This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्री से ही एटा (एन ) 04/ 0007/2003-05

REGD. NO . D. L. (7) 04-0007 /2003 0 भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

杖 29]

नई दिल्ली, जुलाई 15- जुलाई 21, 2007, शनिवार 24 गाय 30, 1929

No29

NEW DELHI, JULY 15-JULY 21 , 2007, SATURDAY / ARADEIA 24 ASADHA 34, 1929

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संवादी चाती है जिससे कि पृथक सेवा Separate Paging isgivento this Part in order that it may be thed के रूप में रखा जा सकें a seperate compilation

भाग - प- खण्ड (५)

PART II Section 3-Dub-escalon (W)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों ( रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर ) द्वारा जारी किए गए स्पंचविक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं Stay Orland Notificatioms Emmaed by theMinistries of the Government of India (Ocher than the Ministry of Defence)

कार्यालय , मुख्य खावकर म्यु

ओधपुर, 11 जून , 200

संख्या 06/2007-08

कर.. 2004, आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 कर 43 वां) की धारा 10 के खण्ड ( 23 ) के उप- सखण्ड ( vi ) के साथ पडित आवकर नियमावली , 1962 के निमम 2 गक ट्रम्प प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त, जोधपुर एवद्‌द्वारा " बैन विश्व भारती संस्थान, लाडनू, जिला भागौर ( राजस्थान ) " को जम्न घारा के प्रयोजनार्थ निर्धारण वर्ष 2008-09 से 2010-11 तक के लिए अनुमोदित करते हैं ।

पह अनुमोदन इस शर्त के अधीन है कि संस्था आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की माय 10 के खण्ड ( 237 ) के उप- (vi ) सहमठित आयकर नियमावली , 1962 के निगम 2गक के प्रावधानों की निस्तर अनुपालना करती रहेप्पी ।

[क्रमांक: पुआ /को/असी(तक ) / 10( 23 ) (V1 )/2007-08 ]

विजय रंजन , पुछम आयकर आयुक्त 306-8 2007

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF

INCOME TAX

Fodhpur, the 11th June,2007

No. 06/2007-05

8.0. 2004.-In exercise of the powers confkared by sub- clause ( vi ) of clanse (23C) of Section 10 of the Tacorne-taxAct, 1961 (43 of 1961 ) read with Rule 2CA ofthe Income-tax Rules, 1962, L, the Chief Commissioner of Income- tax , Jodhpur , hereby approve " kuin Vishva Bharti Institute, Ladnun , District- Nagaur (Rajasthan ) " for the purpose of the said section for the assessment years 2008-09 10 2010-2011 .

This approval is subject to the Institute's continued compliance with the provisions of sub-clause (vi ) ofclause (23) of Section 10 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 read with Rak2CA ofthe Income- tax Rules, 1962.

[No.CCTT/TTO (Tech.hu/10 (23C)(VI)/2007-08) VHAY RANJAN, Chief Commissioner of Income-tax

(4625) 4626

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 21 , 2007 /ASADHA 30, 1929

वित्त मंत्रालय ( काल ) ( किंग प्रसन ) नई दिल्ली, 25 जून , 2007

कर. का. 2005. - राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम, 1979/1980 के साण्ड के उप- म्य ( 1 ) और (2 ) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम, 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) के खण्ड ( च ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार , भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् इतयुद्धाय , श्री पी. के. मैन्यर, अध्यक्ष , अखिल भारतीय पंजाब नैशनल बैंक अधिकारी संघ को दिनांक 19-2-2007 से 31-3-2009 तक, अर्थात् अधि- वर्षिता की अबु आप्त करने वाले माह की आखरी तारीख तक की अवधि के लिए के पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अधिकारी बने रहने तक , जो भी पहले हो , पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के निदेशक मण्डल में अधि- कारी/कर्मचाही निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।

(फा. सं. 9/3/2007- बीजो [] डी. पी. भारद्वाज, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF FINANCE (PaperbountofEconomic Affairs) (BANKING DIVISION)

NewDelhi, the 25th June,2007

5.0 2005-In exercise of the powers conferredby cluse (1) of Sub- section (3 ) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer ofUndertakings ) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub- clauses ( 1 ) and (2 ) of clause 9 of theNationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions Scheme , 1970/1980 , the Central Goverment, fter consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby Dorminates Shri P.K. Nayar , President, All India Punjab National BankOfficers ' Association as Officer/ Employee Director of theBoard of Directors ofPunjab NationalBank for a period, w.r.f. 19-2-2007 and 31-3-2009, ie. the last day of the moth in which he would attain the age of зирепалпиртол or until he ceases to be an officer of the PunjabNasionalBank,whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 9/3/2007-80-1

D. P. BHARDWAJ , Under Secy.

(विधी सेवाएं স )

नई दिल्ली, 10 जुलाई, 2007

का.. 2006. - रुग्ण औद्योगिक कंपनी (विशेष उपबंध ) अधिनियम, 1985 की धारा 6 की उप- धारा (2 ) के साथ पठित धारा 4 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्‌द्वारा , श्री पवन रैना, आईएएस (तमिलनाडु : 70) (सेवानिवृत्त ) , को उनके पद ग्रहण करने की तारीखा से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा उनके 65 वर्ष की आयु प्राप्त कर लेने तक

[PART II-SEC. 3 (1 ) अथवा औद्योगिक और वित्तीय पुनर्निर्माण बोर्ड ( बीआईएफआर ) के समाप्त होने तक अथवा अगला देश होने तक , इनमें से जो भी पहले हो , बीआईएफआर के सदस्य के रूप में नियुक्त करती है । [फा से 20(1 )/2004-आईएफ-1]

खड्ग सिंह , अवर सचिव (Department of Financial Services) New Delhi , the 10th July, 2007

8.0. 2006.-Io exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section ( 2) of Section 4 read with Sub -section (2 ) of Section 6 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 , the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Pavan Raina, LAS (IN : 70 ) (Retd . ), as Mamber, Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) for three years , with effect from the date of assumption of the charge of the post or till he attains the age of 65 years or till the abolition ofBIFR or until further onders, whichever event occurs the earliest.

[F. No. 200( 1 )/2004- F- KHARG SINGH Under Secy.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (Department of Health & Family Welfare) New Delhi , the 20th July,2007 CORRIGENDUM

S.O. 2007.-In partial modification of this Department's Notification No. U. 12012/72/2001 - ME (P.II) dated 12th June, 2007 , the name of the college may be read as "Amrita School of Medicine, Kochi , Kerala" instead of "Antrita Institute ofMedical Sciences & Research Centre, Kochi " . Other contents of the Notification remain unchanged.

[U. 12012/72/2001 -ME (P.IT) ] S. K. MISHRA ,Under Secy.

पोत परिवाइन , सड़क परिवहन और राजमार्ग मंत्रालय ( पोत परिवहन विभाग }

नईदिल्ली, 21 जून , 2007

का.आ. 2008, केन्द्रीय सरकार , भाषिक भविष्य निधि योजना, 1966 के पैरा 37 द्वारा प्रदत्व अधिकार प्रयुक्त करके और भारत सरकार के पोत परिवहन , सड़‌क परिवहन और राजमार्ग मंत्रालय , पोत परिवहन विभाग की तारीख 25 अप्रैल, 2006 की अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 1687 ( अ) को अधिकान्त करते हुए , गाविक भविश्य निधि के न्यासी- मंडल के परामर्श से , 1 अप्रैल , 2007 से उक्त योजना के परन्तुक 35 के अधीन देम , नाविक भविष्य निधि में नियोक्ताओं और गाविकों के कुल अंशदान की 5 प्रतिशत धनराशि प्रभार के रूप में नियत करती है ।

[फा. सं. जी-20018/ 4/2007 -एम टी] आर. एन. त्रिपाठी, उप सचिव 4627

भाख का राजपत्र : जुलाई 21, 2007/ मनाद 30, 1929

NewDelhi , the 10th July,2007 MINISTRY OF SHIPPING BOAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS (Department of Shipping)

NewDelhi, the 15th June, 2007

$.0. 2008-hexercise ofthe powers confered by Paragaph37 ofthe Seamen'sProvident Fund Scheme, 1966 and in supersession of the notification of the Goverment pf India, Ministry of Shipping. Road Transport and Highways , Department of Shipping S.O. 1687 dated 5th April, 2006, the Central Government, in consultation fits the Board ofTrustees ofthe Seamen's ProvidentFund hereby futes with effect from the lat day of April, 2007 , 5 per cent of the total of employers and seamen's contribution to the Seamen's Provident Fund as administrative charges payable under paragraph 35 of the saidSchome.

i [F.No.G-20018/4/2007-MT R.N.TRIPATHY, Dy . Sevy.

आदेश

5.0. 2009.- excise of the powers confened by Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Merchant Stalpping Act, 1958 (44 of 1958) and in supersession of the notification of the Govenument of India in the Ministry of Shipping andTransport (DirectorateGeneral ofShipping) amber $ .O. 1025, dated the 23rd February, 1985 ia it relaks to Sections 406 and 407 oftheMerchant Shipping Act 1958, except as respects things done or omitted to be before such supersession, the Director General of Shipping with the previous approval of the Central Covermatt, hereby directs that the power or authority cosferred and any duty imposed upon him/her , by or under the provisions ofthe said Act specified in Column (1 ) ofthe Tablebelow shall be exercised or, as the case maybe, discurged by the officer specified in column ( 2) ofthe maidTable, subject to the conditions and restrictions specified in column (3) of the saidTable, namely:-

TABLE

नई दिल्ली , 10 जुलाई, 2007

Conditions

Officer inwhose favour delegation is made

Provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958

Powers shall be

JolotDirector

Sub-sectiosa ( 1)

exercised subject

General of

and(2) ofSection

Shipping

406, and sub-

Sections(1 )

mnd(2)of

to the provisivats of sub- section (3) of Sections 406, sub-sectioni

Section407

(3) of Section407

andSection40%.

का.ब. 2009. - कनिक पोत परिवहन अधिनियम, 1958 (1958 का 441 की पारा 7 की उपाय ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदश राविक्यों का प्रयोग करती हुए तथा पोत परिवहन तथा परिवहन मंत्रालय में भारत सरकार की दिनांक 23 फरवरी, 1985 की अधिसूचना सं. 1025 के अधिक्रमण में, वहां तक वाणिज्यिक पोत परिवहन अधिनियम, 1958 की धारा 106 तथा 407 का संबंध है , तो उन बातें को छोडकर, जो इस अधिमन से पहले पूरी कर ली गई है या हटा दी गई हैं, नौवहन महामिरेस्क केन्द्रीय सरकार के पूर्वानुमोदन से, एतद्‌द्धमा निदेश देते हैं कि प्रांत शक्ति का प्राधिकार तथा उन पर अधिरोपित कर्तव्य, जो उन्हें निम्मं सारणी के स्तंभ ( 1 ) में उक्त अधिनियम विशिष्ट के प्रावधानों इरा या इसको अंवर्ग प्रयोग करेंगे मा, जैसी स्थिति हो उस रूप में, उक्त सारणी के सांग ( 2 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट अभिधकारी द्वारा निर्वहन या आए, बसतें कि उक्त सारणी के स्तंभ (3 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट राखें तवं प्रतिबन्धों का पालन किया जाए, च्चो है: -

[F.No. MSL- 11 (4)2005] KIRAN DHINGRA, Director General ofShipping सारणी

वाणिज्यिक पोत परिवहन !! जिस अधिकारी के रावें

रसायन एवं उर्वरक मंत्रालय अधिनियम , 1958 के ! पथ में प्रत्यायोजन

किया गया

नई दिल्ली, 4 जून , 2007

प्रदत्त शक्तियों का

धारा 405 की उप - धारा( 1 ) संयुक्त गौयहन

प्रयोग धारा406

ग्रंथा ( 2 ) तथा घारा 407 महानिदेशक

की उप - धारा ( 3 )

की उप- धारा ( 1 ) राष्फ ( 2 )

तुमा धारा 407

कीउप-धारा (3)

तथा 40% के

प्रावधानों के

अनुस्मर किया

का.आ. 2010. - केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा " संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग " नियम 1976 के नियम 10 के उप- नियम (4) के अनुसरण में रसावन पूर्व उर्वरक मंत्रालय , उर्वरक विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाबीन उपक्रम एफसीआई अरावली जिप्सम एण्ड मिनरल्स इंडिया लिमिटेड ( फेमिल ) के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को, जिनके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक अर्थात् शत- प्रतिशत कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , को अधिसूचित करती है:

जाएख ।

[फार्स एम एस एस-11 (4)/2005]

क्षेत्रीय खान कार्यालय, फेनमिल , इमीरा , जिला जैसलमेर (राजस्थान)

किरण भींगरा , नौवहन महानिदेशक Ракт П- та: ( 1 ) ] 4628

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21 , 2007 /ASADHA 30, 1929

गया है । इसे देखते हुए कार्यदल द्वारा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत करने की अवधि को तौल मःम तक और बड़ा दिया गया है ।

क्षेत्रीय बाल कार्यालय , फेगमिल , बोकानेर , जिला बीकानेर (राजस्थान)

क्षेत्रीस खान कार्यालय , फेगामिल , कवास , जिला बाड़मेर (राजस्थान)

3. इसे सक्षम प्राधिकारी का अनुमोदन प्राप्त है । [सं. 5-12/2006-पीपी-1 ] अपेइजिंग लुईखम, संयुक्त सचिव क्षेत्रीय वन कार्यालय , फेगमिस , सूरतगढ़ , जिला श्री गंगानगर (राजस्थान)

क्षेत्रीय ज्ञान कार्यालय , फंगमिल , रामसिंह पुर, जिल्ला श्री गंगानगर ( राजस्थान)

MINISTRY OF MINORITY AFFAIRS NewDelhi . the 10th July , 2007

सं ई-1101 ) / 1 /2006 -हिन्दी ] विजय सिष्ठार , संयुक्त सचिव

MINISTRY OF CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS (Depertment of Fertilizers)

New Delhi , the 4 June, 2007

5.10, 2011. An inter - ministerial Task Force on implictions of the geographical distribution of minorities in lodia was set up videntification No. 5-12-2006- FP - 1 dated 2nd March . 2007. As per para 5 of the said notification, the Task Force was required to submit its report within a period of three months .

2. Fer preparations of a position paper in the context of the terms of reference of the Task Forcz . a sub-group has been set up by the Task Force. In view of this , the period of submission of the report by the Task Force has been extended by three months .

5.0. 2010-In pursuance of sub- rule (4) of the Rule10 of the Official Language "Use for offical puposes of the Union Rule 1976 the Central Govt. hereby notifies the following officers of PCI Aravali Gipsum & Minerals India Ltd..(FAGMIL) a PSU under the Administrative Control of the Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers , Department of Fertilizery whereof more than 80 % stalli.c. 100% have quired the working knowledge of Hindi .

3.This has the approval of the Competent Authority. [No. 5-12/2006- PP- J1 AMEISING LUIKHAM, J. Secy .

Area Mines Office , FAGMIL, Hamira , District Jaisalmair(Rajasthan)

Area Nines Office, FAGMIL, Bilanco, DistrictBikaner (Rajsthan)

कोयला मंत्रालय

आदेश

Arga Mines Office, FAGMIL, Kavas, District Badher (Rajsthan)

नई दिल्ली, 11 जुलाई, 2007

Avez Nines Office, FAGMIL, Suratgarh, District Shree Canganagar (Rajsthan)

Area Mines Office, FAGMIL, Ramsinghpur ,District ShreeGanganagar (Rajsthan)

[No. 6-1101 1 / 1 /2006-HindiJ VIJAY CHHIBBER, Jt . Secy .

अल्पसंख्यक कार्य मंत्रालय

! नई दिल्ली, 10 बुलाई , 2007

का. आ. 2012.-कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम, 1957 ( 1957 कर 20 ) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) को धारा १ की उप - धारा ( १ ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का.आ. 280 ] तारीख 20. जुलाई , 2006 के प्रकाशन पर , यो भारत के राजपत्र भाग II , खण्ड 3 , उप- खण्ड ( ii ) तारीख 22 जुलाई , 2006 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित ऐसी भूमि और भूमि में, या उस पर के अधिकार (जिन्हें इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिकार कड़ा गया है ) उक्त अधिनियम की धारा LD की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन, सभी विस्लंगों से मुक्त होकर आत्पातिक रूप में केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित हो गए हैं। का.आ. 2011.- भारत में अल्पसंख्यकों के भौगोलिक फैलाय के प्रभावों पर अधिसूचना सं. 3-12-2006- पीपी -1 दिनांक 02 मार्च, 2007 द्वारा एक अंतर- मंत्रालयी कार्यदल का गठन किया गया था । उक्त अधिसूचना के पैरा 5 के अनुसार इस कार्यदल को अपनी रिपोर्ट तीन मास की अवधि के भीतर प्रस्तुत करनी थी ।

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार , का यह सम्माधान हो गया है कि वेस्टनं कोलफिल्डस लिमिटेड, नागपुर ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त कंपनी कहा गया है ) . ऐसे निबंधनों और शतों का, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार इस निमित्त अधिरोपित करना उचित समझे , अनुपालन करने के लिए तैयार है :

2. कार्यदल के विचारार्थ विषय के संदर्भ में एक स्थिति- पत्र तैयार करने करें लिए, इस कार्यबल द्वारा एक उपसमूह गठित किया 4629 [ भाग -खण्ड 3 ( i) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 21 , 2007/आधाद 30 , 1929

Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development ) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the saidAct ), the rights in or over the lands described in the Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said rights ) vested absolutely inthe Central Government free from all cocumbrances under sub- section( i ) of Section 10 of the saidAct;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निदेश देती है कि भूमि और उक्त भूमि में इस प्रकार निहित या उस पर के सभो अधिकार, तारीख 22 बुलाई, 2006 से केन्द्रीय सरकार में इस प्रकार निहित बने रहने को बच्चाय , निम्नलिखित निबंधनों और शतों के अधीन रहते हुए, उक्त कंपनी में निहित हो आएंगे , अर्थात्

1. उक्त कंपनी, उक्त अधिनियम के उपबंधों के अधीन मद्यद्मा अवधारित प्रतिकर , स्याज, नुकसान और वैसी ही मद्दों की बान्बत किए गए सभी संदादों की केन्द्रीय सरकार को प्रतिपूर्ति करेगो;

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the Western Coalfrelids Limited, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the said Company) , is willingto complywith such terms and conditions as the Central Government thinks fitto impose in this behalf ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 11- of the said Act , the Central Goveromeat hereby directs that the said rights in or over the lands so vested, shall , with effect from the 22nd July , 2006, instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, vest in the said Company, subject to the following testos and conditions , namely:-

2. उक्त कंपनी द्वारा शर्त ( 1 ) के अधीन , केन्द्रीय सरकारी को मंदेव रकमों का अवधारण करने के प्रयोजन के लिए एक अधिकरण का गठन किया जाएगा तथा ऐसे किसी अधिकरण और अभिकरण की सहायता के लिए नियुक्त किये गये व्यक्तियों के संबंध में उपगन सभी व्यय , तकत कंपनी वहन करेवी और वैसे ही उक्त भूमि में या उस पर इस प्रकार उक्त अधिकारों के लिए या उनके संबंध में सभी विधिक कार्यकहियों, जैसे अपील आदि की बाबत उपगत , सभी स्वय भी, उक्त कंपनी वहन करेगी;

1. the said Company shall reimburse the Central Government all payments made in respect of compensation, interest , damages and the like , as determined under the provisions of the suid Act ;

3. उक्त कंपनी, केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों की, ऐसे किसी अन्य के संबंध में, जो वक्त भूमि में या उस पर इस प्रकार निहित होने वाले पूर्वोक्त अधिकारों के चारे में , केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों द्वारा या उनके विरुद्ध किन्हीं कार्यवाहियों के संबंध में आवश्यक हो, क्षतिपूर्ति करेंग्मै;

4. उक्त कंपनी को, केन्द्रीय सरकारी के पूर्व अनुमोदन के बिना, उक्त भूमि में या उस पर इस प्रकार उक्त निहित अधिकारों को अन्य व्यक्ति को अंतसिा करने की शक्ति नहीं होगी; और

2 a tribunal shall he constituted for the purpose of determining the amounts payable to the Central Government by the said Company under condition ( 1 ) and all expenditure incurred in connection with any such tribunal and persons appointed to assist the tribunal shallbe borne by the suid Company and sinikarty , all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals , che , for or in connection with the said rights, in or over the said tunds , so vesting shall also be borne by the said Company;

5. ढक्त कंपनी , ऐसे निदेशों और शयों को , जो केन्द्रीय सरकारी द्वय, जब कभी आवश्यक हो , दक्त भूमि के विशिष्ट क्षेत्रों और भूमि में या उस पर अधिकार के लिए दिए जाएं या अधिरोपित किये आएं, पालन करेगी ।

[ .43015/27/2004/पीआरआईडब्ल्यू]

3. the said Company shall indemnify the Central Government and its officials against any other expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by against the Central Goveromeat or its officials regarding the aforesaid rights in ur over the sund hunds su vested;

एम. शहाबु‌द्दीन , अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF COAL

4. the said company shall have no power to transfer the lands and said rights in or over the lands so vested to any other person without the previous approval of the Central Governmeal ; and PHLER

New Delhi , the 11th July , 2007

5. the said Company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by the Central Government for particular areas of the said lands and riglus in or over the lands and as and when necessary .

[No.43015/27/2004/ PRIW]

M. SHAHABUDEEN, Under Scry .

8.0. 2012 -Whereas , on the publication of the notification of the Government of India, Ministry ofCoat vide number S.O. 2801, dated the 20th July, 2006 published in the Gazette of India, Part II , Section 3, Sub - section ( ii) , daued the 22nd July, 2006, issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of 4630

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21 , 2007 /ASADHA 30, 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( il) )

उपभोक्ता कार्य एवं लोकवितरण मंत्रालय

( उपयोक्ता कार्य विभाग )

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली, 11 जुलाई , 2007

का.अ. 2013.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो के भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियमन 1988 विनियम 4 के उपविनियमन ( 5 ) के । शाहत यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि निम्नलिखित्व ब्यौरे वाले लाइसेन्स प्रदान किए जाते हैं :

अनुसूत्री

पार्टी का नाम व पता ( कारखाना) लागूবিস্মি

क्रम संख्या

प्लाइसन्स संख्या

12-1-2007

J. 6642272

मेसर्स राजा नगै मर्नलगे , 264, कोसै मेइन रोड , वेल्तकोविल , ईरोड-638111

12-1-2007

6642473

मेसर्स श्री वासवी एण्ड को ज्वेलर्स , 77 , बेस्ट पेरियार स्वामी रोड, आए. एस. पुरम, कोयंबतूर-641002 3 6642474 16-1-2007 मेसर्स भारद्वाज हाई-टेक मोटर व पंप्स, 104, बी -2 , एम.आई.जी. कालोनी, हाउसिंग यूनिट, आर एस्ः पुरुम, कोयवसूर-641002 19-1-2007

4. 6643981

मेसर्स जीजेएक्स अक्वा इंडस्ट्रीज, 570, अविनाशी रोड , पी.एन. पालयम कोयंबतूर -641037 5.

23-1-2007

6640987

मेखर्स श्री वेंकटेशा इंडस्ट्रीज , 1. 33 , प‌ट्टद्यालम्प्यन कोइल स्ट्रीट 3 , पीलमेड, कोयंबतूर-641004 24-1-2007

6648486

मेसर्स जय बान्सी इंडस्ट्रीज , यूनिट -3 , एप्स एफ नं 301 , दुरैसामी ले आउट, आवारमपालयम , कोयंबतूर-641006 7.

24-1-2007

6648385

मेसर्स आर्बन मेटर्स ( इंडिया ) प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , ओल्ड नं. 1297 , न्यूनं . 207, मेट्टूपालक्म रोड, कोयंबतूर-641043 66-49286 29-1-2007 मेसर्स लक्ष्मी इंजिनीयरिंग्स , 77-4/ 1 , नेड्डूनचेलियन स्ट्रोट, रत्तिनपुरी , कोयंबतूर -641027 मानक को उपाधि

भामा संख्या भागखखंड व वर्ष

मामा 1417 : 1999 स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएँ, आभूषण्ण शिल्पकारी- शुद्धता एवं पार्किंग

भामा 1417 : 1999 स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएँ आभूषण शिल्पकारी- शुद्धता एवं मार्किंग

भामा 8472 : 1998 साफ ठंडे पानी के लिए अपकेंद्रीय पुनरुत्पादक पंप्स

भामा 14543 : 2004 पैकेजवंद पेयजल ( पैकजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अस्खावा)

भाया 3472 : 1998 साफ ठंडे पानी के लिए, अपकनेन्द्रीया पुनरुत्पादक पंप्स

भामा 1.42:20 : 1994 गहरे कुओं के निषन्छनीय पंप सेट

भा.मा. 14220 : 1994 गहरे कुओं के निमन्जनीय पंप सेट

भात 8472: 1998 साफ ठंडे पानी के लिए अपकेंद्रीय पुनरुत्पादक पंप्स

सिं. सी एम डी 13:11 ] ए. के. तलबाग, उप महानिदेशक ( माक्र्स ) [ ग - सम्म 3( ) ]

4631

भारत कर राजपत्र : बुलाई 21 , 2007/ाद 30, 1929

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

DepartmentofCoA )

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

NewDelhi, the 11th July,2007

S.Q. 2013-apursance of sub- regulation (5 ) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particular ofwhich are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

St. No.

Licence No.

Operative date

Name and Address (Factory) oftheParty 2

4 1. 6642272 12-1-2007

Title of the Standard

S No. Part/Scr . Year

6 5

LS1417: 1999

M/s.RajaNagai Maligni,

264, Kovai Main Road, Vellakovil ,

Frodo-63811

2 6642373 12-1-2017 Ms. Sri Vasavi & Co. Jewellers, 77,West Periya SwamyRoad, R.S. Puram,Coimbatore-641002

3. 6642474 16-1-2007 M's .Bhardwaj High- Tech Motor & Pumps, 104, B- 2,M.LG. Colony, Housing Unit, R. S. Puram, Coimbatore-641002 4 6643561 19-1-3007 M/ s. OJX Aqua Industries , 570, Avinashi Road, P.N.Palayam, Coimbatore-641037 5. 6646967 23-1-20177 Mis . Sri Venkakan ladustries, No. 33, Pattalumman Koil Street -3 Parlamedu, Coimbatore-641004 6

24-1-2007

6648486

MAL. Jai Jansi Industries , Unit -3 . SfNo. 301 , Durmisumy Lay Out, Avampalayam, Coimbatore-641006 7. 6648385 24-1-2007 M/s.Aryca Motors (India) Private Limited,Old No. 1297 , New No. 207, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore-641043 & 6649286 29-1-2007 M/ s. LaxmiEngineerings, 77-A/ 1 , Nedunchzian Street, Rathinapuri , Coimbatore-641027 Gold and gold alloys, JewelleryArtifacta- Fineness and marking

B1417: 1999 Goldund gald alloys, Jewellery/ artifacts- Fineness and marking

[S8472:1996 Centrifugal regenerative pumps for clear, cold water

1514543 : 2004 Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

158472:1998 Centrifugal regective pumps for clear , cold water

LS 14230: 1994 Openwell Submersible Pumpseis

IS 14220 : 1994 Openwell Submenible Pumpsets

IS 8472:1998 Centrifugal regenerative pumps for clear , cold waler

[No. CMD/ 13: 11 ] A.K. TALWAR, Dy, DirectorGeneral (Marics) 4632

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 21 , 200 / ASADHA 30, 1929

[PART II SEC. 3 ( H )]

नई दिल्ली, 11 जुलाई , 2007

का/आ. 2014.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो के भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियमन . 1988 के विनियम 4 के उप विनियमन ( 5 ) के तहत् यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि निम्नलिखित ब्यौरे वाले लाइसेन्स प्रदान किए जाते हैं :-

अनुसूची

पार्टी का नाम व पता (कारखाना)

लामूतिथि

स्माइसेन्स संख्या

क्रम संख्य्त

मेसर्स चालूज्वेलरी .

6602174 5-2-2007

230, एल के ए टान्पर , लाइट भवन , मेन रोड, बेल्लकोविल , इंरोक-638111 66$2973 5-2-2007 मेसर्स बासबी तंगगलिगे. 64 , बातार स्ट्रीटे , सत्वमंगलम, ईग्रेड 63840 :

मेसर्स सिबि राजा मालि

13-2-2007

665485

253, मेन रोड, कांगायम . ईरोड-638701

13-2-2007

4. 6655079

मेस्रासं न्यूकृपण ज्वंलर, 1076. बिग बाजार स्ट्रीट. न्यूसंख्या 440 , कोचम्मसूर 641001 :

19-2-2007

6657588

मेसर्स अक्षया ज्वेलर्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड,

15/5, दूसरा तल, पोन्नय्यराङ्गपुरम ,

कोयम्बतूर -641001

19-2-2007

ね 6457992

मेसर्स एस. आर. एस . इंजिनीयसं , :

संख्या 38. एम. एस्. उदयमूर्ती नगर , अब्बास गार्डन , तडागम रोड, कोयम्बतूर 641025

19-2-2007

7. 6458085

मेसर्स एस . आर. एस्ट इंजिनीयर्स,

संख्या 38 , एम. एस उदयमूर्ती नगर, अब्यास गार्डन , तहागम रोड, कोयम्बतूर -641025

20-2-2007

6458186

मेस्सं टेकमेक्स एक्विपमेंट संख्या 3 , कापराज नगर, कासफ्‌ट्टी रोड , सित्रिल एयरीड्रोम पोस्ट, कोयम्बतूर-641014 मानक की उपाधि

भामा संख्या भाग खंड व वर्ष

भामा 1417 ; 1999 स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएँ आभूषण, शिस्ल्पकारी- शुद्धता एवं मार्किंग

भामा 1417 : 1999 स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र

धातुएँ आभूषण शिल्पकारी- शुद्धः। एवं मार्किंग

भामा 1417 : 1999 स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धनुरै आभूषण शिल्पकारी- शुद्धता एवं मार्किंग

भामा 1417 : 1999 स्वर्ण तथ स्वर्ण मिश्र धन्तुएँ आभूषण/शिल्पकारी- शुद्धता एवं मार्किंग

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मित्र भामा 14 ! 7 : 1999 धातुएँ आभूषण शिल्पकारी- शुद्धत एवं मार्किंग

निमन्जनीय नंभ घंट

भामा 8034 : 2002 निमज्जनीय पंप सेट

पापा 9283 : 1995 केपोटर

भामा 8034 : 2002 निमज्जन्द्रीय पंप सेट [भाग II- खण्ड 3( i) )

21-2-2007

9. 6658691

मेसर्स ए. एल. इंजिनीयरिंग कंपनी, 16/1 - ए, ईस्ट स्ट्रीट , मुदुचेट्रिट्टपालयम रोड , वेटरनरी हॉस्पिटल के सामने , अविनाशी-641654

22-2-2007

10 6699491

मेसर्स ए. एल. इंजिनीयरिंग कंपनी, 16/1-ए, ईस्ट स्ट्रीट, मुचुचेट्रिट्टपालयम रोड, वेटरनरी हास्पिटल के सामने , अविनाशी-641654

22-2-2007

6660375

11 .

मेसर्स जी आर मोटर पंप्स एण्ड के ग्राइन्ड्स , एस. एफ. संख्या 360 , इंदूनगर के सामने , वी.के. मेन रोड, पौलमेट, कोयंबतूर-641004

23-2-2007

6660981

12.

मेसर्स श्री सरगुणा इंडस्ट्रीज, 321 , न्यू विश्म बालम ले आउट, पालबूर, पी एन पालथम, कोयंबतूर-641037

28-2-2007

6663583

मेसर्स माही इंजिनीयरिंग प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , यूनिट-1 , 28 , अम्मन कुलम रोड , पी. एन. पालयम कोयंबतूर-641037

4633

भारत का राजपत्र : बुलाई 21 , 2007 / आषाढ़ 30 , 1929

भामा 8034 ; 2002 स्मिन्जनीया पंप सेट

पामा 9079 : 2002 कृषि तथा जल आपूर्ति के लिए साफ ठंडे पानी के बिजली के मोनोसेंट

मामा 8472 : 1998 साफ ठंडे पानी के लिए अपकेन्द्रीय पुनरुत्सदक पंप्स

भामा 14220 : 1994 गहरे कुओं के निमम्जनीय पंप सेट

भामा 12225 : 1997 अपकेन्द्रीय जेट पम्प्स

[सं. श्री एम डी/13 : 11 ए. के. रालवार , उप महानिदेशक (माक्र्स)

NewDelhi, the Iith July,2007

S.O. 2014-In pursuance of sub- regulation (5 ) ofregulation 4 of tise Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification) Regulation 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licence particular ofwhich are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Operative date

Name and Address (Factory) of the Party Licence No

No.

1 2

05-02-2007

1 . 6652174

IS No. Part /Sec. Title of the Standard

Year

IS1417:1999 Gold and gold alloys , Jewellery / artifacts- fincaress and marking

M's,BaluJewellery.

230, LKATower LiteBuilding.

MainRoad, Vellakovil,

Erode-638111

05-02-2007

2 6652073

IS1417:1999 Gold and gold alloys, Jewellery/artifacts- Fineness and marking

M/s.Vasavi Thanga Maligai ,

64,Bazar Street, Sathyamangalam,

Brudo-638401

13-02-2007

3. 6654885

M/s. Sibi RajaNagai Maligai, 253, Main Road, Kangayam, Erode-638701

3368 GM07-2

181417:1999 Gold and gold alloys ,, Jewellery/artifacts- Fineness und marking 4634

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . JAЛУ 21.2

4. 6655079 13-02-2007

ASADHA 30. 1929

PART -SFC . 3 5

Mis. New Kruba Jeweller

1076 , Big Buzzar Street NewNo.440, Cuimbatore-64100 !

6457588 19-02-2007

IS1417:1999 Gold anıl go alley's . lewellery artifacts Laneness and marking

Mis . Akshaya Tewellers PvtLtd

15/5 , Secnair ] ] ют, Ponnaiyarajapura , Coimbatore-641001 th 6657992 19-02-2007 M/ s. S.R.S. Engineers

No. 38 M.S. Dasamurthy Nagar . Abbas Garden . Thadaganı Roud.

Coimbatore- 641025 7 6058085 19-02-2007 M/s . S.R.S. Επιποις

LS1-117: 1999 Gold and grilaga . Fizietiess and marking

IS803/1302 Submersible Pumpsets

159183: 1995 Meters Submersible Furopaers

No.38 M 5.Udayamurthy Nagar

Abbus Garden , ludagam Road,

Coimbatore-641025

& 6658186

IS80:31: 3002

M's . Techmax Tiуарлет

20-12-3007

Nn . 3. Kamruj Nagar, Kalapatti Road, Civil Airodram P.O.. Cuimbatore- 41014 9.

21-02-2007

6668691

Submersible Pumpsets

IS 80034: 200Ξ

M/ s .AL. Engineering Company

16/1 - A, East Street .

Mushuchettipalayam Kuad. Opp. Vetrinary Hospital .

Avinashi - 64 ] [154 10.

22-02-2007

6659491

M/ s. A... Engineering Company 16/1 -A, East Street, Muthuchettipalayard Road. Opp . Vetrinary Hospital .

Avinashi -641654 11. 6640375 22-02-2007 M/ s. G.R. Moroi Pumps and J.Griends S F. Nn. .160 . Opp. To Indunanagar, V.K. MainRoad. Teelamedu . Coimbatore- 641004

12 6660981 23-02-2007 Mis . Siri Sargura Industries 321. New Chittam Balium Layout, Palayur, P.N. Palayam, Coimbatore-6410037 13. 6663583 28-02-2007 M/ s.Mahce Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Linje- 1 28 Amman Kulan Road P.N.Palayam, Coimbatore -641037 Submers h'e Pupsel

189079:2002 Electric Mirae Pops for Clear , Cold Water lor Agricuiturai ant Water Supply Purposes

158472-1998 Centrifugal regenerative pumps furc.tar . cold winter

IS14220: 1994 Openwe! Submersible

IS12225:1997 Centrifugal Jet Pumps

[No CML / 13 : 1 Α.Κ. TAI.WAR, Dy Director General (Marks) [भाग- खण्ड ( ⅲ)

4635

भारत का राजपत्र : कुलाई 21, 2007/ आषाढ़ 30, 1929

पेट्रोलियम और कृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ट जुलाई , 2007

का.आ. 2015, फेन्द्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उपनाम (4) के अनुसरण में पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय के प्र ०. अनिक नियंत्रणाधीन सार्वजनिक क्षेत्र के उपक्रम आयल इंडिया लिमिटेड , 5. सिकंदरा रोड , नई दिल्ली 110001 को, जिसके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारीवृन्द ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है ।

[ संख्या 11011/1/2007 ( हिन्दी)- पार्ट-1

प्रभ दास, संयुक्त सचिन

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

NeathJuly.2007

$.0. 2015-In pursuance of Suh rule 4 uí . 10 of the Official Language ( Use for official porposes e the Union) Rukes, 1976, the Central Government bere uties the office of the public sector undertaking Of India Làraica , 5, Sikandra Road, New Delhi- 110001 under the aninisurative control of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, tu which: more than 80 per cent staffhave acquired working kande of Hindi .

[No.11011/ 1/2007 (Hindi ) Part- 1 )

PRABII DAS . A. Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 13 जुलाई , 2007

कर. आ. 2016, केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खाचिब पाईपलाईन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनि , 1962 ( 1962का 50 ) की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्रक्तिक गैस मंत्रालय द्वारा जारी नीचे दौ गई वर्णित का.अ. संख्याओं और तारीखों वाली अधिसूचनाओं द्वा उन्न अधिसूचनाओं से जंग अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जुन का अधिकार प्राप्त किया था;

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार . ने, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उक्त भूमियों में, सभी विल्लंगों से मुक्त उपयोग के अधिकार हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉपोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित किया था ।

और जर्नीक सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को रिपोर्ट दी है कि मोटर स्प्रिट , उत्कृष्ट मिट्टी का तेल और वेग डीजल के परिवहन के प्रयोजन के लिए हरियाणा राज्य में तहसील चावल से तहसील बहादुरगढ़ तक पाईपलाईन विछाई जा चुकी है , अतः ऐसी भूमि के बारे में, जिसका विवरण इस अधिसूचना से सलंग्न अनुसूची से विनिर्दिष्ट है , प्रचालन समाप्त किया जाएं ;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूषि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) नियम , 1963 के नियम 4 के द्वारः प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उक्त अनुसूची के स्तंभ 7 में उस्लिखित तारीखों को हरियाणा राज्य में मार्गाधिकार गतिविधियों की " प्रचालन की सभाप्ति " की तारीख के रूप में घोषित करती है ।

अनुसूची

ग्राम का नाम तहसील क़. का.आ.नं.वा. तारीख सं

बावल : 2247 दिनांक 23-06-05

3968 दिनांक 27-10-05 मोहनपुर

3713 दिनांक 14-09-06 टाँकड़ी

चाक्ल

सांबरपुर

आसरा का माजरा चावल

पैराम पुर

मोहम्मद पुर

वैहचाना

बावल

सुलखां

जिला

राज्य

प्रचालन समाप्ति की तारीख

21-03-2007

हरियाणा

रेवाड़ी

21-03-2007

हरियाणा

रेवाड़ी

रेवाडी

21-03-2007

इरियाप्णा

हरियाणा

26 03 2007 रेवाज्ये

28-03-2007 रेवाड़ी

हरियाणा

21-03-2007

हरियाणा

रेवाड़ी

21-03-2007

हरियाणा

' रेवाड़ी

21-03-2007

हरियाणा

रेवाड़ी

हरियाणा

21-03-2007 रेवाड़ी 4636

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : ДЛУ 21 , 2007/ASADHA 30, 1929

2 2500 दिनांक 5-07-05.

रेवाड़ी

रेवाड़ी 396 दिनांक18-11-05

भाडावास

दिनांक14-09-06

3713

भवाड़ी

रेवाड़ी

रेवाडी

कमालपुर

रेवाड़ी

चरित्रावास

धामलका

शहाजपुर खालसा रेवाड़ी

रेवाही

रेषाही

माजय गुरदास

रेवाड़ी

माडिया कलां रेवाड़ी

खलीलपुरी

माजरा श्योराज रेवाड़ी

रेवाड़ी

फिदेही

रेवाड़ी

बुढानी

रेवाडी

रामगढ़

रेवाड़ी

गोकलपुर

रेवाड़ी

बाट सायरवास

रेवाड़ी

फरुखनगर दिनांक 22-06-05 फरीदपुर

3 2240

पःरुखनगर

कारोला

दिनांक DS-10-05

3.576

फरुखनगर दिनांक 12-09-06

3717

राजूपुर

फरुखनगर

गुगाना

फरुखनगर

किरहेड़ा

फरुखनगर

जराऊ

फरुखनगर

मुशेदपुर

पाटोदी

घीलनावास

4 2506 दिनांक 05-07--05

पाटोदी दिनांक 21 10-05

384

खलीलपुर

पस्टोदी

खेतियाषास 3712 दिनप्रेक 14-09-06

चलेवा

पाटोदी

कपास

पाटोदी

गांगलौ

पाटोदी

पहाड़ी

मौजाबाद

पाटोदी

हकदारपुर

पाटोदी

शेरपुर

राजपुरा

[PART I- SEC . 3

21-03-2007

हरियाणा

रेवाड़ी

21-03-2007

हरियाणा

रेवाड़ी

21-03-2007

हरियाणा

17-05-2007

हरियाणा

रेवाड़ी

17-05-2007

हरियाण्ण

रेवाड़ी

17-05-2007

हरियाणा

रेवाड़ी

हरियाणा

17-05-2007 रेवाड़ी

17-05-2007

हरियाणा

रेवाड़ी

17-05-2007

हरियाणा

रेवाड़ी

हरियाणा

17-05-2007 रेवाड़ी

17-05-2007

हरियाण्ण

रेवाडी

17-05-2007

हरियाणा

रेवाड़ी

17-05-2007

हरियाणा

रेवाड़ी

17-05-2007

हरियाणा

रेवाड़ी

17-05-2007

हरियाणः

रेवाड़ी

17-05-2017

हरियाणा

रेवाड़ी

हरियाणा

17-05 2017 रेवाड़ी

17-05-2007

हरियाणा

रेवाड़ी

17-05-2007

हरियाणा

रेवाड़ी

17-05-2007

हरियाणा

रेवाड़ी

17-05-2007

हरियाणा

17-05 2007

हरियाणा

रेवाड़ी

हरियाणा

17-05-2007 गुड़गाँव

17-05-2007

हरियाणा

गुड़गाष

17-05-2007

हरियाणा

गुड़गौव

17-05-2007

हरियाणा

गुड़गाँव

17-05-2007

हरियाणा

गुड़गाँव

17-05-2007

हरियाणा

गुड़गाँव

17-05-2007

हरिचाणा

गुड़गाँव

17-05-2007

हरियाणा

गुड़गाँव

17-05-2007

हरियाणा

17-05-2007

हरियाणा

गुड़गाँव

17-05-2007

हरियाणा

17-05 2007

हरियाणा

17-05-2007

हरियाणा

17-05-2007

हरियाणा

गुड़गाँव

17-05-2007

हरियाणा

17-05-2007

हरियाणा

200717-05מ 4637

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 21 , 2007/आमा 30, 1929

[भाग 1]-खाक 3(1 ) ]

लुहारी

5 2497 दिनांक 04-07-05

झज्जर

कुतानो 3966 दिनांक 27-10-05

झन्जर

दादरी सोए 3706 दिनांक 12-09-96

बीड़ दादरी

मुनीमपुर कुकोला झज्जर

झज्जर

बाइमनोला

झज्जर

लाम्हपुर

झज्जर

फैजाबाद तर्फ

पाहसौर

नादली

बहादुरगढ़

6 2495 दिनांक 04-07-05

बहादुरगढ़

38-46 दिनांक 21-10-05 मोहम्मदपुर माजरा

गोयला कलां नहादुरगढ़

371। दिनांक 14-09-96

नुपनियां

बहादुरगढ़

डाबोदा खुर्द

बहादुरगढ़

मेहन्दीपुर

बोदा कलां बहादुरगढ़

मान्डोठी

जाखोदा

बहादुरगढ़

17-05-2007 हरियाण

झज्जर

17-05-2007 हरियाणा

झन्जर

17-05-2007 हरियाणा

झज्जर

17-05-2007 हरियाणा

झन्जर

17-05-2007 हरियाणा

17-05-2007 झन्जर

17-05-2007 हरियाणा

झज्जर

17-05-2007 हरियाणाः

झज्जर

17-05-2007 हरियाणा

झज्जर

17-05-2007 हरियाणा

[फा, सं. आर-31015/2/2007 - ओ आर -11 ]

ए. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 13th July, 2007

8.O. 2016. Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, S.O. Nos , and danes as mentioned in the Schedule below issned under sub-section (i ) of Section 6 of the Petroleom and Minerals Pipelines(Acquisition of right of user in Land ) act, 1962 (50 of 1962 ) the Central Government acquired the right of user in the said lands specified in the schedule appended to this notifications

And, whereas , in exercise of the powers conferted by sub- section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government vested the right ofuser in the said lands , free from all encumbrances in the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;

And whereas , the Cosmpetent Authority has made a report to the Central Government that the pipeline for the purpose oftransport of Motor Sprit, Superine Kerosene Oil and High Speed Diesel frora Mundra installation ofHindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Mundra in the State ofQujarat to Delhi in the NCT ofDelhi has been inid in the said lands and hence the ROU operations may be terminated from Tehsil Bawal to Tehsil Bahadurgarh in the State of Haryana in respect of the said lands which are specified in the Schedule appended to this Notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by rule 4of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelinea (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules 1963. the Central Government hereby declare the dates mentioned in Column 7 of the said schedule as the daks of termination of operations in ROU in the State ofHaryant.

4638

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 21.20007 /ASADHA 30. 1929

SCHEDULE

S. O.blo . & dair

Tehsil

Name ofVillage Sr. No

122470.23-06-05

Khandewra Bawal 3968 27-1005

Buwal

Mohanpur

371314-09-06

Tankri

Bawal

Sanjarpur

Asra ka Majta Bawal

Itawul

Behrampur

Bharangi

Bawal

Mohamadpur

Nochana

Barwal

Sulkai

2 25005-07-05

Jaitrawas

Rewun 4326d. 18-11-05

Bharuwas Rewari 3708 12-09-06

Bhawari

Rewari

Kamalpur

Chhuriawas Rewari

Chamlaka

Rewari

Shahbajpur

Khalsa

Bhariawas Rewari

Rewari

Majra Gurdass

Konsiwas

Kewan :

Kalaka

Rewari

Mandia Kalon Rewari

Rewari

Khatilpuri

Mapa Shooraj Rewari

Phikderi

Rewari

Budhani

Rewari

Karogarh

Dabri

Rewari

Gokalpur

Rewari

Jat Sairwas Rewari

Kewan 3 2240 22-06-05

Faridpur

PART ISL: Зіт Distrier

Slate

Date of termination 5

Rewari

2000-2007 Haryana

21-03-2007 Haryana

Kewan

Rewari

21-03-2007 Патува

Rewari

21 03 2007 Rewari

21-03 2007 Rewari

21-03-2007 Нагуана

Rewari

21-03-2007 Haryana

Rewari

21-03-2007 Нагузла

Rewari

21 03 2001

Haryana

Rewari

21-03-20000 Haryana

Rewari

21-03-2007 Haryana

Kewari

21-06-2007 Патуала

Rewar's

1705-2007 Haryana

Rewari

17-05-2007 Hay

Rewari

71-2007 Haryana

Rewar

17-05-2007 Haryara

Rewapi

11-05-2

Нагуэла

Rewari

17 05-20 г. Haryana

Rew

17-05-2007 Haryana

17-05-2007 Haiyaria

Restari

1706-2007

Haryana

17-05-2007 Rewan

Rewari

17-05-2007 Haryana

Rewari

Haryana

17-05-2007 Rewan

17-05-2007 Haryana

Rewari

17-05-2007 Haryana

Rewin

17-05-2007 Haryana

Rewari

17-05-3007 Haryima

Rewari

Haryana

17-08-2007 Rewari

17-062007 Daryana

Rewari

17-05-2007

17-062007 Gurgaon

Faruknagar

3576d05-10-05

Karola

17-405-2017 Gurgaon

Faruknagar

37071209-06

Haryana

17-05 2017

Faruknagar

Gurgaon

Сатуара

17-05-20X17 Haryana

Faruknagar

Birbera

Gurgaon

1705-2007 Gurgaon

Faruknagar

Jarau

Haryana

17-415-2007 Gurgaon

Faruknagar

Murshidpur

Haryana

Faruknazar

42506-05-07-05

Chillanarwas Patrdi 384721-11-05

Patodi

Khalilpur

3712d 14-09-06

Patodi

Khetiawas

Balewa

Patodi

Patudi

Bapas

1705-2007 Gurgaon Haryana

17-05-2007 Haryana

Gurgaon

17-05-2007 Gurgaon

Haryana

17(5-2007 Gurgann

Haryana

17405-2007 Glurgavo Haryana

17-05-2007 Gurgaon Haryana [ भाग- खष्ठ 3 (i ) )

2506 dt. 05-07-05

Patodi

Gangli

3847. 21-10-05

Pahari

Patodi

Muzzabod Patodi 3712 dt .14-09-06

Dadawas

Patodi

Hakriarpur Parodi

Patodi

Sherpur

Paindi

Kajpura

Lohari

5 2497 dt. 04-07-05

Jhajjar 3966 dt. 27-10-05

Kutani Jhajjar

Dadri Toc 3707 dt. 12-09 96

Thajjar

BirDactri

Jhajjar

Jhajıer

Munimpar-

Kulonila

Barmapola

Jhajjar

Ladpura

hajjar

Jhajjar

Faizabad alias

Pasuor

Hadli

62495 04-07-05

4639

भारत का राजपत्र : कुलाई 21 , 2007/ अमान 30, 1929

17-06-2007 Haryana

Gurgaon

17-05-2007 Haryana

Gurgaon

17-05-2007 Gurgaon Haryana

17-05-2007 Haryana

Gurgaon

Haryana 17-05-2007 Gurgaon

17-05-2007 Gurgaon

Нагyana

17-05-2007 Haryana

Gurgaon

17-05-2007 Jhajjar

Haryana

17-05-2007 Jhajjar

Haryana

17-05-2007 Jhajjar

Нагувла

17-05-2007 Jhajjar

Haryana

17-05-2007 Jhajjar

Haryana

17-05-2007 Haryana

Jhajjar

17-05-2007 Haryana

Jhajjar

17-05-2007 Haryana

Fhajjar

17-05-2007 Jhajjar

Bahadurgarh

3946- dt. 21-10-05

Haryana

17-05-2007 Haryana

Jhajjar

Bahadurgarh

Mohamadpur 3711 14-09-96

Majra

Guyala Kalan

17-05-2007 Haryana

Jhajjar

Rahadurgarh

Bhupania

17-05-2007 Haryana

Jhajjar

Bahadurgarh

Daboda Khurd

17-05-2007 Jhajjar

Bahadurgarh

Mehindipur Haryana

17-05-2007 Haryana

Bahadurgarh

Daboda Kalan Jhajjar

17-05-2007 Jhajjar

Bahadurgarh

Mandothi Haryana

17-05-2007 Haryana

Jhajjar

Bahadurgarh

Jakhodu

17-06-2007 Haryana

Jhajjar

Bahadurgarh

[F.No. R-31015 /2/2007 -OR- L

A. GOSWAML, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 13 जुलाई , 2007

का.आ. 2017, केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 (1963 का 50 ) की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय द्वारा जारी नीचे दी गई वर्णित का.अ. संख्यामों और तारीखों वाली अधिसूचनाओं द्वारा उन अधिसूचनाओं से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन का अधिकार प्राप्त किया था;

धौर, केन्द्रीय सरकार, ठक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तिवों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उक्त भूमियों में, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त उपयोग के अधिकार हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित किया था ;

और जबकि सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को रिपोर्ट दी है कि मोटर स्पिट , उत्कृष्ट मि‌ट्टी का तेल और वेग डीजल के परिवहन के प्रयोजन के लिए राजस्थान राज्य में तहसील आबू रोड से वहसील देसूरी तक अस्थान राज्य में पाईपलाईन बिछाई जा चुकी है, अतः ऐसी भूमि के बारे में , जिसका विवरण इस अधिसूचना से सस्तान अनुसूची से विनिर्दिष्ट है , प्रचालन समाप्त किया जाएं ;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइ‌पलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1963 के नियम 4 के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उक्त अनुसूची के स्तंभ 7 में उल्लिखित तारीखों को राजस्थान राज्य में मार्गाधिकार गतिविधियों को प्रचालन समाप्ति की तारीख के रूप में घोषित करती है । 4640

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21 , 2007 / ASADHA 30 ,1929

अनुसूची

तहसील

ग्राम का नाम

तारीख

क. का आनंचा.

आफ्ल

दिनांक 27-06-2005

आबूरोड़ L. 2325

आबूरोड़

मूंगशाला

और

4200 दिनांक 08-11-2005

मीरगढ़

2066 दिनांक 25-05-2006

आबूरोड

आबूरोड़

क्लव्वारों की नाका

गणका

आबूरोड़

उमरनी

आबूरोड़

दानवाण

आबूरोड़

कारोली

आबूरोड

आमधला

आबूरोड़

पुदरला

कासीन्द्रा

2. 2318 दिनांक 24-06-2005

पिण्डवाडा

अधपुरा

और

4433 दिनांक 25-11-2005

1483 दिनांक 12-04-2006

पिण्डवाड़ा

फूलचाई खेडा

कालेली

पिण्ड‌वाड़ा

पालुम्बरी

पिण्डवाड़ा

धनारी

पिण्डवाड़ा

कोदरला

पिण्डवाड़ा

रामपुरा

डूंगरी

पिण्डवाड़ा

बसंतगढ़

बाली

मजारी

पिण्ड़वाडा पिण्डवाड़ा

सञ्दलवा

पिण्डवाड़ा

मामली

पिण्डवान्दा

माली

आमलिया

3. 2320 दिनांक 24-06-2005

3969 दिनांक 27-10-2005 और সाना

बाली 2060 दिनांक 25-05-2006

बालो

अन्दर

सेन्दला

बाली

बेद्धा

बालो

बोजत्पुर

सेवाही

बाली

पताका

[PART I-SEC- 3 ( i) ] राज्य

प्रचालन की समाप्ति

तारीख

30-04-2007 राजस्थान

सिरोही

30-04-2007 राजस्थान

सिरोही

राजस्थान

सिरोही

30-04-2007 रावस्थान

सिरोही

30-04-2007

राजस्थान

सिरोही

राजस्थान

30-04-2007 मिरोही

30-04-2007

30-04-2007 राजस्थान

सिरोही

30-04-2007

एबस्थान

30-04-2007

राजस्थान

सिरोही

30-04-2007

राजस्थान

सिरोही

30-04-2007

राजस्थान

सिरोही

30-04-2007 सिरोही

राजस्थान

30-04-2007

राजस्थान

सिरोही

राजस्थान

30-04-21X17 सिरोहो

30-04-2007

राजस्थान

सिरोही

30-04-2007

राजस्थान

सिरोही

30-04-20X17

राजस्थान

सिरोही

30-04-2007

राजस्थान

सिरोहो

30-04-2007

राजस्थान

सिरोही

30-04-2007

राजस्थान

सिरोही

30-04-2007

राजस्थान

सिरोही

30-04-2007

राजस्थान

सिरोही

30-04-2007

राजस्थान

सिरोही

30-04-2007

राजस्थान

सिरोही

30-04-2007

राजस्थान

सिरोही

30-04-2007

२.जस्थान

सिरोही

30-04-2007

राजस्थान

सिरोही

राजस्थान

30-04-2007

राजस्थान

पाली

30-04 2007

राजस्थान

पाली

30-04-2007

राजस्थान

पालो

राजस्थान

पाली

30-04-2007

राजस्थान

पाली

30-04-2007

राजस्थान

पाली

30-04-2007

राजस्थान

पाली

30-04-2007

राजस्थान

पालो

राजस्थान

30 04-2007 पासी

30-04-2007

राजस्थान 4641

भारत का राजपत्र बुलाई 21 , 2007/आपाड़ 30, 1929

[भाग - काय ( i) ]

बाली

बारका

2320 दिनांक 24-06-2005

बाली 3969 दिनांक 27-10-2005

बालो

सेसली

2067 दिनांक 25-05-2006

बाली

बली

लालराई

बाली

मुंडारा

मोरखा

4. 2503 दिनांक 05-07-2005और

देसूरी

देसूरी 445 दिनांक 31-01-2006

मादा

सिन्दाली

देसूरी

गुड़ा मांगलीया

देसूबी

देसूरी

गुडापाटिया

आनी

देसूरी

सारंगास

देसूरी

शोभावास

देसूरी

नारलाई

देसूरी

चक सुजापूरा

देसूरो

देसूरी

कंसूली

द्वावलान्त्र कलां देसूरी

केरली

देसूरी

टोकरला

देसूरी

कोलर

देसूरी

माताजी का गुड़ा

सिवास

देसूरी

30-04-2007 राजस्थान

पाली

30-04-2007 राजस्थान

पाली

30-04-2007 राजस्थान

पाली

राजस्थान

पाली

30-04-2007 राजस्थान

पाली

30-04-2007

30-04-2007 राजस्थान

पाली

30-04-2007 शुकस्थान

पाली

30-04-2007 राजस्थान

पाली

30-04-2007 राजस्थान

पाली

30-04-2007 राजस्थान

पाली

30-04-2007 राजस्थान

पासो

पाली

30-04-2007 राजस्थान

पाली

30-04-2007

30-04-2007 राजस्थान

पाली

30-04-2007 राजस्थान

पाली

30-04-2007 राजस्थान

पाती

30-04-2007 राजस्थान

पाली

30-04-2007 राजस्थान

पाली

30-04-2007 राजस्थान

पाली

30-04-2007 पाली

30-04-2007 राजस्थान

पाली

30-04-2007 पाली

30-04-2007

राजस्थान

पाली

30-04-2007

राजस्थान

पाली

30-04-2007

राजस्थान

पाली

30-04-2007

राजस्थान

पाली

राजस्थान

पाली

राजस्थान

फली

30-04-2007

(फा. से. आर-31015/2/2007-को आर-11 ]

ए गोस्वामी, काबर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 13th July, 2007

S.O. 2017-Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum & NaturalGas , S. O. Now . and dates as mentioned in the Schedule below issued under sub- section ( i ) of Section 6 of the Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition ofright of user in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962 ) the Central Government acquired the right of user in the said lands specified in the schedule appended to those notifications.

And, whereas , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section of of the said Act, the Central Governsent vested the right of user in the said lands, free from all encumbrances in the Hindustan Petruleurs Corporation Limited:

And, whereas , the Competent Anthority has made a report to the Central Government that the pipeline for the purpose of transportatioti of Motor Sprit , Superior Kerosene Oil and High Speed Diesel from Mundra installation of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited , Mundra in the State ofGojant to Delhi in the NCTofDelhi has been laid in the 3088 0407-3 4642

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: ПLY 21 , 2007 /ASADHA 30, 1929

[PART I-SEC- 3 ( ii ) ] said lands and hence the ROU Qactivities may be terminated from Tehsil Marwar Junction to Tehsil Behrow in the State of Rajasthan is respect of the said lands which are specified in the schedule appended to this Notification ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 4 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition ofRight ofUser in Land ) Rules 1963, the Central Government hereby declared the dates mentioned in Column 7 ofthe said schedule as the dates of termination of activities in ROU in the State of Rajasthan .

SCHEDULE

S. O No. & date

Tehsil

Name ofVillage St. No.

고

4 1. 2325 dt. 27-06-2005

Aval

Abhuroad 4200 d 08-11-2006&

Aburoad

Mungthala 2064 dt. 25-05-2006

Aburoad

Meergarh

Tahraro

Abornad

KaNaka

Aburoad

Umrani

Aburoad

Ahuroad

Danyav

Karthi

Aburoad

Amhala

Aburoad i

Mudarla

Aburoad 2 2918 d . 24-06-2005

Kasindra

Pindwara 4433 dt 25-11-2005 &

Pindwara

Achpura 14830. 12-04-2006

Pindwara

Sangwara

Phulabai Kheda Pindwara

Kacholi

Findwara

Patumbari

Pindware

Bherwari

Pindwara

Dhamari

Findwara

Kndarla

Pindwara

Rampura

Pindwara

Doongari

Pindwara

Basantgarb

Chawarli

Findwara

Ajari

Pindwara

Findwara

Sadulwa

Pindwara

Amli

Pindwara 3. 2320 d . 24-06-2005

Amlin

Nana

3969 dt. 27-10-2005 &

2067 du 25-05-2006

Pali

Kakadora

Bali

Bhandar

Seadla

Bali

Beda

Bali

Bhatund

Bali

Becjapur

Bali

Padarala

Sewuri

Bali

Patawa

State

District

Date of Tomination 5

Sirohi

30-04-2007 Rajasthan

Sirohi

30-04-2007 Rajasthan

Sirohi

30-04-2007 Rajasthan

Sirobu

30-04-2007 Rajasilian

Sirobi

Rajasthan

Sirohi

30-04-2007 Rajasthan

30-04-2007

Sirohi

30-04-2007 Kajasthan

Sirohi

30-04-2007 Rajasthan

Simobi

30-04-2007 Rajasthan

Sirohi

30-04-2007 Rajasthan

Sirohi

30-04-2007 Rajasthan

Sirohi

Rajasthan

Sichi

30-04-2007 Rajasthan

30-04-2007

Sirohi

30-04-2007 Rajasthan

Sirchi

30-04-2007 Rajasthan

Sirohi

Rajasthan

Sirohi

30-04-2007 Kajasthan

01-04-2007

Singhi

30-04-2007 Rajasthan

Sirohi

Rajasthan 30-04-2007 Sirohi

Rajasthan

Sirobi

30-04-2007 Rajasthan

30-04-2007

Sirubi

30-04-2007 Rajasthan

Sirobi

30-04-20007 Rajasthan

Sirohi

30-04-2007 Rajasıhan

Siruhi

Rajasthan

Sirohi

Rajasthan

30-04-2007

Siruhi

30-04-2007 Rajasthan

30-04-2007

30-04-2007 Rajasthao

Pali

30-04-2007 Rajasthan

Pali

30-04-2007 Rajasthan

Pali

30-04-2007 Rajasthan

Padi

30-04-2007 Kajasthan

Pali

Rajasthan

Pali

30-04-2007 Rajasthan

30-04-2007

Pali

30-04-2007 Rajasthan

Pali

30-042007 Kajasthan

Pali

Rajasthan

Pali

Rajasthan

30-04-2007

30-04-2007 4543

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 21 , 2007/आमाद 30,1929

[ भाग - सखण्ड 3( i) )

4 2

Bar

Bali 2330dt. 24-06-07

Lunarwa

Bafi 3969 dt. 27-10-2005&.

Sesali

2067 dt. 25-05-2006

Bali

Pumadiya

Bali

Doongli

Mundara

Moricha

Desuri

Desuri 4 2503 dt. 05-07-2005& 44531-01-2006

Mada

Sindacti

Desuri

GudaMangaliyaDesuri

Choda

Desuri

Deori

GudaPatiya

Ana

Desuri

Deuri

Sarangwas

Desuri

Shobhawas

Narlai

Derri

Desari

Chakksujapun

Desni

Dhetri

Desuri

Atatiya

Desuri

Kesooli

Dilma Kakto Desuri

Kali

Desuri

Tokarla

Desuri

Kolar

Desari

Khinwara

Mataji KaGuda Desuri

Siwns

Desuri

Puli

Rajasthan

30-04-2007 Rajasthan

30-04-2007

Rajasthumo 30-04-2007

30-04-2007 Pali

Rajasthan

Pali

Rajasthan

30-04-2007 Pali

Rajasthan

30-04-2007

30-04-2007 Pali

Rajasthum

30-04-2007 Paili

Kajasthan

30-04-2007 Rajasthan

30-04-2007 Pali

Rajasthan

30-04-2007 Pali

Rajasthan

Pali

Rajasthum

Pali

30-04-2007

Rajasthan

Pali

Rajasthan

30-04-2007

30-04-2007 Pali

Rajasthan

30-04-2007

Paili

Rajasthan

30-04-2007 Pali

30-04-2007

Rajasthan

30-04-2007 Rajasthan

30-04-2007 Pali

Rajasthan

Pali

Rajasthan 30-04-2007

30-04-2007 Pali

Rajasthan

30-04-2007 Pali

Rajasthan

Pali

Rajasthan

Pali

Rajasthan

30-04-2007

Pali

30-04-2007

Rajasthan

Pali

Rajasthan

30-04-2007

Pali

Rajasthan

30-04-2007

[F. No. R- 31015/2/2007-OR-

30-04-2007

A. GOSWAMI, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 17 जुलाई, 2007

का.आ. 2018 - वेल उद्योग ( विकास ) अधिनियम, 1974 ( 1974 का47 ) पारा (3 ) की उप- धारा ( 3 ) के खण्ड (अ ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रथोय करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार एवद्‌द्वारा श्री अरुण रामानाथन , सचिव , रसायन एवं पेट्रोरसायन विभाग को दिनांक 11 जून , 2007 से दो साल की अवधि के लिए या अगला आदेश जारी होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, तेल उद्योग विकास बोर्ड का सदस्य नियुक्त करती है ।

[से जी. 35012/2/91 -দ্বির -0 ]

प्रकाश निवेतिया , अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 17th July,2007

$.0. 2018in txercise of the powers conferred byClause ( a) of sub- section (3 ) of Seciton 3 of the Oil Industry (Development) Act, 1974 (47.of 1974),the Central Government hereby appoint Shri Arun Ramanatham, Secretary, Deptt . of Chemicals & Petrochemicali, as a Member of the Oil Industry Development Board for a period oftwo years w.e.f. 11th June, 2007 or until further orders , which ever is earlier.

[F. No.G-35012/2/91 -Fin. I PRAKASH NEVATIA, Under Secy.

4644

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 21 , 2007 /ASADHA 30, 1929

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2007

का.आ. 2019. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार तुंगभद्रा ग्रामीण बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बोच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , बैंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, असे डीय 'परकार को 27-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था । | [ स्टं घुल-12012/213/2002 - माई आर. ( बी-1 ) ] ト

[PART I-SFC. 3 ( i) ) respect of Shri H. Yerriswamy w.e.f. 29-4-1995 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled ?""

अजय कुमार . डेस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT NewDelhi , the 27th June, 2007

50.2019 - o pursuance of Section 17 of the Indhastrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Covemment creby publishes theAward (Ref. No. 2/2003 ) of the CentralGov mment Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court, Bangalore . as shown in the Annexure in the IndustrialDispute between the management of Tungbhadra Gramio Bank and their workman received by the Central Government on 27-6-2007.

[No. L-12012/213/2002- IR (B- I) ] AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXLIRE

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

Dated: 5th June, 2007

PRESENT.

Stari A. R. Siddiqui , Presiding Officer C. R. No.02/2003

1Party

IIParty

Shri H.Yerriswary,

TheChistumam,

Sto ShriH. Heeribasappa, TungabhadraGramina Bank (Head Office), Gandhi Nagar, Bellary

Karnataka State Cho Shri K. Humanthappa . RetiredTeacher, KallukamhaPO BellaryDistt.

Karnataka Stac

AWARD

1.TheCentral Government by exercising the powers conferredby clause ( d) of sub- section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has referred this dispute vide drder No. L- 12012/213/2002- IR (B- 1 ) dated 26thDecember, 2002 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULLE

"Whether the action of the management of M/s . Tungabhadra Gramin Bank in terminating the agency of New Nithya Nidhi Deposits Scheme in 1. The case of the fiest party workman as made out in The Claim Statement, to put in outshell , is that hejoined the services of the management at Kallukamba branch on 13.4.1987 es NND Agent and worked as such , continuously, and sincerely till 28-4-1995 when the branch manager askert him mot to work as NND Agent . His repeated requests to take him back in service fell on deaf ears on the ground that he was out coming under the definition of "Workman" under the ITD Act 1947 and the cases in that regard are pending at the Supreme Courl ; that the management has not given any notice , notice pay.. retrenchment compensation etc. nor held any enquiry against the first party before his services were terminated and therefore, termination amounts to illegal retrenchment as his services could not have been terroinated he heing held to be a 'workman' in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court of India . Therefore , he is coritled to be reinstated in service with full back wages, continuity of service and other amended benefits.

2. The management by its Counter Statergent not disputing the fact that the first party had been working in the aforesaidbranch as NNT ) Agent from 94-1987 and that he was engaged in the above said capacity subsequently from31-1-1989 at Kurnıgıx Brunch in Beillary , however , contended that there was an agreement between the first party and the managerment dared 9-4 1987 and as per the said agreement the first party was required to collect deposits from the depositors daily and remit them to the bank ; thut in the year 1994 al came to the notice of the management that she first party was not collecting the deposits daily and therefore , by letter dated 13-7-1994 he was advised to make deposit collections daily. The first party by his reply dated 21-7-1994 however . informed the bank that he would collect the deposits for two days only in a week instead of collection on daily basis. The above said request was not acceded to by the bank and he was communicated through a letter dated 18-10-1995 that it was not in conformity with the objective of the scheme and was asked to send a confirmation letter to the effect that he will agree to collect deposits daily and promptly in accordance with the scheme. However , the first party did not obey by the instructions given to him and did not perform his duties as per the agreement cited above.He committed breach of contract of the agreement dated 31-1-1989 and therefore, his agency was terminated; that in the year 1999 first party approached the management and got released the security deposit of Rs . 6,000 with accumulated interest : that he did not show any interest to resume the agency during the period from November 1995 to 1999. He approached the bank during 1999 as an after thought and therefore in view of his past record and aboormal delay his request was declined. The management contended that the contract between the first 4645

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 21 , 2007/अनाद 30, 1929

[ भाग 11- खण्ड (ii) ]

party and the management was not coming under the deflmition ofemployment of the bank and the termination of agency occurred in terms of the appeenrant and therefore, there aruse no question of any notice to be given or compensation to be paid and that it was not a case of ilegal termination . The managatcut contended that the judgement of Supreme Court dated 13-2-2001 is not applicable in the present case as the first party and the management weze not the parties in the said case. The management contended that there has been mucasonable delay on the part of the first party cruising the dispute as bris agency was kaminated on 28-4-1995 and be approached the conciliation machinery on 14-8-2001 and therefore , the claim is clearly barred by limitation . Therefore , the management requested this court to reject the referuice.

3. During, the course of trial , the management examined one witness said to be the General Manager of fise management bank as MWI by filing his affidavit. In his affidavit the witness just reiterated the various contentions taken by the management in its counter statement. During the cross examination of first party, his letter dated 21-7-1994was marked at EX.MI . The first party by way of rebuttal also filed his affidavit evidence by repeating the very avernents made in his claim statements. In this forther examination chief be got marked 9documents at Ex.W ] to W9 . I would like to come to the statements of MWI and WW! in their cross examination as well as the documents marked during the course oftrial as and when found relevant and necessary.

frown the very termination order marked before this tribunal at Ex. WI . He also submitted that after the receipt of the letter dated18-10-1995, the first party byway of his reply dated25-11-1995 marked at Ex . W3 in smo uncatain terma submitted that he will collect the deposits on daily basis but thereafter there was no respouse from the mungonent He submitted that when the management by šta letterdated 18-10-1995 called upon the first party to collect the deposit ondaily basis by giving his confirmation letter to that effect, then it cannot be said that the management tecninsted the services of the first party w.e. f. 11-3-1995 itself, on the groundthathe failed to collect the deposits on daily basis as per the agreement between the parties .With regard to the withdrawal of deposit amount by the first party itwas contcaded that as per the statement of the first party be was given lon to the extcat ofRs . 75% over the deposit areound and that deposit amount itself, was not taken back by the first party. Even otherwise , il cannot be raid that the First party forfeited his right to seck the reinstatement out employment in receiving the deposit mourt. On the point that dispute con band is hit by an inordinate delay, learned repusculative submitted that from the letters produced by the first partymarked before this tribunal at Ex . W2 to W9 will prove that the first party has been all along xuiting request with the management seeking reinstatement und that it is in the year 1999 be was finally given reply by the management to the effect that he cannot be allowed to continue his agency because ofinordinate delay in making the representation. Therefore , learned counael submitted that the case on hand being a simple case of illegal termination il violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the IDAct, the first party is entitled to the reliefs sought 4. Learned counsel for the management as well as learned representative for the first party have submitted their written arguments . The sum and substance of the arguments for the management is to the effect that the first party committed breach of agreement in not collecting the deposits from the depositors daily and remit to the bank and therefore his termination was justified. Its next contention is that the first party withdrew security deposit ofRs . 6000 with accumulated interest and therefore, it cannotbe said that there was any dispute existing between the first party and the management after he withdrew the deposit amount. The third contrcution for the management is that the dispute on hand is a shale dispute raised after a period of7 years from the dase of terminatican of the agency and therefore , the reference is hable to be dismissed.

সি. 6.The facts undisputed in this caste are that the first partywas working with the management as aNNDApt from 13-4-1987 ill 28-4-1995 , when he was asked by the brach manager not to work in bis brunch as NND agent. The fact thuat NND agent or for that matter pigiry agenthar been held in be a ' workman ' sa defined under Section 2( 5) of the ID Act as per the decision of their Lordship of SupremeCourt reported in AIR 2001 SC946-IndianBanks Association Vs. The workmen of Syndicate Bank and Others, is not to be disputed and cannot be disputed by the management. Therefore , now we have to proceed con the assumption that as per the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision, the first party is a 'workman' comming under the definition of Section 2(s) of the ID Act. Ifwe proceed on the assumption that the fint party is ' worlonan then the next question to be considered would be wether the first partyworked under the management continuously for a period of240 days and more charing the 12 calendar months inmediately procoding his termination. As noted above, there is no dispute of the fact that from 13-4-1967 28-4-1995 the first party was working with the management continuously and therefore , it goes without saying that he worked for a period of 240 days and more during the 5.Whereas, leamed Representative for the first party in bis arguments while referring to the documents and the statement ofMW1 in his стося сxumination submitted that for no fault of the first party his agency, rather, his services were terminated and therefore, it is the case of retrenchiment and illegal terraination coming ander the provisions of Section2(oo ) of the ID Act read with Section 25P thereof. He contended that services of the first party were not terminated on the ground that be failed to collect the deposit amount daily bar under the so called instructions received by the bank from the higher anthorities as could be read 4646

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21 , 2007 /ASADHA 30,1929

[PART DS 3 ( ii ) ]

back his security deposit amount and therefore, now , be Cartmot stuce his claim of reinstatement or for other benefits, as argued for the first party , must fail for the simple reason that withdrawal of security deposit amount will not aunt to the forfeiture of the right , the first party has got. Morcover , the first party in his examination chief came out with the version that , he in fact, he received loan from the bank to the extent of 75 % over the above said deposit amount . The managerdeol did not challenge the above said stakanent of the first party nor produced any evidence to suggest that the First party in fact was paid hack his security deposit amount . The next contention of the management that the first party did not rack up the question of his reinstatement of raised the dispute with the management inbetween the year 1995 and 1999 and that he raised the dispute with the conciliation officer concerned after about aperiod of 7 years and therefore , the reference is liableto be dismissed on account of the above said latches on the part of the first party , in my opinion again must fail for the reason that first party before this tribunal has produced the betters he wrote to the management at Ex . W2 to ? ranging in between the perind from 1995 to 1999. The cmanagement witness in his cross examination has adroitted that the aforesaid letters have been received by the management bank from the first party making the request to rake him back in service . The contention of the management that the first party raised the dispute in the year 2001 taking the advantage of the decision of their Lordship ofSupreme Court referred to supra and therefore, he must fail , once again , appears to be without any substance. There is nothing wrong on the part of the first party in raising the dispute after having come to know the decision of their Lordsbip of Supreme Court in holding that a' Pigmy Agent like him comes under the definition of 'workman ' and be is entitled for certain benefits . Therefore, jan the light of above , all the contentions raised by the management in opposing the claim of the first party must fail. As noted above , the action of the management in termiosting the services of the first party amounts to retrenchment and since it is not in compliance with the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act . it is a case of illegal retrenchment and illegal termination and accordingly it is to be held that the management was not justified in Lerminating the services of the first party.

12 calendar months immediately preceding the date on which be was asked by the management bank not to work. asNND Agent , my more . Now, the next question to be considered would be as to whether the management was justified in terminating his services without compliance of Section25F of the ID Act. As per the provisions of Section 2(oo) of the ID Act, the action of the management in terminating the services of the fost party amounts to retrenchment and this retrenchment can be legalised only on the compilance of Section 25F of the ID Act. In the instant caseundisputedly , the management did not comply with the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act and this fact has been very much admitted by MWI in his CTUKS examination . The conention of the management that the services ofthe first party have been kamuinated as be failed to adhere to the terms of agreement to collect the deposits from the depositors on daily basis has remained to he substantiated. In fact from the oral and documentary evidence produced before this tribunal, the above said contention of the management appears to be an after thought and factually incorrect . As argued for the first party, the management by its letter dated 18-10-1995 called upon the first party to give confirmation letter that he will collect the deposits on daily basis or else they will be constrained wrecommend the area office to terminate his agency and that confirmation letter shali reach the managementi.e. the branch manager on or before 1-11-1995. Its in response to this letter from the bank the first party by his letter dated 25-11-1995 expressed his willingness for collecting the deposits on daily basis. However , the evidence on record discloses that the zhanagement did not respond to the above said reply dated 25-11-1995 given by the first party marked before this tribunal at Ex. W3 . Now , comingto the contention of the management that the services of the first party were terminated for breach of the said contract the letter of termination dated 11-3-1995 issuedby the Manager Kalluksınba blanch marked before this tribunal at Ex . WI makes no mention of the fact that the termination ofhis services muchiless his agency was terminated on account of breach of the contract. As per this letter the first party was asked to shop NND collections in view of the letter received by the branch from AO. Moreover, as noted above, when as per the letter dated 18-10-1995 dse branch manager is to call upon the first party to give a confirmation letter to collect the deposit on daily basis, question of tenninating his agency by the letter dated 11-3-1995, carlier to the said letter dated 18-10-1995 , never arises . Therefore, the contention of the management that it terminated the services so to say agency of the first party for breach of the contract is found tobe factually incorrect as well as out substantiated by the management by any evidence on record. Further more, no show cause notice issued or enquiry was held against the firstparty into the aforesaid allegation of breach of contact by Stirn before his services were terminated. The contention of the management that first party received

7. Now , coming to the relief of reinstatement which should have been granted to the first party , in the normal course. It is to be made clear at the very outset that aPigmy Agent held to be a " workman " in the light of the aforesaid decision of their Lordship of Supreme Court is for a limitex! purpose i.e. to say not to get certain benefits on par with a regular employee of the management bank . Moreover, as on today a long period of more than 10 years has passed from the date of termination in question and at thisjuncture it will notbe advisable for this tribunal to call upon the management to take back the first party into service , chat [ भाग - खष्ठ 3(u) ]

4647

भारत का राजपत्र : खुलाई 21, 2007 काबाड़ 30, 1929

too , as aPigmy Agent. As far as time relief of backwages is concerned, the first party in his claim statement as wellas in his examination chief hus course out with a case that his last drawn wages wereRs . 2000 per month and whereas the management by way of counter statement as well as through the affidavit of its witness contraded that he was drawing a scum of Rs. 486 by way of monthly commission as on the date he was stopped from collecting the deposits . Except the oral contention of the first party and the oral assertion of the management, there is no documentary evidence as such produced before this tribunal as to what were the actual wages either by way of salary or by way of commission, the first party was drawing as on the date his services/ agency was leaminated. Therefore , having regard to the observations made by their Lordship of Supreme Court at Para4 of the aforesaid decision with regard to the commission amount, conveyance allowance and gratuity amount to be paid to such of the deposit collectors , taking into account the first party slept over his rights for about a period of 4 years between the years 1995 and 1999 and then for about a period two years between the years 1999 and 2001 when he raised the disputewith the conciliation offer concerned ind taking into consideration the period clapsed subsequent to the reference on lanud, it appears to me that ends ofjustice will be met if the first party byway of compensation is ordered to be paid a sam of Rs. 75,000 in lumpsum towards his full and finad settlement of the claim against the management. Accordingly , the reference isanswered and following award is passed.

AWARD

The management is directed to pay a surn of Rs.75,000 in lumpsum by way of compensation to the first party towards his full and final settlement of the claim against the management within a period of six months from the date of publication of this award or else, the aвторла shall carry interest as the rate of 10 per cent per amum its realisation. No costs.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by ber corrected and signed by me on 5th June,2007)

A. R. SIDDIQUI, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2007

का.आ. 2020,-औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार नवेली लिग्नाइट कापरिशन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औयोगिक अधिकरण चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 61/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-06-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[स. एल-22012/310/2004 - आई आर (सीएम -Ⅱ) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

1 New Delhi, the27th June,2007

S.O. 2020.- In pursuince of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 61/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management ofNeyvedi LigniteCorporation Limited, and their workman received by the Central Government on 27-06-2007 .

[No.L-22012/310/2004- IR ( CM-II)] AJAY KUMARGAUR, Deak Offior

ANNEXLIRE

BEFORE THE CENTRALGOVT.INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM -LABOUR COURT, CHENNΑΙ Monday, the 11thJame,2007

PRESENT

K.Jayaraman, Presiding Officer

INIKUSTRIAL DISPUTE N 61/2005 (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under chiuse (d) ofsub-section ( 1) and sub-section2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947( 14of 1947), between the Management ofNeyveli LigniteCorpontiou Lal, and their workmen)

SriK.Rum

1Party/Petitioner

AND

TheDirector (Personnel ),

Party/Managrat Neyveli LigniteCorporation Limited.Neyveli .

APPEARANCE

For the Petitioner

M/ s S.Ravi . Advocates

M/s N.A.K.Sarma, Advocates For the Management

AWARD

TheCentralGovernment, Ministry of Labour vide Order No.1-220/ 2/310 /2004- IR( CM - II) darted 20-07-2005 bas referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjndication, The Schedulementioned dispute in the order of reference is as follows:

"Whether the action of the management of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli , removing Shri K.Raman, Industrial Worker Cirade IL, from service is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is enllod

2.After the receipt of the reference, it was taken on file as J.D. No. 61/2005 and notices were issued to both the parties and both parties have catered appearance through their advocates and filed their Claim Stalement undCounter Statement respectively.

3. The allegations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement are briefly as follows:

4648

PART II SFC. (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21 , 2007 /ASADHA 30, 1929

The Petitioner was an employee of the II Party the allegation that the Petitioner absented bimself without sufficient cause is entirely wrong. The enquiry was not conducted properly and principles of natural justice wan not followed.The Petitioner was appointed by an officer in the rank of Chief General Manager/P &A of the Corporate OfficeofRespondent /Management and the Disciplinary Authority and also the Appellate Authority are below the rank of the Chief General Manager, therefore, the entire orders issued by these authorities are void. The entire disciplinary action against the Petitioner was motivated un flimsy ground of unauthorised absence from duty. Further, the Respondent has failed to consider the past records of the Petitioner before issuing dse order of removal , therefore . the same is clearly illegal and against the principles of naturaljustice . Hence, for all these reasons , the Petitioner prays for reinstatement in service with full backwages and other monetary benefits.

4.But , as against this , the Respondent in its Counter Statement contended that the Disciplinary Authority in this case passed the order of dismissal on 25-7-98 and the Appellate Authority had modified this order by his order dated 5-9-98 . While so , after the delay of five years, the Petitioner initiated the dispute and he has not statedany valid reason for the long delay. Therefore, this dispute is hopelessly barred by delay and laches and liable to be dismissed. Any how , without prejudice to his contention . theRespondent stated that the charges framed against the Petitioner is that he was absenting himself from duty from 6-2-98 -onwards without prior sanction ofleave and he was also issued with memo highlighting bis absence and its consequences , but the Petitioner did not return to duty till date.He was also cautioned understanding order -29 during the year 1997 about his hubit of remaining absent and availing extra - ordinary leave without prior sanction as required . In spite of the above, the Petitioner is in the habit of remaining absent or overstay the sanctioned leave. This is amisconduct falling under sub- clause (s ) i , vii , xii , xxxi and xxviii of Standing Order 46read with Standing Order 29C, 31m & b . Since no explanation was given by the Petitioner to the charge memo , domestic coquiry was ordered tobe conducted against the Petitioner . Enquiry notice was issued to Petitioner dated 13-5-98 posting enquiry on 23-5-98, dated 25-5-98 posting the enquiry on 16-6-98 ,dated 8-6-98 posting the enquiry on 26-6-98 under RPAD and these noticeswere issued to bis local ( Neyveli ) as well as to his native village addresses . However, the enquiry matices sent to his Neyveli address were returned by postal authorities unserved with endorsechent " left " and the notices sent to his native village address were received by Petitioner. Thus though an adequate opportunity was given tothe Petitioner to attend the enquiry , he did not choose to avail same and therefore, the enquiry was conducted ex- parte on 24-6-98 and on conclusion of the enquiry , the Enquiry Officer has given the finding that charge frumed against the Petitioner was proved and on consideration of Management as an industrial woriter Grade under the control ofExecutive Engineer/Electrical MRT Testing zone. During February, 1998, tinc Petitioner applied for three days Jeave fruen -2-98 to 5-2-98 with permission on 6-2-96 being his weekly off to attend certain family work at Chennai . But, unfortunately, he was forced to stay back at Chennai owing to midden sickness affected by jaundice, diabetics, pepticulcer with low back pain warranting low back pain intensive treatment at Royapettah Government Hospital, Chennai. He then applied leave onmedical grounds from 7-2-989-8-98 on various spell supported with medical certificates from competent medical authority. Though all the leavelepaczaware promptly received by the user division of the Respondent , there was no commonication whatsoever either the leave applied for was sanctioned от rejected. After the lapse of three and half months the Executive Engineer sent an intimation dated 13-5-98 requiring the Petitioner to appear for enquiry on 23-5-98 which was received only on 26-5-98 to answer to certain llegation that the Petitioner had absented himself from dutywithout sufficient cause and bad availed more than 90 days of EOL beyond the limit stipulated in standing Ouders. Therefore , the charges ofhabitual absence without Icave, lubiqual indiscipline, continuous absence for more than ten days without leave or without sufficient cause, breach ofany of the standing orders or any roles framed under these orders, over stayal of leave, availed EOL for more than 90 days upto 6-5-98 during the calendar year 1998 and exceeded the limit of EOL. The Enquiry Officer without giving my reasonable opportunity fixed the date of coquiry and during the absence of the Petitioner be completed the enquiry ex - parte on 24-6-98. Even though the representative of the Petitioner requested the Enquiry Officerto adjourn the enquiry till 4.00 pm on the same day, as the Petifonce was on his way from Chennai to appear before the coquiry, in spite of his illness, the Enquiry Officer refumed to consider the request and completed the enquiry ex-parte on 24-6-98 within ten minutes. Tirus the enquiry wat beld in ahasty manner and the indifference shown by the Disciplinary Authority himself to the request for few more bouds are indication of malafide motive with a preconceived decision to climánate the Petitioner from the Mavices ofRespondent. The Petitioner submitted reply to the 2nd show-cause notice, but this reply has not been considered by the authorities and the Petitioner was served with taminationonder signed by Executive Engineer giving effect from 2-2-98 .The appeal preferred by thePetitioner to the Appellate Authority was also rejected with modification by revising the word ' dismissal ' as that of 'removal . Though as per the standing orders absence of to cusployee without sufficient cause is a misconduct, in this case, the Petitioner has applied for leave in advance andhad extended as and when necessary duly supported with moedigul certificates. They were also received by the userdivision of the Respondent/Managerment. Therefore , 4649 [ भाग - खण्ड (ⅱ ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 21 , 2007 / आषाढ़ 30, 1929

specialist doctors on its rolls , where out pasient and domiciliary treatment is extended free of cost to the comployees and their dependant family members . Therefore, it is open to the Petitioner to have availed the free and specialized treatment facilities at NLC bospital inchading reformal treatment for which he was catitled as an employee ofRespondent/Management. But instead of that, he was remsining unauthorisedly absent from work and supposedly taking treatment at Chemai . Therefore, the allegation of illness shown as reason for unauthorised absence was only un'ide thought trotied out as a ruse to cover his unauthorised abezace frompiric The Petitioner's supposed illness is denied as false. In normal course, the Petitioner should have received the communication un the next day atNeyveli or on third day at his native village ifbe was residing and available at either of these two places. Apparently, the Petitioner did not furnish information και το his illness , address and the place of treatment taken, only with a view that the real cause of his absence should not be found out by the Respondent/Management. Furthermore , the Petithener cannot at his convenicoce choose the time and date of coquiry . The Petitioner is not aGoverament servant .The Petitioner was only aworinum covered under LD. Act and not aGovernment servant in whose case only Article 311 ( 1 ) of the Constitution ofIndia would apply. The order passed by the authorities of Respondent were made by competent officers of Respondent corporation. TheDisciplinary Apthority and alsoAppellateAuthority have also mentioned with repard toconsideration of past records of Petitioner in their orders dated.25-7-98 and 5-9-98 respjetively. Therefore, the disciplinary proceedings taken against the Petitioner which culminated in his removal from service is fair andjustified. Therefore, it is legal, valid and binding on the Petitioner. Hence, for all these reasons, the Respondeat prays that the petition may be dismissed with costs.

5.Again, the Petitioner in bris rejoinder alleged that no doubt, there is a delay of five years between 25-7-98 amd 23-10-03, but it should be attributed to the delay tactica played by Respondem/Management in taking a seasible decision on the represetustions suade by Petitioner withan simto frustrate the well founded move to regain his last employment. The Petitioner had sent more than sixty representations to the Director (Personnel) during special audience besides mercy petitions and the moves madeby theworkers union and they were made as required by the office of the Director (personnel ) and his subordinate office. Therefore, tur attribution of delay is irrelevant und has no place in the present dispute . The charge mюто alleged to have been issued by the Respondent was DOR receivedby the Petitioner at all. The disciplinary process without obtaining necessary explanation from the delinquent employee is against the standing orders. The orders of Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority cannot be a final as they are not competent to pass any the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority provisimally came to the conclusion to award the punishment of dismissal from service on the Petitioner and after following the usual procedure , the Disciplinary Authority by his reasoned order dated 25-7-98 imposed the punishment of dismissal from service from the Respondent/Management and against the said order,the Petitioner preferred an appeal anditwas also rightly rejected with a modification in the punishment to one of removal from service w.e.f. 2-2-98, iutead of dismissal from service. The domestic enquiry conducted into the charges are fair and proper and there was no mulafide exercise of power by any authority of Respondent/Management and the non employment of the Petitioner is fullyjustified. The Petitioner did not report for work from 7-2-98 onwards and no leave application was submitted by him. Therefore, the memos dated 11-2-98 and 17-2-98 were issued to his residential address atNeyveli. Hehas not informed Jais residential addresu nor he didjoin duty.The Petitioner had unauthorisedly absented for duty for more than ten days without leave letter and prior permission. Though the Petitioner seat two communication by 'Post requesting leave up to 21-2-98 and 15-3-98 citingillness as the reason, the above two communications were received by the Respondent/ Mangement on 19-2-98 and5-3-98 respectively . Howevez , no medical certificate in support of illness was enclosed or nature of illness was indicated by the Petitious in the said communications Further the said communications did not contain any address from which the Petitioner has sent the same . Therefore, the Petitioner was not sanctioned leave. It is faise to cometend that the Petitioner applied for leave with medical certificate as claimed by him . Subsequently, the Petitioner sent commandention socking leave upto 25-3-98 and then uplo 15-4-98 and then upto 5-5-98 and here again, he has not sent any medical certificate in support the medical leave claimed by him . Purther , these communications did pot contain the residential address of the Petitioner, only with his undated communication in which he sought leave upto 30-6-98 . The Petitioner sent two medical certificate parpartedly issued by one Dr.S.Logansthan, Assitant Surgeon,Government Royapettah Hospital , Chennai in support ofhis leave from 7-2-98 to 30-4-98 and from 1-5-98 lo 30-6-96 for a total period of 144 days. Further , these Cumannications did not contain the nature of Ulness of Petitioner nor the address of the Petitioner where he was residing at that time. Furthermore, the medical certificates did not contain the date of issue and also did not contain details of clinical condition of the und investigation done. by the issuing Doctor. In any event ; the departmental disciplinary action proceedings has been initiated against thePetitioner by that time by issue of Charge memo dated 19-3-96 and bence, there was no question of sanction of leave to thePetitioner at that point of time. The Petitipner ought to have submitted proper communication about the il mess claimed by him with proper medical certificates. This Respondent has fully equipped 350 bed hospital with

3068 01:07-4 4650

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21 , 2007 /ASADHA 30 , 1929

[PART -SFC . 3 ( ⅱ) ] such orders in the absence of any disciplinary powers with them, The Respondent/Management never gave a reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner to defend himself from the charges . The Appellate Authority also never gave fair thought on the appeal preferred by the Petitioner. Once the leave application is receivedby the Respondent, it cannot be attributed that the leave was one of the unauthorised, voless the beave applied for is rejected or recalled. The Petitioner fell sick at Chennui and it is natural that he had his treatment al Cheonai itself and he cannot tun back to Neyveli to undergo treatment at Respondent hospital . The over stayal of leave and EOI . exceeding 90 days are not enumerated in standing orders of Respondent' Management as misconducts . It is an universal principle that no official subordinate in status to the appointing authority could terminate the services of an employee Hence, the Petitioner prays that an award may be passed in his favour

6. In these circumstances , the points for my determination вге-

1. Whether the action of the Respondent Management in temoving the Petitioner from jervice is legal and justified?"

2. To what relief the Petitioner is entitled ?"

PointNo.:

7. On behall of the Petitioner , the Petitioner himself has examined as WWI and he has also examined onc Mr. Viswanathadas as WW2and marked documents Ex . W1 toW17 and on the side of the Respondent/ Management one Mr. Josey Thomas was examined as MWI and29 documents wert marked as EX.M ] 10 M29 on the side of the Respondent

fairly knowing that the Petitioner could not appear for enquiry as he was on long leave ordered for an open enquiту during the absence of the Petitioner and completed the enquiry within 31 days ex - parte on 24-6-98 . Furtheा, का on the date of enquiry . the representative of the Petitioner requested the Enquiry Officer to adjourn the enquiry till 4.00 pm on the same day , as the Petitioner was on bis way from Chennai in appear before the enquiry in spite of his illness .But the Enquiry Officer refused to consider the request and completed the ex- parte enquiry within ten minutes . Thus, the haste and the manner in which the enquirywas held. the refusal to concede time upto 4.00 pm on the date of enquiry , the indifference shown by the Disciplinary Authority himself are the indication of mala fide motive with a pre - conceived decision to eliminate the Petitioner from the services of the Respondent / Managecoent. Thus , the entire exercise of disciplinary action against the Petitioner was motivated on flimsy ground of unauthorised absence frian duty knowing that the Petitioner had submitted his leave letters and extensions supported with medical certificates as required under standing orders of the RespondentNeyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. Further , principles of naturaljustice was not followed as the enquiry was held in the absence of Petitaoner who was on leave . Further, theDisciplinary Authority has pre-determined m remove the Petitioner from service of Respondent/ Management and not in; the merit of defence and the Petitioner was even though awaiting to offer his explanation . The power to remove or dismiss the employee rests unly with the appointing authority, even if there is any delegation of power , such delegation cannot over ride the guarantee and protection affunded by Article 31 [ ( 1 ) of the Constitution of India 2 this case . the authorities who passed order of dismissal have no authority to pass such an order . Furthermore , the Respondent Management has failed in cricnsider the past records of the Petitioner before issuing the impugned order of removal . Therefore , the orde ofremoval is clearly illegal and against the luw and natural justice. Hence , he prays that an award may be passed in favour of the Petitionci

9. But, as against this , the learned counsel for the Respondent contended that the Peritioner is absenting himselt from duty inn 6296 unwards without prior sanction of leave . Taough the Pecitinner was issued with memo highlighting his absence and its consequences , be did not return for duty till date . The Petitioner was already cautinned under Standing Order 29 of the Respondene Managementduring calendar year 1997 about his habit of remaining absent andanning BOL without prior sanction as required. In spite of the above . the Petitioner is in the habit of remaining absent or overstay of the sanctioned leave. This is an act of modne fallang uncler sub- clause § (1) vu. xii, xxxi and xxvii of Standing Order 46 read with Standing Order 290, 3la & b. Since no explanation was received fromthe Pelineger , domestic enquiry was ordered 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Pelitioner has applied leave for three days from 32.98 10 5-2-98 with permission on 6-2-98to attend certain family works at Chennai , but he was unfortunately forced to stay back at Chennai owing to sudden sideness affected byjaundice, diabetics. peptic ulcer with low hack pain warranting intensive treatine at Royapenah Government Hospital , Chennai and he . then applied for leave on medical grounds from 7-2-98 το 9-8-98 on vurious spells supported with medical certificates. Though all theleave letters were promptly received by the Respondent Management, there was no communication whatsoever either the leave applied for was granted or rejection ofleave . In the absence of any such communicatio ก thePetitioner was under the impression that his applications for leave were approved hy compelent authority . After a lapse ofthree and half months, the ExecutiveEngineer (Elect > sent an intimation dated 13-5-98 requiring the Petitioner to appear for enqaricry to answer certain allegations that he hack absented himself from duty without sufficient cause and had availed more than 90 days of EOL beyond the limit stipulated in the standing orders of Respondent/Management . The Enquiry Officer after 4651

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 21 , 2007/आषाढ़ 30, 19:29

[ भाग -खष्ट 3( 日) ]

and 22-01-98. Thus, the Petitioner was in the habit of remaining shsent frequently and be was not at all interested in employment. Even prior to the issue of charge memo dated 19-3-98, the Petitioner was isaned with three memos namely under Ex . M6 to M8 and he was asked to report for duty and the wauruthorised absence from duty for Jong itme will be deemed as voluntarily resigned from service under the standing orders . Though the Petitioner alleged that he sent Icave applications with medical certificates, the applications were not in the prescribed form and he was also not sanctioned with any leave and only because of that memos were issued under Ex.M7 " and M8 to his residential address as Neyveli . By these memos he was cautioned that if he did not report for duty on or before 15-2-98 , his name would be removed from the rolls of 11 Party/Management without any notice under the provisions ofcertified standing onkers. Similarly by a meno dated 17-2-98 be was inforined that ifhe did not join duty as advised before 15-2-98 and he had unauthorisedly absented from duty for more than ten days without leave letter and prior permission , he was advised to reрот 10 ChiefGeneral Manager ( P & A) immediately . It was sent to the Petitioner's address by registered post, which was returned by postal authorities with an endorsement always door locked' . Thus, the Petitioner sent a communication requesting leave upto 21-2-98 and subsequently upto 1,5-3-98 citing illness as the reason , the said communicaticus were received by the Respondent on 19-2-98 and 5-3-98 respectively. However, the said leave applications were not in the prescribed form and no medical certificate in support of his alleged illness nor it contained the leave address of the Petitioner. It is evident that the Petitioner was not residing at that point of time in the accommodattion atNeyveli allotted by the Respondent Corporation. Since he did not submit the proper leave applications along with medical certificates as onoticmplated under standing orders and also when he had gone out of Neyveli , his whereabouts was not intimated to the Respondent/Management the leave was not sanctioned and then only charge memo was issued on 19-3-98 under Ex M9 Thoughhe allegedthat he has applied for leave with medical certificates, no evidence in support therent was produced by the Petitioner before this Tribunal . Then again , the Petitioner sent three communications secking leave upto 25-3-98 and then upto 15-4-98 and then seeking leave upto 5-5-98, but these leave applications were not in the prescribed form along with medical certificates in support of the alleged illness. The Petitioner bas also not mentioned the nature of the illness in all these communications . Above all, these communications did not contain the then address of the Petitioner and the envelop also did not contain the address from where the communication was sent . Thus, the ExM7. M8, M10, M11 , M12, M13 , M20 & M22 clearly expose that the origin of these letters were not mentioned and they are not in Order. Even by this time, the charge memo dated 19-3-98 has been issued and therefore , the question of tobe conducted against him and enquiry noticewas issued by the Petitioner dated 13-5-98 posting the enquiry on23-5- 98, notice daued 25-5-98 posting the enquiry on 6-6-98 and notice damnd 8-6-98 posting the enquiry on 26-6-98 under Registered Post with acknowledgement due and these notices were issued to his local address (Neyveli ) as well 25 to his native village address . However, the enquiry notices sent to his Neyveli address were returned by the postal authorities unserved with an endorsement "left" and the notices sent to his native village address were received by the Petitioner as admitted by hian in his Claim Statement except the enquiry notice dated 23-5-98 fixing the date of enquiry as 6-6-98 . Thus , though adequate opportunity was given to the Petitioner to attend the caquiry and to put forth bis defence , he did not chooseto avait Dhe same and therefore , enquiry was conducted ex- parte on 24-6-98 and the Enquiry Officer furnished his enquiry report on 29-6-98 and after following the procedure, the Disciplinary Authority by his reasoned order dated 25-7-98 awarded the punishment of dismissal from service on the Petitioner and against that order, the Petitioner preferred an appeal which was also dismissed with a modification namely the punishment imposed on hire was removal from service instead of dismissal . Thus , after the delay of five years , the Petitioner has raised the industrial dispute as regards his non - employment before the conciliation officer by his petition dated 27-8-2003 . The removal of the Petitioner from service had become final and conclusive even on 5-9-98 itself. Therefore , this dispute is hopelessly burred by delay and laches . Even though the Petitioner alleged that he has made representation to the Respondent Management and though he has produced several representations alleged to have been sent to Respondent/Management, no documentary proof was filed to prove the same, which clearly establish that the Petitioner in order to rusintain this dispute has cooked up these documents only for the purpose of the case. Though the Petitioner alleged that enquiry was not conducted in a fair. and propez manner , it is established that charges levelled against the Fetitioner had been proved in the domestic enquiry which was conducted in accordance with the rules and regulations applicable and after following the principles ofnatural justice. The enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper maaner and it is only the Petitioner who did not avail the opportunity extended to him to defend himself in the enquiry and therefore, there was no mala fide exerise of power by any authority of the Respondent / Management in the matter of Don-employment of the Petitioner.Thus , the punishment awarded in the Petitioner is supported by materials on recurd and commensurate with misconduct be was charged. It is further contended on behalf of the Respondent that the Petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent from duty without submission of leave application and without due sanction of leave. Further Ex.M2 , M3 and MS clearly establish that he was previously issued with warning memos forsuch absence vide memo dated 26-9-97,5-12-97,16-12-97 4612

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21 , 2007/ASADHA 30 ,1929

[PART II Suc. ( ii) ]

all reasonable opportunity to put forth his defence in the departmental enquiry and the action taken by the Respondent/Management is fully justified and a reasoned one. This Respondent has followed the procedure laiddown by the standing orders of the Respondent/Managemenl and there is no infirmiry in the removal of Petitioner from service. It is also contended on behalf of the Respondent that the Executive Engineer ( Elect /MRT/TS- II is the competent disciplinary authority in so far as the Petitioner is concemed as he having been delegated the powers. Likewise, the Deputy Chief Engineer , Electrical is the Appellate Authority having power to consider the appeal of the Petitioner and therefore , the contention of the Petitioner in this regard is without any merit and baseless. Hence, for all these reasons, the Respondent prays that the claim of the Petitioner may be dismissed with costs .

10. Both sides have relied on the rulings of High Courts and Supreme Court in their favour. The first thing to bedecided in this case is ' whether this dispute is hopelessly harred by delay and laches on the part of the Petitioner !"

11. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the rulings reported in 1974 3 SCC 91 Haryana State Electricity Board Vit. Stare of Punjab and others wherein while considering the question 'whether the petition can be thrown out on the ground of laches , when the Petitioner made representations to appropriate authorities at all stages' , is held that " when the Petitioner was making representations and moving the appropriate authorities ar all stager, then the Wris Petition carnerbe thrown op on the ground of laches." He also relied on the rulings reported in 2002 T1.1.3 204 wherein , when the management contended that the request by the employee for reinstatement is to be rejected on the ground of laches, the High Court of Madras has held that "Article 137 of Limitation Act is not applicable to proceedings under Industrial Disputes Act and relief to workman could not be denied merely on the ground of delay, though the Labour Court had in exercise its discretion for grant of appropriate relief, which it was held to have exercised properly in thit cure by not grunding back wages.

sanction will not arise at all . Only with his undated cocarumicafon in which he sought leave upto 30-6-98 which was received by the Respondent on 12-5-98, the Petitionez sout two medical certificates purportedly issued by one Dr. S. Logansthan , Assistant Surgene , Govt . Royapertah Hospital, Cocauai in support ofhis leave from 17.2.90.304.98 and from 1.5.98 10 30.6.98 лв..i perind of 144 days . Though the Petitioner has sent leave ister. This communionication did not contain the nature of illness of the Petitioner address of the Petitioner where he was restling & that time . Both these medical certificates did not cont , the date of issue and also did not contain emical details/ conditions of Petitioner and investigation done by the issuing Doctor. Some short illegible word bas been scrabbled against the columa clinical condition' in the medical certificate . On a bare looking of these certificates , it is clear that the certificates are created for the purpose and itranot be relied upon. In any event, the departmental disciolinary action proceedings has already been sei in zmotion agsinst the Petitioner by that time by issue of charge memo , hence, there was no question of sanction of leave to the Petitioner at that point of time . Furthermore, the Respondent/Management has got fully equipped 350 bed hospital with specialized doctors on its rolls where the treatment is extended at free of cost to the cmployees and their dependents /fimily members and they are also referring patients to refioral hospitals such as Apollo, Sri Ramachandra and MIOT hospitals at Chennai at the cost of the Respondent / Management. If really, the Petitionerwils affected with serious illness alleged to have peen suffered he would been taken the treatment in the hospitalof the Respondent/ Management. Thus, the action of the Petitioner goes to show that the ihness shown as the reason for his unauthorised absence was only an after thought with a view to cover his unauthorised absence from work and he has created all the documents for the риправсmpose of this case . Though the Petitioner alleged so many things with regard to rejection ofEnquiry Officer for the request quade by his representative , it is not correct to say that the Petitioner's representative in the enquiry sitting bas roquested for adjournment till 4.00 pm on the same day, though he examined one of the witnesses , be has not substantiated the same with any satisfactory evidenc. On the contrary , the Petitioner has sent a coummunication dated 26.6.98 addressed to Chief Engineeт, MRT /Testing Zone, secking adjournment of enquiry scheduled on 24.06.98 and this communication was Dutived bytheRespubdent on 30.06.98. It clearly exhibits the falsily ofthe Petitioner that he was not given an opportunity to defend brimself in the departmental enquiry. It is also false to allege that there was representation on behalf of the Petitioner in the enquiry held on 24.6.98.It is further contended onbehalfofthe Respondent that there were no malofide on the part of the Respondent/Managemest in the departmental disciplinary action taloon against the Petitionerwhich culminated in luis removal from service.The Petitioner was extended with

12. But , the learned counsel for the Respondent contended that in this case , though the Petitioner contended that after passing of the order by Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority he has applied for reinstaterocat with the appropriate authorities , he has not established this faut with any sutisfactory evidence andhe has not produced any proof that the alleged authorities can reinstate him in service and he has also not established the fact that he has made these representations as per the standing orders of the Respondent/Managemель . Therefore ,he cannot take advantage of the alleged representation before the authorities and it cannothe said that there is no laches on the part of the Petitioner . All these five years, he has not taken any steps to raise industrial dispute betore the appropriate authortities . Under such 4653 [ भाग II- साण्ड 3 (日) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : चुलाई 21 , 2007 / आद 30 , 1929

circumstances, this dispate cannotbe entertained and the Petitioner's request has to be rejected on the ground of laches and delay on the part of the Petitioner.

to accept the contention of the Respondent in this regard that these medical catificates tre created for the pороже of this case . Therefore, I am not inclined to nocept the contention of the Petitioner that he was so sick sad beuce be could not move out from his bed during all those days.

13. I find much force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent because in this case , though the Petitioner alleged that for all the five years , he has made representation to the authorities . I think, it is not proper on his part to wait for all the five years that hewill be reinstated in service. Therefore, the explanation given by thePetitioner is not satisfactory and I am not accepting the contention that there is no laches on his put. Any bow, we will consider the other allegations made by the Petitioner with regard to his request for reinstatement.

15. Though the leamed counsel for the Petitioner contendedthat this Tribonal has got power under Section 11A of the LD. Act and enquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper mammer and was conducted contrary to the principles of natural justice and relied ou the rullings reported in 2002 (3 ) LLN 120 Swadesi Cotton Milla Laid.Vs Labour Court , U.P. Kanpur & Ors. 2001 , (3 ) LLN 1059 Karsanbhai L. Jarijan Vs. Western Railway, 2002( 3 ) LIN 135 K.Balanagai Reddy Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad, 2004 (2 ) LLN 290 Rajkot Municipal CorporationVs. Punjabhai Ratubhai Waghcia, 1 find since the Petitioner has not established that he was suffered with serious illness and he was not able to attend the coquiry as alleged by him, I find these decisions are notapplicable to the facts of this case.

16. Though the Petitioner alleged that Disciplinary Authority has no power to dismiss him and only theChief Engineer has got power , it is argued on behalf of the Respondent that Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority have been delegated with powers , under such circunstumces , I find there is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner in this regard 14. In this case, though the Petitioner alleged that he was affected by jaundice , diabetics , peptic ulcer with bow back pain warranting intensive treatment at Roympettah Govt. Hospital, Chennai , he has not established this fact with any satisfactory evidence that he has been admitted in the hospital at Chennai and he has also not given any satisfactory explanation for not getting the treatment from the hospital rum by Respondent/Mangrument . He has aمعل not extablished before this Tribunal that his alleged illness in so serious and therefore, he could not move out from Chennai . Further , though he alleged that he applied for leave on medical grounds on various spells submitted with medical certificates, in bis evidence, he has clearly admitted that except the last communication, he has not sent any medical certificate along with his leave letters and he further alleged that theDoctor has not given medical certificate at that time and only because of that he has not sent the medical certificates along with the leave applications .This explanation also cannot be accepted for the reason that no doctorwill refuse to give medical certificate with regard to illness of the patient. Above all , in all these alleged leave applications, he has not given his leave address or from which place be has sent leave the leave letters to the Respondent/Management. Though he has given 20 explanation that he has given letters to his friend to post the same to the Respondent/Management and his friend did not understand the importance of leave address, he bus not mentioned or not furnished the leave address and this was not deliberately done by him . But, his explanation is not satisfactory that he was badly sick and could not move out from his bed and bence he has given the said application to his friend. When the Petitioner alleged that be sent iris representative to the Respondent/Management. I think, nothing prevented the Petitioner to send the leave letter with leave address . Further, as argued by the learned counsel for the Respondent that even in the last communication sent by the Petitioner, he has not mentioned about the nature of illness and also not contained the details of clinical conditions of Petitioner und investigation done by the issuing Doctor . Even the Petitioner camt sible to say what the Doctor has mentioned in the colum clinical conditions ofthe Petitioner ,Therefore, In inclined

17. Leamed counsel for the Respondent also relied on the rulings reported in AIR 2000 SC 2198 Syndicate Bank Vs. Syndicate Bank Staff Association and Another wherein the bank has sent notice to the delinquent, which was received back with postal endorsement "refused".A clear presumption arose in favour of the bank and against the delinqucat, inwhich the Supreme Court has held that "The delinquent has voluntarily retired from the serviceof the bank " It also held that "the Tribunal has exercised undue reliance on the principles of natural justicewhich led to miscarriage of justice as far as the bank is concemed." Learned counsel for the Respondent further relied on the rulings reported in 2002 I LLJ 1016 Hamumaatha Rao V.Vs. Punjab National Bank and Another wherein the High Court of Andhra Pradesh bus observed that"the conduct of the Petitioner revealed that the was not duty conscious. It was not the fault of the bant phas communications sent by it had not been received by the Petitioner, rather it was due to the fault of the Petitioner. Hence, the allegation of victimisation made by the Petitioner could not be believed in the circumstances of the case."The next case relied on by the counsel for the Respondent is reported in 2004 II LLJ 603 A.K. AGGARWAL Vs. DELHIVIDYUT BOARD wherein the DelhiHigh Court has beld that " the Petitioner remained absent without leave and his services were terminated afterfollowing procedure laid down by regulations and no infirmity was shown therein and hence, 4654

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21 , 2007 /ASADHA 30, 1929

Documents Marked:

Eix No. Dare

Description

21-09-96 Xesus copy of the appointment order issued 10 Petalivaer

W2 series 11-05-98

the dipnissal could not be challenged." The learned counsel for Respondent also relied on the rulings reported in 2004 BILLJ543 DELHITRANSPORTCORPORATION VE. SARDAR SINGH wherein the Supreme Court has held that"abrencefrom leave without sanction for long period primafacie showed lack of employee's interest in woord. UnauthorisedJubsence could be treated as misconduct and the Corporation treated such unauthorised absence as leavewithout pay did not justify the inference made برد the Tribunal that leave was sanctioned

Хетох сорy of the leave letter submitted hy Petitioner

13-05-98 Xerox copy of the enquiry notice Issued to Petiajoner

08-06-98 Xerox copy of the enquiry notice sent Lo Petitioner

W5

23-06-98

Xerna copy of the letter from Petitioner to Taisciplinary Authority W6 26-06-98 Хетох серy of the letter from Pelitiuner ta Chici Fagineer 30-06-98 Xerox copy of the letter fremn Petitioner to CChiel Engincer W 30-06-08 Xemx copy of the show cause notice issued to Petitioner

W9 .

15-07-98

18. Rehting on all these decisions learned counsel for the Respondent contended that in this case the Petitioner has pot established the fact that he was suffered with serious illness and that he could not move out from thuat place,where he stayed. Further, he has not sent proper leave applications as per the standing orders of Respondent withmedical certificates . Though it is alleged that rejection of leave should be communicated to the Petitioner, the Petitioner never sent his leave address for communication . On the other lund, the Respondent/ Management has sent all communications to the local address of the Petitioner as well as his native village address and he has received all these communications . Under snch circumstances , it cannol be said that the Respondent/ Management bas not conducted the enquiry properly and the enquiry was conducted against the principles of natural justice. Therefore , the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him

19. I find much force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent. As I have already pointed out that thePetitioner's explanation for approaching the labour authorities after a long lapse of time has not been explained with satisfactory evidence and further his allegation that hehas sent leave applicaitons with medical certificates is alsonot abonadide one. Under such circumstances , I find this point against the Petitioner .

PuntNo.2:

The next point to be decided in this case is to what relief the Petitioner is entitled ?

Xerus copy of the reply submitted byPetitioner

WIO 21-07-98 Хегox copy of the letter from Pocitioner to Chiet Engineer 25-07-96 Xerox copy of the order proposing punishment issued by Respondent W12 30-07-98 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondear to Petitioner

W13 190898 Xerox copy of the appeal preferred hyPetitioner

WI4 06-09-98 Xerox copy of the order ofAppellare Authority

W15 16-11-98 Xerox copy of the mercy petition submitted by Petitioner

W16 07-08-99 Xerox copy of the better from General Manager to Director ( Pert of Respondent Management WIT -27-0603

20. In view of my aforesaid findings that the action of theRespondent/Management in removing the Petitioner from service is legal and justified, I find the Petitioner is not extitled to my relief. NoCosts.

21. Thus the reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the PA scribed and typed by him, corrected and pronowiced by me in the opta court on this day the 11th June, 2007).

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer For the 1 Party/Petitioner : WWI SriK. Raman

WW2 Sri Viswanathadas

: MWI Sri JoseyThomas Xerox copy of the 2A petition filed byTeaitioner

W18 17-10 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)

1911-03 Xerox copy of the minutes of conciliation proceedings

27-11-03 Xerox copy of the letter from Assistant Labour Commissioner to Director (Peas ) of Respondent W21 13-07-04

For the II Party Mimugoment

Xerox capy of the notice sent by Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ) to Respondent [ भाग- खण्ड (ii ) ]

4655

भारत का शवपर्व : जुलाई 21 , 2007 /आबाद 30 ,1929

W22

₩39 01-10-08

20-07-04 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)

W23 20-07-04

Xerox copy of the repacientation given by Petitioner To CMD & other Board of Directors of Respondent

W40 02-12-08

Xerox copy of the representation given by Petitioner to Respondent authorities.

W24

Xerox copy of the letter front Petitioner to Respondent seeking reinstatement

09-11-98

W41 19-12-00

Хегол сору of the letter from Petitioner to Director (Per) Socking reinstatement in service.

W25 24-04-99

Хетos, copy of the letter from Reapondeat to Director (Per) of Respondent/Management Reinstatement in service for Хетоx copy of the letter from Petitioner toRespondeat

W25 15-02-00

W42 13-08-04

Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Respondent

Xerox copy of the representation of Petitionerto Respundent requesting for reinstatement in service W'27 21-07-96

W43 03-04-04

Хеrox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Chairman & Managing Director of Respondent/ Management.

Хероx copy of the representation of Petitioner to Director ( Per) of Respondeat requesting for reinstatement in service ₩28

W44

25-01-01

08-04-04

Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Director ( Per) of Respondent /Management for reinstatement in service

Χιτηχ copy of the representation of Petitioner toDirector (Per) & COM (P & A) of Respondent requesting for reinsunement in service W29 25-08-01

₩45 28-04-04 Xerox copy of the mercy petition submitted by Petitioner Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Chairman & Managing Director of Respondent/ Management .

W46 21-06-04

W30 03-11-01

Хегox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Assisiani Labour Commissioner (Central) Xerox copy of the representation given by Petitioner to Chairman & ManagingDirector of Respondent W47 22-06-04

W31 11-02-02

Хетоx copy of the representation of PetitionertoDirecten (Per) & CGM (P & A) of Respondent requesting forReinstatement in service Xerox copy of the representation given by Petitioner to Chairman & Managing Director of Respondent

W32 15-04-02

W48 28-06-04

Xerox copy of the representation givenby Petitioner to Chairman & Managing Director of Respondent

W33

Хегоx copy of the representation of Petitioner to CGM (P & A) of Respondent requesting Reinstatement in service for 18-06-02

₩49 02-07-04

Xerox copy of the representation given by Petitioner To Chairman & Managing Director of Responderi

W34 20-08-02

Xerox copy of the representation-bf Petitimmerto Director (Pa) & CGM (P & A) of Respondent requesting forReinstatement in service

₩50 12-07-04

Xerux copy of the representation given by Petitioner to Chairman & Managing Director of Respondent

W35 10-10-02

Xerox copy of the mercy petition submitted by Petitioner

17-07-04

Xerox copy of the representation given by Petitioner To Chairman & Managing Director of Respondent

W36 27-12-02

Хетоn copy of the repecacatation of Petitionerto Director (Per) & CGM (P & A) of Respondent requesting for Reinstatement in service

W52

Xerox copy of the representation given by Petitioner To Chairman & Managing Director of Respondent

22-07-04

16-08-03 Хетоx copy of the mercy petition submitted by Petitioner

Хетох сcopy of the represenution of Petitioner inDirector (Per) & CGM (P & A) of Respondent requesting for Reinstatement in service 11-09-23

₩53 02-477-98

Xerox copy of the representatius given by Petitioner To CMD & Respondent authrities

Хегоx copy of the letter fram Petitionerto postpone the enquiry 4656

[PART 11Sec. 3( i ) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21 , 2007/ASADHA 30,1929

30-06-98

M20

Dat

Box. No.

Description

Xerox copy of the letter from PetitionertoRespondent 21-7-98

W54

M21 30-06-58 Xerox copy of the 2nd show cause notice

Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Respondent Seeking permission to join duty

W55

M22

22-07-98

30-06-98 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Respondent Enclosing medical certificates

Хегox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Director ( Per) of Respondent

W36

M23

19-11-03

04-07-98 Хегox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner Xerox copy of the Counter Statement filedbyRespondent Before Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central )

M24 15-07-98 Хетox copy of the reply ofPetitioner to 2nd show casue Notice W57 NI

Standing Orders of Respondeau Management

Хетоx copy of the final order

25-07-96

M25

Forthe IIPartyManagement :

M26 30-07-96

19-12-98

Xerox copy of the order of correction to final order

Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Respondent

M27 19-08-98

M2 23-02-98

Xerox copy of the appeal preferred byPetitioner

Хегon copy of the letter from Petitioner to Respondent

05-42-98

M28

Xeгox copy of the order in appeal M3 26-09-97

M29 26-10-98

Xerox copy of the memo issued to Petitioner

Xerox copy of the order ofremoval passed by Respondent M4 05-12-97

नई दिल्ली, 27 जून, 2007

Xerox copy of the memo issued to Petitioner

3642-97 Χεττox copy of the memo isaned to Petitioner

1446 22-01-98 Xerox copy of the memo issued to Petitioner

MT 11-02-98 Xerox copy of the meran issued to Petitioner

M8 17-12-98

का.आ. 2021.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार , शुगरकेन ब्रीडिंग इन्स्टीट्‌यूट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बोच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार , औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं.। चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 125/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-06-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Хетox copy of the memo issued to Petitioner

[सं. एल-42012/ 66/ 2003- आई आर ( सीएम- Ⅱ) ] M 19-173-98 Xerox copy of the memo issuedto Petitiona

अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी M10

New Delhi . the 27th June, 2007 N

Хетол copy of the letter from Petitioner toRaspondent

Mli 03-04-98 Кетox copy of the leuer from Petitioner to Respondent

M12 27-04-98 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Respondeut

M13 12-05-98 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner toRespondent Enclosing two medical certificates

S.O. 2021-10 pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.125/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , No. 1 Chnadigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Sugarcane Breeding Institute and their workman which was received by the Central Government on27-06-2007 .

M14 13-05-98 Xerox copy of the notice sent to Petitioner for enquiry

[No. L-42012/66/2003- IR ( CM- 11 ) | AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer M15 NI

Xerox copy of the returned cover

ANNEXURE

M16 25-415-98 Xerox copy of the notice of enquiry .

OR- 06-98

M17

Xerox copy of the notice of enquiry.

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT M18 Ni

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT-1 CHANDIGARH

Xerox copy of the minutes of proceedings ofEnquiryOfficer

Case No. TD 125/2004

M19 29406-98 Xerox copy of the enquiry report 46

भारत का सजपत्र : जुलाई 21 , 2007 / आबाद 30, 1929

[ भाग II- खष्ठ 3(ii)]

St. Trath Singh , S/ o Sh. Redu Ram,

Village-Dabar Ki Kalan,

management of Sugarcane Breeding Institute and their pworkman which was receivedby the Central Government сп 27-06-2007.

PO-Kunjpura,Distt. Karnal

....Applican

Versus

[No. L-42012/52/2003- IR(CM- II))

AJAY KUMARGAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXIURE

(a) TheHead, SugarcaneBreeding Institute,Regional Centre, Agarsain Marg, Kamal-132001.

....Respondent

APPEARANCE

For the workman

Shri Tirath workman in person with A/R.

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

Shri Amit Sharma

For the management :

Case No. TED 141/2004

AWARD

Sh. Sumer Chand, Sto Sh . Munshi Ram,

Village-Singhara,

Passed on30-5-2007

PO-Singhara, Distt. Kamal

....Applicant

Vermit

Central Govt, wide notification No. L-42012/66/2003/ Ik( CMI) dated 4-3-2004 has referred the following dispute to this Tributal for adjudication :

(a) The Head , Sugarcane Breeding

Institute, Regional Centre ,

AgarsainMarg, Karnal -132001,

....Respondent

APPRARANCE

For the workman

Shri Ram Prakash "Whether action of the management of Sugarcane Breeding Institute in not granting termporary status and also non- regularisation of services ofSh . Tirath Sto Sh . Redu Ram , w.e.f. 1997 is legal and justified? If not, in what relief the workman is entitled ? "

Stari Amit Sharma

For the management

AWARD

Passind on30-5-2007

CentralGovt vide notification No. 1-42012/52/2003/ IR(CM II) dated 4-3-2004 has refarred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

2. Workman appeared in person and has made a statement that at present he do not want to persuewith the present reference and the same may be returned to the Central Govt as withdrawn with a right to file fresh ifneed arise. In view of the statement of the workman recorded separately on 30-4-07 the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat in the above terms . Central Govt, be informed. File be consigned to reοστά

Chandigarh:

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Offi

30-5-2007

नई दिल्ली , 27 जून , 2007

"Whether action of the management of Sugarcane Breeding Institute in not granting temporary status and also non -regularisation of services of Sa. Sumer Chand, Sto Sh. Munshi kam . w.c.f. 1990 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the worknum is entitled?"

कर. आर. 2022- औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का ( 4 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार , शुगरकेन ब्रीडिंग इन्स्टीट्यूट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के नीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 141/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-06-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

2.Authorised representative of the workman has made a statement that at present he do not want to persne with the present reference and the same may be returned to the Centra Govt as withdrawn with a right to file fresh if need arise . In view of the statement of the workman recorded separately on 30-4-07 the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat in the above terms. Central Govt be informed . File be consigned to record.

[सं एल-42012/52/2003- आई. बार ( सीएम- ) ]

Chandigarh: RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

30-5-2007

अंजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27thJune,2007

नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2007

S.O. 2022. In purnuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Crotral Government bereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 141 / 2004 of the Central Goverment Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, No. 1 Chmadigach as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

का.आ. 2023. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार , शुगरणेन श्रीडिंग इन्स्टीट्यूट के प्रबंधयंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के धीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार , औधोगिक अधिकरण नं 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या | 39/2004) 3069 GIOY-5 [PART II-Su Mil 4658

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 21, 2007/ASADHA 30.1929

कां प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-06-2007 को आप्त हुआ था।

the present reference is returned as withdrawn in lok Adalat in the above terms . Central Govt . be informed . File be consigned irecord .

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

Chandigarh: 30-5-07

[सं. एल -42012/ 50/ 2003 - आई आर. ( सोएम-11 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 27th June, 2007

नई दिल्ली 27 जूम. 2007

का.आ. 2024.-औद्योगिक वित्राद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का (4 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में. कंन्द्रीय अरकार शुगरकेन ब्रीडिंग इन्स्टीट्यूट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियानकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक संधिकरणनं । पंडोग के पंश्चाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 133/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है . नं' कंन्द्रीय मरकार को 27-06-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

S.O. 2023. Io pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 139/ 2004 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, No. 1 Chnadigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Sugarcane Breeding Institute, and their workmen. received by the Central Government OD 27-06-2007 .

[ सं. 12012/44-2003- आई आर. ( सीएम -11 ) No. L-42012/50/2003- IR (CM -II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी i

New Delni , the 27th June . 2007 ANNEXURE

HEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT- 1 (HANDIGARH

Case No. W 139/2004

Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sto Sh . Krishan Lal VillageDabarKikalan, PO-Kunjipura. Distt. Karoal .

....Applicant

S.O. 2024. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispures Acr. 1917 114 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 123/ 2004) of the Centrul Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Couri . No. 1. Chnadigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Sugarcane Breeding Institute and their workmen which was reveived by the Central Goverrument on27-06-2007 .

Versus

No 1-43912/44/2003 IR ( CM- Π. ]

AJAY KUMARGAUR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

(a) TheHead, SugarcaneBreeding Institute, Regional Centre , Agarsain Marg, Karnal-132001.

Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman

BEFORE SURI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAΙ . TRIBUNALUM-LABOUR COURT- 1 CHANDIGARH

Shri Ram Prakash Shri Amit Sharma

Forthe management :

Case No. 133/2004

AWARD

Passed on 30-5-07

Sh.Ram Prakaslı, St Sh Ram Kishan , Village-Nali Kalan.

.....Applicant

PO- Kumjipura , listt . Kauai .

Versier

Conttal Govt vide notification No. L-42012/50/2003/ IR(CM II) atod 4-3-2004 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

Respondent

(a ) TheHead, Sugarcane Breeding Institute,Regionai Centre , Agarsain Marg, Karnal 1.32001 .

APPEARANCES

For the workman

: Siuri Ram Prakash workman. in person with A/R .

"Whether action of the management of Sugarcane Breeding Institute in not granting temporary status and also non- regularisation of services of Sh. Ramesh Kumar Sto Sh . Krishan Lal , w.e.t. 1983 is legal andjustified? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

Shri Amit Sharma .

For the management

AWARD

Passed on 30-5-07

Central Govt. vide notification No. 1-42012/44/2003 IR(CMI) duted 4-3-2004 has referred the following dispute 2. Authorised representative of the workman has made a staterbent that at present the workman does 101 want to persue with the present reference and the same may be returned to the Central Govt as withdrawn with a right to file fresh if need arise. In view of the statement of theAIR of the workman recorded separately on 30-4-07 4659

भारत की राजपत्र : जुलाई 21 , 2007 /आषाढ़ 30, 1929

| भाग -खण्ड ( ii ) ]

Versus

to this Tribunal for adjudication :

(2) The Head, SugarcaneBreeding

Institute, Regional Centre ,

....Respondent

Agarsain Marg , Karnal - 132001.

APPEARANCES

Shri Ram Prakash

For the wartemen

"Whether action of the management of Sugarcane Rreeding Institute in not granting temporary status and also non -regularisation of services of Sh. Ram Prakash S/O Sh. Raro Kishan w.e.f. 1997 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is comitled ?"

Shri Amit Sharma

For the management :

AWARD

Passed on 30-5-2007

Central Government vide notification No. 1. -42012/ 48/2003- IR( CM II) dated 4-3-2004 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

2. Workman appeared in person and has made statement that al present he do not want to persue with the present reference and the same may be returned to the Central Govt as withdrawn with a right to file fresh ifneed arise. In view of the statement of the workenan recorded separately on 30-4-07 the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat in the above terms . Central Govt . be informed. File be consigned to record.

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

Chandigarh:

30-5-407

"Whether action of the management of Sugarcane Breeding Institute in out granting temporary status and also non-regularisation of services ofSh. Sunder Lal Sto Sh. Chandu Ram w.e.f. 1983 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2007

कर.आ. 2025-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का ( 4 ) की ध्वरा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार शुगरकेन ब्रीडिंग इन्स्टीट्‌यूट के प्रधितंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. । , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 137/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-06-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

2. Authorised representative of the workman has made a statement that at present the workman does not went to persue with the present reference and the same may be returned to the Central Government as withdrawn with a right to file fresh ifneed arise. In view of the stateшем of the A/R of the workman recorded separately on 30-4-07, the present reference is returnerd us withdrawn in Lok Adalat in the above teams . Central Governmentbe inforraed. File be consigned to record.

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

Chandigarh:

30-5-07

[सं. एल -42012/48/2003 -आई आर ( सीएप -0 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 27th June, 2007

नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2007

5.0. 2025. in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Covernment hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 137/ 2004 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- Cam-Labour Court, No. 1 Chuadigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Sugarcane Breeding Institute and their workomen which was received by the Central Governmeal στο27-06-2007.

कर.आ. 2026 औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सुगरकेन श्रीडिंग इन्स्टीट्‌यूट के प्रबंभितंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अभिकरण नं । , चंडीगढ़ के पंचघाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 131/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-06-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[No. L-42012/48/2003- IR (CM- II)]

AJAY KUMARGAUR, Desk Officer

[नं. एल-42012/72/2003- आई- आर. ( सीएम- Ⅱ ] 、 ANNEXURE

अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 27th June , 2007 BEFORE SHIRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT-1 CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 137/2004

Sh.Sunder Lal , Sto Sh . Chandu Ram.

Village-Samora,

8.0. 2026. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 134 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, No. 1 , Chuadigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Sugarcane Breeding Institute and their

....Applicant

PO- Kheri Man Singh , Distt. Kamal , 4660

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JMILY 21 , 207 /ASADHA 30. 1924

( PART - Suc.3fti )] workmen, Feceived by the Central Government on 27-06-2007.

[No.1-42012/72/2003 -IR (CM - II)|

अधिकरण नं. । चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 57/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है . जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-06-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

[सं. एल-23012/5-1/1993 - आई मार. ( सीएम -1 ) ] ANNEXURE

अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

New 1x1h: the 37th June , 2007 PEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRES APICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDY SERIAL TRIBUNA -CUM- LABOUR COURT - 1 , HANDIGARH

Case No. ID 131/2004

b.Satisio Kumar, Sto Sh . VasandaRam, Ellage-Dato Ki Kalan .

A -Kunjpura, Dist . Kurnal .

.....Applicant

Versus

... 2027 - pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Aut , 947 24 of 1947) . the Central Government hereby pat shes the Award (Ref. No. 571 1999 of the Central Goverment Industmal Tribunal com - Labour Coer , No. 1. Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Jadustrial Dispure between the employere in relation to the management of BBMB aix their workman , which was reveaved hy the Central Government on 27 06-2007 .

The Head SugarcaneBroeding institute. Reglonaf Centre, Agarsair Mary . Каг 3-132001 .

Respondear

[No L- 23012/54/ 1998 TR ( CM- T) ; AJAY KUMARGAUR , Desk Officer APPEARANCES

ANNEXURE

For theworkman : Shri Satish Kunur workroan in person with A/ R.

: Shri Amit Sharma.

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAI. TRIBUNAL CUM-1.ABOUR COURT- 1 , For the management

CHANDIGARH

AWARD

Case No. I.D. 57/1999

Passed on 30-5-2007

Sh . Karnal Singh . Cio Si. R K. Singh Parmar. Secretary. Fb . ( INTUC) Qu. No. 15 -G.Nangal Township, Distt. Ropar.

...Applicant Central Government vide Notification No. 1.-42012/ 72/2003-IR (CMT) dated 4-3-2004 has rellened the following dispute to this Tribunat for adjudication :

Versas

The Chick Lingince ( Generation)

BBMBNangal Township

DisilRopar (Pb. )

....Respondent

APPEARANCEN

For the workтал

"Whether action of the management of Sugarcane Breeding Insaitute in not granting temporary scalus andalso non- regularisation of services ofSh . Satish Kumur Sto Sb . Vasanda Ram w.ce.f. 1997 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitledt

SITI R. K.Singh

For the management

: Sinti Rajinder Singh

AWARD

Passeal un30-5 2007

Central Governmea de Notification No. L- 23 /12/ 54/98/AR( CM - 1) dated 17-2-1999 has referred the following dispure to this Tribunal adjudication :

2. Workinan appeared in person and has made a statement that at present he do not want in persue with the present reference and the same may be returned to the Contrat Goverment as withdrawn with a right to file fresh if need arise. view of the statement of the workman recorded separately un 30-4-2007 the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat in the above terms. Central Govt , be informed. File be consigned to record.

Chandigarh:

30-5-2007

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली. 27 जून , 200

"Whether action of the management of BRMB rep . hy Chief Engineer iGenerarion ) in terminaring the services of St Kumar Singh Sie Sh . Sujit Singh cas لس Labour .c.f. 18-12-97 without following the provisions of Section 25t of the 1 D. Act , 1947 is justified ? זא, tu what relict is the workman entitled ?"

का.आ. 2027. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार न्दी. श्री. एम. बी. के प्रबंधतंत्र को संष्ठ नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योपिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

2..The case is taken up in Jok Adalat at the request of the parties . The authorised representative of the workman Shei Kam Kishur Singh withdraw the present reference vide Iris statemen! recorded on 29-5-2007. Iir view of the same , the present reference is returned as withdrawn [ भाग -3 ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : चुसाई 21 , 2007 /व्यापाद 30, 1929

4661

AWARD

in Lok Adalat, Central Government be informed. Filebe consigned to record ,

Passed ou 30-5-2007

Chandigarh:

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

30-5-2007

Contral Coverument vide Notification No. L- 23012/ 30-98/TR (CM- I ) dated 22-2-1999 bass refered the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

नईदिल्ली, 27 जून , 2007

"Whether action of the management of Chief Engineer (Operation System) , Bhakra Beas Management Board Chandigarh and Resident Engineer, Delar PowerHouse Division, Bhaka Boas Management Board (Power Wing), SalapperDistt Mandi ( HP) in terminating the services of Sh. Balak Ram Sto Sh. Paquitin w.cf. 31-7-1993 is just and legal ? If not, to what relief is the workman cutitied ?" का. आ. 2028.-औद्योगिक विवार अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नी. बी. एम. बी. के प्रबंधत्ततंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं । चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 67/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-06-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

(सं एल-23012/30/1998-आई आर. ( सीएम- II) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the27th June,2007

2.The case is taken up in Lok Adalat at the request of the parties . The authorised representative of the workman Shri Ram Kishan Singh withdraw the present reference vide his statement recorded on 29-5-2007 that al present the workman does not want to pursue with the present reference and withdraw the same with a right to raise fresh if needed. The AR of the management Sukhwinder Singh bus no objection in withdrawing the vase by the workman as submitted by him. In view of the same, the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat, Central Government be informed . File be consigned to record is entitled ?"

Chandigarh: RAJESHKUMAR, Presiding Officer 5.0. 1024-Im pursuance of Section 17 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Contral Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 67/ 1999 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annekture in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofBBMB and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 27-06-2007.

30-5-2007

[No. L-23012/30/1998- IR(CM- II) ) AJAY KUMARGAUR, Desk Officer

नईदिल्ली, 27 जून , 2007.

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. 1.D. 67/1999

का.आ. 2029-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बी बी एम. बी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अभिकरण नं -1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंट ( संदर्भ संख्या 123/1994 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो बोडोय सरकार को 27-06-2007 को प्राप्त हुमा सा । General Secretary , BSL, Project MazdoorEkta Union , Sundetagar , Distt . Mandi (H.P. )

Sundernagar

.....Applicurt

[सं. एल-22012/29-4/ 1994- आई आर (सीएम- II) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी Versus

(a) The Resident Engineer,

New Delhi , the 27th June,2007 Dehar Power HouseDivision, BBMB ( PW) , Salapper,

Dist .Mandi (HP. )

(b) The Chief Lingineer, Operation System , BBMB , Sector-19-B. MardhyaMarg. Chandigarh

....Respondent

APPEARANCES

$.O. 2029. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Coverument bereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 123/ 1994) of theCentral Government Industrial Tribunal-com- Labour Court, No.1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BBMB and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 27-06-2007.

For theworkman

: Shri R. K. Singh

[No. 1-23012/294/ 1994- IR (CM - ID :

For the managerment Sari Sukhwinder Singh

AY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer 4662

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 21 , 2007/ASADHA 30, 1929

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. I. D. 123/1994

General Secretary , BSL Project Mazdoor Ekta Union. House No. 5-2/773 , SunderNagar (HP)

Applicant

Veraus

Executive Engineer. B.B.M.B. Division, B.BM.B ( Irrigation) Slapper: Distt . Mandi (HP).

-Respondem APPEARANCES

Fortheworkmin

: Sh. R. K. Singh

: Sh . D. L. Sharma For the management

AWARD

Passed on30-5-2007

Central Government vide notification No. L- 22012/ 294/1994- IR (CII) dated 21-9-1994 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether action of Executive Engineer , Slapper Division, BBMB ( Irrigation Wing) Slapper MP im Tr rmentioning the date of appointment in the seniority list prepred under rule 77 of Industrial Dispute (Central Rules 1957 in respect of 36 workers ( list enclosed retrenched w.e.f. 21.4.93 is legally correct , justified and valid. If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled to ?"

2. The ouse is taken up in Lok Adalat at the request ofthe parties .The authorized representative of the workman Shri Ram Kishan Singh withdraw the present reference vide his statement lecorded on 18.5.2007 that on instructions and efforts made for seulement of the issue and discussions made between the BSL Project Management and BBMB Trigation Slapper, seniority list issued by the management of the petitioper workmen of the Union needs to be challenged and thereafter any claim made out of that is to be contested by the workmen and workmen individually are willing todo so. Present petitioners , Union may be allowedto withdraw the case with the permission to raise fresh dispute if any permissible onder the last in the interest of individual petitioner workman. The statement ofAR of the management Shri D.I.Sharma recorded in which be stated thathe has heard the above statement and have no objection. In view of the same, the preserer reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat with the permission to raise fresh if permissible under the law in the interest of individual petitioner worldman . Central Govt be informed. File be consigned to record is entitled ?""

Chandigarh.

30-5- F7

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

[PART SFL . 3 ( її) ] नई दिल्ली 27 जून, 2007

का, आ, 20:30,- औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार शुगरकेन ब्रीडिंग इन्स्टीट्यूट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं.- । चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 129/2004 ) को प्रकशिन करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-06-2007 को प्राप्न हुआ था।

[ सं. एल -42012/ 70 / 2003 आई आर ( सीएम IT ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 27th June, 2007

S.O. 2030. In pursuance of Section17 of the Industrial Thisputes Act, 1947 ( 4 of 1947), the Centrat Government hereby publishes the inward ( Ref No. 1291 2004) of the Central Goverment Industrial Tribu Labour Court , No. 1. Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Sugarcane Breeding Institute , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 27-06-2007.

[Nu L 42012/70/2003 IR( CM- IT) ]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR . DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE.

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBINAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH CaseNo. 1. D. 129/2004

Sh. Shamsher Singh. So Sh . Arjun . Village -Dabar Ki Kalan. PO-Kunjpura , Distt . Kamal .

Applicant

Versins

(a) The Head . Sugarcane Breeding Institute , Regional Centre. Agarsain Marg , Karnal 1.32001 .

Respondent APPEARANCES

For the workman

: Shri Shamsher Singh workınan in person with AIR

For the management : Shri Amit Sbarna

AWARD

Passed on 30-3-20077

Central Government vide notification No. L-42012/ 70/2003 - IR ( CM 11 ) dated 4.03.2004 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether action of the management of Sugarcane Breeding Institute in not granting temporary starus and also non - regularisation of services of Sh . Shamsher Singli Su Sh . Arjun w.e.f. 1997 is legal and justified? If nel . to what relief the workman is cotitled ?" [ भाग - खण्ज [ ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र बुलाई 21 , 2007 /आषाढ़ 30 , 1929

4663

AWARD

Pasacd on30-5-2007

Central Government vide notification No. L-42012/ 68/2003- IR (CM - U ) dated 4-03-2004 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

2. Workman appeared in person and has made a scatement that at present he do not want to pursue with the present reference and the same may be returned to the Central Govt , as withdrawn with a right to file fresh ifneed arise. In view of the statement of the workman recorded separately on 30-4-07 , the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat in the above baros . Central govt. be informed. File be consigned to record.

Chandigarh

30-5-07

"Whether action of the management of Sugarcime Breeding Institute in not granting temporary status and also non-regularisation of services ofSt. Raj Pal Sto Sh . Sewa Ram, w.e.f. 1997 is legal andjustified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ?

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2007

2. Workman appeared in person and has made a statement that at present be do not want to pursue with the present reference and the same may be returned to the Central Govt as withdrawn with a right to file fresh ifneed arise. In view of the statement of the workman recorded separately on 30-4-07, the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat in the above terms . Central govt. be informed. File be consigned to record,

Chandigarh.

30-5-77

का.आ. 2031, औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का (4 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार शुगरकेन ब्रीडिंग इन्स्टीट्यूट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. । चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 127/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-06-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2007 [सं. एल -42012/68/2003- आई आर ( सीएम- U ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27th June , 2007

फर.भा. 2032 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 कर 14 ) की भारा 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 मौत्रोनिक अधिकरण नं.- 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 71/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-06-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

5.0 . 2031. Ja pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 127/ 2004) of theCentral Goverment Industrial Tribunal -cum- Tabour Court, No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Ammeхиге in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Sugarcane Breeding Institute , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 27-06-2007 .

[ सं. एल-40012/381 /99- आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी [No. L-43012/68/2003- IR (CM- II) ] AJAYKUMAR GAUR, DeskOfficer

NewDelhi , the 27th June , 2007 ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT- 1, CHANDIGARH CaseNo. I. D. 127/2004

Sh.Raj Pal, Sto Sh. Seva Ram, Village- Dabar Ki Kalan, PO Kurtjpura, Distt . Karnal .

5.0. 2002.-10 pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dupotes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Govemment bereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 71 / 2000) of the Central Govanment Industrial Tribunal- c Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their workman, which was received by the Central Government η27-06-2007 .

Applicant

Versus

[No. L-40012/381 /99- IR (DU) ] (a) The Head , Sugarcane Breeding Institute, Regional Centre, Agarsain Marg, Karnal 132001.

SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the work

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT INDRIUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT- 1, CHANDIGARH

: Shri Raj Pal workman in person withA/R

For the man, gement

Case No. L. D. 71/2000

Shuri Amit Sharma 4664

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 21 , 2007 /ASADHA 30, 1929

Sh. Satpal Singh Sức Sh . Inder Singh Còn Sh . N.K. Jeet , President, Telecom Labour Union, Mohalla Hari Nagar , Lal SinghBasti Road, Bhatinda (Pb .)- 151001

...Applicant

Versus

(a) The General Manager , Telecom, Bhatinda (Punjab)- 151001

[PART -Sr . Зіїї) workmen , which was received by the Central Government on27-6-2007.

No. L-40012/ 385/99- IR (DL ) ]

SURENDRA SINGIHL Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- 1, CHANDIGARHI

Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the woman

: Sh. R. K. Singh For the management

Sh. G. C.Babbar.

AWARD

(Passed on 30-5-2007)

Centre Government vide notification No. L -40012/ 381 /99- IR(DU) dated 9-2-2000 has referved the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management ofGeneral Manager, Telecom , Bhatinda in terminating the services of Sh. Satpal Singh Sto Sh . Inder Singh is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled mund from what date . "

2. The case is taiten op in Lok Adalat at the request of the parties. The authorized representative of the workman Shri Ram Partap Singh withdraw the present reference vide his statement recorded on 10-5-2007 .In view of the same, the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat. CentralGovt,be informed. Pile be consigned to record !

Chandigarh

30-5-2007

: RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2007

का.आ. 2033-औधोगिक 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 औधोगिक अधिकरणः श्रम न्यावालय नं.1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 75/2000) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/385/99 - आई मार ( की.यू. ) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th June, 2007

S.O. 2033. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Coveruncat breby publishes the award (Ref. No. 75/ 2000) of theCentral Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Count, No. 1 , Chandiguh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their Case No. I. D. 75/2000

Sh.Charanji Lal Cio Sh . N.K. Jeet , President , Telecom Labour Union , Mohal Hari Nagar . Lal Singh Basti Road, Bhatinda (Pb.) - 151001

..Applicant

Versas

(a) The General Mariager . Telecom . Bbatioda (Punjab ) - 151001 .

Respondeaal

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Sh . R. P. Singh

: Sh. G.C Babbar .

For the management

AWARD

(Passed on 30-5-2007)

Central Government vide notification No. L. 40012/ 385/99- IR (DU) dated 9-2-2000 has referred the following dispate in this Tribunai for adjudication .

"Whether the action of the management of General Manager. Telecom , Bhatinda in terminating the services of Sh . Charanji Lat is legal and justified " I not. to what relief the wirkman is entitled and from what dace ?""

2. The case is taken up in Lok Adalat at the request of the parties. The authorized representative of the workman Shri Ram Partap Singh withdraw the present reference vird his statement recorded on 10-5-2007 . In view of the same , the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat Central Gov. be informed . File be consignedto record

Chandigarh.

30-5-2007

RAJIŠIH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2007

का.आ. 2034- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) को 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 नं.। चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( मंदर्भ संख्या 85 :2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012 /408: 99 आई मगर ( डी.यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारो 4665 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 21 , 2007/ आपाद 30, 1929

[ भाग - खण्ड (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 27th June, 2007

बीच, कानुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्वावालब नं. - 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचकट ( संदर्भ संख्या 66/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, को केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2007 को जप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/378/ 99- आई आर ( डीयू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27th June, 2007

S.O. 2034. In pursuance of Section 17 of the lodustrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 85/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, No. 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Anncure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their workruen , which was received by the Central Government on27-6-2007.

(No. L-40012408/ 99- TR (DU)]

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNFAURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-COUM-LABOUR COURT-1, CHANDIGARH

S.O. 2035.-1o pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmeat hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 691 2000) of the Ceutral Goventment Inchustrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court , No. 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the managerment of Telecom Department and their woritroen, which was received by the Central Government সো27-6-2007 .

Case No. 1. D. 85/2000

[No. L-400 ] 2/378/ 99- IR (DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Sh. Sushil Kumar Sto Sh . Ram Chander C /o Sh . N. K. Jeet, Fresident, Telecom Labour Union . Mohalla Hari Nagar ,Lal SinghBasti Road, Bhatinda (Punjab) 151001

Applicant

Versus

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

Case No. 1.D. 69/2000

( a ) The Gencтв ) Manager . Telecom , Bhatinda (Punjab)-151001.

Respondent

Sh.Gurcharan Singh Sto Sh. Hari Singh Cho Sh . Jeet Singh, President, Telcourt Labour Union , Mohalla Hari Nagar, Lal SinghBasti Road , Bhatinda ( Punjab ) -151001 APPEARANCES

Applicant Sh.Ram Partap Singh

For the work

Versus

: Sh. O. C. Babbar.

For the management

AWARD

Respondem

(a)The General Manager , Telecom , Bhatinda (Pumjah)-151001.

APPEARANCES

(Passed on 30-5-2007)

: Sh. R.P. Singh

For the workman

Sh . G. C.,Babbar .

For the management

Central Governmeal vide notification No. L- 40012/ 408099-18 ( M ) dated 17 2-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

AWARD

(Passed on30-5-2007)

Central Governmeal vile notification No. 1.-400 / 2/ 378/99- TR ( DU ) dated 9-2-2000 has referred the following dispute in this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the managerment of General Manager, Telecom , Rhatinda in terminating the services of Sh . Sushil Kumar Sto Shri Ram Chunder is legal and justified ? If mou, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date

"Whether the action of the management ofGeneral Manager , Televom, Bhatinda in terminating the services of St. Gurcharan Singh Sửu Sh. Hari Singh is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is cotitled and from what date T ' 2. The case is taken up in Lok Adalat at the request of the parties . The authorized representative of the worknian Shr..Ram Partap Singh withdraw the present referencevide his statement revurderi on 25-4-2007. In view of the same, the present reference is relumed as withdrawn in Lok Adalat. Central Govtbe informed. File bewusigned to Teyword.

RAJESH KUMAR. Presiding Officer

Chandigarh

30-5-2007

2.The case is taken up in Lok Adalat at the request of the parties . The authorized representative of the workman Shri Ram Partap Singh withdraw the present reference vide bis statement recorded on 25-4-2007 . In view of the sane, the present reference is returned as withdrawn in 10k Adalat . Central Govt . be informed. File be consigned to record.

नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2007

Chandigarh.

30-5 2007

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer का.आ. 2035.-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

3066 G1/07-5 4666

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21 , 2007/ASADILA 30, 1929

(PART 1 Sec.3 (ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2007

Shri Ram Partap Singh withdraws the present reference vide his statement recorded on 10-5-2007, In view of the same, the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalar . Central Govt. be informed. File be consigned to record is entitled?

Chandigarh.

30-5-2007

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer का.अ. 2036.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संघार विभाग के प्रबंधितंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरप्ण श्रम न्यायालय नं.1, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 21799 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-06 2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

नई दिल्ले, 27 जून, 2007

सं. एल -40012/ 177/99 -आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27th June, 2007

का.आ. 2037,-औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा । ? के अनुसरण में, केंन्द्रीय सरकार दूरसंचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संचद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट अपयोगिक विवाद में केंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं.1, ग्रण्डीग्रव के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 87/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-06 2007 को प्राप्ता हुआ था।

[म. एल-43012/410/99- आई आर ( डीयू )

सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी 5.O. 2036.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 217f 1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- con- Labour Court, No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their workman, which was received by the Central Government 027-06-2007.

New Delhi . the 27th June , 2017 No. L-40012/ 177 /99 - IR (DU ) | SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Offiz

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT- 4, CHANDIGARH

Case No. 1.D. 217/1999

S.O. 2037- persuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 : 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government bereby publishes the toward (Ret . No. 2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, No. 1. Chandigarh as senown in the Annexure in the Tindustrial Dispute between the employers in relatxon to the management of Telecomm Departinent and their workman , which wils roccised by the Central Government 2706-2007מט .

No. L-40012/4109 - R (DL) Miss Neeru Bila C/o The President. Telecom Labour תוח Mohalla Han Nagar , Lal Singh Basti Road, Bhatinda (Punjab) -151001

SURENTORA SINGEL, Desk Officer

...Applicant

ANNEXURE

Verses

( a) The General Manager, Telecom , Bhatinda (Punjab)- 151001 .

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CLM-LAHOUROUXORT- 1, CHANDIGARH

Respondent

CaseNo. ID 87/2000

APPEARANCES

For theworkotan

: Sh . R. P. Singh

For the management

Sh. G. C: Babbar.

Sh. Sukhwinder Singh Sto Sh . Lal Singh Cie Sh . N. K. Ject , Fresiden: Jelocen: Labour Union , Mohalia Hari Nagar, Lal Singh Basti Road Blaalinda (Prunjabi- 151001 AWARD

Applicant

Versus

Passed on30-5-2007

(a) The General Manager . Telecom. Bhatinda

(Punjab)-151001 .

Resperident

APPEARANCES

Central Government vide notification No. 1. 40012 17 - R (DU) dated 22-09-1999 has referred the followiang dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

For the workaman

: Sin R. P. Singh

For the management

Sh . G .. Babba .

AWARD

"Whether action of the management of General Manager, Telecom , Bhatinda in terminating the services of Miss Neeru Bala is legal and justified ? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled and frum what datt

Passed a 30 5-2007

2. The case is taken up in Lok Adalat at the request of the parties.The authorized representative of the workman

Central Guverniren! de nuudication No. 1-10012/ 41(199- IR (TU ) dared 17-02-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudicarion:

( भाग- खण्ड 3 (1 ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : कुलाई 21, 2007 / आभार 30, 1929

4667

(a) The General Manager , Telecom , Bhatinda (Punjab )-151001

Respondent "Whether action of the management of General Manager, Telecom, Bhatinda in terminating the services of Sh . Sukhwinder Singh Sửa Sh . Lal Singh is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from what date ?"

APTRARANCES

For the sworkman

: Shui R. P. Singh.

Shi G. C. Babbar.

For the Managemen !

AWARD

Passed on 30-5-2007

2. The case is taken up in Lok Adalat at the request ofthe parties. The authorized representative of the workman Shri Ram Partap Singh withdraw the present reference vide his statement recorded on 10-5-2007. In view of the same, the present reference is returned as withdrawn in LokAdalat. Central Govt . be informed . File be consigned to record .

Chandigarh.

Central Govemment vide notification No. L-40012/ 265/99/IR (DU) dated 18-11-1999 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

30-5-2007

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्लो, 27 जून , 2007

"Whether the action of the management of Geperal Manager . Tekcom , Bhatinda in terminating the services of Satpal is logal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled?"

2.The case is taken up in Lok Adalat at the request of the parties. The authorized representative ofthe workman Shri Ram Partap Singh withdraw the present reference vide his statement recorded on 10-5-2007 .In view ofthe same, the present reference is returned as whthdrawn in Lok Adalat Central Goverument be informed. File be consigned to record.

भर, अप. 2038. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दूरसंचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संषद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के जौच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं । चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 25399) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-06-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Chandigarh

| सं. एल-40012/265/99 - आई आर. ( ही. यू.) ]

30-5-2007

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 जून, 2007

New Delhi , the 27th June, 2007

का.आ. 2039, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947

का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूरसंचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. -1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 157/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-06-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

S.O. 2038. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 253 / 99 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , No. 1 , Chandigach as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their workman which was received by the Central Governmeal сип 27-06-2007.

[सं. एल -40012/457/99 - आई.आर. (डी. यू) ] [No. L-40012/265/99- IR ( DU) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

NewDelhi , the 27th June , 2007

BEFORE SHRIRAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT NOL 1, (HANDIGARH

Case No. L.D. 253/1999

Sh . Satpal C/ o Sh. N. K. Jeet , President, Telecom Labour Union, Mohalla Hari Nagar , Lal Singh Basti Road, Bhatinda (Punjab - 151001

$.O. 20:39.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 157/ 2000 ) of the Central Government Inchustrial Tribunal- cum- labour Court, No. 1. Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the comployers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their workman which was received by the Central Govemment on 27-06-2007.

Applicam

Veraus

[No. L-40012457 /99- IR (DU) SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Offiucr PAG 11-SEC.Кі 4668

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . JULY 21 , 2007 / ASADHA 30, 1999

New Delhi the 20th June . 2007 ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-L CHANDIGAΚΗ

Case 1.D. No.157/2000

Sh. Raj KumarC/o Sh . N. K. Jeet, President , Telecom Labcour Union,MohallaHari Nagar, Lal Singh Basti Road,Bharinda

5.0.2040. In pursuance of Secrion 17 of the hdustrial Disputes Act . 19:17 114 of 1947 ) . the Central Government herchy pablishes the Award (Re No. 0105 jot the Fustrial Tribunal - cum - labour Cour.. Jollius as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of The flank of Rajasthan Liinired and their workman which was received by the Central Gaverament 27-6-2007.

Applicant

No. L- 12012/123/2004 - IR (B- J1ニ AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer Versus

अनुक्थ

औद्योगिक विषाद अधिकाण एवं श्रप न्यायालय, जोधपुर । (a) The General Manager , Deptt. of Telecom 、 Hoshiyatpur-146001

Respondent

APPEARANCES

पीठासीन अधिकारी :-श्री पुष्पेन्द्र सिंह हाड़ा. आर एच. नं. ए५. औद्योगिक विन्द ( कन्द्रीय ) मं. 101/05

For the Workman

: Slui R. P. Singh

श्रोभति सरोज पत्नि स्व. श्री लालचम हरिजन जरिये प्रेसिडन्ट ऑल बैंक सफाई कर्मचारी संघ 50138 २ ज १७ फथ मानसरोबर . जयपुर । : Shri Raghubir Singh

For the Management

AWARD

बनाम

Passed on30-5-2007

1. दी प्रेसिडेन्ट एण्ड नेजियरेक्टर, दो बैंक ऑफ राजस्थान लि संन्ट्रल ऑफिस सी सरदार पटेल मार्ग , जयपुर । Central Govt, vide notification Νο . 1.40012457/ 9 / IR(DU)dated 13-3-2000 has refferred the following dispu to thisTribunal for adjudication :

2. दो एमिस्टंट जनरल नंजर दो बैंक ऑफ राजस्थान लि.. बान्वं पोब्स रहा धनुः

रेफरेन्स अर्न्तगत धारा 10 औ. वि. अधिनियम , 1947 उपस्र्थाित:

"Whether the action of the management of General Manager , Telecom , loshiyarpur in ondering disengagemenu/termination of services of Sh . Raj Kumar , workman engaged through Contractor Sh . Ashok Kumar Sharma . w.e.f. 1.3 99 is legal and justified ? If not , to what rebel I the workman is entitled and from which date? " :

( 1 ) प्राथी म्कय चा उसका कोई प्रतिनिधि हाजिर नहीं ।

( 2 ) अप्रार्थ की ओर से श्री हरीश पुरोहित उप.

अवार्ड

दिनांक 5 2007

2.The case is taken up in Lok Adalat at the request of the parties .The authorized representative of the worluman Shri Ran Partap Singh withdraw the present reference vide his statement recorded on 8-5-2007. In view of the same. the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat. Central Govtbe informed. File be consigned to record.

Chandigarh

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

30-5-2007

1. भारत सरकार ने अपनी अधिसूचना क्रमांक एल. 12052/173/2004 आई आर (ची । दिनांक 14-6-2004 द्वारा निम्न बिवाद अन्गत धारा : औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 के तहत इस न्यायालय का रफर किया है :

नई दिल्ली , 27 जून , 200?

" ज्या अन् एवं प्रबन्ध निदेशक दी बैंक ऑफ राजस्थान लि. कंन्द्रीय कार्यालय , जयपुर एवं सहायक महाप्रबन्धक दी बैंक अंफि राजस्थान लि. , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , जोधपुर द्वारा कर्मकार श्रीमति सरोज पत्नि स्व. श्री लालराम हरिजन अशंकालीन सफाई कर्मचारी को संपूर्ण संशोधित वेतनमान नहीं दिया जाना उत्चित एवं वैध है ? यदि नहीं तो कर्मकार अपने नियोजक से क्या राहत पाने का अधिकारी है ?"

का.आ. 2040, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दी बैंक ऑफ राबस्थान लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विषाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण ओधपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 01/05 ) को प्रकाशिय करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

उक्त रेफरंन्त इस न्यायालय में प्राप्त होने पर दिनांक 141105 को दर्ज रजिस्टर किया गया न पक्षकारों के नोटिस जारी [सं. एल-12012/123/2004- आई. आर. ( बी -1 ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी 4669 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) )

भारत का रानपत्र : जुलाई 21 , 2007/ आषाढ़ 30, 1929

11/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12011 / 126/2005-आई मार ( बी-1 ) ]

राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 28th June , 20 ア किये गये । प्रार्थी के नोटिस की तामील रेफरेन्स में बताये पते पर दिनांक ४-४-05 की पेशी हुई लेकिन प्रार्थी 8-8-05 व उसके पश्चात् लगभग 17 पेशियों पर हाजिर नहीं हुआ जिस पर प्रार्थी को पुनः रजिस्टर्ड ए.डी. से नोटिस प्रेषित किया गया उक्त नोटिस भी तामौल होकर प्राप्त हुआ लेकिन इसके चावजूद भी प्रार्थी स्वंय या उसका कोई प्रतिनिधि आन हाजिर नहीं है । न ही कोई मॉग पत्र या शपच -पत्र प्रस्तुत किया गया है ।

$.0.2441- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref . No. 11/2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their workman received by the Central Government on 28-6-2007.

[No. L- 12011 / 126/2005- IR (B- 1) ]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

3. अप्रार्थीगण की ओर से प्रार्थना पत्र प्रस्तुत कर यह कहा गया है कि श्रीमती सरोज ने अप्राधी बैंक में 6 घंटे साप्ताहिक से कम कार्य किया है अतः द्विपक्षीय समझौते के तहत प्रार्थीया को 740 रुपये प्रतिमाह फिक्स के आधार पर भुगतान किया गया , चूंकि द्विपक्षीय समझौते के तहत वेतन भुगतान संशोधित नहीं किये गये हैं ऐसी स्थिति में प्रार्थीया संशोधित वेतन प्राप्त करने की विधिक रूप से अधिकारी नहीं है । प्रार्थीया का पूर्व में ही निधन हो गया है एंव बैंक ने सहानुभूति रखते हुए प्रार्थीया की पुत्री को अंशकालीन सफाई कर्मचारी के रूप में नियुक्त कर दिया है।

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

PRESENT :

ShriP. L. Norbert, B.A., L. L. B., Presiding (Mficer (Monday the 18th day of June , 2007/28th Jyaistha , 1929)

LD. No. 11/2005

Workmar/ Union : The Assistant Secretary

Canara Bank StaffUnion Kerala Regional Committee 41/2201; Ernakulam Nexth Kochi-682018.

Adv. H.B. Shenoy

Management

4. यह सिद्ध करने का भार प्राधींवा पर था कि उसे संशोधित वेतनमान दिया जाये । परन्तु प्रार्थीया की ओर से उक्ता तथ्य को सिद्ध करने के लिएकोई मांग - पत्र या शपथ - पत्र प्रस्तुत नाहीं किया गया है जब कि अप्रार्थी की ओर से जवाब में यह कहा गया है कि द्विपक्षीय समझौते के तहत प्रार्थीया को 740 रुपये प्रतिमाह फिक्स के आधार पर वेतन भुगतान किया गया चूंकि द्विपक्षीय समझौते के तहत वेतन भुगतान संशोधित नहीं किये गये हैं अतः प्रार्थीया संशोधित वेतनमान प्राप्त करने की अधिकारी नहीं है । चूंकि प्रार्थीया द्वारा रेफरेन्स में वर्णित प्रश्न को किसी मांग पत्र अथवा साक्ष्य से सिद्ध नहीं किया है ऐसी स्थिति में अप्रार्थीगण द्वारा प्रार्थीमा को अंशकालीन सफाई कर्मचारी को संपूर्ण संशोधित वेतनमान नहीं दिया बाना अनुचित एवं अवैध थाने जाने का कोई कारण नहीं है । प्रार्थीया किसी अनुतोष की अधिकारी नहीं है । अतः इस रेफरेन्स का उत्तर इस अवार्ड की टम्से में निम्न प्रकार दिया जाता है ।

The Goweral Manager CanaraBank Staff Section(Workman) Cinute Office, M. G. Road, Spencer Juction

Thiruvananthapuram-695001.

Adv. M.P. Sreekrishnan 5. अप्रार्थीगण द्वारा प्रार्थीया को संपूर्ण संशोधित वेतनमान नहीं दिया जाना उचित एवं वैध है । प्रार्थीया किसी अनुतोष की अधिकारी नहीं है ।

AWARD

च्ाचे । 6. इस अवार्ड को प्रकाशनार्थ केन्द्रीय सरकार को प्रेषित किया

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

7. वह अवार्ड साथ दिनांक 7-5-2007 को खुले न्यायालय में सुनाया गया ।

पुष्पेन्द्र सिंह हाड़ा , न्यायाधीश

नई दिल्ली, 28 जून , 2007

"Whether it is fact that Sont . N.B. Bindu was engaged by the management of Canara Bank as a part time employce during the period from 8-10-1996 ] 30-6-2004 ? If so , whether ber claim for regularisation in service of thebank from 1-7-2004 is justified and legal andwhat relied the disputant concerned entitled in ?"

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

Accordingto SmL N. B. Binduwas employed as part- time sweeper (PTS ) at Ramamangalam branch of Canara कटभा. 2041 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की पारा 17 के अनुसरण में, फेन्द्रीय सरकार केनरा बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोक्कों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अर्नाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 4670

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 21 , 2007/ASADHA 30, 1924

PART I-Sec .3( 1 )

workwoman is more probable than the case of the management that she was working in leave vacancy from 8-10-1996 10 30-6-2004 and management which is in possession of the records , has not produced the sameto substantiate their courearion . They contended that Smt. Bindu was working as part time sweeper in leave vacancy intermitzeraly from 2001 to30-4-2004.

6. Points No. (2)

Bank on 8-10-1996. This was on leave vacancy of permanetit part-time sweeper .On30-6-2004 the permanent part - time sweeper retired . Thereafter from1-7-2004 the workwoman was working in the permanent vacancy continuously. Even now she in in service. However the request for absorption as permanent part - time sweeper was not favourably considered by the management . Therefore an industiral dispute was raised before Assistant Commissioner and thereafter the reference . The workwoman is entitled for regularisation .e.L 1-7-2004 and for consequential benefits.

3.Accordingto the management Smt . Bindu was never appointed by the bank. She worked for sometime interroittently in leave vacancies which was arranged by the permanent part- time sweeper and not by bank . 10 appointment to a permanent post one has to fulfil the recruitment norms with regardto age and qualification. Smu . N. B. Bindu did not conform to the norms and hence her candidatude could not be considered. She had never worked in ang permanent vacancy nor had she worked continuusly, much less for a continuous period of 240 days as claimed by her. She worked 44 days in 2001, 48 days in 2002,7 days in 2003 and 168 days in 2004 , Therefore she is not eligible to he absorbed or for any monetary benefits .

4. In the light of the above contentions and to view of the reference the following points arise for onnsideration.

( 1) Was Smt. N. B. Bindu employed árum 8-10-1996 το30-6-20047

(2) Is she entitled for absorption as part -time sweeper?

The evidence consists of the oral testimony of WWI and 2 and documentary evidence of Liats . Wi to WI (b) on the side of workman and MWI on the side of management.

5. Points No. ( 1) :

It is not tisputed that Smt. Bindu was working in leave vacancy of Smt. Janaki intermittently from 2001 to August 2004. San . Janaki was a permanent part - time sweeper in Ramamangalam branch of the bank during 1996 to 30-6-2004. The bank does not admit the service of Smt .

It is the case of the workwoman that her mother - in- law, Smt. Janaki who was the permanent part - time sweeper had retired on 30-6-2004 and Sp1 . Bindu who had been working in leave vacancy , continued to work as PTS in the permanent vacancy that arose on 17.2004. She is continuing as such even now. This is not admitted by талацетели . In the wounter statemeer they merely state that Smt. Bindu was working in leave vacancyncy till 2004. However the bank's officer . MWI has admitted charwhen Smt. Janaki retired un 30-6-2001 Smt . Bindu worked in thar vacancy from 1-7-2004 , bu only up to August , 2004. According to him, thereafter wo other pan time a weepers were engaged . However he does not know their names MW] admits thar pobody else is recruited as permanent PTS till now. It as relevant to me that this version of MWL that two other PTS were engaged ufter August, 2004 is only an afterthought which has no hasis in the pleadings of the management . Moserver norecards, like Daily Wage Register or vouchers are produced by them to prove employment of any other. PTS than Smt . N. B Binxlu in Ramamanagalam brauch aller 1-7-2004 or after August 2004. Thus before 1-7-2004 in icave vacancy and thereafter in permanent vacancy Srni N B. Bindu has been working. Though MWI has denied that Smt. Bindu is working even now the bank has not able to substantiate that any other PTS or permaneer PTS is appointed . The bank cannon cаггу on their function withouts sweeper . WW2 is the Assistanl Secretary ul the Union which las espoused the cause of Sal. Bindu says that none has heen appointed in the permanent vacancy and Sny Bindu continues to wurk even now. The figures mentowned in paragraph 8 of the counter statement of the management regarding period of work are not based on any record and not supported by any documentary evidence The bank is in possession of records showing the period of work of an employee whether casual , temporary or permanenm . They have withheld those records.

Bindu prior to 2001. However as per paragraph 8 of the counter statement of the management they admit that the workworman had worked for the periods mentioned therein i.e. 2001-44 days . 2002-48 days . 2003-78 days and 2004-68 days . Whether the factum of work in leave vacancy prior to 2001 is admitted or not . it makes linle difference in thoecase of Surt.Bindu as she has been working. as evidence reveals , even after 30-6-2004 . However nthei than the pleadings in the counter statement regarding the service of Some Bindu intermittently during the period 2001-04, по прoords are produced by the bank. Al the same time it is not disputed that Sont. Janaki was the permanent part - time sweeper during the period from 8-10-1996 10 30-6-2004, Therefore the case of the

7. The next question is , whether Smr. Buklu has been working continuously for a period of one year or 240 days during a period of 12 calendar months . The learned counsel for the management submalls that the burden to prove such continuous service is un the workman . The learned counsel relies on the decision in Krushna Bhagva JalaNigam Lat Mohammad Rafi AIR 3006 SC 3363. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to several previous decisions and relying on the decisina in RM. Yellativ. The Asstt. Executive Engineer (IT 2005 ( 9) SC 340 ] otiserves [ भाग 1 ]-जष्ठ 3 ( ⅱ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 21 , 2007/आमाड़ 30 , 1929

4671

the educational qualification in 5th standard and at any rate mot a puss in the 9th standard . The management contends that so far as Surt. Bindu is concerned she has studied upto 10th standard and had crossed the age of 27 years at the relevant time as her date of birth is 20-5-1976.Hence socording to the management her request for absorption could not be considered favourably by the management. However the learned counsel for the worker submits that the guidelines issued by Head Office of the bank have no statutory force . Only the Board of Directors ofthe bank can issue such guidelines . Moreover, according to the learned counsel , mo recruitment rules are framed as perArticle309 ofthe Constitution so as to bind thebank in recruiting part- time sweepers in permanent vacancies . The learned counset for the worker relies on the decision in Secretary, State of Karnalat v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC L. Paragraphs 6 and 31 are relevant :

ist Para 1 that the burden to prove that one has put in service of 240 days continuously is on the workman This can be discharged by the workom by mounting the box and calling for records fruit the tuntuigement. The workanan was examined as WWI and the union office bearer as WW2. They have given evidence to the effect that SIL Bindu has been working since 1-7-2004 in permanent vacancy and even now she continues as PTS. They miso state that nobody else was engaged during this period. The management has noi been able to prove casgegement ofany other person in place of Smt. Bintin. Ifthere was arty such appuimoment the bank could have casily proved the same byproduction ofDaily Wage Register and vouchers. The union had called for the Daily Wage Registers and appointment files of PTS . The Management did not produce them on the ground that the ustion had not specified the periond of the registers required. So also union had not specified the files of appointment of PTS relating to any period . The management therefore filed an affidavit starting that the records called for were volurainms in tanture and they were vague and no specific period was mentioned.It was too general a demand that the union made , calling for Daily Wage Registers without specifying the period. So also the appointment files, without specification, couldbe all the appointment files of all branches in Kerala. Therefore on accouds of non -production of docaments no adverse inference can be drawn. In spite of the fact that they are in possession of the best records to prove engagement or non-engagement of Smi . N. B. Rindu from 1-7-2004 till now they have not produced them, rather suppressed them, The testimony of MW1 deviating from the pleadings in the counter statement that two other PTS were engaged after August , 2004is an afterthought and a convenient statement to suit to the circumstances . The ALC had inspected Ramamangalam branch and perused the records and directed the bank to pay bonns to Sant. Bindu for the periud 2009-04admittedly. All these circumstances go to show chat Smt . N.B. Bindu has been working as PTS in a permanent vacancy from 1-7-2004 till date continuously for a period of one year. She is a ' workman' coming within the definition of S-2 ( s) of 1D . Act . If she has worked for 240 days continuously for 12 calendar months she gets a right for notice and retrenchment compensation n /s- 251 and preference in appointment w/ s-25H of theAct .

8.However the claim is for absorption in permanent vacancy forwhich the worker will have to show that she has some right under the provisions of LD, Act or any other law . Apparently there is no right for absorption as per the provisions of LD. Act . The suggestion of the Jearned counsel for the worker was that there is a practice ol absorbing part -time sweepers who have been working for quite sometime in a branch . Whereas the learned counsel for the management argues that for regular recruitment guidelines are issued by the Head Office ofthe bank. As per the guidelines the age limit is, 27 years and

6. "The power of a Stale as an employer is more limited than thunt of a private employer inasmuch as it is subjected to constitutional limitations and cannot be exercised arbitrarily ( see Basu's Shorter Constitusion of India) .Article 309 of the Constitution gives the Government the power to frame rules for the purpose of laying down the conditions of service and recruitment of persons to be appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or any of the States. That article contemplates the drawing up of a procedure and rules to regulate the recruitment and regulatethe service conditions of appointees appointed to public posty . It is well acknowledged that because of this, the entire process of recruitment for services is controlled by detailed procedures which specify the necessary qualifications, the mode of appoitinent , etc. If rules have been made under Article 309 of the Constitution, then the Government can make appointments only in sccordance with the rules. The State is meant to be a model employer. The Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959was enacted to ensure equal opportunity for employment seekers . Though this Act may not oblige an employee in employ only those persons who have been sponsored by employment exchanges, il places an obligation on the employer to notify the vacancies that may arise in the various departments and for filling up of those vacancies , based on a procedure .Normally, statutory rules are framed under the authority of law governing employment . It is recognized that noGovernment order, notification of circular can be substituted for the statutory rules framed under the authority of law. This is becaurse, following any other PART I-SE:. 3 ( ⅱ ) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 21 , 2007/ ASADHA 30, 1929

4672

entry of the employee against an available vacancy is kounid to have suffered from some flaw in the procedural recruitment and bas otherwise followed the procedure for such recruitment . A need may then arise in the light course couldbe disastrous inasranch as it will deprive the security of tenure and the right of equality conferred on civil servants under the constitutional scheme . It may even amount to negaling the accepted service jurisprudenice. Therefore , when statutory rules are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution which are echapstive, the only fair means to adopt is to make appointments based on the rules so framed."

31. " InAdhwani Kumar v. State ofBihar this Court was considering the validity of confirmation of the irregularly employed. It was stated : (SCC p.17 Para 13)

of the exigency of administrative requirement for waiving such irregularity in the initial appointment by a competent authority and the imgular initial appointment may be regularised and security of tenure may be made availableto the incumbent concerned . But even in such a case the initual entry must not be found to he totally illegal or in blatut disregard of all the established rules and regulations governing such resument " .

13. So far as the question of confirmation of these employees whose entry itself was illegal and void , is concerned, it is to be noted tha ا queation of confirmation or regularisation of an irregularly appointed candidate would arise if the candidate concerned is uppointed in an irregular manner or on ad hoc basis against an available vacancy which is already sanctioned. But ifthe initial entry itself is unauthorized and is not against any sanctioned vacancy, question of regularizing the incumbent on such a non- existing vacancy would never survive for consideration and even if such purported regularisation or confirmation is given itwould be anexercise in futilicy. "

This Cofur further stated: ( SCC pp. 18-19, Para 14)

9. In the light of the shove observations the learned counsel argues thar sn far as the present case is cubeслед, 0 recruitment rules are framed by the bank under Anicle 309 of the Constitution and the guidelines issued by the head office has to staratory force. The bank is not bound to follow the guidelines nor are the applicants for the posts bound to conform to the guidelines. It is no doubt true that recruitment rules are int framed. The managerment has not been able to show that the guidelines are issued by a competent authority . Whilever that be , assuming that there are nu meruitment rules and guidelines have no statutory force , even then the question that Inoms large is , whether the worker has acquired any right for permanency. 1 have already observed that under the provisions of 1.1) , Act the worker does not get aright for absorption . But the learned counsel for the worker submiss that the bank has not been following the guidelines always They have deviated from the guidelines and absurled many FTS in their respective branches where they were wurking, as daily wage carriers. Thus the learned counsel tries to prove a custom that is prevailing in the bank where PTSs are absorbed in permanent vacancy . The suggestion during evidencewas that in Kodungalloon , Kurramkulam and Thrissur branches PTSs were absorbed. This is denied by MW1 . The learned counsel for the worker comends that the files pertaining to absorption of PTS calied tor is nor produced by the management and therelure the worker is unable to prove her contention , However the leanned counsel points out admission of the managerietit in Exts . Wilia ) and (h ) . They are additional reply statements filed by the managemen before ALC, Finakulm during xinciliation . It is admitted that prior to the issuance of guidelines there was a practice of absorbing PIS in respective branches . The appointment of one Balasubramanian was ก .ก 16-6-2002 and he was a personal drive: The guidelines have no application regarding personal drivers .It is lurther stated that in Konthatukulan branch นะ Sint . T. P. Bindย กาก was absorbed on 28-9-2000 she conformed to the norms of recruitment . She was aged 24 years and she had passed only 8th standard. She belonged to OBC category .

14. In this comection it is perlinent to note thal question of regularisation in any service including any Government service may arise in two contingencies . Firstly, if on any available clear vacancies which are of a long duration appointinents are made urned hoe basis or daily- ware hasis by a competent authority and re continued from time to time and if it is found that the incumbents concerned have continued to be employed for a long period of time with or wilbout any artificial breaks and their services aro otherwise required by the institution which employs them , a time may conre in the service career of such employees who are continued on dad hoc basis for a given substantial length of tinte to regularise them so that the employees concerned can give their best by being assured security of tenure. But this would require une precondition that the initial entry of such an employee mustbe made against un available sanctioned vacancy by following the rules and Tegulations governing such entry . The secund type of situation in which the question of regularisation may arise would be when the initial 4673

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 21 , 2007/ उउषाढ़ 30, 1929

[ भाग-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(1) that he does not fall within the definition of temporaгy employee" as above: AND

(ii) that, if in the clerical cadre, he is at least a matriculate or its equivalent ; AND

(W) that he has already worked for a szontinuous perind (ignoring breaks in service. texceeding 15 days al time) aggregating 120 days .

20.12. Other things being equal , temporary workman (other than godownkeeper ) will be given preference for filling permanent vacancies and if selected they may have to undergo probation."

These provisions refer to temporary workmen wh were in service in 1966 and not after that. Therefore they are not applicable to the workinan here.

11. For the reasons stated above 1 find that the workwurman, SmL N.B. Bindu is not entitled for absorption (regularisation).

Smt. K. Geetha of Adivaram branch was absorbed in the vacancy that arose due to retirement of a permanent PIS who was her mother . Surt . Geetha had studied up to 4th standard and she was aged 35 years as on 31-10-2000 when shewas absorbed. Relaxation with regard to age was given by the bank as u special case while absorbing her. Regarding the suggestion of the worker about the absorption of FTS in Kodungalloor, Kunnamkulam and Thrissur branches , the records are produced . The worker could bave surmouned those sweepers and examined . Whatever records that the worker could get at from such absorbed FTS couldbe produced . There is only a touch and go attempt to prove the practice of absorption of casual PT'S in permanent vacancies . That is not enough . Moreover , there is absolutely no plea regarding such custom or practive prevalent in the bank. It is not enough to bring up a case at the evidence stage. Such custom has to be pleaded and proved with cogent evidence that in spite of guidelines the bank has notbeen following it and the practice is tu absorb casual PTS. Hence, despite the absence of recruitment rules the bank is not bound to absorb PTS and no PTS 15 B matter of right cao claire absorption. It is for the inamagranent to decide regarding absorption . Since the worker does nut acquire any right under the provisions of I.D. Act for absorption this court cannot direct the management to do so. Moreover , the judgement in Uma Devi's case condemns such absorption or regularisation (Para37) . It is as follows:

12. In the result, an award is passed finding that Smt. N.B. Bindu was engaged by the management as part- timeemployee during the period from 8-10-1996- in 30-6-2004 intermittently on leave vacancies . However she is not entitled for absumption ( regularisation ) in service of the bank from 1-7-2004 and her claim is not legal and justified . She is not entitled for any relief. No crist. The award will Lake effect one month after its publication in the official Gazette.

Dictated in the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her , corrected and passedby me on this the 18 day ofJune, 2007 .

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer APPENDIX

Witness for the Workman/ Union:

WWI Smt Bindu Saji 2-4-2007.

Shri K. V. George-29-3-2007.

Witness for the Маладетель:

MW ] Stri B. Hari-17-4-2007 .

Exhibits for the Workman Uni

"37. It is not necessary to multiply authorities on this aspect. It is only necessary to refer to one or two of the recent decisions in this context. In State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi this Court after refening to a number of prior decisions held that there was no power in the State under Article 162 of the Constitution to make appointments and even if there was any such power n appointment could be made in contravention of statutory rules . This Court also held that past alleged regularisation or appointment does not comote entitlement to further regularisation στ appointment . It was further held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to frame a scheme by itself or direct the framing of a scheme for regularisation . This view was reiterated inState of Karnataka v. KGSD Canteen Employees' WelfareAssn."

WI Copy of reply statement filed by the management before the ALC (C) , dated 29-7-2004.

W1(a)

10. Lastly it was argued by the learned counsel for the worker that as per paragraph 20.11 and 12 of 1st Bipartite Settlement the worker in this case is entitled for absorption. They read asfollows:

Copy of Additional Reply Statement filed by the management before ACLC(C),dated28-2-2005.

W1 (b)

Copy ofAdditional Repły Stakment filed by the management belfore ALC ( C ), dated 21-5-2003.

Exhibits for the Management:

NIL

"20.11 . Any temporary workman ( other than godown- keeper or godown- watchman ) who is , on the date ofthis Settlement in a book's service will , if he is not covered by the proceding clause, be taken up on probation ifbe satisfies the following three conditions:

3068 G107--7 4674

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : ЛЛҮ 21.2000 / ASADHA 30. 1929

[ PAK 11-SFг. 3 ), नई दिल्ली, 28 जून, 2007

Delhi w.c.f. 41-06-1997 instead of P.F. Scheme is just. valid and legal ? If rul to what hennelius the workna is entitled fos and what directions are necessary in the haller ?""

The workman Bpplicant has filed claim statemen . In the claim staternent it has been stand that Shin Mange Ran: is an ex - ver vicemar having joined ile bank on pennanent basis as urned guard and retired on 30-06-1997 from Alipur Branch of the Bank.

का.आ. 2042 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 1947 का (4 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इलाहाबाद बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय नं. - 2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 47/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-6-2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

: [सं. एल-1201 /17/2005- आई आरबी -11 ) 1 राजिन्द्र कुमार , हेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 28th June, 2007

Thar during his service canier . the unions and the management of the bark through [BA entered into an agree- ment at industry level framing pension rules in 1993/1995, which would be applicable to the harik employees .

That the Indian Banks Association asked the mem ber banks including Allahabad Bank to implement site suid scheme through their circular on the same pattern as apreel al industry level in 1993 thetween the prons and IBA.

8.0. 2042.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 47/ 2005) of the Central Goverment Industrial Tribunal - curo- Labour Court, No. 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of AllahabadBank and their workman received by the Central Oovemment po 28-06-2007.

[No. 1 1201 1 / 17 /2005- IR(R-

That the Bank came cut with said scheine under the heading "Allahabad Bank Employees ) Pension Regula- tions 1995" and invited option through circular No. 4318 dated 16.11.1995 fixing 2011 January . 1996 as the last dare for submilting the said pensand option .

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL COVERNMENT INIRUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT-II RAJENDRA BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE,

That the Bank carne our with another circalar No. 5209 dated 13.12.1996 on the same subject matter anddi . rected the convermed managers /regional manager/ zonal managers to forward the said option received from the employee for their doing the needful at H.O. level . if no forwarded earlier in response to circular No.4318 .

NEW DELHI

PRENDING OFFICER: R.N.RAL

L.D. No. 47/2005

That Shr : Mange Raa submitted the said option in time to the Senior Manager . Alipur branch forward dis- patch to the competent authority fortheir final approval PRESENT

Shak. 5. Seini

-1st Party

SH DineshAgimní

-2nd Party

That the said option forms of Shri Ram were not sent to the higher authority in home by the said brunch as rise salme was left inadvertently in the uffice .

IntheMatter of:

ShriMange Raum , Through ALABEA (NCBE)

H. No. 115, Yadav Park , Najafgarh Road,

Nangloi, Delhi- 110041 .

VERSUS

The Dy, Bencial Manager ,

AllahabadBank,

Z.O. 17, Pt. St. New Delhi- 110001.

AWARD

That the said form of option of Shri Mange Ram was sent by the branch in the Regional Office vide letter No. 97/19/37 dated 13.1.1997 signed by Senior Manager , late Shri Harish Malhotra sinngwith his awn option from stat ing therein that the said option forms remained in ribeاي face, but could it be submixed to you and requestedto make necessary entries . This makes it abundantly clear that the said uption forms were submined in time in re sponse toHO circular No. 1318. Shu Mange Ram is fully entitled to get pension lepitirnately and reasonably.

TheMinistry ofLabour by its letter No. L- 12011/ 17/ 2005 (IR(B- I) Central Government Dt. 26-05-2005 has referred the following point for adjudication

Thepoint runs as hereunder;-

That the workman has submitted many letters to the Banks Management, which wither have been responded пок алу всtіоn appears to have heen taken to release the pension opted by the said wurkmen due to the apathetic attitude of the management as he was the member of our union and was mal treated due to dual staridard of re management based un union affilation.

"Whether the action ofGeneral Manager, Allahabad Bank, 7onal Office, 17 , Parliament Street, new Delhi Asa . Goneral Manger , Allahabad Bank, Regional Office, Karol Bagh , New Delhi in non- fixation of pensionto Shri Mange Ram, Ex -Guard AlipurBranch ,

That is on record of the banks Alipur Branch . whicla revealed that the workinaa has submitted the option forms [ नामा - खण्ड 3(ii) ]

4675

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 21 , 2007 /आवाद 30, 1929

attaining the age of superannuation in the year 1997. As such also, the present reference is liable to be rejected.

To the management and the same cannot be denied by therm .After submission of the required in the given circam stances, where no fault thes at the workman , the Banks Management is fully responsible for the lapecs , if any , on their part for delay, left over or mained in the branch.

That the workman retired on attaining superannua tion without my adverse remarks and performed his duty satisfactorily and never gave any occasion of complaint .

That theworkman is denied pension illegally, unilat- erally and arbitrarily without any zhyme and reason by the Management , which caused great financial difficulties and harassmeal it this old age being senior citizen .

That the workman was constrained to file the com- plaint/industrial dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner's ( C) through the Union in the month of January, 2000. The said complaint industrial dispute is at- tached and marked amexare -A.

That the present reference is also to be dismissed, inasmuch as admittedly, as per the Scheme/Circular , all the cligible persons were required to exercise their option σα orbefore 27-01-1996 . Thereafter , another Circular was is sued on 13.12.1996, when all administrative offices were directed to submit the Applications Fonna , received form the employees on or before 31.12.1996 , Admittedly , in the present case, the option form was not received by the Head Office till 31-12-1996, as such , it is clear that Shri Mange Ram did not exercise his option for pepsion as per the Circular issued by the Management. As Shri MangeRam failed toexercise option , there was no question of Fixation of pension of Shri Mange Ram and he continued to be governed by the old scheme . It is further submitted that Shri Mange Ram, after retirement, has taken all his benefits in terms of his earlier option. As such also, the present reference is liable to be dismissed.

That the Bankreplied vide their letter dated 31.07.2000 and replacation was filed. The said reply of the Bank, and union replication is atrached and marked amexures H & C.

Thal after the failure of the conciliation proceedings , the matter was reported to the Ministry of Labour for fur ther necessary action and accordingly this reference to this Hon'ble Tribunal for adjudication .

The Central Governmeat , having formed an opinion and formulaued a term of reference and referred the matter for adjudication to this Hon'ble Tribunal , is a matter of record.It is, however , submitted that the said reference is bad in law and contrary to the facts and the reference has beenmade without application of mind.As such, the refer- ence is liable to be answered in negative .

That the workman reserves his right to add or amend the claim during the proceedings in the interest ofjustice and l'air play.

Shri Mange Ram is an Ex- Serviceman and joined the Bank on permanent basis as Armed Guard and retired pa 30-06-1997 is a matter of record

That all the papers are in custody of the bank and the workman has certain documents, which will be filed

That the workman has been mal -treated by the Bank Management and denied pension and other related ben- efits without any legal sanction and he is fully entitledto receive.

It is submitted that admittedly , Shri Mange Ram did not exercise option in terms of the said Circular. The second Circular date 13-12-1996 is а прямuner of record . It is submitted that the said Circular was only instructions to the concemed Manager to forward the options , which may have been exercised by the employees , to the Head Office to enable them to do the needful

It is specifically denied that Shri Mange Ram submitted the option in time in the Senior Manager for omward dispatch as alleged or otherwise. Shri Mange Raum has failed to give the details as to when be bad exercised the said option.

It is specifically denied that the said option form was not sent to the Higher Authority in time by theBranch as alleged or otherwise.

In view of the above submission , it is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be graciously pleased 10 pass an order for the fixation/release of the pensiva vi the workman Sh . Mange Ram with a award in his favour and against the Management, thereby declaring the Banks action as illegal , arbitrary and unfair labour practice and the Managerment be further directed to pay the same from the date of his retirement on attaining the age of superun nuation with interest and cost/ pension with all other con sequential benefits

Pass any other orden/ orders as deemed fit and proper in the given circumstances of the dispute on merit / records in favours of the workman and against the Managerment in the interest of justice.

The Management has filed written statement. In the wrinen statement it has been stated that the present refer- ence is bad for delay and latches , as, admittedly, Shri Mange Ram had retired form the service of the Allahabad Bank on

That the contents ofPara 9 as stated are not admitted Assuming the statements made in Para under reply are believed to be correct, it is submitted that the said Letter bearing the signatures of Late Shri Harish Malhotra was received by the Regional Office on 22-02-1997, though, it is the case of Shri Mange Ram that the said communication was forwarded on 13-01-1997. Unfortunately, Shri Harish Malhotra died on that very day ie. 13-01-1997 , when the alleged Tetterwas supposed to have been written by Shri Harish Malhotra in the RegionalOffice. It is submitted that [PART I-Sec. 3 (1 )] 4676

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21 , 2007 /ASADHA 30 , 1929

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

Evidence of both the panies has been taken .

It transpires trom perusal of the order sheet that affidavit of the workman was filed on 27-02-2007 and the case was posted for cross-examination on 02-03-2007, 02-04-2007, 18-04-2007,21-05 2007 & 12-06-2007 . The management sought several adjournments and none was present on 21-05-2007 and 12-06-2007. The opportunity of C3056-examination of the workroan from the side of the managemenar was closed on 12-06-2007 and argument was beard.

even the request of Shri Harish Malhotra , which was annexed to the said Letter, was also rejected by the Management, as both of them were received much later after the last date. It is subonitted that after the said Leller was written on the same day and dispatched thereafter , it is beyond imagination that it would take approximately one and half months to reach the Head Office. Thus , it is clear thar the said Letter has been fabricated after the death of Shri HarishMalbotra, and Shri Mange Kam is trying to take advantage of the death of Shri Harish Malhotra by fabricating the said documents . It is submitted that no reliance can be placed on the said documents . Assuming forthe sake of arguments that the said commmmmunikation was written by Late Shri Harish Malhotra during his life time, in is submitted that admittedly , the same was received only on 22-02-1997, thus , it is clear that it was received after 31-12-1996, as such was beyond time and would amount to Do applicatino by Sori Mange Ram for opting under the Pension Scheme. It is specifically denied that the Workinan cannot be created at fault. It is also denied that Shri Mange Ram is entitled to get pension as alleged or otherwise. 11 is submined that subsequent to Shri Mange Ram having retired on 30-06-1997, Shri Mange Ram took all the benefits , whichwere due and payable as per the policy applicable to him as of date of retirement i.e. the Workman had calkenPF. Admittedly, it was only in the year , 2000, Shri Mange Ram raised a dispute his eligibility for pension. As such , the said Claim was clearly an afterthougالط

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that the workinan retared on 30-06-1997 from Alipur Branch of the Bank . The Bank circuluted Allahabad Hank (Employees ) Pension Regulation . 1995 and invited uption w Circular No. 4318. dated 16-11 1995 Fixing 27-01-1997 35 the last date for submitting the said pension option . The date of option was extended by Circular No. 5209 to 13-12-1996 . The workman submitted his option is time to the Sr. Manager , Alipur Branch for onward dispatchto the competent authority for their final approval but the option form wasleft inadvertently in the office . It was sent by the Branch Manager by Tener No. 97/69/37 on 13-01-1997 signed by the St. Manager, Slri Harish Malhotra . No action has beert laken so far.

It is submitted that in any case, the submission of applications after the settlement of accounts and taking all the benefits is of no consequence whatsoever . It is specifically denied that the management has mal -treated Shri Mange Ram due to his upion activity as alleged or otherwise

The case of the management is that the workman clict not apply in the prescribed option form in time i.e. up to 13-12-1996. Leller dated 13-01-1997 was received but no action was taken as it was not within the stipulated time.

The further case of the management is that the opti form of the workman was forwarded by Shri Harish Malhora only on 22-02-1997 . 11 was received after 13 12-1997 which was beyond time. so it was rejected.

It is submitted that no records are being maintained to show as to when the option form was submitted by Shri Mange Ram . It is submitted that in fact, Shri Mange Ram hashimself not stated as to when the said option form was subusittedby Shri Mange Ram. It is specifically denied that there has been any lapses on the part of the mamageantot as alleged or otherwise .

The fimmher case of the management is thut Sturi Mange Ram retired on 20-06-1997 and he took all the benefits which were due and payable as per the policy applicable to him as on date of retirement . He has taken his PF and other benefits . In view of this he has not opted for pension within stipulated time. He got alt bis accouns settled

Itis submitted that Shri Mange Ram has received all retiral dues on attaining the age of retirement and all accounts havebeen settled . As such, Shri Mange Ram is notentitled for any reliefs, whatsoever.

The filing of the complaint before the RLC( C ) by Shri Mange Ram is a matter of record . However, it is submitted that the said complaint was filed after a period of Iwo and halfyears and that too after settling all his accounts. which clearly show that the said complaint was an afterthought and no acrion was taken on the same .

Shri Mange Ram himself has not specifically mentioned in his claim application as to un whar diate be submitted the option form for being forwarded to the competent authority for their final approvat . No date of option has been mentioned anywhere in the claim statement Itappears that after avaiting all the benefits after a lapse of 8years the workman has raised this dispute.

It was sedbmined from the side of the management that there is no explanation of delay . Not to speak of In the circumstances , it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss present claim with cost and the reference be answered in negative.

4677 [ भाग -खम 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 21 , 2007/आाद 30, 1929

plausible or satisfactory explanation . There is no explanation at all what prevented the workman to approach this forum after a long period of 8 years . It is settled law that stale claim made after an inordinate and unexplained period could not be cukrtained.

In letter dated 26-12-1997 WW1-1 /4, the workman has informed that he has not opted for pension scheme within time and he got entered into foll and final settlement Since the workman has finally settled his dues andhehas obtained the benefit ofOPF in lien of pension benefit. He is not entitled to get any pension benefit or any relief as prayed for.

The reference is replied thus :

My alcation was drawn to 2005 ( 5 ) SCC page 91 parns 12 and 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that long delay impedes the maintenance of the records .Belated claim should not be enosidered.

It has been held in (2001) 6 SCC 222 as under: -

The action of the General Manager, AllahabadBank, Zonal Office, 17, Parliament Street, New Delhi/Asstt . General Manager , Allahabad Bank, Regional Office, Kaml Bagh, New Delhi in non- fixation of pension to ShriMange Ram,Ex-Guard , Alipur Branch , Delhi w.e.f. 30-06-1997 instead ofP.F. Scheme is just , valid and begal. The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

The award is given accordingly .

Date: 25-06-2007.

Let copies of the Award he sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India for pecessary action at their cad.

"Law does not prescribe any time limit for the appropriateGovernment to exercise its powers under Section 10 of the Act. It is not that this power canbe exercised at any point of tirse and to revive maters which had since been settled. Power is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner . There appears to us to be bo rational basis on which the Central Government bas exercised powers in this case after a lapse of about seven years of the order dismissiog the respondent from service."

Date:25-06-2007. R.N. RAL, Presiding Officer. नई दिल्ली, 28 जून , 2007 In the instant case reference has been made after a delay of long 8 years . Limitation Act is not applicable in ID cases but stale cases should not be considered . Delay in the instant case is inordinate and relief can be rejected on the ground of delay alone.

का.आ.. 2043. ओतोगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का14 ) की पारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इलाहाबाद बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरणः-श्रम न्यायालय नं 2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 46/1999) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल- : 2011 / 14/1998 - आई.आर ( गी- II) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 28th June, 2007 Pension as a retirel benefit was extended to the Rank's Employees under certain terms and conditions and employee may opt for Pension. He may opt for the other benefits. He is entitled to just as P. The workinan bas availed birtuself all the other retiral benefits just as PF etc. He cannot opt for both the benefits. In case the workman was ' sure that he bas opted for pension , be should not have availed the other retiral benefits just as PF etc. He camnot do both the things at a time i.e. to receive the reviral benefits arising out of non-option of the pension and scheme for pension after obtainting all the retiral benefits.

It is quite obvions from the rejoinder as well that the workmanhas out denied that he has not obtained the other retiral benefits meant for those employees who did not upt for pension.

5.0. 2043-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 46/ 1999) of theCentral Government Industrial Tribunal -cam- Labour Court, No. 2, New Delhi as shown in the AmmerLE in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Allahabad Bank, and their workmen which was received by the Central Goverment on 28-06-2007.

[No.1-12011 / 14/ 1998-DR(B- II) } RAJINDDER KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

The woricman retired on 30-06-1997 and he received the other retiral benefits and has got all the accounts settled. Both the retiral benefits carmot be given to him.He has taken the retiral benefits for non-option of the pension scheme . So his case for pension cannot be considered .He should have refused the other retiral benefits and he should have raised the dispute in 1997 itself. He cannotbe permitted to reap the retiral benefits without opting for pension and the benefit of pensi

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II , RAJENDRA BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DLE

PRESIDING OFFICER : R.N. RAI 1.D. No. 46/1999

The claim statement is not proved even ex-parte.The workman has not filed any documents to show that be opted for pension benefit within time.

4678

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 21 , 2007 /ASADHA 30 , 1929

P- RT 11-2 PRENENT

SH. R. S. SAINT

-st PARIY

SH . RAJATARORA

-PARTY

IN THE MATTER OF:

That the bank malier dely with ulterior motivedic τοι effect promotion osas saitto clerical cadre year wise for the above mentiered period on direct buses and derie.l applicability of principlect natura justice, constitutional rights and lave land .

All India Allhabad Bank Employees' Union.

That the manageriear Basabe mucuted the presi of ID Act. 947 by not implementing the Rules i Penmulien, 1986. Chap illegalls and in arbitrary fashior .

Clo. The General Secretary. All India Allahabad Bank Employees Union, Allahabari Bank. Baroda llouse, New Frelhi .

VERSUS

That the exmpla have been derived their promotion without 27 : reasons ad basis ilegal . ashitrarily and whias والش

TheZonal Manager ,

AllahabadBunk , Merchand Banking Division , 17, Parliament Street , New Delhi - 110001 .

AWARD

That the said the peanent is other is also had in Stw. The ses lave been representing themselves and through the association fur iner grievance of not getting חוסיין care they became clizine as per the Rutes of Promotion 1989, but were denieder legitimate claim of protein clerical cadre TheMinistry ofLabour by its letter No. 1-12011/ 14/ 1996- IR(B -II Central Government DL. 27-1-1999 has referred the following point for adjudication

The point tuns as hereunder:-

That nor gis is geflect the motion of empios DON as per the Promohстай Reles . 1964.the impugned setine the management is highis dispropοπίοnate impused such a captal purishment denying them promotion as per Rules of Promotion , which tantamounts lairLabour practice in terms of visions15e 110 Act , 1947 , as well as allegal . invalid and art icracy without any justification .

"Whether the action of the management of Allahabad Bank amounts to violating of the rules comained in Chapter- V of BTS dated 22-4-1989 regarding promotion ofsubordinate staff cadre to Clerical Cadre ?

If so , to what relief the concerned workmen are cotitled?"

That the avion of the management warrants appropriate action under the 1101. 1947 for sindanon ot the settlement 1989

The workman applicatant have filed claire statement . In the claim statement it has been stated that the General Secretary of the above said association has represented en theBank for implementing the Rules ofPromotional , 1989. Chapter-V (4) ( ii ) ( iii ) by promoting sub- staff to clerical cadre every year ending 31st March.

That the Bank's management did out promote any employee by direct promotion without test in the year 1993- 94,1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 & 1997-98 in spite of the agreement to this effect cited in Rules of Promotion , 1989 and violated the said settlement and harmed the interest of the employees , namely Mabender Singh of Paschim Vibar Branch and others arbitrurily, illegally without justification .

The Management has fled written staternent . In th written statemem in has been stated that the All India Allahabad Bank Employces Association (NCBE חוג Jucus standi to lile the clain : as the management has been deciding the bank level service conditions of Award Staff exclusively with the All India Allahabad Bank Employees' Co -ordination Comminee being majority recognized unior. by arriving MOS in reins al ID ACL 1947 which is legally binding and the members of ALABFA is also enjoying the same . The All India Allahabad Bank Employees Association INCBE) has on right to raise any "frukısıral Dispute " qua the employees of Allahabad Bank in the matter of the service conditions of Award Staf having a very few membership strength and their members are als accepting the same terms of settlement .

That in spite of many reminders to the Bank time and aguin, they failed to fulfill the said agreement by promoting sub-staff to clerical cadre year-wise ending 31st Marchby direct promotion without test

That the Bank management has been adopting unfair labour practices and forcing the employees to face exploitation due to their high handedness and denying their legitimate rights of direct promotion to clerical cadre year-wise, by triolating the Rules of Promotion, 1989 thus . blocking their future career and allied benefits , arbitrarily, illegally without any justification

That the managerrer of Allahabad Bank bas aul violated the sellement dated 22 4-1989 and its subseque amenkliments and has been promoting, ribe subordinate staff cadre to clerical cadre in acenidance with the all enunciated in the serrieiner dated 22--1-1989 : the basis of vacancies identities in the Manpower Planning The action of the managerment is therefore, iegal , justified and in accordance with the rules . The promotion fιστη subordinate to clerical carde without test channel is initiated on the basis of satewise vacancies in clerical cadre Thuse भाग-खखण्ड ( it) ]

4679

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 21, 2007/ आषाद 30 , 1929

upon . The eligible candidates were promoted from subordinate staff cadre to clerical cadre in accordance with theRules ofPromotion applicable to them.

TheRules of Promotion have duly been implemented by the management and the same is therefore legal and justified. No unfair labour practice has been practised by the management .

That the management has effected the promotions ofthe subordinate staff cadre to clerical cadre in axurdance with the Rules of Promotion applicable to the employees and the same is therefore legal and justified.

subordinate staff members who fulfill the cligibility criteria as on thedate of eligibility are considered for promotion in accordance with the provisions of memorandum of settlement dated 22-4-1989 and its subsequent amenkliments subject to there being vacancy which is a legally vatid settlement under the ID Act, 1947. Thuring the year 1993-94 to 1999-2000 promotions without test process , on thebasis ofstatewise vacancies . Hence the management has elfected the promotions in accordance with Chapter -Vof theBPS dated 22-4-1989 regarding promotions of subordinate stafi 10 clerical cadre. Chapter-V of the settlement dated 22-04-1989 reproduced herein below:-

The workmen applicants have filed rejoinder . In their rejoinder they have reiterated the averments of their claim statement and have denied most of the paras of the written statement. The management has also denied most of the paras ofthe claim statement ,

That the claimants have not given any date of representation allegedly made to the bank and therefore the same cannot be commented upon . However, it is submitted that the memorandum of seulement dated 22-04-1989 have been implemented and are being implemented by the management .

Evidence of both the parties has been taken.

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

That the management promoted the employees in sccordancewith the Rules of Promotion contained in the aforesaid MOS and were implemented in lutality no prejudice has been caused to any employee . The case of Shri Mahender Singh was considered by the management bank. However, only one vacancy in the General Category was identified in the year 1999 in Delhi in promotion channel , without test, therefore, the St. Candidate, namely Srat. Sarlesh Devi was promoted , in accordance with the criteria laid down for assessing eligibility in the memorandam of settlement dated 22-4-1989 .

It was submitted from the side of the workmen that theBank's management did not promote any employee by direct promotion without test in the year 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 in spite ofthe agreementto this effect cited in Rules ofPromotion , 1989 and violated the said settlement and barmed the interest of the employees , namely Mahender Singh of Paschim Vihar Branch and others arbitrarily, illegally withoutjustification.

That the claimants have no locus standi to raise such vague submission. However, it is subroitted that the eligible sub- staff is promoted to the clerical cadre in accordance with the rules of promotion applicable to them subjectto there being vacancy.

Itwas further submitted that the Bank management has been adopting unfair labour practices and forcing the employees to face exploitation due to their high handedness. and denying their legitimate rights of direct promotion bo clerical cadre years wise ,by violating the Rules of Promotion, 1989 thus , bhocking their future career and ellied benefits, arbitrarily , illegally without any justification.

That co unfair Jabour practice is practised by the management . The Rules of Promotion contained in MOS dated 22-4-1989 were implemented in totality and therefore nu prejudice has been caused to any employee.

It was further submitted that the bank malalidelywith ulterior motive did not effect promotion of sub- staff to clerical cadre year- wise for the above mentioned period on direct basis and denied applicability of principles of natural justice, constitutional rights and law of the land .

That the management bank bas effected promotions of sub staff to clerical cadre in accordance with the Rules of Promotion applicable to the employces . The principles ofnatural justice in effecting the promotions in accordance with the promotion rules contained in the MOS dated 22-4-1989 were fully followed.

That the management has not violated any

provisions of the ID Act, 1947 and provisions have been effectuated in accordance with the Rules of Promotions contained in the MOS dated 22-4-1989.

That the eligible employees have been duly promoted in accordance with the Rules of Promotion contained in MDS dated 22-4-1989.

It was subroitted from the side of the management that the All India Allahabad Bank Employees ' Association (NCBE) has no locus standi to file the claim as the management has been deciding the bank level service conditions ofAward Staff exclusively with the All India Allahabad BankEmployces Coordination Committee being majority recognized union by arriving MOS in terms of ID Act, 1947 which is legally binding and the members of ALABFA is also enjoying the same. The All IndiaAllahabad BankEmployees ' Association (NCBF) has no right in raise any" IndustrialDispute" qua the employees of Allahabad Bank in the matter of the service conditions ofAward Staff having a very few membership strength and their members are also accepting the same terms of settlement.

That the action of the management in promoting the employees in accordance with the Rules of Promotion of the claimants that the alleged employees had represented themselves is vague and therefore cannot be conumented

[PART I SEC. 3( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 21 , 2007 /ASADHA 30, 1929

4680

The award is given accordingly .

Date: 26-06-2007.

Let copies of the Award be sent to the Ministry of Labour. Government of India for necessary action as ther end.

R. N. RAL, PresidingOliver.

T : 26-06-2007.

नई दिल्ली . 28 जून, 200?

Itwas further submitted that the action of the management in therefore, begal , justified and in accordance with the rules. The promotion from subordinate to clerical cadre without test channel is initiated on the basis of stalewise vacancies in clerical cadre . Those subordinate staff member who fulfill the cligibility criteria as on the date of eligibility are considered for promotiva in accordance with the provisions of memorandum of settlement dated 22-04-1989 and its subsequent amendments subject to there being vacancy which is a legally valid settlement under the ID Act, 1947. During the year1993-94 1999-2000 promotions without test process, on the basis of statewise vacancies.

का.आ. 2044.-औद्योगिक निवाद, अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) को धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बोम्बे मरकनटाइल को. ऑप. बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक आंधकरण सं. 1. मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 06/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28 06-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

It was further submitted that the case of ShriMahender Singh was considered by the management hank. However , only one vacancy in the General Caleguty was identified in the year 1999 in Delhi in promotion channel , without test, therefore , the St. Candidate , namely Smt. Sarlesh Devi was promoted, in accordance with the criteria laid down for assessing cligibility in the memorandum of settlement dated22-04-1989.

[सं एल-12012/244/2005- मई.आर. ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi. the 28th June. 2007 So far as the dispute regarding espousal is concerned , any registered union can espouse the case of a workman . It need not be considered whether the union is recognized union of his department.

5.0. 2044.- pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 06/2006 1 of the Central Governmenr Industrial Tribunal - 1 . Maunbai as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute berween the management of Bombay Mercantile Co- op . Bank and their workmen receivedby theCentral Govereumeul on 28-06-2007 .

It is admitted that the present union has very few membership strength and their members are also accepting the sametemas of settlement. The union which has raised this industrial dispute is a registered union . Even co- workamen.or a group of workmen may raise industrial dispute . Ifind no substance in this argument.

[No. L- 12012/244/2005- IR ( B- ()] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAI . TRIBUNAL NO.1 MUMBAI

From perusat of MEX- I it appears that promotions have been made from subordinate staff to the clerical cadre with ow without test since 1993. The candidates al St. Nus . 1 по 3, 10 во 18 and 24 & 29 have been promoted without any test . Thus , the management has been making promotions in compliance of Chapter-V of the seulement 1989-04-22الحلمة . There appears to be no substance in the argument ofthe workmeo.

PRESENT

JusticeChunshiyam Dass, Presiding Officer Reference No. CGJT -06 of 2006

Parties : Employer in relation to the management of BomhayMerchantile Co-op. Bank T.td. And

Their workro

The case of Shri Mahinder Singh has been cited in the claim statement. He has himself given a letter to the bank that he does not have uny grievance against the bank, so there is to employce who is aggrieved by violation of Chapter-VI of the settlement dated 22-04-1989. The manageaneat has been making promotions as per Chapter- Vof the settlement MEX- 1 dated 22-04-1989. No employee is aggrieved. the list filed sufficiently establishes this fact .

Appearances

The reference is replied thus:

M.P.V. Paul , and Mr. Kane

For the Management

Fiyr the workπωπ

Ms. Seema Singh . Adv . Workman present in person.

: Maharashtra

State

! The action of the management of Allahabad Bank does not amount to violation of the rules contained in Chapter-V of BPS dated 22-04-1989 regarding promotion of subordinate staff cadre to Clerical Cadre . The workmen applicants are not entitled to get any relief as prayed for .

4681 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) )

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 21, 2007/ माषाद 30 , 1929

Mumbai, dated the 5th day of June, 2007

AWARD

5. In view of what has been stand above , the reference is liable to be rejected. The parties are at liberty to approach the appropriate government for making proper reference, if any.

6. The reference is accordingly dismissed.

JUSTICE CHANSHYAM DASS, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 28 जून, 2007

1. This is arckenzace made by theCoxirl Covenue inexercise of its powers under clanse (d) of sub-section I and sub- section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (the Act for short) . Vide Government of India, Ministry ofLabour, New Delhi, order No. L-12012/244/ 2005 IR (B- 1) dated 16-3-2006. The testis of reference given in the schedule are as follows :

"Whether the action of the management ofBombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd., Mumbai in dismissing the services ofShri Salman Haider Rizvi wef. 21-2-2005 is justified? If not, what relief Shri Sabun Hider Rizvi is entitled to ? "

का.मा. 2045 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ झेंड्या के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बोच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण , पटना के पंचाट संदर्भ संख्या 12 ( सी ) / 2005 ] को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-06-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/55/2005 - आईआर(ची -11) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 28th June, 2007

$. 0.2045. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government bereby publishes the Award ( Ref . 12(C)/2005) of the Industrial Tribunal , Paina (Bihar) as sisown in the Annexure in the ladustrial Dispute between the management of Bank of India and their workanen, received by the Central Government on28-06-2007.

[No.L- 12011/55/2005-IR (B- II)] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

2. The parties have filed the statement of claim and written statement . The parties entered into evidence. During the pendency of the matter , the employer , Bombay Merchantile Co-operative Bank Lind moved an application for amendment for raising the plea of jurisdiction. This amendoent application was rejected vide onder du 11-1-2007. This was challenged by the Employer before the HonourableHigh Court ofBombay vide writ petitionNo. 650 of2007.The Honourable HighCourt ofBombay allowed the writ petition , set aside the order of the Tribunal for refusing the recadrocat and finally allowed the amendment vide orderdt . 17-4-2007. Acordingly, the Enuployer moved for amendment and also made a prayer to reject the reference in viewofthe judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court of India reported in 2007 II CLR 160 in between Bharat Co-op Bank Ltd. Vs. Co-operative Bank Employees Union . The request is opposed by the learned counsel for the workanan .

BEFORE THE PRINDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, SHRAM BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA

Reference Case No. 12 ( C) of2005.

Between the management of Rank of India, Patna Zone, Chanakya Palace , R. Block , Patna, Bihar and their workman Shri Uma Shankar Dwivedi, representedby the General Secretary, Bank of India Stuff Association , C/ o. Labour Itunt Press , Dubey Niwas; New YampurRoad, Patna,Bihar.

3. The Honourable Supreane Comt (2207 II CLR 160) has ruled " The Court has no hesitation in upholding the view taken by the High Court that for the purpose of deciding as to which is the " appropriate governmers " within the meaning of Section 2(a ) of the I.D. Act, the definition of the "Banking Company " will have to be read av at existed on the date of insertion ofSection 2( bb) and so read, the " appropriate government " in relation to amulti-state co-operative bank, carrying on business in קשת e stone, would be the State Government. "

For the Management : Shri Vikram Sinha, Manager (IR) Bank of Indi

For the Workman : Shri Tej NarainDubey, General Secretary, Bank of India StaffAssociation, Pain

Prescot

: Vasudeo Ram, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Pana

AWARD

Patna, dated the 21st June, 2007 4. In this back ground, the appropriate government in relation to multi state Co- operative Bank carrying on business in more than one State is held to be State Goverment and not the Central Gioveriment. Thatbeing 50, the reference made by the Central Government to this Tribunal becomes bad and the Tribunal ceases to have jurisdiction to decide the reference . The argument of the learned counsel for the workomen that matter as a whole may be decided on merits including the point ofjurisdiction does not appear to be acceptable on the face of it for the reason any opinion on the merit of the case wouldbe without jurisdiction when the Tribunal ceases to have the jurisdiction to entertain the reference .

5068 04078 PART I-SEC ( ⅱ ) ] 4682

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21 , 2007 / ASADHA 30. 1929

16-12-2004 but the workman declined to receive the same which simply shows that the workman had no explanations to offer. Further . according to the management Shri U.S. Dwivedi is a habitual lave comer and also in the habit of remaining absent without prior permission or intimation The allegation of discrimination or unfair labour practice levelled against the management is false and baseless. Accordingto the management the workman of this case is not entitled to the relief claimedfor.

ByadjudicationOrder No. L- 12011 /55/2005- IR (B - ID) dated the 30th August, 2005 the Government of India, Ministry ofLabour, New Delhi has referred under Clause (d) of Sub- section ( 1 ) and Sub- section (2A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( hereinafter called" the Act' for brevity) the dispute between the management of Bankof India, Paina Zone, Chanakya Palace, R-Block, Patna and their shockman Uma Shankar Dwivedi represented bytheGeneral Secretary,Bank of India Staff Association, C/o. Labour Front Press , "Dubey Niwas ,New YarpurRoad, Patna for a judication to this Tribunal on the following:

4 Upon the pleadings of the parties and the terms of reference the following points arise out for decision:

(1) Whether the action of the management of Bank of India, Patna Zonal Office in punishing the workman Seri U.S. Dwivedi without conducting domestic enquiry is legal and justified?

(d) Whether the punishment of deduction of wages of the workman is proportionate to the misconduct committed?.

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India, Zonal Office, Patta Zooc, (Bihur ) in punishing the workman Shri U.S. Dwivedi without conducting domestic enquiry legal andfor justified? Ifnot , then, whether the punishment of deduction of wages of the above workman is proportionate to the misconduct committed ? If not to what relief the workman is entitledto?".

(i) To what relief the workman is entitled?

FINDINGS

Point No.( i) ;

2. The parties appeared on notice and filed their respective written statements . The contention of the workman is that he (Shri U.S. Dwivedi ) was posted as a Cash-cam-Accounts Clerk in Baidrabad branch of the Bank of India in Arwal district ofBihar . On 13-12-2004he came to duty half and hour late and hence he was not taken on duty on that day. On 14-12-2004 be absented from duty.He applied for casual leave for both the days but the mamageroont arbitrarily refused to grant casual leave .Again he (Shri Dwivedi ) could not tam up on dury on 22-12 2004. The managerment refused to grant casual leave to him for that date iso . According to the workman there is a provision for the grant of casual leave under clause 13.23 oftheBipartite Seulement which is in force from 1966 yet the management of Bank of India refused to grant casual leave tohimwhich is wholly arbitrary and discriminatory . The management did not pay the wages of said three days to thewordsman.According to the workman the management ofBank of India be directed to refund the wages of the said three daysto him .

5. The workman Uma Shankar Dwivedi ( W.W. 1 ) has come tu doc'k tu support of his case and has got certain documents exhibited in evidence. None has been examined on behalf of the inanagement. The workman ( W.W. Ihas supported that on 13-12-2004 due to sudden defect occurred in his Moka Cycle he reached on duty half an hour late . He was not allowed to join his duty and he relumed the next date 14-12-2004 due to some urgeot work he could not eme rodduty and he intimate the Branch Manager on phone . The management has not denied of challenged the same . Cho 15-12-2014 he came to Office but on the orders of the Branch Manager remained engaged in work and could not give application for casual leave . Onl 16-12-2004 he filed an application for casual leave . Om 22-12-2004 he could not come to duty due in certain urgent works and a petition for casual leave was submittedby bim on 23-12-2004 . At the end of the month the workman knew that his applications for casual leave were rejected and his wages for 13-12-2004, 14 12-2004 and 22-12 2004 were cur . Imay mention here that the management has wor refirted the said starement of the wurkman .

6. Bullı parties have referred to clause 13.23 of Bipartite Settlement Plotocopy Ext . W/ 2) which reads as follows:

"Casual leave shall be non -cumulative except as provided in clause 13.33 under sick leave Ordinarily the previous permission of the sametioning authority shall he obtained before taking such leave . When this is not possible the said authority shall be informed as soon as practicable in writing or of writing is nor possible orally or through any persons of the employee's absence from work. reason thereof and of the probable duration of such absence. In 3. Accordingto the managerment the terms of reference Is misconceived , it is because of the fact that the wage cut in account of unauthorised absence is based on 'no work no pay' , it is not a punishment. Hence the questiva of conducting domestic enquiry does not arise. It was un anthorised absence because the workman had neither obtained prior permission nor had intimated the managemtot. The competent authority declined to grant theleave of absence for which deduction in wages was effected. According to the management it is a well settled principle that leave is not a matter of right and the leave must be sanctioned by the competent authority otherwise it shall be treated as unauthorised absence . Further , according to the management a notice intimating non- payment of wages for unauthorised absence from duty was also bent by the management to the workman on [ भाग 11- साण्ड 3(i) ]

any event a wrinten application shall be submittedto such authority latest on the day the employee resumes duty . In 10 case will an comployee take casual leave on frivolous growds".

The workman has referred to the said clause in tise context that there is a provision for casual leave and his applications for casual leave were rejected by the authority arbitrarily and discriminately . As against that the maongental contends that one can not chien casual leave as amatter of right. It must be sunctioned by the competent authority and the competent authority has the discretion toallow or not to allow the leave . Thoce can be no dispute on the point that it is the competzat authority who is to grant of refuse the prayer of casual leave at his discretion but the discretion must be exercised with reason and without any discrimination and the discretion should not be exercised arbitrarily,

7. Now the question arises as tn whether the cut / deduction in wages of workman Shri U.S. Dwivedi isby way of punishment as referred to in the terms of reference or it is simple 'no work no pay' as contended by the managment? The workanan has got the photo copy of his leave applicuitous dated 16-12-2004 and 23-12-2004cxhibind as Ext. W and W/ I . The cadorsement of the competent authority on kave application dated 16-12-2004 is 25 follows:

"In view of the previous records of absence and coming late the leave applied for on 16-12-2004can not be considered and hence leave for the period 13-12-2004and 14-12-2004 denied and application kept on record noting the same in attendance register."

The endorsement of the competent anthority on the application dated 23-12-2004 is follows:

"Shri U.S. Dwivedi is not adhering to follow the rules of leave . Hence his leave application dated 23-12-2004 for his absence on 22-12-2004 can notbe granted. He will be advised in this regard for his unauthorised absence on 22-12-2004,"

Prom perusal of the above two endorsements 11 is crystal clear that it is not the rejection/refusal simplicitor it is with allegation, the allegation as disclosed from the sald endorsement more from the contention ofthe management that Shri U. S. Dwivedi is a habitual late-comer and also in the habit of remaining absent without prior permission στ intimarion. Since the rejection ofthe application of casuنس leavewas with allegation meaning thereby due to alleged misconduct ofthe workman, it necessarily required domestic enquiry. The principle of ' no work no pay relied on by the all not be applicable in the case of this worknean. I tom leczupted to add here that the workman has filed the extract ofDisciplinary Action (Ext. W/3 ) according to which 'habitual meaning course of action taken on persuaded in , notwithstanding that at least on three

4683

भारत का राजपत्र : बुलाई 21 , 2007/आषाद 30,1929

previous occasions censure or warning have been administered on wu scdverse remark has been entered against him

8. Thus from the above discussions it is apparent that the management of Bank of India rejected the leave applications of the workman with allegation and thereby effected cut in his wages which was nothing but inflicting punishment without holding domestic enquiry against the workman. Under the circumstances T find and old than the action of the managerment of Bank of India, Pataa Zoul Office in punishing the workman Shri U.S. Dwivedi without conductingdomestic enquiry is neither legal nor justified. This point is decided accordingly.

Polet No. (B):

9. From the above discussions it is clear that Do domestic enquiry was held by the management and without bokdling domestic enquiry three days wages of the workmum was deducted meaning thereby without establishing misconduct the punishment of cut in wages was affected by the management. Under the circumstances the question of proportion of punishment with misconduct does not arise, it was a punishment without any misconduct established. This point is accordingly decided.

Point No. (Li) :

10. Keeping in view the discussions made above and the findings arrived at 1 frnd and bold that the workman is entitled to the payment of three days wages illegally deducted from his wages of December, 2004. This point is accordingly decided.

11. Under the circumstances discussed above I find and hold that the action of the management of Bank of India, Zonal Office, Patna in punishing the workman Shri U.S. Dwivedi without conducting domestic enquiry is neither legal nor justified. Since the infliction of punish- ment on the workman was illegal and unjustified the question ofjudging the proportion of pomishment with misconduct does not arise, I find and hold that the workman Shri .U.S. Dwivedi is entitled to the payment of three days wages which was illegally deducted fom his wages. The management of Bank of India , Patna Zonal Office is bereby directed to make payment of three days wages to Shri U.S. Dwivedi within two months from the date of publication of thisAward.

12. And this is my Award

VASUDEORAM, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 28 जून , 2007

कार, ब्यू, 2046 , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ अम THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21 , 2007 /ASADHA 30, 1 リリ

4684

न्यायालय पर्दना के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या ( सी ) 2006 को प्रकाशित करती है , ओकेन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-06-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-12011 /55/2005 - आईआर ( नो-11 ) ]

राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 28th June,2006 S. OL 2046. It pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Groversment hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. (C)2006 ) of the Industrial Tribunal , Patna (Bihar) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on28-06-2007.

[No. L-12011 / 55/2005- IR (B - II) ) RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDENG OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, SHRAM BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA.

: Misc. Case No. 1 (C) of2006

Shri U.S. Dwivedi . : Complainant

Versu

OppositeParty.

Management ofBank of India,: Paina Zone.

FortheCotoplainant Shri Tej Narain Debey, General Secretary, Bank of India StaffAssociation , Patna.

: None.

FortheOpp. Party

Present

: Vasudeo Ram, Presiding Officer , Inchustrial Tribunal . Patua

AWARD

Patna, dated the 21st June,2007

This complaint petition under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called ' theAct for brevity bas been filed on behalf ofthe workman during the pendency ofReference Case No. 12 ( C) of2005 against his transfer by the management from Baidrabad Branch in Arwal Districtto Dehri -on- Sone Branch in Rohtas District in contravention of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act.

2. The contention of the complainant is that an industrial dispute regarding adopting unfair labour practice by the management of Bank of India, Patna Zone against Stri U.S. Dwivedi , Staff Clerk of Baidrabad branch of the Bank of India was referred to Industrial Tribunal , Patna :

PART II SEC. 33 ) ;

being reference Case No. 12 (C) of 2005 for adjudication on the poide:

"Whether the action of the management of Bank Di India.Zonal Office Patna Zone (Bihar ) in punishing Theworkman Shri U.S. Dwivedi without conducting domestic enqaniny is legal and/ or justified ? If not . then whether the punishment of deduction of wages of the above workman is proportionate to the misconduct committed? If DO 10 what relief the workman is entitled?":

The complainant- workman filed written statement before the Industrial tribunal in Reference Case No. 12 (C) of2005 on 27-12-2005 The management of Bank of India, Zonal Office , Patna Zone transferred the workman On 7-3-2006 to its Dehri -on- Sone Branch in Robias District . Acording to the workman complainant transfer is part and parcel of service tvorelition of Bank Employees in Banking industry as per para 500 of the Shushtry Award Acording to the workman-complainant as per the provisions laiddown under Section 33 of the Act ne employer shall in regати amy matter onnnected with the dispute, alter to the prejudice of the workman concerned in such dispute , the service conditions applicable to them before the commencement of such proceeding . According to the workman Complainant by effecting his transter immediately before commencement of the proceeding the Opp. Party has been guilty of contravention of the provisions of Section 33 vi the Act. It hasbeen prayed that appropriate order, under the circumstances be passed .

3. The Opp . Party management appeared on notice and filed Show Cause but thereafter left taking steps and hence the case has heen beard et parte .

4. The pount fur considerarion is as to whether the opp. party -management of Bank of India , Patna Zone bas been guilty of contravention of the provisations laid down under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act . If so , what action if any , needs to be taken ?

FINDINGS

5: The workmarı Ucna Sluankar Dwivedi has examined himself in support of his case. He has supported that his three day's wages was illegally deducted by the mannngement for which an Industrial Dispute was raised , which was referred to this Tribunal for decision . He filed wrinen statement on 27-12-2005 . During the pendency of the dispute he was transferred from Baidrabad to Dehri - on- Sone branch . Section 33 of the Act reads as follows:-- Condition of service , etc. to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency ol proceeding ( 1 ) During the pendency of any conciliation porceeding before a conciliation on officer or aBoard or of any proceeding beture i'an arbitrator ( 1) a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, on employer shall- 4685 [ भाग 11- खण्ड ( ⅱ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 21 , 2007/ आवाद 30, 1929

(a) in regard to any matter connceted with the dispute, alter , to the prejudice of the workman concerned in sach dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the cominencement of such proceeding; or

No. 22/2005 ) of the Central Goverment Industrial Tribunal -com - 1abour Court - 1 , Mumbai as shown inthe Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bombay Merchantile Co-op . Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 28-06-2007.

No.1-13011 /9/2004- IR (B- ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

(b) for any misconduct connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise , amy wordsman concerned in such dispute , save with the expreses pennission in writting of the authority before which the proceeding is pending.

REFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 MUMBAI

PRESENT

JusticeGhamalyan Dans, Presiding Officer ReferenceNo. CGIT-22 of2005

Partles : Employers in relation to the management of BombayMerchantile Co-op . Bank Ltd.

AND

Tacir workan

APPEARANCES

For the Management : Mr.P.V. Patil and Mr. Kane

For the Workman

: Absent

According to the said Section it is clear that no alterution in the service conditions applicable to the workman can be made with regard to tise matter connected with the dispute to the prejudice of the workanan concerned . There can be no dispute on the point that transfer is a service condition . The industrial dispuse and theReference Case oftheworkman-complainant was pending with regard to his three days wage deduction . Within no stretch of insagenation transfer of the workman from one branch to be said to be the matter comceted with the said dispute pending adjudication . Under the circumstances 1 find that by effecting transfer of the workman from Baidrabad to Debri - on- Sone branch the opp. party management has not committect breach of the provisions of Section 33 of theAct.

State

: Mabarashtra

Mombai , dated the 5th day ofJune, 2007

AWARD

6. In the result I find and bold that the opp . party management of Bank of India, Palma Zoor by effecting transfer of workman Shri U. S. Dwivedi from Baidrabad branch to Dehri - on- Sone branch bas not contravened the provisions laid down under Section 33 of the Act and unde the circumstances no action is required to be taken against the opp. party- manageukol .

7. And this is my Award .

Dictated & corrected by me.

VASUDFORAM , Presiding Officer

1. This is a reformence made by the Central Governme in exercise of its powers under clause ( (t ) of sub-section I and sub- section 24 uf Section 10 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (the Act for short) . Vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi, oππίετ Νο .1-12011/9/2004- IR(B-T) dated 13-5-2004 . The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows -

नई दिल्ली , 28 जून , 2007

"Whether the action ofthe management ofBombay Merchantile Cooperative Bank Ltd. , Mumbai in terminating the services of Shri Nisar Shaikhs, Mileen Vasuded, Abbas Parkar andBashir Firfiray w.e.f. 25-4-2003 is justified? If not, what relief Shri Niser Shaikh, Mileen Vasudeo, Abbas Parkar andBanbir Flytray is entitled to?

का.आ. 2047, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बोम्बे मस्कनटाइल को ऑप बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं. 1. मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 22/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-06-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12011/9/2004- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelbi, the 28th June,2007

2. The parties have filed statement of claim and written statement . The parties entered into evidence . During the pendency of the matter , the comployer , Bombay Merchantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. moved an application for amendment for raising the plea of jurisdiction . This amendment application was rejected vide Order dt . 11-1-2007 . This was challenged by the Employer before the Honourable HighCourt ofBombay vide writ petition No. 650 of 2007. The Honourable High Court of Bombay allowed 5.U. 2047-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref .

4686

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 21 , 2007 /ASADILA 30, 1929

the writ petition, set aside the order of the Tribunal for refusing the amendment and finally allowed the armendiheal vide onder dt.17-4-2007.Accordingly , theEmployer moved fitr ameuduqat and also made a prayer to reject the reference in view of the judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court ofIndia reparted in 2007 II CLR 160 in betwen Bharat Co- op . Bank Ltd. we. Co - operative Bank Employees Union, The request is opposed by the learned counsel for the 3. The Honourable Supasaune Court (2207 CLR 160 ) has ruled The Court has no hesitation in upholding the view taken by the High Court that for the purpose of deciding as to which is the 'appropriate governinent' within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the I.D. Act, the definition of the 'Banking Company" will have tre he read as it existed on the plate of insertion of Section 2(bb) and so read the appropriate government' in relation to a madti-state co-operative bank, carrying on business in more than one state, would be the State Government. 4. In this back ground , the appropriate government in relativa to rmulti stale Co-operative Bank carrying on business in more than one State is held to be State Government and not the Central Government . That being so, the reference made by the Central Governinent to this Tribunal becomes bad and the Tribunal ceases to have jurisdiction jo decide the reference. The argument of the leamed counsel for the workman that matter as a whole mayhe decided on merits including the point ofjurisdiction does not appears to be acceptable on the face of it for the reason any opinion on the merits of the case would be without jurisdiction when the Tribunal ceases to have the jurisdiction entertain the reference.

5. In view of what has been stated above , the reference is liable to be rejected. The parties are at liberty to approach the appropriate goverument for raaking proper reference, if any .

The reference is accordingly dismissed. JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS, Presiding. Ofer नई दिल्ली, 28 जून , 2007

का.आ. 2048. औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकर नोम्बे मरकनयइल को ऑप बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुगंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण सं. 1 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 50/2006 ) कने प्रकाशित करती है , बो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-06-2007 को प्रऑप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल 12012168/2004- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelbi, the 28th June, 2007 S.O. 1018. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispures Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central

[PART I-Sex: 3 ( 1 ) ] Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 50/2006 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court -t , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management ofBombay Mercantile Co- op . Bank and their workmen , received by the Central Governmeal on 28-06-2007.

[No. L- 130-12/ 168/2004- IR ( B-Jj AJAY KUMAR Desk Officет

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO 1 MUMRAY

PRENENT

JusticeGhanshyam Dass, l'residing Officer Reference No. CGIT- 50 of2006

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Bombay Merchantile Co- op . Bank Ltd.

AND Their workmen .

APPEARANCES

M. PV Patil , and Mr. Kase For the Management For the workman

Absent

State

Muharashtra

Mumbai , cinted the 08th day ofJune , 2007 AWARD

1. This is a reference made by the Central Governmeוה 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 Aer for shorty . Vide Government of Galia . Ministry of Labour . New Delhi , Order No. L- 12012/ 168/ 2004- IR(B- I dated 08- 2006.The versns of reference given in the schedule are as follows

"Whether the action ofthe management ofBembar Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd., Mumbai in terminaring the services of Shri Makbul Husrist Vakilwief254-2003 isjustified ? Ifnot, what relief Shri Makbul Hussen Vithit is entitled so?

2 The matter came up for hearing today along with other similar cases No. CGIT 6 of2006 , 34 of 2004 and 22 of 2005.

3. The Honourable Supreme Court ( 2207 11 CLR 160) has ruled "The Court has no hesitation in eupholding the view taken by the High Court that for the purpose of deciding us to which is the " appropriate government" within the meaning of Section 2 (4 ) the 1.10 . Act , thedefinition of the " Banking Company " will have to be read as it existed on the dase of insertion of Section 2 (bb ) and so read, the "appropriate government " in relation to a multi -szare co- operative bank, carrying on buriτεχν [ भाग- खण्ड ( B) ]

in more than one state, would be the Stare Government."

4. In view of the judgement ofthe Supreme Court ( sopra) the Tribunal ceases to have jurisdiction to decide the reference which has heconse bad in view of the fact that the appropriate government for making reference is the State Goveroment and not the Central Governmem.

5. Hence the reference is liable to be rejected and the parties are at liberty to approach the appropriate government for making proper referencz , ifany.

6. The reference is accordingly dismissed. JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS, PresidingOffic नई दिल्ली , 28 जून , 2007

का. मा. 2049.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बोम्बे मरकाज़टाइल को ऑफ, बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के वीच. अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं.- 1 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संडा 34/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-06-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/47/2004- आई आर ( बी -1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the28th June,2007

S.O. 2049 -in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Governmeat hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/ 2004 of the Central Goverment Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. I, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispurte between the the management of BombayMercantile Co. up .Bank and their workmen, received bytheCentral Government on 28-06-2007 .

[No. L-1201247/2004- TR (B- T)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO 1, MUMBAI PRESENT

Justice Ghanshyam Dass, Presiding Officer ReferenceNo. CGFT-34 of2004

Partles : Employers in relation to the roanagement of BombayMercantile Co-op. Bank Ltd.

AND

Theirwerlan APPEARANCES

For the Management : Mr.P. V. Patil , and Mr. Kane For the worloman

: Workman present in person .

State

: Maharashtra

Mumbai , dated the 8th day of June, 2007

4687

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 21 , 2007 /आवाद 30, 1929

AWARD

1.This is a reference made by the Central Governm 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 ) . Vide Government of India, Ministry ofLabour, New Delhi , Order No. L- 12012/47/2004 IR(B-1) dated 8-4-2006 . The teams of reference given in the schedule are as follows.

"Whether the action of the thamagement ofBombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. , Mumbai in brominating the services of Shri Sayed MahirHusain we.1.21-6-2003 isjustified? Ifnot,what relief Shri Sayad Mahir Husain is entitled to? "

2. The Parties have filed the statement of claim and written statement. The parties entered into evidence. During the pendency of the matter , the employer , Bombay Mercantile Co- operative Bank Lad, moved an application for amendment for raising the plea of jurisdiction. This amendment application was rejected vide order dt . 11-1-2007 . This was challenged by the Employer before theHonourable High Court ofBombay vide Writ Petition No.650 of2007. The Honourable Hight Court ofBombay allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Tribunal for refusing the amendment and finally allowed the amendinent vide order dt . 17-4-2007 . Accordingly, the Employer moved for amendment and also made a prayez ID reject the reference in view of the judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court of India reported in 2007DCLR 160 in between Bharat Co-op . Bank Ltd. Vs. Co-operative Bank Employees Union. The request is opposed by the learned counsel for the workman .

3. TheHonourable Supreme Court (2207 CLK 160) has ruled "The Court has no besitation in upholding the view taken by the High Court that for the purpose of deciding as to which is the " appropriate Government within the meaning ofSection 2ta ) of the the I.D. Act, the definition of the "Banking Company " will have to be read as il existed on the date of insertion of Section 2 (bb) and so read , the "appropriate Government " in relation to a multi -state Co- operative Bank, carrying on business in more than one state, wouldbe the State Government . "

4. In this back ground, the appropriateGoverrument io relation to multi -state Co-operative Bank carrying on business in more than on State is beld to be State Government and not the Central Government. That heing so, the refoσιος made by the Central Government to this Tribunal becomes hart and the Tribunal ceases to have jurisdication to decide the reference.The argument of the learned counsel for the workman that matter as whole may be decided on merits including the point ofjurisdication does not appears tobe acceptable on the face of it for the reason any opinion on the merits of the case would be without jurisdication when theTribunal ccases to have the jurisdication to entertain the reference.

4688

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JLMY 21 , 2007/ ARADHA 30. 1929

5. In view ofwhat has been started above, the reference is liable tobe rejected. The parties are at liberty to approaћ theappropriateGovernment for making proper reference, if any.

6. The feference is accordingly disreissed. JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS . Presiding Offic ! नई दिल्ली, 29 जून , 2007

का.आ. 2050, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का ( 4) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडस्ट्रीयल गाईस सर्विस प्राइवेट लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के नीय , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय सं ] , मुम्बई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या सीजीवाईटी-64/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , बो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-06-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30011/33/2003 आई आर ( एम ) ] एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क आफिसर NewDelhi, the29th June,2007

S.O. 1950. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGTT- 64/2004) of the Central Government Inchustrial Tribunal Labour Court No. I, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Industrial Guards Services Pvt . Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Govammast On 29-06-2007.

[No. L-30011 /33/2003- IR (M ) ] N. S. BORA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO. I,

MUMBAI

PRESENT

Justicį Ghanshyam Daos, Presiding (Mfficer ReferenceNo. CGIT-64 of2004

Employers in relation to the management of Industrial Guards Services Pvt. Lid . Parties:

ANT

Their workm

APPEARANCES

: Mr. Sriram Patil ,Adv .

For the Management

For theUnion

: Mr.Swamy

State

: Maharashtra

AWARD

Mujinbai daued the 5th day of June, 2007 !

1.This is a reference made by the Central Govemmel inexercise of its powers under clause ( d) of sub- section 1 and sub section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispures Act, 1947 (the Act for short).Vide Government ofIndia, Mistry ofLabour , Now Delhi,Drder No. L-30011 /33/2003 - IR(M)

[PART I-SEL . 3 ) dated7-7-2004. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows .

"Whether the demands at Sr. Nos . (2 ) , (3 ), ( 6 ), (87) & 10 raisedby the Union in their strike notez dated 21-6-2003 against the management of ONGC Ltd. and their contractors , are legal . proper and justified ? If nor, on what relief the concerned workmen are entitled and front whicle Sale ?

2. Despite the last that the reference is pending before chis Tribunal since 23.7 2004, ie for the last about thrice years: the Transport and Dock Workers Caron. Mumbai has not been able to file statement ofclaim. The Union had been granted so many upportunities to file the statement of claim but it failed to file the same. Lastly , the application dt. 31-5-2007 was moved whereby a vague request wus made 10 the effect that the papers are in the custody of Personal Assistant of Asstt. Labour Commissioner , Mumbai who is on leave and as soon as he resumes duty , the applicant will get the papers and file the statement of claim . This application was rejected vide detailed order ofthe even date . The faci remains that there is no statement of claim and the refeসরায়ে is liableto be discaissed for non - prosecution.

The reference is accordingly dismissed. JUSTICEGHANSHYAM DASS,Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 जून, 2007

का.अ. 2051 ,-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 औधोगिक विधाद गौद्योगिक अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय. गोदावरीखानी के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 136-2004 ) को प्रकाशित करतो है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-05-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [ मं. एल -40025 / 1 /2007 - आई आर ( डी. यू. ) ) सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th June , 2007

SO . 2051. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref . No. 136/2004 ) of the Industrial Trihunal -cum- Labour Court Godavarikhani as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their workmen . which was received by the Central Government un 29-06-2007.

No. L-40025/1 /2007 - TR (DU)] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Offus

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, GODAVARIKHAN PRÉSENT

Sci M. Shaamugиль, В. Com , В. І Chairman-cum -Presiding Officer Tuesday , the 27th day of February ,2007 [ भाग 11- खच्य 3( ii) ]

Indestrial Dispute No.136 of2004 BETWEEN

5.Rajeshwar Ran, Sto. Vishwanath Rao,

Ope:Ex-TelephoneMechanic -cum-Lineman,

Rio . Bhimini , Mcl .Bhirtrini ,

Petitiona Drist . Adilabad.

AND

1. TheAsst.Engineer, Telephones,Bellampally ,( AET Groups) , Helampally.

2 The Sub-Divisional Telephones Office , Bellampally.

3. TheChief General Manager, Telecommunications, A.P, Hyderabad

4689

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 21 , 2007/ अषाढ़ 30 , 1929

5. That there are 80 connections of individual telephones in the village Mandal Head Quarters along with 2STD booths. That the 1st respondent paid Rs . 1 ) per Invath from 1-6-2001 and the responwlent paid salaгу uplo 11-9-2004.The services of the petitioner is being utilised by the respondents from 1-6-2001 to 11-9-2004 without any interruption on the same rate of salary puy.

6. That the respondent No. 1 on the advise of respondent No. 2 removed the petitioner from service on 12-9-2004 by giving employment in some third person in place of the petitioner . One Lineman Ravindra , T.M. , is appointed in place of the peticioner . It is completely against the law and facts .

7. That the petitioner asked the respondents to issue service certificate from 1-6-2001 to 11-9-2004. When the peritioner asked the respondents to issue service certificate, the respondents flatly refused on issue any such certificate . The respondentNo. I terminated the services of the petitioner crally on12-9-2004.

.... Respondents

4. 'TheGovt. of India, Rep.by Secretary toGovt .. oftheMinistry ofHomeAffairs , Central Secretary,NewDelhi .

This Inchustrial Dispute petition of 1.D. Act coming on before me for final bearing on 19-2-2007 ироп реrusing alt other documents on record and upon hearing arguments of Sri S.Bhagavantha Ran, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri L. Rajesham, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 and 3 having stood over for consideration till this date , the court passed the following:-

AWARD

1. The petition is filed by the petitioner praying to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service, with continuity of service and other attendant benefits including foll back-wages order or onders , as the court deems fit and proper in the interest ofjustice by setting aside the oval onderdt. 12-9-2004.

2. The averments of the petition are as follows:-

That the petitioner was appointed as Telephone Mechanic(Groups )-sun- Lincasan in respondent telephone department. The petitioner was initially appointed una monthly contingent pay ofRs . 1000/- per month by respondent No. L orally June ist, 2001 by the then AFT called Veczuiab. The petitioner's appointmezit is purely on temporary, as the respondent established the phone facility in Bhianini Mdl . HeadQunterson 1-6-01.

3. That the petitioner was appointed on 1-6-2001 by the 1st respondent and his appointment was orally confirmed by respondent No. 2. The petitioner discharged his dutics tothe fullest satisfaction of his superiors till upto the removal from service and the petitioner discharged his duties in the fullest satisfaction of his superiors from service on 12-9-2004.

4. The petitioner was not provided one month wages in lieu ofnotice and no notice is issued prior to his termination. The respondents completely contravened the provisions of LD.ALL

3053 G1.07

8. That the respondents utilised the services of the petitioner for three years without any red remark . The petitioner also underwent training at Rellampolly. The petitioner was not issued with any charge memo , charge sheet or enquiry .The petitioner was also meet paid one mod's notice in lieu of pay. The respondents ignored the provision of L.D. Act, L/ Sec . 25 (F) of I.D. Act

9. That this is a case of termination simplicitor but not with stigroa, as the respondents utilised the services of the petitioner continuously for 3 years , thereby termination in absolutely urbitrary, illegal and against to the principles of natural justice, as it is a case of victimisation and unfair labour practice adoptert hy mighty respondents.

10. Thal the petitioner prays this court to docide the validity ofdomestic enquiry as a prelimioury issue .

11. That the petitioner praying the court to removing the services of R-2by crally on R- 1 is absolutely false, illegal and against in the law.

12. The petitioner used 10 took after the lines of individual consumers of entire Bhimini village pelephones customers and also Jaggayyapet and also Wadal villages and also public. STD booths and the petitioner used to make clear the repairs of telephones whenever complaint is made by customers to the telephone exchange. The respondenl did not give any single serap of paper in favour of petitioner except paying salary Rs . 1000 per month. The petitioner asked the respondents to provide employment , but the respondents did not heed to the words of petitioner and also in presence of others . Therchy the cause of action arose to the petitioner in fibe this case before this court for the purpose of continuing employment in his originat place by transferring the services of Ravindra to some other place. It is therefore, prayed that the respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner into service , with continuity of service and other attendant benefits including full back-wages order or orders , as the court deeris fit and proper in the interest of 4690

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21 , 200ASADHA 30, 1929

justice by setting-aside the oral order dt. 12-9-2004, forwhich the petitioner shall pray.

13. The averments of the counter filed by the respondent are as follows:-

Thu in reply to para No. 1 of the petition submits that as on 1st June, 2001 Mr. Syed Lal is working as phone mechanicilin Bheemini exchange. He is a permanent employee of the department. On enquiry with the then SDE Groups/ BMPSri Veeralah , it is found that no persion was engaged on temporary basis to perform plhome sechanic duties including Sri S.Rajcabwar Rao.

14. That in replyto para No. 2 of petition subruits that no cadre as Asst . Engineer Telephones exists in the department at present and the petitioner even not knowing the fact that,Asst. Engineer and the Sub-Divisional Engineer Groups are called in the same designation. Hence no question arises that respondent No. 1 taken confirmation from respondent No. 2 as both the cadres ve some and this shows. dhe ignorance of the petitioner that even he don't know the cadres and hierarchy in the department, this reveals thathe didn't have any knowledge of the department . Since he did notdischarge any kind of duties in any capacity , there is no point of removing frora discharging his duties and the undersigned in the SDE (0 )-BMPa 12-9-2004 and nothing knows abow Sri RajeswarRao.

15. That in reply to para No. 3 of the petition submits chat when no one is working on any capacity in the organisation no question arises to pay one month wages in advance.

16. That in reply to para No. 4 of the petition it is subonitted that it is true that nearly 60 connections are wurking in the Bheemini exchange and Sti V. Ravinder, TM, in the inchargeofBheemini exchange at present

That in reply to para No. 5 of the petition it is submitted that SriV. Ravinder was appointed by the higher authorities but not by respondent No. 1 or by respondent No. Zaccording to miles and regulations of the departinent The official Sri Ravinder is discharging his duties wurler the supervisiun of respondent No. 1 .

18. That reply to para No. 6 of the petition, it is submitted thall it is totally false that the petitioner approached the respondents . Once again it is to reiterate that the petitionel even not knowing the designation as respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 are the same and how he can approach the same authority separately is not known.When the appointment of petitioner is not correct and the question of terminationby respondent No. I does not arise.

19. That in reply to para No. 7 of the petition it is submitted that the total contents atstod wrong that he served tor 3 years. No training conducted by any body. Only department employee will be issued with memos, charge sheet ete

20. That in reply to para No. 8 of the petition is wrong, and denied . No evidence of early records maintained and non continuous records .

[PART I-SE 3 ( 21. That in reply to para No. 9 of the petition is wro and denied. In case of any maintenance of records only for specific nature of work and also the records ifat all will b maintained yearwise Aprilto March .

22. That in reply un para No. 10 of the petition iswrong and denied. Hence need not 10 reply .

23. That in reply to par No. 11 of the petition are wrong and denied . The petitioner cooked up to the story for purpose this instant peticion. The General Manager is the competent authority to appoint or remove or to take disciplinary action and SDE/ AET, is not the competent authority. The designation of LM , is not supposed to be used by a private party, contrarily the petitioner named himself as L.M /Mechanic. It is therefore prayed that the court may bepleasedto dismiss the petition with costs.

Heardarguments on both sides.

24. On behalf of the petitioner side MW- 1 & 2 were examined and marked, Ex . W- 1 on 24-3-2006, petitioner side no further evidence bence petitioner side closed, the responder , Advocate Stated, respondent side no evidence hence respondent side closed .

25.Heard arguments on both sides . Though the petitioner filed in the documents petition, the affidavit of number of parties but the same were not marked by examining the parties and out given an opportunity to the respondent 10 cross-examined in the affidavit.

26. Before going to the merits off the case , Iwould lik to submithow the case was delayed . This is a petition files U/Sec . 2 -A(2) nf IT) Act , on 20-1-2005 , respondent called absent, ser-exparte un 20-4-2005 , LA. 38/2005 was allowed, setting the exparte award Counter was filed on 12-3-2005 heard arguments on both sides.

27. The petitioner counsel argument was that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2001 with a contigent pay ofRs. 1000 рper munth on temporary basis .His services were terminated un 12-9-2004 without any notice and compensation . After his removal from service a regular employee was appointed in his place withone Ravinder . His appointment was contrary 10 the rules. To prove that the petitioner examinert WW- 2 , Sarpanch who stated in bas evidence , he know the petitioner , he was a linerman in the respondent's department from 2001 tю September , 2004.lle used to get Rs . 1000 per month an salary , there were B2 telephone connections in Bheemini . He is also a subscriber, he issued a certificate to the petitioner in the capacity of Sarpanch , stating that he is a lineman in that telephone department, Ex . W. 1. certificate issued by him is marked. Petitioner used to attend the repair works for the telephones in the village , all the villagers used to get the service of the petitioner .After removal of the petitioner , another person was appointed . Hence , he prays the court petitioner may be Teinstated inen the service with all amendant benefits .

28. For this , the respondent counsel argument was that the petitioner was not engaged on temporary basis to perform phones meclians duties . The petitioner did not have 4591 [ भाग- खण्ड ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : बुलाई 21 2007 /आमाद 30, 1929

certificate issued by the Sarpanch marked as Ex. W- 1. For this the respondent counsel argument was that the Sarpanch is not the competent person to issue the certificate so the Ex . W- 1 is cannotbe locked into. The appointment as per the petitioner was regular appointment against the regular permanent post but the same was not proved by the petitioner as he was appointed in that post. The petitioner didnot filed any documents showing the letter of appointment, when there is no documentary evidence available with the above guidelines. Let us see what is the oral and documentary evidence of petitioner , Sarpanch cannot be accepted because to support their evidence there is no documentary evidence to prove that the petitioner got appointed by the respondent. As per the contentions of the petitioner, petitioner worked in the year 2001 to 20 September, 2004 to that effect the petitioner did not filed any document ive, muster roll, P.F. , Register, AttendanceRegister and pay registers. The non filing of any one of document clearly go in show that the petitioner has not worked continuously for a period of 3 years if mally the petitioner worked continuously for a period of 3 years nothing is prevented by the petitioner to file the documents 'n sen ! for the documents to prove his case that he worked in the respondent departemenit

my koowledge of the departinent, when be was not ppointed , as he did not discharged any kind of duties there sno point of removal from discharging his duties. When no one isworking on any capacity in the organisation there is 10 question arises to pay one month wage in advance to the petitioner . The respondent submitted that it is true thuat nearly 60 connections are working in the Bheemini Exchange and Sri V. Ravinder, TM , is the charge ofBheemini exchange Gresent and he was appointed by the bigber authorities "ut are not respondent No.1 and respondent No. 2 accord.ng rules and regulations of the department . The official Ravinder is discharging his duties under the supervie.pd respondeat No. 2. The petitioner without known , the designation of respondent No. 1 and 2 and how he can approached with the same authority separately is notknow When the appointment of petitioner is not correct and the question of termination by respondent No. 1 does not arise The total contents of the petition submitted by the petitioner stated in are wrong that he served for 3 year . No training conducted by mybody , only department employet.. willbe issnedwith memor, change sheet etc. There is no evidence maintained and no continuous records as the petitioner allegations is wrong and denied. The petitioner cooked up a story for the purpose of this petition. The General Manager is the competent authority to appoint or remove or disciplinary actions and SDE/AET is not the competent authority. Hence , he prays court the petition may be dismissed with costs .

29. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties . Ihave posed the contents of the petition and counter allegations with ال other documents filed imo the court and makecial available on record. I have also taken into consideration the various points raised by the counsels appearing for rival parties during the course of their arguments.Having seen the entire material available on record and from the facts and circumstances of the case the following were the points disputed a question in this arises for consideration .

(1 ) Whether the petitioner validly appointed into the service of the respondent.

( ⅱ) Whether the provisions contended U/Sex . 25(B) satisfied for complying Sec . 25 (F)

(i) Whether the respondent is liable to issue notice if the petitioner is not satisfied the provisions U/Sec .25 (9) of the LD. Act.

( iv) Whether there is any evidence in his place one Ravinder was appointed by the respondent.

31. From the next argument of both the counsels whether the provisions contended under Section 25 (B) satisfied for complying the Section 25(F). The initial burden ofproofwas on the petitioner workanan to show that he had completed 240 days of service in a calendar year. It was the case of the petitioner that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the respondent. Fur this the petitioner led evidencetu show that he had infact worked for 240 days in a calendar year preceding to his termination . Mere filing of affidavit that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for my court tu come to the conclusion that the petitioner had infactworked for 240 days in ayear . There will be proof receipt of salary or wages paid or muster rolls of attendance register for a period of 240 days or so for and record of appointment for this period was to be produced by the petitioner workomen . In this case the petitioner examined the Sarpanch and marked as Ex. W-1. For this respondent counsel contended that the Sarpanch is not the competent person to issue the certificate and that certificate cannot he demonstrative that the petitioner worked in respondent department .Having burden on the petitioner but the petitioner failed to produce any other record to prove that heworked for240 days in a calendar year. In my view the fact that the initial burden of establishing the factum of his continuous work and for 240 darys in a year is on the petitioner but the petitioner failed to do so. It is not the case where the petitioner has completed 240 days service during the periodof 12 months preceding as such termination has contemplatedUr Sec.25(F) read with Section 25(B ) of LD. Act, cannot be applied

32. From the 3rd argument of both the counsels whether the respondent is liable to issae notice if the petitioner is not satisfied the provisions under Section 25(B) ofLD. Act. The appointed of the petitioner was denied when 30. From both the counsels irgument whether the petitioner validiy appointed into the services of the respondent. However difficulty arises in such marters in finding out the real nature of appointment. It is therefore necessary to laydown certain guidelines for determining the nature of appointment made by the petitioner . In this case from the evidence ofPW - 1 and W- 1 and W-2, petitioner was appointed on temporary basis with a contingent pay of Rs. 1000 per month the same was supported by Service 4692

Праят -Ѕыс:. 3( i) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : LY21,2007/ ASADHA 30, 1929

selection the appointment to staturery bodies and to the Government Departments.

there is no appointment made by the respondent department there is no question of termination of the petitioner .Whether the petitioner appointed by the respondent department ant bis sermination when complying the provisions of Section 25(F) is valirl, The petitioner counsel argument to prove his case he got examined Sarpanch is not the competent person to give the evidence for working of the petitioner . Il really the petitioner worised in the respondent department nothing prevented by the petitioner to got examined bis colleagurs who works in the same department . What prevented the petitioner to got examine the colleague employees whoworks in the respondent departmene. The non exansinarion of the witnesses of the department and kon sending of surimoρις to the persons working in the department and non filing vi any of the above documents , the oral evidence of the petirioner cartout be accepted when there is no supporting evidence to corroboratehis evidence . So his evidence cam be accepted.

34. In a nut shell the sum and substance of the plea ofpetitioner is that he was appronted temporarily on monthly contingent amount to Rs. 10000 iat the respondent telephone department.The petitioner counsel contention is his services is illegally terminated . Further , no notice or retrenchment compensation paid to the petitioner. Hence the termination of his services is illegal in the eye of law. For this the respondent counsel plea was that the petitioner was not at all appointed , when he was not at all appointed , when he was not at all appointed he was not completed 3 years period particularly 240 days contimsoually in service in a calendar year as there was no documentary evidence producedby the petitioner .The only document filed by the petitionerEx . W- 1 is the certificate issued by the petitioner for that document Ex . W - 1 respondent counsel contended that the Sarpanch is not the coropetent person to give evidence and issue thar document. Whenbest evidence is available the documents before the respondear what prevenied the peticioner cither produced before the court or seat for the documents hur the petitioner did not gave any reason of explanation so file the documents and sent for the docauheni into the court .

35. On appreciation of the material placed before this court, this court canse to the conclusion that the oral evidence and the document filed by the petitioner is not the best evidence though there is a best evidence is available but the petitioner is failed to be produced & is well settled with stris court, the petirinner did not proved having burden vo him . The petitioner did not field any document for his appointment and his continues working period.

36. In view of dais authority also , the petitioner was not appointed by the respondent department. I am of opin that there is no relationship of employee and employer between the petitioner and respondem

37 la view of the specific stand raken hy the respondent in the onunter ailegations and also in his urymat as discussed above Jar of the view that there is no appostment , there is no termination su also there is in rewenchment within the definition of Section 25 ( F ) of I.1) . Act. The petitioner cannot be said to have been retrenched from the service and hence Noction 25 - F of the 1.D. Act is not attracted . The petitioner prayer in declaration that the sermination of his services is illegal and void on gond vi violation of pmvisions of the Section 25 ( F) of the I.О. Ал cannotbe therefore be gramed . The employer respondent clearly established that the peririoner was not at all appointed so there is no question of temmation of his services from the respondent department . Therefore, in view of the facts and custarves of the cise up hand , I seen every forcein the coruention above raised by the respondent in this citar

38. From the respondent counsel argument the grounds urged by the periricines are vague in as much as it is not a specific case as to how the petitioner got appointed in the respondent department there is no evidence . The 33. Lastly whether there is any evidence in his place one Ravinder was appointed by the respondent . From the petitioner counsel argument was that in his place some other person is engaged his name is Sri V. Ravinder . For this the respondeat counsel contended that Sri V. Ravinder is the incharge ofBimini exchange at present and he was appointed by the higher auuborities not by respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 according, in the rules and regulations of thedepartment. The official Ravinder is discharging his dutses under the supervision of responдели No. 2. 1Г теaliy another persoa Revinder is apyxinted nothing is prevented by the petitioner to got himself examinded before the court personally arthy issuing summons for his examination but the best reasons known to the petitioner why he should not aked any steps That it self clearly shows that the petitioner failed improve in his place some body got appointed. Except the oral evlonce rif the peririoner in his place Kavinder gut appointed intwis not corroborated by any documentary evidence The proof of fact by pral evidence when written document exists in this case appointedt onder of Ravinder and bis rouser roli , attendance register, wage register and acquittance register. uncy were ant produce as being best evidence of its was çimlents and no oral evidence can be adduced to prove as to what is in the written documents with regard sobe appointment of Ravinder. The oral evidened ol' the potitioner was contradicting and not acceptable by the respondent so the respondean counsel argument was that the urat qederice of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The men production of the above registers without any justification the cuse of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The petitionet hard failed in podtice the best evidence before the court, further there is no explanation as to why concerned wilness bas obt been examined . Hence this court is entitled to draw an achverse inference against the petibuner as regards to the disputed fact . The respondent counsel argument , exercising of powers /sec ( A ) of I.D. , Act. this court can grant relief of reinstatement amounting to regularisation of appointment. The provisions of Sec . 11 - A Cannotbe abused , mis used 10 incumbent legal provisions relating to the [ भाग- खण्ड ( ii ) ]

4693

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 21 , 2007/आत्राकड़ 30, 1929

FurManagement :

-Nil

EXHIBITS

Forworkman:-

Ex. W- 1DL 15-1-2005 Certificate issued by Sarpanch

For Management:-

नई दिल्ली, 29 जून , 2007

petitioner to prove his case he got examined himself and to support his evidence WW- 1 Sarpanch is examined ad markedEx. W- I for this the learned counsel argument thal there is a best evidence available with regard to the досителя appointment order, muster roll , attendance register, wage register acquittance register but the petitioner did not taken my step to get those documents as the documents muc best evidence . But when the hest evidence has not beca produced by the petitioner an adverse inference may be drawn against him having burden on the petitioner but the petitioner failed to prove his cate. The best evidence is contents of the documents itself and is the production of the documents that required by Section 91 of EvidenceAct to proof of its contents.

का.आ. 2052-औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एच.पी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोक्कों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरणः अप न्यायालय , बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 12/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-06-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

39.It is well settled that the appointment was ronde in violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute and particular ignoring the minimum educational qualifications and other essential qualifications would be required . But as such a proposition would be required to introduce a new head of appointment it defines of the rules or it may havethe effect of settling had not the rules .

[ एल-30012/41/2002-आई आर. ( एम) ] एच. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the29th June, 2007

$.0. 2052- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Goverumeat hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 12/ 2003) of theCentral Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court ,Banglore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of HPCL and their workmen which was received by the Central Government (πι 29-06-2007.

No. L-30012/4 //2002- IR ( M)| 40.Before partying thu tiris case I would like to state that although this count wouldbe very happy if everybody in the country is given suitable job. The fact reaninds that in the present state of country's economy the number of jobs are limited. Henüz everybody cannot be given a job despite ofour earnest desire, One may be very rouch hesitate but then cuonamic realities has also be soon. The court chust therefore exercise judicial restraint and not encourage into the execution and legislative dominant orders of creation appointment on this posts, regularisation etc. , are of execution or legislative machines and it is highly improper to judges to step into this sphere except in rape and exceptional

cases

N. S. BORA, Desk Officer

ANNENTIRE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT JIMAIN, ICHONS, JE PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE- 560422, 41. Therefore, from the aforesaid reasons and in the facts and circumstances of the case and also with regard to the various points, facts and law of the case I find no merit in this petition . In the above circumstances this court is left with no option but to arrive at the conclusion to dismiss the petition.

Duted: 18thJune, 2007 PRENENT

42. In the result, the petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed fur want of merits . But no costs .

Sari A.R. Siddiqul , Presiding Officer C. R. No. 12/2003

PARTY

Dictatedto the Stenographer , transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this , 27th day of February,2007.

M. SHANMUGAM, Chairman- cum-PresidingOfficer

Appendix ofEvidence Witnesses examined

Shri Shivanna Anjaneya Patil , No.7, MagadiPark , Opp. SamrathApartments, Vijayanagar ,Hubli , Karnataka State . II PARTY

Forworkman

The Regional Manager ,

MW- dt. 24-3-2006

Sri P. Rajeswar Rau , petitioner.

MW- 2dt. 24-3-2006

Sri . Bandi Ashok Kumar ,

Sarpanch, Drist Adilabe Bheemini,

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Sambaji Road, Ranichennammanager, P.B.No.529,Belgaum District, Karnataka State .

4694

[PART SEC . 3 ( 1 ) :

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 21 , 2007 /ASADHA 30 , 1929

AWARD

1.The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d ) of sub- section 24 of the Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. 1-30012/41 / 2002/TR (M) dated 17th march 2003 for adjudication on the following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the managemem ofHFCL in terminating the service of Shri Shivanna Anjaneyn Patil is justified ? If not , to what relief the concerned workmanis entidad ? "

dated 12-9-2000 issued to one of the Dealer stuting that nne Shri D.K. Pujar is the Pamp Filter of Hubli Sales Area and the dealers may contact him for getting their work done through him . It is a faznastic claim of the first partyto state that D. K. Pujar was appointed with a viewto terminale his service.The fact is that one Shri P.D. Patil was working as Pump fiter and in his plave Shri D. K. Pujar was reassigned since the said R.D. Patil was transferred 10 LPG plant on his personal request and Shri D. K. Pujar was transferred on promorionas parap fittor to Hubli Sales Area . The postingof D. K. Pujar was informed in dealers of the corporation coming under the Hubli sales Area through theExecutive Salles Officer. Hubli. The first party had never worked as a regular employce of the second party corporation . Shri R. 12. Fajil has been working as purop fitter as regular employee of the curporation since from 1994 onwards and on his transfer Shri D. K. Pujar was posted. The appointment jetter of Shri R. D. Patit dated 26-5-1994 is also very cleaw where the porporation appointed Shri R. D. Patil as a regular purop itter in salary grade MADS attached toHubli sales urea , his daily attendance register showing that R. D. Patil worked as a purup fitter long prior to the posting of Shri D. K. Pujar on transfer . The attendance registers are also to the effect that the first party was not an employee underthe Second Party: that the first partyhas never worked on duily wages or monthly wages at any point of time. On the other hand be was given specific work on piecenteal basis , he used to claim service charges as and when the work was done by him and certified by the concerned sales officer: that the bills submitted by the first party in the second party were piecemeal wurk done and for which the paymeal was to be effected then and thereon submission of bills. It clearly goes to show that the first party was attending work when and where required; that the second party has not uppointed the first party at any point of time and question of termination does notarise at all and first party has not worked continuously for a period of 240 days as alleged by first party and the question to reinstate him in service does not arise at alland requested this tribunal to reject the reference.

2.The case of the first party workman, as made out in the Clain Statement, in nutshell , relevant for the purpose is that the management namely , the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, is a Govermanent of India undatuking hating its registered office as Mumbai , and ics Executive sales office at Hubli; that the management corporation undertakes the work of average and distribution ofpetroleuro products, having its zooul office at Madras andRegional Office at Belgaum . The executive sales office is atHobli . The district is having approximately about44 retail out lets and in all more than 100 pumpsie.one out let will be having two pumps , one for diesel and another for patrol, which are within the jurisdiction ofExecutive Sales Office and are controlled by the Regioni Manger , Belgaum. The petrol purips situated around Dharwad District are fully under the control of Second Party Corporation; that the first party during his tenure of service was attending to the mainkaande of these pumps and servicing of these pumps involve a very onerous duty and is highly technical and skilled jobs that the nature of the work which the first party was carrying on is essential job and also continuous permanent and perennial in nature. After serving the Second Party for more than 7 to 8 years , when the first party requested for regularisation of his services be has been orally terminased from service on 12-4-2000 and one Mr. Pujar was appointed as pump fitter in the place of the First party . Therefore, in the light of the above, the first party workahan requested this tribunal to set aside the termination order passed against him and reinstate him in service with back wages , continuity of service and other consequential benefits.

3. During the course of trial , the management filed an affidavit of one Mr. T. Ashok Kumar said to be the Ex . Sales Officer working with the management corporation by way of his Examination Chief as MWI and in bis further examination chief gol marked 11 documents at Ex. Μι ιο M11 , Hiş affidavit by way of examination chief is just the replica of the various poistentions taken by the managethent initsCounter Statement and therefore, need not be repeated .

4. The first party by way of rebuttal also filed his affidavit evidence and in his examination chief got marked 12 original certificates issued by the Assistant Grade Controller , Weights and Measures at page No.1 to 12 marked at Ex .W4 series , the documents at scrial numbers 13 to 59 vide list dated 18-4-2006 said tobe the attested copies of the certificates issued by the said authority marked at Ex .WS series , the documents at serial number53 2A. The Second Party Management resisted the claim of the first party by filing its counter statement and among other grounds contended that the first party's claim statement is misconceived and he has no legal enforccable right to seek directions of reinstatement of his services; that the first party was never the employce of the corpurαλίτι and there was no employer and employee relationship and the first party has not produced any piece of paper 10 show that, he in the employce under the Second Party. In the absence of the material documents to show that the first party is the employee under the second party, the dispute is not ad all maintainable . The Second party further contended that the first party has relied on a circular letter 4695 [ भाग -खण्ड (10) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 21 , 2007/ आभाव 30 , 1929

as per the said list viz. the xeтox copy of the pump maintenance register for the period in between the period, 26-1-199310 16-05-2000 from pages 1 to 128 were marked at ExWosarics

of Weights & Measures , being present during calibration seal for the purpose of proper measurement by the said department. He submitted that almost all the documents produced by the first party ranging between the period from 1993 to 2000 would reveal that he has been sticasting those documents in the capacity of a Pump Fitter and this fact has never been denied and challenged by the management either in the statement of MW1 or in the cross examination of the first party. Therefore , learned counsel in his written arguments contended that the first party worked continuously for a period of 240 days and more in each calendar year from 1993 to 2000 much less for aperiodof12 calendar months continponaly immediately prior to tomfustion of his services on 12-9-2000 and thenfor, the action of the management in terminating his services amounts to retrenchment and legal termination face , being no compliance of Section 25F of the IDAct.

5. During the course of cross examination of MWI the first party confronted curtain documbents namely, the four monthly maintenance reports submitted by him to the management, the outgoing gate passes 145 in mambers showing the supply of spare parts by the company , duplicatecoples of pump maintenance reports suppliedto the pump fitter from page 1 to 773 and they were marked at Ex.W1 series, W2 series and W3 series respectively .His statement by way of affidavit once again is the repetition ofthe various averments be made in his claim statement. 1 would like to refer to the aforesaid documents produced by the parties and the statements of MWL & WW1 in their CTOSS examination us and when found relevant and necessary.

6. Learned counsels for the respective parties have filed their written arguments in line with their respective contentions talten by way of pleadings.

9. Now, therefore, in the light of the aforesaid respective contentioius of the parties and as per the points of dispute vide reference schedule, the first and important paint to be considered by this tribunal would be "whether the first party as an employee of the management worked for a period of 240 days and more continuously in 12 calendar months immediately before his alleged tennimation". The management as noted above, in order to falsify the case of the first party produced 11 docaments ມ Ex .M1 to MIl as under:

1. Ex. Ml is the letter dated 25-2-1994 addressed to R.D. Patil appointing/Re- assignment as pump fitter to Hubli Sales Arca

2. Ex. M2 is the Confirmation Letter date 1-3-1995

3. Ex . M3 is the application dated 10-8-1997 for transfer from R. D. Puil.

4. Ex. M4 is D.K. Pujar's letter dated-6-7-1999 for transfer as pump fitter .

5. Εx . MS is the letter dated 19-8-2000 addressed to D. K. Pujar promoting as pump fitter.

6. Ex . M6 is thePayroll advice.

7. Ex M7 is the Attendance register.

Ex . M8 is the Purchase order dated26-3-2002.

9. Ex . M9 is the Payment voucher.

7. Learned counsel for the management in hiswritten Arguments referred to the statement of the first party in his Joss examination to support his main contention that the First party never wonted in any capacity rouch less as a temporary employee or as a causal worker or as a contract worker or as a pump fitter and that the management was taking his services on piecemeal and payment basis for specificwork so as to attend the pump repairs as andwhen the regular pomp fitter was not available for one reason w the other. The management took support of the aforesaid documents at Ex.MI to Mil so as to suggest that the first party was never in the service of the management as an employee but was attending certain pump repairing, work on piecemeal basis and accordingly was submitting his bills for making the payments , which fact has not been disputed by the first party either in his affidavit or by way of cross examination to MW1 . On the other hand in his statement in cross examination he has admitted the fact thathewas one of the 5 persons who had signed the leaders quoting the charges for the work to be done in the year 2000 itself, during which year his services said to have been terminated by the management . He referred to certain awards and citations,

10. Ex.M10 are the Bills raised by the first party

11. Ex. MIl is the Price inquiry dated7-7-2000along with Leader letter with list of names.

10. As noted above , the first party produced four monthly reports, two of them dated 9-10-1993 and the other two datel 4-8-2000 and 5-9-2000 marked at Ex . WI series.The documents ar Ex. W2 series are the out going gate passes 145 in aumbers to show the supply of sparr parts by the management company in favour of the first party.Documents at Ex . W3 series tunning from pages 1 to 773 are the duplicare copies of the pump maintenance 8. The learned counsel for the first party on the other hand in his arguments contended that the documents produced by the first party marked at Ex .WI to W6 series are the proof satisfactory and sufficient to establish the fact that the first party had been working under the management as a Pump Fitter right from the year 1993 up till September2000, during which month his services were terminated.He schnitted that the first party was attending the work of pump repairs under the instructions and directions of the management and accordingly , was submitting his monthly reports , was attesting maintenance registers aswell as the certificate issued by the department 4696

PART 1SBC. 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21 , 2007/ASADHA 30. 1929

reports saiduo be supplied to the fitters, in the instant case to the first party.The documents at Ex .W4 series are the 12 original certificates issued by the Weights & Measures department, the documents at F.x. W5 series are the attested copies of certificates issued by the said authority and the documents atEx. Wó series from pages 1 to 128 are the Xerox copies of the pump maintenance register for the period from 26-1-1993 to 16-5-2000.

piecemeal basis and was being paid against the bills submitted by him . as noted above, not only has been admitted by the first party himself but also has been catablished by the documents produced by the management marked before this tribunal al Ex . M8 M11 . Ex . M8 is the purchase order dated 26-3-2002 in the name of first party for having purchased certain iteros to attend the pump repairs . The value of the said item bas been shown as Rs. 11,510 . As per Ex . M9, the above said amount has been paid by the management vide voucher dated 31-5-2002 to the first party. The documents at Ex. M10 series are the bills dated26-2-2000) (three in mambert) for payment ofRs .930, Rs.850 and Rs . 420 respectively made to the first party under the bills submitted by him in his own "letter head" bearing his name describing himself as a specialist in repairs of pumps etc. Similar are the bills submitted by the first party dated 15-7-2000 ( three in numbers ) for payment of Rs.930 , Rs . 160 and Rs . 1010 respectively. These are agairt the bills submitted by the first party under his own "Icterbead'. The documents at Ex . MII is the price enquiry under a voucher dated 26-3-2000 called for by the management showing the name of the first party along with four others who submitted the cender. Therefore , from all these documents and the very admissions made by the first party in his cross examination referred to supra , il becomes crystal clear that he was attending the work of repairs of pumps maintained by the second party management at various petrol bunks not as an employee of the management but for having taken the work from the management on piecemeal basis for a specific work tobe attended by him from time to time . The fact that the first party was not an employee of the management working as a pump fitter again gets falsified by the document atEx. M7 , the attendance register produced by the management rungingbetween the period from the year 1997 till December 2002. In this register the names of one Mr. R. D. Patil ankl Mr. D. K. Pujar wlw undisputedly . worked as pump fitters under the management and have been shown signing the above said register for having attended the office .Nowhere, the name of the first party appears as an employee of the management much less as it putap litter. It is the daily attendance register maintained by the managensent and if at all , the first party had worked under the management as an employee, his name must have incorporated in the said register and he must have signed the said register as an employee as other employees have signed apart from the above said two puorp titters who were working under the management during the aforesaid perind .

11. Now, coming to the main contention of the Imanagerocot that at to point of time the first party was its. cmployee, much less , to have worked as a camul worker or as a pump filter as tomy point of time under the management Except the oral say of the first party that he worked as a pump fitter right from the year 1993 til 1-9-2000, there is no document subroitted by him by way of evidence to suggest that at any point of time be was appointed as a pump fitter and worked as such under the management. Infact, in his Claire Statenent as well as in his affidavit he keeps conspicuous silence as to when exactly ie , to say on what date actually he was appointedby the management, much less, by submitting any application seeking job or being selected hy way of interview. He just came out with the case that he attended the pump repair work under the instructions of the management authorities and in that capacityhe worked during the aforesaid period. In fact, in his cross exjumination in no uncertain words he admitted that there was no job vacancies and applications were called for to be filled by the first party. He admitted thathe did not makeany application with the management seeking thejob but was given an appointment letter which he did not possess, now. In his further cross examination be admired thathe did got work as a casual worker or contract worker but worked as a regular worker for which as noted above. he produced no document with regard to his appointmem by the management at any point of time. Then, be admitted that he was not paid either daily wages or monthly salary at any poim of time . He admitted that he was submitting thebills for the work done by him talking the signatures of the Sales Officer whenever the work was done. In his cross examination, he admitted that some time , the management willbe calling for the tenders for the job of maintenance work tobe done by outsiders and likewise in the year 2000 Such a tender was called for maintenance of pumps in Hubli Sales Areajund be was one of the five persons who had signed the lenders quoting the charges for the work to be done . Therefore , the above statement of first party in his (TUSS examination makes it abundantly clear that he was never paid daily wages or monthly salary at any point of time. In his own words he was submitting the bills for the work done by him taking the signatures of the Sules Officer whenever the work was done . As noted above , he also admitted that in the year 2000 when tenders were called for thejob ofcaintenance work he was one of the five persons who had sulmitted the tender qunting the charges for the work to be done. The fact that the first party was being provided with specific work of maintenance seraies i

12. In order to substantiate his claim the first party produced voluminous documentary evidence marked before this tribunal al Lix . W1 series to W6 series . Ex . W ! series are said to be four monthly reports , two of them dated 9-10-1993 and the other two dated 4-8-2000 and 5-9-2000. These monthly reports are said to he attesteri by the first party as a pump firmer . There is no explanation offered by the first party as to which are the other monthly reports भारत का राम्मपत्र : कुलाई 21 , 2007/आमद 30, 1929

4697 [ भाग -3 (0)

disputed by the fust party.His contention that bis servicek were terminated in order to appoint Shri D. K. Pujar as a pump fitter gets falsified in the light of the various docuanents produced by the management incinding the aforesaid attendance register . Ex. MI is the letter dated 25-2-1994addressed to the sitid Sari R.D. Patil appointing hiru as pump fitterto Hubli Sales Area. Ex .M2 is the letter dated1-3-1995 cerufirming his servicca and Ex. M3 is hie application dated 10-8-1997- soaking his trmasier.Ex.M4 in the letterwritten by bald Shri DK. Pujar on 6-7-1999seeking bis transfer as pump fitter and Ex . M5 is the letter by the management dated 19-8-2000 addressed to Shri D. K.Pujar promoting him as pamp fitter . Therefore , when Shri R. D. Patil was the purinp fitter working with the management from the year 1994 onwards till the time Shri D. K. Pujar started working with the management as fluer in the year 1999, it can never be believed that the rakangement took the services of the first party na puinp fitter appointing him on regular basis as an empäryse. At the same time the aforesaid contention of the first party that his services were terminated in account ofappoustment ofsaidD.K.Pujar maust be rejected as an afterthought and inake believe story as Shri D. K. Pujar was already in the service ofthe management as a pump fitter in the year1999 itself, which fact also has been corroborated by way ofthe above said'attendance register produced by the management showing the names of said Shri R. D : Patil and D. K. Pujar during the years 1994 till 1999. The next set of documents produced by the first party running from pages 1to 128 are the Xerox copies ofpump maintenance register forthe period from 26-1-1993 to 16-5-2000. In these papers also the name of the first party appears under the colum name of fitter but it appears along with the said SariR.D. Patil and Shri D. K. Pujur infact , the name ofthe first party in these musintenance register papers do not fund place all along continuously for a period of 240 days sind more . He has been shown attesting as a pump fitter in the aforesaid maintenance register for period of 14 days in the month of January 2000 , 13 days in the month of February2000, 12days in the month ofMarch 2000, 8 days inthe month ofApril 2000 and 15 days in the month ofMay 2000. For a period from August 1999 to January 2000 there is no such maintenance register copies produced before this tribanel to show that the first party attended way repair wocks as a pump Futter. Therefore, the first party first of aال han failed to establish before this tribunal that he was the employee working under the management in the capacity ofpump fitter and secondly he also failed to substantiate before this tribunal that he worked as such at least as a casual worker or in any other capacity for a period of240 days and more during the 12 calendar moaths immedinely prior to his alleged termination. The very documents produced by him at EX. W6 series as noted above, diecionad that fromAugust 1999 to January 2000 he never signed the above saúd maintenance register much lestas pump fister . Forthe next five maatths from Janorry to May2000 be hardly

worked for a period of62 days and therefore, it canbe safely The must have sabenitted as a pump fitter between the years 1993 and2000, if at all , he worked as a pump fiter during the said period. The documents & Ex. W2 aules are the outgoing gate passes 145 in numbers to show that the fint party signed them for having received the items to be used for pump repairs from the masugbucal company . Th documents as they stand will not come to the mancae ofthe first party as according to the manganent be was being supplied with cratain repair materials in order to attend pump repairs on pinsanaal basis . The documents Ex. W3 series which run over pages 1 to 773 are the duplicate copies of the pump maintenance reports andto have been supplied to the pump fitter to show that he participated in the pump calibration by the officers of Weights &Mousement Deparment. It is the crattention of the first party that for the above said calibustion purpose by the above mid Weights & Measures Department, presence of a pump fitter on behalf of the neuangernon iss must and since he was present all along as a pump fitter during roch calibration of scal weak of the pumps, it has to be held that he was the pump fitter working under the mayman . Mrly, because he was present at the time of calibration representing the managesheni , one cannot jump to the conclusion dat be participated in the aforesaid calibration work as zit eamployee ofthe management itself, particularly, in view of the statement of the management witacus in bis ion to the effect that either the representative of the management or some pump fitter will be present himself at the time of such a calibration wort. Therefore, the first party might have been present during the calibration work putting his signature on those reports reprcacating the management as be used to take piecemeal repairs work from the management on paymen basis and was looking after the maintenance of purp ropins while working in the sand capachy. Similar , is the case with the documents at Ex . W4 and WS verica which are caid to be the certificates issued by the Weights & Measures Departnsent showing the signature of the fust party on those contificines lefact, the documents at Ex.WS series areweltbeyond the period of September 2000 during which month first party's services alleged to have been terminated by the management. These are the documents for whole of the year 2001 for irperiod of sbout 9 mootba ranging from March 2001 to September 2001 at all the services of the fast party were termined in the mouth of September2008 tself, then it is yet to be cumplaard bythe first party arzu how he signed the aforesaid certificate issued by the Whigha & Measures Departong for shout speriod ofitis rooth brom khách 2007 no Sember2001. Therefore,these documents Instead of helping the came of the frit party wild hend support to the case of the trann gerent that is services were never terminated in the year 2000 ar be was not as employee of the ingangement batwas madog pump repairing work for the phong on piecesnel bandoquid by the The fact thatthe mingthaisowat pumpfitters by name, SRD.PakSiD. K. Pajinnot disputed and cannotbe

3068 GUD7-10 4698

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21 , 2007 /ASADHA 30 , 1929

concluded that he did not work for a period of 240 days and more continuously with the management in any capacity much less in the capacity of an employee of the management. In the result, there is no hesitation in the mind of this tribunal in coming to the conclusion that there was no termination of service of first party much less any illegality committed by it and that this action of the managendut there was in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act . Hence the following Award:

AWARD

The reference standa dismissed, No Dosts , (Dictated to PA transcribed by ber corrected and signed by the on 18th June, 2007).

A. R. SIDDIQUL, PresidingOfficer ! नई दिल्ली , 29 जून , 2007

कर.का. 2053 , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आई.ओ.सी. एल. के प्रबंनितंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरश्रम न्यायालय 11. नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 58/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-07 को प्राप्त हुन था ।

[सं. एल-30011 / 103 /2002- भाई व्हर ( एम ) ] एन.एस. बोरा, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 29th June, 2007

8.0 2053. In pamuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947 ), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award (Ref . No. 58/ 2003) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court I, New Delhi now as shown in the Amesure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of TO.CI,, and their workman , which was received by the Central Govenancat Da 29-06-2007.

No. L-3001 1/103/2002- IR (M) ] N.S. BORA, Deak Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT -I, RAJENDRA BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI

PRESIDING OFFICER : RNRAL L.D. No. 58/2003

PRESENT

-1stParty Sh.Aditya Aggarwal

Sh,RajatArora

PART II - SFC-3( 0)]

Versus

The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd..

ScopeComplex, Core No. 2,

Lodhi Road, New Delhi . NewDelhi.

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No.L-3001 1 / 103/ 2002- IR (M) Central Government Dxx. (07-04-2003 has refered the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder:

"Whether the action of the Management of IOCL New Delhi , in not regularizing the services of the concerned 18 workroen from the date of their initial appointment is just fair and legal? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled and from which date?"

The union has filed claim statement . In the claim statement. It has been sealed that the facts and circumstances giving rise to the present statement of claim are that the claimant workmen have been engaged as security guards by the above management through its contractors . The claimant workmen have been working continuously without any break for the last many years and in any case for over 240 days for the respondent management . The claimant workmen are the members of the aforesaid union who is representing the claimant workmen herein . The names and other details of the claimant workomen are aвлeхed herewith the reference madeto this Hon'ble Court by the appropriateGovernment.

2ndParty

In the matter of:

Ramesh Chand & Others,

COThe General Secretary,

Delhi Multi Storeyed Hnilding Employees Congress , VandanaBuilding : 11 , Tolstoy Mary.

New Delhi-110001 .

It is submitted that the management knowing that thejob performed by these workmen is of a permanent and perennial nature, bas , with ulterior motive to deprive than ofsecurity of job and equal wagts , employed the workmeo osksasibly through different contractors . The contractors are and have always been only name lenders with no control ofany kind over the workmen , their employment and their terms and conditions of service. The workmen have been working under the direct control and supervision of the Management . The engagement of these worimes through the contractors is only a camouflage and ifthe veil is lifted it would be revealed that there is a direct employer and employce's relationship between the Management and the workmen . The contractors have been acting only as the agents of the management. They are illegally shown to have been employed as Contract Labour and at present they are showo to have been engaged through the above named contractors . Being not satisfied with this , the management, with ulterior motive to deprive the wor of the continuity of services and other legal benefits, was intending toterminate the service of the workmen through the contractor, instead of regularizing their services.

It is worth mentioning here that the workmen have continuedto work for the above management inspite of 4699

भारत का ग्रबंपत्र : जुसाई 21 , 2007/ आड़ 30,1929

[ पन - पम 3(1)]

benefits, irrespective of the aforesaid circumstances was intending to terminate the services of the workmen through the contractor, instead of regalarizing their uzvice.

the repeated change of the contracties form time to time. The contractors have although been acting as the agents ofthe above said management; the woriamen ve thus the direct employees of the managersment only.

That when all the efforts of the aforesaid claimant workmen and the union to settle the dispute with the management bunds given no fruitful results and in view of the above said threat of termination of heir services, the Union had filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on behalf of some of the workmen for the regularization ofthe services by the managrament their servicer by the aforesaid summagement on the grounds inter- alia that they are covered by the Notification dated 12-9-1976 md that in view of the Air India Judgment they are entitled to be absorbed . The Hon'ble Delhi High Court had granted the interion protection to the workmen.

It is stated that even otherwise neither the management is registered under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Reg. & Abo .) Act/Rules nor the contractors through whom the workmen have been shown to have been engaged form time to time including the presein contractors are the licensed contractors under the andAct Rules and is such also employment of the Claimant worimen as contract labour by the management is الموالا being in direct contravention of the express provisions of the aforesaid ActRules which is a beneficial piece of legislation and hence also the claimant workmen are the direct employees of the Immu

However, since the Hon'ble Supreme Court at the SAIL matter has reversed the judgment in Air India саке and hau qushed the Notification dated 9-12-1975 and since as per the said jndgnem, the industrial coorts /tribunals have been given the jurisdiction to decide industrial dispute as pforesaid, the claimant workmen and the Union have been advised to move this Hon'ble Foruen by way of the present Sortement of Claim . It is stated that the workm are still continuing in service but they are always uno'r the threat of kamination of their services by the respondent management.

Without prejudice to the submissions made bure above it is submitted that in my case the work performed by the workmen represented by the Union, is of permanent andperennial nature and all the requirement of Section10 oftheContract Labour (Reg. & Abo.) are satisfied. The appropriate andhority ought to have issued the necessary Notification w/ s. 10 of the mid Act prohibiting cangagement of contract employees in the said work and the management also ought not to have engaged the workmen through the contractor as the same annons to unfitur labour practice sao. The thoughtstat oughtto have absorbed the claimant salmon and regnantead of exploiting them by engaging them ostensibly through different contractors.

That for the regularization their acrvices theworkinen filed stensent ofclaim before the Conciliation Officer, New Delhi as there is a direct employer , employce relationship between the workmen and the mamigement and also work perfonned by the workmen is also of peremial nature. Moreover , the woskmen are also entitled to equal wagns as paidto the regular staff of the management. However , the conciliation proceedings failed dueto the uncooperative attitude of the management and the above mentioned reference made so this Hon'ble Court for adjudication.

It in started that the engagement of the workbe through the contractors is baurically for monetary and other gains sa the claimant workmen are being provided much less wages than the regular employees . The management ic uko diyuziminating oven with regard to the other terras and conditions of employment against the workmen engaged through the onntractors. The claimant workmen are entitledto be treated as the direct and regular comployees ofthe mpongerent. They art matitled to receive the same wages, benefits and oder facilities as received by the regular employees of the management who are performing similar work at the claimant workomen. It is worth mentioning here that the wages and other benefits received and facilities enjoyed by the regular camployce of the management performing sinsilar work are many times moге then received by the aforesaid claimant worlonen.

11 is appropriate to mention here that in spite of the aforesaid proceedings, the management of IOC las verbally terminated the services of the claimant workmen w.e.f. 1-3-2002, whơn the rockmen had reported for their normal duties on the above said date, the management did not allow theworkman to partoon et duties and in this namer, the management has acted in utter disregard to the provisions of the hadustrial Disputes Act, as they have terminated the services of the workmen during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings before the Conciliation Officer. The action of the management is vindictive and in other baste and the same is illegلم unjustified and arbitrarily. Section 33 read with Section 9A of the LD.Act clearly mandate that the services etc. of the workmen have to remain unchanged during the pendency of the proceedings before the Industrial Adjudication and that the services of the workmen cannot be terminued without the permission /approval of the mubority before That the worlumes in the shore statement of claim thus made various representations/demands to the management to regulerine them in regular service against their existing post and to look into their grievances regarding payment of wages through their contractors. However, instead of looking into the demands of the workmen sympathetically, the unnupamant, in furtherance to their illegal designs and with wherior motive to deprive the workunen of the continuity of services and other legal 4700

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21 , 2007 /ASADHA 30, 1929

[PART T-SHC. 30 ) ]

of the Security Services at New Delhi House, Connaught Place, New Delhi .

which the proceedings are pending . The managerment has also vidlated the other provisions of the Act namety Sections 25T, 25U read with Clapse 5 (a, b, d ,f) of the Fifth Schedule ofthe Act read with rules 59 of the LD . Rules.

That it is submitted that the legal termination of the services of the workmen has been brought about only of frustrate the proceedings before the Conciliation Officer andbefore this Hon'ble Court, to harass the workmen and todefend their morale and to compel them to compromise thedisputewhich the workmen have more than a fair chance ofwinodng . The management has adopted this tactics BS realisticri as the wurkmen had moved the court of law for the rednewal oftheir grievances..

That the dispute raised by the concerned workomen cannot be treated to be un " Industrial Dispute" as defined under Section 2 (Ki of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The dispute, which has been raised on behalf of the workmen by the Delhi Multi Storeyad Building Employees Congress, which has no locus standi qua the imagement The managezhent has its owo unikom , and the claimant cannot approach the claimant union . The union bus failed to show any espousal of the alleged dispute on behalf of the claimants. The employees of the answering respondent are representedby Indian Oil Pipelines Association , being the only recognized union of workmen engaged at their establishment,

The Management submiks that the alleged swordman and their unmou have made a number of misleading representations , false averments and baseless allegations in the statement of claim and it ought to be rejected straightaway.

That the Union had made representations to the above management soon after the Irmination of the services of the worinnen but inspite of the representation, the management has not cared to allow the workmen to perforep their normal duties and therefore, the Union filed a coprplakat before the Conciliation Officer tinder the above Mid provisions of law, but nothing could be done chue to the adanjauat attitude of the management.

The claimants have further failed to show aя говом the disputebeing raised by them can be termed to be an " Industrial dispute " . It is a matter of record that they keep on changing their stand and their union. The claimant as per their own showing are settled mostly in Haryana, H.P. &U.P. and thisbeing so , no cause or justification is shown to raise any dispurte against the management establishment .

Itis therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the management to place the workanen in regular services with consequential benefits under the direct employment of the management, in view of the above submissions in the inttrest of justice , as the woricum are performing similemwork, w.ef, the date of their joining the duties with the management and also direct the nunagenbentto pay the wages as paid by the management to its regular staff performing similar work.

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly bepleased todirect the management to immediately take back the woritmen on their duties and maintain status quo as was operating in the date of filing of the statement of claim before the Conciliation Officer.

to That the Contract Labour (R &A) Act, 1970 itself is a self sufficient code and any dispute relating to the contract labour can be investigated under the said Act . The Claimant's claim that they had been working with the various contractors, the claimants have not stated whowas their carlier employers and in the absence of any such particulars the bald statements that they have been working with the Indian Oil Corporation is unbelievable. The averments need to be replied by the concerned respondent. The management stake that it has its own recruitment procedure laying down eligibility criteria to sclect the workmen for its plants. Such of the jobs which are neither perennial in nature and are permitted to performed through the contract labour are given to the Various contractors in accordance with law. The respondent Corporation is registered under the provisions of the contract Labour(Regularisation and Abolition ) Act, 1970.

The Management has filled written statement. In the written statement it has been susted that before giving the panwisereply to the statemen of claim , its is stated that the concerned worldren have no right to trise any dispute ifthe matter ofregularization as made out in the Statecat of Claim There exists/existed no complayer-employee relationship between the claimants and the respondents . The claimanta were never in the employment of the respondeju Corporation .The Contract Labour ( Regulation &Abolition ) Act, 1970 is a self sufficient code and admitedly the claitumishworiomen being the employees of the contractors have no right to apparsack the authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 without exhausting the remedies available to them under the Bald Act of1970.

That the management of Indian Oil Corporation has its own recruitment policy and puddelines which cannotbe overlooked while giving regularization to the claimants. It is therefore clear that such a clarion is not quintainable under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and is liable tobe rejected.

That the contents of para I of the Claim Statement are wrong and denied. It is stated that no valid Industrial Dirpate has been raised which can be the sundbyject matter of proceedings before the Hon'ble Authority, Merelyby Thai the respondent management is also no longer occupying the premises at New Delhi House and the contract jiven for manning, traffic control , surveillance exc , to Mus . Indian Security Services (P) Ltd. had expired on28-2-2002. Thère is neither' any work nor sру проштететь 4701

भारत का प्रमपत्र : जुलाई 21 , 2007 /म्यमान् 30, 1929

[ भय -3 (18)]

that the notification, if any, has to be issued by the appropriate govt. It is stated that there is no unfair labour practice indulged in by the managrament Corporation. Soch ofthe jobs, which are neither perzanial por permanent in nature as this, is not the core activity of the Corporation.It is an industry wise practice to have unchjobe to outsource the core activities . There has been no exploitation of the claimants 15 alleged

alleging that they form a substantial class and cluínsing themacivesto be employees through a contractor would not mesesberibe claimanta leve any legal/justified rights torrelsesoy chitonghoutthe magament, it is comphatically srùng tnd denied that any of the claimants have been working slace long as claimmat in the claire statancat Admittedly as mangement is an industry under the provisions of the Industrial DisputeAct .

Contents, of, para 2 are wrong and denied . The claimants have only saade vigac allegations without giving aty details with regard to the contractor , nature ofjob being poliformedby then and any other factual position to justify that they have been comployed by the management through a contractor . It is an industry wise practice to get jobe of security guided tough custract labour. It is the contracker who supervincs and controls his worinnen. There is no directies or control being exercised by the management or its officinds on such contract carployees. Thejobs buing currimel out by these Claimants were not the oreactivities oftheCorporation nor are they incidentul to or necessary for the lindustry , trade, business , manufacture or occupation carried out in the establishment. There exists existed no camployer - pinyce relationship between the cjutract-walance and the respondent Corporation .

Coments ofpara 6 are wrong and denied. It is stated that there could be no question arising of the claimants shouldbe paid the same wages as are being received by the regular employees of the Corporation. It is emphatically denied that they do not perform any similar work as is being done by the regular employees of the Corporationu As has already been submitted in the foregoing paras there exit /existed no employer employee relationship between the parties and hence the claire for equal pay for equal work would not be contents of para 7 as stated arewrong and denied. The claimants were employed by the contractors for the job of surveillance , gate manning, traffic control etc. These activities did not form the core business of the respondent and were intermittent in nature. On vacation of the New Delhi House Office, the servics of the contractor was discontinued, bence they are not associated with the respondent in any matter.

Contents ofpara 3 are wrong and denied. It is wrong and desiod that theediteerts have been engaged by the hangat. The raspundem corporation is no longer occupying the said premises at NewDelhi House, and there exists no relationship between the parties.

Content of para 8 are wrong and denied. It is stated that some of the contract woricers had earlier filed a writ petition being CPW No. 869/97 which was disposed offon 5-9-2001. The notification dated 9-12-1976 already standa quashed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Contents of para 10 in so far as they relate to the order of reference being matter of record needs no reply . It is wrong and denied that the nature of duties of the claimant is of regular orperennial in nature . It is wrong and denied that the failure of the conciliation proceedings was dueto the uncooperative attitude of the management

Contents ofpara 11 as started are wrong and denied It is stated that the claimants have no right to claim regularization of service etc. There has been no violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Duputes Act, a alleged. There has been no violation ofthe provisions of the Act or the rules as alleged. The respondents have never eamployed or Berminated the services of the claimants . It is submitted that the contract between the contractor and the respondents came to an end, which was for a fixed period.

Contents of para 12 are wrong and denied. It is wrong and denied that the management has adopted retulinary tactics as alleged.

Comsats of 4 me wrong and denied. The Corpaatial auntycnatplied with the law as are applicable twit Silycthe contractorswherever required have tak Bonaca undentbiqisions ofthe Act. The Corporation is ragintand under the provlaknas of the Contract Labour (Regalation and Abolize) Act, 1970. The management bis to control despervision of the work of the claimants , nor any wagos/ pality is being paid to them by the ted that it is the discretion ofthe Contractors sa komthe, workers. It is wrong and denied thatthe Chalichnhất thế ngưiền of the Management of the Indiands Of Corpanties Ltd. as alleged. None of the chalpaints apre part of the IDC establishment as alleged Τωσε τα τις απαρloyer employee relationship between the claimants and the answering management. None of the trata to establish employer employee relationship l.e. control.cand ampion tat corbic crastrol test or the integraded text bave been satisfied in the pacient case. Conoftratation ofthe services cannot arise in Satin of a boter the parties. The yemplied the low are applicable to + be termed to be the employees of

Collersta of fara 5 are wrong and denied.As khove. They and ant performing any job of n. Bis respecthally submitted

Contents of para 13 are wrong and denied . The sincement of chuẩim filed by the workman is without any jurisdiction. They have no justified grievance. The claim- deacaves to be dismissed. The claimants have made a false and baseless clatin; which quy be ejected. In any evart, the action of the Corporation being legal, in accordance 4702

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21 , 2007/ ASADHA 30.1929

[PART -Sec. 30 )

initially and thereafter by the contractor wiso keptου changing."

with law, may kindly be upheld.It has already been submitted as above that the claimants are not the employees of the management and their case for regularization cannot be considered as the management has its own recruitment policy and guidelines.

From cross - examination of these 2 witnesses it becomes quite vivid that the workmen were appointed by the contractors . Payment was made to them by the contractors and the workmen worked under the contانط and supervision of the contractiors.

The women applicants have filed rejoinder. In the rejoinder they have reiterated the awameals of their claim statement and had denied most of the paras of the written statement. The management has also denied most of the paras ofthe chim statement.

It was submitted that in the circumstances the workmen cannot be said to be working under the supervision and control of the management .

Evidence ofboth the parties has been taken .

The workmen have also admitted that appointment letter was issued to them by Sentinel Security Pvt . Limited.

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

To was further submitted that the burden is on the workmen to prove that they worked under the control and supervision of the management and their services were integrated to the management and payracat to them was made by the management ,

It was submined from the side of the wurkmen that they have been working continuously without aqy break for thelast 50 many years and in any case for over 240 days for the respondent/ management . The job performedby these workmen is of permanent and perenniat nature. The management employed the workmen through different contractors to deprive them of security ofjob and equal wages . The contractors are only name lenders .They have nocontrol of any kind over the workmen or over their employment and their terms and conditions of service . They performed their duties of security under the direct control and supervision of the management. There is direct employer-employce relationship between the management and theworkben .

The workmen have filed only photocopies ofwage register. These photocopies do not disclose as to by whom the payment has been made . However, the workmen have admitted that they were engaged by different contractors and different contractors supervised their work and they worked under the control and supervision of the contractors. The contractor has appointed supervisor to watch their work . Shri Ramesh Chander , the Supervisor deputed from the side of the contractor used to supervise theirwork

It was further submitted that the services of the wurkmen were terminated while the dispute was pending before the Conciliation Officer . The management has Infringed Section 9(A) of the LD. Act, 1947. The workamen are not getting proper wages . They are entitled to be treatert as direct and regular employees ofthe management and alt the benefits just us wages etc. should be extended to them also.

It is settled law that every contract workman will not automatically become an employee of the Principal Employer . He has to prove that he worked under the supervision and guidance of the management . The workmen have not filed any document to establish supervision of the management over their work . In oral evidence also they have admitted that they worked under the control and supervision of the comractor.

The management has filed Registration Certificate for engaging contract wurkers .

The workmen have filed photocopies of wage payment register. These photocopies do not contain any seal and signature of the management.

Ithas been held in 2004 LLR Page 351 as under- Itwas submitted from the side of the manageme Dat the workinen were employed by the contractors. They worked under the control and supervision of the contractors. Payment to them was made by the coptractors . The worloney were removed by the contractors. WW1 Shri Munshi Ram has admitted in his cross -examination :-

"11 is correct that I was never amployce of IOCL and all the supervision and control was doneby the. Supervisor and the contractor ."

The other wincas Shri Raghubir Singh has admitted asunder:-

"The modern approach has been to abandon the search for a single rest, and instead to take a moltiple ог pragmatic арргoach, weighing upon all the factors for and against a contract of employment and determining on which side the scales eventually settle. Factors which are usually of importance ar as follows the power to select and disuniss the direct payment of some form or remuneration , deduction of PAYE and national insurance contributions , the organization of the workplace , the supply oftools and materials ( though there can stil be labour only sub- contract ) and the economic realities ( in panicular who bears the risk of loss and has the chance of profit and whether the employee couldbe said to be in business on his own account" ).

"I have worked with Sentinel Security Pvt Ltd. For IOCL....... no correspondence has been issued to him by 10CL. It is correct that my supervision and control was done by Seminel Security Pvt . Limited 4703

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 21 , 2007/ाय 30 , 1929

It has been held in AIR 1992 SC 1452der:

A further development in the recent case law (puticulty.comcocning a typical employments ) has been the idea of "motaality of obligations" as a possible factor , Le whether the course ofdealings between the parties demonstrates sufficient such mutuality for there to be as overall employment lationship."

"It stands stablished that Industrial Law revolves on the axis of mutez und servant relationship und by acatens ofprecedents it stands established that the prima focie lest of relationship of master and scrveni is the coxistence ofthe right in thac napater to supervisε and control the work dope by the servant.(the measure of supervision and control apart ) pot caly in time matter ofdrecting what work the servant is to dobut also the manner inwhich he shall do his work." From the above judgment it appears that the contractors workmen have to prove that they were appointed by the management and payment to them wit madeby the management mad deductions were made from their salaryjust as EPF &NIC. The workanen barve not flled any such documents is evidence .

The workmen have failed to prove that their master supervised and controlled their work. They have rather admitted that they worked under the supervision and control of the contractor .

Ithas been held in 1973 Lab IC 398 as under

Their services cannot be integrated to the management as they were assigned the duties by the contractor . The contractor's men supervised their work and payment to them was made by the contractor. So the workmen do not satisfy evtu integration lest as has been beld in (2004) | SCC 126. It has been held as under:-

"The burden of proof being on the workmen to establish the employer -employee relationship an adverse inference cannot be drawn against the amployer that if he were to produce books ofaccounts they would have proved employer-employee relationships ."

Ithas been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that no adverse inference can be driven against the employer . Ifhe does not produce books of accounts, the workmen have to prove employs and camployee relationship.

It hy been held in 1975 Lab IC 202 as under:-

"Where a person asserts that he was a workmen of the Company, and it is denied by the Company, it is for him to prove the fact. It is not for the Companyto prove thathewas not an employee of the Company but of some other person."

The workmen have not filed documents to prove that they were the workmen ofthe management

It has been held in AIR 1957 SC 264as under

"In determining the relationship of employer and employee, no doubt , " control " is one of the important tests but is not to be taken as the sole test. All other relevant facts and circumstances are required to be considered including the terms and conditions of the contract. It is necessary to take an multiple pongmatic approach weighing up all the factors for and against an comployment instead of going by the sole "rest of control". An integrated approach is needed. " Integration " lest is one of the relevant tests . It is applied by examiningwhether the person was fully integrated into the employer's concrzu or requined apart from and independent of it. The other factors which may be relevant ar who has the power to select and dismiss , to pay remoneration , deduct insurance contributions, organize the work, supply tools and materials and what are the "mutual obligations " between them."

Even in Constitution Bench Judgment of (2001) 7 SOC 1 , Steel Authority of India and others it has been beld "The principle which emerges from these authorities is that the prima facle test for the determination of the relationship between master and servant is the existence ofthe right in the muster to supervise and control thedone by the servant not only in the matte of directingwhat work the servant is to do but also the sunny.in which he shall do his works, or to borrow the words of Lord Utirwatt at page 23 in Mencу Docks andHarbour Board Vs. Coggins andGriffith (Liverpool) Limited (1947) LA.C. IP. 23.1, "The propor teat iswhether or not tise härer had unthority to control the manner of execution of the act in question."

"Engagement ofcontract labour in connection with the work entrusted to him by the principal empkryez, beld, does not culminale in emergence of master and servant relationship between the principal employer and the contract Labour Circumstance ander which contract Labour can be treated as workman ofprincipal cumployer explained Contract Labour (Regulation& Abolition) Act, 1970.

"Where a workman is hired through a contractor, heid, master and servant relationship exists But where a workman is hired or in connection with the work ofa establishment to produce a given result or thecontractor supplies workmen for any work ofthe From the above judgment it is obvious that the workmen have to prove that the mumagement retained its right to supervise and control the work done by them. It was the management who should direct what the workmen had to do and the managensent also should sscertain the mmoner in which a particular work is to be done . No such documents have been filed in this canc 4704

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 21 , 2007 /ASADHA 30, 1929

establishment . unless the contract is a mere carsouflage , the workman cannot be treated as an employee of the principal employ ."

Ithas been laid down that the contractors can supply aset ofworkmeh for the work of the management.

In the circumstances 240 days working is not material. The woriamen fust have to establish that their services were integrated to the management and they worked under the supervision and control of the management and payment to them was made by the management . The workmen have failed to establish employer-employee relationship in view of the control and integration tests as mentioned above . There is no employer- employee relationship. There is no question of retrenchment compensation. There is no question of reinstatement or giving the previous status or regularization.

The referduce is replied thus :-

The action of the Management of IOCL, New Delhi , in not regalarizing the services of the concerned 18 warkmen from the date of their initial appointment is just fair and legal . The workmen applicants are not entitled toget any relief as prayed for,

The award is given accordingly.

Date:26-6-2007

Let copies of the Award be sentto the Ministry of Labour ,Goverment of India for necessary action at their end.

Date:26-6-2007.

R.N. RAI, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 29 जून , 2007

का.आ. 1054. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947

[PART Q-SEC. 3( i ) ) New Delhi , the 29th June, 2007

S.O. 2054.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref . No. 22704, 229/04, 235/04, 237/04, 239404, 241404, 24304, 245/04, 247/04, & 24904 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court 1 , Chandigarh noW RE shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ONOC and their workmen, which was xxxived by the Cenical Govemment on 29-06-2007.

[No.(1 ) L-30011-30-2004- IR (M)

(2)L-30011-19-2004- IR (M)

(3 ) L-30011-21-2004- IR (MM)

(4) L- 30011-16-2004- IR (M)

(5) L-30011-25-2004- IR (M)

(6)L-30011-24-2004- IR (M)

(7) L-30011-27-2004- IR (M)

(8) L-30011-31-2004- IR (M)

(9) L-30011-33-2004- IR (M)

(10) 2-30011-26-2004- IR (M)]

N. S. BORA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURIE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMER, PRESIDING OFFIOZA, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURE- 1, CHANDIGARH CaseNo. LD. 227/2004

Shri Rishikesh Sto Dugla C/ o Sh . Suresh Kumar , General Secretary, ONGC Mazdoor Union , Dhaban Mandi (HP.)

Applicat

Versus

The Manager , ONGC, Northern Regional Business Centre, Dehradun , Uttranchal , Dehradun.

Respondent APPEARANCES .

For the workman

(1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ.एन. बी.सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/अम न्यायालय , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 227004 , 229/04, 235/04, 237/04 , 239/04, 241/04, 243/14, 245/04, 247/04 और 249/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-06-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं.]( 1) एल-30011-30-2004 - आई. आर. (एम ) (2 ) एल-30011-19-2004- आई.आर. ( एम ) (3) एल- 30011-21-2004- आई.आर ( एम ) (4) एल-30011-16-2004- आई.आर ( एम ) (5) एल- 30011-25-2004- आईआर (एम) (6) एल- 30011-24-2004- आई. आर. ( एम) (7) एल-30011-27-2004-आबई. आर. ( एम) (8) एल-30011-31-2004-मई बार ( एम) (9) एल-30011-33-2004- आई.आर ( एम) ( 10) एल-30011-26-2004- आईआर ( यम ) ]

एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी

Sh . M.S.Gorsi .

For the management : Sb .T.S. Sidhu.

AWARD

Passedon 18-6-2007

Central Government vide notification No. L- 3001 1 30/2004/IR (M) dated 1-06-2004 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudicatión:

"Whether the action of the management of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Tel Ahusna, Dabadun in terminating the services of Suri Rishikesh Sto Sh .Dugla, Ex -Contingent Worker (unskilled) w.e.f. 01-10-2003 without any notice and without any payresent of retrenchment compequation, is illegal and unjustified? If so, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from which date?" 4705 [भार ।। खण्ड 3 (ii):

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 21 , 2007/ आषाढ़ 30 , 1924

There are len cases including this case, the details of other one cases are given as under .

isduly covered under the definition of work under the I.D. Act and had completed 240 days of continuously and without any tweak hezite the claim of the workman is mantainable .

No.

Reference No. สมป

Date

Name of workman

SI . No.

224/2004 Sunder Lal L30011 : 19/2004 [R +M) dued 2/6/2004

2 235/7014 Karam Chand 1.30011 /21 / 2004 TR (M) dated 3/6/2004

3.217/2004 Ramesh Chand 1,30011 /16/2004- IR (M ) dated 1/6/20

299/2004 игran Chand 1-330011 /25/ 2004- IR ( M) dated2/6/2004

Raj Kumar

5. 241/300

1. 3001 1/24/2004 IR (M)

date 2/6/2014

24./2004 Nand Lal 13061 /27/20M - IR (M) luted 2/6/20004

245-2004 Kanhaya Lal 13001131/2004 RM dated 1-6-2014

5. 247/2001 Nek Rams 1..3001330004 IR (M dated 1-6-2004

5. 243004 Lekh Ra

1.-300011/ 26/2004- IR (M)

Jurtexl 2-6-20 사

4.The management ONGC filed written reply to the claion statement of the workman submitting that engagedient of the workinan was powerned hy the terms of the lemer of appirit isned to Brian Jiurther it is also governed by retrenchment letter . It is mentioned in the appointment better and in so effective in the retrenchiment eider that the services will be terminated withour further notice as there was stipulation is the appointmel letter and it does not amount to retrenchment . Hence no violation of any provisions of the I.D. Act 1947. On merits also the management denied the averments made in the claim stareineer and suheranel that the exploratory drilling at Danger District Bilaspur commerced due to the fact that Rig could be shifted late because of the agitation of the workmen including the present workman . That the workmen were taken there weed hasis on day ten day requiremen unly and on daily wage rate .However they were paid higher wage rate as the workman was on 12 hours . There were aumber of workers taken en need busis and were and un regular employment . Management also denied other allegatives and subahirred thar as the appointment of the workman and other workruen was on project basis und it was shown in the appointment letter also and it was also made clear to them. The dispute was raised before the curcaliation offiver where settlement was arrived ar axd also that in accordance with the condition of the apprintrment letter only bis services were disengaged ankt there is no violation of any provisions of the I.D. Act 1947 as it is meil it retreddinnenr .

5.Workman filed replication reiterating the averme خله as mude in the cluim stutem .

6 Wurkman un prove his claim statement filed his own affidavit and examined himseli in evidence a managerment also lite ! one affidavit of only one witness iz.A.K Shanna and examined as only MW. Both witnesses нете стомелаmined al length .

WUeknwin filed cluiro statement wherein he averred thit be joined the services of the ONGC w.e.f. 19-8-2000 hor the respondent did not usue any letter of uppointment at the time of joining of duty. Later on the appointmeal leller was issued on the intervention of Labour Tiepartment cn 25-5- (1 ) . He worked continuously from the date ofjinting till 1 10 2003 without atty break in the services and compiezed more than 2410 day's which is toandatory fur raising the industrial dispute . He worked up to the entire satisfaction of ONGC and he was never issued army show cause notice, warning, charge sheet or any other menn .He was getting Rs . 39900 per month. That the management passed the retrenchmem orders dated 1-101-2003 and terrerehed the series trom the same date .He was neither paid retreachment compensation , nor one month morice or notice pay in lieu of notice . The management thus has violaned the provisions of Section 2.5F of the T. AL1 1947.

7 At the time of final arguments learned cousel fos the parties submitted that along with the case of the present workmaan Rishikesh Vs. ONGC there are aime other cases of somalur nature between other workmen as detail given with the same management ie. of ONGC ar the same sile and in the same project where the present workman Kashikesh was working. Learned counsel for workmen Shei M.S. Gorsi is advocate of workmen in allt cases and learned counsel for the management ONGC Shri I. S. Sidhu in all the cases had submitted that all these 10 cases can be disposed off by single award in case of Rishikesh Vs. ONGK as the evidence , facts and low involved are the same and similar in the above 10 cases . Learned counsel for the parties submitted that in all the above 10 cases in evidence workman examined himselt us his only witness and munagemen examined Shri A.K Sharma in all the above 3. that the respondent management had started the new exploratory drilling proposal at Danger . District Bilaspur Himachal Pradesh which is just at the distance of 50 Krius Stum the previous site and the workman is readyto work at the proposed site . It is obvious that the respondeaul management will make fresh appointments to run the proposed exploratory project. The workanan is a trained person and cao bandle the whole work in a better way us compared to the fresh appointee The respondent shall further violare Section 25t of the [.D . Act while making fresh appointment . Whole of the machinery and other infrastructure is being shifted from the present site in District Sundernagur to the new site at Donger the workman

306855707-11 ¡PAKI JA SFC SLIDE THE GAZETTE OF INTIMA : JLTY 21. 2007/ ASADILY !!

4706

Sacavities : cqairiaz zalue of job ulleres operaitca . Ir was harc : the cotithin that er. completion of such activishall be terminated walust Sauber noze .

cases . Both learned counsel submitteal that in the cases the date of termination and tale of wages are not spel between the parties and that even the managemenl conceded than date ul vermination as alleged by the workrneland rate of wages as alleged are the same as they alleged in their respective claum staten cats .

Lather surmittest by Sh . 18. Sdan L. Coarse ofONGC is as the operation of the artistic at Sanderung Propec reang nature of job have bee completed Theret . the fe Jated 55-2100 : LA W the servicesчие капрет тарашат . October 200

and Restburinertical the time at apacuttin The workman res maale konown to that l apprimentaplo treat the project as דיין Fx W2 and terrasadacrdance with Ex . werken in cross- evara " on alse replied that it is совес the management facorpenersi Sunderlagan projec ceraaled theirervicerns ofletter of appointment but later be bethemeticsere payment or recrawliner comensali .

8. Learned conse! for the workmen Sthn M.S. Gara submitted in oral arguments thar as there is no dispute with regard to date of termination , rare of wages. The contentans of the workmen were admitted in one way by the management that in all the above 10 cases werkтет. have completed 240 days prevealing on the same of theに teusination and at workmen were non paul any retrenchment compensation, one monta wtice or pay in Lien of notice . The woontentions of the workmen we chan maugerbert starred another project at Danger Distil Bilaspur and there ale management (ONGC need Ja labour to the employed as they were well known to the exploratory work nejuding drilling olierwise ma will commit voulation of Section 25F & Hf the 1.1 . Ac : 1947. Workmen shall be reinstated as they have complered 210 days He also submitted for workmer. approached the Hon'ble: Himachal Pradesh High Court and later on they filed a contempt and thereaftes only mem ofONGC reinstated the workenen as they have explorattry work in search of vil ur gas in ditlerer , hazin al tie Cuntry . It is subroilted while concluding the arguments on behall of the workmen that all worker.za have proved Cheir cases . Therefore, these ten cases ray be decided in Suveer of all the workmen directing the management ka reinstate the workmen with full back wapes and all other benetils .

12 Wilkeni sh. Sick AVR 1the ranagerscheinengewal that das pite gas each worarienai- cheriaarion an accordance with the 1 lust or apple letter as the pro ect was completed a Stark and there is need إذ retrenchreat ampersaber ynd note er pay in 20 ncuce . Le Couse ! Si a retered ra I.T 2003 . Supreme Cour. 4.6 Wrement are did not reply rather silent the fan hatappointment leter wh Esseed on can ng diszne ta BRIC that inere Clause is the appeteerisme .า ก่ ject and weaknen were aware of tecirmation compleme ofthe project

15 have hea vocne SP MS Gusi andmade Shr . S. SadLTILLES evidene of both the peries and documents . Bet paties en agere a derried a rhes case having جةجدااسمجانا lis the isl forthe worsten and its maragdinem are comme that these lo cares can sposed of slagledn the present case Rishikest ONGC as w and and evidence isthe sarme. I therefore decided as agreedy hott. Use parties three casesths ! be dispused ts a singie usar kes ONGC

14. learned wakraen has abanted her enrire case isnes de management ONLIC He hemen werkmer have compiste . the cale as 12 alarmarea preceding Sanwar Merkava a le as the monagement started work st another sta coder heter project. He vermined dat management ON 250 has admitted the date of ages in all the Lil rases aro t 9. On the the hand learned counsel Sari 1.5 . sich tor die management ONGC submitted that ju all the tu cases , management honestly admitted that what ever the rate of dages women were claitoing , management was pazing Management al admitted date of apparen and date of termicarion et each workman . Managment Liso addritied that wurkmenising the dispute heliore Ure shpur office. Issued appointment letter Tx . W to the workout and W' ? is the termination lether le sulmed that there is no dispute about as to tale of wages were the same as alleged by the workmen and workmen have completed days brut still all wurkmen are not entitled rs any relief . Management has not violated any prevision ot the Act. He submitted that termination of all the w does not amoual to Letrenchment as ali the workmer wri erosoned in accordance woth the condition Landorair F.x. Wand there is a stipulation, almpliance the tenthinalius lerner Ex. W3 . 1le sohmitted that share perusal the appointment letter Fx W2 it is clear that workmar., in retrenched as per terms of the employmett specifically contained in para I thereot . The eapley ment was only for a period , the activities terrained in operation al Sundert.ugar . The appointment was thrus, offered as contingent workers unskilled at Sundernagar project till [भाग - खण्ड ( ⅱ ) ]

4767

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 21 , 2007/ आपाय 30 , 1929

workmen Rishikesh and others w.rf 1-10-2003 without any . notice and without any payment of retrenchment compensation is legal and justified. As it is held that termination is justified, therefore, the workomen are not entitled to any relief also. The references are answered accordingly in favour of the management . Central Govt be inforced . The copy of this award be also placed in other nine filles also. Files be consigned to record.

workanen have completed 240 days proceding to the date of their termination and workman have not been paid retrenchumcat compensation, notice or notice pay in lieu of notice. There was also a project at Danger and therefore, the management of ONGC bas violated the provisions of Section 25F andHof the 1.D. Act 1947. In all the 10 cases the workmen have proved the reference in their favour. Therefore, workmen may be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages and all service benetils applicable to them.

Chandigarh

18-6-2007

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 जून , 2007

का.स. 2055.-औोगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार समदुर मैंगनीज एण्ड आयरन और लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योनिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यावालय बंगलौर में पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्क 08/2002 , 09/2002 , 10/2002 एवं 11/2002) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं ( 1 ) एल-26012/ 3 /2001 आईमार ( एम)

(2) एल-26012/4/ 2001 -आईआर (एम )

(3) एल-26012/6/2001-मईआर ( एम )

(4) एल-26012/5/2001- आईआर ( एम) ] एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 29th June,2007 15. In nutshell , against the ples of the workmen , the management bas submitted that despite admitting the case ofthe workmen , the workmen are not entitled to any relief of any kind and the workman all filed to prove violation anyviolation of the provisions of Section 25F and H of the ID.Act . He submitted that the termination of the workmen are as per their appointment letter "that services of the workman shall be terminated without further notice on the completion of the work and was also for the execution ofa particular job ."That particular job was over and in terms of appointment letter and on execution of the project, the management terminated the services of all the worloman without cansing any violation ofany provisions of the ID. Act the workmen are not entitled to my retrenchment compensation or pay in lieu of notice or notice of one month as it is not a retrenchment. The management has rightly terminated their services as the job in which they have taken, was over. I have also found that management has also relied on a Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in IT 2003 (3) SC436 $ .M.Niajkar and Ors Vs. TelecomDistrict Manager, Karnataka, In this judgment the Hos' ble Supreme Court has held that in a case where the workman was mppointed in a particular job and there is a stipulation in their appointment letter and on completion of thejob if his services were terminated as per appointment letter, it is Dota retrenchinent but it must be known to workman. There is no violation of any provisions of Section 25F of the 1.D.Act 1947. This project was over as not disputed . Therefore the management is not to comply any provision , referencemay be decided in favour of the management

8.0.2055. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 08/ 2002, 09/2002 , 10/2002 & 11/2002 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal LabourCourt Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Sandur Manganese & Iron Ore Lad, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-06-2007.

[No.(1 ) L-260123/2001 - IR (M)

(3) L- 2501 2/6/2001 - IR (M)

(2) L-260124/2001-IR (M) (4) 1-26012/5/2001 -IR ( M) ] N.S. BORA, Desk Officer 16. I have found on persal of the entire evidence and pleadings and arguments there was a stipulation in the appointment letter and on completion of the project the services of the workman were terminated as the particular work was over and this stipulation was well known to the workman. The law referred by the learned advocate of the ONGC fully covers this case. Further workmen no where has rebutted this plea of ONGC in evidence , pleadings and arguments that in view of existence of stipulation in Ex.W2, appointment letter of workman . workman was disengaged is totally silent on this aspect.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALOR Dated: 8th June 2007

17. lam of the considered view that workmen failed to prove the reference in their favour whereas the management bas proved the reference in their favour.The martagement has proved that action of the management of ONGC in all the cases in terminating the services of the

3068 GƯゆ 7-12 4708

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 21 , 2007 / ASADHA 30 , 1929

PRESENT

Shri A.R. SIDDIQUL PresidingOfficer

C.R. No. 08/2002

IIParty

IParty

The General Manager, Shri Narayan,

Sandur Manganese & Irun Ore Ltd. , PO Deogiri ,

SandurTq. ,

BellaryDistrict,

Karnataka Stair

Sto Stri Basappa , AL/POOYeswani Nagar , Sandor Taluk BellaryDistrict, Karnataka State

C. R. No. 2002

Party

IParty

Shri Venkatesh,

TheGeneralManager,

SancharMangmese & Iron Ore Lad, PODeogiri,

Sandur Tq..

SandurTaluk,

BellaryDistrict,

Karnataka State

Sve Shri Chinmayya, C/o Teachers Colony, 14th Ward, Sandur P.O., BellaryDistrict, KarnatakaState

C. R. No. 10/2002

Party

!Party

TheGeneral Manager, Shri V. Lonchallish,

SindurManganese && Iron Ore Ltd, PO Deogiri,

Sáo Shri Chinmayya, C/oTeachers Colony.

14th Ward, Sandur P.O. ,

Sandur Taluk,

Sandur Tq .. BellaryDistrict,

Karuriaka State

BellaryDistrict,

Kurumtaka Stare

C. B.No.11/2002

IIParty

1Party

TheGeneral Manager , SandurManganese & Tron Ore

Lad,PODeogiri , Sundor Taluk,

ShriMalliappa, Sío Star Basappа, NearHigher Primary School ,At/POO

YerwantNagar,

BellaryDistrict,

Karnataka State

Sandur Taluq,

BellaryDistrict,

Karnataka State

COMMON AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d ) of Sub- section 2A of the Section 10of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred these disputes videOrder Nos. L-26012/3 /2001 - IR(M) dated 24-01-2001 , L-26012/ 4 /2001-(IR ( M) dated 24-01-2001, L-26012/ 6/2001 -IR( M ) dated 24-01-2001 , & Order No. L-26012/5/2001 - IR (M) dated 28th January , 2001 for adjudication no the following schedules :

SCHEDULE( C /202)

Whether the action of the management of Mis. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ore Lad, is justified in

PART I-SE . 3( i ) !

imposing the punishment of dismissal from service on Shri Narayan, w.e.f. 06-1-1999 though the Hon'ble Civil Judge & JMFC. Sandur has acquitted him for similar charges of theft ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

SCHEDULE(CR 09/2002)

"Whether the action of the imanagement of Mis . Sandar Manganese & Iron Ore Ltd. , is justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service On Shri V. Venkatesh, Sto Shri Chinmayya w.e.f. 06-1-1999 though the Hon'ble Civil Judge & JMFC, Sandhur has acquitted hiro for similar charges of theft Ifnot, to what relief the worloman is catitled ? " SCHEDULE ( CR 10/2002)

"Whether the action of the management of Mis . Sandur Manganese & Iron Ore Ltd., is justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service on Shri Penchalliu, Sto Shri Chinnayya , w.e.f. 06-1-1999 though the Hon'ble Civil Judge & JMFC: Sankhur has acquitted him for similar charges of theft? Ifnot, to what rebel the workman is entitled ? " SCHEDULE(CK 11/2002)

"Whether the action of the management of M/ s . Sandur Manganese & Iron Ore Lod . , is justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service on Shri Malliyappa , Sin Shri Basappa w.e.f. 06-1 1999 though the Hon'ble Civil Judge & IMPC, Sandur has acquined him for similar charges of theft? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled? "

2. These are the four reference proceedings by four first partyworkmen raising the disputes separately, against ume and the same management challenging the dismissal order dated 6-1-1999 passed against thert individually based on the common charge sheet dated 23-8-1997 issued against them and therefore , by the consent of learned counsels representing the parties all the proceedings have been clubbed togellier and common award is being passed for the sake of cooveolence and to avoid the overlapping ofdiscussions and findings to be recorded by this tribunal .

3. A charge sheet dated 23-8-1997 consisting of common allegations of theft alleged to have been committed by the first party workmen came to be issued to them , individually, in the following tents : -- 4709 [ भाग - बब्द 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 21 , 2007/आवाद 30, 1929

raising the dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the IDAct and thereafter on the point ofjurisdiction, withdrew those disputes from the said Labour Court under its permission and then raised the disputes before the ALC ( Central) ,the Conciliation Officer , Bellary and the conciliation proceedings resahed into the present references ירי

5. The common grounds urged in the Claim Stalernents filed by these 4 first party women to be narrated, in matshell, me that all of them joined the services of the management compury initially as MineWorkzas bad then promoted as Drillers and thereafter as Tractor Drivers somewhere in the year 1982, thereby they had been in the service ofthe management for about a period of more th 25 years as on the date they were dismissed from services, that cam 9-6-1997all of them were called to the Sandum Police Station on the pretext of petting some clarifications bat to their samprise they were detained in the police custody on falsecharges of having been involved in a theft case up till 17-6-1997, onwhich date only they were produced before the judicial Magistrale First Class, Sandur and they were released on bail; tosta false care was fousted upon the first partyworkomen at the instance ofthe Sandur Police on the allegations that these workmen were found moving suspicionsly with a gummy bag on 17-6-1997 and theywere apprehended by: tac police along with some material/goods which came to be identified liter on as goode belonging to the management company . Though the first party workinen * were nothing to do with thae so called seized theft propaty and no police complaint as such as lodged with the police by the management company for those alleged stolen articles, the find partywordkmen were kept in illegal custody of the police from 9-6-1997 m 17-6-1997, in the absence ĐỂ any incriminating evidence and in order to cover upd justify their illegal detention at the Sunndur Police went to theextent ofcreating roxands as if they bad apprchendied the fust puty workmen only on 17-6-1997 that too on the allegation that they were found . in possession of stolen. goods said to have been stolen an year before the incident on lund; that thereupon, the Sandur Police registered a false case against tac fust puty workmen and filed false charge sheet but could not prove the charges of alleged thell against the fint party workomen during the course of tri معمللج in wriminal court. All of them ware hantucably acquitted videjudgment dated 9-9-1999. However, in the meantime without waiting the outcome of the criminal prosecution against the first party workmen, the management burriedly commenced the Domestic enquiry proceedings against the first party workmen and the enquary officer submitted his fudings holding them guilty of thecharges without there being any evidence on record either direct or circumstantial to connect them with the guilt. Not a single witness was cuthrined during Gre course of caquiry toprove the fact ofrecovery of the alleged theft property from the possession of the first party workma which was found basis for registering the police care against them and thereafter bolding enquiry against thems 4. It is said that the first party workanen submitted their explanations to the said change sheet denying the allegatious oftheft and the managensent not being artisfied with their explanations or replies to the charge sheet, ordered DomesticEnquiry into the matter. Thereupon, domestic enquiry was held against the first party workmen in separate sittings, being participated by them and on the conclusion ofthe enquiry proceedings, the cucuiry officer submitted his enquiry report dated 7-8-1998 in CR. No. 08/ 2002, enquiry report dated 18-3-1998 in CR No. 09/2002, enquiry report dated 14-8-1998 in CR. No. 10/2002 and enquiry reported dated 10-8-1998 in CR No. 11/2002, separately holding each of the first party workman guilty of the charges of misconduct committing theft of the property belonging to the management. Based on the said enquiry reports , individual show truse notices were issued to the first party workinen seeking their commen enquiry reports and once again their caplanations not being found satisfactory all of them were proposed with the punishment of dismissal and once again giving them. opportunity ofhearing, impugned punishment orders dated 6-1-1999 came to be passed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing the fust party workmen from their services. It appears from tise records that the first party workmen being aggrieved by the dismissal orders, challenged those orders inthe first instance approaching the Labour Count atHubli 4710

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : ΠΠ.Υ 21 , 2007 / ASADHA 30, 1929

by issuing the charge sheet; that the findings of the enquiry officer were totally perverse and one sided . He just considered isrelevant and inadmissible evidence and making presumptions and assumptions came to wrong wlusions Holding the first party woriamen guilty of the charges . The Disciplinary Authority also without application of its mind ignoring the defence taken by the first party workmen and their excellent records of service simply and mechanically accepted the findings of the enquiry officer imposing the punishments of dismissal against them which punishment of dismissal is disproportionate as a result of victimization and discrimination . Therefore, the first party requested this tribunal to pass an award setting aside the impugned Cismissal onders with the relief of reinstatements , backwages, continuity of service and all other attended benefits (pleadings with regard to the validity and fairness of the enquiry proceedings are omitted there being a separate finding 0.1 the said issue) ,

6. The management by its counter statement however, challenged the vezments made in the claim statements filed by the first party workanen. The gist of the contetitions taken by the management is by way of repetition of the allegations made in the charge sheets , in the first insunce. With regard to the merits of the case the management contended that based on the reports found mentioned in the charge sheets made by the Security Officer and other staff and thereupon based on the FIR issued by the Sandur Police about the recovery ofthe theft property belonging to the company from the custody and possession ofthe first party workmen, the aforesaid charge sheets were issned against the first party workanen resulting into the Domestic Enquiries and then enquiry findings were given by the enquiry officer holding them guilty of the charges followed by dismissal orders passed against them. The management contended that the findings of the enquiry officer are based on both oral and documentary evidence and have rightly been acceptedby the Disciplinary Authority and therefore, the management was justified in dismissing the first party workmen from their services keeping in view the gravity of the misconduct committed by them . The management refuted the contention of the first party wockmez that the enquiry officer simply relied upon the FIR copies and other connected police records and then imparting his own knowledge ou the basis of assumptions and presumptions submitted the do-qairy findings bolding the workman guilty of the charges. Therefore , the management contended that the enquiry findings were supported by sufficient and legal evidence and ip the result dismissal orders passed against the first party workmen were legal and justified not to cutertain the present references by the wurkinen 7. Keeping in view the respective contentions of the first party workmen and the management in their Claim Statements and Counter Statements with regard to the validity and Fairness or otherwise of the enquiry

PART I-SEC . 3( ii ) ) proceedings conducted by the management against the first party workmen , a preliminary issue came to be frumed separately in all the four cases The management during thecourse of common trial on the said issues examined the enquiry officer as MW1 and get marked documents asEx . Ml to M 56 which included the documents marked during the course ofDomestic enquiry pmceedings . The first party workmen submitted their individual affidavits by way of rebuttal evidence and after having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties, this tribunal by order dated 20-6-2006 answered the above said preliminary issues in favour of the management holding that the enquiries held against the first party workmen were fair and proper. Thereupon, the first party workinen once again Filed their affidavit evidence on the point of alleged victimisation and were cross examined on behalf of the management . No evidence as such was produced by the Management on the said point. Then the maller was posted for arguments on merirs Learned counsel for the Management filed his written arguments and whereas , learned counsel for the first party workmen submitted his oral arguments and hence for award.

8. Now. keeping in view the reference schedules involving the points of disputes and the findings recorded by this tribunal on the DE issues in favour of the management, in the first instance let me examine the question as to " whether the management was justified in imposing thepunishment of dismissal against the first party wurkmen inthe face of the judgement of the criminal court acquitting them from the charges of thefis . "

9. Learned counsel for the first party na the first point argued that the change sheets issued against the First party workmen were bused upon the identical charges which were the basis of the charges of theft leveled against the first party workmen by the Sandur Police in the aforesaid criminal case and that the oral and documentary evidence in be relied upon by the enquiry officer and to be produced before the criminal court were one and the same and therefore,when the criminal court acquitted the first party workmen , that too , honourably , the findings of the enquiry officer holding the workman guilty of the charges of theft which were infact on the basis of the FLR issued against the first party workmen could not have been acted up ממ resulting into the dismissal of the first party workmen . In support of her arguments Sant . Vijayalakshmi for Shn AJS representing the first party workmen relied upon the following seven decisions:

1.2003 J 155 2199( 1 ) 1LJ1094 3.2000(T) LLJ 896 4.Unreportedjudgment dated 1-2-2001 in WI No.28105/:998

5.1994 Supp 1.3 ) SCC 674 6.2006 AIR SCW2709. 7.200 TILR 229 [ भाग -खण्ड ( B) ]

10. As against this argoment learned counsel for the management in his written arguments raised no contention astowhy the acquittal in favour ofthe first partyworkmen will not conse to their rescue in setting aside the dismissal orders passed against them.

11. After having gone through the principle laid down by their Lordship of Supreme Court more particularly, in the first two decisions namely , in the case of Mabiboobsab & Capt . M. Paul Anthony I find verymuch substance in the arguments advanced for the first party workinen. His Lordship of our Hon'ble High Court in the case of Mahiboobsab while relying upon the decision of their Lordstrip of Supreme Court in the case of Capt. Paul Anthony at paras 17 to 19 laid down the principle "that though the management is not prevented to hold the departmental proceedings against. the delinquent concerned sistrultaneously with the criminal prosecution going against him in a court and though the acquittal of such a delinquent is no bar either to hold the enquiry proceedings or to punish the delinquent for the misconduct committed by him, held the view that a honourable acquittal by the criminal courtbowever , would be an exception to the rule aforesaid, perhaps in deference to the criminal court decision, " Their Lordship of Supreme Court at Para34of the decision in the said Paul Anthony case on the point in question laid sown the principle as under:

"A Security Officer in the respondent Gold Mines in Kiler was dismissed from service on charges of alleged recovery of gold ball and gold bearing sand fromhis house .He challenged the dismissal in awrit petition, whichwas allowed by Single Indge, but a Division Bench an letters patent appeal set aside the single judge's judgement. Hence the present appeal by the Security Officer . The Supreme Court allowed the appeal .

The Supreme Court observed that a criminal case based on the same set of facts as those on which the departmental proceedings were based, had been thrown out and the appellant scqaited. It would therefore, be unjust and oppressive, said the Supreme Court, to allow the findings recorded at the exparte departmental proceedings, to stand.

12. The aforesaid principle appliedto the facts and circumstances of the present case on all its fours . The acquittal ofthe first party workmen along with one another by name Mr. Babu in my opinion is a bonourable acquittal . For thejustification of the view Thave taken 1 would like to bring on record the very reasons given by the criminal court while acquitting the first party workomen from the charges ofthefts levelled against them . The reasons given by the court at Paras 8 to 10 of the said judgement marked ar Ex .W1 run as under:

Print No. 1 :

There is nothing much to discuss about this cазе, since the prosecution has examined only 4 witnesses. Out of the witnesses examined PW1 is the spot panch

4711

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 21 , 2007 /अपवाद 30, 1929

witness, andhe turned hostile and denied the entire prosecution story and also denied the panchanaras as perEx.P1 .While, PW2 and 3 me the seizure prach witnesses to the panchnama Ex.P2 under which, police are said to have seized the articles from the possession of the accused , but, they too turned hostile and denied the seizure of articles from the possession of the accused in their presence, and theyalsodenied thecutive prosecution story .While PW4 is the Foranan of the said company, buthe deposed to the fact of theft of articles from his company, but he has not at all deposed that the accused have committed theft of the sald articles from their possession, so, the evidence of PW4 is not assist to the cause of the prosecution .

So, this being the prosecution evidence lead, the prosecution las failed to examine the complainant and the LO. though sufficient opportunity has been given to it. The non-examination of these matrrist witnesses is fiatal to the case of the prosecution.

Now, looking inuo to the prosecution evidence load, the seizure panch witnesses Le. PW2 and 3 have completely turned hostile and also denied surd the police have seized the articles from the possession of the accused in their presence. When, the seizart from the possession of the nocused is not sufficitantly proved, then the whole prosecution story fails and absolutely no case is made out as against the accused Hence, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilty of the accused . Hence , I answer point No. I accordingly.

13. Therefore, could be read from the forestúd reasonings, the first party workmen were not acquitted giving them my benefit doubt but for the reasons that the prosecution story failed to be established there being no case made out against the first party workmen. The court as noted above, held that the prosecution utterly failed to . prove the guilt of the necused (the first party workinen).

14. Now, coming to the question as to whether the charges of misconduct as leveled against tise first party workanen in the charge sheess and the charges based on which criminal prosecution was taken against the first party workmen mere identical one and the same. The position of fact on this question is not disputed and cannot be disputed The set of oral and documentary evidence which was required to be produced during the course ofDE and during course of criminal trial again were one and the same. The most important fact to be substantiated either during the course ofenquiry or during the course of trial in the criminal court in order to comect the fust party worinen with the guilt of thefts was the alleged recovery ofthe theft proparty from the custody and possession of the first party wodu It is interesting to note that the police officials who are said tohave selaed the alleged theft proparty from the fint party workmen onder the recovery panchami and the witunes 4712

[PART 11-SEC . ( ії ) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : ЛЛ.У 21 , 2007/ ASADHA 30 , 1929

who attested panchanama , unfortunately , were not produced before the criminal court thereby the recovery of the property itself could not be substantiated which was infact the basis for the police concerned to register the case against the first party workinen and then for the management to issue the charge sheets against the first party workmen.During the course of trial before the criminal court two recovery panch witnesses namely ShriVenlontanaic &Rajanaik were examined as PW2 & PW3, Meti Basappa examined as PWI was said to be the spot panchnama wilness and one Mr. Shekhar who said to have made report about the theit property was examined as PW4. Whereas , during the course of enquiry it is strange to note that none of the said three panchas much less the two recovery panch witnesses were not at all prochuced or the police officer who recovered the property from the first party workmen and then registered the case against him was produced. Therefore , what is the point now to be noted is that not only the charges of theft were identical as founding the charge sheets and as framed in the criminal court butalso the oral and documentary evidenceto be led during the course of enquiries and during the course of trials were one land the same. Therefore, in this viewof the mater the principle laid down by theirLordship of Supreme Court in the aforesaid Paul Anthony case, in my opiйов. applied to the facts of the instant case on all its Murs, particularly, keeping in view of the facts involved in the aforesaid decision. In the said case also the allegation was that the Police Officer had raided the house of the delinquent concerned and bad effected certain recovery. Those police officers and the recovery panchs were the only witnesses to be examined during the course of enquiry and so also were the witnesses examined in the criminal case and the criminal court came to the conclusion that no search or raid was conductel nor any recovery was made from the residence of the delinquent concerned. In the instant case also the charges of theft against the first party workmen hinged upon the proof of recovery of the alleged theft property from the first party workanen by one and the same setofevidence which was to be produced during the course ofenquiry and use during the course of criminal trial .Now. therefore, when the criminal court has been pleased to acquit the first party workinen after having considered the evidence brought on record during the course of trial for the charge of theft alleged against there , then it being a honourable acquittal , the management was not justified in maintaining the impugned punishment orders of dismissal passed against the first party workmen on the basis of the enquiry findings, when they brought to the notice of the management thisjudgement of the criminal court acquitting them from the paid charges.

15. Now, let us for the sake of arguments see wherdier the findings of the enquiry officer in this case suffered from perversity as contended by the first party workmen . Learned coumel on this point was very much right in arguing that there was absolutely no evide...ce either direct

or circumstantial adduced during the course of enquiry enabling the enquiry officer to come to the conclusion that charge of theft was proved againstthe first party workmen . Aperusal of the enquiry findings would make it abundantly clear that enquiry officer though in many words during the course ofbis discussion observed that there was no direct evidence or any circumstanrial evidence sufficient to prove the charges of roisconduct against the first party workinen . However, very strangely held the first party workmen guilly ofthe charges based on an hearsay evidence ofthe Security Officer examined as MW 1 , the Foreman examined as MW2, Store Officer еxarnined as MW3 and the Security Guard examined as MW4 . in all the for enquines held against the first party workmen . These were the witnesses namely , MWI was in speak to the fact that he received certain reports with regard to the Lieft commntilted on 4-7 1996 and the reports withregard to the progress being made into the investigation of the said theft and then ultimately on 17-6-1997 he came to know that there was a telephone messagefrom Sandur Police Station with regard to the recovery of sume theit property and therefore , he rushed there, got identified the property with the help of their sub staff and then ultimately made a report of investigation 10 the above effect leading to the charge sheet . The next witness examined was Mr. Shekhar. Foreman to say that there was some incident of theit un 3-7-1996 and be reminded the Security Officer oai 9-6-1997 about the said cheft and as to what happened about the recovery of the pinperty stolen finn the enmpany . Once again on 17-6-1997 while he was checking the stock he found certain properties missing and for that he mad entries in the concerned registers and reported the matter to theGM and it is on 19-6-1997he along with the Security Offer and three Drillers well ki the police station identified the property helonging in the company. The 3rd witness, Mr. Dhannajaya, Store Officer was examined to speak to the fact that the property in fact belonged to the managemen company and whereas the 4th witness is the Security Guard to speak to the fact the Security Officer informed him and others about the theft of materials of their establishment and asked them to investigate to trace the materials . Therefore, all the winesses examinerd during the course of enquiry whispered not a single word against the first party workmen connecting them with the alleged theft even remotely. However , the enquiry officer relied upon the testimony of the said four witnesses and talking into account the FIR copy and the recovery panchanama and other police records connected to the criminal prosecution launched against the first party workanen, jumpedto the conclusion tout the charges of theft were proved against the farsi party workmen. It was well argued for the first party workman that the FIR issued against the first party workmen and the recovery pedichianama should never have been considered and taken into account by the enquiry officer as a piece of evidence against the workmen as the police officer whoregistered the complaint and issued FIR, itself, was neither examined in the enquiries war the recovery panchnama witnesses 4713 [ भाग - खण्ड 3(i) ]

भारत का राजपत्र ; बुलाई 21 , 2007 / माषाढ़ 30 , 1929

working as Drivers . Therefore, they are held to be entitled to 50 per cent of the back wages from the date of the references till the date of their reinstatements with continuity of service from the date of dismissals all the date of reinstatement along with other consequential benefits . Hence the following award

AWARD

The management is directed to reinstate the first party workmen with 50 percent of the back wages from 1-2-2001 till the date of their reinstatements with cuttinuity of service and all other attended benefits , Keep a copy of the award in CR No. 9/2002, 10/2002 & 11/2002, No costs.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 8th June 2007) AR. SIDDIQUI, Presiding Offica

नई दिल्ली, 13 जुलाई, 2007 were produced during the course of enquiries much less to prove the alleged charges . Therefore , it was well argued for the fust party that it was a' case of no evidence' much less 'insufficient evidence' or ' lack of appreciation of evidence" in its proper perspective.In the result, it is tobe held that the enquiry findings also suffered frora perversity not being supported by valid and cogent reasonings, in turn, supported by sufficient and legal evidence . If that were to be the case, it goes without saying that lise dismissal order passed against the first party workmen on the basis ofthe enquiry findings cannot be justified and accordingly havetobe set aside as illegal and void abinitio. Therefore , Tmost make it further clear that the dismissal orders passed by the management against the first party workmen dated 6-1-1999 should not have been continued and maintained after they were scquitted by the criminal court judgement dated 9-9-1999 and these dismissal orders also cannot be sustained for the reasons that enquiry findings suffered from perversity.

16. As the dismissal orders passed against the fust party workmen are held to be illegal , the natural corollary to follow would he their reinstatements in services.

फा.आ. 2056. केन्द्र सरकार रेल अधिनियम, 1989 (1989 का 24 ) की धारा 136 के अंतर्गत रेल कर्मचारी ( कार्य के घंटे और विश्राम की अवधि ) नियमावली, 2005 के नियम 4( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त सचिवयों का प्रयोग करते हुए , श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय में संयुक्त सचिव सुश्री गुरजोत कौर को उक्त नियमों के अंतर्गत अपीले सूनने के लिए अपीत्तीय प्राधिकारी के रूप में अधिसूचित करती है । यह सरकारी राजपत्र में इसके प्रकाशन की तिथि से प्रभावी होगा ।

[फा से जैव-20025/06/2006- सी एल एस-] ] विनीता अग्रवाल , निदेशक NewDelhi, the 13th July,2007

5.0. 2056. In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 4 (2) of Railway Servants (Hours of Work and periodofRest)Rules 2005 under Section 136 of the Railway Act, 1989 (24 of 1989) the Cenual Government hereby notifies Ms. Gurjut Kaur, Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Labour and Employment as Appellate Authority to hear Appeals under the said Rules , This will take effect from thedate of its publication in the Official Gazette.

[F. No. Z- 30025/06/2006-CLS-1] VINITA AGARWAL, Director 17. Coming to the question of relief towards back wages. Though there is no substance in the contention taken by the management to reject the references on hand on sccount of raising the dispute after a delay of about 3 years from the date of dismissal , however, the reliefswith regardto the back wages, keeping in view the aforesaid delay has to be moulded, accordingly . Therefore , for the period in between the date of dismissals till the date of the references no back wages as such can be awarded to the first party workmen. Now , let us see as to what quantum of backwages the fist partly workmen are entitled to from the date of the references till the date of their reinstatements . Although the management has not produced any evidence before this tribunal about the gainful employment of the first party workmen during the period they were away from its service . However, one cannot ignore the fact that the first party workmen are Drivers by profession and it just camot be believed that they have remained unemployed throughout the said period without earning their livelihood

Printed by the Manager, Govt. of India Press, Ring Road , Mayspori , New Delhi- 110064 and Published by the Contmber of Publications , Delhi- 110054.