Industrial Park

(iv) Proposed Activities

Nature of Industrial Activity with NIC code

Description NIC Code

Class

Division

Group

Section

Sl .No.

All Manufacturing Activities 2and3

2304GI-07-7 3320

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26, 2007/ JYAISTHA 5, 1929

[PART B-Sec . 3(ii) ]

99.68%

(v) Percentage of allocable area carmarked for industrial use

(vi)

0.32%

Percentage of allocable area carmarked for commercial use

:

126Units

(ii) Minimum number of Industrial Units

(

:

1047.83 lakhs

vii) Total investment proposed (Amount in Rupees)

(2) Investment on built up space for industrial use (Amount in Rupecs)

:

1003.95lakhs

(x) Investment on infrastructure Development including investiment on built up space for industrial usc (Amount in Rupees)

:

31-03-2006

) Proposed date of commencement of the Industrial park

2. The minimum investment on infrastructure development in an Indsutrial Park shall not be less than 50% of the totalprojectcost .In the case of an Industrial Park which provides built-up space for industrial use, the minimum expenditure on infrastructure development including cost of construction of industrial space , shall not be less than 60 % of the total project cost.

3. Infrastructure development shall include, roads (including approach roads) , water supply and sewerage, comm effluent treatment facility, telecom network , generation and distribution ofpower , air- conditioning and such other facilities as are for common use for industrial activity which are identifiable and are provided on commercial terms .

4. No single unit referred to in coloum ( 2 ) of the Table given in sub -paragraph (b ) of paragraph 6 of S.O. 354 (E) dated the 1stApril , 2002, shall occupy more than fifty percent of the allocable industrial area of an Industrial Park. For this purpose a unit means any separate and distinct entity for the purpose of one and more state or Centraf tax laws .

5. Necessary approvals, including that for foreign direct investment or non - resident Indian investment by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board or Reserve Bank of India or any authority specified under any law for the time being in force, shall be taken separately as per the policy and procedures in force.

6. The taxbenefits under the Act can be availed of only after the number of units indicated in Para 1 ( vii) of this Notification, are located ir. the Industrial Park.

7.M/s. Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur shall continue to operate the Industrial Park during the period in which the benefits under clause ( iii) of sub - section (4) of Section 80-1A of the Income-taxAct, 1961 are to be availed .

8. In case the commencement of the industrial Park is delayed by more than one year from the date indicated in Para 1 (xi ) ofthis notification, fresh approval will be required under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002, for availing benefits under sub-section 4( iii ) of Section 80 - IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 .

9. The approval will be invalid and Mis . Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur shalt be solely responsible for any icpercussions of such invalidity, if

(i) the application on the basis of which the approval is accorded by the Central Government contains wrong information/ misinformation or some material information has not been provided in it .

(i) it is for the location of the industrial park for which approval has already been accorded in the name of apother undertaking . :

10. In case M/s. Rajasthan Statc Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur, transfers the operation and maintenance of the industrial park ( i.e. , transferor undertaking ) to another undertaking ( i.e. , the transferee undertaking ),the transferor and transferec shall jointly intimate to the Entrepreneurial Assistance Unit of the Secretariat for Industrial Assistance, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi - 11 along with a copy of the agreement executed between the transferor and transferee undertaking for the aforesaid transfer.

3321 भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) )

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

11. The conditions mentioned in this notification as well as those included in the Industrial Park Scheme ,2002 should be adhered to during the period for which benefits under this scheme are to be availed. The Central Governmentmay withdraw the above approval in case Mis. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Liruited. Jaipur, fails to comply with any of the conditions.

12.Any amendment of the project plan without the approval of the Central Government or detection in future, or failure on the part of the applicantto disclose any material fact, will invalidate the approval of the industrial park.

[Notification No. 162/2007/F.No. 178/45/2007- ΙΤΑ- Π

DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 30 अप्रैल, 2007

(आयकर)

का.आ. 1494.- जबकि आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( 196) का १३ ) ( यहां आगे उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 80झ क की उप- धारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग १०२ते हुए केन्द्र सरकार ने 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च, 2002 को अमाप्त होने वाली अवधि के लिये संख्या का. आ. 193 ( अ ) दिनांक 30 मार्च, 1999 के जरिए सथा 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च, 2006 को समाप्त अवधि के लिए संख्या का. आ. 354( अ) दिक । अप्रैल , 2002 के जरिए भारत सरकार , वाणिज्य और उडोग मंत्रालय (औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग ) की अधिसूचनाओं द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की योजना निर्मित और अधिसूचित की है;

और जबकि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, जिसका पंजीकृत कार्यालय उद्योग भवन, विलक मार्ग , जयपुर-302005 में है, इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया बरनाळा । फेस , ग्राम - बरनाडा, तहसील- लूनी , जिला- जोधपुर , राजस्थान में एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास कर रहा है;

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखित शर्तों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 23-10-2006 के पत्र सं. 15/126/2005- आई पी एंड आई की के अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क को अनुमोदित किया है;

अब , इसलिए , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार एत‌द्दारा उक्त खंड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ औद्योगिक पार्क के रूप में मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कापरिशन लिमिटेड, जयपुर द्वारा विकसिव तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

अनुबंध

शर्तेंजिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर द्वारा औहोगिक पार्क गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है ।

1. ( 1 ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम

: राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड

(ii ) प्रस्तावित स्थान

इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया बरनादा- III फेस , ग्राम- बरनाडा , तहसील- लूनी , जिला- जोधपुर , राजस्थान

:

162.10 एकड़

( iii ) औद्योगिक पार्क का कुल क्षेत्रफल

( iv ) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

विवरण

एन आई सी संहिता

श्रेणी

क्रम सं.

प्रभाग

अनुभाग

समूह

क

विर्निमाण

2 एवं 3

93.49%

(v ) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए प्रस्तावित आबंटनीय क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

6.51%

( vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित भूमिका प्रतिशत

190 यूनिटें

(vii ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की प्रस्तावित संख्या

860.87 लाख

(viii ) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश ( राशि रूपए में ) 3322

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007 / JYAISTHA 5, 1929

PART I-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] (ix

शून्य

) । औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश ( राशि रुपये में)

(x ) अवसंरचनात्मक विकास पर निर्देश | जिसमें औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश भी शामिल है | ( राशि रुपए में) 704.36 लाख

( xi ) । औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने की 31-03-2006

2. किसी औद्योगिक पार्क में अवसंरचना विकास पर न्यूनतम निवेश कुल परियोजना लागत के 50 % से कम नहीं होगा । ऐसे औद्योगिक पार्क जो औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थल प्रदान करता है के मामले में औधोगिक स्थल के निर्माण कार्य की लागत सहित अवसंरचना विकास पर न्यूनतम खर्च कुल परियोजना लागत के 60 % से कम नहीं होगा ।

| 3. अन्नसंरचना विकास में सड़क ( सम्पर्क सड़क सहित ) जलापूर्ति तथा सीवरेज , दूषित जल शोधन सुविधा, टेलिकॉम नेटवर्क , विद्युत उत्पादन एवं वितरण, वातानुकूलन तथा ऐसी अन्य सुविधाएं जो औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप हेतु सामान्य उपयोग के लिए हैं जो निर्धारणीय हैं एवं वाणिज्यिक दृष्टि से उपलब्ध कराई जाती हैं ।

14. दिनांक 1 अप्रैल , 2002 की का.आ. 154 ( अ ) के पैराग्राफ 6 के उप- पैराग्राफ ( ख ) में निर्दिष्ट तालिका के कालम ( 2 ) में उल्लिखित कोई भी एकल इकाई किसी औद्योगिक पार्क के लिए नियत औद्योगिक क्षेत्र का 50 से अधिक हिस्सा धारित नहीं करेगी । इस प्रयोजनार्थ क्रिसी इकाई का आशय एक या एक से अधिक राज्य अथषा केन्द्रीय कर कानून के प्रयोजन के लिए किसी अलग तथा भिन्न कम्पनी से है । 5. आवश्यक अनुमोदनों जिनमें विदेशी निवेश संवर्धन बोर्ड अथवा भारतीय रिज़र्व बैंक अथवा यथा समय प्रवृत्त किसी कानून के अंतर्गत विनिर्दिष्व किमी प्राधिकरण के द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश भी शामिल हैं, को प्रवृत्त नीति तथा प्रक्रियाओं के अनुसार अलग से लिया जाएगा ।

! 7. गैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर उस अवधि के दौराप औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन जारी रखेगा जिस अवधि में आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 80 स क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) के अन्तर्गत लाभ लिए जाने हैं ।

8. यदि उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने में इस अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 ( xi ) में निर्दिष्ट तिथि से एक वर्ष से ज्यादा विलम्ब होगा तो आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा 4 ( iii ) के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त करने के लिए औद्योगिक पार्क योजना , 2002 के अंतर्गत नंया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा ।

५. यह अनुमोदन अवैध रहंगा और मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डक्लपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर ऐसी किसी अवैधता की प्रतिक्रिया के लिए स्वयं ही जिम्मेदार होगा, यदि :

(i ) आबेदन पत्र जिसके आधार पर केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है, में गलत सूचना/त्रुटिपूर्ण सूचना अथवा कतिपय तथ्यपरक सूचना न दी गई हो ।

(ii ) यह उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क की अवस्थिति हेतु हो जिसके लिए अनुमोदन किसी अन्य उपक्रम के नाम में पहले ही प्रदान किया गया हो ।

10. यदि मेसर्स राजस्थान स्टंट इंडस्ट्रियले डवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, जयपुर ( अर्थात् अन्तरणकर्ता उपक्रम ) औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन और अनुरक्षण किसी दूसरे उपक्रम ( अर्थात् अंतरिती उपक्रम ) को हस्तांतरित करेगा तो अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपर्युक्त हस्तांतरण के लिए अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपक्रम के बीच निष्पादित करार की प्रति के साथ औद्योगिक सहायता सचिवालय, औद्यागिक नीति और संवर्धन।' भाग , उद्योग भवन, भई दिल्ली -11 की लद्यमशीलता सहायता यूनिट को संयुक्त रूप से सूचित करेंगे । 11. इस अधिसूचना में उल्लिखित शतों में गाथ माथ आंद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम , 2002 में शामिल शर्तों का अनुपालन उस अवधि कं हगरात्र किया जाना चाहिए जिसमें इस स्कीम के अंतर्गन लाग पाप्त किए जाने हैं । केन्द्र सरकार उपर्युक्त अनुमोदन को वापस ले सकती है यदि इसमें राजस्थान स्टंट इंडस्ट्रियल डवलपमेंट एंड इनंद कर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, जयपुर किसी भी शर्त के अनुपालन में असफल रहता है । 3323

भारत का राजपत्र मई 26 , 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

12. केन्द्र सरकार के अनुमोदन के बिना प्रोजेक्ट प्लान में किया गया कोई भी संशोधन अथवा भविष्य में पता लगना अथवा किसी ठोस सथ्य का उ‌द्घाटन करने में आवेदक का असफल रहना , औधोगिक पार्क के अनुमोदन को अवैध बना देना ।

[अधिसूचना सं. 163/2007/पक्ष सं. 178/43/2007- आ.क.नि. -1 ]

दीपक गर्ग, अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 30th April, 2007

(INCOME-TAX)

S.O. 1494, Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (iii) of Sub- section (4) of Section 80-1A of the Income - tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961 ) (hereinafter referred to as the saidAct), has framed and notified a scheme for Industrial Park, by the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion) vidė number S.O.193 (E) , dated the 30th March , 1999, for the period beginning on the 1st day of April , 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2002 and vide number S.O. 354(E) dated the 1stday ofApril , 2002, for the period beginning on the 1st day of April, 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March,2006;

Andwhereas M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited, having registered office at Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg , Jaipur -302005 is developing an Industrial Park at Industrial Area Boranada- III Phase, Village-Boranada, Tehsil-Luni , District -Jodhpur, Rajasthan -342001;

Andwhereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry Jetter No. 15/126/2005 - Ir &ID , dated 23-10-2006 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure , to this notification;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii ) of Sub- section (4) of Section 80 - IA of the said Act, the Central Government hereby notifies the undertaking, being developed and being maintained and operatedby M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited , Jaipur as an Industrial Park for the purposes of the said clause (iii) .

ANNEXURE

The terms and conditions on which the approval of the Government of India has been accorded for setting up of an Industrial Park by M/ s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur .

1. (1) Name of the Industrial Undertaking

M/s .Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited

( 6) Proposed location

Industrial Area Boranada- II, Phase , Village-Boranada, Tehsil-Luni , District - Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342001

162.10Acres

(ii) Area of Industrial Park

(iv) Proposed Activities

Nature of Industrial Activity with NICCode

NIC Code

Description

Class

Section

Division

Sl . No.

Group

Manufacturing 2and3

93.49%

(v) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for industrial use

6.51%

(vi) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for commercial use

190Units

(vii) Minimum number of Industrial Units

860.87Lakhs

(viii) Total investments proposed (Amount in Rupees)

Nil

(x) Investment on built up space for industrial use (Amount in Rupees) 3324

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007 /JYAISTHA 5, 1929

PART I-SEC.3 ( ii) )

704.36Lakhs

(x) Investment on infrastructure Development including investment on built up space for industrial use (Amount in Rupees)

31-03-2006

(xi) Proposed date of commencement of the Industrial Park

2. The minimum investment on infrastructure development in an Industrial Park shall not be less than 50 % of the total project cost . Inthe case of an Industrial Park which provides built-up space for industrial use , the minimum expenditure on infrastructure development including cost of construction of industrial space, shall not be less than 60 % of the total project cost.

3.Infrastructure development shalt include , roads ( including approach roads ) , water supply and sewerage , common effluent treatment facility, telecom network, generation and distribution of power, air - conditioning and such other facilities asare for common use for industrial activity which are identifiable and are provided on commercial terms .

4. No single unit referred to in coloum (2) of the Table given in sub- paragraph(b ) of paragraph 6 of S.O. 354 (E) dated the 1stApril, 2002, shall occupy more than fifty percent of the allocable industrial area of an Industrial Park. For this purpose a unit means any separate and distinct entity for the purposepose of one and more state or Central tax laws .

5.Necessary approvals , including that for foreign direct investment or non - resident Indian investment by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board or Reserve Bank of India or any authority specified under any law for the time being in force, shall be taken separately as per the policy and procedures in force.

6. The tax benefits under the Act can be availed of only after the number of units indicated in Para 1 ( vii ) of this Notification, are located in the Industrial Park.

7.M/s. Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited , Jaipur shall continue to operate the Industrial Park during the period in which the benefits under clause (iii ) of sub - section (4) of Section 80 -LA of the Income- tax Act, 1961 are to be availed.

8. In case the commencement of the Industrial Park is delayed by more than one year from the date indicated in Para 1 (xi ) ofthis notification, fresh approval will be required under the Industrial Park Scheme , 2002, for availing benefits under sub - section 4( iii ) of Section 80- IA of the Income Tax Act , 1961 .

9. The approval will be invalid and M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur shall be solely responsible for any repercussions of such invalidity, if.

(i) be application on the basis of which the approval is accorded by the Central Government contains wrong Information/misinformation or some material information has not been provided in it.

(i) it is for the location of the industrial park for which approval has already been accorded in the name of another undertaking.

10. In case M/s,Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited , Jaipur, transfers the operation and maintenance of the industrial park ( i.c. , transferor undertaking) to another undertaking ( i.c. , the transferee undertaking) , the transferor and transferee shall jointly intimate to the Entrepreneurial Assistance Unit of the Secretariat for Industrial Assistance , Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion , Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi - 11 along with a copy of the agreement executed between the transferor and transferee undertaking for the aforesaid transfer .

11. The conditions mentioned in this notification as well as those included in the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 should be adhered to during the period for which benefits under this scheme are to be availed. The Central Government may withdraw the above approval in case M/ s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur, failsto comply with any ofthe conditions.

12.Any amendment of the project plan without the approval of the Central Government or detection in future, or failure on thepart of the applicant to disclose any material fact, will invalidate the approval of the industrial park .

[Notification No. 163/2007/F.No . 178/43/2007 -ITA- II

DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (6 ) ]

3325

भारत का राजापत्र : भई 26, 2007 /ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

नई दिल्ली, 25 अप्रैल, 2007

(आयकर)

का. आ. 1495.-आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 ) की धारा 10 के खंड ( 23 ग ) के उपखंड ( V ) द्वारा प्रदस शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एत‌द्वारा यह अधिसूचित करती है कि " नाथद्वारा मंदिर बोर्ड , गोविन्द भवन , नाथद्वारा , राजस्थान-313301 " ( इसके बाद " संस्था" कहा गया है ) की ओर से किसी व्यक्ति द्वारा प्राप्त की गई कोई आय निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अध्यधीन ऐसे व्यक्ति की कुल आय में शामिल नहीं की जाएगी:-

(क) संस्था अपनी आय का इस्तेमाल अथवा अपनी आय का इस्तेमाल करने के लिए उसका संचयन पूर्णतया तथा अनुन्यतया उन उद्देश्यों के लिए करेगी जिनके लिए इसकी स्थापना की गई है तथा उस मामले में जहाँ इसकी पंद्रह प्रतिशत से अधिक आय 1 अप्रैल, 2002 को या उसके पश्चात् एकत्र की गई है , इसकी आप के संचयन की राशि से पन्द्रह प्रतिशत से अधिक होने की अवधिकिसी भी स्थिति में पाँच वर्ष से अधिक नहीं होनी चाहिए:

( ख ) संस्था उपर्युक्त कर निर्धारण वर्षों से संगत पूर्ववर्ती वर्षों की किसी भी अवधि के दौरान धारा ।। की उपधारा ( 5 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट किसी एक अथवा एक से अधिक ढंग अथवा तरीकों से भिन्न दरीकों से अपनी निधि (जेवर-जवाहिरात , फर्नीचर आदि के रूप में प्राप्त तथा अनुरक्षित स्वैच्छिक अंशदान से भिन्न ) का निवेश नहीं करेगी अथवा उसे जमा नहीं करेगी;

(ग ) यह अधिसूचना किसी ऐसी आय के संबंध में लागू नहीं होगी, जो कि कारोबार से प्राप्त लाभ तथा अभिलाभ हो जब तक कि ऐसा कारोबार संस्थाके उद्देश्यों की प्राप्ति के लिए प्रासंगिक नहीं हो तथा ऐसे कारोबार के संबंध में अलग से लेखा-पुस्तिकाएं नहीं रखी जाती हों;

(घ) संस्था आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार अपनी आय विवरणी नियमित रूप से आय कर प्राधिकारी के समक्ष फाइल करेगी;

( इ ) संस्था के विघटन की स्थिति में अतिरिक्त राशियों और परिसम्पत्तियों समान उद्देश्यों वाले धर्मार्थ संगठन को दे दी जाएगी ;

( च ) जैसा कि धारा 288 की उपधारा ( 2 ) के नीचे स्पष्टीकरण में परिभाषित किया गया है, संस्थान किसी लेखाकार द्वारा अपने खातों की लेखा परीक्षा कराएगी तथा आय की विवरणी के साथ प्रस्तुत करेगी । ऐसी लेखा परीक्षा की रिपोर्ट, विहित प्रारूप में लेखाकार के द्वारा विधिवत हस्ताक्षरित एवं सत्यापित एवं विहित किए गए तथा अपेक्षित ब्यौरों को प्रेषित करेगी।

2. यह अधिसूचना केवल संस्था की ओर से आय के प्राप्तकर्ता पर ही लागू होगी न कि इस तरह के प्राप्तकर्ता द्वारा किसी प्राप्ति अथवा आय पर । संस्था की कराधेयता अथवा अन्यया आय पर, आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 के उपबंधों के अनुसार पृथक रूप से विचार किया आएगा ।

3. यह अधिसूचना कर निर्धारण वर्ष 2008-09 एवं आगे के लिए लागू होगी।

4. उपर्युक्त अधिसूचना को केन्द्र सरकार के द्वारा निरस्त किया जा सकता है यदि यह बाद में पाया गया कि संस्था के क्रियाकलाप वैध नहीं हैं अथवा यदि उनका अनुपालन उन सभी अथवा उनमें से किन्हीं शतों के अनुसार नहीं किया जा रहा है जिनके आधार पर इसे अधिसूचित किया गया था।

[ अधिसूचना सं. 151 /2007/फा. सं. 197/29/2007- आयकर नि-1

दीपक गर्ग, अवर सचिव

NewDelhi, the25thApril,2007

INCOME- TAX

S.O. 1495. In exercise ofpowers conferred by the sub-clause (v) of the Clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (43 of 1961 ) , the CentralGovernment hereby notifies that any income received by any person onbehalfof "Nathdwara Temple Board, Govind Bhavan, Nathdwara Rajasthan -313301 " (hereinafter the "Institution") shall not be included in the total income of such person subject to the following conditions , namely :-

(a) the Institution will apply its income, or accumulate for application, wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established and in a case where more than fifteen per cent of its income is accumulated on or after the 1st day ofApril, 2002 , the period of the accumulation of the amount exceeding fifteen per cent of its income shall in no case exceed five years;

3326

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007 /JYAISTHA 5, 1929

(b) the Institution will not invest or deposit its fund ( other than voluntary contributions received and maintained in the form ofjewellery, furniture , etc. ) for any period during the previous years relevant to the assessment jycars mentioned above otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub- section (5) ofthe Section11;

(c) his notification will not apply in relation to any income being profits and gains of business , unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the Institution and separate books of account are maintained in respect of such business;

(d) the Institution will regularly file its return of income before the Income Tax authority in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ;

(c) that in the event of dissolution of the institution, its surplus and the assets willbe given to an organization with similar objectives.

(f) The Institute will get its accounts audited by an accountant as defined in Explanation below sub section (2) ofSection 288 and furnish along with the return of Income . The report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed.

2. This notification is applicable only to the recipients of income on behalf of the Institution and not to any other receipt or income of such recipients . Taxability or , otherwise of the income of the Institution would be separately considered as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 .

3. This notification is applicable for Assessment year 2008-09 and onwards .

4. The above notification is liable to be rescinded by the Central Government, if it is subsequently found that the activities of the Institution are not genuine or if they are not carried out in accordance with all or any of the conditions subject to which it was notified.

[NotificationNo. 151 /2007 /F.No . 197/29/2007- ΠΑ-Π

DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 16 मई , 2007

(आयकर)

का. अ . 1496. आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 ) की धारा 10 के खंड ( 230 ) के उपखंड ( V ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एत‌द्वाराएत यह अधिसूचित करती है कि " श्री सोमनाथ ट्रस्ट, प्रभास , पाटन , जिला- जूनागढ़ , गुजरात " ( इसके बाद " संस्था" कहा गया है ) की ओर से किसी व्यक्ति द्वारा प्राप्त की गई कोई आय निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अध्यधीन ऐसे व्यक्ति की कुल आय में शामिल नहीं की जाएगीः

( क) संस्था अपनी आय का इस्तेमाल अथवा अपनी आय का इस्तेमाल करने के लिए उसका संचयन पुर्णतया तथा अनुन्यतया उन उद्देश्योंके लिए करेगी जिनके लिए इसकी स्थापना की गई है तथा उस मामले में जहाँ इसकी पंद्रह प्रतिशत से अधिक आय 1 अप्रैल, 2002 को या उसके पश्चात् एकन्न की गई है , इसकी आय के संचयन की राशि के पन्द्रह प्रतिशत से अधिक होने की अवधि किसी भी स्थिति में पाँच वर्ष से अधिक नहीं होनी चाहिए;

(ख) संस्था उपर्युक्त कर निर्धारण वर्षों से संगत पूर्ववर्ती वर्षों की किसी भी अवधि के दौरान धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 5 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट किसी एक अथवा एक से अधिक ढंग अथवा तरीकों से भिन्न तरीकों से अपनी निधि ( जेवर- जवाहिरात , फर्नीचर आदि के रूप में प्राप्त तथा अनुरक्षित स्वैच्छिक अंशदान से भिन्न ) का निवेश नहीं करेगी अथवा उसे जमा नहीं करेगी;

(ग ) यह अधिसूचना किसी ऐसी आय के संबंध में लागू नहीं होगी , जो कि कारोबार से प्राप्त लाभ तथा अभिलाभ हो जब तक कि ऐसा कारोबार संस्थाके उद्देश्यों की प्राप्ति के लिए प्रासंगिक नहीं हो तथा ऐसे कारोबार के संबंध में अलग से लेखा- पुस्तिकाएं नहीं रखी जाती हों;

3327

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 26, 2007 /ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

[ भाग- खण्ड 3(i) ]

संस्था के विघटन की स्थिति में अतिरिक्त राशियों और परिसम्पत्तियों समान उद्देश्यों वाले धर्मार्थ संगठन को दे दी जाएगी;

(च ) जैसा कि धारा 288 की उपधारा ( 2 ) के नीचे स्पष्टीकरण में परिभाषित किया गया है, संस्थान किसी लेखाकार द्वारा अपने खातों की लेखा परीक्षा कराएगी तथा आय की विवरणी के साथ प्रस्तुत करेगी। ऐसी लेखा परीक्षा की रिपोर्ट, विहित प्रारूप में लेखाकार के द्वारा विधिवत हस्ताक्षरित एवं सत्यापित एवं विहित किए गए यथा अपेक्षित ब्यौरों को प्रेषित करेगी।

2. यह अधिसूचना केवल संस्था की ओर से आय के प्राप्तकर्ता पर ही लागू होगी न कि इस तरह के प्राप्तकर्ता द्वारा किसी प्राप्ति अथवा आय पर। संस्था को कराधेयता अथवा अन्यथा आथ पर , आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 के उपबंओं के अनुसार पृथक रूप से विचार किया जाएगा ।

3. यह अधिसूचना कर निर्धारण वर्ष 2004-05 एवं आगे के लिए लागू होगी।

[ अधिसूचना सं. 170/2007/फा. सं. 197/08/2007- आयकर नि. -1]

दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 16thMay,2007

(INCOME-TAX)

S.O. 1496. Inexercise of powers conferred by the sub-clause (v) of the Clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (43 of 1961 ), the Central Government hereby notifies that any income received by any person on behalf of "Shree Somnath Trust, Prabhas Patan, Distt .-Junagach, Gujarat" (hereinafter the "Institution " ) shall not be included in the total income of such person subject to the following conditions , namely :-

(a) the Institution will apply its income, or accumulate for application, wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established and in a case where more than fifteen per cent of its income is accumulated on or after the 1st day of April, 2002, the period of the accumulation of the amount exceeding fifteen per cent of its income shall in no case exceed five years;

of the Institution will not invest or deposit its fund (other than voluntary contributions received and maintained in the form ofjewellery , furniture, etc. ) for any period during the previous years relevant to the assessment years mentioned above otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of the Section 11;

(c) this notification will not apply in relation to any income being profits and gains of business, unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the institution and separate books of account are maintained in respect of such business;

(d) the Institution will regularly file its return of income before the Income Tax authority in accordance with the provisions ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 ;

(e) that in the event of dissolution of the institution, its surplus and the assets will be given to an organization with similar objectives

(1) The Institute will get its accounts andited by an accountant as defined in Explanation below sub section (2) of Section 288 and furnish along with the return of Income . The report of such andit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed.

2. This notification is applicable only to the recipients of income on behalf of the Institution and not to any other receipt or income of such recipients . Taxability or, otherwise of the income of the Institution would be separately considered as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act , 1961.

3. This notification is applicable for Assessment year 2004-05 and onwards.

4. The above notification is liable to be rescinded by the Central Government, if it is subsequently found that the activities of the Institution are not gemine or if they are not carried out in accordance with all or any of the conditions subject to which it was notified.

[Notification No. 170/2007/F.No . 197 /08 /2007-ГТА- 1]

DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy. 2394G1/07--8 3328

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26, 2007/ JYAISTHA 5, 1929

[PART I-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 16 मई , 2007

(आपकर)

का. आ. 1497 , आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 ) की धारा 10 के खंड ( 23 ग ) के उपखंड ( iv ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा यह अधिसूचित करती है कि ' सेंट जोन एम्बूलेंस, । रेड क्रास रोड, नई दिल्ली " ( इसके बाद " संस्था" कहा गया है ) की ओर से किसी व्यक्ति द्वारा प्राप्त की गई कोई आय निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अध्यधीन ऐसे व्यक्ति की कुल आय में शामिल नहीं कीजाएगी

(क ) संस्था अपनी आय का इस्तेमाल अथवा अपनी आय का इस्तेमाल करने के लिए उसका संचयन पूर्णतया तथा अनन्यतया उन उद्देश्यों के लिए करेगी जिनके लिए इसकी स्थापना की गई है तथा उस मामले में जहाँ इसकी पंद्रह प्रतिशत से अधिक आय । अप्रैल, 2002 को या उसके पश्चात् एकत्र की गई है, इसकी आय के संचयन की राशि के पन्द्रह प्रतिशत से अधिक होने की अवधि किसी भी स्थिति में पाँच वर्ष से अधिक नहीं होनी चाहिए:

( ख) संस्थाउपर्युक्त कर निर्धारण वर्षों से संगत पूर्ववर्ती वर्षों की किसी भी अवधि के दौरान धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 5 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट किसी एक अथवा एक से अधिक ढंग अधवा तरीकों से भिन्न तरीकों से अपनी निधि ( जेवर- जवाहिरात, फर्नीचर आदि के रूप में प्राप्त तथा अनुरक्षित स्वैच्छिक अंशदान से भिन्न ) का निवेश नहीं करेगी अथवा उसे जमा नहीं करेगी;

: ( ग ) यह अधिसूचना किसी ऐसी आय के संबंध में लागू नहीं होगी, जो कि कारोबार से प्राप्त लाभ तथा अभिलाभ हो जब तक कि ऐसा कारोवार संस्था के उ‌द्देश्यों की प्राप्ति के लिए प्रासंगिक नहीं हो तथा ऐसे कारोबार के संबंध में अलग से लेखा- पुस्तिकाएं नहीं रखी जाती हो;

( घ ) संस्था आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार अपनी आय विवरणी नियमित रूप से आय कर प्राधिकारी के समक्ष फाइल करेगी;

( ङ) संस्था के विघटन की स्थिति में अतिरिक्त राशियों और परिसम्पत्तियाँ समान उद्देश्यों वाले धर्मार्थ संगठन को दे दी जाएगी ;

(च) संस्था कि धारा 288 की उपधारा ( 2 ) के नीचे स्पष्टीकरण में परिभाषित किया गया है , संस्थान किसी लेखाकार द्वारा अपने खातों की लेखा परीक्षा कराएगी तथा आय की विवरणी के साथ प्रस्तुत करेगी। ऐसी लेखा परीक्षा की रिपोर्ट, विहित प्रारूप में लेखाकार के द्वारा विधिवत इस्ताक्षरित एवं सत्यापित एवं विहित किए गए तथा अपेक्षित व्यौरों को प्रेषित करेगी । 2. यह अधिसूचना केवल संस्था की ओर से आय के प्राप्तकर्ता पर ही लागू होगी न कि इस तरह के प्राप्तकर्ता द्वारा किसी प्राप्ति अथवा आय पर । संस्था की कराधेयता अथवा अन्यथा आय पर, आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 के उपबंधों के अनुसार पृथक रूप से विचार किया जएगा।

3. यह अधिसूचना कर मिर्धारण वर्ष 2003-04 एवं आगे के लिए लागू होगी।

4 उपर्युक्त अधिसूचना को केन्द्र सरकार के द्वारा निरस्त किया जा सकता है यदि यह बाद में पाया गया कि संस्था के क्रियाकलाप वैध नहीं है अथवा यदि उनका अनुपालनं उन सभी अथवा उनमें से किन्हीं शतों के अनुसार नहीं किया जा रहा है जिनके आधार पर इसे अधिसूचित किया गया था।

[ अधिसूचना सं. 171 /2007/फा. सं. 197/15/2007-आयकर नि.- I]

दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 16th May,2007

(INCOME-TAX

S.O. 1497. In exercise ofpowers conferred by the sub-clause (iv) of theClanse (23C) of Section 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961 ), the Central Government hereby notifies that nay income received by any person on behalfof"St. JohnAmbulance , I , Red Cross Road, New Delhi" (hereinafter the "Institution ") shall not be included in the total income of such person subject to the following conditions, namely :-

(a) the Institution will apply its income, or accumulate for application, wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established and in a case where more than fifteen per cent of its income is accumulated on or after the Ist day ofApril , 2002, the period of the accumulation of the amount exceeding fifteen per cent of its income shall in no case exceed five years;

[ भाग- खष्ठ 3 (ii) ]

3329

भारत का राजपत्र । मई 26, 2007 ज्येष्क 5 , 1929

(b) the Institution will not invest or deposit its fund (other than voluntary contributions received and maintained in the form of jewellery, furniture, eto. ) for any period during the previous years relevant to the assessment years mentioned above otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of the Section 11;

(c) this notification will not apply in relation to any income being profits and gains of business, unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the Institution and separate books of account are maintained in respect of such business;

(d) the Institution will regularly file its return of income before the Income- Tax authority in accordance with the provisions ofthe Income Tax Act , 1986;

(e) that in the event of dissolution of the Institution, its surplus and the assets will be given to an organization with similar objectives.

(f) The Institute will get its accounts audited by an accountant as defined in Explanation below sub- section(2) ofSection288 and furnish along with the return of Income. The report of such andit in the prescribed form dułysigned and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed.

2. This notification is applicable only to the recipienta of income on behalf of the Institution and not to any other receipt or income of such recipients. Taxability or, otherwise of the income of the Institution wouldbe separately considered as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 .

3. This notification is applicable for Assessment year 2003-04 and onwards .

[NotificationNo. 171/2007 /F.No . 197/15/2007 -ΙΤΑ - Π

DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy.

नईदिल्ली, 18 मई , 2007

(आवकर)

का, आ. 1498 ,-आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 ) की धारा 10 के खखंड ( 23 ग ) के उपखंड ( iv ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एव‌द्धम्य यह अधिसूचित करती है कि " टेक्नोलॉजी डेवलपमेंट बोर्ड नई दिल्ली " ( इसके बाद " संस्था" कहा गया है ) की ओर से किसी व्यक्ति द्वारा प्राप्त की गई कोई आय निम्नलिखित रातों के अध्यधीन ऐसे व्यक्ति की कुल आय में शामिल नहीं की जाएगी:

( क) संस्था अपनी आय का इस्तेमाल अथवा अपनी आय का इस्तेमाल करने के लिए संचयन पुर्णतया तथा अनन्यतया उन उद्देश्योंके लिए करेगी जिनके लिए इसकी स्थापना की गई है तथा उस मामले में जहाँ इसकी पंद्रह प्रतिशत से अधिक आय 1 अप्रैल , 2002 को या उसके पश्चात् एकत्र की गई है , इसकी आय के संचयन की राशि के पन्द्रह प्रतिशत से अधिक होने की अवधि किसी भी स्थिति में पाँज्ञ वर्ष से अधिक नहीं होनी चाहिए:

( ख ) संस्था उपर्युक्त कर निर्धारण वर्षों से संगत पूर्ववहीं वर्षों की किसी भी अवधि के दौरान बारा 11 की उपधारा ( 5 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट किसी एक अथवा एक से अधिक ढंग अथवा तरीकों से भिन्न तरीकों से अपनी निधि ( जेवर- जाहिरात , फर्नीचर आदि के रूप में प्राप्त तथा अनुरश्चित स्वैच्छिक अंशदान से भिन्न) का निवेश नाहीं करेगी अथवा तसे जमा नहीं करेगी;

(ग ) यह अधिसूचना किसी ऐसी आय के संबंध में लागू नहीं होती, जो कि कारोबार से प्राप्त लाभ तथा अभिलाभ हो अब तक कि ऐसा कारोबार संस्था के उद्देश्योंकी प्राप्ति के लिए प्रासंगिक नहीं हो तथा ऐसे कारोबार के संबंध में अलग से लेखा- पुस्तिकाएं नहीं रखी जाती हों;

( क) संस्था के विघटन की स्थिति में अतिरिक्त राशियाँ और परिसम्पक्तियाँ समान उद्देश्यों वाले धर्मार्थ संगठन को दे दी जाएगी;

(च ) जैसा कि धारा 288 की उपधारा (2 ) के नीचे स्पष्टीकरण में परिभाषित किया गया है , संस्थान किसी लेखाकार द्वारा अपने खातों कीलेखा परीक्षा कराएगी तथा आय की विवरणी के साथ प्रस्तुत करेगी। ऐसी लेखा परीक्षा की रिपोर्ट, विहित प्रारूप में लेखाकार के द्वारा विश्विवत्त हस्ताक्षरित एवं सत्यापित एवं विहित किए गए तथा अपेक्षित स्यौरों को प्रेषित करेगी। 3330

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007 / JYAJSTHA 5, 1929

[PART II-Sec. 3( ii)] 2 यह अधिसूचना कंबल संस्था की ओर से आय के प्राप्तकर्ता पर ही लागू होगी न कि इस तरह प्राप्तकर्ता द्वारा किसी प्राप्ति अथवा आय पर । संस्था की कराधेयता अथवा अन्यथा आय पर, आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 के उपबंधों के अनुसार पृथम रूप से विचार किया जाएगा।

3. यह अधिसूचना कर निर्धारण वर्ष 2000-01 एवं आगे के लिए लागू होगी।

4. उपर्युक्त अधिसूचना को केन्द्र सरकार के द्वारा निरस्त किया जा सकता है यदि यह बाद में पाया गया कि संस्था के क्रियाकलाप वैध नहीं है अथवा यदि उनका अनुपालन उन सभी अथवा उनमें से किन्हीं शवों के अनुसार नहीं किया जा रहा है जिनके आधार पर इसे अधिसूचित किया गया था।

[ अधिसूचना सं. 173/2007/फा. सं 197/01 /2007- आयकर नि. - 1 ]

दीपक गर्ग, अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 18th May,2007

(INCOME-TAX

S.O. 1498. In exercise of powers conferred by the sub- clause ( iv ) of the Clause ( 23C) of Section 10 of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (43 of 1961 ), the Central Govemment hereby notifies that any income received by any person on behalf of "TechnologyDevelopment Board, New Delhi " (hereinafter the "Institution" ) shall not be included in the total income of such person subject to the following conditions , namely :-

(a) the Institution will apply its income , or accumulate for application, wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established and in a case where more than fifteen per cent of its income is accumulated on or after the Ist day of April , 2002, the period of the accumulation of the amount exceeding fifteen per cent of its income shall in no case exceed five years;

(b) the lostituson will not invest or deposit its fund (other than voluntary contributions received and maintained in the form ofjewellery, furniture, etc.) for any period during the previous years relevant to the assessment ycars mentioned above otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub -section (5) of the Section 11 ;

(4) this notification will not apply in relation to any income being profits and gains of business , unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the Institution and separate books of account are maintained in respect of such business;

(4) the Institution will regularly file its return of income before the Income- Tax Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Income- Tax Act, 1961 :

(3) that in the event of dissolution of the Institution, its surplus and the assets willbe given to an organization with similar objectives;

The Institute will get its accounts audited by an accountant as defined in Explanation below sub- section (2) of Section 288 and furnish along with the return of Income. The report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed.

2. This notification is applicable only to the recipients of income on behalf of the Institution and not to any other receipt or income of such recipients. Taxability or, otherwise of the income of the Institution would be separately considered as per the provisions of the Income - Tax Act, 1961 .

3. This notification is applicable for Assessment year 2000-01 and onwards .

4. The above notification is liable to he rescinded by the Central Govemment, if it is subsequently found that the activities of the Institution are not genuine or if they are not carried out in accordance with all or any of the conditions subject to which it was notified.

[Notification No. 173 /2007 /F.No. 197/01 /2007 -ITA -I)

DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 10 मई , 2007

का. आ. 1499.-सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतद्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली , 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम 5 ग और ऽच के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की धारा 35 की 3331

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 26, 2007 म्येष्ठ 5, 1929

[ भाग 1]- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ 1-4-2005 से संगठन क्वेिकानन्द इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ कायोटेक्नोलॉजी , पश्चिम बंगाल को निम्नलिखित शताँ के अधीन आंशिक रूप से अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों में लगी ' अन्य संस्था' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है , अर्थात्: - (i ) अनुमोदित संगठन को प्रदच राशि का उपयोग वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए किया जाएगा;

(ii), अनुमोदित संगठन अपने संकाय सदस्यों अथवा अपने नामांकित छात्रों के माध्यम से वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान करेगा;

( ii ) अनुमोदित संगठन बही-खाता रखेगा तथा उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 288 की उपधारा (2 ) के स्पष्टीकरण में यथा परिभाषित किसी लेखाकार से अपनी बही- खाता की लेखा परीक्षा कराएगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 139 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अंतर्गत आय विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने की नियत तिथि तक ऐसे लेखाकार द्वारा विधिवत् सत्यापित एवं हस्ताक्षरित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट मामले में क्षेत्राधिकार रखने वाले आयकर आयुक्त अथवा आयकर निदेशक को प्रस्तुत करेगा;

(iv ) संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान तथा प्रयुक्त राशि का अलग विवरण रखोगा और उपर्युक्त लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट के साथ लेखा परीक्षक द्वारा विधिवत् सत्यापित विवरण की प्रत्ति प्रस्तुत करेगा।

2. केन्द्र सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापिस ले लेगी यदि अनुमोदित संगठन:-

(क) पैराग्राफ । के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उस्लिखित लेखा बही नहीं रखेगा; अथवा

(ख) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा (ग ) पैराग्राफ के उप-पैराग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त एवं प्रयुक्त दान का अपना विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा

(घ ) अपना अनुसंधान कार्य करन्न बंद कर देगा अथवा इसके अनुसंधान कार्य को जायज नहीं पाया आएगाः अथवा (ङ ) उक्त नियमावली के नियम 5 ग और 5घ के साथ पठित उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नहीं करेगा।

[अधिसूचना सं. 165/2007/फा. सं. 203/61/2006- आ.क.नि.- II] रेनूबौहरी , निदेशक

New Delhi , the 10th May,2007

8.0 . 1499. It is hereby notified for general information that the organization Vivekananda Institute of Biotechnology, West Bengal has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause ( ii) of sub- section ( 1) of Section 35 of the Income - tax Act, 1961 (said Act) , read with Rules 5C and SD of the Income-tax Rules , 1962 ( saidRules), with effect from 1-4-2005 in the category of other Institution', party engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions, namely:-

(1) the sums paidto the approved organization shall be utilized for scientific research;

(ii) The approved organization shall carry out scientific research through its faculty members or its enrolled students;

(im) The approved organization shall maintain books of accounts and get such books audited by an accountant asdefined in the explanation to sub-section (2) ofSection 288 of the said Act and furnish the report of such audit duly signed and verified by such accountant to the Commissioner of Income-tax or the Director of Income-tax having jurisdiction over the case, by the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub- section(1) 139 ofthe said Act;

(iv) The organization shall maintain a separate statement of donations received and amounts applied for scientific research and a copy of such statement duly certified by the auditor shall accompany the report of audit referred to above.

2.The CentralGovernment shall withdraw the approval if the approved organization:-

(a) fails to maintain books of account referred to in sub-paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1; or (b) fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub- paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1; or

(c) fails to furnish its statement of the douations received and sums applied for scientific research referred to in sub -paragraph (iv ) of paragraph 1 ; or

(d) ceases to carry on its research activities or its research activities are not found to be genuine; or 3332

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/ JYAISTHA 5, 1929

[PART II -SEC, 3 (ii) ] (e) ceases toconform to any comply with the provisions of clause (ii) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the saidAct read with rules SC and 5D of the saidRules .

[Notification No. 165/2007/F.No. 203/61 /2006- ΙΤΑ- ΠΙ

RENU JAUHRI , Director

नई दिल्ली, 10 मई, 2007

का. आ. 1500.-सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतद्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली , 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम ऽग और ऽध के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ 1-4-2000 से संगठन ऑल इंडिया इंस्टीटयूट ऑफ मेडिकल साई... , नई दिल्ली को निम्नलिखित शयों के अधीन आंशिक रूप से अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों में लगी ' अन्य संस्था' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया है , अर्थात्: -

(i ) अनुमोदित संगठन को प्रदत राशि का उपयोग वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए किया आएगा;

(i) अनुमोदित संगठन अपने संकाय सदस्यों अथवा अपने नामांकित छात्रों के माध्यम से वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान करेगा;

(ii ) अनुमोदित संगठन बही - खाता रखेगा तथा उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 288 की उपधारा ( 2 ) के स्पष्टीकरण में यथा परिभाषित किसी लेखाकार से अपनी बही-खाता की लेखा परीङः कराएगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 139 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अंतर्गत आय विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने की नियत तिथि तक ऐसे लेखाकार द्वारा विधिवत् सत्यापित एवं हस्ताक्षरित लेखा रिपोर्ट मामले में क्षेत्राधिकार रखने वाले आयकर आयुक्त अथवा आयकर निदेशक को प्रस्तुत करेगा।

( iv ) संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान तथा प्रयुक्त राशि का अलग विवरण रखेगा और उपर्युक्त लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट के साथ लेखा परीक्षक द्वार। विधिवत् सत्यापित विवरणं की प्रति प्रस्तुत करेगा।

2. केन्द्र सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापिस ले लेगी यदि अनुमोदित संगठन:-

( क ) पैराग्राफ । के उप- पैरम्ग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित लेखा बहो नहीं रखेगा; अथवा

( ख ) पैराग्राफ । के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा

( ग) पैराग्राफ । के उप- पैराग्राफ (iv ) में उल्लिखित वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त एवं प्रयुक्त दान का अपना विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा

(घ) अपना अनुसंधान कार्य करना बंद कर देगा अथवा इसके अनुसंधान कार्य को जायज नहीं पाया जाएगा; अथवा (छ) उक्त नियमावली के नियम 5ग और 5घ के साथ पठित उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नहीं करेगा ।

[अधिसूचना सं. 164/2007/फा, सं. 203/99/2002- आ.क.नि.- II]

रेनूजौहरी , निदेशक

NewDelhi , the 10th May,2007

S.O. 1500. It is hereby notified for general information that the organizationAll India Institute of Medical Sciences, NewDelhi has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose ofclause ( ii ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( said Act ) , read with Rules 5C and 5D of the Income -tax Rules, 1962 (said Rules ) , with effect from 1-4-2000 in the category of other Institution' , party engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions , namely:-

The sums paid to the approved organization shall be utilized for scientific research;

(ii) The approved organization shall carry out scientific research through its faculty members or its enrolled students;

(iii) The approved organization shall maintain books of accounts and get such books audited by an accountant as defined in the explanation to sub- section (2) of Section 288 of the said Act and furnish the report of such audit duly signed and verified by such accountant to the Commissioner of Income- tax or the Director of Income-tax having jurisdiction over the case , by the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 139 of the saidAct;

(iv) The organization, shall maintain a separate statement of donations received and amounts applied for scientific research and a copy of such statement duly certified by the auditor shall accompany the report of audit referredto above.

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

3333 2.The CentralGovernment shall withdraw the approvai if the approved organization

(a) fails to maintain books of account referred to in sub-paragraph (iii ) ofparagraph 1; or (b) fails to furnish its andit report referred to in sub-paragraph ( iii) of paragraph 1 ; or

(c) fails to furnish its statement of the donations received and sums applied for scientific research referredto in sub- paragraph (iv ) of paragraph 1 ; or

(d) ceases to carry on its research activities or its research activities are not found to be genuine; or (e) ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions of clanse ( ii ) of sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the said Act read with rules SC and 5D of the saidRules.

[NotificationNo. 164/2007/F.No. 203/99/2002 -ГТА- Ш

RENU JAUHRI ,Director

नई दिल्ली, 11 मई, 2007

का. आ. 1501.- सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतद्‌द्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली, 1962 (उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम 5ग और उन के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की धारा 35 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ 1-4-2006 के संगठन दीन दयाल रिसर्च इंस्टीट्यूट , नई दिल्ली को निम्नलिखित रातों के अधीन आंशिक रूप से अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों में लगी ' अन्य संस्था' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है, अर्थात्:-

(i ) अनुमोदित संगठन को प्रदत्त राशि का उपयोग बैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए किया जाएगा;

(in ) अनुमोदित संगठन अपने संकाय सदस्यों अथवा अपने नामांकित छात्रों के माध्यम से वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान करेगा;

(i ) अनुमोदित संगठन बही- खाता रखेगा तथा उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 288 की उप धारा ( 2 ) के स्पष्टीकरण में यथा परिभाषित किसी लेखाकार से अपनी बही- खाता की लेखा परीक्षा कराएगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 139 की उप धारा ( 1 ) के अंतर्गत आय विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने की नियत तिथि तक ऐसे लेखाकार द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित एवं हस्ताक्षरित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट मामले में क्षेत्राधिकार रखने वाले आयकर आयुक्त अथवा आयकर निदेशक को प्रस्तुत करेगा ।

(iv ) संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान तथा प्रयुक्त राशि का अलग विवरण रखेगा और उपर्युक्त लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट के साथ लेखा परीक्षक द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित विवरण की प्रति प्रस्तुत करेगा।

2. केन्द्र सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापिस ले लेगी यदि अनुमोदित संगठनः-

(

क) पैराग्राफ । के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित लेखा बही नहीं रखेगा; अथवा

(ख) पैराग्राफ । के उप-पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा ( ग) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप - पैराग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त एवं प्रयुक्त पान का अपना विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा

(घ) अपना अनुसंधान कार्य करना बंद कर देगा अथवा इसके अनुसंधान कार्य को जायज नहीं पाया जाएगा; अथवा (ङ ) उक्त नियमावली के नियम ऽग और ऽष के साथ पठित उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नहीं करेगा ।

[अधिसूचना सं. 167/2007/फा. सं 203/22/2007-आ.का.नि.- II )

रेनूजौहरी , निदेशक

NewDelhi, the 11th May , 2007

S.O. 1501-lt is hereby notified for general information that the organization Deen Dayal Research Institute, NewDelhi has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause (ii) of sub-section (1 ) of Section 35of the income-tax Act , 1961 ( saidAct), read with Rules SC and SD of the Income- tax Rules ,1962 (said Rules), with effect from 1-4-2006 in the category of 'other Institution' , partly engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions , namely:

(0) The suns paid to the approved organization shall be utilized for scientific research;

(ii) The approved organization shall carry out scientific research through its faculty members or its enrolled students;

[PART I-SEC . 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26 , 2007 /JYAISTHA 5, 1929

3334

(ii) The approved organization shall maintain books of accounts and get such books audited by an accountant as defined in the explanation to sub- section (2 ) of Section 288 of the said Act and furnish the report of such audit duly signed and verified by such accountant to the Commissioner of Income - tax or the Director of Income-tax having jurisdiction over the case, by the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub- section ( 1) of Section 139 of the said Act;

(iv) The approved organization shall maintain a separate statement of donations received and amounts applied for scientific research and a copy of such statement duly certified by the auditor shall accompany the report of audit referred to above .

2.The Central Government shall withdraw the approval if the approved organization:-

(a) fails to maintain books of accounts referred to in sub- paragraph ( iii) of paragraph 1; or

(b) fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub-paragraph (ini ) of paragraph 1 ; or

(c) fails to furnish its statement of the donations received and sums applied for scientific research referred to in sub - paragraph ( iv) of paragraph 1 ; or

(d) ceases to carry on its research activities or its research activities are not found to be genuine; or (e) ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions of clause ( ii ) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the saidAct read with rules SC and SD of the said Rules .

[Notification No. 167/2007 /F.No . 203/22/2007 - ITA- II]

RENU JAUHRI , Director

नई दिल्ली , 11 मई , 2007

का. आ. 1502. सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एत‌द्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली, 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम 5ग और 5घ के साथ पक्ति आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम) की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ 1-4-2006 के संगठन मूलजी भाई पटेल सोसायटी फार रिसर्च इन नेफ्रो यूरोलोजी, नाडियाड़ ( गुजरात ) को निम्नलिखित शतों के अधीन आशिक रूप से अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों में लगी ' अन्य संस्था' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है , अर्थात्:-

(i ) अनुमोदित संगठन को प्रदत्त राशि का उपयोग वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए किया जाएगा;

(ii ) अनुमोदित संगठन अपने संकाय सदस्यों अथवा अपने नामांकित छात्रों के माध्यम से वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान करेगा;

( ii) अनुमोदित संगठन बही - खाता रखेगा तथा उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 288 की उप धारा ( 2 ) के स्पष्टीकरण में यथा परिभाषित किसी लेख्खाकार से अपनी बही - खावा की लेखा परीक्षा कराएगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 139 की उप धारा ( 1 ) के | अंतर्गत आय विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने की नियत तिथि तक ऐसे लेखाकार द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित एवं हस्ताक्षरित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट मामले में क्षेत्राधिकार रखने वाले आयकर आयुक्त अथवा आयकर निदेशक को प्रस्तुत करेगा ।

(iv ) संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान तथा प्रयुक्त राशि का अलग विवरण रखेगा और उपर्युक्त लेख्खा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट के साथ लेखा परीक्षक द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित विवरण की प्रति प्रस्तुत करेगा।

2. केन्द्र सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापिस ले लेगी यदि अनुमोदित संगठन:- i

! ( क ) पैराग्राफ । के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित लेखा बही नहीं रखेगा; अथवा

(ख ) पैराग्राफ । के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगाः अथवा

(ग ) पैराग्राफ के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त एवं प्रयुक्त दान का अपना विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा

( घ) अपना अनुसंधान कार्य करना बंद कर देगा अथवा इसके अनुसंधान कार्य को जायज नहीं पाया जाएगा; अथवा ( ङ ) उक्त नियमावली के नियम 5 ग और 5घ के साथ पठित उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नहीं करेगा ।

[ अधिसूचना सं. 166/2007/फा. सं 203/ 19/2007- आका.नि.- [I]

रेनूजौहरी, निदेशक 3335

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007 /ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

[ भाग- खण्ड 3( li ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 16 मई, 2007

New Delhi, the 11th May , 2007

S.O. 1502. It is hereby notified for general informati thatthe organizationMujibhai Patel Society forReserach bu Neparo Urology, Nadind ( Gujarat ) has been approvedbythe CentralGovernment for the purpose of clause (ii) ofsub -section (1) ofSection35of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (said Act), read with rules 5C and SD of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (saidRules) witheffect from 1-4-2006 in the category of other Institution' partlyengaged in research activities subject to the following conditions , namely:

का.आ. 1503.- सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली , 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम 5 ग और इध के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की धारा 35 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ 1-4-2002 से संगठन रीजनल कैन्सर सेन्टर , मेडिकल कालेज कैम्पस , त्रिवेन्द्रम ( केरल ) को निम्नलिखित शतों के अधीन आंशिक रूप से अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों मेंलगी 'अन्य संस्था' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है , अर्थातः- The sums paid to the approved organization shall be utilized for scientific research;

(1 ) अनुमादित संगठन को प्रदत राशि का उपयोग वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए किया जाएगा;

(ii) The approved organization shall carry out scientific research through its faculty members or its enrolled students:

(1 ) अनुमोदिन संगठन अपने संकाय सदस्यों अथवा अपने नामांकित छात्रों के माध्यम से वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान करेगा;

(iii) The approved organization shall maintain books of account and get such books audited by an accountant as defined in the explanationto sub-section (2) of Section 288 ofthe saidAct and furnish the report ofsuch audit duly signed and verified by such accountant to the Commissioner of Income- tax or the Director of Income - tax having jurisdiction over the case , by the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub- section (1) of Section 139 of the said Act;

(iii ) अनुमोदित संगठन बही- खाता रखेगा तथा उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 288 की उप- धारा (2 ) के स्पष्टीकरण में यथा परिभाषित किसी लेखाकार से अपनी खाता बही की लेखा परीक्षा कराएगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 139 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अंतर्गत आय विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने की नियत तिथि तक ऐसे लेखाकर द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित एवं हस्ताक्षरित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट मामले में क्षेत्राधिकार रखने वाले आयकर आयुक्त अथवा आयकर निदेशक को प्रस्तुत करेगा ।

(iv ) संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान तथा प्रयुक्त राशिका अलग विवरण रखेगा और उपर्युक्त लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट के साथ लेखा परीक्षक द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित विवरण की प्रति प्रस्तुत करेगा।

2. केन्द्र सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापिस ले लेगी यदि अनुमोदित संगठन:-

2. The Central Government shall withdraw the approval ifthe approved organization:-

(क) पैराग्राफ के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित लेखा बही नहीं रखेगा; अथवा

(a) fails to maintain books of accounts referred to in sub -paragraph (iii ) ofparagraph 1; or

( ख) पैराग्राफ । के उप-पैराग्राफ (iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा (b) fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub-paragraph (iii ) of paragraph 1; or

( ग ) पैराग्राफ । के उप - पैराग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त एवं प्रयुक्त दान का अपना विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा

(c) fails to fumish its statement of the donations received and sums applied for scientific research referred to in sub -paragraph (iv) of paragraph 1; or

( घ) अपना अनुसंधान कार्य करना बंद कर देगा अथवा इसके अनुसंधान कार्य को जायज नहीं पाया जाएगा; अथवा (d) ceases to carry on its research activities or its research activities are not found to be genuine; or

( ङ ) उक्त नियमावली के नियम 5ग और ऽथ के साथ पठित उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नहीं करेगा।

(e) ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions ofclause ( ii) of sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the said Act read with rules 5C and SD of the said Rules .

[अधिसूचना सं. 172/2007/फा. सं. 203/ 14/2007-आ. क. नि.- II ] [Notification No. 166/2007/F. No. 203/19/2007-ITA- II ]

रेनूजौहरी , निदेशक RENU JAUHRI , Director

2394-G1/07--9 3336

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/ JYAISTHA 5, 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ⅱ)] New Delhi , the 16th May, 2007

( आर्थिक कार्य विभाग ) (बैंकिंग प्रधाग) नई दिल्ली, 15 मई , 2007

का.आ. 1504.- भारतीय निर्यात आयात बैंक अधिनियम , 1981 ( 1981 का 28 ) की धारा 4 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के परन्तुक द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्‌द्वारा, भारतीय निर्यात आयात बैंक की एक हजार करोड़ रुपए की वर्तमान प्राधिकृत पूंजी को बढ़ाकर दो हजार करोड़ रुपए करती है । SJO. 1503.-lt is hereby notified for general information that the organization Regional Cancer Centre, Medical CollegeCampus, Trivandrum (Kerala) has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause(il) ofsub-section (1 ) ofSection 35 of the Incorne- tax Act, 1961 (saidAct), read with rules 5C and SD of the Income- taxRules, 1962(said Rules) with effect from 1-04-2002 in the category of other Institution' partly engaged in research activities subjectto the following conditions , namely :-

(1) The sums paid to the approved organization shall be utilized for scientific research;

[फा. सं. 9/3/2007- आईएफ -1 ] एम. साहू, अवर सचिव (i) The approved organization shall carry out scientific research through its faculty members or its enrolled students:

(Department ofEconomicAffairs) (BankingDivision) New Delhi, the 15th May, 2007

S.O.1504. In exercise ofthe powers conferred by the proviso to sub- section (1 ) of section 4 of the Export- Import Bank of India Act, 1981 (28 of 1981 ), the Central Government hereby increases the authorized capital ofthe Export - Import Bank of India from the existing one thousand crores of rupees to two thousand crores of rupees .

[ F. No. 9/3/2007- IF -J] M. SAHU, Under Secy. नई दिल्ली , 17 मई , 2007

( ⅲ) The approved organization shall maintain books of account and get such books audited by an accountant as defined in the explanationto sub-section (2) of Section288 of the said Act and furnish the report of such audit duly signed and verified by such accountant to the Commissioner of Income- tax or the Director of Income- tax having jurisdiction over the case , by the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub- section (1) of Section 139 of the said Act;

( iv) The approved organization shall maintain a separate statement of donations received and amounts applied for scientific research and a copy of such statement duly certified by the auditor shall accompany the report of audit referred to above..

का.आ. 1505,-बैंककारी विनियम अधिनियम , 1949 (1949 का 10 ) की धारा 53 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, भारत सरकार , भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक की सिफारिश पर एतद्वारा घोषणा करती है कि उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 एवं 15 ( 1 ) के प्रावधान इस अधिसूचना की तारीख से 5 वर्ष की अवधि के लिए सेन्ट्रल बैंक आफ इंडिया पर लागू नहीं होंगे ।

2. The Central Government shall withdraw the approval if the approved organization :---

[फा. सं. 11/ 17/2003-बीओए ] डी. पी. भारद्वाज , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 17thMay 2007 (a) fails to maintain books of accounts referred to in sub -paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1 : or

(b) fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub -paragraph (iii ) of paragraph 1; or !

S.O. 1505. In exercise ofthe powers conferredby Section 53 ofthe Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of1949), the Government of India , on the recommendations of ReserveBank of India, hereby declares that the provisions of Section 13 and 15 ( 1 ) of the said Act shall not apply, for a period of five years from the date of this Notification , to Central Bank of India.

(c) fails to furnish its statement of the donations received and sums applied for scientific research referred to in sub -paragraph ( iv ) of paragraph 1; or

[F. No. 11 /17/2003 -BOA] D.P. BHARDWAJ, Under Secy.

(d) : ceases to carry on its research activities or its research activities are not found to be genuine; or

रेल मंत्रालय ( रेलवे बोर्ड ) नई दिल्ली , 10 मई , 2007

(e) ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions of clause ( ii ) of sub - section ( 1) of Section 35 of the said Act read with rules SC and 5D of the said Rules .

[Notification No. 172/2007 /F . No. 203 /14/2007 - ITA-II ) RENU JAUHRI , Director

का.आ. 1506.- रेल मंत्रालय ( रेलवे बोर्ड ) , राजभाषा नियम , 1976 ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) के नियम , 10 के उपनियम (2 ) और (4 ) के अनुसरण में, दक्षिण- पूर्व- मध्य रेलवे के [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3337

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

उप मुख्य यांत्रिक इंजीनियर , मोतीबाग , नागपुर कार्यालय , जहां ४० प्रतिशत से अधिक अधिकारियों/कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्य- साधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , को एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है ।

[सं. हिंदी-2007/रा. मा. 1/12/3 ] प्रमोद कुमार यादव , निदेशक , राजभाषा MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS (RailwayBoard)

New Delhi, the 10thMay,2007

S.O. 1506. Ministry of Railways ( RailwayBoard) , in pursuance of Sub-Rule (2) and (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language Rules , 1976 ( use for the official purposes of the Union) hereby, notify the office of the Dy. Chief Mechanical Engineer, Motibagh, Nagpur of South-East- Central Railway, where 80 % or more Officers /Employees have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi.

[No.Hindi -2007 /0.L.1/12/3 ] PRAMOD KUMARYADAV, Director (O.L) वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय (वाणिज्य विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 10 मई , 2007

का.आ. 1507.- केन्द्रीय सरकार , निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण) अधिनियम , 1963 ( 1963 का 22 ) की घारा 7 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) नियम 1964 के नियम 12 के उपनियम (2 ) के अनुसरण में और मैसर्स एसन एण्ड कम्पनी , प्रथम तल , 24-1-9, थॉम्पसन स्ट्रीट पुराने पोस्ट आफिस के निकट , विशाखापत्तनम-530001 को, राजपत्र में इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की और अवधि के लिए भारत सरकार के वाणिज्य मंत्रालय की अधि सूचना सं. का.आ. 3975 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर , 1965 से उपाषद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट खनिज और अयस्क समूह । अर्थात् लोह अयस्क और मैंगनीज अयस्क ( मैंगनीज डॉयक्साइड को छोड़कर) विशाखापत्तनम पर निर्यात से पूर्व उक्त खनिजों और अयस्कों का निरीक्षण करने के लिए निम्नलिखित शतों के अधीन एक अधिकरण के रूप में मान्यता देती है , अर्थात्:-

( i ) मैसर्स एसन एण्ड कम्पनी , विशाखापत्तनम, निर्यात (निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1965 के नियम 4 के अधीन खनिज और अयस्क समूह-1 का निरीक्षण का प्रमाण - पत्र देने के लिए उनके द्वारा अपनाई गई पद्धति की जांच करने के लिए, इस निमित्त निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद्‌ द्वारा नामनिर्दिष्ट अधिकारियों की पर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगी, ( ii ) मैसर्स एसन एण्ड कम्पनी , विशाखापत्तनम इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के पालन में निदेशक ( निरीक्षण एवं क्वालिटी नियंत्रण ) , निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् द्वारा समय - समय पर लिखित में दिए गए निर्देशों से आबद्ध होंगे ।

[फा. सं. 5/3/2007-ईआई एण्ड ईपी]

वी. के. गाबा , उपसचिव MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (Department of Commerce) NewDelhi , the 10th May, 2007

S.O. 1507- In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-section (1 ) of Section 7 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963) , and in pursuance ofsub-rule (2) ofrule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection ) Rules , 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises for a period of three years from the date ofpublication of this notification, M/s . Essen &Co. , 1st Floor , 24-1-9, Thompson Street, Near Old Post Office,Visakhapatnam-530001 , as an agency for inspection of Minerals and Ores, Group - 1 , namely , Iron Ore and ManganeseOre (excluding Manganese Dioxide) , specified inthe Schedule annexed to Notification in the Ministry ofCommerce number S.O.3975 dated 20th December , 1965, prior to export at Visakhapatnam, subject to the following conditions,namely:

(1) thatM/s. Essen & Co., Visakhapatnam shallgive adequate facilities to the officers nominated by theExport Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followed by them ingranting the certificate of inspection under rule4of theExport of Minerals and Ores-Group (Inspection) Rules, 1965;

(1) that M/s . Essen & Co. , Visakhapatnam in the performance of their function under this notification shall be bound by such directives as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Councli may give in writing from : time to time.

[F.No. 5/3/2007-EI & EP] V. K. GAUBA, Dy . Secy .

मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय

(उच्चतर शिक्षा विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 9 मई , 2007

का.आ. 1508. -सावर्जनिक परिसर ( अनाधिकृत अधिभोक्ता की बेदखली ) अधिनियम , 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा उप- रजिस्ट्रार (सम्पदा) बनारस हिन्दू विश्वविद्यालय , वाराणसी जो कि सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारी के समकक्ष अधिकारी हैं , को उपर्युक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनार्थ सम्पदा अधिकारी के रूप में नियुक्त करती है, जो कि से संबन्धित बनारस हिन्दू विश्वविद्यालय , वाराणसी तथा नियंत्रणाधीन सार्वजनिक परिसर संबंधी उपर्युक्त अधिनियम के अंतर्गत सम्पदा अधिकारी को प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करेंगे तथा अपने कर्तव्योंका निर्वहन करेंगे ।

[सं एफ-1-27/2006 - डेस्क( यू. ) ] एस. एस. महलावत , अवर सचिव 3338

TINE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26, 2007 / JYAISTHA 5, 1929

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

Department ofHigher Education) NewDelhi , the 9th May, 2007

S.Q. 1508- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of un- authorised of cupants ) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints the Deputy Registrar (Estates), Banaras Hindu University , Varanasi , being an officer equivalent to the rank of a gazetted officer of Govemment , tobe Estate Officer for the purposes of the said Act , who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed, on the Estate Officer by or under the said Act in respect of the public premises belonging to and under the administrative control of the Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi .

[No. F. 1-27/2006- Desk(U) J 3. S.MAHLAWAT, Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली. 25 अप्रैल , 2007

का.आ. 1509,-केन्द्रीय सरकार , रामभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप - नियम 4 के अनुसरण में मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय संगठन के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों कां, ऐसे कार्यालयों के रूप में , जिनमें ४० प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधन ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है : -

1. केन्द्रीय विद्यालय संगठन , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , सालावाला , हाथीबड़कला , देहरादून-248001

2. केन्द्रीय विद्यालय नं -1, पोर्ट ब्लेयर ।

[सं. 1101-7/2005 - रा. भा.ए. ] केशव देभिराजु , संयुक्त सचिव New Delhi , the 25th April , 2007

S.O. 1509.-- In pursuance of sub - rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages ( Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 , the Central Government herchy notifies the following offices of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan under the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Deptt. ofSchool Education and Literacy) as offices , whose more than 80 % members of the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi :

1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan , Regional Office , Salawala , Hathibadkala , Dehradun- 248001.

2 Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1 . Porn Blair.

[No. 1101.1-7/2005-0.L.U. ]

KESHAV DESIRAJU. JL . Secy,

PART li-SB .3 ( ii ) ] सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 26 अप्रैल , 2007

का,आ, 1510. - इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 8-1-2007 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में और चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियमावली , 1983 के नियम 7 और 8 के साथ पहित चलचित्र अधि- नियम, 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार तत्काल प्रभाव से दां वर्षों की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के कोलकाता सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्य के रूप में श्री सतेन्द्र बहादुर , पश्चिम लोहनीपुर (नजदीक बड़ा फाटक) , कदम कुआं , पटना-800003 को नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा, सं. 809/1 /2006- एफ ( सी) ] संगीता सिंह , निदेशक ( फिल्म) MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING

New Delhi . the 26th April , 2007

S.O. 1510. In continuation of this Ministry's notification of even number dated 08-01-2007 and in exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 ( 37 of 1952) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification ) Rules, 1983, the Central Government is pleased to appoint Shri Satyendra Bahadur, West Lohanipur ( Near Bara Phatak) , Kadamkuan. Patna- 800003 as member of the Kolkata Advisory Panel of the Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders , whichever is carlier .

[F. No. 809/ 1 /2006 -F(C) | SANGEETASINGH , Director (Films) नई दिल्ली , 27 अप्रैल , 2007

का.आ. 1511. इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 20-6-2007 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में और चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियमावली , 1983 के नियम 7 और 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधि नियम, 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो, केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के मुम्बई सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्यों के रूप में निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों को नियुक्त करती है ।

1. श्री रसीद अली खान , नवादीह , औरंगाबाद।

2. श्रीमती फरजाना बेगम , मार्फत सलीम अहमद खान , 404 , हिल्टन को- ओपरेटिव सोसायटी , कार्यालय- जे.पी. रोड , लोखंडवाला , अंधेरी ( प. ) , मुम्बई -53 ।

3. श्री सिद्धार्थ भीमराव गायकवाड़ , 30/1205 , विसावा , डी.एन. नगर अंधेरी ( पं. ) , मुम्बई-53 । [ मागः॥- सखण्ड 3(ii) ]

4. श्रीमती सुनन्दा लक्षराब सनाप ( नंदिता ) , ' इन्द्रप्रस्थ भवन ' 2-ए/ 103 प्रथम तल , देवस्ता नगर , स्वदेशी मिल रोड , सियोन - चूनाभर्टी (पू. ) , मुम्बई-22

[फा. सं. 809/1 /2004- एफ( सी ) ] संगीता सिंह, निदेशक ( फिल्म) New Delhi , the 27th April, 2007 S.O. 1511.In continuation of this Ministry's Notification of even number dated 20-06-2005 and in exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 5of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read with rules ? and 8 of the Cinematograph ( Certification ) Rules, 1983, the Central Government is pleased to appoint the following persons as members of the Mumbai Advisory Panel ofthe Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders, whichever isearlier:

(1) Shri Rashid Ali Khan , Nawadih, Aurangabad.

(2) Smi. Farzana Begam, C/ o Salim Ahmad Khan,404, Hilton Co-op Society, Off. J.P. Road, Lokhandwala, Andebri (W), Mumbai.

(3) Shri Siddharth Bhimrao Gaikwad, 30/1205, Visava, D.N. Nagar, Andheri (W), Mumbai-53.

(4) Smt . Sunanda Laxraj Sanap (Nandita) . 'Indraprastha' Bldg . , 2 -A/ 103 , First Floor, Devratna Nagar , Swadeshi Mill Road, Sion - Chumabhatti (F), Mumbai-22

[F.No. 809/1/2004-F(C) ) SANGEETA SINGH, Director (Films) संचार और सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय

(दूरसंचार विभाग )

(राजभामा जनुमरण )

नई दिल्ली, 15 मई , 2007

का.आ. 1512 ,-केन्द्रीय सरकार , राजभाषण ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 ( यथा संशोधित 1987 ) के नियम 10 ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में संचार और सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय , दूरसंचार विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन निम्मलिखित कार्यालयों को, जिसमें 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करती है। मुख्य महाप्रबंधक दूरसंचार , हरियाणा परिमण्डल, भा.सं. मि.लि. , अम्बाला

1. विद्युत मंडल , अम्बाला

2. अधिशासी अभियंता ( विद्युत ) मण्डल , फरीदाबाद 3. कार्यकारी अभियंता (विद्युत ) , रोहतक

3339

भारत का राजपत्र : मई. 26 , 2007 /ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

मुख्य महाप्रबंधक दूरसंचार , महाराष्ट्र परिमण्डल , भा.सं. नि.लि. , पुष्मई

महाप्रबंधक दूरसंचार का कार्यालय , संचार सदन, औरंगाबाद। [संई 11016/1/2007 ( रा.भा. ) ] बलराम शर्मा , संयुक्त सचिव ( प्रशासन ) MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONSAND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

(Department ofTelecommunications) (Official Language Section) New Delhi , the 15th May, 2007

S.O.1512 -In pursuanre of rule 10(4) ofthe Official Language (Use for official purposes of the Union), rules, 1976(as amended- 1987) , the Central Government hereby notifies the following Offices under the administrative control of the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Department of Telecommunications where more than 80 % ofstaff have acquired working knowledge ofHindi.

Chief General Manager Telecom. Haryana Circle , B.S.N.L, Ambala

1. Electrical Division , Ambala

2. Superintending Engineer (Electrical ) Divisionη, Faridabad

3. Executive Engineer (Electrical ), Rohtak

ChiefGeneral Manager Telecom . Maharashtra Circle. B.S.N.L.Bombay

Office of the General Manager Telecom. , Sanchar Sadan, Grangabad

[No. E. 11016/1/2007(OL)] BALRAM SHARMA, Jt. Secy. (Administration) स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय ( स्वास्थ्य और परिवार कल्वाप्त विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 11 मई , 2007

का. आ. 1513.- भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956 (1956 का 102 ) की धारा 11 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार , भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में एतद्‌द्वारा निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है, अर्थात्:-

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में " राजस्थान विश्वविद्यालय " तथा उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टियों के बाद " सिक्किम मनिपाल यूनिवर्सिटी आफ हैल्थ, मेडिकल एंड टक्नोलाजिकल साइंसेज , गंगटोकः" , जोड़ा जाएगा तथा " सिक्किम मनिपाल यूनिवर्सिटी ऑफ हैल्थ, मेडिकल एंड टेक्नोलाजिकल साइसेंज, गंगटौक " के सामने मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्द्धता शीर्षक [ इसके प्रश्चात् स्तंभ ( 2 ) के रूप में उल्लिखित ] के अन्तर्गत तथा " पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपम " शीर्षक [ इसके पश्चात् 3340

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26 , 2007/ JYAISTHA 5, 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] स्तम्भ ( 3 ) के रूप में उल्लिखित ] के अन्तर्गत निम्नलिखित अंतःस्थापित किया जाएगा :-

लिए वीर नर्मदा दक्षिण गुजरात विश्वविद्यालय की सीनेट द्वद्वारा भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् के एक सदस्य के रूप में निर्वाचित किया गया है। (2)

(3)

एम.बी.बी.एस.

बैचलर ऑफ मेडिसिन एण्ड बैचलर ऑफ सर्जरी

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

i ( सिक्किम मनिपाल इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ मेडिकल साइंसेज , गंगटोक के छात्रों के संबंध में यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी यदि यह मार्च, 2006 कोया इसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो )

उक्त अधिसूचना में " धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (ख ) के अधीन निर्वाचित " शीर्षक के अंतर्गत क्रम संख्या 36 के सामने निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां प्रतिस्थापित की जाएगी अर्थात्:-

[फा. सं. यू-12012/18/1994- एम.ई. ( पी-11 ) ]

" 36 डॉ. महेन्द्र

एस. के. मिश्रा , अवर सचिव

वीर नर्मदा दक्षिण गुजरात विश्वविद्यालय , सूरत"

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department ofHealth and Family Welfare)

दौलतसिंह चौहान , केशिवी नेत्र अस्पताल , दवार चैम्बर , नजदीक जे.के. टायर , रिंग रोद्ध , सूरत

New Delhi , the 11th May, 2007

[ सं. बी. 11013 /5/2005- एमई ( नीति -1 ) ]

टी. जे. एस. चावला, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 15th May ,2007

S.O. 1513. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2 ) of the Section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) , the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India , hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the saidAct, namely:-

S.O. 1514. Whereas in pursuance ofthe provision of sub -section ( 1 ) (b) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act , 1956 ( 102 of 1956) Dr. Mahendra Dolatsinh Chauhan, Keshivi Eye Hospital , Davar Chamber , Nr . J.K. Tower, RingRoad, Surat, member of the faculty of Medicine, Veer Narmada South Gujarat University , Surat has been elected by the Senate of Veer Narmada South Gujarat University, Surat to be a member of the Medical Council of India for five years with effect from date of issue of this notification.

In the said First Schedule after "Rajasthan University" andjentries thereto " Sikkim Manipal University ofFralth, Medical and Technological Sciences , Gangtok " shall be added and against "Sikkim Manipal University of Health, Medical and Technological Sciences , Gangtok" under the heading ' Recognized Medical Qualification ' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ] , and under the heading "abbreviation for Registration " [hereinafter referred to as column(3) ) , the following shall be inserted, namely:

(2)

(3)

M.B.B.S.

Bachelor of Medicine andBachelor of Surgery

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

(This shall be recognized medical qualification when granted on or after March, 2006 in respect ofstudents of Sikkim Manipal Institute of Medical Sciences,Gangtok)

In the said Notification , under the heading , "Elected under clause (b) of sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 3" , against serial number 36 , the following entries shall be substituted, namely:

[ F. No. U.12012/ 18/1994- ME (P -II ) ] S. K. MISHRA , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 15 मई, 2007

Veer Narmada South Gujarat University, Surat" !

"36. Dr. Mahendra Dolatsinh Chauhan, Keshivi Eye Hospital Davar Chamber Nr . J.K. Tower Ring Road, Surat

[No. V. 11013/5/2005 - ME (P- 1 ) ] T. J. S. CHAWLA, Under Secy .

का.आ. 1514.-भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम , 1956 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) ( ख ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में डॉ. महेन्द्र दौलतसिंह चौहान , केशिवी नेत्र अस्पताल त्रार चैम्बर, एनकार जे.के. टावर , रिंग रोड़ सूरत, काय चिकित्सा काय के सदस्य, वीर नर्मदा दक्षिण गुजरात विश्वविद्यालय , सूरत को । अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तारीख से पांच वर्षों की अवधि के [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

3341

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 26, 2007 /ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

नई दिल्ली, 15 मई , 2007

नई दिल्ली , 15 मई, 2007

कर.आ. 1515. - केन्द्र सरकार ने भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (ग ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में छत्तीसगढ़ के पंजीकृत चिकित्सम स्नातक निर्वाचन क्षेत्र में निर्वाचन करवाया है जहां से डॉ. कमलेश्वर अग्रवाल , बी-18 , रवि नगर , रायपुर, छत्तीसगढ़ को इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तारीख से भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद के एक सदस्य के रूप में सर्वसम्मति से निर्वाचित किया गया है।

का.आ. 1516,- भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम , 1956 (1956 का 102 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) ( ख ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में डॉ. दिलीप कुमार सकाली , गवर्नमेंट नेताजी सुभाष चन्द्र बोस मेडिकल कालेज, जबलपुर, कायाचिकित्सा संकाय के सदस्य, रानी दुर्गावती विश्वविद्यालय , को इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तारीख से पांच वर्षों की अवधि के लिए रानी दुर्गावती विश्वविद्यालय के कोर्ट द्वारा भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् के एक सदस्य के रूप में निर्वाचित किया गया है ।

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

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

उक्त अधिसूचना में " धारा 3 की उप - घारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( घ ) के अधीन निर्वाचित " शीर्षक के अंतर्गत क्रम संख्या 17 के बाद निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां जोड़ी जाएगी अर्थात्:-

उक्त अधिसूचना में धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (ख) के अधीन निर्वाचित" शीर्षक के अंतर्गत क्रम संख्या 13 के सामने निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां प्रतिस्थापित की जाएंगी अर्थात्:-

" 18 डॉ. कमलेश्वर अग्रवाल ,

रात्री दुर्गावती विश्वविद्यालय"

" 13 डॉ. दिलीप कुमार सकाली ,

बी-18, रवि नगर ,

रायपुर, छत्तीसगढ़ "

गवर्नमेंट नेताजी सुभाष चन्द्र बोस, मेडिकल कालेज, जबलपुर

[ सं. वी. 11013/3/2007 - एमई ( नीसि-1 ) ] टी. जे. एस. चावला , अवर सचिव

[सं. वी. 11013/1 /2007- एमई ( नीति-1 ) ] टी. जे. एस. चावला , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 15th May ,2007 New Delhi , the 15th May, 2007

S.0.1516. Whereas in pursuance ofthe provision of sub-section (1) ( b) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ( 102 of 1956) Dr. Dilip Kumar Sakalley, Government Netaji Subhash Chandra BoseMedical College. Jabalpur member of the faculty of Medicine , Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya has been elected by the Court of Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya , Jabalpur to be a member of theMedical Council of India for five years with effect trom date of issue of this notification .

S.O. 1515. Whereas the Central Government in pursuance of clause (c) of sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) has conducted the election from the Registered Medical Graduate Constituency of Chhattisgarh wherefrom Dr. Kamleshwar Agrawal , B -18 , Ravi Nagar , Raipur, Chhattisgarh has been elected unanimously to be a member ofthe Medical Council of India with effect from the date of issue of this notification.

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

Now, therefore , in pursuance of the provision of sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendment in the Notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry ofHealth number 5.0. 138, dated the 9th January, 1960, namely:

In the saidNotification , under the heading , "Elected under clause (b) of sub section ( 1 ) of Section 3", against serial number 13, the following entries shall be substituted , namely:

In the said notification, under the heading ,' Elected under clause ( c) of sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 3 ' , after serial No. 17, the following entries shall be added, namely:

RaniDurgavati Vishwavidyalaya" " 18. Dr. KamleshwarAgrawal , B-18, RaviNagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh"

"13. Dr. Dilip Kumar Sakalley, Government Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur

[No. V. II013/3/2007-ME(Policy-1) ] T. J. S. CHAWLA, Under Secy.

[No. V. 11013/1 /2007-ME(P-1)] T. J. S. CHAWLA, Under Secy.

3342

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/ JYAISTHA 5, 1929

"50.

नई दिल्ली , 15 मई , 2007

Dr.R.P. Jina, Professor and Head Department of Surgery, BRDMedical College, Gorakhpur DDUGorakhpur University" [No. V. 11013/1/2007 -ME (P -I) ] T. J. S. CHAWLA, Under Secy. नई दिल्ली, 15 मई , 2007

का.. 1517.- भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956 (1956 का 102 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) ( ख ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में डॉ. आर.पी जिना, प्रोफेसर एवं शल्य चिकित्सा विभागाध्यक्ष बी. आर. डी मेडिकल कालेज , गोरखपुर कायचकित्सा संकाय के सदस्य, डी.डॉ. यू. गोरखपुर विश्वविद्यालय को इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तारीख से पांच वर्षों की अवधि के लिए डी.डी. यू. गोरखपुर विश्वविद्यालय के कोर्ट द्वारा भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् के एक सदस्य के रूप में निर्वाचित किया गया है।

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

का.आ. 1518, - भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञाम परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956 (1956 का 102 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) ( ख ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में डॉ. पी. राजन, सहायक प्रोफेसर , रेडियो डायग्नोसिस विभाग , मेडिकल कालेज , कालीकट , कायचिकित्सा संकाय के सदस्य , कालीकट विश्वविद्यालय को इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तारीख से पांच वर्षों की अवधि के लिए कालीकट विश्वविद्यालय की सीनेट द्वारा भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् के एक सदस्य के रूप में निर्वाचित किया गया है ।

उक्त अधिसूचना में " धास 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (ख) के अधीन निर्वाचित " शीर्षक के अंतर्गत क्रम संख्या 50 के सामने निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां प्रतिस्थापित की जाएगी अर्थात्:-

डी.डी.यू. गोरखपुर विश्वविद्यालय "

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

"50 डॉ. आर.पी. जिना प्रोफेसर एवं शल्य चिकित्सा विभागाध्यक्ष, बी. आर. डी. मेडिकल कालेज , गोरखपुर

उक्त अधिसूचना में " धारा 3 की उपघरा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (ख ) के अधीन निर्वाचित " शीर्षक के अंतर्गत क्रम संख्या 46 के सामने निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां प्रतिस्थापित की जाएंगी अर्थात्:-

[सं. वी. 11013 / 1 / 2007 - एमई ( नीति -1 ) ]

कालीकट विश्वविधालय"

" 46 डॉ. पी. राजन ,

टी. जे. एस. चावला , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 15th May ,2007

सहायक प्रोफेसर , रेडियो डायग्नोसिस विभाग , मेडिकल कालेज , कालीकट-8

[सं. वी. 11013/6/2006- एमई (नीति-1 ) 」 टी. जे. एस. चावला , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 15th May , 2007 S. O 1517. Whereas in pursuance of the provision ofsub -section (1 ) ( b) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ( 102 of 1956) Dr. R. P. Jina , Professor and Head, Department of Surgery , BRD Medical College, Gorakhpur member of the faculty of Medicine , DDU Gorakhpur University has been elected by the Court of DDUGorakhpur University to be a member of the Medical Council of India for five years with effect from date of issue of this notification .

S. 0.1518. Whereas in pursuance of the provision of sub- section (1) (b) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ( 102 of 1956) Dr. P. Rajan, Assistant Professor, Department of Radiodiagnosis, Medical College, Calicut member of the faculty of Medicine , University of Kalicut has been elected by the Senate Court of University ofCalicut to be a member of the Medical Council of India for five years with effect from date of issue of this notification.

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

Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provision of sub-section (1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendment in the Notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry ofHealth number 5.0.138 dated the 9th January, 1960, namely:-

In the said Notification, under the heading, "Elected under clause (b) of sub section ( 1 ) of Section 3 ", against serial number 50 , the following entries shallbe substituted , namely:

3343

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

[ भाग - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

In the said Notification , under the heading, "Elected under clause (b ) of sub section ( 1 ) of Section 3 ", against serial number 46, the following entries shall be substituted, namely:-

"46 .

University ofCalicut" Dr. P. Rajan, Assistant Professor, Department of Radiodiagnosis Medical College, Calicut-8

[No.V. 11013/6/2006-ME(P-I) ] T. J. S. CHAWLA, Under Ssey. नईदिल्ली, 15 मई, 2007

का.आ. 1519.- भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम , 1956 (1956 का 102 ) की घारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) ( ख ) के उपबंध को अनुसरण में डॉ. ए. एन. वर्मा , प्रोफेसर और अस्थि विज्ञान विभागाध्यण, एम.एल.एन. मेडिकल कालेज , इलाहाबाद, कार्यचिकित्सा संकाय के सदस्य, इलाहाबाद विश्वविद्यालय को इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तारीख से पांच वर्षों की अवधि के लिए इलाहाबाद विश्वविद्यालयं के कोर्ट द्वारा भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् के एक सदस्य के रूप में निर्वाचित किया गया है।

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

उक्त अधिसूचना में " धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (ख) के अधीन निर्वाचित " शीर्षक के अंतर्गत क्रम संख्या 27 के सामने निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां प्रतिस्थापित की जाएंगी अर्थात्:-

इलाहाबाद विश्वविद्यालय" " 727 डॉ. ए. एन. वर्मा, प्रोफेसर , और अस्थिविज्ञान विभागाध्यक्ष , एम्.एल.एम. , मेडिकल कालेज , इलाहाबाद

[सं. वी. 11013/ 1/2007-एम ई (नीति-1 ) ] टी. जे. एस. चावला, अवर सचिव NewDelhi, the 15thMay, 2007

S.O.1519. Whereas in pursuance of the provision ofsub-section (1 ) (b) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical CouncilAct,1956 (102 of 1956)Dr. A. N. Verma, Professor and Head, Department of Orthopaedic, M.L.N. Medical College, Allahabad member of the faculty of Medicine, University ofAllahabad has been elected by the Court of University ofAllahabad to be a member of the Medical Council of India for five years with effect trom date of issue ofthis notification .

Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Central 2394 01/07-10

Governmenthereby makes the following further amendment Inthe Notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry ofHealth number S.O. 138 dated the 9th January, 1960, namely:--

In the said Notification , under the heading, "Elected under clatise (b) of sub section ( 1 ) of Section 3 " ; against serial number 27, the following entries shall be substituted, pamely:-

21.

University of Allahabad" Dr.A.N. Verma , Professor and Head Department ofOrthopaedic, M.L.N. Medical College , Allahabad

[No. V. 11013/1 /2007-ME (P-I) ] T.J. S. CHAWLA, Under Secy.

कृषि मंत्रालय

( कृषि एवं सहकारिता विभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 8 मई , 2007

का.आ. 1520.-केन्द्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10के उप नियम (4 ) के अनुसरण में कृषि एवं सहकारिता विभाग , कृषि मंत्रालय के अंतर्गत सार्वजनिक क्षेत्र के उपक्रम नेशनल सीड्स कापरिशन लिमिटेड , नई दिल्ली के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय को जिसके 80% कर्मचारीकृष्ण ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, अधिसूचित करती हैं-

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , नेशनल सीड्स कापरिशन लिमिटेड , 681-690 , मार्केटयार्ड, गुलटेकड़ी, पुणे-411037 [संख्या 3-6/2004- हिन्दी नीति]

पी. के. जलाली , संयुक्त सचिव MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(Department ofAgriculture and Co-orperation) New Delhi , the 8thMay,2007

5.0. 1520.-In pursuance of Sub -Rule (4) of Rule 10of theOfficial Language (Use for Oficial Purposes ofthe Union)Rule , 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies following Regional Office of the National Seeds Corporation Limited , NewDelhi , a Public Sector Undertaking under the controloftheDepartment ofAgriculture and Cooperation , Ministry ofAgriculture, 80% staffwhereof have acquired theworking knowledge ofHindi :-

RegionalOffice,

National Seeds Corporation Ltd. , 681-690, Marketyard, Gultekri , Pune-411037 [No,3-6/2004-HindiNeeti) P. K. JALALL, Jt. Secy.

3344

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/JYAJSTHA 5, 1929

(PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

( उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग

नई दिल्ली, 15 मई, 2007

का.आ 1521. केन्द्रीय सरकार , भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो अधिनियम , 1986 ( 1986 का 63 ) की धारा 7 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए श्री सायन चटर्जी , भा.प्र.से. ( केरल : 76 ) को 14 मई , 2007 ( पूर्वान्ह) से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो , 22,400-525-24,500 रुपए के वेतनमान में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो के महानिदेशक के पद पर नियुक्त करती है ।

[सं 2/9/2006-बीआईएस ) देश बंधु , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs )

New Delhi , the 15th May, 2007

S.O. 1521.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 1 ) of section 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Act , 1986 (63 of 1986), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Sayan Chatterjee , 1AS ( KL: 76 ) as Director General in Bureau of Indian Standards in the scale of pay of Rs . 22,400-525-24,500 /-with effect from 14th May , 2007 ( furenoon ) for a period of three years or until further orders whichever is earlier.

[No. 2/9/2006-BIS)

DESH BANDIIU , Under Secy,

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली , 7 मई , 2007

का.आ. 1522,- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम ? के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए है : -

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि

क्रम संख्या

स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

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

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

फरवरी 2007

आईएस 1993: 1993 / आईएसओ 1111-1: 1983

आईएस 1993 :2006/ आईएसओ 11949 : 1995- अतप्त-लघुकृत अपघटनी टिनप्लेट (चौथा पुनरीक्षण)

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

[संदर्भ: एमटीडी 4/टी -8 ]

डा. ( श्रीमती ) स्नेह भाटला , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी। BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi , the 7th May, 2007

S.O. 1522. In pursuance of clause ( b ) of sub - sule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, theBureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedulc hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

3345

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

SCHEDULE

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

(2)

(1)

IS 1993:2006/ISO 11949: 1995 Cold-reduced electrolytic tinplate (Fourth Revision)

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

(4)

(3)

1Feb. 2007

IS1993:1993/ ISO 1111-1: 1983

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

[Ref: MTD 4/T-8 ) Dr.(Mrs. ) SNEH BHATLA, Scientist 'F' and Head (Met Engg)

नई दिल्ली, 14 मई , 2007

का.आ. 1523 भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम, 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक न्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक (कों) में संशोधन किया गया किये गये हैं:--

स्थापित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

क्रम संख्या

(2)

(1)

1003 (Part1 ) : 2003

2. 1003 (Part2) : 1994

3. 6523 : 1983

4 15380:2003

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और विथि

संशोधन लागू होने कीतिथि

(4)

(3)

30अप्रैल 2007 संख्या 1 , अप्रैल 2007

31मार्च2007 संख्या 2, मार्च 2007

31मार्च 2007 संख्या 2, मार्च 2007

7मई2007 संख्या 1 , अप्रैल 2007

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

[संदर्भ: सीईडी/राजपत्र ] ए, के. सैनी , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( सिविल इंजीनियरी )

NewDelhi , the 14th May,2007

S.O. 1523.-In pursuance ofclause (b ) of sub -rule ( 1 ) of Rules ( 1) ofRule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendment to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule bereto annexed have been issued:

SCHEDULE

Sl .No.

No. and Year of

the amendment

No. and Year ofthe Indian Standards

(1) (2)

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

(4)

(3)

30April2007

No. 1, April2007

1003 (Part 1): 2003

31March2007 No. 2, March2007

2 1003 (Part 2): 1994

31March2007 No.2, March2007

3 6523: 1983

7May2007

No. 1, April2007

4 15380:2003 3346

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/JYAISTHA 5, 1929

[PART I-SRC . 3 ( ii ) ] Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Marnak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkatta, Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and alsoBranch Offices :Ahmedabad , Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur , Patua ,Pune, Thiruvananthapuram .

[Ref: CED/Gazette!

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

AMENDMENT NO . 1 APRIL 2007 TO IS 1003 (PART 1 ) : 2003 TIMER PANELLED AND GLAZED SHUTTERS SPECIFICATION (Fourth Revision)

(Coverpage, Title)-Substitute the following for the existing title:

'भारतीय मानक लकड़ी के छल्लेवार तथा कश्चित शटर भाग 1 दरवाजे के शटर (चौथा पुनरीक्षण) विशिष्टि

Indian Standard TIMBER PANELLED AND GLAZED SHUTTERS- SPECIFICATION PART 1 DOOR SHUTTERS (fourth Revision)'

(Second cover page, Foreword, first para, line 1) - Insert ' (Part 1 ) ' after the word 'Standard' .' (Page 1 , clause 1.1 . first sentence) - lusert ( Part 1 ) ' between " standard" and "lays". (Page 10, clause 13 ) -Insert ' ADDITIONAL' before the existing title. (CED11)

AMENDMENT NO . 2 MARCH 2007 TO IS 1003(PART 2) ; 1994 TIMBER PANELLED AND GLAZED SHUTTERS- SPECIFICATION PART 2 WINDOW AND VENTILATOR SHUTTERS

(Third Revision)'

[Page7. clause 13 (see also Amendent No. 1) ]- Insert ' ADDITIONAL' before the existing title . (CFD 11)

AMENDMENT NO . 2 MARCH 2007 18 6523: 1983 SPECIFICATION FOR PRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETE DOOR AND WINDOW FRAMES (First Revision)"

[Page 14, clause 8- Title ( see also Amendment No. 1 ) ] Substitute 'ADDITIONAL for OPTIONAL. (CED53) 3347

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

[भाग- खष्ठ 3(ii) ]

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

(CENTRAL MARKS DEPARTMENT-ILL

OurRef: CMD- III/16 : 15380

01-05-2007 SUBJECT: Implementation of Amendment No 1 , April 2007 to IS15380: 2003 moulded raised high density fiber (HDF) PanelDoors.

Amendment No 1 , April 2007 to IS 15380: 2003 MouldedRaised High Density fiber (HDF) Panel Doors has been published. This amendment does not require any change in the existing STI Doc: STI/ 15380/ 1 July2004.

Ithas beendecided to implement this amendment with immediate effect. ROS/BOs are requested to inform the licensees of IS 15380: 2003 under their jurisdiction about implementation of above amendment .

Enel : As above.

Sc.F& H (CMD-III) All ROS/BOS, BIS LABS c.c. CMD- 1 CED

NAWALKISHORE, Scientist B (CMD- III) AMENDMENT NO.1 APRIL 2007 TO IS 15380: 2003 MOULDED RAISED HIGH DENSITY FIBRE (HDF) PANEL DOORS- SPECIFICATION (Page 6, clause 14)- Insert 'ADDITIONAL' before the title. (CED11)

नई दिल्ली, 14 मई , 2007

का.आ. 1524.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम ? के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गये मानक ( कों) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या

और वर्ष

क्रम संख्या

(1)

(2)

1. आई एस 1566 : 1982

2 आई एस 1785 ( भाग 1 ) : 1983 अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागूहोने कीतिथि

(3)

(4)

7मई2007 4, अप्रैल2007

9मई 2007 4, अप्रैल2007

इन संशोधनों की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 बहादुरशाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों नईदिल्ली , कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद, जयपुर , कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना, पूर्ण तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ: सीईडी/राजपत्र] ए. के. सैनी , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( सिविल इंजीनियरी )

New Delhi, the 14thMay, 2007

S.O. 1524. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub -rule ( 1) ofRules ( 1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards, particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:

Sl. No.

SCHEDULE

No. and Year of

the amendment

No, and Year of the Indian Standards

(1)

(2)

IS 1566: 1982

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

(3)

(4)

7May2007

4,April2007

IS 1785 (Part 1 ) : 1983

9May2007

4,April2007

3348

[PART II-Sec. 3 (ii)]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/JYAISTHA 5, 1929

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

[Ref: CED /Gazette) A. K. SAINI , Scientist ' F' and Head ( Civil Engg. )

AMENDMENT NO . 4 APRIL2007

TO IS1566 : 1982 SPECIFICATION FOR HARD -DRAWN STEELWIRE FABRIC FOR CONCRETE HEINFORCEMENT

(SecondRevision)

(Page 10, Appendix A)-Insert the following values of Mesh Size and the corresponding values of Diameter of WireEachWayandNominalMassper m² with the SI No. as indicated against each at the beginning of the informal table for SQUARE MESH and renumber the existing SI Nos . 1, 2, 3 as 5, 6 & 7 respectively:

Sl. No.

Diameterof

WireEachWay

Mesh Size (Nominal Pitch ofWires)

(2)

(1)

Nominal Mass perm³ kg

(4)

(3)

2.5

2.03

3.08

3.0

2.5

2.10

2.85

3.0

Insert the following values of Mesh Size and the corresponding values ofDiameter ofWire Each Way and Nominal Maxs perm² with the Sl . No , as indicated against each after the renumbered SI No. 7 and renumber the remaining Sl Nos . 4 1041:

Sl.No.

Diameterof

WireEachWay

MeshSize (Nominal Pitch ofWires)

(1)

(2)

Nominal Mass perm² kg

(4)

(3)

1.50

3.0

2.64

4.0

4.25

5.0

AMENDMENT NO.4 APRIL2007

TO IS1785: (PART 1) : 1983 SPECIFICATION FOR PLAIN HARD- DRAWN STEEL WIRE FOR PRESTRESSED CONCRETE

PART 1 COLD DRAWN STRESS-RELIEVED WIRE

(SecondRevision)

Page 5, clause 5.1 (see also Amendment No. 311 -Insert the following values of Nominal Diameters and it's corresponding values of Tolerances:

Nominal Diameter

3.00

2.50

Tolerance

+0.04

10.025 [ भाग 11 खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3349

भारत का राजपत्र : मपई 26, 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5; 1929

(Page5, clause 5.1.2 ( see also Amendments No. 2 and 3) ]- Insert the following values ofNominal Diameter and its corresponding values of Nominal Mass and Tolerance in the existing clause:

Nominal Diameter

NominalMass

gin

Tolerance g/m

3.00

55.5

±1.5

2.50

38.5

±1.25

[Page 6, clause 6.1 (see also Amendments No. 3) ]- Insert the following values of Nominal Diameter and its corresponding values of Tensile Strength in the existing clause :

Nominal Diameter

TensileStrength, Mim

N/mm²

2.50

2010

3.00

1865

[Page 6, clause 6.4( see also Amendments No. 3)] Insert the following values of Nominal Diameter and its corresponding values of Elongation , Percent in the existing clause :

Amend No. 4 to IS 1785 (Part 1) : 1983

NominalDiameter

Elogation, percent

2.50

2.5

3.00

2.5

[Page 8 , clause 7.5 ( see also Amendments No. 3) ]- Insert the following values of Diameter of Wire and its corresponding values of Radius ofJaws in Table 1 under the existing clause:

Diameter ofWire

Radius ofJaws

2.50

7.50

3.00

10:00

नईदिल्ली, 15 मई , 2007

1 का.आ. 1525-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड (ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक न्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक ( कों) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :

अनुसूची

क्रम संख्या

संशोधित भारतीय मानक ( कों) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागूहोने कीतिथि

(2)

( 1)

(3)

(4)

10मई2007 आई एस 371 : 1999 (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

4,मार्च, 2007

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

[संदर्भ: इंटी 14/टी-2 ]

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

NewDelhi, the 15thMay,2007

8.O. 1525 -In pursuance of clause (b ) ofsub- rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendment to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued:

3350

Sl .No.

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007 /JYAISTHA 5, 1929

SCHEDULE

No. andYear of

the Amendment

No. and Year of the Indian Standards

( 1)

(2)

Date from which the Amendment shall have effect

(4)

(3)

4March,2007

IS371: 1999 CeilingRoses- Specification (Third revision)

10May,2007

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

[Ref:ET- 14/T-2] P. K. MUKHERJEE, Scientist ' F' and Head (Electrotechnical)

नई दिल्ली, 15 मई , 2007

का.आ. 1526.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम , 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक (कों ) में संशोधन किया गया /किये गये हैं:

संशोधित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

क्रम संख्या

(2)

(1 )

1. आई एस 3854: 1997 ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण ) अनुसूची

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

(4)

(3)

9मई, 2007 4अप्रैल, 2007

इस भारतीय संशोधन की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 बहादुरग्रह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद , जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, मिटना, पुणे तथा तिरूचनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ: ईटी 14 /टी-19 ] पी. के. मुखर्जी, वैज्ञानिक' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी)

New Delhi, the 15th May, 2007

S.O. 1526.-In pursuance of clause (b) ofsub- rule ( 1 ) ofRule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendment to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule herek) annexed has been issued:

Sl. No.

SCHEDULE

No. and Year of

the Amendment

Noj and Year of the Indian Standards

(2)

(1)

Date from which the Amendment shall have effect

(4)

(3)

9May,2007

4April,2007

IS3854: 1997 Switches for doquestic and similar purposes- Specification (Second revision) Copies of this Amendment are available with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also BranchOffices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur, Patna, Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: ET- 14/T- 19 ] P. K. MUKHERJEE, Scientist ' F' and Head (Electrotechnical) [भाग 11-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

3351

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

नईदिल्ली , 15 मई , 2007

का.आ. 1527 भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड (ख ) के अनुसरण में एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे रद्द कर दिए गए हैं और वापस ले लिए गये हैं:

रद्द किये गये मानक की संख्या

और वर्ष

क्रम संख्या

(1)

(2)

1. आई एस 13985 :1994

अनुसूची

टिप्पणी

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

(4)

(3)

मार्च , 2007

[संदर्भ: ईटीडी/जी-63 ( ए) ] पी. के. मुखर्जी, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी)

NewDelhi, the 15thMay,2007

S.O. 1527.-In pursuance of clause (b) of sub- rule (1 ) ofRule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, it is, hereby notified that the Indian Standards, Particulars of which are mentioned in the Schedule give hereafter, have been cancelled and stand withdrawn.

SCHEDULE

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

(1)

(2)

Remarke

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

(4)

(3)

March, 2007

1 IS 13985: 1994

[Ref: ETD/G-63(A) ] P. K. MUKHERJEE, Scientist 'F ' and Head (Electrotechnical)

नई दिल्ली, 15 मई , 2007

का.आ. 1528. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम ? के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक ( कों) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :

संशोधित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

क्रम संख्या

(1)

(2)

1. आई एस 7098 ( भाग 1 ) : 1988 कीसंशोधन संख्या ।

2 आई एस 7098 ( भाग 1) : 1988 की संशोधन संख्या 2

अनुसूची

संशोधन लागू होने कीतिथि

संशोधन की संख्या और विथि

(4)

(3)

4मई , 2007 1 अप्रैल, 1994

4मई, 2007 2फरवरी, 2007

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

2394G1/07--11

[संदर्भ : इंटी09/टी-43 ] पी. के. मुखर्जी , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी ) 3352

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/IYAISTHA 5, 1929

[PART II Sec . 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 15th May,2007

$.O. 1528.-In pursuance of clause (b) of sub -rule ( 1) ofRule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, theBureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendment to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued:

SCHEDULE

SI . No.

No. and Year ofthe Indian Standards

No. and Year of

the amendments

(1)

(2)

Date from which the amendments shall have effect

(3)

(4)

1April , 1994

IS7098 (Part 1 ): 1988 Specification for Crosslinked Polyethylene Insulated PVC Sheathed Cables Part 1 For working voltages up to and including 1100V (First revision)

4May,2007

2February,2007

2. IS7098 (Part 1) : 1988 Specification for Crosslinked Polyethylene Insulated PVC Sheathed Cables Part 1 For working voltages up to and including 1100 V (First revision)

4May,2007

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

[Ref : ET-09/ T-43 ] P. K. MUKHERJEE, Scientist ' F' and Head (Electrotechnicall)

नई दिल्ली, 16 मई , 2007

का.आ. 1529. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्धारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक ( कों) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :

क्रम संख्या

संशोधित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

(1)

(2)

1. आई एस 1554 (भाग 1 ) : 1988 की संशोधन संख्या ।

2. आई एस 1554 ( भाग 1 ) : 1988 की : संशोधन संख्या 2

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागूहोने की तिथि

(3)

(4)

1 जून, 1994

8मई , 2007 2जनवरी , 2007

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

[संदर्भ: ईटी 09/टी-12 ] पी. के. मुखर्जी, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी)

New Delhi , the 16th May, 2007

SO. 1529.-in pursuance of clause (b ) of sub -rule (1 ) ofRule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendment to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued:

3353 [ भाग 1]- खण्ड ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

SCHEDULE

Sl .No. No. and Year ofthe Indian Standards

No. and Year of

the amendments

Date from which the amendmenst shall have effect

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1June,1994

8May,2007

IS1554(Part 1): 1988 Specification for PVC Insulated (Heavy Duty) Electric Cables Part 1 For working voltages up to and including 1100 V(Third Revision)

8May,2007

2January,2007

2. IS 1554 (Part 1 ) : 1988 Specification for PVC Insulated (Heavy Duty) Electric CablesPart 1 For working voltages up. to and including 1100 V( ThirdRevision)

Copy of theseAmendment are available with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan , 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg ,New Delhi- 110002 and Regional Offices; New Delhi , Kolkatta, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and alsoBranch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur , Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: ET-09/T-12]

P. K. MUKHERJEE, Scientist 'F' and Head (Electrotechnical)

नई दिल्ली , 17 मई , 2007

कर. आ. 1530.- पारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम ? के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एव‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों) की संख्या

क्रम संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

जनवरी 2007 आई एस 14700 ( भाग 4 अनुभाग 24) : 2007/

आई ई री 61000-4-24 ( 1997 ) चुम्बकीय संगतता

(ई एम सी ) भाग 4 परीक्षण एवं मापन तकनीकें अनुभाग 24 एच ई एम पी से उत्पन्न व्यवधान के लिए संरक्षी

युक्तियों की परीक्षण पद्धतियाँ

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

[संदर्भ : एल टीडी/जी -75 ]

रीना गर्ग , प्रमुख ( एल आई टी डी)

New Delhi, the 17thMay,2007

S.O. 1530. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1 ) ofRules ( 1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, theBureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

3354

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2007 /JYAISTHA 5 , 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii))

SCHEDULE

Date ofEstablishment Sl .No. No. and ycar of the Indian Standards Established

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

(2)

(1)

(4)

(3)

January, 2007 : IS 14700 (Part 4/Sec 24): 2007/IEC 61000-4-24 (1997) Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) Part 4Testing and Measurement Techniques Section 24 Test Methods for Protective Devices for HEMP соnducted Disturbance

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

[Ref: LTD/G-75]

REENA GARG, Head (LITD)

नई दिल्ली , 17 मई , 2007

का. आ. 1531. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम ? के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत्तद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक ( को ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :

क्रम संख्या

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागू होने कीतिथि (1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 1 . आई एस 14885 : 2001

2अप्रैल, 2007

13मई, 2007 इन संशोधनों की प्रत्तियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 बहादुरशाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, नागपुर , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद , जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ : सीईडी/राजपत्र ]

ए. के. सैनी , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( सिविल इंजीनियरी )

New Delhi , the 17th May, 2007

S.O. 1531.-In pursuance of clause ( b ) of sub - rule (1 ) ofRules ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendment to the Indian Standards, particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued:

SCHEDULE

SLNo. No , and Year of the Indian Standards

No. and Year of

the amendments

Date fromwhich the amendment shall have effect

(3)

(4)

(1) (2)

1. IS 14885: 2001

2April ,2007

13May, 2007 Copy ofthis Amendment are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolcalta, Chandigarh , Chennai , Nagpur , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad , Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur , Kanpur, Nagpur , Patna , Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: CED/Gazete

A.K. SAINI , Scientist ' F ' and Head (Civil Engg.) 3355

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

[ भाग 1]- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 18 मई , 2007

का.आ. 1532.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो प्रमाणन विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि वे लाइसेंस जिनके विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं उनके आगे दर्शाए गई तिथि से जारी किए गए हैं :

अनुसूची

वैधता

भा.मा. / भाग/विभाग/वर्च उत्पादन

पार्टि का नाम और पता

अनु.क.लाईसेंस संख्या

4 2

1. 7724380

28-03-2008 सुमिल इंडस्ट्रिज द्वि-8 , एमआयडीसी फेज 2 , मानपाका रोड, डोंबीवली ( पूर्व) -421203. थाणेजिला 2. 7714781

01-03-2008

भामा : 1535 : 1979 कॉटन लाईनिंग कपड़ा

भामा : 12785 : 1994 इरिगेशन इक्विपमेंट- स्ट्रेनर टाईप फिल्टर्स

किम्प्लास पाईपिग सिस्टम्स

लिमिटेड बी-20 ,

एमआयडीसी, अंबड ,

नासिक-422010

3 7722982

26-03-2008 इन्छ आर्ट मटेरियल्स प्रायव्हेट लिमिटेड एल-70 , बेरणा इलेक्ट्रोनिक सिटी, वेरणा, नार्थ गोवा-403722 गोवा403 110 4 7723176

26-03-2008 ईशान इंडस्ट्रिज एम -130, एमआयडीसी, भुसावल रोड, जलगाँव-425003 विजय फायर के आगे , चांदिवली फार्म, साकी माका, मुंबई -400072

5. 7724683

28-03-2008 महालक्ष्मी ईरिगेशन कंपनी प्रा. लि. प्लॉट संख्या-20 , सावदा फैजपूर को-ऑपरेटिव्ह इंडस्ट्रियल ईस्टेट , सावदा रोड , फैजपूर, जलगाँव-425503, जिला थाणे -421601 6 7699108

01-03-2008 ओम शांती अॅग्रो इंडस्ट्रिज गढ़ संख्या-208 /ए 1/ए 1 , पोस्ट-वारखेडी, धुले 7. 7699007

01-03-2008

भामा : 13209 : 1991 इनडेलिबल इंक

भामा : 2645 2003 इन्टीग्रल सिमेंट वॉटरप्रुफिग कंपाऊंड

ईरिगेशन इक्विपमेंट ईमिटर्स भामा: 13487 : 1992

भाषा : 14543 : 2004 पैकेजबंद पेयजल

बी.पी. जैन अॅग्रो इंडस्ट्रिज

बी. पी. जैन ईस्टेट, मुंबई

आग्रा रोड, घुले-424311

[सं. के. प्र. वि./ 13 : 11 ]

ए. के. वलवार , उप महानिदेशक

NewDelhi, the 18th May,2007

S.O. 1532- In pursuance of sub- regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations, 1988 , the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars ofwhich are given below in the following schedule :

3356

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007 /JYAISTHA 5, 1929

[ PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]

SCHEDULE

Product

Validity Date

Sl. No.

Licence No.

Name andAddress ( factory) of theParty

ISNo./Part/ Sec year 1

1 772438028-3-2008

IS1535:1979

Specification for Cotton Lining Cloth

Sunil Industries, D-8, MIDC Phase 11, Manpada Road, Dombivli (E) Thane Dombivli (E) Maharashtra-421203

2 7714781 01-03-2008

IS12785: 1994

IrrigationEquipment Strainer-type- Filters- Specification

Kimplas Piping Systems Limited, B-20 , MIDC , AMBAD, Nshik-422010, Nashik Maharashtra -422010

3 7722982 26-03-2008

Indelible ink

IS13209 : 1991 IndArt Materials Pvt Ltd .. L-70, Vema Electronic City, Verna North Goa, Goa-403722

4 7723176 26-03-2008

IS2645:2003 Eshan Industries M- 130, MIDC, Bhusawal Road, Jalgaon, Maharashtra-425003

Specification for Integral Cement Waterproofing Compounds

5 7724683 28-03-2008

I$ 13487: 1992

Irrigation Equipment- Emitters Specification

Mahalaxmi Irrigation Co. Pvt. Ltd. , Plot No. 20, Sayda FaizpurCo- op. Industrial Estate , Savda Road Faizpur , Jalgaon , Faizpur, Maharashtra-425503

6 7699108 01-03-2008

IS 14543:2004

Packaged Dinking Water (other than Packaged Natural Minera ! Water)-

Om Shanti Agro Industries Gat No. 208/A1 / A1 , at Post Warkhedi Dhule, Maharashtra

Specification

01-03-2008

7699007:

IS 14543:2004

Packaged Dinking Water ( other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

B.P. Jain Agro Industries , B.P. Jain Estate. Mumbai Agra Road , Dhulc Maharashtra -424311

Specification

[No.CMD/ 13 : 111

A.K. TALWAR, Dy. DirectorGeneral

नई दिल्ली, 18 मई , 2007

का.आ. 1533.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम 1988 के नियम 4 के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

लाइसेंस संख्या

क्रम संख्या

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

स्वीकृत करने की तिथि, वर्ष/माह

भामा भाग अनु- वर्ष संख्या

भाग 1

7 8 9 1

7704576

6-2-2007

1417

स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण

1999 पोपट भागीरथ महाले ( सर्राफ ) मैन रोड , राम मंदिर चौक , श्रीरामपुर , अहमदनगर-413709

मिश्रधातु आभूषण/ कृत्रिम-शिल्पकृति और चिन्हांकन [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3357

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

2 7705272

7-2-2007

सिमरातमल कुंदनमल ज्वैलर्स 2358 , महात्मा गांधी रोड , अहमदनगर-414 001 3.

7709182

14-2-2007

1417

1999 स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुं आभूषण कृत्रिम- शिल्पकृति और चिन्हांकन

2002

8034

सबमसीबल पम्पसैट्स

केएसबी पम्पस लिमिटेड

मुंबई-पुणे रोड

पिफ्री , जिला पुणे -411018

4. 7710773

19-2-2007 श्री लक्ष्मी कांक्रीट प्रॉडक्ट्स कंपनी गट संख्या, 571 , एट पोस्ट शिंदवणे दालिम्ब रोड , उरलीकांचन के पास तालुका हवेली पुणे-411023 5.

7711371

21-2-2007

श्री गणेश ज्वैलर्स एंड सर्राफ क्र.सं. 229 , कामधेनु इस्टेट, बिल्डिग नं. 4 , दुकान नं. 13, हडपसर , मंत्री मार्केट के सामने, पुणे-411013 6 7711573

22-2-2007 घोडके सर्राफ 784, सदाशिव पेठ कुमठेकर रोड, पुणे-411030 7

7712878

21-2-2007

458

2003 प्रीकॉस्ट कांक्रीट पाइप्स (री-इन्फोर्समेंट सहित एवं रहित)

1417

1999 स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्रधातु आभूषण/ कृत्रिम-शिल्पकृति और चिन्हांकन

1417

1999 स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्रधातु आभूषण/ कृत्रिम- शिल्पकृति और चिन्हांकन

2002

5780

ओरियंट कंसलटेंसी सर्विस

12, एकता कालोनी,

हिमायत बाग

औरंगाबाद -431001

8 7713779

28-2-2007

कोठारीज्वैलर्स मेन रोड , जामखेड , एट पोस्ट जामखेड औरंगाबाद-413201 विस्फोटक गैस वायु- मंडल के लिए विद्युत् उपकरण-आंतरिक सुरक्षा " आई "

1417

1999 स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्रधातु आभूषण/ कृत्रिम -शिल्पकृति और चिन्हांकन

[सं. सीएमडी/ 13 : 11 ] ए. के. तलवार , उप महानिदेशक (मुहर )

NewDelhi , the 18th May, 2007

S.O. 1533.- in pursuance of sub- regulation ( 5) ofregulation (4) of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars ofwhich are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDILE SI.

No.

Licence No.

Grant Date

Name and Address ofthe Party 1

7704576 6-2-2007

Popat Bhagirath Mahale (Saraf) Main Road, Ram Mandir Chowk, Shrirampur, Ahmednagar413709

IS No. Part/Sec . Year Tile ofthe Standard

1417

1999 Goldandgold alkys, Jewellery/ artefacts - fineness and marking [PART II-SEC. 3(ii ) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/JYAISTHA 5. 1929

3358

1417 1999 2

7-2-2007

7705275

Simaratmal Kundanmal Jewellers

2538, Mahatma Gandhi Road,

Ahmednagar -414001

Goldandgold alloys, Jewellery/ artefacts - fineness andmarking

2002

8034

14-2-2007

3 7709182

Submersible Pumpsets

KSB Pumps Ltd. , Mumbai -Pune Road, Pimpri District Pune-411018

458

2003 4

19-02-2007

7710773

Precast concrete pipes (with and without reinforcement)

Shree Laxmi Concrete Products Company Gat No. 571, AtPost Shindwane Dalimb Road, Near Uralikanchan, TalukaHaveli Pune - 411023

1999

1417

21-2-2007

5 7711371

Gold and gold alloys, Jewellery/ artefacts - fineness andmarking

Shree Ganesh Jewellers & Saraf S.No. 229, Kamdhenu Estate , Bldg . No. 4, Shop No. 13, Hadapsar In Front of Mantri Market Pune-411013

1417 1999 22-2-2007

6 7711573

Gold and gold -alloys, Jewellery / artefacts - fineness andmarking

Ghodke Saraf 784, Sadashiv Peth Kumthekar Road Pune-411030

2002

5780 7712878 21-2-2007

Electrical apparatus for explosivegas atmospheres - intrinsic safety " i"

Orient Consultancy Services

12. EktaColony,

HimayatBaug.

Aurangabad-431001

1999

1417 28-2-2007

8 7718779

Gold and gold alloys , Jewellery/ artefacts-fineness and marking

Kothari Jewellers Main Road, Jamkhed, At Post Jamkhed, Ahmednagar - 413201

[No. CMD/13 : 11 ]

A. K. TALWAR, Dy. Director General (Marks )

नई दिल्ली , 18 मई , 2007

का. आ. 1534.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम 1988 के नियम 4 के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

उत्पाद का नाम तथा आई एस

लाइसेंस संख्या लाइसेंसी का नाम तथा पत्ता

अनुज्ञप्ति स्वीकृत करने की तिथि क्रम संख्या

15-03-07 1. 7719286

एलूमिनियम कंडक्टर फार ओवरहेड ट्रांसमिशन परपस आई एस 398 पार्ट 2 : 1996

मैसर्स पालको मैटल लिमिटेड, 604 /बी, सहजानंद शॉपिंग सेंटर , शाहीबाग रोड , अहमदाबाद -380004 3359

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 26, 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता 01-03-07 2. 7714074

एवं मुहर्राकरन , आई एस 1417 : 1999

मैसर्स ममताज्वैलर्स, यूऐफ 1 , औक्सफोर्ड टावर , गुरूकुल रोड, मेमनगर , अहमदाबाद-380 052

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता 01-03-07 3. 7714276

एवं मुहरांकरन, आई एस 1417 : 1999

मैसर्स जे जे ज्वैलर्स , शॉप नंबर 6 , अपर ग्राउंड फ्लोर, आशीर्वाद काम्पलैक्स, तमा भवन के पास, भातर रोड, सूरत-395 007

4. 7714478

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता 01-03-07 एवं मुहरांकरन , आई एस 1417 : 1999

मैसर्स लाडला ज्वैलर्स, 1 , कृष्णा पैलेस, गोपाल टावर के सामने, स्टेशन रोड, मनीनयर , अहमदाबाद-380 008

5. 7714680

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता 01-03-07 एवं मुहरांकरन , आई एस 1417 1999

मैसर्स गीरिशचंद्र नानचंद भाई, बौकसी, 3/137 , नवापुरा , पारसी शेरी , सूग्स-395 003

6. 7715783

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता 06-03-07 एवं मुहरांकरन , आई एस 1417 : 1999

मैसर्स जवाहर रत्न ज्वैलर्स, 1/126 , देवलाली बाजार , कुबेरनगर , अहमदाबाद -382 340

7. 7715985

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता 08-03-07 एवं मुहरांकरन, आई एस 1417 : 1999

मैसर्स पारीन आरनामैंट, 170 , एम जी हवेली रोड , हवेली चैम्बर्स के सामने , मानेक चौक, अहमदाबाद -380 001

8. 7716078

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता 07-03-07 एवं मुहरांकरन, आई एस 1417: 1999

मैसर्स सुरभिज्वैलर्स, 63/277 , श्रीनगर हाउसिंग बोर्ड, सैक्टर 24, गांधीनगर-382 024

9. 7716482

मैसर्स रविज्वैलर्स, 230-231 , पाञ्डर आरकडे , खह बाजार, क्राछा रोड , सूरत-395 006

10 7716583

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता 08-03-07 एवं मुहरांकरन, आई एस 1417 : 1999

मैलस सोना ही सोना, जी/एफ 7 , मिलेनियम प्लाजा, मानसी टावर के सामने , जजिस बंगला रोड , वस्त्रापुर, अहमदाबाद-380 015

11. 7716684

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता 08-03-07 एवं मुहरांकरन , आई एस 1417 : 1999

मैसर्स तुलसीज्वैलर्स , 10/83 , छोटा बाजार , सूरत-395 003

12. 7716886

मैसर्स तेजल ज्वैलर्स , 934 , रामनगर, खोडियार चौक, साबरमती , अमहदाबाद- 380 005

2394GI07-12 3360

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007 /JYAISTHA 5, 1929

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

5 13. 7716987

08 /03/лет

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुष्हरांकरन , आई एस 1417 : 1999

मैसर्स प्रीति डायमंड तथा गोल्ड ज्वैलरी , 1 एफ एफ श्याम शिखर काम्पलैक्स, दिनेश चैम्बर्स के सामने , बापूनगर, अहमदाबाद -380 024

14. 7717787

12/03/07

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता

एवं मुहरांकरन, आई एस 1417 1999

मैसर्स बाबूलाल नानचंद सोनी , 4/2/111 , मेन बाजार , पी ओ रानपुर, अहमदाबाद-363 610

15. 7717686

12/03407

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकरन , आई एस 1437 : 1999

मैसर्स गोकुलज्वैलर्स, 36 , हरिओम शॉपिंग सेंटर, स्टेशन रोड, धनेरा , चनसकांटा-385 310

16. 1719084

15/03/07

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकरन , आई एस 1417 : 1999

मैसर्स सुनिल ज्वैलर्स, 68. रामनगर , रांडर रोड , सूरत-395005

17. 7719185

15/03/07

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकरन , आई एस 1417 : 1999.

मैसर्स लकीज्वैलर्स, बी/8 , डिस्ट्रिक्ट शॉपिंग सेंटर, सैक्टर 21 , गांधीनगर-382 021

18. 7719387

19/03/07

मैसर्स सामोर ज्वैलर्स, 62 , हैपी होम शॉपिंग सेंटर , अंकुर रन्ना पार्क रोड, नारायणपुरा , अहमदाबाद-380013

19. 7719488

19/03/07

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकरन , आई एस 1417 1999

मैसर्स नानचंदभाई रणछोड़दास, चौकसी, 3/345 से 347 , 356 , टवार रोड, सूरत -395001

20 7714377

01/03/07

चांदी एवं चांदी मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहर्यकरन , आई एस 2112 2003

मैसर्स जे जे ज्वैलर्स , शॉप नंबर 6 , अपर ग्राउंड फ्लोर , आशीर्वाद काम्पलैक्स , उमा भवन के पास, भातर रोड, सूरत-395 007

21. 7714579

01/03/07

चांदी एवं चांदी मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकरन , आई एस 2112 : 2003

मैसर्सलाड़ला ज्वैलर्स , 1. कृष्णा पैलेस , गोपाल टावर के सामने, स्टेशन रोड , मनीनगर , अहमदाबाद -380 008

22. 7716785

08/03/07

मैसर्स तुलसी ज्वैलर्स, 10/83 , छोटा बाजार, सूरत-395 003

23. 7717888

12/03/07

मैसर्स बाबूलाल नानचंद सोनी , 4/2/111 , मेन बाजार, पी ओ रानपुर, अहमदाबाद-363 610

24. 7721576

22/03/07

चांदी एवं चांदी मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकरन , आई एस 2112 2003

पैसर्स सुनिल ज्वैलर्स , 68 , रामनगर, रांडर रोड , सूरत-395 005 3361

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007 /ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

[ भाग- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

09/03/07 25. 7717080

सबमर्सिबल पम्पसैट

आई एस 8034 : 2002

मैसस बाबी इंडस्ट्रीज, प्लाट नंबर 244, फेस 1 , जी आई डी सी एस्टेट, नरोडा, अहमदाबाद-382 330

20/03/07 26. 7720776

कान्डयूटस फार इलैक्ट्रिकल इनस्टालेशन पार्ट 3 आई एस 9537 : पार्ट 3: 1983

मैसर्स अमित इलैक्टो प्लास्ट, 105 , पहली मंजिल , सवाँदव कर्मशल सेंटर , सालापोस रोक, जी पी ओ , अहमदाबाद-380 001

05/03/07 27. 7715379

पेकेजबंद पेयजल

14543: 2004

मैसर्स सिद्धी विनायक हैल्थ केयर , 20 , सर्वोदय सोसाईटी , उमियाधाम के पास, वराछा रोड, वैशाली सिनेमा के पास, सूरत -395006

06/03/07 28. 7715379

पेकेजबंद पेयजल

14543:2004

मैसर्स गणेश एंटरप्राईस , बी 1 , गजपति प्लाजा, कट्टरगाम दरवाजा , सूरत-395 004

20/03/07 29. 7720675

पी वी सी इंसुलेटिक ( हैवी इयूटी ) इलैक्ट्रिक केबल पार्ट 1 , आई एस 1554 : भाग 1 : 1988

मैससे चैनम केबल इंडस्ट्रीज, शैड नंबर 288 , जी वी एम एम इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, ओक्षण रोड, अहमदाबाद-82 415

30. 7722578

26/03/07

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकरन, आई एस 1417 : 1999

मैसर्स डायमंड ज्वैलस, 321 , सुपर माल, लाल बंगला के पास , सी जी रोड, अहमदाबाद-380 009

31. 7722679

26/03/07

मैसर्स अमीधारा ज्वैलर्स, शॉप नंबर 19 , कृष्णावन सोसाइटी, जनता आइसक्रीम के सामने , अंकुर रोड, नारायणपुरा, अहमदाबाद-380 013

28403407 32. 7725281

मैसर्स स्वामीनारायण ज्वैलर्स, 8 , राज प्लाजा काम्पलैक्स, सोनल चार रस्ता, मेमनगर, अहमदानाद-380 052

29/03/07 33. 7725382

मैसर्स राज ज्वैलर्स, बी/7 , स्नेह प्लाजा, आई ओ सी रोड , चांदखेडा, गांधीनगर-382424

29/03/07 34. 7725584

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहर्राकरन, आई एस 1417 1999

मैसर्स सुवर्णकला, 17-भी, 380/2 , पैकी शॉप नंबर 2 , मधुबन कैम्पस , आनंद महल रोड, श्री राम पैट्रोल पम्प के सामने , सूरत

29/03/07 35. 7725685

3 स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकरन, आई एस 1417 : 1999

मैसर्स वरहोमल मानिकमल ज्वैलर्स , शॉप नंबर १० , झूलेलाल मंदिर , सरदारनगर, अहमदाबाद -382 475 3362

[PART II-SEC. 3 (її)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY26, 2007/JYAISTHA 5, 1929

5 36. 7125786

29/03/07

मैसर्स श्री जी आर्ट ज्वैलर्स, 3025 , नगरशेठ भार्केट, रतनपोल , अहमदाबाद-380 001

37. 7725887

29/03/07

मैसर्स राधिका ज्वैलर्स , शॉप नंबर 36-37 , शीतल शॉपिंग म्क्वेयर, मजुरा फायर स्टेशन के सामने , भातर रोड , सूरत -395 001

38. 7725988

29/03/07

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुष्हर्राकरन , आई एस 1417 : 1999

मैसर्स पूनम ज्वैलर्स, शॉप नंबर 1 , रोसी स्क्वेयर , मेन बाजार, स्टेशन रोड वापी , वलसाद

39. 7323984

29/03/07

53 ग्रेड ओ पी सी

आई एस 12269 : 1987

मैसर्स शेठ सिमेंट प्रोडक्ट प्रा. लि. , आतीर्थ एपार्टमेंट , संगम पार्क , अंबावाडी, हीराबाग क्रासिंग , अहमदाबाद -380 015

40 7725079

23/03/07

पेकेजबंद पेयजल

14543: 2004

मैसर्स श्री गणेश एंटरप्राईस , प्लाट नंबर 111/1 , फेस 2 , जी आई डी सी, नर्मदानगर, भारूच-392015

41. 7726586

पेकेजबंद पेयजल

30/03/07

14543 :2004

मैसर्स रूशब बिषरेइज, 10 , महाराजा एस्टेट , होटल भाग्योदय के पीछे भाग्योदय के पीछे , सांनद सरखेज रोड , सरखेज

अहमदाबाद -382 210

[सं. सीएमडी 1/13 : 11 )

ए. के. तलवार , उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर )

New Delhi, the 18th May, 2007

$.0. 1534. In pursuance of sub- regulation (5 ) of regulation (4) of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification ) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the grant of licences particulars of which are given inthe following schedule:

SCHEDULE

LicenceGranted for the Month ofMarch2007

Sl . Licence

Date ofGrant Name and Address of the licenses

No. No.

oflicence

Article/process with relevant Indian Standard covered by the licensce

5 1. 7719286 Palco Metals Limited,

15-03-2007 604/B , Sahjanand Shopping Centre , Shahibang Road, Ahmedabad - 380004

Aluminium conductors for overhead transmission purposes : Part 2Aluminium conductors, galvanized steel reinforced IS398:Part2: 1996

2. 7714074 Mamta Jewellers

01-03-2007

GoldandGoldAlloys, Jewellery/Artefacts Fineness and Marking--Specification IS 1417: 1999

U-F-1 ,Oxford Tower, Gurukul Road, Memnagar,Alumedabad-380052 3363

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

[ भम -खष्ण 3 (ii) ]

1 2

01-03-2007 J.J. Jouwellers

3. 7714276

GoldandGoldAlloys, Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness andMarking-Specification IS 1417:1999

Shop No. 6, UpperGround Floor, AashirwardComplex, Near Uma Bhavan, Bhatar Road, Surat-395007

01-03-2007 Ladla.Jewellers

4. 7714478

Gold andGokiAlloy, Jewellery /Artefacts- Fineness and Marking-Specification IS1417: 1999

StationRoad,Maninagar, Ahmedabad 380008 1, Krialne Palace, Opp. Gopal Tower.

01-03-2007 5. 7714680

Gold and Gold Alloys, Jewellery /Artefacts- Fineness andMarking-Specification IS1417:1999

Girishchandra Nauchandbhai Choksi 3/137, Nawapura, Parsi Sheri, Surat-395003

06-03-2007 6. 7715783

GoldandGoldAlloys, Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking-Specification IS1417:1999.

Jawahar Ratan Jewellers 1/126,Deviali Bazar, Kubernagar , Ahmedabad-382340

08-03-2007 7. 7715985 Parin-Ormanents

Fineness and Marking Specification GoldandGoldAlloy, Jewellery/Artefacts- IS1417:1999

170, M. G.Haveli Road, Opp. Haveli Chambeel, Manekchowk Ahmedabad-380001

07-03-2007 Surabhi Jewellers

8. 7716078

GoldandGoldAlloy's, Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness andMarking-Specification IS 1417: 1999

63/277, Strinagar HousingBoard, Sector-24, Gandhinagar-382024

06-03-2007 Ravi Jewellers

9. 7716482

GoldandGoldAlloys, Jewellery /Artefacts- Fineness andMarking-Specification IS1417:1999

230-231, Poddaar Arcade, Khand Bazar, VarachhaRoad, Surat-395006

08-03-2007 10. 7716583 Sona Hi Son

GoldandGoldAlloys, Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking-Specification IS1417:1999

G/F7, Millaniumn Plaza,Opp. Mansi Tower, Judges Bunglows Road, Vastrapur Ahmedabad-380015

08-03-2007 11. 7716684

GoldandGoldAlloys, Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking Specification' IS1417:1999

Tulsi Jewellers 10/83, ChautaBazar, Surat-395003

08-03-2007 12. 7716886

Gold andGold Alloys, Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness andMarking Specification IS1417:1999

Tejal Jewellers 934. Ramnagar, Khodiyar Chowk, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad-380005

08-03-2007 13. 7716987

Gold andGold Alloys, Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness andMarking-Specification IS1417:1999

PritiDiamond &Gold Jewellery 1-FF, Shyam ShikharComplex, Opp.Dinesh Chamber, Bapunagar, Ahmedabed 380024

12-03-2007 14. 7717787

Gold andGoldAlloys, Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness andMarking-Specification IS1417: 1999

Babulal Nanchand Soni 4/2/111 , MainBazar,P.O. Ranpur, Ahmedabad-363610

12-03-2007 15. 7717686

Gold andGold Alloys , Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness andMarking Specification JS1417: 1999

Gokul Jewellers 36. Hariom ShoppingCentre, Station Road, Dhanera, Banaskantha-385310 3364

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/JYAISTHA 5, 1929

[PART II SSC 3 ( ii)] 2

5 16. 7719084 Sunil Jewellers

15-03-2007 68 , Ramnagar, RanderRoad, Surat-395005

GoldandGoldAlloys, Jewellery/Aricfacts- Fineness and Marking-Specification IS1417:1999

17. 7719185 Lucky Jewellers

15-03-2007

Gold andGoldAlloys, Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness andMarking-Specification IS1417:1999

B/8 , District Shopping Centre, Sector-21 , Gandhinagar -382021

18. 7719387 Samor Jewellers

19-03-2007

GoldandGoldAlloys, Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness andMarking Specification IS1417:1999

62, HappyHome Shopping Centre, Ankur Ranna Park Road, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380013

19. 7719488

19-03-2007

Gold andGold Alloys, Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness andMarking Specification IS1417: 1999

Nanchandbhai Ranchhoddas Choski, 3/345 to 347, 56, TowerRoad, Surat-395001

20. 7714377

01-03-2007

GoldandGold Alloy, Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking IS2112:2003

: J. J. Jewellers Shop No. -6, Upper Ground Floor, Aashirwad Complex , Near Uma Bhawan, Bhatar Road , Surat-395007

21. 7714579 Ladila Jewellers

01-03-2007

Silver and Silver Alloys , Jewellery /Artefacts- Fineness and Marking IS2112:2003

1, Krishna Palace , Opp . Gopal Tower, Station Road, Manninagar , Ahmedabad-380008

22. 7716785

08-03-2007 Tulsi Jewellers 10/83 , Chauta Bazar, Surat-395003

Silver and Silver Alloys , Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking IS2112:2003

23. 7717888

12-03-2007 Babulal Nanchand Soni 4/2/111 , Main Bazar, P.O. Ranpur, Ahmedabad-363610

Silver and Silver Alloys , Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking 1$2112:2003

24. 7721576

22-03-2007 ! Sunil Jewellers 68 , Ramnagar, Rander Road, Surat-395005

Silver and Silver Alloys, Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking IS2112: 2003

09-03-2007 25. 7717080

Submersible Pumpsets

IS8034:2002

Bobby Industries Plot No. 244, Phase - 1 , GILNC Estate, Naroda, Ahmedabad-382330

26. 7720776

20-03-2007 :Amit Electo Plast 105, First Floor, Sarvodya Commercial Centre, Salapose Road, G.P.O. , Ahmedabad-380001

Conduits for electrical installations , part 3 Rigid Plain conduits of insulating materials ( superseding IS:2509) IS9537: Part3: 1983

27. 7715076

05-03-2007

PackagedDrinking Water (other than

Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

14543:2004

Siddhi VinayakHealth Care 20, Sarvoday Society, Near Umiyadham, Varachha Road, Near Vaishali Cinema, Surat-395006

06-03-2007 28. 7715379

Packaged Drinking Water (other than

Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

14543:2004

Ganesh Enterprise B-1, Ganpati Plaza, Katargam Darwaja, Surat-395004 [ भाग- खण्ड (ii) ]

3365

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

1 2

5 29. 7720675

20-03-2007

PVC insulated (heavyduty) electric cables: part 1 for working voltages IS 1554: Part 1: 1988

Jainam Cable Industries Shed No.288 , GVMM . IndI . Estate , Odhay Road, Ahmedabad-382415

30. 7722578

26-03-2007

GoldandGoldAlloys, Jewellery/Artefacts Fineness and Marking Specification IS 1417:1999

Diamond Jewels 321, Super Mall, Near Lal Bunglow, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad-380009

31. 7722679

26-03-2007

Gold andGoldAlloys, Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking-Specification IS1417:1999

Amidhara Jewellers Shop No. 19, Krishnavan Society, Opp. Janta Ice-cream, Ankur Road, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380013

32. 7725281

28-03-2007

GoldandGoldAlloys, Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking-Specification IS1417: 1999

Swaminarayan Jewellers 8.Raj Plaza Complex, Sonal Char Rasta,Memnagar, Ahmedabad-380052

33. 7725382

29-03-2007

GoldandGoldAlloy, Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness andMarking-Specification IS1417:1999

Raj Jewellers B/7, Sneh Plaza, IOC Road, Chandkheda Gandhinagar-382424

34. 7725584,

29-08-2007

GoldandGoldAlloys, Jewellery /Artefacts- Fineness andMarking--Specification IS1417:1999

Suvarnakala 17-B, 380/2, 384/2 Paiki Shop No.2, Madhunvan Campus, Anand Mabel Road, Opp. Shri RamPetrol Pump, Surat

35. 7725685

29-03-2007

GoldandGoldAlloys, Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness andMarking Specification IS1417:1999

Verhomal Manikmal Jewellers Shop No. 90, Jhulelal Mandir, Sardarnagar, Ahmedabad-382475

36. 7725786

29-03-2007

GoldandGold Alloys, Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking Specification IS1417:1999

Shreeji Art Jewellers 3025, Nagarsheth Market, Ratanpole, Ahmedabad-380001

31. 7725887

29-03-2007

Gold andGoldAlloys, Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking-Specification IS1417:1999

Radhika lewellers Shop No. 36-37, Shital Shopping, Square, Opp. Majura Fire Station, BhatarRoad, Surat-395001

38. 7729988

29-03-2007

Gold andGoldAlloys, Jewellery /Artefacts- Fineness andMarking-Specification IS1417:1999

Poonam Jewellers Shop No. 1, Rosy Square,Main Bazar, StationRoad, Vapi, Valsad

39. 7723984

29-03-2007

53 grade ordinary Portland Cement 12269:1987

Sheth Cement Products Pvt . Ltd. 4/AatirthAppt. Sangampark, Ambawadi, NR, HirabagCrossing, Ahmedabad-380015

40. 7725079

23-03-2007

PackagedDrinking Water (other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water) 14543:2004

Shree Ganesh Enterprise Plot No. 111/1 , Phase- II, GIDC, Narmadanagar, Bharuch-392015 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] 3366

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007 /JYAISTHA 5, 1929

30-03-2007 7726586 Rushabh Beverages

41.

PackagedDrinking Water (other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water) 14543:2004

10, Maharaja Estate, B /H Hotel Bhagyoday. Sanand Sarkhej Road, Sarkhej, Ahmedabad-382210

[No. CMD- 1/ 13 : 11 )

A. K. TALWAR. Dy. Director- General (Marks)

नई दिल्ली, 18 मई , 2007

काआ. 1535.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम 1988 के नियम 4 के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

उत्पाद का नाम तथा आई एस

लाइसेंसी का नाम तथा पत्ता

लाइसेंस संख्या

अनुज्ञप्तिस्वीकृत करने की तिथि क्रम संख्या

6 2

30-03-07 1. 7727487

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकरन आई एस 1417:1999

गांधीज्वैलर्स, 745/3 , सिमेंट चाल , गोमतीपुर रोड, गोमतीपुर रोड, अहमदाबाद -380021

02-04-07 2. 7727790

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों। शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुष्हरांकरन आई एस 1417 1999

मंगलम ज्वैलर्स, ए-25 , काशी एस्टेट, गामडी वाड, आनन्द-388 001

02-04-07 3. 7727891

बापूलाल अमठाभाई चौकसी, मांडवी बस स्टाप के पीछे, एम जी रोड , बड़ोदा-390001

04-04-07 4. 7728691

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों? शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एर्ष मुहरांकरन

आई एस 1417 : 1999

शाश्वत ज्वैलस प्रा. लि. , 6/1468, शाश्वत गिरी , कंसाराशेरी , महीधारपुर , सूरत-395 003

02-04-07 5. 7727689

आभूषण ज्वेलर्स , 117 , तेजेन्द्रा विहार पार्ट 2 , तेजेन्द्रा नगर बस स्टाप के सामने , बिराट नगर, ओढव , अहमदाबाद-382352

13-04-07 6 7731175

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकरन

आई एस 1417 : 1999

पुध्यम गोल्ड पैलेस , 445/बी , परबंदिवास के पास, शाक मार्केट, मजा वाडेज , अहमदाबाद-380 013

13-04-07 सिडार डैकोर प्रा लि,

7. 7730476

डैकोरेटिव थमौसैटिंग सिनथैटिक रेसिन बॉडिंड लैमिनेटिड शीट आई एस 2046: 1995

एफ/2 , शपथ, राजपथ क्लब के सामने , सरखेज गांधी नगर हाइवे,

अहमदाबाद -380 015 3367

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

[ भाग - खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

5 2

05-04-07 8. 7729087

पेकेजबंद पेयजल

14543: 2004

भावनी हैल्थ केयर , 75 , पटेल नगर सोसाइटी , ए के रोड , सूरत-395 006

13-04-07 9. 7730577

पेकेजबंद पेयजल

14543: 2004

औयसिस बाटलिंग सी/ओ भूपथ एच टेवेथिया , लक्ष्मीकांत , आश्रम रोड, चंद्रकांत सोसाइटी , पार्ट 1 , मकान नंबर 31 , कट्टरगाम , सूरत

11-04-07 10. 7739996

जाडतर ज्वैलर्स, एस एफ 2 , चंदन काम्पलैक्स, स्वास्तिकसोसाइटी , स्वास्तिक चार रस्ता के पास , नवरंगपुरा, सी जी रोड, अहमदाबाद-380 009

13-04-07 11. 7730981

सोरी भानूभाई इंदूलाल तथा सन्स, 1118 , सोनी की खडकी , सामडी चकला, नडियाद , खेडा-387 001

12. 7731074

13-04-07

चांदी एवं चांदी मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकरन आई एस 2112 : 2003

सोनी मानूभाई इंदूलाल तथा सन्स, 1118 , सोनी की खढकी, सामही चकला , नहियाह , खेडा-387001

13. 7727588

02-04-07

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहर्राकरन आई एस 1417 : 1999

सुवर्ण कला 14, दुर्गा शॉपिंग सेंटर, नवरंग स्कूल अंबिका नगर, ओढव , अहमदाबाद -382 315

18-04-07 14. 7732177

राइसिंग एप्रो इंडस्ट्रीज , 9/हाई स्कूल शॉपिंग सेंटर, टावर रोड, वायरा , सूर -394 650

15. 7732480

19-04-07

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुष्हरांकरन आई एस 1417 : 1999

मैसर्स अक्षर ज्वैलर्स, 1126/1 , सामडी चकला , भावसर वाड , नडियाड, खेडा-387 001

16. 7732480

19-04-07

मैसर्स अक्षरज्वैलर्स, 1126/1 , सामडी चकला, भावसरवाड, नाडियाड खेडा-387 001

19-04-07 17. 7732581

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकरन आई एस 1417 : 1999

जाफर भाई सैलेशभाई दागिनावाला , 1-3 , एम्पायर चैम्बर्स, नवापुरा , कारवा रोड, सूरत-395 003

2394 G07-13 3368

[PART I-SEC. 3 (ii )) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007 /JYAISTHA 5, 1929

5 18. 7782379

23-04-07

चांदी एवं मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकरन आई एस 2112: 2003

चौकसी जी एन ब्रदर्स 11/70 , छोटा पुल , मेन रोड, भगतालाव , सूरत-395 003

19. 7732884

23-04-07

सोनी न‌टूभाई चिमनलाल गहना , जी 3 , दीनदयाल कर्मशल सेंटर , नगरपालिका के सामने , स्टेशन रोड , आनंद-388 001

20. 7732985

23-04-07 चौकसी जी एन ब्रदर्स, 11/70 , छोटा पुल , मेन रोड, पंगतालाब , सूरत -395 003

21. 7784181

19-04-07

हैकोरेटिव यार्मासैटिंग सिनथैटिक रेसिन बॉडिड लैमिनेटिक शीट आई एस 2046 : 1995

मीका रूशिल प्रा लि, महालक्ष्मी सोसाइटी , ए। , क्रीनकल अपार्टमेंट, महालक्ष्मी टैंपल के सामने , पालडी, अहमदावाद-380 007

22. 7734080

24-04-07

मंगलन ज्वैलर्स, माधव चैम्बर्स, गुरु नानक चौक , हॉ गिरधर पटेल मार्ग , बनसकांटा-385 001

23. 7733987

24-04-07

गायत्रीज्वैलर्स, शॉप नंबर 9 , गांधी चौक , सरदार बावला के पास , डेटरोज रोड , मेहसाना -382715

24. 7733886

24-04-07 एक्सक्लूसिव ज्वैलसी कम्पनी, 50, सैंटर पाईंट, पंचवटी , एलिसब्रीज , अहमदाबाद-380 006

25. 7733785

24-04-07

जैन ज्वैलर्स, 1265/1 , लूहर एस पोल कार्नर, एम जी हवेली रोड, मानेक चौक , अहमदाबाद-380 001

26. 7783684

24-04-07 मुरलीधर ज्वैलर्स, थी 21 , वैलकम प्लाजा, गणेश चौकडी, आनंद-388 001

27. 7793583

24-04-117

जी के ठक्करज्वैलर्स , 9/140 , वाढी फालिया , खांडवाला स्ट्रीट भागल, सूरत-395003

[ सं. सीएमडी-1/ 13 : 11

ए. के. तलवार , उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर )

New Delhi , the 18th May, 2007

8.0. 1535-In pursuance of sub- regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations , 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the grant of licences particulars of which are giveninthe following schedule:

3369

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007 /ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

[ भाग - खण्ड 3(1) ]

SCHEDULE

Date ofGrant of licence

Article/process with relevant Indian Standare covered by the licensee

No. Licence Name and Address of the licensee

Sl. No.

30-3-2007 1. 7727487

Gandhi Jewellers

745/3, CementChal, Gomtipur Road, Ahmedabad-380021

GoldandGoldAlloys, Jewellery/Artefacts Fineness and Marking Specification IS1417: 1999

012-4-2007 2. 7727790 MangalamGoki A-25, Kashi Estate, Gamdi Wad, Anand-388001

GoldandGoldAlloys, Jewellery/Artefacts-Fineness and Marking-Specification IS1417: 1999

02-4-2007 3. 7727891 Bapulal Amthabhai Choksi BehindMandvi Bus Stop, M.G. Road, Vadodara-390001

GoldandGold Alloys, Jewellery /Artefacts- Fineness and Marking-Specification IS 1417: 1999

04-04-2007 4. 7728691

GoldandGoldAlloys, Jewellery/Artefacts Fineness and Marking Specification IS1417: 1999

Shashvat Jewels Pvt Ltd. Mahidharpura 6/1468, Shashvat Giri Kansarasheri , Surat-395003

02-04-2007 5. 7727689

GoldandGoldAlloys, Jewellery/Artefacts-Fineness and Marking Specification IS1417:1999

Aabhushan Jewellers 117,TejenderViharPart 2, Opp. Tejender Nagar Bus Stop , Viratnagar, Odnav, Ahmedabad-382352

13-04-2007 6. 7731175

GoldandGoldAlloys, Jewellery/Artefacts-Fineness and Marking-Specificatiou IS1417: 1999

PushpamGold Palace 445/B , Near Parabdives, ShakMarket, NavaWadaj ,Ahmedabad-380013

13-04-2007 7. 7730476

DecorativeThemosetting Synethic ResinBonded Laminated Sheets- Specification IS2046:1995

Cedar Decor Pvt. Limited F/2, Sapath, Opp. Rajpath Club, Sarkhej Gandhinagar Highway, Almnedabad-380015

05-04-2007 8. 7729087

Bhavani HealthCare 75,Patel Nagar Society, A.K. Road, Surat-395006

Packaged DringingWater ( other than Packaged Natural MineralWater) I$14543:2004

13-04-2007 9. 7730677

Packaged Drinking Water (other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water) IS14543 : 2004

OasisBottling, C/ oBhupathTavethiya, Laxmikant Ashram Road, Chandrakant Society, Part-L, Makın No.31 , Katargam, Surat

11-04-2007 10. 7729996

GoldandGoldAlloys, Jewellery/Artefacts-Fineness and Marking Specification IS1417:1999

JadtarJewellers, SF-2, Chandan Complex, SwastikSociety, Near Swastik Char Rasta, Navangpura, C. G. Road, Ahmedabad-380009 3370

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/JYAISTHA 5, 1929

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

5 11. 7730981

13-04-2007 Soni Bhanubhai Indulal & Sons 1118, Soni Ni Khadki . Sanıdi Chakla, Nadiad, Kheda-387001

Gold and Silver Alloys, jewellery/Artefacts-Fineness and Marking Specification IS 1417:1999

12. 7731074

13-04-2017 Soni Bhanubhai -Indulal & Sons 1118, Soni Ni Khadki , Saundi Chakla, Nadiad, Kheda-387001

Silver andGoldAlloys, Jewellery/Artcfacts --Fineness anct Marking 152112:2003

13. 7727588 Suvarnakala

02-04-2007 14.Durga Shopping Centre , Near Navran School , Ambıkanagar . Odhav , Ahmedabad- 382315

Gold andGold Alloys , Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking-Specification IS1417:1999

14. 7732177

18-04-2007 Rising Agro Industrics 9 /High School Shopping Centre , TowerRoad, Vyara, Sural-394650

Gold and Gold Alloys . Jewellery/Aretefacts- Fineness and Marking Specification IS 1417: 1999

15. 7732480 Akshar Jewellers

19-04-2007 1126/1 , Near Samdi Chakla , Bhavsarwad, Nadiad , Kheda-387001

Gold and Gold Alloys . Jewellery/Artefacts---Fineness ami Marking Specification IS1417:1999

Akshar Jewellers

16. 7732581

19-04-2007 1126/1 , Near Samdi Chakla. Bhavsarwad, Nadiad, Khoda-387001

Silver and SilverAlloys, Jewellery/Artefacts-- Fineness and Marking IS2112: 2003

17. 7732379

19-04-20007 Jafarbhai Salehbhai Daginawala, 1-3, Empire Chambers, Navapura, Karwa Road , Surat -395003

Gold andGoldAlloys , Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking Specification IS1417: 1999

18. 7733078

23-04-2007 Choksi G. N. Brothers , 11/70, ChautaPool , Main Road, Bhagatalav , Surat -395003

Silver and Silver Alloys , Jewellery/Artefacts-Fineness and Marking IS2112:2003

19. 7732884

23-04-2007 Soni Natubai Chimanlal "Gchua" G-3, Dindayal Commercial Centre, Opp. Nagarpalika, Station Road, Anand -388001

Gold andGoldAlloys, Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking-Specification IS1417: 1999

20. 7732985

23-04-2007 Choksi G. N. Brothers . 11/70, Chauta Pool, Main Road, Bhagatalav, Surat-395003

Gold andGoldAlloys, Jewellery/Aretefacts-- Fineness and Marking-Specification IS1417:1999

21. 7734181

19-04-2007

Decorative Thermosetting Synthetic Resin Bonded Laminated Sheets-- Specification IS2046

Mica Rushil Pvt. Lul .. A- 1 , Krinkal Apparteneut , Mahalaxmi Society, Opp.Mahalaxmi Temple. Paldi , Ahmedabad-380007

22. 7734080

24-04-2007 Mangalam Jewellers . Madhav Chathurs Gurau Nanak, Chawk har Patri Mang. Shusth

Gold andGold Alloys , Jewellery/Arctcfacts--Finc Marking-Specification and IS 1417 : 1999 [ भाग - खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 26, 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

23. 7733987 Gayatri Jewellers . Shop No. 9 , Gandhi Chowk , Near SardarBavla Detroj Road , Mehsana-382715

24. 7733886 Exclusive JewelleryCo. , 50. CentrePoint Panclawati , Ellisbridge Ahmedabad-380006 25. 7733785 JainJewellers, 1265/1 , Luhar S Pole Corner , M.G. Haveli Road , Manek Chuwk, Ahmedabad-380001

26. 7733684 Murlidhar Jewellers , B/2.Welcome Plaza, Ganesh Chokadi Anand-388001

27. 7733583 G. K. Thakkar Jewellers, 9/140, Wadi Falia, Khandwala Street, Bhagal, Stural -395003

3371 4

24-04-2007

Gold and GoldAlloys, Jewellery/Aretefacts-Fineness and Marking Specification IS 1417 :1999

24-04-2007

Gold and Gold Alloys, Jewellery/Aretefacts-Fineness and Marking Specification IS 1417: 1999

24-04-2007

GoldandGoldAlloys , Jewellery/Aretefacts-Fineness and Marking Specification IS1417: 1999

24-04-2007

GoldandGoldAlloys , Jewellery /Arctefacts-Fineness and Marking -Specification IS1417:1999

24-04-2007

Gold andGoidAlloys, jewellery/Arctefacts-Fineness and Marking Specification IS1417:1999

[No. CMD -1 /13: 11 ) A. K. TALWAR, Dy. Director General (Marks)

नई दिल्ली , 18 मई , 2007

का.आ. 1536. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के नियम 5 के उप- नियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द कर दिया गया है :

अनुसूत्री

अप्रैल , 2007 में रद्द किए गए अनुज्ञप्ति

लाइसेंस संख्या लगयेंसी का नाम तथा मता क्रम संख्या

1. 7689105 प्राईमा इंजीनियर्स, 11 , करूणासागर एस्टेट , सोनिया सिरामिक्स के सामने , अनिल स्टार्च मिल रोड , नरोडा रोड, अहमदाबाद -380 025

2. 7705780

नंदीनी बिवरेज, 13/14, पारेख बाड़ी, हिंदू कासानगर के सामने, समुल डेरी , कट्टरगाम , सूरत-395 004 3. 7708180 अर्चना इंजीनियरिंग वर्क्स, एल-54, जी आई डी एस्टेट, औल्ड वाटर टैंक के पीछे, अहमदाबाद -383 415

7708281

अर्चना इंजीनियरिंग वर्क्स , एल -54 , जी आई डी एस्टेट , औल्ड वाटर टैंक के पीछे, अहमदाबाद-383 415

उत्पाद का नाम तथा आई एस

अनुज्ञप्ति रद्द करने की तिथि 5

25-04-2007 सबमर्सिबल पम्पसैट 8034: 2002

26-04-2007 पेकेजबंद पेयजल 14543: 2004

19-04-2007 ओपनवेल सबमर्सिबल पम्पसैट 14220: 1994

19-04-2007 पम्प रीजैररेटिव या कप्लीयर कोल्ड वाटर 8472 : 1988 3372

[PART I-SEC.3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26 , 2007 / JYAISTHA 5, 1929

27-04-2007

पेकेज्जबंद पेयजल

5. 7709485 शुद्ध जल बिवरेज,

14543:2004

19, प्रकाश एस्टेट, रीटानगर , वसट्रल रोड , अहमदाबाद -380 026

26-04-2007 6 7710672

पेकेजबंद पेयजल 14543: 2004

हरि ओम विवरेज , 333/334, सुविधानगर , वावडी ( बजरग ) , गोधरा , पंचमहल

[सं. सीएमडी-1 /13 : 13]

ए. के. तलवार , उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर )

New Delhi, the 18th May, 2007

S.O. 1536. In pursuance of Sub - regulation (6 ) of regulation (5) of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification ) Regulations , 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, herchy notifies that the licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule has been Cancelled with effect from the date indicated:

SCHEDULE

Cancelled licence For the mouth ofApril2007

Licence.

Date of Cancelled Sl . No. No.

Name and Address of the licensee

Article/ process with relevant Indian Standard covered by the licensee

5 3

25-4-2007 1. 7689105! PrimaEngineers,

Submersible Pumpsels

8034:2002

11. Karunasagar Estate , Opp. Soniya Ceramic , Anil Startch Mill Road, Naroda Road, Ahmedabad - 380125

26-04-2007 7705780

PackagedDrinking Water

14543:2004

Nandini Beverages , 13-14, Parckh Wadi , Opp Hindu Kasanagar, Sumul Dairy Katagraru Surat- 39500004

19-04-2007 3 7708180

Openwell Submersible Pumps

Archana Engineering Works .

14220:1944

L-54, GI DC Estate , Bch . Old Water Tank, Alunedabad -382415

19-04-2007 4. 770K281:

Pumps Regenerative or Clear ColdWater

8472: 1988

Archana Engineering Works. L-54, GI DC Estate, Bch. Old WaterTank , Ahmedabad -382415

27-04-2007 S. 7709485

Sudh Jal Beverages

PackagedDrinking Water 14543 :2004

19, Prakash Estate , Rianagar Vastral Road, Ahmedabad- 380026

26-04-2007 6 7710672 Hari Om Beverages

Packaged Drinking Water 14543:2004

333/334, Suvidhanagar. Vavdi Bujrag ) , Godhra Distt. Panchmahal Gujalist .

[No. CMD- 1/13 : 13 ]

A.K. TALWAR. Dy. Director General (Marks) | भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

3373

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 21 मई , 2007

का. आ. 1537.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 (1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसके पश्च्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 110( अ ) तारीख 1 फरवरी , 2007 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में मैसर्स रिलायन्स इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के गोवा में उत्तरी दक्षिणी अपतट में खोज ब्लॉकों और आन्ध्रप्रदेश राज्य में संरचनाओं से महाराष्ट्र राज्य में ठाणे जिले के विभिन्न उपभोक्ताओं तक प्रकृ‌तिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए मैसर्स रिलायन्स गैस ट्रान्सपोर्टेशन इन्फ्रास्ट्र‌क्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उक्त अधिसूचना के संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी । और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 9 अप्रैल , 2007 अथवा उससे पहले उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं ;

और पाइपलाइन बिष्ठाने के संबंध में अनता की ओर से प्राप्त आक्षेपों पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया है और अनुभुनात कर दिया गया;

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

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

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 को उपधारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुएं , यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त , मैसर्स रिलायन्स गैस ट्रान्सपोर्टेशन इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटड में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

जिला : ठाणे मंडल/ तहसील /तालुका श्वाडा

गाँव का नाम

राज्य: महाराष्ट्र

आर . ओ . यु . अर्जित करने के लिये क्षेत्रफल

सर्वे /हिस्सा नंबर

542

1) भुसारणे

253

251

447

435

385

256

250

223

219

213

212

11/2A

2) विजयगड

10/7A

10/7B

10/1/1

5/6A

३) डॉगस्ते

5/1A+2A हेक्टेयर

एपर सि-एचर 3

जिला: ठाणे

मंडल/ तहसील/तालुका :विक्रमगड

1) कोडगाव

107

2) म्हसरोली

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

[फा. सं. एल-140014/41/2004-जी. पी. ] एस. बी. मण्डल , अवर सचिव 3374

MAY 26. 2007 /JYAISTHA 5, 1929 [PART 11 --SLC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INC

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 21 May, 2007

8.0. 1537 Whereas by Notification of the Liovernment of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natual Gas . number 5.0.10 ( L) dated 1st Feburary 2007, issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum &Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User of land ) 1 1560 ( 50 of 1962) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for ransportation of natural gas from the exploration blocks in the Northern' Southern Offshore of Con and structures in Andia Pradesh of Mis Reliance Industries Limitedby M/s . Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure I imited to various assumers of Distric Thane in the State of Maharashtra:

And, whereas, copies of the said notiticasiere made available to the public on or before 9th April, 2007:

And whereas objections were received tent the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the Competent Authority:

And whereas , the Competent Authority has mader of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 ot the said Act has submitted his report to the Central Government :

Andwhereas, the Central Government , all considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said tant is requiredfor jaying , the pipeline has decidedna Jujr the right of user therein:

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powered by sub - section ( 1) of Section & of the said Act . the Contral Government hereby declares that the right of us ! in the said land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for taring the pipeline:

And forther, in exercise of the powers amored by sub - section ( 4 ) of Section to on the said Act, the Central Governntent herchy directs that the right of usein in said land for laying the pipeline shall . instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest on this date of publicates declaration , in the Mis . Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited free from all encumbrances .

Schedule

State: Maharashtra

District: Thane

Mandal Tehsil /Taluka : Wada

Area to be acquired for ROU

Survey/ Sub-division No.

Village

C-Are

Hectare

Are

542

1) Musarne

253

251

447

438

385

256

250

223

219

213

212 3375

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007 /ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

[भाग 1 ]-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

11/24

2) Vijaygad

10/7A

10/78

10/1/1

5/8A

3) Dongaste

5/1A+2A

State : Maharashtra

District: Thane

Mundel Tshall/Taluka: Vikramgad

1) Kondgson

107

[F. No. L- 14014/41 /2004-G.P. ] S. B. MANDAL, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 23 मई, 2007

का. आ. 1538.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पैट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 281 दिनांक 31 जनवरी 2007 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 अमलोह, जिला-फतेहगढ़ साहिब, पंजाब राज्य की भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और , उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को 31 मार्च से 03 अप्रैल 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 ।

2394G1/07-14 3376

'THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2007/ JYAISTHA 5, 1929 [PART II- SBC . 3 (ii ) )

अनुसूची..

राज्य:पंजाब

जिला: फत्तेहगढ़ साहिब

तहसील : अमलोह

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा !

गांव का नाम

इदबस्त संख्या

मुस्तील संख्या

वर्गमीटर

एयर

हेक्टेयर

किला संख्या

तंदा बधा खुर्द

448/52 00

449/52 00

146

रायपुर चोबदारां

23/1

23/2

3/1

3/2

8/1

8/2

9/1

9/2

22/1

9/1

9/2

18/1

18/2

19 3377

भारत का राजपत्र गई 26, 2007/5, 1929

[ भाग 1 ]-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

रायपुर चोबदारां

12/2

8/1

8/2

18/1

18/2

114

00 कपूरगढ़

8/1

8/2

13/1

12/1

12/2

19/1

19/2

1/2/2

2/1

00 .

2/2

10/1

11/2

12/1 6

25.

76 3378

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2007 /JYAISTHA 5 , 1929

कपूरगढ़

21/1

21/2

15 i

17 :

24/2

4/1

4/2

7/1

7/2

262

268

272

280

6/1 भरपूरगढ़

15/1

16/2

3/2

4/1

4/2

8/1

8/2

22/1

22/2/1

9/1

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

05 [भाग -सखण्ड 3 ( 11 ) ]

मारत का राबपत्र : मई 26, 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929 1

9/2

00 भरपुरगढ़

19/1

19/2

10/1

10/2

6/1

6/2

15/1

16/2

6/1

6/2

14/1

15/1

15/2

16/1

16/3

17/1/2

17/2

25/1

4/1

4/2

7/1

7/2

14/1

14/2

17/1

17/2

24/1

24/2

125

3379 6

26.

04.

001

51 3380

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/JYAISTHA 5, 1929

4 1

126

भरपूरगढ़

245

250

289

181

दीवा गंडवा

2/2

3/1

3/2

12/1

12/2

19 -

22/1/1

22/1/2

1/1

1/2

2/1

2/2

10/1

10/2

20/2

21/1

16/1

16/2

5/1

5/2

6/2

कंजारी

171

20/1

20/2

[PART 11- SEC. 3 (ii ) )

00 [ भाग 1 ]- काण्ड 3 ( ii ) )

3381

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

00 कंजारी

171

24/2/1

24/2/2

25/2

172

1 लल्लोंखुर्द

9/1

9/2

22/1

23 6

01 3382

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/JYAISTHA 5 , 1929

172

2 लक्ला खुद

19/1

19/2

68 !

173

महमूवपुर

431/10

432/10

435/14

436/14

437/15

438/15

100

101

114

115

122

123

174

संगराला

25/1

25/2

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

00 [भाग Ii-खण्ड 3 ( i ) )

3383

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 25, 2007 स्पेष्ठ 5, 1929

174

तंगराला

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

New Delhi , the 23rd May, 2007

S.O. 1538-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. 281 , dated 31 January 2007, 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 saidAct), 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 Jallandher in the State of Punjab via Nabha in the State of Punjab by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited in the Tehsil Amloh , District Fatehgarh Sahib (Punjab).

And, whereas, the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public between 31 March 2007 to 03rd April 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 shouldbe 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 IndianOil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances .

2394 G1/07-15 3384

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1929

[ PARI JI- SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

SCHEDULE

State: Punjab

Tehsil: Amloh District: Fatehgarh Sahib

Area

Narme of Village

Are

Hectare

Khasra / Killa No.

Mushtil No.

Hadbast No.

Square Metre

-00

TandaBadha

Khurd

448/52

84.

449/52

146

Raipur

Chaubdaran

23/1

23/2

3/1

3/2

8/1

8/2

9/1

9/2

22/1

9/1

9/2

18/1

18/2

19 [ भाग II-- खण्ड ( ⅱ ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : माई 26, 2007/5, 1929

22 Ralpur

Chaubdaran

12/2

8/1

8/2

18/1

18/2

114

00 Kapurgarh

8/1

8/2

13/1

12/1

12/2

19/1

19/2

1/2/2

2/1

2/2

10/1

11/2

12/1

3385 6

7 07

54 03

06 05

60 08

53 00

25 10

88 11

13 11

13 08

09 03

04 11

13 05

56 03

04 06

58 00

51 02

53 03

61 09

02 05

56 05

06 11

38 11

63 00

25 11

38 04

05 07

08 05

56 00

76 08

09 03

29 02

53 08

85 11

63 04

81 00

25 03

29 06

58 07

55 04

82 04

30 00

76 3386

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007 / JYAISTHA 5 , 1929

4 1

Kapurgarh

21/1

21/2

24/2

4/1

4/2

7/1

7/2

262

268

272

280

6/1

Bharpurgarh

15/1

16/2

3/2

4/1

4/2

8/1

8/2

22/1

22/2/1

9/1 [PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

05 [चन - 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : महें 26, 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

9/2

00 Bharpurgarh

19/1 00

19/2

10/1

10/2

6/1

6/2

15/1

16/2

6/1

6/2

14/1

15/1

15/2

16/1

16/3

17/1/2

17/2

25/1

4/1

4/2

7/1.

7/2

14/1

14/2

17/1

17/2

24/1

24/2

125

3387 6

51 3388

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/JYAISTHA 5, 1929

126 Bharpurgarh

245

250

289

181

DiwaGandhuan

2/2

3/1

3/2

12/1

12/2

22/1/1

22/1/2

1/1

1/2

2/1

2/2

10/1

10/2

20/2

21/1

16/1

16/2

5/1

5/2

6/2

171

Kanjari

20/1

20/2

[ PART I- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

82 00

77 00

02 00

35 00

77 00

26 00

62 00

13 00

25 00

55 00

52 00

26 00

85 00

13 00

82 00

76 00

58 00 [ भाग ॥ खष्ट 3 ( il ) ]

3389

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26. 2007-वेष्ठ 5 , 1929

171

Kanjari

24/2/1 00

24/2/2

25/2

172

Lalon Khurd

00 .

9/1

9/2

22/1

10.

51.

04.

01 [PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] 3390

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007 /1YAISTHA 5 , 1929

172

Lalon Khurd

19/1

19/2

2/12/2

173

Mehmudpur

431/10

432/10

435/14 00

436/14

437/15

438/15

100

101

114

115

122

123

174

Tangrala

25/1

25/2

Paga yara [ भाग 1] -खण्ड 3 )

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007. 5, 1929

3391 1

174

Tangrala

[F. No. R-25011 /13/2006-0.R. -11 S.K. CHITKARA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 23 मई , 2007

का. आ. 1539.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में प्रयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1982 का 50 वां अधिनियम) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) व धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की भारत के राजपत्र में प्रकाशित अधिसूचनाओं से निम्नलिखित संशोधन करने का निर्देश देती है ।

I. (i) कां. आ. 775 दिनांक 3 मार्च, 2005, भारत के राजपत्र भाग II, खण्ड 3, उपखण्ड ( ii) दिनांक फरवरी 27 - मार्च 5. 2005 के पृष्ठ 2157 में प्रकाशित गाँव पेटलागाँव के संबंध में क्रम सं. 1. कॉलम 2 में 'जिला बंगाईमावै" को "जिला चिरांग" पढ़ा जावे ।

(ii) का. आ. 2884 दिनांक 27 जुलाई, 2005, भारत के राजपत्र भाग II , खण्ड 3, उपखण्ड (ii) दिनांक 24-30 जुलाई, 2006 के पृष्ठ 8489 में प्रकाशित गाँद पेटलागाँव के संबंध में क्रम से 1, कॉलम 2 में "जिला बंगाईगायें' को 'जिला चिरांग पढ़ा जाये ।

II . (i) का. आ. 775 दिनांक 3 मार्च, 2005, भारत के राजपत्र भाग II, खण्ड 3, उपखण्ड ( ii ) दिनांक फरवरी 27 मार्च 5, 2005 के पृष्ठ 2157 में प्रकाशित गाँव डांगटोला के संबंध में क्रम सं. 2. कॉलम 2 में "जिला बंगाईगाव" को "जिला चिरांग" पढ़ा जावे ।

(ii) का. आ. 2664 दिनांक 27 जुलाई, 2005, भारत के राजपत्र भाग ८ खण्ड १ , तपखन्स पपद्ध दिनांक 24-30 जुलाई, 2005 के पृष्ठ 8489 में प्रकाशित गाँव डांगटोला के संबंध में क्रम सं 2 , कॉलम 2 में "जिला बंगाईगाउँ" को "जिला चिरांय" पढ़ा जावे ।

II. (i) का. आ. 775 दिनांक 3 मार्च, 2005, भारत के राजपत्र भाग II, खण्ड 3, उपखण्ड ( ii) दिनांक फरवरी 27 मार्च 5, 2005 के पृष्ठ 2157 में प्रकाशित गाँव कमरडंगा के संबंध में क्रम सं. 4. कॉलम 2 में "जिला बंगाईगार्दै" को "जिला चिरांग" पढ़ा जावे ।

(ii) का. आ. 2884 दिनांक 27 जुलाई , 2005, भारत के राजपत्र भाग II, खण्ड 3, उपखण्ड ( ii) दिनांक 24-30 जुलाई, 2005 के पृष्ठ 8489 में प्रकाशित गाँव कमरडंगा के संबंध में क्रम सं. 4. कॉलम 2 में "जिला बंगाईगार्दै' को 'जिला चिरांग " पढ़ा जावे ।

ГУ. (i) का. आ. 3202 दिनांक 14 दिसम्बर, 2004, भारत के राजपत्र भाग II , खण्ड 3 , उपखण्ड (ⅱ) दिनांक 12-18 दिसम्बर, 2004 के पृष्ठ 9646 में प्रकाशित "गाँव धुपुरी" को "गाँव धुपुरी न. 1" पढ़ा जावे ।

(ii) का. आ. 2145 दिनांक 14 जून, 2005, भारत के राजपत्र भाग II, खण्ड 3, उपखण्ड ( ii ) दिनांक 12-18 जून, 2005 के पृष्ठ 6096 में प्रकाशित "बाँव धुपुरी" को " गाँव धुपुरी नं. 1 " पढ़ा जावे । V. (i) का. आ. 3202 दिनांक 14 दिसम्बर, 2004, भारत के राजपत्र भाग II , खण्ड 3 , उपखण्ड (नं) दिनांक 12-18 दिसम्बर, 2004 के पृष्ठ 9646 में प्रकाशित गाँव फागुना- गाँव के संबंध में क्रम सं. 2. कॉलम 2 में "जिला बंगाईगायें" को "जिला चिरांग " पढ़ा जावे ।

(ii) का. आ. 2146 दिनांक 14 जून, 2005, भारत के राजपत्र भाग II, खण्ड 3, उपखण्ड ( ii ) दिनांक 12-18 जून, 2005 के पृष्ठ 6096 में प्रकाशित गाँव फागुना- गाँव के संबंध में क्रम से 2. कॉलम 2 में "जिला बंगाईगाव" को "जिला चिरोग " पढ़ा जावे ।

[फा. सं. ओ-12016/4/2004-ओ.एन.जी.डी.ओ.- IV]

श्री प्रकाश , अवर सचिव 2394G1/ 07-16 [PART 11- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] 3392

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/ JYAISTHA 5, 1929

New Delhi , the 23rd May, 2007

S.O. 1539. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1 ) , of Section 3 and Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (Act 50 of 1982) , the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the notifications of Govemment of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as under, namely

(1) In S.O. 775dated the 3rd March , 2005 published in the Gazette of India Part II , Section 3, Sub-section (ii ) dated February 27 -March 5, 2005 at page 2159 in respect of Village Petiagaon in Serial No. 1 , column 2 "District Bongaigaon " may be read as "District Chirang" (ii ) In S.O. 2664 dated the 27th July, 2005 published in the Gazette of India Part II , Section 3, Sub-section (ii ) dated 24-30 July, 2005 at page 8491 in respect of Village Petlagaon in Serial No. 1 , column 2 " District Bongaigaon " may be read as " District Chirang"

11. (1) In S.O. 775 dated the 3rd March , 2005 published in the Gazette of India Part 11 , Section 3 , Sub- section (ii ) dated February 27 - March 5, 2005 at page 2159 in respect of Village Dangtola in Serial No. 2, column 2 "District Bongaigaon" may be read as "District Chirang" (ii) In S.O. 2664dated the 27th July, 2005 published in the Gazette of India Part II , Section 3, Sub- section (ii ) dated 24-30 July, 2005 at page 8491 in respect of Village Dangtola in Serial No. 2, column 2 "District Bongaigaon " may be read "District Chirang"

(1) In S.O. 775 dated the 3rd March , 2005 published in the Gazette of India Part II , Section 3 , Sub-section (ii) dated February 27 - March 5, 2005 at page 2159 in respect of Village Kamardanga in Serial No. 4, column 2 "District Bongaigaon " maybe read as " District Chirang" (10) In S.O. 2664 dated the 27th July, 2005 published in the Gazette of India Part II , Section 3 , Sub- section (ii ) dated 24-30 July , 2005 at page 8491 in respect of Village Kamardanga in Serial No. 4, column 2 "District Bongaigaon " may be read as " District Chirang".

IV. (0) In S.O. 3202 dated the 14th December , 2004 published in the Gazette of India Part II , Section 3 , Sub- section ( ii ) dated 12-18 December , 2004 at page 9648 "Village Dhupuri " may be read as " Village Dhupuri No. 1" [भाग 1 ] खण्ठ 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का रामपत्र : मई 26 2007 /ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

3393 (10) in S.O. 2145 dated the 14th June, 2005 published in the Gazette of India Part II , Section 3, Sub-section ( ii) dated 12-18 June, 2005 at page6098"Village Dhupun may be read as "Village Dhupuri No. 1" V. (0) In S.O. 3202 dated the 14th December , 2004 published in the Gazette of India Part II , Section 3 , Sub-section ( ii) dated 12-18 December, 2004at page 9648 in respect of Village Phagunagaon in Serial No. 2, column 2"District Bongaigaon may be read as "District Chirang" (ii) In S.O. 2145 dated the 14th June, 2005 published in the Gazette of India Part II , Section 3, Sub- section (ii) dated 12-18 June, 2005 at page6098 in respect of Village Phagunagaon in Serial No. 2, column 2"District Bongaigaon " may be read as " District Chirang"

[F. No. 0-12016/4/2004-O.N.G ./D.O. -IV ] SHRI PRAKASH , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 23 मई , 2007

का. आ. 1540.- केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में प्रयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50 वां अधिनियम) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) व धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्त्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की मारत के राजपत्र में प्रकाशित अधिसूचनाओं से निम्नलिखित संशोधन करने कर निर्देश देती है । I. (i) का. आ. 3199 दिनांक 14 दिसम्बर, 2004, भारत के राजपत्र भाग II, खण्ड 3, तपखण्ड (ii ) दिनांक 12-18 दिसम्बर, 2004 के पृष्ठ 9636 में प्रकाशित अनुसूचि में "सर्किल बोकाघाट" को "सर्किल बोकाखाट" पढ़ा जावे ।

(ii) का. आ. 780 दिनांक 3 मार्च, 2005, भारत के राजपत्र भाग II , खण्ड 3 , उपखण्ड ( ⅱ) दिनांक फरवरी 27- मार्च 5, 2006 के पृष्ठ 2188 में प्रकाशित अनुसूचि में "सर्किल बोकाघाट" को "सर्किल बोकाखाट" पढ़ा जाये।

IL. (i) का. आ. 1113 दिनांक 21 मार्च, 2005, भारत के राजपत्र भाग II, खण्ड 3 , उपखण्ड (ii) दिनांक 20-26 मार्च, 2005 के पृष्ठ 2967 में प्रकाशित अनुसूचि में "सर्किल बोकाघाट" को "सर्किल बोकाखाट" पढ़ा जावे ।

(ii) का. आ. 2235 दिनांक 21 जून, 2005 , भारत के राजपत्र भाग II , खण्ड 3 , उपखण्ड (ii) दिनांक 19-25 जून, 2005 के पृष्ठ 6287 में प्रकाशित अनुसूचि में "सर्किल बोकाघाट" को "सर्किल बोकाखाट" पढ़ा जावे ।

[फा. सं. ओ-12016/4/2004- ओ.एन.जी. डी.ओ. - 14 ]

श्री प्रकाश , अवर सचिव [PART 11- SEC . 3 ( ii) ) 3394

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/JYAISTHA 5 , 1929

New Delhi , the 23rd May, 2007

S.O. 1540.-In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1 ) , of Section 3 and Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act, 1962 (Act 50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the notifications of Govemment of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas , as under namely

1. (1) In S.O. 3199dated the 14th December , 2004 published in the Gazette of India Part II , Section 3 , Sub-section (ii) dated 12-18 December , 2004 at page 9639 in the schedule " Circle Bokahat may be read as "Circle Bokakhat "

(ii) In S.O. 780 dated the 3rd March , 2005 published in the Gazette of India Part II , Section 3, Sub- section (ii ) dated February 27 - March 5, 2005 at page 2167 in the schedule " Circle Bokahat" may be read as "Circle Bokakhat

[ J. (1) In S.O. 1113 dated the 21th March , 2005 published in the Gazette of India Part II , Section 3, Sub- section ( ii ) dated 20-26 March , 2005 at page 2969 in the schedule "Circle Bokahat " may be read as "Circle Bokakhat

(ii) In S.O. 2235 dated the 21st June, 2005 published in the Gazette of India Part Ii , Section 3 , Sub- section ( ii ) dated 19-25 June, 2005 at page 6288 in the schedule " Circle Bokahat " may be read as "Circle Bokakhat

[F. No. O-12016/4/2004-0.N.G. /D.O. -IV ) SHRI PRAKASH , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 23 मई , 2007

का. आ. 1541.- केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में प्रयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50 वां अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) व धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की भारत के राजपत्र में प्रकाशित अधिसूचनाओं से निम्नलिखित संशोधन करने का निर्देश देती है । !

L (1) का. आ . 3200 दिनांक 14 दिसम्बर , 2004. भारत के राजपत्र भाग II, खण्ड 3 , उपखण्ड (ii ) दिनांक 12-18 दिसम्बर, 2004 के पृष्ठ 9642 में प्रकाशित जिला " कामरूप " को "जिला कामरूप (मेट्रो) पढ़ा जावे ।

(ii) का. आ. 1110 दिनांक 21 मार्च, 2005 , भारत के राजपत्र भाग II, खण्ड 3, उपखण्ड (ii ) दिनांक 20-26 मार्च, 2005 के पृष्ठ 2958 में प्रकाशित जिला " कामरूप " को "जिला कामरूप (मेट्रो) पढ़ा जावे ।

[फा. सं. ओ : 12016/4/2004- ओ.एन.जी./डी.ओ- IV ]

श्री प्रकाश , अवर सचिव [ भाग -वाण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

3395

New Delhi , the 23rd May, 2007

S.O. 1541-In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section (1 ), of Section 3 and Sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User In Land) Act, 1962 (Act 50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the notifications of Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas , as under namely

In S.O. 3200dated the 14th December , 2004 published in the Gazette of India Part II , Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated 12-18 December, 2004 at page 9643 " District Kamrup " may be read as "District Kamrup (Metro)"

(ii) In S.O. 1110 dated the 21 March , 2005 published in the Gazette of India Part II , Section 3, Sub- section (ii) dated 20-26 March , 2005 at page2959"District Kamrup" may be read as "District Kamrup (Metro)"

(F. No. O-12016/4/ 2004-0.N.G ./D.O. - IV ] SHRI PRAKASH , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 25 माई , 2007

का. आ. 1542 -केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पैट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 4926 दिनांक 20 दिसंबर 2008 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- संगरुर, जिला संगरूर, पंजाब राज्य की भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी,

और, उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को 24-26 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 विनिश्वय 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 । 3396

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2007 /JYAISTHA 5 , 1929

अनुसूची [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ії ) ] राज्य:पंजाब

जिला : संगरुर

तहसील: संगठर

गांव का नाम

मुस्तील संख्या

क्षेत्रफल

वर्गमीटर हेक्टेयर एथर

खसरा

किला संख्या

हदबस्त संख्या

206

मुनशीवाला

7 5

1555/327

42 00

1556/327

328

329

74 00

1559/335

42 00

1461/336

359

362

371

372

373

376

377

378

379

380

426

427

428

431

225

नदीमपुर

226

229

228

250

251

257

258

26 00

07 00

1902/322

1903/322

325

328

330

331

335

335/1

2064/1958/1762/374

2065/1762/374

1960/375

[भाग II अन्य 3 ( ii ) ]

3397

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007/5, 1929

376 नदामपुर

380

381

382

383

1320

1322

99 मसानी

100

101

102

103

114

115

116

117

412/119

413/119

123

164

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

188

189

190

341/192

191

195

396/213

216

217

219

370/220

371/220

372/221

373/221

171 राजपुरा

172

173

176

7 5.

33 00

84 00

85 00

95 00

42 00

69 00

42 00

44 00

95 00

69 00

44 00

42 00

69 00

42 00

55 00

95 00

17 00

79 00

90 00

64 [ PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007 / JYAISTHA 5, 1929

3398

177

राजपुपा

188

189

263

268

883/271

884/271

273

924/275

927/278

928/279

531

532

533

534

562

570

575

980/576

981/576

982/577

983/577

999/837-838/585

1000/837-838/585

1001/867-868/839-840/586 00

1002/867-868/839-840/586 00

1003/887-868/839-840/586 00

587

418

फुमनवाल

429

433

443

444/1

446/1

447

458/1

458/2

459/1

459/2

462

463

473

474

477/2 3399

ममत का राजपत्र: मई 26, 2007 /पेष्ठ 5, 1919

[ भगवण ( ⅱ ) ]

478

फुननवाल

489/1

489/2

490/2

7 5

32 00

22 00

42 00

85 00

1478/493

37 00

1479/493

1480/494

1481/494

510

511

512/1

611/1

42 00

38 00

1688/863

91 00

1670/864

1679/873-874

1681/888-887

888/1

885/2

888/3

888/4

902

903

984

991

992/1

995

996

1000

1001/1

1001/2

1009

1011

1012

1022/3

1023/2

1024

1033

22 00

11 00

53 00

84 00

65 00

84 00

69 00

42 00

91 00

11 00

1682/1035

1049

1077/2

1079/1

1079/2

1080/1

1080/2 00

42. 00

1376/1081

2394 GIM07--17 3400

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/ JYAISTHAS,1929

1083/1

फुमनबाल

1083/2

1084

1100

1107/1

1107/2

1108/1

1113/1

1114

1122/2

1122/3

1177

1183/1

7/1

7/2

42/2

347

486

488/2

489

517/89

518/89

146

146/1

147

148

157

159

161

162

163

164

165

171

177

[PART I-Sec. 3 (i))

7. 5

42 00

22 00

01 00

42 00

54 00

79 00

91 00

22 00

55 00

91 00

95 00

48 00

22 00

55 00

32 00

95 00

27 00

96 00

84 00

22 00

95 00

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड ( ⅱ ) ]

3401

भारत का यजपत्र : मई 26, 2007/न्येष्ठ 5, 1929

308

315

316

331

332

341

342

343

345

346

376

387

389

390

394

395

396

403

422

424

449

463

464

485

562/443

563/443 5

6 .

7 00

00.

22 00

69 00

91 00

86 00

91 00

32 00

80 00

22 00

27 00

i 00

91 00

22 00

79 00

59 00

17 00

43 00

554/494

565/494

569/446

570/446 00

69 00

571/446

85 [फा. सं. आर-25011/ 12/2006- ओ.आर. -1 ] एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव 3402

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007 /JYAISTHA5, 1929

[PART I-SBC. 3(in) ]

New Delhi , the 23rd May, 2007

8. О. 1542-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. 4926, dated 20th December 2006, issued under sub-section ( 1 ) of section 3of the Petroleum and Minerala Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referredto as the saidAct), the Central Governent declared its intention to acquire the right ofuser 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 Sangrar , District Sangrur (Punjab).

And, whereas, the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public between24-26 February2007;

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.

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007 /न्वेष्ठ 5, 1929

3403

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : Sangrur

District: Sangrur NameofVillage

Khasra / Killa No.

Hadbast No.

Mushti No.

4 Munshiwala

206 State: Punjab

Area

Hectare Are

Square Metre 5

7 00

1555/327

91 00

1556/327

328

329

42 00

48 00

1559/335

74 00

1461/336

359

362

371

372

373

376

377

378

379

380

426

427

428

431

Nadampur

225

226

229

228

250

251

257

258

70 00

55 00

11 00

48 00

37 00

96 00

07 00

89 00

90 00

37 00

01 00

26 00

42 00

26 00

17 00

74 00

38 00

95 00

1902/322

1903/322

325

328

330

331

335

335/1 00

42 00

91 00

75 DO

91 00

01 00

79 00

2064/1958/1762/374

2065/1762/374

22 00

1960/375

42 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : ΜΑΥ 26, 2007/ JYAISTHA5 , 1929

3404

376

Nadampur

380

381

382

383

1320

1322

Masani

100

101

102

103

114

115

116

117

412/119

413/119

123

164

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

188

189

190

341/192

191

195

396/213

216

217

219

370/220

371/220

372/221

373/221

171

Rajpura

172

173-

176 [PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii) ;

33 00

91 00

84 00

42 00

85 00

75 00

42 00

69 00

44 00

42 00

53 00

95 00

69 00

44 00

42 00

69 00

42 00

33 00

42 00

44 00

42 00

55 00

42 00

37 00

43 00

79 00

90 00

64 00

04 [भाग ( 日 ) )

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 2007 /ज्येष्ठ 1 , 1929

177 Rajpura

188

189

263

268

3405

7 00

85 00

54 00

11 DO

42 00

883/271

884/271

273

02 00

43 00

924/275

927/278

91 00

928/279

531

532

533

534

562

570

575

980/576

981/576

982/577

983/577

999/837-838/585

1000/837-838/585

1001/867-868/839-840/586

1002/867-868/839-840/586

28 00

91 00

65 00

91 00

95 00

96 00

49 DO

42 00

84 00

1003/867-868/839-840/586 00

587 Phumanwal

418

429

433

443

444/1

446/1

447

458/1

458/2

459/1

459/2

462

463

473

474

477/2

91 00

75 00

91 00

42 00

26 00

65 00

90 00

74 00

84 00

64 00

12 00

59 00

32 DO

59 [PART I-SBC. 3(ii) ] 3406

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007 /JYAISTHA5 , 1929

478

Phumanwal

489/1

489/2

490/2

1478/493

1479/493

1480/494

1481/494

510

511

512/1

611/1

1668/863

1670/864

1679/873-874

1681/886-887

888/1

888/2

888/3

888/4

902

903

984

991

992/1

995

996

1000

1001/1

1001/2

1009

1011

1012

1022/3

1023/2

1024

1033

1682/1035

1049

1077/2

1079/1

1079/2

1080/1

1080/2

1376/1081

3407

भारत क्त वाजपत्र : मई 26, 2007/5, 1929

[ र ]] ( iⅱ ) ]

1083/1

Phumanwal

1083/2

1084

11,00

1107/1

1107/2

1108/1

1113/1

1114

1122/2

1122/3

1177

1183/1

Bimbar

7/1

7/2

42/2

347

486

488/2

489

71-

Bimbri

517/89

518/89

146

146/1

147

148

157

159

161.

162

163.

164

165

171

177 2394GIM07-18

64 00

54 DO

79 00

22 00

91 00

95 00

48 00

55 00

84 00

32 00

95 00

22 00

27 00

01 00

91 00

85 00

08 3406

[PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/JYAISTHA5, 1929

308 22

Blmbri

315 :

316

331

332

341

342

343

345

348

376

387

389

390

394

395

396

403

422

424

449

463

464

465

562/443

563/443

564/494

565/494

569/446

570/446

7 5

22 00

69 00

32 00

01 00

22 00

96 00

81 00

22 00

79 00

43 00

571/446

[F. No. R-25011 /12/2006- O.R -1 ] S.K. CHITKARA, Under Secy.

3409

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 27 अप्रैल , 2007

the rate that would have been payable to such employee had he retired at that time is justified and "proper? If so, towhat relief are the workmen entitled?" Demand 2

का.आ. 1543.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, कंन्द्रीय सरकार पाकिस्तान एअर लाइस के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , मुम्बई- I के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 34/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-04-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

"Whether the demand of the PIAEA from the management ofPIA for promotion from one grade to another as per circular No.MRP /IND/07/95/570 dated 23-4-1995 and for grant of financial benefit on completion of 7 years of service in the event ofnon- availability of promotion posts from Grade 'G ' to 'H' andGrade "to 'J' is justified? If so, towhat relief are the workmen entitle?"

Demand3.

[सं. एल-11012/53/2001- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जयास , डेस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

NewDelhi , the 27th April ,2007

"Whether the action of the PIA in not giving one set of International free tickets for staff and spouse on retirement or upon leaving service on completion of 25 years of service as prescribed in the Administration manual is justified? If not,towhat relief are the workmen entitled?"

S.O. 1543. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.34/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Mumbai - I as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Pakistan Airlines and their workman, whichwas received by the Central Govemment on27-04-2007.

[No. L- 11012/53/2001 - IR(C-I) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

2.Mr. LancyD'Souza is present for the Management. None appeared for Pakistan International Airlines Association when the matter came up for hearing today. The notices were issued in the past to the Association and services have been affected by the Registered post. No statement ofclaim has been filed by the Association.Since theAssociation has not turned up despite service of notice for today's date of hearing to contest the reference, the same is liable to be dismissed for non- prosecution.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -NO. 1, AT MUMBAI

3.Reference is accordingly dismissed.

PRESENT

JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS, PresidingOfficer JusticeGhanshyam Dass

नई दिल्ली , 27 अप्रैल , 2007

PresidiugOfficer

का.आ. 1544, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 REFERENCE NO. CGIT-34 -OF 2006

Employers in relation to the management of

Pakistan Airlines

And

Their workmen

APPEARANCES :-

का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/9 ऑफ 2000) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-04-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

Shri Lancy D ' Souza

For the Management For the Workomen

Noappearance

Mumbai, dated this the 11th day ofApril,2007

[सं. एल -22012/268/1999- आई आर ( सी-11 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी AWARD

New Delhi , the 27th April , 2007

This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause ( d) of sub- section (1 ) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( the Act for short ) videGovemment of India, Ministry of Labour' New Delhi Order No.L- 11012/53/ 2001- IR(C- I) dated 29-09-2006 . The terms of referencegiven inthe schedule are as follows:

Demand 1

S.O. 1544. in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.2/9 of 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of F. C. I. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-04-2007.

[No. L-22012/268/ 1999- IR( C- II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer "Whether the de nand of the PIAEA from the management of PIA that in the case of death of an employee during service a gratuity may be paid at 3410

[PART 11-SEC . 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26, 2007 /0YAISTHA 5, 1429

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. - II , MUMBAI

FRESENT

A.A. Lad

PresidingOfficer

REFERENCE NO . CGIT- 29 of2000

Employers in relation to the management of FoodCorporation of India

The Senior Regional Manager

Tribunal for adjudication. As a result of that , said dispute was decided by this Tribunal by passing order on 17-3-1983 directing Food Corporation of India to appoint workmen as per their skills . Still FCI did not appoint these workmen on their respective posts which they were attending. So it is pleaded that , first party be directed to confirm the appointment of workmen as per their designations like Plumber, Filter , Carpenter , Masson , Helper, Khalasi , Machine Operator etc, and permit them to claim the benefits of the said post . Union also prayed to direct First Party to pay arrears of the said work.

Food Corporation of ludia

MistryBhavan Churchgate Mumbai -400020 Vis.

Their Wortanen :

TheGeneral Secretary All India Trade Union of Food Corporation Employees & Workers 4.TulsiBuilding Sai Nagar, Navghar Vasai (W) Dis11. Thane.

APPEARANCES:

For theEmployer : Mr. B. J. Sawant Advocate

Forthe Workmen : Mr. P. N. Ojha

Representative

Mumbai , dated 30th March, 2007

AWARD

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No.1-22012/268 /99-1R (CM - II ) dated 30-12-1999 in cxercise 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 thisTribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India , Mumbai in depriving Sh . V.D. Vartak and 9 others from the proper designation as Wireman / Khalasi/Carpenter is justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitied?"

3. This isdisputed by First Party by filing replyEx -5, stating that , dispute raised by the union to appoint these workmen on various posts as per their work is totally baseless and devoid of any merits . Infact in the previous reference, the demand of the union was to regularise the services of the workmen and accordingly this Tribunal awarded and directed First Party to regularise the casual workmen. There was no prayer to regularise the workmen as per their designation of work like Carpenter , Plumber etc. Simply these workmen were engaged as casual labourer and they were doing work of either Fitter or Plumber. Since they were not regularised in the employment of first party . dispute was raised and was awarded like that , Even that time it was not ease of the union to regularise them as per their designations in the previous reference. Infact these workmen were taken in the employment on terms and conditions . They were not appointed as a fitter or plumber whatever maybe their case. Even the application filed by the workmen US 33 ( C) (2 ) bearing no . Appln/LC- 2/ 85 of 1990 was dismissed by order d1 . 27-01-1993 observing applicants are not entitled to get any differences . White regularising these workinen as per previous award , the post ofPlumber , Carpenter was not sanctioned or available and only on post of messengers, they were regularised justto obey the award. The demand of the workmen was for regularisation in the previous reference and it was complied by the First Party. Since these workmen worked as casual labourers and were not appointed on particular post like Fitter/Plumber, they are not entitled to be appointed on such a post. So it is subunit that reference be rejected since ithas no reason to think over on it .

4.In view of above pleadings , issues are framed at Ex-14which is answered as follows:

Issues

Findings

1. Whether the action of the

Yes

Management of Food Corporation of India, Mumbai in not giving proper designation as Wireman/ Khalasi/Carpenter to Sh . V. D. Varlak and 9 others is legal and proper ?

2. What relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?

Asper orderbelow 2. Claim Statement is filed al Ex -4 by the General Secretary of the Union stating that, workers involved in the reference were appointed as casual labourers in 1971 and some were appointed in between 1971 to 1978. They were appointed on various post like Plumber . Fitter , Carpenter, Masson. Helper , Khalasi , Machine Operator etc. Said appointment was given to fulfill the requirement on aboveposts and were posted at various places like Borivli , Sewrce Wadala and other places . However , they were deprived being recruited on regular basis . They were asked to attend rospective work without designating them ofthat work . Since they were not digested by the First Party as per their post they approached union and raised the dispute . As conciliation did not take place , said subject matter was referred to Labour Ministry to mark to this [ भाग - खम्पड (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

3411 REASONS

IssueNo.1

5.By this reference, grievance of the union is sent for adjudication where dermand of the union is that, the employee by name V.D.Vartak and 9 others were not properly designated by the first party . So, whether that action is just and proper?

Party to lead us to conclude that , particular employee is appointed for particular work and he is doing specifically that work, I am of the opinion that, the workmen involved in the reference are not entitled to this particular reliefto regularise them on the particular post as claimed. Since there is no evidence and no specific case is made out, I conclude that, Second Party fails to establish the claim of the workers involved in the reference . So I answer above issue to that effect.

10. In view of discussion above , I conclude that, reference deserve to be rejected. Hence the order : ORDER

: Reference is rejected. No order as to costs .

Date:30-03-2007

A.A. LAD, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 मई , 2007

6. To support that, Union place reliance on number of depositions of the workmen i.e. affidavit filed of Mr. P. N.Ojha Ex - 20 . Affidavit of Tekchandani filed at Ex-26.Affidavit of Chandra Deo Rai filed at Ex - 32 and of A.K. Sheikh filed at Ex-33 . They also rely on affidavit of Bhagve filed at Ex- 34 . However out of them Ojha and Tekchandani were offered for cross- examination to the Advocate of the First Party where they admit that , they have not pointed out in the previons reference on what post they were recruited to post and admit that there was nodemand to recruit them or regularise them on particular post. Against that First Party has examined Sudhir Narula atEx-40 who states that , the demand of the union was to regularise the workmen involved in the reference. There was no specific demand to regularise on particular post . Besides that First Party has examined Nasruliah A. Haidery at Ex-41 who states that, work of plumbing is get done from contractor since2000.

का.आ. 1545,-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 40/2001 ) कोप्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-5-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

7. First Party has submitted Written Argument at Ex-45whereas Second Party submitted it at Ex -47 mentioning that, otherside has not proved its respective case.

[सं-एल-40012/62/2001 - आई आर ( डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्रसिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 1st May,2007

S.O. 1545 In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes , Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 40/2001 oftheCentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofDepartment of Post and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 1-5-2007.

8. On going through all these , and going through the previous demand of the union , which was referred for adjudication in Ref. CGIT -2/33 of 1982 we find that, there was demand of the union to regularise the service of the workmen in the Corporation. Accordingly Ref. CGIT-2/33 of 1982 was awarded . On the basis of said award Application LC- 2/85 of 1990 was filed which was disposed ofas "dismissed" observing workmen are not entitledto any relief. In the present reference , subject matter is that, whetheraction of the management in depriving Vartak and nine others from their proper designation is justified?

[No. L-40012/62 /2001 - IR(DU ) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRIA.N. YADAV PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR CaseNo. CGIT/NGP/40/2001

Petitioner/ :

PartyNo.1

Shri Vilas Wasudeo Kurve A1. Sathgaon, Tah. Chimur, Distt . Chandrapur (MS ) Versus

Respondent :

PartyNo.2

Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Chanda Division, Chandrapur [MS ] 442401.

AWARD [Dated, 25th April, 2007]

9. In that connection , if we peruse the evidence reference above and the arguenents advanced by both, I find that, Second Party Union miserably fail to establish the particular workmen was appointed on particular post. In the previous reference , their demand was to regularise casnal workers . Admittedly no specific prayer was made by the union claiming particular employee doing particular work and require to regularise on that particular post. Infact thatwas a general demand just to regularise casual workers which was granted. Even the reliefs sought by filing Application U/S 33 (C) (2 ) on the basis of previous award was dismissed observing not tenable . Even in this reference, it is not proved by the workman that, they were appointed on particular post and they must be regularised on that post instead of simply regularising them in the cmployment of First Party. When there was no specific demand and when there is no evidence from the Second

1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence ofdisputes between Shri Vilas Wasudoo Karve, [PART II-Sac. 3 (i) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007 /JYAISTHA 5, 1929

3412

At Sathgaon, Tah. Chinur , Distt . Chandrapur [ MS] Party No.1 and Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Chanda Division, Chandrapur: [NIS ] 442401, Party No. 2 referred the same for adjndication to this Tribunal vide its Letter No. L-40012/ 62/2001- IR(DU) Di. 31-5-2001 under clause (d) of sub. section (1 ) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 [ 14 of 1947] with the following schedule .

2. "Whether the action of the Management of (i) The Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Chanda Division, Chandrapur [ MS ] & ( ii ) The Asstt. Supdt. of Post Offices , North Sub-Division , Chandrapur [ MS ] in terminating the services of Spri Vilas Wasudco Kurve, Ex-EDDA at Sathgaon, Post Office Branch w.ec.f. 3-3-2000 was legal, proper and just ? Ifnot , what relief the said workman entitled to and from what date?"

3.The petitioner Shri Vilas Wasudeo Kurve has raised this disputes alleging that the petitioners are engaging in unfair labour practice and terminated his service w.e.f. 16-5-2000. It is his case that he was working as an Extra Departmental Delivery Agent at Sathgaon, Branch Post Office, Tah. Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur w.e.f. 6-5-1999. He rendered unblemished continued service for more than 230days in last preceding one year ofhis termination . It is contended that on 2-3-2000 he was sick and was on leave upto15-5-2000. On 16-5-2000 when he went to restumehis duty,but theBranch Post Master, Sathgaon did not allow him to resume the duty. Hence he wenttoAsstt. Supd. of PostNorth Sub-Division, Chandrapur with the same request. But the Asstt. Superintendent of the Post Offices , North Sub-Division told him that he was terminated. Before terminationbe was not given one month notice or notpaid inleave ofnotice .He was not paid retrenchment compensa- tion and his services were terminated orally. Thus according to him it has committed a breach of Section 25 [ f] of Industrial Disputes Act. His juniors were retained without following of principle of "Last Come First Go" , it is a violation of Section 25 [g ] of Industrial Disputes Act and thus his oral termination is illegal . It is malafidely, victimization in a colourable exercise of employer's right. Hencehe has prayed to reinstate.

4. The management appeared and resisted the claim by filing the Written Statement. It has denied that he was appointed as alleged by the petitioner and he was ill on 2-3-2000. He has intentionally and deliberately proceeded on leave with a view to avoid the service of termination order.Hewas engaged purely on a temporary basis with a clear understanding that his services will be terminatedat anytime without notice and without giving any reason. He was engaged on ad hoc temporary basis and therefore, there was no question of Section 25(f) & 25 (g ) of Industrial DisputesAct

The incumbent ofthe post ofExtra Departmental Delivery Agent, Sathgaon was promoted and therefore he was tobe relieved from the charge of Extra Departmental Delivery Agent, Sathgaon and S.D.I. South who was holding additional charge of North Sub-Division Sathgaon was under the central jurisdiction ofASP ofNorth Sub-Division . Therefore , SID South Sub- Division directed mail overseer ofa respective area to engage a suitable, eligible candidate against the said vacant post ofExtra Departmental Delivery Agent, Sathgaon on a temporary basis . Shri M. N. Meshram the concerned mait overseer was on duty and available with SDI South Sub-Division on and after 4-5-1999. Instead ofdirecting him for implementation of order Dt . 4-5-1999 Shri W. N. Kurve the working mail overseer with S.D.I. South Sub-Division with deliberately and malafide intention visited Sathgaon branch office trespassing the jurisdiction and be implemented the onder dated 4-5-1999. Hewas knowingthat his son Shri Vilas Kurve was residing with him at Mui, Dist. Chandrapur was not suitable and eligible for the engagement in the post ofExtraDepartmental DeliveryAgent, Sathgaon branch officer Shri W. N. Kurve mail overseer unauthorizedly appointed his own son Shri Vilas W. Kurve and handed over the charge of the said post w.e.f. 6-5-1999 . On joining a regular appointing authority i.e. Asstt. Superintendent Sub-Post Office , North Sub-Division the process of the regular recruitment were started.Meanwhile there was a complaint from the local M.P. as well as Surpanch alleging that Shri Vilas Kurve was not resident of Sathgaon, which was a requisite condition for the post ofExtra Departmental Delivery Agent, Sathgaon. Shri Vilas Kurve was residing at Mul, Dist. Chandrapur alongwith his father and other family members. He was not permanent resident of Sathgaon and he was notat alleligible for the post ofExtra Departmental Delivery Agent, Sathgaon on 6-5-1999 . Since his appointmentwas found illegal and being a temporary on provisional basis with the condition of terminating without any notice they were terminated. He received the memo of termination on 3-3-2000 and on receipt of it he remained absent on medical ground and filed unfit certificate through messenger . He deliberatelyavoided to handover the charge and therefore, Branch Post Master assumed Additional charge of this post and the Kurve was treated as terminated w.c.f. 4-3-2000. He was not paid any allowances from4-3-2000. The recruitment process was completed and final selection was kept in abeyance due to the ban on filling the vacant post at present the post of Extra Departmental Delivery Agent, Sathgaon has rendered a surplus due to the introduction ofSTMMS for carrying mail from Sathgaon . Thus according to the management it was not necessary tofollow eitherthe provisions of Section 25 (f) or Section 25(g) of Industrial Disputes Act his appointment was illegal and he is rightly terminated by the management. It has

prayeddismissed the petition . 6. I have beard Mr. Vilas Kurve and counsel for the management Shri Sundaram. I have gone through the record 5. Accordingto the Management the regular incumbent of the post of Assistant Superintendent Chanda, North Sub-Division was on medical leave. The Sub- Divisional Inspector, Chanda, South Sub -Division was holding an Additional charge of ASP, North Sub- Division.

3413

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 26, 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

[ भाग - खण्ड 3( ii) ]

the only point that arises for my consideration is whether the termination of the petitioner is illegal and whether he is entitled for any relief of reinstatement with back wages as claimedbyhim.

has submitted some documents to show that he was resident of Sathgaon itself, but those documents are not at all reliable .He has filed a certificate from a secretary of Gram Panchayat which does not bear the round seal of the GramPanchayat. Moreover, it does not disclose either his House No. or any other identity card like Ration Card or Voting Card .Undisputedly his father was residing atMul, Dist. Chandrapur and there is nothing on record to show thatthe petitioner was doing any work or residing at village Sathgaon . Thus his appointment appears to be totally illegal .He was not sponsored from employment exchange norhewas resident of the same village and the mail overseer that too ofNorth Division was not at all an appointing authority of the petitioner. In such circumstances his appointinent cannot be prepared in accordance with the rules. Onthe contrary there is no evidence to show that he was eligible for the same post because he was not a resident of the village Sathgaon and he is not a local person. In such circumstances in my view he is not entitled for any relief. There was no need for observing the provisions of Section25( f), Section 25(g ) & Section 25( i ) of Industrial Disputes Acthe was simply working for particular period and his appointment was of temporary nature, therefore it was not at all a retrenchment . The petitioner has not acquired any rights and his dispute deserves to be rejected. Hence I answered the reference in the negative and the reference stands as dismissed.

Hence thisAward.

A.N. YADAV, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली , 1 मई , 2007

का.आ. 1546,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार रीजनल प्रोविडेंट फंड कमिश्नर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 230/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-5-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल -42012/62/2000- आई आर ( डीयू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 1stMay, 2007 7. In order to prove the case the petitioner examined himself and he has filed the documents as per list dated 9-6-2002 . According to the petitioner he was appointed as anExtra Delivery Agent andhe worked for more than 240 days continuously. His services were terminated without any notice or payment of retrenchment compensation and without following the procedure of 25G " Last Come First Go". However, except the bare works and date of appointment there is nothing on record to indicate that his appointment was in accordance with the rules prescribed by the department . It is pertinent to note that a strong objection was taken on his appointment and it appears that the objections are having a substance . In fact he was givenan order for limited period and on that day his services were terminated. However, the petitioner insists of accepting the letter of further order of termination proceeded on him and therefore , the order could not be scrved on him. Whatever it may be there is no specific reason as to how his appointment was as per prescribed rules . On the contrary it is surprising to see that his appointment was totally illegal not through the appointing authority or it was made by his father only.Accordingto the management the Assistant Superintendent, Chanda of North Sub -Division was on leave . Therefore , Sub -Divisional Inspector Chanda South Sub-Division was holding his additional charge . At the same time extra delivery agent of Sathgaon Branch Office was promoted and therefore, Superintendent of South Division was also holding a charge of Sathgaon, Branch Office. He was under central jurisdiction of ASP North Division. SDI Chanda South Sub -Division directed mail overseer to arrange the reliefof incumbent and to engaged a eligible candidate on the post ofExtra Departmental Delivery Agent at Sathgaon on a temporary basis, that letter is on record . The mail overseer Shri Meshram was on duty after 4-5-1999, but insteadof directing him to implement the order Shri W. N. Kurve the father of the petitioner who was working as a mail overseer With SDI South Sub-Division visited Sathgaon which is not at all in his jurisdiction and himself implemented the order appointing his own son i.e. the Petitioner Shri VilasKurve asExtra Delivery Agent of Sathgaon. The story specifically indicates that Shri W. N. Kurve was neither inchargeofSouth Zone and he was not at all concern with. The mail overseer of South Zone was on duty. Still only with a viewto appoint his son Shri W. N. Kurve issued an order appointing his son .

S.O. 1546. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Govemmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No.230/2000) 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 Regional Provident Fund Commissionerand their workman, which was receivedby the Central Govenument on 1-5-2007.

[No. L-42012/62/2000- IR (DU) ]

SURENDER SINGH, Desk Officer 8. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner was not even eligible for the appointment because the main condition was that the person so appointed as an Extra Departmental Delivery Agent should be from the same village where he is tobe appointed. A local candidate was necessary. The petitioner was residing alongwith his father. No doubt he

[PART I SEC . 3 (ii) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26 , 2007 / JYAISTHA 5, 1929

3414

ANNEXURE

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

CaseNo. CGIT /NGP/230/ 2000

: Shri Pramod Prabhakarrao Shelke

Petitionet/

PartyNo. 1 Guruchaya Colony , Nr . Muk Badhir Vidyalaya, Sainagar, Po . HV Amravati

Versus

Respondent :

PartyNo.2

The Enforcement Officer , Provident Fund, Doles "Bunglow " , Maltakdi Road, Amravati .

AWARD

Dated25th April, 2007

name of above fictitious person w.e.f. 15-12-1997 to 31-5-1999.However , he himself worked during this period andcompleted more than 240 days in the preceding year of his termination. The petitioner ought to have been continued in the service , but the Respondent employed some other persons onad - hoc basis w.e.f. 1-6-1999 by oral order and terminated his services . Since he has completed more than 240 days . The termination ought to have been after the conpliance of provisions Section 25(h) and 25( 1) of Industrial Disputes Act . Therefore he moved an applicationbefore ALCduring the conciliation proceedings the Respondent No. 1 and 2 could not produced or give full addresses of the persons who are engaged subsequem to April 1998. He could not produce even the inward and outward register before ALC and therefore ALC has come to the conclusion that in real sense no such workman as stated by Respondent No. I were at anytime engaged and are in existence . It has also concluded that the petitioner himself was in continuous service of the Respondent No. 1. Thus according to him he is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages and he has prayed for the same .

1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence of disputes between Shri Pramod Prabhakarrao Shelke, Guruchaya Colony, Nr . Muk Badhir Vidayalaya, Sainagar, PO . HV Amravati Party No. 1 and The Enforcement Office, Provident Fund, Doles "Bunglow ".. Maltakdi Road, Amravat Party No. 2 referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its Letter No. L-42012/ 62/2000- IR(DU) Dt . 31-7-2000 under clause ( d ) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section ( 2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) with the following schedule .

2. "Whether the action of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur and Enforcement Office , Provident Fund, Amravati in terminating the services of Sh . Pramod Prabhakarrao Shelke w.e.f. 1-6-99 is legal , proper and justified? If not , to what relief the said workman is entitled and from what date ?"

5. The management by filing its Written Statement resisted the claim of the petitioner. It has denied that the petitionerwas engaged as per directions of the Respondent No. 2 and he was appointed after interview . It has denied thatheworked from 15-12-1997 (ill 31-5-1999 continuously. 11 has also denied that the petitioner used to sign an attendance register after 31-3-1998 and the Respondent had prepared a daily wage bill in the name of various fictitious non-existing persons like Pandit Pandey , Ramesh Bhegade , Sanjay Mishra, Vinod Pandey , Sharad Kale etc. They have also denied that the peritioner was compelled to sign and he has signed. it out of dire need etc. The management has denied that he has completed more than 240 days and he is entitled for reinstatement and backwages . It has also denied that the compliance of Section 25(h) and 25 (1) was necessary .

3. The petitioner has challenged his termination/ discontinuation in breach of provisions of Section 25(h ) without compliance of Section 25(f) w.e.f. 9-6-1999 . It is his case that he has passed HSSC Examination and his name was registered in Employment Exchange at Amravati as perdirections of the Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. I appointed him on a daily rated peon for the office work. He applied for the post and after his interview the Respondeni No. 1 appointed him on 15-12-1997 by appointing letter till 31-5-1999 . He was paid daily wages for the above period by preparing bill in his own name . His name was mentioned in Muster Register alongwith ShriM. P. Dahiye clerk of Respondent No. 1.

6.Accordingto it the petitioner was engaged from 15-12-1997 to 31-3-1998 on a contract basis and paid for actual work done by him. Except from the above periodhe was never engaged by the Respondent he abandoned his services voluntarily , he was never terminsted, the applicant is making wild allegations against the Respondent without any proof, he should prove it specifically . The respondent is aGovemment Organization and it based on strict norms and the procedures . They were scrupulously followed. Hence it has prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. I have heard the counsel for the Respondent and nobody appeared for the petitioner the counsel for the Respondent has also filed the written notes of argument . On the basis of the submissions made by the parties the following points arise for my consideration:--

(1) Whether the petitioner worked continuously from 15-12-1997 till 31-5-1999?

Whether the Respondent showed the fake person working on the daily wages as a peon , (ii)

4. It is contended that after the period of 3 and half months i.e. after 31-03-1998 the RespondentNo. 1 prepared the bill of daily wages in the various fictitious name . The persons who are not even in existence arc shown to have worked in his place . The respondent No. i prepared the bills in the nunc of Pandit Pandey , Ramesh Bhegade, Sanjay Mishra , Vinod Pandey, Sharad Kale etc. and the petitioner was compelled to sign the vouchers in those fictitious names showing that the above persons were engaged in hisplace one after another . Since the petitioner was in dire needof servicebeing unemployed and helpless signed all the vouchers as per directions of Respondent No. 1 in the 3415

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

[ भाग - खण्ड 3(ii) ]

though the petitioner himself was working as apeon and paid for the same?

(i ) Whether the compliance of Section 25(g) , Section25(h) & Section 25( 1) was necessary and whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as claimed by him?.

has given the names against whom the amount is withdrawn and those persons are not at all in the existence. Thoughhe was asked to sign in their names he signed the vouchers in his own name. Besides this according to the petitioner he used to sign the muster roll and it is bearing his signature upto 31-5-1999 . He has filed the Xerox copies ofthose vouchers as well as the muster roll. Xerox copies of the vouchers are on tecord. They support the contentions of the petitioner. All the vouchers though are prepared in the name of Pandit Pandey, Ramesh Bhegador Sanjay Mishra, Vinod Pandey, Sharad Kale etc. All are bearing signatures in token of receipt of amounts as a P.P. Shelke. Similarly, the muster roll of the above period is also supporting his contentions . There is nothing on recordto discard or falsify it.

11. It is not the case that the petitioner has made some developments before the Tribemal . He immediately. madea representation after his oral termination to the ALC mentioning all these facts and the unfair acts of the respondent . There were conciliation proceedings , the copies of the conciliation proceedings are on record in which the management was directed to produce those persons or toproduce their addresses so as to unable him tocall them. The respondent could not produced those persons or it could not give their addresses also . The height of it is that the respondent did not filed or submit the outward register for the perusal of the ALC. The ALC has specifically mentioned it in a failure report of conciliation and requested a ministry to send the reference to the tribunal .

8. In order to prove the respective contentions the petitioner initially filed a Pursis that his Statement of Claim should be treated as evidence, which is filed on 15-07-2001 . However, later on he filed an Affidavit indicating that he wants to adduce the oral evidence. However, he remained absent and could notbe cross- examined on behalf of the Respondent. Further since nobody was appearing for the petitioner his sidewas closed and theRespondent was directed to subenit an affidavit if any as evidence on their part . Accordingly management has also filed an affidavit of one Sari Doifode Enforcement Officer and since the petitioner was not attending the case the witness of the management could not be cross- examined. The question is whether on the basis of it the evidence of the petitioner will have to be discarded and the evidence of the management will have to be treated as it is and he acted upon it, as argued on behalf ofthe Respondent . It is pertinent to note that earlier the petitioner has filedthe pursis admittedly that he does not want to adduce any evidence and his Statement of Claim should be treated as his evidence . No doubt subsequently he filed affidavit and has not offered for the cross- examination by remaining absent and therefore, his affidavit as suggested by the counsel for the respondent will have to be discarded. Similarly, the affidavit filca on behalf of the management is CHI record and it is also a fact that he is not cross -examined on behalf of the petitioner. No doubt his evidence remained unchallenged but I afraid to accept it as it is . Its credibility will have tobe considered on the basis of the circumstances as well as the documents filed by the partics on record. Undisputedly no documents to support his own affidavit are filed on record on behalf of the management .

9. The disputes are whether the petitioner has worked continuously as a poon right from 15-12-1997 till 31-5-1999: Undisputedly the Respondeat appointed the petitioner on 15-12-1997 . A letter of the managcinent Dt. 23-7-1999, the copy ofwhich is filed by the petitioner indicates it. Similarly it is an undisputed that initially he was appointed from 15-12-1997 till 31-3-1998 and this period was for three and half months .

12. As against this the management is simply saying that he was never engaged after 31-03-1998, but it could not submit even the names of the person who were subsequently engaged and to whom the payment was made . The counsel for the respondent in his written notes of argumem has made the submissions that since the petitioner did not offer for cross -cxamination his evidence shouldbe discarded and as he has not cross - examined the witness of the management and as his evidence remained unchallenged it should be accepted as it is. In view of the documents it seems that the affidavit filed by the witness of the management is totally false and is not supported by any other vouchers . The affidavit. is far away from the truth and it is impossible to accept as a truth . It is onlywith aview to avoid the responsibility. In fact it is an unfair and deliberate act to refuse the right of the petitioner.

10. Later on according to the petitioner he was continuedtowork upto 31-5-1999 on which he was orally terminated without any notice or payment of retrenchment compensation or following the provisions of Section 25( f) &25(g) of Industrial Disputes Act . He has contended that without issuing any orders the respondent prepared the vouchers in the names of bogus or fake persons who are not at all in the existence and he was asked to sign in the name of those persons as mentioned in the vouchers . He

13. In a Written Statement in specific pleadings except denial there is nothing . However, in written notes of argument the counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was engaged on a contract basis. I failedto understand as to how it was a contract for the work done by him. It is not supported by any document or even the pleadings inWritten Statement . The petitioner was working as a peon and he has worked in the same capacity. The payment is made to him only, though the vouchers are 2394 07-19 3416

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii )) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26, 2007/0YAISTHA 5, 1929

New Delhi, the 1stMay, 2007 taken in various names . A work of a peon how can be treatedon contract?What was the contract between the petitioner and respondent? These submissions are only with a viewto hide the illegal actions of the management. They have no consequence otherwise those submissions have no consequence.

S.O. 1547-10 pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 (14 of 1947 ) the Central Govemment hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 35/2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on01-05-2007.

[No. L-40012/ 64/2006- IR(DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Offкост ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW PRESENT: Shri Shrikant Shukla, Presiding Officer LD. No. 35/2006 Ref. No. L -40012/64/2006- IR (DU) dated:28-11-2006 BETWEEN Ms. Beena Verma Dio Shri RamDularey R/oMohalla Kori Katra, Bahraich AND

1. The Telecom District Manager TelecomDeptt . BSNL Bahraich

2 The ChiefGeneral Manager, Telephone . TelecomDeptt. Lucknow Circk, PMG Office , Hazratganj , Lucknow.

AWARD

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour vide their Order No. L-40012/ 64/2006 - IR(DU) dated 28-11-2006 has referred following dispute for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, Central Govemment Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Lucknow for adjudication.

"Whether the action of the Telecom District Manager, BSNL , Bahraich in terminating the services of their workman Ms. Beena Verma w.c.f. 1-5-2001 is legal and justified? If not ,to what relief the workman is entitledto?"

14. The evidence clearly establishes that the petitióner himself worked right from 15-12-1997 till 31-05-1999 i.e. till the date ofhis oral termination. Initially for three and half months the order was given to him as a Pramod Shelkebut subsequently without issuing any order the management continued same person by taking the vouchers in a various fake names. It is his case that he was compelled to sign in the name of those persons and due to the threat to his service which was a livelihood for him be signed it The vouchers on record are the samples of it. The unique procedure was followed to avoid the benefit of the I. D. Actto the workman . The documents which are on record sufficiently establish that the petitioner was working right from the date of initial order ie. 15-12-1997 and though the period mentioned in the order was expired he was continued to work on the same post , but the vouchers were issued in the name of fake persons. The period is certainly more than 240 days of his continuous service as a peon. Undisputedly he was appointed on a vacant permanent post . Accordingto him the petitioner he was sponsored from the employment exchange also and he was also interviewed . Except denial on behalf of the respondent there is nothing on record to discard it. On the contrary undisputedly he was appointed on the vacant post . Nothing is mentioned in the Written Staternent that it was an illegal appointment . These are not the subinissions of the Respondent also . In such circumstances termination by oral order Dt. 31-5-1999 was completely illegal, it was necessary to follow the mandatory provisions of retrenchment . It was necessary to issue a notice as well as to pay retrenchment compensation. It was also necessary to follow the principle of Last Come First Go" . The action of management of oral termination is totally illegal , it deserves to be quashed. Hence it is quashed . The petitioner should be treated in a continuous service as a peon right from thedateof his termination . The management is directed toreinstate him w.c.f. 31-5-1999 and pay full back wages as a peontohim .

Hence this Award.

A. N. YADAV, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली , 1 मई , 2007

का.आ. 1547.-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 , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 35/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-5-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/64/2006- आईआर (डीयू) ]

The reference order was endorsed to Ms. Beena Verma, the workman and the Telecom District Manager , Telecom Deptt. BSNL, Bahraich & the Chief General Manager, Telephonc, Telecom Deptt. , Lucknow Circle , PMGOffice,Hazratganj , Lucknow. The reference order was received in Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Lucknow on 26-12-2006 but the workman did not file statement of claim till 31-1-2007 . Thereafter, the PresidingOfficer ordered the issuance of registered notices to the parties withdirection to the workman to file statement of claim complete with relevant documents , list ofreliance and witnesses by 23-2-2007; and the management was directedto filewritten statement on 9-3-2007 . The registered noticeswere issued to the parties on 5-2-2007 vide receipt Nos. 7889, 7882 and 7880 dated 5-2-2007. The office has informed that the registered article containing notice to the सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

3417

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

AWARD

parties did not return , un - served in the Tribunal till 20-4-2007 as such, service ofnotice upon the workman and the management was presumed.

None appeared from the either parties on20-4-2007 also, in spite ofwaiting till 5.30 PM, therefore, this Court bas no option but to proceed with the case.

1.TheCentralGovernment by exercising the powers conferredbyclause ( d) of sub-section 2A of the Section10 ofthe IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order. No. L- 12012/ 141 /2004 IR (B - II) dated 27th Septemeber, 2004 for adjudication on the following schedule:-

SCHEDULE

Itwas for the worker Ms. Beena Verma to prove that she was working in the lepartment of Telecom. BSNL. Bahraich and she was illegally terminated on 1-5-2001. Since the worker has not appeared, therefore, I have no ahernative than 10 pass no claim award in the present case .

Lucknow 20-4-2007

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 3 मई , 2007

"Whether it is a fact that Shri N.R. Gowriprasad was engaged as a 'personal driver' during the period from 1995 to 2003 to drive the vehicle of the opposite party viz. Union Bank of India ? If so, whether the action of the Chief Manager of the Bank to terminate him from further service w.e.f. 7-7-2003 is justified and legal and what relief is the disputant concerned entitled to?

का.आ. 1548,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनकै कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , बैंगलोर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 51/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-5-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं एल-12012/ 141/2004- आई आर. ( बी- II ) ]

राजेन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi. the 3rdMay, 2007

S.O. 1548.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 51/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Union Bank of India and their workman, received by the Central Govemblent on01-05-2007.

[No. L- 12012/141/2004- IR(B- II)] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT

BANGALORE

2.The case of the first party as made out in his Claim Statement, briefly stared, is that he was working with the Second PartyManagement as a Personal Driver to General Manager at 1. F/B Branch from 1995 to 2003 drawing a salary ofRs.4000 per month till he was removed froin service w.e.f. 7-7-2003. He worked as Driverto Shri Ramamurthy , General Manager and then as a Qriver to Shri P.J. Jose during the year 2003 when he was refused work on 7-7- 2003; tut being refused work by Shri P.J. Jose, Chief Manager be lost very good opportunity of becoming a perosanent employee of the bank that there was ae understanding between the bank management and the bank employees union that after completion of 5 years of service, the Personal Drivers should be absorbed and their names shouldbe entered in the roll and salary and other benefits should be fixed . In this process the first party was only 5 months short in completion of 5years period and whereas in view of the aforesaid understanding two personal driver's have became permanent employees of the management bank; that the first party after being denied work has remained unemployed losing his livelihood and therefore . the act of the management in refusing work to him tantarnounts to dismissal which is unjustified and against the principles of natural justice . In the result, he is entitled tobe reinstated in service with back wages and other consequential benefits .

Dated: 20thApril, 2007

PRESENT:

Shri A.R. Siddiqui, Presiding Officer

L.D. No. 51/2004

[Party

IlParty

Shri N.R. Gowriprasad TheDy.General Manager ,

Union Bank ofIndia,

S/o Shri N.S. Ramaiah No. U- 166 , 8th Cross,

Zonal Office,

R.G.I. , Colony, L.N. Pura, ChandrakiranBuilding,

Bangalore-560021

Kasturba Road,

Bangalore.

3.The management by its counter statement resisted the claim ofthe first party first of all on the ground that it is notan employer of the first party as defined under Section 2(g) of the ID Act ; that the first party is not a workman as defined under Section 2( s) of the ID Act and that the dispute raised by him is not an industrial dispute under Section 2 (k) of the ID Act. The management further contended that there is no sanctioned post of driver at the IFB,Bangalore and the first party was never appointed by it by issuing any appointment letter . Therefore , question of terminating his services did not arise. The management contended that as per the terms of the employment it has [PART II- SEC . 3( ii ) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007 / JYAISTHA 5, 1929

3418

ofpersonal drivers including the first party into the services ofthe bank on the ground that he and four others completed 5 years of service and Ex. W4 is the certificate dated 11-11-2002 said to have been issued by the Assistant General Manager to the effect that the monthly salary of the first party was Rs.4000 and he was working as personal driver to Assistant General Manager .

6. During the course of cross examination of MW1 itwas elicited that even today there are personal drivers being engaged by their bank officers and the bank will be reimbursing their salaries through the respective officers which reimbursement amount will be fixed by the bank.He shown his ignorance if any voucher is being taken from thedrivers for the payment made . He denied the suggestion that there is an agreement between the employees union and the management regarding personal drivers . He denied the suggestion that it is the bank which appoints the personal drivers and not the officers and that the services ofthose personal drivers were made permanent there being some understanding in that regard and that they removed the first party from services before he could complete 5 years of service. He admitted that there are instances of making permanent certain personal drivers by the bank.

extended the benefits of providing car for the use of executives working as heads of branches who were not provided drivers but may engage their own personal drivers forwhich they are provided allowances reimbursement . Therefore, the management is not concerned about the engagement of an individual as personal driver for the purpose of driving the car as such drivers are engaged in the personal capacity of such executives . Therefore, the management does not have any say or has any control over the engagement of personal drivers of its executives ; that in the instant case it is learnt that the first party was engagedby Shri Ramamurthy , Assistant General Manager of IFB branch in Bangalore in his personal capacity for the periodfrom22-5-1999 to 28-2-2003 . He was succeeded by Mr. P.J.Jose andhe also engaged driver of his choice . Therefore, the claim of the first party that he was employed by the management and was terminated subsequently illegally deserves no consideration . The management contended that the employees of the bank invariably appointed through appointment letters after completing due process of recruitment rules including medical test etc. and no such procedure is followed in respect of personal drivers engaged by the executives ofthe bank. Therefore, there existed no employer employee relationship between the management and the personal drivers; that the first partywas not employed either directly or indirectly by the managertiont at any point of time and therefore , the allegation that the management refused employment to the first party tw.e.f. 7-7-2003 is incorrect. The management deniedthe allegation that there has been any understanding between it and its employees union that after completion of5 years of services, personal drivers should be absorbed as a permanent employee and that the first party lost opportunity ofbecoming a permanent driver being 5 months short for completion of 5 year of service . Therefore, the management contended that the claim put forth by the first party is not tenable and reference is liable to be rejected.

4. Duringthe course of trial , the management filed an affidavit of one Mr. M.R. Sampath said to be working as Sr.Manager atNodal Regional Office, Bangalore as MW1 and this witness in his affidavit repeated the relevant contentions taken by the management by way of counter statement referred to supra.

7. Statement of the first party in his cross examination relevant and crucial for the purpose is that he was driving the office car of the bank and picking up one Mr. K. Ramamurthy the then scale- III Manager from his house and dropping himto the office . There was no appointment order in his favour by the bank in the year 1995. He stated that Shri Ramamurthy used to pay him the salary which amounthe was taking from the bank.He shown his ignorance if Shri Ramamurthy was getting driver allowance from the bankto be paid to him . It was elicited that he knew the other employees signing the attendance register every day but he was not signing the attendance register . It was elicited that Shri Ramamurthy was transferred from Gandhinagar branch to commercial street branch on promotion in the year 1998 and he also went along with him as his Driver. He was then transferred to Double Road branch and on his retirement he was succeeded by one Mr. P.J. Jose .He admitted that Mr. PJ. Jose got another driver inhis place in the month of July 2003. It was elicited that he was not liable to be transferred from one branch to another andwhenever he was not reporting for duty for one reason or the other it was under the intimation to Mr. Ramamurthy and the bank authority did not question him about his absence or his leave applications on such occasionв . Не admitted that there were eight officers like Mr. Ramamurthy who were provided with independent office cars and each of them had his own driver engaging himself and those drivers are the personal drivers of the officers . He shown his ignorance if Ramamurthy was promoted as Assistant General Manager , IFB in the month of May 1999 and worked as suchtill February 2003. He denied the suggestion that it is only during the said period he worked as his personal driver.

5. The first party on his behalf also filed his affidavit evidence and in his further examination chief produced 4 documents marked at Ex. W1 to W4 . Ex.W1 is the Xerox copyofthe letter written by the Dy.General Manager (P) on8-4-1999 addressing to the Chief Manager, Cantonment branch,Bangalore asking him to furnish the information of those personal drivers who have completed minimum 5 years service as on 31-3-1999 along with other necessary particulars . Ex . W2 said to be the information submitted in response to Ex . W1 . Ex. W3 is the Xerox copy of the letter written by the General Secretary of the employees union (not clear towhom addressed) with regard to the absorption [ भाग - खष्ठ 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राणपत्र : मई 26, 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

3419 8. Learned counsel for the first party submitted his written arguments. The discussion made by him with regard to the alleged admissions said to have been made by the management bank and the management witness appeared to be factually incorrect. He however , contended that the first party sinceworked under the management as a perional driver to its officers in between 1999 and 2003 continuously , hewas illegally removed from the service and that he lost the opportunity of becoming a permanent driver falling short of 5 months service to complete 5 years service. Не therefore, contended that the action of the management in terminating the services of the first party who worked for a period of 240 days and more continuously attracted the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act, and therefore, termination was illegal. In support of his arguments learned counsel referred to the decisions reported in AIR 1978 SC page481 and AIR2005 SC2799.

9.Whereas, learned counsel for the management in his oral arguments subsnitted that the first party was never appointed by the management and that he worked as a personal driver to the officers of the bank by name Shri Ramamurthy and Shri PJ. Jose and therefore, there was no relationship of employee and employer between the first party and themanagement. Learned counsel took the court through the statement of first party in his cross examination to substantiate his arguments that first party admittedly worked underMr. Ramanathy and Mr. Jose as a personal driver being paid salary amount by them only and not through the bank. He submitted that there is absolutely no evidence produced by the first party to suggest that he was appointed by the bank and was paid salary by the bank and that he was under the control and supervision of the managersent bank at any point oftime. Learned counsel insupport ofhis arguments relied upon a decision reported in1998 LLR 813 rendered byAllahabadHighCourt.

10. After, having gone through the aforesaid evidence brought on tecord I find substance in the arguments advanced for the management . First of all the fact that the first party worked as a personal driver from 1995 to2003 has not been established by the first party. Infacthis above said contention gets falsified, byhis next contention that he was short of 5 mouths service to complete 5 years service when was removed from the service. It is in this view of the matter one must go by the contention of the management saying that the first party worked as a personal drives of Mr. Ramamurthy between 1999 and 2003 which fact was not disputed by the first party in his affidavit filed before this tribunal . Now, the next moot question to be considered wouldbe "whether the first party was a personal driver of the officers ofthe bank or was the driver appointed by the management bank" . The very averments of the first party in his claim statement itself are to be effect that he was the personal driver, initially, working under Mr. Ramamurthy and after hewas succeeded by Mr. P.J. Jose he was engagedby him

for a period of six months and thereafter in his place somebody eise was taken as a driver . At no place in the claim statement the first party has contended that he was the driver appointed by the management bank and was working as such under the control and supervision of the management bank. That apart, the first party in his statement in cross examination as noted above , in no uncertain terms has deposed to the fact that in the beginning he was working as a personal driver ofMr. Ramamurthy whowas paying him salary by taking the salary mount from the bank. In no uncertain terms he also admitted that like other employees he did not sign the attendance register and when Mr. Ramamurthy was transferred from Gandhinagar branch to Commercial Street Branch on promotion in the year 1998 he also went along with him as his driver . He stated that when Ramamurthy was transferred to Double Road Branch and retired from service he was succeeded by one Mr. PJ . Jose and Mr. Jose got another driver inhis place in the month of July 2003. He admited that in his case there was no transfer from one branch to another and whenever he was not reporting for duty it was under the intimation ofMr. Ramamurthy and the bank authorities did not question about his absence or any leave application on any occasion . As noted above, the first party also admitted that like him there were other drivers working as personal drivers of the officers who were paying him salary amount in tara getting the said amount by way of allowance from the bank. It is not the case of the first party that at any point of time, the bank paid the salary amount or he was called upon to discharge any sort of duties concerning to. the bank affairs . The above said statement of first party alsomakes it abundantly, clear that he was not answerable to the bank authorities in any manner much less in not reporting for duty for one reason or the other and that he was at the disposal of Mr. Ramamurthy, only as a personal driver. This statement of the first party goes to suggest thathe was neither under the control or under supervision of the management bank. The fact that he went along with Mr. Ramamurthy when he was transferred from Gandhinagar branch to Commercial Street branch on promotion in the year 1998 further lends support to the contention of the management that he being the personal driver ofMr. Ramamurthy followed him to the placehe went as undisputedly he was not the official of the bank liable for transfer from one place to another . The fact that Mr. PJ. Jose after having engaged the services of the first party for a period of six months engaged another driver in hisplace in the month of July 2003 is very much admitted bythe first party himself in his cross examination, as noted, above. Therefore, all these facts put together would falsify the case of the first party that he worked as a personal driver of the officers concerned being appointed by the management bank. Learned counsel for the first party as noted above, in his written arguments under the heading "Relevant Portion of the Counter Statement and Basic 3420

[PART II-SBC. 3( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/JYAISTHA5, 1929

driver of Shri Ramamurthy and Shri Jose and was amenable tothem only and not to the management bank. It is further in evidence that those officers who engaged the first party as their personal driver were themselves paying the salary to him taking the amount from the bank by way of reimbursement. There is absolutely no evidence on the part of the first party that at any point of time he worked under the control and supervision of the management bank and was paid his salary amount by the bank authorities . Undisputedly , he was not issued any appointment letter nor any payment voucher was obtained from him for payment of salary by the management bank authorities . Therefore, the claim of tile first party that his services were terminated by the management must collapse under its own weight. In the result, it cannot be said that his services were illegally terminated by the management attracting the provisions ofsection 2 (00) read with Section 25 F of the ID Act.

essenceofthe evidence of the first party and Second party" has made discussion to the effect that the management admitted the salary paid to the first party was through the bank by taking signature on the bank voucher and the same is debited to the account of the bank . No such admissionhas been made by the management in its counter statement . He also made a discussion to the effect that the management admitted that they enhanced the salary paid to drivers and that the bank used to take the signature of the concerned, driver while paying the monthly salary in bank voucher debiting the sameto the accounts of the bank. On going through the counter statement as well as the affidavit evidence of MW1 and his statement in cross examination this court is not in a position to find out any such admissions made on behalf of the management . On the other hand MW1.in his cross examination has never spoken to any such payment voucher being obtained from the first party and the amount being debited to the accounts ofthe bank. The statement of MWI in his cross examination is clear to the fact that the bank will be reimbursing the salaries of the personal drivers through the respective officers and the reimbursement amount will be fixed by the bank .

12. Now coming to the rulings cited on behalf ofthe first party.The principle laid down by way ofObiter Dictum under the facts and circumstances of the case in the decision reported in AIR 1978 SC481 cited on behalfof the first party, in fact, read infavour of the management rather thanhelping the case of the first party. Iwould like to bring on record the observations made by their Lordship of Supreme Courtat para 3 of the said decision relevant for the purpose is as under:

11. Now, coming to the documents produced by the first party. None of them will be supporting his case 10 suggest that he was the driver appointed by the management bank. Infact the certificate at Ex.WI was in respect of certain information for the personal drivers it, selfwho had completed minimum 5 years ofservice . First party in his own words did not complete the service of 5 years being short of about 5 months service as on 7-7-2003 when his services were discontinued. Ex .W2 first of all is notsigned by any authority and even otherwise it isjustto show that as on 31-3-1999 he had completed 3 years and 11 months service. This information appears to have been sent inresponse to Ex . W1 . Ex .W3 is just a letter written by the first partyunion as on 18-9-2001 seeking absorption of personal drivers including the first party into the service of the management . In no way it will be helping the case of the first party. This letter infact will be going against the caseofthe first party as in this letter he was described as a personal driver to AGM, IFB , Bangalore and not the driver appointed by the management bank. The certificate at Ex.W4 once again described the first party as a personal driver.Therefore, aforesaid documentary evidence all along describing the first party as a personal driver must lend support to the case of the management rather than the caseof the first party . Therefore , as found from the oral and documentary evidence , though the first party established that he worked for a period of more than 240days continuously in between 1999 and 2003 but he failed to substantiate before this tribunal that he was the driver appointed by the management bank . As noted above, in his claim statement as well as in his affidavit itself hehas come out with the case that he was the personal

" It is clear that the direction and control are the telling factor's to decide as to whether the driver in the present case is the employee of the Bank. This test does not exclude other factors also, and indeed as Lord Macmillan, in the aforesaid case, rightly stressed the question in each case turns on its own circumstances and decision in other cases are rather illustrative than determinative . To crystallise criteria conclusively is baffling but broad indications may be available from decisions . The beedi cases lum on the reality of independent contractors standing in between the management and the beedi workers . This court in many such case discovered that there was a common practice of using deceptive devices and the socalled independent contractors were really agents orworkers of the management posing as independent contractors for the purpose of circumventing the factories act and like statute which compel managements to meet certain economic and social obligations towards the workers . We have no doubt that if in this case there was evidence to show any colourable device resorted to by the Bank, our conclusion would have been adverse to the management . On the other hand, the evidence adduced before this tribunal oral and documentary leads only to one conclusion that the bank made available a certain allowance to facilitate the Area Manager, Shri Sharma , privately to engage a driver .

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3421

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

Driver by the bank and also established the fact that he had continuously worked from 17-7-1994 to 10-10-1994. The tribunal also observed that there was no material produced by the management to establish its contention that there was a scheme for appointment of such personal drivers or to deny that vouchers produced by the workman werenot reliable. Therefore , the tribunal upheld the claim ofthe workman holding his termination illegal with an order ofreinstatement in service . The leamed single judge and the division bench of the High Court affirmed the award passedby the tribunal when the matter was taken up before the Lordship of Supreme Court by the management concemed . Their Lordship while confirming the award passed bythe tribunal which was in up held by the High Court, at para 8 of the decision noted as under:

Ofcourse, the Jeep which he was to drive, its petrol and oil requirements and maintenance, all fell within the financial responsibility of the bank. So far as the driver was concerned, his salary was paid by Shri Sharma as his employer who drew the same granted tohimby way of allowance from the bank. There is nothing on record to make out a nexus between the bank and the driver. There is nothing on recordto indicate that the control and direction of the driver vested in thebank. After all the evidence is clearly to the contrary. In the absence of material to make out that the driver was employed by the bank, was under its direction and control was paid his salary by the bank and otherwise was included in the army of employees in the establishment of the Bank . We cannot assume the crucial point which remains tobe proved. We must remember that there is no case of camouflage or circumvention of any statute. It is not unusual for public sector industry or a nationalized banking institution to give allowances to its high level officers leaving it to them to cugage the services ofdrivers or others for fulfilling the needs forwhich the allowances are meant. In this view we are clear That the award fails as it is unsupportable . We therefore, reverse the award. "

" While there is no doubt in law that the burden of proof that a claimant was in the employment of a Management, primarily lies on the workman. The degree of such proof so required would vary from case to case. In the instant case, the workman has established the fact which, of course, has not been denied by the bank, that he did work as a driver of the car belonging to the bank during the relevant periodwhich come to more than 240 days ofwork. As against this , as found by the fora below, по evidence whatsoever has been adduced by the bank to rebut even this piece of evidence produced by the workman. It remained contended by filing awritten statement wherein it denied the claim of the workman and took up a plea that the employment of such drivers was under a scheme by which they are in reality, the employee of the Executive concerned not. that of the bank; none was examined to prove the scheme . No evidence was led to establish that the vouchers produced by the workman were either not gemine or did not pertain to the wages paid to the workman. No explanation by way of evidencewas producedto show for what purpose the workman's signatures were taken in the register maintainedby the bank. In this factual background, the question of workman further proving his case does not arise because there was no challenge at all to his evidence by way of rebuttal by the bank."

13. Therefore, the facts and circuinstances of the case involved in the aforesaid decision and the facts ofthe present case are very much akin to each other and in the result, the principle laid down in the said case would apply tothe present case on all its fours, thereby, making it very clear that in the instant case also the first party has not been able to eastablish his case that he was the driver rather the employee appointed by the management so as to seek any relief against it. The submission made by the counsel for the management at Para 6 of the aforesaid decision to the effect that the case of the workman will be considered by the management by paying him ex gratia amount and taking him back in service within certain period and the resultant directions of Supreme Court in that regard will not come to the rescue of the first party in the present case. The management in the said case had exhibitted its generosity in taking back the delinquent concerned in service and that cannot be taken as an example or a condition binding upon all other managements tobe complied with. The principle laid down by their Lordship of Supreme Court reported in AIR 2005 SC 2799 in my humble opinion with all due respect to their Lordship will not be also comingto the rescue of the first party workman in thepresent case . By going through the aforesaid decision it can be very much gathered that under the similar pleadings of the parties and the evidence brought on record, the industrial tribunal came to the conclusion that though there was no letter of appointment in favour of the workman, he had produced three vouchers which showed that he was paid a sum ofRs . 1500 towards his wages as a

14. Therefore , as couldbe read from the aforesaid decision, the claim of the delinquent workman in the said case came to be allowed by the tribunal and then by the High Court and ultimately, by their Lordship of Supreme Court on the basis of the evidence brought on record by the workman as well as by the management . The workman in the said case had produced three vouchers to show that hehad beenpaid certain sums of money towards his wages and the said amount has been debited to the account of the bank. The contention of the management that such personal drivers were being employed under scheme and they are the employees of the executives concemod was THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26, 2007/JYAISTHA 5, 1929

3422

not established by the management in the said case . On the other hand in the instant case the first party did not produce a single voucher nor produced any other document suggesting that he was the employee of the bank by getting wages from the bank and that the bank whichwas debiting the salary paid to him with the accounts ofthe Bank. On the other hand in his own admissions he wasbeing paid salary by his masters namely, said Shri Ramamurthy & Jose which they were getting from the bank byway of reimbursement . Therefore, principle laid down rather the observations made by their Lordship of Supreme Court inthe foresaid two cases cited on behalf of the first partywillnot come to his aid under the facts, circumstances and the evidence brought on record in the present case. HisLordship ofAllahabad High Court ( 1998 LLR 813) in a similar such cases dealing with similar question of fact and law and making reference 12 the decision of their Lordship ofSupreme Court, itself reported in AIR 1978 SC page 481 and Punjab National Bank Vs. Ghulam Dastagir rejected the claim of the delinquent workman in the said case holding the view that the workman in the said case was being engaged as a personal driver by one Mr. D. Chatterje, Regional Manager of the management company and the salary paid to him was being reimbursed by the management company. In the said case the tribunal had passed an award in favour of the workman and when the matterwas taken before the Hon'ble High Court, it rejected theclaim ofthe delinquent concerned with the observations relevant for the purpose at Para 8 of the said decision running as ander:

"Admittedly, in the present case , the respondent No. 2 was not employed by the employer in any of the incidental operations constituting the industry since it has already been found that he was never engaged by the employer and the employer had no control either on the serms and conditions of service, or on his employment in any manner and only the reimbursement of salary to the respondent No.2 through the Regional Manager would not be sufficient to constitute a relationship of employer and employee, unless the employer has any control over the employment of the alleged employce namely, either to discharge or disengage him for any dereliction ofduty, the employer had no occasion to engage him on any of the incidental operations . The engagement ofthe respondent No. 2 by the Regional Managers will not bring the respondent No. 2within the definition of the workman and has been enunciated in the ratio in the decision of M/ s . J.K. Spinning andWeaving Mills Co. (Supra) " .

15. The facts, circumstances and the evidence brought on record in the aforesaid proceedings were quite similar to the facts and evidence we are facing in the present case. Therefore , principle laid down in the said case in turn

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ) relying upon the aforesaid decision of the Punjab National Bank, in my humble opinion must apply to the case on hand on all its fours . At the cost of the repetition, it is to be noted that the workman in the instant case in many many words has stated that he worked as a personal driver of said Shri Ramamurthy and then of one Shri Jose and it is not his case that he was appointed by the management bank by issuing any appointment letter after due process ofrecruitment rules etc. His main grievance was that the management discontinued his services before he could complete 5 years of service as otherwise as per the understanding between the management and the union representatives he must have been absorbed in the services of the management. First of all in his own words he was short of5 months service to complete the tenure of5 years service. Secondly , no evidence was produced by him that there was any memorandum of understanding between the union representatives and the management to absorb the services of the personal drivers incase they completed5 years of service. Therefore , viewed from any angle the claim put forthby the first party merits no consideration . In the result, it cannot be said that the alleged termination of his services suffered from any illegality.

16. In the result, 1 must conclude to say that the first party has failed to establish his claim before this tribunal . Therefore , it cannot be said that the alleged termination of his services by the management was in any way illegal os improper, Hence the following award.

AWARD The reference is dismissed . No costs . A.R. SIDDIQUI, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 3 मई, 2007

का.आ . 1549, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आई. बी. पी. कं. लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 11 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी-57/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-5-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-30011/11 /2005- आई. आर ( एम ) ] एन . एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 3rdMay, 2007

S.O. 1549.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. ID-57/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court, No. II , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation 3423

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007 क्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

to the management of I.B.P. Co. Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 3-5-2007.

[No. L-30011/11/2005- IR (M) ) N. S. BORA, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-

LABOUR COURT - IL, NEW DELHI

PRESENT: R. N. Rai , Presiding Officer I.D. No. 57/2005

respondent on 18-5-1987 in Grade-I. He was fitted in Grade IV w.e.f. 1-9-1994 and subsequently in Grade-Vw.ef 1-10-1998 . From Grade V to V selection grade was due to theworkman on 1-10-2005 but it was wrongly given vide letter dated28-6-2004. The mistake came to the notice of the management in September, 2004 and the same was rectified in October, 2004. As such, the error was rectified after it was detected in September, 2004. It may be prudent tomention that the workman became eligible for promotion to next highergrade V(SG-1) on 1-10-2005 and accordingly promoted on 1-10-2005 to the position of Sr. Assistant in Grade V (SG -I) . His salary was stepped up from the date of promotion and he accepted the same.

In the matter of:-

Shri T.S. Kandari

C/o. IBP Co. Limited, R& D Centre, Vill : Manesar, Gurgaon(Haryana) .

Versus

It is stated that it is acase of fitment in grade, therefore, the contentions made out regarding promotion or entitlement was based on wrong notion . Since the amount was not due to the workman concerned, therefore, the enhancement given erronciously on account of increase in wage structure was erroncious and was liable to be rectified. Accordingly the rectification was done after notice and the amount was recovered from the workman.

TheDy.General Manager (R & D) , IBPCo. Ltd , R & D Centre, Vill. Manesar, Gurgaon (Haryana) .

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L -30011/11/ 2005-IR (M) Central Government dated 11-7-2005 has referred the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder:-

"Whether the action of the management of M/ s . IBP Co. Limited in withdrawing benefits from the salary (Basic Salaryand its impact ) from 1-4-2004 to September,2004of Shri T.S. Kandari , Sr. Assistant is just and legal? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled. "

It transpires from perusal of the order sheet that the casewas posted for rejoinder and affidavit on 7-11-2006. Theworkman sought adjoumment on 7-11-2006 . He was not present on 15-12-2006 and 15-2-2007 . The workman was present on 15-2-2007 but he did not file rejoinder and. affidavit. Last opportunity for filing rejoinder and affidavit was given. The workman was not present on 12-4-2007. The opportunity for filing rejoinder and affidavit was closed. There is direction from the Govemment to decide the case within three months from the date of reference. Theworkman has failed to file rejoinder and affidavit from 7-11-2006 to 12-4-2007. His claim statement is not proved.

The reference is replied thus:-

The case of the workman is that the above named workoman is an active member and office bearer of the IBP Chemical Division StaffUnion (Regd.) , which is thetrade union in the Research and Development Centre, Manesar management having a majority of the workers in the Research& Development Centre as its members .

The action ofthe management of M/s . IBPCo. Limited in withdrawing benefits from the salary (Basic Salary and its impact) from 1-4-2004 to September, 2004 of Shri T.S. Kandari , Sr. Assistint is just and legal . The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

The award is given accordingly. Date: 18-4-2007

R. N. RAL, PresidingOfficer It is further submitted that the workman above named was promoted by the management vide order No.TSK: 5799 dated 28th June, 2004 and granted a special grade equivalent to grade VI . Copy of the order dated 28th June, 2004 is annexed herewith as Annexure-B .

नई दिल्ली, 3 मई, 2007

It is stated that as a result of the workman's participation in the above said dispute on behalf of the union, the management with a malafide motive ofvictimizing the workman withdrew the revised pay scale granted to the workman consequent upon his promotion from the month of October, 2004. Copy of the salary slip of the workman for the month of October, 2004 is amexed berewith as Annexure-D.

कत्र,आ. 1550.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार कोचीन कोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय कोचीन के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई.डी.- 188/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, ओ केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-5-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30011/3/2000- आई. आर. ( एम ) ] एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी The case of the management is that as per the routine practice the workman was promoted erroneously by the management. The workman was working as a St. Assistant (F&A) and he joined the services of the answering

2394 G1/07--20 [PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] 3424

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2007/ JYAISTHA 5, 1929

New Delhi , the 3rd May,2007

S.O. 1550.- in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. I.D. 188/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Cochin now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Cochin Port Trust and their workman, which was received by the Central Government στη3-5-2007.

[No. L- 30011 /3/2000 - IR( M )|

N. S. BORA , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT,

FRNAQUIAM

Present :

enjoying that benefit continuously and uninterruptedly. On7-6-1993 the management issned a notice U/s 9A of I.D. Act to the unions proposing to discontinue the practice of reckoning HRA and CCA for the purpose of calculating the amount of encashment of camed leave w.e.f. 1-7-1993 . The proposal was opposed by the unions and a strike notice was given by the unions. The matter was conciliated by the Regional Labour Commissioner ( Central ). Therewas a suggestionto refer the matter to Wage Negotiation Committee.Accordingly the conciliation proceedings were closed, While so, the management issued an order dated 2-3-1996 deciding to exclude HRA while computing the amount for cncashment of earned leave, concerning employees who had joined service on or after 1-12-1995. It is a change in service conditions . It is a unilateral decision by the inanagement . It is against the terms of wage settlement . It is a benefit enjoyed by the workers since long back and cannot be taken away by management unilaterally.

Shri P. L. Norbert , B.A. , L.L.B. , Presiding Officer (Thursday the 19th day of April , 2007)

1.10. 188/2006

(1.D. 5/2001 of Labour Court , Ernakulam)

Workman/Union

1. The General Sceretary , Cochin Port Trust Staff Association

2. The General Secretary . Cochin Harbour Workers Union

3. The General Secretary, Cochin Port Portage Staff Association

Aly . Shri A. V. Xavier

The Chaitinan Cochin Port

Management! i

Trust.

Adv . M/ s Menon & Pai

AWARD

i This is a reference made by Central Goyenunent under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( tl ) of Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 for adjudication. The reference is :

"Cochia Port Trust. Cochin viz . Cochin Port Staff Association, Cochin Harbour Workers Union and Cochin PortPortage Staff Uni against the initiated by the management of Cochin Port Trust for non inclusion of HouseRent Allowance clement in reckoning the emolutiont for encashment of earned leave is justified ? If not , to what the union arcientitled to? "

3. According to the management .sent , the benefit of surrender of carned leave is provided in the Regulation of Cochin Port Employees ( Leave ) Regulations , 1978. The Cochin Port Trust used to reckon HRA while computing the earned leave encashment . However there was audit objection and the Ministry instructed the movagement to exclude HRA , CCA, Conveyance Allowance , Uniform Allowance , etc. for the purpose of leave encashment . A notice was given to the unions regarding the aspect as per the instruction of the Government. However there was objection by the uncons . During conciliation there was a suggestion to refer the dispute to Bipartite Wagc Negotiation Committee . During pay revision of Class I & II officers it was decided not to include HRA and CCA For Icave encashment. Similarly, the Port decided to excludc. HRA so far as Class III & IV employees are concerned who had joined the service on or after 1-12-1995 . The management wanted to annend the regulation accordingly . However, the unions objected . The Wage Negotiation Committeeto whom the matter was referred stated that the dispute did not fall within their province as it was not a tenn in the charter of demands . Meanwhile , Bombay and Goa Ports had discontinued the practice of inclusion of H.R.A. for the purpose of E /L encashment . Since the workers who had joined service prior to 1-12-1995 have been enjoying the benefit before the dispute was raised and therefore they were protected pending the industrial dispute . However the Government has instructed that the practice of inclusion of H.R.A. for leave encashnem is irregular and as per the direction of the Government the management has to rectify it . There is no illegality in the action of the management .

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

4. In the light of the above pleadings the only joint that arises for consideration is :

"Whether the decision of Cochin Port Trust to exclude HRA for Earned Leave encashtnent is legal?** The unkous filed claim statements raising a common contention. As per decision of Cochin Port Trust dated 10-2-1979 a regulation was adopted regarding the cncashment of carned leave . Since then the employees are 3425 [भाग 1 ]- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

The evidence consists of documentary evidence of Exts , WI to 5 on the side of unions, oral testimony ofMW1 and documentary evidence of Exts . Mi to 4 on the side of management and Court Exts .XI 10X6.

Transport is implemented, thereby HRA is excluded for the purpose of calculation of encashment of earned leave. Ext. M2 dated 25-1-1996 is the letter addressed to the Chairman of Cochin Port Trust by the Bombay Port Trust, in response tothe letter of the former enquiring about the position inBombay Port Trust.

6. The surrender of carned leave and encashment of leave is governedby Ext.XI (Appendix -II ) Regulations of 1979. As per that Regulation, Clause 4( e) , all allowances are to be reckoned for the purpose of computing leave encashment . If any change is to be made as proposed by the management, then the regulation has to be amended. That is not done so far . On the other hand, Ext . X3 order was passed on 2-3-1996 by the Port Trust denying HRA benefit to some and granting the benefit to others. A cut- offdate was fixed as 1-12-1995 for the purpose ofgranting and refusing HRA benefil

7. The reason for fixing the aforementioned date, accordingto the Port Trust, is that it was on at that date that the dispute was raised by the unions regarding HRA benefit . This does not appear to be a reasonable classification to grant or refuse benefit . The persons who joined service after 1-12-1995 are also governed by Regulations of 1979 which provide for reckoning HRA for the purpose of leave encashment . It has been a service condition since 1979. The management is not supposedto change the service conditions without due notice. There was a memorandum of settlement arrived at between the unions and managements on a national level in 1994 (Ext. X4) . All service conditions agreed by the parties are enumerated in the settlement. Clause 24.1 says that " any facility, privilege, amenity, right, benefit , monetary or otherwise, or concession to which an employee or a category of employees will be entitled to by way of any award, practice or usage , shall not be withdrawn, reduced or curtailed except to the extent and manner as explicitly provided for in this settlement " . Again in 2000 there was another Memorandum of Settlement dated 2-8-2000. Ext. X5 is copy of the settlement. The clause in Ext . X4 (Clause 24.1 ) mentioned above is reiterated in clause 36 of Ext. X5. Therefore , if the management wants to make any change in service conditions , either they have to amend 1979 Regulations regarding encashment of earned leave or come to a Bipartite Settlement between unions and management . These formalities are not complied by the management .However the management says that they are only implementing the direction ofthe Government. But it is tobe noted that the Ministry has also given direction to the management to issue S -9A notice to the unions before taking a decision . However there has been no consensus over the issue between the parties . It is not known on what basis or in exercise of what power Ext . X3 order is passed denying benefits to employees who joined service on or after 1-12-1995 and granting the benefits to others . All belong to the same category and discharge the same duties.

5. The Ministry of Shipping and Transport by Ext. X6 letter dated 12-12-1998 instructed the Port Trusts to adopt necessary procedure for allowing encashment of carned leave to their employees and workers as it was a tong pending demand of unions. The mode and norms of encashment of earned leave are described in the letter. Clause 1 (iii ) says that the amount admissible on such encashment, shall be the pay and allowances for which employee would have been eligible had he actually gone on leave . There was also instruction to amend Leave Regulations accordingly . The Cochin Port Trust, in pursuance to Ext . X6 , amended Regulation 24 of Cochin Port Trust Employees (Leave) Regulations , 1978 by incorporating " The Cochin Port Trust Employees (Encashment of Earned Leave) Regulations , 1979 " (Ext . XI Appendix - II) . Clause 4( e ) of that Regulations says that the amount admissible on encashmerit ofearned leave shall be equal to the pay and allowances for which an employee would have been eligible had he gone on earned leave. All the employees had enjoyed this benefit of surrender of earned leave and encashment which included pay and allowances including HRA and CCA . While so, on7-5-1993 , the Ministry of Surface Transport by ExL.MI instructed the Port Trusts and Dock Labour Boardsto discontinue the practice of reckoning HRA and CCA for leave encashment as it was highly irregular and attracted adverse commends of Audit Department and also to issue notice U/ s - 9A of I.D. Act to the unions . Accordingly Ext. WI , S -9A notice was issued by Chairman, Cochin Port Trust to all the unions on 7-6-1993 . Ext. W2 dated 9-6-1993 is reply by one of the unions objecting to the discontinuance of the long standing practice of reckoning HRA & CCA for leave encashment. Ext. W3 is again another notice dated 12-6-1995 issued to the Cochin Port StaffAssociation calling for objection, if any , regarding the proposal todiscontinue the benefit of HRA. Ext . W 4 dated 14-6-1995 is Association's reply and also notice of strike. Meanwhile the Cochin Port Trust issued an order byExt . X3 dated 2-3-1996 to the effect that employeeswho joined the service on or after 1-12-1995 shall be excluded from the benefit of having HRA included in the leave encashment . A dispute was raised by the unions before RLC and there was conciliation. However the conciliation failed and Ext . W5 dated 7-11-2000 is the failure of conciliation report . The issue was also referred as suggested byRLCtoBipartite Wage Negotiation Coramittee. However the Committee expressed its opinion by Ext . M4 dated 3-3-2000 that it cannot decide the issue as the matter did not fall within the purview of the committee. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the management that in Bombay Port the instruction of the Ministry of Surface [PART II-SC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2007 / JYAISTHA 5. 1929

3426

W5- Copy of failure of conciliation report dated 7-11-2000 submitted by RLC( C) to Mo L&E.

Exhibits for the Management :

M- Photostat copy of Ictter No. A. 24017/4/87 -PE- 1 dated 7-5-1983 to the Chairman of all Major Port Trusts .

M2- Photostat copy of letter No. CA/ESR- 2 (79 ) 1649 dated 25-1-1996 issuedby ChiefAccountsOfficer to the Chairman , Cochin Port Trust.

M3- Photostat copy of letter dated 12-6-1995 issued by the Secretary, Cochin Port Trust to allUnions .

M4 Photostat copy of letter No. JNP /8860 dated 3-3-2000 issued by the Chairman of JNPTto the Chairman , Cochum Port Trust.

Exhibits for the Court :

Photostat copy of minutes book dated 10-12-1979 containing Resolution No. 365.

X2- Order No. A.240 18-3-95 -PE - I dated 1-12-1995 issued by Mro Surface Transport .

X3- Photostat copy of Order No. P2/2694/95/S dated 2-3-2006 issuedby Cochin Port Trust .

When the employees joined service on or after 1-12-1995 there was no change in the service conditions with regard to earned leave. Therefore there is no legal basis for making a classification and treating similarly situaked perьоня differently, The Regulations of 1979 remains unchanged and the management is bound to follow that until it is amended or a different settlement is arrived between the parties by negotiation and conciliation. The management has no authority or power to pass a unilateral order as Ext.X3 or accide to nuske a deviation from the Regulations . 1979 without amending it . The 1979 Regulations is made in exercise of the powers u's 28 of the Major Port Trust Act , 1963. S-104 refers to the duty of Dock Labour Boards to rectify the irregularities pointed out by Audit Department . S-105 of the Act says that if the Board is unabte to rectify the irregularities mentioned by the auditors, then the matter shall be referred to the Central Government , which shall pass final orders and the Board shall be bound to give effect to such orders . No such steps are taken by the management of Cochin Port Trust in the light of S-105 the Act . At the risk of repetition I would say that as per Clause 4( c ) of Ext . X1 ( Appendix-11 ) Regulations, all the employces are entitled to get earned leave epeastinent reckoning HRA. There is no justification in excluding HRA. Point is answered accordingly.

X4 Photostat copy of Memorandum of Settlement datod 6-12-1994.

X5- Photostat copy of Memorandum of Settlemen datcel 2-8-2000).

X6- Photostat copy of Order No. PEO. 132/78, dated 12-12-1978 issued by Mio Shipping and Transport .

8. In the result , an award is passed fishing that the proposal and the action of Cochin Port Trust in excluding HRA for the purpose of leave encashment is illegal and munjustified . All the employees are entitled to get the benefit of HRA reckoned while calculating the amount of encashment of earned leave. The parties will suffer their respective costs . The award will take effect one month after its publication in the Official Gazette .

नई दिल्ली, 3 मई , 2007

Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her . corrected and passed by me on this the 19th day ofApril . 2007.

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer APPENDIX

Witness for the Workman/Uniun : Nil.

Witness for the Management :

का.आ. 1551.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैं. इंडियन रेयर अर्थ लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनक कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक धिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी-2/6/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-5-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था। MW1 . Shui P. Muraleedharan .

Exhibits for the Workman/Union :

[सं. एल-42011 /5/2003- आई. आर. ( एम ) ] एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी W1- Copy of Notice ed 7-6-1993 ws 9( A ) of the I.D. Act.

New Delhi , the 3rd May, 2007 W2- Photostat copy of reply

W3- Photostat copy of letter dated 12-6-1995 issued by Secretary, Cochin Port Trustto the Cochin Port Trust Staff Association .

S.O. 1551-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT -2/6/ 2004) of the Central Goverument Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, No. 2 , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute hetween the employers in relation to the management of M /s . Indian Rare Earth Lid . and W4- Photostat copy of letter dated 14-6-1495 subminted by Cochin Port Trust Staff Association to Management .

3427

'भारत का राजपत्र: मई 26 , 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 3-5-2007.

[No. L-42011 /5/2003 - IR (M)]

N. S. BOR.A, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAI , TRIBUNAL NO.2 MUMBAI

PRESENT:

A. A. Lad, Presiding Officer (Reference No. CGIT- 26 of2004)

Employers in relation to the Management of

due for promotion in July 2002. Since said promotion was not given to Ghadi, he requested to consider his claimby letter dt. 29-8-2002 and invited attention of First Partyto look into his demand. Thereafter nearly passing four and half months one Mr. S. C. Mishra replied the said letter stating that, he required to appear before DPC and DPC willbe formed in December 2002. It was also informedthat, candidates who have completed 5 years on 31-12-2001 من category - IX would be eligible to appear in DPC2003 and sinceGhadi has not completed 5 year's upto 31-12-2001 he cannot be considered for the promotion . According to Second Party said decision of the First Party in denying claim ofGhadi is illegal and bias one . Purposely DPC was not formed andby that Ghadi was deprived of promotion. So it is submitted that, decision taken by management in not promoting Ghadi trom Category IX to Officers ' cadre is unjustifiable.

M/s. Indian Rare Earths Limited TheExecutive Director (HRM) , M/s. Indian Rare Earths Ltd. , PlotNo. 1207 Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi , Mumbai -400028

V/s.

THEIR WORKMEN

The Secretary

Rare Earths Workers' Union 25, 32, 33 Ibrahim Mansion, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parel , Mumbai 400012

APPEARANCES :

Mr.P. Ramaswami ,

For theEmployer :

Advocate i/b

M/s . Mulla& Mulla& CraigieBlunt & Carce..

Advocates

Mr. J. H. Sawant Advocate

For the Workinen

Mumbai , dat: 130th March , 2007

AWARD

3. This is disputed by First Party by filing reply at Ex-5 stating that, First Party is a Public Undertaking . It is engaged in miming and separation of ditch, sand minerals at coastal area of Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Orissa. It has Rear Earths Processing lands at Alwaye in Kerala since 1953. Said work is done on behalf of Department ofAtomic Energy Thermal Plant at Trombay did not authorize operation of said Thorium Plant beyond December 1998. Accordingly production operation was stopped w.c.f. 1-4-1998 . In this set of circumstances First Party found suitable place in State of Orissa and established factory there Few employees were transferred who agreed to go there. Some new were appointed . Balance employees were not willingto go to the said plant. Some took VRS . However 71 remained. Some of them were redeployed in various division ofBARC. In the said circumstance functioning of Thorium plant is affected and there was no vacancy for promotion in employees of category IX to the Officers cadres w.e.f. 1-4-1998.

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L -42011/5/2003 - IR(M ) dated 5-2-2004 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 Industrial dispute raised by Rare Earths Workers' , Union against the management of M/s . Indian Rare Earths Ltd. vide their letter dated 22-1-2003 (copy enclosed) over promotion of Shri G. G. Ghadi from Category IXto Officers' Category, justified? If so, towhat relief the concerned workman is entitled? "

4. The concerned employce Ghadi was also re- deployed in the BARC in Category IX from 1-7-1997 . As per settlement, the promotional avenue was open to the employees ofCategory - IX who have completed 5 years in Category- IX . Actually employees who worked in Category -IX are not automatically promoted as Officer on completion of 5 years . After completion of 5 years they become eligible for interview before DPC and if found suitable then are promoted . Ghadi has not completed 5years in Category - IX on 31-12-2001 to call him for interview in2003-2004 since Ghadi was not eligible for call for interview before DPC and as such, he camot claim promotion automatically. So it is submitted that, claim of Ghadi to promote him has no force and require to be rejected.

5. Inview ofabove pleadings , following issues arise for determination which are answered against it.

2. Claim Statement is filed at Ex -3 stating that , G. G. Ghadi the concemed workman was working with FirstParty and in August 2002 , he was in Category IX . He was active member of the union and some time President of it. He was due for promotion. So demand to that effect was made on 29-8-2002 that time . He had completed 25 years service and [PART II- SEC. 3 (ji) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007 / JYAISTHA 5, 1929

3428

Findings

Issues

So, I answer above issues to that effect and pass the followingorder:

ORDER

1. 1s Ghadi entitled for promotion?

2. What order?

As per order below .

Reference is rejected . No order as to cost . Date:30-3-2007

REASONS

A. A. LAD, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 3 मई , 2007

6. In short demand of Ghadi is that, though he served for25years and more that 5 years in Category- IX. he was not promoted.The explanation given by First Party is that , since Ghadi has not completed 5 years on 31-12-2001 in Category - IXbe cannot be called for interview before D.P.C. which was formed in 2003-2004 .

का.आ. 1552.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एयरपोर्ट अथोरिटी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय से 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी-2/2/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-5-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था। 7. To support that Second Party place reliance on affidavit ofGhadi filed at Ex - 13 whereas First Party place relliance on the affidavit filed at Ex - 16 . Second Party filed Written Arguments at Ex - 17 whereas First Party at Ex - 18.

[सं. एल-11012/] 4/2000 - आई. आर. ( एम ) ] एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारो

New Delhi , the 3rd May,2007

S.O. 1552.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref . No. CGIT- 2/2/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , No. 2. Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Airport Authority of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 3-5-2007.

8. In the cross Ghadi admits that , he completed 5 years in Categoryу- ІХ ол 1-7-2002 . Case of the First Party is that Ghadi did not complete 5 years service on 31-12-2001. That means Ghadi admits that , he has not completed 5 years in December 2001 o qualify him to appear before DPC which was formed in 2003-2004. It is matter of record that, DPC was not formed till 2003-2004 . First time interview were taken during the temure of Ghadi in 2003-2004. However Ghadi retired prior to appearing before DPC i.e. heretired on 20-2-2003 . Since Ghadi retired in February 2003 and DPC formed in 2003-2004 naturally Ghadi did not get an opportunity to appear before DPC since he did not appeared he was not considered for promotion and so was notpromoted.

No. L- 11012/14/2000- IR ( M ) ] N.S. BORA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2 MUMBAI

PRESENT:

A. A. Lad, Presiding Officer

(Reference No. CGIT- 2/2 of 2001) 9. However the contention taken by First Party saying candidates who completed 5 years on 31-12-2001 in Category- IX are only eligible to appear before DPC of 2003- 2004 in fact has no meaning. Admittedly DIPC was formed in2003-2004 . So all candidates of Category -IX who have completed 5years before DPC formed must be held eligible to appear before DPC in 2003-2004 . Said was decision of first party. However that decision is not challenged by Ghadi. When DPC was formed he retired. Naturally he did not appear before DPC. Moreover the stand taken by Ghali that, since he completed 25 years in the comployment and more than 5 years in Category - IX anust be promoted has no meaning .When DPC was there and when it was not forned up to 2003-2004 i.e. still Ghadi was in the employment, Ghadi cannot claim promotion as well as claim benefit of it automatically.

10. Considering all that and considering that DPC was not formed up to 2003-2004 and that time Ghadi was not infemployment , I am of the view that, Ghadi is not entitled for promotion since he did not appear before DPC and he was not approved for promotion.

Employers in relation to the Management ofAirport Authority of India, The Regional Executive Director, Airport Authority of India, National Airport Division . Airport , Aurangabad- 431202. V/x. THEIR WORKMEN Shri Gorakhnath V. Tutare, ATC Section , Airport Authority of India Airport Aurangabad, Chikalthana, Aurangabad-431202.

11. In view of discussion made above I conclude that, Ghadi is not entitled for promotion and benifit of it .

[भाग 1 ]- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Appearances:

For theEmployer:

Ms.PriyaBorgaonkar, Advocate i/b M/ s . M. V. Kini & Co. Advocates .

For the Workmen:

NoAppearance.

Mumbai, dated 27th March, 2007

AWARD

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L- 11012/ 14/2000- IR(M) dated 8-1-2001 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 followingdispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the naanagement ofAirport Authority of India, Aurangabad in not acceding to thedemand of Sh. GorakhnathV. Thuthare and seven others in enhancing the wages toRs . 3500 permonth and other demands such as provision of medical facilities, medical and casual leaves, providing torch, rain-coats , overtime wages and extra duty, issuance ofsecutity cards as stated in their representation dt. nil received in the office of ALC ( C), Mumbai on 7-12-1999 (copy enclosed ) is legal and justified ? If not, what relief, the workinen concerned are entitled 10?"

2.Second party files Clairn Statement at Ex .- 17 which was replied by first party filing Written Statement Ex. -20. Issues were framed at Ex- 25 and the reference was placed for recording evidence.

3. Al one stage, this reference was disposed of for want of prosecution by order dt . 23-11-2001 . Again record& proceedings reveals that, it was restored todecide onmerits. However same repetition of absence of Second party took place . Though number of notices were sent, Second party not served due to non- availability of whereabouts and notice were returned back unserved with remarks "left" . Even record & proceedings reveals he did not take care ofthis proceeding shown interest in attending the same.

4.This lead meto conclude that, Secondparty is not interested and it lead me to pass the following order:

ORDER

Reference is disposed of for want of prosecution.

Dated: 27-3-2007 .

A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 3 मई , 2007

का.अ. 1553,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एन.जी.सी.

3429

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी -2/22/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को3-5-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30015/2/2004- आई. आर. ( एम ) ]

एन. एस. बोरा, डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi, the 3rd May, 2007

S.O. 1553. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT- 2/22/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, No. 2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ONGCLid. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 3-5-2007.

[No. L-30015/2/2004- IR( M) ] N. S. BORA, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2 AT MUMBAI

Present:

A.A. LAD, PresidingOfficer

(Reference No. CGIT- 2/22 of2004)

Employers in relation to the Management of M/s. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited

TheManager,

Oiland NaturalGas Corporation Ltd. , 2/A, Vasudhara Bhavan, Bandra(E);

Mumbai -400051.

AND

Their Workmen

Mr. James KanakGomes, Sidhi Vinayak Society, Matowali, BalajiVilla, Ground Floor, P.O. Uran, Distt .Raigad.

Appearances:

FortheEmployer:

Mr.G. D. Talreja, Advocate.

For the Workmen :

Mr. AbhayKulkarni , Advocate .

Date ofpassing ofAward: 23rd March, 2007 [PART II- SH.3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26. 2007/JYAJSTHA 5, 1929

3430

ANNEXURE

AWARD

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL. NO. 2 MUMBAJ

Present:

A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No L- 30015 /2/2004/IR (M ) dated 22-4-2004 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:

(Reference No. CGIT- 2/29 of 2001 )

Employers in relation to the Management of Mumbai Port Trust

"Whether the industrial dispute raised by Shri James KanakGomes for reinstatement and regularization by the management of Oil & Natural Gas Commission w.e.f. 24-11-1997 is justified? If so, to what relief the worknian is entitled ? "

The Chairman, Mumbai Port Trust , PortBhavan, Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg, Mumbai -400038 .

2. To support the subject - matter referred in the reference, Sepond Party filed Claim Statement at Ex . 8. When reference was placed for Written Statement, First party, by an application Ex. 9, points out that , Second Party is no more since expired and as such reference does not survive.

Vis. Their Workmen

3. Opportunity was given to Second Party's advocate , Shri Abhay Kulkarni . However today he submits that he is unable to trace out heirs of Second Party and bring them on record and request Court to pass appropriate orders .

The Secretary, Transport &Dock Workers ' Union , P.D' Melo Bhawan , P.D' Mello Road, Carnac Burder, Mumbai -400038 .

Appearances:

4. This situation led me to conclude that, reference does not survive . Hence the order :

ORDER

FortheEmployer:

Mr. Umesh Nabar , Advocate

Reference is disposed of.

For the Workmen:

Dated:23-3-2007.

Mr. A. M. Koyande , Advocate

A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer

Mumbai, dated 27th March, 2007 नई दिल्ली, 3 मई, 2007

AWARD PART- I

TheGovernment of India, Ministry ofLabour by its OrderNo. L-31011/21/2000- IR( M ) dated 9-2-2001 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 this Tribunal for adjudication :

का.अ. 1554.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 143 की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मुम्बई पोर्ट ट्रस्टके प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण श्रश्रम न्यायालय सं. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी -2/29/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-5-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-31011/21/2000- आई आर ( एम ) ] एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 3rd May, 2007

"Whether the action of the management of Mumbai Port Trust, Mumbai in terminating the service of Shri Babasaheb Rayappa Waghmare, Shore Worker by way of dismissal from service w.e.f. 18-12-98 is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the worknsan isentitled to ?"

S.O. 1554. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT- 2/29/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court, No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Mumbai Port Trust and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on3-5-2007.

2.Workman Waghmare was in the employment of management MbPT as 'A ' Category Mazdoor . He was charge sheeted by letter did. 10-2-98 alleging that , on 14-2-94 when posted at New Sewree Warehouse in second shift, be found in possession of stolen Electronic spare- parts weighing 2 Kgs . approximately valued at Rs. 4000 belonging to Port Trust . He was also consequently chargesheeted by Sewree Police Station. It is averned according to management that the said act on the part of the workman amounts to misconduct under the Mumbai [No. L-31011 /21/2000-1R (M ) ] N.S. BORA, Desk Officer 3431

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

4.What relief the workman is entitled

to ?

As per

order

below.

REASONS

IssueNo. 3

Port TrustEmployees ( Conduct) Regulations , 1976. It is averred that, the Inquiry Officer by report dated 15-9-98 held in guilty for the theft of the property belonging to Bombay Port Trust and based on the report, he was dismissed from the service against which workmanhad preferred appeal but it was turned down by the order dated 13-4-99 and that review was also rejected on 4-8-99. It is pleaded that, the Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Dadar, Mumbai by the Judgementdt. 22-7-98 acquitted workman for the charge of theft as mentioned in the chargesheet. However ignoring that, inquiry was conducted and that he was held guilty on the charges levelled against him after four years and ten months and that this entire delay in taking action vitiates the inquiry . It is pleaded that, since the competent Court acquitted the workman, the inquiry should not have been commenced and if at all commenced , the inquiry officer should have held him not guilty and consequently the inquiry being unfair and the findings perverse, management be directed 10 reinstate him in service .

7. Second Party was chargesheeted alleging that, he found, loitering in suspicious manner in the open area near Chowki situated at Western Side of the warehouse and found possessing electronic spare parts weighing 2Kgs . worth ofRs . 4000. After issuing chargesheet, enquiry was conducted. Even criminal case was filed with Police Station. In the enquiry he found guilty of the charges levelled against him. And order of his dismissal was issued treating said misconduct serious one . The case of Second Party workman.is that, charge was a planted one, nлитвет of such cases are taking place in the area of First Party. Most of them are not detected and just to show that there is improvement in the security vis- a- vis in the vigilance, Second Party was targeted and was convicted. Infact he was acquitted by criminal court. That was not considered by the competent authority.

8. To support that, Second Party lead evidence hy way ofaffidavit filed at Ex. 23 against which Management feel it not necessary to lead any evidence . Second Party was cross examined second time on the point of his earning capacity after termination.

9. This is the second round of litigation. In first round InquiryOfficer was held fair and proper vis- a - vis findings not perverse. Now stage is of considering quantum of punishment. Second Party was terminated as a result of punishment relying on the findings of the Inquiry Officer who held him guilty of charge ofmisconduct i.e. charge of steeling property of First Party.

3. Management MbPT resisted the claim ofworkman by filing Written Statement (Exhibit- 8 ) contending that, under the Service Regulations , workman is expected to perform his duties diligently, sincerely and bonestly. He had stolen property, electronic spare parts belonging to Port Trust worth Rs . 4000, therefore, he was chargesheeted. It is pleaded considering the preponderance of probabilities , Inquiry Officer on the basis of documents and the evidence found the workman guilty and based on the report he was dismissed . It is contended findings of the Inquiry Officer were recorded on the basis of documents and therefore not biased . Workmim was given sufficient opportunity and since the inquiry was fair and proper and findings not perverse does not vitiate. Consequently workman's claim be dismissed being devoid of substance.

4. By Rejoinder (Exhibit-9) workman reiterated the recitals in the Statement of Claim denying the averments in the Written Statement .

5. On the basis of pleadings issues were framed at Ex-10 and Part - I Award was passed on 10-02-2003 hokting enquiryjust and proper as well as observing; findings not perverse.

6. Now issues on quantum of punishment remain which is framed as follows and are answered against it:

FIINDINGS

ISSUES

3. Whether the action of the

10. As far as charge is read of carrying 2 Kgs . electronic spare parts worth Rs. 4000 which was valtied in 1994and found loitering in suspicious manner in the open area near the Chowki situated at Western Side of Warehouse is concerned , is a serious charge . Loitering -suspiciously, near the warehouse definitely is a serious thing. Secondly, Second Party worked as a Mazdoor with First Party. Warehouse of First Party is situated at Sewrec wherehe was apprehended by Security Sawant with the help of Shri Dethe . In search, Second Party found possessing 2 Kgs . electronic spare parts and he was hiding it . On that chargesheet was served. Enquiry was conducted. Even criminal case was filed and in the enquiry, Inquiry Officer found guilty of the charges levelled against him . When charges are proved which are of serious nature andwhich directly connect with the property of the First Party, question arises what type of punishment attributed to such an offence ? No doubt Second Party was acquitted from criminal case. The reason may be that, there may not be sufficient evidence to hold Second Party guilty of

Yes.

management of Mumbai Port Trust, Mumbai in terminating the services of Shri Babasaheb RayappaWaghmare , Shore Worker by way of dismissal from service w.e.f. 18.12.98 is legal and justified ?

2394G1/07-21 3432

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/ JYAISTHA 5. 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ) theſt . But here in the enquiry which is legally permitted observed Second Party guilty of the charges .

V/s.BharatGold Mines Ltd, does not , help in any way to this workman . Another Citation referred by Second Party's advocate published in 2006 ( 1 ) CLR 262 led by Our Hon'ble High Court while deciding Board of Trustees of Port of Mumbai Vis . Chandrakant Holamb where it is observed that, when there was dean acquittal in the criminal case which was relied upon by the CGIT, does not require any interference .However in that case, workman involved was chargesheeted of committing joint theft of necklace and other things . Even they were apprchended by Security Guards and were found possessing one of the articles . Said Security Guards informed that fact to Police and criminal case was filed against that workman . In that case domestic enquiry was also initiated where enquiry found not just and proper and management was permitted to lead evidence in support of its action . Beside in that case criminal judgement was referred whore Magistrate observed that, entire case of prosecution was unacceptable. Whereas in our case though there was evidence before magistrate he gave benefit of doubt observing witness are bound to depose in favour of Management since they are the cmployees of it. So in my considered view said ratio does not help the Second Party to attract the verdict to his case and faith .

13. Considering all these and coupled with seriousness of charges proved against Second Party, I conclude that punishment of dismissal awarded on Second Partydoes not invite any interference .

14. In view of discussion made above, I conclude that, reference does not sustain and require to be rejected. Hencethe order:

11. Copy ofjudgement of the criminal case is lifed is produced by First Party with Ex - 11 . If we go through it, we find, Learned Magistrate noted the evidence given by Prakash N. Sawant the Security Guard who was present that time has stated that, Second Party found carrying chocolate coloured bag in his hand. He has stated that, when he stopped him for enquiry, Second Party was confused. He reported the matter to Superintendent to search the bag and called police . It is also brought on record before Magistrate that , articles were kept in the Godown of different owners . Before Magistrale said witness unableto point out from where said clectronic items were removed by the Second Party and said witness has seen the property in the store house . Even other witness B.G. Dethe though support Prakash Sawant about carrying articles by Second Party is disbelieved by the Magistrate observing he is the employee of the MBPT. The evidence ledbefore Magistrate was discarded by him observing there was no panchnama and articles removed were not seen by anyeye witness . So considering all that Leamed Magistrate observed that, prosecution has not been able to discharge its obligations of proving guilt of accusedbeyond reasonable doubt and so acquitted . But in Departmental Enquiry, preponderance of probability plays much rolc than what is expected in Criminal Court . It is to be noted that , Second Party found possessing said articles. Charge of misconduct is levelled against him . It was proved against him.When that is serious type of charge, in iny considered view punishment awarded of dismissal cannot be observed disproportionate to the charges proved against Second Party Beside there is no legal bar to conduct inquiry though there is finding of Criminal Court.

ORDER Reference is rejected .

Date: 07-03-2007

A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 3 मई, 2007

का. आ. 1555, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अजमेर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीआईटीआर-10/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को3-5-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-43012/2/1997- आई आर ( एम ) ] एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 3rd May, 2007

S. O. 1555. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CITR - 10/97 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Ajmer now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial 12. Besides the ratio led by Apex Court while deciding case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Vis . M. Chandrashekar Reddy & Úrs, published in 2005-1 - LLJ SC page 865 bring some restrictions on the Court when punishment was awarded in domestic enquiry . Same view isexpressed in ratio led in Apex Court published in 2000 (7 ) SCC page 507 while deciding case of Janata Bazaar Vis . Secretary, Sahakari Naukarara Sangh and Ors . Even Second Party'sAdvocate place reliance on 2 - 3 judgements published in 1999 (3 ) SCC page 679 where it is observed that, simultaneous Departmental Enquiry with Criminal proceeding when on same set of facts initiated where accused is acquitted by Criminal Court careful reading required to the findings of the disciplinary authority. However in that case , domestic enquiry was conducted Ex- partewhereas in our case it was real enquiry conducted with the participation of Second Party workman . Even inquiry conducted observed just and proper. Findings were also observed not perverse, Said is not Challenged and disturbed by the workman . The ratio of Capt , Paul Antony [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

3433

पूर्व प्रार्थी को कोई दोषारोपण पत्र नहीं दिया गया । अंत में सेवामुक्ति के भौखिक आदेश को निरन्त कर गत वेतन भत्तों सहित पुर्नस्थापित करने की प्रार्थना की है ।

Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. and then : workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-5-2007.

[No. L-43012/2/1997 -IR(M) J

N.S. BORA, Desk Officer

अनुबन्ध

न्यायालय श्रम एवं औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण , अजमेर ( राज. ) पीठासीन अधिकारी श्री जी. एस. शेखावत , आरएचजेएस

प्रकरण संख्या-सीआईटीआर -10/97

[रेफरेंस नं. एल-43012/2/97- आई आर ( भिस )

दिनांक 4-5-92]

बालूराम पुत्र श्री हजारी उपाध्याय पोस्ट आगुधा जिला भीलवाड़ा

.....प्रार्थी

बनाभ

दी प्रोजैक्ट मैनेजर , हिंदुस्तान जिंक लिमिटेड, रामपुरा आणूचा माइंस , आगूचा जिला भीलवाड़ा

......अप्रार्थी

उपस्थित श्री पी. डी. खन्ना, अधिवक्ता , प्रांर्थी । श्री मनोज शर्मा , अधिवक्ता, अप्रार्थी ।

दिनांक 30-3-2007

अवार्ड

केंद्र सरकार द्वारा प्रेषित विवाद निम्न प्रकार है :

प्रतिपक्षी ने उत्तर में अंकित किया है कि प्रतिपक्षी कंपनी का मिनरल एक्सप्लोरेशन विभाग द्वारा रामपुरा आगूचा जिला भीलवाड़ा में अन्वेषण योजना की जो राशि कंपनी द्वारा स्वीकृत की गयी थी उसके अनुसार अन्वेषण का विशेष कार्य 36 माह की अवधि में पूरा करना था । इस कार्य हेतु ( एक ) उन श्रमिकों को ठेके पर रखा जिनकी जमीन पर ड्रिलिंग का कार्य किया गया था । दूसरे माध्यम से मशीन रॉ मैटेरियल और अन्य इक्यूपमेंट की रखवाली के लिए बेके पर अन्य श्रमिक रखे थे जिनमें से बालूराम भी एक था । अन्वेषण का कार्य 36 माह की अवधि से कुछ समय पूर्व ही समाप्त हो गया था अतः उक्त समस्त श्रमिक सरप्लस हो गये थे । प्राथी को पुनः ठेका देने की स्थिति नहीं थी । समझौता उभयपक्ष में करवाया गया था । अतः समझौते के होते हुए रेफरेंस प्रेषित करना अवैध है । प्रार्थी को चौकीदार के पद पर नियुक्त नहीं किया गया बल्कि सामान की देखभाल हेतु ठेके पर प्रार्थी को रखा गया था । प्रार्थी स्वयं ही ठेकेदार था । प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध तेल की चोरी करने का वथ्य प्रमाणित होने पर उसका ठेका तुरंत समाप्त करदिया गया सहानुभूति का रुख अपनाने की भावना से दि. 28-7-82 को समझौता संपन्न करवाया था । जिसमें श्री आर. के. तिवारी ने दि. 1-8-82 को प्रार्थी को पुनः ठेके पर कार्य देना स्वीकार किया था किंतु उसके पश्चात् प्रार्थी नोटिफिकेशन और समझौते की शर्त सं. 1 के अनुसार ठेका प्राप्त करने आया ही नहीं । इस प्रकार प्रार्थी ने ठेका प्राप्त करने का प्रयत्न ही नहीं किया । अंतः प्रार्थी को अन्य लाभ छंटनी मानते हुए देने का प्रश्न ही उत्पन्न नहीं हुआ । प्रार्थी ने कभी भी शिकायत नहीं की कि वह ठेके पर कार्य लेने गया और उसे नहीं दिया । छप्पन ऐसे श्रमिक थे जिनके कार्य टैक्नीकल प्रकृति के थे और प्रोजेक्ट में कार्य उपलब्ध था अतः यूनियन के दबाव के कारण उनको नियोजन में बनाये रखना पड़ा । अंत में क्लेम निरस्त करने की प्रार्थना की है । "Whether the action of the Project Manager, Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Rampura Aghucha Distt. Bhilwara in termination the service of Sh . Balu Ram: S/o Shri Hazariupadhyaya is legal and justified ? Ifnot to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ?"

प्रार्थी ने अपने क्लेम की संपुष्टि में स्वयं का शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत कर प्रतिपरीक्षण करवाया है । प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य में प्रदर्श डब 1 से 8 प्रलेखों की प्रतियां प्रदर्शित करवाकर प्रस्तुत कीं । प्रतिपक्षी की ओर से प्रदीप कुमार पांडे का शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत कर प्रतिपरीक्षण करवाया । प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य में प्रदर्श एम -1 से 26 प्रलेखों की प्रतियां प्रदर्शित करवाकर प्रस्तुत की ।

उभयपक्ष का श्रवण किया , पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया । प्राथर्थी की ओर से निम्नांकित दृष्टांत पेश किये गये:-

1. 2007 एलआईसी ( राज. ) 35 ,

2. 2006 एफएलआर ( एस.सी. ) 753,

3. 2005 ( 3 ) आरएलआर 594 ,

4. 2005 एलआईसी 2806,

5. 2001 ( 1 ) आरएलआर 715 ,

6. 1999 एलएलआर 1220 ,

7. 2003 एलआईसी 583 ,

प्राथों ने बलेभ के विवरण में अंकित किया है कि प्रार्थी को प्रतिपक्षी ने सर्वप्रथम दि. 13-3-80 को वर्कशाप पर चौकीदार के पद पर नियोजित किया तब से लगावार दि. 1-1-82 तक प्राथों सेवायें देता रहा । प्रतिपक्षी ने दि. 1-1-82 को मौखिक रूप से सेथा से निकाल दिया । सेवा से निकालने से पूर्व धारा 25एफ औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम की पालना नहीं की । प्रार्थी को श्री आर. के. तिवारी ने मौखिक रूप से हटाया । प्रार्थी द्वारा विवाद उठाने पर सहायक श्रम आयुक्त केंद्रीय अजमेर में प्रार्थी और अप्रार्थी के मध्य एक राज्जीनामा पंजीकृत करवाया । राजीनामा अंग्रेजी भाषा में था जिसका ज्ञान प्रार्थी को नहीं था । प्रार्थी को समझौता अधिकारी ने मौखिक रूप से यह बताया कि प्रतिपक्षी नियोजक प्रार्थी को तारीख 1-8-82 से पुनः कार्य पर ले लेगा यदि कार्य पर नहीं लेगा तो पुराने सेवाकाल के आधार पर सारे लाभ देकर छंटनी कर सकेगा । उक्त समझौते के अनुसार प्रतिपक्षी ने प्रार्थी को कार्य पर नहीं लिया न ही छंटनी मुआवजा दिया । प्रार्थी के साथ कार्यरत श्रमिक श्री संपत माली तथा मगनीराम को आज भी नियोजित कर रखा है । यह अनफेयर लेबर प्रैक्टिस है । प्रार्थी को हटाने के पश्चात् कई श्रमिकों को भर्ती किया गया हटाने से

उक्त दृष्टांतों का ससम्मान् अध्ययन किया । उभयपक्ष ने [PART II-SEC . 3( ii )] 3434

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007 /TYAISTHA 5, 1929

उक्त दृष्टांतों का ससम्मान् अध्ययन किया । उभयपक्ष ने अपने- अपने अभिवचनों में ऑकत कथनों की ही बहस में पुनरावृति कीहै । प्रार्थी के विद्वान अभिभाषक का तर्क है कि प्रार्थी ने 13-3-80 से प्रतिपक्षी के अधीन वर्कशॉप में चौकीदार के पद पर बीस रु. प्रतिदिन की दर से 31-12-81 तक कार्य किया किंतु उसे मौखिक रूप से 1-1-82 को हटा दिया गया । उनका तर्क है कि प्रार्थी के विवाद उठाने पर 28-7-92 को सहायक श्रम आयुक्त द्वारा प्रदर्श डब. 7 समझौता करवाया गया जिस पर नौकरी पर पुनः लेने का तय हुआ किंतु प्रतिपक्षी ने नहीं लिया । उनका यह भी तर्क है कि संपत और भवानीराम को प्रदर्श डब 8 के द्वारा उसे हटाकर रख लिया । उनका तेर्क है कि प्राथी ने 12-9-97 को हाजुरी रजिस्टर आदि तलब करवाने हेतु प्रार्थना पत्र अस्तुत किया जिस पर न्यायालय की दि. 13-11-2001 के आदेश के उपरांत भी प्रतिपक्षी ने उक्त प्रलेख प्रस्तुत नहीं किये अतः प्रतिकूल निष्कर्ष निकाला जाये । उनका तर्क है कि प्रतिपक्षी द्वारा ओवरटाइम का रजिस्टर प्रस्तुत किया जिसके अनुसार 1-1-81 से 31-11-81 तक ओवरटाइम के 470रु. प्राथर्थी को मिले इस प्रकार उनका तर्क है कि प्रार्थी ने ओवरटाइ‌म भी किया था । उनका तर्क है कितेल की चौरी के संबंध में प्रतिपक्षी ने न कोई प्रलेख प्रस्तुत किये न प्राथमिकी पंजीकृत करवायी और न ही कोई जांच की । उनका यह भी तर्क है कि ड्रिलिंग मशीन ठेकेदार के अधीन नहीं होती । उनका यह भी तर्क है कि प्रतिपक्षी के अनुसार कोई लिखित में ठेका नहीं था अनकि ठेका मौखिक नहीं होता । उनका यह भी तर्क है कि प्रदर्श एम-3 के अनुसार चौकीदार का ठेका प्रार्थी को दिया गया जबकि उसी अवधि का प्रदर्श एम- के अनुसार पन्नालाल को ठेका दिया गया । इस प्रकार उनका तर्क है कि एक ही कार्य का दो व्यक्तियों को ठेका कैसे दिया जा सकता है । उनका यह भी तर्क है कि समझौता भविष्य केलिए किया गया है न कि पुरानी सर्विस का । अंत में उनका तर्क है कि ओवरएज होने का नियम औद्योगिक विवाद के संबंध में लागू नहीं होला ।

रहकर सेषा की अथवा ठेके पर कार्य किया । जहां तक न्यायालय के 13-11-2001 के आदेश का संबंध है, प्रतिपक्षी के अनुसार उपस्थिति पंजिका का पोषण नहीं किया जाता है और सन् 1982 का यह रिकार्ड उसके पास उपलब्ध नहीं है । उक्त परिस्थितियों मेरे विनम्र मत में प्रतिकूल निष्कर्ष निकाले जाने का कोई औचित्य नहीं है । जहां तक ओवरटाईम रजिस्टर का प्रश्न है , प्रार्थी को ग्यारह माह की अवधि में 470/- रु. का ओवरटाईम दिया गया है । ओवरटाईम ठेके पर नियुक्त श्रमिक को भी दिया जा सकता है । प्रतिपक्षी द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रदर्श एम -1 के अनुसार प्रतिपक्षी के पास एक निश्चित अवधि के लिए एक्सप्लोरेशन का कार्य था । प्रदर्श एम -3 पर ए से वी हस्ताक्षर प्रार्थी ने अपने होना स्वीकार किया है जो प्रार्थी के सी से डी हस्ताक्षर से मिलान खाते हैं । उक्त प्रार्थना पत्र में प्रार्थी ने 1-6-82 से 4-6-82 तक चौकीदारी का ठेकालेना और उसका चालीस रुपये भुगतान करवाये जाने हेतु प्रार्थना पत्र दिया है । कोई व्यक्ति खाली पेपर पर हस्ताक्षर करे यह विश्वसनीय नहीं लगता । प्रदर्श एम-4 उक्त भुगतान का वाउचर है । प्रदर्श एम -5 से 24 तक अन्य व्यक्तियों के प्रार्थना पत्र और वाउचर्स है जिनसे उनको भुगतान किया गया । उक्त प्रलेखों से स्पष्ट है कि भिन्न- भिन्न व्यक्तियोंको चौकीदार का कार्य ठेके पर दिया जाता था और उसका भुगतान किया जाता था । समझौता अधिकारी के समक्ष जो सेटलमेंट प्रदर्श डब. 7 हुआ उसके अनुसार प्रार्थी को 1-8-82 से संबिदा के आधार पर प्रबंधन द्वारा जारी नोटिफिकेशन के अनुसार चौकीदार हेतु नियोजित करना था । उक्त शर्त की पालना हेतु उक्त नोटिफिकेशन के अनुसार प्रार्थी ने कोई प्रयास किया हो , ऐसा प्रार्थी सिद्ध नहीं कर सका है । इस समझौते में भी प्रार्थी को संविदा के आधार पर ही लिया जाना था अतः इस समझौते से यह निष्कर्ष नहीं निकाला जा सकता किप्रार्थी के पूर्व की संविदा से अन्यथा , सेवा मान ली गयी है । प्रार्थी ने प्रतिपरीक्षण में स्वीकार किया है कि समझौते के बाद उसने प्रबंधन को कोई चि‌ट्ठी या शिकायत नहीं की । उक्त आधारों पर मैं इस निष्कर्ष पर पहुंचता हूं कि प्रार्थी ने उक्त अवधि में प्रतिपक्षी के अध ीन जो कुछ कार्य किया है , वह ठेके पर किया था । अतः प्रार्थी और प्रतिपक्षी के मध्य नियोजिति और नियोजक का संबंध नहीं है । प्रार्थी कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।

आदेश

फलतः प्रस्तुत विवाद का उत्तर इस प्रकार से दिया जाता है कि प्रोजेक्ट मैनेजर , हिंदुस्तान जिंक लिमिटेड, रामपुरा , आगूचा , जिला भीलवाड़ा द्वारा श्री बालूराम पुत्र श्री हजारी उपाध्याय की सेवा समाप्त करना उचित एवं वैध है । प्रार्थी कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहींहै ।

जी. एस. शेखावत , न्यायाधीश

नई दिल्ली , 3 मई , 2007

इसके विपरीत प्रतिपक्षी के विद्वान अभिभाषक का तर्क है कि प्रार्थी ने प्रोजेक्ट के अन्वेषण के दौरान निश्चित अवधि के लिए ठेके पर कार्य किया है । प्रार्थी की कोई सेवा नहीं थी । उनका तर्क है कि समझौता अधिकारी ने 28-7-82 को जो समझौता करवाया वह आज भी लागू बाध्यकारी है जिसमें यह अंकित है कि प्रार्थी को संविदा के आधार पर पुनः नियुक्त किया जायेगा किंतु प्रार्थी ठेका लेने नहीं आया । इस प्रकार उनका तर्क है कि केंद्र सरकार द्वारा प्रेषित यह विवाद निरर्थक है । उनका यह भी तर्क है कि प्रार्थी ने अपने शपथ पत्र में पचपन साल का होना अंकित किया है और इस प्रकार वह 58 साल सेअधिक का हो गया और इस प्रकार ओषरएज हो गया । उनका यह भी तर्क है कि प्रदर्श एम-3 के अनुसार प्रार्थी ने ठेके पर प्रार्थी द्वारा दर्शायी कथित सेवामुक्ति के पश्चात् तेके पर कार्य किया है । अतः सेवामुक्ति नहीं मानी जायेगी । अंत में उनका तर्क है कि प्रार्थी द्वारा माननीय उच्च न्यायालय में प्रस्तुत रिट याचिका निरस्त हो चुकी है ।

मैंने उभयपक्ष के तकों पर विचार कर लिया है । प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में मुख्य रूप से विवाद इस बिंदु पर है कि प्रार्थी ने प्रतिपक्षी के अधीन 13-3-80 ये 31-12-81 तक चौकीदार के रूप में नियोजित

का.आ. 1556, औद्योगिक विषाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ [ भाग - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3435

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

ChargeSheet

Itis reported against you as under:

श्रम न्यायालय , बैंगलोर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 50/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-5-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं. एल -12012/ 101 /2003-आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the3rd May, 2007

That you were working as Clerk at Ajjinadka branch during the period between 4-7-1994 and 28-4-2001 and thereafter at Uppinangadi branch and you wereplaced under suspension by the Competent Authority vide order No.3/ Suspn( W ) ZOU / IRC/ 2001 dated May 12 , 2001 pending enquiry into certain serious allegations appearing against you in the matter of misappropriation of funds /frand/falsification of records. While functioning at Ajjinadka branch the following circumstances appear against you .

That you made among others certain credit entries in the pass books issued to SB depositors , the details of which are as follows :

S.O. 1556-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) the Central Govemmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 50/2003) oftheCentral Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on01-05-2007.

S. SB A/ c No. No.

Name of the depositor

(Rs. )

Dateof crediting [No. L-12012/101/ 3003- IR(B -II)] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

1. 1098 Seti P. Srinivasa 6-10-2000 2000

2. 1226 Smt. Seetha

14-9-1998 800

3. 1676 ShriBabu Naik 38-1999 3500 ANNEXURE BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT BANGALORE

4. 2868 ShriRamaNaik 4-9-1999 1000 Dated: 11thApril, 2007

5. 4023

18-5-1998 1500

Smt.Pushpa

PRENENT

6. 4630 Shri Abdul Hamed 13-10-1998 550 Shri S.A. SIDDIQUE, Presiding Officer

-do-

11-2-1998 1000 C. R. No. 50/2003

-do-

6-5-1999 1000

7. 5247 Shri Ananda Naik 29-12-2000 7500 IPARTY

IIPARTY

8. 5310

2000

26-12-2000 Shri Shivappa Naik,

TheAsstt.General Manager,

Shri Balakrishna Nak

StoLate Shri Lingappa Naik , SyndicateBank ,

9. 5326 ShriDinesh

7-11-1200 800 ShrutikaKochi,

ZonalOffice,

10. 5388

3500

6-11-2000 Post Puncha,

Shri M. Narayana Naik

Syndicate Towers,

Bantwal Taluk,

Udupi

Karnataka State

Kamataka State

That as per branch records no credits were received in the above accounts on the said dates indicating that a ال the above credit entries made by you are fictitious .

AWARD

That you caused crediting of Rs . 2000 received from Shri Balakrishna Naik to the SB Account of another BalakrishnaNaik by altering the SB Account Number in the credit voucher from 5310 to 5320.

1. TheCentral Government by exercising the powers conferredby clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L- 12012/ 101 /2003 - IR (B -II ) dated 14th August, 2003 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDILE

"Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank, HeadOffice, Manipal in dismissing the services of Shri Shivappa Naik vide order dated 18-12-2001 is legal andjustified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

2.A charge sheet dated 19-7-2001 cam: to be issued to the first party in the following terms:

That Shri Manku Mera, Clerk made a debit entry of Rs.1000 dated 28-2-2000 in the pass book of SB account No.1226 of Smt . Seetha. As per branch records no amount was withdrawn from the account on the said date indicating that the debit entry is fictitious . He also made a debit entry ofRs . 300 dated 24-3-2000 in the said pass book whereas as perbranch records amount withdrawn from the account on the said date was only Rs.100. He made a debit entry of Rs.2800 dated 14.9.1998 in the pass book of SB account No.4023 of Smt. Pushpa. As per branch records only Rs. 1400 waswithdrawn from the above said account on the saiddate .

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( i)) 3436

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26 , 2007 /JYAISTHA 5, 1929

That your above acts constitute gross misconduct within the meaning of Clause No.19.5 of the Bipartite Settlement.

You are therefore , charged for the commission of gross misconduct of doing acts prejudicial to the interest ofthe bank vide Clause 19.5(j ) of the Bipartite Settlement. Alist of documents /witnesses relied upon is enclosed.

You are advised to submit your written statement of defence, if any, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this charge sheet failing which the matter will be proceeded further

That Shri Manku Mera , Clerk made credit entries of Rs . 500 dated 9-4-1999 and Rs.5500 dated 19-5-2000 in the pass book of SB account No.3692 of Shri Narayana Naik . You made credit entries of Rs. 2500 dated 9-1-1999 and Rs.5000 dated 16-10-2000 in the same pass book . Debit entries ' aggregating to Rs . 7600 were made in the pass book between 17-5-1999 and13-1-2000 by yourself, Shri Manku Meraand Shri Ibrahim. As per branch records no amounts were deposited/withdrawn from the above account on the said dates indicating that all the above credit and debit entries are fictitious .

You shall continue to be under suspension vide Clause 19.12 (b) of the Bipartite Settlement. "

That a Lousing loan of Rs.235000 was sanctioned and released to Smt . C. Chandrakala Naik, your spouse videOSL/HL7/2000 dated 10-1-2000. From the loan proceeds you made the following adjustments .

1. Rs. 7000 to SDD 5/99 of Shri Aboobakar

2. Rs. 10500 to SDD 5/99 of Shri Aboubakar

3. Rs.2000 to SB 1348 of Shivappa

4. Rs. 12000 to FL. 271/98 of Shri N. Rama Naik

5. Rs. 20000 to $DD 11/98 of Shri Sadananda Rai

6. Rs.2500 to OS: 64/98 of Shri Chandrashekar

7. Rs. 2020 to DL/GEN 43/98 of Shri Leo Monterio

8. Rs. 1400/-to SB 11 of Nallappa Shetty.

3.The first party gave his reply (Ex.M5)to the charge sheet denying the charges of misconduct levelled against him and the management not being satisfied with the reply givenby the first party, ordered DE against him attended and participated by him taking the assistance of DR (Secretary, SBEU) and it is on the conclusion of the enquiry. the enquiry officer submitted his findings holding the workman guilty of the charges found mentioned in Para 1 of the charge sheet . The first party once again submitted his explanation as against the findings of the enquiry and after having been heard by the Disciplinary Authority, finally, was imposed with the punishment of dismissalby wayof impugned punishment order dated 18-12-2001 . The firstparty raised the dispute before the conciliation officer resulting into the present reference .

That a consumer durable loan of Rs.31,000 was sanctioned and releasedto Smt. Chandrakala Naik, your spouse , vide DL/ GEN 10/2000 dated 17-6-2000. From the loan proceeds you made the following adjustments:

1. Rs 3350/- to SOD 54/99 of Shri Aboobakar

2. Rs . 1000/- to OSL/ GEN 52/2000 of Shri M. Shivarama

3. Rs.5000/-10 OSL/CGC29/2000 of Shri Lokanatha Poojary

That the depositors have lodged complaints with the branch alleging that the amounts deposited by them towards their accounts have not been accounted for in the books of branch . The branch has settled their claims by debiting the amount to claim paid account .

4.The first party by way of his claim statement urged that he having joined the services of the management on 4-2-1985, has rendered his sincere services with the various branches of the management bank without any blemishes , whatsoever and to the best satisfaction of his official superiors . He contended that despite his explanation furnishedto the charge sheet giving out the true facts, the management ordered DE against him and that was conducted against the principles of natural justice and the provisions ofBipartite Settlement without extending him fair and reasonable opportunity to put forth his defence . Thereupon, enquiry report dated 22-10-2001 was submitted notbased on any evidence and it suffered from perversity. However, the management on the basis of the enquiry findings, proposed the punishment of dismissal and to that he submitted his reply but was not considered by the Disciplinary Authority and proposed punishment of dismissal was confirmed against him. He preferred an appeal against the dismissal order and that was again dismissed without proper application of the mind and proper appreciation of the evidence brought on record. Therefore, the first party requested this tribunal to pass an award reinstating him in service with back wages , continuity of service and all other consequential benefits .

The above circumstances indicate that you by abusing your official position and in collusion with Shri Manku Mera, Clerk and Shri Ibrahim , Attender, accepted cash from the customers of the bank for depositing into theirSB/Lom accounts and misappropriated the amounts for yourselfwithout accounting for the same in the books ofthe branch. To conceal your misappropriation , you made fictitious credit entries in the pass books issued to the depositors , accounted for the amounts to a few depositors when they approached the branch for withdrawal by making fictitious/falsified debit entries in the respective pass books . In the process you tarnished the fair image of the bank.

5. The management however , by way of Counter Statement challenged the various contentions taken by [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) )

ध्यरत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

3437

entries in the pass books in good faith and relying upon theother clerk of the bank by name Shri Manku Mera and theAtterider of the bank namely Shri Ibrahim. Therefore, leamed counsel submitted that the explanation given by the first party thatbe- made such of the entries in the pass books without actually receiving the amount in good faith at the instance of the said two bank officials cannot be absolve him of his liability and accountability to the bank when infact the bank did not receive the amount or the funds depositedby the various customers as per the pass books issuedto them. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that credit entries in the pass book depicting the various amounts deposited by the customers was in fact misappropriated by the first party with the collusion ofthe said Manku Mera and Ibrahim and that charge has been very much proved during the course of enquiry. He therefore, submitted that the findings of the enquiry officer cannot be faulted with and so also the punishment of dismissal passed against the first party cannot be said to be illegal or unjust keeping in view the gravity of the misconduct.

the first party and asserted that the first party committed serious misconduct of misappropriation of funds /fraud/ falsification of records while he was working as a Clerkat Ajjinadka branch. Therefore, he was charge sheeted and his explanation not being found satisfactory to the management , enquiry was ordered against him and thereupon on the basis of the enquiry findings he was dismissed from service . The management contended that the above said charge of misconduct has been proved against the first party conducting the DE, giving him fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself with the help ofDR and he infact attended and participated in the enquiry proceedings taking the help of DR (the then Secretary, SBEU) . Therefore, the management contended that the enquiry proceedings were conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice, findings of the enquiry were based on sufficient, legal oral and documentary evidence and that order dismissing the first party from his services was quite proportionate keeping in view the gravity ofthe misconduct.committed by him. The management therefore, requested this tribunal to reject the referencs .

6.Keeping in view the respective contentions ofthe parties with regard to the validity and fairness or otherwise of the enquiry proceedings, this tribunal on 24-9-2004 framedthe following preliminary issue .

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

7. On 23-3-2006, when, the matter was posted for evidence of the management on the above said issue , learnedcounsel for the first party filed a merno conceding the fairness of the enquiry and therefore, accordingly order was passed holding that enquiry held against the first party as fair and proper . Then , the matter came to be posted for arguments on merits . On 10-7-2006 , application was moved by the first party to give evidence on the point of victimization and that being allowed, on 9-8-2006 , he was examined and document at Ex.M5 , namely, the reply given by him to the charge sheet was marked by consent . Thereupon, the learned counsel for the first party filedhis written arguments and after having heard the learned counsel for the management , the case is posted this day for award.

8.Learned, counsel for the management, vehemently, argued that the charges of misconduct levelled against the first party in the first part of the charge sheet that he made false credit and debit entries in the pass book of several bank customers but failed to account the funds received by him with the accounts of the bank have not only been proved by voluminous documentary evidence supported by oral testimony of the two management witnesses but also those charges have been very much admitted by the first party vide his reply to the charge sheet at Ex.M5 . He submitted that in the reply to the charge sheet the first party has only explained the facts with regard to the entries made in the pass book by him stating that he made those

9. Whereas , learned counsel for the first party submitted his written arguments , mainly, stressed upon the point that the various complaints said to have been received by the management bank to suggest that customershave paid the amount into the hands of the first party or into the hands of said Ibrahim or Manku Ram are not the complaints to be acted upon as the enquiry officer himself inhis findings has noted the fact ofinterpolations, fabrications , alterations and insertions made in some of the complaints namely, the Ex.MEx-3, 20, 49 and Ex. 73.He submitted that in these complaints the name of the first partyhas been inserted subsequently to suggest that the amount was paid into his hands and that he made entries in thepass books by receiving the amount from the customers. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the complaint at Ex. ML.8, 24, 41 and Ex.M 101 , it is very much clear that those customers made complaints only against the said Ibrahim and Manku Mera and not against the first party. Therefore, the enquiry officer must not have relied upon the aforesaid complaints in coming to the conclusion that the first party received the amount and made false entries inthepass books. He further contended that no action has been taken against the aforesaid two officials but the first party only has been singled out and has been pamished with a severe punishment of dismissal . He contended that asperthe document st Ex.DEX- 1 and the oral testimony of the three witnesses at DW 1 , 2 and DW3 it has been brought on record by the first party that they have made the payments into the hands of said Ibrahim and it is some times, Ibrahim made entries in the pass books and some times it is the said Manku Ram and the First party have made the entries in the pass books . Therefore , learned counsel submitted that mainly because the first party made certain entries in the pass books either credit or debit [PART II-SBC. 3 (n) ] 3438

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007 /JYAISTHA 5, 1929

with a rider that he made those entries in the pass books on the advice ofShri Ibrahim, sub staff of the branch . It is his case that the customers visiting the bank in the early hours of the day were making the payments into the hands of Ibrahim who only was available in the office of the bank and it is having good faith in him and on his advice he made entries in the pass books . He also made entries in the pass books being brought by said Manku Ram showing certain debitvouchers as reflected in the pass books .

without any corresponding entry in the bank ledgers having, reposed faith in his colleagues , he cannot be held liable for the charge of misconduct levelled against him . With regard to the punishment of dismissal the learned counsel submitted that even otherwise out of the three charges levelledagainst the first party only the first charge with regard to the credit and debit entrics made in the pass books has been dealt with and taken proved by the enquiry officer and be gave no findings with regard to the other two charges and therefore, punishment of dismissal was highly and shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the above said first charge and in the result, the first party deserves lenient view under Section 11A of the ID Act .

10. After having gone through the records , more particularly, the findings of the enquiry officer and the oral and documentary evidence brought on record during the course ofenquiry, not loosing sight of the reply givenby the first party at Ex.M5 to the charge sheet , I find no substance in the arguments advanced for the first party to say that the charge of misconduct levelled against him at Part-1 of the charge sheet has not been proved. First ofall, I would like to bring on record the relevant paras of the replygiven bythe first party to the charge sheet at Ex .M5 , which runs as under.

" I wish to humbly submit that all the entries appearing in the pass books of these customers as referred to in the charge sheet were made on the advice of Shri Ibrahim , sub staff of the branch. He being a local person, he used to entertain a set of customers as a matter of reindering quick service .Нс was always available in the branch one hour before the office hours . He used to show me the pay in slips before the entries are made in the pass book. Since the customers used to deal with him, on the strength ofthe pay in slips, I used to make the entries believing that he woulddeposit the moneys when the cashier reports for duty. At times, Shri Manku Mera aiso used to bring the pass books for entry showing certain debit vouchers, which I had reflected in the passbook.

Whalever, I had done is in good faith believing my own colleagues . I could not imagine now the deceitful tactics employed by them . On certain occasions , I have seen the customers in person in the company of Shri Ibrahimwhile making entries in the pass books. Apart from that, I have not caused any hardshipto the branch . It is also on record that Shri Ibrahim has accepted having compelled me to make pass book entries . I feel thai ) did a mistake in placing faith on my do-workers who have played this trick on me."

12. The fact that not being satisfied with the above said reply given by the first party , the management thought itproper to conduct a detailed DE as noted above, resulted into the findings of the enquiry officer holding the first partyguilty of the charges based on oral and documentary evidence is notdisputed and cannot be disputed. From the perusal of the enquiry report it can be very well seen that the Enquiry Officer has dealt with threadbare the oral testimony of two management witnesses namely, MW1 and MW2 and the voluminous documentary evidence marked at Ex . MEX- 1 to 123. These documents include the various pass books belonging to the customers having the credit and some of the debit entries made under the handwriting of the first party undisputedly . The other documents are the bank Account Books , Ledgers etc. just to show that there have been no corresponding entries in the bank accounts with respect to the credit entries or the debit entries made in the pass books of the customers who made complaints with the bank . The complaints of the various customers made with the bank are at Ex . MEX -3, 8 , 20, 24, 41,49,73 and MEX- 101. The learned EnquiryOfficer after having discussed at length the aforesaid documentary evidence coupled with the oral testimony of MW1 , the InvestigationOfficer and MW2 , the then Senior Manager hasgivenhis valid and cogent reasonings in coming to the conclusion that the first party with the collusion of said Ibrahim and Manku Mera misappropriated the funds belonging to the customers regarding which credit entries havebeen made in their respective pass books . The learned Enquiry Officer also has taken into consideration the oral testimony of DWI to 3 and the defence document at Ex. Di and has assigned valid reasonings as to why they were not worth reliable keeping in view the cogent and satisfactory evidence produced by the management in the statements of MW1 and 2 and the aforesaid documents at Εχ . ΜΕΧ- 1 to 123. While answering , the defence contention that the first party infact did not receive the amount towards the credit entries he made in the pass books and therefore, he did not commit any misappropriation of the funds belonging to the customers and taking into account the oral evidence produced by the management during the course of enquiry, learned Enquiry Officer on page 22of the enquiry findings observed as under:

"In all these transactions, the role played by the CSE by abusing his official position causing prejudice/ 11. Therefore, as couldbe read from the aforesaid passage from the reply to the charge sheet, the first party in no unequivocal terms has admitted one important fact and it is the fact that he made entries in the pass books but 3439

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

detriments to the bank etc , are obvious and in tasıdem with others viz . Sbri Ibrahim and Shri Manku Mera as well as individual . The defence evidence to counter in three cases to the effect that the complainants have not named CSE specifically as to recipient of money etc. is too weak to reckon in diminishing the otherwise formidable evidence of the management comprising of elaborate oral evidence ofMWI and MW2 besides the connected documentary evidences.Moreover, other than denying the charge in the beginning of the enquiry , no clear perspective ofthe defence has been brought out in the enquiry to counter in any of the specific instances/cases against the CSE evidenced during the course of enquiry, nor CSE himself tendered any evidence on his behalf to substantiate/support his denial, thereby reducing rebuttal/ denial to almost nil. His plea of good faith believing his colleagues etc. in reply to the charge sheet also have not at all been brought outeffectively in these transactions which have been testifiedbefore the enquiry."

above.The first party at the earliest point of time i.e. while giving his reply to the charge sheet itself, has not disputed the fact of making credit and debit entries in the pass books of the amounts shown therein and it is not his case that those amounts were taken into the accounts of the bank. It was rightly observed by the Enquiry Officer that the defence taken by the first party that he made those entries ingood faithbelieving his colleagues was neither plausible not acceptable even if, it is assumed for a moment that the firat party actually did not receive the amount for which entries are made in the pass books, he cannot escape from the liability or accountability for having made those entries without there being corresponding entries in the bank accounts. It is for the first party to show as to where the actual amount went . He was not supposed to make such entries without actually ascertaining the fact ofthe amount being deposited with the bank rather received by the Cashier of the bank with the necessary entries in the accounts of the bank . Therefore, there is no hesitation in the mind of this tribunal in coming to the conclusion that findings of the enquiry officer suffered from no perversity as far as Part - 1 of the charge sheet is concerned.

14.With regard to the 2nd and 3rd Part ofthe charge sheet about the Housing Loan ofRs . 2,35,000 sanctioned and released to his wife, Smt . Chandrakala Naik and the consumer durable loan of Rs. 31,000 once again sanctioned and releasedto the said lady, there was absolutely no discussion or finding given by the enquiry officer and therefore, it is to be held that allegations made in the 2nd and3rd part of the charge sheet have remained to be proved.

15.Now, comingto the quantum of punishment. It is not in dispute that the first party has rendered unblemished service ofmore than 20 years and that he did not involve himself of any misconduct of moral turpitude till he was servedwith the present charge sheet and having regardto the fact that the allegations made against him in second and third part of the charge sheet have not been proved and also keeping in view the nature of the misconduct committedby him , it appears to me that ends ofjustice will bemet ifhe is dealt with lesser punishment of compulsory retirement from service as against the punishment of dismissal passed against him. Hence the following Award:

AWARD

The punishment ofdismissal passed against the first party is hereby modified by the punishment of his compulsory retirement from services. No costs.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signedby me on 11th April 2007)

A. R. SIDDIQUL, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 मई , 2007

13. Therefore, having gone through the enquiry findings in detail supported by oral and documentary evidence referred to supra and the reasoning : given by the enquiry officer , by no stretch of imagination it canbe said that the first part of the charge sheet has not been provedby sufficient and legal evidence and that the findings suffered from perversity. As noted above , the learned counsel for the first party mainly focused on the point that some of the complaints referred to suprawere not at all made against the first party and that his name has been inserted in those complaints subsequently and therefore, evidence by way ofcomplaints before the enquiry officerwas not worth reliable. First of all except the aforesaid fourcomplaints namely, MEX- 3, 20, 49 and MEX-73 the other complaints marked during the course of enquiry certainly were showing the name of the first party. Therefore, even assuming for a moment that the aforesaid four complaints did not bear the name of the first party, it is not a circumstance mitigating in his favour as long as he did notdispute the fact of credit entries having been made by him in the aforesaid passbooks belonging to the customers who had given those complaints. Even for the sake of the arguments if we keep aside whole of the bunch ofcomplaints marked during the course of enquiry giving rise to the charge sheet against the first party, I am afraid the first party cannot escape from his liability and `accountability for having made the entries in the pass books showing the credit of several amounts deposited by the customers without any corresponding entries in the accounts of the bank including the ledgers. The fact that the bank accounts do not reflect such corresponcling entries viz-a-viz the pass book entries , the first party cannot be. allowed to contend that some of the complaint's were not against him or that he was not made those entries as noted

का. भा. 1577, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार विजया बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध 2394 G1/07-22 3440

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007 /JYAISTHA 5, 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण भ्रम न्यायालय बैंगलोर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 6/2001 ) को प्रकाशिद करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-5-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/149/2000- आई. आर. ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 3rd May,2007

S.Q. 1557 In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref .No. 6/2001 ) oftheCentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of VijayaBank and their workman, received by the Central Government on 1-5-2007.

[No. L- 12012/ 149 /2000- IR(B - II) ] RAJINDER KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Dated: 10thApril2007

PRESENT

the credit card facility extended to him and he failed to honour the bills arising on account of Credit Card transactions, resulting in the credit card transactions to the extent ofRs . 283000 thereby violating the instructions contained in the head office circulars No. 141/93, 83/96 and codified circular of 115/99 and thereby his act of using the credit card indiscriminately in violation of the instructions given in the said circulars , amounts to an act of prejudice to the interest of the bank constituting gross misconduct under sub-clause (j ) of Clause 19.5of Chapter XIX of the Bipartite Settlement. The first party gave his reply admitting the guilt that he has overdrawn the credit amount facilty granted by the bank but has not misused the credit Card facility and that he will arrange for the funds to clear all the overdrawn amount seeking some time to do so . However, the management not being satisfied with the reply given byhim, ordered a DE and on the conclusion of the enquiry. findings were submitted by the enquiry officer holding him guilty of the charges and thereupon he was dismissed from service. His appeal against the dismissal order also came to be rejected . Then he approached the conciliation officer and the conciliation proceedings having been failed, the present reference has been made to this tribunal by the Govt. of India. He challenged the enquiry proceedings on the ground that they were conducted in disregardto the Bipartite agreement Clause 19.9 and the enquiry findings were perverse for the reason that the alleged act of the first party in using or misusing the credit card facility did not come under the purview of the misconduct as per the terms oftheBipartite Settlement .

Shri A. R. Siddiqui , PresidingOfficer

C.R. No. 6/2001

JPARTY

IPARTY

ShriB. K. Chandra,

TheRegional Manager. Vijaya BankHeadOffice, M.G.Road, TrinityCircle, BANGALORE,

40/3, 4thCross, Jyothi Rao Street, VidyaNagar, Shimoga (PO) SHIMOGAL

3. The managerment by its counter statement however, contended that the proceedings of enquiry held against the firstpartywere inaccordance with principles of natural justice, the enquiry findings were based upon sufficient and legal oral and documentary evidence much less the veryadmissions of the first party made in his reply given to the charge sheet referred to supra . The management further contended that keeping in view the gravity of the misconduct committed by the first party, the punishment of dismisssal was very much proportionate and in commensurate and therefore , was perfectly legal and justified.

AWARD

4.Having regard to the respective contentions of the parties about the validity, fairness and otherwise ofthe enquiry proceedings, this tribunal on 22-4-2004 framedthe following preliminary issue:

1.TheCentralGovernment by exercising the powers conferred by clanse (d) of sub -section 2A of the Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L- 12012/ 149/2000- IR (B - II) dated 29th January, 2001 for adjudication on the following schedule :

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

""Whether M/s . Vijaya Bank is justified in terminating the services of Shri B.K. Chandra , Clerk? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to? "

2. The first party workman by way of his Claim Statement, contended that he was appointed as a Clerk on 1-10-1975 rendering meritorious services for a period of more than 25 years ; that he was charge sheeted for misusing

5. During the course of trial of the said issue the management examined the enquiry officer as MW1 and gotmarked thedocuments at Ex . Ml to M14 , As a rebuttal , the first party also filed his affidavit evidence and after havingheard the learned counsels for the respective parties, this tribunal by order dated 5-12-2006 answered the above said issue in favour of the management holding that the DE conducted against the first party by the Second party is fair and proper . Thereupon, the matter came to be posted [ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

to hear the arguments on merits. On4-1-2007, 1-2-2007& 26-2-2007 when the matter was taken up to hear the arguments on merits , neither the first party nor his counsel appeared before this tribunal and after having beard the learned counsel for the management, the case is posted this day for award.

6. Learned counsel for the management submitted that there was sufficient and legal evidence in the statements of management witnesses , MW1 & MW2 and the documents at Ex . Ml to M17 to substantiate the charges ofmisconcduct levelled against the first party and that the findings of the enquiry officer has been very much supported by the said evidence much less by valid and cogent reasoning. He submitted that the first party infact has admitted the charges of misconduct levelied against him but with a rider that he did not misuse the credit card facility and that even if there was any violation of the instructions contained in the above said circulars in using the credit card , there was no misconduct as such committed by him in terms of the Bipartite Settlement, which do not any where provide that violation of the circular instructions about the alleged misuse of credit card amounts to misconduct. As noted above, the learned counsel for the first party was not available when the matter was taken up for arguments on merits.

7. After having gone trhough the records , more particularly, the oral and documentary evidence brought on record during the course of enquiry, findings ofthe enquiry officer and the very reply given by the first party to the charge sheet , his explanation submitted to the Disciplinary Authority while giving his comments over the findings of the enquiry officer marked before this tribunal atEx. M11 , there cannot be any hesitation in the mind of this tribunal to arrive at the conclusion that findings of the enquiryofficer do not suffer from any perversity . In order to appreciate the defence taken by the first party and the case made out by the management before the Enquiry Officer, it appears to me worthwhile to bring con record the very observations and reasonings given by the enquiry officer under the heading "Assessment by the EO " found onpages 5 to 7 of the enquiry report running as under:-

Assessment by the Enquiry Officer .

There is no denial of the alleged credit card operations doneby the CSE and the resultant debit balance in his SB account arising out of his credit card bills debitted to the said account which were not cleared offby himbut the defence have attempted to justify the sams . The main pleas of the DR in his regard centered on two points ie . firstly in the head office circulars the words ' misuse or discriminately use' do not find a place and hence the allegation of misuses /indiscriminate use of credit cardby the CSE given to him by the bank is untenable and secondly since the respective merchant establishments did not obtain prior authorisation form the bank , the branch should not have paid the bills pertaining to the credit card transactions of the CSE presented to it and instead it

3441

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

shouldhave been rejected. Therefore , the charge against CSE is not sustainable. I would like to ponder over the above aspects in the following paragraphs . It is true that thewords misuse/ indiscriminate use are not mentioned in the HO circulacs referred in the charge sheet. But a circular cannot be exhaustive in its coverage and contents in all respects and it is not unusual that all minute things ace not incorporated therein and certain conditions are impliedly hidden in the circular. Hence a view has to be drawn from overall situation to a given case . Duty/ responibility inherently cast on a credit card holder more so a staffmember to use the credit card given to him by the bank sparingly and judiciously in consonance with the conditions prescribed by the bank in the matter of use of the credit card. When the maximum credit limit prescribed for CSE's credit card was Rs. 3000 only, it was his responibility to ensure that the transactions doneby him through his credit card given by the bank were strictly in conformity with the prescribed guidelines of the bank. Since the CSE had flouted the laid down rules ofbusiness of credit card by exceedings the maximum credit limit of Rs.3000 fixed for his card such action of him certainly construes misuse or indiscriminate use of the credit card by him. Bank, expects all its employees to exhibit proper conduct and strict adherence to the prescribed rules and regulations ofthe bank, in all their deeds, transactions and affairs .Barring one occasion as on 5-3-1997, in allother four cases the bill amount aggregated ranging from Rs.12,150.20 (minimum) to Rs.1,54,585.70 ( maximum) in between 5-11-1996 and 5-2-1997 whichprimafacie depicts that the maximum credit limit Fixed to theCSE for his credit cardhad exceeded to a very large extent .

From the foregoing discussions , the contentionsof DR inrespect ofpoint No.1 have no force.

As regards second point of the DR I would liketo state as under.

As per the prescribed rules and regulations of the bank zero floor limits have been prescribed for all the jewellery shops and therefore, prior authorization should be invariably obtained by the concerned merchant establishment for all the credit card transactions at the jewellery shops . The branch should not make payment against charge slips/receipts for transactions above the prescribed floor limits, unless such authorizations are obtained from/confirmed by CCD . HO . In case the transaction amounts exceeds the floor limits, the Merchant establishments should seck slips/reaps for payment and theconcernedbranch should obtain the authorization either directly from the OCD , HO or from the concemed card issuing bank's authorization center , as the case may be, Judged from the above procedure , in so far as the credit cardtransactions of the CSE pertained to Jewellery shops, without there being prior authorization form the bank in respect of the relative transactions done by the CSE with the concemed merchant establishments, it is 3442

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2007 /JYAISTHA 5, 1929

improper on the part of SR road branch, Shimoga to make the payments of the bills at their end. Hence for the predicament the bank is facing in the matter, the branch is partly responsible.

Notwithstanding the above, lapse on the part of others does not absolve the CSE of his responsibility in the matter. As already discussed, first and the foremost responsibility in the matter primarily rests on the CSE, who was required tobe diligent and careful in using his credit cardwithin his means only and ensure that the same is not misused byhim, which is the root cause for the predicament in the case. Besides, in the actions of an employee with outsiders, thebank's name generally figures and when the employeds deals with the outsiders irregularlyfimproperly. it affects the image of the bank . From the foregoing discussions, I hold that there is no force to the contentions ofthe DR in, respect of Second point as well.

I sum up that the issue is proved again CSE. " 8. Therefore, from the reading of the aforesaid reasonings given by the enquiry officer , there cannot be anydoubt in comingto the conclusion that the first party has used, rather, misused the credit card facilities indiscriminately rather indiscreetly, injudiciously and carelessly as rightly observed by the enquiry officer while assigning the reasonings and recording his findings about the misconduct committed by the first party. The fact that thefirst partywas given maximum credit limit for his credit card at Rs.3000 and that he used the said card for the transaction to the tune of Rs . 2,83,000 has been very much admitted by the first party himself. Infact as could be read from his own explanation to the enquiry findings , he had already romitted a sum of Rs 40,000 towards the aforesaid transactions amounting to Rs.2,83,000 with a promise to make further remittance of Rs.50,000 within a couple of days and thereafter the remaining amount by way of monthly installment of Rt.10,000 . It is not in dispute that afterhaving remitted a sum of Rs 40,000 the first party did not fulfill his promise of making the payment ofthe balance amount even as on the date he filed the claim statement before this tribunal . Therefore , under the facts and circumstances indicated above, by no stretch of imagination itcanbe said that findings of the enquiry suffered from anyperversity.

9. Now, comingto the quantum of the punishment. Having regard to the fact that the first party rendered unblemished service of 26 years as on the date he received the charge sheet in his case and so also taking into account thenature ofthe misconduct committed by him, it appears to me that the punishment of dismissał passed against him borders on extremity not proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by him. Therefore , it appears to me that ends of justice willbe met if the punishment of dismissal passed against the first party is converted into a punishment of his compulsory retirement from services. Hencethe following Award:

[PART -Sec. 3( ii)]

AWARD

The punishunent ofdismissal passed against the first party is hereby modified by way of punishment of his compulsory retirement from service from the date of impugned punishment order. No costs.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 10th April 2007)

A. R. SIDDIQUI , PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली , 3 मई, 2007

का. आ.1558-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय अर्नाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 175/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-5-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12013/62/1998 - आई. आर. ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 3rd May,2007

S. O. 1558.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government bereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 175/ 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, ERNAKULAMas shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank, and their workman, received by the Central Government on 1-5-2007.

(No. L-12013/62/1998- IR(B - II)] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT:

Shri P.L.. Norbert , B.A. L.L.B. , PresidingOfficer (Tuesday the 24th day of April, 2007/4th Vaisakha, 1929) I.D.175/2006

(1.D.5/ 1999 of Labour Court, Ernakulam) Workman/Union

Shri R. Naveenkumar Pai 8/9, L.G. Pai Road Mattencharry Kochi-2

Adv. Stiri T.A. Rajan Management

The Dy. Central Manager SB, Zonal Office, P.B. No. 2268 Sastha Kripa Office Complex Sasthamangalam Trivandrum-695010

Adv . M. P. Ashok Kumar 3443

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

AWARD

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

"Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank in imposing the punishment of reduction of basicpay by two stages and denial of wages during non-employment period in respect of the workman Sa. Naveen Kumar Pai is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

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

proposed to voluntarily retire from the service of management bank . The management again asked the workmanto relinquish his post as Director Board member within 10 days . There was no response. Hence he was charge-sheeted and an enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer complied with the principles of natural justice and followed the procedure for domestic enquiry. The finding is based on materials on record. The conduct of the workman is against the provisions of Bipartite Settlements and prejudicial to the interest of the management bank. The Appellate Authority took a lenient view in the light of the fact that the workman had resigned from theDirector Board ofMSC Bank. No interference either inthe findings or punishment are called for. The industrial dispute itself is not maintainable.

4. In the light of the above contentious of the parties the following points wise for consideration:

(1) Is the reference maintainable?

(2)Are the findings of Enquiry Officer sustainable?

(3) Whether the punishment requires interference?

The evidence consists of the oral testimony ofMW1 andExt . M1 enquiry file.

5. Point No. (1) :-

Thedispute referred is regarding findings in enquiry and punishment of reduction of basic pay by two stages and denial ofwages during the period the workman Was out of service. The dispute is raised by the workman, Shri R. Naveen Kumar Pai individually u/ s -2A of I.D. Act, which reads as follows:

Shri R. Naveen Kumar Pal joined the service ofthe management bank in Ernakulam Branch as Clerk on 28-3-1977. At the time of enquiry he was working in Udayapuram Branch . He served the bank for about 22 years . He was elected as Director Board member of Mattancherry Sarvajanic Cooperative Bank, Cochin in 1974 and continued tobe so till 5-9-1997. During the period from March 1996 to 5th September , 1997 he was President of MSCBank. However the management of SyndicateBank, alleging that the workman had acted prejudiciał to the interest of the bank by holding the post ofCrirector ofMSC Bank, charge-sheeted him and a domestic enquirky was conducted. He was found guilty and the Disciplinary Authority discharged him from service. He filed an appeal . TheAppellate Authority converted the punishment into reduction in basic pay by two stages for a period of one year . The workman contends that the finding of Enquiry Officer is arbitrary and not based on sufficient material. The workman has not acted against the interest of the bank . On the other hand, his election as Director Board member ofMSC Bank was beneficial to the Syndicate Bank. He could canvass accounts of MSC Bank for Syndicate Bank. The management had not objected to his Director Board membership in MSC Bank for a very long time. There are many other officers of the bank of Syndicate Bank holding similar posts in other banks . The disciplinary action is only an act ofvictimization.

"2-A. Dismissal , etc. of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute. - Where any employer discharges , dismisses , retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that wokoman andhis employer connected with, or arising out of such discharge , dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union ofworkmen is a partyto the dispute."

As per the above provision, a dispute can be raised by an individual workman only in case of discharge , dismissal or retrenchment or termination otherwise . In case ofother punishments other than mentioned above the cause ofthe individual workman has to be espoused either by a union or by a substantial number of workmen in the establishment. Otherwise the Tribunal will not get the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute . Since the reference is made at the instance of the workman the reference is incompetent and cannot be adjudicated. The reference is therefore not maintainable .

6.Point No. (2) :

Though this Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute, for the purpose of completeness I would 3. According to the management the fact that the workmanwas Director ofMSC Bank was never broughtto thenotice of the management till 1990. The workman had also not sought permission to hold such post. The management came to know of the Director Board membership of the worknian in MSC Bank in 1990 when a complaint was received. In the peculiar circumstances the management allowed the workman tocontinue theDirector Board membership till the next election to the Board. Howevertheworkman filed nomination again for the next Director Board election. He contested the election and became a Director Board member even after the direction of the management. Hence explanation of the workman was sought on 28-1-1993, 5-4-1995 and 2-5-1996. To the last explanation he submitted a repły seeking permission to continue as Director till the end of that period and 3444

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/JYAISTHA 5, 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3 (i)) discuss the other points as well . The workman, while employed as clerk of Syndicate Bank , was also holding the postofDirector of Mattancherry Sarvajanic Cooperative Bank, Cochin from 1974 to 1997. According to the management bank the conduct of the workman is against CircularNo. 169, dated 26-11-1982 (Ext. MEX 10 in Ext. M1). The relevant portion of the circular reads:

intimation given to all banks by Ext . MEX - 4 circular . Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the leamed counsel for the workman that actual instances of prejudice have to be proved by the management in order to say that the workman is guilty. Despite the direction given to the workınanto resign from the Director Board immediately . the workman continued to contest the election and hold the post ofDirector in MSC Bank . Thus there is continued disobedience of the direction of the management . Therefore no further proof is required to say that the conduct of the workman is prejudicial to the interest of the management bank. The finding of enquiry officer is therefore justified and no interference is called for .

8.Point No. (3) :-

"The Indian Banks ' Association has considered the question regarding holding of honorary posts in cooperativebanks by the employees of banks and it was, after deliberation, decided that promoting or functioning as Director in a cooperative bank would be prejudicial tothe interest of the bank. Therefore, no permission shall be given to employees of bank tohold the post of Director of Cooperative Banks."

Itis further stated that:

"Those employees who are as on the date of circular holding such Director Board membership in cooperative banks shall resign forthwith with the intimation to the concerned regional or zonal offices ofbanks,"

The punishment originally awarded by the Disciplinary Authority was discharge with superannuation benefits. TheAppellate Authority look a lenient view and converted the punishment into reduction of basic pay by two stages for a period of one year, however without eligibility forback wages and without reckoning the period from the date ofdischarge till reinstatement. According to the leamed counsel for the workman this is unfair and punishment is harsh and disproportionate to the guilt . Denial of back wages for a period of one year and non- reckoning of that period for service benefits is still more harsh.

It is contendedby the management that the conduct of the workman is in violation of the direction in the circular and also infringes Clause 19.5 (j ) of the 1st Bipartic Settlement. It is as follows: "Doing any act prejudicial to the interest of thebank

or grossnegligence or negligence involving or likely

to involve the bank in serious loss ."

Forgross misconduct falling under Clause 19.5 punishment is provided in Clause 19.6 of the Settlement. It includes dismissal , censure, fine , stoppage of increment and discharge.However it is argued by the learned counsel for theworkman that the management has not been able to prove what actually is the prejudice caused to the management bank by holding the post of Director ofMSC Bank.According to him, in fact management bank has only benefited bytsuch position of the workman in cooperative bank. Two current accounts of MSC Bank were opened in SyndicateBank at the instance of workinan. Besides , fixed deposits were canvassed by him from MSC Bank . The management had appreciated the gesture of the workman till 1992. It is due to political rivalry that the matter was rakedup in 1990. Ext . MEX-4 in Ext . M1 is the complaint sentto theChairman of Syndicate Bank .

9. It is tobe noted that this is not a case coming u/s- 11A of ID. Act which refers to dismissal or discharge from service. Interference in the matter of punishment by Labour Courts or Tribunals is called for only in the case of discharge or dismissal and not in other kinds of punishments . The above Section not even refers to retrenchment or termination of service , but is limited to discharge or dismissal only. The punishment imposed in this case is only reduction of basic pay by two stages without cumulative effect . Considering the gross misconduct falling within clause 19.5 of Bipartite Settlement itis withinthe competence ofthe Disciplinary Authorityto impose punishment cnumerated in Clause 19.6. The punishment imposed fall within Clause 19.6 ( d). It is the discretion of the management to stipulate whether back wages should be granted or not . So also what shouldbe the treatment regarding the period during which he was out of service. The discretionary power ofthe Disciplinary Authority or the Appcllate Authority cannotbe questioned by this Court. Moreover, the punishment is not at alldisproportionate to the guilt. Lastly, no interference can be made by this Court in the matter of punishments other than falling w/ s- 11A of I.D. Act . Therefore I find that the punishment imposed is legal and justified .

10. In the result, an award is passed finding that the action of the management in imposing punishment of reduction of basic pay by two stages without cumulative effectanddenial of back wages for the period the workman was out of service, is legal and justified. The workman is 7. Going by the circular mentioned above the very holding of the post of Director Board membership is prejudicial to the interest of the employer bank. It is not necessary for the bank to prove instances of actual prejudice. It cannot be disputed that the dual position of the workman in Syndicate Bank and MSC Bank itself is likely to influence the customers to give more business eitherto Syndicate Bank or to MSC Bank depending upon the inclination of the workman . That may be the reason whythe very membership in the Director Board of another bank is prohibited by Indian Banks Association and 3445

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007 /ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

IPARTY

The Chairman,

ShriAnand,

not entitled for any relief. The parties will suffer their respective costs. The award will take effect one month after its publication in the official Gazette.

VijayaBankHeadOffice,

C/oDriver Babu,

M.G.Road,

Bangera Compound,

P. L. NORBERT, PresidingOfficer

BANGALORB- 560-001

HituluHouse,

APPENDIX

Maroli, Kulshekar

Witness for the Workman :

MANGALORE

AWARD

Nil

Witness for the Management:

MW1-Shri C.S.Ran.

Exhibits for the Workman:

1.The CentralGovernment by exercising the powers conferredby clause (d) of sub -section 2A of the Section10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide onder . No.1-12012/173/89- DII (A) dated 1st November, 1989 for adjudication on the following schedule:

Nil

SCHEDULE

Exhibitsfor the Management

M1-Domestic Enquiry File.

नई दिल्ली, 3 मई , 2007

"Whether the action of the management of Vijaya Bank in terminating the services of Shri Anand is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman emitled?"

कर. आ. 1559, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार विजया बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय बैगंलोर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 76/89 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-5-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं एल-12012/ 173/89--डी- ( ए) ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 3rdMay ,2007

2. The first party in his Claim Statementhas contended that he was being employed from time to time by the second party to work as a sub staff in its various branches in and around Mangalore since 13-7-1983 . The last ofhis such appointment was on 8-1-1985 . Thereafter his serviceswere terminated w.e.f. 15-1-1985; that todeny the first party and also others working like him, continuity in employment and other benefits , the second party had been resorting to the unfair labour practice of terminating his services now and then . The first party had to involuntarily and without choice put up this unjust practice. He has further contended there was ample scope and opportunity for the second party to utilize his services as before. In fact others are being employed as sub staff on temporary and permanent basis. Therefore, according to him the termination of his services is unfair and unjust. Therefore, he is entitled for reinstatement, continuity of service, backwages and other benefits .

S.O. 1559.- in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 76/89) ofthe CentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Vijaya Bank, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 1-5-2007.

[No. L- 12012/1/3/89-DII (A) ]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Deak Officer

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

Dated: 17thApril2007

PRESENT

Shri A. R. Siddiqui

PresidingOfficer

C.R. No. 76/1989

3.The Second Party in their counter statement, as it relates to the issue in question have contended that the firstparty was engaged as a temporary sub staff for a total number of275days between 13-7-1983 and 15-1-1985 due to temporary vacancy cansed on account of absence of permanent staff and some times temporary nature. This engagement is in accordance with clause 20.7 of the first Bipartite Settlement . They have denied the factum on termination contended by this workman. They have shown thenumber ofdays worked by him at para 8 of the Counter Statement with various branches which comes to275days. They have further contended his engagement followedby an appointment order which were made available. They have further contended since some nonis are fixed for appointment of a permanent sub staff such as age, qualification etc. and also due to the fact the first party does not satisfy the requirements of appointment that any order to that effect will lead to arbitrariness . If an adhoc 3446

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/IYAISTHA 5, 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 (i) ]

2. Whether the Second Party proves that its action of terminating the services of the first party workman is proper and legal?

3. What Award?

employee is made permanent by the orders of the court that he had worked in the post for sometime , there will be by passing of rules and this may be misused by the other persons. Their case is, that this workman was not terminated and to the very fact he was aged about 30 years whenhewas taken to work as temporary sub- staff. He will not fulfill any legal requirements for permanent appointment

6. During the course of trial , the management examined one witness as MW1 and in his examination chief gotmarked 14documents at Ex . M1 to M14. His examination chief runs as under:-

" I have beenworking in second party since 1973. Αι present I have been working in Regional Office, Mangalore in the Personnel Section. I do not know first party Ex . M1 to M7 are some of the orders of appointment of the first party as a temporary peon. Ex. M8 to M 12 are some of the applications submitted by first party. The first party was appointed when the permanent peon went on leave and in some cases when there was more work in the branch. The first party is not eligible for permanent employment. Ex . M13 is the Xerox copy ofthe circular issued by H.O based on settlement between banks and recognized unions . Ex. M14 shows the terms of settlement."

4.The first party workman filed his rejoinder against the Counter Statement of the management not disputing the fact that he has been appointed from time to time for limited periods but with a rider that it was not always on leave vacancy or during absence of any permanent workman or to meet any temporary increase in work . He admitted that whenever he was appointed, the management used to issue him an order setting forth therein certain particulars and those orders contained stereotyped conditions keeping in line with the unfair labour practice. Hecontended that the management is attempting to project a picture that all its employees are merely enjoying leave facilityofone sort or other throughout the 365 days a year so as to employ temporary sub - staff against the leave vacancy etc. on temporary basis. At para 6, the first party contended that it might be that he was appointed and thenworked for a period of275 days in between 13-7-1983 to 15-1-1985 as mentioned in para 5 of the Counter Statementbut it is not a fact that such appointment always resultedout of any temporary vacancy caused on account of absence of permanent staff and due to temporary increase in the work of permanent in nature .He contended that the contention of the management that he is not entitled to be absorbed in service on permanent basis according to the bipartite settlement is not correct as he was not allowed to mature his prospective right because of unfair labour practice indulged by the management . He also denied that the cessation of employment in his case comes within the purview of exception of Section 2 (oo ) (bb ) of the Act. At Para 13, the first party contended that the contentionof the management with regard to the settlement dated 19-8-1988 is only to defeat his claim as it was the dutyof the management to have looked into the age factor at the stage of initial appointment and not to raise this contention at this stage particularly, when there are instances where the age factor bas been overlooked and relaxedby the management in respect of other temporary sub-staff.

7.Duringthe course of cross examination of MW1 , the facts relevant for the purpose elicited are that at the time of initial appointment management knew about the age of the first party and that as per the settlement entered between thebank and the recognized unions any candidate above the age of 26 years as on the date of his initial appointinent as temporary peon is not eligible to be absorbed as permanent employee . It was elicited that Ex.M15 is the appointment order of Leela Poojarthy as a Part time Sweeper . Her TC is at Ex. M16 showing her date ofbirth as 21-7-1950 . It was elicited that Ex. M17 is the settlement in respect of Venkappa Naik and Ex . M 18 to M21 are the settlements in respect of sub staff who worked temporarily and later made permanent and thatEx . M22 is the circular issued by the bank. MW1 was unable to say as to inrespect of which permanent employees going on leave the services of the first party were being engaged as per the aforesaid appointment orders. He was unable to say whether the persons mentioned in Ex . M23 have been made permanent. He denied the suggestion that except the first party others mentioned inEx. M23 were recruited suo-moto by the management and not on account of settlement . It waselicited that the work done by the temporary sub- staff was the same that of permanent sub - staff and it is still continuing even after the periodical terminations of temporary staff being permanent in nature.

5.As couldbe seen from the records , keeping in view the respective contentions of the partics , this Tribunal on24-7-1990 framed the following three issues:

1. Whether the second party proves that the first partyworkman was appointed temporarily for a specific period and that cessation of period of service does not constitute termination of service?

8. The first party examined himself as WWI , got marked one document at Ex. W1 and got marked Ex. M 15 to M23 in the cross examination of MW1 . The statement of the first party examined as WWI in his examination chief is as under :

3447

भारत का रामपत्र: मई 26 , 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

of275days and not 300 days in the above said branches with break in service. He admitted that all the orders of appointment issued to him were only for a specific period ofwork. He did not know as to whether other persons to whom he has referred above have been appointed as permanent staff only after following all the rules of the bank. He denied the suggestion that since he had crossed the age of26 years he was not mide permanent.

"I had worked as an attender in the Second Party Bank from 13-7-1983 to 15-1-1985. During the above said period, I had not worked continuously, I was being given work only for some days during the said period, I was working in Divisional Office, Light HouseHill ,Mangalore, Ashoknagar Branch, Falnin branch, Alape Padil branch , Bunder branch, On 15-1-1985, I worked at Ashoknagar branch. But on the next day i.e. on 16th they have not given work for me .Whenever I was given work, they used to get my signature in cyclostyled form.

Q: When you are not given permanentwork there. Why you have signed in specific form?

A: I was in dire necessity of work and if hadnot sigued they would not have given me work? Hence, I had signed inthe form.

They had not told any reason as to why they have notgiven continuous work for me. I have no idea as towhy they have given this type ofbreak ofwork for me. There were other workers who had also not been given continuous work like me. When I was given work on 13-7-1983, Iwas aged 30. Al Ghat time, I had produced my school certificate to denote my age. Apart from me, there were others like Mrs. Leela Poojarthygivenwork even after their age of26.The said Leela Poojarthy was given work on temporary basis, initially. Subsequently, from 1995December, the said Leela Poojarthy was taken as permanent sub- staff. Ex. W1 is the order of re-desiąmation issued by Second Partyto Leela Poojarthy . Even after my period was over , immediately the SecondPartyused to appoint some other persons on temporary basis for the same type ofwork.

10. Learned counsel, for the first party by way ofhis written arguments while reiterating the various points already urged in the claim statement as well as in the rejoinder of the first party, further contended that the first partyworkedwith the management for a total period of275 days rendering his sincere and honest duties and the management without absorbing him in permanent service termikusted his services illegally w.e.f. 15-1-1985. Therefore, itwas a clear case of discrimination and unfair labour practice.He contended that though Smt. Leela Poojarthy joined the services of the management initially at the age of37 years as could be read from her TC at Ex. M16, her services were made permanent but whereas, the first party was denied the permanent job of Peon on the ground of overage. He also contended that as per Ex . M17 toM21 the management regularized the services of5 temporary sub- staff at the result of the settlement entered between the union individually and the management but the case ofthe first partywas not considered though it was pending before the ALC( C), Mangalore at the relevant point of time .He contended that the action of the management in terminating the services ofthe first party who rendered services for a periodof275days between the year 1983 and 1985 amounts to illegal retrenchment as defined under Section 2 ( 00) read with Section 25F of the ID Act. He contended that the break in service at every 30th day of the month certainly was an artificial break in service just to circumvent the rules as otherwise incase the first party completed 240 days then he will stand to the benefit of the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act . In support of his arguments learned counsel cited the decisions reported in AIR 1974 SC 1166 andAIR 1986 SC 1636.

During the above said period, I had worked nearly about 300 days with break of service. The other people,whohadworked along with me in the above sajd manner for some number of days or even less, have been absorbed as permanent workers. For e.g. Venkappa Naik, Bhaskara Mally, Ramannda Shetty, Mohan Alva, Jaganath Alva and Shobha Rai. When Iwas appointed in the above said manier, there were permanent vacancies, in those particular branches:

In such circumstances , I pray this Hon'ble Tribunal to direct by an award that the Second Party shall reinstate me in service effective from 16-1-1985, considering me as permanent and pay me backwages with all consequential benefits."

11.Whereas, the leamed counsel for the management in his oral arguments submitted that the services of the first party workman were engaged for a specific period vide separate appointment Orders marked at Ex . M1 toM7 as against his applications seeking the job marked at Ex. M8 to M12. He contended that undisputedly the first partyworkman worked for a period of275 days from the initial date of the appointment dated 13-7-1983 till his services were discontinued as on 15-1-1985. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that since every appointment order in favour of the first party was for a specific period and it being a contractual appointment, provisions of Section 2(00) (bb) of the ID Act attract and not the provisions of Section 2 (oo) of, the ID Act. He submitted that there is no question of any artificial break being given intheserviceofthe first party as appointments with respect 9. In his cross examination it was elicited that whenever he was appointed he was issued an order of appointment but did not know the contents of those appointment orders namely, Ex. MI to M7 . He denied the suggestion thathe worked with the bank after knowingthe entire contents of the appointment orders . He shown his ignorance as to whether he had worked for a total number

2394 GI07-23 3448

[PART I-SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007 /JYAISTHA 5, 1929

tothe temporary sub staff were in tune with the terms and conditions of the Bipartite Settlement between the Union Representatives and the management. He contended that even otherwise the first party has not rendered continuous service of240 days and more in a block period of 12 calendar months and therefore, camot seek protection under the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act read with section 25(B), thereof. With regard to the contention of the first party that some other temporary staff have been absorbed in service though they did not fulfill the required qualifications of age etc. in the light of the circular dated 19-8-1988. Learned counsel submitted that as per the above said circular only sub-staff who fulfilled the necessary conditions have been absorbed in service and in the case of the first party he being overaged crossing the age of26 years at the time of initial appointment he was not considered for absorption despite the fact that he had rendered services of more than 90 days in between 1-1-1983 30-6-1988 as per the aforesaid circular marked before this tribunal at Ex . M13 and the settlement at Ex .

M14.

fact that cach appointment order was for a specific period mentioned therein but I am not inclined to accept the contention of the management that it was the contractual appointment for any specific purpose or for any specific project as suchparticularly, in view of the evidence brought on record in the statement ofthe first party that even after his services were being terminated in pursuance to the aforesaid appointment orders , in his place once again the management was utilizing the services of other temporary peons thereby suggesting that the work of the Peon available with the management bank was perennial in nature and therefore, it cannot be said that the first party was being appointed for a specific period to render specific job meant for limited period. The management, it appears was adopting this method, only to see that services of the first party came to an end antornatically and that he shall have no claim or any right against the management for having rendered the services as a temporary peon. Therefore, in myopinion the case of the first party certainly does not fall inthe ambit ofSection2 ( oo) (bb ) of the ID Act so as to say that cessation of period of service does not constitute termination of service.

12.After having gone through the records I do not find substance in the arguments advanced for the first party. I would like to take up the point referred to this tribunal by way of reference and the above said three issues together for disposal , they being interrelated and interdependent. The facts undisputed are that the first party was being engaged by the bank as a temporary peon from time to time in between 1983 and 1985 and during the above said periods heworked for a total period of 275 days , details ofwhichhave been given in the Counter Statement filed by the management to which I would like to come a little later. It is not in dispute that for each and every spell of period, the first party war being engaged by the bank, be was issued with the separate independent appointment orders brought on record before this tribunal at Ex . MI to M7 . The documents at Ex . M8 to M12 are some of the applications filed by the first party seeking the job with respect to the appointment orders followed subsequently. Now, I would like to take up the contention raised by the management in the first instance that the cessation ofperiod of service does not constitute termination of service and that the care of the first party falls within in the ambit of Section 2(00) (bb) of the ID Act. Of course, the aforesaid appointment orders at Ex.M1 to M7 would speak to the

13. Now, the next question to be considered would be as to whether the case of the first party comes within the purview of Section 2( 00) read with Section 25F of the IDAct. Inorder to get the benefit of Section 25F of the ID Act, it was incumbent on the part of the first party to have established before this tribunal that he worked continuously for a period of240 days and more during a periodof12 calendar months immediately preceding the dateofhis termination . The fact that the first party worked for atotal period of 275 days in between July 1983 and January1985 is not disputed and cannot be disputed rather has been very much indirectly admitted by the first party in his cross examination referred to supra. As noted above, in his examination chief he stated that he worked for about a period of300 days during the above said period but in his cross examination he was not sure ifhe had worked only. for a period of 275 days during the said period. The management as noted above, at Para 8 of the Counter Statement in detail has given the particulars of the services rendered by the first party between 13-7-1983 and 15-1-1985. For the purpsoe of ready reference it is worthwhile to bring on record the aforesaid particulars givenby the management as under:

Branch Officewhere worked

SL.No Period of appointment

Fipm

No.of days. 1-8-1983

1. 13-7-1983

Ashoknagar Road, Mangalore

2. 10-10-1983

8-11-1983

DivisionalOffice, Mangalore

8-12-1983

-do-

3. 941-1983

17-12-1983

-do-

4. 9-12-1983

24-1-1984

-do-

5. 26-12-1983

-do-

6. 1-2-1984

1-3-1984

20 30 30 9 30 30 3449

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007 /ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

[ भाग 11- खष्ठ 3( ii) ]

Period of appointment SL.No.

From

3-4-1984 7. 5-3-1984

8-5-1984 8. 9-4-1984

Branch/Office where worked

No.of days

30. Divisional Office, Mangalore

30 -do-

5 Bunder, Mangalore

19-5-1984 9. 15-5-1984

30. 16-7-1984

17-9-1984 11. 3-9-1984

1-10-1964

1 Alpe Padil, Mangalore

12 BunderMangalore (Worked for 12 days only)

7 Falnir,Mangakre

25-9-1984

12.

9-11-1984 13. 7-11-1984

14-12-1984 15-11-1984

14.

15-1-1985 15. 8-1-1985

14. It is to be noted that these particulars of the service furnished by the management have not been disputed by the first party either while filing his rejoinder or by way of examination chief or during the course of cross -examination of MW1 . Therefore, if we go by the aforesaid particulars, it can be revealed that the first party rendeted services of about 195 days during 12 calendar months immediately preceding the date ofhis termination. Inbetween 13-7-1983 and 1-8-1983 he worked for aperiod of20days, in between 10-10-1983 and 8-11-1983 he worked for a period of 30 days and in between 9-11-1983 and 8-12-1983 he worked for a period of30 days. In between 9-12-1983and 17-12-1983 he worked for a period of 9 days. Ifwe calculate the nunaber of days he worked during the 12 calendar months backward from the termination date 15-1-1985, the number ofdays he worked would cometo 195 days. Therefore, from the aforesaid particulars furnished by the management and not disputed by the first partyas noted above, it is crystal clear that the first party has not worked continuously for a period of 240 days and moreduring the block period of 12calendar months immediately preceding the date of his termination. The arguments advanced for the first party that the first party's services were given artificial break for one or two days on each and every occasion of his appointmeat does not hold good, first of all, in the light of the very particulars ofthe services rendered by him brought on record. The first four orders of appointment beginning from 9-12-1983 are: for a specific period of 30days each and thereafter his services were being engaged for a period of5 days, one clay, 12 days, 7 days, 3days, 30days and 8 days, respectively. Therefore, we findno truth in the contention ofthe first party thathis services were given break for one or two days at the time of his each and every appointment . Moreover, we are not very much concerned here about the break in service but we are concemed to see as to whether the services rendered

3 Alpe Padil, Mangalore

30 Divisional Office, Mangalore

8 Ashoknagar Road, Mangalore

275 Total

bythe first party during the period of 12 calendar months were continuous for a period of 240 days and more irrespective of break in between the periods . Therefore, since the first party has not established before this tribunal that he workedcontinously for a period of 240 days and more during a block period immediately preceding the date ofhis termination, he cannot take the benefit of Section 25Fofthe IDAct and bring his case under the definition of retrenchment as defined under Section 2(00) of the IDAct. In the result, there was no illegal termittation as allegedby theSecondParty.

15. The contention of the first party that other temporary staff have been absorbed in service having regard to the aforesaid circular at EX.M13 and that he has been singled out not being made permanent despite rendering services of more than 90 days as required under the said circular, first ofall, cannotbe raised and considered in the preseat proceedings for the simple reason that the points uuder reference schedule do not admit such a contention to be raised by the first party. As per the reference schedule we are only supposed to go into the point of dispute i.e. as to "whether the action of the management in terminating the services of the first party was justified or not". That apart, the first party in his examination chief as noted above, lams come with the version that as on13-7-1983 whenhe was given work be was aged about30 years . The above said circular and the Bipartite Settlement atEX.M13 & 14 would make it abundantly clear that at the time of initial appointment as a temporary sub- staff the workman must not have crossed 26 years ofage whichwas one of the condition precedent tobe fulfilled for the purpose of absorption in service of the management on permanent basis . It may be that some one else or for that matter said Smt. Leela Poojarthy might have been absorbed in senrices, permanently irrespective ofthe age factor going against her but we are not concerned here abouther case. We do not know what considerations in 3450

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26, 2007 /JYAISTHA 5, 1929

[PART II-SEX. 3 ( ) ]

I. D. 67/2003

Ref. No.: L- 12012/42/2003 - IR (B -II) dated 11-6-2003 fact prevailed with the management in absorbing the services of said Smt. Leela Poojarthy on permanent basis ignoring the age factor or relaxing the age condition in her case .

ShriPankaj Kumar Tiwari , S/o . Late Sh . R.K. Tiwari Through Sh . A.N. Tripathi, Adhikrit Pratinidhi 23, A.P. Sen Road, Lucknow. AND TheRegional Manager, UCOBank, Regional Office, 23, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Lucknow-226001.

AWARD

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour vide their order No. L- 12012/42/2003- IR (B -II) dated 11-6-2003 has referred following dispute for adjudicationto the PresidingOfficer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal can-Labour Court , Lucknow for adjudication .

"Whether the action of the management ofUCO Bank, Lucknow in terminating the services of Shri Pankaj Kumar Tiwari Sto. Late Sh. R.K.. Tiwari , Daily Wages Labourervide oral order dated 1-1-1995 is legal and justified? If not, what relief is the concemed workman entitled to?

16.As far as the other temporary staff whose names are found mentioned in Ex.M17 to M21 their services have been absortied at the result of settlements made between theunion representatives and the management during the conciliation proceedings before the conciliation officer concerned. In any case the first party in the present proceedings cannot take advantage of the fact of those sub - staff members whose services have been made permanent in the light of the above said circular and settlement al Ex.M 13 and 14 as the point in dispute itself is with respect to the absorption of services. In order to succeed in the present proceedings, the only fact which was to be established by the first party was that he had worked continuously for a period of 240 days and more in a biock period of 12 months immediately preceding his termination and as noted above, he has failed to establish this fact. In the result, it cannot be said that the action of the management in terminating the services of the first partywas unjustified. Hence the following award:

AWARD

The reference stands dismissed. No order to cost.

A. R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer

नईदिल्ली, 3 मई , 2007

का,आ. 1560, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार यूको बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 67/2003) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-5-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

The worker's case in brief is that he was engaged as casual worker and worked as such from 17-9-87 to30-12-94 ondailywagebasis by the management at Naka Hindola Branch of UCO Bank, Lucknow. He discharged his duties accordingly and completed more than 240 days service in each calendar year continuously without break in service. BranchManager of the Bank orally terminated the services w.e.f.1-1-1995 in arbitrary, illegal way . Ultimately theworker sent registered legal notice 25-9-2001 to the opposite party and made request for reinstatement in service but the Branch Manager refused the request by his reply dated 29-10-2001. The opposite party has thus , acted against the provisions ofSection 25-F and 25-G and also adopted unfair labourpracticeto show favouritism or partiality to one sel ofworkers regardless ofmerit..

[सं. एल-12012/42/2003- आई. आर. ( बी- II ) ]

राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 3rd May,2007

S.O.1560. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 67/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the IndustrialDisputebetween the management of UCO Bank, and theirworkmen, received by the Central Govemment on 1-5-2007.

[No. L-12012/42/2003 -IR (B - II) )

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

ANNEXURE TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW PRESENT:

Theworker has also alleged that he has got statutory right under the circular No. CHO/PAS/ 16/89 dated 19-10-89 in respect of empanelment and absorption of persons engagod on daily wage basis in the said Bank service. The worker has also enclosed the said circular as Annexure-1 Theworker moved application on prescribed proforma, but dueto thenegligence of the Branch Manger the application was not forwarded within the stipulated time to the administrative office . The worker has alleged that he submittedthe said application before 30.10.89 the Divisional Office Lucknow division 9 / MS/ 120/423 dated 14-6-90 sent letter to the Senior Manger. UCO Bank Naka Hindola. Lucknowwith advice to follow the time schedule in future . The copy of said letter is attached as Annexure- 2 . The workerhas further submitted that he regularly prayed for absorption in the Bank service but the opposite party ignored the legal claim of the worker. The worker has accordingly prayed that the oral termination be set aside and he maybe reinstated in the service with the continuity full back wages along with other consequential benefits .

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer 3451

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007 /ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

[ भका - खण्ठ 3(ii) ]

3. Letter dated 21-12-92 of Naka Hindola Branch to DMoffice, Lucknow.

4. Letter dated 23-5-1993 of Zonal Manager to Divisional Manager (attested).

5. Letter dated 2-8-93 of Divisional Managerto Senior Manager (attested).

6. Copyofapplication ofworker (attested).

7. Statement in response ofworker.

Worker has examined himself and the opposite party has examinedRana Jaam Vishwakarma.

None appeared on behalf of worker and hence beard thearguments of representative of opposite party alone.

Thiscourt has to confine itself to the issue which is referred to adjudication. It has no liberty to travel beyond the issue. It has to see whether or not, the termination dated1-1-95of the services of the worker Pankaj Kumar is legal and justified . The definition of the termination (retrenchment) is produced below:

Section2(00) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The AssistantGeneral Manager of the UCO Bank has filed the written statement denying the allegations of engagement as alleged by the worker . It has submitted on behalfofthe opposite party that the worker Pankaj Kumar Tiwari was engaged in the branch only for various labour jobs viz. , fetching water, sweeping the premises/ arrangement ofold record and as and when required by the Bank for30 to40 minutes in a day. Since only the Persons, whohave been engaged on full days worker and discharged normal duties in the Bank in sub- ordinate cadre were eligible forbeing impavelled for Bank's service under the circuler. Moreover as per head Office circular the water boys have beenspecifically debarred from being empanelled. Worker was not at all coming under the purview of said circular.As the case oftheworker did not come under the purview of the said circular, there was no question of referring the caseto the competent anthority for empanelment. It is also submitted that the worker was never appointed/recruited in the Bank service. It is denied that UCO Bank violated any provision of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is also stated that the worker has raised a dispute after 7 years and there existed no relationship of employer and employee.

The worker has submitted following copies of documents:

"Tetrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include- 1. Experience certificate dated 3-11-90.

(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or 2. Information about casual labours as on 31-12-1993 showing the worker Pankaj Kumar Tiwari working 1279days.

(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age ofsuperambustion if the contract ofemployment between the employer and the workman concemed contains a stipulation in that behalf;

3. Letter dated2-8-93 ofDivisional Manager stating thất the worker has not applied in prescribed manner on or before 30-10-89 (letter not fully legible).

4.Latter of the Zonal Manager not fully legible.

5. UCO Bank circular SF :92: C: 5991 dated 18-8-1992 regarding recruitment of staff on dulywages.

(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non- renewal of the contract of employnient between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract beingterminated under a stipulation in thatbehalf contained therein; or

6. Letter No. NIL dated 21-12-92 regarding non- absorption of daily wager in the Naka Hindola Branch

7. LetterNo. DN/SF/90/9526 dated 28-8-1990 reading empanelment and absorption.

8.Letter undated and unsigned.

9. Performa application.

10. Postal receipts dated and year no legible .

11. Legal notice by advocate Sh. A. N. Tripathi .

The opposite party has filed photo copies of followingdocuments:

1.Copy of circular CNO/DAS/16/89 dated 19-10-89 (attested).

2. LetterNo. SF:92:C:5991 dated 18-8-1.992 (attested) .

The worker has himself admitted that be was casual labour on dailywage basis. He has also stated that he was getting25to20 Rupees as labour charges. It is also admitted fact that there were 4-5 regular peon in the branch of the said bank with a daftary. He has also admitted that he had no documents to prove that he worked for 240 days continuously. No appointment letter or termination letter has been filed in support of the case by the worker. The worker has in his evidence tried to say that he worked from 17-9-87to end of December, 1995 continuously. The worker has filed the photo state copy ofthe statement of work that is paper No. 24/2 showing that he has worked for 1279 days as per sheet attached as on 31-12-93. This document is not complete to show that the worker has 3452

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/ JYAISTHA 5, 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3( її) ]

ofwork which is not due to any fault on the part of theworkman.

(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause

continuously worked. The opposites party has filed the details of1279 days work in respect of the worker Pankaj Kumar Tiwari the same is Paper No. C35 to C35/2 . This document goes to show that the worker has worked as per the details below:

S. No.

CalendarYear

No. ofdays

1) foc a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer- 1.

1987 (Sept. to Dec.)

1988

266

1989

202

1990

176

(a) for aperiod of one year , ifworkman, during a period of twelve calendar months proceeding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than

1991

193

1992

176

1993

168

(1) one hundred and ninety days in the case ofa workman employed below ground in amine; and

Total

1279

(ii) two hundred and forty days , in any other case;

This goes to show that the worker was nol continuously working for 240 days in every year as has been alleged by him in para 2 of the statement of the claim. This goes to show that contents of para 2 are not correct

(b) for a period of six months, if the workman , during a period of six calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made , has actually worked under the employer for not less than-

(1) ninety-five days , in the case ofworkman employed below ground in a mine; and

(1) one hundred and twenty days , in any other case .

The worker has filed the photocopy of a certificate paperNo. 24/1 wherein it has been certified by the manager ofthe banks that Shri Pankaj Kumar Tiwari is a daily wager . This certificate is dated 3-11-90 . The worker has admitted in his cross-examination that the said document paper No. 24/1 is curfew pass since the curfew was imposed. It is evident from the above chart that the worker has worked for18days inNovember, 90 therefore the document paper No. 24/1 is for limited purpose for allowing the police to permit the worker to come to the branch of UCO bank as he wasdailywager.

25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen. No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employa until-

Shri Ram JanamVishwakarma, senior manager ofthe bank has stated that the worker did work intermittently as daily wager and above chart shows that the worker did work intermittently and not continuously.

(a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, of the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice.

The senior manager of bank Sh. Vishwakarma bad denied that worker did not till December, 1994 continuously.

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalentto fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continous service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and

Section 25-F is material for the adjudication of the present case which lays down the condition for retrenchment and the same is reproduced below . The definition of continuous service is given in the Industrial DisputeAct both the sections are material in the present case and these are reproduced below:

24B. Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this chapter-

(e) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate government for such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in Official Gazatte.

The contention of the parties as regards the status of the workman , are therefore required to be considered in the light ofaforesaid backdrop.

(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness of authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal or a lock -out or a cessation

It is not a case where the worker has completed 240 days ofservice during the period of 12 months preceding 3453

भासा का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929,

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

the termination as contemplated under Section 25-F read with Section 25-B ofthe Industrial DisputeAct.

सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, चंदीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आईडी-27/1995 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को3-5-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[स्सं एल -42012/13/1994- आई आर ( एम) ]

एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 3rd May, 2007

The burden is on the workman to prove that he has completed240days of service during 12 months preceding his termination, but the worker has failed to discharge the said burden . His own version is therefore, not sufficientto come to the conclusion that he worked till the end of December,1994that too coutimsously. Casual claily work , thus, did not acquire any legal right to continue in the service.Theworker was not even entitled to the protection under Section25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act required tobe compliedwith before terminating his services , under hecompletes 240 days service with in a period of 12 months preceding the date of termination . Therefore, iny answer to the issue is that the worker has failed to prove the termination or illegality thereof .

8.O. 1561- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. I.D. 27/ 1995) of the Central Govemment Industrial Tribunal-com- Labour Court, Chandigach now as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Ware Housing Corp , and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 3-5-2007.

[No. L-42012/13/ 1994- IR(M) ] N. S. BORA, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT- 1, CHANDIGARH Case No. L.D. 27/1995

Sh . Nihal Singh, Vice President, Union of Central Ware Housing Corporation Employees, ConstructionsCell, SCO8-9, Sector17-A, Chandigarh Applicant Versus

1. ManagingDirector, Central WareHousing Corporation,4/1 , City Institutional Area, Houz Khas, New Delhi

Respondent APPEARANCES

For the Workman : Shri O. P. Batra Asirwani Kumar Workman

So far as the allegation of the workman with regard tobe absorption, there is no such issue referred for adjudication. It is true that there was a circular dated 19-10-89 for enrpanelling such casual workers who have completed 240 days work or more with or without interruption during the period of 3 years immediately proceeding the settlement, barring water boys . Worker's allegation is that he did apply within time and has filed the photo stat copy of his application that is paper No. 24/9. The opposite party has filed the photo stat copy of the workman, which is paper No. 26/8 from bare perusal of the application paper No. 26/8 appears to be the one of the worker and there is overwriting in the second line. There is nodate in the worker's own application 24/10 which filed by worker and no date on paper No. 26/8 . Application is defective as the detailed wise date of breakup of engagement in bank for 3 years immediately preceding 12-3-89 as envisaged in para 2 (a) of the settlement and also nature of the job performed is not mentioned . In the circumstances the bank has refuse to empanet the worker. There appears to be no illegality with regard to non- empanelling of the worker. Since this issue has not been referred for adjudication therefore, no detail finding are needed on this issue.

For the Management : Sh. PardeepSharma, Advocate with K. S. Jaryal and Ishwar Singh Junior Supdt.

AWARD

Passed on29-3-2007

On the discussion above, I come to the conclusion that theworker failed to proved that he was terminatedon 1-1-1995 andbe failed to proved that he worked for240 days continuously preceding 12 months from his alleged termination ie. 1-1-1995. Worker therefore, is not entitled toany relief.

Luckkrw 20-4-2007

Central Government vide notification No. L-42012/ 13/94/IRdated 10-4-1995 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, PresidingOfficer नईदिल्ली , 3 मई, 2007

"Whether the action of the management of Central Wharehousing Corporation in demanding camed leaveapplication from workman Shri Ashrwani Kimar WAG- II for the period from 23-6-93 to24-8-93 injust and fair? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled?"

का.. 1561 , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल वेयर हाऊसिंग कोंपरिशन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोगकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक स्विाद में केन्द्रीय 3454

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/TYAISTHA 5, 1929

[PART II Sac. 3( ii)]

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL, TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI

PRESENT

Justice Ghanshyam Dass, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO . NTB -02 OF 2003

MajorPorts

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of AND

Their Workmen

APPEARANCES:

Mr. M. B. Anchan, Adv.

For theManagement :

: Mrs. Nalini Rane , Chief Law Officer

For the Union

: Mr. J. Sawant, Adv,

State

: Maharashtra

Mumbai, datedthe 24th day ofApril 2007

AWARD

2.Case taken up today in Lok Adalat on the request ofboth the parties . Statement of the Workman and the management's advocate Shri Pardeep Sharma recorded today on29-3-2007 . The workman stated in his statement that the management has granted special leave as per rules toN. N. Despande , General Secretary. D. S. Pundir andDeo Sharma and one Shri S. P. Singh . I will separately apply ou the basis of the above decision and settlement of the management and request them also to regularize my period from23-6-93 to 24-8-93 for which the management has already paid me the salary. I may be allowed to withdraw maycase in Lok Adalat as settled subject to get it reopened in case the management did not take decision similarto the above employees referred above . The counsel for the management in his statement stated that I have read the above statenient. The management has no objection in withdrawing the above case in settlement. In case the management's decision which is long process does not follow the above referred decisions of the management in above four cases, the workman may be allowed to reopen his case. The workman may file his application within 15 days for the grant of special leave as in the above four cases for treating the period from 23-6-93 to 24-8-93 as special leave.The case may be reopened on the application ofeitherparty.

3. In view of the statement of both the parties , the present reference is settled in Lok Adalat . The reference is disposed offaccordingly. Central Govt . be informed. File be consigned to record,

This is a reference made by the Central Government underSection7-B of the Industrial Disputes Act in exercise of its powers conferredby Sub-section 1-A of Section10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act for short). VideGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour, NewDelhi , orderNo. L- 39011/6/2002 - IR ( M) dated August 4, 2003 . Theterms of reference are as follows:

Chandigarh!

29-3-2007

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 3 मई , 2007

का. अग्र. 1562,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की बारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मेजर पोर्ट्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक अधिकरण , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या एन टी बी-02/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-5-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Having regard to the settlement dated 8-2-1996 and the Memorandum of Settlement dated 8th October 2002, whether the Federations of Port and Dock Workers are justified in demanding that in view of the prevailing PLR/PLI Scheme for the workers employed in the service industries under Govemment control the PLR should continue to be paid to the Port and Dock Workers on the basis of combined average performance of all the Major Ports orwhether as demanded by the management, PLR shouldbe calculated and paid to workers on the basis of performance of the respective ports in which they are employed?

[सं. एल-39011 /6/2002- आई आर ( एम ) ] एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी

In either case, what should be the parameters and formulaeto be adopted?"

New Delhi , the 3rd May,2007

2.Thematter came up for hearing today. All the parties to the referencehave entered into a private settlement on 10-4-2007, a copy of which has been filed before this Tribunal on 17-4-2007. The learned counsel for the parties have stated before me that the reference may be disposed of accordingly since the parties have settled their grievances and reduced towriting the terms and conditions of the Settlement .

5.O. 1562- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.NTB- 02/2003) of theNational Industrial Tribunal , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of MajorPorts and their workmen, which was received by theCentral Government on 3-5-2007.

[No. L- 39011/ 6/2002- IR(M)]

3. In this view of the matter, the reference is accordingly disposed of.

N. S. BORA, DeskOfficer

JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS, Presiding Officer भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

[भाग II- खष्फ 3( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 3 मई , 2007

का.का. 156.3, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धाय 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार चित्रादुर्गा गोल्ड यूनिट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 14/2002) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-5-2007 को प्राप्त हुमा था।

[सं. एल-43012/ 16/2001- आई. आर. ( एम) ] एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 3nd May,2007

S.O. 1563- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 14/ 2002) of theCentral Government Industrial TribunalLabour Court Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Chitradurga Gold Unit and their workmen, which was received by the Central Clovernment on3-5-2007 .

3455 2. The first party workman in his claim statement challenged the enquiry proceedings, as opposed to the principles ofnatural justice, findings of the enquiry officer as perverse and the order dismissing him from service as unjust and illegal.

3.The managementby way of Counter Statement on the other hand contended that the proceedings of enquiry held against the first party were in accordance with the principles ofnatural justice, findings of the enquiry officer were based upon sufficient and legal evidence and that the order ofdismissal against the first party was just and legal .

4.Keeping in view the respective contentions ofthe parties, this tribunal on 11-1-2005 framed the following Preliminary issue:-

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

[No. L-43012/16/2001 -IR(M) ]

N.S. BORA, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUUM- LABOUR.COURT BANGALORE

Dated: 9thApril2007

PRESENT

Shri A. R. Siddiqui, Presiding Officer C. R. No. 14/2002

IParty

Party

Shri WaleBabu ,

5.The management examined MW1 on the said issue and thereupon the first party filed his affidavit by way of rebuttal evidence but on 27-12-2006 when the matter was takenup for his cross examination be remained absent and therefore, he was discharged and case came to be posted for arguments on DE . On 5-3-2007, learned counsel appearing for the first party filed memo as under:-

"It is respectfully submitted that the services of the first partywas dismissed w.e.f 21-5-2001.Aggrieved by the order ofdismissal , the first party raised an industrial dispute, which has been referred to this hon'ble tribunal for adjudication.

Itis submitted that in view ofthe prolonged litigation and uncertainty of outcome of the dispute and in view of the better prospective elsewhere, the first party is no longer interested in pursuing or prosecuting the above dispute. Hence, the first party respectfully prays that this tribunal be pleased to reject the reference as not pressed and withdrawn bythe firstparty.

TheDeputyGeneralManager

ChitradurgaGold Unit,

Chitradurga

Ex-Clark, ChitradurgaGold Unit, House No. CF B2, Hutti Gold Mines, Chitradurga CompanyLtd,Hutti.

AWARD

1.TheCentralGovernment by exerciring the powers conferred by clause (d) ofsub-section 2Aofthe Section10 ofthe IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute videorderNo. L-43012/ 16/2001 IR (M) dated 28th February 2002 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of ChitradurgaGold Unit in dismissing Shri WaleBabu from service justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitledto?"

2394G07-24

It is respectfully submitted that he will make an appropriate representation to the second party company for settlement of his dues in accordance with law in furtherance to the termination of his services w.e.f 21-5-2001.

It is submitted that the first party states that he has no claims whatsoever against the Second Party Management and he shall not raise any dispute regarding termination of his employment , reinstatement, back wages, or any other reliefs in furtherance to the termination order dated 21-5-2001.

It is further submitted that this memo for rejection of reference is on his own free will and voluntary and without any undue influence or coercion and after fully understanding the consequences of the rejection ofthis reference as not pressed ." 3456

[PART I-Sec. 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007 /TYAISTHA 5, 1929

Versus

TheAirportDirector,

Airport Authority of India, (International Airport Div.) 1.G. I.Airport, New Delhi- 110037. AWARD

6. Leaned Counsel Smt . Usha Rani for Shri NSR representing the management submitted that necessary ordersmaybe passed on the said memo. Therefore, keeping inview the aforesaid meio filed on behalfofthe first party under his signature through his counsel , it is made clear that the first party is not intendingto pursue and prosecute thepresent proceedings and that he wants the reference to be rejected as not pressed and withdrawn. Hence the following Award:-

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L- 11012/31/ 99-IR (M) Central Government Dt. 29-2-2000 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder:

Reference stands dismissed for non prosecution. The memo filed by the first party shall form the part of the Award.

A. R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 मई , 2007

"Whether the action of the management of Airport Authority of India (Cargo) , IGI Airport, New Delhi , in terminating the services of Shri Sarwan Lal S/o Shri Behari Lal , Sweeper w.c.f. 13-7-98 on the ground ofage of superannuation is legal and justified ? Ifnot, to what relief the workınan is entitled and from whichdate?"

Theworkman applicant has filed statement ofclaim. In the statement of claim it has been stated that the workman/claimant was working as a sweeper under a contractor of the above named Management w.e.f. 1-1-1981 .

का. आ. 1564. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का (4 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एयरपोर्ट अथोरिटीऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकानों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सेⅠ ] , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आईडी-37/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-5-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

That the workman /claimant was illiterate person except knowing to mark his signature on the paper.

[ सं. एल-11012/31/ 1999- आई. आर. ( एम ) ] एन. एस. बोरा, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 3rd May,2007

That the Claimant was laborious , sincere , honest and punctual ofhis duty. There was no complaint against him during the course of his employment with the above Management.

S.O. 1564.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Govemment hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. I. D. 37/2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No. II , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of Airport Authority of India and their worknten, which was received by the Central Government on3-5-2007.

[No. L- 11012/31/ 1999 -IR(M)) N. S. BORA, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

That the Claimant received a letter dated 17/23-4-1998 of the Management which was disried on dated 24-4-98 vide S.L. No. 3494 issued to Shri Saroon Lal wrong name mentioned then I objected to receive the above said letter and denied to mark his signatures on the some blank Papers by saying that his name is not Saroon Lal and his correct name is Serwan Lal @ Sarman Lal Sto Shri Behari Lal as per the E. S. I. Card . But to no avail, and forcibility get out from his working place on 13-7-1998 by beatingand slapping him and it was told by some Personnel Men that he is not allowed to resume his duty and his services were terminated .

BEFORE THE PRESIVING OFFICER ; CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT - IL , NEW DELHI PRESENT

R. N. Rai , PresidingOfficer L.D. No. 37/2000

That at the termination of his services the Management did not serve any Chargesheet, Warning Letter, Show Canse Letter /Notice and also did not give any reasonable opportunity to produce defence in writing or orally.

That at the time of illegal and unjustified termination of his services the Management did not give him any benefits under the provisions of Section 25( F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

That the above act of the Management violated the whole Labour Laws of the Land, which is also against the Natural Justice.

Inthe matter of:- Shri Sarwan Lal , S/o. Shri Behari , F-267, Suyog Vihar , NearMirthalaGao, UttamNagar, NewDelhi -110059.

3457 [भाग - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

That the Claimant is unemployed since the date of his illegal termination from services and is living with the help ofother family members , near relatives: and friends.

slappedorbeaten by any staff ofRespondent/Management. However it is submitted that as the petitioner was not regularized by the Respondent/ Management in view of the averments made in the foregoing paras of the present reply, the question of petitioner's resuming his duty did hot arise.

The Management has filed written statement. In the written statement it has been stated that the petitioner/ claimant were never employed by the respondents as ruch there is no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner/ claimants and the respondent as such the claim ofthe petitioner/claimant is not maintainable and as such the same is Hable to be dismissed.

It is submitted that in view of the averments made in the foregoing paras of present reply, the workers those whowere on the roll on 6-12-1996 through some contractor inthe field of sweeping , cleaning were to be regularized because of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court andwere not recruited, accordingly the AAI is not liable to serve any charge sheet as alleged by employee more so, the complainant was not a regular employee ofAAI , accordingly the question of serving the charge sheet, warning, show cause letter/notice did not arise.

It is submitted that in view of the averiments made in the foregoing paras, the petitioner was never aworkmen of orunder the employment ofRespondent/ Management and as such the petitioner was not entitled to any benefit from the Respondent/Management under the provisions of Sec.25(F) ofthe Industrial DisputesAct, 1947.

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

That the contents of para No. I of the statement of claim are wrong, false ind hence denied. It is submitted that the petitioner was never an employee of the respondent /management. It is further submitted that the petitionerwas engaged byEx-contractor M's Offices Care Serviceswhere the petitioner was working as Sweeper under the hereinbefore mentioned contractor in Cargo Terminal . It is further submitted that before the pronouncement of judgment in the matter ofAir India Statutory Corporation etc. Vs United Labour Unions etc. pronouncemeat by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 6-12-96, thejob ofcleaning the areas of Airport/respondent was given to the different contractors as per requirements and consecuent upon the hereinbefore mentioned judgment ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court, a process to regularize the services of those Ex- Contractor workers who were on rolls under various contractors with the Respondent/Management engaged in the field of sweeping, cleaning and dusting was taken up by the Respondent/Management i.c. A. A. I. (I. A. D.) , in conformityto the service rules,job specification etc. of the respondent/Management as applicable on 6-12-96.

It transpires from pecusal of the order sheet that several dates were given to the management for fling affidavit. The management failed to file affidavit. The opportunity of filling affidavit was closed on 20-3-2007 and the case was reserved for award.

It was submitted from the side of the workman applicant that his services have been illegally terminated on the grounds of age of superannuation. No chargeshoet was served on him and he has not been paid retrenchment compensation.

That in pursuance ofthe same a committee ofofficers was constituted by the Airport Director for interviewing/ scrutiny of documents such as Birth Certificate, Ration Card and aMedical Board was also constituted for medically examining the Ex-Contract workers where there was no proof of their suthenticity ofDate ofBirth and by physical appearance the concerned persons appeared older than age declaredby them in their respective affidavits,

That on scrutiny the respondent found that the petitioner had declared his age vide his affidavit dated 13-2-1997 as43 years .

That theMedical Board examined Shri SarwanLal on 26-11-1997and found/re-determined his age as60years .

The case of the management is that prior to the judgment in the matter of Air India Statutory Corporation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 6-12-1996, the job of sweeping and cleaning was given todifferent contractors as per the requirement. Aprocess of regularization ofthe service of ex-contractors workers who wee on the rolls under various contractors with the respondent/ management engaged in the field of sweeping and cleaning was taken up by the mifinagement in conformityto the services rules .

That as per rules of respondent the superannuation age as on 6-12-1996 was 58 years and whereas the age of the petitionerwas more than 58 years as on 15-12-1996and as such his services have been discontinued.

It is submitted that as the petitioner was never in the employment of the respondent/ management, the question ofany complaint against the petitioner did not arise.

It is denied that the respondent/Management ever asked the petitioner to sign anyblank paper or he was ever

The further case of the management is that a committee was constituted for scrutinizing the documents such as birth certificate cards.The Medical Board was also constituted to medically examine ex -contractors workers for verifying the authenticity of date ofbirth. The Medical Board declared the age of the petitioner as 60 years on 3458

PART I-SBC. 3 (i ) )

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/JYAISTHA 5. 1929

26-11-1997 whereas in his declaration the workman has mentioned his date as 43 years. As per the rules of the reapondents the age of superannuation is 58 years and the workman was fit for superannuation on 6-12-1996 itself. He was found above 60 years of age so his service was dis- continued!

The further case of the management is that the workman was engaged through contractors as has been admitted in the claim statement so there is no question of payment of retrenchment compensation to the workman before termination of his services .

The workman has filed affidavit and he has filed one certificate of 20-3-1999 . The Doctor declared him above 50years .TheDoctor had not certified the approximate age of the workman . As such the certificate issued by the Doctorof the respondents holding the age of the workman 60 years on 26-11-1997 is a valid certificate.The certificate filedbythe workman is not admissible in evidence as it is photocopy and the certificate does not mention the approximate age of the workman . The certificate filedby theworkman isphotocopy and is vague . It cannot be relied ироп. !

The workman was more than 58 years of age on 6-12-1996 the date of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court . He was superannuated as per the rules of the management. So his case was not fit for regularization .His serviceshave been legally terminated by the management. He is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for .

The reference is replied thus

The action of the management of Airport Authority ofIndia(Cargo) , IGI Airport, New Delhi , in terminating the services of Shri Sarwan Lal S /o Shri Behari Lal , Sweeper w.e.f. 13-1-98 on the ground of age of superannuation is legal and justified . The workman applicant is no entitled to get anyrelief as prayed for.

The award is given accordingly.

Date:17-4-2007

R. N. RAJ , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 4 मई , 2007

का.आ. 1565.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक आफ ट्रावणकोर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , चैन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 86/1985 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-5-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -12011/20/85-डी- II ( I)/आई आर ( बी 1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the4th May, 2007

S.O. 1565. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1.D. 86/ 1985) of the Industrial Tribunal , Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of Travancore and their workmen, which was receivedby the Central Government on 4-5-2007 .

[No. L- 12011/20/85-D- II (1)/IR(B1 , AJAY KUMAR, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, TAMILNADU , CHENNAI-600104 Thursday, the 29th day of March, 2007 PRESENT:

Thíru M.Venugopal, B.A. , M.L. , Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal , Tamilnadu

Industrial Dispute No. 86 of 1985 [In the matter ofdispute for adjudication under Sec. 10( 1 ) ( d) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 between the Workmen and the Management of State Bank of Travancore. ] Between

The Workmen representedby:

ThePresident,

StateBank ofTravancore Punch Operators Association, C/ o . Shri K. Chandrasekharan Nair, Advocate, Vanchiyoor , Trivandrum.

And

1. StateBank of Travancore , rep.by its Managing Director, HeadOffice, Poojappura, Trivandrum.

2. DataSoftware Research Company Ltd. , rep. by its Managing Director, 22, Marshall Road, Egmore, Madras -8.

Reference : Order No. L- 12011 / (20)/85-D - II ( 1 ) dated 3-12-1985 Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, NewDelhi .

After remand, this Industrial Dispute coming on for final hearing on Thursday , the 15th day of March, 2007 upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statements and all other material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, Advocate for M/s . Row& Reddy, appearing for the Petitioner Union and Thiru S.Jayaraman, Advocate appearing for the Respondent No.land Thiru T.H.A. Lamech , appearing for the Respondent No. 2 in this Industrial Dispute, and this dispute having stood over till this day for consideration , this tribunal made the following:

AWARD

TheGovernment of India have referred the following issue for adjudication by this Tribunal :

3459 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

(a) Whether the closure of Contractors' establishment dealing with electronic data processing attached to State Bank of Travancore, Trivandrum with effect from 27-9-84 was legal and justified? If not to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled?

(b) Whether the State Bank of Travancore Punch Operators Association isjustified in demanding continued employment either under contractors engaged by State Bank of Travancore or under StateBank of Travancore directly in electronic data processing work? If justified to what relief the workmen are entitled?

2. The averments of the Claim Statenient filed by the Petitioner are as follows:

The petitioner Union is a registered one under the TradeUnionsAct at Trivandrum with Registration No.385 of 1981. The Punch Operators doing the electronic data processing work alone pertaining to the State Bank of Travancore, Trivandrum the first responklent herein are the members of the Petitioner Union .

the matters in dispute with the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Trivandrum . It appears that the first respondent bank did not reliska the idea of the petitioner association sponsoring the cause of the Punch Operators. Theywere really apprehensive that the device in employing these punch operators wonid get exposed at some point of time and the punch operators would claim that they are the employees of the first respondent Bank. Therefore , on 8-3-84, the data processing section in the first respondent Bankwas closed, and no reasons were assigned. The entire lot ofworkers who had been contimously attending to the dataprocessingwork for more than 7 years were suddenly thrown out of the employment . This caused so much of hardship to the poor workers that they were forced to offer peaceful satyagraha before the Head Office of the State Bank of Travancore . The District Labour Officer, Trivandrum was good enough to call the parties for conciliation . The Respondent did not choose to attend the conciliation on the plea that the District Labour Officer had no jurisdiction in such matters because according to the Respondent, the Central Government is the appropriate Governmentto deal with the dispute relating to Banks . Therefore, the petitioner association had to naturally turu tothe Asstt . Labour Commissioner ( Central ) Trivandrum andhe got seized of the matter.

3. The First Respondent Bank is a subsidary of State Bank of India. It is one of the Nationalised Banks . The Bank started electronic date processing wade in Feb. 1977 and this was being carried on at the Head Office at Poojappura, Trivandrum. From the inception, 47 workers whose names are given in the annexure to the claim statement were attending this work. This work was an integral part of the Bank's business . The work consisted in preparing a consolidated statement of all the inter branch transactions .

6. On 28-7-84, a settlement was reached between thePetitionerAssociation and he second Respondent . The 2nd Respondent was represented by so called sub- contractors M/ s . Gemini Chrome Chemicals Private Lid . As per the above settlement the workers resumed work from 29-7-84. Though the first respondent was the real employer, they chose to remain in the background and central the entire proceedings on behalf to be so called employer. Releasing that is the data processing section continues to remain in the Head Office, the workman cam claim that they are the employee of the bank, the first respondent with mala fide intention shifted the data processing section to building at Vellayambalam. There was enough space in the Head Office itself for the data processingwork to be carried on. But, for obvious reasons, they shifted it to put up a pretence that the Bank had nothing to do with the Data processing Section and that the employees were not their employees.

4. Originally, the first respondent banik entrusted the work of data processing to Tata consultants from 1977 to 1979. Theybrought the data processing machine in the HeadOffice building and the work has done by the persons mentioned in the annexure to the claim statement. Their work was being controlled by the first respondent bank . After 1979, the data processing work was entrusted to the second respondent viz. A.V.T. Software Research Co. Ltd. who in turn sub-contracted it to a number of concerns from time to time andgot this work done through the 47 workmen. One of the important feature that has to be mentionedat this stage is that even though the so called contractors or sub-contractors changed from time to time, the workmen remain constant. The workmen did not change with the change of contractors . This shows that the so called contract system was merely a camouflage. They were really employedby the 1st respondent bank through the so called contractors in order to avoid the legal obligations like giving the benefits that are tobe paid toBank employees under the various Bi- partite settlements .

5. The Petitioner Association use to take up the case ofthese punch operators with the first respondent as well as with the 2nd Respondent. As the respondents used to bevery evasive, the petitioner association used to take up

7.Justbefore the Onam Festival in August , 1984 , a dispute arose between the Petitioner association and the Respondents regarding the percentage ofbonus that was tobe paid to the punch operators involved in this dispute . This was brought to the notice of the Asstt . Labour Commissioner(Central) by the Petitioner Association's letter dated 28-8-84. The Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central) by notice dt.31-8-84 was good enoughto convenc a conciliation meeting on 5-9-84 and other days . Inspite of repeated notices the Respondent conveniently chose to remain absent in the conciliation . The workmen were even prepared to receive the minimum bonus subjectto the matter [PART 11-Sec . 3( ii ) ] 3460

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26, 2007 /JYAISTHA 5, 1929

being decided according to the bonus Act . Even this , the Respondent did not pay nor did they bother to appcar before the conciliation officer . The Conciliation officer sent his failurereport on 12-2-85. Surprisingly , on 27-9-84 when the workmen reported for work , the premises at Vellayambalam, was locked . Eversince then , these workmen have not been provided with employment. Since the workmen were unjustly denied employment they conducted apeaceful agitation in front of the Head Office Building of the First respondent Bank . They also raised a dispute before the Asstt . Labour Commissioner ( Central ) Trivandrum. By notice dated 15-11-84 and 14-1-85 parties were invited for conciliation talks . The first Respondent bankappearedbefore the Conciliation officer and contended that the pinch operators in question were employed by the contractor and not by them, and therefore they were nothing todo with the dispute . The 2nd Respondent , the alleged contractor did not even choose to appear . Under these circumstances, conciliation proceedings failed and theconciliation officer submitted his failure report on 12-2- 85to the Cental Govemment . The Government did not for a long time pass any orders on that report .

8. In the meantime , on 19-10-84 Gemini Chrome Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., claiming to be the employer sent a notice purported to be under Section 25 (FFF ) of the J. D. Act , stating that they have decided to close down the undertaking at Vellyambalam with effect from 22-10-84 . They sent some compensation and notice pay to be employees. The workman represented by the Petitioner Association refused to receive the compensation, as according to them the lock but was illegal and unjust and they are entitled to theirjobs

it appear that they were getting it done through the contractors . They were originally working in the premises of the first Respondent bank itself at Poojappura , Trivandram . Late for certain obvious purposes , it was transferred to Vellayambalam . The officers of the First respondent Bank were controlling these workmen. The benefit of the efforts of these workmen were to the first respondent bank . The so -called contract system viz. asking A.V.T. Software Research Co. Ltd. , to undertake this work is merely a force to . If this contract system was a genuine one, then in that case , every time a contractors was changed, he would have brought his complement of workmen. Strangely in this case , as already stated the workmen continued to remain the same even though the contractors kept changing . The Petitioner submits that though the salary was paid through the hand of the 2nd Respondent, it was really the first Respondent bank that was the employer . The petitioner submits that these workinen were really the employees of the first Respondent bank. Merely because they demanded bonus the form a union, their services have been dispensed with. It is a clear case of victimization . Therefore , it is prayed that this Tribunal may be pleased to hold that the Petitioner/ workmen are really employees of the first respondent bank and there was no justification to deny them employment after 27-9-84 and to get the same work done at Madras through the Second respondent , by sending these documents through lorries . Therefore , on issue No. 2, the Petitioners pray that this Tribunal may be pleased to pass an award holding that the State Bank of Travancore viz . the first Respondent was not justified in denying the 47 workmen employment from 27-9-84 or at any rate may be pleasedto hold that since the Punch operators have been working for more than 7 years doing the data processing work exclusively relating to the first Respondent Bank, the first respondent Bank has got to employ them. It is therefore, prayed that this Tribunal on Issue No. 2 may be pleased to pass an award holding that the workmen are entitled to employment with first respondent bank to do electronic data processing work together with backwages and other benefits .

9. Since the Government did not pass any orders on the Conciliation failure report dt. 12-2-85, the Petitioner Association was forced to file a Writ Petition in the Kerala HighCourt inO.P. No. 9473 of 1985. Mr. Justice Sivaraman Nair of the Kerala High Court by a Judgement di . 15-10-85 directed theGovernment to pass orders on the Conciliation failure report . It is only thereafter that the Central Govement decided to refer the above mentioned two issued for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal , Madras , as Central Government tribunal by an Orderdt.3-12-85.

11. The Petitioner submits that to their knowledge, the firstRespondent bank had not followed the provisions ofthe Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition ) Act, 1970. They have not got this work done through the licencess mentioned under Sec . 12 of the said Act . The First Respondent Bank had been convicted and sentenced to pay a fine by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Trivandrum in S.T. Case No. 69 of 1984 for not adhering to the provisions of the said Act. Therefore the Petitioner submits that on the basis of the Judgement of the Madras High Court in Beast & Crompton case, the workmen are entitled to contend that in any event they are the employees of the first respondent bank. It is not ореп to the first Respondent Bank to contend that they werc : 10. The Petitioner Association submit that after locking out the Workmen on 27-9-84, the first respondent is getting the same data processing work done by same other clandestine means . They are sending by lorry to Madras the inter branch transactions to the Second respondent and getting these documents processed there. For exaniple the petitioner association understand that on 29-10-85 they sent one such letter No. Acts/ 17/ a/8808 de 29-10-1985 toCaravan Books carriers Pvt. Ltd. Trivandrum. Therefore, in substance , the work is going on . The work of data processing of inter branch transactions is an integral part of the working of the Bank . The 47 workmen were daing this though the First Respondent was trying to make 3461 [ भाग - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

t employed through contractors since they have not adhered to the provisions of that Act. Without prejudice to the above contention , in the event of this Tribunal holding that these workmen were not employed by the first respondent bank by the Second Respondent, it is prayed that this Tribunal may be pleased to hold that there was no justification at all for the Second Respondent denying these workmen employment from 27-9-84 or at any rate after 22-10-84.It will be evident from a parcel way bill dt. 29-10-85 addressed to Mis . Caravan Goods Carriers Pvt . Ltd. Trivandrum that the first Respondent has been sending all the documents relating to inter branch transactions to the second respondent and getting it done at Madras. This was the very work which these workmen were doing for more than 7 years . If the work is there , there is no justification to deny these workmen employment.

12. The petitioner submits that the non-employment alter 17-9-84 was not on account of any cllosure of the cstablishment. It was really in the nature of lock out . These workmen were locked out merely because they had raised a demand for bonus on 3 eve of Onam during August, 1984 and had formed themselves into a trade union. These workmen were deprived of employment merely because they formed a union and agitated for the improvement of their service conditions. This would amount to unfair labour practice according to Section 25(T) of the I.D. Act. item 1 (b) and No. 6 of the V Schedule to the I.D. Act, introduced by Amendment Act 46 of 1982. It came into force from August 21 , 1984. The petitioner submits that the Respondent Bank have terminated the services of these employees , when conciliation proceedings were pending regarding bonus . Hence their action is contrary to Section 33 of the 1.D. Act .

13. The petitioner submits that since the workmen were really employed by the furst Respondent bank , the question of closure of the contractor establishment does not arise as per issue No. 1. Further, what happened on 27-9-84 was really a lock out . It is an unfair labour practice to lock out workmen merely because they demanded bonus and forined themselves into a trade union. Without prejudice to the contention- in para 14 in the event of this Tribunal holds that these workmen were not the workmen of the first respondent bank , it is prayed that this Tribunal may be pleased to hold that the non- employment by the Contractor is not justified as the work is continuing and it isa clear case of victimisation and the workmika are entitled to be provided with the job atleast by the Second Respondent contractor and award backwages and other benefits from the date of their non - employment and an award is prayed for accordingly.

Company's establishment software ie . M/s . Data Software Research Co. Ltd. ( fomerly known as A. V. Thomas Software Research Co. Ltd. ) or their sub-contractors for employment directly under State Bank of Travancore in Electronicdata processingwork. Admittedly the State Bank of Travancore is not carrying on any electronic data processing work. The State Bank of Travancore does not also have any equipment or facilities to do electronic data processing work. Electronic data processing work is done by Data Software Research Co. Ltd. which has entered into an agreement with State Bank of Travancore for rendering computer services . The said company which had entered into the agreement or its agents had selected and appointed its own workmen for its own business . Such workmen were supervised, controlled and their wages and benefits were directly paidby the company or its agent or officers . The 'Punch Operators ' work of punching cards is only part of the preliminary work of data processing. The essential and major part of the electronic data processing work is done on the computer machines by other employees or workmen ofthe Data Software Research Co. Ltd. The demand of the union is that the workmen as employed by the said company must be appointed in the service of and taken into its employment by the State Bank of Travancore after abolishing the system ofentering into agreement or contract for obtaining computer services from the said company. It is submitted that the said demand of the union and the second issue referred by the Government for adjudication are really demand for abolition of Contract system of employment. Abolition of contract system if employment is a matter governed by the Contract Labour (Regulation& Abolition) Act, 1970. Any dispute regarding abolition or regulation ofcontract labour directly or indirectly can only be done in accordance with the provisions of the said Act andby the authorities constituted under that Act. By reason of the said special enactment governing the matter and creation of special authorities under the said Act for the purpose, the authorities under the Industrial DisputesAct ceased to have any jurisdiction or authority to deal with anydispute or matter concerning or relatingto or amounting to regulation or abolition of contract labour. This is well settledby the decisions of Supreme Court and other Courts. It is submitted that the order of reference purporting to refer the aforementioned 2nd issue for adjudication to this Tribunal by the Government of India is incompetent and invalid. The said reference is ultra vires and beyond the authorityofthe Government under the Industrial Disputes Act in as much as the matters so referred for adjudication contained in the second issue falls outside the scope and purview of the I.D. Act . Therefore this Tribunal cannot entertain or adjudicate the matter under the Second issue andaccordinglythe matter has to be dropped or rejected bythisTribunal .

14. The averments of the Counter Statement filed by the First Respondent are as follows:

The second issue is in effect and substance a demand made by the workmen of the Contractor-

15. Without prejudice to the above objections this Respondent submit that the reference of the above dispute against this respondent is, in any event, without jurisdiction and without the authority of law. There is no employer- PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 3462

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26 , 2007 / JYAISTHA 5, 1929

Research Co. Ltd. and the said company, there cannot be any industrial dispute between such workmen of another establishment or employer and state Bank of Travancore . Itis submitted that the workmen of State Bank of Travancore or their union have not raised any Industrial Dispute any time in respect of matters specified in the above dispute. Since the so-called dispute is one between the workmen of Data Software Research Co. Ltd. and the said company, there cannot be any Industrial dispute between such workmen of another establishment or employer and State Bank of Travancore . The union cannot also raise any contention contrary to the icrms of reference which are binding on them. It is therefore submitted that there is no industrial dispute which can be adjudicated by this Tribunal as against the State bank of Travancore and therefore the alleged dispute referred for adjudication purporting to be against the State Bank of Travancore is Non-existent and incompetent.

16. Without prejudice to the above contentions it is submitted that in any event demands made by the union aredevoid of any substance or basis as against the State Bank ofTravancore . Admittedly, the members of the said union were all selected , appointed and employed and their services were terminated by their employer namely Data Software Research Co. Ltd. , or their agents or sub- contractors . The demand and the issue regarding employment directly in electronic data processing work under State Bank of Travancore is totally unwarranted and unjustified. The State Bank of Travancore does not have any electronic data processing equipments or computer whereinemployment can be provided to any such persons. Itis preposterous and most untenable for any person or union to raise demands to provide employment in jobs or work which do not exist in an establishment. Even apart from the legality and validity of the the demand in the absence of the essential existence of the means of employment in an establishment demand for employment istotally unsustainable . Further , there is no electronic data processing work in State Bank of Travancore . The work of inter-branch and inter -bank reconciliation is done manually by the clerical staff of the bank. Only when there is accumulated arrears or surplus work, it is not done by computer services . Such electronic data processing work is not part of the work of the bank nor is it incidental or necessary and such work is not done by the regular workmen of the bank . Such electronic data processing work isnot of sufficient duration . It is therefore submitted that in any event the said issue has to be answered by holding that there is no basis or justification for the demand for employment under the State Bank of Travancore made by the Union for the Punch Operators or contractors.

employee relationship between the workmen of Data SoftwareResearch Co. Ltd. cor any other company and the State Bank ofTravancore . None of the workmen of the said Data Software Research Co. Ltd. or other company or concern was employed by the State Bank of Travancore at any time in their service . Admittedly, they were all appointed andd'employed by some other company or conceru by State Bank of Travancore . Their wages were paid by their employer company and not by State Bank of Travancore . Theirwork was controlled and supervised by that company and their officers . There was absolutely no manner of supervision or control by the State Bank of Travancore overany of the said employees or workmen or their work at any time . The State Bank of Travancore had no manner of control, supervision , power of appointment or disciplinary powers in respect of the employees of the company which had undertaken under an agreement to render computer services.The electronic equipments or computer gadgets like punching machines and computer by means of which the electronic data processing was being done belong to thecompany concerned and not to the bank. The punch cards on which the punching is done by the punch operators also belong to that company. The stationery items required for the work of punch operators and others in respectofthe Computer services are all provided by the Company and not by the Bank . The State bank of Travancore dose not have any computer or any punching machine. The State Bank of Travancore has not at any time employed any punch operators . The State Bank of Travancore does not have any computer or punching machine for providing such employment. In the absence of anyemployer- employee relationship between the members of the union, mauthorisedly styled themselves as the ' State Bank of Travancore Punch operators Association ' there cannot be any industrial dispute raised by such persons against the State bank of Travancore . The union in this disputehad placed demands and raised Industrial Dispute onbehalf ofthe workmen involved in the dispute with their employers Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd. the assets of the contractors and a conciliation settlement was signed under Section 12 (3 ) of the I.D. Act, in the conciliation proceedings initiated by the Asstt . Labour Commissioner (Central) . This settlement is binding and conclusive on the union and all the workmen and their employer and therefore it is not permissible for the union to raise the claims and contention against the State Bank of Travancore inany manner . Several other proceedings were also there between the union and the employer earlier. The alleged dispute is therefore not an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act , since the persons concerned are not workmen of State Bank of Travancore . It is submitted that the workmen of State bank of Travancore or their union havenot raised any industrial dispute at any time in respect of matters specified in the above dispute . Since the so-

17. M/s . Data Software Research Co. Ltd. or their agents have closed down their establishment at Trivandrum. Admittedly they had also offered the closure calleddispute in one between the workmen of Data Software 3463

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

compensation and all dues payable to their workmen consequent upon the closure of their establistament . It is reported that their workmen have refused to accept the compensation offered to them . Whatever claims and disputes the workmen of Data Software ResearchCo. Ltd. have, must be taken up and dealt with between the said company and their workmen. The StateBank of Travancore is not in anymanner concemed or involved in such matters. The workmen of 2nd Respondent Company or any of the contractor companies can have no manner ofclaim against theStateBank ofTravancore . The State Bank ofTravancore is not in any way liable or responsible for any of the claims and contentions advanced by the Union.

18. The several statements and allegations raised by the Union in their claim statement are denied by the StateBank ofTravancore . The name adopted by the union itself is deceptive and unauthorised . The punch operators or persons employed by Data Software Research Co. Ltd. ortheir predecessors are not employees of State Bank of Travancoreand it is quite unauthorised for them to assume the name and style of ' State Bank of Travancore' in their Union . The statement that the punch operators are doing the electronicprocessing work alone pertaining to the Stale BankofTranvancore is without any substance or relevance.

part of the Bank's business is denied as without any substance . As already submitted the State Bank of Tranvancore does not have any electronic machines or equipments or computers to do the electronic data processingwork or punch operating machines to carry out the work that was being done by the members of the Union. The State Bank of Travancore does not have any such facilities also to carry out such work. Further there is noofficer employed in the bank who is acquainted with electronic data processing workto supervise , control or manage such work. It is impossible for the State Bank of Travancore in the absence of any qualified or competent officers acquainted with the work to supervise, control guide or manage any work that was being done by the PunchOperators employed by different companies . The Statement in para 4 that originally the Bank entrusted the work of data processing to Tata Consultancy Services and the work was done by the persons given in the Annexure is not true. As already submitted M/s. Tata Consultancy Services were employing only about 14 persons for the time being and they have never employed 47 persons whose names are entered in the Annexure . The statement that their work was being controlled by the Respondent bank is totally baseless. There was no need or requirement for the StateBank ofTravancore to control the work carried on by the workmen like Punch Operators of the contractor concerns. There was no officer or employee in this bank who was acquainted with or qualified to supervise or control the work done by the Punch Operators. The statement that one important feature that has got to be mentioned at this stage was that even though the so- called contractors or sub-contractors changed from time totime the workmen remain constant is baseless addevoid ofany substance . The quantum of reconciliation work available from the earlier period and from time tot time was varying and it was never a constant quantum requiring employment of a fixed number of workmen as alleged by the Union . The statement that the so-called contractors or sub-contractors in the so -called contract system was merely a comouflage is only a baseless allegation to justify the baselessdemands made by the Union against the StateBank ofTravancore. There was no question of any so called contractor or so- called contract system adopted by this Bank.The contractor agreement for the computer service for reconciliation work was real valid and legal and was entered into after inviting tenders from reputed firms in the field and after considering the competitive tenders from differentconcems and accepting the lowest tender and entrust the task to that particular company whose tender was accepted. It cannot therefore be denied that there was valid and proper contract between the Bank and different companies or concems from timeto time for the computer services. The statement that the punch operators were really employed by the respondent bank through the so-called contractors in order to avoid the legal obligations like the benefits that are to be paid the Bank's employees under the various bi partite agreements is totally baseless and malicious. As already submitted it 19. The First Respondent is a subsidiary bank of the State Bank of India, constituted under the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks Act 1959. ) There wa accumulation of Inter branch and inter -bank reconciliation ofaccounts during the past years . Since the staff of the bank could not clear of the accumulated arrears manually it was decided to entrust such work of inter- brauch and inter-bank reconciliation of accounts to companies or concerns rendering computer services . Initially, M/s . Tata Consultancy Services were entrusted with the computer services for a specific period . Thereafter the excess accumulated work was being done by computer services offand on. Such computer services were given on a contract basis after inviting.tenders from different competing concerns . TheBank was to pay at a fixed rate forwhatever computer service carried out in accordance with the terms of the agreement between the parties . The equipments or machines like punch operating machines and computer machines etc. as well as the stationery and other materials required for the computer service were all to be provided by the computer concern whose tender was accepted. The State Bank of Travancore did not have any of those equipments ormachines . The statement of the Union that from the inception 47 workers whose names are given in theAnnexure were attending to the work is totally baseless and incorrect . When M/ s . Tata Consultancy Services had undertaken the computer services they were employing upto about 14persons only. At that time the reconciliation work available was also for less than what was available subsequently. The statement that this work is an integral

2394G107-25 3464

[PART II-SBC.3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY26, 2007 /JYAISTHA 5, 1929

isimpossibile for the Bank to do the computer services . The reconciliation work can be done by the staff of the bank manually. Therefore there is absolutely no basis in the allegation made by the Union that the so-called contractors were employed to avoid the legal obligations likegiving benefit that are to be paid to bank employees .

employment of the Respondent. Bank the Union resorted tounlawful agitation and abstruction before the Respondent Bank for considerable time. There was nojustification for them to resort to nay agitation against the Respondent Bank. The petitioner and its members having signed a binding settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act with M/s. Gemni Chrome Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. as the agents or sub-contractors of Data Software Research Co. Ltd. cannot now dispute the payment of compensation given to them bythe said employer . Therefore the contentions in para 12 aredeviod ofany substance . M/s . Gemni Chrome Chemicals Pvt.Ltd.towhom Data Software Research Co. Ltd. appears tohave entrusted the work are paying the wages and other benefits to the workers . Therefore consequent upon the closingdown oftheir establishment they were liable to pay the closure compensation and which they had admittedly paidbut have not been accepted by their workinen.

20. The allegations in para 5 are denied. The Union has been making unfait and malafide attempt to force the workman of other companies on the Respondent-Bank . The allegation that ou 8-3-1984 the Data Processing Section in the 1st Respondent Bank was closed and no reasons were assigned and the entire workman who were attending to the data processing work were suddenly thrown out of employment is totally baseless. For whatever decision or actions taken by the computer companies the Respondent bank is not in any manner responsible .The saidallegations are made only to justify the attempt of the Punch Operators of the Computer companies to force themselves upon the Respondent Bank and secure employment in the Respondent Bank.

21. The Union has admitted that on 28-7-1984 they had arrived at a settlementbetween themselves and the 2nd respondent company or their agent. The said settlement arrived at under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act conclusively and categorically establishes the actual employer-employee relationship between the Punch Operators and their employer . In the face of the said settlement it is not permissible for the Union to raise the several baseless and untenable contentions made in the claim statement against the Bank. The said settlement having been arrived at under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act isbinding on the Union and all its members who are claiming to be Punch Operators. It is therefore submitted that the several claims and demands made by theUnionjin the claim statement against the State Bank of Travancore are liable to be rejected as unsustainable and devoid of any merit by force and virtue of the said settlement admittedly signed by the Union and the employer of their workmen . The allegations and contentions contained in paras 8 and 9 are without any substance or relevance.The said allegations made against the Bank are devoid of anybonafides.

23. Regarding the averments in para 13 this Respondent had no notice of the writ petition filed in the High Court of Kerala and the Judgment stated to have beenpassed thereon . The allegation in para 14 is denied as totally unwarranted and baseless . The Respondent has not locked out any of its workmen at any time. There is no question of this Respondent locking out the workmen of other companies or concerns . The Data Software Research Co. Ltd. is continuing to render the computer service. The allegation that work of data processing of inter branch transaction is an integral part of the working ofthe bank is not true and is denied . The work of inter branch reconciliation is being done by the Bank's staff manually. There is no facility or equipment for the Bank's staff todo such work by means or data processing or by similar devices. Therefore it is bascless to say that Data processing work is an integral part of the working of the bank . Further statement that 47 workmen were doing this is also baseless and is denied . The performance of computer servicejobs by the contractor whether it is done in the Bank's premises orelsewhere is totally irrelevant. The statement that officers of the 1st Respondent Bank were controlling those workmen is absolutely baseless and false . It was entirely thework and responsibility of the contractor company to get the service carried out and done by them. There was no question of any control or supervision to be exercisedby the bank. There was no employee or officer of the bank acquainted with or qualified in the electronic data processing or computer operation to control the workman or their work in any manner. It is equally untenable to say that the benefits of the efforts of the workmen were to the 1st Respondent Bank . The benefits of the efforts of the workmen were to their employer company and not to be Bank. The allegation that the so- called contract system namely askingA. V. Thomas Software Research Company to undertake this work is merely is farce is baseless and untenableone. Whether any particulars contractor had changed the workmen or some workmen employed by the former 22.The statement in para 9 that just before the Onam festival a dispute arose between the petitioner association and this Respondent regarding the percentage of bonus is false.No such dispute could arise or had arisen at any time between the Union and the State Bank of Travancore . Payment ofbonus or percentage of bonus was a matter to besettled between the Punch Operators and their employer. The Data Software Research Co. Ltd. or their sub- contractors . Therefore the matters referred to in paras 9 and 10 regarding the closure of the establishment are all matter concerning Data Software Research Co. Ltd. and their workmen and not concerning the Respondent-bank. With the malafide intention of forcing themselves into the 3465

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 26, 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

[ भाग II- खष्ठ 3 (ii) ]

Labour operators were not hired contract labour (Regulation & Abolition ) Act becoming applicable . Howeverthe Respondent bank had also complied with the requirements of the saidAct.

The attempt of the Petitioner is to make out a case accordingto thejudgement ofthe High Court ofMadras in the case relating to Best and Crompton Lid. The facts of the said case are totally inapplicable to the case of the Petitioner union. The said case is not applicable in any manner to the Respondent bank . The petitioner union is the scck its remedies and reliefs against the employer of thePunch operators namely Data Software ResearchCo. Lal, or their Sub-contractors . The workmen are not entitled toany claim against the Respondent Bank in any manner. It istherefore prayed that an award may be passed scoopting the contentions of the RespondentBank.

25.The averments of the Counter statement filed by the Second respondent are as follows:-

At the outset, this Respondent states that the claim statement is bad for both non-joinder and mis -joinder .The respondent staics that the name of the Company formerly known as A.V. Thomas Software Research Co. Ltd. was changedto Data Software Research Co. Ltd. and as such, as on date there is no entity known as A.V. Thomas Research Co. Ltd.

26. This Respondent is not a necessary or proper party in these proceedings since none of the workers detailed in the Annexure to the claim petition were employed by them at any time and in fact it is borne-out by records that the saidworkers were admittedly employees ofMis . Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd. The successors -in- interest ofDATASERV. This respondent should not have been impleaded as a party and that M/s . Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd. are a necessary party to these proceedings.

contractor was re-employed by the subsequent contractor are all matters which do not concem the Respondent bank in any manner . At any rate the allegation of the union that the47 workmen continues though right from the inception ofthe Tata Consultncy is totally baseless and false. On the very fact the quantum of work of reconciliation varied from time to time the contention of the Union is deviod of any substance. The statement that "though the salary was paid through the hand ofthe 1st Respondent it was really the Respondent-bank that was the employer " is a malicious and baseless allegation to support the false claims naade by the Union against the respondent bank. The statemeni that the workmen were really the employees of the Respondent Bank and merely because they demanded bonus and formed a union their services have been dispensed with are all false and baseless allegations . As already submitted the Respondent bank had at no time employed any such workmen. No wawages or benefits were paid by the respondent bank at any time to any such workmen directly or indirectly. There was absolutely no employer-employee relationship between the said persons and the Respondent - Bank. Appointment in the service of the Respondent bank is done according to the rules and notifications issued by the Government of India. The Respondent bank can camploy or appoint any employee only through the Banking Service Recruitraent Board constitutedby the Govemment of India . The respondent bank has no power or authority to employ any ресвои other than those who are selected and recruited by the said statutoryBoard. The prayer to hold that the petitioner workmen are really employees of the Respondent Bank and there was no justification to deny them employment and to get the same work done at Madras are totally unsustainable . There is no basis for this Tribunal to accept the prayer made by the union . The claim that the Respondent Bank was not justified in denying 47 workmen employment after 27-9-1984 is baseless and contradictory to even the admitted facts, the order of reference and the binding conciliation settlement signed by theimion ofthe workinen and their employer . The claim that the respondent bankhas to employ the punch operator is most untenable.

27.This respondent submits that the claim statement is vague and contradictory in mature , in that it is not clear fromthe claim statement, whose employees the Petitioners claimto be. The claim petition proceeds on the basis that the workers are employees of the lat respondent, with a vague reference toMis. Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd as the employers and then, in the ultimate paragraph, there is adesperate attempt to fasten liability on that Reapondent, ifthey are held not to be employees of the other alleged employers. The respondent submits that the petitioners have to determine and specify whom they claim as their employers, since this position is not clear from the claim statement filedby them.

28. This respondeat has been unnecessarily and frivolously dragged into these proceedings even though no cause of action has been disclosed against thean in the petition and therefore prays that this Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss this claim petition as against them in limini on this ground alone.

24. The allegations and contention ba para 15 are denied. It is submitted that the computer firms or companies had appointed the Punch Operators of their regular employees on their own terms and conditions . The said firuns or companies are rendering computer services to several other banks and concens as their regular services business activities. Such finns or companies are not sole of exclusive agents to render computer acrvices to State Bank ofTravancore. The workman of conema or companies rendering different services cannot claim employment with their customers. There was no hiring of contract labour in respect of suchappointment and employmentofthe Punch operators by the Computer concerns . Since the Punch strictly speaking there was no question of the Contract 3466

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007 /JYAISTHA5, 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]

desire to substantiate their contention etc. The First Respondent/Bank preferred W. A. No. 132/99 before the Hon'bleHigh Court as against the orders passed in W.P. No.3684/90 dt. 27-10-98 and the Hon'ble High Court on 12- 4-1994 has observed that the order passed in the Writ petition remanding the matter back to the Tribunal directing ittomakeout the finding cannotbe considered as erroneous and hence dismissed the Writ appeal .

29. At no time were any workers detailed in the annexure to the claim statement employed by them.They are not aware nor concerned with the dealings of the Ist respondent prior to their contract with the 1st Respondent. The respondent denied that ' The so- called contract ' was merely a camoluflage since the workers were never their employees at any stage . The petitioner association had anydealing with them at any stage. This respondent denies that any settlement was reached between this Respondent and the petitioner association on 28-7-1984 or on any other date.

34.After remand in I. D. No. 86/85 pending on the file of thisTribunal, no additional evidence was let in on both sides and no additional documents were marked.

35. The points that arise for consideration are :

(1) Whether the Petitioner's union has sufficiency of interest to raise an Industrial Dispute under the I.D.Act?

(2) Whether the contracts are Sham or genuine ?

30. This respondent also denies that it was representedby M/ s . Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd. This respondent understands that M/ s . Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd. attended the various meeting on their own accord and in their own capacity. This Respondent is not aware of the various proceedings and meetings alleged to have been taken place with M/s . Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd. the Ist respondent and petitioner but since they do not concern this respondent, it does not choose to comment on the same. This Respondent did not appear in any proceedings since they were not necessary parties.

(3) Whether the closure of Contractor's establishment dealing with Electronic Data Processing attached of State Bank of Travancore, Trivandrum w.e.f.27-9-84 was legal and justified? If not to what relief the workman concerned are entitled?

(4) Whether the State Bank of Travancore Punch Operators Association isjustified in demanding continued employment either under contractors engaged by State Bank of Travancore or under State Bank of Travancore directly in Electronic Data Processing work ? If justified to what relief the workman are entitled?

36. Point No. 1:

31. This respondent denies that the salaries of the workers were paid from the bank through them or that the saidworkers were either the employees of the bank or of this respondent . This respondent states that it has no establishment whatsoever in Kerala, and did not employ anyof the workers detailed in the Annexure to the claim statement This respondent reserves its right to file an additional counter statement, if necessary . As such, this respondent submits that this claim petition is liable tobe dismissedwith exemplary costs as against them and render justice.

32.On the side ofPetitioner , W1 Thiru Chandrasekara Nair andWW2 Thiru P. Lakshmanan were examined as Ex. W.1 to W.17 were marked. On the side of Respondent, M.W.1 Thiru Sashindran was examined and Exhibits M.1 toM.30were marked.

According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner's UnionThiru N.C.R. Prasad the Punch Operators doingthe electronic data processing work alone in respect of the 1st Respondent/State Bank of Travancore are the members of the Petitioner's union and that the bank started electronic DataProcessing work inFeb. 1977 and the 1st Respondent/ bank originally entrusted the work of data processing to Tata Consultants from 1977 to 1979 and they brought the dataprocessing machine to the Head Office building and the work wasdone by the 47 persons mentioned in the annexure to the claim statement and their work was controlled by the 1st Respondent/bank and after 1979, the DataProcessing work was entrusted to the A.V.T. Software ResearchCo. Ltd. who in turn sub - contracted it to a number ofconcerns from time to time and even though the so- called contractors or sub-contractors changed from time to time the workmen remained constant and the so called contract system was merely a canmouflage and 47 workers were really employed by the First Respondent/bank through the contractors in order to avoid the legal obligation like claiming the benefits, etc. and on 8-3-1984 theData Processing Section in the first respondent/bank 33. Initially, on 11-9-1989 an award was passed in I.D.No.8685 by this Tribunal rejecting the claim of the Petitioner union as against the award in 1. D. No. 86/85 dt. 11-9-89Writ Petition No. 3684/90 was filedby the Petitioner Union before the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble High Court on 27-10-98 was pleased to set aside the award to the extent of the finding that the Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute relating to Contract Labour Act and the matter was remanded back to the Industrial Tribunal to decide whether the contract is sham or genuine following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Gujarat Electricity Board's case (AIR 1995 SC. P 1893) and inat the Tribunal can take into consideration of the evidence already adduced by both the parties indeciding the matter and the liberty was given toboth the parties to adduce fresh evidence if they so 3467

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

[भाग II- खब्द 3(ii) ]

executed agreements with the Petitioner to get such work done. When 29 of those workmen were denied employment, an industrial dispute was referredby the State Government and the award was attacked on the ground that the workmen were not workmen ofthe Petitionerbut only of the contractor . TheHigh Court rejected the contention. Dismissing the appeal, the SupremeCourt :

was closed and on 28-7-1984 a Settlement was reached between the Petitioner Union and the Second Respondent and on 27-9-84when they reported for work the premises at Vellayambalam was locked and that because of the workers demanding boons and formed a union their services were dispensed with and that the responden bank have terminated the services of the employees when conciliation proceedings were pending regarding the bonus and in fact, these workmen were really the employees of the first respondent/bank and therefore the petitioner has locus standi to raise the present dispute.

Held:The facts found are that the work done by the workmen was an integral part of the industry concerned, that the raw material was suppliedby the management, that the factory premises belongedto the management, and that the finished product was takenby the management for its own trade. The workmen were broadly under the control of the management and defective articles were directed to be rectified by the management. This concatenation of circumstances is conclusive that the workmen were the workmen of the petitione ."

40.At this juncture, it is relevant to point out that a disputebetwen an individual workmen and the employer is not an industrial dispute under the 1.D. Act, unless it is aspoused by a union of workmen or by a considerable mumber of employees . In workmen of M/ s. Dharampal Premchand (Saughandhi ) Vs. Dharampal Premchand (Saughandhi) 1965 (11 ) FLR 53 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:-

37. The Leanred Counsel for the 1st Respondent/ bank urges that the first respondent/bank had no control, supervision power of appointment or disciplinary powers in respect of the employees of the company which undertook under an agreement to render computer services and the 1st Respondent/bank does not have any computer or punching machine and the punching operators were not employed by the bank at any time and in the absence of employer/employee relationship between the members of the union there cannot be any industrial dispute raisedby such individuals, against the bank and since the dispute is between the workmen of Data Software ResearchCo. Ltd, and the said company there camot be an Industrial Dispute between such workmen of another establishment ot employer and the State Bank ofTravancore and therefore, the Petitioner's union has no locus standi to raise the present dispute.

"For the purpose of Section 2, it should be established that :

(1) Thedispute is connected with the employment or non employment ofworkmen,

38.The learned counsel for the 1st Respondent/bank placed relianceon the decision 2003 - III LLJ F. 289 between Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, K.G. Project, Pajabeundry and N. Satyanarayana and others , wherein it isheld that:

(2) A dispute between a single workman and his employer was sponsored or espoused by the union ofworkman of by a number ofworkmen. ThePhrase the union, merely indicates the union to which the employee belongs even though it may be a union of a minority of the workmen.

"Petitioner -O.N.C . Corporation challenged in these petitions proceedings institutedby contract labourers before the hudustrial Tribunal under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, as not maintainable . The High Court allowed the petitions. Itobserved contract labour could never be treated as workmen of the Principal Employer (Petitioner ) here and relationship of employer and workman did not exist between them. Applications of contract labourers before the Tribunal under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disptues Act , 1947 (as amended in Andhra Pradesh) were held therefore not maintainable."

(3) The establishment had no union on its own and some of the employees had joined theunion of the another establishment belonging to the same industry. In such a case, it would be open to that union to take up the cause of theworkmen if it is sufficiently representative of those workmen, despite the fact that such union was not exclusively of the workinen working in the establishment concerned."

39. TheLeamed Petitioner's Counsel relied on (1978) 4Supreme Court cases 257between Hussainhhai , Calicut Vs. TheAlath Factory Thozhilali Union, Kozhekode and others wherein it is held as follows :

41.As a matter of fact, even a minority union can raise a valid industrial disptue within the meaning of Section 2(k) ofthe I.D. Act as per decisioni 1995 (3 ) LLJ (Suppl .) P. 130 between Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., Vs. Industrial Tribunal.

"The Petitioner is a factory owner manufacturing ropes. Anumber ofworkmen were engaged to make ropes but they were hired by contractors who had 3468

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007 /JYAISTHA 5, 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ) 42.Itis represented on behalf of the 1st Respondent/ bank that the Industrial Tribunal cannot be decide the dispute relatingto non-workomen. In AIR 2004 S.C. P. 3905 MukundLtd. Vs. Mukund Staff and Officers Association it isheld as follows :

45. It is to be pointed out that the definition of ' Industrial dispute' is worked in very wide term and unless they are narrowed by the meaning given to the work ' workmen' it seems to include all ' employers ' , all ' employment and all ' workmen' whatever the nature are the scope ofemployment may be as per decision ( 1943) AC 166, @p. 185 (HL) between National Association of Local Government Office Vs. Boltan Corporation.

"IndustrialDisputes Act ( 14 of 1947), S.S. 10, 2(k) 18- Reference Jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal to decide-Tribunal cannot decide dispute relating to non-workmen-Reference held was limited to dispute between company and its workmen Tribunal being creature of reference camol decide dispute ofnon- workmen not referredto it."

46. In ( 1949) LL) p. 245, 249, Western India AutomobileAssociation Vs. Industrial Tribunal, the words of the definition is paraphrased as " any dispute which has connection with the workmen being in , or out of service or employment" . As a matter of fact, the term ' industrial dispute' means that the dispute must be such as would affeet large groups of workmen and employers , ranged on opposite sides as per decision ( 1953) I LLJ p. 195 @ 199 D.N. Banerji Vs. P.R. Kukherjee.

Asingle employee's dispute may also develop into an industrial dispute, when it is taken by a union or number of workers, who make a concerted demand for redress .

43.WW.I Thiru Chandrasekara Nair has deposed that from the year 1983 onwards, he is the President of the Petitioner's Union and the Punch Operators concerned in presentdispute are members of this association and the 47 persons mentioned in the annexure were working from 1977 to 1983 and that the Data Processing the integral part of the banking business and the petitioner union want that the punch operators to be employed by the Respondent/ bank, and they are making demands on behalf of the Punch Operators with State Bank of Travancore for absorbing the Punch Operators in the bank and also for other benefits and that47 employees found in the annexure to the claim statement should be absorbed in the State Bank of Travancore with continuity of service and other attendent benefits and that the workmmen were directly employed by the State Bank of Travancore and that the State Bankof Travancore employees Union is the major recognised union ofwhich the petitioners herein are not members , but they have separate union by name State Bank of Travancore Punch Operators Association and other then the 47 members for whom the claim is made , there are no other members in that association and that 47 petitioners were employees ofState Bank of Travancore , but working under Tata Consultancy and from 1979 they were working under theSecond respondent. W.W.2 Thiru P. Lakshmanan in his evidence has deposed that he worked as Punch Operator inthe StateBank ofTravancore from 1977 to 1983 and that he was appointed by the Interview Committee after interview and that the concemed Bank Officer at that time used togive instructions by calling all the Punch Operators howto change the format punching cards etc.

47.At this juncture , it is significant to point out that it is only a collective dispute that coan constitute an ' industrial dispute' . In a collective , dispute, all that is essential is that the dispute, in order to convert as an 'Industrial Dispute should have the support of the substantial section of the workmen concerned in the establishment as per decision ( 1961 ) I LLJ 288 294 (Madras) between working Journalists of the Hindu Vs. 'Hindu' . Even the minority group of workmen of am establishment can make a demand and raise an ' industrial dispute' which is in a proper case may be referred for adjudication as per decision ( 1960 ) ILLJ p.49 @ 496(SC) Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Vs. Their workmen. As a matter of fact, no hard and fast rule can be prescribed as to the number of women whose association will convert an ' industrial dispute ' into an industrial dispute . It is tobe noted that the number of workmen must, however , be such as to lead an inference that the dispute is one which affects the workmen as a class . To convert an ' industrial dispute intoan' industrial dispute' it is to be established that it was taken up by the union of employees of the establishment or by an appreciable number of employees of the establishment . It is necessary to enquire as to whether the union which has sponsored the dispute, can fairly claim a representative character in such a way that its support to the cause would make the dispute an on Industrial dispute as per decision 1968 Lab . IC 1259, @ 1267 , between Shree Gopal PaperMills Ltd. Vs. State ofHaryana .

48. It is pertinent to make a mention that what a substantial number of workmen would be, in a given case woulddepend on the particular facts of the case. Moreover, once it is shown that a body of substantial number of workmen, either acting through a union or otherwisehad sponsored the cause , it wouldbe sufficient to convert il 44. MW.I Thiru Sashindran, Officer of Ist Respondent/Bank has deposed the bank is not carrying onany electronic Data Processing work of its own and the bank gives Data Processing work to outside contractors and punching card format is a preliminary work of the Data Processing and bank did not have any establishment for Data Processing work and he does not know the President ofthe Punch Operators Association and that he is aware that Mr. Chandrasekara Nair is connected with the Punch Operators Association and that the Punch Operators wEEC doing the work only relating to the bank.

3469 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

'भारत का राजापत्र : मई 26, 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

into an industrial dispute as per decision ( 1950 ) II LLJp. 37 @38Newspaper Limited Vs. State Industrial Tribunal .

workmenwould mean persons craployed in or inconnection with the work ofany establishment whether they are hired with or without the knowledge of the Principal employer and since the 47 employees found in the annexure are worried about employment and pleaded that they were always the employees of the principal employer/ 1st Respondentbank and claim backwages and other benefits and service conditions, this Tribunal comes to the conchision that the Petitioner's union has sufficiency of interest to raise in Industrial Dispute under Soc. 2 (k) of the LD. Act, since raising of such dispute or adjudication of such dispute is not harred under Sec. 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the point isanswered accordingly.

49. Inregard tothe time ofesponsal is concerned, it is to be noted that the existence of the interest of the workroen as a community, evidence by the sponsal ofthe cause must be on that date when the reference is made and not necessarily on that date when the cause occurs . otherwise in some cases a dispute which was originally an individual one may never be able to become an industrial dispute as per decision ( 1970 ) II LLJ p . 250 (SC) between Western India Match Company Workers Union. The burden ofproof rests on the party who contends that the dispute is an' industrial dispute to establish that fact, upon which thejurisdiction of the tribunal lies .

50. It is tobe pointed out that the term ' employment' or 'non-employment' have not been defined in the Act, but the term'employment' refers to a condition in which a Homo sapien is kept occupied in executing my work and it means not only an appointment to any office for the first time, but also the continuity of appointment, as per decision AIR 1957 (PAT) 617 Sukinandan Thakur Vs. State ofBihar.

51. In 20011LLJ p.763 @ 770 Daral Fritz WernerLtd. and others and State of Karnataka, it is observed that:

"Workman would mean any person employed in connection with the work of any catablishment whether he is hired with or without the knowledge of thePrincipal employer."

52. As a matter of fact, the expression 'Industrial dispute' covers a dispute comected with non -employment of any person and the appropriate Government can be approached for reference in such matters only as per decision 1992 (65 ) FLR- 1 Workmen of Meenakshi Mill Ltd., Vs. Meenakshi Mill . Moreover, it is held in 1999-II LLR p.570 (Delhi ) between Delhi Municipal Workers UnionVs. Management ofM.C.D. that:

"a dispute between an eruployer and his workmen which is connected with non-employment of any person can be an industrial dispute, "

53. It is to be noted that as far as espousal is concerned, there is no particular form to effect such espousal . The definition of the term ' employer ' as per Section 2 (g ) of the I.D. Act is neither exhaustive nor inclusive and in fact, the terin ' employer ' must be given its ordinary grammatical meaning as per decision 1984 Lab IC p. 1235, Workmen of Swatantra Bharat Mills CanteenVs. Management of Swatantra Bharat Mills.

54. The 47 employees found in the annexure to the Claim Statement through the Petitioner's union dohave a substantial interest in the subject-matter of the dispute and these employees were said to be attending the Electronic DataProcessingWork, which was claimed tobe an integral part of bank business and since it is pleaded that contract system is only a farce etc. , and since the term

55. POINTNo. 2: The learned Petitioner's counsel contendsthat the first respondent/bank is a subsidiary of StateBank of India, and it is one of the nationalisedbanks and that the 1st Respondent/bank started the Electronic DataProcessing Work in February 1977, and the workwas cameid omatHead Office at Poojapura Trivandrum and the work of Data Processing was an integral part of bank business and this work of Data Processing was entrusted toTataConsultants from 1977 to 1979 by the Bank and the TataConsultants brought the DataProcessing machine to theHeadOffice building and the work was done by the47 employees mentioned in the annexure to the claim statement and their work was controlled by the 1st respondent/bank andafter1979, the Data Processing work was entrustedto A.V.T. Software Research Co. Ltd. who is turn sub contracted to mumber of concerns and got the work done through the said 47 employees and even though the so- called contractors sub-contractors changed from time to time the workmen remained constant and the wordkmen were not changed with the change of contractors and this establishes that the so-called contract system was merely a comouflage and the 47 workmen employed by the Ist respondent/bank through the contractors were really employedby the bank so as to avoid legal obligations like grantingofthebenefits to them on par with bank employees under various settlements and that the petitioner's association sponsored the cause of the Punch Operators and on8-3-1984 the data processing section was closed in the first respondent/bank for which no reasons were given andwhen the settlement was reached on28-7-84 between thepetitioner association and the second respondentwhich was represented by the sub contractor M/s. Gemini Chrome. Chemicals (P) Ltd. and that the 1st respondent/bank who was the real employer shows to remain in the background controlled the entire proceedings on behalf of the employer and that the 1st respondent/bank with malafide intention shifted the data processing section to a building at Vellayambalam, even though there was enough space in theHeadOffice itself for carrying out the data processing work, the bank for obvious reasons shifted the data processing section to put up a show that the bank was 3470

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007 /JYAISTHA 5, 1929

[PART II SEC . 3( ii)]

"The petitioner is a factory owner manufacturing ropes. A number of workmen were engaged tomake ropes but they were hired by contractors who had executed agreements with the petitioner to get such workdone. When 29 of those workmen were engaged to make ropes but they were hired by contractors who had executed agreements with the petitioner to get such work done . When 29 of those workmen weredenied employment, an industrial dispute was referredby the State Government and the award was attacked on the ground that the workmen were not workmenofthe petitioner but only of the contractor. TheHigh Court rejected the contention. Dismissing theappeal, the Supreme Court

Held : The facts are that the work done by the workmen was an integral part of the industry concerned, that the raw material was suppliedby the management, that the factory premises belonged to the management, that the equipment used also belonged to the management, and that the finished product was taken by the management for its own trade. The workmen were broadly under the control of the management and defective articles were directed to be rectified by the management. This concatenation of circumstances is conclusive that theworkmen were the workmen of the petitioner ."

58.The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision (2003 ) 7 Supreme Court cases 488 Mishra Dhatu Nigam Ltd., and others Vs Venkataiah and others, wherein it is held as follows :

nothing to do with the data processing section and that, employees where not their employees and that the bonus dispute arose inAugust 1984 before the Onape festival and the respondents remained absent in the conciliation and the failure report was sent on 12-2-85 by the Conciliation Officer and for the notice dt. 15-11-84 and 14-1-85 when parties were invited for the conciliation talks the 1st respondent/bank appeared before the Conciliation Officer and contended that the Punch Operators were employed by the contractor and not by them and the Second Reapondent, the alleged contractor did not appear before the Conciliation Officer and on 19-10-84the Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd. through a notice purported to be under Section25 (FFF) of the 1.D. Act stated that they decidedto close down the undertaking at Vellayambalam w.e.f. 22-10-84 and sent some compensation and notice payto the employees and the employees represented by the petitioner's union refused to receive the compensation, since the lock out was illegal and unjust etc. and after the lockout, on27-9-84, the 1st respondent is getting the same data processing work done by the some other means and they are sending by lorry to Madras the inter branch transaction to the Second Respondent and get the documents processed there and the benefit of the efforts ofthe47 workmen where to the first respondent/bank and that on 29-5-1985 the bank sent a letter to Caravan Book Carriers (P)Ltd. , Trivandrum and hence in substance the work is going on and that the Contract system viz . requiring A.V.T. Software Research Co. Lul . to undertake the work is merely a farce and if the contract system was a genuine one then everytime a contractor was changed he would havebrought his complement of workmen and though the salarywas paid through the hand of the second respondent it was really the 1st respondent/bank was the employer and that the 47 employees were really the employees of the bank and therefore the contracts in the present case are sham one and they are not genuine .

"Labour Law Canteens Regularisation of Canteen workers-Statutory-Cantees run by contractor- employees of Held, deemedto be employees of theprincipal employer Factories .Act, 1948-$.46 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-5.2 (s) Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition ) Act, 1970- S.10 Principal employer and contract labour- Master and Servant relationship-Andhra Pradesh FactoriesRules , 1950, Rs . 65 and 71. "

56.TheLearned Petitioner's Counsel in support of his contention that the 47 employees are the workmen of 1strespondent/bank relied on the decision ( 1983) 4 S.C.C. 464M/s. Sliming Tailors Vs. Industrial Tribunal II, U.P. Lucknow and others , wherein it is held as follows :

"Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 2(5) 'Workmen'-Tailoring establishment-Payment on piecerateby itself does not disprove the relationship master and servant on facts , the right to reject the work or to refuse further work, held established master-servant relationship U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 2(2) ."

59.The learned Petitioner's Counsel urges that the first respondent/bank was a real employer for the 47 employees in question and the 1st respondent/bank controlled the entire proceedings on behalf ofthe so called contractor employer and there is a relationship of employer and employee between the 1st respondent/bank and the 47 employees and in support of his contention, he relied on the citation ( 1974) 3 Supreme Court cases 498 @ 499 Silver Jubilee Tailoring House and Others Vs. Chief Inspector of Shops and Establishments and Another, wherein it is held as follows:

57. The learned Petitioner's counsel relied on the decision (1978) 4 Supreme Court cases 257between Hussainbhai , Calicut Vs. The Alath Factory Thozhilali Union, Kozhikode and others , wherein it is held as follows:

"When the tailors generally attend the shop every day if there iswork and different rates are fixed for them according to their skill and their work is checked then even though there maybe no regular hours ofwork or obligation to attend every day 3471

5,1929

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007 ज्येष्ठ

[ माग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

and the tailors could take the work home, there was relationship of employer and employee between the tailoring shop and tailors " .

61. The learned 1st Respondent/Bank's counsel relied on the decision (1974) I LLJ p. 459 between the Management ofCrompton Engineering Company (Madras) Private Ltd. and the Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court, Madras and 3 others , wherein it is held as follows :

"Constitution of India, Art . 226-Writ petitionto quash an award ofIndustrial Tribunal Crompton Engineering Co. employing respondents 2 to 4 temporarily for a specific period or in respect of particular contract work-Respondents 2 to 4 raising and Industrial dispute regarding their non- employment Dispute referred for adjudication- Labour Court holding that even casual workers are included in the definition of workmen as defined in $ .2 (s) of the Act and ordered reinstatement-Held, the Labour Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion- Respondents 2 to 4 were not permanent employees-They were appointed only for specific periodor particular work and their employment automatically came to an end as soon as the period was over or the work was over-Award of reinstatement set aside. "

62. The learned Ist Respondent/Bank's Counsel cited (2006) 3 Supreme Court cases 674 betweenA. P.SRTC and others V.G. Srinivasan Reddy and others , wherein it is observed as follows :-

"Labour Law Contract Labour-Absorption- Entitlementto- Nature of work for which contract labour engaged-Relevance of-Held, following Steel authority case, (2001 ) 7 SCC 1 , whether or not a prohibition notification has been issued under $ .10(1 ), CLRA. 1970 contract labour is not entitled to automatic absorption by the principal employer-To obtain entitlement to absorption, contract labour must establish before Industrial Court/Tribunal that the contract-labour system was only a rusc/ camouflage to avoid granting labour law benefits to them, and there existed a direct relationship of employer and employee between the principal employer and them-in the present case,High Court could not have directed absorption of the respondent-High Court further erred in directing absorption on the ground that work for which respondents were engage, as contract labour were also not entitled to benefit of absorption/regularisation on the basis of the circular dated 1-9-1988 issued by the appellant employer , as it specifically excluded contract labour-Contract labour (Regulation and Abolitiont Act 1970-S- 10. Applicability- Absorption was perennial in natine-Moreover , respondent contract labour/Labour law -Contract labour-Absorption-Contract labons system 60. Accordingto the Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent/Bank, the first respondent bank was not varrying on any electronic data processing work and that the Data processing Research Co. Ltd. was doing the electronic Data Processing work and the said comраnу entered into the agreement or its agents selected and appointed its own workman for its business and such workman were supervised control and in fact their wages and benefits were directly paid by the company or its officers or agents and there is no employer and employee relationshipbetween the workmen of Data Software Research Co. Ltd. or any other company and the State Bank ofTravancore and that none of the employees of the Data Software Research Co. Ltd. are concem or other company were employed by the Ist Respondent/bank at any time during the service and there was no manner of control or supervision by the 1st Responclent/bank over anyofthe employees of the comany and that the bank had no control, supervision power of appointment or disciplinarypowers in regard to the workers ofthe company who undertook to render computer services under an agreement and the, bank has not employed any Punch operator at any time and since the staff of the bank would notclear of the accumulated arrears manually and initially M/s. Tata Consultancy Services were interested with the computer services for a specific period and thereafter the excesa accumulated work was done by computer services off and on and such computer services were given on a contract basis after inviting tenders from different competing concerns and as per the terms of agreement between the parties the bank must pay at a fixed rate for whatever computer service carried out and punch operating machines and computer machines etc. as well as the Stationary and other materials required for the computer serviceswere all provided by the computer concems whose tender was accepted and the 1st respondent/bank did not have any of these equipments or machines and the 1st respondent/bank does not liave any facility to carry out the workdoneby the petitioner's union and there was no officer employed in the Ist respondent/bank who was acquainted with the electronic process work to manage or control or supervise that work and that the Tata Consultancy Services employed only 14 persons for the time being and they never employed 47 employees and there was no requirement for the 1st Respondent/Bank to control the work done by the workmen like punch operators ofthe contractor companies and that the contract or agreement for the computer services, for reconciliation work was real legal veiledand was entered into after inviting tenders and after taking into account the competitive tenders from various concerns and accepting the lowest tender and entrust the taskto theparticular company whose tender was accepted and therefore the contracts are genuine and true one.

2394G1/07-26 3472

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007 /IYAISTHA5, 1929

[PART I-SBC. 3 (if)) whether ruse/camouflage-Appropriate forum for determining-Held, said question has to be adjudicatedby Industrial Tribunal Court and not byHigh Court in its writjurisdiction- Constitution of India-Art 226."

to discharge etc. on expiry of labour contract- Such dispute, held, not maintainable before Tribunal as there was no relationship ofMaster and Servantbetween contract labour and principal employer."

63. The learned 1st Respondent/Bank's Counsel relied on the decision 2002- I-LLJ p . 237 between Hari Shankar Sharma and others and Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corporation and Others, wherein it is held asfollowed:

"Contract Labour-Employees in canteen set up in discharge of statutory mandate, namely Section 46 of Factories Act, 1948, do not necessarily become employees of establishment-Willdepend of how obligation to set up canteen discharged by establishment, whether by direct recruitment ofby employment of contractor-Held, on facts, Labour Court's finding that appellants not employees ofestablishment could not be termed perverse."

64. The leamed 1st Respondent/Bank's counsel drew the attention of this Tribunal to the decision 2004-I- LLJ p.227between Ram Singh and Others and Union Territory, Chandigarh and Others, wherein it is observed as follows:

67. WW1 Thiru Chandrasekara Nair in his evidence has deposed that the data processing work is an integral part of the banking business and during 1977 the work was entrusted with Tata Consultants at the Head Office of the bank and after 1979 the work was entrusted to A.V.T. SoftwareResearch Co. and the Head Office of the bank were doing electronic Data processing work and that the workmen were directly employed by the 1st Respondent/ bank and thatGemini Chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd. is the sub- agent ofA.V.T. Software (P) Ltd. and that the petitioners were not employed by the second respondent and that the StateBank ofTravancore employees Union is the major recognised union ofwhich the petitioners are not members , but the petitioners got separate union viz . State Bank of Travancore Punch Operators Association and other than 47members for whom the claim is made there are no other members in that association and that salary for 47 workers was paid byData Serve on behalf of the State Bank of Travancore and salary was paid on behalf of IstRespondent/ bank since DATA SER VE were agents of StateBank ofTravancore and that the petitioner's union have no claim against the A.V.T. Software Research Co. andEx. M22 file details containing the applications ofthe some of the petitioners addressed to DATA SERVE for appointment and also copies of the appointment orders .

"Contract Labour ' Control' test to determine employer-employee relationship , though important however not to be taken as sole test Question whether engagement of labourers through contractor is genuine of camouflage, held, to be one of fact has to be raised and proved before industrial adjudicator-No reliefto contra employees seeking regularisation in service of principal employer, held, could be granted in Writ petitions ."

65.The learned 1st Respondent's /bank counsel also placed reliance on the decision 1997( III LLJ ) ( Suppl) p.1202betiyeon Panda R.K. and others and SteelAuthority of Indiaand others , wherein it is held as follows :-

68. WW2 Thiru P. Lakshmanan has deposed thathe worked as a Punch Operator in the 1st Respondent/bank from 1977 to 1983 and the Interview Committee consisting of P. Rajarathinam representative of A.V.T. Software ResearchCo. and P.V. Peter then officer of the Finance and Accounts of the bank appointed him after the interview and that the same bank office at the time used to give instruction by calling all the Punch Operators how to change the forms punching cards etc. and for any doubt or clarification he used to consult the officer of the bank and that bank has not given any appointment order to him and hewas informedby Mr. Rajarathimam that he was selected and he was called for interview by DATA SERVE as per Ex. M22 series (page 7) .

"Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition )Act, 1970-Primary object of Act- To prevent exploitation of contract labourers by contractor of establishment-Whether contract labourers through contractor a mere camouflage-A question of fact, not possible for High Court or Supereme Court to decide on basis of affidavits- Normally Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal are competent forums to adjudicate such disputes.'

66. The learned 1st Respondent's bank cited 2003 III-LLJ 289 between Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, K.G. Project, Rajahmundry and N. Satyanarayanan and others, wherein it is observed as follows :

69. MW1 Thiru Sasindran an officer of the first respondent/bank never appointed Punch Operators at any timeand he was working in Head Office at Trivandram from 1981 to 1985 as officer incharge of Central Accounts and bank was not carrying on any electronic Data processing work of its own and bank gave the work ofdata processing to outside contractors and the purpose of giving Data Processing work is for a speedy reconciliation of entries and reconciliation is the main part of data processing work and punching card form is a preliminary work of data processing work and from 1977 to 1979 it was done by the "Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -Sec . 2-A(2 )-As amended in Andhra Pradesh-Contract Labour raisingdisputebefore Industrial Tribunal relating 3473 [भाग- लम्फ 3 (1) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007 /ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

intheserviceofthe company, in respect ofwhose work, theywere engaged by the contractor."

74. It is to be noted that an individual bas a free right to arrange his business , and this should be done by himwithout violating the law . The main aim of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 is to stop exploitation ofContract labourers by the contractor as leid down in the decision R. K. Pande Vs. Steel Authority of India(1994) 69 FLR 256.As a matter of fact, the Industrial Tribunal istofind out whether the contract is gennime or otherwise. Contractor should not be a mere name lender. Furthermore, the Tribunal is to see whether the contract entered into between the 1st Respondent/Bank and the Contractor is a mere ruse/ camouflage to avoid and evade the compliance ofbeneficial legislation or otherwise.

75. The Contract Labour (Regulation & Aboilition) Act,1970does not envisage the total abolition of Contract Labour System. Section 10 enjoins the ' appropriate Government' toprohibit employment of contract labour in any process, operation, or other work in any catablishment, after consultation with the Central Bank or the StateBank as the casemaybe, by Notification in the Official Gazette. Before issuing the Notification, prohibiting the employer ofContract labour in any establishment, the ' appropriate Government shall have regard to the conditions ofwork and benefits provided for the Contract labour in the establishment and other relevant factors such as

1. Whether the process , operation or other work is incidental to or necessary for the industry,trade, business, manufacture or occupation that is carried on in the establishment;

Tata Consultancy and A.V. Thomas Software Rescarch Company was engaged thereafter and still theA.V. Thomas Software Research Company is doing the data processing work as on data and the bank entered into an agreement withData Software (formerly A.V.T. Software) andEx.MI is theAgreement dt. 29-10-79 between the State Bank of Travancore and A.V.T. Software Research Co. andanother agreement under Ex. M3 was entered into between the bank and the A.V.T. Software Research Co. and again on 28-11-84similar agreement was entered into underEx. -Μ10 and that the bank did not have any establishment for data processing and the Punch Operators were employedby Data Software/Gemini Chrome Chemicals and the back never paid salary and allowance to the Punch Operators at any time and the bank has no control over the work of the punch operators and the work is still continuing but not in the premises of the bank and punch operators are not entitled toclaim any relief against the bank since they were not employed by the bank and even today punching work isbeing done and furnitures and electricity were provided to the PunchOperators by the bank and Punch Operators Sectionwas shifted from Poojapura to Valliyampalayam in theirbuilding and officers used to go to the Punch operators Sectionand that he does not know that the Punch Operators were seletedby the Committee consisting of representative ofDATA Serve and one representative of the bank andbe does not know the President of the Punch Operators Association and he was not aware that Thiru Chandrasekaran air is connected with the pusch operators Association and that the bank has not registered under theContractLabour (Regulations and Abolition ) Act, and that the PunchOperators were doing the work only relating to the bank and it is not correct to state that in order to deprive thePunch Operators the bank salary and theywere engaged through agency.

2. Whether it is of a perennial nature i.c. it is of sufficient duration having regard to the nattire of the industry, trade, business , manufacture or occupation carried on the establishment;

3. Whether it is done ordinarily through reguler workman in that establishment or an establishment similar thereto; and 70. To a query whether the officer of the bank will give instruction to Punch Operators , MWI Thiru p . Sasindran has answered in Cross - examination that instruction will be given only to the representatives and that officers have no contract with the Punch Operators .

71. In 1995 LLR456 All India General MaardoorTrade Union (Regd) Vs. Delhi Administration and others , it is observed that

4. Whether it is sufficient to employ considerable number ofwhole- time worken . The explanation to that section makes the decision of the 'appropriate Government' final with regard to the question : Whether the process, operation orother work is of perennial nature ?

"the contract labour engaged for the work of perennial nature can be prohibited by a Notification by the appropriate Government."

72. In( 1995) LLRp. 839 Gujarat WorkingClassUnion Vs. State ofGujarat and others, it is held that

"the Abolition of Contract Labour (Regulation andAbolition) Act will be only after consultation with theAdvisory Board."

The effect of non -registration of an establishment under the Act is that the establishment cannot employ contract labour. So, also, the effect of non-licensing of the contractor is that the contractor is precluded from undertaking or executing any work through contract labour .

73. InNuclear Fuel ComplexVs. A. P. Reddy (2002) IILLN 996 , it is observed that

"Contract workers are not entitled for absorption

76. In Gammon India Limited Vs. Union of India (1974) 1LLJ489 the Constitutional validity of the Act was upheld bytheHon'bleSupreme Court [PART I SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26, 2007 /JYAISTHA5, 1929

3474

77. In 1997 (90) FJR p. 125 Air India Statutoryу Corporation etc. Vs. United Labour Union and Others , it is held that

"No Court can enquire into and decide the question whether employment of Contract Labour in any process , operation or any other work in establishment should be abolished or nut and it is for the appropriate Government to decide it ."

78. It is to be pointed out that the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 must apply to the Contract labour in connection with the work of an establishment when the Contract labour is hired by the Contractor orby the Sub contractor of the Contract - as perdecisionGammon India Ltd. etc. Vs. Union of India and Others (19741 LLJ489).

79. In 19851LLJ p . 428 BHEL Workers Association Hardwar and others Vs. Union of India and others, it is held that

"TheQuestion whether the work done by Contract labour is the same or similar work as that done by the workman directly employed by the Principal employer of any establishment is a matter to be decided by the Chief Labour Commissioner under the proviso to rule 25( ii) (v ) (a) ."

80. 1 2002-II LLJ 544 Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs. K. V. Shramil Sangh and others, it is observed that

"Itwas for the industrial adjudicator to consider the question whether the contractor was interposedunder a genuine contract or was a mere ruseor camouflage to evade compliance with the beneficial legislation.".

81. Ex . W. 1 dt . 7-4-1983 is the letter of the Punch Verifier operators Data Serve addressed to the Ist Respondent/bank's Managing Director , Trivandrum, wherein it is interlaid stated that the operators are coming from very far ofplaces and spending more than Rs . 10 per day and if they loose daily production that means that they are losingRs . 10 from their packer and in there same way they kost more than 20 days of production during the last 2 months and though the difficulties were mentioned tothe Supervisor/Trivandrum branch concem , he did not take any action etc. As a matter of fact, the copies ofEx .W.J letter dt7-4-83 were addressed to ( 1 ) Chief Executive of A.V.T. Soft ware Research Company, Madras , ( 2 ) General Manager, A.V.T. Software Research Co. Madras. (3 ) The Section Supervisor, Data Serve , C/o S.B.T. Trivandrum. Ex. W. 2 is the letter di . 4-8-1983 is addressed to the Chief Executive A.V.T. Madras by the employees ofData Serve (ACT) in connection with the official at request To Mr. Jayakumar, on the eve of Onam Celebration . Eix . Μ. ! agreementth. 29-10-79 is theComputer Service agreexoca entered ince between A.V. Thomas Software: ResearchCo. Lid., Madras - 8 and the State Bank of Travancere .

Trivandrum, ( 1st Respondent/bank) . By virtue of this Ex. M. 1 agreement dt. 29-10-79 the A.V.T. Software Research Co.,Madras has agreed to perform the services mentioned in the agreement on the terms and conditions andthe rates specified in the annexure thereto . The type of service is A.V.T. Responsibility Service '.Ex. M.1 dt. 29-10-79 refers to theData submitted to the processing etc. to A.V.T. Co. bythe 1st Respondent/Bank. Ex. M. 2 dt . 26-6-81 relates to the Message from Chief Manager (Finance and Account) of 1st Respondent/bank addressed to M/s . A.V. Thomas Software Research Co. which refers to the instructions being issuedto the Madras branch through to pay a sum ofRs . 1,81,675.12p in payment of the bills for the period from January to June, 1979. Ex . M. 3 is the agreement dt. 3-11-82 between the A.V.T. Software Research Co. and the 1st respondent/bank on the same lines that of Ex . M.1 dt. 29-10-79. Ex . M. 4 is the letter dt . 5-1-1983 from the Ist respondent/bank addressed to the A. V. Thomas Research Co., Madras-8 , with referenceto the instructions being issued to the Madras branch through Telex to pay an amount ofRs . 53,861.04 p. in full and final settlement of the bills presented. Ex. M. 5 is the letter dt 26-5-83 from the respondent/bank addressed to A.V. Thomas Research Co. Ltd., with regard to the instructions given to the Madras branch to pay a sum of Rs . 20,000 towards 60 per cenl advance payment of the bill mentioned for the I.B.R. processing work for the month of January, 1981. Ex. M. 6 is the letterdt. 23-3-83 along with enclosure from the Data Software Research Co. Ltd. , ( A.V. ThomasGroup Co. ) addressed to the Ist Respondent/Bank's Chief Manager, Finance and accounts, with reference to the change of name of the Company from A.V. Thomas ResearchCo.to Data Software Research Co. Ltd. Ex . M.7 is the letter dt.25-8-83 along with enclosures from the second respondent company addressed to the 1st respondent/ bank's Chief Manager, Finance and Accounts, in respect ofI.B.R. Processing from 1-11-82 additional outputs. From Ex. M. 7 letter dt . 25-8-1983 annexure it is seen that the revised rate entry for processing current from 1-11-82 L.BR. job is fixed at 9.5p per entry to prepare the specified and additional monthly and quarterly output reports. Ex . Μ . 8 letter dt. 18-11-83 is the letter with enclosures from the 1st Respondent/bank Chief Manager Finance and Accounts to the StateBank ofTravancore, Madras in respect of payment ofbills towards I.B.R. processing . Ex.M. 9 dt 1-9-1984 is the letter of the Chief Manager, Finance and Accounts ofthe 1stRespondent/bank addressed to the second Respondent/ Software Company, Madras, wherein it is mentioned interalía that asper the terms of the Agreement dt . 4-11-82 the contract is for the period from November , 1982 to October 1984 and that the bank is desirous of entrusting the work for the remaining two months November and December 1984 to the SecondRespondent and a request is made extension of contract for a further period of 2 months to cover the processing under the existing terms and conditions . Ex.Μ. 10 dt. 28-11-84 is the Supplementary agreement entered 3475

भरित का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

intobetween the Second Respondent/software company andthat ofthe 1st respondent/bank is respect of certain amendments being made to the terms and conditions of the earlier principle agreements. It fact, Ex . M. 10 Supplementary agreement dt. 28-11-84 speaks of the 1st Respondent/bank to reimburse the cost incurred to transport the documents from Trivandrum to Madras and Vice-versato the -Respondent / software company. On production of proper receipts from the transport company/carriers and that the 1st Respondent/bank to provide suitable security arrangements inside the Head Office premises when the Second respondent Company's representative calls at Head Office to take delivery of the documents and to return the same back and that the 1stRespondent/bank to provide documents to the second respondent/company sorted out datewise and codewise and that the second Respondent/company is responsible for the security of the documents that are transportedby Road, Rail/Air from Trivandrum to Madras and back and that the Second Respondent/company is to take due care in handling and custody of the documents submitted to it for Data preparation till they are returned to the 1st Respondent/bank and the Second respondent/ company is to return the documents back to 1 st respondent/ company sorted out codewise and Datawise. R. 2 Counsel pleads that Rs. 2 is not an employer and Mis . Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd. is a necessary party in the dispute.

andAbolition) Act, 1970. As a matter of fact, the Principal employer viz. Ist respondent/bank has failed to intimate the change the took place in the particulars of the contractors furnished in the Certificate of Registration, alongwith Form No. 1, issued by the Registering Officer, and the Asst. Labour Commissioner ( Central) ie. the Principal employer failed to intimate the RegisteringOfficer about the management of M/s . A.V. Thomas Software Research Co. Ltd. Madras -8, as one of the contractors in thePrincipal employer's establishment as required under rule 18(4) and further that the notice showing the commencement of contract work of M/s . A.V. Thomas Software Research Co. from the month of December , 1982 onwards, vide Agreement dt . 3-11-82 was not sent by the Principal employer' to the Inspector as required under mie81 (3) and further the notices required to be displaced by the Principal employer's showing ( 1 ) Rates of Wages, (2) Hours ofwork, (3 ) wage period, (4) date of payment and name and addresses of Inspector and (5) Date of payment ofunpaid wages were not displaced in English/Hindi/ Malayalam as required under rule 81 ( 1)(i) and that the copies ofnotices required to be displayed under rule 81 ( 1 ) wert not sent to the Inspector as required under rule 81 (2) from Ex. W. 9, stimmary trials register copy, it is seen that the proceedings in S.T. No. 69/94 got terminated on 15-11-84 and the date of Commission of offences was on 31-5-84 and that the date of report of the complaint was on1-9-84. InEx . W.10 the Petitioner's association letter dt. 28-9-84 addressedto the Managing Director of ist Respondent/ bank, it is imeralia mentioned that the Punch operators of Petitioner's association went for work on 27-9-84 and found anotice displayed in front of the office to the effect that the employer locked out the establishment etc. Ex. W. 11 dt. 27-10-84 is the letter of the Petitioner's association addressedto the Director, Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd., Madras, wherein it is mentioned that Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd. , is only a sub-contractor of A.V.T. Software Research Co. Ltd. and that it came into the picture only after the section was locked out by the main contractors A.V.T. Software Research Co. Ltd. Madras and that without paying the bonus to the employees, the punch operating unit from 27-9-84 onwards without notice was illegally locked out bythe Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd. , and that there was no indiscipline among the workers and there was no insubordination threat or violation against the supervisors or theft of any articles of the company by the workers as alleged and that a request was made to withdraw the illegal closure notice, immediately.

83. Ex . W. 12 is the letter dt. 27-10-84 of the Petitioner's Association addressed to the Labour Commissioner , Trivandrum wherein it is mentioned that the Punch operating unit of State Bank of Travancore is lockedout illegally by the intermediary Contractor Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd. from 27-9-84 and that a request was madeto take urgent steps for lifting illegal closure of 82.Ex. W. 9 is the copy of the Register of Summary trails held before the Additional Judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Trivandrum in S. T. No. 69/84. A perusal of Ex.W.9 copy ofthe Register of Summary Trials indicates that in S.T. No. 69/84 the 1st Respondent Bank's Managing Director was shown as accused and the Labour Enforcement Officer ( Central) Trivandrum, being the complainant has complained ofviolation of Under Sec. 24 of the Contract Labour Act, 1970 and the finding of the Courtwas that the Ist Respondent/bank was sentenced to pay a fime ofRs . 100 in default of simple imprisonment for fivedays and that the Proceedings got terminated on15- 11-84. In Ex. W. 9 besides the copy of the Register of Summary Trials, a copy of the complain filled before the Court ofAddl . Judicial First Class Magistrate , Trivandrum also forms part of the documents . As seen from the said complaint, it transpires that the 1st Respondent/Bank is shown as the accused being the Principal employer ' within the meaning of Section 2 (g ) of the Act in relation to the ContractworkofData processing and reconciliation ofthe accounts of inter branch transaction by contractors viz. M/s .A.V. Thomas Software Research Company, Madras- 8whowere employing more than 20 contract labour for the contract work mentioned. In short, the subetance of the complaint inEx . W. 9 is to the effect that there are violations ofthe provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970/Rules and the said violations are offences/hunder Sec . 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulations 3476

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/JYAISTHA 5, 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] the Punch operating unit and for reinstatement of the workers .Ex. W.13 is the letterdt. 19-11-84 of the Petitioner's Association addressed to the Director, Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd. Madras wherein it is mentioned that drafts of the workers are retumed along with the letter, since the closure of the Punch operating unit is illegal . Ex .W.14 the failure ofConciliation report dt. 12-2-85. Ex . W. 16 is the first respondent/banks's letterdt. 29-10-85 addressed toM/ s. Carvan Books Carriers (P) Ltd.Wherein itwas mentioned that the arrangement relating to Transport documents through Lorry from Trivandrum to Madraswas made and that the documents were transported only for completion of the work for computerisation etc. Ex .W.17 is the letter d. 7-5-1987 of the Asstt . Labour Commissioner (Central) Trivandrum addressed to the President of the Petitioner's Union wherein it is interalia stated that provisionally the ContractorM/ s . A.V.T. Software Research Co.did not obtain any licences under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition ) Act from the Registering and LicensingOfficer, Trivandrum for the execution of the work undertaken by them from the 1st Respondent/Bank, Ex . W. 18 is the letter from the Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Trivandrum addressed to the President of the Petitioner's Union wherein it is confirmed that no licence under contract labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act was issued in favour ofM/s .A.V. Thomas Research Company for the execution ofwork undertakenby them from the 1st Respondent/Bank . Ex. W. 19 is the letter of State Bank of Travancore employees Union addressed to the President of the Petitioner's union wherein it is interalia mentioned that the issues would be sorted out and finalised in favour of the Punch Card operators etc.

84. Ex .M.11 is the letterdt. 24-5-1985 from the 1st Respondent /Bank addressed to the 2nd Respondent/ Software Co.,Madras , wherein it is interalia mentioned that asper the agreement the contract was for a period of 24 months from November, 1982 to October , 1984 and this was extended by another two months viz. However and December, 1984by exchange of letters under the same terms and conditions and that the bank is desirous of entrusting thework for another three months (January to March , 1985) to them etc. Ex. M12 is the letter de 4-7-1985 of the 1st Respondent/Bank addressed to the 2nd Respondent/ SoftwareResearch Co.Madras wherein it is stated that the bankhas arranged that the main branch to pay a sum of Ra.33529.28 towards payment of the bill dt. 26-5-85 for the processing month of May, 1984. Ex . M13 is the letter du. 6-7-1985 of the 1st Respondent/Bank addressed to the second Respondent/Software Co, wherein it is interalia stated that the 1stRespondent/Bank is desirous ofentrusting thework for another three months from April to June 1985 to them and that the request is made for extending the contract for a further period of 3 months to cover the processing work under the existing terms and conditions of as per the agreementSt. 3-11-1982 and the subsequent supplementary agreement at. 28-11-84 . Ex . M15 is the letter dt. 19-9-85 of

the 1st Respondent/Bank addressedto the 2nd Respondent company, with regard to the payment of bills theprocessing months ofNovember , December, 1984 2nd January, 1985. Ex. M16, is the letter dt. 5-12-85 of the 1st Respondent/Bank addressed to the Second Respondent / company wherein it is mentioned that the period of contract for the inter branch reconciliation work is extended for furtherperiod ofone year from 1-10-1985 to 30-9-1986 оп the terms mentioned. Ex . M17 is the Malayalam Manoгama PaperPublication dt. 22-2-82 wherein an advertisement is given for the employment of Key punch for Verifier operators trained on ICL/IEM machines in Trivandrum with a request toapply within 7 days to the Second respondent Company at Madras . Ex. M18 is the letter dt. 19-5-86 from the 1st Respondent/Bank's Chief Manager, Finance and Accounts addressedto the Manager, Premises Department, wherein it is stated that the bank has used any contract labour and that it is the standard practice in the industry to use the services of the other companies for Data entry and that the bankhas usedGemini Chrome Chemicals Services etc. , In Ex. M18 letter dt. 19-5-86 it is also stated that as far as the Madras is concerned, they had no temporary workers except for verybrief period and it is impossible to define how many of them were utilised for thejob specifically and further a direction is given to take up the matter directly with the second respondent . Ex. M19 is the letter dt. 19-5-86 from the Manager , Premises Deptt . addressed to theAsstt. Labour Commissioner, Trivandrum wherein it ismentioned that the second respondent company utilised the services of M/ s Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd. Madras and that the Gemini Chrome Chemicals Co. Ltd. was closed w.e.f. 22-10-84, and that no operations were conducted during 1985 or later . Ex. M20 is the letter dt . 15-12-86 of the Manager (Premises ) addressed to the 2nd Respondent company wherein a request was madeto furnish the details in respect of total number of days during 1986 on the contract which labour was employed and total number of mandays worked by contract labour during 1986 and maximum number of workmen employed on any day during the year . Ex . M21 is the reply dt . 13-1-87 of the 2nd Respondent company addressed to the Manager ( Premises) of Ist Respondent Bank , wherein it is stated that the 2nd Respondent company did not employ any contract labour during 1986 for bank's job and therefore the details requested were not available with them. Ex . M22 series are the application forms for employment submitted by the Punch operators with call letters for Interview sent by the 2nd Respondent company . Ex . M. 25 is the letter/ agreementdt . 2-5-1984 between the Proprietor of 2nd Respondent/ company and the Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd. wherein it is mentioned that the proprietor of the 2nd Respondent Company has offered to Sales and Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P ) Ltd. has agreed to pay buy the Trivandrum operations ofData Serve for a sum ofRs. 101/ and that the Proprietor of the 2nd Respondent/ company has represented that the Data Serve , Trivandrum has no financial liability to be met currently 3477

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

[भाग -खण्ड 3 ( ii) )

employees employed by the contractors are certainly the employed of the contractors and not the workmen of the 1st respondent/bank, in the considered opinion of this Tribunal.

and that the Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd. has agreed to accept the contingent liabilities on account of labour . Ex. M26 is the notice dt. 15-7-84 issued by Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd. Madrasto all the Punch Operators , wherein a request was made to report for work at the given address on 25-7-84. Εχ. Μ29 series to the annexure containing details of Drafts sent to the Punch Operators by the Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd. being the compensation paid to them which were returned as unaccepted. Ex. M30 series refer to the Postal receipt for the notice sent to the Punch Operators.

86. Furthermore , even though WW1 Thiru P. Lakshmanan, Punch Operator who worked in the 1st Respondent/bank from 1977 to 1983 has stated in his evidence that he was selectedby the Interview Committee comprising ofMr.P. Rajarathinam, representative ofA.V.T. Software and Mr. P.C. Peter, then officer of the Finance and Accounts of the bank and the concerned Bank officer gave instructions by calling all the Punch Operators howto change the format, punching card etc. and that the 1st Respondent/bank has not given any appointment orderto him and that he was called for interview by the 2nd Respondent/ company as per Ex . M22 series and that his monthly salary was disbursed to him by one Vijayan Pillai the mere presence of Thiru P.C. Peter, an officer of the 1st Respondent/bank and the concerned officer giving instructions to all the Punch Operators in regard to the punchcardworketc. will not establish that there is a Master and Servant relationship between ist Respondent/bank and the PunchOperators . In this connection, it is significant to point out that the essential condition of an individual being a workman within the terms of definition is that he should be employed to do the work in that industry and there should be an employment of his by the employer and that there should be relationship between the employer andhim as between employer and employee or Master and Servant. Unless an individual is thus employed there can beno question ofhis being a ' workman' within the definition oftheterms as per the Industrial Disputes Act .

87. As a matter of fact, Ex . W6 dt. 28-7-84 Memorandum of Settlement U /s 12 (3 ) was entered into between the Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P ) Ltd. Madras and the workmen represented by the Petitioner's union in regard to the non- employment of 47 employees and non- payment ofwages to some of them by M/s. A.V. Thomas Research Co. As per Ex. W6 Settlement dt. 28-7-84 it is seen that theGermini Chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd. has agreed to provide work for the 43 persons mentioned in the annexure to the Settlement w.c.f. 30-7-1984 and that the parties are to report implementation of the above clause of the Settlement within 15 days time . Significantly, the 1st Respondent/bank is not a party to the Ex . W6 Settlement dt. 28-7-84. Even though furnitures were provided to the Punch Operators by the Ist Respondent/bank and electricity also were provided to them by the Ist Respondent/bank, these will not show that 1st Respondent/bank is the employer in respect of the Punch Operators . Moreover, the Punch Operators of the Petitioner's union were appointed by the contractor Data Serve Madras, and their services were also terminated by the Contractor /Sub contractor. In as much as the agreementEx . M1 dt. 29-10-79, Ex . M3 agreementdt . 3- 85. As far as the present case is concemed, the 1st respondent/bank has entered into an agreement with the A.V.T. Software Research Company, Madras -3, and another agreement Ex. M3 dt. 3-11-82 with the A.V.T. Software Research Co. Madras - 8 . Ex . M10 dt . 28-11-84 is the Supplementary agreement entered into between the Data Software Research Co. Ltd. Madras- 2 (2ndl respondent) and the 1st Respondent/bank. As per Ex . MI Agreement du.29-10-79 and as per Ex . M3 agreement dil. 3-11-82 the A.V.T. Software Researchi Company has to provide' A.V.T. responsibility service in regard to the computer service agreement' .As per Ex. M10 dt. 28-11-84, Supplementary Agreement the 2nd Respondent/Data Software Research Co. Ltd. hasto perform the services mentioned in the agreement , in taking documents from 1st Respondent /bank to Madras for the purpose of Punching instead of doing the said work at the bank's premises etc. Though the A.V.Thomas Software Research Co. Madras and subsequently changed into Data Software Research Co. , both were doing punching work on behalf of the 1st Respondent/bank these companies were doing only the contractwork as per the terms of Agreement and they were paid the necessary charges for execution of the said work and that Ex . Ml agreersentdt. 27-10-79 and Ex. M3 agreement dt. 3-11-82 , and Ex . M 10 supplementary agreementdi. 25-11-84 are true and gemine documents in the considered opinion of this Tribunal and they are not Sham ones. In the present case on hand, the Data Serve Software Company i.e. 2nd Respondent company has called for application for employment from various candidates as seen fromEx . M22 series. Even the personal interview cards were sent by the 2nd Respondent/company to various candidates. Therefore, it is clear that the contractor i.e. second Respondent company has employed the Punch Operators , todo the work which he contracted with the third party to accomplish the sarne and therefore , the Punch Operators/ employees are the employees of the 2nd Respondent/company/contractor and they will not become the employees of the third person viz. the 1st Respondent company. Aperusal of Ex . Ml agreementdt . 29-10-79, Ex. M3 agreement dt . 3-11-82 and Ex. M10 supplementary agreement dt . 28-11-84 will clearly establish that the 1st Respondent/bank has engaged the contract system with the contractor and therefore the Punch Operators/ 3478

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2007/JYAISTHA 5, 1929

11-82 and Supplementary agreement Ex. MU ) dt . 28-11- 84 were catered into between Ist Respondent /bank and the A.V. Thomas Software Research Co. and 2nd respondent and 1st Respondent/bank are genuine contracts anul not Sham cones , anel since the payments were effected for the accomplishment of the contract work , this Tribunal on examination of available materials and evidence on record and in the light of the above discussions , comes to the conclusion that Exhibits Ml agreement di. 24. 110-79, Ελ . M3 agreement di . 3-11-1982 and Ex . M10 Supplementary agreementdt . 28-11-84 contracts are true and gotomine comes and not Sham ones and the point is answered accordingly .

88. Point No. 3 The learned Counsel for the Petitisonter contents that the 1st Respondentbank did not relish the factum of the petitioner's association espousing the cause of the Punch Operators and since the tst Respondent/bank apprehended that the Punch Operators would claim that they are the employees of the bank . ou 8-3-1984 the Data Processing Unit in the 1st respondent/ hank was closed for which no reasons were assigned an thePunch Operators who were dong the Data processin work for more than 7 years were suddenly thrs the employment and that the Asst . Labour Commissioner (Central ) Trivandrum got seized of the issue and op 28-7-84 a Settlement was reached between the Petitioner -association and the second respondent represented by the socalled Subcontractor M/ s . Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P ) Ltd. aul that the Punch Operators resumed work from 28-7-84 as per the Settlement and that the 1st respondenti bank with malafide intention shifted the Data Processing Unit to a building at Vellayambalarm and they shifted it to put op pretends that the Punch Operators were not the employees and before the Onatı festival m Angust 1984 Bonus dispute arose and the respondents did not pay even the minimum bonus and that they have not appeared before the Conciliation Officer and hence the failure report was seat on 12-12-85 as on 27-9-84 when the workmen reported for work, the premises at Vallayambalam was locked and these Punch Operators ever since then were not in empkymcotankion 19-10-84 theGemins Cheour Chemicals (P) Ltd. claiming to be an employer sent a notice U /s 25 (FFF) of the L.D.Act stating that the Undertaking would us closed wic.f. 22-10-84 and that they sent some compensation and notice pay to the Punch Operators and the Petitioner's association refused to receive the compensation since according to them the lock out was illegal and therefore the closure of the Data Processitie Unit on 27-9-84 is unjustified ,

89. Accordingto the Ist Responden/Bank'scounsel the 2nd Respondent/Software company or their agents closed their establishment at Trivandren and that theclaims and disputes of the 2nd respondentfcompany should be dealt with between the said company and their comployees and that the Est respondent is not connected in these matters and that the Gemini Chrome Chemicals ( P ) Ltd. tro

[PART -SEX. 3 ) ] whom the 2nd Respondent/ company said to have entrusted the work have paid the wages and other benefits to the workers and on closure of the unit they paid the compensation which were not accepted by the comployes of the Petitioner's association and the Ist Resposudent/ hank has not locked out any of its employees at any time and with malalide intention of forcing the Punch Operators into the service/employment of the 1st respondent/bank , the petitioner's union reported to unlawful agitation before the bank and the pentoner's union entered into a Seulement with Ms. Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P ) Ltd. as the agents / sub contractors of Data Software Research Company and hence the claim against the 1st responden / bank is invalid and unjustified .

90. In Ex . W10 letter dt . 28-9-84 of the Petitioner uniou addressed to the Managing Director of the 1st respondent! bank it is imer alia mentioned that when the employees went for work in 27-9-84 they found a notice displayed in front of the office that the employer locked out the establishment . In Ex . WII letter di. 27-10-84 of the Petitioner/ association addressed to the Director, Gemini Chrome Chemicals ( P) Lid, Madras , it is stated that there was 100 indiscipline among the workers and there was 110 insubordination, threat or violence against the supervisors or theft of any articles of the company by the workers as alleged in the annexure and that there was no right to close down the Punch Operating Section by the coustpany which was doing the Punch operating work of the ist respondent! bank for the last 7 years and a request was made to withdraw the illegal closure notace munediately.

91. WW ] Thiru Chandrasekara Nair in his evidence has deposed that the Data Processing Section was locked out on 8-3-1984 and thatthere was a conciliation before the Asst . Labour Commissioner Central ) and pursuant 10 the settlement the Electronic Data Processing Centre reopened on 29-7-84 mainly due to the efforts of Ist Respondent/ bank and the Data Processing Section was shifted to Vellayambalam two kilometers away from the Head Office and that building belongs to the 1st Respondent /bank and that there was a dispute regarding the bonus in August 1984 and on 27-9-84 there was a lock out and thereafter it was not opened and that in the conciliation proceedmes he took part and the 1st Respondent/bank did not appear and on 19-10-84 Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P ) Lid . sent notices to 47 persons suspensing their services and the employees did not accept compensation from the Gemini Chrome Chemicals ( P ) J.td. , they are the employees of 1st Respondenubank analafier 27-9-84 Data processing work was done through A.V.T. Software Research Co. Ltd. at Madras , WWI Thiru Chandraseckara Nair has also deposed that the 47 workers were also appointed by the Tata Consultancy in 1997. the salary payments for 47 workers was paidby the 2nd Respondent/company on behalf of the ist Respondem /bank and Ex . W2 letter was addressed to A. V.T. Software Research Co. Madras , since they are 3479

भाव का राजपत्र: मई 26 , 2007 /ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

[भाग - खण्ड 3 ( ii) )

making payments on behalf of the 1st Respondent/bank. WW2 Thiru P. Lakshmanan in bis evidence his stated that hewas called for interview by the 2nd Respondent/company as per Ex. M22 series and that the 1st Respondent/bank has not issued any appointment order to him. MW1 Thiru Sasindran, an officer of the 1st Respondent bank in his evidence has stated that Punching card form is a preliminary work of the data processing work and that reconciliation is the mainpart ofwork of the data processing and from 1977 to 1979 it was done by Tata Consultancy and A.V. Thomas Software Research Co. Ltd. is continuing the data processing work as on date and that the 1st Respondent/ bank has entered into an agreement with the 2nd Respondent/company Data Software Research Co. (formerly A.V.T. Software Research Co.) and that the 1st Respondent/bank has no control over the work of the Punch operators and the work is still continuing but not in the premises of the bank and that the first respondent bank never paid salary and allowances of Punch operators al any time and that the 1st Respondent/bank has nothingto dowith the punch operators and that the Punch operators were doing the work only relating to the bank and he does not knew whether the 1st Respondent/bank was convicted under the Contract Labour Act and they were certain dispute relating to Punch operators and one of the dispute of the Punch operators relates to bonus and thathe was not aware whether the A.V.T. Representative usedto rush to the bank to find out the waysto solve the dispute.

92. It cannotbe gain said that the employer is freeto close a part ofthe business. The closure of the whole or a part of the business is the function of the managemeni which is in the discretion of the employer carrying on the business. Certainly, carrying on of the business is a right and not an obligation . Therefore , it is as much the right of the employer to close down the business as to carry it on as per decision ( 1960 ) II LL.J P. I between Hathising Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India . As a matter of fact, the Industrial adjudication has no power to direct an employer to continue the whole or part of the business which he has decided to shut down. It cannot direct an employer to re -open the business which he has once closed down as per decision ( 1970 ) I LLJ 343 @ 345, Workmen of India LeafTobacco Development Co. Ltd. , Vs , Indian Leaf TobaccoDevelopment Co. Ltd.

93. It is to be pointed out that when the employer has shut down the Industrial activity the Tribunal should bear in mind all the relevant circumstances which was prevailing at the time of closure in order to decide and determine whether the closure was a bonafide one or a mere device to terminate the business or not is a question offact.

Settlement di. 28-7-84 U/s 12(3 ) of the LD . Act was entered into between the authorised representative of Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd. and the Petitioner's union , whereby the management of Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd. ,has agreedto provide work for 43 persons mentioned in the amexure to the Settlement w.e.f. 30-7-84 F.N. After agreeingto provide the work as per Ex . W6 settlement dt. 28-7-84, before the festival ofOnam in 1984 dispute arose between the Petitioner's lunion and the management of Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd. Madras, the sub- contractor ofA.V.T. Software Research Company, Madras and latter on 27-9-84 the employer has locked out the establishment citing certain reasons and this was denied as seen from Ex. W11 dt . 27-10-84 letter of the Petitioner's union addressed to the Director of Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd .. In short, in Ex. Wil letter dt . 27-10-84 the allegations of indiscipline, insubordination , threat or violation against the supervisors or theft of any articles of the company by the workers are denied . As a matter of fact, the closure of business whether partial or entire one should be real and genuine i.e. it should be a closure in fact, and it should not be used as a play for carrying on the same business in a different manner. The motive of the employer inclosing down his unit/undertaking is not to be gone intoby the Tribunal in order to find out whether the closure is justified or not. The cumulative fact and circumstances will have to be taken into account to find out, if infact, there was a closure . The substance is , factum of closure by whatever reasons motivated. In the present case on hand, the Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd. have paid compensation to the Punch operators as seen from Ex . M 29 and they were returned as unaccepted. Even though the work was there, the documents relating to inter branch transactions were sent to the 2nd respondent/ company at Madras by the Ist respondent/bank as seen fromEx. W16 letter dt. 29-10-85 of the 1st respondent/bank addressedto the Caravan Goods Carriers (P) Ltd. Trivandrum. In the instant case, the Punch operators of the petitioner mion were paid the compensation . But the same was not accepted and it was returned. Since the Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd. has agreed to buy the Trivandrum operations of the 2nd respondent/ company accepting the contingent liabilities on account of labour and since the Trivandrum options ofData processing unit was closedby the Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P ) Ltd. Citing some reason or other and since the factum of closure is real, this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the closure oftheDataprocessing unit by the Gemini chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd. in the 1st respondent Bank's premises is a closure in fact and it is not open to this Tribunal to go into the question as to the motive in closing down the unit and to enquire whether it was bonafide or malafide etc. and the point is answered accordingly.

95. Point No. 4: According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the work of data processing was there as 94. It is relevant to point out that the term undertaking is not intended to cover entire industry or business of the employer, but it should be recognised as a sub- section or unit eligible for being styled as an Undertaking. Ex . W6

2394G1/07-27 3480

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007 /TYAISTHA5, 1929

seen fromEx. W16 letter dt. 29-10-85 of 1st respondent/ barik addressed to M/ s . Caravan Goods Carriers (P) Ltd. Trivandrum, wherein a request was made by bank to transport by lorry the documents pertaining to inter - branch transaction to the 2nd respondent/company and therefore when the work was there, the punch operators of the petitioner's union are entitled to demand continuous employment either with the 1st respondent bank or under thecontracters engaged by the 1st respondent/bank . As a matter of fact, MWI Thiru Sasindran in his evidence has deposedthat theA.V. Thomas Software Research Company isstill continuing the Data Processing work as on date and that the Punch Operators of the petitioner union were doing the work only relating to the bank. The 1st Respondent/ bank's Counsel relied on 2006-1-LLJ p . 721 between State ofU.P. and Neeraj Awasthi and others , wherein it is held as follows:

"U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964- Sections25-A, 26 -А, 26- B, 26- M and 26.L(x) -U.P. Markets Board(Officers and Staff Establishment) Regulations, 1984- Employees of Market committees -Appointments made in violation of statutory provisions-Direction by high Court to allow employees to resume duty and to draw scheme for regulacisation, held, not sustainable ."

[PART II-SBC. 3(ії) ] respondentbank is unjustified and it is also held that the demand made by the petitioner's union that the punch operators should be given continuous employment under the contractors is unjustified. No costs, however, this Tribunal as sentinel in the quivevi directs the petitioner's association to approach the appropriate Government for abolition of contract labour in the 1st Respondent/bank if any, in accordance with law and keeping in view of the directiveprinciples enshrined in articles 38, 39, 41-43 and 47 of the Constitution of India .

Dictatedto Shorthand Writer and transcribed by her and corrected by me and pronounced in Open Tribunal on this 29th day of March, 2007.

THIRU M. VENUGOPAL, PresidingOfficer 1,D. NO . 86 OF 1985

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ForPetitioner/Workmen :

WW1 :

Thiru Chandrasekara Nair

WW2 :

Thiru P. Lakshmanan

ForRespondent/Management:

MW1 :

Thiru Sasindran

DocumentsMarked

For Petitiomer/Workmen:

Ex . WI 7-4-1983

: Letter Sent by the Petitioner Association to the respondent Bank

Ex. W2 4-8-1983

When thePunch operators were not appointed by the 1st respondent/bank and since the 1st Respondent/ bank is notthe employer of the Punch operators and since the 1st Respondent/bank has entrusted the data processing work by way of contract system to the contractors, the demand of the petitioner's union that the Punch operators should be given the continnous employment by the Ist Respondentbank is unjustified, in the considered opinion ofthis Tribunal . When the Data processing unit was closed by theGemini Chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd. and when the Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd. has given the compensation to the Punch operators, though it was not accepted by them and when infact, there is a factum of closure in our case, this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the dersand made by the petitioner's union that the Punch operators should be given continuous employment under the contractors is unjustified and the employees are not entitled to any relief, in this regard and the point is answered accordingly.

: Letter Sentby the Employees to the Chief Executive A.V.T. Madras requesting them to give allowance and advance salary for the Onam Festival .

Ex. W3 17-5-1984 : Respondent bank's letter to RBI , DBOD,Bombay

Ex. W4 16-6-1984 : Lr . sent by the Asst. Labour

Commissioner (Central ) Trivandrum totheAssociation informing them for discussion .

Ex. W5 10-7-1984 : Minutes of the Meeting Ex .W6 28-7-1984 : Memorandum of Settlement arrived at u/s 12 (3 ) between the Management of Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P ) Ltd. , and their workmen.

Ex. W7 19-8-84

Lr . Sent by the association to the DirectorGemini Chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd. , claimingbonus.

Ex . W8 28-8-84

In the result, an award is passed holding that the petitioner'simion has sufficiency of interest to raise an Industrial dispute under the Industrial Dispute Art and it isheld that EX.MI agreement dt. 29-10-79, Ex . M3 agreement dt . 3-11-82 and Ex.M10 Supplementary agreement dt. 28-11-84 contracts are true and genuine ones , and it is held that theclosure ofthe DataProcessing unit by the Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd. in the 1st respondent/bank's premises is a closure infact, and it is further held that the demand of the petitioner's union that the punch operators should be given the continuous employment by the 1st

: Lr. sent by the associationto the Asstt . Labour Commissioner (Central) Trivandrum.

3481

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Ex. W9 15-11-84

Ex.M4 5-1-1983 : Letter with enclosure from 2nd respondent to 1st respondent.

:-do-

Ex. MS 26-5-83

:Criminal-Court's imposition of fine Rs. 100 on the respondent bank in the S.T. 69/84 u/s 24 of the Contract LabourAct .

Ex. M6 23-8-83

Ex. W10 28-9-84

Letter with enclosures from 1st Respondent change in the name of their company to 2ud respondent .

:Association's letter to the Respondent/bank about illegal lockout

Ex.M7 25-8-83 :Letter with enclosures from Ist Respondent to 2nd Respondent.

ExW11 27-10-84

Ex. MB 18-11-83 :Letter with enclosures from 2nd respondentto their Madras branch.

:Association's letter 10 the Director Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P) Lid. , Madras, Stating about the illegal lockout.

Ex W12 -do-

Ex.M9 01-9-1984 letter to ist Respondent by 2nd Respondent

Ex. M10 28-11-84

:Associations letter to the Labour Commissioner to take stepe in lifting closure.

Ex. W13 19-11-84

:Supplementary Agreement between Ist respondent and 2nd respondent.

Ex. M11 24-5-85 :Letter by 2nd Respondent to 1st Respondent.

:Association's letter to the Director Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd.. by returning the drafts sent by them.

Ex M12 47-85

ExW14.12-2-85 :Failure ofConciliation report

Letter with enclosure by 2nd Respondent to Ist Respondent.

Ex.W15 99-1985

Ex.M13 6-7-85

:Association's letter to the Prime Minister of India.

:Letter from 2nd Respondent to 1st Respondem

:-do-

ExM14 16-9-85

Ex. W16 29-10-85

:-do-

Ex. M15 19-9-85

: do

Ex. M16 5-12-85

ExM17 22-2-82

:SBT's letter to Mis . Caravan Goods Carriers Pvt . Ltd. , asking arrangement transport documents by lorry to Mis. Data Software Research Co. Ltd., too

:Malayala Manoram Paper Publication.

Ex. W17 7-5-1987

Ex. M18 19-5-86 :Letter from the Chief Manager Finance & Accounts to the Manager, Premises Departmentto the 1st Respondent.

Ex. Μ19 19-5-86

:Provisional Certificate given by the ACL (Central), trivandrumto the Petitioner that no license has been givento AVTG Software Research Cox, under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act.

Ex. W18 25-08-87

:Lr. from the Manager (Premises) to the Asst. Labour Commissioner Trivandrum- 1

Ex . M20 15-12-86 Lr. from the Manager (Premises ) to M/sData Software Research Co. Ltd. (2ndRespondent).

Ex.M21 13-1-87

:Confirmation letter given by ACL (Central) Trivandrum to the Petitioner that no license has been given under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act to M/ s A.V. Thomas Software ResearchCo.

:Reply letter from the Data Software Research Co. Ltd.to the Manager (Premises)

Ex.W19 31-08-88

Ex. M22/Series

:Letter from general Secretary of SBT Employes' Union to Mr. Venganoor Chandrasekaran Nair, Advocate, Trivendrum .

ForRespondent/Management :

:Application forms for employment submitted by the Punch Operator with some call letters sent to the Punch Operator for the said applications.

Ex.M23/Scries

Ex.Ml 29-10-79 : Agreement between 1st and 2nd Respondent

Ex. M2 26-6-81 :Message No. 489 with enclosure from 2nd respondent to their Midrus branch.

:Acknowledgements received in response to the first notice from Gemini Chrome Chemicals , dt . 18-6-84 sent to the Punch Operators calling them to report for dutyat the Vellayambalam office .

ExM3 3-11-1982 : Agreement betweenist respondent and 2nd respondent 3482

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY26, 2007/JYAISTHA 5, 1929

Ex .M24/Series : Retumed notices unaccepted by Punch Operators.

Ex.M25 2.5-84 :Agreement between Mrs. Jennifer (Proprietor ofData Service) and the Gemini Chrome Chemicals (P ) Ltd. , to take over the Trivandrum operating Data service by the letter.

Ex. M26 15-7-84 :Noticeto all Punch operatorsby Gemini Chrome Chemicals ( P) Ltd. Madrasto report forwork.

Ex. M27 17-7-84 : Letter from Gemint Chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd. Madras to the ACL( Central ) Trivarkirum.

Ex.M28 /Series : Acknowledgement received from Punch Operators in response.

Ex. M29/Series :Xerox copies of documents sent to the Punch Operators by Gemini Chrome Chemicals ( P) Ltd. , being the compensation paid to thein which were returned unaccepted.

Ex.ML30/Series :Postal receipt for the notice sentto PunchOperators .

नई दिल्ली , 8 मई , 2007

कर. आ. 1566.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार नेवेली लिग्नाइट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चैत्रई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 303/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-5-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/64/ 2003- माई आर ( सी एप- IE ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 8thMay,2007

S.O. 1566. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No.303/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Neyveli LigniteCorporation Limited, and their workman , received by the Central Government on 8-5-2007.

[No. L-22012/64/2003 - IR ( CM - II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEDRE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENI INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR CURT, CHENNAI

Wednesday, the28th February,2

[PART II-SEC . 3( 1 ) ] Present:

K.Jayaraman,Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 303/2004 (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Management of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited and their workmen)

BETWEEN

TheGeneral Secretary.

Party/Claimant NLC General Contract Workers

and StaffUnion ( CTTU)

Neyveli

AND

The Director (Personnel) ,

II Party/ Management Neyveli Lignite Corporation,

Neyveli

Appearance:

For theClaimant : M/ s . K. Elango , Advocates For the Management : M/ s . N. A. K. Sarma, Advocates AWARD

The Central Govemment , Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-22012 /64/2003 - IR (CM - II ) dated 30-1-2004 has referred the dispute to this tribunal for adjudication . The Schedule mentioned dispute is as follows:-

"Whether the demand of NLC General Contract Workers andStaff Union (CITU ) for equal raise in the wages of the contract workmen on par with the NLC Indcoserve Society Contract Workmen is legal and justified? If so, to what relief are the workmen entitled? "

2.After the receipt of the reference, it was taken on file as I.D. No. 303/2004 and notices were issued to both the parties and they have entered appearance through their advocates and filed their Claim Sutement and Counter Statement respectively.

3. The allegations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement are briefly as follows:---

ThePetitioner union is a trade union registered under theTrade Unions Act . It has substantial following among the contract workmen . In the Il Party /Management there are three types of contract workmen. One is the contract workmen employed through Industrial Co- operative Service Societyshortly INDCOSERVE Society . The second type is contract workmen employed through house keeping co- operative society, shortly Housecos . Both are registered under Co-operative Societies Act. The third type is the contract workmen employed through various individual contractors . There are about ten thousand contract workmen employed by II Party / Management in total . Out of these about 2000 contract workmen are employed [ भाग - खण्ड ( ii) )

3483

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

through INDCOSERVE and about 200 are employed through HOUSBCOS and the remaining contract workmen are employed through individual contractors . In the contract workmen there are four categories namely unskilled, semi -skilled, skilled and highly skilled and the wages paid to contract workmen in each category is the same whether they belong to one type or the other and there is nodiscrimination between the contract workmen employed through one type and the other type. Wages for the contract workmen are daily rated and they are paid wages either weekly or monthly. While so , barring the contract workmen through various contractors, there is an increase ofRs.500 per month in the wages of each contract workmen employed through other two types of members ofthe Society and they are paid Rs. 19.23 per day in addition to the dailywage. The said increase is givenfrom 1-2-2002 pursuant to the order dated 11-4-2002 of the Respondent/ Management. It was stated in the order that having got impressed with the performance of the Il Party! Management, the increase is given . If that is the reason , the contract workmen employed through various individual contractors cannot be denied the same, since they are equally contributing for the better performance of the II Party /Management like other contract workmen. Further, they are employed side by side, therefore , the II Party/ Management cannot discriminate the contract workmen employed through various individual contractors . Therefore, this cannot be disturbed by the II Party/ Management . The work carried ont by the workmen belonging to each category is the same . Thall is why parity is being maintained . It is based on the sound principle of equal pay for equal work. Though both the direct workmen and contractworkmen are doing the same work, the contract workmen are not paid the same wages as given to direct workmen. But this case is not relating to equal wages for contract workmen on par with direct workroen doing the same work . The Respondent/ Management cannot discriminate at least among contract workmen themselves inthe payment of wages and such a discrimination is illegal, arbitrary and amounts to unfair labour practice. Hence , for all these reasons , the Petitioner union prays this Tribunal topass an award holding that the demand for equal raise in wages ofcontract workmen on par with the Neyveli Lignite Corporation INDCOSERVE Society contract workmen.

workinen forwhose benefit, the Claim Statement has been filed is unclear.With regard to INDCOSERVE Society, neither thecontractor northe workmen are contract workinen under Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act. The workinen deputed by INDCOSER VE have not been hired by INDCOSERVE, but are the member employees bome on the rolls of INDCOSER VE. Therefore, there is no justification to treat the workman engaged through INDCOSERVE as being equally or similarly placed as those workmen hired or otherwise engaged through private contractors . INDCOSERVE Society is a separate legal entity and is governed by its own bye -laws and standing orders . INDCOSERVE Society is deputing personnel on its rollsto various units of the II Party/ Management as per its requirements and does not supply contract labour to the corporation. The claim for parity by the Petitioner is without. any basis. the II Party/Management only stipulates in all contracts that wages should not be less than the statutory minimum wages and it is open for the private contractorto affer competitive bids. Hence , the Petitioner Union ought tobeplacing their demand for increase in wages with their concerned contractors . This Tribunal has no power to after or modifya contract for work validly entered into between the Corporation and a private contractor . The workmen engaged through INDCOSER VE they form a separate class and they are entitled to minimum wages prescribed, whereas the workmen engaged through private contractors were at liberty to receivehigher wages dependingupon the market conditions ofdemand and supply, skill etc. Therefore , the wages paid by them may not be uniform or identical and theCorporation has no say in the matter . The Respondent/ Management has not engaged any contract workers , on the other hand, the contract workers are deployed by the private contractors to execute the work and there is no direct employer- employee relationship between the Respondent and the contract workers deployed by the various private contractors. The INDCOSER VE workmen are not contractor labourers and they do not stand on the same footing as private contractors ' workers . It is true that wages of INDCOSERVE workmen were enhanced by Rs.19.23 per day w.e.f. 1-2-2002 . On that ground, the Respondent cannot be required to unilaterally enhance the wages of those employed through private contractors. Hence, for all these reasons, the Respondent prays that the claim may be dismissed with costs.

5. In these circumstances , the points for my consideration are:-

( i) "Whether the demand of the Petitioner union forraise in the wages of the contract workmen on par with Neyveli Lignite Corporation INDOOSERVE Society contract workmen is legalandjustified?

(ii) "To what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?" 3484

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/JYAISTHA 5, 1929

[PART I-Sac. 3 (ii )) Point No. 1:

does not fall within Section 2K ofthe I.D.Act. Further, the PetitionerUnion has not produced enough material to prove that it has substantial following among the employees of theRespondent/ Management. The witnesses examined on the side of the Petitioner have not been able to produce either any oral or documentary evidence to that effect. Being số, the Petitioner lacked locus standi to, maintain the present claim petition and on this ground also the petition is not maintainable before this Tribunal. It is further contended that it is admitted by the Petitioner union that the terms and conditions of contract workmen under private contractor and the terms and conditions of workmen under INDCOSERVE society contract are not the same, by virtue ofthis position alone, the present claim is not maintainable before this Tribunal . Further , grievance of the Petitioner that its employer namely the private contractor is paying urages different from what another employer namely INDCOSERVE is paying to its members/ workmen and such grievance cannot be addressed to the Respondent/ Management, and can only be addressed to respective private contractors under whom the members of the Petitioner imion are working . Further, in the present case, the Respondent/ Management and INDCOSERVE have entered into contract by agreement between the parties and as regards the workmen engaged through IND COSER VE, the daily wage was increased by a sum of Rs.19.23 per day w.e.f. 1-1-2002, which constituted an agreement between the II Party /Management and INDCOSERVE . Such agreement binds only Respondent/ Management and IND COSER VE and neither the Petitioner nor any private contractor is a party to such agreement between the Respondent/ Management and INDCOSERV Hence, they are not entitled to claim any benefit or advantageunder the said agreement , which is between the Respondent/Management and the INDCOSERVE society and for this reason also the claim made by the Petitioner Union is not maintainable .

6.The dispute in this case is the Petitioner has claimed that the benefit of circular dated 11-4-2002 namelyunder Ex.WI issuedby the II Party / Management enhancing the wages of INDCOSERVE and HOUSECOS workers by Rs.19.23 por day with effect from 1-2-2002 shouldbe offered 10the members of the Petitioner union as well . The Petitioner claimed that it is a registered trade: union under Trade Unions Adt and it has substantial following among the workmen employed by II Party/ Management and the minimum wages payable to contract workers are periodically fixed churing the month ofApril in every year as per the four categories and the Petitioner further contended that the increase given from 1-2-2002 in pursuant to order dated 11-4-2002 stating that the Minister of Coal having got impressed with the performance of the II Party/ Management , the increase is given . If that is the reason, the contract workmen employed through various contractors cannot be denied the same. Because , the contract workmen employed through various contractors are equally contributing for the better performance of the li Party/Management like wher contract workmen. Further, the contract workmen employed by private contractors in every area are doing the same work done by the INDCOSERVE Society work men and also Housecos society workmen. Therefore , the Respondent/ Management cannot discriminate the contract workmen employed through various individual contractors. It is the further contention of the Petitioner that there has been uniformity in the payment of wages in all types of contract workinen, if they belong to same category zund this cannot be disturbed by the 11 Party/Management particularly , when the said practice is sin vogue for years together and at no point of lime, there was disparity in payment of wages . It is also clearly admitted that the work carried on by the workmen belonging to each categorycateg is the same, that is why the parity is being maintained and it is based on the sound principle di ' equal pay for equal work' as enshrined in Article 39(1 ) r.w. Article 14 of the Constitution . Therefore, the Respondent /Management cannot discriminate the workmen of the Petitioner union with that of Housecos sociely workmen . Further, in this , case it is not the case relating to equal wages for contract workmen on par with the direct workmen doing the same work . Therefore, the Respondent/Management camol discriminate among the contract workmen themselves in the payment of wages and such a discrimination is illegal , arbitrary and amounts tounfair labour practice.

7.But, as against this , the Respondent /Management contended that the claim of the Petitioner is not maintainable on several grounds. Firstly , there is no relationship of employer - employee between the Respondent /Management and the Petitioner and in the absence of employer-employee relationship between the Respondent and Petitioner, the present dispute raised herein

8. Then again, it is contended on behalf of the Respondent that it is a statement of the management witness that the workers under private contractors, some times are getting more wages than the INDOOSER VE society workers for skilled work and they are getting more amount as salary from the private contractors in some cases. 11 is an admitted fact that the contract workers engaged by the private contractors are neither regular nor permanent and the private contractors themselves change according to their duration of contract . The wages payable to contract workers are not uniform or identical . Therefore, in view of these features,there is no commonality between one private contractor and another private contractor or between any private contractor and INDCOSERVE . Each private contractor with respect to the workers under the respective contractor forined a separate and distinct class . Likewise , INDCOSERVE forned a separate class by itself different fromanyother private contractor . Therefore, there can be 3485

मासत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

[भाग- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

at the rate higher than the minimum wages . Such demand hastobenecessarily placed before the contractor /employer by the respective contract worker . Under such chaycumstances , the claim made by the Petitioner union is not maintainable before this Tribunal. It is further contended that it is open for one contractor to pay more than the minimum wages even ifother contractors are not doing so. In thepresent case, the INDCOSERVE society as aprivate contractor has been able to get better terms and as a result he is able to pay Rs.19.23 per day over and above the minimum wages and it cannot be questioned by the Petitioner union . The total number of private contract workers is large number and not a decreasing number, whore as INDOOSERVE society members are decreasing every year either absorbed as regular employee , retired, death, discontinued work etc. For these reasons also the comparison camot be made by the Petitioner. The claim madeby the Petitioner is based on parity between the two distinctivelyplaced set of contract workers employed by different private contractors does not arise even under Article 14. Therefore, the claim made by the Petitioner union is notmaintainable before this Tribunal.

9.Leamedcounsel for the Respondent further relied on the rulings reported in 1998 I SCC 428 ASSOCIATE BANKS OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS wherein the Associate Banks Officer's association claimed parity in employment and equal pay for equal work in which the Supreme Court bas beldthat"the doctrine is designed to correct irrational and inexplicable pay differentiation which can be looked upon as discrimination against an employee or a given set of emplayees, it is easier to identify such discriminoted groups when the discriminated group is sex- based (women) or colour based (blacks in USA) or caste-based (Scheduled Castes etc.) and more difficult to identify in other cases. But, unless there is such identifiable discrimination , the doctrine should not be applied and mere difference is not discrimination. " Further, it has held that "applicability of the principle when there is a negotiated settlement, employees of subsidiary banks of State Bank of India receiving certain benefits by way ofnegotiated settlement with the management , their subsequent claim for parity with their counterparts in State Bank of India is not sustainable." Then the leamed counsel for the Respondent reliedonthe rulings reported in JT 2002 5 SC 189 STATE OF HARYANA VS. HARYANA CIVIL SECRETARIAT PERSONAL STAFF ASSOCIATON wherein the Personal Assistants in State Civil Secretariat of Haryana filed Writ seeking same scale of pay granted py Central Govt . to P.As working in Central Secretariat in which, the Supreme Court has held that "the High Court failed to make any comparison of the nature of duties and responsibilities , as wellas the qualifications for the two categories of P.As. Equal pay for equal work ' is not a fundamental right vested in any employee . Factors such as financial position of no question of contract worker being entitled to terms application to another contract worker engaged by another private contractor . When the employers are different, the question of equal pay for equal work does' not arise, even if other conditions are fulfilled. When it is admitted that private contractors as well as INDCOSERVE society to pay higher wages than the minimum wages, the II Party/ Management has no control over the terms and conditions between a contract worker and the respective private contractors .Therefore, one private contractor may pay more wages than another private contractor in respect of identically skilled workmen. These matters are governed by market forces , such as nature of work, competition, availability ofworkmen , experience, urgency ofneed etc. Therefore, the contract worker under one private contract or may not be entitled to claim parity with acontract worker under another private contractor either under Article 14 or any other provision of law. Therefore, the Respondent/ Management is only bound by terms and conclitions of the contract with respective contractors including INDCOSERVE. In this case, the Petitioner namely contract workmen has not established before this Tribunal that every contract worker of the private contractor in identically placed in all respects such as qualification, age, nature of work, place of work, method and conditions of entry as contractworker etc. with INDCOSERVE member/worker. Further, the Petitioner union has not produced any pay slip, wage register or any such materialto indicate the daily wages received by the contract worlcers from their employer. Hence, the claim made by the Petitioner Union is unjustified and has not been substantiated. Therefore, merely because some contract workers are getting more daily wages, provides no justification for any other contract worker engaged by a different contractor to claim purity.The fact that INDCOSERVE is a co-operative society governedbya statute whereas the other private contractors are either individuals or firms , is itself sufficient to hokl that two are incomparable. Above all, the prayer made in dispute made bythePetitioner amounts to a prayer to unilaterally alter or amend the terms of private contract entered into between the II Party /Management and respective private contractors, as such , the Tribunal has no power of jurisdiction to alter such private contracts or to substitute the existing contracts with another onerous contract . It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent that claim ofequal pay for equal work is not automatic and it depends upon various factors namely service conditions, responsibility etc. and In the case of INDOOSERVE workmen, they are governed by their own standing orders and bye- laws whereas , no such factors apply in the case of individual contract workers engaged by private contractors . It is also contended on behalf of the Respondent that it is not the case of tlue Petitioner union that any oftheir members who are contract workers working for Respondent/Management are being paid less than minimum wages and what they are claiming wages is 3486

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/ JYAISTHA 5, 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]

order of reference is not maintainable , the Division Bench of theHigh Court has reversed the order of Single Judge, in which the Supreme Court has held that "as the Respondent had not entered the employment referring a dispute at his instance was misconceived, Court should not have extended its helping hand to a non- deserving claimant. Reference of the dispute at the instance of the Respondent was wholly unwarranted and uncalled for ."

10. Then the learned counsel for the Respondent with regard to non- maintainability of petition before this Tribunal further relied on the rulings reported in 2004 2 CTC 430 MUKAND LTD . Vs. MUKAND STAF AND OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION wherein while considering whether the Tribunal can entertain the dispute with regard to non-workman, the Supreme Court has held that "the Tribunal has nojurisdiction to entertain and decide dispute relating to non- workmen and the industrial disputes can be raised only by workmen. " Again , learned counsel for theRespondent relied on the rulings reported in IT 1995 4 SC264 GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD , THERMAL POWER STATION VS. HIND MAZDOOR SABHA AND OTHERS wherein the Supreme Court has held that "having regard to the scheme and objects of the Act and its other provisions , the expression " any person" in Section 2( k) of the L.D. Act mustbe read subject to such limitations and qualifications as arise from the context; the two crucial limitations are- (i ) the dispute must be a real dispute between the parties to the dispute (as indicated in the first two parts of the definition clause ) so as to be capable of settlement or adjudication by one party to the dispute giving necessary relief to the other; and ( ii ) the person regarding whom the dispute is raised must be one in whose employment, non- employment , terms of employment or conditions of labour ( as the case may be) the parties to the dispute have a direct or substantial interest . Strictly speaking, a workman within the meaning of the Act must be one in whose employment , non - employment, terms of employment or conditions of labour the workman as a class have Appellate Authority direct or substantial interest ." It was also held in that case, that "the person mentioned was not a workman and he belonged to medical or technical staff, a different category altogether from workman . Therefore, the appellant had direct nor substantial interest in his employment or non - employment and even assuming thathe was a member of the same trade union , it cannot be said on the tests laid down by us, that the dispute regarding his termination of service was an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2( k) , of the.Act . " Relying on all these decisions he argued that this dispute raised by the PetitionerUnion is not maintainable before this forum and hence, it is liable to be dismissed .

Govt. and the additional liability have to be kept in mind. Courts should approach such matters with restraint and interfere only when they are satisfied that the decision of Govt. is patently irrational , unjust and prejudicial to a section of the employees" and rejected the claim of the Petitioner. Then the counsel for the Respondent relied on the rulings reported in JT 2003 5 SC 544 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER VS. TILAK RAJ AND OTHERS. In that case 35 Respondents were appointed at different points of time as helpers on daily wages in Haryana Roadways and they filed Writ Petition claiming that they were entitled to regularisation . In View ofservice rendered for longperiod and / or that they were to be paid the same salary as paid to regular employees in which the High Court allowed the Writ Petition . Against that order, while dealing with the aspect regarding applicability of doctrine of equal pay for equal work when a daily wager can claim comparison with the regular and permanent staff for any purpose including a claim for equal pay, the Supreme Court has held that "Respondents appointed at different points of time as helpers on daily wages by the appellant corporation claiming regularisation and also seeking salary at par with regular employees on the ground of ' equal pay for equal work' , the claimants having failed to substantiate a clear cut basis of equivalence and a resultant hostile discrimination and no material having been produced as to the nature of the duties of either categories , the principle ofequal pay for equal work , not being an abstract principle would not be applicable. " Then again, the learned counsel for the Respondent relied on the rulings reported in 1982 LLJ 344 RANDHIR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS wherein the Supreme Court has held that " if officers of the same rank perform dissimilar functions and the powers , duties and responsibilities of the post heldby them varies, such officers cannot be heard to complain of dissimilar pay merely because the posts are of the same rank and the nomenclature is the same ." Learned counsel forthe Respondent further relied on the rulings reported in J厂20017 SC 252 BONGAIGAONREFINERY AND PETRO- CHEMICALS LTD. Vs. SAMJUDDIN AHMED wherein the Supreme Court has held that meaning of workman- Respondentoffered employment by appellant corporation under the benevolent scheme applicable to persons whosc lands had been acquired by appellant corporation for setting up oil refinely and at the stage of joining and accepting the joining report , appellant coming to know that the Respondent had suppressed factual information and that he was not entitied to be offered the job in the category of displaced persons and accordingly withdrawing the letter of appointment and not accepting the joining report and the Respondent moved the Central Govt. by raising an industrial dispute . Though the Govt. refused to refer the matter , on the direction of High Court theGovt.made reference to the Tribunal and the appellant corporation challenged the order of reference by filing Writ. Though the Single Judge of High Court has held that

11. On the other hand , learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the rulings reported in 1986 ILLJ 134 DHIRENDRACHAMOLI AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. wherein the Supreme Court has held that "the fact that 3487

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

these employees accepted employment with full knowledge that they will be paid only daily wages and they will not get the same salary and conditions of service as other Class IV employees cannot provide an escape to the CentralGovt .to avoid the mandate of equality enshrined inArticle 14of the Constitution . This Article declares that there shallbe equality before law and equal protection of the law and implicit in it is the further principle that there must be equal pay for work of equal value . These employees who are in the service of the different Nehru Yuvak Kendras in the country and who are admittedly performing the same duties as Class IV employees must therefore , get the same salary and conditions of service as Class IV employees . It makes no difference whether they are appointed in sanctioned posts or not. Solong as they are performing the same duties , they must receive the same salary and conditions of service as Class IV employees." Relying on this decision, learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that in this case, though the Respondent contended that the work done by the INDOOSER VE society workmen and the members of the Petitioner unicon are different , they have not produced even a single documentto show that these workmen are working in two different works. No doubt, the workmen engaged by private contractors are doing as per the contract entered into by the contractor and the Respondent/Management, there are only four categories of workmen namely ( 1) unskilled; (ii) semi -skilled; (ii ) skilled & (iv) highly skilled and the Respondent/Management has fixed the rate of wages as per Minimum Wages Act . Under such circumstances , it cannot be said that they are doing different works at different places. When the Petitioner examined his witness who are in INDCOSER. VE society, the Respondent/Management has not nullified the evidencegiven by the said witness that the evidence given by them is false . Under such circumstances , it shouldbe presumed that both are doing the same work and they cannot be classified to do different work by diliferent rates. Under such circumstances, the aforesaid Supreme Court decision is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Though the II Party/ Management discriminating the regular workmen and contract workmen regarding payment of wages , this case is not relating to equal wages for contract workmen on par with the regular workmen for doing the same work, on the other hand , the discrimination madebythe Respondent/Management among the contract workmen themselves in payment of wages is illegal and arbitrary and amounts to unfair labour practice . Learmed counsel for the Petitioner further relied on the rulings of Madras High Court in an unreported case in CENTRAL ORGANISATION OF TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY EMPLOYEES VS. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, wherein the Madras High Court while considering whether the Respondent/Management has to pay equal wages to the contractworkmen as that of wages paid to workmen of INDCOSERVE Society, it has held that "there can be no

distinction between the Petitioner /Workers and the workmen engaged through INDCOSERVE which is admittedly a society comprising only contract labourers , therefore, the dual stand adopted by the Respondent/ Managerment one in favour of INDCOSERVE and the other against the Petitioner/workers who are similarly placed as INDCOSERVE employees cannot at all he justified. " Learned counsel for the Petitioner relying on this decision argued that in that case the management contended that Petitioner jworkers not being employed through INDCOSERVE cannot claim the same terms ofemployment , wages and allowances payable to the workers under INDCOSERVE. The INDCOSERVE is a separate bodywith which the Respondent has separate agreement and payment ofbonus paid to them was regulated by the forum exclusively dealing with the affairs of INDCOSERVE. Therefore , the payment made to the workers under INDCOSERVE is not at all sustainable and cannotjustify the claim ofthe Petitioners to be treated on par with the INDOOSERVE employees . But, the High Court has not accepted the contention of the Respondent/ Management and held the only ground on which the Petitioners are denied the benefit of bonus and ex - gratia payment as paid to the workers under INDCOSERVE, is Petitioners are contract labourers and that they cannot be equated to the regular employees of the Board or employees under INDCOSERVE which is a society with which separate agreements have been executed. This contention cannot atallbe accepted for the simple reason that the employees through INDCOSERVE are also contract labourers. Further , the action of the Respondent in trying to make a distinction between the contract labour employees through INDCOSERVE on the one hand and other the contract labourers on the other hand as different cannot also be sustained. Such action of the Respondent/Management on the face of it is discriminatory, arbitrary and not based on any rationale. It also held that there is no dispute over the fact that workers belonging to the Petitioner unionare dischargingthe same nature of work as by the employees through INDCOSERVE, therefore, the refusal to pay the bonmus and ex gratia in the same terms as given in favourof the employees through INDCOSER VE is discriminatory and arbitrary and cannot be sustained . Learned counsel forthe Petitioner relying on this decision argued that the ratio discidendi in the above case is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and in this case, the members of the Petitioner union namely contract workers engaged by private contractors are doing the same work as that of INDCOSERVE Society members . Under such circumstances , there cannot be any discrimination among the contract workers . Further , the members of the INDCOSERVE is also contract workers and INDCOSERVE society is also a contractor, though not a privatc/individual contractor.Under such circumstances , there must be parity among the contract workers engaged by the Respondent/ Management.

2394GL07-28 3488

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/ JYAISTHA 5, 1929

(PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) )

in favour of the Petitioner .

Point No.2;

The next pointto be decided in this case is to what relief the Petitioner is entitled?

13. Inview ofmy foregoing findings that the demand madeby the Petitioner union for equal raise in the wages of contract workmen on par with the Neyveli Lignite Corporation INDCOSER VE Society contract workmen is legal and justified, I direct the Respondent/Management to pay the increased wages to all contract workmen employed through individual con tractors on par with the contractworkmen employed through INDCOSER VE society with effect from the date of filing of this claim petition.No Costs. د

14.Thus, the reference is answered accordingly.

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the Claimant

wwl Sri R. Kasinathan

For the Respondent

MW1 Sri L. Santhanakrushoan MW2 Sri S. Natarajan

MW3 Sri Gautam Banerjee

DocumentsMarked:

For the I Party/Petitioner:

Ex. No. Date Description

WI 1983 Xerox copy of the certificate of registration oftrade union.

W2 10-09-02 Xerox copy of the resolution passed in General BodyMeeting.

W3 11-04-02 Xerox copy of the order ofRespondent ! Management Increasing , wages to contract workmen of INDOOSERVE.

W4 14-05-02 Xeгox copy of the joint representation madeby unions,

WS NI

Xerox copy of the payment details of workmen.

W6 N

Xerox copy of the payment details for 2002-03.

W7 03-06-03 Хегох copy of the letter informing revised rate ofwages .

For Indcoserve workers for2003-04.

W8 03-06-03

Xerox copy of the letter informing revised rate of wages .

W9 06-04-03

Xerox copy of the annual returns filed in FormE.

W10 N

Xerox copy of the membership list of IParty Union .

12. Ifind much force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Though the Respondent/ Management has distinguished the members of the Petitioner pnion on the ground that contract workers are neither regular nor permanent and they willbe changed according to the duration of contract and the wages are not uniform or identical , I find there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent because merely, a society has been formed, it cannot be said that the workers of the society are doing differem work under the Respondent/Management . No doubt, the workers will do the work as per the duration of contract, it cannot be established before this Court that wages given to the contract workers by the private contractors are different . On the other hand, it is established by the Petitioner union through oral evidence that Wages are uniform and identical in the case of contract workers engaged by the private con tractors . No doubt, the Respondent/Management, has examined their officers to say that private contractors are paying more money than theminimumwages fixed by the Respondent/Management. Itis only vague assertion and there is no clear cut evidence tosubstantiate this claim that private contractors are paying more wages than minimum wages fixed by the Respondent/ Management . Under such circumstances , 1 find the enhancement of wages given to workers of the INDOOSERVE society should also be given to the members of the Petitioner union namely contract workers of the private contractor . Further, I find the announcement of Minister for Coal & Mines during his visit to Neyveli Lignite Corporation on21-11-2001 to give fringe benefits to entire workmen because only when he has got impressed with theperformance ofNeyveli Lignite Corporation in entirety had announced the enhancement of payment of wages or stipend. Under such circumstances, this fringe benefits must also be given to workers of the private contractors who are also responsible for the performance of the Respondent/Management . Usually, the fringe benefits was paidby employers on satisfying with the performance of the empiqyces. In this case, it is not disputed that the Minister has given this increase in wage on being impressed with the performance of the Respondent/ Management as a whole. It is also admitted by management witness that the contract workmen employed through individual contractors were also responsible for the performanceofthe Respondent/ Management. Therefore , various contract workmen employed through contractors were also equally contributing for the better performance of theRespondent/ Management like any other workmen and it is established that they are doing the same work as that of the society workers and therefore, the II Party/ Management cannot discriminate the contract workmen employed through various individual contractors . For these reasons, I findthe Petitioner is entitled to claim the increased wages given by the circular dated 11-4-2002to the INDCOSERVE society members .As such, I find this point 3489

भारत का राजपत्र : माई 26, 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

[भाग II- खण्ड (ⅲ) ]

PRESENT

Forthe IIParty/Management :

Ex. No. Date

K. Jayaraman, PresidingOfficer Description

Industrial Dispute No. 306/2004 MI 19-04-03 Хегоx copy of the agreement between Respondent and Incoserve society. (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14of1947), between theManagement of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited andtheir workmen)

M2 09-01-03 Хегох copy of the contract entered into betweenPrivatecontractor and Neyveli Lignite Corporation for providing assistance in mining activities .

BETHOON

: Party/Claimant

TheGeneral Secretary,

M3 09-01-03 Хегоx copy of the contract entered into between Private contractor and Neyveli Lignite Corporation for Annual maintenance of electronic equipments .

JeevaOppandhaThozhikalar SangamNeyveli

AND

II Party/Management M4 25-04-03 Хетох copy of the contract entered into betweenPrivate contractor and Neyveli LigniteCorporation for Drain cutting arki mining activities..

The Director(Personnel) : NeyveliLignite Corporation, Neyveli

APPEARANCE

For the Claimuant

M/s . D. Hariparanthaman, Advocate

M5 27-02-04 Xerox copy of the contract entered into between Private contractor and Neyveli LigniteCorporation for Drain cutting and mining activities.

For the Managemeni

M/s. Ν.Α.K. Sarma, Advocate

AWARD

M6 05-04-04 Хетох copy of the contract. entered into between Private contractor and Neyveli Lignite Corporation for laying of 11 KV landline L.T. & cables in mines II . नई दिल्ली, 8 मई , 2007

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L- 22012/67/2003 - IR (CM- II) dated30-1-2004has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication . The Schedule mentioned dispute is as follows:-

"Whether the demand of Jeeva Oppandha Thozhilalar Sangam for equal raise in the wages of the contract workmen on per with the NLC Indeoserve Society Contract Workmen is legal and justified ? If so, to what relief the workmen are entitled ?"

का.आ. 1567.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार नेवेली लिग्नाइट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 306/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-5-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/67/2003- आई आरए ( सीएम-1]) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 8th May,2007

2.After the receipt of the reference, it was taken on file as L.D. No. 306/2004 and notices weg issued to both theparties andthey have entered appearance through their advocates and filed their Claim Statement and Counter, Statement respectively.

3. The allegations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement are briefly as follows:

S.O. 1567.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Govemment hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.306/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -com- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Ammexure , in the Industrial dispute between the management of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited and their workmen , received by the Central Government on8-5-2007.

No. L-22012/67/203- IR(CM- II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURE, CHENNAI

ThePetitionerunion is a trade union registered under theTradeUnions Act. It has substantial following among the contract workmen. In the II Party/Management there are three types of contract workmen one is the contract workmen employed through Industrial Co-operative Service Society shortly INDCOSER VE Society. The second type is contract workmen employed through house keeping Co- operative Society , shortly Housecos. Both are registered under Co- operative Societies Act. The third type is the contract workmen employed through various individual contractors . There are about teu thousand contract workmen employed by II Party/ Management in total . Oot Wednesday, the 28th February, 2007 3490

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/JYAISTHA 5, 1929

[PART I-SEC . 3( ii) ] of these about 2000 contract workmen are employed through INDCOSERVE and about 200 are employed through HOUSECOS and the remaining contract workmen are employed through individual contractors . In the contract workmen there are four categories namely unskilled, semi -skilled, skilled and highly skilted and the wages paid to contract workmen in each category is the same whether they belong to one type or the other and there is no discrimination between the contract workmen employed through one type and the other type. Wages for the contract workmen are daily rated and they are paid wages either weekly or monthly. While so , barring the contract werkmen through various contractors, there is an increase ofRs. 500 per month in the wages of each contract workmen omployed through other two types of members oftheSociety and they are paidRs, 19.23 per day in addition tothe daily wage. The said increase is given from 1-2-2002 pursuant to the order dated 11-4-2002 of the Respondent/ Management. It was stated in the order that having got impressed with the performance of the II Party/ Management, the increase is given. If that is the reason, the contract workmen employed through various individual contractors cannot be denied the same, since they are equally contributing for the better performance of the IIParty/Management. Like other contract workmen . Further, they are employed side by side, therefore , the Il Party / Management cannot discriminate the contract workmen employed through various individual contractors. Therefore, this cannot be disturbed by the II Party! Management . The work carried out by the workmen belonging to each category is the same . That is why parity is being maintained. It is based on the sound principle of equal payfor equal work . Though both the direct workmen andcontractworkmen are doing the same work, the contract workmen are not paid the same wages as given to direct workmen. But this case is not relating to equal wages for contract workmen on par with direct workmen doing the same work . The Respondent/ Management cannot discriminate at least among contract workmen themselves inthepaynientof wages and such a discrimination is illegal , arbitrary and amounts to unfair labour practice. Hence , for all these reasons, the Petitioner union prays this Tribunal to pass an award holding that the demand for equal raise in wages ofcontract workinen on par with the Neyveli Lignite Corporation INDCOSERVE Society contract workmen.,

contract labour. In the present case, the character of the workmen for whose benefit, the Claim Statement has been filed is unclear . With regard to INDCOSERVE Society, neither the contractor nor the workmen are contract workmenunder Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition ) Act. The workmen deputed by INDCOSERVE have not been hired by INDCOSER VE, but are the member employees borne on the rolls of INDCOSERVE . Therefore, there isno justification to treat the workman engaged through INDCOSER VE as being equally or similarly placed as those workmen hired or otherwise engaged through private contractors. INDCOSERVE Society is a separate legal entity and is governed by its own bye-laws and standing orders . INDCOSER VE society is deputing personnel on its rolls to various units of the II Party /Management as per its requirements and does not supply contract labour to the corporation.The claim, for parity by the Petitioner is without any basis . The II Party/Management only stipulates in all contracts that wages should not be less than the statutory minimum wages and it is open for the private contractor to offer competitive bids . Hence, the Petitioner Union ought tobeplacing their demand for increase in wages with their concerned contractors . This Tribunal has no power to alter or modify a contract for work validly entered into between the Corporation and a private contractor . The workmen engaged through INDCOSER VE they form a separate class and they are entitled to mininum wages prescribed, whereas theworkmen engaged through private contractors were al libertyto receive higher wages depending upon the market conditions ofdemand and supply, skill etc. Therefore, the wages paid by them may not be uniform or identical and the Corporation has no say in the matter . The Respondent Management has not engaged any contract workers , on the other hand, the contract workers are deployed by the private contractors to execute the work and there is no direct employer - employee relationship between the Respondent and the contract workers deployed by the various private contractors . The INDCOSER VE workmen are not contractor labourers and they do not stand on the same footing as private contractors ' workers . It is true that wages of INDCOSERVE workmen were enhanced by Rs.19.23 per day w.c.f. 1-2-2002 . On that ground, the Respondent cannot be required , to unilaterally enhance the wages ofthose employed through private contractors . Hence, for all these reasons , the Respondent prays that the claim may be dismissed with costs .

5.Agam,the Petitioner in its reply statement alleged that about 1300 contract workmen employed in Neyveli Lignite Corporation are members of the Petitioner Union , which is substantial in number among the contract workmen. Hence , the allegation that the Petitioner union has no locus standi and representative character is unteuable and is to be rejected. Except the payment by INDCOSER VE and HOUSECOS and individual contractors the contract workmen are all similarly placed workmea in all 3491

भारत का सजपत्र : मई 26, 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

[ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3(ii) ]

respect such as allocation of work, nature of employment and duties, control and supervision etc. and all the three types of contract workmen are employed through INDCOSERVE, HOUSECOS and individual contractors only for and on behalf of Neyveli Lignite Corporation. Even in various circulars issued by Respondent/ Management regarding fixation of minimum rate of daily wages would clearly establish that the workmen referred to therein are employed either through INDCOSER VE, HOUSECOSOT individual contractors by Neyveli Lignite Corporation. INDOOSERVE, HOUSECOS me in no way different from individual contractors and both are also contractors like other individual contractors . Only because of that the Respondent/Management has fixed the same minimum daily rate ofwages.Therefore, the same reasoning will also apply for the payment of enhanced daily wages to the contract workmen employed through individual contractors and the Respondent/Management cannot differentiate and distinguish them for the purpose of payment of enhancement in the minimkun daily rate of wages . Since the contract workmen through the private contractors are also doing the same work before and after 1-2-2002 when the Hon'ble Minister for Coal amounced increased payment ofRs .500 per month, the II Party Management is boundto payRs.19.23 per day to the contract workmen employed through individual contractors w.c.f. 1-2-2002 . Hence, the I Party Union prays this Tribunal to pass an award in theit favour.

6. In these circumstances , the points for my consideration are :-

the contract workmen employed through various contractors cannot be denied the same. Because, the contract workmen employed through various contractors are equally contributing for the better performance of the IIParty/Management like other contract workmen. Further. the contractworkmen employed by private contractors in every area are doing the same work done by the INDCOSERVE Society workmen and also HOUSECOS Society workmen. Therefore, the Respondent/Management cannot discriminate the contract workinen employed through various individual contractors . It is the further contentionofthe Petitioner that there has been uniformity inthe payment ofwages in all types of contract workmen, iftheybelong to same category and this cannot be disturbed by the II Party /Management particularly, when the said practice is in vogue for years together and at no point of time, there was disparity in payment of wages. It is also clearlyadmitted that the work carried on by the workmen belonging to each category is the same, that is why the parity is being maintained and it is based on the sound principle of 'equal pay for equal work' as cushrined in Article 39(d) r.w. Article 14 ofthe Constitution. Therefore, the Respondent/Management cannot discriminate the workmen of the Petitioner union with that ofHOUSECOS Society workmen. Further , in this case it is not the case relating to equal wages for contract workmen on par with the direct workmen doing the same work. Therefore, the Respondent/Management cannot discriminate among the contract workmen themselves in the payment of wages and such adiscrimination is illegal , arbitrary and amounts tounfair labour practice .

(1) "Whether the demand of the Petitioner union for raise inthe wages of the contract workmen on par with Neyveli Lignite Corporation INDCOSERVE Society contract workmen is legal andjustified?"

(2) "To what relief the concemed workmen are entitled?"

Point No. 1:

7.The dispute in this case is the Petitionerhas claimed the benefit ofcircular dated 11-4-2002 namely underEx.W1 issued by the II Party /Management enhancing the wages ofINDCOSER VE and HOUSECOS workers byRs. 19.23 per day with effect from 1-2-2002 should be offered to the members of the Petitioner Union as well. The Petitioner claimed that it is a registered trade union under Trade Unions Act and it has substantial following among the workmen employed by II Party /Management and the mininum wages payable to contract workers are periodically fixedduring the month ofApril in every year as per the four categories and the Petitioner further contended that the increase given from 1-2-2002 in pursuant to order dated 11-4-2002 stating that the Minister of Coal having got impressed with the performance of the II Party/ Management, the increase is given. If that is the reason,

8.But, as against this, the Respondent/Management contended that the claim of the Petitioner is not maintainable on several grounds . Firstly, there is no relationship of employer - employce between the Respondent/Management and the Petitioner, and in the absence of employer- employee relationship between the Respondent andPetitioner, the present dispute raised herein does not fall within Section 2K of the I.D. Act. Further, the PetitionerUnionhas not produced enough material to prove that it has substantial following among the employees of theReapondent/Management. The witnesses examined on the side of the Petitioner have not been able to produce either any oral or documentary evidence to that effect. Being so, thePetitioner lacked locus standi 10 maintain the present claimpetition and on this ground also the petition is not maintainable before this Tribunal . It is further contended that it is admitted by the Petitioner union that theterms and conditions of contract workmen under private contractor and the terms and conditions of workmen under INDCOSERVE Society contract are not the same, by virtue ofthis position alone, the present claim is not maintainable before this Tribunal . Further, grievance of the Petitioner that its employer namely the private contractor is paying wages different from what another employer namely 3492

[PART II-Sac. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY26.2007/JYAISTHA 5, 1929

INDCOSERVE is paying to its members /workmen and such grievance cannot be addressed to the Respondent/ Management, and can only be addressed to respective private contractors under whom the members of the Petitioner union are working . Further, in the present case, the Respondent/ Management and INDCOSERVE have entered into contract by agreement between the parties and as regards the workmen engaged through INDCOSERVE, the daily wage was increased by a sum of Rs.19.23 per day w.c.f. 1-1-2002, which constituted an agreement between the II Party/Management and INDCOSERVE . Such agreement binds only Respondent Management and INDCOSERVE and neither the Petitioner nor any private contractor is a party to such agreement between the Respondent/ Management and INDCOSERVE Hence, they are not entitled to claim any benefit or advantage under the said agreement, which is between the Respondent Management and the INDCOSER VE Society and for this reason also the claim made by the Petitioner Union is not maintainable .

any other provision of Law . Therefore , the Respondent Management is only bound by terms and conditions ofthe contract with respective contractors including INDOOSERVE. In this case, the Petitioner namely contract workmenhas not established before this Tribunal that every contract worker of the private contractor is identically placed in all respects such as qualification, age , nature of work, place of work , method and conditions of entry as contractworker etc. with IND COSERVE member /worker . Further, the Petitioner union has not produced any pay slip,wage register or any such material to indicate the daily wages receivedby the contract workers from their employer . Hence, the claim made by the Petitioner Union is unjustified andhas not been substantiated . Therefore, merely because some contract workers are getting more daily wages, provides no justification for any other contract worker engagedby adifferent contractor to claim parity. The fact the INDOOSER VE is a co-operative society governed by a statute whereas the other private contractors are either individuals or firms, is itself sufficient tohold that two are incomparable. Above all , the prayer made in dispute made by the Petitioner amounts to a prayer to unilaterally alter or amend the terms of private contract entered into between the II Party /Management and respective private contractors , as such, the Tribunal has no power or jurisdiction to alter such private contracts or to substitute the existing contracts with another onerous contract . It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent that claim of equal pay for equal work is nou automatic and it depends upon various factors namely service conditions, responsibility ete . and in the case of INDCOSERVE workmen , they are governed by their own standing orders and bye- laws whereas, no such factors apply in the case of individual contract workers engaged by private contractors . It is also contended on behalf of the Respondent that it is not the case of the Petitioner union that any of their members who are contract workers working for Respondent/Management are being paid less than minimum wages and what they are claiming wages is at the rate higher than the minimum wages. Such demand has tobe necessarily placed before the contractor/employer by the respective contract worker . Under such circumstances , the claim made by the Petitioner union is not maintainable before this Tribunal . It is further contended that it is open for one contractor to pay more than the minimum wages even if other contractors are not doing so . In the present case , the INDCOSERVE Society as a private contractor has been able to get better terins and as a result he is able to pay Rs . 19.23 per day over and above the minimum wages and it cannot be questionedby the Petitioner union. The total number of private contract

workers is large number and not a decreasing number , where as INDCOSERVESociety members are decreasing every year either absorbed as regular employee, retired, death , discontinued work etc. For these reasons also the comparison cannot be made by the Petitioner . The claim 9. Then again , it is contended on behalf of the Respondent that it is a statement of the management witness that the workers under private contractors, some times are getting more wages than the INDCOSERVE Societyworkers for skilled work and they are getting more amount . as jalary from the private contractors in some cases. It is an admitted fact that the contract workers engaged by the private contractors are neither regular nor permanent and the private contractors themselves change according to their duration of contract. The wages payable to contract workers are not uniform or identical . Therefore , inviewofthese features, there is no commonality between one private contractor and another private contractor or between any private contractor and INDCOSERVE. Each private contractor with respect to the workers under the respective contractor formed a separate and distinct class . Likewise, INDCOSER VE formed a separate class by itself different from any other private contractor. Therefore, there can be no question of contract worker being entitledto terms application to another contract worker engagedby another private contractor. When the employers are different, the question of equal pay for equal work, does not arise, even if other conditions are fulfilled. When it is admitted that private contractors as well as INDCOSERVE Societytopayhigher wages than the minimum wages , the Party/Management has no control over the terms and conditions between a contract worker and the respective privatecontractors . Therefore , one private contractor may paymorewages than another private contractor in respect ofidentically skilled workmen . These matters are governed by market forces , such as nature of work, competition , availability of workmen, experience, urgency of need etc. Therefore, the contract worker under one private contract or maynot be entitled to craim parity with a contract worker under another private contractor either under Article 14 or 3493

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

[ भाग- खण्ड 3 ( u) ]

made by the Petitioner is based on parity between the two distinctively placed set ofcontract worker employedby different private contractors does not arine even wonder Article 14. Therefore, the claim made by the Petitioner union is not maintainable before this Tribunal .

aclaim for equal pay, the Supreme Court has held that "Respondent appointed at different points of time as helpers on daily wagesby the appellant corporation claiming regularisation and also sooking salary al per with regular employees on the ground of' equal pay for equal work' , the claimantshaving failed to substantiate a clear cut besis of equivalence and a resultant hostile discrimination and no material having been produced as to the nature ofthe dutica of either categories, the principle of equal pay for equal work, not being an abstract principle would not be applicable". Then again, the learned counsel for the Respondent relied on the rulings reported in 1982 ILLJ 344 RANDHIR SINGH VA UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS wherein the Supreme Court has heldthat "ifofficers ofthe same rank perform dissimilar funtions and the powers, duties and responsibilites of the post held by them varice, such officers cannotbe heard to complain of dissimilar pay merely because theposts are of the same rank and the nomenclature is the same." Learned counsel for the Respondent further relied on the rulings reported in JT 2001 7 SC 252 BONGAIGAON REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD. VS. SAMUUDDIN AHMED wherein the Supreme Court has held that "meaning of workman"-Respondent offered employment by appellant corporation under the benevolent scheme applicable to persons whose lands had been acquired by appellant corporation for setting up oil refinery and at the stage ofjoining and accepting the joining report, appellant coming to know that the Respondenthad suppressed factual information and that he was not entitled tobe offered the job in the category ofdisplaced persons andaccordinglywithdrawing the letter ofappointment and notaccepting thejoining report and the Respondent moved the Central Govt. by raising an industrial dispute. Though the Govt. refused to refer the matter , on the direction of High Court the Govt. made reference to the Tribunal and the appellant corporation challenged the order ofreference by filing Writ. Though the Single Judge ofHigh Court has held thatorderofreference is not maintainable, theDivison Bench of theHigh Court has reversed the order of Single Judge, in which the Supreme Court has held that "as the Respondent had not entered the employment referring a dispute at his instance was misconceived, Court should not have extended its helping hand to a non -deserving claimant . Reference of the dispute at the instance of the Respondent was wholly unwarranted and uncalled for."

11. Then the learned counsel for the Respondent with regard to non- maintainability of petition before this Tribunal further relied on the rulings reported in 20042 CTC 430 MUKAND LTD. Vs. MUKAND STAFF AND OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION wherein while considering whether the Tribunal can entertain the dispute with regard to non-workman, the Supreme Court has held that "the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide dispute 10. Leamed counsel for the Respondent further relied on the rulings reported in 1998 1 SCC. 428 ASSOCIATE BANKS OFFICERS ASSOCIATION V&. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS wherein the Associate Banka Officer's Association claimed parity in employment and equal pay for equal work in which the Supreme Court has heldthat "the doctrine is designed to correct irrational and inexplicable pay differentiation which can be looked upon as discrimination against an employee or a given set of employees. It is easier to identify such discriminatedgroups when the discriminated group is sex -based (women) or colour based (blacks in USA) or caste-based (Scheduled Castesetc.) and more difficult to identify in other casca. But, unless there is such identifiable discrimination, the doctrine should not be applied and mere difference is not discrimination ." Further, it has held that "applicability of the principle when there is a negotiated settlement, employees of subsidiary banks of State Bank of India receiving certain benefits by way ofnegotiated settlement with the management, their subsequent claim for parity with their counterparts in State Bank of Indis is not sustainable. " Then the learned comsel for theRespondent riled on the rulings reported in JT 2002 5 SC 189 STATEOF HARYANA Vs. HARYANA CIVIL SECRETARIAT PERSONAL STAFFASSOCIATION wherein the Personal Assistants in State Civil Secretariat of Haryana filed Writ seeking same scale of pay granted by Central Govt. to P.As working in Central Secretariat in which, the Supreme Court has held that "the High Court failed to make any comparison of the nature of duties and responsibilities"as well as the qualifications for the two categorics of P.As. Equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right vested in any employee. Factors such as financial position ofGovt. and the additional liability have to be kept in mind. Courts should approach such matters with reatraint and interfere onlywhen they are satisfied that the decisions of Govt. is penalty irrational , unjust and prejudicial to a section of the employees" and rejected the claim of the Petitioner.Then the counsel for the Respondent colied on the rulings reported inJT2003 5 SC 544 STATE OF HARYANAAND ANOTHER VS. TILAKRAJ AND OTHERS . In that case35 Respondentswere appointed at different points oftimeas helpers on daily wages in Haryana Roadways and they filed Writ Petition claiming that they were entitled to regularisation in view of service rendered for long period and/or that they were to be paid the same salary as paid to regular employees in which the High Court allowed the Writ Petition. Against that order , while dealing with the aspect regarding applicability ofdoctrine of equal pay for equal work when a daily wager can claim comparison with the regular and permanent staff for any purpose including 3494

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26, 2007/JYAISTHA5 , 1929

[PART II-Sac. 3(ii) ] relating to non- workmen and the industrial disputes can be raised onlyby workmen ." Again, learned counsel for theRespondent relied on the rulings reported in JT 1995 4 SC264 GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD , THERMAL POWER STATION VS. HIND MAZDOOR SABHA AND OTHERSwherein the Supreme Court has held that "having regardto the scheme and objects of the Act and its other provisions, the expression any person' in Section 2(K ) of the I.D. Act must be read subject to such limitations and qualifications as arise from the context; the two crucial limitations pre-( i ) the dispute must be a real dispute between the parties to the dispute ( as indicated in the first two parts of the definition clause) so as to be capable of settlement or adjudication by one party to the dispute giving necessary relief to the other; and ( ii) the person regardingwhom the dispute is raised must be one in whose employment, non- employment, terms of employment or conditions of labour (as the case may be) the parties to the dispute have a direct or substantial interest, Strictly speaking, a workman within the meaning of the Act must beone in whose employment, non -employment, terms of employment or conditions of labour the workman as a class haveAppellate Authority direct or substantial interest. " It wasalso held inthat case, that "the person mentioned was not a workinan and he belonged to medical or technical staff, adifferent category altogehter from workman . Therefore, the appellant had direct nor substantial interest inhisemployment or non - employment and even assuming thathe was a member of the same trade union , it cannot be said on the tests laid down by us, that the dispute regarding his termination of service was an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Act ." Relying on all these decisions he argued that this dispute raised by the Petitioner Union is not maintainable before this forum and hence, it is liable to be dismissed.

12. Qu the other hand , learned counsel for the Petitioner reliedon the rulings reported in 1986 I LLJ 134 DHIRENDRACHAMOLI AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. wherein the Supreme Court has held that "the fact that these employees accepted employment with full knowledge that theywillbe paid only daily wages and they will not get the same salary and conditions of service as other Class IV employees cannot provide an escape to the Central Govt. to avoid the mandate of equality enshrined in Article 14 of theConstitution. This Article declares that there shall be equality before law and equal protection of the law and implicit in it is the further principle that there must be equal payfor work of equal value. These employees who are in the service of the different Nehru Yuvak Kendras in the countryand who are admittedly perfoming the same duties asClass IV employees must therefore , get the same salary andconditions of service as Class IV employees . It makes no difference whether they are appointed in sanctioned posts or not So long as they are performing the same chutics, they must receive the same salary and conditions

ofservice as Class IV employees." Relying on this decision, learned counsel for the Petitioner, argued that in this case, though theRespondent contended that the work done by the INDCOSERVE society workmen and the members of the Petitioner union are different, they have not produced even a single document to show that these workmen are working in two different works . No doubt, the workmen engagedbyprivate contractors are doing as per the contract entered into by the contractor and the Respondent/ Management, there are only four categories of workmen namely (i) unskilled; ( ii) semi -skilled; ( iii ) skilled & ( iv) highly skilledand the Respondent/Management has fixed the rate of wages as per Minimum Wages Act . Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that they are doing different works at different places . When the Petitioner examined his witness who are in INDCOSERVE society, the Respondent/Management has not nullified the evidence givenby the said witness that the evidence given by them. is false. Under such circumstances, it should be presumed that-both are doing the same work and they cannot be classified todo different work by different rates . Under such circumstances , the aforesaid Supreme Court decision is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Though the IIParty/Management discriminating the regular workmen and contract workmen regarding payment of wages, this case is not relating to equal wages for contract workmen on parwith the regular workmen for doing the same work, on the other hand, the discrimination made by the respondent/Management among the contract workmen themselves in payment of wages is illegal and arbitrary and amounts tounfair labour practice . Learned counsel for the Petitioner further relied on the rulings ofMadras High Court inan unreported case in CENTRAL ORGANISATION OF TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY EMPLOYEES VS. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, wherein the MadirasHigh Court while considering whether the Respondent/ Management has to pay equal wages to the contract workmen as that of wages paid to workmen of INDCOSERVE Society, it has held that "there can be no distinction between thePetitioner/workers and the workmen engaged through INDCOSERVE which is admittedly a society comprising only contract labourers , therefore, the dual stand adopted by the Respondent/Management one in favour of INDCOSERVE and the other against the Petitioner/workers whoare similarly placed as INDOOSERVE employees cannot at all bejustified." Learned counsel for the Petitioner relying on this decision argued that in that case the management contended that Petitioner / workers not being employed through INDCOSERVE cannot claim the same terms of employment, wages and allowances payable to the workers under INDCOSERVE. The INDOOSER VE is a separatebody with which the Respondent has separate agreement and payment ofbonus paid to them was regulated by the forum exclusively dealing with the affairs of INDCOSERVE. Therefore , the payment made to the workers under INDCOSERVE is not at all sustainable and cannot justify 3495

भारत का राजपत्र । माई 26 , 2007 /ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

the claim of the Petitioners to be treated on par with the INDCOSERVE employees. But, the High Court has not accepted the contention of the Respondent/Management and held the only ground on which the Pelutioners are denied the benefit ofbonus and ex- gratia payment as paid to the workers under INDCOSERVE, is Petitioners are contract labourers and that they cannot be equated tothe regular employees of the Board or employees under INDCOSERVE which is a society with which separate agreements have been executed. This contention cannot atallbe accepted for the simple reason that the employees through INDOOSERVE are also contract labourers. Further, the action of the Respondent in trying to make a distinction between the contract labour employees through INDCOSERVE on the one hand and other the contract labourers on the other hand as different cannot also be sustained . Such action of the Respondent/Management on the face of it is discriminatory, arbitrary and not based on any rationale. It also held that there is no dispute over the fact that workers belonging to the Petitioner union are discharging the same nature of work as by the employees through INDCOSERVE, therefore , the refusal to pay the bonus and ex gratia in the same terms as given in favour of theemployees through.INDCOSERVE is discriminatory and arbitrary and cannot be sustained. Learned counsel forthe Petitioner relying on this decision argued that the ratio discidendi in the above case is squarely applicable to the facts ofthe present case and in this case, the members of the Petitioner union namely contract workers engagedby private contractors are doing the same work as that of INDCOSERVE Society members . Under such circumstances, there cannot be any discrimination among the contract workers. Further, the members of the INDOOSERVE is also contract workers and INDCOSERVE society is also a contractor, though not a private findividual contractor. Under such circumstances, there must be parity among the contract workers engaged by the Respondent Management.

engaged by the private contractors . No doubt, Respondent Management has examined their officers to say that private contractors are paying more money than the minimum wages fixedby the Respondent/Management . It is only vague assertion and there is no clear cut evidence to substantiate this claim that private contractors are paying more wages than minimum wages fixed by the Respondent/ Management. Under such circumstances , I find the enhancement of wages given to workers of the INDCOSERVE Society should also be given to the members of the Petitioner union namely contract workers of the private contractor. Further, I find the amouncement of Minister forCoal & Mines during his visit to Neyveli Lignite Corporation on 21-11-2001 to give fringe benefits to entire workmen because only when he has got impressed with the performance ofNeyveli Lignite Corporation in entirety had announced the enhancement ofpayment of wages or stipend. Under such circumstances, this fringe benefits must also be given to workers of the private contractors who are also responsible for the performance of the Respondent/Management. Usually, the fringe benefits was paidby employers on satisfying with the performance of the employees. In this case, it is not disputed that the Minister has given this increase in wage on being impressed with the performance of Respondent / Management as a whole . It is also admitted by management witness that the contract workmen employed through individual contractors were also responsible for the performance ofthe Respondent/Management. Therefore, various contract workmen employed through contractors were also equally contributing for the better performance ofthe Respondent/Management like any other workmen and it is established that they are doing the same work as that of the society workers and therefore , the II Party/ Management cannot discriminate the contract workinen employed through various individual contractors. For these reasons, 1 find the Petitioner is entitled to claim the increased wages given by the circular dated 11-4-2002 to the INDCOSERVE Society members .As such, I find this point in favour ofthe Petitioner.

Point No. 2:

The next point to be decided in this case is to what relief the Petitioner is entitled?

14. In view of my foregoing findings that the demand made by thePetitioner union for equal raise in the wages of contract workmen on par with the Neyveli Lignite Corporation INDCOSERVE Society contract workmen is legal and justified , I direct the Respondent / Management to pay the increased wages to all contract workmen employed through individual contractors on par with the Contract workmen employed through INDCOSERVE Society with effect from the date of filing of this claim petition . No Costs.

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer 13. I find much force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Though the Fespondent/ Management has distinguished the members of the Petitioner union on the ground that contract workers are neither regular nor permanent and they will be changed according to the duration of contract and the wages are not uniform or identical, I find there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent because merely , a society has been formed, it cannot be said that the workers of the society are doing different work under the Respondent/Management . No doubt, the workers willdo the work as per the duration of contract, it camotbe established before this Court that wages given to the contract workers by the private contractors are different. On the other hand , it is established by the Petitioner union through oral evidence that wages are uniform and identical in the case of contract workers

2394G1/07-29 3496

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( 11 ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/ JYAISTHA5, 1929

Witnesses Examined :-

For the IIParty/Management:

Ex. No. Date

FortheClaimant

Description

WW1 Sri P. Kuppusamy WW2 Sri S. Balakrishnan

MI Ni

Xerox copy of the bye laws and certified standing orders .

For the Respondent :

M2 NI

MW1 Sri L. Santhanakrushnan MW2 Sri N. Muthu

Xerox copy of the byelaws and certified standing orders .

MW 3 Sri V.T. Govindaraju

M3 Nil

DocumentsMarked :-

Xerox copy of the agreement between Respondent and INDCOSERVE society.

For the 1 Party/Petitioner :

Ex.No.Date

Description

नई दिल्ली, 8 मई , 2007

W1 11-04-02 Хегох сорy of the order of Respondent/ Management increasing wagesto contract workmen of INDCOSERVE

W2 09-07-02 Xerox copy of the order of Respondent Management to all units heads regarding minimum rate ofwages .

का.अ. 1568,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नेवेली लिग्नाइट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और -उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 307/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 08-05-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

03-06-03 Хегох соpy of the order of Respondent/ Management regarding minimum rate wages to INDCOSERVE Society .

[सं. एल -22012 /69/2003- आई. आर. ( सी एम -11 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 8th May ,2007

03-06-03 Xerox copy of the order of Respondent/ Management regarding minimum rate wages payable to workmen through private contracts.

WS 20-06-03 Xerox copy of the order of Respondent/ Management regarding minimum rate wages payable to Hosevos Society.

W6 16-05-02 Xerox copy of the order of Respondent/ Management regarding payment of cash award to IINDCOSERVE workinen and contract personnel .

S.O. 1568. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 307/ 2004) of the Central Goverment Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 8-5-2007.

W7 Nil Xerox copy of the wage slip of members ofHousecos.

[No. L- 22012/ 69/2003 - IR ( CM - II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer W8 28-06-02

ANNEXURE

Xerox copy of the strike notice given by Petitioner.

W9 07-12-02

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

Xerox copy ofthe letter from Respondent to Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central).

Wednesday, the 28th February, 2007 W10 03-02-03 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central).

Present: K. Jayaraman, PresidingOfficer

W11 22-08-03

Industrial dispute no. 307/2004 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) .

W12 Ni Xerox copy of the membership list of 1PartyUnion.

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clanse (d) of sub - section ( 1) and sub - section 2(A) of Section 10of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947( 14 of 1947) , between the Management of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited and their workmen)

W13 31-01-00

BETWEEN

Xerox copy of the certificate of registration of 1 party.

W14 Nal:

IParty/Claimant Xerox copy of the ID card of Mr. S. Balakrishnan.

W15 July, 05

TheGeneral Secretary, NLC Thozhilalar Ottrumai Maiyam, Neyveli

Xerox copy of the wage slip of Mr. S. Balakrishnan .

3497 [ भाग - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : माई 26, 2007 /ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

AND

Party Management

TheDirector (Personel), NeyveliLigniteCorporation, Neyveli.

APPEARANCE

For the Claimant

:M/s. D.Hariparanthaman, Advocates

For the Management : M/ s . N.A.K. Saruma, Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry ofLabour vide Order No. L-22012/69/2003- IR (CM- II) dated 30-1-2004has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.The Schedule mentioned dispute is as follows:--

"Whether the demand of the NLC Thozhilalar Ottrumai Maiyam for equal raise in the wages of the contract workmen on par with the NI.C Indcoserve Society Contract workmen is legal and justified? If so, to what relief are the workmen entitled?"

2. After the receipt of the reference, ill was taken on file as I.D. No. 307/2004 and notices were issued to both the parties and theyhave entered appearance through their advocates and filed their Claim Statement and Counter Statement respectively.

3. The allegations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement arebriefly as follows:

ofmembers of the Society and they are paid Rs.19.23 per day in addition to the daily wage. The said increase is given from 1-2-2002 pursuant to the order dated 11-4-2002 oftheRespondent/Management. It was stated in the order that having got impressed with the performance of the IIParty/Management, the increase is given. If that is the reason, the contract workmen employed through various individual contractors cannot be denied the same, since theyare equallycontributing for the better performance of the II Party /Management like other contract workmen. Further, they are employed side by side , therefore , the II Party/Management cannot discriminate the contract workmen employed through various individual contractors . Therefore, this cannot be disturbed by the II Party/ Management. The work carried out by the workmen belonging to each category is the same. That is why parity is being maintained. It is based on the sound principle of equal pay for equal work .Though both the direct workmen and contract wordkmen are doing the same work, the contract workmen are not paid the same wages as given to direct workmen. But this case is not relating to equal wages for contract workmen on par with direct workmen doing the same work . The Respondent/ Management cannot discriminate at least among contract workmen themselves in the payment of wages and such a discrimination is illegal, arbitrary and amounts to unfair labour practice. Hence, for all these reasons, the Petitioner union prays this Tribunal to pass an award holding that the demand for equal raise in wages ofcontract workmen on par with the Neyveli Lignite Corporation INDCOSERVE Society contract workmen.

The Petitioner union is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act.It has substantial following among the contract workinen. In the II Party /Management there are three types of contract workmen . One is the contract workmen employed through Industrial Co- operative Service Society shortly INDCOSERVE Society. The second type is contract workmen employed through house keeping co -operative society, shortly HOUSECOS . Both are registered under Co- operative Societies Act. The third type is the contract workmen employed through various individual contractors . There are about ten thousand contract workmen employed by II Party/ Management in total. Out of these about 2000 contract workmen are employed through INDCOSER:VE and about 200are employed through HOUSECOS and the remaining contract workmen are employed through individual contractors. In the contract workmen there are four categories namely unskilled, semi- skilled, skilled and highly skilled and the wages paid to contract workmen in each category is the same whether they belong to one type or the other and there is no discrimination between the contract workmen employed through one type and the other type. Wages for the contract workmen are daily rated and they are paid wages either weekly or monthly . While so, barring the contract workmen through various contractors, there is an increase ofRs . 500 per month in the wages of cach contract workmen employed through other two types

4.As against this , the Respondent in its Counter Statement contended that at the outset the PetitionerUnion has no locus standi to maintain this dispute, as it is not representative in character. The workers deployed towork bythePetitioner union is insignificant. The claim for parity inwages need to be substantiated by proving that the two categories are identically or equally placed in all other respects and the onus of establishing the same is on the Petitioner. Unless the workmen have been hired by or through a contractor, such workmen would not become contract labour. In the present case, the character of the workmen forwhose benefit, the Claim Statement has been filed is unclear.With regard to INDCO SERVE society, neither the contractor nor the workmen are contract workmen under Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act . The workmen deputed by INDCOSERVEhave not been hired by INDCOSERVE, but are the member employees bomeon the rolls ofINDCOSER VE. Therefore, there is nojustification totreat the workman engaged through INDCOSERVE as being equally or similarly placed as those workmen hired or otherwise engaged through private contractors . INDCOSERVE society is a separate legal entity and is governed by its own bye- laws and standing orders . INDCOSERVE society is deputing personnel on its rolls to various units of the II Party/Management as per its [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ⅲ)] 3498

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/JYAISTHAS, 1929

for the payment of enhanced daily wages to the contract workmen employed through individual contractors and the Respondent /Management cannot differentiate and distinguish them for the purpose of payment of enhancement in the rainimum daily rate of wages . Since the contract workmen through the private contractors are also doing the same work before and after 1-2-2002 when the Hon'ble Minister for Coal announced increased payment ofRs .500 per month, the II Party/Management is boundto pay Rs. 19.23 per day to the contract workmen employed through individual contractors w.e.f. 1-2-2002 . Hence, the IPartyUnion prays this Tribunal to pass an award in their favour.

6. In these circumstances , the points for my consideration are :-

(i) "Whether the demand of the Petitioner union for raise in thewages of the contract workmen on par with Neyveli Lignite Corporation INDCOSERVE Society contract workmen is legal andjustified?

(ii) "To what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?"

Point No. 1: -

requirements and does not supply contract labour to the corporation. The claim for parity by the Petitioner is without any basis . The II Party/Management only stipulates in all contracts that wages should not be less than the statutory minimum wages and it is open for the private contractor to offer competitive bids . Hence, the Petitioner Union ought tobe placing their demand for increase in wages with their concerned contractors. This Tribunal has no power to alter ormodify a contract for work validly entered into between the Corporation and a private contractor . The workmen engaged through INDCOSER VE they form a separate class andtheyare entitled to minimum wages prescribed, whereas the workmen engaged through private contractors were at liberty to receive higher wages depending upon the market conditions ofdemand and supply, skill etc. Therefore, the wages paidby them may not be uniform or identical and the Corporation has no say in the matter. The Respondent Management has not engaged any contract workers, on the other hand, the contract workers are deployed by the private contractors to execute the work and there is no direct employer-employee relationship between the Respondent and the contract workers deployed by the various private contractors . The INDOOSERVE workmen are not contractor labourers and they do not stand on the same footing as private contractors ' workers . It is true that wages of INDCOSERVE workmen were enhanced by Rs.19.23 per day w.e.f. 1-2-2002 . On that ground , the Respondent cannot be required to unilaterally enhance thewages ofthose employed through private contractors . Hence, for all these reasons, the Respondent prays that the claim thay be dismissed with costa .

7. The dispute in this case is the Petitioner has claimed that the benefit of circular dated 11-4-2002 namely under Ex . W1 issued by the II Party / Management enhancing thewages of INDCOSERVE and HOUSECOS workers by Rs. 19.23 per day with effect from 1-2-2002 shoukk be offeredto the members of the Petitioner union as well . The Petitioner claimed that it is a registered trade union under Trade Unions Act and it has substantial following mong the workmen employed by II Party/Management and the minimum wages payable to contract workers are periodically fixed during the month of April in every year as per the four categories and the Petitioner further contended that the increase given from 1-2-2002 in pursuant toorder dated 11-4-2002 stating that the Minister ofCoal having got impressed with the perforinance of the II Party/ Management, the increase is given . If that is the reason, the contract workmen employed through various contractors cannot be denied the same . Because, the contract workmen employed through various contractors are equally contributing for the better performance of the IIParty/Management like other contract workmen . Further. the contract workmen employed by private contractors in every area are doing the same work done by the INDCOSERVE Society workmen and also Housecos Society workmen.Therefore , the Respondent/Management cannot discriminate the contract workmen employed through various individual contractors. It is the further contention of the Petitioner that there has been uniformity in the payment ofwages in all types of contract workmen, ifthey belong to same category and this cannot be disturbed hy the II Party/Management particularly, when the said 5. Again, the Petitioner in its reply statement alleged that about 1300 contract workmen employed in Neyveli Lignite Corporation and members of the Petitioner Union, which is substantial in number among the contract workmen. Hence, the allegation that the Petitioner union has no locus standi and representative character is untenable and is to be rejected . Except the payment by INDCOSERVE and HOUSECOS and individual contractors thecontractworkmen are all similarly placed workmen in all respect such as allocation of work, nature of comployment and duties,control and supervision etc. and all the three types of contract workmen are employed through INDOOSERVE, HOUSECOS and individual contractors only forand onbehalf of Neyveli Lignite Corporation . Even in various circulars issued by Respondent /Management regarding fixation of minimum rate of daily wages would clearly establish that the workmen referred to therein are employed either through INDCOSERVE, HOUSECOS or individual contractors by Neyveli Lignite Corporation. INDCOSERVE, HOUSECOS are in no way different from individual contractors and both are also contractors like other individual contractors . Only because of that the Respondent/Management has fixed the same minimumdaily rate of wages. Therefore , the same reasoning will also apply 3499 मागवड 36ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र माई 26, 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

Hence, they are not entitled to claim any benefit or advantage under the said agreement, which is between the Respondent/Management and the INDCOSERVE society and for this reason also the claisa made by the Petitioner Union is not maintainable.

practice is in vogue for years together and at no point of time, there was disparity in payment of wages . It is also clearly admitted that the work carried on by the workneen belonging in cach category is the same, that is why the parity is being maintained and it is based on the sound principle of ' equal pay for equal work' as enshrined in Article39(d) c.w. Article 14 ofthe Constitution. Therefore, the Reapondent /Management cannot discriminate the workanen of the Petitioner union with that of Housecos society weakman. Further, in this case it is not the case relating to equal wages for contract workmen on par with the direct workman doing the same work. Therefore , the Respondent/Management cannot discriminate among the contract workmen themselves in the payment of wages and such a discotasiuntion is illegal, arbitrary and amounts tonafair labowe pastion.

8. Bhat, as against this, the Respondent/Management contended that the claim of the Petitioner is not maintainable on several grounds . Firstly, there is no relationship of employer - employee between the Respondent/Management and the Petitioner and in the absence of employer-employee relationship between the Respondeat andPetitioner, the present dispute raised herein does not fall within Section 2K of the I.D.Act. Further, the PetitionerUnion has not produced enough material to prove that it has sabistantial following among the employees of theRespondent/Management. The witnesses.examined on the side of the Petitioner have not been able to produce either any oral or documentary evidence to that effect. Being so, thePetitioner lacked Jocne standi to maintain the present claim petition and on this ground also the petition is not maintainable before this Tribunal . It is further contended that it in admitted by the Petitioner union that the terms and conditions of contract workmen under private contractor and the terms and conditions ofworkkmen under INDOOSERVE society contract are not the same , by virtue of this position alone, the present claim is not maintainable before this Tribunal. Further, grievance of the Petitioner that its employer namely the private contractor is paying wages different from what another employer namely INDOOSERVE is paying to its members /workmen and such grievance cannot be addressed to the Respondent/ Management, and can only be addressed to respective private contractors under whom the members of the Petitioner union are working. Further, inthe present case, the Respondent/Management and INDCOSERVE have entered into contract by agreement between the parties and as regards the workmen engaged through INDCOSERVE, the daily wage was increased by a sum of Ra. 19.23 per day w.c.f. 1-1-2002 , which constitutedan agreement belween the II Party /Management and INDCOSERVE . Such agreement binds only Respondent/ Management and INDCOSERVE and neither the Petitioner nor any private contractor is a party to such agreement betweentheRespondent /Management and INDOOSERVE.

9. Then again, it is contended on behalf of the Respondent that it is a statement of the management witness that the workers under private contractors, some times aregetting more wages than the INDOOSERVE society workers for skilled workand they are getting more amount as salaryfrom the private contractors in some cases . It is an admitted fact that the castrack workers engagedby the private contractors are neither regular nor permanent and the private contractors themselves change acoording to their duration of contract. The wages payable to contract workers are not uniform or identical. Therefore , in view of these features, there is no commonality between one private contractor and another private contractor or between any private contractor and INDCOSERVE. Each private contraciorwith respect to the workers under the respective contractor formed a separate and distinct class . Likewise, INDCOSERVE formed a seperate class by itselfdifferent from any other private contractor . Therefore, there canbe no question of contract worker being entitled to terms application toanother contract worker engaged by another privatecontractor. When the employers are different, the question ofequal pay for equal work does not arise, even ifother conditions are fulfilled . When it is admitted that privatecontractors as well as INDCOSERVE society to pay higher wages than the minimum wages, the II Party/ Managementhas no control over the terms and conditions between a contract worker and the respective private contractors. Therefore, one private contractor may paymore wages than another private contractor in respect of identically skilled workmen . These matters are governed by market forces, such as nature of work, competition, availability ofworkmen, experience, urgency ofneed etc. Therefore, the contract worker under one private contract ormay notbe entitled to claim parity with a contract worker under another private contractor either under Article 14 of any other provision of law. Therefore, the Respondent Management is only bound by terms and conditions ofthe contract with respective contractors including INDCOSERVE. In this case, the Petitioner namely contract workmenhas not established before this Tribunal that every contract worker of the private contractor is identically placed in all respects such as qualification, age, nature of work, place of work, method and conditions of entry as contractworker etc. with INDCOSERVE member/worker. Further, the Petitioner umion has not produced any рау slip,wage register or any such material to indicate the daily wages receivedby the contract workers from their employer . Hence, the claim made by the Petitioner Union is unjustified andhas not been substantiated. Therefore, merely because some contract workers are getting more daily wages, 3500

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26 , 2007/JYAISTHA 5, 1929

provides no jastification for any other contract worker engaged by adifferent contractor to claim parity . The fact that INDCOSERVE is a co-operative society governed by a statute whereas the other private contractors are either individuals or firms, is itself sufficient to hold that two are incomparable . Above all , the prayer made in dispute made by the Petitioner amounts to a prayer to unilaterally alter or amend the terms of private contract entered into between the II Party/Management and respective private contractors, as such , the Tribunal has no power or jurisdiction to alter such private contracts or to substitute the existing contracts with another onetous contract . It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent that claim of equal pay for equal work is not automatic and it depends upon various factors namely service conditions, responsibility etc. and in the case of INDCOSERVE workmen, they are governed by their own standing orders and bye- laws whereas, no such factors apply in the case of individual contract workers engaged by private contractors . It is also contended on behalf of the Respondent that it is not the case of the Petitioner union that my of their members who are contract workers working for Respondent/Management are being paid less than miningum wages and what they are claiming wages is atthe rate higher than the minimum wages . Such demand hastobenecessarily placed before the contractor /employer by the respective contract worker . Under such circumstances , the claim made by the Petitioner union is not maintainable before this Tribunal . It is further contended that it is open for one contractor to pay more than the minimum wages even if other contractors are not doing so. In the present case, the INDCOSERVE societyas aprivate contractor has been able to get better terms and as a result he is able to pay Rs. 19.23 per day over and above the minimum wages and it cannot be questionedby thePetitioner union . The total number of private contract workers is largemumber and not a decreasing number , where as INDCOSERVE society members are decreasing every year either absorbed as regular employee , retired, death, discontinued work etc. For these reasons also the comparison cannot be made by the Petitioner . The claim madeby the Petitioner is based on parity between the two distinctively placed set of contract workers employed by different private contractors does not arise even under Article 14.Therefore, the claim made by the Petitioner union is not maintainable before this Tribunal .

employees. It is casier to identify such discriminated groups when the discriminated group is sex -based (women ) or colour based (blacks in USA) or caste -based ( Scheduled Castes etc.) and more difficult to identify in other cases. But, unless there is such identifiable discrimination, the doctrine should not be applied and mere difference is not discrimination ." Further, it has held that "applicability of the principle when there is a negotiated settlement , employees of subsidiary banks of State Bank of India receiving certain benefits by way of negotiated settlement with the management, their subsequent claim for parity with their counterparts in State Bank of India is not substainable . " Then the learned counsel for the Respondent relied on the rulings reported in JT 2002 5 SC 189 State of Haryana Vs. Harayana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association wherein the Personal Assistants in State Civil Secretariat of Haryana filed Writ seeking same scale ofpay granted by Central Govt. to P.As working inCentral Secretarial in which, the Supreme Court has hold that "theHigh Court failed to make any comparison of the nature of duties and responsibilities , as well as the qualifications for the two categories ofP.As . Equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right vested in any employee. Factors such as financial position of Govt. and the additional liability have to be kept in mind . Courts should approach such matters with restraint and interfere only when they are satisfied that the decision of Govt. is patently irrational , unjust and prejudicial to a section of the employees" and rejected the claim of the Petitioner . Then the counsel for the respondent relied on the rulings reported inJT 2003 5 SC 544 State of Haryana and another Vs. Tilak Raj and others . In that case 35 respondents were appointedat different . points of time as helpers on daily wages in Haryana roadways and they filed Writ Petition claiming that they were entitled to regularisation in view of service rendered for long period and/or that they were to be paid the same salary as paid to regular employees in which the High Court allowed the Writ Petition. Against that order, while dealing with the aspect regarding applicability of doctrine of equal pay for equal work when adailywager can claim comparison with the regular and pennanent staff for any purpose including a claim for equal pay. The Supreme Court has held that " respondent appointed at different points of time as helpers on daily wages by the appellant corporation claiming regularisation and also seeking salary at par with regular employees on the ground of ' equal pay for equal work, the claimants having failed to substantiate a clear cut basis of equivalence and a resultant hostile discrimination and no material having been produced as to the nature of the duties of either categories, the principle of equal pay for equal work, not being on abstract principle would not be applicable ." Then again , the leamed counsel for the Respondent relied onthe rulings reported in 19821LLJ 344 Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India and others wherein the Supreme Court has held that "if officers of the same rank perform dissimilar 10. Leaned counsel for the Respondent further relied onthe rulings reported in 1998 1 SCC 428 ASSOCIATE BANKS OFFICERS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS wherein the Associate Banks Officer's association claimed parity in employment and equal pay for equal work in which the Supreme Court has held that the doctrine is designed to correct irrational and inexplicable pay differentiation which can be looked upon as discrimination against an employee or a given set of 3501

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

be) the parties to the dispute have a direct or substantial interest. Strictly speaking , a workman within the meaning of the Act must be one in whose employment, non- employment, terms of employment or conditions of labour the workman as a class have Appellate Authority direct or substantial interest. " It was also held in that case, that "theperson mentioned was not a workman and he belonged tomedical or technical staff, a different category altogether from workman. Therefore , the appellant had direct por substantial interest in his employment or non- employment and even assuming that he was a member of the same trade union, it cannot be said on the tests laid down by us , that the dispute regarding his termination of service was an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) ofthe Act." Relying on all these decisions he argued that this dispute raisedby the Petitioner Union is not maintainable before this forum and hence , it is liable to be dismissed.

functions and the powers , duties and responsibilities of the post heldby them varies, such officers cannot be heard to complain ofdissimilar pay merely because the posts are of the same rank and the nomenclature is the same ." Learned counsel for the Respondent further relied on the rulings reported in JT 20017 SC 252 Bongaigaon Refinery and Petro Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Samijuddin Ahzned wherein the Supreme Court has held that "meaning of workman"- Respondent offered employment by appellant corporation under the benevolent scheme applicable to persons whose landa had been acquired by appellant corporation for setting up oil refinery and at the state ofjoining and accepting the joining report , appellant coming to know that the Respondent had suppressed factual information and that he was not entitled to be offered the job in the category of displaced persons and accordingly withdrawing the letter of appointment and not accepting the joining report and the Respondent moved the Central Govt. by raising an industrial dispute. Though the Govt. refusedto refer the matter , on the direction High Court the Govt. made referezice to the Tribunal and the appellant corporation challenged the order of reference by filing Writ. Though the Single Judge ofHigh Court has held that order of reference is not maintainable , the Division Bench ofthe HighCourt has reversed the order of Single Judge, in which the Supreme Court has held that " as the Respondent had not entered the employment referring a dispute of his instance was misconceived, Court should not have extended its helping hand to a non- deserving claimant . Reference ofthe dispute in the instance of the Respondent waswholly unwarranted and uncalled for."

12. On the other hand , learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the rulings reported in 1986 ILLJ 134 Dhirendra Chamoli and another Vs. State of U.P. wherein the Supreme Court has held that "the fact that these employees accepted employment with full knowedge that theywillbe paid only daily wages and they will not get the same salary and conditions of service as other Class IV employees cannot provide an escape to the Central Govt. toavoid the mandate of equality enshrined in Article 14of the Constitution . This Article declares that there shall be equality before law and equal protection of the law and implicit in it is the further principle that there must be equal pay for work ofequal value . These employees who are in the service of the different Nehru Yuvak Kendras in the country andwho are admittedly performing the same duties as Class IV employees must therefore , get the same salary andconditions of services as Class IV employees. It makes no difference whether they are appointed in sanctioned posts or not. So long as they are performing the same duties , they must receive the same salary and conditions ofserviceas Class IV employees. " Relying on this decision, learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that in this case, though the Respondent contended that the work done by the INDCOSERVE society workmen and the members of the Petitioner union are different, they have not produced even a single document to show that these workmen are working in two different works . No doubt, the workmen engagedbyprivate contractors are doing as per the contract entered into by the contractor and the Respondent/ Management, there are only four categories of workmen namely (i) unskilled; ( ii) semi -skilled; ( ii) skilled & (iv) highly skilled and the Respondent/Management has fixed the rate of wages as per Minimum Wages Act . Under such circumstances, it camot be said that they are doing different works at different places .When the Petitioner examined his witnesswho are in INDCOSERVE society , the Respondent/ Management has not nullified the evidence given by the said witness that the evidence given by them is false . Under 11. Then the learned counsel for the Respondent with regard to non- maintainability of petition before this Tribunal further relied on the rulings reported in 2004 2 CTC 430 Mukand Ltd. Vs. Mukand Staff and Officers ' Association wherein while considering whether the Tribunal can entering the dispute with regard to поп workman, the Supreme Court has held that " the Tribunal has nojurisdiction to entertain and decide dispute relating to non-workmen and the industrial disputes canbe raised only by workmen . " Again, learned counsel for the Respondent relied on the rulings reported in JT 19954 SC 264Gujarat Electricity Board, Thermal Power StationVs. Hind Mazdoor Sabha and others wherein the SupremeCourt has held that having regard to the scheme and objects of theAct and its other provisions, the expression " any person' in Section 2(k) of the 1.D. Act must be read subject to such limitations and qualifications as arise from the content; the two crucial limitations are ( i) the dispute must be a real dispute between the parties to the dispute (as indicated in the first two parts of the definition clause) so as to be capable of settlement or adjudication by one party to the dispute giving necessary relief to the other, and ( ii ) the person regarding whom the dispute is raised must be one in whose employment, non-employment, terms of employment or conditions of labour ( as the case may 3502

[PART II SEC . 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/JYAISTHA5, 1929

belongingto the Petitioner union are discharging the same natureofwork as by the employees through INDCOSERVE, therefore, the refusal to pay the bonus and ex gratia in the same terms as given in favour of the employees through INDCOSERVE is discriminatory and arbitrary and cannot be sustained . Learned counsel for the Petitioner relying on thisdecision argued that the ratio discidendi in the above case is squarely applicable to the facts ofthe present case and in this case ,the member of the Petitioner union namely contractworkers engaged by private contractors are doing the same work as that ofINDCOSERVE Society members . Under such circumstances , there cannot be any discrimination among the contract workers, Further, the members of the INDCOSERVE . INDCOSERVE Society is also a contractor, though not a private/ individual contractor. Under such circumstances , there must be parity among the contract workers engaged by the Respondent/ Management.

such circunstances , it shouldbe presumed that both are doing the same work and they cannot be classified to do different work by different rates .Under such circumstances, theaforesaid Supreme Court decision is squarely applicable to the facts ofthis case. Though the II Party/Management discriminating the regular workmen and contract workrmen regarding payment of wages, this case is not relating to equal wages for contract workmen on par with the regular workmen for doing the same work, on the other hand, the discrimination made by the Respondent /Management among the contact workmen themselves in payment of wages is illegal and arbitrary and amounts to unfair fabour practice. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further relied on the rulings of Madras High Court in an unreported case in Central Organisation of Tamil Nadu Electricity EmployeesVs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, wherein the Madras High Court while considering whether the Respondent/Management has to pay equal wages to the contract weckmen as that of wages paid to workmen of INDCOSERVE Society, it has held that "there can be no distinction between the Petitioner/ workers and the workmen engaged though INDCOSERVE which is admittedly a society comprising only contact labourers , therefore the dual stand adopted by the Respondent/Management one in favour of INDCOSERVE and the other against the Petitioner workers who are similarly placed as INDCOSERVE Employees cannot at all be justified." Leamed counsel forthe Petitioner relying on this decision argued that in that case the management contended that Petitioner/ workers not being employed through Indeoserve cannot claim the same terms of employment, wages and allowances payable to the workers under INDCOSERVE . The INDCOSERVE is a separate body with which the Respondent separate agreement and payment ofbonus paid to them was regulated by the fonum exclusively dealing withthe affairs of INDCOSERVE. Therefore, the payment made to the workers under INDCOSERVE is not at all sustainable and cannot justify the claim of the Petitioners tobe treated on par the IND COSERVE employees . But, the High Court has not accepted the contention of the Responden /Management and held the only ground on which the Petitioners are denied the benefit of bonus and ex -gratia payment as paid to the workers under INDCOSERVE , is Petitioners are contract labourers and that they cannot be equated to the regular employees of theBoard or employees under INDCOSERVE which is a society with which separate agreements have been executed. This contention cannot at all be accepted for the simple reason that the employees through INDCOSERVE are also contract labourers . Further , the action of the Respondent in trying to make a distinction between the contract labour employees through INDCOSERVEon the one hand and other the contract labourers on the other hand as different cannot also be sustained . Such action of the Respondent/ Management on the face of it is discriminatory , arbitrary and not based on any rationale. 11 alsoheld that there is no dispute over the fact that workers '

13. I find much force in the contention of the learned counset for the Petitioner. Though the Respondent Management has distinguished the members of the Petitioner union on the ground that Contract workers are neither regular nor permanent and they will be changed accordingto the duration of contract and the wages are not uniform or identical , I find there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent because merely , a society has been formed, it cannot be said that the workers of the society are doing different work under the Respondent/Management . No doubt, the workers will do the work as per the duration of contract, it camot be established before this Court that wages given to the contract workers by the private contractors are different . On the other hand , it is established by the Petitioner union through oral evidence that wages are uniform and identical in the case of contract workers engaged by the private contractors. No doubt, Respondent Management has examined their officers to say that private contractors are paying more money than the minimun wages fixed by the Respondent Management. It is only vague assertion and there is no clear cut evidence to substantiate this claim that private contractors are paying more wages than minimum wages fixed by the Respoxident/ Management . Under such circumstances , I find the enhancement of wages given to workers of the INDCOSERVE society should also be given to the members of the Petitioner union namely contract workers of the private contractor . Further, I find the announcement of Minister for Coal & Mines during his visit to Nayvely Lignite Corporation on 21-11-2001 to give fringe benefits to entire workmen because only when he has got impressed with the performance of Nayveli Lignite Corporation in entirely had announced the enhancement of payment of wages or stipend . Under such circumstances , this fringe benefits must alsobe given to workers of the private contractors who are also responsible for the performance of the [ भाग II- खष्ठ 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : माई 26, 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

3503

W4 03-06-03 Хетох сopy ofthe order of Respondent/ Management regarding mininmm rate wages payable to workmen through private contracts.

W5 20-06-03 Xerox copy ofthe order of Respondent/ Management regarding minimmum rate wages payable to Hosecos society

W6 16-05-02 Xerox copy of the order of Respondent/ Management regarding payment of cash awardto Indcoserve workmen . And contract personnel .

W7 N Xerox copy ofthe wage slip ofmembers ofHousecos

W8 28-06-02 Xerox copy of the strike notice givenby Petitioner

W9 07-12-02 Xerox copy ofthe letter from Respondent to Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)

Respondent/Management Usually , the fringe benefits was paidby employers on satisfying with the performance of the employees . In this case, it is not disputed that the Minister has given this increase in wage on being impressed with the performance of the Respondent/ Management as awhole. It is also admitted by management witness that the contract workmen employed through individual contractors were also responsible for the performance of the Respondent/Management. Therefort. various contract workmen employed through contractors were also equally contributing for the better performance of the Respondent/Management like any other workmen and it is established that they are doing the same work as that of the society workers and therefore, the II Party/ Management cannot discriminate the contract workmen employed through various individual contractors . For these reasons, I find the Petitioner is entitled to claim the increased wages given by the circular dated 11-4-2002 to the INDCOSERVE society members . As such, I find this point in favourof thePetitioner.

W10 03-02-03

PointNo. 2

Xerox copy ofthe letter from Respondent to Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)

The next point to be decided in this case is to what relief thePetitioner is entitled?

W11 22-08-03 Xerox copy ofthe letter from Respondent to Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)

W12 N Xerox copy of the membership list of IPartyUnion

W13 26-08-97 Xerox copy of the certificate of registration of I Party

W14 02-08-05 Xerox copy of the wage bill ofcontract workmen

W15 May,2005

14. In view ofmy foregoing findings that the demand made by the Petitioner mion for equal raise in the wages of contract workmen on par with the Naiveli Lignite Corporation IND COSER VE Society contract workmenis legal and justified, I direct the Respondent/Management to pay the increased wages to all contrac: workmen employed through individual contractors on par with the contract workmen employed through INDCOSERVE society with effectfrom the date of filing of this claim petition.No Costs.

Xerox copy of the wagebill of Indcosеге workinen

W16 N

K.JAYARAMAN, PresidingOfficer

WitnessesExamined:

Xerox copy of the ID card of Mr. S. Balakrishnan

For the Claim

W17 July. 05

WW1 Sri P. Narayanasamy WW2 Sri S. Balakrishnan

Xerox copy of the wage slip of Mr. S.Balakrishnan

For the Respondent

Forthe Party/Msangeanent :

Ex.No.Date

Description

MINI

MW1 Sri L. Santharakrushnan MW2 Sri N. Muthu MW3 Sri V.T. Govindaraju

Xerox copyofthe bye laws and certified standing orders

Documents Marked:

M2 N

For the IParty/Petitioner:

Xerox copy of the bye laws and certified standing orders

ExNo. Date Description

M3 N

Xerox copy of the agreement between Respondent and Incoserve society. 11-04-02 Xetox copy of the order ofRespondent/ Management Increasing wages to contract workmen of INDCOSERVE

नई दिल्ली , 10 मई , 2007

W2 09-07-02 Хегоx copy of the order of Respondent/ Management To all units heads regarding minimum rate ofwages

W3 03-06-03 Хегох copy of the order ofRespondent/ Management minimum rare wages payableto Indcoserve Society

का.आ. 1569. - केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप - नियम (4) के अनुसरण में, जिसके 80 प्रतिशत कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को अधिसूचित करती है:-

2394G1/07-30 [PART II-SEC-3 (ii))

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/J YAISTHA5, 1929

3504

कार्यालय का नाम

क्रम संख्या

थे. कार्यालय , नेहरू प्लेस 1.

उ.क्षे.का. , लक्ष्मी नगर i 3. उ.क्षे.का. , वासी

4 उ.क्षे.का. , अकोला 5.

उ.क्षे.का. , वटवा

उ.क्षे.का. , गुंटूर

7. उ.क्षे.का. , वारंगल & उ.क्षे.का. , राजमंड्री 9. उ.क्षे.का. , पट्नवेरू 10 उ.क्षे.का. , कुक्टपल्ली 11.

क्षे. का. , बंगलौर

12.

उ.क्षे.का. , बोममसंद्रा 13,

उ.क्षे.का. , के. आर. पुरम

उ.क्षे.का. , बेल्लारी 14

15.

उ.क्षे.का. , मैसूर

16 : उ.क्षे.का. , गुलबर्गा 17.

उ.क्षे.का. , पीन्या 18.

उ.क्षे.का. , चिक्कमंगलूर !

19.

उ.क्षे.का. , रायचूर

उ.क्षे.का. , कोल्लम 20.

21.

क्षे.का. , चैन्नई

22.

क्षे.का. , मदुरै

23.

क्षे.का. , कोयम्बटूर

उ.क्षे.का. , सेलम 24.:

25.

उ.क्षे. कार , वैल्लूर 26.

उ.क्षे.का. , तिरुचिरापल्ली 27.

उ.क्षे.का. , तिरूनेलवेली 28.

उ.क्षे.का. , तांबरम !

29:

उ.क्षे.का. , अंबाटूर 30

उ.क्षे.का. , पांडिचेरी 31.

थे.का. , भुवनेश्वर 32.

उ.क्षे.का. , राउरकेला 33.

उ.क्षे.का. , ब्रहमपुर 34.

क्षे.का. , गुवाहटी

उ.क्षे.का. , शिलांग 35.

36.

उ.क्षे.का. , अगरतला कार्यालय का नाम

क्रम संख्या

37.

उ.क्षे.का. , तिनसुकिया

38. उ.क्षे.का. , दार्जिलिंग

39. क्षे.का. , जलपाईगुड़ी

40. उ.क्षे.का. , दुर्गापुर

41. उ.क्षे. का. , हावड़ा

42. उ.क्षे.का. , टीटागढ़

43. उ.क्षे.का. , पार्क स्ट्रीट

44 उ.क्षे.का. , जांगीपुर

45. आं.प्र. संस्थान, पूर्वी क्षेत्र

46. आं.प्र. संस्थान , उज्जैन ( पश्चिमी क्षेत्र ) 47. आं.प्र. संस्थान , उत्तरी क्षेत्र

48. आं.प्र . संस्थान , दक्षिणी क्षेत्र

49. उप, आं.प्र. संस्थान , शिलांग

50. कार्यालय कल्याण आयुक्त बी-114 , गोदावरी (राजस्थान) भवन, जटिया हिल्स, दाता नगर, अजमेर

[सं. ई-111017/1 /2006- रा.भा/नी. 1 शारदा प्रसाद, संयुक्त सचिव NewDelhi , the 10th May. 2007

S.O. 1569.-in pursuance of sub- rule (4) ofRule 10 ofthe Official Language (Use for official purposes of the Union), 1976 the Central Government hereby notilies following offices , the 80 % Staff whereof have acquired working knowledgeofHindi.

Sl.No. Name of the Office

1. Regional Office, Nehru Place

2. S.R.O. , Laxmi Nagar

3. SR.O., Vashi

4. S.R.O. , Akola

5. S.R.O., Vatva

6. RegionalOffice, Guntur

7. S.R.O. , Varangal

8. SR.O , Rajmandri

9. S.R.O., Patancheru

10. S.R.O.. Kukatpalli

11. Regional Office , Bangalore

12. S.R.O. , Vomamsandra

13. S.R.O. , K.R Puram [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( 11 ) ]

3505

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2007 ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

SI.No.

Name of theOffice

14. SR.O, Vellari

15. S.R.O. ,Mysoor

16. S.R.O. ,Gulbarga

17. S.R.O. , Pinya

18. S.R.O., Chickmangaloor

19. S.R.O., Raichoor

20. SRO, Kollam

21. Regional Office, Chennai

22. Regional Office, Madurai

23. Regional Office, Koyambtoor

24. S.R.O. Selam

25. S.R.O. Vahr

26. S.R.O. Thiruchirapalli

27. S.R.O. Thirunelveili

28. S.R.O.Tamberam

29. S.R.O. Ambatur

30. S.R.O. Pondichery

31. RegionalOffice, Bhubaneshwar

32. S.R.O. Raurkela

33. S.R.O. Bhrampur

34. Regional Office, Guwahati

35. S.R.O. Shilong

36. S.R.O. Agartala

37. S.R.O. Tinsukhia

38: S.R.O. Darjiling

39. Regional Office, Jalpaigudi

40. S.R.O. Durgapur

41. S.R.O. Hawra

42. S.R.O. Titagarh

43. S.R.O. Park Street

44. S.R.O. Jangipur

45. A.P. Institute, East Zone

46. A.P. Institute, Ujjain (West Zone)

47. A.P. Institute , North Zone

48. A.P. Institute, SouthZone

49. Sub-A.P . Institute, Shilong

50. Office of the Welfare Commissioner, B-114,Godawari Shawan, Jatia Hills, Data Nagar, Ajmer (Rajasthan)

[No.B- 111017/1/2006-RBN] SHARDA PRASAD,Jt. Secy.

नई दिल्ली 11 मई, 2007

का.आ. 1570, -जबकि मैसर्स विश्रो जीई मेडिकल सिस्टम लिमिटेड, बेंगलूर ( कर्नाटक क्षेत्र में कोड संख्या केएम/ 13962 के वहत ) ( इसके पश्चात् प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में उल्लिखित ) ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम, 1952 ( 1952 का 19) ( इसके पश्चात् अधिनियम के रूप में उल्लिखित ) की धारा 17 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (क ) के अंतर्गत छूट के लिए आवेदन किया है । 2. और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार के विचार में अंशदान की दरों के संबंध में उक्त प्रतिष्ठान के भविष्य निधि नियम, उक्त अधिनियम की घारा 6 में विनिर्दिष्ट की तुलना में कर्मचारियों के लिए कम अनुकूल नहीं है और कर्मचारी, उक्त अधिनियम के अंतर्गत अथवा इसी प्रकार के किसी अन्य प्रतिष्ठान में कर्मचारियों के संबंध में कर्मचारी भविष्य निषिस्कीम, 1952 ( इसके पश्चात् उक्त स्कीम के रूप में उल्लिखित ) के अतंर्गत प्रदान किए आ रहे अन्य भविष्य निधि लाभों का भी फायदा उठा रहे हैं ।

अवः, अब, केन्द्र सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की 17 की उप - ध ारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, और समय- समय पर इस संबंध में केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा उल्लिखित शतों के अध्यधीन एतदुद्वारा उक्त प्रविष्ठान को उक्त स्कीम के सभी उपबंधों के प्रचालन से 1-4-1990 से अगली अधिसूचना तक छूट प्रदान करती है ।

[सं एस-35015/18/2007-एस.एस. - 11 ] एस. डी. जेवियर, अवर सचिव New Delhi the 11thMay,2007

S.O. 1570.-Whereas M/ s . Wipro GE Medical System Limited, Bangalore (uncler Code No. KN/ 13962 in Karnataka region) (hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied for exemption under clause(a) ofsub-section(1 ) ofSection 17 ofthe Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of1952) (hereinafter referred to as theAct).

2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said establishment with respect to the rates ofcontribution are not less favourable to employees therein than those specified in Section 6 of the said Act and the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided under the said Act or under the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter refezred to as the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other establishment of similar character .

3.Now,therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub- section (1 ) of Section 17 of the said Act and subjectto the conditions specified in this regard fromtimeto time , the Central Government, hereby, exempta the said establishment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 1-4-1990, until further notification .

[No.S-35015/18/2007 -SS-II] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] 3506

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2007/JYAISTHA 5, 1929

नई दिल्ली 14 मई, 2007

अध्याय 5 और 6 ( धारा 76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77, 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबन्ध पंजाब के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत होंगे , अर्थात्:-

तहसील जिला

क्र.सं. राजस्य ग्राम का नाम हदबस्त संख्मा

143

1. बपरौर

पटियाला

राजपुरा

147

पटियाला

राजपुरा

2 राजगढ़

148

3. रामनगर

पटियाला

राजपुरा

[सं. एस -38013/13 /2007 -एस.एस. - 1 ]

एस. दो. जेवियर, अवर सचिव का. आ. 1571, केन्द्रीय सरकार संतुष्ट हो जाने पर कि लोकहित में ऐसा करना औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( द ) के उप- खण्ड ( vi ) के उपबंध 1 के अनुसरण में भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.. 4172 दिनांक 10-10-2006 द्वारा किसी भी तेल क्षेत्र जो कि औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की प्रथम अनुसूची की प्रविष्टि 17 में शामिल है , को उक्त अधिनियम में प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 19-11-2006 से छः मास की अवधि से अधिक के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित किया था;

NewDelhi , the 16th May, 2007

और केन्द्रीय सरकार की राय है कि लोकहित में उक्त कालावधि को छः मास की कालावधि के लिए बढ़ाया जाना अपेक्षित है;

अतः अब , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( द ) के उप- खण्ड ( vi ) के परन्तुक द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तिबों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त अधि- नियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 19-5-2007 से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है ।

S.O. 1572.-In exercise of the powers conferredby sub-section (3 ) of Section 1 of the employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the Ist June , 2007 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter - IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter- Vand VI [ except Sub-section ( 1 ) of Section76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) ] ofthe said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Punjab namely:-

[सं. एस-11017/10/97- आईआर ( पी एल) ] गुरजोत कौर , संयुक्त सचिव

District

Tehsil

Sl . No.

NewDelhi, the 14th May2007

Had Bast No.

Name ofthe village

143

Patiala

Rajpura

Варто

147

Patiala

Rajgarh

Rajpura

148

Rajpura Patiala

Ramnagar

[No. S-38013/ 13/2007 -S.S.IJ

S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 16 मई , 2007

S.O, 1571. Whereas the Central Government having been satisfied that the public interest so requires that in pursuance of the provisions of sub - clause (vi ) of theclause (n) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , declared by the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour No. S.O. 4172dated 10-10-2006 the service in the any Oil Field which is coveredby item 17 of the First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) to be a Public Utilitiy Service forthe purpose of the said Act, for a period of six months from the 19th November, 2006 .

Andwhereas, the Central Govemment is of opinion that public interest requires the extension ofthe said period bya further period of six months .

का.आ. 1573.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34) की धारा । की उप - धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा 1 जून, 2007 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय 4 ( 44 व 45 घारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय 5 और 6 [ धारा 76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ] के उपबन्ध हरियाणा के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात :-

राजस्व ग्राम

জিলা

क्र.सं.

हृदबस्तसंख्या

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred bythe proviso to sub-clause (vi ) of clause (n ) of Section 2 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government hereby declares the said industry to be a Public Utility Service for the purposes of the said Act, for a period of six months from the 19th May, 2007.

रिवाड़ी [No. S- 11017/10/97 - IR(PL) ]

पावूहेडा

असलवास

रिवाड़ी

GURJOTKAUR, Jt. Secy .

185

रिवाड़ी

संगवाड़ी

नई दिल्ली , 16 मई , 2007

रिवाड़ी

160

इयोढ़ी

190

रिवाड़ी

खिजूरी

196

मसानी

रिवाड़ी

[सं. एस -38013/14/2007- एस.एस. - 1 ]

एस. दो. जेवियर , अवर सचिष का.भा. 1572. कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा 1 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा । जून , 2007 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय 4 (144 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है) [ भाग - खण्ड 3 ( i ) )

3507

भारत का राजपत्र : माई 26, 2007/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1929

New Delhi, the 16thMay,2007

तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय-4 ( 44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृच हो चुकी है ) अध्याय 5 और 6 [ धारा 76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77, 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृच की जा चुकी है । के उपबन्ध कर्नाटक के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात :-

" कर्नाटक राज्य के जिला बेलगाम होबली उंचा गाँत्र तालुक बेलगाम के राजस्वा ग्राम देसूर , बेलागुडी, नावणे , जादशेपुर की नगर पालिका सीमायें। "

[सं. एस-38013/15/2007 -एस.एस. -1 ] S.O.1573.-Imexercise of the powerm conferredby sub-section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of1948) the Centrail Government hereby appoints the Ist June, 2007 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and45 whichhave already been brought into force) and Chapter- V and VI [ except Sub- accuion ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sectious 77, 78,79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the saidAct shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Haryana namely:-

एस. दो. जेवियर, अवर सचिव HadBastNo. District

Sl. No. RevenueVillage

New Delhi , the 21stMay,2007 49

1. Patuhera

Rewai

2. Asalwas

Rewri

185

Rewari

Sangwani

4. Deodhi

160

Rewari

190

Khijuri

Rewari

6. Masani

196

Rewari

[No. S.38013 /1-4/2007-S.S.I S.D. XAVIER , UnderSecy.

S.O. 1574.-In exercise ofthe powers conferredby sub-section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st June, 2007 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and45 whichhave already been brought into force) and Chapter- VandVI [except Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77,78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] ofthe said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Karnataka namely:-

नई दिल्ली, 21 मई , 2007

"Desoor, Belaguadi, Navge , Jadshepur of Hobli Uchgaon , Taluk Belgaum in the District Belgaum of Karnataka."

का.आ. 1574. कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा 1 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा 1 जून, 2007 को उस

[No.S-38013/ 15/2007 - S.S.I) S.D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

Printed by the Manager, Govt . of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapuri . New Delhi - 110064 sad Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi- 110054,