This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

उजिस्ट्री में ही. एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003-0

REGO. NO, DL ROOMCE56 भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

यविकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 30 ]

नई दिल्ली, जुलाई 22- जुलाई 28, 2007, शनिबार आया 31 - भांवण 6 , 1929

No.30 ]

NEW DELHI, JULY 21-JULY 28, 2007, SATURDAY/ASADHA 31-SRAVANA 6, 1929 इस मात्र में भित्र पृष्ठ संख्ध दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके Separatz Paging in given to this Pant in order that it may be filled as a separate collation

भान खच्छ उप- खण्ड (४)

PARTII-Section 3-Sub-section()

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों ( रक्षा संचलन को द्वारा विधिः के अंतर्गत बनाए और जारी किए गए और अधिकारियों ( संबरा को लेकर ) साधारण स्वविधिक निवम ( जिनमें साधारण प्रकार के आदेश , उप- नियम

आदि सम्मिलित हैं )

General Statutory Rules (including Orders,Byn- laws etc. ofa general character) inued by the Ministries of the Gevorment ofBadle(other than the Ministry of Defence) and by the Central Amthorities (other then the Adudnistrations ofUnion Territories)

वित्त मंत्रालय

(राजस्व विभाग)

केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क आयुक्त का कालव, कोलकाता-VII आयुक्तालय

कोलकाता , 25 जून , 2007

संख्या-01 /2007- सीमाशुल्क ( एसटी )

का.आ. 1057.-सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 52 ) की धारा 9 के तहत प्रदच शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए जिसे भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय , राजस्व विभाग , नई दिल्ली की अधिसूचना संख्ठ 33/94 सीमाशुल्क ( एनटी ) दिनांक 1-7-1994 तथा एम.एफ. ( डी.आर. ) परिपत्र संख्या 31/2003 सीमाशुल्क दिनांक7-4-2003 एवं अधिसूचना सं. 83 /2004- सीमा ( एनटी ) दिनांक 30-6-2004, के साथ पड़ा जाए, क्षेत्र संख्या-2 डॉ जी.सी.राय रोड, दाग संख्या 3195 से 3200 मौजा, जगतदल , जे. एल. संख्या-71 थाना सोनारपुर, नगरपालिका, राजपुर, जिला- दक्षिण 24 परगना , पश्चिम बंगाल को एत‌द्धारा विकास आयुका , फलता विशेष आर्थिक क्षेत्र वाणिज्य एवं उद्योग मंत्रालय , भारत सरकार , कोलकाता द्वारा वथा अनुमोदित सीमित प्रयोजन हेतु 100 प्रतिशत निर्यातोन्मुखी उपक्रम के रूप में भंडारण केन्द्र घोषित किया जाया है।

[सी. सं. V(30 ) 7-केत शु /तक/ डब्ल्यूएस पी एल/कोत- VIL/ 07 ]

एस. बी. मिश्रा , आयुक्त , केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल् 3151 GLAD

(4715) 4716

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 28, 2007 /SRAVANA 6, 1929

PART I-Sex: 3( ) )

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Departosent ofReveme)

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL . EXCISE

KOLKATA- VII COMMISSIONERATE

Kolkata, the 25th June ,2007

No. 01/2007-CUSTOMS (NT)

5.0.2057cles of the powers conferred under Section 9 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Natification No.33/9-Ca (NT) dated 17- af Ganradi of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi and MLF. (DR) Cucular No. 31/2003 7-4-2003, readwith Notification No. 83/2004-Cus . (N.T. ) dated 30-6-2004, the area bparing No. 2, Dr. H.C. Roy Road ofDag Nos .3195 to 3200 in Mouza Jagatdat , J.T .. No. 71 , P.S. Sunarpur , Municipality: Rajpur,Dist. South 24 Pargan , bi the State ofWest Bangal is hereby declared as a werehousing station for the limited purpose of setting up ofhundred per cent Export Oriented Undertaking as approved by the Development Commissioner , Falta SpecialEconomic Zone, Ministry ofCommerce, Government of India ,Kolkata.

C. No. V (30) 7 -CF/Tecl /WSPL/ Kut- V11071

S B. MISHRA, Commissioner ofCentral Excise मलिन माधुक्त , केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क आयुक्तालय , जयपुर -द्वितीय

जयपुर, 11 जुलाई , 2007

संख्या- 3-सीमाशुल्क ( एनटी ) 2007

सीमा शुल्क

का.मा. 2051-सीमा नई दिल्ली को अभिसूचना संख्या 33/94 मूर्ति, आयुक्ति , केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क , अधिनियम 1962 की धारा हे मिनिमम 1962 की धारा 152 के खण्ड ( ए ) के तहत भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय , राजस्व विभाग, सीपक ( एसटी ) दिनांक 1-7-1994 के अन्तर्गत प्रदत्त शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए मैं , बी. एस.वी. मन्सुरी एक्यू‌द्वारा , सवप्रतिशत निर्यात संवर्धन इकाई स्थापित करने के उ‌द्देश्य से सीमा शुल्ल राज्य में मकराना शहर को भण्डारण स्टेशन ( वंयर हामिंग स्टेशन) घोषित करता हूँ ।

[फा सं. पंजय (सौशु) अ /जेपी-11/ 16/2007 ]

बी एस वी. मूर्ति, आयुक्च :

COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE JAIPUR - I

Hipa, the 11th July, 2007

No.13-CUSTOMS (NT) 2007

CUSTOMS

3.0. 2058. Το εποίisine of the powers conferred by Notification No. 33/ 94-Customs ( NI ) dated the 1st July, 1994, of theGolvement ofIndia, Ministry ofFince, Department of Ke veaue, New Delhi , issned under clause ( 8 ) of Section 152 ofCustoms Act, 1962, IRLS Commisioper of Central Excise Jaipur - II, hereby declars place Makrana in the State ofRajasthanto be vareboarder Section 9 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the purpose of setting up 100 % BOU.

[C. No. V (BOU) 30/JP- 1/16/2007 |

B. S. V. MURTHY, Commissioner

(व्वा विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 12 जुलाई , 2007

का.आ. 2059-पविष्य निधि अधिनियम , 1925 ( 1925 का 19 ) की धारा 8 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रद‌द्य शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार एवद्वारा निम्नलिखित सार्वनिक संस्थान का नाम उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची में शामिरण करती है, अर्थात्:-

* भारतीय प्रबंध संस्थान, फोतीोड"

[सं. 4( 1 ) -संस्था V/2006( 1 ) ]

मोहिंदर कुमार , अवर सचिव 4717 [ भाग 11- वाच्छ ) ]

भारत का सबपत्र : जुलाई 28 2007/ यम 6, 1929

(Department ofExpenditure)

NewDelhi , the 12th July,2007

S.O. 2059.-In exercise ofthe pairers onaferred by Sub-section (3 ) ofSection 8 of the Provident Funds Act, 1925(19 of 1925), the Central Government hereby adds to the Schedule to the sandAct, the one of the following institutios, namely:-

"Indian Institute of Management, Kozhikode",

[No. 4 ( 1 )-EV/2006 (1) )

MOHINDER KUMAR, Under Secy.

( विचीक सेवाएं विত্রণ )

(वैकिन प्रधान)

नई दिल्ली, 16 जुलाई, 2007

का.आ. 2060. बैंककारी विनियमन अधिनियम, 1949 ( 1949 का 10 ) की बारा 53 द्वारा प्रद‌द्य शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार 'भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक की सिफारिश पर, एतद्द‌द्वारा , घोषणा करती है कि उक्त अधिनियम की धारा छा की उपधारा ( 1 ) , ( 2 ) और (9 ) के उपबंध कैथोलिक सौरियन बैंक लिमिटेड पर 01 जुलाई , 2007 से 31 अक्तूबर , 2007 तक या अध्यक्ष और मुख्य कार्यपालक अधिकारी के कार्यभार ग्रहण करने तक, जो भी पहले हो , उस सीमा तक लागू नहीं होंगे , जहां तक उनका संबंध बैंक को चार महीने से अधिक अवधि के लिए अध्यक्ष और मुख्य कार्यपालक अधिकारी का कार्यभार संभालने के लिए किसी व्यक्ति को नियुक्त करने से रोकने से है ।

(फा से 15/2/2007-बीडओए] ही पौ, भारद्वाज , अवर सचिव

(Department Financial Services)

(BankingDivision)

New Delhi, the 16th July,2007

8.0.2060. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), theCentral Government on the recommendations of the Reserve Bank of India hereby declare that the provisions of Sub section ( 1 ), (2 ) and (9) of Section HDB of the said Act shall not, to the extent they prechade the banic from appointing a person To catry out the duties of the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer beyond a period cxicoding four months, apply to the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. from 1st July, 2007 in October 31 , 2007 or till the Chairman and ChiefExecutive Officer astunes clunge, whichever is cartier.

[F, No. 15/2/2007-BQA) D. P. BHARDWAJ , Under Secy.

नईदिल्ली, 16 जुल्यई , 2007

कटया, 2061, बैंककारी विनियमन अधिनियम , 1949 ( 1949 का 10 ) की बारा 53 द्वारा प्रदच शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक की सिफारिश पर, एताद्वारा , मोषणा करती है कि उक्त अधिनियम की धात 10 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के सांग , ( ग ) के उपखंड ( i ) और ( ii ) के उपबंध श्री रामा कपूर, प्रबंध निदेशक एवं मुख्य कार्यपालक अधिकारी, यस बैंक पर उस सीमा तक सामू नहीं होंगे जहां तक उसका बोड ऑफ नाबार्ड कंसल्टेंसी सर्विसेज लिमिटेड ( एसएपीसीओएनएस ) में निदेशक के रूप में उनका नामांकन किए आने से संबंध है।

(का. सं 13/5/2007 -बीओर डी. पी. पारद्वाज , अपर सचिव

New Delhi , the 16th July ,2007

$.0. 2061.-In exercise of the powas confered by Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 ( 10 of1949), theCentral Goventment on the recommendations of Reserve Bank of India hereby declares that the provisions of sub- clauses (i) , and (ii ) of clause (c) of Sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the said Act shall not apply to Shri Rana Кароос, ManagingDirector& ChiefExecutive Officer , Yes Bank in so for as it relates to bis nomination as Director on the Boardof NABARDConsultancy Services Lid. (NABCONS) .

IF. No. 135/2007 -BOA] D. P. BHARDWAJ, Under Secy.

4718

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 28, 2007/SRAVANA 6.1929

[PART - SEC.3( ⅱ ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 16 जुलाई , 2007

का. मा. 2062.- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम , 1970/1980 के खण्ड 3 के उपखण्ड ( 1 ) के साथ पतित बैंककारी संयमी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम, 1970/1980 की धारा १ को उपधारा ( 3 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार, संयुद्वारा , श्री ए. भट्टाचार्य, निदेशक ( डीआरटी एवं विकास ) , वित्त मंत्रालय, वित्तीय सेवा विभाग , नई दिल्लीको तरकाल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेशों तक , श्री आशोक के. लाहिड़ी के स्थान पर यूको बैंक के निदेशक मण्डल में निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।

[फा. सं. 9/7/2007 - बीओ- ] ] जी. बी. सिंह , उप सचिव

New Della , the 16th July.2007

$.0. 2062-In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( b ) of sub - section ( 3 ) Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Trasfer of Undertakings ) Act, 1970/1980 , read with sub- clause! ] ) of clause 3 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme , 1970/1980, the Central Government , hereby nominates Shri A. Bhattacharya, Director (DRT & Dev.) ,Ministry of Finance , Department of Financial Services , New Delhi as a Director on the Board of Directors of UCO Bank with immediare effect and until further orders vice Shri Ashok K. Labiri .

[F. No. 9/7/2007 -B0-

GB. SINGH , Dy. Sexy.

केजीम मार्थिक आयुधना ब्यूरो

आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 17 जुलाई , 2007

करआ. 2063, अतः संयुक्त सचिव, भारत सरकार जिन्हें विदेशी मुझ संरक्षण और रुस्करी निवारण अधिनियम , 1974 ( 1974 का $2 ) की बीरा 3 को उपधारा ' 1 ' के अंन्तर्गत विशेष रूप से शक्ति प्रदान की गई है, ने उक्त उप- धारा के अधीन आदेश फाइल सं. 673/1/2007 - सीयूएस VIII दिनांक 06-06-2007 को चारी किया और यह निर्देश दिया कि श्री शाह जी हादी यंगल सैयद हबीनडल्लाह, निवासी दस्वगों मंजिल , के.के.एम रोड, मंजेश्वर पोस्ट, कासरगोड जिला , केरल राज्य को निरूद्ध कर लिया जाय और केन्द्रीय कारागार तिरुअनंतपुरम, केरल में अभिरछा में रखा जाए ताकि उन्हें भविष्य में चीजों की तस्करी करने से रोका जा सके ।

बंतः केन्द्रीय सरकार के पास यह विश्वास करने का कारण है कि पूर्वोक्त व्यक्ति फरार हो गया है या स्वंय को छिपा रखा है जिससे यह आदेश निष्पादित नाहीं किया जा सकता ।

अतः अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारः ? की उपधारा ' ' के खण्ड ख द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्ति का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार एव‌द्वारा पूर्वमह व्यर्षित को यह निर्देश देती है कि वह शाद्यकीय राजपत्र में इस आदेश के प्रकाशित होने के फेस्ल के सम्मुख उपस्थित हो । दिन के भीतर पुलिस अधिक्षाक कासरगोड,

[पका सं. 673/1 /2007- सीयूएस.- Vाग )

थी. के. सान्ना , उप- सचिव !

CENTRAL ECONOMIC INTELLIGENCE BUREAU

ORDER

New Delhi , the 17th July, 2007

50. 2063. Whereas the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, specially empowered under sub- section ( 1) ofSection ofthe Conservation ofForeign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974) issued order F. No.673/1/2007 -Cus . VIII dated 06-06-2007 under the said sub- section directing that Shri Shaji Hadi Thangal SayyedHebecbulla, R/ o Dasthageer Manzil, K.J.M. Roed , Manjeshwar Post, Kasargod District , Kerala State be detained and kept in custody in the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram with a view to preventing him from Smuggling goods in future.

2.Whereas the Central Government has reasons to believed that the aforesaid person has abroonded or is concealing himself so that the order cannot be executed, 4719 [ भाग II- खष्ट ( 0) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 28, 2007/श्रावण 6, 1929

3.Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b ) of sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the saidAct, the Central Government hereby directs the aforesaid person to appear before the Superintendent of Police, Kasaragod, Kerala within 7 days of the publication of bis order in the Official Gazette.

[F. No. 673/1/2007 -Cus. -VIII

V. K. KHANNA, Dy. Secy.

केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्कऔर सीमा शुल्क बोर्ड

नई दिल्ली , 23 जुलाई , 2007

का.आ. 2064.- केन्द्रीय सरकार, सिगरेट और अन्य तंबाकू उत्पाद ( विज्ञापन का प्रतिषेध और व्यापार तथा वाणिज्य , उत्पादन, प्रदाय और वितरण का विनियमन ) अधिनियम, 2003 ( 2003 का 34 ) की धारा 25 द्वाप प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, वित्त मंत्रालय , राजस्व विभाग , केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क और सीमा शुल्क बोर्ड में नीचे दी गई सारणी के स्तंभ ( 3 ) में यथा उपदर्शित निम्नलिखित अधिकारियों को , जो उक्त अधिनियम की पारा 4 के अधीन उपबंधों को कार्यान्वित करने हेतु कार्य करने के लिए सक्षम होंगे, प्राधिकृत करती है , अर्थात्

सारणी

क्रम सं

कार्यालय का नाम

प्राधिकृत व्यक्ति/ अधिकारी (1)

(2)

(3) 1.

मुख्म आयुक्त मुख्य आयुक्त, सीमा शुल्क, आयुक्त , सौमा शुल्क और आयुक्त ( अपील)

कार्यात्तयों का प्रधान सीमा शुल्क आयुक्त के अधीन अधीनस्थ कार्यालय

मुख्य आयुक्त मुख्य आयुक्त, केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क और सीमा शुल्क, आयुक्त केन्द्रीष , उत्पाद शुल्क और सीमा शुल्क और सेवा कर आयुक्त और अवयुक्त ( अपोल)

कार्यालयों का प्रधान केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क और सीधा शुल्क मायुक्त और सेवा कर आयुक्त के अधीन अधीनस्थकार्यालय

मुहर आयुक्त मुख्य आयुक्त, सीमा शुल्क ( निवारक ) और आयुक्त सीमा शुल्क ( निवारक ) जहां मुख्य आयुक्त सीमा शुल्क ( निवारक ) उपलब्ध नहीं है उस दशा में यथा स्थिति मुख्य आयुक्त, सीमा शुष्क और आयुक्त , सीमा शुल्क और उत्पाद शुल्क प्राधिकृत व्यक्ति होगा

कार्यालयों का प्रभान आयुक्त , सीमा शुल्क ( निवारक ) के अधीन अधीनस्थ कार्यालय

महानिदेशक राजस्य आसूचना महानिदेशालय , ' डी' ब्लॉक , माई पो भवन , सातयां तल , आई. पी. स्टेट, नई दिल्ली

कार्यालयों का प्रधान राजस्व आसूचना महानिदेशालय के अधीन अधीनस्थ कार्यालय

महानिषेशक केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क आसूचना महानिदेशालय , वेस्ट ब्लॉक- VIII , उमर. के. पुरम , नईदिल्ली-110066

कार्यालयों का प्रधान केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क आसूचना महानिदेशालय , के अधीन'अधीनस्थ कार्यालय

11.

महानिदेशक सीमा शुल्क और केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क निरीक्षण महानिदेशालय , ' डी' ब्लॉक , पांचवां तल, आई. पी. मवन , आई. पी. स्टेट, नई दिल्ली-110002

निरीक्षण महानिदेशालय के अधीन अधीनस्थ कार्यालय

कार्यात्तयों का प्रधान 13.

महानिदेशक सीमा शुल्क, उत्पाद शुल्क और स्वापक पदार्थ राष्ट्रीय अकादमी महानिदेशक एनसीईएन काम्पलेक्स , सेक्टर-29 , फरीराबाद-121008

14.

कार्यालयों का प्रधान सीमा शुल्क, उत्पाद शुल्क और स्वापक पदार्थ राष्ट्रीय अकादमी महानिदेशक के अधीन अधीनस्थ कार्यालय

15.

महानिदेशक सीमा शुल्क और उत्पाद शुल्क सतर्कता निदेशक , पहला और दूसरा तल, होटल सम्राट, कौटिल्य मार्ग , चाणक्य पुरी , नई दिल्ली -110021

सतर्कता महानिदेशक के अधीन अधीनस्थ कार्यालय

कार्यालयों का प्रधान 4720

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 28 , 2007 /SRAVANA 6, 1929

(1)

(2)

17. सीमा शुल्क केन्द्रीय और उत्पाद शुल्क लेखा परीक्ष्य महानिदेशक , सी. आर बिल्डिंग , आई. पी. स्टेट , नई दिल्ली-110002

लेखा परीक्षा महानिदेशक के अधीन अधीनस्थ कार्यालय 19

PART SRC 3 (1 )

(3)

महानिदेशक

कार्यालयों का प्रधान

महानिदेशक

सेषा कर महानिदेशालय , नवां तत , पिरामल चेम्बर , जौजी भोज लेक कालोनी , परेल, पुई -400012

मूल्याकिन महादिनेशक , न्यूकस्टम हाउस , एनेक्सी बिल्डिंग , सातवां तल , बेलार्ड इस्वेंट , मुम्बई-400001

21 .

मूल्यांकन महानिदेशक के अधीन अधीनस्थ कार्यालय 22

निर्यात संवर्धन महानिदेशक , होटल जनपथ ( प्रथम तल ) नई दिल्ली-110001

23. पद्धति और हाय प्रबंध महानिदेशक , चौथा नल और पांचया तल , होटल सम्राट, चाचाक्य पुरी , नई दिल्ली -110021

24.

परति महानिदेशक के अधीन अधीनस्थ कार्यालय 25. सीमा शुल्क और केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क, प्रथम और जन संपर्क निदेशालय , आई पो इस्टेट , सी. आर , विल्कि , नई दिल्ली -110002 26

पहानिदेशक

कार्यालयों का प्रधान

महानिदेशक

कार्यालयों का प्रधान

आयुक्त

सीमा शुल्क और केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क संगठन और कार्मिक प्रबंध निदेशालय, 412 -ए/% , दीपशिखा निस्किम , राजेन्द्र प्लेस , नई दिल्ली -110008 27. सीमा शुल्क और केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क संभारतंत्र निदेशालय , चौया राल , लोकनायक भवन, सान मार्किट, नई दिल्ली-110008 28. विधि कार्य निदेशालय , केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क और सीधा सुल्क बोर्ड, चौथा तरू, राजेंद्र मवन , 210 दीनदयाल उपाध्याय , नई दिल्ली-110002 29.

संचार - तंत्र निदेशालय के अधीन अधीनस्य कार्यालय 30 सीमा शुल्क और केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क , आवासन और कल्याण निदेशालय, 'डी' ब्लॉक, आई. पी. इस्टेट, नई दिल्ली

31.

केंद्रीय राजस्व नियंत्रण प्रयोगशाला , हिल साइड रोड, पूसा कैम्पस रोड, नई दिल्ली -110012

32.

केन्द्रीय राजस्व नियंत्रण प्रयोगशाला के अधीन अधीनस्म कार्यालय 33

सीमा शुल्क और केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क रक्षोपाय महानिदेशालय , भाई वीर सिंह साहित्य सदन , भाई वीर सिंह मार्ग , गोल मार्किट , नई दिल्ली-110001 34.

मुख्य विभागीय प्रतिनिधि सीमा शुल्क उत्पाद शुल्क और सेवा कर अपील अधिकरण , बेस्ट ब्लॉक, नं. 2, आार के पुरम, नई दिल्ली

आयुक्त

कार्यालयों का प्रधान

आयुक्त

निदेशक

कायर्यालयों का प्रधान

महानिदेशक

मुख्य विभागीय प्रतिनिधि

कार्यालयों का प्रधान मुख्तं विभागीय पतिनिधि सीमा शुल्क उत्पाद शुल्क और सेवा कर अपील अधिकरण , के अधीन अधीनस्थ शास्त्राएं

36 स्वार्षक पदार्थ आयुक्त , केन्द्रीय स्थापक पदार्थ ब्यूरो , ग्वालियर 37. केन्द्रीय स्वापक पदार्थ म्यूरो के अधीन अधीनस्थ कार्यालय 38.

मुख्य नियंत्रक , कारखाना , ग्वालियर

39,

मुख्य नियंत्रक, कारखाना , ग्वालियर के अधीन अधीनस्थ कार्यालय 2. यह अधिसूचना राजपत्र में इसके प्रकाशन की तारीख से प्रवृत्त होगी ।

आयुक्त

कार्यालयों का प्रधान

मुख्य नियंत्रक

कार्यालयों का प्रधान [फा. सं सी -30013 / 175/2005- प्रशा TV ( क ) ]

अंगना राम, अवर सचिव 4721

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 28, 2007/ वण 6 , 1929

CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS

NewDelhi, the 23rd July,2007

S.O. 2064. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 25 of the Cigarettes and other TobaccoProducts (Probibition ofAdvertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (34 of2003 ), the Central Government in Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance , Central Board ofExcise and Custoo hereby authorizes the following officers as indicated in column (3) of the table given below who shall be competent to act for implementing the provisions under Section 4 of the said Act , namely:

TABLE

S. Nc .

Name of the Office

Authoriand persons/officers ( 1 )

(2)

ChiefCommissioner 1. ChiefCommissioner of Custonts , Commissioner ofCustoms and Commissioner (Appeals)

2 Subordinate offices under the Commissioner of Customs

Headof.offices

CrickContmi 3 . Chief Commissioner ofCentral Excise and Customs, Commisskoner ofCentral Excise and Customs and Commissioner of Service Tax and Commissioner (Appeal)

Head of offices 다 Subordinate Offices under Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs and Commissioner Service Tax

ChiefCommissioner 5. The Chief Commissioner of Customs ( Preventive) and Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) where Chief Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) is not available in that cases Chief Commissioner of Custums und Commissioner ofCustoms and Excise as the case may be will be the authorized pers

6 Subordinate offices under the Commissioner ofCustoms (Preventive)

Headofoffices

Director General 7. DirectorateGeneral ofRevenue Intelligence , 'D ' Block, LP . Bhawan, 7th Floor, LP . Estate, NewDelhi .

Head ofoffices Subordinate offices under the Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence, NewDelhi- 110002

DirceterGeneral 9. DirectorateGeneral of Contral Excise Intelligence , West Block-VIII, R.K. Puram, New Delhi- 110066

Head of offic Subordinate offices under the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence

Direcker Goed 11. DirectorateGeneral of Inspection, Customs and CentralExcise, 'D' Block, 5th Floor, LP. Bhavan, LP . Estate, New Delhi -110002.

Head of offices 12 Subordinate offices under the Directorate General of Inspection

Director General 13. Director.General ofNational Academy of Customs, Excise and Narcotics (NACEN) NACEN Complex , Sector- 29, Paridabad -121008.

Head of offices 14. Subordinate offices under theDirector General, National Academy of Custums, Excise and Narcotica

DirectorGene 15. Director General ofVigilance Customs and Central Excise, Ist & 2nd Floor, Hotel Samurat, Kantilya Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi -110021 4722

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 28, 2007/SRAVANA 6, 1929

[PART I-SEC. 3( )) ( 1)

(2)

(3)

Head ofoffices 16. Subordinate offices under the Director General of Vigilance

Director General 17. DirectorGeneral ofAndit Customs and Central Excise, C.R. Building, 1.P. Estare, NewDelhi- 110002.

16 Subordinate offices under the Director General ofAudit

Head of offices

Director General 19 DirectorateGeneral of Service Tax, 9th Floor, Piramal Chamber , II Bhoj Lake Colony, Purel, Mumbai-400012

Director General 20. Director General of Valuation , New Customs House, Annexe Building, 7th Floor,BallardEstate, Mumbai -400001.

21. Subordinate offices under the Director General of Valuation

Headofoffices

Director General 22 DirectorGeneral of Export Promotion , Hotel Janpath ( 1st Floor) , New Delhi - 110001

Director General 23 Direquor General of Systems and Data Management , 4th & 5th Floor. Hotel Sarurat, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi- 110021.

Head ofoffices 24. Subordinate offices under the Director General of Systerms

Commission 25. Directorate ofPublicity and Public Relation Customs and Central Excise, LP.Estate,C.R.Building, New Delhi -110002

Commissioner 26 Directorate ofOrganization and Personnel Management , Customs and Central Excise,412- A/ 8 Deep Shikha Building, Rajendra Place, NewDelhi-110008.

Commissiune 27. Directorate of Logistics , Customs and Central Excise 4th Floor, LokNayak Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi - 110008.

Commissioner 28. Direcurate ofLegal Affairs, Central Board of Excise and Customs, 4th Floor,Rajendra Bhawan, 210 , Deendayal Upadhyay, NewDelhi - 110002

ilead of offices 29. SubordinateOffices under Directorate of Logistics

Commissioner 32 Directorate ofHousing and Welfare , Customs and Central Excise, 'D' Block, LP. Estate, New Delhi .

Director

30 . Central Revenue Control Laboratory ( CRCL) , Hill Side Road, Pusa Campus Koad, NewDelhi - 110012.

Head of offices 32. Subordinate Offices under Central Revenues Control Laboratory

Director General 33 . DirectorateGeneral of Safeguards Customs and Central Excise, Bhaivir Singh Sahitya Sadan , Bhai Vir Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi -110001.

Chief Departmental Representative 34 ChiefDepartunental Representative Customs , Excise and Service TaxAppellate Tribunal ( CESTAT), West Block No.2, R.K. Puram, NowDelhi .

Head of offices 35. Subordinate branches under Chief Departmental Representative Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal .

36. Narcotics Commissioner, Central Bureau of Narcotics , Gwalior .

Commissioner 37. SubordinateOffices under Central Bureau of Narcotics

38 ChiefController of Factories, Gwalior ,

Head of offices Chief Control 39 Subordinate Offices under Chief Controller of Factories , Gwalior .

Head of offices 2.This notification shall come into force with effect from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.

F. No. C-30013/175/2005 -Ad. [V( A ) ]

ANGNA RAM, Under Secy.

[শাদ - অঙ্ক 3 (ii) )

बिदेश मंत्रालय (श्री पी की प्रथान)

नई बिल्ली, 22 जून , 2007

का.आ. 2065.-राक्नयिक और कोंसुलर अधिकारी ( सपथ एवं शुल्क) अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 41 ) के खच्ड 2 की धारा ( क ) के अनुसरण में, केन्द्र सस्कार , एतबुद्वारा दुई स्थित भारत के प्रधान कॉसलावास में निम्नलिखित स्वस्तियों को तत्काल प्रभाव से 30 सिरुम्बर , 2007 के अन्त तक संयुक्त अरब अमीनात सरकार द्वारा पोषित एमेनस्टी अवधि के दौरान केक्त आपातकालीन प्रमापत्र जारी करने हेतु सहायक कॉसुलर अधिकारी की ड्यूटी करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है

1. श्री जे. पी. एस. राबत , सहायक

2. श्री पी. के. सरकार - ग्र सहायक

3. श्री एम. मुखोपाध्याय , सहायक

4. श्री लोकनाथ चैटची , सहायक

5. श्री पी. आर. सचिनन्दन , सहायक

& श्री राजीव कुमार, सहायक

7. श्री विपिन नरूला , वैवस्तिक सहायक

* को की. सांराम , वैयक्तिक सहायक

9. श्री एने अरिरामकृष्णन , वैयक्तिक सहायक

10. श्री राकेन्द्र पाल सिंह , वैयक्तिक सहायक

11. श्री सी डी फन्डेय , उच्च श्रेणी लिपिक

12. श्री सुधीर कुमार , उच्च श्रेणी लिपिक

[संख्या टी-4330/ 01 /2006 ] प्रीतम लाल , अवर सचिव ( कॉसुलर ) MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (C. P. V.Dericion ) New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2007

5.0. 2065. In pursuance of the clause ( a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Comsnilar Officers (Oaths and foca) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Contral Government hereby authorise the following persons in the Consulate General ofIndia, Dubai to perform the duties of Assistunt Consular Officers to issue only Emergency Certificates during the anmesty period declared by UAE Government tading 30th September , 2007 with immediate effect.

1. Mr. I. P. S. Rawat , Assistant

2. Mr. P.K. Sarkar- II, Assistant

3. Mr. N. Mukhopadhyay , Assistant

4. Mr. Loknath Chatterjee, Assistant

5. Mr. P. R. Sachinanden, Assistant

6. Mr. Rajcev Kumar , Assistan

7. Mr.VipinNanda,PA

8. Mr. V. Saicom, PA

3151 GU2007-2

4723

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 28, 2007/ वण 6 , 1929

9. Mr. N. Ariramakrishnan , PA

10. Mr. Rajender Pal Singh, PA

11. Mr. C. D. Pandey, UDC

12. Mr. Sudhir Kumar , UDC

(No. T.-4330/ 01/2006) PRITAM LAL, Under Secy. (Consular)

रेल मंत्रालय (रेलवे बोर्ड) नई दिल्ली, 18 जुलाई , 2007

का.मा. 2066, रेल मंत्रालय ( रेलवे बोर्ड ) , राजभाषा नियम, 1976 ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग के नियम 10 के उपनियम ( 2 ) और (4 ) के अनुसरण में, उत्तर रेलवे के लखनऊ मंडल के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों की , बहां 80 % से अधिक अधिकारियों/ कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्थसाधकाप्रपा कर लिख है , को एक्ाद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है:-

1. सहायक मंकल इंजीनियर कार्यालय , कौनपुर

2. सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर कार्यालय, रामचरेली 3. सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर कार्यालय, प्रवापनक 4. सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर कार्यालय , सुश्चनपुर 5. सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर कार्यालय ( मुख्यालय ) , जानक 6. सहायक मंडल इंथीनियर कार्यालय , लवानक 2. सहायक मंगल इंजीनियर-1 कार्यालय , लखनऊ 8. सहायक मंडल बिजली इंजीनियर कार्यालय , लखानक 9. सगायक मंडल बिनली इंजीनियर कार्यालय , वाराणसी 10. सहायक मंडेल बिवली इंजीनियर कार्यालय , रायबरेली 11. सहायक मंडल सिगनल एवं दूरसंचार इंजीनियर कार्यालय, रायबरेली

12. सहायक मंडल सिगगल एवं दूरसंचार इंबीनियर कार्यालय, 13. सहायक मंडल सिगनल एवं दूरसंचार इंजीनियर कार्यालय , कौनपुर

14. साहायक मंडल सिगनल एवं दूरसंचार इंजीनियर कार्यालय, सुल्तानपुर

15. वरिष्ठ मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी कार्यालय , लखानक 16. मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी कार्यालय , रायबरेली 17. मंहत चिकित्सा अधिकारी कार्यालय , प्रतापगढ़ 18. वरिष्ठ मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी कार्यालय , वाराणसी 19. वरिष्ठ मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी कार्यालय , फैजान्द 20. सहायक मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी कार्यालय, जौनपुर 21. सहायक मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी कार्यालय , सुल्तानपुर 22. मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी कार्यालय , बाराबंकी । 4724

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 28, 2007 /SRAVANA 6, 1929

23. सहायक मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी कार्यालय , उन्नाव 24. महल चिकित्सा अधिकारी कार्यालय , लोको चारबाग 25. वरिष्ठ मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी कार्यालय, डीजल शेड, 26. वीचिंग कियो अधिकारी कार्यालय , सिकलाइन सवारी एवं माल डिम्बा ( यांत्रिक ) लखनऊ

27. संहायक मंडल यांत्रिक इंजीनियर कार्यालय , सवारी एवं माल डिब्बा (लोको) लखनक।

[सं हिंदी-2007 /रा. भर -1/ 12/3 ] कृष्णा शर्मा, संयुक्त निदेशक ( राजभाषा) MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS (Raby Board) NewDelhi, the 18th July,2007

$.0 2066.-Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) , in pursuance of Sub Rule (2 ) and (4) ofRule 10 of theOffivin Language Rules, 1976 ( use for the official pur- poses of the Union) hereby, notify the following Offices of LacknowDivision ofNorthern Railway,where 80 % or roare Officers/Employees have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi:

1. Office of the Assistant Divisional Lingineer , Daumpur

2 Office of the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Raebareli

3. Office of the Assistam Divisional Engineer, Pratapgara

4 Office of the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Sultanpur

5. Office of the Assistant Divisional Engineer , Headquarter), Lucknow

6 Office of the Assistant Divisional Engineer - 1, Lucknow

7. Office of the Assistunt Divisioud Engineer - 1 , Lucknow

B. Office of the Assistant Divisional Ekutrical Engineer, Lucknow

9. Office of the Assistant Divisional Electrical Engineer, Varanasi

10. Office of the Assistant Divisional Electrical Engineer , Raebareli

11. Office of the Assistunt Divisional Signal and Telecom Engineer , Raebareli

12. Office of the Assistant Divisional Signal and Telecom Engineer , Vannasi

13. Office of the Assistant Divisional Signal and Telecom Engineer , Гинтриг

14. Office of the Assistant Divisional Sigual and Felecom Engineer, Sultanpur

[ PART I-Sec. 3( ii ) ] 15. Office of the Senior Divisional Medical . Officer, Lucknow

16 Office of the Divisional Medical Officer , Raebareli

17. Office of the Divisional Medical Officer . Pratapgarh

18. Office of the Senior Divisional Medical Officer, Varanasi

19. Office ofthe Senior Divisional Medical Olliver . Faizabad

20. Office of the Assistant Divisional Medical Officer , Jaunpиг

21. Office of the Assistant Divisional Medical Officer , Sultanpur

22 Office of the Divisional Medical Officer . Barabanki

23. Office of the Assistant Divisional Medical Officer , Unnаю

24. Office of theDivisional Medical Officer , Locol Charbag

25. Office ofthe SeniorDivisional Medical Officer , Dieselshed, Alambagh

24. Office ofthe Coaching Depot Officer . Sickline Carriage&Wagon (Mechanical ) Lucknow 27. Office of theAssistant Divisional Mechanical/ Engineer Carriage & Wagon, ( Loco) Lucknow . No.Hindi -2007 / 011 / 12/31 KRISTINA SHARMA, It. Director (D.L. ) सूचना और प्रस्वरण मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 25 जून , 2007

कर.आ. 2067,- इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 31 मई, 2017 को समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में और चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) , नियमावली, 1983 के नियम और 8 के साथ पड़ित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रद‌छ शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्र सरकार तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, केंद्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड को हैदराबाद सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्य के रूप में श्री शेख शाहजहां, इस्लाम पेठ-2 डी से 37-1-1600/19 ऑगोल , आन्ध्र प्रदेश को नियुक्त करती है ।

[ फार सं. 809/1/2007 एफ ( सी ) ) संगीता सिंह, निर्देशक (फिल्म) MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING New Delhi , the25th June, 2007

$.0.2067. In continuation of this Ministry's No tification of even number dated 31st May , 2007 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section5 ofthe Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read 4725 भारत का राजपत्र : गुलाई 28 2007/ावण 6, 1929

New Delhi, the 6th July,2007

with roles 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph (Cenification)Rules, 1983 the Central Goverment is pleased to appoint Stri Shrik Stajahan, Islam Pet -2, D. No. 37-1-160A/19,0Ongole, Andara Prudasih- 523001 as a member of the Hyderabad advisory panel of the Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years or الخمس further onders , whichever is carlier.

(F. No.808 /7 /2007 -F(C)]

50. 2000 continuation of this Ministry's Notification of even sumber dated 31st May ,2007andin exercise of the powers confcared by sub-sections (1 ) f Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read.. with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph ( Certification) Rules, 1983 consequent upon the sad demise of Smt. Vasireddy Sita Devi ,her name stands deleted from the list of members of Hyderabad advisory panci ofCHFC .

IF.No. 809/1/2007 -F(C) SANGEETA SINGEL, Director (Films) नई दिल्ली, 6 जुलाई , 2007

SANGEETA SINGH, Director (Flaas)

नई दिल्ली, 12 जुलाई, 2007

का.आ. 2068.-इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 31मई , 2007 की नम्संख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में और चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन) , नियमावली , 1983 के नियम 7 और के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनिम्म, 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्र सरकार तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , केंद्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के हैदराबाद सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्व के रूप में श्री सैक्द नरहन , प्र.नं. 8-2-686/सी/ई/5 , एम.सी. लं. 1643 , रोह सं. 12 , बंजारा हिल्स , हैदराबाद 500034, को नियुक्त करती है ।

का.भ. 2070.-इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 31-5-2007 को समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में और चलचित्र ( प्रमম্মলন ) , नियमावली , 1983 के नियम 7 और 8 के साथ पंठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की भारा 5 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के हैदराबाद सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्य के रूप में श्री ए, प्रभु, 8-2-269/19/472-ए इंदिरा नगर, रोड नं. 2 , बंजारा हिल्स, हैदराबाद-500034 को नियुक्त करती है।

[फा. सं. 809/1/2007- एफ (सी ) ]

संगीता सिंह, निदेशक (फिल्म ) [फा. सं 809/1/2007- एफ ( सी) ] संगीता सिंह, निदेशक ( फिल्म)

New Delhi , the 12th July, 2007

New Delhi, the 6th July,2007

S.O. 2070.-In. continuation of this Ministry's Notification of even nomber dated 31st May , 2007 and in Exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of Section5 of the Cinematograph: Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cincuhagraph (Cortification) Rules, 1983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint ShriA.Prabiru ,8-2-269/19/472A, Incfim Nagar , Road No. 2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500034 as a member of the Hyderabad advisory panel of the Central Board of Film Certification with immedite effect for a period of two years or until further onders , wibichever is earlier.

8.0. 2068-In continuation of this Ministry's Notification of even number dated 31st May, 2007 and in exercise of the powers conferned by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act , 1952 (37 of 1952) read with rules 7 and 8 ofthe Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint Shri Syed Hurhan, H. No. 8-2-685/C/E/S , MC No. 1643, RoadNo. 17, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad -500034 as amem ber of the Hyderabad advisory panel of the Central Board ofFilm Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further onders , whichever is carlicz.

[F.No.809/1 /2007 -R(C)]

SANGEETA SINGH, Director (Fims) [F. No.809/1 /2007-HK(C)

नई दिल्ली , 12 जुलाई, 2007

SANGEETA SINGH, Director (Filma)

नई दिल्ली, 6 जुलाई , 2007

का.आ. 2069.-इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 31 मई , 2007 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में और चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) , नियमावली , 1983 के नियम 7 और 8 के साथ पतित चलचित्र अधिनियम, 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप- बारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदेश शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए श्रीमती वसी रेड्‌डी सीता देवी की दुखद मृत्यु हो जाने के परिणामस्वरूप , केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड की हैदराबाद सलाहकार पैलन के सदस्यों की सूची में से उनका नाम हटाया बाता है ।

का.ब. 2071 -इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 29-3-2007 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में और चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) , नियमावली, 1983 के नियम और 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 कर 37 ) की बारा 5 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार तरफाल प्रभाव से दो सचों की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेशों तक , ओ भी पहले हो, केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के चेन्नई सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्य के रूप में श्री पट्टुकोट्टई एम. राजेन्द्रन , ए-४/ ५ पर्सन टावर , उथी पेंधीयन रोड , फर्स्ट लेन, एगमौर, चेन्नई-600008 को नियुक्त करती है।

[फा. सं 809/1/2007- एफ ( सी) ] संगीता सिंह , निदेशक ( फिल्म)

[फा. से 809/2/2007 -एफ (सी) ] संगीता सिंह , निदेशक ( फिल्म) 4726

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 28, 2007 /SRAVANA 6, 1929

[PART I-SEC 3000) New Delhi, the 12th July,2007

करते हैं कि श्री श्री. एस. लाली मुख्य कार्यकारी अधिकारी , प्रसार भारती ,नई दिल्ली , एक नियमित परधारी के कार्यभार संभालने सक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , महानिदेशक, आकाशवाणी के क्षेत्राधिकार के अंतर्गत सामान्य केन्द्रीय सेवा के समूह 'ख' अधिकारियों के संबंध में अनुशासनात्पक प्राधिकारी तथा समूह ' ग ' और ' प' अधिकारियों के संबंध में संशोधनकर्ता प्राधिकारी के रूप में कार्य करेंगे ।

8.0.7.In continustion of this Ministry's Notificationof even member dated 29-3-2007 and in exer- cise ofthe powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read with nales 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph ( Certification) Rules, 1983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint Shri Pattukotai N. Rajendran, A- 8/4, Person Towers , 3B , PantheonRoad,First Lane, Egmont, Chennai- 600008 as a member of the Chennai Advisory Panel ofthe Central Board ofFilm Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders , whichever is carlier.

( राष्ट्रपत्ति के आदेश और नाम से जारी) [ सं. विविध 1/ 12/2006- सतर्कता] ए. हो. राय , अवर सचिव

ORDER

F. No. 809/2/2007-F( C) ) SANGEETA SINGH, Director (Films)

New Delhi , the 19th July, 2007 अरदेश नई दिल्ली , 25 अप्रैल , 2007

5.0.2073.--1п сxercise of the powers conferredby sub-rule (2) ofRule 12 sub- rule( 1 ) of rule 24 and sub-rule (vi) of rule29 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal ) Rules , 1965, the President hereby specifies that Stari B. S. Lalli, Chief Executive Officer, Prasar Bharati , New Delhi , shall act as Disciplinary Authority in respect ofGroup 'B ' officers of General Central Servicr and Revising Authority in respect of Group 'C' & 'D' officers under thejurisdiction of Director General, All India Radio till a regular incumbent joins or until further anders, whichever is earlier.

का.आ. 2072 राष्ट्रपति काँट्रीय सिविल सेवा ( वर्गीकरण , नियंत्रण और अपील) नियमावली , 1965 के नियम 12 के उप-नियम (2 ) द्वारा प्रदछ शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एत‌द्वारा यह विनिर्देश देते हैं कि श्री श्री. एस. क्ली, मुख्य कार्यकारी अधिकारी , प्रसार भारती, नई दिल्ली , दूरदर्शन महानिदेशक का पद नियमित आधार पर भरे जाने तक दूरदर्शन महानिदेशक के अधिकार क्षेत्र में आने वाली सामान्य केंद्रीय सेवा के समूह ' ख' के अधिकारियों के लिए तदर्थ अनुशासन प्राधिकारी के रूप में कार्य करेंगे ।

(By Order and in the Name of the President) No.Misc. 1 /12/2006- Vig.l A. D. ROY,Under Secy.

(राष्ट्रपति के गाम और आदेश से ) [सं. विविध 1/12/2006- सतर्कता) जी. एस. अम्बूदरी , अवर सचिव

गागर विमानन मंत्रालय

ORDER

नई दिल्ली , 18 जुलाई , 2007

New Delhi, the 25th April,2007

कर.आ. 2074, केन्द्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संम के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) , नियम 1976 के नियम 10 के उपनियम (4 ) के अनुसरण में, नगर विमानन मंत्रालय के अधीन उपक्रमों, इंडियन एयरलाइंस लिमिटेब, अपगाती स्टेशन तथा एयर इंडिया लिमिटेड , कानपुर स्टेशन , जिनके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारी - वृन्द ने हिन्दी 'का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है।

[सं. ई. 11020/6/2006- रा. मा ] चन्द्रभान खरनौली , निदेशक 5.0.2472.-In exercise of the powers conferredby sub- rule (2) of Rule 12 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal ) Rules, 1965 , the President hereby specifies that Shri B. S. Lalli , Chief ExecutiveOfficer, Prasar Bharati , New Delhi , shall not as ad-boc Disciplinary Authority in respect ofGroup 'B ' Officers of General Central Service falling in thejurisdiction ofDirector General , Doordarshan, till the post ofDirector General Doordarshan is filled up on regularbasis.

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

NewDelhi , the 18th July,2007

(ByOntier and in the Name of the President) [No. Misc . 1 / 12/2006-Vig.] GS . NAMBOOTHIRY,Under Secy.

आदेश नईदिल्ली , 19 जुलाई , 2007

S.O.2074.-in pursuance of sub rule (4) ofrule 10 of the official language (use of official purpose of the union) Rules,1976 the Central Government hereby notified the following offices of the Indian Airlines Limited , Agai station and Kanpur Station Air India Limited , the public sector undertaking ofMinistry ofCivil Aviation .Whereof more than 80 % staff have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi.

का.आ. 2073, राष्ट्रपति केंद्रीय सिविल सेवाओं, ( वर्गीकरण, नियंत्रण एवं अपील) नियमावली, 1965 के नियम 12 के उप- नियम ( 2), नियम 24 के उप-नियम ( १ ) और नियम 29 के उप -नियम (vi ) इम्प प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एतद्‌द्धमा यह विनिर्दिष्ट

[No.E- 11020/6/2006-Hindi] C. B. NARNAULLI, Director भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 28 , 2007/ श्रवण 6 , 1929

स्वास्थ और परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय ( स्वास्थ्य और परिवार कल्याण विभाग )

4727

नई दिल्ली , 5 जुलाई , 2007

का.मा. 2075.- केन्द्रीय सरकार यंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की घाय 10 की उप- धारा (2 ) द्वाप्रत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार भारतीय दन्त चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के बाद एक्‌द्धारा तक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग - क में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है: अर्थात्:-

राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविधालय ( आरबीयूओएचएस ) , मंगलौर के संबंध में दन्त चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16) की अनुसूची के भाग-1 में क्रम संख्या 49 के सामने स्तंभ 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में निम्नलिखित डेंटल कालेजों के संबंध में वहां निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां रखी जाएंगी:-

XV. डी.ए, खंडू मैमोरियल आर.वी. डेंटल कालेज , बंगलौर "मास्टर आफ डेंटल सर्जरी :

( 1 ) प्रोस्थोडान्टिक्स

( यदि 6-10-2006 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो) (ⅱ) ओरल सर्जरी

(यदि 10-10-2006 को उत्थवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) (i ) कन्जरवेटिव इंटिस्ट्री

( यदि 13-10-2006 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) (iv) ओरल पंडिसिन एवं रेडियोलॉजी

(र्याद 7-10-2006 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो) ( v ) आर्थोकान्टिक्स

(यदि 10-10-2006 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) (vi ) पेडोडाटिक्स

(यदि 10-10-2006 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो) (vii ) पेरिगोडाटिक्स

(यदि 14-10-2006 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो) (vii ) सममुदायिक दन्त चिकित्सा

(यदि 12-10-2006 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो) एमडीएस (पोस्यो. )

आरजीयूओएचएस , बंगलौर

एमडीएस (ओरल सर्जरी ) आरजीयूओएचएस , मंगलौर

एमडीएस ( कंजरवेटिव सेंटस्ट्री) आरबीचूओएचएस , बंगलौर

एमडीएस (ओरल पेडिसिन) अभ्रजीबूओएचएस , बंगस्त्रऔर

एमडीएस ( आर्थो)

आरजीयूओएचएस , बंगलौर

एमडीएस (पेडो)

आरबीयूओएचएस , बंगलौर

एमडीएस ( पेरियोकाटिक्स ) आरची ओएचएस, मंगलौर

एमडीएस (सामुदायिक दन्त चिकित्सा) आरजीयूओएचएस , बंगलौर

[संख्या वी-12017/ 60/2002-पीएमएस (डीई)]

के. बी. एस. राव , उप- सचिव

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department ofHealth and Family Welfare)

New Delhi , the5th July,2007

5.0. 2075.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948(16 of1948) , the Central Government, after consultation with Dental Council of India, bereby makes the following amendments inPart- I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 49, in part- T of the Schodule to the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of 1948) pertaining to , Rajiv Gandhi University ofHealth Sciences (RGUOHS ) , Bangalore, the following emries in respect of following dental college shall be inserted thereunder:-

4728

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 28 , 2007/ SRAVANA 6, 1929

XV. DA. Panda Memorial R. V. Dental College, Bangalore

MasterofDental Surgery

(1) Prosthodontics

(Whed granted on or after 06-10-2006) (ii) Oral Surgery

(When granted on or after 10-10-2006) ( ) Conservative Dentistry

(When granted on or after 13-10-2006) ( iv) Oval Medicine & Radiology (When granted on or after 07-10-2006) (v) Orthodustics

(When granted on or after 10-10-2006) (vi) Pedodontics

(When granted on or after 10-10-2006) (vii) Periodontics

(When granted on or after 14-10-2006) (vii) ComspunityDentistry

(When granted on or after 12-10-2006)

PART I-SEC. 3 ( i) ) MDS Prusthun .

ROUOIS, Bangalore.

MDS (Oral Surgery) RGUOHS, Bangalore .

MDS( Con. Dentistry) RGUOLIS, Rangalore .

MDS: Oral Medicine) RGUONS, Hangalore.

MDS(Ortho)

KGUONS .Bangalore.

MDS (Pedo

RGLOHS , Bangalore .

MDS ( Periodnatics )

RGUDIS, Bangalore.

MDS (Comm .Dentistry ) RGUOHS . Bangalore.

No. V- 12017460/2002- PMS (DE)

K.V.S. RAO , Dy. Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 12 बुल्गाई , 2007

का.आ. 2076, केन्द्रीय सरकार ने भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ग ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में पंजाब के पंजीकृत चिकित्सा स्नातक निर्वाचन क्षेत्र में निर्वाच्चन करवाया है जहां से डा. चलदेव सिंह . प्रोफेसर, सूत्र विज्ञान तथा प्रतिरोपण शल्य चिकित्सा , प्रमुख, प्रतिरोपण एकक, दयानंद मेडिकल कालेज, लुधियाना को इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तारीख से भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् के एक सदस्य के रूप में निर्वाचित किया गया है ।

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

उक्त अधिसूचना में " धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ग ) के अधीन निर्वाचित " शीर्षक के अंतर्गत क्रम संख्या 3 और उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टियों के स्थान पर निम्नलिखित क्रम संख्या और प्रविष्टियां प्रतिस्थापित की जाएंगी , अर्थात्:-

३. बलदेव सिंह ,

द‌यानंद मेडिकल कालेज ,

प्रोफेसर, मूत्र विज्ञान दथा प्रतिरोपण शल्य चिकित्सा, प्रमुख, प्रतिरोपण एकक, लुधियाना"

(सं बो. - 11013 / 7/2006 - एम ई ( नीति -1) ] टी. जे. एस. चावला , अवर सचिव

New Dethi, the 12th July. 2007

S.O. 2076-Whereas the Central Government in pursuance of clause (c ) of Sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act , 1956 ( 102 of 1956) has conducted the election from the Registered Medical Graduate Constituency ofPunjab wherefrom Dr. Baldev Singh , Professor of Urology and Transplant Surgery , Head Transplant Doit, DayanandMedical College. Ludhiana has been elected to be a member of the Medical Council of India with effect from the date of issue of this notification .

4729 [ भाग - खष्प ( ⅱ ) ]

भारत का राजापत्र : जुलाई 28 , 2007/ श्रवण 6 , 1929

Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provision of Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendment in the Notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry ofHealth number S.O. 138 , dated the 9th Jaunaгу, 1960, namely :

Inthesaid notification, under the heading, Elected under clause (c) of Sub- section (1 ) of Section 3 ", for the serial No.3 and the entries relating thereto the following serial number and entries shall be substituted, namely :

"3.Dr. Baldev Singh ,

Professor ofUrology and Transplant Surgery. Head Transplant Unit, DayanandMedical College,

Ludhiana"

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

नई दिल्ली, 16 जुलाई, 2007

का.आ. 2077.- भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 3 की उप- थाय (का) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में का. ओ. एन. नागी को हरियाणा राज्य सरकार के साध्य परामर्श करके दिनांक 21-4-2003 से भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् के सदस्य के रूप में नामित किया गया था।

भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् ने सूचित किया है कि का. ओ. एन. नागी जो भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956 की बारा 3 ( 1 ) (क ) के तहत हरियाणा सरकार का प्रतिनिधित्व कर रहे हैं, ने दिनांक 12-10-2004, 26-03-2005 तथा 18-02-2006 को परिषद् की आभ सभा की आयोजित लागातार तीन बैठकों में अनुपस्थित रहने के संबंध में कोई मौखिक लिखित सूचना नहीं दी थी । इसलिए डा. ओ. एन. नामी हरियाणा सरकार का प्रतिनिधित्व करने वाले भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् के सदस्य नाहीं रह गए हैं ।

अतः , अब , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 7 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में डा. ओ. एन. नागी को इस अधिसूचना के बारी होने की तारीख से हरियाणा सरकार का प्रतिनिधित्य करने वाला भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् का सदस्य नहीं समझा चाएग्न।

[सं. बी.-11013/2/2007- एम. ई (नीति-1) ]

टी. चे. एस. चावला , अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 16th July,2007

S.O. 2077.-Whereas in pursuance of the provision of Sub- section ( 1 )(a) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Act ,1956 (102 of 1956) Dr. Q.N. Nagi was nominated as a member of the Medical Council of India in consultationwith the StateGovernanent of Huryma with effect from 21-04-2003,

Whereas the Medical Council of India has informed thatDr. ON. Nagi who is representing Goverment of Haryana mnder Section 3( 1 ) ( a) of IMC Act, 1956 had not participated in three consecutive General Body Meetings of the Council held on 12-10-2004, 26-03-2005 and 18-02-2006 without any verbal /written communication regarding his absence.Therefore, Dr. O.N. Nagi has ceased to be a member of Medical Council of India qepresenting Government of Hatyaum.

Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provision of Sub-section (3 ) of Section 7 of the said Act, Dr. O.N. Nagi shall be decaned to barve cessed to be a member of the Medical Council of India repuccsenting Goveminent of Haryana with effect from the date of issue of this notification.

[No. V- 11013/2/2007 -ME (Policy -1) ) T.J.S. CHAWLA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 16 जुलाई , 2007

का.आ. 2078. - केन्द्र सरकार ने भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम , 1956 (1956 का 102 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ग ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में पश्चिम बंगाल के पंजीकृत चिकित्सा स्नातक निर्वाचन क्षेत्र में निर्वाचन करवाया है जहां से हा प्रकीरकुमार सूर, 623 /1 - एफ, डायमंड हार्बल रोड, बेहलम, कोलकाता को इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तारीख से पांच वर्षों के लिए भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् के एक सदस्य के रूप में निर्वाचित किया गया है । 4730

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 28 , 2007/SRAVANA 6, 1929

[PART II- SEC. 3( (i ) ) अतः , अब , उक्त अधिनियम की पारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण पैं, केन्द्र सरकार एतदुद्भाय भारत सरकार के तत्कालीन स्वास्थ्य मंत्रालय की दिनांक 9 जनवरी , 1960 की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 138 में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है, अर्थात् :

उयक्ष अधिसूचना में " धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ग ) के अधीन निर्वाचित " शीर्षक के अंतर्गत क्रम संख्या 4 के बाद निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां प्रतिस्थापित की जाएंगी , अर्थात् :-

आर एम जी, पश्चिम बंगाल

"4: डा. प्रदीरकुमार सूर, 623/1 - एफ, डायमंड हार्बर रोड, बेहक्षा, कोलकाता-700034 "

[税 वी.-11013/7/2006- एम ई ( नौति-1 ) ]

टी. जे. एस. चावला, अवर सचिव

New Delhi . the16th July, 2007

S.Q. 2078. Whereas the Central Government in pursustice of clause ( c ) of Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 ofthe Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ( 102 of1956) as conducted the election from the Registered Medical Graduate Constituency ofWest Bangal wherefrom Dr. Prabirkumar Sur , 623/ 1 -F, Diamond Harbour Road, Behals , Knikata has been elected to be a member of theMedical Council of India for five years with effect from the date of issue of this notification.

Now, therefore , in pursuance of the provision of Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendment in the Notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry of Health number $ .0.138 , dated the 9th January , 1960, namety:-

In the said notification, under the heading, 'Elected under clause (c ) of Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 ' , for the serial No. 4 ind the cotries relating thereto the following serial number and entries shall be substituted, namely:-

" Dr. Prabirkuma Str,

RMG, West Bengal

6ZB/ I -F. Diamond Harbour Road, Bahala,

Kolkata-700034"

No. V- 11013/7 /2006-ME (Policy -1) ]

T.J. S. CHAWLA , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 16 जुलाई , 2007

का.आ., 2079.- भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) ( ख ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में डा. पी. के. बैन, कार्यचिकित्सा विभागाध्यक्ष, एम.एल. नी. मेडिकल कालेज , झांसी , कार्याचकित्सा संकाय सदस्य , बुंदेलखण्ड विश्वविद्यालय को बुदेलखण्ड विश्वविद्यालय , झांसी के कोर्ट द्वारा इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तारीख से पांच वर्षों की अवधि के लिए भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् के एक सदस्य के रूप में निर्वाचित किया गया है ।

अनः, अब, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में , केन्द्र सरकार एतद्धारा भारत सरकार के सत्कालीन स्वास्थ्य मंत्रालय की दिनांक 9 जनवरी , 1960 की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 138 में निम्नलिखित और संशवेषन करनी है , अर्थात्:-

उक्त अधिसूचना में " घरा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) के अधीन निर्वाचित " शीर्षक के अंतर्गत क्रम संख्या 55 के सामने निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां प्रतिस्थापित की जाएंगी , अर्थात्: -

"5 डा. पी के. बैन,

बुंदेलखण्ड विश्वविद्यालय , झांमी"

कार्यचिकित्सा विभागाध्यक्षए एम.एल.बी. मेडिकल कालेज , झांसी

[सं. वो. - 1: 013/ 10/2006 - एम ई (नीति-1 ) ]

टी. बे . एस. चावला, अवर सचिव [भाग II-अष्ट 3 (日) 】

4731

भारत का राजपत्र : 28 2007/ यम 6 , 1929

New Deli , the 16thJuly,2007

S.O. 2079-Whereas in pursuance of the provision of Sub- section ( 1 ) (b ) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956( 102 of 1956) Dr. P.K. Jain, Head of Depertmeat of Medicine, ML. R. Medical College, Runsi member of the faculty ofMedicine, Bundelkhand University has been elected by the Court of Bundelkhand University, Jhansi to be a meraber of the Medical Council of India for five years with effect from the date of issue ofthis notification.

Now, therefore , in pursuance of the provision of Sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Contral Government bereby makes the following further amendment in the Notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry ofHealth number 5.0 . 138, dated the 9th January , 1960, nansely:-

In the said notification, under the beading, 'Elected under clause (b) of Sub-mction ( 1 ) of Section 3' , agint mumber55 , the following catrica shall be substituted, namelv:-

Bundelkhand University, Junai" 55 . Dr. P.K. Jin Head ofDepartment ofMedicine, M.L.B. Medical College,

[No.V- 11013/10/2006-ME (Policy -1) ] T.I.S. CHAWLA, Under Secy.

बल संभावन मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 3 जुलाई, 2007

का.भा. 2080, कंन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप- नियम (4 ) के अनुसरण में राष्ट्रीय जल विकास अभिकरण के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को, जिसके 80% कर्मचारीवृन्द ने हिन्दी का कार्यस्यक जन प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है:-

I. अन्वेषणः प्रभाल, नमलौर

2 अन्वेषण प्रभास, पटना

3. अन्वेषण प्रभाग, तथ লক

4 अन्बेषण सर्किल , वलसाड

अन्वेषण प्रमाग; बससाक

अन्वेषण प्रभात , भोपाल

7, अन्वेषण प्रभाग, कोलकाता

जल विधान प्रभाग , कोलकाता

9. मुख्य अभियंता ( द ) , हैदराबार

10 अन्वेषण सर्किल , हैदराबाद

11. अन्वेषण प्रभाग -1 , हैदराबाद

12. अन्वेषण प्रभाग- प , हैदराबद

(सं.1/1/2005- हिन्दी]

राजकुमारी देव, निदेशक (रा. भा. )

MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES

NewDelhi, the 3rdJuly,2007

S.O. 2000.- In persuance of Sub-Rule (4) ofrule (10 ) ofthe Official Language (use for official purposes of the Union) The Contrd Government hereby notifies the following offices ofNational Water Development Agency, the 80% stuffwhereof have moquired working knowledge ofHindi

1. Investigation Division, Bangalore.

3151 04/2007-3 4732

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 28, 2007 /SRAVANA 6, 1929

[PART II-Sac. 3( 6) ] Investigation Division, Putna

3. Investigation Division , Lucknow.

4. Investigation Circk, Valkad

5. Investigation Division, Valsad

6. Investigation Division, Bhopal .

7. Investigation Division, Kolkata

& Hydrological Division, Kolka

9. Office of the ChiefEngineer (S), Hyderabad

10. Investigation Circle, Hyderabad.

11.! Investigation Division-L, Hyderabad .

12. Investigation Division-E, Hyderabad.

No. 1 / 1 /2005-Hindi )

RAJKUMARI DAVE, Director(OL)

नाई दिल्ली, 3 जुलाई , 2007

का.आ. 2081.-केन्द्रीय सरकार , समान (संघ के शवको प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप -भिवम (4 ) के अनुसरण में राष्ट्रीय जल विकास अभिकरण के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को , जिसके 80 % कर्मचारीवृन्द ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक वन प्रापा कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है:-

1. अन्वेषण प्रभाग , मंगलौर

2 अन्वेषण प्रभाग , पटना

3. अन्वेषण प्रभाग , सखनम

4 अन्वेषण सर्किल , वलसांक

5. अन्वेषण प्रभाग , वससाय

अन्वेषण प्रभाग , भोपाल

7. अन्वेषण प्रभाग , कोलकाता

जल विज्ञान प्रभाग , कोलकाता

9. मुख्य अभियंता (प. ) , दद्याद

10.] अन्वेषण सर्किल , हैदराकर

11. अन्वेषण प्रभाग -1 , हैदराबाद

12. अन्वेषण प्रभाग-1, हैदराबाद

[सं. 1/1/2005- हिन्दी।

राजकुमारी देव , निदेशक ( रा. मा. )

NewDelhi , the 3rd July,2007

S.Q.2081.-Ел раrsunce of Sub- Rale (4) of rule ( 10 ) oftheOfficial Language (use for official purposes of the Union) The Central Government bereby notifies the following offices of National Water Development Agency, the 30% staffwhereof have acquired working knowledge of Hindi:

I. i Investigation Division, Bangalore.

4733

भारत का रावपत्र : दुई 28 2007/ 4..1929

2. Investigation Division, Patas

3. Investigation Division, Lucknow..

4. Investigation Circle,Valsad

5. Investigation Division, Vaad

6. InvestigationDivision, Bhopal .

7. Envestigation Division, Kolikata.

& Hydrological Division, Kollati

9. Office ofthe Chief Engineer (S) ,Hyderabad

havestigacion Circle, Hyderabad.

11. Investigation Division-L, Hyderabad .

12 Investigation Division- II, Hyderabad.

[No. 1/ 1 /2005-Hindi )

RAJKUMARI DAVE, Director (OL)

( )

नई दिल्ली, 10 मई, 2007

भार.. 2002-सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम की धारा 5 (2 ) और 19 ( 1 ) के अनुरूप एवं इस विषय पर इससे पूर्व जारी सभी अभिभूतों का करते कृषि अनुसंग एसिया विमला के निम्नलिखित अधिकारियों को उनके नाम के आगे दिए, गए विकेन्द्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी और अपील अधिकारी नियुक्त किया जाता है : -

पद अस

विषय वस्तु

क्रम क्षेत्रीय जन सूचना

अपील अधिकारी का नाम एवं परनाम दूरभाष गम्बर सीत

6 L

मगर दिन 23342345

श्री राजीव कुमार जैन निदेशक (आई.सी.)

23382375

सूनकर सी.ची. आई.ए. आर. को छोड़कर देलों , अन्तर्राष्ट्रीय संगठनों संस्थानों के साथ समापन कार्योाएं विदेश मंत्रालय , नानिन्य मंत्रलय , विज्ञान एवं प्रौद्योगिकी विभाग , मार्थिक मामले विभाग, कृषि एवं सहकारिता विभाग के सहयोग कार्यों में बरकी सहभागिता के साविष्य सरकार , कार्य गोचना एवं अन्य कार्यक्रमों/ तदर्थ दौरों के तहत सभी मामन्युकों के साथ अन्य संसार कर्तव्य विदेशी रिकोरियों के सभी तदर्थ दौरों के लिए तकनीकी रामनैतिक सुरषा के कृषिकोण से मामलों पर कार्यवाही करता । श्री रामाधार उप सचिव 23097044 सेंकर से संबंधित सभी सतर्कता मामले 4734

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 28 , 2007 /SRAVANA 6 , 1929

PART Sec. 3(0) ] 1

6 2 श्रीमती सुदिता दास अवर सचिव 23070421

श्री राजीव कुमार जैन

निदेशक (आई. सी. )

23382375

साथ समझौता ज्ञापन कार्य वच्छ बनाने सहित सी. जी. केंद्रों से संबधित सभी कार्य और वैज्ञानिकों अधिकारियों की प्रतिनियुक्ति , परियोजना प्रस्तस्व , इसके तहत सलाहकारों का भारत दौरा , सी. जी. ए. माई आर को वार्षिक अंशदान का भुगतान , चाक्ल गेहूं सैकाय भामों की प्रक्रिया यू एस. ए. आई. डीयू एस. डी. ए. परियोजनाओं की प्रक्रिया, ए सौ. आई. ए. आर. से संबंधित द्विपक्षीय परियोजना

3. श्रीमती मका अजूचा अवर सचिव 23383327

श्री राजीव कुमार जैन

निदेशक ( आई.सी.) 23382375 श्री राम अवतार उप सचिव ( ई एण्या बी )

आई. सी.- 3 प्रशिक्षण प्रभाग से संबंधित सभी कार्य यमा अल्पावधि प्रशिक्षण कार्य देखना और कृषि से कुड़े विषयों में उन्य कृषि विश्वविद्यालयों, भा.क.क.प. के समविश्वविद्यालय एवं संस्थानों में विदेशो विद्यार्थियों का स्नातक, स्नात्तकोत्तर, एवं डाक्टर डिग्री पाठ्यक्रमों में प्रवेश , नेपाल सहायता निधि और जनन द्रष्य विनियमः उन्नत अनुसंचन हेतु शिक्षावृति, छात्रवृति, इत्यादि संबंधी मामले , विदेशी सपक के आदेश पर उच्च शिक्षा और सपक द्वारा समर्थित अभिकरण संयुक्त राष्ट्र/ अंतर्राष्ट्रीय अभिकरण इत्यादि, विदेश प्रशिक्षण, विदेश नियुक्ति हेतु उभ्युक्त अभ्वर्थी का नामांकन , एफ.ए.ओ. कार्मिक एवं प्रशिक्षण विभाग हुमा मेनटेल किए जाने वाले रोस्टर में भा.कृ.अ.प. और कृषि विश्वविधालय के कर्मचारियों को इन संगठनों के अंतर्गत अथवा आगामी रिक्तियों के लिए सूचीम्द

4 श्री मरन ताल

अवर सचिव 23382786

श्री राजीव कुमार जैन निदेशक ( कई सी. )

परियोजनाओं से संबंधित सभी मामले यू. एस. ए. आई ही. यू. एन. की. ए. और ए. सी. आई. ए. आर. परियोधनाओं को छोड़कर , विश्व बैंक निधि प्रदत्त परियोजना एन.ए.आई.पी.

5. श्री मनजीत सिंह नम्बर जवर सचिव 23385362 एफ.ए. ओ. परियोनाओं से असंबद्ध टी.सी.डी.सी. , सी. जी. पी. आर. टी.सी.ए.बी. आई , ए.पी. ए. आर. आर.

श्री राजीव कुमार जैन निदेशक ( आई सी)

आई. , आई.एस.टी.ए. , सार्क, एस. ए आई. मी. , यूओ.ए. वी. उपर की. एस. , ई एस. सी. ए. पी. , आर. ए. एन. एम. के संबंध में प्रति नियुक्ति मामले , ए. बी. आई. ए. पी. ए. ए. आई. आई. आई. एस. टी. ए. ई. एस. सी. ए. पी. इत्यादि को अंशदान का भुगान परामर्श से संबंधित मामले , संसद कार्य से संबंधित सभी मामले , समन्वयन कार्य, अंतर्राष्ट्रीय सम्मेलनों, संगोष्ठी , सेमिनार आदि के आयोजन हेतु सरकारी अनुमति ।

6. श्री मेवेना कुमार कपाल अवर सचिव 23347063

श्री राम अवतार

रूप सचिव

स्थापना सामान्य प्रशासन , केन्द्रीय कृषि विश्वविद्यालय , डेवर का बजट कार्य से संबंधित मामले , राजभाषा से संबंधित मामले ।

23097044

[सं. 10-1 /2005 -स्थापना]

हो. के. छतवाल, अवर सचिव 4735

भारत का रामचत्र : जुलाई 28, 2007/6 , 1929

[ भाग -3 )]

MINISTRY OFAGRICULTURE

(Department ofAgricultural Research an

(ESTABLISHMENT SECTION)

New Delhi, the 10th May,2007

5.O. 2012-Interas of Sections 5(2) and 19( 1 ) of the RTIAct, 2005 , and in supersession of all entier Notification andAmendments iuued on the subject matter , the following officers ofDepartmean ofAgricultural Research and Educa tion are beretry designated as Central Public lafocnution Officers and Appellate Authorities in respect of the subject matters dealing with their names :-

Designation

SubjectMatter

SL No.

Name of the CPJO

Telephone No. 2

23382385 1 Shri Roopak Chaudhuri

Under Secretary

23070621 Stxt. Sumita DasGupte

Under Secretary

23383327 Stuit. Alka Ahuja

Under Secretary

Numeof Appellate Authoritywith Designation/ TelephoneNo.

ShriRajeev Kumar kain, Director(IC), 23382375

Shri RamAutar , DeputySecy. 23097044

IT(DARE), MOL/Work Plans with countries, Intertustioond organizations /institute other than CGIAR, Participation ofDARE in the collaborative progriusume for the Mo External Affairs, Mio Commerce, Dio Science & Technology , Dio Economic Affairs, DíoAgriculture & Cooperation , Hospitalitia, other protocol duties of all visitors visiting onder wock plan and other programmes/ad-boc visits, Processing cuaca of all ad-hoc visits of foreign nationalu/ dignitaries for cleanace from technical/political securityangle.

ShriRajcev Kuumu Juan, Director(IC), 23382375

All vigilance matters pertaining in DARE. Allwork relation to CG Centres including processing of MoU/Work Plan and deputation ofScientists/officials , project proposals, visit of consultants to India thereunder , Payment of sannal contribution to CGAIR, Processing of Rice-Wheat Consortjom matters , Processing of USAID/USDA Projects, Bilateral projects relating toACTAR

SaniRajeev Director(IC)

All matters relating to IC- III (TrainingDivision) Le. looking after short -term training and admission of foreign sindents lato gradute, post-gradute and doctoral degree course in Agriculare and Agri -related disciplines in the StateAgril . Univs, ICAR Decaead Univs and Institutes, Nepal -Aid Fund, Germplasan Exchange.

Shri Ram Aute Deputy Secretary, (E&V)

Cases of fellowship , scholarships etc. for advanced research, higher studies at the behest of foreign Government and Government sponsored agencies/ IN/International agencies etc. , foreign tuining, nomaination of suitable candidater for foreign assignments , empanelment of ICAR andAgricultural University employees in roster maintained by FAQ, DOPT etc. for future. vacancies in or under these organizatione PART 11 Sec. 3(1)] 4736

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 28 , 2007 /SRAVANA 6, 1929

23382786

ShriMadan Under Secretary

ShriRajeev Kunna Jain, Director(OC)

All matters relating to projects (except projects with USAID/USDA and ACLAR) , WorldBank funded project -NATP.

23385362

-do- 5. Shri Manjit Singh Nayar

Under Secretary

Deputation cases in respect of FAO (non -related to projects ) , TCDC, CGPRT, CABL, APARRI, ISTA, SAARC, SAIC, UO, AVRDS , ESCAP, RANM, Payment of contribution of CGPRT, CABL, APAARI , ISTA, ESCAP etc, Cases pertaining to consultancy . All matters relating to Parliament work, Coordination work , Obtaining ofGovt. clearances for organizing International conferences , seminars, symposia etc.

23387063

Unda

Shri Ram Aular DeputySecy.

Secretary

23097044 Shri Devendra Kumar Chhatwil

Establishment/ Geacal Administration , matter relating to CAU ,Budget work of DARE , matter relatingto Official Language.

[No.10-1 /2005-Estt.]

D. K. CHHATWAL, Under Secy .

उपयोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली, 16 जुलाई, 2007

का.आ. 2083.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खखंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में मायणीय मानक म्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक( को) में संशोधन किया गया किये गये हैं-

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागू होने की संशोधित भारतीय मानक (कों) की संख्या, वर्ष और शीर्षक

क्रम संख्या

(4)

(3)

(1)

(2)

31-01-2007 1-

01, जनवरी 2007

: 1984 की

आई एस 10810 ( भाग 47 )

संशोधन संख्या 1

इस भारतीय संशोधन की प्रतियों भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली , कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर, मोविल, भुवनेश्वर , कोमम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदसणार, जयपुर, कानपुर, गामपुर , पटना , पूर्ण तथा तिरुवनंन्वात्पुरम में विक्की हेतु उपप्त्तन्ध हैं ।

[ संदर्भ: ईिटी 09/टी-86 (47 ) ]

पी. के मुखार्जी, वैज्ञा. ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी ) MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department ofConsumerAffairs)

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delbi , the 16th Inly,2007

S. D. 2083.-In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub-rule (1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Roules, 1987, theBureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amcadment to the Indian Standards , particulars of wirich are given in theSchedule hereto annexed have been issued:

4731

भारव का ग्रवपत्र : बुजुलाई 28 , 2007/ श्रवण 6 , 1929

[ भाग - रूपा 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

SLNo. No. and year of the Indian Standards No. and year of the amendment

Date fromwhich the und meut shall hurve affect

31-01-2007

01 Jannary,2007

1. IS 10810 (Part -47):1984 Methods of Test for Cables Part47 bupolar Test

Copy of this Amendment is available with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shubh Zafu Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chezunni , Mumbai and alsoBranch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Blrubaneshwar , Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur , Kampur, Nagpur, Patna, Pure and Thiruvananthapur .

[Ref.:ET 9/T-86 (47))

P. K. MUKHERJEE, Sc. F & Head (ElectroTechnical)

नई दिल्ली , 16 जुलाई , 2007

का. आ. 2064.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 हे नियम ? के उप - नियम ( 1 ) के सखंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एाद्धारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

क्रम

स्थारित तिथि संख्या

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

नचे भारतीय मानक द्वारा अक्तिक्रमित भारतीय मामक अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हो , की संख्या और वर्ष

( 1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 1.

31 मई, 2007 आई एस 5 : 2007 तैयार मिश्रित रोगन और इनैमल के लिए रंग ( छठा पुनरीक्षण)

इस भारतीय माषक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह अफर मार्ग , नई बिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चच्चीगर , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा राम्खा कार्यालयों अहमदाचार , बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , मुकाटी, और पपुराणपुरपुर पटना , पुणे या तिरुवन्तापुरम में विक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[ संदर्भ: सीएचडी 20/अवई एस 5 ]

६. देवेन्द्र , बैज्ञा एफ , निदेशक ( रसायन )

NewDelhi, the 16th July, 2007

5.0.34рилично of clase (8 ) of sub-sule ( 1 ) ofTule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Raka, 1987, theDarctio of badini Stenderde hereby notifies that the hoction Standards, particadars ofwhich tre given in the Schedule hereto xomoned have been established on the dite indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Date ofEstablishmen $1No. No and your of the Indian Standards Establishal

No. and year of the Indian standards, ifany, Supersededbythe New Indian Stanchaud

1 .

31May,2007 185:2007 Colours for ready mixed prints and camch

(SouthRevision)

Copy of this is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9, Belusiher Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi- 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chemai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices :Alsmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatan, Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur , Kanpur, Nagpur , Patus, Pune andThiruvananthapuram,

[Ref.: CHD 20VTS 51

E. DEVENDAR, Sc. F, Director (Chemical) 4738

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 28 , 2007/ SRAVANA 6 , 1929

[PART II SHC (0 )

नई दिल्ली, 16 जुलाई , 2007

क्र. आ. 2015. - भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम ? के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एक्स्‌द्धारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया किये गये हैं :-

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागू होने की क्रम. संख्या

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

( 1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

संशोधन संख्या 2 , मई 2007

09-07-2007 L. आई एस 2879 : 1998 - धातु मार्क वेल्टिंग इलैक्ट्रोडों के लिए मुटु इस्पात विशिष्ट (सौसरा पुनरीक्षण)

इस भारतीय संशोधन की प्रवियों भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर भार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली , कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर, भोपाल , मुक्तेश्वर , कोयम्बटूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद , जयपुर, कानपुर , नागपुर, पटना, पूर्ण तथा तिरुवनन्तापुरम में विक्की हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[ संदर्भ: एमटीडी टी-65 ]

डा. श्रीमति स्नेह भाटला , वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी)

NewDelhi , the 16thJuly,2007

S.O. 2085. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub-rule ( 1 ) of Rude 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, theBureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendment to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in theSchodule bereto annexed have been issued:

SCHEDULE

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

Date from which the amend ment shall have effect

09 July,2007

AmendmentNo. 2, July,2007

1. 152879: 1998 Mild steel for metid ard welding electrodes- Specification ( third revision)

Copy of this Amendment is available for sale with the Bureau of Indim Standarda , Manak Bhavan , 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Mang, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolicata, Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Btwach Officer: Ahmedabad, Bangalore. Bhopal , Bhubaneshwor , Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kampa, Nagpur, Pana, Pune and Thiruvananthapurn

[Ref: MID 4/T-65 ]

Dr. Mrs. SNEH BHATLA , Se .- 'F & Head (MTD)

नई दिल्ली , 17 जुलाई, 2007

का, का, 2006, भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक न्यूरो एक्‌प्रय मविसूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है यह स्थापित हो गया है:-

अनुसूची

स्थापिततिथि संख्या

स्थापित भारतीय मानक(कों) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

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

( 1 )

(2)

(3)

(4) 1

5424 : 1969

01नवम्बर , 2007 15652: 2006 विद्युत प्रयोजनों के लिए विक्रोषी मैट-विशिष्टि 4739 भारंत का राजपत्र बुलाई 28 2007/6, 1929

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रवियों भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , १ , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीन कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगय , चेन्नई, मुर्ख तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर, मोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , वैदराबाद, जयपुर , कानपुर, नानपुर, पटना , पुणे असा तिरुवनन्वापुरम में विक्री हेतु उपलब्ध है ।

(संदर्भ: ईटी 02/2-154]

पी. के मुखर्जी, पैर एफ एवं प्रमुख ( विबुत तकनीकी)

New Delhi, the 17th July,2007

5. 0. 200%. Іх раxsuance of chuse (b) of sub-rule ( 1 ) of Rule ? of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, theBuncan of Indian Standards bereby notifies thuat the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto kanexed has been issued

SCHEDULE

Date ofEstablishmen SL No. No, and Year of the Indian Standards

No. and year of the Indian standards, ifany, Supermoded by the New Indian Standard

(3)

(1)

01 November , 2007

185424:1969 Specification for robber mats for

electrical purposes

IS 15652: 2006 Insulating roata for electrical purposes Specifitiou

Copy of thia Standard is available for sale with the threau of Indian Standards , Muk Bturvina, 9, Behader Shah Zafar Marg, NewDelhi - 110002 andRegional Offices : New Delhi ,Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumben and alsoBranch Offices :Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbuore, Gowabati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Paisa, Pune and Thiruvanantlaparan.

[Ref: ET02/T-154]

P. K. MUKHERJEE, Sc. F & Head (Bectro Tochuالأصش

नई दिल्ली, 17 जुलाई, 2007

का. श्री. 2007. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के वांग ( ख) के अनुसरण में एक्यूद्वारा अधि सूचित किया भावं है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे मनुसूची में दिया गया है, वह रद्द कर दिया गया हैऔर वापस ले लिया गया हैः

अनुसूची

टिप्पणी

क्रम रद्द किये गये मानक की संख्या और वर्ष सं

भारत के राजपत्र भाग II , खंड 3 , उप-सखंड (ii ) में का.अ. संख्या और तिथि प्रकाशित

(4)

(3)

(1)

(2)

1. वाईएस 12819 :1989

0157,19-1-1991

[संदर्भ: ईटी 03/टी-26]

पी. के. मुखर्जी, वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत वक्कनीकी

New Delhi , the 17th July,2007

8.0. 2007.- In pursuance of claose (b ) of Sub-rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Boules, it is, hereby notified that the Indian Standard, particulars ofwhich is mentioned in the Schedule gives hereafter, has beco cancelled and sound withdrawn.

SCHEDULE

Rommiss

SL No. and Year of the No. Endian Standarda Cancelled

S.Q. No. and Duue published in the Casette ofIndia Part II, Section- Sub-section(ji)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

O157,19-1-1991

1 IS12819: 1989

[Ref:ET03/T-26]

P. K. MUKHERJEE, Scientist F & Head (Electro Technical) 3151 2007-4 !

4740

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUЛ.У 28 , 2007/SRAVANA 6, 1929

[PART II-SFC. 3(1 )

नई दिल्ली,19 जुलाई, 2007

का. मा. 2088, भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप-मियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( खा) के अनुसरण में पारतीय पानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( कों ) में संशोषन किया गया किये गये हैं:

अनुसूत्री

म संख्या

संशोधित भारतीय मानक ( कों) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

संशोधन लागूहोने कोतिथि

नये भारतीय मालक द्वारा अत्तिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अञ्चवा मानकों , यदि कोई हो , की संख्या और वर्ष

( 1 )

(2)

(3)

(4) 1.

आईएस 319 : 1989

3: बनवरी , 2007 आईएस 319: 2007- सुकटय पीतल के सहीये, उन्हें एवं सैक्सन-विशिष्टि (पाँचवा पुनरीक्षण)

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

[संदर्भ: एमटीडी ४/ टी-2 ]

डॉ. ( श्रीमति ) स्नेह भाटता, वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी)

New Delhi , the 19th July,2007

5. 0. 2008. In pursuance ofclause (b ) of Sub -rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Date of Fatablished No.

No , and Year of the Indian Standards Establisbed

No. and year of Indian Standards. ifany, Supersededby the New Indian Staridard

(1)

(2)

(4)

IS319:1989

31-01-2007

18.319:2007 Free Cutting Briss Bars, Rods and Sections -Specification (Fifth, revision)

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

[ReL: MTD 8/T-2 ]

Dr. (Mrs. ) SNEH BHATIA, Scientist F & lead (Met . Engg.)

नई दिल्ली, 16 जुलाई, 2007

का.आ. 2009.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम ? के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीधे अनुसूची में दिये गये हैं, वे 16 जून , 2007 से रद्द कर दिए गए हैं और वापस सेलिये गए हैं :

4741 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 28, 2007 /श्रवण 6 , 1929

[ भाग II- खच्ष्य (ii)]

अनुसूची

भ्रम रद्द किये गये मानक की संख्या और वर्म सं

भारत के राजपत्र , माग II, खांक 3 , उप-सखंड ( ii ) में का.आ. संख्या और तिथिप्रकाशित

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

783 दिनांक 29-3-1980

1. आईएस 8522 : 1977 स्वसित्र , रासायनिक-कार्टिज

आई एस 15322 2003 एवं 15323 : 2003 के प्रकाशित होने के कारण जिसमें कि बा अपेक्षित पूरे फेस , आधे और चौथाई मास्क के साथ प्रयुक्त फिल्टरों को अपेक्षाएँ दी गयी हैं जो कि नवीनतम अंर्तराष्ट्रीय रीति हो।

1995 दिनांक 26-7-1980

2. आईएस 8523 = 1977 स्वसित्र, केंनिस्टर टाइप (गैस मास्क)

माई एस 15322 :2003 एवं 15323 : 2003 के प्रकाशित होने के कारण जिसमें कि वधा अपेक्षित पूरे फेस , आओ और चौयाई मास्क के साथ प्रयुक्त फिल्टरों की अपेक्षाएँ दी गयी हैं जो कि नवीनतम अंर्तराष्ट्रौव रीति है।

[संदर्भ : सीएचडी अईएस 8522 मऔर 8523 ] ई देवेन्द्र, वैज्ञा एफ , निदेशक ( स्तानन )

NewDelhi, the 16th July,2007

$. О. 2089.- In pursuance of chuse (D ) ofSub- rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards rules, it is, hereby notified that the Indian Standard, Particulars of which are mentioned in the Schedule give hereafter, has been cancelled and stand withdrawn w.c. 16 June, 2007 .

Remarks Sl. No. and Year of the No. Indim Stumdards Cracelled

5.0. No. and Date published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section( ii)

(1)

783 dt. 29-3-1980

L お 22 : 1977 RESPIRATORS CHEMICAL CARTRIDGE

Due to publication of IS 15322 2003 and [S 15323: 2003 which provides the requirements of the Filters canly tobe used along withthe full face, half and quurter mask us ποοείπτά, which is the latest practice internationally.

4742

THE OAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 28, 2007 /5RAVANA 6, 1929

(1) (2)

[PART IIS 3 )] (3)

(4)

1995 dt. 26-7-1980

2. $ 8523: 1977 RESPIRATORS CANISTER TYPE (GAS MASKS)

Due to publication of LS 15322 2003 and 15 15323: 2003 which provics the requirements of the filters only to be used along with the full face, half and quarter mask as required, which is the latest practice memationally.

Ref.: CHDAS 8522 and 8523] E. DEVENDAR, Scientist "F , Director (Chemiالص

नई दिल्ली, 19 जुलाई , 2007

कंप.आ. 2090.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक न्यूरो एतद्‌द्वय अधिसूचित करता है कि मीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( को ) में संशोधन किया गया किये गये हैं :

कैम संक्रोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

वर्ष

(1)

(2)

संशोधन लागू होने को तिथि (3)

(4)

संशोधन संख्या 2 , अप्रैल , 2007

आईएस 11860 :1998-घूणी पट्टी में ओस अपंचमन आधारित प्रत्यक्ष अपचयन के लिये गैर- कुकिंग कोयले हेतु दिशा निर्देश अन्वन्य रिएक्टर्स ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

19-07-2007 कृत संशोधनों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली 110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा रशक्षा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर , भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद , जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पूर्ण तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में विकी हेतु उपलब्ध है

(संदर्भ : एमटीडी 30 टी-9 ] डा. ( श्रीमती ) स्नेह भाटला , वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी)

New Delhi , the19th July,2007

50. 2094 -In рursuance of chuse (5) of sub-rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1967, theBureau of Indian Standarde bereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in theSchedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SL No.

No. and Year of the Indian Standards

(1)

SCHODULE

No. and year of the amendment Date from which the atmendment shall have effect

(4)

19July,2007

Amendment No. 2

April ,2007

11860: 1998 Guidelines for non- cooking coale for solid reductant besed direct re duction in rotary kilns ( and other reactors) (First Revision) [भाग -3 )]

4743

भारत का राजपत्र : कुल 28, 2007/ श्रावण 6 , 1929

Copyof this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah ZafirMarg,New Delhi- 110002 und Regional Offions : New Delhi , Kolkata Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and alsoBrunch Offices : Almedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal , Bhobaneshwar , Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpor. Patna, Pune, Thinrvananthaporam.

[Ref: MTD30/T-9 ) DR. (MRS. ) SNEH BHATLA, Sc- 'F &Head (MTD)

नई दिल्ली , 19 जुलाई , 2007

का.मा. 2091 , -भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपविनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक न्यूरो एक्दु‌द्दामा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन सासेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं:--

क्रम लाइसेंस संख्या

लाक्सेंसधारी का नाम

स्वीकृत करने को तिमि वर्ष माह

4 1. 7679607

29-11-06

फिनोलेक्स इंडस्ट्रीज लि. , प्लॉट नं 10 , ब्लॉक की एम काय ही सी, चिंचवड जिला पुणे-411 019 2 7686095

30-11-06

विशाय कंपोनेंट्स इंडिया प्रा.सि., सोनी कासमोर पुणे सेंट्रल रेलवे के पास , बिला पुणे-412201 3 7667701 30-11-06 विरुमाला इंडस्ट्रीन , प्लॉट नं. ई- है , एम आय डी सी जिला- नारेय-431 603 4

05-12-06

7681691

अल्फा वॉटर्स , प्लॉट नं. 75, हिस्सा 2/2 धावे रोड

टयूम इन्वेस्टमेंट इंडिया

के सामने उत्थाबडे तालुक मुलशी जिला पुणे

5. 7600891

06-12-2006 शुद्धोहोम ज्वैलर्स, 1300/ए, नॉर्थ कस्था विलक चौक

सोलापुर-413007 6. 7681901

12-12-06 सुपर पॉवर एंड बैटरीज , एच-7/ए, एम आय डी सी बिला-सांगली-416436 7. 768-4293

12-12-06

शाह ज्वैलर्स, 595, रविवार पेठ, तलेगांव दाभाडे , तालुका मावेल बिला पुणे -410506

अनुसूची

अनुभग वर्ष

भाग

भारतीय मानक का रशीर्षक

भामा संक्रमा

2003

15328

अगप्लास्टिसाइन्ड गैर

क्लोद ( पौवीसी- ) पाइप्स आंतरिक ग्रालियों और सीवरेज प्रणाली के लिए

1993

13340

स्वयं प्रकार के पॉबर केपीसीटर्स एसी पावर प्रणाली शक्ति 1000 वोल्टेज तक के लिए

2004

14543

पैर्मावबंद पेयजल (पैकेवर प्राकृतिक मिनरल चल के अतापा)

14543

2004 ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिगरल जल के अलावा )

1417

1999 स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्रधातु आभूषण कृत्रिम- शिल्पकृति और चिन्हांकन

5144

1997 बहुउद्देश्यीय शुष्क बैटरियणं

1417

1999 स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिमचातु आभूषण , कृत्रिम शिल्पकृति और चिन्हांकन 4744

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 28, 2007/SRAVANA 6, 1929

[PART I-SEL. 3 ( ) ]

T 13-12-06

1417

1999 7605804!

स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्रधातु आभूषण कृत्रिम - शिल्पकृति और चिन्हांकन

राजमत सखीचंद , ज्वैलर्स , 520-1/ई, राहूपुरी महालक्ष्मी चेम्बर्स से माने, सेंट्रल बस स्टॉप के पास , कोल्हापुर-416001

2004

14543

7643392

14-12-06

पैबंद पेयजल ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

अश्वराज मिनरल वॉटर कंपनी , बी/ 12 , एम आय ही सी इंड एरिया , एर सुतानूर, रातु नवागन , जिला नांदेड -431709

20-12-06

10 7688002

3390

1988

स्फेग्मोपेनोमोटर्स , मकुरिक्ल

दिशा इंस्ट्रूमेंट्सएंड सर्जीकल इंडस्ट्रीण , क्र. सं. 14 , पुष्पा चेम्बर्स , 689/4, प्लॉट नं.- 1, विश्वेवाड़ी पेड, जिला पुणे -411 037

11. 7688406

2004 26-12-06

14543

पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( पैबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

हेल्थ केयर इंडस्ट्रीज, सीसी नं. 423 , प्लॉट नं. 148 , पंचारपोल इंड इस्टेट, जिला कोल्हापुर

26-12-06

13334

1998 12. 768$507

स्किम्ड दूध पावकर , भाग । मानक श्रेणी

क्लोवर फूडस प्रा. लि. , 317/318 , सहाच्चपुर नांदुर रोड, तालुका गौक, बिला पुणे

[सं. सी एप की 13:11 ]

ए. के. तलवार , उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर)

New Delhi, the 19th July,2007

S.O. 2091.-ha pursuance ofsub-regulation (5) ofregulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certifica- tion) Regulatices 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards, bereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are gives in the fallpopwing schedule.

SCHEDULE

Section Year

IS No. Part

GrantDate

Title of the Standard

SL Licence

Name &Address

No. No.

oftheParty

29-11-06

2008 7679607

15328

Finolex Industries Lad . , PlotNo. 10,Block D- 1 , MIDC, Chinchwad, DistrictPone-411019

Unplasticized non pressure polyvinyl Chloride (PVC-U) pipes for use in underground drainage and sewerage systems [ भाग - 3( ⅱ) ]

4 2 7685095

30-11-06

Vishay Components IndiaPvt. Ltd., Loud Kulabor NearPune (C. Rly) District Pune-412201

3. 7667701 30-11-06

4745

भारत का राजपत्र : कुलई 28 , 2007 / 6 , 1929

13340

195 Power capacitors of self healing type ku ac power sysical having rated voltage upto 1000 V

(4543

Tirumals Inhastries,

Plot No. E-8, MIDC

District Nanded-431603

4 7681691

30-11-06

Alpha Waters PlotNo. 75 , Hissa 2/2, Highway Road, Opp. Tube Jarvestiment India Tutturiwade Taluka Mulshi DistrictPune 5

6-12-06

7680891

Packaged drinking water (Other than packaged) nanural mintzal water)

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (Other than packaged) natural incal water)

1417

1999 Gold and gold alloys, jewellery/artefacu Fineness and marking

Shudhohom Jewellers

1300VA, NorthKas

TilakChowk

Solapur-413007

5 7683901

12-12-06

8144

1997 Multipurpose dry benerica

SuperPower&

Battarica, H-7 /A,

MIDC Kuprad

District Sangli.

416436

7 7684295

12-12-06

1417

1999 Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/ fact Fineness and marking

Shah Jewelzs

595,Raviwar Peth

TaingsonDabhade

Taluka Maval

DistrictPune-410506

13-12-06

7685804

Rajnad Lakhichand Jewellers, 520-1/E Shahupuri Next to Malssland Chanibers Near Contral Bus Stand Kolhapur-416001 9 7683392

14-12-06

AshwarajMineral Water Company B/12,MIDC bdi . Area At Krushnoor Taluka Naigaon District Nanded- 431709 10 7688002

20-12-06

Disha Instruments & Surgical Industries S.No. 14, Pushpa Chambers, 68944, PlotNo. 1, Bibwewadi Road, District Pune- 411037

1417

1999 Gold and gold willаут, jewellery/artefacts- Fineness and nurking

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (Other than packaged natural mineral walker)

3390

1988 Sphygmometers , mesarial 4746

PART -SBC. 3 (30)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 28, 2007 /SRAVANA 6, 1929

1 2

7585406

26-12-06

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (Other than packaged) papural mineral water)

Health Care Industries CC No.423 , PlotNo. 148, Panjarpal Indi .Estate DistrictKolhapu

1998 12 7668507

26-12-06

13334

Skimmed milk powder, Part 1 Standard grade

Clover Fooda Pvt. Ltd. 317/318, Sabajpur NancherRoad TalukaDaund District Pune

[No. CMDV13: 11 ]

A.K. TALWAR, Dy . Director General (Marks)

नई दिल्ली , 20 जुलाई , 2007

का. के. 2092, -भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो के भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियमन 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपविनियमन ( 5 ) के तहत वह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि निम्नलिखित म्बीरे काले लाइसेन्स प्रदान किए जाते हैं ।

मानक की उपाधि

पार्टी का नाम व पता ( कारखाना)

लाइसेंस संखमा लागू विभि

भामा संख्या भाग सखंड व वर्ष क्रम संख्या

निमज्जनीय पंप सेट

भामा 8034 : 2002 6599790 04-08-2006 मैसर्स प्रोटेक एनजिनीयरिंग , एस.एफ. सं. 255 , शक्ति नगर , मासयकालिपालयन रोड. सौरिपालयम , कोयंबतूर-641 028

2 6593993

भामा 14220 ; 199

गहरे कुओं के निमन्जनीय पंग सेंट

07-08-2006 मैसर्स गोपालकृष्णा इन्डस्ट्रीज , 427, पोल रोड, कोक्बतूर -641009

भामा 14220 : 1994 6594085 08-08-2006

गहरे कुओं के निभन्जनीय पंप सेट

मैसर्स ऐंकर एन्जिनीयरिंग कंपनी , 361, तिरुणिरोक, कोवक्तूर -641005

भामा 2347 : 1995 6594792

घरेलू प्रेशर कुकर्स

09-06-2006

मैसर्स टीटीके प्रस्टीज लिमिटेड, . 234/1 , पोल्लाच्ची रोड , मइलेरिपासायम गाँव, मदुक्कर पंचायत यूनियन , कोयक्तूर-641 032

5. 6595390

भामा 9079 : 2002 09-08-2006

कृषि तथा जल आपूर्ति के लिए साफ ठंडे पानी के विजली के मोनोसेट पम्प्स

मैखर्स टेक्स पंप्स, 1/34, विशालाक्षी नगर, रामच्चेट्रिट्टप्पालयम , सुम्डक्कामुचूर ( पोस्ट) , कोयंबतूर -641 010

मामा 9079 : 2002 6 6596291 14-08-2006

कृषि तथा जल आपूर्ति के लिए साफ ठंडे पानी के बिजली के मोनोसेट फ्ल्प्स

मैसर्स अक्कटेक् इंजिनीयर्स , 556/1, अधनाशी रोड, पौलमेडु (पोस्ट) , कोर्यक्तूर-641 004 4747 [ भाग Ⅱ- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 28 , 2007/ श्रवण 6, 1929

7 i 2

भामा 8472 : 1998 6599398

साफ ठंडे पानी के लिए अपकेंद्रीय पुनरुत्पादक पंप्स

24-08-2006 मैसर्स श्रीराम इंजिनीयर्स , एसएफ नं 445/2 बो, वेल्ललूर रोक, सिंगानल्सूर, कोयंबतूर -641 005

6599499

भामा 4984:1995 24-08-2006

जल आपूर्ति के लिए उच्च दाव वाले पाली‌श्चिलिन पाइप्स

मैसर्स वर्षा पोली प्रॉडक्ट्स, 1/169 राम नगर कॉलोनी , तिरुच्ची रोड. पोंगलूर, तिरुप्पूर-641 667

भामा 14220 : 1994 प. 6589496 25-08-2006

गहरे कुओं के निमन्जनीय पंप सेट

मैसर्स प्रोटेक एजिनीयरिंग , एस.एफ. स्टं 255 , झाक्ति नगर , मासक्कालिपालयम रोड, सौरिपालयम , कोयंबतूर -641 028

1L 6601258

भाग्य 14543 : 2004 30-08-2006

पैकेजबंद पेक्चरल ( पैोवबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल मल के अलावा)

मैसर्स ओडनतुरै पैकेजिंग, ड्रिकिंग वाटर फेडरेशन , एसएफ नं. 32/1 , ओडनतुरै पंचायत, पल्लप्पट्टी ( पोस्ट), कारमडै , मेट्टप्पालयम , कोयंबतूर-641 305

L. 6601157 30-08 2006

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

コ मैसर्स श्री मेगलत ज्वलरी , शोप संख्या । , भारतीदासन पंचायत कौप्लेक्स, कालिकट गोड, गूडलूर बाजार पोस्ट, गूडलूर, नीपिरीस

2. 6601864 31-08-2006

मामी 14543: 2004

पैकेजबंद पेयचारल ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल चल के अलावा)

मैसर्स यालीस अक्वा मिनरल्स (प्रा. ) लिमि.. श्री यालिनि इल्लम, इरण्यन गली नं-1 , 239, चेन्निमलै रोड , ईरोक-638 009

[सं. सी एम डी 13:11 ]

ए. के. तलवार , उप महानिदेशक ( मार्क्स )

NewDelhi, the 20th July,2007

S.O. 2092-In pursuance of Sub -regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Burcan of Indian Standards (Certificauion) Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of ledian Standards, bezeby notifies the grant of licence particular ofwhich are given in the following Schedule:

SCHEDILE

Name & Address

Title of the Standard

IS No. Part/Sec.

SL Licenec Operative

dair

No. No.

(Factory) of the Party

IS8034:2002

SubmersiblePumpsets

1. 6593790 04-08-2006 M/ s . Portech Engineering, S.F. No. 255 , Sakthi Nagar , Masakkalipalayam Road, Sowripalayam , Coimbatore-641028

3151 GL2007-5 4748

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 28 , 2007 /SRAVANA 6, 1929

2 6593991 07-08-2006 M/s . Gophakkrishou Industries, 427, Patel Road, Cotubatore-641009 1 6594065 06-08-2006 M/ s . Anchor Engineering Company 367,TrichyRoad, Singanallur, Coimbatore-641005 4. 6594792 09-08-2006 M/ s . T.T.K. Prestige Limited, No. 234/1 , Pollachi Road, Mykripalayam Village, Madukkini Panchayat Union, Coimbatore-641032 5. 659539 09-08-2006 M/ s. Tex Pumps 1/34,Visalakshi Nagar, Ramacttypalayam, Sundaksumuthor (P.O. ). Coimbatore-641010 6. 659629 14-08-2006 M/ s. Aquatec Eagincors 556/1 , AvanashiRoad, Peclamedu Post Coimbatore-641004 7. 6999398 24-08-2006 M/s. Streerus Engineers SFNo. 445/26 , VellaloreRoad, Singsmillor. Coimbatore- 641-005 8 6599499 24-08-2006 M/s . Varssha PolyProducts, 1/169, Ramnagar Colony. TrichyRoad, Pongalur . Tirupur-641667

9. 6589496 25-08-2006 Mis . Protech Engineering S.F. No. 255, Sarthi Nagar, MasakkalipelayanaRoad , Soripalayam, Coimbramo-641028 10 6601258 30-08-2006 M/s . Odanthurai Packaging DrinkingWater Podaration, SFNo. 32/1 , Odanthorai Panchayat , Pallapatti (P.O. ) Kararuadai , Mettupalayam, Chimpburore-641 305 IL 660115 30-08-2006 M/s . Sri Megalan Jewellery, Shop No. 11 , BharathithasanPanchayat Complex , CalicutRoad, Godslur, Gudahır Bazaar Post, Gudalur, TheNilgiris

12 560185 31-08-2006 M/s. Yaley's Aqua Minerals ( P) Ltd. , Sci Yalini Ilam, Framyan Street No. 1 , 239, Chennimalai Road, Erode-533 009

[PART 11-SBC.3 ( 月 5

IS 14220:1994 Openwell Submersible Pumpsets

IS14220:1994 Openwell Submersible Pumpets

Domestic Pressure Cookers

IS 2347: 1995

189079 : 20002 ElectricMontset Pumps for Clear , Cold Water for Agricultural and Water Supply Purposes

159079: 2002 Electric MonosetPumps for Clear , ColdWater for Agricultural and Water Supply Purposes

LS 8472:1998 Centrifugal regenerative pumps for clear, cold waдет

TS4984:1995 HDPEPipes For Water Supply

Openwell Submersible Purtiysets IS14220:1994

IS14543:2004 Packaged DrinkingWater [Other Than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

IS1417 : 19 Gold and gold alloys . Jewellery/ artifacts - fineness and marking

15 14543: 2004 Packaged Drinking Water ( Other Than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

[No. CMDY13 : 11 ] A. K. TALWAR. Dy. Director General (Marks) 4749

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 28, 2007/ श्रावण 6 , 1929

[भाग - खण्ड (ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 20 जुलाई, 2007

क्र.उप. 2093. - भारतीय मानक न्यूये ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के नियम 4 के उप - नियम ( 3 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं

अनुसूत्री

वर्ष

भोग अनुभाग

पा. मा संख्या

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

क्रम संख्या संख्या लाइसेंस स्वीकृत करने की. तिथि वर्षमाह

2005

15558

1-09-2006

7651278

एलपीजी के साथ उपयोग के लिए छोटे घरेली चाट हीटर

मरलोगी बमोंसेनीटरी ( इंडिया) लिफ्टेिड 265/274-376 एट पोस्ट खस्बवाही चाकन, तालुका सोड जिला पुणे

1999

1417

2 7649089 6-9-2006

स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण सिधातु व्याभूषण कृत्रिम - शिल्पकृति और चिकिन

राठोड ज्वैलर्स 562 , सदाशिव पेठ विचय टॉकीज के पास लक्ष्मी रोड पुणे-411030

1417

1999 6-9-2006

3 7649392

स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिवधायु आभूषण कृत्रिम शिल्पकृवि और चिन्हांकन

श्रवर्धमान ज्वैलर्स 611 , शनिवार भेड़ स লায়-415 002

1999

1417

6-9-2006

4 76-49493

स्वर्ण और स्वर्णं निল্পমন্ত্র आभूषण कृत्रिम शिल्प्रकृति व्यऔर चिन्हांकन

महास्वादकर सर्राफा 539. गुरुवार पेठ सातारा 415002

1945

1766

5 7652078S

8-9-2006

कांक्रीट रो- इन्फोर्समेंट हे स्टील की छहें और तारें

श्री मरवीर निवासिनी महालक्ष्मी इस्पात प्रा. लि. ए-6 और ए-7/2 , एभ आवडीसी गोकुल फिरगांव चिला कोल्हापुर 416 214

1985

1786

6 7653787 8-9-2006

कांक्रीट री - इन्फोर्समेंट के लिए उच्च सनित विरुभित स्टील की कहें और करें

भारत री -ऐरिका स्टौल इंडस्ट्रीय प्लॉट संख्या 8 , 9 , 10/196 इंडस्ट्रीयल इस्टेट, सिरा-सांगली -416 416

1992

$59

7 7651682 13-9-2005

हरिकदार और अर्थ लहरिकदार एस्बेस्टॉस सीमेंट की सीटें

विल्सन रूफिंग प्रॉडक्ट.सि. प्लॉट संख्या प्ती-2, कंगल इटकंगले फाइव स्टार इंडस्ट्रीगल एरिया कोल्हापुर-416 216

1999

1417

8 7651985 14-9-2006

स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्रधातु भूषण कृत्रिम - शिल्पकृষি और चिनानंকষ

आर बी भोसले ज्वैलर्स 839, साबूदास निवास अपार्टमेंट सराफ कता, मेन रोड सांगली -416 416

1999

1417

9 7653686 18-09-2006

स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्रचातु आम्मण कृत्रिम - शिल्पकृति और चिन्हांकन

बंदूकाका सराफ एंड कंपनी गांधी चौक बैंड जिला पुणे -413 801

12933

2003 21-9-2006

10 765-4685

सोलर समवल प्लेट संग्रहक भाग एक आवश्यकताएं

सोलर एनर्निक टेक्निक लिमिटेड वर्षों सेंटर , गट संख्या 2329 गंगा रोट्रॉट रोड , वाघोली जिला पुणे-412 207 4750

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 28 , 2007 /SRAVANA 6 , 1929

[PART -SFC. 3 ) ] 2

9 11 7654789 22-09-2006 भीमा ज्वैलर्स

1417

1999

स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्रधातु आभूषण कृत्रिम- शिल्पकृति

887 , पेट भाग गणरत्न काम्पलेक्स सांगली -416 416 और चिन्तांकन

09-2006

12 7656288 26

1417

1949

स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण पिषधात्रु आभूषण कृत्रिम- शिल्पकृति और चिन्हांकन

ए एच पोखारन ज्वैलर्स 3730 , पोखारन हावंस , नवी पेठ, व्महमदनगर 414 001

13 76519 27-09-2006

1999

स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्रधातु आभूषण/कृत्रिम - शिल्पकृत और चिन्हांकन

सौ जो ज्वैलर्स आप एन 73 वर्धमान हाउसिंग सोसायटी महाकौर नगर

क्यि, सांगली-415 311

]सं. सी एम डी/ 13 : 1 נ [

ए. के. जलधार , उप महानिदेशक ( मुझर )

New Delhi , the 20th July , 2007

S.O. 2093. In pursuance of Sub- regulation (5 ) of Regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations, 1988, ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particular which are given in the following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

Licepce

IS No. Part Section Year Name &Address of the Party Title of the Standard

SL No. No.

Grant Date

1 2

8 1-9-2006

17651278

15558

Merloni Tenno Sanitari ( 1) I.trl . Mini domestic waLrT heaters for use with LPG

255/274-376 At Post Kharabwadi Chakan Taluka Khod DistrictPune

2 7649089 6-9-2006

14: 7

1999

Gold and guld alloys , jewellery/ artifacts Fineness and marking

Rathod Jewellers 562, SadashivPeth NoorVijay Talkies LaxmiRoad, Punc-411 030

3 7649892 6-9-2006

117

1999 Shri Vardhman Jewellers 611 , Shaniwar Peth Satara-415002

Gold and gold alloys . jewellery/artifacts- Fineness and marking

4 7649493 69-2006

1417

1999 Mhaswadkar Saraf 538, Chanowar Peth Satara-415002

Gold and gold alloys, jewellery/artifacts- Fineness and marking

5 7652078 8-9-2006

1786

1985

High strength deformed steel bars and wires for concrete reinforcemen

Sari Karvir Nivasini Mahalaxmi Tspat Pvt .Ltd. A-6 & A-7 /2 , MIDC Gokul Shirgaon

District Kolhapur -416234

6 7653787 8-9-2006

1786

1985 BharatRe-Rolling Steel Industries

High strength deformed steel bars and wires for concrete reinforcement

Plot No. 8, 9, 10/196 Industrial Estate District Sangli 416416 4751 [ भा -खच्द 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 28 , 2007/श्रावण 6 , 1929

78 13-9-2006

7 7651682

459

1992

corrugated asbestos cement sbpets Corrugated and semi

Vilsons Roofing Product Pvt. Tad.Plot No. C-2, Kagal-Hatkamangale Five Star Indl . Area, Kolhapur416216

R7651935 14-9-2006

1417

1999

Gold and gold alloys. jewellery/ artifacts Fineness and marking

RB .Bhosale Jewellion, 839, Sadhudas Niwas Aptt. , Saraf Katta, MainRoad, Sangli-416416

18-9-2006

9 7653686

1417

1999

Gold and gold alloys, jewellery/artifacts- Fineness and marking

Chandukaka Saral and Company Gandhi Chowk, Daund, Tistrict Pune-413801

10. 7654688 21-9-2006

2006

Solar flat plate collector 129331 Pt.1 Requirements

Solar EnergyTechnik Ltd. UrjaCentre, Gate No.2329, Ganga Retreat Road, Wagholi , District Pune -412207

11 7654789 22-9-2006

1417

1999

Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/artefacts-- Fineness and marking

BhimaJewellers, 887, PetBhag. Ganaratma Complex , Sangli-416416

26-9-2006

12 7656288

1417

1999

Gold and gold alloys, jewellery/artefacts- Finccess and mariting

A. H. Pokharna Jeweliers, 3730 , Pokharma Ношке, NaviPeth, Aimednagar-414001

13. 7157189 27-9-2006

1417

1999

Gold and gold alloys, jewellery/ artifacts Fideness and marking

C.G. Jewellers R.No.73, VardhamanHsg Society, MahavirNagar, Vita, Sangli -415311

[No.CMDV13 : 11 ]

A. K. TALWAR, Dy,Director General (Marks)

कोयला मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 18 जुलाई ,2007.

का.आ. 2094- केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित भूमियों से कोबला अभिप्राप्त किये जाने की संभावना है;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा की उप- कय ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदच शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उक्त अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है ।

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र का प्लान सं. एन.टी.पी.सी.सी.एम. एस.ई.सी. ( 1 ) सलईपल्ली/06/ 01 आर ( 1 ) दिनांक 29 मार्च, 2006 का निरीक्षण , कार्यालय महाप्रबंधक- कोल माइनिंग , एन.टी.पी.सी. , प्रथम तल , पी डी आई एल बिल्डिग , सैक्टर-1 , नोएका , उत्तर प्रदेश -201 301 वा परियोजना प्रभारी कार्यालय , तसईपल्ली कोल माईनिंग प्रोजेक्ट, एन.टी.पी.सो. स्लिमिटेड , ए-1 , सुभाष नगर , कटरा रोड़ , रायगढ़ , छत्तीसगढ़ , पिन -496001 वा मुख्य महाप्रबंधक ( खोज विभाग ) , सेन्ट्रल माइन्स प्लानिस एण्ड किचाईन इंस्टीट्यूट , गोंडवाना प्लेख; कांके रोड़. रांची या कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , काउसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता अथवा कलेक्टर , जिला रायगढ़ , छत्तीसगढ़ के कार्यालय में किया का सकता है;

4752

[PART 1 SBC. 3 (ii)]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 28 , 2007 /SRAVANA6, 1929

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने कालो भूमि में, हितबद्ध सभी व्यक्ति , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उप - धारा ( १ ) में निर्दिष्ट सभी नवसों, चाटों और अन्य दस्तावेजों को इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिन के भीतर परियोजना प्रभारी , खलईपल्ली कोत माईनिंग प्रोजेबरं , एन.टी.पी.सी. लिमिटेक , ए-1 , सुभाष नगर, कटरा रोड़ , रायगढ़ , छत्तीसगढ़, पिन-49%) । को भेजेंगे ।

अनुसूची

तलईपल्ली कोल माईनिंग ब्लाक

जिला रायगढ़ , छत्तीसगढ़

प्लान सं. एन. टी. पी. सी.सी. एम. एस. ई. सौ. 4 ( 1 ) तलईभल्ली/ 06/01 आर ( 1 )

क्र.सं. गांव का नाम

थाना

जिला 1 ,

अजीजगढ़

रायगढ़ 2

घरघोड़ा

सालेपली

जमगढ़

घरघोड़ा

रायकेरा

रायगढ़

घरघोड़ा

रायगढ़ नयारामपुर

बिछीमारा

रायगढ़

परमोड़ा

रानमार

तिलईपल्ली

रामगढ़ B

रायगढ़ संरक्षित यन

दरायगढ़

कुल क्षेत्र सीमा वर्णम

क- व- ग -ग।- অ -মা - ভ - হা - হা -অ

रेखा :

टिप्पण क्षेत्र

(हेक्टेयर में)

(एकड़ में)

127.23

314.2585

भाग

7166705

290.15

77.15

भाग

191.7955

325.69

804.4543

भाग

3220139

130.37

942.6261

भाग 381.63

295.27

729.3169

पूर्ण

250.0381

101.23

365.67

903.2049

2094,89

हेक्टेयर ( लगभग)

5174.378 एकड़ ( लगभग)

रेखी ग्राम बाहमनपल्ली ( भाना लेझलुन्गा ) संरक्षित वन क्षेत्र के अन्दर स्थित विन्द " क" से आरम्भ होकर पूर्ण की ओर बढ़ती हुई वन के अन्दर बिन्यु " खा " तक पहुंचती है तत्पश्चात् यह रेखा दक्षिण की तरफ बढ़ते हुए वन क्षेत्र के अन्दर बिन्दु " ग " तक पहुंचती है । इसके पश्चात् यह रेखा पूर्व की तरफ नढ़ते हुए ग्राम बिल्लीनारा - धामा यरपोड़ा के उत्तरी भाग में प्रवेश करते हुए इसके पश्चिमी एवं पूर्वी सीमा को क्रमशः बिन्दु " ग -1 " एवं "ख" पर काठती है । यह रेखख मागे दक्षिण की तरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम बिज्ञौनारा में बिन्दु " घ -1 " तक पहुंचती है चथ्य उक्त ग्राम की पूर्वी सौमा करें काटती हुई ग्राम कुदुरमहुआ थाना लेश्तुन्गा के उत्तरी भाल से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम की दक्षिणी स्लीमा के पास बिन्दु " रु " पर पहुंचती है । यह रेखा आगे दक्षिण - पूर्व में ग्राम कुदुरमहुआ की उच्चरी सीमा के साथ - साथ बढ़ते हुए उक्त ग्राम को दक्षिण पूर्वी सीमा को बिन्दु "ङ-। " पर काटती है । इसके पश्चात् यह रेखा उसी दिशा में बढ़ते हुए संरक्षित वन की उतरी पूर्वी सीमा को बिन्दु " ङ-2 " पर काटती हुई अन्ततः ग्राम बरीयाकछार के दक्षिणी भाग में संरक्षित वन के आगे बिन्दु " च " पर समाप्त होती है ।

रेखा: च- चा-घ2-3-4-

यहः देखा ग्राम सरियाकश्शार के दक्षिणी भाग में स्थित बिन्दु " च " से आरंभ होकर नदी के किनारे- किनारे बढ़ती हुई नदी के किनारों पर स्थित बिन्दु " घा "-" "-" 3 " -" चद " को छूती हुई, ग्राम नयारामपुर थाना गरघोड़ा के दक्षिणी पूर्वी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " छ " पर समाप्त होती है ।

रेखा : छ--ज - म-अ -ट

यह रेखा ग्राम गयारामपुर में स्थित बिन्दु " छ " से आरंभ होकर बिन्दु " क " के पश्चिम की ओर स्थित प्राम रावकेश- थाना प्रघोड़ा चे स्थित बिन्दु " ग " एवं " अ " से गुजरती है । उसके पश्चात् यह रेखा उसी दिशा में बढ़ते हुए प्राम सप्लेपली में स्थित बिन्दु " झ " तक बढ़ती है तत्पश्चात् मह। रेखा उत्तर की तरफ कहते हुए ग्राम सालेपली की उत्तरी सीमा के पास स्थित बिन्दु " ब " तक बढ़ती है अन्ततः यह रेखा पूर्वको तरफ आगे बाईते हुए ग्राम सोटीगुड़ा की दक्षिणी सीमा के पास स्थित बिन्दु " ट " पर समाप्त होती है । [ भाग II- खष्ठ ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 28 , 2007/ श्रावण 6, 1929

रेखा : ह-ह-क

4733 बाह रेखा, ग्राम छोटीगुला की दक्षिणी सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु " ट " से आरंभ होकर उत्तरी दिशा में ग्राम खोटीगुदा एवं मजीनगद से गुजरती हुई संरक्षित वन में प्रवेश करती हुई संरक्षित वन क्षेत्र के अन्दर स्थित बिन्दु " उ " तक बढ़ती है । अन्ततः यह रेखा बिन्दु " उ " के उत्तर पूर्व में संरक्षित वन के अन्दर स्थित बिन्दु " क " पर समाप्त होती है । [मिसिल सं 43015/6/2006/पीआरमाईडब्ल्यू-1 ]

एम शहाबु‌द्दौन, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi , the 18thJuly,2007

5. O. 2004.- Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the inds mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed.

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

ThePlanbearing No. NTPC/CM/SEC4 ( 1 )/TALAIPALLI06/01R ( 1 ) dated the 29th March, 2006 of the area covered by this notification can be inspected in the office ofthe General Manager , Coal Mining, NTPC, Ist Floor, PDIL Building. Sector- 1 , NOIDA-201 301 or at the office of Project Head, Tulaipalli Coal Mining Project, NTPC Ltd. , A- 1 , Subhash Nagar, KatraRoad, Raigarh , Chhatisgarh- 496001 or at the office ofChiefGeneral Manager (Exploration Division ), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute, Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi or at the office of the Coal Controller , 1, Council House Street, Kolkata or at the office of the District Collector, District Raigarh , Chhattisgarh.

All persons interested in the lands covered by this Notification shall deliver all maps, Charts and other documents refcared in ja sub- section (7) of Section 13 of the said Act to the Project Head, Talsipalli Coal Mining Project, NTPC Ltd. ,A- 1 , Subhash Nagar, Katra Road, Raigarh , Chhattisgarh-496001 , within ninety days from the date of publication ofthis notificationin theOfficial Gazetic .

SCHEDULE

Talipalli Coal MiningBlock

District Raigarh, Chhattingach

Plan No. NTPC/CM /SEC4 ( 1 )/TALAIPALL10601 R ( 1 )

S.No.

District Name ofVillage

Ajjgarh

Gharghoda Raigarh 2.

Chotiguda

Gharghoda Raigarh 3.

Salehpali

Gharghoda Raigarh 4

Raikera

Gharghoda Raigarh

Charghoda Raigarlı 6

Bichtners

Raigarh

Gharghoda

Talaipalli

Raigarh Kudumshua

Lellunga Raigarh 9.

Protected Forest

Raigarh

Total Area BendaryDescriptiva :

Area (in Acura)

Area (in hectares)

Romarke 127.23

3142581

Put 290.15

7166715

Pert 77.66

191.7955

Part 325.69

804.4543

Part 13037

Part

3220139

3806

Part

942.4261

295.27

7293169

Full 101.23

Part

250.0381

365.67

903.2049

Part 20941.89 bectares (approximately)

5174,378 (approximately)

Line A-B-C-C1-D-D1 -E- E1 -E2- F : The line starts from point "A inside the Protected forest area of village Bahamapali (Thana Lielunga), moves Eastward inside the forest up to point 'B ' then moves souttrwird imide the forest upio point "C" then further moves eastward , enters the northen part of the village Bichinara- thana Charghoda, cutting its western and eastern boundarles at point Cl and D respectively. It moves futber southward inside the village Bichimura mpio 4754

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 28 , 2007 /SRAVANA 6 , 1929

[PART I -St . 3 ( ii ) ) point Di , cuts the eastern boundary of said village, passes through the northern part of the vilinge Kadurmahua-thana 1.ielunga reaches near the southern boundary of the same village at point "F " . It moves further in south -east direction along the northem part of village Kadurmahua upto point El cutting south - east boundary of the same village. It further wives in same direction cutting north - east boundary of protected forest ar point E2 and tinally ends at point ' F ' in the southern part of the Mariakachhar village beyond the protected forest .

Lind F-F1 -F1- F3- F4-G : The line starts from point 'F' in the southern part of the Manakachhar village, is then mroves along the bank of the river through the points ' Ft . F2 . F3 , F4 ' and finally terminates at point ' G' in the south-east corner of the tillage Nayarampur thana Gharghoda.

Line G-H-H1 -I -J- K : The line starts from point "G" is the village Nayarampur passes through villages Raikero- thana Charghoda at point ' H ' and HI to the west direction of point . Then it moves further in the same direction upto point "T' in Salehpali village. It then moves towards north upto point " I" near the northerm boundary of village Salehpuli , it further moves castwird and cods at point 'K ' near the southern boundary of village Chotigurha.

Ling K-L-A: The line starts from a point K' near the soulhern boundary of village Chotigwha moves northwards passing through the villages Chotigurta, Ajijgarh and enters the protected forest upto point I. " and finally ends as poiot 'A' in the protected forest north-east to the point 'L' .

[F. No. 43015/6/2006/PRTW -1]

M SHAHABUDEEN, Under Secy.

नईदिल्ली, 20 जुलाई , 2007

का.आ.. 2095, -केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि इससे उपाचद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित भूमियों से कोयला अभिष्प्राप्त किये जाने की संभावना है;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , कोयला भारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम 1957 , ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियमांकड़ा गया है ) की भारा 4 की उप - भारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उक्त अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में कोयाले कापूर्वेक्षण करमै के अपने आशय को सूचना देती है;

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र का रेखांक सं. एन.टी.पी.सी. /स.एम.एस.ई.सी.-4( 1 ) :चरी बरिचातु 6/ 01 ( आर । ) तारीख 10-10-2006 का निरीक्षण , अपर महाप्रबंधक , कोल माईनिग , एन.टी. पी. सरे. लिमिटेड , प्रथम तल, नी डी आई एल बिल्डिग , सेक्टर- नोएडा-201301 उत्तर प्रदेश या अतिरिक्त महाप्रबंधक कार्यालय , एन.टी.पी.सी. लिमिटेड चची बरियातु , कोल मार्टीनंग प्रोजेक्ट , अपोजिट लक्ष्मी पेट्रोल पम्प, ओल्क बनारस रोड , ननानगंज , हजारीबाग-825301 या मुख्य महाप्रबंधक (खोब विभाग ) , सेन्ट्रल माझ्न्स प्लानिंग एण्ड डिजाइन इंस्टीट्यूट, गोंडवाना प्लेस, कांके रोड , रांची या कोयला निमंत्रक , । , काउंसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता अथवा कलेक्टर, जिला हजारीबाग, झारखंड के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ,

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाली भूमि में, हितषद्ध सभी व्यक्ति , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) में निर्दिष्ट सभी नक्शों, चाटों और अन्य दस्तावेजों को इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिन के भीतर अपर महाप्रबंधक कार्यालय , एन. टी.पी.सी. लिमिटेड वसी बरियातु कोल माईनिंग प्रोजेक्ट, अपोजिट लक्ष्मी पेट्रोल पम्प, ओल्ड बनारस रोड, नवाबगंज, हजारीबाग -825301 को भेजेंगे ।

अनुसूची

चत्ती अरियऋतु कोल माईनिंग

बिला हजारीबाग ( झारखंड)

रेखांक सं. एन. टी. पी. सी. सी. एम. एस. ई. सी . 4 ( । ) चत्ती बरियातु/ 06/ 01 ( आर 1 ) तारीख 10/10/2006

क्र.सं. ग्राम

क्षेत्र हेक्टेयर में

दिप्पण थाना

ग्राम नं

(हेक्टेयर में)

(एकड़ में)

हजारीबाग

469.20

भाग

198.96

केरादारी

चची बरियातु

480.32

केराबारी 15

हजारीबाग

고 बोरदाग

194.46

भाग 3.

पगार

हजारीबाग

646.66

फेरादारी

261.81

कुल क्षेत्र 646.23 हेक्टेयर (लगभग)

1596.18 एकड़ (लगभग) 4755 भारत का राजपत्र' : जुलाई 28 , 2007 / श्रवण 6 , 1929

[ भाग -खष्ट ३ ( i ) ] =

सीमा वर्णन :

रेखा कसा यह रेखा बिन्दु " क " से अम्भ होकर ग्राम चोरयार ( ग्राम नं. - 15) के उत्तरी पूर्वी किनारे के नकदीक से होकर गुजरती हुई ग्राम चत्ती नरियातु ( ग्राम -14) और ग्राम पगार ( ग्राम नं. - 19 ) के पूर्वी सीभा के पास बिन्दु " का " पर समाप्त होती है । रेखा ख-१ : यह रेखा निन्दु " ख" जो ग्राम पगार ( ग्राम नं -19 ) के पूर्वी सीमा के नजदीक है, से प्रारंभ होकर उक्त प्रक्रम (प्राम नं.- 19 ) की दक्षिणी सीमा के निकट बिन्दु " ग " पर समाप्त होती है ।

रेखा ग-ध : ग्राम पगार की दक्षिणी सीमा के निकट बिन्दु " ग " से प्रारंभ होकर उक्त ग्राम के दक्षिणी भाग से गुजरती हैः और उक्त ग्राम की पश्चिमी सीमा पर बिन्दु " घ " पर समाप्त होती है ।

रेखा म-छ: रेखख ग्राम जोरदाग ( ग्राम -15 ) की पश्विमी सीमा पर बिन्दु " घ " से प्रारंभ होकर चत्ती बरेमातु ( ग्राम चं -14 ) के दक्षिणी भाग से होकर गुजरती है तथा उक्त ग्राम के पश्चिमी सीमा किन्दु " " पर समाप्त होती है ।

रेखा क - अ: रेखा ग्राम जोरदाग ( ग्राम नं -15 ) की पूर्वी सीमा पर बिन्दु " क " से प्रारंभ होकर हमत ग्राम के दक्षिणी भाग से होते हुए उक्त ग्राम की पश्चिमी सीमा पर बिन्दु " च " पर समाप्त होती है ।

रेखा च -क : ग्राम ओरदाग ( ग्राम नं. - 15 ) की पश्चिमी सीमा के समीप किन्तु " च " से प्रारंभ होते हुए उखर की ओर मुड़‌ता है तथा उक्त ग्राभ के उत्तर पूर्वी किनारे के समीप बिन्दु " क " पर समाप्त होती है ।

[मिसिल सं. 43015/5/2006-पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-1 ]

एम. शहाबुददीन , अवर सचिव

NewDelhi, the 20th July,2007

S. O. 2095-Whereas it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the lands mentioned in the Schedule bereto amexed;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- saction ( 1 ) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisitions and Development ) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), the Central Govemment hereby gives notice of ita intention to prospect for coal therein;

ThePlanNo. NTPC/ CM/SEC -4 ( 1 )/ CHATTI BARIATU /06/01 (R1 ) dated the 10-10-2006 of the area covered by this notification can be inspected in the office of the Additional General Manager -Coal Mining, NTPC Lid , 1st Floor,PDIL Building, Sector- 1, Noida-201 301, Uttar Pradesh or at the office ofAdditional General Manager, Chatti Baristu Coal Mining Project, NTPC Ltd. , (Opp . Laxmi Petrol Pump ) , Old Benaras Road, Nawabganj ,Hazaribagh-825301 or at the office ofChief General Manager (Exploration Division ) , Central Mine Planning and Design Institute, Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi or at the office of the Coal Controller, J, Council House Street , Kolkata or at the office of the District Collector, District Hazaribagh, Tharkhand.

: All persons interested in the land covered by this notification shall deliver all Maps, Charts and other documents referred to in sub-section (7) of Section 13 of the said Act to the Additional General Manager , Chatti Biriam Coal Mining Project, NTPC Lal, (Opp. Linxmi Petrol Pump) .Old Benaras Road, Niwwabganj , Hazaribagh - 825301 ;within nitely days from the date of the publication of this notification in the official Gazette.

SCHEDULE

ChattiBarittaCoal MiningBlock

District:Hazaribagh, Jharkhand

PlanNo. NTPC/ CM/SEC -4 ( 1 ) CHATTEBARIATU06/01 (RI ) dated 10-10-2006

Thana

District

Sl .No. Vilhuge

Remarios

Arta( in functures )

Village Nunber

Area (in acres)

Kerahui 14

Chattibariatu

189.96

Part

469.20

Hazaribagh

Keradari 14

194.46

480.32

Part Jordag

Hazaribagh

Keradari 19

261.81

Pagar

645.66

Part

Hazaribagh

Total

646.23 (bectares)

1594.18 (acres)

3151 G/2007-6 4756

PART D-SEC- 3 ( i)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 28, 2007ASRAVANA 6, 1929

BoundaryDescription :

LineA-B : The line stats from point "A" near the North-East corner ofVillage Jordag (Village No. 15), passes through the Village ChattiBaclat (Village No. 14), cuts the easternboundary of the said Village, passes through theVillage Pagan (Village no. 19) and court at the phim "B" near the castern boundary of the Village Pagar .

LineB-C: The line starts from point 'B ' near the eastern boundary ofVillage Pagar (Village No. 19) and ends at point 'C' near the southers, boundary of the said village (Villageno. 19).

Line C-D: The live starts from point "C" near the southern boundary of the Village, Pagar passes through the Southern part of the mid Villige as rack at the point "D"on the Western boundary of said Village.

Lime-D-E : The Hue starts from V pola 'D' at the western boundary of Village Jordag (Village no. 15) , pausas thirough the soothers part of Village Chati Bariato (Village no. 14) and ends at point 'E' on the Westram boundary of the saldvinge

LE-F: The line starts from a point 'E' near the eastern boundary of Village Jordag (Village no. 15 ) , passes through the southem prat of the mid village and ends at point "P" near the western boundary of the said Village.

LimeF-A : The line starts from a point 'F near the western boundary of village fordag (Village no. 15), moves nordrward through the village and ands at point 'A' near the North East corner of the said village.

[File No.43015/5/2006/ PRIW- M. SHAHABUDEEN , Under Secy.

आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 23 जुलाई, 2007

कार. 2006. -कोलारानीर विकास अधिनियम, 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधि नियम कहा गया है की उपाय (3 ) के अधीन बारी की गई भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का. आ. 493खरीख फरवरी 2007 के जो भारत के राजपत्र भाग II , खण्ड 3 , उप-खण्ड ( ii ) तारीख 17 फरवरी , 2007 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, बर्षित भूमि में, या उस पर के अधिकार ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिकार कहा गया है) उनकी 10 ( 1 ) के अधीन, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर आत्यंतिक रूप में केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित हो और केन्द्रीय अस्कार का का समाधान हो गया है कि साकम ईस्टर्न कोलफिल्कस लिमिटेड , बिलासपुर ( सतीसगढ़ ) जो एक सरकारी कंपनी हैसे निबंधनों और संतों का, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार इस निमित अधिरोपित करना उचित समयों, अनुकले के है

अधः अम, केन्द्रीय सरकार उनकी धारा 11 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत संक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निदेश देती है किइस प्रकार निधि भूमिका पर सभी विकार, करीख 17 फरकरी , 2007 से केन्द्रीय सरकार में इस प्रकार मिश्रीहत बने रहने की बजाय, और उक्त कंपनी में निहित हो जाएंगे , अर्थात्

1.केबी या अपचारित प्रतिकर , ब्याज , नुकसान और वैसी ही यों की बापत किए गए संपूर्ण करेगी;

2. संतांनी द्वारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को सदिय रकमों का अवधारण करने के प्रयोजन के लिए एक अधिकरण का गठन किया गया किसी किरण और अभिकरण की सहायता के लिए नियुक्त किये गये व्यकितयों के संबंध में उपस्त अभी अपनी और इसी प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के लिये या उनके संबंध विकिकी बाबत उपगत , सभी ध्वन भी , उक्त कंपनी द्वारा बहन किये जायेंगे;

3. कंपनी केही सरकार और उपचारियों की, ऐसे किसी अन्य के संबंध में, जो इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर निहित होने वाले में केन्द्रीय संस्कार का चसके पदधारियों द्वारा या उनके विरुद्ध किन्हीं कार्यवाहियों के संबंध हो, पूर्ति करेंगी;

* उक्त कंपनी को , केन्द्रीय सरकार के पूर्व अनुमोदन के बिना, उक्त भूमि में और उक्त भूमि में था इस प्रकार निहित भूमि में अधिकार किरने की शक्ति नही होगी ; और

5. उक्त कंपनी, ऐसे मिलों और कोको केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा, जब कभी आवश्यक हो, उक्त भूमि और भूमि में या उस पर अधिकार के विष्टि के लिए दिएं अधिरोपित किये जाएं, पालन करेगी ।

[मि. सं.-43015/23/2004/पी. मार. आईडब्ल्यू]

एम. शहाबु‌द्दीन , अवर सचिव 4157 भारत का रामपत्र : जुलाई 28, 2007/ अपन 6 , 1929

[ भ ][- ] (ii ) )

ORDER

NewDelhi, the 23rd July, 2007

8.O. 2096-- Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of hadis in the Ministry of Coal vide number S. O. 493 dated the 7th Falamary , 2007 published in the Gazette of India is Part-11, Section 3, sub-section (iii dated the 17th February, 2007 issued under sub-Section (1 ) of Section 9 ofthe Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition tod Development) Act , 1957 (20 of1957) (hereinafter refiented 10 as Die said Act, ), the rights in or over the dried to the Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said rights ) vesied absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under anb-ecction (1 ) of Section 10 of the saidAct,

Andwhereas the Central Government is satisfied that the South Eastern Coulfields Limited, Bitmapon(Chhattisgarh) a Government Company (hereinafter referred to as the company ), is willing to comply with mock tests and conditione a Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf:

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-Section ( 1 ) of Section 11 ofthe naid Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the said rights in or over the land so vested, shall, with effect from the 17th February, 2007 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Govemmeal, vest in the said company, subject to the following temos ond conditions , namely :

1. The said company shall reimburse the Central Govammeal all payments made in respect of compensation, interests, damages and the like, as determined under the provisions of the said Act;

2.Atribunal shall be 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 shall be borne by the said company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals etc. , for or in connection with the amid rights laor over the said lands, so vesting shall also be borne by the said company ;

3. The said company shall indemnify the Central Govemmeal and its officials agant any other cxpenditure that may be necessary to connection with any proceedings by or aprinst the Central Government or its officials regarding the said rights jou or over the lands so vesting ;

4.The said company shall have no power to transfer the lands and said rights in or over the land sis vented to any other person without the previous approval of the Central Government ; and

5. The said company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be give or imposed by the Central Govemment for particular areas of the said lands and rights in or over the land as mind when necessary.

[PB No. 43015/23/2004/ PRJW]

M. SHARABUIDEEN,Under Secy.

पेट्रोलियम जऔर कुतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 13 जुलाई , 2007

का.अ. 2097, केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग चिया , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप- नियम (4) के अनुसरण में पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन सार्वजनिक क्षेत्र के उपक्रमों के निम्मानित काय को, जिनके 80 या अधिक प्रतिशत कर्मचारीवृन्द ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक वन प्राप्त कर लिया है , मभिसूचित करती है:-

हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड

1. हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम काममिशन लिमिटेक

मुवनेयर प्रत्यक्ष बिक्री क्षेत्रीय कतमर्यालय, आलोक भारती कॉम्पलेक्स, वीं संजिल, शाहीरनगर, भुवनेश्वर-751007

2. हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कार्बनिकशन लिमिटेक रांची रोड कियो गोस्ट मवर, सूचना कैंट , बिला हचारीनाग -829117 ( च)

3. हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कावहिलम लिमिटेक रायनगर रिटेल क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय (स्टार टॉकीजं के सामने यह साइन्स, स्टेशन रोड, टाटानगर , जमशेदपुर-1時 100 ) 4758

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 28 , 2007/SRAVANA 6, 1929

[PART I-Sackii ) ] 4. हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड माहुल टर्मिनल, मुंबई-400074

5. हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड

नवों मुंबई क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, बसर एलपीजी संयंत्र 4-2 , उसर इंडस्ट्रीयल एरिया, कैलीबाग दोहा रोड , अलीबाग-402203

इंजीनिवर्स इंडिया लिमिटेड

6. इंजीनियर्स इंडिया लिमिटेड दौलाती टावर , प्रथम तत 27/28 , डा. राधाकृष्ण सलाई मैयलापुर , चेन्नई-600004 ( तमिलनाडु)

[ 11011/1/2007 ( हिन्दी ) । !

जानकी आहूजा , उप निदेशक ( रा.भा. ) MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURALGAS

New Delhi , the 13th July,2007

S.D. 2097. In pursuance of Sab Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the Union)Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices of the Public SectorUndertakings under the administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas , in which the 80 or more per cent staff have acquired working knowledge ofHindi :-

Hindustan Petroleon Coprporation Limited

1.Hindustan Potroleum Corporation I, imited Bhubaneswar Direct Sales Regional Office

AlokBharti Complex, 5th Floor, ShahidNagar Bhubaneswar-751007

2. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Ranchi Road Depot PostOfficeMaraar, Ramgarh Cant . Dist.Hazaribagh-829117 (Jharkhand )

3.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

Tatanagar Retail Regional Office (Opp. StarTalkies) BarnaMines, StationRoad, Tatamagar, Jamshedpur-831001

4.Hindostan Petroleum Corporation Limited MahulTerminal, Mummibai-400074

5. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited NaviMumbai Regional Office UsarTPOPlant A-2,Usar Industrial Arca Alibagh Doha Road, Alibagh -402203

Engineers India Limited

6. Engineers IndiaLimited Paulani Tower , 1st Floor 27/28, Dr. Radhakrishan Salai Maiyalapur, Chennai -600004 (Tamilnadu)

[No.11011/1/2007 (Hindi)]

JANKIAHUJA , Dy . Director (0 ) 4759 [ भाग II-साण्ड ( i ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 28 , 2007/श्रावण 6, 1929

सम मंत्राल्ल्प

The point runs as bereunder:-

नई दिल्ली, 29 जून , 2007

"Whether the action of the management of Prasar Bharti , Brondcasting Corporation of Indis (Doordarshan) isjustified by not giving promotional avenues and rationalization benefits to the Carpenters and Painters , which was given to other categories ofwrimen? If not, to what relief workinen. areentitled."

का.आ. 2098-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 13 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूरदर्शन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण्म/ अम न्यांवालय नं. नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 21/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

(सं एल-42012/107/2002-आई आर( सी- II) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR NewDelhi, the 29th June, 2007

The Union on behalf of the worinen has filed claim statement. In the claim statement it has been stated that the Carpenters and painters Employees Association, Akashvani and Doordarshan Kendras is a registeredbody of carpenters and painters employed in various Kendras of Doordarshan and is competent to raise Industrial Dispute about service and working conditions of these categories. TheExecutive Committee of the Association has resolved to espousethe cases of the concerned workmen involving gross discrimination in the matter of granting them proper fee scales, rationalization of their fee scales and giving them promotional avenues etc. and also to represent their capes before this Hon'ble Tribunal .

2091- In Purmance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 21 of 2005 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cam- Labour Court No. IL, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Doordarshan and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-6-2007 .

(No. L-42012/107/2002- IR (C- II) ) AJAYKUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

That the television had its inception in India in September, 1959 as a part and parcel of All India Radio, having the same designations / categories of posts , same fee ranges ( prior to 1-10-1964) saune live scales (introduced for the first time w.e.f. 1-10-1964) as well as same service and working conditions for the staff Artists of bath Television and All Indian Radio employed on contract basis.TV had special requirements of its own and required special skills /expertise which were scarve to come by in the early days of television's Inception in India.

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

LB. No.21/2005

Presiding Officer: R. N.Rai

PRESENT :

Shri D. V. Nanda

-. IstParty

Shri J, M. Kalku

...2nd Party

Inthe matter of:

Shri LalChandBanswal,

Clo. ThePresident,

That the applicants are albilledhighly skilled woritmen andbelong to the eastwirile cadre of StaffArtists ar it was at the time of inception ofTV in India in 1959. They were initially employed against the same categories of posts and in the same fee ranges/fee scales as then prevailed in All India Radio. In other words, distinct categories ofposts and their fee ranges /fee scales or distinct promotional avenues for those in the specialized categories of aff artist posts on TV side of All India Radio bad not been provided then.

Carpenters and Painters Employees Association, Akashvani and Doordarshan Kendra, Akashvani Bhawan, Parliament Street,

NewDelhi - 110001

Versus

TheDirectorGeneral,

Doordarshan,

Prasar Bharti (Broadcasting Corporation of India) ,

Mandi House, NewDelhi .

AWARD

Thuat theDirector General , All IndiaRadio was then theAdministrative Head of the Department of All India Radio which then included TV also . No recruitment raks were framed for the staff artists then. The assignments given to them by their superion were verbal, changing from time to time to meet the requirements of TV Programmes and sometimes over- lapping. It was in such circumstances that the applicants were recruited and performed skilled highly skilled and specialized nature ofjobs as were assigned to them to mest the immediate requirements of new and growing audiovisual media in India ise. Television.

That the Carpenters and Painters employed in Television Centres ofAll India Radio all over the Country TheMinistry ofLabour by its letter No. L-42012/107/ 2002- IR (C -1) Cantil Goverment dt. 21-2-2005 has referred the following point for adjudication 4760

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 28 , 2007/SRAVANA 6, 1929

have been having a long standing grievance against the management over the grant of appropriate fee scales as prescribed in 1964 and revised vide subsequent Governments orders as well as creation of promotional avenues vis-a-vis other staff artists , who in 1964 were holding the same fee- scales as the applicants . The applicants and also aggrieved on account of mon - removal of disparity/ apomaly in the matter of pay and pay scales which resulted in the internal differentials persisting over the years sinde the introduction of incremental fee scales w.c.f. 1-1-1964 for all the staffartists categories in All India Radio, which then included Television also . This initial disparity/ monaly in the case of the applicants in the root canse of their long standing grievances for not prescribing appropriate fde scales for them under various goverumedi orders as well as for not creating the promotional avenues vis-a-vis other stuff artists appointed initially in the same fee scales as the applicants.

That in view of the aforesaid brief background, the association humbly requests this Hon'ble Tribunal to intervene and determine the present Industrial Dispute between the workers and the management to secure for the claimants /workmen belated justice under the rules and law.

That Carpenters and Painters joined Television Centre in the cadre of Staff Artists in the early days its inception 1950, which was then part and parcel ofAll India Radio, to carry out the work connected with sets construction, sets erection , sets painting and decoration etc. as per the scenic design given to them to meet the requirements of various dramas, dances and other programmes to be recorded and telecast by TV Centre , All IndiaRadio.

That part from the aforesaid duties, the applicants were also required to prepare wood carvings, paintings wall hangings etc. as well as carry out other highly skilled and specialized nature of jobs connected with historical plays / programmes and outside broadcasts/live transmissions from different parts ofthe city.

That there being no distinct posts with distinct pay scales or staff structure different distinct from the one existing for AIR Staff Artists , Television Staff Artists including thetapplicants were appointed and granted the same fee scales as applicable in the case of equivalent posis inAll India Radio . Also, there being no staff artists posts for suchuskilled and specialized nature ofjobs inAIR StaffStructure, Television Staff Artists were appointed in the same fee scales/ fice ranges as prescribed for production staff in AIR Production Assistants , Producers Cic. as prevailing in AIR then .

That prior to 1964, the Staff Artists including the applicants wore paid consolidated fees in the prescribed fee ranges, which were replaced with regular incremental fee scales as prescribed for all staff artists of All India Radio w.c.f. 1.10-1964by the Ministry of Information and

[PART I-Sec. 3 ( 6) Broadcasting, the administrative Ministry for the saidmedia wits.

That during the developinent of TV in India, the posus of Set Supervisors ( Production Assistants - Sets) were created in the Scenic Section of TV Centres, AIR. The Floor Assistants were given the promotional avenues for the said posts of set supervisors . This was done arbitrarily ignoring the claim of carpenters and painkas who weare having practical experience of the job relating to sets construction/erection etc. and were also having technical qualification/ expertise being skilled highly skilled as Carpenters/Painters. On the other hand, the Floor Assistants had no such technical qualification und expertise for the above said jobs, besides the fact that they helped mssisted the carpenters and painters in their jobs viz . sets erection, sets decoration etc. This was a clear case of discrimination under the law whereby the senior and better qualified/experienced skilled employees /functionaries were made junior and subordinate to their own juniors earlier providing then help /assistance in their above said jobs relating to sets erection .

That due to such discriminatory treatment to the claimants/ applicants in the matter of initial fixation of appropriate fee scales and creation of promotional avenues etc. they suffered both horizontal and vertical inter-se relatives vis -a- vis others in the cadre of Staff Artists as well as suffered loss of career prospects , advancement in career, social status and consequential internal differentials, as well as suffered many other such disabilities for no fanit of theirs and dueto discriminatory treatment meted out to then

That the management set up a committce in the year 1966" to go into the question of reivision of fee scales for Staff Artists engaged on TV side of AIR and to make suitable recommendations in this regard . The committee examined various aspects of the problem including arduous nature ofwork in TV as mentioned in the committee's report. The committee considered emoluments of comparable or analogous categories of personnel on sound broadcasting side of ATR and Films Division etc. Thereupon the scales ofa few comparable categories viz. producers , camenman etc. were revised upward with creation of promotional avenues for them. The claim of the carpenters and printers was completely overlooked and ignored arbitrarily which further increased the internal relatives , inter- se relatives and inkrual differentials in pay scales of staff artists in TV. The committee did not even recomand correction of their existing fee scale of Rs . 133-195 to bring it at par with the then existing fee scale in AIR viz. Rs. 133-340.

That w.e.f.1-4-1971 the fee scales of staff artists of AIR were raticpalized . The rationalization was undertaken to replace the existing non- recognized for scales of staff artists with the recognized/ standard fee scales of regular Covernment servants employed in AIR which includedTV also . In the process of rationalization , the scales of AIR 4761 [भाग - खब्द (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 28, 2007 / आपण 6 , 1929

and thus they suffered acute stugnumtion and discrimination at the hands of the management.

StaffArtists were revised upward. A copy of Ministry of I & B order dated 7th February , 1972 is annexed berewith and marbad as AnnexureW- II.

That for certain categories in TV, Selection Grades were prescribed on the malogy of the scales prescribed for regular Government servants . But since the scales of the applicants were not brought at par with the scales of regulo Government servants wef. 1-4-1971 , the Selection Grades prescribed for the category ofapplicants were lower than others andhence not appropriate which farther acted internal differential in the matter of pay parity to then under theGovernment orders and law .

That perusal of Annexure W- Il would reveal that even though TV was part and parcel of AIR and Director General ,AIRwas the Administrative Head , yet the scales of Staff Artists of TV including those of the Carpenters and Primers were not rationalized w.c.f. 1-4-1971 which was an actamountingto out and out discrimination for the staff artists of TV, including the claimants. The net result of this discrimination was that the scales of the applicants became lower than even those staff artists of AIR who were initially prescribed in 1964 the same scale as the upplicanth and thus further widened the inter- se relatives and internal differentials. Clearly then the action of the manapsment was unfair, arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of the well recognized principles of equality cushrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India

The numagement has filed written statement. In the written statemeat it has been stated that the Government of India have carefully considered the problem of sach cadres of All Ministries /Deptts, and a scheme called Aunured Career Progression Scheme has been wised and implemented under which two financial uppdation are granted in the higher scales to those employees whohave not received any promotion even after putting 12 years and 24years of service. The Carpenters and Painters ac eligible for ACP and have been grunted 1st and 2nd financial upgradation wel.9-8-1999.

TheHon'ble Supreme Court in the Ladka ikjudgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Harihara : has given an order on the subject of pay scales which are as under :-

That w.cf.1-1-1973 the fee scales of staff artists of AIR/Doordarshan were further revised on the analogy of 3rd Pay Commission. Since the scales of the applicants were noc rationalized w.c.f. 1-4-1971 , they received a lower revised scale we.f. 1-1-1973 vis-a- vis the staff artists of AIR who were initially prescribed in 1964 the same fee scales as the applicants in this regard a comparative statsments is suneted herewith and marked as Annexure W - III, which would bring out the anomaly vividly.

That the management admitted the existence of anomaly in the matter of revision of for scales and accordingly a committee headed by Dr. Ishwar Dess was constituted in July, 1977. In its report the comminee concluded that:

"While the scales of the staff artists in AIR were raticnalized w.a.f. 1-4-1971 , the staff artists of Doordarshan were left out from the scope of this nauticalization.: ( page 3 of the report )."

Thatdespiteclear admission of momaly rising auzt of arbitrary and discriminatory action of the mangement, the copumittee did not apply the criteria for rationalization as per orders of the Ministry of 1 and B dated 7th February , 1972 (Авосхитe W- II) and as such did not take my corrective action to remove the anomaly in the revision of fee scales of the applicants and thus the matter relating to payparity under the rules and law has remained in limbo since then.

"Before parting with this appeal, we feel imperiled to make a few observations . Over past few weeks , wе have come across several matters decided by the Administrative Tribunals on the question ofpay scales. We have noticed that quite ofte . the Tribunals ocintatoring with pay scales without proper reasons andwithoutbeing conscious of the fact that foustion of pay is not their function . It is the fonction of the Government which normally acts on the recosumendations of the pay commission. Change of pay scales of a category bas cascading effect on several other categories similarly situated as well as those situated above and below. put forwarded their claims on the basis of such change. The Tribunals should realize that interfering with the prescribed payscales is a serious matter . "The pay commission which goes into the problems at great depth and happens to larve a full picture before it is the prope authority todecide upon this issue ". Very often, the doctrine of" equal pay for equal work" is also being misunderstood and mis applied, freely revising and caluncing the pay scale across the board. We hope and trust that the Tribunal will exercise due restraint in the matter."

That subecquently during the development ofTV the management constitused some more committees to streamline the service conditions of staff artists ofTV including providing them promotional avenues after declaring them Government servants and thereafter menging their posts with the posts of regular Government servants in AIR/Doordarshan. The categories of carpenters and painton wat once again totally ignored and left out

That they have raised the issue dating back to 1964 and 1971 when Doordarshan was not covered under the Industrial Disputes Act . They cannot raise the issues pertaining to the period when Doordarshan was not covered under the Industrial Disputes Act.

4762

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 28 , 2007 /SRAVANA 6, 1929

PART 11-Sec. 3 ( i ) ) That they have not disclosed whether these issues were carlier paised or not and in which forums. In the absence of such disclosures it is presumed that they roight have raised these issues in different foctums and the same roust havebeen rejected on merits.

and painters have knowledge confined to their respective fields. The incumbents or posts of Carpenter/ Painter who are less qualified cannot be expected to perform the duties ofhigher posts like Production Assistants , Floor Manager , PLEX, TREX etc. Therefore , it was found just and appropriate to give promotional avenues to the Floor Assistants and not to the Carpenters and Painters. It is denied that the Floor Assistantswere junior to the Carpenters and Painters . Both the Floor Assistants and the Carpenters and Painters have always bad the same fee scale and even now they have the same pay scale even though the educational qualifications possessed by the Floor Assistants are highet.

It is submitted that the issue raised by the Association is time harted and cannot be allowed to be raised after the gap of 40 years . Mureover four pay commissions were constituted by the Government of India. The Association should have taken up the matter with the duty constituted body.As far as respondents are concerned no disparity in the pay scales and internal differentials persisting overthe years w.e.f. 1-10-1964 as far as promotional avenues are concerned.

The educational and other qualifications required for the us of Carpenters are as unada:-

"Should have passed Middle School/ 8th Class Standard and a certificate or diploma in carpentry from a recognized Institute or not less than 3 years experience in Woodcraft in a firm or Government Institute.

The educational and other qualifications required for theposts ofPainter are the following:--

Thar as already stated in the above paras hence there is no discrimination in the fee scale of Carpenter /Painter are concerned. However , it is not denied that there is no promotional a verues for them . In this connection it is stated that the cadre of Carpenter is an isolated one having no promotional avenues . Government of India have carefully considered the problems of such cadres of all Ministries/ Departments and a scheme called Assured Career Progression Scheme has been devised and implemented under which two financial upgradations are granted in the higher scales to those employees who have not received any promotion even after putting 12 years arid 24 years of service. The Carpenters and Painters are eligible for ACP and have been granted 1st and 2nd financial upgradation wr.f. 9-8-1999,

That the committee gave its recommendation after due consideration and the management bas no comments to offer in the thatter dating back to 1964. in the absence of such disclosures it is presumed that they might have raised these issues in different forums and the same must have been rejected on merits . Moreover fourth Pay Commission was constituted for the purpose by the Government of India in between and the Association should have taken up theirgrievances with the Commission .

Abilityto read and write in any language and a mipimum of 3 years experience of painting sets in stages, Film of Television , It may be mentioned in this regard that in Goverumeat of ladia a person having these qualifications are normally categorized asGroup "D" Employees and given the pay scale of Rs.2530-35-2660-60-3200. However Doordarshan is providing them the pay scale ofRs .4000-100-6000 which is applicable to Group "C" posts . Theybuve alsobeen granted first/ second financial upgradations under theACP in the higher scale ofRs .4500-125- 7000 first upgradation ) and Rs . 5000-150-8000 (second upgradation ) . They were employed to do thework of carpentry and painting

The workmen applicants have filed rejoinder . In the rejoinder they have reiterated the averments of this claim statement and have denied most of the paras of the wrinen statement . The management has also denied most of the paras of the claim statement.

That the FloorAssistants have higher qualifications tham the Carpenters and Paintern . The educational and other qualifications for the posts ofFloorAssistant are the following:-

Evidence of both the parties has been taken.

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

"Matriculation or its equivalent and three years' experience in handling erection of sets in stage, Film ofTelevision and Good Physique and capacity for undertaking strenuous physical work."

It was submitted from the side of the workmen that theCarpenters and Painters were initially employed against the same categories of posts and in the same fee ranges/ fee scales as then prevailed in All India Radio . In other words , distinct promocional avenues for those in the specialized categories of staff artist posts on TV of All IndiaRadio had not been provided them.

The Floor Assistants have a varied sphere of duties ranging from working on the floor in the studio, set erection and diamantling and working in shift for recording/ telecast Itwould therefore be wrong to compare the Floor Assistants to the Carpenters and Painters . As stated in Para (5 ) the Floor Assistants are better qualified than the Carpenters and Painters have a varied sphere of antics . The duties and responsibilities being performed by Floor Assistants are higher thin Carpenters and Painters.The Carpenters

It was further submitted that no recruitment rules were framed for the staff artists then . The assignments given to them by their superiors were verbal , changing [ भाग - साण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 28, 2007/ श्रवण 6 , 1929

from time to time in meet the requirements ofTV Programuses and sometimes over- lapping, it was in such circumstances that the applicants were recruited and performed skilled bighly skilled and specialized nature of jobs as were assigned to them to meet the immediate requirements of Dew and growing audio- visual media in Indisi.e. Television.

it was submitted that this initial disparity/ anomaly in the case of the applicants is the root cause of their long standing grievances for not prescribing appenpriate fee scales for them under various Goverarment orders as well as for not creating the promotional avenues vis -a - vis other staff artists appointed initially in the same fee scales as the applicants.

It was submitted that during the development ofTV in India, the posts of Sel Supervisors ( Production Assistants Sets ) were created in the Scenic Section of TV Centres , AIR. The Floor Assistants were given the promotional avenues for the said posts of set supervisors. Thiswas done arbitrarily ignoring the claim of carpenters and painters who were having practical experience of the job relating to sets construction/erection etc. and were alsohavingtectonical qualification/ expertise being skilled highly skilled as Carpenters/Painters. On the other hand, the Floor Assistants bad no such technical qualification and expertise for the above said jobs, besides the fact that they helped/assisted the carpenters and painters in their jobs viz. sets erection, sets decoration etc.

It was further submitted that the management/ respondents have made discriorination. The junior to better qualified/ cxperienced skilled employees and functionaries were made junior in subordinate to their own juniors earlier providing them help/ assistance in their above said jobs relating to sets erection.

It was further submitted that a committee was constituted and thereafter the scales of a few comparable categories viz. Producers , Cameraman etc. were revised upward with creation of promotional avenues for thean and the claim ofCarpenters and Painters was overlooked and ignored arbitrarily.

It was further subonitted that rationalization was undertaken to replace the existing non- recognized fee scales of stuff artists with the recognized/ standard fee scales of regular Government servants employed in AIR which included TV also. In the process of rationalization, the scales ofAIR staff artists were revised upward but there is no revision of the scales of carpenters and painters we.f. 1-4-1971 . The fee scales of staff artists ofAIR/ Doordarshan was further revised on the analogy of 3rd Pay Commission but the Carpenters and Painters received the lower revised scales w.e.f. 1-1-1973 wer - vis the staff artists of AIR whereas the initially prescribed fee scales in 1964 there is anomaly . The scales of the staff artists in AIR were rationalized w.c.f. 1-4-1971 but the staff artists of Doordarshan were left oul.

3151 /2007-7

4763

= It was submitted from the side of the management that the workmen have raised the issue dating back to 1964 and 1971 when Doordarshan was hot covered under the Industrial Disputes Act . They cannot raise the issues pertainingto the period when Doordarshan was not covered under the Industrial Disputes Act.

II was further submitted that they have not disclosed whether these issues were earlier raised or not and in which forum. In the absence of such disclosures it is presumed that they might have raised these issues in different fururos and the same must have been rejected on merits.

I was further submitted that the issue raised by the Association is time barred and cannot be allowed to be raised after the gap of 40 years . Moreover four pay commissions were constiwned by the Government of India:

It was further sulmmitted that there is difference in educational qualification of Carpenters and Painters . The minimuon qualification for the Carpenters and Painters is 8th class pass whereas for Floor Assistants it is Mauriculare.

Age and qualifikation are not to be considered after engagement . Educational qualification is always considered at the time of engagement The minimum qualification for Carpenters and Painters was Ath class pass and three years professional experience whereas for Floor Assistants it was raised toMatriculate or its equivalent . The qualification regarding experience remained the same , 90 90 distinction can be made on the basis of educational qualification of 8th class pass and matriculate. The Carpenters and Painters were found suitable for engagement after 8th class pass at the relevant time. Raising of the qualification thereafter cannot mean that the Carpenters and Painters are not properly qualified. The ples of educational qualification cannot be treated at this stage.

It was further subruitted by the management that indeed there is no promotional avenues for the Carpenters and Painters whereas Floor Assistance, have promotional avennes .

It is settled law that creation of posts is the prerogative ofthe Government . The Courts cannot abolish and create posts . It is the duty of the Government tomake policy decision regarding promotional avenues . The policy also cannot be interfered with .

My attention was drawn to the case of Union of IndiaVs.Haryana of the Hon'ble Supreme Court . However, citation is not made available.

"Before parting with this appeal, we feel imperiled to roake a few observations . Over past few weeks , we have come across several maners decided by the Administrative Tribunals on the question of pay scale. We have noticed had quite often the Tribunals are interfering with pay scales without proper reasons and without being conscious of the fact that fixation of pay is not their function . It is the 4764

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: Л.Л.З 28 , 2007 / SRAVANA 6..920

PART I-Ser. 3 fun action of theGovernment which normally acts on the recommendations of the pay commission."

or not. So pag as thes are performing the same duties, they must receive the same salary and conditions of service It is of course true that the pay scales are decided hy theGovernmbent and there can be no interference but tivere are cases where there is disparity in pay scabes . The persons discharging same duties are entitled to get equal pay in view of the quality clause of the constitution and wherever there is anomaly the Court can interfere . The Government should be fair in action . Wherever there is unfairness The Courts are duty bound to indicate the disparity and to give drection accordingly.

IncCentral Goverment like all organs of the Stare is committed to the Directive Principles of State policy and Article 36 enshrines the principles of " equal pay for equal work". In Randhir Singh. W's Union of India ( 1982 ) 3 SCR 298 the Supreme Court has occasion to explain the observations in Kishori Malalal Bakshi Vs. Union of India (AIR 1962SC 11.39 ; and in point out how the principles of cqual pay for equal work is not an abstract doctrine and how it is vital and vigorous dok Irine throughout accepted the world particularly by socialist countries .

The matter of Ciucenters and Painter has not been taken by the Pay Commission . Perhaps the Carpenters Painters du pot come under any category of Government employees . However , on the basis of 3rd Pay Commission the Carpenters and Painters have been granted ist and Žad financial upgradation w.e.f. 09-08-1999.

It has been hold of SC. FIR 1982 ( 44 ) 299 () Chinnapppa Reddy , A.P. Ser and Bharual Islam , JJ- Constitution of India -Arts 14, 16 & 99d ) Conditions of seirvice- Scale of Pay- principle of " equal pay for equal work"-Applicablity of Whether constitutional goal Persons doing the sarne work as was done by other persons belonging to different departments Not to be put vo different scales of pay--Drivers werking in Police Force held to he entitled in sinne scale of pay as drivers in other departments same employer.

It becomes further vivid from the memo daved 5-3-1977 chat the Floor Assistants were given the pay scale of Rs . 3.30-8-370-10-400 EB- 10-480 , Similar is the gradation of Carpenters , Painters and Taitors , so in 1977 Floor Assistants and Carpenters and Painters were plaved in the same revised pay scales in which the Floor Assistants wereplaced. It implies that the duties assigned to the Flour Assistance , Carpenters and Painters was the same and same pay scale was applicable to them . It appears tal there are ne promotional avenues for Carpenters and Painters. The Flour Assistant have been given promotions and pay revision after promotion. Such facilities bave oot heen provided to the Carpenters and Painters but the matter should have been raised carlier . it is no doubt . he prerogative of the Government to create promotional avenues and courts cannot create promotional avenues but there should not be any discrepancies or discrimination regarding cololuments.

Thereis no substance in the argument that the Floor Assistants discharge more onerous duties that the Carpenters and Painters . The management has to assign job . There isinu assertion that the Carpenters and Paiлтег'з refused to idischarge the duteis assisened by the management

11 is laue that the principle of " equal pay for equal work" is not expressly declaredby our Constitution tobe a fundamental right . But ir certainly is a constitutional goul Anicle 39 ( d ) of the Constitution proclaims " equal pay for equal work for both equal work for both men and women ilailDirective Principle of State Policy "Equal pay fur equat work" for both nici axi wurnen means equal pay for equal work for everyone and as between the sexes . Directive Principles , have to be read into sae fundamental rights as a matter of interpretarin . Aciple 14 of the Constitubon enjoins the Stale not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal proteccinie of the laws and Article 16 declares that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in mullers relating to employment or appoiorment 10 any office under the State Construing Articles 14 & 16 in the light of the Preamble and Article 39 ( d) , we are of the view that the principle of equal pay for equal work " is doducible from those inteles ind may be properly applied in cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of pay du identical work under the same employer.

It has been held in ATR 1986 SC76 Sc-Equal Pay for Equal Work-Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 39 (d) EqualPay for Equal work-Daily rated employees performing the same duteis if entitled in be paid the same salary and allowances at are paid to regular and permanent employees?

-Principles of " equal pay for equal work " if no : an abstract or vital and vigorous doctrine? -Directions to Public Sector Undertakings in comply with the principle.

Ithas beenheld in AJR 1986 SC: S84 . Surinder Singh anti another Peatroners Vs. The Engineer in Chief CPWD and others Respondents -Constitution of India , Arcπ. 39 .. "Equat Pay for Tapai Wuck"- Doxtrine of , is requiredtobe applied to persons employed on a daily wage basis they are entitled to same wages us are neid to similarly employed employees.

The persons employed on a daily wage basis in the Central Public Works Departamentare entitled not only to Held:Article14 of the Constitution of India declares that there shouldbe equality before law and equal protection ofthe law and implicit in it is the further principle that there must be equal pay for work of equal value. It makes nu differencewhether they are appointed in sanctioned posts [ भान 11 - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

daily wages but are entitled to the same wages as other permanent employces in the department employed to dn the identical work to this connection, it cannot be said that the doctrine of" equat pay for equal work " is amere abstract doctrine and that it is met capable of being enίcπτες in & court of law. The Central Govemment , the State Governments and likewise, all Public Sector Undertakings are expected to function like model and enlightened employers and arguments that the principle of equal pay for equal work is an abstract doctrine which cannot be enforced in a court of law should ill come frown the mouths of the S'ale and State Undertakings.

It has been held in ATR 1986 SC 76-Equal Pay for Equal Work-Constitution of India, Art. 14& 39 (d ) -Equal Pay for Equal Work Daily rated employees performing the same duties if entided to be paid the same salary and alltowances as are paidto regular and permanent employtes ?- Principle of " equal pay for equal work " if not an abstract o vital and vigorous doctrine -Directions to Publik: Sector Undertaking to comply with the principle.

However, in the instant case disparity in making paymen , to similarly placed employees is involved. The Carpenters , Painters and Floor Assistants were placed in the same pay scale as is evident from the documents cited by the management . Tlicy drew similarpay scales in 1977 as inentioned above . There was no disparity in the pay scale of Carpenters, Painters and Floor Assistants in 1977, It appears that promotional avenues were given to the Floor Assistants and wrdingly they got revised pay scales. No such promotional avenues have been made available to the Carpenters and Painters. They have been placed in a separatı : category whereas they possessed requisite qualification at the time of their engagement . They were engaged prior to the Poor Assistancs .

The cause of the workmen regarding entitlement oi Live benefits from 1964/1971 is time barred in view of long delay. The matters regarding disparity in pay scales from 1971 onwards cannot be considered as it has become stale malter.

A:: has been held in Surinder Singh's case that equal pay shirilet be given for equal work, the Carpenters and J'ainters have been working prior in the engagensent of the Floor Assistants. They possessed requisite qualification at the time of their initial engagement They cannot be deprived of the principle of equal pay for equal work in as Dusch as the Floor Assistants are 10th pass . If once the pay scale was equalized in 1977 there should not be any discrimination subsequently . Tise principle of equal say for equal work is recognized by our Constitution. There shrvald not be any deviation from this rule . The Carpenters and Painters are also canitled to gel equal pay for equal wink alteast from the date of raising the dispute and the management should give anxious consideration us this effeer . The case of the workmes should be considered atleast mom the date of raising of the dispute.

4765

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 28 , 2007/ श्रवण 6 , 1929

This dispute has been raised after a delay of35-40 years . Thelay defeats equity. Nis premium can be paid for detay.

It was submitted fruan the side of the management that there is no explanation of delay . Notto speak of plausible or satisfactory explanation. There is no explanation at all what prevented the workinen to appmach this forum after a long period of 35-40 years . It is settled law that state claim made after an inordinate and unexplained period could not be entertained.

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

Ithas heen held in (2001) 6 SCC 222 as under:

"Law does tut prescribe any lime limit for the appropriate government to exercise ils powers under Section 10 of the ACL It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been selile . Power is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner . There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in this case after a lapse of about seven years ofthe order dismissing the respondent from service." In the instant case reference has been made after a delay of lang 40 years , Limitation Act is not applicable in ID cases but stale cases should not be considered. Detay in the instant case is inordinate.

In the facts and circumstances the managerment should consider the factum of Inancial disparity in regard 10 the payruentto the Carpenters and Painters atleast from the date of raising of the dispute. The Carpeaters & Painters should he placed in the pay seale of Floor Assistants. The Carpenters and Painters are not entitled 10 get anyarrears in view of the fact that the dispute has been raised after a long delay. However, the reference is noi barred by lume , so far as consideration of equal pay fut equal work is concerned from the date of raising of the dispute.

The reference is replied thus :-

The action of the management of Prasar Bharti , Broadcasting Corporation of India (Doordarshan) is not xampletely justified by not giving promotional avenues and rationalization benefits to the Carpenters and Painters. which was given to other categories of workmen . The Carpenters and Painters are entitled to the same pay scale which is applicable in the Floor Assistants from 21.02 2005 they are entailed to get arrears also . Their claim for revision from inicial date of employment is not maiotainable in view of their io -ordinate delay . The management should consider the case of the Carpenters and Painters and should try to place them on the pay sealc of the FloorAssistants based on seniority w.e.f. 21.02.2005 within two months from the date of the publication of the award.

4766

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 28, 2007 / SRAVANA 6 , 1929

PART I-Sec . 3 (1 ) ] The award is given accordingly.

266-2000

R. N.RAI , Presiding Officer

through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L- 22012/ 45/2003- IR( CM - II ) dated 31-12-2003 has been pleasedto cefer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .

नई दिल्ली, 29 जून , 2007

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Chora Colliery under Kenda Area of M/ s . Eastern Coalfields Limited in dismissing Sri Piru Bouri , Dresser from service is legal and justified? Ifnot to what relief the said workman is entitiled? "

का.अ. 2099.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धर 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में विदिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण . आसनसोल कं पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 3/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो किंन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/45/2003 - माई आर ( सी -11 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 29th Jane , 2007

S.12 2099, In pursuance of Section 17 of Ire Telustria! Disputes Act. 1947 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Gevemmenthereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 3 of 2004) ofthe Cex:1 - al Government Industrial Tribunal Lum- 1.abour Co Asansol as shown in the Annexure 30 the ndustrial Dispare between the employers in relarion 10 the management of ECL and their workman , which wan received by the Central Government uτα 29-06-2007.

Alter having received theOrder No. L-22012/45/2001 IR( CM- II) dated 30-12-2003 of rae said reference from the Govt . of India , Mimstry of Labour . New Delhi , for adjudication of a reference case No. 03 of 2004 was registered on 13-01 21004 and accordingly an order to that effect was pissed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date lined und file their written statemen along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses an support of their case. Ir. con pliance of the said order notices by the registered post were issued to the parties concerned . Sri P.K. Das . Advurate and Sri Rakesh Kumar . General Secretary of the union appeared in the Cour. 10 represent the Management and the union respectively .

[Νο .Τ .-22012/45/2003 - IR/ C- II )

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXLURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

Present : Sh. Md. Sarfaraz Khan, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. 03 of 2004.

2. In briefcompass the case of the union as set forth in its written statement is that Shri Piru Bouri , Under Gnjund Dresser was a perлтител: employee of the Chora Cullery under Kenda Aren of Mys . Lastern Coaltields Limited. The snain case of the unior, is that the management issued the charge sheet dated 6-12-97 10 the delinquent employee for bis absence from duties . In this respect the explanation to the charge sheet issued to him were given stating therein. that he was sick and his heatment was done by Dr. B.N. Pal . The treatment papers were also submitted to the manageinent .

PARTIES The Agen:, Chora Colliery. Kenda Area of

F....T ... Badrula , Burdwan

The General Secretary , Koyala Mazdoor Sabha . Congress , Asansol , Burdwan.

REPRESENTATIVES:

: Sri P. K. Das , Advocate .

For the managementi

For the union (Workman) : Sri Rakesh Kumar , General Secretary, KoyalaMazdoor Congress, Asansol

İr.dustry

State : Westbengal

Dated the 22-05-2007

AWARD

In exercise of powers onniferred by clause( d ) of Sub- section ( 1 ) and Sub- section 2 (A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Tsputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , Govt. of India

3. It is also the case of the union that during the enquiry proceeding he had actively participated and had stated the fact about his sickness and the Medical certificate along with the treatment papers were submitted to the Enquiry Officer for consideration . The period of absence is claimed to be w.c.f. 28-10-9710fi 12.97 ie only onemonth and eight days and ther ron was due to his sickness. So the management should not have taken this harsh decision of dismissal . The punishment is claimed tobe always proportionate to the nature of offence hut in this issue management awarded the purisurent of dismissal for the absence of such a shor: period of only one month eight dayswhich is disproponitate to the nature of the offence The delinquent workman being the member of Scheduled Caste is the weaker section of the society and the Govt of India has also taken lenien; view in the case of SC/ST workers . As such the union has sought relief for bis reinstatement to the service with full back wages with the enasinuity of the service.

[ भाग -खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

On the other hand the defence case of the managerment as per its wrinen statement in short is that the instant reference is bed in the eye of law and the dispute raised by the union over the dismissal ofPiru Bouri, Ex-Dresser is claimed to be entirely misconceived one.

5. The main defience is that the workman concerned absenting from his duty from 28-10-97 without permission and without satisfactory cause for more than 10 days and as such he was charge sheeted by the phanagement for unauthorized absence from duty on 6-12-97 . The explanation submitted by the workman is found unsatisfactory and accordingly adomestic enquiry was held into the said charge sheet by an independent enquiry officer. The workina concerned bad participated in the enquiry proceed.ng and all reasonable opportunity were givenby the enquiry officer to defence himself. The enquiry officer having concluded the enquiry proceeding submitted its report to the charge shect Authority after holding the delinquent employee guilty for the charges framed against 6. The next defence case of the management is that the workman concerned was issued second show cause notice before imposing punishment and also sent a copy ofenquiry report to the ex -workman. The roanagement has al claimed that the punishment imposed to the workrmad concerteed is quite justified and reasonable and the mion has no right to dispute the said order of dismissal by alleging the punishment to be unjustified or unfair or harsh in any mer. It is denied that the workman concerned was absent from duty due to sickness and he had produced the Medical certificate or treatment papers before the management . The management has prayed that the reference may he dismissed as the workmah concerned is nor entitled to get any relief or reliefs as claimed for.

7. In view of the pleadings of the parties and the malenals available on the record I frod certain facts which are admitted one by the respective parties . So , before entering into the discussion of the merit ofthe case Iwould like to mention those facts which are admitted one.

8. It is the admitted fact thatPiru Bouri Under Ground Dresser, was a permanent eniployee of the company posted atChora Collicry ofMis . Stem Coalfields Limited .

9. It is the further admitted fact that the workman concerned was absent from his dury w.e.f. 28.10 97 to 6-12-97 without any leave , prior permission and informaють of the management .

IC . It is also the admitted fact that the delinquent employee was charge sheeted no 6-12-97 for his unauthorized absence from dully w.e.f. 28-10-97 and he bad subunited his explanation to the charge sheet. 11n is the next admitted fact that a domestic enquiry was conducted by an enquiry officer and the workman had

4767

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 28, 2007/ाषण 6 , 1929

duly participated in the enquiry proceeding and sufficient opportunity was given to defend himself and in the domestic enquiry the workman concerned was held guilty for the only charge of an unauthorized absence for the relevant period amounting to misconduct under clans (1) of the Model Standing Onder..It is alen chear from the record that there is no charge sheet against the workomaun for being habirual absentee.

12. It is further admitted fact that the delinquent employee was under the medical treatment of colliczy dispensary since 22-10-97 to 29-10-97 and he was also undez the private treatment from 26-10-97 to 3-12-97 and declared Fit for duty since4-12-97.

13. It is the settled principle of law that the facts admitted need not be proved . Since these all aforesaid facts are admitted one , so 1 do not think proper to discuss these facts indetail .

14. The recurd goes to show that on 7-11-04 a hearing on the preliminary point was made. The validity and fairness of the enquiry proceeding was not challenged by the union as he had duly participated in the enquiry proceedings .So the enquiry proceeding was held to be fair and valid and accordingly the date for final hearing of the dispute was fixed. The final hearing was made on 22-5-07 and the award was kept reserved for order .

15.The management in paras 1 & 2 of its written statement has taken the plea that the instant reference is bed in theeye of law as the sarve is not legally maintainable. It is also claimed that in view of the facts and circumstance of the case the dispute is misconceived one . But the aforesaid issue was neither raised nor pressed by the management during the course of bearing of the said reference . The management bas neither examined any oral witness nor tendered even a chit of paper in support of tes plea.As such I do not find any defect in the maintainability of the reference and the facts of the case very well come under the purview of Industrial Disputes Act . TheGovtof India through the Ministry of Labour has rightly referred the dispute to this Tribunal for its adjudication and as such this issue is decided against the management .

It.On perusal of the record it transpires that none of the parties has examined any oral witness in support of its case. The management has filed the Xerox copies of the charge sheet dated 18-12-97, letter of the workman byway of explanation to the charge sheet, copies of the enquiry proceedingtogether with the finding, letter of dismissal dated 18.5-98 issued from the office of the General Manager, copy of the reply against letter dated 15-4-98 , copy of the enquiry notice sent to the workman , leher of appointmeni of the enquiry officer . These alt documents are admitted one as they have been issued officially by the management . The union has not challenged the correctness or genuineness of these documents . No chit of paper has 4758

PART 11-56 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 28 , 2007/ SRAVANA 6. 1920

been filled qu behalf of the union as the rellevant required documents had already been submitted before the enquicy officer during the course ofenquiry .

findings the: the unauthorized abserve was without any sufficiell cause. The enquiry officer in his findings has opined that the concerned charge sheeted workinan was under the medical treatment of colliery dispensary since 22-10-97 to 27-111-97 and he was also under the private treatment from 26- ] ( レリア10 3-12-97 . 50 it is clear that the management has got the kinwledge about the sickness of the employee concemed during the relevant period.

17. It is obvious from the enquiry proceedings and its report that the workman concerned had received the charge sheet and had participated in the enquiry proceedings .He has specifically admitted in his statement before the enquiry officer that he did not send any wrinen information to the management about his illness. He has further stated that he was suddenly attacked with high fever pain and sweating and be had reported his sickness before the colliery dispensary from 22-10-97 το 27-10-97 and as such he was not in a position to attend his duty.He has also stated that he bad requested the colliery medical department for better treatment as he was not feelingbetter but nobody referred him in any company's hospital for further treapnent. Finding mo alternative he was compelled to takeprivate medical treatment under Dr. AR Banerji from 26-10-97 to 3-12-97 and was declared fit for duty on 4-12-97 . Thereafter be reported to the colliery authority tor joining his duty but the authority did not allow him tojoin bis duty. The enquiry officer in his findings has admined the workman concerned was under the medical treatment of colliery dispensary since 22-10-97 to 27-10-97 and he was also under the private treatment w.e.f. 26-1097 τι 3-12-97 and declared fit for duty since 4-12-97 . As such bis period of absence from duties unauthorizedly continued from28-10-97 unwards.

21.It was further submitted that the delinque วป employer has got amblemish record during his entire service tenure and there has not been any complaint of any sudts of misconduct syainst the workman concerned. The management has also not charge sheered him for habitual absenteeism, nor any chir of paper has been filed in thas regard by the management in the court nus there is specific pleading in this regard So it can be casily concluded that it is the first offence: of the workosar concerned which has been sufficiently explained and supported by the medical certificate indicating the nonspelling circumstance beyond The control of the workmannered . In course of argument it was strongly submitted that a simple case of unauthorized absence for one manch and eight day's can- not be said to be a gress ansconduct . The attention of Use court was drawn towards the provision of the Model StandingOrder where the estecsne patishment prescribed is dismissal as per the gravity of the misconduct and it was clamed that the extreane penalty cannot be awarded in the workroan in such a mitor vine al alleged anistxıngluçt of an unauthorized absence for a month . I tind much force in the argarment of the union . The vital poine submitted by the union is that before impusing the penalty ol dismissal no second show cause notice was ever served upon the workman.concerned which is direct violation of the roandale of the Apex Court which armourits to denial of the principles of natural justice .

IK. Having gone through the entire facts and circumstances , enquiry proceedings along with its findings , I find that the workman concerned was admittedly absent w.e.f 28-10-97 to 6-12-97 i.e. more than one month continuously without any prior permission and information to the management . The enquiry officer has rightly beld him guilty for an unauthorized absence under clause ( 1 ) in) oftheModel Standing Order applicable to the establis habrent and in view of the aforesaid prevailing facts the delinquent employce deserves some suitable punishment for the alleged proven misconduct as per the provision of the Model StandingOrder.

19. Now the only main point in issue for consideration before the court is to see as to how far the punishmeat awarded to the concerned workman by the management is just, propes and proportionate to the alleged proven nature ofmisconduct.

It has hueveral times clearly observed by the different Hon'ble Higa Courts and the Apex Count as well Bhar before imposing punishment of etismissal it is necessary for the disciplinary authority to consider socio economic background of the delinquent employee, his family back. ground, his past records and other surrounding circumstances including the mature of the misconduct and lasily the unipelling circumstances to commit the misconduct . These are relevant factors which must have to he kept in mind by the authority at the time of imposing the punishment which of course has tivi been done by the disciplinary authority n this case .

23. Perused the provision of the Model Standing Ordes laiddown under clause 271 page 15) where various miner punishments have been presumbed to be awarded according to the graviry of the misconduct . 1 fail to understand as to why caly maximus punishment available under the said clause should be awarded in the present facts and circumstances of the case. It has been observed 20. Head the representatives of both the parties in detail on the aforesaid point on question. It was argued by the side of the union that it is a simple case of an unauthorized absence from duty for one month and eigi days and the absence from duty during the relevant period is fully explained and the reasons of absence supported with medical certificate have been found to be sufficient and relevant one by the enquiry officer and that is why the enquiry officer has not even whispered a word in his 4769 [ भाग - सखण्ड (ⅱ ) ]

'भारत का राजपत्र ; जुलाई 28 , 2007/आवण 6 , 1929

Bajaj Flectricals Limited and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 29-06-2007,

[No.1-42012/ 144/ 2004- IR(C - IT) ] by theApex Court that justice must be tempered with mercy and that the delinquent croployce should be given an opportunity to reform himself and to be loyal and disciplinary employee ofthe management .

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,

MUMBAI

Present : Justice GhanshyamDass Presiding Officer.

COMPLAINT NTB- 2 OF 2005 (Arising out of complaint NTB- 9 of2003)

PARTIES : V. Subramania

: Complainant

Y / s .

Mrs.Bajaj ElectricalsLtd.

: Opponent

Арремнике:

For the Complainant : Shri Chidambaram, President

For the Opponent

: Shri Tawaskar , Adv . Shri M.S. Paranjpe, Adv. 24. However I am of the considered view that the punishment of dismissal for an unauthorized absence for one month eight days under the compelling circumstances and without any chala fide intention is not just and proper rather it is too harsh a punishment which is totally disproportionate to the alleged proven misconduct. Such a simple case should have been deals with leniently by the management. In the view of the matter I think it just and properto modify and substitute the same by exercising the power under ll (A) of the D. D. Act , 1947 in order to meet the ends ofjustice and as such the impugned order of dismissal is hereby set aside and be is directed to he reinstated with continuity of the service and in the light of the prevailing facts and circumstance and proveo misconduct for which the punishment of dismissal was awarded to the workman concerned, I think it appropriate that the delinquent workman be imposed a punishment of stoppage of ten increments with the cumulative effects . It is further directed that the workman concerned willbe entiched to get only40 % of the back wages which will serve the ends ofjustice. Accordingly it is hereby.

State

: Maharashtra

ORDISRED

Mumbai, dated this 2nd day ofMarch,2006

AWARD

That let an "Award " be and the same is passed on contest in favour of the workman concerned . Send the copies of the award in the Government of India . Ministry ofLabour , New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly dispose of.

MD. SARFARAZ KHAN , PresidingOfficer.

नई दिल्ली, 29 जून , 2007

1. The Complainant Shri . V. Subramanin, permanent eraployee ofMis. Bajaj Electricals Lad (hereinafter refered to as Company) bas moved the instant application for a declaration that the action of the Company for dismissal of the complainant vide onder dated 12-5-2005 is illegal , in- operative , and void abnitio and also to issue a direction to the Company to reinstate him vo his original post along with a cost ofRs. 25,000.

का.अ. 2100.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बजाज इलैक्ट्रीकल्स लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में राष्ट्रीय औद्योनिक अधिकरण , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( शिकायत संख्या एन.टी.बी. -2/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-200 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं एल-42012/ 144/2004- आई. आर ( सी -1 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the29thJune,2007

2. It is alleged that the Complainant was charge- shocted on 9-3-2000 making a false and frivolous allegation that one Shri Ramprasad who in fact, not a Manager as per the Standing orders applicable to the workman employed inthe Company.The Complainant challengedthe issuRDE of the charge sheet vide Complaint No. 9 of 2003 before this Tribunal and the same is still pending for adjudicatіоn . The Company did not obtain any prior permission of this Tribunal as required under Section 33 ( 1 ) of the Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and proceeded with the charge-sheet and finally dismissed. The order of dismissal is nonest.

3. The reply has been filed by the Company and the allegations have been denied .

5.0. 2100.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Ceoral Governmeat hereby publishes the Award ( Complaint No. NTB-2 of2005 ) of the National Industrial Tribuntal , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the managerment of

4. I have heard Stri P. Chidambaram, President of All IndiaBajaj Electricals Federation for the workman and Shri M.S. Paranjpe for the Company.

4770

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 28. 2007 SRAVANA 6. 1920

5. The parties have not led any evidence since the legal point in inwlived in this complaint. Section 39 ( 1 ) of the Act reads as unter :

33. Candilions of service , etc. , to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings ( 1 ) During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before conciliation officer or a Board of any proceeding before an arbitrator or a Labour Court De Tribunal ur National a Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, no employer shall.-

(a) in regard to any matter conected with the Hispute, alter, 10 the prejudice of the workmen contermed in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the commencement of such proceeding ; or (b) for any misconduct connected with the dispute, discharge of punish , whether by dismissal or otherwise any workasan ancemed in such dispute, save with the express permission in writing of the authority hefore which the proceeding is pending .

Actmitedly , the complamant was charge -sheeted and issuance of the Authority of the person who issued the charge- sheet is being challenged by filing the Complaini No. 9 of2003. Admittedly, the domestic enquiry continued on the aforesaid charge-sheet and it led to the final orderof dismissal of the complainant by the Competent Authority. The Company has already filed an Approval application for its action of dismissal and the same is pending for adjudicating vide NTB- 15 of 2005 in Reference No. ΝΤΒ - 2 of2004.

6. I feel that the instant complaint is not maintainable in law. The entire controversywould be adjudicated upon whiledisposing of the Approval application. The dismissal order cannot he declared to be void abrnitio by means of the instant complaint in the form as alleged by the Complainant at this juncture. It may further he observed that it wouldbe seen at proper stage in the aloresaid Approval application as to whether the Company was required tojobtain a prior permission before passing the order of dismissal in view of pendency of Complaint No. 9 of 2003 which is still pending and the parties have ant come prepared to argue the aforesaid complaint. It may further be observed that mere pendency of the cumpli referred to above , may not amount to pendency of a IndustrialDispute as required under Section 33 ( 1 ) ofthe Act. After 11 is concluded that pendency of a complaint amount kipendency of proceedings in respect of an Industrial Dispute, the Company would be required by law in chain prior permission in writing from this Tribunal before passing the order of dismissal . I feel that his point may the deckled finally at the time of deciding the Apprrival application

PART II SE . ( 0 ) | 7. In this circumstance , the Complaint is herchy dismissed.

JUSTICIA GHANSHYAM DASS, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 जून, 2007

का,आ, 2101, औधक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की भारः 17 के अनुचरण में . केन्द्रीय सरकार ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संघद्ध नियोजकों और उनमें कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट अँधांगिक त्रिवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, असनसांल कं. पंचाट ( संदपं मंख्या 08: 1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [म. एल -22012/54/ 1998 - आई आर ( सी- ] [ ] त्मजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारो Now Dellli , the 29th June 2007

S.O. 2101.-[ n pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 08/ 1909) of the Central Goverment Industrial Inbal -com- Labour Court . Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute betales the citiployers in relation to the TDAmagerment of ECL and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 29-6-2007.

[NL.1-2012:54: 1998-18( C- J AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAI. TRIBUNALOTUM - LABOUR COURI ASANSOL.

Present : Sh . Md . Sarfaraz Khan , PresidingOfficer. ReferenceNo. 08 of 1999,

Parties : The Agen . Haripur Colliery. E.C.L. The It. General Secretary .Colliery Mazdoor Union , Cirerria Rund, Ukhra , Burdwan.

Representatives :

For ise managcının For the Union (Wurkman Tndustry Sri P. K. Das. Advocale. Sri M.Mukherjee , Advocate

Coal SIAL: WestBengal Tad 5-6-3007.

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section ( 1 ) and Subsectam ( A) of Settiіктер 10 оf thе Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947), Govt . of India 4771 [भाग -खण्ड (ii) )

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 28, 2007/ श्रवण 6 , 1929 .

अधिकरण , आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 120/1999 ),को प्रकाशित करची है , वो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुभाया ।

through the Ministry ofLabour vide its letter No. L-22012/ 54/1998- IR(CM- 11) dated 21-1-1999 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal

SCHEDULE

[सं. एल-22012/42/1999-आई बार ( सी ] ] मजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 29th June, 207 "Whether the action of the management ofHaripur Collicry of BCL in terminating the services of Shri Suresh Singh,U.G. Loader is legal and justified ? If not 10 what reliefthe sand workman is entitled to ?"

8.0. 2102.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disportes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government bereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 120/ 1999) of the Central Govermanent Industrial Tribunal -com- Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the IndustrialDispute between the employers in relation to the maungement ofECL and their workman witrich was reαχίνες bythe Central Government no 29-06-2007.

[No. L-22012/42/1999- TR( C- U )} AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Deak Officer

ANNEXURE

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

After having received the Order No. 1-22011 /54/1998 IR(CM -11), dated 21-1-1999 of the aforesaid reference from the Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi, fou adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No. 08 of 1999 was registered on 2-2-1999 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices to the respective partics through the registered post directing then to appear in the court on the date so fixed and file their written suatements alongwith the relevral documents and list of witnesses in support of their claims . In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned . Sri P.K. Das , Advocate and Sri M. Mukherjee, Audvocate appeared in the Court to represent the Management and the Union cuncerned respectively. Both the parties filed their written statement in support of their claims,

Present : Sh . Md . Sarfaraz Khan, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. 120 of 1999

PARTIES : The Agent , Chinakuri 3 pit Colliery , E.C.L. , Vrs

The Treasurer , Colliery Mazdoor Union, (INTUC) , 27 , G.T. Road, Asansol, Bordwan .

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management : SP.K.Das, Advocate. From the perusal of the record it transpires that the case was fired for final bearing in the merit of the case. It is further clear from the record that on 5-6-2007 the date wKS Fixed for bearing on merit of the case. The learned lawyer for the workman submitted that he has got no instruction from the side of the union or the workman himself so he does not want to pursue the record in -absence of the instruction of the Union . In the prevailing facts and circumstance of the case it is oot just and proper to keep this old record pending any more as Do useful purpose is to be served . As such it is hereby

ORDERED

For the union (Workinan ) : Stl P. Mandal, Treasurer

Industry : Coal Slate : West Bengal

Daled 06-05-2007

AWARD

that let a "No Dispute Awarded" be and the same is passed. Send the copies of the award to the Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed off.

Md SARFARAZ KHAN, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 29 जून , 2007

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section ( 1 ) and Sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947),Govt . of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L- 22012/ 42/1999-IR(C- II ) dated 29-07,03-08-1999 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal

का.आ. 2102-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार के सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

3151 0/2007-8 4772

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 28 , 2007 SRAVANA , 1929

[PART 11- SEL.3( 1 ) ] SCHEDULE

प्रकाशित करती है , 1 केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02-07-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल- 120-3: 274: ५५ % आई आर ( श्री ॥ ]

रजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi .the 2nd July .X107 "Whether the action of the management ofChimakuri Colliery of FCI in not paying the duc leave with winges at the Larise of superannuation and houserent from Nov. 9610 June , 97 to Sh. Bansi Kuyri is legal and justified? If not to what relief is the workman explitest ?

S.O. 210.3.1 pursuance of Section 17 of the Lodustrial Disputes Act 1927 114 of 1947) . the Central Government lezchy publishes the Award Ref . 226/2004 of the Central Government Indusjal Tribunal- cum- Labour Cour..Ahmedabad ( Gujarat ) as shown in the Annexure . in the industrial dispute between the management of Indian Bank and their workmen , received by the Central 2007

[No. L- 12012/274: 1948- IR - IT)] RAINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

On having received the OrderNo. L-22012/42/ 1999- [R(C -11 ) . died 29-07103-08-1999 of the said reference from the Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi . for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No. 120 of 1999was registeλοι 18-08-1999/03-10-01 and accordingly ur. order to tha: cffect was passed to issue notices to respective parties through the registered post directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list ofwitnesses in support of their claims. Pursuant to the said multices by the registered post were issued to the respective parties. Sri P.K. Das, Advocate and Sri P. Mandal . Treasacrer of the Union appeared in the Court to represent the Management and the Union respectively and filed their respective brillen statement in support of their clainis.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAF.TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURSAT AHMEDABAD PRESENT:

A.A. 1..XD , Presiding ( Mficer , Mumbai Reference C.GJ.T.A. No. 226/2004

EMPLOVERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF INDIAN BANK, AHMEDABAD

The Chief Mangri Indian Bank .

....First Party

Navrang Building. Navrangpilia Ahmedabad ( Gогатат

THEIR WORKMAN

Frond the perusal of the record il transpires that the case was fired for the Cross-examination of the witness by the Management , but the witness did not turan up for the cross-examination and the union left taking any step on 18-07-05.13-09-05 and 17-11-05. The union appeared in the coun on 17-01 0Gand prayed for lise to perduce the witness for сток - стаmination which was allowed and 21-03-416 WHS The next late fixel for cruss - examination of witnessbut the record: goes to show that again the umurn left taking any steps .c.f. 21-03-06 bo 18-05-07 . These all facis go to indicate that the union has lost its interest and does ont want to pursue the case any further . In the prevailing fucts uld circumstance of this case it is not proper and advisable to keep the old record pending any more as no useful purpose is to be served. As such it is hereby

ORDERED

Sh . Anilkurusu B. Sukhvasia , 11. Mangal Maruti Raw Iouse . Nr. Mahashakti Socity Jivrajpark. Ahmedabad- 380051

...Second Party

APPEARANCES

that Ict a " In Dispute Awarded " be and the same is passed. Send the appies of the award to the tiovt of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for information and beedful .

For the tmp'nye

Shri K.V. Gadhiy ", Advocare

For the Worst .

The reference is accordingly disposed of MD. SARFARAZ KILAN, Presiding Officer

Shri D.N.Vyas, Representative

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 2 जुलाई , 2017

1. The Government of Jolia, Ministry of Labour , and Employment is Code No. 1-12001227498-1K(B- 11). dated 05-11-19 exercise of the powers enaferied by chhunse (di of Sab - section ( 1 ) and Sub -section 2 (A) el Section 10 of the Ladestrial Daspates Act , 1947 have referred the following dispate to this Tribunal for adjudication .

कार.सा. 2103.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बौच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट आऔद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरणः अभ न्यायालय , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्मा 226/2004 ) क 4773 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 28 , 2007/ श्रवण 6 , 1929

[भाग 11 - खण्ड (ii) ]

Reasons

Isme No. 1

"Waether Sh. Anil Kumar Sukhvasia is a workman under Section 2(S ) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ? If so , whether his employmeni in Indian Bark from 01-01-1990 and his terntination from the service of the bank we.f. 27-05-1998 is legal and justified and to what relief the concerned person is enotted to and from which date ?"

5. Second party Sh. Anil Kumar Sukhvasia claimed thal his services with first party as a drive from 90-91 and sarme for 7 years. He was not regularize thought, there is avacancy and work. Where as case of the first party is that , he was never engaged by the first party nor interviewed and appointed. He was driver of the AGM and he cannot claim relation with the first party .

6. As far as this relationship of SH. Anilk Kuma Sukhvasia with first party is concerned no doubt he was not engaged by the first party and no interview was taken. lle worked with AGM as his driver . It is also matter on record that, Sh . Anil Kuat Sukhvasia WBS engagedby the AGM as a driver where he worked for 7years as a driver of AGM.

2. To support the subject matter referred in the reference. second party filed Claim Sratement at Ex-5 stating dhat, he was engaged by the first party as a personal driver of Assistant General Manager (in short AGM) from 01-01-1990. He was paid Rs . 2000, - per month, and he was having duty from 9.00 am 10 9.00 р.м. He was gezing overtime allowances 25/- per day . He worked for 7 years . He was not regularize and benefit regolar employment were not given to him . He requested to absorb in the employment of the first party. No attendance was given by the first party on the demand of the second party workroan. He need of employment. There is work with first party . Even there is a vacancy also. But clue вшил вррговый first party did not absorb him and ignore bis demand . So he prayed to regularize services of the First party as its comployee.

7. To support that second party bed evidence by producing number of documents with Ex-7 and head evidence at Fix - 18. Whereas first party examine Shri Suresh Nayak circle officer at Ex-36. Second party workman in his deposition made our case that , he was takenby AGM on01-01-1990. He was getting salary Rs. 2000/ - per month. He served 7 years. He was praying to regularize , but be was not regularized. In the cross he adroits that he was not appoint by the bank nor interviewed and posted by the bunk. He admits that, he was driver of the AGM same story is given by the first party's witness. Shri Suresh Nayak. This Shri Suresh Nayak admits that , second party was apply for regularization in the employment of the first party. He was working as a driver of the AGM.

B. Second party submits written argumeni at Ex-39 and by first party at Ex-43 .

3. This is objected by the first party by Filing writen staterocut at Ex-8 , making different case that, there is no craployer -employee relationship between the second party and first party. Concerned workosan Sh. Aoil Kuroar Sukhvesia was never engaged by the first party . Ne interviews was taken and no appointment order given by the first party . He was not permitted to sign muster roll like employee of the first party and as such be cannot he permit to exoclrate bis relation with first party as its employee . Since second party Sh . Anil Kumar Suichvasia was never appoint for the first party by the first party and was never paid by it ought of its own funds. Second party caturot claim absorption and claim relation with first party. Since second party Sh. Anil Kumar Sukhvasia was personal driver of the AGM and work in personal capacity on the AGM is not eatitle to claim absorption in the service of the first party. So it is submitted that claim of the second party is not worth to consider and be rejected.

9.As sale above , second party Sh. Anil Kumar Sukhvasia was serving as driver of AGM and served for 7years . He was nto appointed by the first party. So this reveals that, he was not engaged by the first party and he was not employee of the first party. Even second party unable to show that, he was engaged by the first party as its employee. When this is the admitted situation ones as to observe that , the second party was not engaged by the first party and was not employce of it. So, I answer this issue accordingly.

Issue No. 13

4. In view of the above pleadings following issues arise for determination which are answered against it.

(i) Whether Sh . Anil Kumar Sukhvasia is comployee of the first party ?

(i) Whether he can be absorbed?

( iii) What order ?

My answeredto the above issues are as under as per reasons given below : No

Yes.

10. The document produced hy the second party at Ex- 7, are not seriously disputed by the first party's witness . To the cross witness of the first party admits that, letter at Ex -7(5 ) , was written by Regional Office. He is not denying that , il was sigried hy Sh . Ve Shrinivasan . le achnis thac lester produced at Ex -7(6), is written try Regional office . He admits that , lenter produced al Ex-7 (R ) , referred to absorb the second party in the employment . lle admits that, letter produced at Ex -7 ( 10 ) was written by Regional Manager to the Zonal Offsec reconnunending second party to absorb in the employment As per onder helow.

4774

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 28, 2007 /SRAVANA 6, 1929

of the fust parry . He admits that, bank decides salary of the driveristaffs . He has not denied that , vehicle on which second party was drivet was of the bank . He has not denied letter produced al Ex -7(16), He also danying letter produced at Ex-7 (18). He admits that, letter atEx-7 (19) send by Regional Office of the Central Officc . All this correspondences brought on record by the second party reveals that, Regional Office peruse the case of absorption of second party and Central Office to on refusing it on the ground that, there is no sanction . Even the work of second party is appreciated first party by letter dund30-09-05 . Evenhe was recommended by letters dated 9-12-94, 1-02-95, 10-02-95, 22-04-95 and 15-06-95. All these reveals that , second party was competent to work . Evenhe worked with AGM. No grievance are there about the work of second party of the first party. In the scenario one as to considered whether such an honest person is not getting regularizing only because he was not appointed by the first party and it can not be an error of the second party. Number of cases are produced by the first party's Advocate morne precisely case law of Civil Appeals 3595 of 2006 (SC) case between , Secretary State of Karnataka & Ors . Vis. Umadevi and Ors and which reveals that, said case was on different footing as in that case, appointment of ad-hoc employee was in dispute . But in these case, actual second party workman worked with officer of the first party and case law produce by the first party's Advocate poblished in 2005-11 -LLJ (SC) Page Do.475was on the point of demand made by the employee on completion of 240 days with employer . However , in the instant case second party is not employee of the first party and do question arises to pay by the first party. Even there is no question arises to count 240 days since he never work with the first party.

11.However, the recommendation of the first party, various correspondences brought on record by the second party and it is admitted by the first party reveals that, there was as vacancy in the employment of the first party and first party was actual is need of his employment. Even it reveals that , employee like this was absorbed by the first party and first party was actual in need of his cmployment. Even it reveals that , comployee like this was absorbed by the first party. Second party worked for 7 years and was having good recordand no blame was invited by him . In this situation in my considered view, he must be regularize by the first party on humantory ground. So I answer this issue to that effected an dconclude that, second party is entitle for absorption within three months for this order.

12. In view of the discussion made above, I passes the following order.

ORDER

(1) Reference is partly allowed.

[Раит Т-SEC. 3 ( 1) (B) First party is directed to absorb the second party Sh . Anil Kumar Sukhvasia from the date of order as its regular employce .

(iii) Prayer of back wages and other, relief's sought are not considered and second party is not entitled for The same , (iv) No custs.

A. A LAD , Presiding Oficer नई दिल्ली , 3 जुलाई , 2007

का. आ, 2104,--सऔद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की भारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय खाद्य निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में कंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं- 11 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचार ( संदर्भ संख्या 1252/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-7-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -22012/35 / 2005 आई आबर ( सीएम -11 ] अजय कुमार गौड़, टैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 3rd July,2007

5. 0. 2104. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.1252/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum Labour Court No 2. Chandigarh as sliown in the Annexure, io the industrial dispute between the managerment of Food Corporation of lodia , and their workmen , received by the Central Goveromento 3-7-2007.

No. -1.-2201235/2005 - IR( CM - II )| AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer ANNEXTIRE

CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT- 11 CHANDIGARH PRESIDING OFFICER SHIKI KULDIP SINGH CASE L.D. NO : 1252/2005 Registered in :30-1-2006 Date of Decision : 11-4-2007

Mohan Singh cio Shri Amarjit Singh Jattari & Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Bawa, Authorised representative R/oH.N. 2782, Phirse 7. Mobulli . Distt . Ropar, Ropar.

-PETITIONER

Verses

District Manager, FCI , District Sangrur, Sangrur.

-RESPONDIENT

APPEARANCE

For the Workman

Mr. S. K. Bansal , Advocate

Mr. N. K. Zakhroi , Advocate For the Management [ भाग -- खण्ड ( U ) ]

4775

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 28 , 2007 / श्रवण 6, 1929

AWARD

Government Industrial Tribunal-com - Labour Court , Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Lodustrial Dispute herween the employers in relation to the management of MCL and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Governmentos 3-7-2007.

[No. 1.-22012/159/2000- IR(CM -II) ) AJAY KUMAR GAUR, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INIRISTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, HHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri N.K.R. Mohapatra, Presiding Officer , C.G.LT.-om-Laboor Court, Baobancrwar .

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO.34/2000

Date ofPassingAward- 22od Je, 2007 The workman continues to be absent, Mr. Bansal who had been appearing for him stales that he has no instructions to appear in the case . The record of the file shows that the workman has never appeared in the case. Only his counsel appeared and that too without authority. The appearance of the Counsel for him was recorded on his filing the memo of appearance . He has however , failed to submit the authority lether from the workman to appear in the case. It was in these circumstances that summons vo the workman were issued under register cover ( wice vide postal receipt No. 3192 dated 11th ofOctober , 2006 and 3304dated 20th of February , 2007. The notices séal have notbeen received back unserved even till date. Thus there is strong presumption that the notices have been received by the workman but he has chosen not to appear. It is in Ibese circumstances that the matter is being disposed oft in the absence of the workmat .

Between:

The following reference was received by the this Tribunal from Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment:

The Маладетеt of the Chief General Mamager , Jagannath Area of MCL, P.O. , Dera, Talcher, Angul, Orissa.

-Ist Party-Management Whether the action of the Management of Food Corporation of India in terminating the services of Sa Mohan Singh , Beldaw w.e.L. October, 1992 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled torand from which date?

Their Workmen represented through the General Secretary, Mahanadi Coalfields Mazdoor Sabha, AL/PO . Gurujang, Via: Takber, Dist. Angul .

-2nd Party-Union ,

Appeanmaces:

Shri R. S. Mohapatra, Persomel Manager . -For the Ist Party Management. Shri Arun Kr . Pani, General Secretary.

For the 2nd Party-Union .

AWARD

As stated above even after getting the notice the workman has not chosen to appear . He has also not fلعلث the claim Petition . There is no evidence on record to support the claim of the workman that he was engaged by the Management and they had terminated his services in October, 1992 in violations of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 and the principles of natural justice. The workroan is therefore, not entitled to any relict. The reference is answered against him. Let a copy of this award he sent to the appropriate Government for necessary action and the file he consigned to records after due completion.

KULDIP SINGIL, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 जुलाई , 2007

TheGovernment of India in the Ministry ofLabour , in exercise of powers conferedby Clanse (d) of sub- section (1) and sub -section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication wide their Order No. L- 22012/ 159/ 2000MR ( CM - 11 ), dated 16/23-11-2000 :-

कर. आ. 2105.-औरतेोगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एम. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 34/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-7-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Whether the contract work awarded to Shri Biswambar Pal hy the Chief General Manager, Jagannath Area of MCL, Talcher is sham? If yes, what relief the II workers involved in the dispute are entitled to" ?

[स्ट एल 22012/ 159/2000- माई आर( सीएम - ॥ ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 3rd July,2007

S.O. 2105.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Govan hereby pablishes the award (Ref.No. 34 of 2000 ) of the Contral

2. The Management is admittedly running a specializedHospital called Nehru Satabdi Central Hospital 1 Talcher since 1994. It is alleged by the Union that under Coal Wage Agreement-V there shall be a statutory canteco in cach colliery/ establishment and it is to be maintained by the Management through a Managing Committee by providing utensils, fuels, clectricity ete. free of onst besides 4776

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FULY 28 , 2007 SRAVANΑ 6,1929

providing financial assistance to enable the canteen to supply food articles at a cheaper rate and under na circumstance such canteen is to he rust hy a contractor . With the above background it is further alleged by the Union that id violation of the above Wage Agreement the Managerment is running a cameen itself attached to the above Hospital by engaging Labourers through a sham contractor oaned Mis. Biswarmbar Pal . Since neither the Management nor the said so called contractor have obtained mu cense as required under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Prohibition) Act and as the hospital authority exclusively exercise administrative control over the worker and pay their wages they are to be treated as employees of the Managenient atud regularized woordingly under its establishinent as they have been engaged since 1994 under the guise of different contractors.

3. The Management on the other hand commerudel that since there was no specialized hospital Jur its employees lac district of Angut and Dhenkanal . it established pne such specialized hospital called Nehru Satabdi Central Hospital at Talcher both for its employees and muusiders as a part of its welfare measure. The hospital not being a saatutory hospital it engaged comractors to supply dict and foodstuff to the patients subject to the satisfaction and day to day need of the hospital authority. The establishment of the contractor M/ s . Biswarnhar a which hehad set up near the hospital , can not be treated as a canteen of whatsnever nature . Denying the further allegation ofle Unico it is contended by the Managerтель That both the Management and the contractor Mis . Biswambar Pal had necessary license issued under the Contractor Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act and is such the engagement of such contractor can neither be held bad war contrary to Coal Wage Agreement - V, the hospital in question not being a statutory bospital . it is further averred hy the Management that the above contractor having been engaged under a tender procedure and the contractor concerned heing the inane diate employer of those whowere utilized for due execution of the plac the establistiment of the said contractor can neither be called as a statutory Canteen nor its workers can be said tu have been engaged under a sbam contractor in so far as the reliefs claimed by the Union .

4 Chapthe basis of above pleadings of the parties the following isques were fraaned:

ISSUES

1. Whether there is relationship between the employer and the employee?

2. Whether the dispute is coming under the provisions of Industrial DisputesAct?

3.Whether the reference is maintainable?

4. Whether the contract work awarded to Shri Biswambar Pal by the Chief General Manager, Jaganath Area of MCL. Takther is sham?

]PART SEL .M ارث 5. To what iclief the workers involved in the dispune 5: Bestdes relying on surne documents each рату has adduced oral evidence . From the side of the Union two witnesses including the Secretary of the Union have beer . examined . From the side of the Management equat number ofwitnesses have been examined besides producing some docuinents.

ISSUE NO.2 & 3

fi. There being on substantial challenge w these issues by either party . the same are answered affarenatively ISSUE NO.1 & 4

7. These issues are taken up together is they are inter-dependar.t .

Tojustify that theManagement is ramning a camera through a shamien :: a21 Ms. Hizwembar Pal , the Union has relied na the following circaSINCES

(2) A canteen close to the Satabdi Hospital is bring roy the Management through a sham contractor in violation of Para 10.7 of the National ConWage Agreement -V.

(b) That the Management is exercising udministrative control over the employers of thai cameen through the Hospital authority .

(0) That the depositol provident fund contribution ui these employees reing through the an numbers of the Management, the same suggest that the so -called contractor is tuse (er Both the Management and the so - called ципиратор M. Riswana Pal had no license under Contrac: Labour ( Regulation & Abolitionjure therefore it is on be construed that the engagement a colICUT was only 4 paper work on the part of the Marsingement .

8. Erisce that under Pare 10 7 othe National Chal Wage Agreenient -Vthe cameans provided to the colieries estabeliştorrent sheula nerbs: sun rough any contractor . Rather it is to be run through a managing conce.Ban from the evidence on round Tappears that the hospital in question is not a statutory hospital attached to any collery . Is very demox adduced by the parties it is clear that it was a specialized hospital established in 1994 to provide free specialized treatment to the workers and to the general public na pagment hasis . The evidence of the Union law soul hospital is under the Manager.zm of C.GM of the Management company but not under any cellery management . Therefore , even if 1t is believed to a tu bas heen attached to that bospital the same can not come under the purvien of Para 10.7 of the National Coud Wape Agreement - V, the 4777

भारत का राचषत्र : जुलाई 28 , 2007 / श्रवण 6 , 1929

[ भाग 1] -खण्ड (ii ) ]

hospital in question not being under any colliery Managament

9. Now the question boils down the determination is whether there was any canteen attached to the above hospital and if so whether it was run by the Maлaдедел elself in the name of a fictitious contractor by name M/ s Biswambar Pal .

to the P.F. contributions made by his workers. From all these it can verywell be concluded that M/ s . Biswambar Pal was not a sham contractor . Likewise on the basis of the teader notice Ext . -B and the Agreeraent ExL -B/ 1 it can furtherbe concluded that the Management was absolutely not ruaning any canteen near the hospital in question but the so-called canteen was nothing but the establishment of the contractor.

11. The documents and the oral evidence adduced from the side of the Unicom no doubt shows that the CP.F. contributions of the workers were being deposited under the account number of the Management but on the basis of the same it cannot be said that there was no contractor asunder the provisions of the CCM.P.F. scheme 1948 по separate registration number is allotable to a contractor for filingof statutory returns in respect of hisworkers. A letter uf the Coal Mines Provident Commissioner marked Ext -F makes it further clear that the contractors are only required to make deposit of the l'.F. contribution of their employees using the account number of the principal employer and as such the engagement of M/s Biswamhar Pal can not be ruled oυς . Furthermie luxLA shows that the C.G.M. of the Management has been issued with necessary license under the Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition ) Actto engage contract labourers and as such it cannotbe said, as claimed by the Union that the management could not have engaged Mis. Hiswambar Pal as the contractor. In view of the above and considering all other aspects as discussed earlier I am of the confirmed view that the contract work awarded tu M/ s . Riswambar Pal by the Management was not at all shamn in malure.

ISSUE No. V

12. In view of the above findings given in the fore-. going paras the workers of the establishment of M/ s . Biswambar Pal are not entitled for any relief including regularization under the establishment of the Management .

13. Azordingly the reference is answered. Dictated and corrected by me .

N.K. R. MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE WORKMAN

Workman Witness No.J-Arım Kumar Pani .

Workman Witness No.2-Naresh Bhutia .

LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE MANAGEMENT

Management Witness No.1-Sari Y. Harakumar. Management Witness No.2-Dr . Aswini Kumar Dhash 10. Speaking on the subject the Management Witness No.1 has deposed that there was no canteen attached to the hospital in question . Rather for supply of dier and food materials to the indoor patients different contrackers were engaged from time to time and scoordingly M's.Biswambar Pal was given the contract on the basis of a Lender . For execution of the above contrael , M/s. Biswambar Pal , the contractor, had opened his own establishment near the hospital and except ileç said establishment of the contractor there were no other canteen nearby. Ext. -B the tender notice and Ext . -Bi'l the work order issued to the above contractor show that he was given the contract of supplying dict and food materials to the indoor patients of the hospital on several conditions and subject to necessary verification by the hospital authority. The diet schedule attached to the contractual agreement shows that the concerned contractor was required to supply food articles of a particular standard. He was alen required to engage persons free from contagious diseases and of good behaviour . Under the agreement the hospital authority were also empowered to have regullar inspection of the quality of the food prepared by the contractor. Under the Agreement the contractor concerned was further required to engage required number ofwell behaved , smart , experienced and disciplined staff. like coos, suppliers , cleaners elc- The Workman Witness No.2 has categorically admitted at Para - 6 of his evidence that having, come to know that one M / s . Hiswambar Pal has taken the contract . he had approached him for a job and was accordingly engaged by him as a labourer. ile further states that the above contractor had also appointed a Manager and that, in every two to three days the contractor himself used to come for inspection of the work periormed by him and others . Towards the end of each month all the workers were being informed by the Manager as to the date and place of payment of their wages . The witness has further deposed that they were heing paid wages either personally by Ms. Biswambar Pal or by any of his agents in presence of a representative of the Management. This evidence of the W.W. 2 thus cuts ar the very root of the case of the union that the contractor in question was a fictitious person. ExL-C the register ofwages carries the name of M /s. Biswambar Pal as the employer and ExL -D a lemer addressed to the Asst . Commissioner, C.M.P.F. indicates that the said M/s Biswambar Pal used tomake correspondences with the above autburity in regard 4778

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: ИЛ.Y 28, 2007 / SKAVANA 6, 1929

LISTOF EXHIBITS ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND PARTY- WORKMAN

Lixt - Copy of National Coal Wage Agreement-V.

Ext-2-Copy ofletter No. 239 , dated 12-11-1997 of Shri Biswambari Pal , Contractor , addressed to the Asst . Commissioner of Coal Mines Provident Fund , Rhubaneswr.

Fxt.-3--Copy of work order issued to the Contractor.

LIST OF EXHIBITS ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST PARTY- MANAGEMENT

Ext-A-Copy of R.C.No. 2/87 , dated 23-3-1987.

Ext .-B--Copy of Tender Notice dated 13-11-1999, Ext.-B/ 1-Copy ofthe Tender Notice dated 26-7-2000, Ext.-C-Abstract of the Wage Register for the year 2000).

Ext -D Copy of P.F. Statemen

Lixt.-DM-Copy of P.I. Statement for the year1997-98.

Ext-F-Copy of letter dated21-9-2003.

नई दिल्ली, 3 जुलाई , 20007

बब.आ: 2106, औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दूरसंचार विभाग के प्रबंधितंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1125/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-7-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[मं. एल-40012/3/91- आई आर( डीयू) ) सुरेन्द्रसिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी ! Now Delhi, the 3rd July,2007

$. 0. 2106- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Guveraroent hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No. 1125/ 2005) Goverment Industrial Tribunal -cum Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department, and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 3-7-2007.

[No. 1.-40012/3/91 - IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR, COURT-JL CHANDIGARH

SHIRI KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Offic

[PARI TI SAK: 3 ( 1) | CASE I.D. No : 1125/2005

Registered on.22 9.3005

Dale of Decision : 3-4-2007

SUBE SINGH 50. SHRI HTRA LAT VILLAGE SUBA SHERI, PO NANGAI . TEJU , TELISIL BAWAL, DISTRICT REWARI

... Petitioner

VerSNS

TELECOM DEPARTMENT THROUGH DIVISIONAL ENGINEER TELEGRAPHS, GURGAON

...Respondent

APPEARANCE

Forthe Workman :

Shri Hemedar Goswami (AR)

For the Management : MR. Dinesh Nagar Advocate

AWARD

The following reference was received ται Government of India, Ministry of ) abour vide their order Νο . 1.-40012/3 /91 - IR(DU - III ) dated 9th October, 1991 :

"Whether the action ofthe Management of Telecom . Department in relating to their Sub-Divisional Office . Rewari in terminating the services of Shri Sube Singli Sio Shri Hira Tal Casual worker w.e.f. 31st January. 1989 is just . fair and legal . If not , to what relief the wurker pancerned is entitled to ?"

The notice of the reference was given to the partaes who appeared . The workman filed his statement of claim and the Management sheit Written Statement dited 16th September , 1992. They also filed amended Written Statement on 1611 Oktuber , 1993 and 26th May , 1995. The workman filed the replication dated 22nd March , 1993and then 27th March , 1976. He also filed his affidavit dated 22nd March, 1993 and 27th March , 1996. The Managemem filed the affidavit of Shri Rishi Pal , their SDE, besides that ofG.1 , Hard the Executive Engineer.He filed two affidavits one dated 6th October, 1993 and die nther dated 26th April, 1994. The Management also filed the affidavits of another Shri T.D.M. Rewari , Shri K.15 Singh dated 14th Dec., 1994 and 12th Feb. , 1996. Among the witnesses who filed the affidavils and the workman Sube Singh and Shri Rishipal Singh , the witness of the Management appeared as witnesses for their respective parties.

In short the claim of the workman is that he was engaged as Casual Mazılıyer on a permanent job on daily wages in March , 1982 to work under SDO Telecom , Rewari and he served the Management up to 30th January, 1989; that the Managerment terminated his services on 31s1 January, 1989. without giving him notice and without any inquiry, charge -sheet or compensation. They also retained his juniors in service , whereas disengaged hind, in violaห ร่ บด of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter En 4779 [ भाग ॥ - सण्ड 3 ( ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 28 , 2007/ क्रावण 6 , 1929

be referreitas Act; that the disengagement of the workman was illegal, unjustified and an unfair kabour practice. The workonan lias remained without work all through this period and is fully dependent upon his parents for liveliboodhe hasprayed for passing an award in bis favour holding that the disengagemcol of the workman was bad in law and the workman is entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages, costs of litigation and interest on the amount so found duc .

the Management from March , 1982 to Ралиагу , 1989, in total for 470 days . He denied that he had served only upto 1988 and stated that he had not left the job at his own no the claim of the Management thathe had served only for 19 ) days is not correct . fle admitted to have been married, but claimed that he is dependent upon his parents for livelihood. Risbi Pal SDR who appeared as a witness for the Managernent stated that the workman had served the Management from June 1988 upto January , 1989 and denied his claim that he hud served them from March, 1982 to January 1989. He adroitted that the Management does not possess the muster rolls for a period prior to 1988. He denied that the workman had served the Management from January,1988to Dec, 1988 ic . for mоге нь 240 days .He failedto show where the marster rolls for that period are as they were keeping the muster rolls only for 5 years only. He admitted that no notice was issued to ale workman nor hewas served with any charge sheet before the termination of his services . He further denied that amy junior of the wurkman was retained in service.

As noted earlier the Management filed Written Statement and amended it twice . The amended statemen of the Management dated 26th May , 1995, is the final Written Statement . According to this, the plea of the Management is that the workman was not employed through Employmem Exchange against a regular vacancy. He had regularly worked on muster rolls against the post of an absentee Casual Labourer . The workman wes που given a regular appointment . Denying that the workman was engaged in Feburuary. 1980 or relieved on 30th January , 1969, it is stated by them that the workman had served the Management for207 days from Feb. , 1988 10 January, 1989 . Claiming hal the muster Folls for the period Feb. , 1988 το May, 1988 was not available with them , it is stated by them that the workman had not continuously worked for the Management nur be bad served the Management for 240 days preceding 12 months preceding the date of his disengagement. According to the Management the workman had served them for only 207 days . The Management thus did not violate the provisions of Section 25-F of the Art while disengaging the workman nor they violated the principles of natural justice or rules . They denied the contents of para 5 of the Claim Petition and have prayed for dismissal of the reference .

It is oo record that the workrdan also filed two replications, presomably immediately after the filing of the Wrillen Statement by the Management and then after the filing of the amended Written Statements . Both the applications have merged in the final replication dated 27th March , 1996. Accordingto that the workman denied the claim of the Management so made in the Written Statement. He reiterated that he had begun the service with the Managerment in March , 1982 under SDO Telecom, Rewari as a Casual Mazdoor, on muster mills. According to him the workattaun had served the Management for 470 days . He further claimed that he had served the Management for more thac 240 days 12 months preceding the date of termination of his services. He disputed the details of the working days given by the Management stated that the Management has given different versions of their case in the Writer: Statement and in the affidevil of their witnesses . He alleged that the Managerment has violated the provisions of Section-25- F of the Act and thus the termination of the services of the workman is bad in law,

Theworkman , in his statement, admitted the contents of the affidavit exhibit W -1 and stated that he had served

Ihave considered the subraission made by the parties and bave also gone through the record. The pleadings of the parties makes interesting reading . In the Weiteen Statement dated 16th October , 1993, the Management claimed that the workinan had served the Management fromMarch, 1986to Novembet, 1988 i.c. only for 190 days during the span of two years and cight months . Replying to the same averment of the workman the Management io theis Written Statement dated 16th October, 1993 slated that the workman had served the Management from Feb., 1988 во Балингу , 1989. According to them in 12 months preceding the date of termination of the services of the workman he had served the Management for 215 days , chus they gave different versions without reconciling the two figures and without giving the hasis for their varied statements . Shri G.1 . Handa in his affidavit dated 5th October, 1993 and the one filed on 19th May. 1998, he claimed that the workman had served the Management from Feb, 1988 to January, 1989, for 236 days . Shri K.B. Singh another witness of the Management in bis affidavit dated 14th Dec., 1994 gave the number ofdays , the workman served the Management as 236 days hut in his subseyen affidavit dated 12th February, 1996 he gave the number of day's during which the workman had served them as 207 days . In the earlier affidavit he showed that the workm had worked for the Management in Feb. , 1988 , but in the subsequent affidavit he claimed that he does not possess the muster rolls of February , 1988, so was not in a positivo to say asto for how many days the workman bad served the Management during Feb. , 1988. The workman has claimed that churing the month of October , 1966 , he had served for28 days, in December 1988 fur 19 days whereas theManagement claimed that the workman had served for 17days in October , and 28 days in December. In any case the sum total comes to the same . Although , the 3151 G007-9 4780

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 28, 2007SRAVANA . コリコリ

[PART 11-SEC. 3 ( )) +

नई दिल्ली 3 जुलाई . 2007

Management did nor produce the muster rolls to support their claint They also did not produce S /Slari K.15 Singh alud Stiri Handa, en coconcile their assertion made in the allidavits with San Shri Rishi Pal , SDE who finally appeanel asa witness for the Management .

कन, अब, 2107,--औद्यागिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 143 की धारा 1 तुम में कंन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय खाद्य निगम के प्रबंधात्र हे सयद्ध नित्राजकों और उनके कर्मकारों क बाँच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ध औदोगिक वार में फेन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, नं. ।। चन्डींग के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1241/2006) को प्रकाशित करतो है , जो ऊंन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-7-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था

16091212:30: 2005- आई आर( सीएन- ५ ) ; अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 3rd Futy . 2007

S.O. 2107.-1 price of Section 17 of the [cdustrial Daspales Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby puhtashes the award ( Ref. No. 1241; 2006 ) of the Central Cement Industrial Tribunal Labour Court , No. Khandigarhas shown inthe Anоехите in the Industrial Dispute berween the management of Foxxd Corporation of Imba as her workmen , received by the Central Linvernm13-7-2007.

No.1 .-2201 2/ 32/ 2005 - IR( CM- 11 ) | AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXTRE

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOURCOURTNO - IL CHANDIGARH

SHRIKULDUSINCIL Presiding Officer

Case I.D. NO : 1241/2006

Registeret: 30-1-2006

Date of Deesica 11-3-2007

Mohinder Singh Co Sim Amagjit Singh Jattan and Shri Sanjeev Kamal Bawa . Authorised Representatove RAS FL.N. 278?, Plisse ,Muhalb , Dist Ropar . Rupar

Petitioner

Thistrict Markager . Distract Sungcut . Saogrer .

-Responden

APPEARANCES

Jor the Workman

Mr. S. K. Bansal , Advucale

Mr. N.K. Zakhmi Advoca

I ur the Management

AWARD

Aftet perusing the paraclings of the parties and the statementsjof their wireses I find that the Managem has maule varied and different statements rebutting the claim the skenan as discussed above . Al certaju slage, they alrrmitted that the workman lad served the Management for 29 days in February . 1988 and at other place they canned that they do not have muster rolls of February. 1988 , so they are unable to show as to for how many days the workinin had served in Feb., 1986. Fhey further faibeel tu produce the record pertaining 10 the months of Oktobaci and December 1988 , although the result thai variation could have not brought any different situation , as theManagement claimed one day less than the workman. in October . 1988 , but they gave the number of days , the workman served during December, 1988, one day more in the workedan claimed in his statement if we look at the ise front the angle of the workman I find that he by his own admission he has l'ailed to prove that he had served the Management for 240 days 12 months preceding the date of teration of his services . He ahuitted in his replication and in the affidavit that he had served the Management upto January , 1989. If we count backward from January, 1989. he served the Managemem for 236 days . Nowhere in his pleadings he claimed that the Managenstand not given him the credit of Sturdays National Holidays or paid holidays. It is to be taken that he nas included all these days in the days during which he had served the Management. Thus by his own saying he had not served the Management for 240 days . Ele claims to have served then: from March, 196210 January. 1981) making of days as 470. The Management אות however de disclaim Liven if that claim of the workman is taken to inne , his services before Feb. , 1988 , спи chanted for the simple seasons that in terrins uf Section 25-15 of the Act . the working days to be taken into account . should and go beyond 12 months , from the date ol termination of services of the workman . In my opinion, the workman has failed to show that he had served the Management for2-410 days preceding the date of termination of his services thus he is not entitled to the benefits under Section of the Act . The entitlement of the benefits der that, section could only he I considered atter it was found thatthe worknem had served the Managennem for a year as defined by Section 25 -B of the Act The claim of the wackroom is , therefore , not maintainable . The referetices is answered against him holding that he is not entitled to any relief. et a cupy of this sward be sent to flee appropriate Govt, for hecessary action and the file be consigned to records afici due capletion

The workıran continues to be absent . Mr. Barsal who had been appearing for him states that he bas nu instructions to appear in the case . The record of the file shows that the work is never appeared in the case . Only his counsel appeared and thar too without authority . The appes of the Counsel for him was recorded up his tibig the med peace . Ile has however, inled to submit the authority jetter from the workman to appear KULDIP SINGH , Presiding Olliver [ भाग खण्ड (10)

in the case. It was in these circumstances that summons Lo the workman were issued under register cover twice vide postal receipt No. 3192 dated 11th of October, 2006 алд 3304dated 20th of February , 2007. The notices sent have noe been niceived back unserved even till date . Tous there is strong presumption that the notices have been received by the workman hot he has chosen not to appear. It is in these circumstances that the matter is being disposed of in the absence of the workman .

The following reference was received by this Tribunal from Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Expicyment:

Whether the action of the Management of Food Corporation of India in terminating the services of Sh. Mohinder Singh , Beldar w.c.f. October, 1992 is kgaland justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned WUE.Kinan is entitled to and from which date?

As stated above even after getting the notice the workınan has not chosen to appear . He has also not filed the claim Petition . There is no evidence on record to support the claim of the workman that he was engaged by the Management and they had terminated his services in Ok1,1492 in violations of provisions of Industrial Dispune Act , 1947 tand the Principles of Natural Justice. The worknian is therefore, nor entitled to any relief. The reference is answered against him . let a copy of this award be , sent to the appropriate Government for necessary action and the Filehe consigned to records after due completion.

KULDIP SINGH , PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली , 3 जुलाई, 2007

का.आ. 2108- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय खाद्य निगम के प्रबंधततंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुर्व में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. II , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1204/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-7-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/433/2004- आई आवर ( सीएम -1 ) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the3rd July ,2007

S 5.0 2108 lo pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Governinent hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1204/ 2005) of the Central Governniena Industrial Tribunal - n Labour Court, No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Final Corporation of India and their workmen, receivedby the Central Government on 03-07-2007 .

[No. 1-22012/433/2004 - IR(CM- IT)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

4781

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 28 , 2007/ श्रवण 6 , 1929

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT- IL, CHANDIGARH PRESIDING OFFICER:

SHRIKULDIP SINGI CASELD. No : 1204/2005

Registered on : 3-10-2005

Date of Decidina : 11-4-2007

Baidev Singh clu Stiri Amarjit Singh Jartan & Sh Sanjeev Kumar Bawa , Authorised representative r /o H.N. 2782, Phase 7, Mohalli . Dist Ropar, Rupar.

PETITIONER

Versus

District Manager . FCI , District Sangrur, Sangrur .

RESPONDENT

APPEARANCE

For the Workman

Mr. S. K. Bansal , Advocate

Mr. N.K. Pakhani , Advocate For the Managemen

AWARD

The workman continues to be absent . Mr. Bansal when had heen appearing for him states that he has no iostations to appear in the case. The record of the file shows that the workman has never appeared in the case. Only his counsel appeared and that too without authority. The appearance of the Counsel for him was recorded on bis filing the memo of appearance .He has however , failed to submit the authority letter from the workman to appear in the case. It was in these circumstances that summons to the workman were issued unider register inver twice vide postal receipt No 3194 dated 11th of Oct , 2006 and 3304 dated 20th of Feb , 2007. The notices seol have not been received back unserved even till date. Thus there is strong presumption that the notices have been received by the workman but he has chosen not to appear . It is in these circumstances ibat the analler is being disposed off in the absence of the workman .

The following reference was received by the this Tribunal from Government of India , Ministry of Iabour andEmploymear :

Whether the action of the Management of Food Corporation of India in terminating the services of Sh.Baldev Singh, Beldar w.e.f. October, 1992 is legal and justified If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled 12 and from which date ?

As stated above even after getting the notice the workman has not chosen to appear . He has also not fiked the claim Perition . There is no evidence on recurd 10 support the claim of the workman that he was engaged by the Management and they had terminated his services in Oct, 1992 in violations of provisions of IndustrialDispute Act , 1947 and the principles of Natural justice . The workman is therefore, not entitled to any reliel. The reference is MIE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JILLY 28, 2007/SRAVANA 6, 1929

[PART 13 Su 30

AWARDD

answered against him . I er a copy of this awardbe sent to the appropriate Government for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion .

The Government of India vide their order Νο.1 .-40012791 [ RODLOdated 10th Dec.. 1991 :

KUJ DIP SINGH , PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली. 3 जुलाई , 2007

"whether the actior, of the Management of Telecom Department reitung to Sub -Divisional Office , Rewari , in terminating the services of Sluri Sher Singh So Shri Prabati Ram , Casual worker w.e.d. 31st January , 1909 isjust fie: 3, if not what relief he is entitled to ?" का.आ. 2109 , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) कॉ. धान 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के श्रोत्र, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट श्रौद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरणः श्रन्यायालय नं. 11, चण्डीगढ़ के पंवाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1:26/2005 को प्रकाशिन करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02-07-2000 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

| पं. एल-40012/7/ 9 ] आईआर हो. ) 」 सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi ,the3rd July , 2017

The notice of the reference was given to the parties who appeared through their representatives . The workrnan filed his statement et Cilim and the Management ther Written Statements dated 16th Sep .. 1992. They also tiled amended Written Statement on 16 October , 1993 and 2611 May, 1995. Theworkman fille pains dated 22nd March . 1993 and then 21 March . 1996. 11e also filed his affidavits dated 22nd March . 1913 and 27th March . 1996 . The Managemen: fik dilesflisavi : of Shri Rishi Pal . their SDE, besides that of G 1. Manca , the Executive Fings . who filed twualliklanis , one dauod 5th Octobxt , 1943anıl The other dated 25th Ajui, 1994. The Managemem aiso filed the affidavits ol' another T.D.M Rewari , Shri K.B Singh clated 14th Dec. 1994 and 25 , 1996. Among the wilnesses who filed the affidavits only the workman Shri Sher Singh and Sarı Rishipal Singh , the witness of the Management. appciateil das witnesses for their respective parties.

S.O. 2109-In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disnes Act , 1947 ( 14 of1947 ) , le Central Goveinnerd hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 1126 2005) Government Industral Tribunal-cum - Labour Court , No. U , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to le management of Telecom Department and their workman , which was received by the Central Government 13-7-2001.

[No. L-40012/7 / 91 -JR ( D1 )]

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Ollicer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOURCOURT- IL, CHANEMGARH

SHRI KULDIP SINGH

PRESIDING OFFICER.

CASEL D. No: 1126/2005

Registered on: 22-9-2005

Date of Decision: 3-4-2007

SHER SINGH SO SI IR PARBHATIRAM, FX MILY

CASUAL MAZDOOR. OO SDO TELECOM OLPARTMENT OF FLECOM,

RUWARI

In shurt the claim of the workman is that he was engaged as Casual Mazdoor on a permanen: joh un daily wages ,in Feb. 1980 and he served the Management upse 30th January . 1980 , will : interrnutzen breaks due to colorabiz exercise by them: Tha The Management terminated his services on Fist January..1989. without giving him notice and withoun any myury . large sheet or compensation. They also retained his juniork in service , whereas disengageal hum , in violation of the provisions of land USITLED Dispute Act, hereinafter to be relerred as Aca , that the disengagement of the workman was illegal , unjustified and an unfair labour practice . The workman has remained without work all through this period and is fully dependen upon his parents tur livelihood. Fie has prayed for passing an award in his favoar kulding that the disengagement f the workrnan was had in law and the workinarserittled to testatem in service with full back wages , costs of litigation and interest car the amounts fourd duc .

PETITIONER

Versus

TELLCOM DEPARTMENT THROUGH DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, THI FGRAPHS , GURGAON

RESPONDENT

APPEARANCE

For the Workraan :

SHRI N.P MITTAL

SHRI ARIJN WALLA

For the Managemen!:

Advocare

As noted calis the Management liled Written Statemenranil niended it twice . The amended sraterngel of the Management dared 26th May , 1995, is the final Written Statement . According to this, the plea of the Management is that workman was not employed through Employment t'whange against & regulai Vačety . He had regularly worked na muster rolls against the post of an absentee Casoul Jabourer. The work was not given a regular apintorent . Denying that the workman was engaged in l'eb . 1580 or relieved on 30h Jawary . 1989. il is slated by then that the workman had served the mallagerie Jor 17's days from Feli. , 1988 to January . リベリ 4783 [ भाग खण्ड (i) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 28, 2007: श्रवण 6 , 1929

Chaiming that the muster rolls for the period February , 1988 and September , 1988, were not available with then , it is stated by them that the workman had no continuously worked for the Management nor he had served the Management for 240 days preceding 12 months from the date of hus disengagement .According to the Managemenl the workinan had served them for only 176 days . The Managemens thus did not violate the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act while disengaging the workman nor they violated the principles of nanural justice or rules . They denied the contents of paras 3 10 5 of the Claim Petition and have prayed for dismissal of the reference .

claimed that the workman bad served the Management frown February, 1988 to January , 1989 ie , only for 236 days. Replying to the same averment of the workman the Management to their Written Staterneal dated 26th May, 1995 stated that the workraan had served the Management from February , 1588 to January , 1989.Accordingto that in 12months preceding the date of termination of the services of the workman he had served the Management for 176 days. Thus they gave different versions without reconciling the two figures and without giving the basis for their varied Statements. Shri G.L. Handa in bis affidavit dated 5th October, 1993 and the one filed on 19th May , 1994, he claimed that the workman had served the Management frown February , 1988 to January, 1989 , for 215 days . Shri K.B. Singh another witness of the Managerment in his affidavit dated 14th December, 1994 gave the number of days the workman served the Management as 215 days but in his subsequent affidavit dated 12th February , 1996, be gave the number of days during which the worioman served them as 176 days. In the subsequent affidavit he claimed that he does not possess the muster rolls of February, 1988, so was not in a position to say as to for how many days the workman bad served the Management during February , 1988. The Management did not produce the rouster rolls tu sepport their claim . They also did not produce S/Shri K.B. Singh und Sari G.L. Handa, to reconcile their assertions made in the affidavits with that of Shei Rishi Pal , SDF who fually appeared as a witness for the Management.

It's on record that the workman also filed two replications , presumably inımediately after the filing of the Written Statement by the Management and then after the filing ot the womended Wrinen Statements . Both the applicativos bave merged in the final replication dated 27th March, 1996. According to that the workman denied the clain of the Managerment so made in the Wrihen Statement. He reilealed that he had hegun the service with the Managanent in February, 1980 under SDO Telecom, Rewari as & Casual Mazdoor , on muster rolls . According to him theworkinan bad served the Management for 593 days. He further claimed that he had served the Management for more than 273 days 12 months preceding the date of termination of his services . He disputed the details of the working days given by the Management stated that the Managerment has given different versions of their case in theWritten Statement and in the affidavit of their witnesses . lie alleged that the Management bas violated the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Act and thus the termination of the Services of the workman is bad in law.

After perusing the pleadings of the parties and the stateracuts of their witnesses I find at the Management has made varied and different statements. They further failedto produce the tecord pertaining to the months of February, and September, 1988 , although the result ofthat variation could not have brought any striking differeное, as the Management claimed one day less than claimedby the workman, in October , 1988, but they gave the number of days , the workman served during December , 1988 as one day more than the workman claimect in his statement.

This worknian , in his stalement, admitted the commes of the affidavit exhibit W - l and stated that he had served the Management from February , 1980 and 240 days 12 months preceding the date of termination of his services . He denied that he had served only upto November, 1988 . He admitted to have been married, but claimed that he is dependent upon his parents for livelihood. Rishi Pal SDE who appeared as a witness for the Management stated that she workman had served the Management from June 198k up ) January , 1989 and deriied the claim that be bad served them from January , 1988 to December, 1988 for240 days. He adroicted that the Management docs not possess the nouster rolls for a period prior to February , 1988 as they keep the muster rolls only for five years . Lie denied that the workman had served the Management from January 1988 to December , 1988 i.e. for more than 240 days. He failed to show where the muster rolls for that period are , as they were keeping the muster rolls for 5 years . He admitted that Do notice was issued to the workman nor he was served with any charge sheet before the termination of bus services. He furtherdenied that any junior of the workman was retained in service.

I have considered the submission made by the parties and have also gone through the record. The pleadings of the parties make interesting reading . In the Written Statement dated 16th October , 1993, the Management

Ifwe look at the case from the angle of the workman I find that he by his own admission has failed to prove that he had served the Management for 240 days. He claimed to have served the Management for 29 days in February, 1988, a fact which was admitted by Shri K.B. Singh in his affidavit dated 14th December , 1994 and by Shri GL. Handa in his affidavit dated 5th October, 1993. Similarlyboth Sari Handa and Shri K.R. Singh also admitted that the workman had served the Management for to days in May , 26 days in June, but the third witness for the Management Shri Rishi Pal, denied the workman having served the Management in the months of March , April, May and February.He further claimed that the conster rolls of February. was available with them. Mr. Rishi Pal claimed that they do not preserve the onmuster calls for more than 5 years. Ifthat is so then the Management was in possession of the muster rolls in the year 1993 and 1994 since the muster rolls for the year 1988 were within the period of five years , as is claimed. It is noted carlier that the Management has not given any 4784

THE GAZETE OF INDIA: JULY 28, 200T/ SRAVANA 6. .929

cogent reason for having withdrawn the admission that the workman had served the Management for 29 days in February, 1968. for 10 days in May and for 36 days in June . All the witnesses of the Management hind maintained that the workrman had not served them in September, 1988 whereas the workman has claimed that he had served iltern for30days in September , 1988. He claimed in his replicatioo and in the affidavit that he had served the Managemen upto January , 1989. If we count back from January, 1989, be served the Management for 216 days be has failed to show, by any evidence, much less cogent evidence he had served the Managerment for 240 days. Nowhere in bis pleadings be claimed that the Малаgеmеnt bad те given him the credit of Sundays, National Holidays or paid holidays . It is to be taken that he has included all these days in the total days during which he had served the Management . Ibus by his own admission and failure to prove that he had worked in September, 1988 also. He claims 10 bave served them from February, 1980 Jary, 1989 making the total number of days as 547, The Management has however , denied his claim. Even if that claim of the workman is taken to be true, his services before February, 1998 , cannot be counted for the simple reasons that in terms of Section 25-B of the Act, the working days 10be taken into account, should not go beyond 12 months , from the dard of termination of services of the workman . In my opinion the workman has failedto show that be bad served the Management for 240 days preceding the date of termination of his services . Thus he is not entitled to the benefits under Section 25 -F of the Act . "The entitlement of the benefits under that section could only be considered after it was found that the workman liad served the Management for a year as defmed by Section 25-$ of the Act The claim of the workman is , therefore, not maintainable . The reference is answered against him holding that he is not entitled to any relief. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Government for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion .

KULDIP SINGH , Presiding Ollicer 'नई दिल्ली , 4 जुलाई , 2007

का.आ. 2110-मौद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 कन 14) की धारा 17 के अनुश्ररण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के चीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरणः श्रम न्यायालय सं. ॥ चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1313/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-7-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

में एल :2012/133/91 कटाई आर ( बी ) की T

अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 4th July ,200?

S.O. $ 110 . In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governinent hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 11 : 3 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Iabour Court-Il, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in

PART 11- SEC.3 ) the Jindustrial Dispute between the management of State Bank ofPatialaand the is workiner, received by the Central Govemment on 4-7-2007.

[No. 1-13012-13391 - IR (18-117-8-1 ) AJAY KUMAR . Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALAUM -LABOUR COURT- II, CHANTHGARH

SHRI KULDIPSINGH PRESIDINGOFHOUR:

CASE LD. No : LE13: 2005

Registered on : 22-09-2005 Date of Decision 3-04-2017

Ranvesh Singh Su Sir Hamarsı Lid . Ex Swerper, Slati Training Centre R.01731 . Phase Vll . Mohali

... Peritioner The Regional Manager. State Bank of Patiala

..Respondent

APPEARANCE

For the Workinan :

Shri Hardial SinghHundal.

Advocate

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

Advocat

AWARD

The following reterence was received from Government of bicia Ministry of Labour vide their Order No. L- 12012133 -IRB - III ) dared 18th July, 2001:

"Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of Patiaia in termioating the services of Shr Ransesh Singh Sin Siri Banarsi Lal , Ex -Sweeper of the State Bank of Patiala . Panchkulaw.e.1.4th April . 1986 is legally valić and justified ? If not , to what reijcfthe workstu anand From which date?" The nogice of the wference was given to the partics who appeared through their Counsel The workman filest his statement of claim by which he claimed that he was appointed as a Sweeper ja 10th August , 1965. in the scale of450 and he served the Management upto th April , 1986 on which day his services were termined by the Managemem with mala fides and by an action which was arbitrary , discriminator and unjustified . The Management violated the provisions of Section 25-5 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947. hereinafter to be referred . for brevity. as Act . They further curum'ned violation of the provisions of the Act by appoiching Shri Chander Mohan , atter terminating the services of the workman . The Management further violated the previsions of Mixdel Standing Order as he was not regularized in service although he had put in 240 days servive to The Managerne whereas as per Mindel [ भान खण्ड ( ii) ]

4785

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 28 , 2007/ श्रावण 6 , 1929

StandingOrders, he was to be regularized in service , after beput in ninety days service . The workman has prayed for grant of relief of reinstatement , back wages and continnity in service .

served only for 229 days . They have given the detail عطامنال affidavit of their witness Anurag Sareen .According to them the workman did not serve from 10th October to 14th Oct, 1965 and then from 1st Feb. to 5th Feb, 1986. Even ifwe do not accept their this claim yer wilson take whole of the period, during which the workman claims to have served the Managerment it comes out to be 238. This period includes all Sundays, National Holidays and other paid bulidays . Thus the workman has failed to show that be bad served the Management for 240 days and that they violated the provisions of Section 25- F of the Act before terroinating his services ."The admission of the Management that they had not paid any compensation to the workman before terminating his services nor had held an inquiry against hizm or served any charge sheet on him , is also not helpful to the workman since he has failed to prove the basic requirement ofhaving served the Marugertent for 240days, twelve months preceding the date of termination of his services .

After the Management filed the Wristen Staternet, the workman tiled the reptication by which be submitted that since the Management violated the provisions of Section 25-R and F of the Act, therefore , the reference is maintainable . He further denied the claim of the Management that the reference is not maintainable for non- joinder of necessary panies and submitted that the Chief Inspector and the Regional Manager , were the employces of the Management Hank, therefore , the petition against the Management is maintainable . He also denied that the worshoan is late in raising the claim. In reply in the avermenis made in the Wrillen Statement , the workman reiterled the facts already stated in the Claim Petition and subroitted that since he was working against a permanent post , therefore , his claim is maintainable . He denied other assertions made by the Management in the Written Statement .

The Learned Counsel for the workman then argued that the Management resorted to unfair labour practice as they did not allow the workman to complete the service of 240days. In support of his claim he has not produced any evidence . To presume that since the Managemem disengaged the workman, therefore , they did not allow him towork to complete the service ui 240 days so as to be Called is workman . The workruan has produced no evidence to show that be was forced to leave the job . This plea is, therefore , not available in the workman .

The Management has put up their case through their Written Statement . They have laken preliminary objections to the maintainability of the reference stating that since the worsman did not serve the Management for 240 days and thersby ilid not fulfill the conditions so as to be called as a wurkman therefore, he has no right to maintain the claim.Tu is also their sutamission that the reference is bad for non- joinder und mis-joinder of the necessary parties as the workman should have macke the claim through the principal employer , which be bas failed to do . On meril it is their submissionthat the workman was only a part timer, purely emporary basis . He served the Management only. for 229 days.. He was , therefore , not a workınan and so at entitled to the benefit under Section - 25-15 and Fof the Act . 11 is also their claim that the suction of the Managemeru, to cdisengage him was justified . They denied that they have engaged any part time sweeper in their service.

The workanas filed his affidavit in suppon of his dixim whereas he Management filed the affidavit of Shri Anurag Sareen, their Chief Manager. They have also placed on record the photo copy of the office menn . Both, the workman and Shri Anurag Sarcen witness of the Management , appeared as witness in the case for their respective panies .

I leave gone through the file and have also considered the opposing claims of the parties. The statements made by the worknian and the witness for the Managerment have also beec perused by me .

The other claim made by the workman is under Section 25-G & H. According to him , after terminating his services the Management engaged Shri Chander Mohan whu bas been now recommended for regularization . The Management has denied thus chaim of the workman . The workness has not produced any evidence to show that Chander Mohan was engaged by the Management that two after terminating the services of the workman. In his sraternean he did not refer to this claim of his and, as stated earlier he has not produced any evidence Lu show that Chander Mohan was engagedby the Management after the terraination of his services. There is a copy of the office wote macked A , un repord which reads that one Chander Mohan was working with the contractor , who was providing the work force for sweeping the premises to the Management and who had offered to work for the Management on half of the wages the Management wils paying to the contractur . There is, however , no proof to show that the mote submitted by the Chief Inspector to the Management on 10th May, 1990, was approved by the bigber authorities and Shri Chander Mohan was engaged. Thus I fund اسال all the claims made by the workinan are Do proved by him . therefore , he is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered against hiru . Let a copy of this awardbe sent to the appropriate govt. for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion .

The basic condition , required to be fulfilled . by the withmir. so as to get the retief is that he was a workman as defined by the Act . In his own pleadings he stated that be had served the Management from 4th April , 1986 upto 101L August , 1965, on a salary of Rs.450 per month . Ifwe count these days the workman did not serve the Management for 240 days. According to the Managemem the work po had

KULDIP SINGH, PresidingOfficer 4786

THE GAZETTE OF INIHA : JULY 28, 2007 , SRAVANA 6. 1929

[PART 11 SEC.3 (ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 4 जुल्यई, 2007

justified! If yes, to what reliel the workman is entitled and frurn what dare."

का.आप 2111, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पी.पी.डब्ल्यू. डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के जीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकराण नं. + II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 126/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 47 2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

The workinan appicant has filed statement of claim . In the statement of claura at has been stated that the workinan Shri Nagender Kumar , Sin . Slır : Pirangi Lal is working as Pump Operator nu sortrays labour with the responden management aimugharactor Mis .Anand and Comisariy, 15:32, Fast Punjabi Bagh .New Delhi-110026 . The workman has been working with the respondent managenient with effect from May , 1996 to execure the naintenance wurks in the establistment of the respondent / rnanagement at LARI . Pusa, New Delhi .

सं. एल -42012/ 156/2003- आई आर ( ओएम ॥॥ ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Thelhi , the 4th July, 2007

Than the workman has put ir muze thar: 240 days in each year in service sier the respondent'managenier and also in the 12 els proceeding the terminan uf his services .

That the wurkman has been suntinuous employment with the responden: //management ever since his initial appointment . Thai allthough the responden: management has changed tus contractors several times since then the services of the wurkenan have been continunus S.O. 2111.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12t / 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - curn- Labour Court . No. 2, New Delhi as shown in the Anne Kie in the industrial Disputebetween the management of Central Public Works Department, and their workmeת received by the Central Government on 4-7-2007.

[No. 142012/156/2003- IR ( CM-TI ) ]

That till dari: nu seniority list has been suuntaaned by the respnekle management or even for that matter by The contractor .

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXT.RE

BEFORE THE PRESTING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-LIM- LABOUR COURT -11, NEW DELHI

That the wurkman has been performang all the duties of operatorpump operator as has been described in the CPWD workman . The duties performed by the workman: are essentially the same as are being performed by the regular employees of the CPW נו

PRESIDING OFFICER : R. N. RAJ .

1.TD. No.126/2004

IN THE MATTEROF:

That the work dry the workman is of an essential and pennarel nature and restablishment of the management cannor upate effectively or at all withum the service of puny operator operator . The wurk til the workman is directly connected with the day -to-day fuctionog of the electrical division in which the workman is employed arul are essential for its exference .

Shri Nageler Kumar ( Pump Operator), Ciu . All India CPWD ( MRM ), Karamchari Sangathan (Regd.), 4823, Balhis Nagar Extension, Gali No. 13 , Shahidro, Delhi - 110032.

Versus

1? al though or paper it is clepreted as if the workman herein is the employes of trader but in reality the contractor is a mere share entity designed to deny the status of permanency to the workman and other similarly situated contract lalumur . That contract between de contractor u the management is not genuine but just a smoke screen to defeat the provisions of various honeficial Legistations designed to proteer the interests of workers.

1. TheDirector General ofWorks, CPWD , Nimban Bhawan , NewDelhi , i 2. The Exoqnive Eogioner , Elect Division - II , CPWD, IARI, Pusa, New Delhi 110012.

AWARD

The Ministry of Iabour by its letterNO.1 .-42012/ 156/ 2003 ( IR ( CM - II ) CENTRAL . GOVERNMENT Dated 9-8-2004 has referred the following point for adjudicatίσαι .

The point rus as hereunder-

That in day- c -day werking , instructions to do any Task is given by the engineers of the PWD as to what rask is to he . lone and how it is to he done . At nu point of time during his employment in the work of the workruan ever supervised by the contractor or any of his employee but a! all points of time the workman was under the direct supervision and enamel of the CPWD .

"Whether the contract between the management of CPWL) and their contractor is sham ? If so , the demand oftheAll lndia CWD ( MRM ) Karanichuri Sangathan for regularisation / absorption of the services of Shri Nagender Kumar . Pump Operator is legal and

That the management has been continuing the workman as a contractusi kamer since years even thougla vacant sancrionel posts are available with the management but the managemen instead of employing the work 4787 [ भाग [I-खण्ड ( in) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 28, 2007/श्रावण 6 , 1929

heen filed. The opportunity of filing rejoinder and affidavit was closed on 28-6-2007.

and other similarly situated workman for work which is essential of a permanent Duture has been surrendering the samc.

The workman applicant has filed this case for regularization/ absorption as he was a contract worker . The claim does not disclose the tenure of services of the workman through the contractor .

The management has filed written statement . In the written statement it has been stated that the claim petition instituted by claimant is absolutely wring , misconceived and is filed in abuse to the process of law.

That the claim perition is liable to be dismissed as claimant coes not have any locus standi to file the same against the answering respondents.

The workman has not filed any document or affidavit to prove that he worked under the control and supervision of the management . He has failed to prove the claim stulemeal .

The reference is replied thus :

That the present claim petition is liable to be dismissed as no cause of action have ever been arisen in favour of the claimant against the answering responden's.

That the claim petition is liable to be disanissed in view of the . Contract Labour ( Regulation &Abolition ) Act, 1970 and also there is no relationship of employees and employer between the management and the alleged workman.

The contract between the management of CPWD and Ibeir coolractor is not sham. The demand of the All India CPWD ( MRM ) Karamchari Sangathan for regularisation/ absorption of the services of Shri Nagender Kumar , Pump Operator is neither legal war justified . The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relie Cas prayed for.

Theaward is given accordingly.

Lone:29-6-2007 R.N. RAJ , Presiding Oliver नई दिल्ली , 4 जुलाई , 2007

That the clairo of the applicant is liable 10be dismissed in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judurnent dated April 10, 2006 in CA No. 3595-3612.99 with CA No. 1861- 20630001,3849/2001, 3520-3520-3524/2002 and CA No.1968 2006 arising out of SIP No. 9103-9105 of 2001 in the case of Secretary,State of Karnataka and Ors . Vs. Una Devi and Ors , wherein Hon'ble Court has held that contract / casual workers have no sight of regularization because they are not engaged by following proper procedure of recruitment

का.आ. 2112-मौद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुचरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ई सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण असनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 70/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 47 2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था। It is further submitted that the alleged workman has never been employed by the CPWD. The workpian was admittedly engaged by the contractor to whom the contract wasanvard sd ( registered onntractor ) by the CWD on work basis.

[सं. एल- 22012-426/1998 आई आर ( सी -11 ) ] आाजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 4th July,2007

It is further subunited that the alleged workman bas never been employed by the respondents , bence completion of 240 days of service as clairmed by the alleged workman does not arise. The provision of 240 days is applicable at case of casual workers of CPWD). The claimant is not even a casual worker of CPWD rather he is a Contractor's worker.

S.O. 2112-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Lodustrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 70/ 1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Asansol as sbowo in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI . and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Govemment on 4-7-3007.

(No. 1-22012/426/ 1996- IR (C -II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

It is further submined that alleged workman is employee of contractor and there is no direct relationship of employce and employer between the respondents and workman , Therefore , the workman is not entitled for any henefits and protection provided under I.D. Act , 1947 . Hence question does not arise for maintaining seniority of the applicant hy the answering respondent

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT:

II is further submitted that the respondents are acquainted with the works as per the terms of the contract which were awarded to the contractor . There is no direct supervision and control of the management over the contract ta' sour .

Sri Md . Sarfaraz Khan, Presiding Officer. REFERENCE NO. 70 OF 1999,

PARTIES:

Ir transpires from perusal of the order sheet that the case was fixed on 1-3-2007 for rejoinder and affidavit. The workman did not turn up- on 1-3-2007,5-4-2007,3-5-2007, 30-5-2007 and 28-6-2007 . Rejoinder and affidavit bas not

TheAgent, Bejdih-Meabani Collieries, of E.C.L. , Methani , Rurdwan .

3151 2007-10 4786

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 28, 2007/ SRAVANA 1920

Pari Il Sex: 3 (10 ) Vry

workinen who were absent for more than sex months tome year.

The Asst General Secicrary, Kuyala Mazdoor Congress.

Asansol, Burdwan

REPRESENTATIVES:

3. It is ziso the case of the um that the puriѕh- trient of dismissal is the carne 1050 harsh and disproportionate to gravity of alleged miscondυση.

For the daoagement

> Sti P. K. Gossn . Advocate.

For the upion (Workman) : Sri RKTripathi . Chief Organising Secretary . Koyala Mazdoor Congress. Asansol ,

INDUSTRY: COAT.

STATE . WEST BENGAL

Dated the 19-6-2007.

AWARD

It is further clameda mu second show cause notice wasserdam workman and he was out rightly dismissed whiel : is paste verdict of the Supreme Coun The absener ofthe workman concerned from his duty wirs the to his sickness which was heyond his control and ir. suppon of his son required medical ectificate had been produced . The poor attendance of the work - ny: haring the previnus sea was also dae to his sickness and family catastrophe and hence beycad is control A relied or his reinstatement in his evige with full back wages and all consequemial berelts arising there from wish. effect from the ate el his dismissal has been sough foi .

In exercise of powers conferred by clause(d ) of Sub- section (1) and Sub- section 2 (A ) of Section 10 of پالا Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , Govt . of India through the Ministry of Tabour vide its letter No. 1 20012: 426/98-1R( CM -II ) daterl 4-7-1999 has been pleased tu refer the followingdispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Panniana Colliery of Mrs. ECL in dismissing Sh. Bukhraj Majhi , Line Mazdoor from service isjus- lified? If nor to what relief is the workman entitled?"

On the calier in the celence case of the manage- the pleadings in short is hist the wirkiran concerned con mined misuxanthiet absenting himself from his durn without leave for which he was charge sheeted and the managemam decided in cuniduct a depar.- mental enquiry : maker and accordingly an enquiry oflicer was appoint the enquiry on the basis of the charge sheet . Sulticiem opportunity was given in le workman to defend tinself fur the sake of natural justice.

After laving received the Order No. L-2301 2:426,98 IR(CM-J ) ) dated 9-7-1999 of the aforesaid reference from theGovt . of India, Miabistry of Labour , New Delhi , for adju- dication reference case No. 70 of 1999 was registere 23-07-9618-09-02 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed in issue notices through the registered post to the partids concerned directing therm to appear in the couri on the date fixed and file their writted statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in sup port of their claims . In compliance of the said order notices by the registered post were issued to the parties cuncerned . Sri P.K. Goswami , Advocate and Sri R.K.Tripathi , Chief Organising Secretary of the union appeared in the Cour representing the Management and the union respectively .

& The further delence ense of the management is thar the enquiry officer had sent notices of enquiry Duง ปร workman nad pitalethis guilt . After concluding the en- quiry the enquiry obicer feand the charges proved anil finally submitted his report to the authority curuernet whu after perusing the chiquis repuci , past performance and aher documents . approved dismissal of the delinquen: employee and accordingls me was dismissed Absentee- ism without permissions sans bi he the habit of the work- men in cost industry which is required to be restrained fo the sake of national interest as well as for the interest of the public secher , en have taken part hy discharg ing her ko dutice and in ne circumstance The should encourage any of its workinen to adopt any such waywhich may be harmful to the company .

In brief compass the case of the union as set forth in its written statement is that Sh . Budhraj Majhi , was a regullar employce of Patniwihana Colliory having his desig- nition as Line Mazdoor of Patmohana Colliery . The msin case of the union is that the said delinquent employee was absent from his duty with effect from 21-8-97102-11-97 and accordingly a charge sheet was issued on 1-11-97 to which the workman concerned had replied stating therein that his upscace was due to physical unfitness . The fur- ther case of the union is that the workman had pleaded during the enquiry proceeding that he had heen undergo- ing the medical treatment due to his illness and in suppor thereof he had already submitted medical certificate granted by his attending physician Dr. V.S.Verma, GAMS Regn . No. 30655. The delinquent employce was absent from his duty for period of less than three months and in many саяся рынкадетem has considered reinstatemem of the

7. It is also he managemem tha on cer- tain occasions the concerned workman was charge sheered for the same act of misconduct and punishment of stop- plog increments were infl.cleal . It is also claimed that the plea of sickness Mason is her writion statement is a lamc excuse for the purpose of condoming unauthorized absence The maragerne et has arranged many doctors, hospitals to provide proper medical is employees but the cun- seraed workrone did not report to any of the doctors ne lhospital . The story of treatment nade in this written sale- ment is condoceland attrustworthy, the union is pain 10 prove the same string leave it is prayed that your honour may he pleased to held that dismissal of Budhraj Majhi was justified and legal and the workman concerned is pi entitled to any icliefin relie's sought for .

4789 भाग - खा (ii) )

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 28 , 2007/ श्रवण 6 , 1929

day Гальтон . Тikewise the union has filed the Xerox сору oftheMedical Certificate ofthe worluman concerned show- ing his fitness to join his duty . The management bas pleaded that the plea of sickness taken by the union is a lame excuse and the story of treatment is said to be con cocted and not trustworthy.

& in view of the pleadings of both the parties and The materials available on the record I find certain facis which are admitted one . Sobefore entering into the dis- cussion of the merit of the case Iwould like to meation those factswhich are directly or indirectly achmitted by the parties.

7. It is the admitted fact that the delinquent empinyoc Rudhraj Majhi was a permanent.employce of the company working as Line Mazdoor at Patmohana Colliery of Mis . Eastern Coalfields Limited .

10. I is the further admitted fact that the workman concerned was absent from his duty with effect from 21-8- 97 to 13-11-97without any leave , prior permission or infor matlioni 10 the managemen

16. It is quite clear from the Enquiry Proccedings and its report that the delinquent employce had received the charge sheet and had participared in the enquity proceedings . He has calegorically admitted in his state- ment before the enquiry officer that he did not send amy information to the management about his illness and dor- ing the said relevant period he was absent franı his dutyas be was undergoing the treatment by a private doctor for which the medical certificare was produced .

11. It is also the admitted fact that a domestic en- quiry was conducted by an enquiry officer and the work- man had dily participated in the enquiry proceeding and sufficient copportunity was given to defend himself and in the domestic enquiry the workmen concerned was held guilty for the only charge of an unauthorized absence for the relevant period amounting to misconduct under clause 17(n) of the Model Standing Onder . It is apparently clear from the record that there is no charge sheet against the workınan for being habitual absentee.

17. Having gone through the entire facts , circum- stance , enquiry proceedings and the findings of the en- quiry officer 1 find that the delinquent employee was ad- mitedly absent from his duty w.e.f. 21-8-97 101-11-97 C tinuously without any leave, prior permission and infora- tion to the management. The enquiry officer has rightly held him guilty for an unauthorized absence under clause 17(1 )( n) of the Model Standing Order applicable to the establishment and in view of the afforesaid prevailing facts the delinquent employee deserves some suitable punish ment for the alleged proven misconduct as provided in the Model StandingOrder.

12.1 is also clear from the statement of the workman before the enquiry officer that he was seriously ill andwas under the treatness of a private practitioner Dr. Vijay Shankar Verma during the relevant period of absence from his duty and the Medical Certificate of treatment and 61- ness had been filed during the course of enquiry .

18. Now the only main point in issue for consideration before the court is to see as to bow far the punishment awarded to the concerned workman by the management is just , proper and proportionate to the al- leged nature of the proved misconduct .

13. It is the settled principle of law that the facts admitted need not be proved . Since all the aforesaid facıs are admitted one , so I do not think proper to discuss these facts in detail .

14. The record further goes to show that on 23-04-2002 a hearing on the preliminary point of validiry and fairness of the enquiry proceeding was made . Since the fairness and validity of the enquiry proceding was not challenged and the then Presiding Officer did not find any invalidity or unfairness in the enquiry procceding, the enquiry proceeding was held to be fair and valid and the case was fixed for final hearing on the merit of the case. The final hearing of the case was made on 31-6-2006 and the award was kept reserved for order.

19. Heard the learned lawyer for the management and the union representative in detail on the aforesaid points in issue. It was submitted by the union that it is a simple case of an unauthorized absence for more than two months only and the absence from duty during the rel- evant period is doly explained and the reasons of absence supported with the medical certificate is relevant and satis- factory . It was further submitted that the workman соn- cerned bas got unbleraish record during the service lenure and there is no charge of habitual absence against him and that iswhy no any chit of paper has been filed to show thai previously he was punished or charge sheeted for the sanie offence. The enquiry officer has also not whispered a word in this regard in his findings . These all prevailing facts and circumstance go to indicate that it is the first offence ofthe workmanconcerned which bas been sufficiently explained and supported by the medical certificate indicating the com pelling circumstance beyond the control of the workman concerned. It was vehemently argued that a simple case of unauthorized absence for two months can not be said to he a gross misconduct . The attention of the court was drawn towards the provisions of the Model Standing Or- derwhere the extreme punishment brescribed is dismissal 15.On perusal of the record it transpires that none of the parties has examined any oral witness in support of its case . The raanagement has Gled the Xerox copies of the charge sheet dated 1.11.97 with the explanation of the work- man concerned , copies of the enquiry proceedings together with the enquiry report with its findings . letter of dismissal dated 17 / 18-2-98 . These all documents are admitted one as the correctness or genuineness of these documents have not been challenged by the side of the union and these documents bave been officially issued in course of dayto 4790

THE GAZEITE OF INDIA : JULY 28 , 2007 / SRAVANA 6. 1929

[PART 11-SEX:. ( )] as pet the gravity of the unisconduct and it was claimed that the extreme penalty can not he imposed upon the work- man in such a minor case of alleged misconduct of an unauthorized absence. The points of argument appearsto be reasonable and convincing.

20.Jhas been several Limes clearly observed by the different Hon'ble High Courts and the Apex Court as well that beford imposing a punishment of dismissal it is necessary for the disciplinary authority to consider socio- economic hack ground of the workman , his family buck ground, length of service put in by the employee , his past records and other surrounding circumstances including the nature of misconduct and lastly the compelling circum сгалiсе to commit alle misconduct These are the relevant butors which must have to be kept in mind by the author ity at the tinte of imposing the punishraent which of course has not been done by the competent authority in this case .

any merler for intention is not just and proper , rather it is too harsh a punishment which is totally disproportiornate to the alleged proven misconduct . Such a simple case of misconduct should have been dealt with leniently by th management . In this view of the matter T think it just and proper to modify and substitute the same by exercising the powerunder clause 11 ( A) of the LD . Act , 1947 in order to meet the ends ul justice and as such this impugned order ofdismissal ul the concerned work mari is hereby set aside and he is directed to be reinstated with the continuity of the service. In the light of facts , drcumstance and the proven misconduct for which the puoisbracat of disanissal was awarded to the workman concerned , I think it appre- priate that the delinquent employee be unposed a punish- ment of stoppage of threz increments withinur my cumula- tive effect . It is further directed that the workman con- cerned will he entitled to get orily 40 % of the back wages which will serve the ends of justice. Accordingly it is hereby.

ORDERED

that let an "Award " he and the same is passed on contest in favour of the workman concerned , Send the copies of the award to the Govermanent of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.

MD. SARFARAZ KITAN , PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, जुलाई 2007

का.आ. 2113,- ओद्य गिक विवाद अधिनियम.: 947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा । कके अनुसरण में, फेन्द्रीय सरकार सी. पो. डब्ल्यू, हाँ. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संचद्ध नियंजनों और उनके कर्मकारों के बोच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट अंद्योगंज विवाद में केन्द्रीय मरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. नई दिल्लं क पंचार संदर्भ संख्या 166/2004 ) गां प्रकाशित करती है , वं कंन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-7 2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं. एल 40012 232: 2003 - उगई आर ( सीएम [ ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delicile 4th July , 2007

21..Amittedly the delinquent employee is an illiter- ate mariot weaker section of the society who is undoubt- edly financolly weak and poor who has suffered a lot for nance than eight years l'or a minor misconduct of unautho rized absence for more than two months under the compelling circumstance beyond his control . It is appareal from the record that there is no charge of babirual alisentzeison against him and it is the first offence . Aparı from this the workman has got unblemish reened as r evidence orklocument has been produced by the manage- ment in this regard . The arnention of the court was drawn by the uniontowards the provision of the Model Standing Onder jaid down ander clause 27( 1 ) (page 15) where vari- ous minor genishment have been prescribed to be awarded according, the gravity of the misconduct . I fail to under- stand as to why only maximum ponishine available under the said claust : should be awarded in the present Jacts and cicumstances of the case . It has been observed Try the Apex Court that justice must be lempered with merey and than thoidelinquent workman should be given ал сур paruniay tu teform himself and to be loyal and disciplinary employee of the mаладстем, 11 is further clear from the record that no second show cause notice bact been issued in the workman helure imposing the punishment of dismissal uithe concerned workman which is the direct violation of the mandate of the Apex CourL In this regarda circular was also issued by the management for implemen- cation of the mandates of the Apex Court but the disciplin- Bry authority vielared the direction as well and denied the pranciple of datural justice .

5.0. 211.3. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmen : licrelts publishes the award (Ref . No. 166 2004) of the Centrai Govement Industrial Tribunal -con- Iabour Court. No. 2 New Delhi is shown in the Annexure: in the Industrial Dispute between the management of CPWD and their workrmen, received by the Central Govemmeal ( 114-7-2017.

[ Sc. L -43012232/2003 - IR (CM- II) ) AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer 22.Ilowever. 1 ans of the view that the punishment of sdesmissal for an unauthorized absence under the con :pelling circumstance for a short period and without [ भाग-खण्ड ( ⅱ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 28, 2007 / श्रवण 6 , 1929

4791 ANNEXLIRE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL COVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOURCOURT- IL, NEW DELHI

R.N. RAI , PresidingOfficer

L.D. No. 166/2004

IN THEMATIEROF:

Shri Sunil Kuhru ( Generator Operator),

That though on paper it is being depicted as if the workman berein is the employee of the contractor but in reality the contractor is a mere shan entity designed to deny the status of permanency to the workman and other similarly situated contract labour. The pantract berween the contractor and the management is not genuine bul just a smoke screen to defeat the provisions of various beneli- cial legislations designed 10 protect the interests of workers.

C/o. All India CPWD (MRM), Karamelkari Sangathan (Regd), 4823, Balbie Nagar Extension, Gali No. 3, Shahadra, Delhi-110002

Verans

That the dayto day working , instructions to do any task is being given by the engineers of the CPWD 390 what task is to be done and how it is to be done. At no point of time during his employment was the work of the workman ever supervised by the contractor or any of his employees but at all points of time the workman is under the direct supervision and control of the CPWD.

The Executive Engineer . ED - IV, CPWD, I.P. Blawwan, ПО, New Delij .

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No.L-42012/232/ 20003 ( IR (CM - 1 ) Central Goventiment dt . 3-11-2004 15 referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder :-

That the very fact that the workman during the course of his employment since November, 1994 has been con- tinuously working under the same management but under different contractors shows that there is an actual employer- employee relationship between the CPWD. and the work- man berein and the contractor is a mere sham entity so that The workoroan is denied the status and privileges of regular employment and remain as contractual labour for his entire life.

"Whether thedemand of All India CPWD (MRM) Kiracochari Sangathani for reinstatement and regu- Janzation of Shri Sunil Kumar, S/o. Shri Prem Kumar, Generator Operator in the Organization of CPWD is legal and justified ? If yes, to what relief is thework- man entitled and from which date."

That the management has been continuing thework. man as a contractual labour since ycars even though vacant sanctioned posts are available with it. Bot the man- agement instead of employing the workman here in regular employment against those vacancies has been surrender- ing the same.

The workman applicant bas filed statement of claim. In the statement of clain it has been stated that the workman Sunil Kumar Singh, So. Shri Prem Singh hadbeen working as operatur on contract lahour w.e.f. 1st Novemher, 1994 as contract tabour at the premises of the above said inanagement for the work of maintenance and running of generator sets al CAG office, New Delhi through contractor.

That, therefore, it is abundantly clear that the work- manhad been directly working under the CPWD itselfas well as other similar establishments regular employees are appointed to work as operator.

That the services of the workman were lerminated w.e.l. 12th Februвгу , 2002 in коморlete violating of the pro- visions of Section 25 F, G and H of the TD Act. 1947.

That by its action the management is also guilty of commission of unfair labour practices as enumerated in schedule 5 of the ID Ace, 1947.

That the workman had been in protinuous employ- men: with the respondent management ever since his initial appointment . That although the respondent managemem has changed its contractors several times since then the services of the workman bave been continuous.

That till date so seniority list has been maintained by the respondent management or even for that matter by the contractor.

The management bas filed written statement . In the written statement it has beest stated that the services of the workman were terminated on 12th February , 2002 is a sub- ject matterbetween the contractor and the applicant . This office does not know anything about it . However , the work is not of permanent nature.

Thiet the workman bas been performing alt the duties of operator as has been enumerated in the CPWD work nunwal . The duties performedby the worknem are essentially the same as are being performed by the regular eniployees of the CPWD .

That the workman had been engaged by the con- tractor on workto work basis and is a contract labour of The contractor. The employment of the worker with various contractor is a pore business thinking of the workman and this department do not have any record for this .

That the work done by the workntan is of an essen- tial and permanent ture and the establishment of the management cannot operate effectively or at all without the services of a wireman . The work of the workman is directly connected with day to day functioning of the elec trical division in which the workman is employed and use essential for its existence and functioning.

That no seniority is maintained by the CPWD mao- agement for the worker of contractors and worker was un- der the employment of differeal contractors as has been stated by him under Para 4 and thus question of his senior- itydoes not arise with the contractor / contradors .

4792

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 28, 2007/SRAVANA 6, 1929

That the applicant is a contract labour and not directly engaged by management ; becе по состоents IL be made about the duties performed by him . However, the contruct roade for operation of DG set at CAG building during 1999-2000-limits the work to operation of DG sel only whereas the operator (E & M ) as per CPWD maqual Vol .-III is responsible to carryout duties not limitedto DG set as can be seen from the extract attached (Annexure- Aj.

The applicant Shri Sunil Kumar has stated under Para 2 ( statement of claim on behalf of workman ) as having worked as operator whereas he is referring about the ser- vices ofwirene .. Para7.

Thar the management does not have any direct employer-employee relationship with the applicant . CPWD Thas isn work of its inwn. 11 only takes works for mainte wan of huibhegselt . of Ciovernment of India . The CPWT) awards Ilhe work to the contractors , who are found fit un les the job . It is up to the contractor , how the job is executed . CPWD do not undertake direct supervision of the work and do not maintain any records of contract workers CPWD has no work of his own . It only takes works for maintenance of buildings etc. of Government of Indis . The CPWD awards the work to the contractors , why is found fit to do the job . It is up to the contractor , how the job is executed . PWD do not undertake direct supervi- sion of the work and do not maintain any records of со tract workers.

It transplices from perusal of the order sheet that the workman wak given opportunity to file rejoinder and affidavit on 15-03-2007, 03-05-2007 , 05-06-2007 and 28-06-2007. The workinan was not present . On allthe dates anestiolaedove he tasted to file rejoinder and affidavit after sufficient opportunity given . The opportunity of filing rejoinder ud affidavit was closed.

The case of the workman is that he was engageal as Contract lahus . He worked under the control and supervision of the management . The management did not regularize the workanan . The case of the nianagement is that the workinan may have worked under the contractor. He worked under the control and supervision of the contractor . The duties were assigned to him by the con- Lractor. He was contractor's workman . The workonan has not filed any docentuent in support of his claim statement .

The reference is replied thus:-

The demand ofAll India CPWD ( MRM ) Karamchari Sangathan for reinstatement and regularization of Shri Sugil Kumar, Sto Shui Prem Kumar . Generator Operator in the organization of CPWD is neither legal nor justified. The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

The award is given accordingly . Date: 29-06-2007.

R. N. RAI , Presiding, Officer

[PART II- SEC. ( і) ;

नई दल्नी. 4 जुलाई , 2007

का.आ. 2114.-औद्योगिक विवाद व्अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 4 ) को धारा 17 के अनुमरण में. केंन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक वं. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध निनांगकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच. अनुबंध में निर्दिष्त औगिक दिवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरणः श्रप न्यायालय नं. चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 767/2005 ) को प्रकाशित चग्नं है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02-07-2007 को प्रान हुआ ।।

[म. एल-2012 :30: 2002- आई आर ( बो IT ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi,the holy 2007

S.O. 2114. in parsage of Section 17 of the Todastial Disputes Act , 1947 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Guvernment Permeldishes the award (Ref. No. 767: 2005tol the Central Government Endustrial Tribunat -cum- Labour Cour . No. 2 (Chandigarh is shown in the Amexure in the Industre prxween the management of Syndicate Bank and their workme rrorived by the Central Goveremem on 02-07-3

No. L- 13012332002-18 (B - 11) ] RAJINDERKUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXTURE

CENTRAS. GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALQUM - LABOUR COURT- IL CHANDIGARHI Presiding Officer : Shri bildip Singh CASELD. NO : 767/ 2k5

Registered on : 2-4-2005 Date of Decision : 3--1-30) ? BmlaDeva CheShr. & P. Rane House No 270 Sern: 38-4.(mandigarh

Petitioner TheAssistant Generai Ma nager . Sylate Barik . Sarojini Finise , 6 - Bhagwan Dess Road . New Delhi

Kespurcken:

AMEARANCE

For the Workman Forthe Management :

Мг . К.Г. Каria . Aulvcuate Shri Gopal Mahajan wi Vipir. Mahajan , Advocates . AWARD

The workman continues to be absent . Management appears through counsel . The workman has remained absen since 411 : July , 2006 11 was in these circumstances than the directions were issued 10 issue notice to the workman and a nosice under R. ( was issued to the work- Er Jender Postal Recript No. 3389 on 19th October, 2006 . The notice issued to the workman has out been received backunserved. rather the warnar appeared in the Tribunal [ भाग- खण्ड ( ii ) ]

4743

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 28, 2007/ श्रवण 6 , 1929

010 3rd Noveraber and a fresh amotice was served upon her , against her signatures, on the interim sheet on 3rd Novern- ber, 2006. Despite that she did not appear on the nexe dale fixed for 12th Jannary , 2007. From this the Tribumul is satis- Lied that the workman is not interested to prosecute her case 1.1at is why she has remained absen on all these daics.

The Government of India vide their Order Nu . 120.2/33/2002-IR (R- IT) clartex 18th June , 2002 referred the following maller for the consideration of this Tribunal :-

gaged as Sweeper with HUDA and worked as a part timer . for the Managerment . She exhibited the same behaviour on 5th June, 1993 and was charge sheeted and suspended from service . However , a lenient view was taken against her interms of Clause 19.12( E ) of the Bipartite Settlement . She was again suspended and charge sheeted for having unauthrorised signed the amendance register against le orders and for using abusive language against her higher authorities. She stopped the temporary Sweeper froin per forming the duties and spread the entire garbage in the Branch . She was given the puoisbmeol of dismissal but on her tendering apology , she was reinstated in services.

"Whether the action of the Management of Assis lant General Manager, Syndicate.Bank, New Delhi in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement from services on Smt . Bimla Devi isjust and legal? If not towhat relief the workman is entitled to?"

The notice of the reference was given to the parlies The warktan appeared in person and Glead her statement of claim . The Management appeared through Counsel and led the Written Statement . They also placed on record photo copies of charge sheet , served upon the workman , the reply of the workman , copy of the additional charge sheet , the proceedings of the inquiry , rmarked as Annexure D-Ito D-9 . They have also filed the affidavit of Sh . T.R Rajagopal , their Manager, with a copy for the workman, but us stated earlier the wistikman stopped appearing in the case right from 4th July,2006.

On 14th Sep.. 1999 she again mishchaved, on being transferred, and created embarrassing situation in the main hall of the Bank. She used foul language in Hindi and also disnheyed the directions issued by the Superiors. There upon the charge sheet was served upon her and a domes tic inquiry was held for having commilled the acts prejudi- cial to the interest to the Management . A full fledged in- quiry was held against the workman in which she was given fuli chance 10 defend herself . She was represented against the representative . After the inquiry, all the charges lev- elled against the workinan were proved. Despite the notice and service of inquiry report on the workman , she did not make any representation . The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the finclings of the inquiry officer and the workman was compulsorily retired . The workman filed an appeal . She was given chance to appear in person but she did not appear . The Appellate Authority after going Through the record did not find any merit in the appeal and dismissed the same upheld the order of the Disciplinary Authority .The workman was given all the benefits in termes of pensivo . Supporting their decision it is stated by the Management that since the workman had bесоmе в пиі- sance for the Management , therefore, the order of her onmpulsorily retirement was not improper.

The workinan has claimed that she had joined ser- vice with the Management in the year 1978 and used to perforen duties for 28 hours and five days week .She was placed under suspension on 15th Sep. , 1999 and wES charge sheeted on 30th October, 1999 and on 6th January , 2000. An inquiry was held against her ; that the charges framed against the worknian were vague and not connected with herworking.However, the Mamagerent worked against the workman and played partisan role thereby victimized the workman. Her plea was not considered and the report of the inquiry was bad. Even otherwise the exchange of words attributed to the workman where related to the affairs of the Bank and could be at the best a private affair. Neither it was alleged nor proved that the workomen bad committed the mis conduct while working for the Manage. ment. The Management did not allow the workman to co- gage the Counsel and the Trade Union worked against ber. Even otherwise the charge was framed by a Deputy General Manager , whereas the ponishment was awarded by Assistant General Manager . The report raade was oot based upon the facts nor the charges were prowed against her since all the witnesses had stated that the workman has not misbehaved on any occasion. Her appeal was also dismissed in a sяштвагу пашеr . The action of the Man- agemerit was unjustified, illegal and arbitrary.

The Management denied the claim of the workman. They reised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the reference . According 10 them the workman was en-

In reply to the awerments made in the Claim State- nent , the Management denied the facts in the manner the same are alleged by the workman . It is stated by them that theworkman was not working for 28 hours a weck rather shewas a part timer. They further claimed that the inquiry against the workinan was conducted in accordance wich the principle of natural justice and she was given foll opportunity to defend herself. They denied that the charges were not connected with the authorities of the Bank, The workman had no business to go to the house of her sape- riors andto use abusive language against them. They also denied that the reply given by the workman was not con- sidered. According to them the workman was supposed to bebave properly with her seniors and was not to shoot at them or to use foul language or manhandled them . Dariog the inquiry the workman was given full chance to put up her case. She had cross examined the witnesses. She was provided with the copy of the inquiry report . She was also givenpersonathearing by the Disciplinary Authority. She 4794

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 28. 2007: SRAVANA n . 1920

Філюк врреат before the Appellite authority. The punish- meol awarded to the workroso was not only proper but lenient as the charges were proved against her. The punishment was also awarded by a competent authority, therefore , the action of the Management was justified बड़ोदः के प्रबंधतंत्राद्ध नियंत्रक और उन कर्मकारों के श्रोप. अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औएक विवाद । केन्द्रीय सरकार वैद्योगिक अधिकरणः श्रम न्यायाःयपुर में एचाट संदर्भ संख्या 86/2003 ) ઃઃસ્વઃ સ્વ. 12-? 8? = પ્રાપ્ત हुआ था।

सं. - 2012 /8/ 94- आई आर ( ची -1 ) ] जिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Deler ,the 4th July . 2007

5.0. 2115. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Bachustrial Disputes Act. 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , she Central Govemment hereby publishes the award (Ref . No. Si 2009) of the Central Governmea! Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court. Nagpur as shown lu the Autexure in Industrial Dispoil : besten he employers in relation to the managerment in Bark of Baroda and their workmen . which was received by the Central Governmear on 02-07-2007.

[No. 1.- 130128,91 -JR ( B-II) ] RAJINTIER KUMAR , Desk Offizer ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CC11: NCP: 86/2003 Dated: 25-06-2007

Petitioner::

Str. M.N. ChusJurkar

PartyNo. J

As stated above, after filing the statement of claim and getting the copy of the Written Statement , the work- man stopped appearing in the case . She did not support her claim by her own affidavit or by any other evidence. The perusal of the photo copy of Annexure D - 1 to D-9 , give ample reason to believe that the Management bud conducted a fair and proper inquiry against the workman. These documents further showed that she participated in she inquiry proceedings on all the dates alongwith her rep- resentative. She cross examined the witness during the inquiry at length . The record of the file further shows that the allegation of the workman that her appeal was dis- missed in a summary manner , is not justified. The order of theAppellate Authority comprises of six pages . The read- ing of the inquiry report shows bow rminately the inquiry officer had considered every aspect of the inquiry and came to ajus conclusion. The conduct of the workman . daring inquiry showed that she did not appear before the AppellateAuthority. She also failed in her duty to produce evidence in support of her claim . The proceedings of the inquiry dated 29th Feb. , 2004, show that the workman was given opportunity to produce evidence in her defence. Both the workman and her defence representative stated that they have no evidence to produce . She appeared as a witness and inode all sought of allegations against Dalwara Singh , an employee of the Bank. She did not raise a single word against any other official of the Manage- meol . She alen alleged that the said Dalwara Singh had connived with her relations so as to take possession ofher property.However , when the said Dalwara Singh appeared as a witness, she could not take out from his mouth any- thing to support ber claim , as made in the Claim Statement .

throcy's the General Secretary 15.10.11 Fropluyers Assn. (all . to AMBLA Bank of Baroda, Gandhibag, Nagpur .

Versus

Respondent:: The Regional Manager,

PartyNo. 2

Ithasbeen stated above that the workman disasso- ciated with the proceedings in this Tribunal . She has เว บ supported her pleadings by any evidence even by her own affidavit.

Considering the fa : s and circumstances of the case and the conduct of the 'rkmun 1 bold that the workman has failedto show that the action of the Management io imposing the punishment of compulsorily retirement on her was notjust and legal . The reference is , therefore , an- swered against ber holcing that she is not entitled to any relief. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropria า govt. for necessary action and the file be consigned lo records after due completion .

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding ( Officer नई दिल्ली, 4 जुलाई , 2007

का.आ. 2115,-औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का (4 ) की धारा के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ BankOf Baroda, West High Court Road, Dharampeth , Nagpur.

AWARD Dated: 25th June , 20807 ]

1. The Centra Government alter satisfying the ex- istence of disputes herweer: Sari M N. Chandurkar.140rugli the General Secretary. Bank of Bainda Employees Asso ciation , Bank of Barula . Ciandbibag , Nagpur. Party No. 1 and The General Maruger . Bark of haroda . West High Court Road, Ibrampeth . Nagpur . Party No. 2 referred the same for adjudicarinal vide its Letter No. 1- 120012008-94-1R ( B-E)Dr. 36-08 1994 under clause ( d ) uf sub- section ( 1 ) arul subsection ( ZA ) el Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 11 of $ 47 ] with the following schedule 4795 [भाग - खण्ड (i )]

भारत का राजपत्र जुलाई 28, 2007/ावण 6, 1929

Case 1. D. No. 761/25

Registered on: 5-9-2005

Date ofDecision: 7-5-2007

Mukesh Komar, Staff Clerk, Bank ofGudia, Abohar 2 "Whether the action of the management ofBank of Baroda , Nagpur in not paying the scale -wagen в рет rules to Shri M. N, Chandurkar, part -time Sweeper is justi- fied ? If not, what relief is the sand workman entitled to and from, which date

.. Petitioner

Vernes

The Regional Manager Bank of India, Regional Offior , 579, Model Town, Lodhiarts

Respondent

APPEARANCE

For theWorkma

Mr. Sameer Sachdev, Advocate

For the Management

Mr. R. N. Loban , Advocate

AWARD

The following reference was received from Coverarment of India, Ministry of Labour vid their Order No. L-12012/29293 -JRB- 11 dated 9th February , 1994:

3. It appears that the case was pending before C.G.I.T. Jabalpur and it was transferred to this court conse- quent upon the establishment of it . It was pending before C.G.J.T. Jabalper for filing an Affidavit. On transfer the notices were issued to the parties, however , nahody ap- peared on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner did not attend the court right from the service of the notice. Ji was fixed for the filing of the affidavit and w.e.f. 30-11-2005 affidavit is filed by the petitioner . Today also it was fixed for filing of the affidavit and as indicated above , the pati tioner is not attending the Court and today also he is ab sent. Thus he has not adduced any evidence in support of his claim though a sufficient time has been clapsed. On behalf of the management its counsel appeared, however, albe petitioner recoained absent and no evidence is adduced by hirn . I co not think it proper to continue the case though the petitioner is not taking interest. Hence it is dismissed for default of the petitioner.

Hence this award that he is not cutitled for any relief.

Dased:25-06-2007

"whether the action of the Management of Bank of Lodis in imposing punishment of stoppage of tune increment with.cumulative effect and warming on Shui Mukesh Kumar clerk is justified ? If not , what relief the workman is entitledto?"

A. N. YADAV, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 4 जुलाई, 2007.

का.आ. 2116, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का (4) र्फ धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं -2 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 761/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केंन्द्रीय सरकार को 27 2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/292/1993 - आई. आर. ( बी ) ) )

राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 4th July, 2007

After the notice of the reference was received by the parties they appeared through their representatives.The workman filed his Claim Statement to which the Managerment filed the Written Statement. The workman also placed on record the photo oppies of a number of documents marked as Annехите W-2 la W - 6 . He also filed the replication , contesting the claim anacle by the Management in the wrillen stalement , besides his allindavan July attested. The Management also placed on record documents such as inquiry proceedings comprising of 67 pages . The Management lendered the affidavit of their Chief Officer Shri M. M. Deshpandey in support of their claim. Both the parties have submitted written arguments, for and against the reference . It maybe noted here that although the workman proved his affidavit exhibit W- 1 and the documents W- 2 10 W - 6, but the Management did not get opportunity to cross examine him , therefore, the affidavit and document have to be considered as if these are not proved under law.

S.O. 2116. In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government herchy publisbes the award (Ref. No. 761; 20K15) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of India and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-20X17.

[No. 1-12012292/ 1993- IR (B - T)) RAJINDER KLIMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

In their pleadings the parties bave the claim thai the punishonent to the workman was awarded after holding a domestic inquiry . The Tribunal at this stage is required to examine whether the Management ad held a fair and proper inquiry against the workman and that the punishment awardedto him was not disproportionate to the miss amduct alleged against hirm and which according to the Management was proved against him .

TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR.COURT - IL,

CHANDIGARH

PresidingOfficer:

The claun of the workinan is that the inquiry held against him was not fair and proper since the Management appointed Shri D. P. Bhateja as the Inquiry Officer who had Shri Kuldip Singh

15 /2007 - וי 4795

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JIJEY 28, 2007 /SRAVANA 6 , 1920

brasest altitude towards the workman . The workman Prought this fac: to the Manageinent and requested for hanging bir, but he was not changed. The inquiry held agans: the work hirn with a triased minul . The claim. Alter going through the recore ! find ila: nt workman has not producest any vidence against Shri Bhateja not he has shown any instance la support his claim than Shri Bhateja was biased against him, Any evidence documentary or orat in support of the clam hat Mr. Bhateja was having any bias against the workruan has in the judged on the basis of his conduct while hokling the inquiry . I have gone through the ingsuiry proceedings and have failed to notice any of the action of the Inquiry Cofficer 10 show that he was biased against the workinu

Thic ingniry against the workman started on 3. 나나 ? . Practicably no proccoding could beheld on that day so it was adjourned to 11th Feb. , 1992. Ол the date fixed next, the inquiry officer declared the miquiry open mud put some questions to the workman . He saw 10 it that the charge sheet is served upon the workman and copy thereof is provided in hian . The workman denied the charges . The inquiry Officer then inquired from the workman whether bewould defend has cause hineself or get the same donc by his repretentative. The workrmim sought's time to engage à defence representative though the Hank's presenting ofticer strongly opposed the grant of further opportuality saying that the workrman had sufficienr lime ( 1) engage a deience representative as he had receivedthe charge sheet on 4th December, 1991. The issppury ollicer, howeverj dit! not yreld and allowed the workman in engage: a defende representative and stucly the ducuments upto 24th of February . 1942. The workroao was also provided with the list of documents the Management proposed to produce against him . The inquiry officer askeskihe workaları 10 give the list of documents and witnesses he desared in produce jin his support of his case. The inquiry officer Jurther asked the workman if he has anything more to sily . The inquiry was then adjourned to 5th of February . 1992.

On 3rd April , 1942 the inquiry was l'urther heid Shri S. S. Sidhu , the representative of the workman did not attend the inquiry proceedings till 110.00 am . The inquiry officer showed the indulgence and asked the workman to contact his representative. On return the workman reported to the inquiry offices that his representative is out ir. a position to appear fit that day . Despite the objections of the Managorical the anquiry uiticer lixed the inquiry for the next day , The inquiry affieer alsolook note ot another fact that Sibrid . K. 1kxdejs who was to appear as a witness in the case wasthe typist for recording the inquiry proceedings. He disced la ! Shri Dodeja shalt not the present in any capacityjst the tinse the evidence on charge no . 4 is maken. He further nized that the inquiry could not be held on 51 February , 1992 as some miss happening had taken place in the family ofBank's representing officer. He also behaviour of the workenen and advised him to be calm Juring the inquity Fituceedings as the making of loud

[PART 1 ]-SEX:. 3( i ) ) speeches caused tension . indiscipline and ioss of decorum Juring the anиту pruceedings .

Ο Αul . : 092 the inquiry proceeded further and Shri A. S. Brar was examined as a witness of the Management Aller Fis examination in thiet the pletence repersentative cross examined him and put searching questions.The defence representative then closed the cross examinatupo . After the re - examination the statement of t witness was closed and the pinceedings were signed by The inquiry officer and he workman and his representative .

The Managediens then produced Shri Thakur Ram as witness who was also cross examined by the representative ofthe workman and the inquiries were signed by the witness besides by the workman , his detence representative and the Bank's representative Thu: Management then produced Shri A. K. Gogia as their 3rd witness who was criss - caamined by the defence representative at karıgılı. At the close of the siasemem of all the witnesses the inquiry afficer inquired from the ermployer proceeds against whether be has any ristre question to pu:. During the course of statements of the witnesses there arose na dispute nor any objection was raised by the worst is representative ILUT LIV grievance was aise against the behavior or the conduci of the inquiry officer to show that he was biased against the workman. The mus efficer as the close of the proceedings on April 12 made it clear to the parties that the impuritat proceed on day to day basis till it is cuanchuded . The inquiry was hen held on 7th Augais , 1992. on which day Shri Mohan La : was produced as a witness. wins was examined 1: BPO and cross examined by the detence representative.

The record of the proceeding further show that since one of the witness ofthe Management Shri J. K. Dudeja was not available on 7th of August . 1992 Jue to rmarriag ni kiselosticlation The intuiry officer asked the defence represive winter he was sady in produce his evidence pending the statement of Shri J. K. Dudejaard the cle feritse proslul M. C. 11. Chahra as their first witness. The Bank's presenting ellicer cross- examined hirnans Pic proceedings were signed by the Inquiry Officer , the delenve representative and witness, On Sth August, 1992, the inquiry officer grovided the conies of the proceedings tu both the Management and the defence . On that day the statement of Shri J. K. Dudeja was also recorded . He was cross examined he the defence representative. On the date . before the close of the evidence by both the Managemen and the defence the workman was ilsked by the Fiquity Officerwhether he was to make the staternen. He replied that the summe soil Scru part of the Written Arрилепск. Thus the proceedings were closed.

As stated carrier . during the recording of the evalence, by the impairs officer there arose a situation ve show that the Inquiry Officer acted in a biased and partial zmanner or he ever ned to gag the voice of the workman ni conducted in a manner to show that he had a biased mi against the workman , therefore, the inquiry conducied was | भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

trad in law . T, therefore, do not find any evidence or justification given by the workman to believe that the inquiry officer was biased against him and, therefore , the inquiry conducted was had in law. The judgment cized try the workman is support of his claim reported as 1994 (3 ) SCT '96 is of no help to him . After going through the pencecelings I am satisfied that the Enquiry Officer actest in 5. most judicious nutner anul provided full opportunity to the workman to defend his case . There never arose an cocasion to show that he acted in a biased manner against The workomen. I do not agree with the submission that the xomments made by the Inquiry officer about the conduct of the departmental witnesses show the biased mind of the Boquin Officer . It is expected of every official to be upright End straight forward while making the stalements and when official of financial institution looks here ancl there , he clocs injustice to the parties as well as to the system Ba whole.

The next claim made by the wurkman is also of no tnerit. According in lient the officer who had signed the document, returning the cheque. for insofficiency of funds was not pereceded against by the Management I am afraid thief caneosince his co -thief has been not heen procerded against him , therefore, he should also be let off on that account . It is well known that the basic record is held by the incumbent who is supposed tohold charge thenol . "The supervising officer is not expected to Verify every entry in the ledgers and check other documents before putting his signatures . No doubt a supervising officer is expected to check op to at least 10 % of the cases 1. see whether the subordinate working mes him is acting properly. The basic responsibility still remains of the person who holds the record to say whether the endorsement , he is making is based on facts or

The orkman bae claimed that since no financial loss was crisedto the Bank as a result of the negligent aci alleged against the workman, therefore , the punishment awarde: I was disproportionate and cannot be mained . In support of his claim he hasueferrert 10 Clause 19.5(2) of theBi -partit : Settlement which reads that gross negligence Preans thoing, any act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank.... Ifwe look at the provision, the claim made by the workman énes 101 xt2nd . As per this clause any act prejudicial to The interest of the Bank was a gross negligence . The other gross negligence would be involving the Bank with a serious loss. It is an admitted fact that an individual or an institution is known aor duly by the financial resources it has but also by the reputation it enjoys . The act of an employce, by which he reruras the cheque of the customer saying that here is no balance in the account against which the cheque is issued whereas there is halance available, vhal impression the drawee of the cheque would have shout this working of the institution and whether it would nothave affect the reputation of the Bank and ultimately prove prejudicial to the interest ofthe Bank . Nobody would liketo bave an account or dealing with such a Bank where the claims are returned without justifiable cause and the

4797

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 28, 20x97/ आवण 6 , 1924

payments are acting casually . Therefore, althougь по financial loss was involved in the act committed by the workman by his negligence but the same definitely crased loss to the reputation of the festitution and so the act of the workman wus prejudiced to the interest of the Bank.

The next plea of the workman is that the other charges agoinst the workman were proved on the wrong assumptions , therefore , the punishment based thereon should be set aside . He has referred to charge No. 3. However he has not supported his claim by any evidence to show that he was not absent from his seat from 12 пооп to 1 p.m. on 3rd May , 1999 ; and that as a result of bis absence the vouchers could not be posted in the concerned ledgers which ultimately affected the working of the hank and caused inconvenience to the customers . In support of this allegation the Management produced the witnesses who testified the absence of the workroan and the workiman has failed to disprove this fact by any evidence . The change therefore, was rightly proved by the Enquiry Officer .

After going through the proccedings of the domestic inquiry and the evidence collected therein I am of the opinion that the Management had held a very fair and proper enquiry against the workerian , in which he was given full opportunity 10 cdefend himself. Fle was served with the chargesheet and was provided with the list of the witnesses which the Management desired to produce against him. He was alan provided with the documents likely to be produced against him and was farther given opportunity to produce his evidence in defence . He was represented by a defence representative . From the day to day proceedings it is clear that the Enquiry Officer conducted himself in a most judicinus manner perhaps like a judicial officer I have found to basis for the workman to alleged that the Inquiry Officer was hissed against him . The inquiry officer gave folt consideration to the submissions of the workman and more than once adjourned the proceedings on his request. He acted in a very disciplinary manner and did not get unduly excited by the conduct of the workman during the inquiry proceedings. Hehowever did not fail in cautioning the workman that he should be calin during the proceedings and should not create disorderly atmosphere . Thus the inquiry officer acted in a very matured manner and I do not find any lapse or weakness in the inquiry proceedings . The workman was charge- sheeted with more than one allegation which were prowed and rightly so in viewof the evidence . The punishment awarded , to my mind, wasjustified and cannotbe said to be disproportionateto the misconduct alleged against him.

In view of the disenssion made above I am of the opinion that the action of the Management in imposing the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect and a warning on the workman was justified. Therefore , the workman is not entitled to any relief . However, I feel that the workman has suffered the punishment for more than 15 years . In case , in this between there bas corne nothing to the notice of the Management . that the conduct of the workonen was not up to the mark 4798

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JULY 28, 2007. SRAVANA 、こ

Paz - Sec :==

For theManage:no

Mr B. J. Stogh .

Advocate and Brijji : Singh . AR

AWARD

The following reference was received by this Tribunal from Government of India for adjudication and award within a period of nice meulis.

The competent authority may, on the representation of the workman , dusitler to review their order at least in the extean of further elect of the same. In the young age a person may comumil sume mistakes hut with the advancement of the age ont geis natured and calizes his mistakes. The sward is passed against him. Let a copy of aliis awarel he sent to the appropriate Government for necessary alien and the file be consigned to records after due completion .

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 4 जुलाई , 20007

"Whether Shri G. S. Jolly . Ex -Development Office , LIC of India is workiran under the L.D. Act , 1947 in view of the legal pusition held by the Apex Court in S. K. Verma Vs. Mahesh Chandera and anollier 11983 ( 31 SCR 799 anc H. R. Adhanthaya ete. Vs. Sandoz ( India ) Lud. ( AIR 1994 Supnenie: Cuuri 2605) If yes whether the act of the Senior Divistonal Manager, L.IC uf India, Chandigarh in terminating the services of G. S Jolly w.e.f. 28 12-1995 isjust pic legal? Ifnot, witree is the individual concerned encirled to?"

का.अ. 2117.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) को धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एल. आई सी. ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों को बीच , अनुबंधामें निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरणका न्यायालय नं-2 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 668/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-7-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल-17012/7/1998 - आई. आर. ( बी-II ) :

राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारो

New Delhi , the 4th July,2007

The notice of the reference was given to the parties who appeared through their counsel and representative , from time to time . Тлемa filed is statement of claim through counsel , the Manageme filed their written scatenient . The workman tiled his affidavit whereas the Managementtendered the affiutavit of Shn A. D. Агота , their Administrative Olliver , in support of their claim. The partres have also placed on record copies of a uniber of docurdents. The Management produced Shri A. D Arora, Ilheir willess who stood the gross examination of D workman. The workman also apparel as witness in suppum ofbis claim .

S.O.. 2117.-In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14) of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 668: 2005) of the Ceatral Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Coun, No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of LEC of India and their workmen , received by the Central Govemment on 2-7-2007,

[No. 1-17012/7/1998- IR(B- II )]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL. TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURTAT,

CHANDIGARH

Presiding Officer: Shri Kaldip Singh

Case No. I .. No. 668/2005

Registered on: 25-8-2005

Date ofDecision: 30-4-20K17

G.S. Jolly,H. No. 743 , Dera Sahih, Mohalla , Manimajca . Chandigarh (L.T.)

Pelitioner

Versus

LEC. of Istia , The Senior Divisional Manager , LIC of India, Jeevan ParkashBuilding, Sector 17 , Chandigarh

-Respondent

The claim of the workman is that he was appoimed as an apprentice Development Hlicer by the Management in January, 1969 and was placed on probation for one year . After the completion el apprenticeship period he was appointed as Regular Develoрте Officer and posted in Unit No Juf LJC . Ladhane in February , 1990. In view of his satisfactory performance he was confirmed in service in Feb. 1991. [ o December, 1992 he wits transferred to Majaithajra (UT Chandigara ) whore despite his best efforts be could not come in the good houks of Senior Manager , Mrs.Gurdeep Kaur . Hisservices were terminated on 28 of December , 1445. L'he order of temination ofhis services was bad in law for non -application of mind by the comретел authority for failing to hold enquiry , in find our the ion cooperation of luss of workman, for non - inclusion of work done by Manjil Kaur agent under the workerman , fer non -supply ofdocuments such as letter of Zonal Manager dated 2nd of Septenther . 1945 The workman has prayed for setting asille. the urder of his termination dated 1st of January. 1996, tur reinstating him in service with full back wages, connistuity of service and other consequential benefits.

APPEARANCES

For the Workman

Mr. H. B. Singh Arora ,

Advocate and

5. K. Verma, AR

The Management ass opposed the claarn of the workman . It is stated hs theren that the claimant is nel a wrirknian us newas working as Develприпеть Offiсет Inte lime of his disengage was not a workman as 4799 [भार ॥ - खण्ड (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 28 , 2007 / श्रवण 6, 1929

defined by the Industrial Disputes, 1947, hereinafter 10 be referred to as Act. Even otherwise the workman was governedby the provisions of LIC( Staff) Regulations 1960 read with LIC Development Officers ( Revision ofCertain Terms and Conditions of Service ) Rules , 1989 whichhave coverriding effect over the provisions of the Act . Therefore , the dispute raised under the Act is not maintaioable . He has also failed to avail of the remedies of appeal , review and memorial , therefore also his application is not mair.tainable.

1994 and by reminder dared 8th ofJuly , 1994. He had also received the appraisal of his work report for the year ending 28thof February , 1994 and reminder dated 19th/26th of August, 1994. He further adroitted to have received letter dated28th of February , 1995 about his working and stated that the appraisal of his working for the year ending 28th of February,1995was conveyed to him vide letter dated 18th ofApril, 1995 and by reminder dated (6th of June , 1995 and hehad made representation dated 7th of October, 1995.He also admined to have received letters exhibits M - 19 10 M- 26. The Mamagerment examined Shri A. D. Amra, theirAdm. Officer in support of their clain who proved his affidavit and documents marked as M - 1 to M- 26 . He adroitted that the workman was posted under the supervisory control of Ms. Gurdeep Kaur , Senior Branch Manager but denied the koowledge that the workman had pointed out the omissions done by Manja Kaur, Agent No 1806 but Ms. Gurdeep Kaur had not helel enquiry in that matter or that the salary of the workman was stopped for one year during 1994.

Ihave gone through the file and have also considered The submissions made by the Representative of the partics.

The question which has fallen for the consideration of this Tribunal is whether Shri G. S. Jolly, ex -Developarent Officer, LIC of India is a workman under ID Act, 1947 in view of the legal position held by the Apex Court in S. K.Verma Vs. Mahesh Chaudra and Another 1983 (3 ) SCR 799] and II . R. Adhyanthaya etc. Vs. Sandoz ( India) Ltd. (AIR 1994 Supreme Court 2608) . Hon'ble Court of India considered the Judgment of S. K. Venna's case ( supra) while deciding the latter case and their Lordships observed as under:

On merits it is their submission that the petitioner is notaworkman in terms ofjudgment ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the casc Adhyantha and in the face of Staff Regulations and Rules . The post of Development Officer being supervisory in nature as the incumbent is required to develop and increase the production of new life insurance business in a planned manner . The agents work under his supervision to whom he guides and supervises their activities . He enjoys the powers of recruitment and training of new agents . He also represents the LJC in the area he is posted.Admitting that the petitioner was appointed as apprentice Development Officer whowas confirmed as such w.e.f. 20th of February , 1991 after he successfully completed the probation period . According 10 then the petitioner was transferred to Manimijara as a special case . Dienying that the petitiomer had done his best to achiew: the goal or that Mrs Gurdip Kaur was prejudiced against him and did not cooperate, it is stated by them that in fact the petitioner did not show interest in his working and failed to achieve the business target despite repeated advices oral and in writing hy the Branch and Divisional Officers . His work was evaluated for three years ending with 293,2/94and 2/95 and in view of his performance his services were liable to be terminated in terms sub role (8) of rule read with rule & of LIC of India Development Officers (Revision of Certain terms and conditions of service) Rutes, 1989. He was therefore , served upon with antices dated 18th ofApril and 6th of June, 1995. The petitioner did give satisfactory reply to those notices nor any factual in accuracies were pointed out by lira in the figures of his business. Therefore , he was given three months termination ofhis services notice by the Zonal Office which was served upon the petitioner on 29th of September , 1995 through the concerned branch. la view of that the services of workman came to end w.e.f. 28th of December, 1995. They denied the claims ofworkman made in paras 4 and 5 of his staterment of claim and submitted that the order terminating the services of the petitioner was perfectly in accordance with the rules and the criteria fixed these under und in the light of terms and conditions of his appointment. They submitter that the workman has no claim 10 maintain therefore , the reference be answered against him.

In 5. K. Verma Vs. Mahesh Chandra ( 1983) 3 SCR 799 the dispute was whether Development Officers of the Iife Insurance Corporation of India werewurkmen. The dispute arose on aconent of the dismissal of the appellant -Development Officer w.c.f. 8th February, 1969. The Court noticed that the change in the definition of workman brought about by the Amending Act of 36 of 1956 which, as stated ahove, added to the originally enacted definition two more categories of employees viz those doing "supervisory" and Technical " work. The three judge Bench of this Court did not refer to the cartier decisions in May and Baker (AIR 1967 Supreme Court 678), Winco (AIR 1964 Supreme Court 472) and Burmah Shell cases (AIR 1971 Supreme Court 922) (supra). The Beach only referred to the decision of this Court in Workroen of Indian Standard Insti صناد Vs. Management of Indian Standards Institution (1976 Supreme Court 145) where while considering whether IS1 was an "industry " or not it was held that since the J.D Avct was a legislation intended to bring about peace and harmony between management and Jabour in un " industry " the test must be so applied as to give the widest possible connotation to the term " industry" and therefore , a broad and liberal and oot a rigid and doctrinaire approach should be The workman appeared as a witness in the case lo support his claim .He proved his affidavit exhibit WW1. He admitted that he had received the communication by which the appraisal of his work for the year ending 28th of Feb , 1993 was conveyed to him vide letter dated 8th of June, THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 28. 3007 / SRAVANA 6. 1929

[PART I-SFr...Mii ]

basis was inconts considered and rejected in Burmak Shell case ( supra ) by a co - ordinate Bench of three. Judges . Further no finhng is given by the Court whether the Develupanent Officer was doing clerical or technical work . the was admittedly not doing manual work

The Hon'ble Supreme Court father held that the decisions in the Cater S. K. Verma (AIR 1984 Supreme Court 462) Dulen Cable AIR 1984 Supreme Court914j and Ciba Cicige (AIR 1985 Supreme Court 985) did rus notice the earlier decisions in May and Baker ( AIR 1987 Suprerne Cosart (678 ) WIMOO ( AIR 1964 Supreme Con 472aed Burmah Sheil ( 1971 Supreme Court 22. Accordingtotheis Tanilships , the apex Court in case A. Suridaratubal ( AIR 1466 SC 17000 ) has neid that the law aut down in May and Baker case (AIR 1957 Supreme Court 6781 was still good and was not in terms disuwried . They then held: We: Hose three three judge Bench decisions wluch have taken the view that a person 10 he: qualitted to be a workman must he stuing the work which falls in any of the four categories viz. manual , clerical , superviscry or technical and two wo julge: Bench decisions whale have by referring some זי the other of said free necasions nave reiterated the said law . As apzinst this wr lave three three jadge Beachdecisive without retesting to he decisions in May : Baker . WIMCO and Bunnah Shell cases ( sapraj have raken the other view which wils expressly negatived viz... t's person does not fall within the four exceptions un said definitina hets a workman within the meaninger Ad ........ Hence the position in law as tubans today is that a person lo be a workman under the ID Act must he employed to do the work ofarlegories viz . unsküled, skille , encal, operational , clerical or Supervasury . It is that he is not covered by either of the luar saceptions to the definition .

The Hon'ble Supreme Court , alter discussing the sition of law has coire to the conclussons that the law laid down by S K. Vernise isupral was not a good law their Jordships in tra : case did eni ink iaty consideration the cartier iudement on the point and Telerred 10 above . They have held tha, order to be called himself to be a workmar under the ID Act the petitoner was show that he was emplened to do the work of any of category vir mileskilied , technical , operation.. clerical or supervisory Taking into consideration re: MILKITę ofduty of Developriment Officer at Lie LIC. of India as detailed the S. K. Vermes's case split cantnut be said by any stretch of argumes that the workman falls in the category uf workinan as defined by D Aer

adoptedno determine whether a particular concern was an industry or not . The Court ; therefore, held that to decide the question whether the Developmesal Officers in the LIC were workaten or not should adopt a pragmatic and not a pedantic approach and consider thebroad question as on which side of the line the workman fellviz labour or management and then to consider whether there were any good reasons for moving them over from voe side to the other . The Court then noticed that the 1.IC staff Regulations classifica the staff into four categories viz(i ) Officers, (li)Development Officers ( iii) Supervisors and clerical staff and ( iv) subordinate staff. The Court pointed out that Development Officers were classified separately both fears Officers on the one hand and supervisors and clerical staff on the other and that they as well as class II and class TV suff other than superintendents were placed on par ioesmuch as their appoinding and disciplinary authority was the Divisiodal Manager whereas that of Officers was Zonal Manager. The Court also referred to their scales of payjand pointed out that the appellation "Development Officers was no more than a glorified designation . The Cours then referred to the nature of duties of the Development Officers and pointed nut chat a Development Officer was to be a whole time employce and that is uperations were to be restricted to a defined area and that he was liable to be transferred . I de had no authority whatsoever tobind the corporation in any way . His principal dury appeared to be to organize and develup the business ofthe corporation an the area allotted to hini and For that purpose . 10 recruit active and reliable agens , tu train thern , to convass new business and tu teader pust sale servicesto policy holders .Hewas expeered to assistanse inspire the agents. Even solie hind nut the authority either to appoint them or to lake disciplinary action against them. He did not even supervise the work of the agents though he was requiredto train them and assist them . He was to he friend, Philosopher and guide of the agents working within hisjurisdiction and no more . He was expected to stimulate and excite" the agents to work while exercising, no administrative control over them . The agents were not his sabordinates . He had no subordinate staff working under him . The Court therefore, held that it was clear that the Development Officer could not , by any stretch of imagination ,be saki to be engaged in any admianistrative or managerial work and therefore , be was a workmarr within Inearing of the LD Act. As has been pointed out above, this decision did not refer on the earlier three decisions inMay and Baker ( AIR 1967 Supreme Cour 678) WIMCO (AIR 1964 SC472) and Burnah Shell Cases ( AIR 1971 Supreme Court 922) (sopra) and obviously proceeded on the basis that il' an employce did not come within the four exceptions to the delinition, he should be held to be a workman . This

Assuming for the sake of arguments that the petitarinner was a workmar, or the day his services were terrrigated by the Management . you find that the order o termination of services of the workman was justified and 480 !

[ भाग ॥ खण्ड ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 28 , 2007/ श्रावण 6 , 1929

New Delhi, the 5th July ,2007

8.0. 2118-Іл pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 29/ 2004) of the Central Govemanent Industrial Tribunal-com- Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Cantonment Board and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 5-7- 2007.

[No. L- 13012/ 1 /2003- IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INIKANTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CCUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT: SHRIKANT SHUKIA, Presiding Officer I.D. No. 29/2804

Ref. No. L- 13012/1 / 2003- IR(DU) x 24-2-2004 HETWEEN

Sri Mangal Sen S/o Sri Loom Singh RioVillageAtta PO Robama Meerut (U.P.)

AND

TheExecutive Officer Cantonment Board. Meerut Cantt. Board. Meerut (U.P.)

AWARD

The Govermutent of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi referred the following dispute vide No. L-13012/1 / 2003 - IR(DU) dt . 24-2-04 for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, CGIT-oum - Labour Court Lucknow;

"Whether the action of the managerment of Lixecutive Officer, Cantonment Board , Meerut in terminating the services of Sri Mangal Sen 5/0 Sri Loom Singh , Mazdoor w.e.f. 23-8-2000 is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?" so was legal .The services of the workman were governed by theserons and conditions of appointroent and the rules bywhich the same were governed . The appointment letter dated 29th of January , 1991 which merged in order dated 20th of March , 1991 clearly stipulated the terms and conditions governing the appointment of the petitioner. He was also governed by the Life Insurance Corporation ofIndia (Staff) Regulations, 1960, LIC. of India Development Officers (Revision and certain terms and conditions of Service) Rules, 1989. According to rule 8 of the later rules , if the Development Officer failed to conform to the expense limin, the Zonat Manager could terminate his services aller giving nim tlwee months notice on sallary in lieu thereці, Ота recard find a number of notices which sbow that the Management had told to the petitioner that his performance was not aplo to mark and in accordance with the terms and conditions of his service. In his staternent the petitioner adorittied that he had received letters exhibits M19 te M-26. He further admitted that appraisal of his work for the period ending 28th of February , 1993 was conveyed to him vide letter dated 8th of June , 1994 followed by reminder dazd 8th of July , 1994, He further admitted to have received letter dated 21 st of July, 1994 pertaining to appraisal ofhis working for period ending 28th of February , 1994 and the letter regarding appraisal of his work for the period ending 28th of February, 1995 and renminder dated bill of June, 1995. lle further admitted to have made the representation against the letter dated 6th of June, 1995. All this shows that the Management had notified to the workman that his perfusenance was not upto to mark in the light of his appointment order . The petitioner however , failed to give satisfactory explanation to his poor performance . Itwas in Thanse circumstances that his services were terminated by Thu: Management. As it appears from the record and the statement of the workthan he was given proper nutice uf the proposed action against and the reasons there for .He wesalso given fult opportunity to explain leis position .The rules governing the services of the workoman authorized the Management to terminate his services . Thus the action of lihe Management to terminate the services of the workman was just and legal . In view of this the workman is nou entitled 10 any relief. The reference is answered against him holding Wait be is not entitled to any relief. Let a copy of this award he seat ro the appropriate government for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion . KUL.DIP SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 5 जुलाई, 2007

का.आ. 2118. औद्योगिक विन्वाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का (4 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार कन्टोमेंट बोर्ड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 29/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-7-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Worker's case is that he was working as tabour in Cantonment Board, Meerut since 1-1-96 and the employer rmade him to work as labour till 22-8-2000 and when the worker appeared on 23-8-2000 for work he was not allowed towork. Thus this services were lerminated by oral order. Ti is alleged that worker was terminated without any opportunity of being heard and he was even not given notice, notice pay or compensation , thus , the Camoument DoardMeerut violated Section 2SF of I.D , Act, 1947. It is further alleged that worker was terminated whereas juniors to him were retained service and thus the management of theBoard violated the provision of Section 25G of the I.D. [सं. एल-13012/1/2003 आई आर ( डीयू ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह डेस्क अधिकारी 4602

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 28, 2007/SRAVANA 6.1924

(PART II-SFC. 3( ії) =

Act. It is also alleged that the Camonment Board is publishing advertisements for employing the workers . Worker has therefore prayed for reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages .

ilswitness. Itwas selieved that worker does not to produce any evidence On 24-8-06 the opposite party examined Sri R.K. Sharma and 22-1-0 ie npposite party examined Sri Raj Kumar . Supervisor fantonment Board .

The worker has not fled any locumentary evidence to support his case or the appeared to prove his allegations in the court . On the other hand Sci R. K. Sharma, Supervisur ofCanenmaierit Licare appeared in winness bux and stated that Sri Mangal San worked for 26 days in April , 17 days in May anul 18 dzys in June 1995sual labour . He has also stated that Sti Mangal Sen was engaged in the emergent conditions in cleaning of Sahid Snsark. Fle luas also stated that Sri Manga! Sen was not engaged agains: any post .He has su submitted that prescribed procedure was not applied Letore his engagemem . Sri H.K. Sharma has stated that worker has not worked 240 days theretore there was no neal to give any notice , notice pay or compensation to the worker. Sri laj Kurmar has also stated that no notice or notice day or compensation was given .

None appeared le corward the arguments Kamlesh Kenar appeared but he said tha, he has no authority lette represent the worker.

Peruse the sidene on record . Worker las nut made out a desee that he worked from 11.46 10 22-8-20CKI . He has also not been alle to prove that he was termenuled on 23-8-2000 . According the evidence record as stated above worker has waly wisher less than 100 days in the year 1998. In the runs anees it is nor proved that the management pas viola y provision of the LD . ALI On behlaf of the opposite party wrillen statemen has been filell by the Cantonment Executive Officer , Meerut . Opposite party has denied the allegationes made in the stulement of claint firstly it is alleged that Cantonment Board is not an industry and is not engaged any trade ot business and interefore it does not within the perview of industhyas detene undeı 1.D. A : 1 . 1947. In emergent ses the labours are engaged purely on temporary basis as casual labour for specific period of approved rate of Government for specific work and on completion of the saiel work the services of such temporary ariel casual labour are disdispensed with .It is also alleged that the worker was never appointed against any permanent post nad the was engaged purely temporary capacity as casual labo มา and therefuge he does not conse within the definition of Act. It is further alleged that there is no violation ul [.D. Act. It is further pointed out that worker has fail to disclose necessary/ details / orders as to when he was comployed whal werethe terms and coalitions of the appointment was the authority of issue the order. It is alsu submitted that worker has not submitted any documentary proof 10 substantiate his allegattons. The opposite party has specifically polefed that worker has not worked for ite periad of240 clays in the calander year before the dau of termination of his alleged contract . Easily it is alleged that the worker has worked only for 96 days . In view ofine above the opposite party has requested that the statenient ofclaim should he rejected. who

Opposite party has filed works sanction book , musior soll and pay role.

50 far the contentior er posite party the Canonnert Board is net industry is pointed out that The Cantonment Board issizmiar than of Municipal Buard and has huen ajusted be a industry and accordingly Саломитет Board is also d

On the discussiers above I come to the conclusion that workers for prove that the employer has lermated him en 23-8 200 illegally without any justification . Therefore is decided against the worker and the worker is not entitled to any iclief . Award passed accordingly.

Lucknow 29-6-2007

SHRIKANT SHL KIA. Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली जुनाई, 2007

Worker filed rejoinder. It is alleged that it is n necessary for any industry that it should earn profit. The casework of the opposite party is that of a local body the responsibility of which is to ensore water supply , street light and samination etc. to the residem of the Cantonment Board as such it is a industry since it involves the cooperation between employer and employce and the work is of regullat mature . Worker has stated that he was working al the permanent post with the opposite party and hi : ilal not work on daily wages . It is also alleged that he continrously worked with the opposite party and the termination of these services is violative of provision of L.D. Aci . Worker has also alleged that he continuously worked for 240 days in preceding 12 calendar months of his termination

Worker last attended the court on 3-1-06 therealer the worker did not turned up.

का, आ, 2119.- अद्यापि तयार अधिनियम, 1947 1947 क्का 143 की धार 17 के अनुसर में जेन्द्रीय सरकार गैरोसन इंजीनियर के प्रबंधतंत्रस्थ नयांजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदिएर सौद्यांग त्रिजार में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरणःब्रन न्यावाल्य अग्नकुल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्य 100/2006 ) को प्रकारित है, जो कंन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-7-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था

One Si Kamlesh Kumar the trade union leader OtL 4-1-06 attedded the onurt and he two did not file an authority letter .O 22-6-06 Sri Kanilesh Kumar stated thar worker has not authorised lin . In the ciccorostances there was no option to proceed under rule 10 B (9) of the E.D. Act, 1947 and the opposite party was directed to examine

!पं. एल -1-0.2:8-12012 आईआर ( डॉ. ) सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारो 4803 [ भाग 1 ] - खच्ठ 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 28, 2007/ ऋवण 6 , 1929

NewDelhi , the 5th July,2007

supervised the work of the worker and similarly placed persons. The question of continuous service la the management does not arise as the worker was employed by the contractor . The worker is not entitled for reinstatement or regularisation or any other relief.

S.O. 2119- n pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Goveraracat hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 100/ 2006) Central Govemment lydestrial Tribunal- com- Labour Court , Ernains shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute berween the employers in relation to the management of Garrison Rogineer and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-7-2007.

3. When the matter came up for evidence the learned counsel appearing for the worker reported that he had no instructions from his party. The worker remained abscol Hence I find that there is no existing dispute for adjudication .

[No. L-14012/84/2002- IR(DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer ANNEXUR

4. la the result, an award is passed finding that the demand of Shri P. Manoj for reinstatement and regularisation is not just and fuir. The worker is not entilled for any relief. No cost. The award will take effect one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALCUM- LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

(Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed byber, corrected and passed by me on this the 28th day ofJune, 2007.)

Present: SHRI P. L. NORBERT , BA , LL.B. , Presiding Officer

P. L. NORBERT, PresidingOfficer APPENDIX : N नई दिल्ली, 5 जुलाई, 2007

(Thursday the 28th day of June, 2007) J. D. 100/2006 (L. D. 10/2003 of Labour Court, Ernakulam)

Workman

P.Manoj, Sree Nikayam, Thodiyoor P.O. , Karunagappally, Kolam District Adv. Shri T. Saji

Management

कर.आ, 2120, औद्योगिक विकद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार गैरीसन इंजीनियर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 105/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है , जओ कंद्रीय सरकार को 5-7-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ ब्क।

[सं. एल-14012/80/2002-आई आर ( डीयू ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी TheGarrison Engineer E/M Naval Base, Cochin Adv. Stri K. S. Dilip AWARD

NewDelhi, the 5th July, 2007

This is a reference made by Central Government under Section 111(1 ) ( d) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication. The reference is :

"Whether the demand of Sh. P. Manoj from the management of Garrison Engineer (E/M) MES ,Naval Base, PO Cochin for reinstatement and regularisation of his service is just and fair ? If so , to whal relief is the seoriomanentided ?

S.O. 2120-In parsuance of Section 17 of the Locdustrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Goverament hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 105/ 2006) Central Government Industrial Trianal-cum-Labout Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Garrison Engineer and their workotan , which was received by the Central Govemment on 05-07-2007.

[No. L-14012/80/2002- IR (DL)) SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-COUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKLILAM Present: SIRI P. L. NORBERT, BA , LL.B. ,

PresidingOfficer (Thursday the 28th day of June, 2007) L.D.105/2006

2. The worker claims to have been working as Generator Operator in Naval Base continuously since 1-4-1995 to20-2-2002 . He was ongaged throughs a contractor. But the contract was sham. When the worker domanded regularisation and approached Central Administrative Tribunal the management temninamed the service of the worker and similarly placed persons. Hence the industrial dispute was raised. He seeks reinstatement and regularisation in service. The management deęsies the employer-comployee relationship, Accordingto them the worker was working under various contractors . The management had no pontrol over the worker . His salary was paid by the contractor . The contractor was looking after the service conditions of worker . The contractor

3151 GV2007--12 4804

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 28 , 2007 /SRAVANA 6, 1929 .

[ L. D. LS/2003 of Labour Court, Bmakulam) Wrkmen

M. Mohen,

Madhusoodhanригами ,

Punickal P.O.,

Kanyakumari District

Adv. Shri T. Saji

Managemant The Gartison Engineer E/M Naval Rase ,

Cochin

Adv . Shri K. S. Dilip

AWARD

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

"Whether the demand of Sh . M. Mohan from Lae management ofGarrison Engineer (E/M)MES, Naval Base PO Cochin for reinstatemcal and regularisation of his service is just and fair ? Ifso , to what relief is the workmanentitled ?

2. The worker claims to have been working as Pump Operator in Naval Base continuously since 10-3-1997 10 31-1-2002, lle was engaged through a contractor. But the contract was sham . When the worker demanded regularisabon and approached Central Administrative Tribunal de management terminated the service of the worker and similarly placed persons. Hence the industrial dispute was raised. He seeks reinstatement and regularisation in service . The management denies the employer-dmployee relationship . Accordingto them the worker was working under various contractors . The managemelt bad no control over the worker. His salary was paid hy the contractor.The contractor was looking after the service conditions of worker . The contractor supervised the work of the worker and similarly placed persons. The question of continnons service in the management does not arise as the worker was employed by the contractor . The worker is not entitled for reinstatement or regularisation or any other relief.

3. When the matter came up for evidence the learned counsel appearing for the workerreported that he had no instructions from his party. The worker temained absent. Hence I find that there is no existing dispute for adjudication.

4. In the result , an award is passed finding that the demand of Shri M. Mohan' for reinstatement and regularisation is not just and fair. The worker is not entitled for any relief. No cost. The award will take effect one month after its publication in the Official Gazette .

)Thictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed anال typed by her, corrected and passed by roc on this the 28th day of June, 2007. )

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer APPENDIX: Nil

PART 1 Sec. (ii) ) नई दिल्ली, 5 जुलाई , 2007

कर,आ, 2121, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1447 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , कंन्द्रीय सरकार गैरीएन इंजीनियर के प्रबंधितंत्र के मंबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट मौद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्चम न्यायालय . अरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 103/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-7-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

सं. एल 14012/78/2002 व्याई आर ( डी. सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delni .the 5th July ,2007

... 2121 - n pursuance of Section 17 of the Lodustrial Disputes Act. 1947 114 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref . No 103 2006) Central invecument Industrial Tribunal -cum - Laborar Court , Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the managenient of Gan ison Engineer and their workman , which was received by the Central Governaniem 5-7-2007.

No. 1 , 1401278/2002 - IR (DLI )J SURENDRA SINGH . Desk Officer ANNEXTURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CLM- LABOUR COURT, FRNAKITAM

Present: SEIRE P. L. NOHDERT, B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer

(Thursday the 28th day of June . 20071 1. D. 103/2006

(T. D. 13/2006 of Labour Court, Firnakulam ) Workman

K. N. Satheesh , Knchantangalathuchira, Cheramangalam , Ayithara P.O. , Cherthala 688 539 Adv Shri T. Saji

Management The Garrison Engineer L/M NavalBase, Cochin Adv. Shri K. S. Dilip AWARD

This is a reference nade by Central Government under Section 1 ( ( 1 ) ( d) of industrial Disputes Act , 1947 for adjudication . The reference is:

"Whether the derrand of Sh . K. N. Satheesh from the mansogerment of Ganson Engineer (EM) MES , Naval Base, PO Cochin for reinstatement and regularisation ofhis service is just and fair ? If so ,to what relief is the workman emirled ?

2. The worker clams to have been working as Pump Operator inNaval Base continuously since 101-7-1992 20-2-2002 . He was engaged through a contractor. Butthe 4805 [भाग-खण्ड (ii ) ]

भारत का राज्जमंत्र : जुलाई 28, 2007/ श्रावण 6 , 1979

ANNEXLIRE

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

Present: SHRI P. L. NORBERT, BA , LLB, Presiding Officet (Monday the 25th day ofJune, 2007)

L.D. No. 15 of 2006

(1. D. No. 15/2002 of Iabour Court , Erzakolam)

Workman:

contract was sham . When the worker demanded regularisation and approached Central Administrative Tribunal the management lerrminated the service of the worker and similarly placed persons , Hence the industrial dispute was raised . He seeks reinstatement and regularisation in service . The management denies the employer-employee relationship. According to there the worker was working under various contractors . The management had no control over the worker . His salary was paid by the contractor . The contractor was looking after the service conditions of worker . The contractor supervised the work of the worker and similarly placed persons The question of continuous service in the management does not arise as the worker was employed by the contractor . The worker is not entitled for reinstatement or regularisation or any other relief.

TheGeneral Secretary, Union Bank of India Employees Uπίση, TC.3/770, ERA-8, Flamgamvila Lane, T. K. Divakaran Road, Multada (P.O.) Thiruvananthapuram Adv. Shri Ashok R. Shenoy.

Management:

3. When the marter came up for evidence the learned counsel appearing for the worker reported that he had no instructions from his party. The worker remained absent . Hence 1 find that there is no existing dispute for adjudicarion .

The Chairman and Managing Director , Union Bank of India, 239, VidbanBhawan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Adv. ShriA.S.P. Когар AWARD

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

4. In the result, an award is passed finding that the demand of Shui K. N. Satheesh for reinstatement and regularisation is notjust and fair. The worker is not entitled for any relief. No cost. The award will take effect one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 28th day of June, 2007.

"Whether the action of Mi's Union Bank of India in dismissing Shri P.A. Chacko is justifiable or just and proper ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled 10 ?

P. L. NORBERT , Presiding Officer

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

APPENTAX : Nil

नई दिल्ली, 5 जुलाई , 2007

का.अ. 2122-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 क। 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण मैं, केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधितंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अभिकरण श्रम न्यायालय , अर्नाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 95/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-7-2007 कां प्राप्त हुक्म था ।

[ सं एल-12011 /78/2002 आई आर (जओ -11 ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 5th July,2007

The workman in this case was employed in Union Bank of India Staff Training Centre atAlova as Caretaker- cum-Warchman . While so, on the allegation that he allered figures of cash amounts in the Telephone Registers regarding STD facility availed by the participants in the training programme as well as altered dates in Check- in and Check-out Registers of participants, with a viewto misappropriate money , a charge sheet was issned to the CSE and an enquiry was conducted. He was found guilty of the charges and was dismissed from service . He filed an appeal , but did not succeed . Therefore he raised an industrial dispute through union . According to the union the enquiry was not conducted in a fair manner . The EnquiryOfficer was biased. I le did not follow the procedure of enquiry and did not comply with principles of natural justice. The findings are perverse as they are not supported by enough materials . The punishment imposed is harsh. TheDisciplinary Authority did not cake into consideration the extenuating circumstances . The Linquiry Officer himself acted as the Disciplinary Anthority and imposed punishment violating the provisions ofBipartite Seulement S.O. 2122.In pursuance of section 17 of the Industria. Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 95/ 2006) of the Corural Goverment Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Ermalkulum as sibowo in the Annexure inthe Industria . Dispute between the management of Union Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central οι 4-7-2007.

[No. L-12011 /78/2002 -IR (B- II)] HAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

3. According to the management , the enquiry is in noway irregular or findings perverse. The Enquiry Officer has conducted a fair enquiry complying with the principles of ostural justice . He did not entertaio any prejudice or indulged in a biased attitude. The workman was given ample 4806

(PART -SF30 ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 28, 2007 /SRAVANA 6, 1929

opportunity to defend the case. Tse Enquiry Officer himself was the Disciplinary Authority and the punishment imposed commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct. The findings are based on materials on record. No interference in the matter of findings or punishment, is warranted.

4. Since the validity of enquiry was questionedby the union a preliminary issue was raised and that aspect was considered preliminarily and found that there is no infirmity or impropriety in the procedure followed by the Enquiry Officer aund the domestic enquiry is valid. What remains to be considered are:

(1) Whether the findings are perverse ?

(2) Is the punishment proper ?

from one Suresh Kumar was Rs. 58.75 . That was corrected to Rs . 53.75. As per Sl . No. 13 the actual amount received by the Caretaker was Rs . 27.50 but was altered to Rs.22.50. От 15-8-2000 one of the telephone charges received by the Caretaker was not recorded in the register and the amount is Rs. 38.75. Ext. MEX- 3 computer print out of call tariff shows the actual charges of telephone calls . El . MFX-6 js the report of Hostel Warden submitted to Chict Manager of the Rank . He reported about the alterations in the Telephone Register . Fx1. MEX-4 is a letter written to me Ghuliani, an officer of the management in Delbi enquiriog about the use of STD facility while attending training in the Staff Training Centre , Aluva . By Ft . MFX-5 (2) he replied that he had made an STD call on 15-8-2000 froi Staff Training Centre . Aluva andhe had paid Rs.36.75 toward STD call charges to the Caretaker . The entries of 14-8-2000 are made in the handwriting of the workma according to MW1 , the Hostel Warden.

The evidence consists of the oral testimony ofMW1 (Enquiry Officer ) and documentary evidence of Ex . M1 enquiry file.I

S. PointNo.(1) :

7. Pages 139 and 140 of Todging and Boarding Register contain the disputed entries . As per Sl . No. 5 the date of arrival of the trainee participat is 14-12-1999 and the date of departure is 22-12-1999 . As per Sl . No. 16 the dule of arrival is 15-12-1999 and departure is 22-12-1999. The dates of departure of buti participants are seen corrected . Acending 10 the managementement these were only two of several instances . E.XL. MEX - 6 is a report with a statement of details of alterations and excess payments to canteen (Oracçtne . Fat. MEX - ú is prepared by the Hostel Warden. Ext. MEX- 7 ( 1 ) sa leller of the canteen contractor admitting that for about 4 months Carelaker Chacko.had been altering the dates of arrival (to early dates ) สา departure (to later datesi in the Lodging and Boarding Register and raising bills for higher amounts than the actual . The workroom bad shared the excess amounts with the contractor.He expressed regrets for the lapses on his pan and he promised je he lonest in future .

The charge -sheet contains the allegations that Shri P.A. Chackd while holding the post of Caretaker -cum- Watcbroan Leropered with the records of the institutiess with aview to carich himself and the act of the workroso amounted to anisconduct of acting prejudicial to the interest of the bank, falling within Clause 19.5 (j ) and breach of any rule of business of the bank or instructions for the running of any department, falling within Clause 19.7 ( d) ofBipartite Settlement . The learned counsel for the union subroits that the 2nd charge will not stand as the management has not pointed out which rule or instruction of the manageneal was violated by the workman. Clause 19.7 (d) is a thinor misconduct. The management has not been able 10 point outwhat is the basis for the 2nd charge . As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the union the management has not been able to show violation of any rude or instruction . For the alleged misconduct of tampering with records he is charged for a majur misconduct . It is not pointed out that said the misconduct of tampering withs records will amount to violation of any rule. Since the management has not substantiated the 2nd charge and the Enquiry Officer has not dealt with it independently of the Ist charge , the funding regarding 2nd charge cannot be sustained .:

8. But the learned counsel for the union argued that there is no post of Caretaker in the bank . He points out the postis trentioned in Part - 11 of Appendix ' B ' of' tst Bipartite Settlement ( ' Bipartite Settlements' by 11.P.J. Kapoor, 12th Edition , pages 89 and 90). Among subordinate staff there is no post of "Caretaker' . Therefore the learned counsel contends that ir was not the duty of the workman 10 maintain the Telephone Register and Lodging and Boarding Register . There is no record to show that he was assigned that duty by the management. The 2nd argument is that the workman was generally having night darty and entries said to have been altered in the Telephone Register as well as Lodging and Boarding Registers were recorded during day while someone else was on duty .

9. Regarding the duty of Caretaker , Appendix "B " , Part-11of 1st Bipartite Settlement referred by the learned counsel for the union does not actually mention all the posis in banks , hu : only those posts and duties which carry special allowance . This can be seen from the opening paragraph of Appendix ' B' .

6. The 1st charge is regarding tampering with Telephone Register and Lodging and Boarding Register. The telephone call charges actually received and recorded in the Telephone Register was altered subsequently. Similarly, inuhe Indging and Boarding Register the check in and check out dates are altered in order to include more days than actual. Catering bills are prepared on the basis ofthe entries in the Register . Thus higher amounts were received hyj catering contractor from the roanagement . The specific allegation against the workman is that on 14-8-2000 two entries in Telephone Register (Lxt .MEX-2 in Ext. MI ) were altered. Serial Nos . 10 and 13 ofthe entries dated 14-8-2000 of Telephone Register is said to conli the alteration. The telephone charges actually recovered [ भाग - खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

"SpecialAllowance Duties

The following list does not include the routine dutics ofthe codre ( clerical/ subordinate ) which a workman normallyhas to perform, but merely coumcrates those special duties which if perfonned in addition to the routine duties will entitle the workman to a special allowance στη the terms and conditions provided in ChapterV." 10. It is in evidence that irrespective of the post ur designation , the workman was entrusted with the duty of maintenance of Telephone Register and lodging and Boarding:Register whenever he was on duty in the Hostel . He land written the Registers whenever he was on duty. Lixis. MEXs -9 to 40. Daily Catering Statements were prepared by the workman in his handwriting and checked by warden . The disputed entries in the Lodging and Boarding Register are in the handwriting of the workin accordingto MW 1. Thus the workman was performing the duty of Caretaker.

1 ] It is true that the disputed entics were first recorded during day. But the allegation is that records were tampered and figures were altered . This, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the management , can be drine at any point of time and nut necessarily at the time of actual retxunding . It is more so when the figures are correcterl which is a subsequent act. If the workman was on duty he could have written whatever amount he wanted to write than the actual , without waiting to alter it sulisequently . Therefore the correction would havebeen carried out malterations would have been made subsequent lo the ongioat recording . This could be done later while the workman was on duty . Therefore there is no force in The contention of the learned counsel for the wurkman .

12. The actual relephone charges can be seen- fr the print out receipts list . MiX -3 . On a comparison ofExt . MEX-2Telephone Register with MEX -3 print out receipts the alleged alteration can be detected. The admission of catering czymiraclot in Ext . MEX -7 ( 1 ) pins him down to the charge of tempering with the records . However the learned coursel for the workman submits that the very same ontacter has rebuued that position by Ext . DEX- 2 Jeller. It was written on 26-12-2000, four months after ExΙ . ΜΕΧ- 7( 1 ) and addressed to the management . The contents of the letter is that he had written Ext . MEX-7 (1) on a fervent hope that the ounagement would not ercase any problem in the contract arrangement and that he lad riot intended to fumish evidence against the workman. Now that the contract is terminated he would clarify that whatever is there in Ext. MEX-7 (1) is not true. So it is self evident from Fx1 . 10EX- 2 that what prompted him to retract from his carlier Slatemen: is the action of management in terminating bis contract. The first version is the carlicat one in time and is supposed to contain the truth. The subsequent version is Bo alterthought and a retaliation for having terminated bis contract . It is also relevant to note that there was no objection while Ext . MEX- 7( 1) was marked during enquiry and the defence had not pus any question to the witnesses MW-1 &2 regarding this letter. The learned counsel for the unior. argues that both MEX- 7 ( 1) and DEX- 2 were 3151 G2307-13

4807

भारत का ग्रनषत्र: जुलाई 28 , 2007/श्रवण 6 , 1929

marked without objection and therefore they have the same footingand evidentiary value . It is true that borh statements were marked similarly . But they do not command the same credibility because of the circumstances under which they were written and I have explained the circumstances to prefer one to the other . The contractor had received an excess amount of Rs . 6,660 which was ordered to he TEçovered as per endorsement in Ext . MEX- 8 catering bill . The worker has a grievance that the canteen contractor was not examined . But in the light of MFX -7( 1 ) it was not necessary for the management to examine him . The workoman was free 10 suraman bin and examine him on his side if he wanted . Au any rate that will not miligale the gravity of the charge. The Enquiry Officer has rightly found the workman guilty of the 1st charge . acting prejudicial to the interest of the bank and that does not require any interference . However I have found that the findings regarding 2nd charge cannot be sustained

13. Point Na. (2) :

The punishinent imposed is dismissal . Enquiry Officer bimsell imposed punishment after hearing the workman . The authority of Enquiry Officer to impose punishment is challenged by the union . According to the anion the Enquiry Officer was appointed only to conduct an enquiry. He was not empowered to assume the power of Disciplinary Authority . The charge- sheet shows that the roanagement had appointed another Disciplinary Authority, Sbri P.B. Baskar Reddy, Manager ( P) , Nodal Regional Office, Ernakulam for enquiry . But according to the learned counsel for the union the Enquiry Officer is not a Disciplinary Authority so far as the workman is conсетнеці . The points vul Circular No. 2309 dated 28-5-1981. 115 schedule contains the details of establishment where the staff is working, their Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. Page 78 of the circular concerns the workoan .Hewas working in Stall Training Centre , Aluva. Among the Disciplinary Authorities of Staff Training Centre the Personnel Officer is a Disciplinary Authority . As per charge-sheet the Enquiry Officer is Manager (Personmel) , Nodal Regional Office , Ernakularn . But the learned counsel pointed out the statement of Enquiry Officer (MW 1) in omurt. In the cross -examination he had said that he was middle management grade , scale- [ l at the tinne of enquiry . Therefore the learned counsel argues that the Enquiry Officer is not a Disciplinary Authority falling within the schedule of the circular referred supra . But it is tobe noted that the middle management grade. scale - li is a grade and not a designation or post . Whereas his designation is mentioned in the charge - sveetas Personnel Officer, that is , Manager (Personnel), Nodal Regional Office , Emakulans . Therefore, he squarely falls within the schodule of Disciplinary Authority. Again the learned counsel submits that as per churge - sheet he was appointed only as Enquiry Officer . According to the learned counsel untess The inanagement had cropowered him specifically to act as Disciplinary Authority , the Enquiry Officer cannot play the dual role ofEnquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority.

THE GADAMT OF INDIA JULY 25, 210SRAVANA ッソ

track int sutroision is not curree . As per the charge- sheer another Disciplinary Authority was opposited to нігу . Ну mentioning that the enquiry will be conductedby another Disciplinary Authority, the managempat had intended that the Enquiry Officer shall actalso as Disciplinary Authority. Otherwise there. WIEN TU need to mention that another disciplinary authority was пруг Пет | tined Hat the Enquiry Officer is also the DisciplinaryAuthority concerning the workman and it was within his powers to propose punishment , Heat EIL delinquam and imposc punishment .

14 it was the mid the puristiment iraposed jis harslı anil excessive . The punishment is ems the earned counsel for the unione sulbarrils Hist except forthe alleged misconduct . the worksuso has clean prast record. No disciplinary action was taken prior 10 this incident . Kodoux. MW2has admitted that he was sariscal with the rimmanee , beelsaviour and characici barring he alleged incident But the alleged incident is ant a solizary instance. Hehas been continuing the tampering of records for four months. Had not the warden detected it , the would have cunjinded the fraud . The workman , an ex - military persoane , is supposed to be a disciplined person . Contray the expectations of the management les actel desunestiy . The management annor repose confidence in such a ретвол аду люге . He is said to be the sole bread winner ol the family. But that cannot he weighed with the gravity ef the misconduct . He is an ex- military perannci getting prension.Nanc of the circumstances mentioned aboнис сап be extendating in case of misappropriation . Thereleme interference with the punishment is warranted .

15. In the result . an award is passed finding shat the: achicthe management in dismissing the workman , Shri P.A. Chacko from service is proper anel justitseel and he is not entitled or any relief. The parties will suffer thei respectiv: цель. The award will take effect one month after its publication in the Official Gazelle.

Dicated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed back typed try ner , cncreuteal aad passed by me on this the 25th day ofJune, 2007.

P.LNOORBERT , Presiding Officer APPENDIX

Wilnessforthe Workman: N

Witness for the Management : MW1-Shn P.V Bhaskar Rodkly.

Exhibit Spetbe Workman

Exhibitfor the Management :

M-Frepairy File .

नई दिल्ली, 5 जुलाई , 2007

का , 2123,-बरेधोगिक विवाद अधिनियল, 1917 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धार 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय मरकार न्यू इंडिया एश्योरेन्सकबंधतंत्र के बन्दियोजकों और उनक कर्मकारों जनु निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक वियन्त्र में केन्दीय सरकार जंगगिक अधिकरण श्रम नालन्द . २.डीगढ़ के पंचाट संदर्भ संक्रमण 513.2005 को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय तरकार 47 2007 को प्रगान हुआ था

17012/ 8/89 - अई आर ( चै ।। ) . राजिन्द्र कुमार, उस्क अधिकारी NM lih. the 5th July , 2007

SO. 2123- e of Section 17171 ndustrial Dispuca Act . 1947 141947 ), ihce Central Governmen . herchy publish the award ( Ref. No. 513 . 20 ) of the Cenual Government Endustrial Triluunal -cum- Jalexur Ciur .N. 2. handigarh as shown in the industrial dispus xtweenthe employers in relaικα to the management et New India Assuranπημάν limited and this women which was received by the Central CGovernment en 4-7-2007,

No. 1 1701.2/8/ 89- [ R ( 13-1001 RATINDER KUMAR Desk Officer ANNEXURF.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL- CCM - LABOUR COURT-IL (HANDIGARH

Presiding Micer : SURI KUULDIP SINGH Case 1. D. No. 51J: 20005 .

Hegistered on 6-4-1989. Dak of 34 .

Vijay Kumar Goyal . x -Assistant at the Office of the New India Assurance Company , 1d . Sangru

... Pic

Versus

The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, the New Lodia Astana: 1.11 . 87 , Mahatma Gandhi Road . Fort ,

Respondent

APPEARANCES

Shri 10. Hundal , Advocate

For the Mang

Mr. N. K. Zakmi , Advocate

AWARD

Thurisartanence received from the invernmental dodia, Ministry of Labour, New lai vide their No. L- ] 88TR ( - ) , dated Nil which resas under:

Whether action ni Management of New Indisa Assuran in terminating services of Shri V.K. CGoyal . Assistant ... 6.3 148.5 without followiשונ provisauris ut ladustrial Disputes Ast es legal and justiliul. If you to what relief the workman is entitled 41809 [ भाग II- खग्ट ३( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र ; जुलाई 28 , 2007/ श्रावण 6 , 1929

The reference was received in sbis Tribunal whereupon the notices were issued to the parties who appeared therough their Counsel . The workman filed his Chain Statergent , the Management their Whiten Statement . The workican filed replication . The parties also placed on record the documents and led the oral evidence in support of their claims . The workman Filed bis affidavit dated 2nd January, 1996 comprising of 28 pages . He also filed his additional affidavit dated 19th August, 1998, revised additional affidavil dated 21st October , 1999 , counter affidan ia dated 13th May , 2003 , Affidavit of Naurata Ram Goyal dated 9th Dec. , 1998, and two affidavits of Bhagwal SaroopGoyal dated With Dec, 1998. The Management l'iled The two aflidavits of Messrs . Dr. Maheshwari Dull and V.K. Single.The parties have also placed on recurd a number of documents . In support of his claim , the workman ppeared as a witness and also examined Shri Harpreet Singh whereas the Management produced Dr. Maheshwari Dutt besides V.K. Singla as their witnesses.

days. The Management having not taken any action on his request for three years, followed unfairlabour practice; that the services of the workman were terminated in compliance of the instructions of the divisional Manager , issued from time to time, such as daterl 26th March, 1985 and 4th April , 1985. The workman in the end has prayed fur tis reinstatement with continuity of service, full back wages hesides other consequential benefits and interest on the amount found due at the rate of 16 % p.a. The claim of the workman hasbeen opposed by the Management. They have taken three preliminary objections to the maintainability of the claim stating that since the workman had abandoned the servies at his will , therefore , the present rmatter is not a dispute as defined by Section 2- A of the Act. That the workman was engaged by the Management purely on temporary and daily wages hasis as stop gap arrangement . The was also engaged to do temporary jobs [1 ] the pennañeral employee joined. The engagement оf thе workman being temporary and on daily wages could no confer any tight on him so as to claim employment in the Company. Even otherwise when the stand taken by the werkman and thatby the Management are different and varied, therefore , the reference is not maintainable

On merits it is submittedby the Management that the workman was not appointed as the Assistant on regular busis. His engagement was purely temporary and on daily wage, for doing clerical work for which he was paid on daily wages for the days he served. The Management did not terminate his services as its laimed rather the workman himself did not turm up after 25th Feb. , 1985.The workroan has cooked up the story in the Claim Statement whereas no such thing happened during that period. They have further denied that theworkman had approached the Managerment against his wrong full termination or that the Management had terminated his services . They have also denied having violated the provisions ofthe Act . According to them since the workman had himself abandonment the job , therefore, the question of violation of Section 25 -F of the Act did not crise .The Management has also denied that any junior of the workman is working with the company. Since the engagement of the workman was purely temporary. therefore, the question of his regularization afier putting in 240 days service did not arise . The Managerment also did not follow unfair labour practice . They have claimed that the workman is gainfully engaged . It is their prayer that the claim of the workman may be dismissed,

The claim of the workman is that he was appointed is Assistant with the Management Company on Sth November, 1981 and was posted in its Branch: Sangrur where heworked continuously up to 6th March, 1985, when :lis services were temninated without assigning any reason. That he had made representation dated 18th Feb., 1985 and submitted the same under Registered Post on 19th Feb.,1985 ,10 the Chairman cum Managing Director alleging that Officiating Branch Manager Dr. Maheshwari Tartu bas threatened him of terminating his services . Irritaind by that representation the Branch Manager directed him to hand over the charge but refused to give him the recerpt . Despite the said development be contioned working on the said post upto 5th March , 1985 when again he was gain directed to hand over the charge with the threat that otherwise the locks of the Almirabs and that of cable in his use will he broken. 10 that situation the workman approached SHO Police Station , Sangrur , by a written complaint . Thereupon the police restrained the Branch Manager framdoing such an act and the complaint was registered on 6th March , 1985. With the intervention of the police, the charge was handed over to the Shri Dull , dre officiating Manager but he was also asked not tu enter the quemises thereafter . He liad informed the Branch Manager as well as Supdt . of Police Sangrur about the unbecoming behavior of the Branch Manager by letter dated 5thMarch, 1985 sent under R/ C The Management did not take any action. Thereupon be approached the anthorities under the 1.D. Ac , 1947 , to be referred to for brevity as "Act" claiming to the disengagement of the workinan was in violation oi provisions of Section - 25 - F of the Aca . The Itanagement neither offeree ! oor paid the compensation 10 the workmart. They also retained the juniors ofthe workman in service and also made fresh recruitments without calling the workmen for employmepr . He was also entitled for regularization since be had put in service of more than240

The workman filed replication after the filing of the Written Statement by the Management . He reiterated the finds already stated by birm in the Claim Statement and alleged that the Management has coined a new excuse to get rid ofthe workman . He denied that he bad abandoned the job from 25th Feb. 1995. as is claimed by the Management . He further denied that the engagement of the workroan was in emergent circumstances stating that whal sought of emergency was that when the workmar.

4810

PART 11- SFC . 3 ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : ДЛУ 28 , 2007 SRAVANA J リコ!!

was allowedto carry on with his job for quarter past three years . He claimed that he bad served the Management continuously upto 5th March, 1985 and the charge was saken over from him by force and against his wishes . He further clairged thar at the time of terminating his services the Managerpent had retarded Mr. Harbhajan Singh , posted as Assistung in the Sungrur Branch . They also recruited new Assistants namely Harpreet Singh , Miss Kalawati, Kulbhusban Sachdeva and others . According to hinu lie had put in more than 240 days service when his services were terminated without following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

The Management prostuced Dr. Maheshwar Thun as their witness who was examined wice , that is, on 4th November ,2004 and 18th October . 2005. Dr. Dull by Jhis statement priveal his affilavits dated 25th January . And 7th April, 2013. Falibu M -A and M -B. When Cross- examined he stated inat he had joined the Sangrur Branch on 1st May, 1982: that the workman was engaged to clear the back lng of the new Branch and was working in that Branch when he (witnessi joined . He further stated that in the absence of Branch Manager he was officiating as Branch Manager ; and that on fith: March , 1985 the work had bunded over the charge to him in the presence of Police. one Trade Linion leader and Dr. Mohan Singh Adm. Officer for which documen: W-62 was executed . He denied thar the workman had relinquished the charge under protest . He further stated that the document W 62 was prepared by lim and thereafter he had signed thereon . Fle claimed เส the later part of the document was not there at the time he had signed it and it seems that tha : part was added liners . He denied the suggesties that whole of the document W- 62was prepared in his preverine Fle slowed his inability 10 kave brought the original of the document saying that the same was not provaded to ham by the concerned Regional Manager, but he had kept a copy thereol in his revird .He further stated that since the criginal writing has been made below the carbon sep of the documents, therefore , il appears iliat the documents was forged by the workrm Laser on . Admitting his sigrautares on W-1 and the same being in his hand he stated that WW 1:42 comained his signatures. He aduzikeri that he lat forwarded the notice dated 14thof March. 1085 10 his next higher office , and admitted that extitits 30:.42 and 43 contain his signalaites . He further admined that cheques exhibits W- 910 W 26 bear bis signatures and the sarne were preparedby the workunius as per the wiLchers placed on record and markeal 4 to 46. Admilling that he was summoned by the Police on the complaint of the workman , he stared that Exhibit 3/11 contain his signantres , but denied the knowledge thai lie had received the letter with AD WW -3 / 11 . He further andmillel sat he was a witness to documents 3/14 , 3:27 and had forwarded flae documents 3/23 to 3:28 . He further admitted thar the labour Inspector had challaded him as Incharge Manager and the court had fined him. He further statedthat the workman was sitting in the office when he was challaned. He denied that he had prepared W-3/ 68 10 W-3/ 6 and stated that Exhiltis 3:73 contain his signatures ; and that WW 3:74 is prepared by him . He denied his signature on 3/75 and stired that as per his information the workman was gain fully engaged but be had not verified that personally . He turther denied that any order ol terminativo of servies of the workman was passed or thal the interpolations in the charge shert were clone by the Management .

Theworkman appeared as a witness twice. le first appeared asja witness on 19th Sep., 2002 and proved his idfidavits dated 2nd January and 20th Oct , 1996 Fixhibit W- 63 and W-64. His subsequent statement was revxordel na 20th July, 2004 By his statement, besides the affidavits referred to carlier, he proved his 3rd atidavit dated 13th May, 2003 and the documents such as application , postal receipt no. 1 acknowledgement and UPC. of the same date , representation to SHO dated 5th March , 1985 and letter of the sanse dale sent tu Chairman - com . Managing Director under postal receipt and acknowledgement clased Sinh March, 1985, copy of DDR dated 6th March, 1985. letter dated 7th March, 1985 , UPC dated 9th March, 1985 , letter dated 15th March, 1985 UPC: letter dated 14th April, 1985 and oumber nfather dotuntents as derailed in his statement. These documents ere taken on record subject to the objection of the Management . He further stated that after the termination of his services he remained idle , unemployed fully dependent upon his father and brother. In 47085 examination he admiteed that he was engaged on daily wages but denied that he was engaged only to clear the back log . He further denied that be had abandoned the job and had not kurriel up for work after 25th Feb., 1985. He admitted that be was paid wages for the days he worked and stated that he had handed over the charge to Dr. Maheshwar Dutt . ander protest in presence of the Police . He further admitted that the charge was also handed over by Rajan Singla in the same manner, Bue denied the knowledge that the post had been advertised. He further denied that theManagement had offered him the job without back wages, but admitted that he had signed all the proceedingsbefore ALC on 8th August , 1988. He claimed thut the Labour Inspector bad challaned the Management bu: denied that it was done on a holiday. The workman also produced Shri Harpreet Singh of Union Bank of lindia, Sangrur as witness who stated that the New India Assurance Co. Sangrur had opened Account No. CD 2024 und that W- and W-8 were the depositing slips of drafts deposited whereas W-9 to W -26 were the cheques issued 10 make payment to the employees and those cheques were issued from the cheque book issued by then and that W-7to W- 26 are photo copies whereas W- 27 is the copy

of the scaterbent of Account

It may be metal beic that Shri V.K. Singla also appeared as witness in the case . By his earlier statement 4811 भारत का गुणपत्र : मुलाई 28, 2007/ श्रवण 6 , 1929

| भाग खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

dated 24th August, 1993be denied that the Management is in possession of counter files of cheque banks of Acumi No.24020 of UBI of Sangrur for the period 25th Fch .to 5th ofMarch, 1985 and the vouchers for that period . He also denied the availabiliry of list of assistants employed including, llarpreet Singh ,Miss . Kala, Ms. Sekbon, Miss Kanta, Miss Kalu , Kulbhushan Sachdeva, Ganesh Dass and Balwinder Jeet. Shri Singla appeared as a witness 2nd time on 31st May, 1993. In his slatement he stated that Exhibits W-4 .W -2, W-3 are correct as per the record brought by him, and that letrer dated 7th Feb., 1985 was not available with the Management. Similarly despatch register , cash income statements exhibit W-5 , W-6, receipt Nos .48564, 48565 to 48571 are not traccable. On 30th May, 1994 he stated that as per the record W-28 is the telegraа Гот Mr. Vijay Goyal and W- 29 is the letter dated 6th March , 1985 in the hands of Dr. Rameshwar Dutt whereas Exhibit 31 is Use demam matice dated 12th March, 1985. subanitted by the petitioner whereas W-36 is the letter dated 14th March, 1965 related to Dr. Maheshwar Dutt, Divisional Manager, Patiala whereas the letter W- 38 is a letter from Divisionя: Окст Patiala u Sangrur Branch, W-37 is a letter written by Amar Singh Sadhi to the Divisional Officer , Patiala. The fourth time he appeared as witness on 15th October, 1995 and stated that receipts W -42 and W- 43 contained the signatures of Shri V.K Siogla and Maheshwar Duts. He denied having signed vouchers W-44to W-61 and stased that the record pertaining to that is not available with the Management . He further failed to tell whether any workerman was engaged after the termination of services of the workman , but stated that petty payments usedtobe made in cashgand that since W -44to W-61 are ploto compics, therefore, he cannot verify as to who had signed those documents .

1have gone through the file and have also considered the submission made by the parties for and against their respective cases . The question which has fallen for consideration is whether the services of the workman, Shri V.K Goyal , were terminated on 6th March , 1985, by the New India Assurance Co. by following the provisions of the Act , and therefore , the action of the Management was legal and justitied and if not to what relief the workman is entitled to. In my opinion in order to answer this refereтке the pleadings of the parties are most relevant .

subsequent lines they admitted that the workman was engaged temporarily on dailywages for doing merely clerical work. They,bowever, denied that the Management had terminated his services. On the other hand they claim that the workman bad abandoned the job for the reasons best known to hina as he did not turm up for work after 25th Feb. , 1985. From the reply of the Management the two things have become clear that the workman was engaged by the Management on Sth November, 1981 ; and thathe had served the Mamagerment up to 25th Feb. , 1985 whereas the daim of the wurkanan is that he had served the Management up to 5th March , 1985. Supposing but not admiting that the workman had served the Management only upto 25th Fcb. 1985, it is proved , without going into the evidence of the parties , that the workman remained in the continurus service of the Management from 5th Nov. , 1981 to 25th Fch, 1985.However , the workman claims that be had served the management not only upto 25th of Feh, but upto 5th of Marcı, 1985. To order to preve his case the workman has placed on record a number of documents which include Exbibit W-I . the contents of which are not denied by the Management except the words "charge handed over to Maheshwar Dutt , under protest that I am removed illegally from service today against my wishes . Sd/- V.K Goyal , Assistant, 6th March , 1985 " . Without going into the claim of the workinan that he had made the assertion that he is heing removed illegally against his wishes, at the time of banding over the charge, the fact remains that the charge of his office was received by Dr. Maheshwar Dult on 6th March , 1985 and till then he was holding the charge of ris section while in the craployment of the Mamagerment. On record there is also exhibit W - 7 which is a pay- in - stip dated 28th Fob., 1985 and by which an amount of Rs.26,156 was deposited in the Aconunt of New India Assurance Co. Sangrur, Account No. 24020 and this document was certified 10 be the true copy, by the official of Union Bank of India , Sangrur . There is also W- 8 on record, by which, on the same day,Rs.40,000 were deposited by a draft in the same acount Both these documents contain the signatures of V.K Goyal , admittedly the workman . Since these two documents are certified to be true copies of the originals , by the official of Union Bank of India, Sangrur, these lend credibility to the fact that the workerman was working for the Management on 28th Feb. , 1985 , that is why, he signed on the pay- in- slips on behalf of the Management . There are also on record Exhibits 42 and 43 which are dated 28th Fcb. , 1985 and 1st March , 19RS respectively. These are the receipts issuedby the New India Assurance Co. Sangrur in favour of Divisional Office , New India Assurance Co. Patiala , ackırowlodging the receipt of amounts of Rs.26,156 and 668. Hoth these documents are signed by the workaman besides Mr. Maheshwar Dutt . Exhibit 44 10 59 атс disbursement vouchers and these are signed hy the Branch ManagerDr.Maheshwar Dutt besides the workman . These vouchers also show that the workman was working for the Management from 25th 10 28th March, 1985. 1ksamen The workman, in his statement of claim, asserted chat he had joined service with the Management on 5th November , 1981 ; and that his services were terminated on 6ch March, 1985 abruptly . The Managerment in reply to this claim denied that the workman was appointed as Assistant on regular basis . The workman has not claimed that hewas appointed as Assistant on Regular basis . The Managerdel has intelligently denied that the workman was engaged on thal day as an Assistant on regular basis . Theydid not deny tha: the workman was engaged as Assistami in Sth of Nov, 1981 otherwise than on regular basis . In the 4812

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 28, 2007SRAVANA E. 199

PAKISEL . Mεί

tha : the workrian haż hiruseli abandoned the job and ine Management had not terminated his services.

WW-3.11,3/12 and 3:13 further show that the letters were addressed to the Officiating Branch Manager , the Divisionat Mahages and Chairman cum Mamaging Director of the Management Corporation and the same were sent by the workman , unless shown otherwise . There are also phian cupies of the despatch register for the perind 20th Fich.. 15 to 28th Feh. , 1985 Exhibit WW -3 /23 to WW -3/27 which show that the workman corified to have expended Rs.142.35 paise as stamp charges , for the Managernen , fre sending the letters to the addressee on behalf of the Management . Documents exhibit 3:28 show that an animunt Df Rs. 16.30 paise was spent as stamp charges for sending letters in addresses on behalf of the Management although I thank at the entries in the despatch register were made alterwards since the writing of the workman and he บ ละ made in the regasters do not tally even to a naked eye. But 11 is the Management which has to explain as to howthe workman got the access to the record so as to make the entrics and sigue the same on the despatch register .

The workman has proved that he had served the Management as Ass stati continuously finem Sch of Nos, 1981 to úth of March. 1985. Thus thele remains no doubt to hold that the workman haved the Managersenų for more than 240 days durirs, wetve months preceding the dale (if Lerimin services. In that , situation whatever mily have seen the status of the workman , the Managemem was required to follow the provisions of Section. 25-1 of the Act betere verroinating his services . They were required to give him але токth's notice telling him the reasons forteenistuse his services andwages for the notice period Tlay were further required to pay retrenchirent compensation to the workman . They were also required to give antice the Appropriate Covermen uruthurily so appointed netifying their intentionto dis- engage the workmar . Nothing such is shown to have been done hy she Mamagere here absulutely nu evidence on record to snow that the Management had followed the provisions of Section 25 - F of the Act before terminating the services of the worken out of Manch , 1985. The bave utterly liriled ic show that the workman did not turn up for duny after 25.1965 me he gave nitine his intentions to the Mategorest nut to rantisie מן their Service . He also did not approach the Managemen thereafter till 7th of Febuary, 1985 when he raised t demand notice . I am therefore , satisfied that the Management violated the envisions of Section 25 -F of the Act while terminating, the services of workanan on fith uf March . 1905. Therefore , the termination of services of the workman on 6th M. 2h , 1955 was had in law .

On recard Ifind the copy of telegram Jitel 5th ol March, 1985 Felhibir W.28 bry which the workman informed the Officiating Branch Manager of the Management s Sangour that Shri Maheshwar Duti was trying to remove him from service forcibly Document Exhibit W29 shows that the Branch Manager Sangrur received the telegram which he forwarded to D. Patiala on 6th of March , 1985. By the same letter the Branch Manager admitted tohave taken over the thaige from Slari V.K.Goyal un 5th ví March, 1985. Document W 31 reals that the workroan requested theManaging Director Cum Chairman on 12th of March, 1985 to reinstine him in service, All these documents gu Lu show that Use i -lain of the workman is true that he served The Managerment From 5th of Nov , 1981 το 6th of March, 1985 continuously and that the services of the workman were terminaald on bith of March, 1985 .

The next quzstiuri waich requires consideration is as in wharreliefthe seakan picked to to the stillenient of claim the workman has prayed for re- instatement with Contianity in service , Llocs wages and all other xonsequential benefits besides interest 18 % P.A. The Management . in reply tour . has submitted that the workman is not entitled to any relief since he has remained all through this period gainfully arraped . They have also claimed that since the engagemer of the workman was not in accordance with rules .herefore . be cannot claim reinstatement aus rapularization in service . They have reliel upon the Judgmem of Anex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka bersas Devi being Civil Appeals Nos. 1595 3612 of 1999. decided on 10th of April , 2006 .

I have considered the submissions of the partics in this regard als is proved that the engagement of the workmon was not in accordance with the rules of procedure prevalent in the Managerment . Its eniry in service was nothing shart of backdoorcony . Therefore , in view of the law lail duvaa hy the Apesuurt m Lima Devi's case( supra ) he saanut claims reinstatement in service . Since the Management is shown to have not complied with the provisions of Section 25- Fof the Act even when he had The claim of the Manageinent is that the workerian had abandoned the service at his own for the reasons best known to him. They have failed to produce any documentry or oral evidende to show law the workman had intentionally not reported f duty after 6th of March, 1985. The evidence on record is rather to this effort that the charge from the workman washaken by the Officiating Branch Manager in presence of the police-Trade Union leader and Senior Offiver of the Management on 6th of March. 1985. As per the workman, the officiating Branch Manager wanted the workman to accept the salary on assumed name or quit the service and when the workinan refused to agree with him.. The BranchManager asked him to hand over the charge . The workman asked for repeapt of the charge. the Branch Manager refused to give whereupon the workman reported the marter 10 ad police besides to the higher officers of The Management including the Officiating Branch Manager of Sangrur Branch of the Management. In this regatıl reference can be made 10 exhibits W- 28 and W29 . Thus t find thut therelis no truth in the claim of the Management 4813 [ भागे । खण्ड ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजापत्र : जुलाई 28 , 2007 / श्रवण 6 , 1929

अंतर्गत प्रदान किए जा रहे अन्य भविष्य निधि लाभों का भी फायदा उठा रहे हैं ।

put in more than 240 days of service, the workman is entitled to the penefits be would have got but for his termination frum service.He was entitled in salary for the notice period, rezenchmeat compensation at the rate of fifteen days salary for every completed year of service and for the period above six Dionths of service. He is also entitled to compensation in licu ofback wages besides the liligation expenses and of course the imerest on the amount so found due to him.

3. अतः, आब , केन्द्र सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की भाय 17 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त सक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , और समय- समय पर इस संबंध में उल्लिखित शतों के अध्यषीन केन्द्र सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को 01-06-1993 से अगली अधिसूचना तक उक्त स्कीम के सभी उपबंधों के प्रचालन से छूट प्रदान करती है ।

[संख्या एस-35015/16/2007- एसएस -11 ]

एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2007

8.0. 2124- Whereas M/ s, India Satcom Ltd. junder Code No. KN/ 13289 in Karnataka region ) (bereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied for exemption under clause (a) of sub -section ( 1 ) of section 17 of the Eraployees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Ρτονίείους Act, 1952( 19 of 1952 ) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) .

Though the workman did not claim , in his statemens of claim, that he was without work right from the day of termination of his services yet in his starement before this Tribunal be claimed that he is not gainfully engaged.He placed on record affidavits of his farher and brother but did not examine there to prove the same and to roake them to stand to the cross-examination of the Management . The workiran is apparently an alle person . He remains well dressed and is educated . Thus it cannotbe said that he bas remained without work all through this period . Otherwise ,how could he have survived for all these twenty two years . The claim of workman on this count is not correct . The fact remains that he has suffered at the hands of the Wanagement and for nu fault of his.

2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central Government , the rules of the provident fund of the sald establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are not less favourable to employees therein than those specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided under the said Act or under the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other establishment of similar character.

3. Now, iberefore, in exercise of the powers coufenet by clause (a) of sub- section (1 ) of section 17 of the said Act and subject to the conditions specified in this regard from time to time , the Central Goverordent, bereby cassumpts the said establishment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 01-06-1993, until further notification.

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the Case I am of the considered opinion that the workman is cntitled to compensation of two lacs as one time commpensation for the wrongs done to him by the Managerment which shall include his salary for notice period.retrenchment compensation , back wages, interest on amount found due and the litigation expenses . The Management is directed to pay this amount 10 the workman within three months from the date the award becomes enforceable. In case of failure on their part to implement the aw ird , the workman shall be entitled to get interest on the amount award @ 9% from the date , the award becomes enforceable till the said amount is realized in full . The reference is answered. Ict a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion .

KULDIP SINGEL, Presitling Officer

No. S-35015/16/2007-SS - IM S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 9 जुलाई, 2017

नई दिल्ली, 9 जुलाई , 2007 की,औ , 2124, जर्जाक मैसर्स इंडिया सैटकामा लिमिटेड, ( कर्नाटक क्षेत्र में कौड संख्या केएन 1.3289 के तहत ) ( इसके पश्चात् प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में उल्लिखित ) ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि एवं प्रकोणं उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) ( इसके पश्चात् अधिनियम के रूप में उल्लिखित ) की धारा 17 की उप - भारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क ) के अंतर्गत छूट के लिए आवेदन किया है ।

का.आ. 2125.- बचकि मैसर्स आईसीआईसीआई बेन्चर फंड मैनेजमेंट कं. लिफ्टेिड ( कर्नाटक क्षेत्र में कोड संख्या डीएल/ 14549 के तहत ) ( इसके पश्चात् प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में उल्लिखित ) ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम, 1952 (1952 का 19 ) ( इसके पश्चात् अधिनियम के रूप में उल्लिखित ) की धारा 17 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खष्ह ( क ) के अंतर्गत छूट के लिए आवेदन किया है ।

2. और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार के विचार में अंशदान की दरों के संबंध में उक्त प्रतिष्ठान के भविष्य निधि नियम , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 में विनिर्दिष्ट की तुलना में कर्मचारियों के लिए कम अनुकूल नहीं है और कर्मचारी, उक्त अधिनियम के अंतर्गत अभना इसी प्रकार 2. और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार के विचार में अंशदान की दरों के संबंध में उक्त प्रतिष्ठान के भविष्य निधि नियम , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 ने विनिर्दिष्ट की तुलना में कर्मचारियों के लिए कम अनुकूल नहींहै और कर्मचारी , उक्त अधिनियम के अंतर्गत अथवा इसी प्रकार के किर्य । अन्य प्रतिष्ठान में कर्मचारियों के संबंध में कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि स्कीम, 1952 ( इसके पश्चात् स्कीम के रूप में उल्लिखित ) के 4814

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : ЛТУ 28, 3007/SRAVANA . 1929

के किसी अन्य प्रतिष्ठान में कर्मचारियों के संबंध में कर्मचारी भविष्य निधिस्कीम, 1952 ( इसके पश्चात् रकीम के रूप में उल्लिखित ) के अंतर्गत प्रदान किए जा रहे अन्य भविष्य निधि लाभों का भी फायदा उठा रहे हैं ।।

3. अतः , अब , केन्द्र सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की भारी 17 की उप- धार ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, और समय भ्रमय पर इस संबंध में उल्लिखित शर्तों के अध्यधीन केंद्र सरकार एतद्दृ‌द्धास उक्त प्रतिष्टान को 03-08-1991 से अगली अधिसूचना तक उक्त स्कीम के सभी उपबंधों के प्रचालन से छूट प्रदान करती है ।

[ संख्या एस-35015/ 1/ 2007 - एम.एम.- ] एस. डी. अंविसर, अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 9th July,2007

5.0. 2115- Whereas M/ s. ICICI Venture Funki Management Co. Ltd. (under Code No. KN/ 14549 in Karnatuke reigon ) (hereinafter referred 10 as the establishment) has applied for exemption under clause (a) ofsub-section ( 1 ) of section 17 of the Employees ' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ( 19 01 1952) (hereinafter referred to us theAct).

2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central Government , the rules of the provident fund of the said establisbroent with respect to the rates of contribution are not less fevourable to employees therein than thuse specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefils provided under the said Act or under the Employees ' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 ( hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other establishment of similar character .

3. Now, therefore , in exereise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub- section ( 1) of Section 17 of the said Ad and subject to the conditions specified in this regard from time to time, the Central Governineni , lieręby cxempts the said establishment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 03-06-1991 , until further notificaiton .

No.S-35015/3/2007-SS- II] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy . नई दिल्ली, 9 जुलाई, 2007

का.उ. 2126.-जबकि मैसर्स डे मेडिकल स्टयंर्स ( प्रा. ) लिमिटेड, ( कोलकाता क्षेत्र में कोड संख्या डब्ल्यूबी 82 (19 के तहत) (इसके पश्चात् प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में उल्लिखित ) ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) ( इसने पश्चात् अधिनियम के रूप में उल्लिखित ) की धारा 17 की उप- धारा

PARI 11 Sac: 3( 1) ] ( 1 ) के खण्ड (क ) के अनंत खेट के लिए आवेदन किया है 2. और जर्गक कन्द्र राग्कार कं वित्तार में अंशदान को दरों के संबंध में उक्त प्रतिष्ठान वंः भविष्य निधि नियम , उक्त अधिनियन की धारा 6 में विनिर्दिष्ट की तुलना में कर्मचारियों के लिए कम अनुकूल नहीं है और कर्मचारी , तन्त व्अधिनियम के अंतर्गत अश्वा इसी प्रकार के किसी अन्य प्रतिष्टान में कर्मचारियों के संबंध में कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि स्को ५ . 1912 ( इसके पश्चात्स्कीम के रूप में उल्लिखित के अंतर्गत प्रदान किए जा रहे अन्य भविष्य নিদিয় लाभों का भी फायदा उत्तरह हैं ।

3. अतः अत्र, केंन्द्र सरकार उका अधिनियम को धारा ।। की उप - भारा ।। के खण्ड ( क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रसंग करते हुए , और समय- समय पर इस संबंध में उल्लिखित शनों के अध्यधीन केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को 101-11-1994 से अगली अधिसूचना तक उक्त स्कीम के सभी उपबंधों के प्रचालन से छूट प्रदान करती है ।

( संख्या उस-35015/34/2007 - एस्.एस. - 11 ] एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 9th July , 2007

S.O. 2126 Whereas Mis . Dey's Medical Stores (P) Ltd., ( under Code No. WB / 8209, in Kolkata reigon) (hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied for exemption auder clause ( a) of sub - section (1) of section 17 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellancrius Provisions Act. 1952 ( 2 of 1952 ) ( hereinafter referredto as the Act) .

2. And whereas the opinion of the Central Government , the rules of the provident fund of the said establishment with respect to the rates of comibution are not less favourable to employees therein than those specified in section & of the said Act and the employees are also in enjoyinen of other provident fund benefits provided under the said Act or under the Employees Provident Funds Scheme . 1952 (hereinafter referred to 86 the Scheme ) in elation to the employees in any other establishmco : of similar character .

3. Now , there'ure , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( a ) ne sub -section ( 1 ) of section 17 of the said Art and subject to the conditions specified in this regard from ime to time.the Central Government , bereby , exempts the said establishmen: from the operation of all the provisions of the sand Scheme with effect froun 01-11-1994 . until he notificaienn .

No.S-35015/34/2007-SS-[ [ ] S.D XAVIER UL'inder Secy.

Printed by the Manager , Govt . of Media Press . Ring Read. Mayape : New De11064 and Published by the Controller af Publications. Delh 111054 .