This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

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

REGD . NO . D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003-05 भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 13]

No. 13]

नई दिल्ली, मार्च 23 मार्च 29 , 2008 , शनिवार/चैत्र 3-चैत्र 9 , 1930 NEW DELHI , MARCH 23- MARCH 29, 2008, SATURDAY/CHAITRA 3- CHAITRA 9 , 1930 इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग II-खण्ड 3-उप-खण्ड (ii)

PART II Section 3-Sub- section (ii)

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

विधि और न्याय मंत्रालय

कार्मिक , लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय

(कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग )

(विधि कार्य विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 17 मार्च , 2008

नई दिल्ली , 12 मार्च , 2008

का, आ. 652.- राष्ट्रपति , दिनांक 05-03-2008 से श्री वी. टी. गोपालन का मद्रास उच्च न्यायालय , चेन्नै में भारत के अपर महासालिसिटर के पद से त्यागपत्र स्वीकार करते हैं ।

[फा.सं. 18( 4)/2008-न्यायिक] एम.ए. खान यूसुफी, संयुक्त सचिव एवंसरकारी काउंसेल

MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE

(Department ofLegalAffairs)

का. आ. 653.-केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973( 1974का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप - धारा ( 8 ) ..द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए श्री गजानन यशवंत विंचुरकर , अधिवक्ता को विचारण न्यायालयों और अपोल/पुनरीक्षण न्यायालयों में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना द्वारा संस्थित मामला सं. आरसी. 5(एस)/2002- मुंबई में अभियोजन अथवा महाराष्ट्र राज्य में विधि द्वारा स्थापित न्यायालयों, जिन पर पूर्वोक्त मामलों के उपबंध लागू होते हैं, में उक्त मामले से उद्भूत अन्य विषयों का संचालन करने के लिए विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

می

New Delhi , the 12th March, 2008

[सं. 225/36/2006-एवीडी- II ] चंद्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव S. O. 652. The President is pleased to accept the resignation of Shri V.T. Gopalan , as Additional Solicitor General of India in the High Court of Madras at Chennai w.e.f. 05-03-2008 .

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS (Department of Personnel and Training) NewDelhi , the 17th March, 2008 [F. No. 18 (4)/2008-Judl . )

S. O. 653.-In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal M.A. KHAN YUSUFI , Jt . Secy . &GC

988 GI/2008

(1335) 1336

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2008 / CHAITRA 9 , 1930-

Procedure . 1973 ( Act No.2 of 1974) , the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Gajanan Yashwant Vinchurkar , Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution in case RC.5 (S )/2002- Mum . instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment in trial courts and appellate/ revisional courts or any other matters arising out of the case inthe cours established by law in the State of Maharashtra to which provisions of the aforesaid section apply.

[No. 225/36/2006-AVD - II ] CHANDRA PRAKASH , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 18 मार्च , 2008

का. आ. 654. केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता , 1973( 1974 काअधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए श्री गजानन यशवंत विंचुरकर , अधिवक्ता को परीक्षण न्यायालयों और अपील/पुनरीक्षण न्यायालयों में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना द्वारा संस्थित मामला सं. आरसी. 4( एस)/2002- मुंबई में अभियोजन अथवा महाराष्ट्र राज्य में विधि द्वारा स्थापित न्यायालयों , जिन पर पूर्वोक्त मामलों के उपबंध लागू होते हैं, में उक्त मामले से उद्भूत अन्य विषयों का संचालन करने के लिए विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[सं. 225/29/2006- एवीडी-11 ] चंद्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 18th March , 2008

S. O. 654. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section (8 ) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Gajanan Yashwant Vinchurkar , Adyocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution in case RC.4 ( S )/2002 - Mum . instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment in trial courts and appellate/revisional courts or any other matters arising out ofthe case in the courts established by law in the State of Maharashtra to which provisions of the aforesaid section apply.

[No. 225/29 /2006 -AVD - IIJ

CHANDRA PRAKASH , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 18 मार्च , 2008

का. आ. 655. केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता , 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2) की धारा 24 की उप - धारा (8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए सुश्री रूजुता वसंत प्रधाम , एडवोकेट, मुंबई ( श्री ए. एम. चिमालकर से कनिष्ठ) को मुंबई स्थित माननीय विशेष न्यायालय ( टोर्टस ) में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ( के.अ. ब्यूरो ) द्वारा संस्थित मामला आरसी 52 ( ए) /92- मुंबई में अभियोजन और पुनरीक्षण अथवा अपील न्यायालय अथवा किसी अन्य न्यायालय में इस मामलें से संबंधित अथवा प्रासंगिक अपीलों/पुनरीक्षणों अथवा अन्य विषयों का संचालन करने के लिए विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[सं. 225/39/2007- एवीडी -11 ] चंद्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव

[PART 11- SEC:. 3 (ii) ] New Delhi , the 18th March , 2008

S. O. 655. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 8 ) of section 24 of the Code of Crimina! Procedure , 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) , the Central Government hereby appoints Ms. Rujuta Vasant Pradhan , Advocate, Mumbai (Juniorto Shri A.M. Chimalkar ) as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution in case RC 52 ( A) / 92-BOM instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) in the Hon'ble Special Court (Torts) at Mumbai and appeals /revisions or other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, in the Appellate Court of Revision or in any other court .

[No. 225/ 39/ 2007 -AVD- 11 ] CHANDRA PRAKASH , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 18 मार्च , 2008

का. आ. 656. केंद्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता , 1973 ( 1974 काअधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए श्री वी.वी. पारिख , अधिवक्ता कोमाननीय विशेष न्यायाधीश के न्यायालय , नासिक में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ( सीबीआई ) द्वारा संस्थित मामला आरसी. 8/ई/2001 - बीएस एंड एफसी/मुंबई के अभियोजन और विधि द्वारा स्थापित पुनरीक्षण अथवा अपील न्यायालयों में इस मामले से उद्धभूत अपीलों/ पुनरीक्षणों अथवा अन्य विषयों का संचालन करने के लिए विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[सं. 225/17/2007 - एवीडी- II ] चंद्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 18th March, 2008

S. O. 656. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub -section (8 ) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) , the Central Government hereby appoints Shri V.V. Parekh Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of case RC8 / E/2001-3S & FC/Mumbai instituted by Delhi Special Police Establismer CBI ) in the Court of Hon'ble Special Judge for CBI Cases at i lasik and appeals/ revisions or other matter arising out of this case in revisional or appellate court established by law.

[No. 225/ 17 /2007 -AVI - II CHANDRA PRAKASH , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 18 मार्च , 2008

का. आ. 657.- केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहि 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप - धारा ( द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए निम्नलिखित अधिवक्ताओं को महाराष्ट्र राज्य में विचारण न्यायालयों में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ( के.अ. यूरो ) द्वारा संस्थित और केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो द्वारा उन्हेंसौंपे गए मामलों के अभियोजन और विधि द्वारा स्थापित पुनरीक्षण अथवा अपील न्यायालयों में इन मामलों से उद्भूत अपीलों/पुनरीक्षणों [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

अथवा अन्यविषयों का संचालन करने के लिए विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती हैं :--

सर्वश्री

1. संदीप विजय तम्हाने ,

2. उदय शंकरराव देशमुख,

3. विनोद प्रहलादराव फाटे ,

4. सुभाष सोनाजी काटे ,

5. शदरचन्द्र ,

6. जयंत एकनाथराव साल्वे ,

7. रुतुराज चन्द्रशेखर पाटिल,

४. दिलीप बी. अडवेंट,

9. कुमारी बीना,

10. रविशेखर बापूरावजी बाडनोरे ,

11. जी.सी. कटारिया ।

[सं. 225/4/2007 एवीडी- II ]

चंद्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 18th March , 2008

S.O. 657.-In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 8 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints the following Advocates as Special Public Prosecutors for conducting prosecution of cases instituted byDelhi Special Police Establishment ( CBI) in the State of Maharashtra as entrusted to them by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the trial courts and appeals/ revisions or other matter arising out of these cases in revisional or appellate courts established by law :----

S/Shri

1. Sandip Vijay Tamhane ,

2. Uday Shankarrao Deshmukh ,

3. Vinod Pralhadrao Phate ,

4. Subhash Sonaji Kate ,

5. Shri Sharadchandra,

6. Jayant Eknathrai Salve ,

7. Ruturaj Chandrashekhar Patil ,

8. Deelip B. Advant ,

9. Miss Bina,

10. Ravishekhar Bapuraoji Bandnore,

11. G. C. Kataria.

[No. 225/4/2007-AVD- 11 ] CHANDRA PRAKASH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 19 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 658. केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा आतंकवादी और विध्वंसकारी क्रियाकलाप (निवारण ) अधिनियम, 1987 ( 1987 का

1337

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29 , 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

अधिनियम सं. 28 ) की धारा 13 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए श्री पी. अरूण , अभियोजन अधिकारी , के.अ. ब्यूरो , मुंबई को , संलग्न अनुसूची में उल्लिखित अपराधों अथवा मुंबई शहर और मुंबई उपनगरीय जिलों, जिला रायगढ़ और जिला थाणे , में किए गए ऐसे ही मामलों के विचारण तथा उक्त बम विस्फोटों से संबंधित और उद्भूत ऐसे ही क्षेत्रों में ऐसे ही मामलों के विचारण के लिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 9 के अंतर्गत गठित नामनिर्दिष्ट न्यायालय , मुंबई में पूर्वोक्त अनुसूची में उल्लिखित मामलों और मुंबई शहर तथा उसके उपनगरों में 12 मार्च , 1993 को हुए बम विस्फोटों से उद्भूत ऐसे ही क्षेत्रों में ऐसे ही मामलों से उत्पन्न मामला संख्या आरसी ।1 ( एस ) /93 - सीबीआई एसटीएफ मुंबई ( कोर्ट केस सं. बीबीसी । ऑफ 93 ) तथा उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन उससे संबंधित अन्य मामलों अधवा आनुषंगिक मामलों के संचालन के लिए, केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो के विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्तकरती है ।

अनुसूची

क्रम स्थान

डीसीबी सं

पुलिस स्टेशन और अपराध संख्या अपराध संख्य 4 1 2

1. स्टॉक एक्सचेंज

70/93

एम.आर.ए. मार्ग , 129/93-

2. कथा बाजार

पैडोहईन , 195/93 73/93 3. सेना भवन

-118/93

दादर , 186/93

117/93

दादर , 187/93

सेंचुरी बाजार

5. महिमकौसवे

महिम 185/93 110/93 6. एयर इंडिया

कूफे पराडे , 126/93 71/93 7. जावेरी बाजार

75/93

एल.टी. मार्ग ,

122/93

(एक्सप्लोडिड

स्कूटर)

8. सीरॉक होटल

114/93

बांद्रा, 148/93

9. प्लाजा सिनेमा

महिम 184/93 109/93 10. जुहू सेंटूर होटल सांता क्रूज 155/93 116/93

108/93

सहार, 200/93

11. एयरपोर्ट बे 54 (थ्रोइंग एच .जी. )

एयरपोर्ट , 19/93 115/93 12. सेंटूर होटल (एयरपोर्ट)

13. वर्ली

112/93

वर्ली , एलएसी

389/93-

72/93

मतुंगा, 251/93

14. नैगम सी.आर.एस. रोड़ (अन एक्सप्लोडिड स्कूटर)

111/93

एल.टी. मार्ग ,

15. धनजी स्ट्रीट एंड

जावेरी बाजार (2 124/93

अन एक्सप्लोडिड

स्कूटर 1338

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008/CHAITRA 9 , 1930

4 1

132/93 16. महास्ला

महास्ला , 6/93

17. श्रीवर्धन

133/93

श्रीवर्धन , 14/93

18. गोरेगांव

134/93

गोरेगांव , 17/93

19. थाणे

135/93

कपूरबावड़ी, 14/93

एस. के. मेनन स्ट्रांट

20.

एल.टी. मार्ग , 138/93

77/93

15/93

एलएसी ,

21. इच्टर्न साइड लेवोटरी ऑफ मुसाफिर खाना, मुंबई

18/93 22. नारियल वाडी मुस्लिम एलएसी सिमेंट्री, मझगांव

20/93

एलएसी

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] Districts , Raigad District and Thane District as mentioned in the case schedule, and to try such cases in such areas as may arise out of and connected with aforesaid Bomb Blasts .

SCHEDULE

Place

Sl . No.

Police Station and Cr . No.

DCB Cr. No.

4 2

1. StockExchange

70/93

M.R.A. Marg. , 129/93

2. Katha Bazar

73/93

Pydhonie, 195/93

3. Sena Bhavan

118/93

Dadar, 186/93

117/93 4. CenturyBazar Dadar, 187/93

110/93 Mahim Causeway Mahim , 185/93

71/93 6. Air-India

23. पिकनिक गेस्ट हाउस नियरलीडो थियेटर , :सांता क्रूज ( वेस्ट)

21/93 24. 58 , नर्गिस दत्त रोड, एलएसी पाली हिल बांद्रा, (वेस्ट) , मुंबई -50

21/93

एलएसी

25. बोनापार्ट इंडस्ट्रीज , घनश्याम इंडस्ट्रीज एस्टेट , वीरा देसाई रोड , मुंबई-50

32/93

एलएसी कुर्ला एलएसी 707/93

26. खातीजाबी चॉल , आर. नं । , सोनापुर लेन , कुर्ला ( वेस्ट)

22/93

एलएसी

27. ड्रीमलैंड़ को. ओ. हाऊसिंग सोसायटी, मिल्ट्रीशेड-मेरोल, मुंबई

[सं. 225/45/2007-एवीडी- II ]

चंद्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 19th March , 2008

Cuffe Parade, 126/93

75/93 7. Zaveri Bazar (Exploded Scooter)

LTMarg, 122/93

8. Sea Rock Hotel

114/93

Bandra, 148/93

9. Plaza Cinema

109/93

Mahim, 184/93

116/93 10. Juhu Centaur Hotel Santa Cruz, 155/93

Sahar, 200/93 108/93 11. Airport Bay 54 (Throwing H.G.)

115/93

Airport, 19/93

12. Centaur Hotel (Airport)

112/93 13. Worli

Worli , LAC 389/93

72/93

Matunga, 251/93

14. Naigaum C.R.S. Rd.(unexpl , Scooter)

111/93

L.T. Marg , 124/93

15. Dhanji ST & Zaveri Bazaar(2 unex- ploded Scooter)

Mhasla 6/93 132/93 16. Mhasla

Srivardhan 14/93 133/93 Srivardhan 17.

134/93 18. Goregaon

Goregaon 17/93

135/93 19. Thane

S.O. 658. In exercise of the powers conferred b sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 13 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities ( Prevention) Act , 1987 , ( Act No. 28 of1987) , the Central Government hereby appoints Shri P. Arun, Prosecuting Officer of the Central Bureau of Investigation , as Special Public Prosecutor of the Central Bureau of Investigation for conducting prosecution of the case RC 1 (S)/93 -CB1 STF Mumbai (Court case No. BBC 1 of 93) relating to the cases mentioned in the Schedule appended hereto , and such cases in such areas as may arise out of and connected with Bomb Blasts which occurred on 12th March, 1993 at Mumbai City and suburbs , and other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto under the said Act, in the Designated Court at Mumbai constitutued u/ s 9 of the said Act to try offences or such cases committed at Mumbai City and Mumbai Suburban

Kapurbawadi, 14/93

20. S.K. Menon Street L.T. Marg, 138/93 77/93

15/93 21. Estern side Lavotry LAC ofMusafir Khana , Mumbai-50

LAC

18/93 22. Nariyal Wadi Muslim Cementary Mazagaon

20/93 23. Picnic Guest House LAC Near Lido Theatre, Santa Cruz(W) 1339 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

3. Customs Division , Valsad .

LAC

4. Customs Division , Paldi .

21/93

5. Customs Division, ICD Dashrath .

[FileNo. 11012/ 1 /2008 -Hindi -2] 24. 58, NargisDutt Road, PaliHill Bandra(W), Mumbai

MADHU SHARMA, Director (OL) LAC

21/93

( वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 17 मार्च , 2008

25. Bone Parte Ind. , Ghansham Ind. Est. Vira Desai Road, Mumbai-50 .

32/93

LAC Kurla LAC 707/93

26. Khatijabi Chawl , R. No. 1 , Sonapur Lane, Kurla(W)

22/93

LAC

27. Dreamland Co. Op . Hog. Sct. Military Road, -Marol, Mumbai

[No. 225/45/2007-AVD- II ] CHANDRA PRAKASH, Under Secy.

वित्त मंत्रालय (राजस्वविभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 17 मार्च , 2008

का. आ. 660.-राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम, 1970/1980 के खण्ड 9 के उप- खण्ड ( 1 ) एवं ( 2 ) के साथ, पठित , बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम, 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उप- धारा 3 के खण्ड (च) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा , डॉ. सुनील उधवराव देशपांडे , वरिष्ठ प्रबंधक ( स्केल 3 ) और वरिष्ठ संकाय , पुणे कर्मचारी प्रशिक्षण केन्द्र को, बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट अधिकारी परिसंघ द्वारा मुम्बई उच्च न्यायालय के समक्ष दायर की गई वर्ष 2001 की रिट याचिका सं. 5394 के अंतिम आदेश के अध्यधीन , अधिसूचना की तिथि से तीन वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा उनके बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र के अधिकारी बने रहने तक अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक , जो भी पहले हो , बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र के निदेशक मण्डल में अधिकारी कर्मचारी निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 9/61 /2004- बीओ -1 ] जी.बी. सिंह, उप सचिव

(Department ofFinancial Services) New Delhi , the 17th March , 2008 का. आ. 659. केन्द्रीय सरकार राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम 1976 के नियम 10 के उप-नियम (4 ) के अनुसरण में राजस्व विभाग के अधीन केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क एवं सीमा शुल्क बोर्ड के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों कोजिनके 80% कर्मचारीवृंद ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है ।

1. सीमा शुल्क आयुक्तालय , अहमदाबाद

2 सीमा शुल्क मंडल , सूरत

3. सीमा शुल्क मंडल , वलसाड

4. सीमा शुल्क मंडल, पालडी

5. सीमा शुल्क मंडल , आई सी डी दशरथ

[सं. 11012-( 1 ) 2008-हिन्दी-2] मधु शर्मा, निदेशक ( रा.भा. )

MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) New Delhi , the 17th March, 2008

S. O. 660. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( f) of sub- section ( 3 ) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer ofUndertakings) Act , 1970/1980 read with sub -clause ( 1 ) & (2) of clause 9 of the Nationalised Banks (Management & Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme , 1970/1980 , the Central Government , after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby nominates Dr. Sunil Uddhavrao Deshpande , Senior Manager (Scale III) and Senior Faculty at the Staff Training Centre of the Pune , as Officer Employee Director on the Board ofDirectors of Bank of Maharashtra for a period of three years from the date of the notification or till he ceases to be an officer of the Bank of Maharashtra or until further orders , whichever is the earliest , subject to the final order in the Writ Petition No. 5394 of 2001 filed by the Bank of Maharashtra Officer's Association before the Mumbai High Court.

[F. No. 9/61 /2004-BO- 1 ] G.B. SINGH , Dy. Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 18 मार्च , 2008

S. O. 659. In pursuance of sub rule 4 ofrule 10 of theOfficial Language (use ofOfficial Purpose ofthe Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of Revenue , the 80 % staff where of have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi .

1. Commissionarate of Customs , Ahmedabad.

2. Customs Division , Surat .

का. आ. 661. प्रादेशिक ग्रामीण बैंक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 21 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों 1340

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008/ CHAITRA 9 , 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 18th March, 2008

का प्रयोग करते हुए, केंद्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा, 27 फरवरी , 1986 के का.आ. सं. 71 ( अ ) के तहत भारत सरकार , वित्त मंत्रालय के आर्थिक कार्य विभाग ( बैंकिंग प्रभाग ) की अधिसूचना में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , नामत:-

उक्त अधिनियम में " पटियाला और संगरूर के जिले " शब्दों के स्थान पर " पटियाला के जिले , संगरूर , फतेहगढ़ साहिब , एसएएस नगर ( मोहाली ) " शब्दों और कोष्टकों को प्रतिस्थापित किया जाएगा ।

[फा. सं. 1/ 15/2007- आरआरबी]

S.O. 662. -In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1) of Section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21 of 1976 ) , the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the Notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Finance , the erstwhile Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division), Number S.O. 188 (E) , dated the 8th March , 1976 published in the Extraordinary Gazette of India Part II , Section-3 sub-section ( ii ) , dated the 12th March , 1976 , namely:---

एम.के. मल्होत्रा , उप सचिव

In the said notification , for the words " Rajourn and Poonch" , the words " Rajouri , Poonch and Sambha " shall be substituted .

पाद टिप्पणीः मूल अधिसूचना भारत के राजपत्र , असाधारण भाग-11 , खंड 3 , उपखंड (ii ) में दिनांक 27 फरवरी , 1986 के का.आ. सं. 71 (अ ) के तहत प्रकाशित की गई थी ।

[F. No. 1 / 18/2007 - RRB ] New Delhi , the 18th March , 2008

M.K. MALHOTRA, Dy. Secy .

FootNote: The principal notification number S.O. 188 (E) , dated the 8th March , 1976 was published in the Gazette of India, (Extraordinary ) , Part 11 , Section 3 , Sub - section ( ii ) , dated 12th March , 1976 and subsequently amended, vide S.O. 2302 , dated the 23rd June , 1979 .

S.O. 661. In exercise ofthe powers conferred under sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21 of 1976) , the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the Notification ofthe Government of India, Ministry of Finance , the erstwhile Department ofEconomic Affairs (Banking Division) , number S.O. 71 (E ), dated 27th February , 1986, namely:---

कार्यालय मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त जयपुर , 17 मार्च, 2008

सं. 17/2007-08

In the said notification , for the words " districts of Patiala and Sangrur " , the words and brackets " districts of Patiala, Sangrur, Fatehgarh Sahib , SAS Nagar (Mohali ) and Barnala shall be substituted.

[F. No. 1 / 15/2007- RRB]

M.K. MALHOTRA , Dy . Secy .

Foot Note: The principal notification was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary , Part II , Section 3 , sub - section (ii ) , number S.O. 71 ( E), dated the 27th February, 1986 .

नई दिल्ली , 18 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 663. आयकर नियम , 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( 1961 का 43 वां) की धारा 10 के खण्ड ( 23 सी ) की उपधारा ( vi ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शाक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त , जयपुर एतद्वारा निर्धारण वर्ष 2007-08 एवं आगे के लिए कथित धारा के उद्देश्य से "शान्ति ऐजुकेशनल सोसायटी , साँगानेर , जयपुर " को स्वीकृति देते हैं ।

बशर्ते कि समिति आयकर नियम 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 10 के उपखण्ड (23सी) की उपधारा ( vi ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप कार्य करे ।

[क्रमांकः मुआआआआआ ( समन्वय )/जय/10( 23सी )(VI )/07-08 /7560 ]

एस.सी. कपिल , मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त को. आ. 662.-प्रादेशिक ग्रामीण बैंक अधिनियम , 1976 (1976 का 21 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केंद्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा , भारत के राजपत्र , असाधारण , के भाग II , खंड ( ii ) में प्रकाशित 08 मार्च, 1976 के का.आ. सं. 188 ( अ ) ( ii ) दिनांक 12 मार्च , 1976 के तहत भारत सरकार , वित्त मंत्रालय के आर्थिक कार्य विभाग ( बैंकिंग प्रभाग ) की अधिसूचना में निम्मलिखित संशोधन करती है, नामत ::-

उक्त अधिनियम में " राजौरी और पुछ " शब्दों के स्थान पर " राजौरी, पुंछ और साम्बा " शब्दों को प्रतिस्थापित किया जाएगा ।

[फा. सं. 1/ 18/2007- आरआरबी]

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Jaipur , the 17th March , 2008 No. 17/2007-08

एम.के. मल्होत्रा , उप सचिव

S.O. 663. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (vi ) of clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961 ) read with rule 2CA ofthe Income- tax Rules, 1962 the Chief Commissioner of Income - tax, Jaipur hereby approves " Shanti Educational Society, Sanganer , Jaipur" for the purpose of said Section for the A.Y. 2007-08 and onwards .

पाद टिप्पणीः मूल अधिसूचना भारत के राजपत्र , असाधारण -भाग-11 , : खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) में दिनांक 8 मार्च , 1976 के का.आ. सं. 188 ( अ ) के तहत दिनांक 12 मार्च, 1976 के तहत प्रकाशित की गई थी और दिनांक 23 जून , 1979 के का.आ. 2302 के आदेश द्वारा बाद में संशोधित की गई थी । [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1341

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

Provided that the society conforms to and complies with the provisions of sub -clause ( vi ) of clause (23C ) of Section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with rule 2CA ofthe Income-tax Rules , 1962 .

[No. CCIT/JPR/ Addl.CIT(Coord .)/ 10 (23C) /(vi )/2007-08 / 7560] S.C. KAPIL, Chief Commissioner of Income - tax स्वास्थ्य और परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय (स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 18 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 664.-केन्द्र सरकार ने भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1) के खंड ( क ) के अनुसरण में तथा झारखंड सरकार के साथ परामर्श करके डा. ( श्रीमती ) शोभा चक्रवर्ती पुत्री स्व. नगेन्द्र नाथ चक्रवर्ती, निबेदिता , बरियातु रोड , रांची को इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तिथि से पांच वर्षों के लिए भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् के एक सदस्य के रूप में मनोनीत किया है ।

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

उक्त अधिसूचना में " धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (क) के अंतर्गत मनोनीत " शीर्षक के अंतर्गत क्रम संख्या 28 तथा उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टियों के स्थान पर निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां प्रतिस्थापित की जाएंगी , अर्थात्:-

झारखंड सरकार " " 28. डा. ( श्रीमती ) शोभा चक्रवर्ती पुत्री स्व. नगेन्द्रनाथ चक्रवर्ती ,

निबेदिता,

बरियातु रोड ,

रांची

[संख्या वी-11013/2/2007 -एम.ई. ( नीति -1 ) ] एस.के. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (Department of Health and Family Welfare) NewDelhi , the 18th March , 2008

S.O. 664. Whereas the Central Government in pursuance of clause ( a) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ( 102 of 1956) and in consultation with the Government of Jharkhand have nominated Dr. (Smt . ) Shobha Chakravorty, D/ o Late Nagendranath Chakravorty, Nibedita, Bariatu Road, Ranchi to be a member of the Medical 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 inthe Notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry ofHealth number S.O. 138 dated the 9th January , 1960, namely:--

Govt. of Jharkhand" In the said Notification , under the heading , "Nominated under clause (a) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3", for serial number 28 and the entries thereto, the following entries shall be substituted , namely:- "28. Dr. (Smt .) Shobha Chakravorty, D/ o Late Nagendranath Chakravorty, Nibedita

Bariatu Road ,

Ranchi

[No.V.11013 /2/2007-ME (P - 1) S.K. GUPTA, Under Secy सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 17.मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 665.-केंद्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम (4) के अनुसरण में , भारतीय जन संचार संस्थान, नई दिल्ली ( सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय) , जिसके 80 % से अधिक कर्मचारीवृन्द ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , को अधिसूचित करती है ।

[संख्या ई -11017/6/2007-हिन्दी] प्रियम्वदा , निदेशक ( राजभाषा) MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING

New Delhi , the 17th March , 2008 S.O. 665.-In pursuance of Sub - Rule (4) of Rule 10 ofthe Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules , 1976 , the Central Government hereby notifies Indian Institute of Mass Communication , New Delhi (Ministry of Information and Broadcasting) , more than 80% ofthe staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi .

[F. No. E - 11017/6/2007-Hindi ] PRIYAMVADA, Director ( O.L. ) संचार और सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय (डाक विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 666.-राजभाषा नियम ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजन के लिए प्रयोग ) 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम (4) के अनुसरण में केन्द्र सरकार , डाक विभाग के अधीनस्थ कार्यालयों कोजिसके 80 प्रतिशत कर्मचारी ( ग्रुप घ कर्मचारियों को छोड़कर ) ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है । 1342

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008/ CHAITRA 9 , 1930 .

कार्यालयों का नाम

पिन कोड डाकघर का नाम

क्रम. सं

3 1

172001 रामपुर बुशहैर

172026 आनी उपडाकघर

172002 3. अरसू उपडाकघर

172027 बड़ागांव उपडाकघर

172034 5. बौन्डा उपडाकघर

172032 6 चौवाई उपडाकघर

172025 7 दलाश उपडाकघर

172028 वेलठ उपडाकघर

9. ज्योरी उपडाकघर

172101

172201 10: झाखडी उपडाकघर

172024 11. किंगल उपडाकघर

172031 12. कोटगढ़ उपडाकघर

172029 13. कुमारसैन उपडाकघर

172021 नंनखरी उपडाकघर

14.

तिरमण्ड उपडाकघर

172023 15.

172033 16 निधर उपडाकघर

172103 17. निचार उपडाकघर

172022 नीगली उपडाकघर

172001 19. पदमनगर उपडाकघर

172102 20 सराहन बुशहैर उपडाकघर

भानेदार उपडाकघर

21 .

172030

172107 22. रिकागंपियों मुख्य उपडाकघर

172115 भावानगर उपडाकघर

23.

172118 कटगांव उपडाकघर

172105 25.

करडम उपडाकघर

172104 26.. दापरी उपडाकघर

172106 27. सांगला उपडाकघर

172108 कल्पा उपडाकघर

28.

172116 29. रिब्बा उपडाकघर

172110 स्पीलो उपडाकघर

30.

172109 31. मूरंग उपडाकघर

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

3 1

172111 32. पूह उपडाकघर

33. लियो उपडाकघर

172112

172113 34. ताबो उपडाकघर

172114 35. काजा उपडाकघर

36.

172117 सगनम उपडाकघर

177101 37. देहरा गोपीपुर मुख्य डाकघर

177106 38. डाडासीबा उपडाकघर

177103 39. ढलियारा उपडाकघर

गरली उपडाकघर

177108 40.

176028 41. हरिपुर उपडाकघर

42.

176031 ज्वालामुखी उपडाकघर

43.

176030 खुंडियां उपडाकघर

176036 कोहाला उपडाकघर

44.

177104 45. नैहरन पुखर उपडाकघर

46.

177107 प्रागपुर उपडाकघर

47.

177034 पीरसलूही उपडाकघर

48.

177043 रक्कड़ उपडाकघर

176501 49. संसारपुर टैरस उपडाकघर

177105 50. ठोर उपडाकघर

177112 51 . टिपरी उपडाकघर

176001 52. कांगड़ा मुख्य डाकघर

176054 53. बड़ोह उपडाकघर

54.

176021 भरमेड़ उपडाकघर

धमेटा उपडाकघर

176025 55.

176025 56. फतेहपुर उपडाकघर

176209 57. गगल उफ्डाकघर

176023 58. ज्वाली उपडाकघर

176047 नगरोटा बगवां उपडाकघर

59.

176047 60. नगरोटा सुरिया उपडाकघर

176051 61. राजा- का-तालाब उपडाकघर

176208 62. रैत उपडाकघर

176029 रानीताल उपडाकघर

63.

रैहन उपडाकघर

176029 64.

176037 65. सुन्ही उपडाकघर

176056 66. सुन्हेड़ उपडाकघर [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

1343

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9 ; 1930

3 67. तियारा उपडाकघर

176214 68.

177203 अम्ब उपडाकघर

69. अम्बोटा उपडाकघर

177205 70.

174307 बंगाना उपडाकघर

71 .

174317 भदसाली उपडाकघर

72. भरवांई उपडाकघर

177109 भैरा उपडाकघर

73.

174316 74.

177110 चिंतपूर्णी उपडाकघर

75.

174314 चौकीमनियार उपडाकघर

76.

174302 धुसाड़ा उपडाकघर

77.

177204 दौलतपुर चौक उपडाकघर

78. देहलां उपडाकघर

174306 79.

176601 दुलैहड़ उपडाकघर

177201 80. गगरेट उपडाकघर

81.

177212 घनारी उपडाकघर

82.

177213 गोन्दपुर बनैहरा उपडाकघर

83.

177220 हरोली उपडाकघर

84.

174308 लठियानी उपडाकघर

85.

174315 मैहतपुर उपडाकघर

86.

177202 मुबारिकपुर उपडाकघर

87.

174319 मरबाड़ी उपडाकघर

88.

177210 नैहरी नौरंगा उपडाकघर

89.

177206 ओयल उपडाकघर

90.

177207 पन्डोगा उपडाकघर

91.

177208 पंजबार उपडाकघर

92.

174503 पूवोवाल उपडाकघर

93.

177031 रायेपुर उपडाकघर

94. सलोह उपडाकघर

177203 95.

174301. संतोखगढ़ उपडाकघर

96.

177219 सुन्काली उपडाकघर

97.

177039 सोहारी उपडाकघर

174320 98. तलमेड़ा उपडाकघर

988Gi/08-2

3 1

174321 थानाकलां उपडाकघर

99.

177211 100. ठठल उपडाकघर

174303 101. ऊना मुख्य डाकघर

174303 102. ऊना डाक मण्डल ऊना

[सं. 11017-1 /2007 -रा.भा. ] .

के. पी. सेठी, उप महानिदेशक ( एमएम एवं राजभाषा ) MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND IT (Department ofPosts)

New Delhi, the 19th March, 2008

S.O. 666. In pursuance of Rule 10 (4) of the Official Language (use for official purposes of the Union) Rule 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following Subordinate Offices of the Department of Posts where80 percent staff has acquired the working knowledge ofHindi :

PinCode S1.No. Name of Post Office

3 1

172001 1. Rampur BSR- HO

172026 2. Ani - SO

172002 3. Arsu - SO

172027 4. Baragaon - SO

172034 5. Bonda-SO

172032 6. Chowai -SO

172025 7. Dalash- SO

Dailath-SO

172028 8.

172101 9. Jeori -SO

172201 10. Jhakri - SO

172024 .11. Kingal- SO

172031 12. Kotgarh -SO

172029 13. Kumarsain -SO

172021 14. Nankhari -SO

172023 15. Nirmand -SO

172033 16. Nither-SO

172103 17. Nichar -SO

172022 18. Nogli -SO

172001 19.. Padam Nagar - SO

172102 20. Sarahan BSR -SO

172030 Thanedhar - SO

21 .

172107 22. Reckong PEO- HO 1344:

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008/ CHAITRA 9 , 1930

172115 23. Bhawa Nagar - SO

172118 24. Katgaon - SO

172105 25. Karcham-SO

172104 Tapri -SO

26.

172106 27. Sangla -SO

172108 28. Kalpa - SO

29. Ribba-SO

172116

172110 30. Speelo - SO

172109 31. Moorang - SO

32. Pooh-SO

172111 33. Leo- SO

172112

172113 34. Tabo-S0

172114 35. Kaza-SO

172117 36. Sagnaın -SO

177101 37. Dehra Gopipur-HO

177106 38. Dadasiba- SO

177103 39. Dhalara-SO

40. Garil - SO

177108

176028 41., Haripur-SO

176031 42. Jawalamukhi -SO

176030 43. Khundian - SO

44. Kohala-SO

176036

177104 45. Nehra - Pukher -SO

177107 46. Pragpur -SO

177034 47. Pirsaluhi - SO

177043 48. Rakkar-SO

49. S.P. Terrace - SO

1765101

177105 50. Thore-SO

177112 51. Tipri -SO

176001 52. Kangra-HO

176054 Baron -SO

53,

54.

176021 Bharmar-SO

176025 55. Dhemata-SO

176053 56. Fatepur- SO

176209 57. Gaggal -SO

58. Jawali -SO

176023

176047 59. Nagrota Bagwan - SO

176027 60. Nagrota Surian- SO

61: Raja- Ka- Talab- SO

176051 62. Rait SO

176208 63. Ranital - SO

176029

176022 64. Rehan - SO

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

3 2

176037 65. Sunhi- SO

176056 66. Sunehar - SO

67. Teara- SO

176214 68. Amb - SO

177203

177205 69. Ambota- SO

174307 70. Bangana - SO

174317 71. Bhadsali - SO

72. Bharwain - SO

177109

174316 73. Bhera - SO

177110 74. Chintpurni- SO

Chowkimaniar - SO

174314 75.

174302 76. Dhussara - SO

177204 77. Daulatpur Chowak- SO

174306 78. Dehlan - SO

176601 79. Dulehar-SO

177201 Gagret- SO

80.

177212 81. Ghaneri -SO

177213 Gondpur Banehra - SO

82.

177220 83. Haroli - SO

84. Lathiani - SO

174307

174315 85. Mehatpur

177202 86. Mubrakpur- SO

174319 87. Marwari - SO

177210 88. Nehri - Nauranga- SO

177206 89. Oel- SO

177207 90. Pandoga - SO

177208 91. Panjawar - SO

174503 92. Pubowal - SO

177031 -93 . Raipur - SO

94. Saloh -SO

177209

174301 95. Santokhgarh-SO

177219 96. Sunkali - SO

177039 97. Sohari -SO

174320 98. Talmera - SO

175321 99 . Thanakalan - SO

Thathal -SO

177211 100 .

Una HΡΟ

174303 101 .

174303 102. Una Postal Dvn .

[No. 11017-1 /2007 -OL]

K.P. SETHY , Dy. Director General

(Μ.Μ. & OL) 1345 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29 , 2008 /चैत्र 9 , 1930

उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

( उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

(भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो )

नई दिल्ली , 12 मार्च, 2008

का.आ. 667.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम, 1988 के नियम 4 के उप- नियम ( 5 ).के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरा एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं : -

अनुसूची

जनवरी , 2008 में स्वीकृत किये गये अनुज्ञप्ति

लाइसेंसी का नाम तथा पता

उत्पाद का नाम तथा आई एस

अनुज्ञप्तिस्वीकृत क्रम लाइसेंस 'सं. संख्या

करने की तिथि 3

1 2

5 1. 7809994

01-01-2008

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन आई एस 1417 : 1999

श्री अंबिका ज्वैलर्स, 42, दयानंद काम्पलैक्स, शिवम गेट , बेचारीजी, मेहसाना 384 210

2. 7809893

एलमीनो फैरिक

31-12-2007

आई एस 299 : 1989

सनफलैक्स कैमिकल्स इंडस्ट्रिज , प्लाट नंबर 1006 , फेस नंबर 4 , जी आई डी सी एस्टेट , नरोडा, अहमदाबाद 382 330

3. 7811274

चांदी एवं चांदी मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता 08-01-2008 एवं मुहरांकन आई एस 1417 : 1999

डायमंड खजाना प्रा . लि. , जी एफ/ 1 लक्ष प्राईम , टाउन हाल के सामने , आनंद 388 001

4. 7811476

08-01-2008

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन आई एस 2112 : 2003

कहनकुंजज्वैलर्स, एट बारोटवाडा, पी ओ देहगाम ता देहगाम , गांधीनगर

5. 7811375

08-01-2008

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन आई एस 1417 1999

कहनकुंजज्वैलर्स, एट बारोटवाडा, पी ओ देहगाम , तादेहगाम , गांधीनगर

6. 7814482

17-01-2008

दागिना घर , जी 6 , तिरूपति मार्केट , भागवाडा दरवाजा, पी ओ पाटन 384 265

7. 7814684

ओपनवैल सबमर्सिबल

15-01-2008

पम्पसैट

आई एस 14220 : 1999

जय इलैक्ट्रिकल , 5 , राजकमल एस्टेट, सोनी चाल के पास , ओढव रोड, रखियाल, अहमदाबाद 380 023

8. 7815181

21-01-2008

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

सोनी रणछोड़भाई तथा सन्स ज्वैलर्स, पटवाशेरी कंसारवाड, नवसारी 396 445

आई एस 1417 : 1999

9. 7816284

24-1-2008

पैकेजबंद पेयजल

आई एस 14543 2004

विश्वामिन्त्री बिवरेइज , 8,9 , सुल्तानपुरा , गायित्री मंदिर के पास पावागढ़ रोड, पंचमहल 389 350

10. 7816486

24-1-2008

पैकेजबंद पेयजल

आई एस 14543 : 2004

प्राची फूड तथा बिवरेज , श्रीजी कृपा , जिन बाजार, नैटरंग , तावालिया

भारूच 391 130 1346

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008/CHAITRA 9 , 1930

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

1 2

18-1-2008 11. 7816385

इलैक्ट्रिानिक्स वेयिंग सिस्टम

आई एस 9281 ( पार्ट 3 )

एनडैवर इंस्ट्रूमेंट प्रा.लि. , 307 , आनंद चैंबर्स , स्टेडियम अंडर ब्रिज नवरंगपुरा , अहमदाबाद

12. 7816890

23-1-2008

पोर्टलैंड पोजोलाना सिमट

आई एस 1489 (पार्ट 1 )

पारसमणि इंडस्टीज प्लाट नंबर 1 / आर , जी आई डी सी , अंटालिया, बिल्लीमोरा , नवसारी

13.7816789

21-1-2008

पैकेजबंद पेयजल

आई एस 14543: 2004

हरिओम बिवरेइज , वावड़ी ( बजरग ) गोधरा पंचमहल 389 001

25-1-2008 14. 7817387

पैकेजबंद पेयजल

आई एस 14543 : 2004

सिमको फूड तथा बिवरेइज , प्लाट नंबर 6 , जी आई डी सी , जंबुसर , भारूच 392 150

[सं. सी एम डी/ 13 : 11 ]

ए.के. तलवार , उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर ) MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUŢION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi , the 12th March , 2008

S.O. 667. In pursuance of sub - regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification) Regulations 1998, of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

LicenceGranted for the Month ofJanuary, 2007

Product & IS No.

DateofGOL Licensee Name

Licence No

01-01-2008 1. 7809994

Gold and Gold Alloys , Jewellery/Artefacts -Fineness and Marking IS 1417: 1999

Shree Ambica Jewellers 42, Dayanand Complex, Shivam Gate Becharaji Mehsana- 384210

31-12-2007 2. 7809893

Alumino- ferric

IS 299 ; 1989

Sunflex Chemicals Ind . Plot No. 1006 , Phase No. - IV , GI.D.C Estate , Naroda, Ahmedabad 382 330

08-01-2008 3. 7811274 Diamond Khazana P. Ltd. , GF// 1 Laksh Prime Opp . Town Hall, Anand-388001

Jewellery/Artefacts-Fineness

Gold andGold Alloys ,

andMarking

IS1417: 1999

08-01-2008 4. 7811476

atBarotvada, PO Dahegam Kahankunj Jewellers , TA Dahegam , Gandhinagar

Silver and Silver Alloys Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking IS 2112 : 2003

08-01-2008 5. 7811375 Kahankunj Jewellers , Ta Dahegam, Gandhinagar atBarotvada, PO Dahegam

Gold andGold Alloys , Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking IS 1417 : 1999

17-01-2008 6. 7814482

GoldandGold Alloys ,

Jewellery/Artefacts -Fineness

andMarking

IS 1417 : 1999

DaginaGhar G-6, Tirupati Market , Gagavada Darwaja, P.O. Patan-384265 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1 2

7. 7814684

1347

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29 , 2008 /चैत्र 9 , 1930

15-01-2008

Openwell

Submersible Pumpsets

IS 14220 1994

Jai Electrical 5, Rajkamal Estate, Near Soni Chawl , Odhav Road , Rakhial Ahmedabad 380023 8. 7815181 Soni Ranchhodbhai & Sons Jewelers Patwasheri Kansarwad Navsari 396445

9. 7816284

21-01-2008

Gold and Gold Alloys , Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness andMarking IS 1417 : 1999

24-1-2008

Packaged Drinking Water

IS: 14543 : 2004

Vishwamitry Beverages 8, 9 Sultanpura NR Gayatri Mandir PavagadhRoad, Panchmahal -389350 10. 7816486

24-1-2008

Packaged Drinking Water

IS: 14543 : 2004

Prachi Foods & Beverages Shreeji Krupa, Jin Bazar, Netrang , TA : Valiya Bharuch 393130 11. 7816385 Endeavour Instrument Pvt . Ltd. 307 , Anand Chambers NR Stadium Under Bridge Navrangpura , Ahmedabad 12. 7816890

18-1-2008

Electronic Weighing System IS9281 (Pt. 3)

23-1-2008

Portland Pozzolana Cement

IS 1489 (Pt.1 )

Parasmani Industries (OLD) Plot No. 1/R, GIDC , Antalia, Bilimora, Navsari

13. 7816789

21-1-2008

Packaged Drinking Water

IS14543: 2004

Hari Om Beverages Vavdi (Bujarg), Godhra, Panchmahal389001

14. 7817387

25-1-2008

Packaged Drinking Water

IS 14543 : 2004

Simco Food & Beverages Plot No. 6 , GIDC , Jambusar Bharuch 392 150

[No. CMD/13 : 11 ] A.K. TALWAR , Dy. Director General (Marks)

नईदिल्ली , 12 मार्च , 2008

का. आ. 668.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम 1988 के नियम 4 के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद् द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गये हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं : -

लाइसेंस संख्या

क्रम सं

स्वीकृत करने की तिथि वर्ष/माह

अनुसूची

अनु वर्ष

लाइसेंसधारी का

नाम व पता

लाइसेंस संख्या अनुक्रमांक वैधता दिनांक

भारतीय मानक काशीर्षक

भा भा भाग संख्या

उत्पादन

लाइसेंस धारकों का नाम व पता

7806483

1. 31-12-2008

30-12-2008

7792296

3. 31-12-2008

7809792

भा.म./भाग/विभाग/वर्ष

14543 : 2004

पैकेजबंद पेयजल

झोटिक फुजस प्राइवेट लिमिटेड सी-5 , रोड नं. 11 , मरोल इंडस्ट्रियल इस्टेट , एम आई डिसी , अंधेरी पूर्व , मुंबई-400093

14543 : 2004

पैकेजबंद पेयजल

आदित्य बेव्हरेजेस ए-5 , मडकई इंडस्ट्रियल इस्टेट , मडकई , गोवा:403404

14543 : 2004

पैकेजबंद पेयजल

शालोम एन्टरप्राईजेस पोस्टचांदिप , शिरसाड वज्रेश्वरी रोड, सिमला डेरी के नजदीक , वसई -401303 महाराष्ट्र राज्य

[सं. सी एम डी/ 13 : 11 ]

ए. के. तलवार , उप महानिदेशक 1348

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008 /CHAITRA 9 , 1930

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 12th March , 2008

S.O. 668. In pursuance of sub - regulation (5 ) ofregulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification) Regulations , 1988 the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the grant of Licences sparticulars of which are given below in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Validity Date

Sl No.

Licence No.

Product

IS No./Part/Sec/Year

Name and Address ( factory)

ofthe Party

31-12-2008

1. 7806483

Xotik Fruits Pvt . Ltd. C-5, Road No. 11 , Marol Indl . Estate MIDC , Andheri (E) Mumbai-400093 30-12-2008

2. 1792296

Aditya Beverages A-5 Madkai Industrial Estate, Madkai , Goa-403404

3. 7809792 31-12-2008 ShalomEnterprises atPost Chandeep Shirsad Vajreshwari RoadNear Simla Dairy Vasai-401303 Thana

IS14543: 2004 Packaged Drinking Water ( other than Package natural Mineral Water)

IS 14543: 2004 Packaged Drinking Water (other than Packaged natural Mineral Water)

IS 14543: 2004 Packaged Drinking Water (other than Packaged natural MineralWater)

[No. CMD/ 13 : 11 ] A. K. TALWAR, Director General

नई दिल्ली , 13 मार्च , 2008

का. आ. 669. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गये मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया है /किये गये हैं : -

अनुसूची संशोधित भारतीय मानक ( कों) की संख्या

वर्ष और शीषक

क्रम संख्या

(2)

(1)

आई एस 1554 ( भाग 2 ) : 1988 की संशोधन संख्या 3

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागू होने

कीतिथि

(4) (3)

03-03-2008 03, नवम्बर 2007

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

[संदर्भ: ईटी 09/टी-13 ] पी. के. मुखर्जी, वैज्ञा. एफ एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी )

New Delhi , the 13th March , 2008

S.O. 669 .--In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rule , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendment to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued:

Sl . No.

No. & Year of the Indian Standards

(2)

(1)

IS 1554 (Part 2) : 1988

Specification for PVC Insulated

(Heavy Duty) Electric Cables Part 2 For working voltages from 3.3 kV up to and

including 11 kV (Second Revision)

SCHEDULE

No. & Year ofthe Amendments

Date from which the Amendments shall have effect

(4) (3)

03-03-2008 03 , November 2007

1 1349 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

Copy ofthis amendment is avilable 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.

[Ref : ET 09 /T - 13 ]

P. K. MUKHRJEE , Sc. F & Head (Electro Technical )

नई दिल्ली , 17 मार्च, 2008

का. आ. 670.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम 1988 के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गये हैं , वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

भाग अनुभाग वर्ष क्रम संख्या

लाइसेंस संख्या

स्वीकृत करने की तिथिवर्ष/माह

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

भामा संख्या

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

7 8

9 1 7797512

13334

1998

इंदापुर डेयरी एंड मिल्क

19.12.2007

मलाई निकाला हुआ दूध पाउडर- भाग 1: मानक श्रेणी

प्राक्डक्ट्स लिमिटेड एट पोस्टगोखाली बारामती रोड, तालुका ईदापुर जिला पुणे -413106

7804681

2004

14543

07-01-2008

पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के

अलावा)

हरी ओम इंडस्ट्रीज 21 , हिंगुल अंबिका मंदिर के पास, एट धर्मबाद

जिला नांदेड -431809

3. 7804580

2004

14543

08-01-2008

पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के

अलावा)

एसबीएच के पास ,

एकता फूड एंड बेवरेजेज वकील कॉलोनी , एट गंगाखेड ,

जिला-परभणी 431514

7812074 20-12-07

14333

1996

उच्च घनत्व सीवरेज के लिए पॉलीथिलीन पाईप

श्रीनिवास इंडस्ट्रीज प्लॉट नं. डी-23 , II फेज , लक्ष्मीको- आपरेटिव इंडस्ट्रीज इस्टेट, हाटकेंगले जिला कोल्हापुर 416109

7812983

14-01-08

1985

1786

कांक्रीट रीइन्फोर्समेंट के लिए उच्च शक्तिविरुपित स्टील की छड़ें व तारें

आर्य स्टील रोलिंग ( इंडिया ) लिमिटेड प्लॉट नं. बी -6 , फाइव स्टार एमआयडीसी कगल, जिला कोल्हापुर 416216

7815080

2004

14543

21-01-2008

पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के

अलावा)

काटे फूड इंडस्ट्रीज कं. सं. 5/1 ए/1/6 ए/पी पिंपलेसौदागर तालुका हवेली जिला पुणे 411027

7805380 08-01-08

2004

14543

उमा इंडस्ट्रीज जिरेवाडी, जालना रोड जिला बीड 431122

पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

[सं. सी एम डी/ 13: 11 ]

ए. के. तलवार, उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर ) 1350

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2008/ CHAITRA 9 , 1930

New Delhi , the 17th March , 2008

S.O. 670.- In pursuance of sub -regulation ( 5) of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification) Regulations 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule .

SCHEDULE

Title of the Standard

IS No.

Section Year

Part

No. Licence Grant Date

SL . No.

Name & Address of theParty

1 .

13334

1998 7797512 19-12-07

Skimmed Milk Powder - Part 1: Standard Grade

Indapur Dairy And Milk Products Ltd. AtPost Gokhali Baramati Road Taluka Indapur District Pune-413106

2004 2. 7804681 07-01-08

14543

Packaged drinking water ( Other than packaged natural mineral water)

Hari Om Industries 21, Near Hingul Ambika Mandir At Dharmabad District Nanded-431809

2004

14543

7804580 08-01-08

Packaged drinking ( Other than packaged natural mineral water)

Ekata Food & Beverages Vakil Colony, Near SBH Gangakhed District Parbhani -431514

14333

1996 7812074 20-12-07

High density polyethylene pipe for sewerage

Shriniwas Industries PlotNo. D - 23 , II Phase Laxmi Co -Op Indl . Estate Hatkanangale District Kolhapur-416109

1985 5. 7812983 14-01-08

1786

High strength deformed steel bars and wires for concrete reinforcement

Arya Steel Rolling ( India ) Ltd, Plot No. В - 6 Five StarMIDC KagalDistrict Kolhapur-416216

2004 21-01-08

6. 7815080

14543

Packaged drinking water (Other than packaged natural mineral water )

Kate Food Industries S.No. 5/1A/1/6 A/P Pimple Saudagar Taluka Haveli District Pune -411027

2004 7.

08-01-08

7805380

14543

Uma Industries Jirewadi , Jalna Road District Beed-431122

Packaged drinking water (Other than packaged natural mineral water)

[No. CMD/ 13:11 ]

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

नई दिल्ली , 17 मार्च , 2008

का. आ. 671.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम, 1988 के नियम 4 के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गये हैं , वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :

अनुसूची

भा मा/ भाग/अनुभाग वर्ष संख्या

.भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

स्वीकृत करने की तिथिवर्ष/माह

क्रम संख्या

लाइसेंस संख्या

7466:1994

25-12-2008

1 .

7806887

केरिझोन इंडस्ट्रिज प्रेशर कुकर के लिए रबर गासकेट

डब्ल्यू-66 , एमआईडिसी, तलोजा इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया , तलोजा, जिला-रायगढ़-421208 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29 , 2008 /चैत्र 9 , 1930

29-11-2008

7777910

एबी मौरी इंडिया प्रायव्हेट लिमिटेड

डी-- 7/2 ए, एमआयडिसी , एरिया ,

लोटे परशुराम, तालुका-खेड , जिला-रत्नागिरी-415722 महाराष्ट्र राज्य

1351

9 5

7 8

प्रोपायोनट

खाद्य ग्रेड- कैल्शियम

6031 : 1997

[ सं. सी एम डी/ 13 : 11 ] अशोक तलवार , उप महानिदेशक (मुहर)

New Delhi , the 17th March, 2008

S.O. 671. In pursuance of sub - regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations , 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

SI . No.

Licence No.

Validity date

Name& Address of (Factory) of the Party 1.

7806887 25-12-2008 Verizon Industries W-66 , MIDC Taloda Industrial Area, Raigarh Taloja, Maharashtra-421208 2.

7777910 29-11-2008 AB Mauri India Pvt. Ltd.

D- 7 /2A , MIDC Area , Lote Parashuram , Tal . Khed, Ratnagiri , Maharashtra

IS No./Part/Sec.Year Product

IS 7466 : 1994 Rubber gaskets for pressure Cookers Specification

IS 6031 : 1997 Calcium Propionate , Food Grade-

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

नई दिल्ली , 17 मार्च , 2008

का. आ. 672.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम ( 5 ) के उपविनियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख को रद्द/स्थगित कर दिया गया है ।

अनुसूची अनुक्रमांक लाइसेंस संख्या

लाइसेंसधारकों का नाम औरपता

रद्दीकरण दिनांक

2-12-2007

7491080

राप्टाकोस ब्रेट अॅन्ड कंपनी लिमिटेड 1 ला गोखरण रोड, माजीवाडा,

शास्त्री नगर ,

थाणे -400606,

महाराष्ट्र राज्य । 2

7746188 14-12-2007 ओशीयन बेव्हरेजेस नासिक प्रा. लि. 5 , सारंग अपार्टमेंट , जे.बी. नगर , विसे मला, कॉलेज रोड, सिन्नर , जिला-नासिक-422005 1 988 Gi/ 08-3

भा. म. / भाग/विभाग/वर्ष रद्दद किए गए लाइसेंस का भारतीय मानक के अनुसार प्रसंस्करण

11536 : .1997 प्रसंस्कृत- अनाज आधारित अनुपूरक आहार-विशिष्टि

14541 : 2004 पैकेजबंद पेयजल

[सं. सी एम डी/ 13 : 13 ] ए. के. तलवार, उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर ) 1352

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008/ CHAITRA 9 , 1930

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 17th March , 2008 S.O. 672. In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification) Regulations 1988 , the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Name & Address of the licensee Sl . No.

Licence No:

1.1 7491080

Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd.

1st Pokhran Road, Majiwada, Shastri Nagar Thane ( W) 400606 2. 7746188

OceanBeverages (Nasik) Pvt . Ltd. , 5, Sarang apartment, J.B. Nagar, VISE Mala College Road, Sinnar , Distt . Nasik -422005

Date of Cancellation Article/process which relevant Indian Standard covered by the licence cancelled

02-12-2007 IS 11536: 1997

14-12-2007 IS 14541 : 2004

IE Pet Bottles and 500 ML

PetBottles

[No. CMD/13 : 11 ] A.K. TALWAR, Dy . Director General ( Marks)

नई दिल्ली , 18 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 673.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( कों ) में सशोंधन किया गया/किये गये हैं:

अनुसूची

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या

और वर्ष

क्रम संख्या

आई एस 2878: 2004

आई एस 927: 1981

आई एस 15517: 2004

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि

13मार्च 2008

संशोधन संख्या 5 , फरवरी 2008

31 अगस्त 2007

संशोधन संख्या 2 , अगस्त 2007

30सितम्बर 2007

संशोधन संख्या 1 , सितम्बर 2007

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

[संदर्भ : सीईडी/राजपत्र ] ए. के. सैनी , वैज्ञा. ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( सिविल इंजीनियरी )

New Delhi , the 18th March, 2008

S.Q. 673. In pursuance of clause ( b) of sub rule ( 1) of Rule (7) of Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:

SCHEDULE

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

Sl. No.

of the amendment

IS 2878 : 2004

IS927: 1981

IS 15517 : 2004

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

13 March 2008

Amendment No. 5, February, 2008

31August 2007

Amendment No.2 , August , 2007

30 September 2007

Amendment No.1 , September 2007

Copy ofthis amendment 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 .

[Ref. CED/Gazette ] A.. K. SAINI , Sc . , ' F ' & Head ( Civil Engg. ) 1353 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

नईदिल्ली, 18 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 674.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/ किये गये हैं:-

अनुसूची

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

क्रम संख्या औरवर्ष

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि (1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 1.

12592 : 2002

संख्या 1 , जनवरी 2008

1 मार्च , 2008 इस संशोधन की प्रति भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहटी, हैदराबाद , जयपरु , कानपुर, नागपुर , पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ: सीईडी/राजपत्र ]

ए. के. सैनी. वैज्ञा. ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( सिविल इंजीनियरी )

New Delhi , the 18th March, 2008

S.O. 674.- In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendment to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

No. and year of the Indian Standards

SI . No.

No. and year

ofthe amendment

Date from which the amendment shall have effect (1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 1.

12592:2002

1March, 2008

No. 1 , January , 2008

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 , Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur , Patna, Pune , Thiruvananthapuram .

[Ref. CED/Gazette]

A. K. SAINI , Sc . , ' F ' & Head ( Civil Engg .) पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 24 मार्च, 2008

का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;

का.आ. 675.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मुन्द्रा ( गुजरात ) से दिल्ली तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा , एक पाइपलाईन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

1 और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाईन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में , जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाईन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध कर दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर , भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाईन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में , श्री शिवदत्त गौड़, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मुन्द्रा-दिल्ली पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद पाइपलाईन , हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, डी-7 , लालबहादुर नगर ( पूर्व ) क्लार्क्स आमेर होटल के सामने , जवाहरलाल नेहरू मार्ग , मालवीय नगर, जयपुर-302017 ( राजस्थान ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाईन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 1354

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2008 /CHAITRA 9, 1930

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

State :

District : Alwar

Tehsil : Behror

अनुसूची

राज्य : राजस्थान जिला : अलवर

तहसील : बहरोड़

Rajasthan

Area

Khasra

Sl . Name of the

गाँव का नाम खसरा सं.

क्र. सं.

क्षेत्रफल

No. Hectare Are Sq.Mtr.

No. Village

वर्गमीटर

हेक्टेर एयर

6 1

56 808

बडोद

09 809

613

614

[फा. सं. आर-31015/73/2004- ओ.आर- II ] ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS New Delhi , the 24th March, 2008

S. O. 675. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Mundra (Gujarat ) to Delhi , a pipeline should be laid by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;

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

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

Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Sivdutt Gaur , Competent Authority, Mundra-Delhi Petroleum Product Pipeline , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, D-7, Lal Bahadur Nagar (East ) , Opp. Clarks Amer Hotel , Jawaharlal Nehru Marg , Malviya Nagar , Jaipur - 302017 (Rajasthan).

808

1. Bardod

809

613

614

[F. No. R-31015/73 /2004 - OR- II ]

A. GOSWAMY , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 24 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 676.-पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाईन्स ( भूमि में उपयोगकर्ता अधिकार अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) के खंड 2 की धारा ( क ) के अनुपालन में श्री संजीव जाधव , डिप्टी कलेक्टर, महाराष्ट्र सरकार को मुबई- पुणे पाइप लाइन विस्तार परियोजना में उनके वर्तमान उत्तरदायित्वों के अतिरिक्त एतद्वारा उक्त अधि नियम के अंतर्गत हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड की मुंबई- पुणे पाइपलाईन के लिए सक्षम अधिकारी के रूप में प्राधिकृत किया जाता है ।

2. इसे भारत सरकार की अधिसूचना सं. का. आ. 264 दिनांकित 20जनवरी , 2005 तथा का. आ. 2846 दिनांकित 8 अगस्त, 2005 में संशोधन के रूप में जारी किया जाता है ।

[फा. सं. आर-31015/7/2004-ओ.आर -11 ] ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 24th March , 2008

S. O. 676.- In pursuance of clause ( a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right ofUser in Land ) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), Shri Sanjeev Jadhav , Dy . Collector , Government of Maharashtra is hereby authorized to perform the function of the Competent Authority; under the Act for Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited's Mumbai - Pune Pipeline , in addition to his present responsibilities as Competent Authority, Mumbai -Pune Pipeline Extension Project .

2. This issues in modification of the Government of India Notification number S. O. 264 dated 20th January , 2005 and S.O. 2846 dated 8th August , 2005 .

[F. No. R- 31015/7/2004-OR- 11 ] A. GOSWAMY, Under Secy .

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1355

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008 /चैत्र 9, 1930

नई दिल्ली , 25 मार्च , 2008

का. आ. 677.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पैट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 2240 दिनांक 9 अगस्त 2007 द्वारा पैट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50) (जिसे उसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा जाएगा) की धारा 3 (1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचनाएं प्रकाशित कर, मथुरा- जालंधर पैट्रोलियम उत्पाद परिवहन के संवर्धन परियोजना के कार्यान्वयन हेतु राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र में मुंडका से राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र के टिकरी कलां एल. पी. जी. बाटलिंग प्लांट तक पैट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाने हेतु, उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट, राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र की भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और, उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को 13-30 नवंबर 2007 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

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

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

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

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

अनुसूची

क्षेत्रफल

गांवं

जिला तहसील

हदबस्त संख्या

मुस्तील संख्या

वर्गमीटर

एयर

खसरा / किला संख्या हेक्टेयर

118

15/2

38 पंजाबी बाग

पश्चिमी दिल्ली

मुन्डका

11/2

11/3

18/1

18/2

18/3

19/1/1

20/1

23/2

24/1

24/2

38 1356

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008/CHAITRA 9 , 1930

114

00 पश्चिमी दिल्ली पंजाबी बाग मुडा

10/1

10/2

4/1

115

4/2

150

24 पश्चिमी दिल्ली पंजाबी बाग हिरन कूदना

48/1

48/2

369/1

369/2

370

371

372

373

374

375

378

466

467

478

479

480

483

18 पश्चिमी दिल्ली पंजाबी बाग टिकरी कलां

00 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 8

01 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1357

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9, 1930

पश्चिमी दिल्ली पंजाबी बाग टिकरी कलां

5/1

18/2

512

582

1430

1433

1434

1436

घेवरा

उत्तरी पश्चिमी सरस्वती

119

59 विहार

दिल्ली

[फा. सं. आर-25011/7/2007- ओ.आर. - 1 ]

एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 25th March , 2008

S. O. 677.- Whereas by notification of the government of India in the ministry of Petroleum and Natural gas , published in the Gazette of India vide number S.O. 2240, dated 09th August 2007 , issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962 ) , ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) . the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification for the purpose of laying a pipeline for transportation of Petroleum Product from Mundka village in the NCT of Delhi to Tikri Kalan LPG Bottling Plant in the NCT of Delhi by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And, whereas , the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public between 13th - 30th November 2007;

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

1358

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008/CHAITRA 9 , 1930

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

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

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

SCHEDULE

Area

Tehsil

District

Village

Mushtil No.

Hadbast No.

Hectare Are

Khasra / Killa No.

Square Metre

118

15/2

Mundka

Panjabi Baug

West Delhi

11/2

11/3

18/1

18/2

18/3

00 42

19/1/1 00

20/1

23/2

24/1

24/2

114

10/1

10/2

4/1

115

4/2

150

West Delhi Panjabi Baug

Hiran Kudna / Jafarpur

27 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9, 1930

1359 1

8 9

10 96 WestDelhi Panjabi Baug

Hiran Kudna / Jafarpur

07 59

00 02 53

48/1. 00

13 49

48/2 00

85 11

00 02 08 02

369/1 00

07 59

369/2 00

370

371

372

373

374

375

378

466

467

478

479

480

483

Tikri Kalan

West Delhi Panjabi Baug

05 48

5/1

18/2

00 : 02

09 69

03 79

13 91

988 Gi/08-4 1360

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 29, 2008/CHAITRA 9, 1930

[PART IISEC . 3 (ii) ].

00 12

West Delhi

Tikri Kalan

Panjabi Baug

00 42

512

582

1430

00 84

1433 00

1434

1.436 00

119

06 32

Ghevra

Sarswati Vihar

NorthWest Delhi

00 07 59

[F. No. R-25011 /7/2007 -O.R. -I ] S.K. CHITKARA , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 26 मार्च , 2008

का. आ . 678.- भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि, मैसर्स रिलायन्स 'इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड की आन्ध्रप्रदेश में संरचनाओं से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए मैसर्स रिलायन्स गैस ट्रान्सपोर्टेशन इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन विछाई जानी चाहिए:

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

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री एस.. डी. भिंसे. सक्षम प्राधिकारी, रिलायन्स गैस ट्रान्सपोर्टेशन इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड, हरि नारायण कॉम्प्लेक्स, दूसरी मंजिल, जुना. डालडा डिपो , शिवाजी चौक, फर्नीचर मार्केट , उल्हासनगर 421003 , जिला ठाणे , महाराष्ट्र राज्य की लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1361

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9, 1930

अनुसूची

जिला: ठाणे

संस / तहसील/ तालुका: भिवंडी

गाँव का माम

सर्वे नं/ गट नं

2 कुरूंद

25/6

25/7

28/3 P

126/4/1

28/P

2) वलेपाडा

14/2

36/26

36/19

46/11

3) खलिंग बु.

4) दिघाशी 217/88

217/81

217/80-

217/73

217/74

217/103

217/104

217/105

217/119

217/90

217/89

राज्यः महाराष्ट्र

आर.ओ.यू.अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

एयर

सी-एयर

.00

अनुसूची

जिला: ठाणे

/तहसील / तालुका: वांडा

गोत्र का नाम

सर्व नं/गट नं

135

1) बिलोशी

राज्यः 'महाराष्ट्र

आर.ओ.यू अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

एयर

सी-एयर

04 1362

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008 /CHAITRA 9 , 1930

144

2) सुपोंडे

173

175

65/P

68/B

45/A/P

145/A

178

65/P

142

175

3) कलमखांड

166

151/P

156

149

147

4) खरिवली 58/P

74/1/2

78/P

.117

75/ P

105/2

87/6

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] 14

00 .

अनुसूची

जिला: ठाणे

मंडळ/तहसील/तालुका: विक्रमगड

सर्वे नं/ गट नं गाँव का नाम

2 1) म्हसरोली 97/ P

राज्यः महाराष्ट्र

आर.ओ.यू अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

एयर

सी-एयर

हेक्टेयर

00 भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1363

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

अनुसूची

जिला:ठाणे

राज्यः महाराष्ट्र

मंडळ / तहसील / तालुका: डहाणू

गॉव का नाम

सर्वे नं/गट नं

आर.ओ.यू.अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

एयर

सी-एयर

1 पुंजावे

[फा. सं. एल-14014/3/2008-जर्जी. पी. ]

के. के. शर्मा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 26th March , 2008

S. O. 678.-Whereas it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for transportation of natural gas from structures in Andhra Pradesh of M/ s Reliance Industries Limited to consumers in various parts of the country, a pipeline should be laid by M/ s Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited ;

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

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Rights of Users in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962 ) , Government of India hereby declares its intention to acquire the Rights of Users therein ;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may , within twenty- one days from the date on which the copies of the notification as published in the Gazette of India under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of Rights of Users therein for laying the pipeline under the land to Shri S. D. Bhise , Competent Authority , Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited, Hari Narayan Complex, 2nd Floor , Old Dalda Depot , Shivaji Chowk, Furniture Market , Ulhasnagar- 421003 , Dist Thane , Maharashtra State .

Continued..2 1364

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008/CHAITRA 9, 1930

Mandall Tehsil Taluka : Bhiwandi

[PART II SEC. 3( ii)]

Shedule...

District: Thane

Survey Sub-Division Village

No.

1) Kurund

25/6

.25/7

28/3 P

126/4/1

28/P

2) Dalepada

14/2

36/26

36/19

46/11

3) Khaling Bk

4) Dighashi

217/88:

217/81

217/80

217/73

217/74

217/103

217/104

217/105

217/119

217/90

217/89

State : Maharashtra Area required for Rou acquisition

Are

C-Are Hect.

00.

08 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1365

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9, 1930

Shedule

Mandall Tehsil Taluka : Wada District: Thane

State : Maharashtra

Survey Sub -Division

Village

Area required for RoU acquisition

No.

Hect.

Are

C-Are

5 135

04 1) Bhiloshi

144

08 2) Suponda

173

00 -175

00 .

65/P

.00

00 68/B

45/ A/P

00 145/A

176

00 65/P.

142

58 175

3 ) KalmKhand

19 166

151/P

00 :

156

00 149

26 147

4) Kharivali

24 58/P

74/1/2

78/P

90 117

52 75/P

105/2

48 87/6 1366

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008/ CHAITRA 9 , 1930

[PART 11 -SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

District : Thane

Mandal Tehsil Taluka : Vikaramgad

State : Maharashtra

Survey Sub -Division

Area required for RoU acquisition

Village

No.

Are

C-Are

Hect.

1) Mhasroli

97/ F

Mandall Tehsil Taluka: Dahanu. District: Thane State : Maharashtra

Area required for RoU acquisition

Village

Survey Sub-Division No..

C-Are

Hect:

Are

1) Runjave

[F. No. L-14014/3/2008-G.P. ] K. K. SHARMA , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 27 मार्च , 2008

का. आ 679.- केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( क) के अनुसरण में , नीचे दी गईअनुसूची के स्तम्भ 1 में उल्लिखित व्यक्तियों को , उक्त अनुसूची के स्तम्भ 2 में की तत्स्थानी प्रविष्टि में उल्लिखित क्षेत्र के संबंध में , उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृत्यों का पालन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है:

क्रम संख्या 1 पर श्री पी . के. दास , वरिष्ठ प्रचालन प्रबन्धक , हल्दिया मौरीग्राम राजबन्ध बरौनी पाइपलाइन्स, मौरीग्राम शब्दों के स्थान पर श्री पी. के . साहा , वरिष्ठ सामग्री प्रबन्धक , पारादीप हल्दिया बरौनी पाइपलाइन्स , हल्दिया शब्द रखे जाएंगे ।

[फा. सं. आर-25011/ 15/2005- ओ.आर. -1 ]

एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 27th March , 2008

S. O. 679- In pursuance of clause (a ) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act , 1962 ( 50 of : 1962), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 4526 dated 30 November , 2005 , published in the Gazette of India on November 27 - December 3 , 2005 , namely: -

In the said notification , in the Schedule , in column (1 ) .

iv) at Sl . No.1 , for the words " Shri P.K. Das , Senior Operations Manager" , Haldia Mourigram Rajbandh Barauni Pipeline , Mourigram the words , " Shri P.K. Saha , Senior Materials Manager " , Paradip Haldia Barauni Pipeline , Haldia shall be substituted .

[F. No. R-25011 /15/2005- O.R. -I ] S.K. CHITKARA , Under Secy.

1367

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 27 मार्च , 2008

का. आ. 680.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी , भारत के राजपत्र, तारीख 30-06-2007 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना का आ. संख्या 1864 तारीख 27-06-2007 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची तालुका- गंगावरम , जिल्ला चित्तूर, राज्य आन्ध्रप्रदेश चेन्नै पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मनाली कि रिफैनेरी से देवनगुट्टि टॉर्मिनल , बैंगलुर तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादनों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियम ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी .

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां ता. 23-07-07 से जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को रिर्पोट दे दीहै;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उक्त रिर्पोट पर विचार करने के पश्चात यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्द्व अनुसूचि में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार आंर्जत किया जाए;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय .सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्द्व अनुसूचि मे विनिर्दष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है ।

कोर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा की उपधारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाय इंडियन ऑयल में सभी विल्लगमों से मुक्त होकर प्रकाशन की इस तारीख से निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

मंडल: गंगावरम

जिला: चित्तूर

राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव कानाम

उपखंड सं.

सर्वोक्षण सं. -खंड सं.

हेक्टर

वर्गमिटर

ऐयर

159

75, मारेडुपल्लि

160

161

162

163

131

129

128

119

118

212

988 Gi/ 08-5 1368

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008/CHAITRA 9 , 1930

3 76, दंडपल्ले

807

809

808

806

804

1B/A

304.

18/8

1B/C

804

18/0

803

790

736

738

732

932

735

733

717

716

714

246

2C 77, जीडिमाकुलापल्लि

246

249

262

267

268

722

B 78, मामाडुगु

722

638

636

640

A2/1

640

A2/2

640

A2/3

640

A4/C

640

A4/A

640

A4/B

[PART II SEC . 3( ii) ] 4

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008 /चैत्र 9, 1930

640

A5/D 78 , मानायुगु (क्रमशः... )

640

641

642

644

645

669

506

507

505

661

667

666

508

512

513

525

523

394

1B/A

393

392

4B 79, पाथिकोंडा

413

415

417

421

422

425

427

428

426

314

315

339

341

1369 4

00 .

86 1370

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2008/CHAITRA 9, 1930

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

342

79, पाथिकोंडा (क्रमशः ...)

343

64.

142

150

45 5A

150

340

80, कीलापल्लि

2A/1

2A/2

2B/3

110

117

206

208

255

253

254

[फा. सं. आर-25011/5/2007- ओ.आर. - 1]

एस. के. चिटकारा, अवर सचिव 1371

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9, 1930

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 27th March , 2008

S. O. 680.-Whereas by the notification of the Government of India . Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Number . S.O. 1864 dated 30-06-2007 under sub section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Rightof User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the land specified in the Schedule relating,to Mandal Gangavaram , District Chittoor , State Andhra Pradesh annexed to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Product from Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited, Manali to Devanguthi Terminal , Bangalore ,by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited Andwhereas , the copies of the said Gazette Notification were made available to the general public on 23-07-2007;

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

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

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

And further in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby direct that the Right of User in the said land shall instead of vesting with the Central Government , vests from the date of publication of this declaration to the Indian oil corporation limited free from all encumbrances .

1372

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008/CHAITRA 9 , 1930

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

SCHEDULE

District: Chittoor

Mandal:Gangavaram

Sub-Division No.

Name of the Village

SurveyNo.

159

1 75, MAREDUPALLI

160

161

162

163

131

129

128

119

118

212

807

76, DANDAPALLE

807

809

2C 232034AB

809

808

806

1B/A

804

1B/B

804

1B/C

804

1B/D

804

803

790

736

738

732

932

State: Andhra Pradesh Area

Hectare Are Sq.Mtr.

01.

21.

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1373

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

735

76, DANDAPALLE ( Continued .. )

733

717

716

714

246

77, JEEDIMAKULAPALLI

246

249

262

267

268

722

78, MAMADUGU

722

638

640

A2/1

640

A2/2

640

A2/3

640

A4/C

A4/A

640

A4/B

640

A5/D

640

641

642

644

645

669

506

ABB- 21-11

507

505

661

69-

.00

.67

70 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008 /CHAITRA 9, 1930

1374

3 1

667

78, MAMADUGU ( Continued ...)

666

508

512

513

525

523

394

1B/A

394

393

392

413

79, PATHIKONDA

415

417

421

422

425

427

428

426

314

315

339

341

342

343

-1-3330451A23AAABA-

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

02.

022

05 00

24 00

60 00

43 00

81 00

26 00 1375

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

3 1

79, PATHIKONDA ( Continued..)

142

150

55667- 5B

340

80, KEELAPALLI

572 2

2A/1

2A/2

28/3

110

117

206

208

255

253

254

988Gi/08-6

00 00 00

08.

28.

[F. No. R-2501 1 /5 /2007 -O.R. -I ] S.K. CHITKARA, Under Secy.

1376

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2008/CHAITRA 9, 1930

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 27 मार्च, 2008

का. आ. 681.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अजन अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी, भारत के राजपत्र , तारीख 30-06-2007 मे प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना का आ. संख्या 1869 तारीख 27-06-2007 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्व अनुसूची तालुका- चित्तूर , जिल्ला चित्तूर, राज्य आन्ध्रप्रदेश चेन्नै पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मनाली कि रिफैनेरी से देवनगुट्टि टॉर्मिनल, बैंगलुर तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादनों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी.

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां ता. 23-07-07 से जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को रिर्पोट दे दीहै;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उक्त रिर्पोट पर विचार करने के पश्चात यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूचि में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित किया जाए;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्द्व अनुसूचि मे विनिर्दष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा की उपधारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाय इंडियन ऑयल कोर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में सभी विल्लगमों से मुक्त होकर प्रकाशन की इस तारीख से निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची राज्य: आन्ध्रप्रदेश

जिला: चित्तूर

मंडल: चित्तूर

उप-खण्डसं .

गाँव कानाम

सर्वेक्षण सं- खण्डसं.

211

55, अनंतपुरम

212

213

214

204

195

क्षेत्रफल

वर्गमिटर

एयर

हेक्टर

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1377

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

195

55, अनंतपुरम ( क्रमशः ...)

195

178

177

161

163

172

165

143

142

108

112

114

115

02 1378

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008/ CHAITRA 9 , 1930

55, अनंतपुरम (क्रमशः ... )

89161714

279

9 56, आरातोला (मुतुकुर)

101

57, तालांबेडु

101

1235

102

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

00 00 00 888

00.

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1379

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9, 1930

38 58, चिंक्लगुंटा ( क्रमशः ... )

11121608910113 1A

110

211

108

218

2A4

218

2A5

218

2D/A

218

121

212

213.

120

110

109

111

109

4 59, पेरुमाल्लाकोडिगा

4A1

4A2

00 1380

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2008/CHAITRA 9, 1930

59, पेरुमाल्लाकांडिगा ( क्रमशः ..

10A1

12B

60, नारिगापल्लि

201

200

197

145

269

257

256

255

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

15 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

252

60, नारिगापल्लि( क्रमशः ... )

252

251

100

1381 4

00.

02.

86 1382

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2008/CHAITRA 9, 1930

8 60, नारिगापल्लि( क्रमशः ... )

5788080 9B C 9D

154

61, अनुप्पल्ले

154

153

152

150

151

130

128

126

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

00 88 00

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1383

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9, 1930

126

61, अनुप्पल्ले ( क्रमशः ... )

126

06.

124

09 .

[फा. सं. आर -25011/5/2007- ओ.आर. -1 ]

एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 27th March , 2008

S. O. 681.-Whereas by the notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Number S.O. 1869 dated 30-06-2007 under sub section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the land specified in the schedule relating to Mandal Chittoor, District Chittoor, State Andhra Pradesh annexed to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Product from Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited, Manali to Devanguthi Terminal , Bangalore, by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited .

And whereas , the copies of the said Gazette Notification were made available to the general public on 23-07-2007;

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

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

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of the section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the Right of User in the land specified in the Schedule annexed to this notification is hereby acquired for iaying the pipeline.

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

988 Gi /08-7 1384

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008 /CHAITRA 9 , 1930

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

SCHEDULE

State: Andhra Pradesh

District: Chittoor

Mandal: Chittoor

Area

Sub-Division No.

Nameof the Village

SurveyNo.

Hectare Are Sq.Mtr .

211

55, ANANTAPURAM

212

213

214

204

195

178

177

161

163

172

43218

165

00 00 00 00 8888888 00

165

143

143 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1385

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9, 1930

143

6 55, ANANTAPURAM

143

(Continued...)

143

142

108

112

114

115

26 5

01.

63 8888888888

1386

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008/ CHAITRA 9 , 1930

55, ANANTAPURAM

(Continued...)

578916714

279

9 56, ARATHOLA ( MUTHUKUR )

101

57, THALAMBEDU

101

1235.

102

23423

52.

58, CHINTALAGUNTA

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

00 1387 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9, 1930

68, CHINTALAGUNTA

(continued...)

6089 6C

110

10 2113-910 10

211

108

218

2A4

2A5

218

2D/A

218

121

212

213

120

110

109

111

11-128206013 1A

109

60 59 , PERUMALLAKANDIGA

4566

4A1

00 00 00 00 00 00 8888888888 00

4A2 1388

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008 /CHAITRA 9 , 1930

3 59, PERUMALLAKANDIGA

(continued ... )

10A1

12B

201

60NARIGAPALLI

201

200

2354202020 2C 2G 2D

197

145

269

257

256

15-

256

255

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

00 00 88

15 1389 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9, 1930

252

60, NAGARIPALLE

252

(CONTINUED ... ).

252

251

100

1643BB26

888888 00 00 00 00

旧341旧1

86 1390

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2008/ CHAITRA 9 , 1930

60, NARIGAPALLI

(CONTINUED ... )

154

61 , ANUPPALLE

154

153

54321021312

153

153.

153

152

150

151

130

128

126

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

00 00 ৪৪

00 888

00 00 888888 00 00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1391

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9, 1930

3 61 , ANUPALLE

126

(CONTINUED ... )

126

124

[F. No. R -25011 / 5/2007 - O.R. -I ] S.K. CHITKARA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 27 मार्च , 2008

का. आ. 682.- केन्द्रीय सरकार पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी , भारत के राजपत्र, तारीख 30.06.2007 मे प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना का आ. संख्या 1870 तारीख 27-06-2007 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्व अनुसूची मंडल याादामारि , जिला चित्तूर, राज्य आन्ध्रप्रदेश मे चेन्नै पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मनाली की रिफैनेरी से देवनगुट्टि टर्मिनल , बैंगलुर तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी.

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां ता. 23-07-07 को जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को रिर्पोट दे दीहै;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार का उक्त रिर्पोट पर विचार करने के पश्चात यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्द्व अनुसूचि में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित किया जाए ;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूचि मे विनिर्दष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाय सभी विल्लगमों से मुक्तहोकर प्रकाशन की तारीख से इंडियन ऑयल कोर्पोरेशन्न लिमिटेड निहित होगा ।

988Gi/08-8 1392.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008/ CHAITRA 9 , 1930

अनुसूची मंडल: यादामारि

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]

राज्य : आन्ध्रप्रदेश

जिला: चित्तूर

गाँव का नाम

उप-खण्ड सं .

सवक्षण स- खण्डसं .

3 3 TA 63, माधवरम

23A

21C

22A

22B

1A1

2B2

2A1

6G1

249

64, पेरियांबाडि

1D1

249

1A1

249

250

246

1A2

243

242

5 क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मिटर

एयर

हक्टर

6 00

40 00

62 00

02 00

83 .00

83 00

05 00

31 00

21 00

24 00

96 00

21 00

81 00

45 00

21 00

29 00

77 00

64 00

74 00

26 00

53 00

57 00

26 00

55 00

00 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9, 1930

3 64, पेरियांबाडि (क्रमशः ... )

242

239

237

231

234

65,याादामारि

434

435

431

430

428

416

415

412

397

396

389

390

391

392

73.

1393 4

86. 00

60 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008/CHAITRA 9 , 1930

1394

129

65, याादामारि ( क्रमशः ... )

22C

130

22A

130

22B

130

124

123

131

120

139

140

141

144

150

152.

152

66, बुडिरिडिपल्ले

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

0:2

83 00

0:3

10 00

88 00

48 00

86 00

62 00

21 00

45 00

10 00

48 00

86 00

00 88

74 00

00 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1395

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9, 1930

66, बुडिटिरेडिपल्ले (क्रमशः ... )

[फा. सं. आर-25011/5/2007- ओ.आर. - 1 ]

एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 27th March , 2008

S. O. 682.-Whereas by the notification of the Govemment of India . Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas . S.O Number 1870 dated 30-06-2007 under sub section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the Right Of User in the land specified in the schedule relating to Mandal Yadamari , Dist . Chittoor , State Andhra Pradesh annexed to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Product from Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited , Marnali to Devanguthi Terminal , Bangalore , by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas, the copies of the said Gazette Notification were made available to the general public on 23-07-2007;

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

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

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of the section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the Right Of User in the land specified in the Schedule annexed to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline.

And further in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (4) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby direct that the Right Of User in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government , vests from the date ofpublication of this declaration in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances.

1396

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008/ CHAITRA 9 , 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ]

SCHEDULE

State:Andhra Pradesh

District : Chittoor

Mandal: Yadamari

Sub- Division No.

SurveyNo.

Name of the Village

3 1

1A 63, MADHAVARAM

23A

21C

22A

22B

1A1

2B2

2A1

6G1

249

2 64, PERIYAMBADI

1D1

249

1A1

249

250

246

1A2

243

242

Sq . Mtr .

Hectare

Area Are

6 4

62 00

81 00

0()

31 00

21 00

24 00

96 00

62 00

41 00

81 00

45 00

29 00

83 00

57 00

34 00

26 00

19 00

55 00

34 00

24 00

03 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1397

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9, 1930

3 1

2 64, PERIYAMBADI

242

3 (Continued...)

239

237

231

234

65, YADAMARI

434

435

431

430

428

416

415

412

397

396

389

390

391

392

64 00

45 00

05 00

86 00

67 00

24 00

36 00

13.

57 00

07 00

38 00

12 00

83 00

64 00

43 00

86 00

64 00

83 00

43 00

62 00

69 00

83 00

19 00

62 00

50 00

29 00

53 00

86 00

05 00

67 00

02 00

60 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008/CHAITRA 9 , 1930

1398

129

12 65, YADAMARI (Continued ... )

130

22C

130

22A

130

22B

124

123

131

120

139

140

141

144

150

152

4451342110

152

66, BUDITIREDDIPALLE

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

24 00

26 00

86 00

(01

62 00

21 00

45 00

(04

10 00

53 00

10 00

29 00

26 00

29 00

24 00

15 00

05 00

04 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9, 1930

1399

6 1 66, BUDITIREDDIPALLE

41.

(Continued...)

[F. No. R-2501 1/5 /2007 -O.R. -1 ]

S.K. CHITKARA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 27 मार्च , 2008

का. आ. 683.- केन्द्रीय सरकार पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी , भारत के राजपत्र, तारीख 3006-2007 मे प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना का आ. संख्या 1863 तारीख 27-06-2007 द्वाराउस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्व अनुसूची मंडल बंगारुपालेम , जिला चित्तूर, राज्य आन्ध्रप्रदेश मे चेन्नै पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मनाली की रिफैनेरी से देवनगुट्टि टर्मिनल, बैंगलुर तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां ता. 23-07-07 को जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार का उक्त रिर्पोट पर विचार करने के पश्चात यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्व अनुसूचि में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित किया जाए;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्व अनुसूचि मे विनिर्दष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाय सभी विल्लगमों से मुक्त होकर प्रकाशन की तारीख से इंडियन ऑयल कोर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड निहित होगा 1

988G1/08-9 1400

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008 /CHAITRA 9, 1930

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

अनुसूची

मंडल बंगारुपालेम

जिला: चित्तूर

राज्य: आन्ध्रप्रदेश

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव कानाम

उप-खण्डसं .

सर्वेक्षण सं- खण्डसं .

हेक्टर

एयर वर्ग मिटर

6 67, कुर्याइपल्ले

105

100

१०

553343035 58 3A 3F

82 88, कल्नुरुपल्ले

340

331

00 00 8888888 00

203

195

21452

195

192

177

171

151

24 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1401

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9, 1930

68, कल्लुरुपल्ले ( क्रमशः ... )

2G.

2 69, जंबुवरिपल्लि

105

106

103

102

101

3030014 70, गोल्लापल्ले

43.

2 4

00 00

81 00

72 00

17 00

05 00

15 00

05 00

26 00

46 00

29 00

64 00

10 00

02 00

19 00

10 00

12 00

67 00

34 00

29 00

25 37

67 00

29 1402

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008 /CHAITRA 9 , 1930

3 1

5 70 , गोल्लापल्ले ( क्रमशः ... )

145

147

148

150

175

182

181

180

257

71 , पालेरु

253

72, मोगिलि

252

249

250

264

284

282

283

290

277

211

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

53 00

74 00

01 00

40 :00

91.

91 00

31 00

08.

17 00

29 00

19 00

14 57

81 00

20 00

65 00

19 00

83 00

03 00

13 00

40 00

23 00

63 00

86 00

26 00

10 00

55 00

64 00

03 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1403

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9, 1930

144

72, मोगिलि (क्रमशः ... )

144

146

148

149

150

153

173

1.71

171

172

169

86.

101

304 3D

3 4

29 00

12 00

64 00

81 00

24 00

74 00

62 00

64 00

24 00

12 00

60. 00

29 00

55 00

21 00

86 00

10 00

53 00

64 00

45 00

83 00

03 F

65. 00

14.

17 00

34 00

94 00

10 00

4.1

64 1404

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008 /CHAITRA 9 , 1930

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

72, मोगिलि ( क्रमशः ... )

[फा. सं. आर-25011 /5/2007- ओ.आर. - 1 ]

एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 27th March , 2008

S.O. 683.-Whereas by the notification of the Government of India . Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas . S.O Number 1863 dated 30-06-2007 under sub section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Rightof User in Land) Act, 1962 ( 50 of 1962 ) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the Right Of User in the land specified in the schedule relating to Mandal Bangarupalem Dist . Chittoor , State Andhra Pradesh annexed to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Product from Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited , Manali to Devanguthi Terminal , Bangalore , by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas , the copies of the said Gazette Notification were made available to the general public on 23-07-2007;

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

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

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

And further in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 4) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Govemment hereby direct that the Right Of User in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government , vests from the date ofpublication of this declaration in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances .

1405 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9, 1930

SCHEDULE

State : Andhra Pradesh

District : Chittoor

Mandal : Bangarupalem

Area

Sub - Division No.

Name of the Village

SurveyNo.

Are Sq. Mtr.

Hectare

105

67, KURMAIPALLE

100

340

48 68, KALLURUPALLE

340

331

203

195

192

20.

177

171

151

24 1406

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 29, 2008/CHAITRA 9 , 1930

68, KALLURUPALLE

3 (Continued... )

105

2 69, JAMBUVARIPALLI

106

103

102

101

56 3217 7

3D 859303014

1 70 , GOLLAPALLE

[PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

12 00

17 00

83 00

26 00

19 00

10 00

12 00

07 00

67 00

53 00

45 00

29 00

25 00

64 00

81 00

21 00

67 00

21 00

62 00

15 00

29 00 1407

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9, 1930

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

70 , GOLLAPALLE ( Continued ...)

145

147

148

150

175

182

181

180

257

71, PALERU

253

1 72, MOGILI

252

249

250

264

282

283

290

277

211

988 Gi/08-10

69 00

88 00

85 00

17 00

07 00

06.

30.

14-

57 00

03 00

17 00

23 00

63 00

86 00

29 00

55 00

00 1408

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008/CHAITRA 9 , 1930

3 1

144

4 72, MOGILI ( Continued ...)

144

146

148

149

150

153

173

171

172

169

221110

86.

101

ト

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

19 00

29 00 .

64 00

12 00

69 00

86 00

81 00

79 00

62 00

64 00

24 00

43 00

60 00

83 00

55 00

19 00

21 00

86 00

10 00

88 00

1228610

53 00

26 00

64 00

45 00

67 00

86 00

83 00

53454- 2

03 00

94 00

10 00

41 00

77 00

[F. No. R -25011/ 5/2007-O.R. - 1 ] S.K. CHITKARA , Under Secy.

1409 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29 , 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च, 2008

का.आ. 684. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आई.आई.पी. आर. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 54/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-03-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

nature under the premises of the opposite party on . It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end of the month by the opposite party as approvedby the Central Government, at the minimum ofthe rate. It is also pleadedby theworkman that with a view to avoid statutory dues, the opposite party attached the workman with a licenced contractor . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he was continuing in the services from before the induction of Contractor . Workman is employee ofthe opposite party . Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officers oftheManagement .

[सं. एल -42012/229/2001- आई आर( सीएम-11 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi , the 3rd March, 2008

S.O. 684. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 54/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03-03-2008 .

The production of the opposite party was also used tobe sold out to the customers . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of 240 days of till she was removed from the service of the opposite partyw.e.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but he was not afforded any opportunity of his reemployment . Opposite party has also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justiceby not regularising him in the service. On the basis of above it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated and in the service with the bak wages , consequently benefifits and seniority.

[No. L-42012/229/2001 - IR(CM - II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RG SHUKLA PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT,

KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 54 of 2002

In the matter of dispute between Smt. Raj Kumari W/ o Sri Santosh C/ o Shri Rajendra Prasad Shukla 115/193 Α . 2 Maswanpur Rawatpur , Kanpur.

AND

The Director,

Indian Institute of Pulse Research G.T.Road Kalyanpur, Kanpur.

AWARD

1. The Central Government , MOL, New Delhi , vide notification No.L- 420 12/ 229/2001 - IR (CM - II) dated 15-7-2002 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :

3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exist any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties. The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was ever paid wages by the opposite party directly . In fact they were the employees of the contractor who used to supervise the work of the workman. It is also denied that the exist any valid Industrial dispute . Workman is not a workman as defined under I.D. Act , nor the opposite party is an industry . Management has emphatically denied having engaged the workman in the employment in any capacity what soever nor he was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment, there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules . Since the workman was never in the employment, question of terminating his services from any date does not arise . Moreover, provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman . On thebasis ofabove, it has been prayed that the claim ofthe workmanbe rejected being devoid of merit , baseless and misleading.

4.After exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective case.

"Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research Kalyanpur, Kanpur, in terminating the employment ofSmt . Raj Kumari W/o Sri Santosh working as Contract worker allegedly under direct supervision of the management w.e.f. 26-8-98 legal and justified ? If not to what relief the worker is entitled to? "

2. The case of the workman in short is that the workerhas been employed to perform the work ofpermanent

5.A bare perusal of the record would go to show thatinthe instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the 1410

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2008/CHAITRA 9 , 1930

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

for any relief as claimed by him . Reference is therefore , answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour ofthe oppsite party.

R. GSHUKLA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 685. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार आई.आई.पी. आर. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरप्प , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 40/2002 को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-03-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -42012/230/2001-आई आर ( सी एम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी workmanbution each occassion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case.Today is further date fixed in the case for hearing arguments in the case . Case was called upon repeatedly in open court but the representative for the workman found absent . After the orders on the order sheet were recorded the representative for the workman came before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain application for transfer of the case but a perusal of the record show that no such application is available on the record. There is also no order received from the appropriate Government in this context. Therefore , the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the authorised representative for the workman, and therefore, the same is rejected. Having considered the long duration of the pendency of the instant case the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application and the arguments in the case were heard today i.e. on 7-1-08.

New Delhi , the 3rd March , 2008

S.O. 685. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/2002) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Institute of PulseResearch and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03-03-2008 .

[No. L-42012/230/2001 - IR ( CM - II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced in the case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file. It is the own case that the workman was made the employee ofthe contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages . The contention of the workmanto theeffect that he was working much before the introduction ofthe alleged contractor ofwhich he is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the Tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record ofthe case to substantiate the claim of the workman that he was inthe employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor .

BEFORE SRIR. G. SHUKLA PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, KANPUR.

IndustrialDispute No. 40 of 2002

In the matter of dispute between Smt. Phoolmati W/o Sri Ram Bharosey C/ o Sri Rajendra Prased Shukla 115/193 A-2 Maswanpur Rawatpur Kanpur . TheDirector, AND Indian Institute of Pulse Research G. T. Road Kalyanpur, Kanpur . AWARD

1. The Central Government , MOL, New Delhi , vide notification No.L - 42012/230/2001 ( IR ) (CM - II ) dated 15-7-2002 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :-

"Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research , Kalyanpur, Kanpur, in terminating the employment of Smt. Phoolmati W/o Sri Ram Bharosey working as Contract worker allegedly under direct supervision of the management w.e.f. 26-8-98 legal andjustified ? If not, to what relief the worker is entitled to?

9. For the reasons discussed above , it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties, alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled 1411 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9, 1930

were grantedby the tribunal to the representative for the workmanbut on each occassion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case.Today is further date fixed in the case for hearing arguments in the case . Case was called upon repeatedly in open court but the representative for the workman found absent. After the orders on the order sheet were recorded therepresentative for the workman came before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain application for transfer of the case but a perusal of the record show that no such application is available on the record . There is also no order received from the appropriate government in thiscontext. Therefore, the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the authorised representative for the workman , and therefore , the same is rejected . Having considered the long duration of the pendency of the instant case the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application and the arguments in the case were heard today i.e. on 7-1-08 .

The production of the opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers . It has also been pleaded by the workman that she rendered continuous service of 240 days of still she was removed from the service of the opposite party w.e.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation ofprovisions ofIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but she was not afforded any opportunity of her reemployment. Opposite party has also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justiceby not regularising her in the service . On the basis of above it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages , consequential benefits and seniority.

3.The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exist any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties . The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was ever paid wagesby the opposite party directly. In fact they were the employees ofthe contractor who used to supervise the work of the workman . It is also denied that there exist anyvalid Industrial dispute. Workman is not a workman as defined under I.D. Act , nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having engaged the workman in the emolyment in any capacity whatsoever nor she was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party . It has also been, pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment, there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules . Since the workman was never in the employment , question of terminating her services from any date does not arise . Moreover , provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman . On the basis ofabove , it has been prayed that the claim ofthe workman be rejected being devoid of merit, baseless and misleading.

8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a vaild industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that she ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or that she was ever issued any appointment letter , or he was ever paid her wages by the opposite party or her services have ever been terminated by the opposite party. Therefore, question ofbreach of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the opposite party does not arise.

4.After exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective case .

5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments

9. For the reasons discussed above , it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties, alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled 1412

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008 /CHAITRA 9 , 1930

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] for any relief as claimed by her . Reference is therefore , answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour ofthe oppsite party.

Sri Sukhwari Lal working as Contract worker allegedly under direct supervision of the management w.e.f. 26-8-98 legal andjustified? If not to what relief the worker is entitled to?

R. G. SHUKLA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 686 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार आई.आई.पी. आर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 39/2002 को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-03-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/231/2001-आई आर( सीएम -11 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 3rd March ,2008

S.O 686. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of. 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 39/2002) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Institute of PulseResearch and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03-03-2008

[No. L-42012/231 /2001 - IR (CM - II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work of permanent nature under the premises of the opposite party ? It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end of the month by the opposite party as approved by the Central Government, at the minimum of the rate. It is also pleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues , theopposite party attached the workman with a licenced contractor. It has also been pleaded by the workman that she was continuing in the services from before the induction ofContractor. Workman is employee of the opposite party. Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officers of the Management . The production of the opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers . It has also been pleaded by the workman that she rendered continuous service of 240 days of till she was removed from the service of the opposite party w.e.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but he was not afforded any opportunity ofher reemployment . Opposite party has also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising her in the service . On the basis of above it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages , consequentlial benefits and seniority.

BEFORE SRIR.G SHUKLA PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 39 of2002

In the matter of dispute between Smt . Maya Devi W/ o Sri Sukhwari Lal

C/o Sri . Rajendra Prased Shukla 115/193 A. 2 , Maswanpur Rawatpur, Kanpur .

AND

TheDirector ,

Indian Institute of Pulse Research , G. T. Road, Kalyanpur, Kanpur .

AWARD

1.The CentralGovernment, MOL, New Delhi, vide notification No- L- 42012 /231 /2001 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 17-7-2002 has referred the following dispute for adjudication tothis tribunal:

3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exist any relationship of employer and employee between the contestingparties . The workman never rernained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was ever paid wages by the opposite party directly. In fact they were the employees of the contractor who used to surprvise the work ofthe workman . It is also denied that there exist any valid Industrial dispute . Workman is not a workman as defined under I.D. Act , nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having engaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor she was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment , there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules . Since the workman was never in the employment, question of terminating her services from any date does not arise . Moreover , provisions of Industrial Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research , Kalyanpur , Kanpur , in terminating the employment of Smt . Maya Devi W/ o [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

1413

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29 , 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

Disputes are also not applicable to the workman. On the basis of above, it has been prayed that the claim of the workmanbe rejected being devoid of merit, baseless and misleading.

4. After exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective case.

9. For the reasons discussed above, it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties , alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by him . Reference is therefore , answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour ofthe opposite party.

R. G. SHUKLA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च, 2008

का.आ. 687.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आई.आई.पी. आर. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 44/2002 को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-03-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -42012/237/2001 - आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 3rd March, 2008 5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workmanbut on each occassion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case. Todayis furtherdate fixed in the case for hearing arguments in the case. Case was called upon repeatedly in open court butthe representative for the workman found absent . After the orders on the order sheet were recorded the representative for the workman came before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain application for transfer of the case but a perusal of the record show that no such aplication is available on the record . There is also no order received from the appropriate government in this context. Therefore, the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the authorised representative for the workman, and therefore , the same is rejected . Having considered the long duration of the pendency ofthe instant case the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application and the arguments in the case were heard today i.e. on7-1-08 .

S.O. 687. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 44/2002 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 03-03-2008

[No. L-42012/237/2001 - IR (CM - II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer 6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced inthe case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file. It is the own case that the workman was made the employee of the contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages . The contention of the workman to the effect that he was working much before the introduction of the alleged contractor of which he is alleged tobe the employee cannot be accepted by the Tribunal as nodocumentary evidence is available on the record ofthe case to substantiate the claim of the workman that he was in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI R.G. SHUKLA PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 44 of 2002 :

Inthe matter of dispute between Shri Vinod Kumar S /o Sri Collector C/o Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla 115/193 Α.2 Maswanpur Rawatpur, Kanpur.

AND

TheDirector

Indian Institute of Pulse Research, G.T. Road , Kalyanpur, Kanpur.

1414

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2008/ CHAITRA 9 , 1930

AWARD

1. Central Government , MOL , New Delhi , vide notification No. L- 42012 /237/ 2001 - IR (CM - II ) dated 17-7-2002 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal .

opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules . Since the workman was never in the employment, question of terminating his services from any date does not arise . Moreover , provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman . On the basis of above , it has been prayed that the claim ofthe workman be rejected being devoid of merit , baseless and misleading.

4.After exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective case .

Whether the action ofthe management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research Kalyanpur , Kanpur , in terminating the employment of Sri Vinod Kumar S/ o Sri Collectorworking as Contract worker allegedly under direct supervision of the management w.e.f. 26-8-98 legal and justified? Ifnot to what relief the worker is entitled to ?

2. The case ofthe workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work of permanent nature under the premises of the opposite party on .... It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end ofthe month by the opposite party as approved by the Central Government, at the minimum of the rate . It is also pleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues , the opposite party attached the workman an with a licenced contractor. It has also been pleaded by the workman that he was continuing in the services from .... before the induction of Contractor . Workman is employee of the opposite party. Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officers of the Management .

5.A bare perusal of the record would go to show that inthe instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occasion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case.Today is further date fixed in the case for hearing arguments in the case . Case was called upon repeatedly in open court but the representative for the workman found absent . After the orders on the order sheet were recorded the representative for the workman came before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain application for transfer of the case but a perusal of the record show that no such aplication is available on the record . There is also no order received from the appropriate government in this context. Therefore , the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the authorised representative for the workman, and therefore , the same is rejected . Having considered the laong duration of the pendency of the instant case the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application and the arguments in the case were heard today i.e. on 7-1-08 .

The production of the opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of 240 days of till he was removed from the service of the opposite party w.e.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provision ofIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but he was not afforded any opportunity of his reemployment. Opposite Party has also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service. On the basis of above it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages , consequential benefits and seniority .

6.Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced in the case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file. It is the own case that the workman was made the employee of the contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages . The contention of the workman to the effect that he was working much before the introduction of the alleged contractor of which he is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the Tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record ofthe case to substantiate the claim of the workman that he was in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor.

3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exist any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties . The workman ever remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was ever paid wages by the opposite party directly. In fact they were the employees of the contractor who used to supervise the work of the workman . It is also denied that there exist any valid Industrial dispute . Workman is not a workinan as defined under I.D. Act, nor the opposite party isanindustry,Management has emphatically denied having engaged the workman in the employment in any capacity what soever nor he was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party . It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment , there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a vaild industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed te establish that he ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or that he was ever issued any appointment letter , or he was ever paid his wages by the opposite party or his services have ever been terminated by the opposite party. Therefore, question ofbreach of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the opposite party does not arise.

9. For the reasons discussed above, it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties, alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by him . Reference is therefore, answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour ofthe oppsite party.

R. G. SHUKLA, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली , 3 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 688.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आई.आई.पी. आर. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 43/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-42012/238/2001- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2008

S.O. 688.-In pursuance of Seation 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.43/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the management of Indian Institute of PulseResearch, and their workman, received by the Central Government on 3-3-2008 .

[No. L-42012/238/2001 - IR (CM - II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI R. G SHUKLA PRISIDING OFFICER, CENTRALGOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, KANPUR Industrial Dispute No.43 of2002

Inthe matter ofdispute between

Shri Shrawan Kumar

C/ o Sh. Rajendra Prasad Shukla

115/193 A.2 Maswanpur Rawatpur, Kanpur AND

TheDirector

Indian Institute of Pulse Research

G.T. Road Kalyanpur , Kanpur

988Gi /08--11

1415

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29 , 2008 /चैत्र 9 , 1930

AWARD

1. Central Government , MOL , New Delhi , vide Notification No. L-42012/238 /2001 - IR( CM - II ) dated 17-7-2002 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal

Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research, Kalyanpur , Kanpur , in terminating the employment of Sri Shrawan Kumar S/o Beta Lal working as contract worker allegedly under direct supervision of the management w.e.f. 26-8-98 legal and justified? If not to what relief the worker is entitled to?

2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work ofpermanent nature under the premises ofthe opposite party. It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end of the month by the opposite party as approved by the Central Government, at the minimum of the rate . It is also pleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues , the opposite party attached the workman with a licenced contractor. It has also been pleaded by the workman that hewas continuing in the services from before the induction ofContractor. Workman is employee ofthe opposite party. Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officer of the Management . The production of the opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of 240 days or till he was removed from the service of the opposite party w.e.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several fresh hands were inductedby the opposite party but he was not afforded any opportunity ofhis reemployment . Opposite party has also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service . On the basis of above it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages , consequential benefits and seniority.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008/CHAITRA 9 , 1930

opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules . Since the workman was never in the employment, question of terminating his services from any date does not arise. Moreover , provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman . On the basis ofabove , it has been prayed that the claim ofthe workman be rejected being devoid of merit , baseless and misleading.

4. After exchange of pleadings between the parties the contestingparties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective case.

5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show thatin the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were grantedby the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occasion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case. Todayis furtherdate fixed in the case for hearing arguments inthe case .Casewas called upon repeatedly in open court butthe representative for the workman found absent . After the orders on the order sheet were recorded the representative for the workman came before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain application for transfer of the case but a perusal of the record show that no such application is available on the record. There is also no order received from the appropriate government in the context. Therefore , the tribunal is not inclined tobelieve the contention of the authorised representative for the workman, and therefore , the same is rejected. Having considered the long duration of the pendency ofthe instant casethe tribunal also rejected the adjournment application and the arguments in the case were heard today i.e. on 7-1-08.

6.Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced inthe case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file. It is the own case that the workman was made the employee ofthe contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages . The contention of the workmanto the effect that he was working much before the introduction ofthe alleged contractor ofwhich he is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the Tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record of the case to substantiate the claim of the workman that he was inthe employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor.

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a vaild industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that he ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or that he was ever issued any appointment letter , or he was ever paid his wages by the opposite party or his services have ever been terminated by the opposite party. Therefore , question ofbreach of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the opposite party does not arise .

9. For the reasons discussed above , it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties , alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by him . Reference is therefore, answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour ofthe opposite party.

R.G. SHUKLA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च, 2008

का.आ. 689. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार आई.आई.पी. आर. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 42/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल-42012/239/2001 - आई आर( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 3rd March , 2008

S.O. 689. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 42/ 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the management of Indian Institute of PulseResearch, and their workman , received by the Central Government on 3-2-2008 ,

[No. L-42012/239 /2001 - IR (CM- II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI R. G. SHUKLA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, KANPUR Industrial Dispute No. 42 of2002 In the matter of dispute between Shri Sanjay S/o Sri Pyare Lal C/ o Sh . Rajendra Prasad Shukla 115/193 A.2 Maswanpur Rawatpur , Kanpur AND 1417

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

[भाग II खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

TheDirector,

Indian Institute of Pulse Research

G.T. Road, Kalyanpur , Kanpur

AWARD

1. Central Government, MOL, New Delhi , vide Notification No. L-42012/239/2001 - IR( CM- II ) dated 17-7-2002 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal-

by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment , there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules . Since the workman was never in the employment, question of terminating his services from any date does not arise. Moreover, provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman. On the basis of above, it has been prayed that the claim ofthe workmanbe rejected being devoid of merit, baseless and misleading.

4. After exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective case.

Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research Kalyanpur, Kanpur , in terminating the employment of Sri Sanjay S/ o Sri Pyare Lal working as Contract worker allegedly under direct supervision of the management w.e.f. 26-8-98 legal andjustified ? If not to what reliefthe worker is entitled to?

5. Abare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occassion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case. Today is furtherdate fixed in the case for hearing arguments inthe case. Case was called upon repeatedly in open court butthe representative for the workman found absent . After the orders on the order sheet were recorded the representative for the workman came before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain application for transfer of the case but a perusal of the record show that no such application is available on the record. There is also no order received from the appropriate Government in the context. Therefore , the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the authorised representative for the workman, and therefore, the same is rejected . Having considered the long duration of the pendency of the instant case the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application and the arguments in the case were heard today i.e. on 7-1-08.

2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work ofpermanent nature under the premises of the opposite party on. It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end of the month by the opposite party as approved by the Central Government , at the minimum of the rate . It is also pleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues, the opposite party attached the workman with a licenced contractor. It has also been pleaded by the workman that he was continuing in the services frombefore the induction of Contractor . Workman is employee ofthe opposite party . Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officer of the Management . The production of the opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of 240 days oftill he was removed from the service of the opposite party w.e.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but he was not afforded any opportunity of his reemployment . Opposite party has also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service . On the basis of above it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages , consequential benefits and seniority.

6.Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced in the case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file . It is the own case that the workman was made the employee ofthe contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages . The contention of the workman to the effect that he was working much before the introduction ofthe alleged contractor of which he is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the Tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record of the case to substantiate the claim of the workman that he was in the employment ofthe opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor.

7. The arguments of the opposite party appears to be sound that there exist no relationship of master and servant between them and the so called workman , therefore, there appears no valid industrial dispute between the contesting parties . In the absence any cogent evidence in support ofthe claim of the workman, it is concluded that there never existed any relationship of master and servant between the parties and therefore, the alleged workman 3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exist any relationship of employer and employee between the contestingparties . The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was ever paid wages by the opposite party directly. In fact they were the employees of the contractor who used to superwise the work of the workman . It is also denied that there exist any valid industrial dispute. Workman is not a workman as defined under I.D. Act, nor the opposite party isan industry. Management has emphatically denied having enaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor he was ever issued any appointment letter 1418

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008/CHAITRA 9 , 1930

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

AND

The Director

cannot be held to be a workman within definition of the workman as given under the Act. If it is so rest issues become infructuous as raised by the alleged workman in his statement ofclaim and therefore , need no consideration .

Indian Institute of Pulse Research G.T. Road Kalyanpur, Kanpur

AWARD

1. Central Government , MOL, New Delhi , vide Notification No. L- 42012/242/2001 - IR(CM - II ) dated 17-7-2002 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal-

Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research Kalyanpur, Kanpur , in terminating the employment of Shri Subhash S/ o Sri Ram Sewak working as Contract worker allegedly under direct supervision of the management w.e.f. 26-8-98 legal and justified? If not to what relief the worker is entitled to?

9. For the reasons discussed above , it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties, alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by him. Reference is therefore, answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour oftheopposite party.

R.G SHUKLA , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 3 मार्च, 2008

का.आ. 690.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार आई.आई.पी. आर. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 52/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/242/2001- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 3rd March , 2008

S.O. 690.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 52/ 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Institute of PulseResearch , and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 3-3-2008 .

[No. L-42012/242/2001 - IR (CM - II )] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the ofpermanent nature under the premises of the opposite party on . It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end ofthe month by the opposite party as approved by the Central Government, at the minimum of the rate. It is also pleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues , the opposite party attached the workman with a licenced contractor . It has also been pleaded by the workman that hewas continuing in the services from before the induction ofContractor .Workman is employee of the opposite party. Workmanperformed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officer of the Management. The production of the opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers. It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of 240 days of till he was removed from the service of the opposite party w.e.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by theopposite party but he was not afforded any opportunity ofhis reemployment . Opposite party has also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service . On the basis of above it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages , consequential benefits and seniority.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RG SHUKLA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, KANPUR Industrial Dispute No. 52 of 2002

In the matter of dispute between

Shri Subhash Chand

S/o Sri Ram Sewak

C/o Sh. Rajendra Prasad Shukla

115/193 A.2 Maswanpur Rawatpur, Kanpur

3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exist any relationship of employer and einployee between the contesting parties . The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was ever paid wages by the opposite party directly. In factthey were the employees of the contractor who used to superwise the work of the workman. It is also denied that there exist any valid industrial dispute . Workman is not a workman as defined under I.D. Act , nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having 1419

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29 , 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

there never existed any relationship of master and servant between the parties and therefore , the alleged workman cannot be held to be a workman within definition of the workman as given under the Act. If it is so rest issues become infructuous as raised by the alleged workman in his statement of claim and therefore , need no consideration.

enaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor he was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment , there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the oppositeparty is competent to make appointment de horing recruitment rules . Since the workman was never in the employment, question of terminating his services from any date does not arise . Moreover , provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman . On the basis of above, it has been prayed that the claim ofthe workmanbe rejected being devoid of merit, baseless and misleading.

4. After exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective case .

9. For the reasons discussed above , it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties , alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by him . Reference is therefore, answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour ofthe opposite party.

R.G SHUKLA , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च, 2008

का.आ. 691.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार, स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं. 2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 54/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/221/2005 - आई आर( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी 5. Abare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occasion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case . Todayis further date fixed in the case for hearing arguments in the case. Case was called upon repeatedly in open court butthe representative for the workman found absent. After the orders on the order sheet were recorded the representative for the workman came before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain application for transfer of the case but a perusal of the record show that no such application is available on the record . There is also no order received from the appropriate Government in the context. Therefore , the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the authorised representative for the workman, and therefore , the same is rejected . Having considered the longduration of the pendency of the instant case the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application and the arguments in the case were heard today i.e. on 7-1-08.

New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2008

S.O. 691. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 54/2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum Labour- Court - II , New Delhi . as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India, and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 3-3-2008 .

[No. L- 12012/221 /2005 - IR (B- I) ]

AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer 6.Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced in the case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file . It is the own case that the workman was made the employee ofthe contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages . The contention of the workman to theeffect that he was working much before the introduction of the alleged contractor of which he is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the Tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record ofthe case to substantiate the claim of the workman that he was in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II

I. D. No. 54/2006

Presiding Officer : R. N. RAI

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2008/CHAITRA 9 , 1930

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii ) ] Inthe matter of

Shri R. L. Trikha,

the inquiry on two- three dates , withdrew himself. He told that he cannot defend the workman as the leaders of recognized union have objected and directed him not to represent the workman .

... Claimants

C/o. All IndiaBank Staff Association, 33-34, Bank Enclave , Ring Road, Rajouri Garden , New Delhi - 110027 .

VERSUS

TheAssistant General Manager,

StateBank of India,

Thatas the workman has been the member of All India Bank Staff Association , since long which is a registered union ofBank employees and Shri J.N. Kapoor and Shri J.K. Sawhney are its General Secretary and Dy. General Secretary respectively .

Region-V, SBI ,

Delhi Zonal Office,

11 , Parliament Street,

NewDelhi - 110001 .

.Respondent

That in terms ofPara 521 [ 10 ( a) ] of the Sastry Award an employee may be permitted to be defended by a representative of a registered union of the bank employees or with the permission of the bank by a lawyer .

AWARD

The Ministry ofLabourby its letter No.L- 12012/221 / 2005 IR(B - I) IR-(M) Central Governmentdt.26-06-2006 has referred the following point for adjudication . The point runs as hereunder:-

That the workman submitted a representation to the InquiryOfficer vide his letter dated 15-03-2000 requesting him to be represented by Shri J.K. Sawhney , Dy . General Secretary of All India Bank Staff Association which is a registered union of the bank employees of which the workman is a member .

"Whether the action ofthe management of State Bank of India in dismissal from the service of Sh.R.L. Trikha, Clerk -cum-Cashier w.e.f. 26-08-2004 isjust and legal? If not, to what relief the workman isentitled to?"

That the workman again represented vide his letter dated 24-03-2000 to the Inquiry Officer that in case the bank is not permitting him to be represented by a representative of registered union of bank employees then he should be permitted to be defended by Shri Ashok Mehra , Assistant , SBI , Service Branch , New Delhi which request was made on the instructions ofthe Inquiry officer by the workman but the said letter was not replied .

The workman- applicant has filed claim statement. In the claim-statement it has been stated that the workman joined bank service as Clerk-cum -Cashier in the permanent capacity on 20-09-1980 at Chandigarh LHO and later on transferred to Faridabad Branch and posted at CRI , Faridabad Branch at the material time of the said case .

That theworkman was placed under suspension for certainalleged charges on 25-09-1995.

That the workman again wrote a letter to the Disciplinary Authority ( Asstt. Genral Manager, Region -V ) on01-04-2000 complaining against the Inquiry Officer that he is denying fair and reasonable opportunity to the workman to represent himself in the inquiry through representative of his choice .

That themanagement also filed an FIR with the Police after one year of the alleged incident . The police did not take any action against the workman as there was not financial loss to the bank .

That the workman again wrote a letter dated 01-05-2000 in this regard to the Disciplinary Authority (Asstt . General Manager , Region -V).

That the management issued a charge -sheet to the workmanvidememo dated 19-06-1998 . The workman denied the charges as these were false and baseless .

That the workman again represented in this regard to Shri Rahul Sharma, Inquiry Officer vide his letter dated 31-05-2000.

That the management appointed one Shri Rahul Sharma, AGM as Inquiry Officer. That the workman was notthe member of the recognized union of the bank .

That the workman again represented in this regard to the InquiryOfficer vide his letter dated 17-07-2000.

That the workman also represented in this'regard to the Disciplinary Authority (Asstt. General Manager , Region-V) vide his letter dated 29-07-2000 .

That all the above letters were neither responded nor any decision was taken . The Inquiry Officer illegally held the ex- parte inquiry without providing the workman the right of representation through the representative of his choice as per provisions of the Sastry Award.

That the Inquiry Officer has been insisting the workman that he should himself represented in the inquiry byaaleader of the recognized union of SBI . The leaders of the recognized union were enemical towards the workman due to trade union rivalry, therefore , they refused to represent the workman but still the Inquiry Officer as well as the management had been repeatedly insisting that the workman can only be permitted to be represented by a leader of the recognized union which was most unfair approach .

That the workman somehow persuaded Shri V.K.Malik, employee of Sarai Khawaja Branch and a leader ofNCBE to represent him in the inquiry who after attending

Now based on the said illegal ex -parte inquiry held against the provisions of Sastry Award, the Disciplinary Authority (Asstt . General Manager , Region - V ) has tentatively decided to dismiss the workman from the bank service which action on his part is illegal and malafide .

1421 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29 , 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

The workman prayed the Asstt. General Manager, Region-V , SBI , Delhi Zonal Office not to pass the dismissal order until the issue of representation in the inquiry is decided by your goodself.

That the management denied the workman fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the inquiry and they thus violated the principles of natural justice and legal provisions of Sastry Award in this regard.

That the inquiry officer held ex- parte inquiry which wasillegal, unfair and unjustified.

That as per rules , the workman was entitled to full wages afer expiry of one year form the date of suspension i.e. 25-09-1995 , but the same were not paid to him despite repeated requests , with a view to harass and victimize him.

That the workman raised an industrial dispute in regard to non -payment of full wages before your honour through the General Secretary of his union i.e. All India Bank StaffAssociation vide their letter dated 15-04-2004, on the basis ofwhich the management released full wages w.e.f. 15-09-1996 .

Thatafter the release of full wages from back date as persettlementdated 06-05-2004, referred to in para 23 above the Asstt, General Manager , Region -V dismissed the workman videhis letter dated 26-08-2004 without providing him fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself.

That the workman filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority i . e. Dy. General Manager, SBI , Delhi Zonal Office- II , New Delhi vide his letter dated 04-10-2004

That the Appellate Authority acted mechanically and didnot decide the appeal judiciously . The appeal was dealt ' with by him in a casual and sham show manners . The issues raised by the workman in his appeal were neither dealtwith nor disposed of by him . He summarily rejected hisappeal vide his order dated 31-03-2005 delivered tothe workman on 20-04-2005 .

frivolous and baseless and deserves rejection. The workmanwas issued a charge sheet dated 04-04-1997 which was amended vide charge sheet dated 19-06-1998, for serious acts ofmisconducts involving financial irregularities committed by him in connection with discharge of his duties with the bank . The workman failed to submit any replyto the charges levelled against him and therefore , the management decided to conduct a domestic inquiry in the matter . The workman was given enough opportunityto defend the charges levelled against him and the inquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The workman was found guilty of the charges levelled against him and a copy of the report of the inquiry officerwas forwarded to the workman along with a letter of themanagement dated 14-07-2003 . On the basis ofthe report ofthe Inquiry Officer the Disciplinary Authority of the management bank took a tentative decision to dismiss the workman from the services of the bank without notice . This tentative decision was communicated to the workman vide letter dated 18-08-2003 and the workman was given an opportunity for personal hearing . The management granted opportunity to the workman for a personal hearing on 14-03-2003,27-10-2003 & 27-07-2004 but the workman failed to avail the same . Therefore , the workman was dismissed from service on 09-09-2004 vide letter No. DZO- II/R - V/ 1001 dated 26-08-2004 . The workman preferred an appeal against the decision of the disciplinary authority but as the charges levelled and proved against the workman were ofgrave and serious nature , therefore , vide order dated 31-03-2005 of the Appellate Authority, the appeal of the workman was also dismissed . Since the workman was dismissed from service on the basis of a disciplinary inquiry in the charges of serious misconduct including financial irregularities , the management lost confidence in him . The management being a banking organization could not retain such dishonest people in service as the reputation of the whole banking business was at stake. Therefore , it is humbly submitted that the action taken by the management indismissing the workman from service is fully legal and justified and does not deserve to be interfered by this Hon'ble Tribunal . The management relies upon the record ofthe inquiry proceedings in this regard.

That ex-parte inquiry proceedings , personal hearing and appeal in this case were sham show. No fair and reasonable opportunity was granted to the workman by themanagement in this ease at any stage . No criminal case wasproceeded against the workman by the police on the basis of FIR filed by the bank. No financial loss was caused tothebank. No legal documentary as well as oral evidence was produced by the management to prove the charges . Findings of the inquiry were based on ex -parte inquiry and without any evidence and as such perverse . Principles of natural justice were violated. The workman was illegally dismissed.

However, without prejudice to the contention ofthe management that the inquiry conducted against the workman was fair and proper and in accordance with the priciples ofnaturaljustice, ifthis Tribunal arrives at a finding that there was some defect in the inquiry and thus it stands vitiated, the management be provided opportunity to lead evidence before this Tribunal in order to prove the misonduct of the workman.

That in view of the facts stated above the action of the management to dismiss the workman is illegal, unfair and unjustified and amounts to victimization and unfair labourpractice.

The management has filed reply. In the reply it has been stated that the dispute raised by the workman is

That it is stated as the workman committed fraud in connection with discharge of his official duties , the management lodged the report with the police .However, it is denied that no financial loss was caused to the management. It is further stated that the management was 1422

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008/CHAITRA 9 , 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

entered between the Conciliation Officer , Faridabad and therefore , the same cannot be agitated again before this Tribunal.

not in a position to direct the investigation or to take any penal action against the workman as that was the prerogative of the law enforcement agency i.e. the police and, therefore, no reply is submitted in respect of outcome of the report lodged by the management in this respect.

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder . In the rejoinder he has reiterated the averments ofhis claim state- ment and has denied most of the paras of the written state- ment . The management has also denied most of the paras ofthe claim statement .

Evidence of both the parties has been taken.

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

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that he was suspended by the respondent bank on 25-09-1995 . Charge-sheet was served on him on 04-04-1997 . It was modified on 19-06-1998. The respondent bank deprived the workman of suspension wages amounting to Rs . 7 thousand per month for long 8 years. The manage- mentunduly delayed the disciplinary proceedings for about 10 years . The charges aginst the workman were arbitrarily proved by the biased Inquiry Officer in ex- parte inquiry without any evidence and records . It was a case of no evidence. No opportunity to the workman was given to defendhimself.

It is denied that the Inquiry Officer insisted upon any particular mode of representation by the workman . Thetrue facts are that between the period 20-06-1998 to 21-01-2000, the workman was represented before the Inquiry Officer by one V. K. Malik, Secretary of the SBI StaffAssociation. However, during the course of inquiry theworkman expressed his desire to be represented by one Sh . J.K. Sawhney of All India Bank Staff Association. However, the request of the workman was not allowed as in accordance with para 12 ( a) ( i)(X) of the 7th Bipartite Settlement which was applicable in this case, an employee could be represented only through a representative of a registered trade union ofwhich he is a member on the date firstnotified forthe commencement of the inquiry . As in this case on the Ist date notified for commencement of the inquiry was 10-06-1998 and on that date the workman was not a member of this All India Bank Staff Association , his request was not allowed . It is totally wrong and hence denied that the leaders of the recognized union were inimical towards the workman as alleged. It is denied that the approch of the management was unfair as the management acted in accordance with the rules and regulations binding upon both the parties and, therefore , the allegation ofthe workman in this regard is baseless .

Itwas further submitted that the workman engaged Sh . B.K. Malik , Secretary , SBI Staff Association as his defence representative but he subsequently withdrew from the inquiry proceeding under undue pressure . The work- man sought permission for representation by Sh . J.K. Sawhney of All India Bank Association . The Inquiry denied having engaged the workman in the employment Officer refused to permit Sh . J.K. Sawhney as DR of the workman and concluded the proceedings ex- parte.

That however, the applicant had not mentioned as tofrom which date he is a memeber of All India Bank Staff Association. The applicant be put to the strict proof ofthe averments that he was a member of the All India Bank Staff Association on the date of commencement of inquiry i.e. 10-09-1998 .

It was futher submitted that the workman was a member of the All India Bank Staff Association . Sh. B.K. Malik to represent the workman as the leaders of the recognized union objected to it and directed him not to represent the workman.

That the claim relate to the representations allegedly made byworkman . They being a matter of record need no reply. However the workman be put to strict proof regarding their contents and their receipt by the management . It is denied that the management did not reply the representations of the workman . It is submitted that the management relied to the representations received by it .

It was submitted from the side of the management that the inquiry is fair. Sufficient opportunity has been given to the workman to cross - examine the witness and to defend his case . He opted not to cross- examine the witnesses . Sh . J.K. Sawhney was not permitted to represent the case ofthe workman as the workman was not a member ofthe union .

As per the 7th BPS the workman may be permitted DR of a union which is registered and recognized by the bank and ofwhich the workman is a member . The workman was not the member of All India Bank Association , so Sh . J.K. Sawhney was not permitted as DR of the workman.

Ithas been provided in 521 ( 10 ) A, Sastry Award as under:-

It is submitted that the allegations against the fairness of the inquiry are totally baseless and against the record . The workman was given more than fair opportunity to defend himself before the inquiry officer but he got himself defended also, however later on , he intentionally did not attend the inquiry in order to gain time . It is denied that the management violated the provisions ofthe SastryAward . The workman be put to the strict proof of the allegations made in this respect. The principles of natural justice were properly followed in the case.

That the issue regarding lesser payment of the sub- sistence allowance stands settled between the manage- ment and the workman vide settlement dated 06-05-2004

"He shall also be permitted to be defended by a representative of a registered union of bank employees or with the bank's permission by a lawyer. " [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

1423

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

Accordingto this provision the workman has every right to get himself defended by a representative of a registered union or bank's employees or by a lawyer with the permission of the bank . The workman requested the bank to permit him to be represented by Sh. J.K. Sawhney ofAll India Bank Association but he was refused. In the circumstances the bank did not provide him any defence representative. It is admitted case even of the bank that the Inquiry Officer has proceeded ex -parte and he has given hisfinding on ex - parte evidence of the witnesses .

It is admitted case that the workman was not paid full salary after one year of suspension . The workman was suspended- on 25-9-1995 . He was entitled to full wages after one year of suspension i.e. 25-9-1996 in case delay cannot be attributed to his own conduct . It was nowhere been mentioned that delay in the inquiry proceeding was due to the workman himself. Charge- sheet was served on the workman after two years and the same was modified after one year . The workman was paid full wages on 6-5-2004 by way of settlement before the Conciliation Officer. The workman was entitled for full wages from 25-9-1996 whereas the same was paidto him on 06-5-2004. Such conduct reflects prejudices of the management .

The workman was not permitted to engage DR either of his choice or of the choice of the management . It cannot be said that he intended or admitted to stultify the inquiry and his attitude was of complete non -co- operation, As per the provisions of the Sastry Award referred to above , the management even can permit a lawyer as DR ofthe workman .

In the instant case the workman has not been permitted to engage any DR. The Inquiry Officer has concluded the inquiry ex- parte. Delay caused by the management in disciplinary proceeding reflects the malafide intention of the management . The management should have offered names for DR to the workman . They have not done so. The Inquiry Officer has hastily concluded the inquiry ex-parte . Principie of natural justice have not been followed.

The inquiry is not merely an empty formality , it should be concluded after the cross-examination of the management witness and the workman should also have beenpermitted to examine his own witnesses. Principles of natural justice have been violated . The inquiry stands vitiated. The action of the management is thus , arbitrary and illegal .

The management however, may re - open the inquiry after following the procedures laid down in this behalf.

The reference is replied thus:-

The action ofthe management of State Bank ofIndia indismissal from the service ofSh. R.L. Trikha, Clerk-cum- Cashier w.e.f. 26-8-2004 is neither just nor legal . The 988Gi /08--12

workman is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages , continuity of service and all the consequential benefits within two months from the date of the publication ofthe award.

The award is given accordingly.

Date: 21-02-2008

R. N. RAI, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च, 2008

का.आ. 692.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार वलशाद डिस्ट्रिक सेन्ट्रल को-ओपरेटिव बैंक लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 331/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12014/01/2008- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2008

S.O. 692. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 331 / 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Valsad District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 3-3-2008 .

[No. L- 12014/01 /2008 - IR (B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT : SHRI A.A. LAD, Presiding Officer (Complaint C.G.I.T.A. ) No. 331/04 Old Complaint I.T.C. 6/02

BipenB. Patel

General Secretary

Valsad

Valsad District Co-operative Bank Emp . Uni . 4, Shiv Shakti Society, Tithal Road ....Complainant V/s.

Valsad District Central Co- operative Bank Ltd. Aazad Choke, Valsad

....Opponent APPEARANCE:

Present

Complainant :

Present

Opponent :

1424

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 29 , 2008/CHAITRA 9 , 1930

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

ORDER

Complainant is direct to withdraw the complaint and filed itbefore State Tribunal Gujarat . Accordingly complaint isdisposed off. No costs . Date: 19-11-2007

Ahmedabad

A.A. LAD, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 693. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार आई.आई.पी. आर. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 38/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -42012/232/2001- आई आर ( सी एम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 3rd March, 2008

1. By filing this complaint under Section 33 A ofthe Industrial Dispute Act the complainant has stated that , he was working with the opponent since last 25 years as C-Grade permanent workman. His service record is clean andunblemish. The complainant was General Secretary of opponent Valsad Distt. Co - operative Bank Employees Union. The complainant stated that, during the operation of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Surat in Ref. ( IT) 81/87 , the opponent has transfer the services of themembers of the Union and hence the present complaint . The complainant stated that , with a view to stop the union activities, the Management has passed the mass transfer orders on 10-6-2002 against the transfer policy decided in Ref. (ITC) 81/87 . The complainant union has by filing this complaint, prayed that opponent be directed to withdraw the said transfer orders dated 10-6-2002 and further prayed do not to execute the same. It is clear prayed to direct opponent not to transfer during the pendency of the conciliation before Labour Court , Vadodara. Accord to hina, opponent can not transfer without since he has raised the dispute and it is pending for consideration before Asstt.Labour Commissioner ( Central) Vadodara .

S.O. 693. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 38/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research, and their workmen , received by the Central Govemment on 3-3-2008 .

2. Opponent objected this by filing reply at Ex . 10 saying that , complainant can not challenge the transfer . Since it was just and proper transfer . Transfer was best solution, which is also right of the employer . Beside it is contendedby opponent that, this court has no jurisdiction to try the subject matter of transfer .

[No. L-42012/232/2001 - IR ( CM- II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

3. Matter is pleased before me on the basis of last Roznama dated 15-6-2006 written that P.O. stating that , complaint is not tenable . If is not objected on oath.

BEFORE SRI R.G SHUKLA PRISIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT , KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 38 of2002

4. Perused the proceeding and the (taken by the ) contention complaint and contention taken in reply ofthe employer . Other 5 matters are pending before this Tribunal to decide the point ofjurisdiction.

In the matter ofdispute between

AND

Shri Veerendra Kumar S/ o Sri Collecter Lal C/o Sh . Rajendra Prasad Shukla 115/193 A.2 Maswanpur Rawatpur , Kanpur The Director Indian Institute of Pulse Research G.T. Road, Kalyanpur , Kanpur

AWARD

5. The recentjudgement published in page no . 160/ 2007 II C.L.R. Bharat Co- operative Bank(Mumbai) Limited V/s . Co-operative Bank Employees Union whether it is observed that , in case of co - operative bank, Central Government is not a appropriate Government. It is stated that, to entertain the grievances of the co -operative bank and in the light ofthe observation made by the Apex Court when it is observed that, Central Government is not a appropriateGovernment now appropriate government will . be State Govt . ofGujarat . When it is subject rnatter ofthe Co- operative Banks and its employee which is within the jurisdiction ofState Government and with State Tribunal Gujarat . This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the grievances of the employees of co - operative banks .

1. Central Government , MOL , New Delhi , vide Notification No. L - 42012/232/ 2001-1R ( CM - II ) dated 17-7-2002 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal-

6. Considering this I direct complainant to withdraw the complaint and filed it before State Tribunal Gujarat who has jurisdiction over the subject matter . Hence the order:

Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research , Kalyanpur , Kanpur, in terminating the employment of Sri Veerendra Kumar 1425

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29 , 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4. After exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective case .

S/oCollecter Lal working as contract worker allegedly under direct supervision of the management w.e.f. 26-8-98 legal and justified ? If not to what relief the worker is entitled to ?

5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the represntative for the workman but on each occassion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case. Today is further date fixed in the case for hearing arguments inthe case . Case was called upon repeatedly in open court butthe representative for the workman found absent .After the orders on the order sheet were recorded the representative for the workman came before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain application for transfer of the case but a perusal of the record show that no such application is available on the record. There is also no order received from the appropriate Government in thiscontext. Therefore , the tribunal is not inclined tobelieve the contention of the authorised representative for the workman, and therefore , the same is rejected . Having considered the long duration of the pendency of the instant case thetribunal also rejected the adjournment application and the arguments in the case were heard today i.e. on 7-1-08.

The production of the opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of 240 days of till he was removed from the service of the opposite party w.e.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but he was not afforded any opportunity of his reemployment. Opposite party has also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service . On the basis of above it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages , consequential benefits and seniority.

6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced in the case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file . It is the own case that the workman was made the employee ofthe contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages . The contention of the workmanto the effect that he was working much before the introduction ofthe alleged contractor ofwhich he is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the Tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record ofthe case to substantiate the claim of the workman that he was in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor .

8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a vaild industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that he ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or that he was ever issued any appointment letter , or he was ever paid his wages by the opposite party or his services have ever been terminated by the opposite party. Therefore, 3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exist any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties . The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was ever paid wages by the opposite party directly. In fact they were the employees of the contractor who used to superwise the work of the workman . It is also denied that there exist any valid industrial dispute. Workman is not a workman as defined under I.D. Act, nor the opposite party isan industry. Management has emphatically denied having enaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor he was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment , there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules . Since the workman was never in the employment , question of terminating his services from any date does not arise. Moreover , provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman. On the basis of above , it has been prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of merit, baseless and misleading.

1426

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008/ CHAITRA 9 , 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] question ofbreach of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the opposite party does not arise .

"Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research , Kalyanpur , Kanpur, in terminating the employment of Sri Ram Kumar S / o Prabhu Dayal working as Contract worker allegedly under direct supervision of the management w.e.f. 26-8-98 legal and justified ? If not to what relief the worker is entitled to ? "

R. G. SHUKLA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 694. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार आई.आई.पी. आर. के प्रबंधततंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कानपुर के पंचांट ( संदर्भ संख्या 41/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/240/ 2001 - आई आर( सीएम-11 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 3rd March , 2008

S.O. 694. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 41/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Institute of PulseResearch, and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 3-3-2008 .

[No. L-42012/240/2001 - IR (CM - II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work if permanent nature under the premises of the opposite party on. It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end ofthe month by the opposite party as approved by the Central Government, at the minimum of the rate . It is also pleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues , the opposite party attached the workman with a licenced contractor . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he was continuing in the services from before the induction ofContractor . Workman is employee of the opposite party. Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officer of the Management . The production ofthe opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of 240 days of till he was removed from the service of the opposite party w.e.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but he was not afforded any opportunity of his reemployment. Opposite party has also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service . On the basis of above it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages , consequential benefits and seniority.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRIR.G SHUKLA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

CUM- LABOUR -COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 41 of 2002

In the matter of dispute between

Shri Ram Kumar

S/o Sti Prabhu Dayal

C/o Sh. Rajendra Prasad Shukla 115/193 A.2 Maswanpur Rawatpur, Kanpur AND The Director: Indian Institute of Pulse Research

G.T. Road Kalyanpur , Kanpur

AWARD

1. Central Government , MOL, New Delhi , vide Notification No. L -42012/240/2001 - CIR(CM - II ) dated 17-7-2002 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal-

3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exist any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties . The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was ever paid wages by the opposite party directly . In fact they were the employees of the contractor who used to superwise the work of the workman. It is also denied that there exist any valid industrial dispute. Workman is not a workman as defined under 1.D. Act, nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having enaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor he was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party . It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment , there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules . Since the workman was never in the employment , question of terminating his services from any date does not arise . Moreover, provisions of Industrial Disputes, Act are also not applicable to the workman .

1427 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29 , 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

Onthe basis of above, it has been prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of merit , baseles and misleading .

that he was ever issued any appointment letter , or he was ever paid his wages by the opposite party or his services have ever been terminated by the opposite party . Therefore, question ofbreach ofprovisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the opposite party does not arise.

4. After exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective case .

9. For the reasons discussed above , it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties , alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by him . Reference is therefore, answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour of the opposite party.

R.G SHUKLA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 695. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आई.आई.पी. आर. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 53/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/241/2001- आई आर( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 3rd March, 2008 5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occassion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case . Today is further date fixed in the case for hearing arguments in the case . Case was called upon repeatedly in open court butthe representative for the workman found absent. After the orders on the order sheet were recorded the representative for the workman came before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain application for transfer of the case but a perusal of the record show that no such application is available on the record . There is also no order received from the appropriate Government in this context. Therefore , the tribunal is not inclined to believe this contention of the authorised representative for the workman, and therefore , the same is rejected. Having considered the long duration of the pendency of the instant case the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application and the arguments in the case were heard today i.e. on 7-1-08 .

S.O. 695. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 53/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Institute of PulseResearch, and their workmen, received by the Central .Government on 3-3-2008 .

[No. L-42012/241 /2001 - IR( CM - II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced in the case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file . It is the own case that the workman was made the employee of the contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages . The contention of the workman to the effect that he was working much before the introduction ofthe alleged contractor ofwhich he is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the Tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record ofthe case to substantiate the claim of the workman that he was in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor .

BEFORE SRIR.G SHUKLA PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR -COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 53 of2002

In the matter of dispute between

ShriDayal S/o Late Sri Ram Charan C/o Sh . Rajendra Prasad Shukla 115/193 A.2 Maswanpur Rawatpur , Kanpur

AND

TheDirector Indian Institute of Pulse Research G.T. Road Kalyanpur, Kanpur

AWARD

1. Central Government, MOL, New Delhi , vide Notification No. L-42012/241 /2001 - IR(CM - II ) dated 8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a vaild industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that he ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or 1428

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2008/CHAITRA 9, 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] 17-7-2002 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal

date does not arise . Moreover , provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman. On the basis of above , it has been prayed that the claim ofthe workman be rejected being devoid of merit , baseless and misleading.

4. After exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective case .

Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research Kalyanpur , Kanpur , in terminating the employment of Sri Dayal S/ o Sri Ram Charan working as Contract worker allegedly under direct supervision of the management w.e.f. 26-8-98 legal ans justified ? If not to what relief the worker is entitled to?

5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workmanbut on each occassion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case . Today is further date fixed in the case for hearing arguments inthe case . Case was called upon repeatedly in open court butthe representative for the workman found absent . After the orders on the order sheet were recorded the representative for the workman came before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain application for transfer of the case but a perusal of the record show that no such application is available on the record . There is also no order received from the appropriate Government in thiscontext . Therefore, the tribunal is not inclined tobelieve the contention of the authorised representative for the workman , and therefore , the same is rejected . Having considered the long duration of the pendency of the instant case the tribunal also rejected the adjourrument application and the arguments in the case were heard today i.e. on 7-1-08.

2. The case ofthe workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work ofpermanent nature under the premises of the opposite party on. It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end of the month by the opposite party as approved by the Central Government, at the minimum of the rate . It is also pleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues , the opposite party attached the workman with a licenced contractor. It has also been pleaded by the workman that hewas continuing in the services from before the induction ofContractor . Workman is employee of the opposite party. Workman performed the work connected with agriculture andthe attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officer of the Management. The production of the opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of 240 days of till he was removed from the service of the opposite party w.e.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several fresh hands were inductedby the opposite party buthe was not afforded any opportunity ofhis reemployment . Opposite party has also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service . On the basis of above it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages , consequential benefits and seniority.

6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced in the case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file . It is the own case that the workman was made the employee of the contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages . The contention of the workmantothe effect that he was working much before the introduction ofthe alleged contractor ofwhich he is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the Tribunal as nodocumentary evidence is available on the record of the case to substantiate the claim of the workman that he was in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor .

3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exist any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties . The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was ever paid wages by the opposite party directly. In fact they were the employees of the contractor who used to superwise the work of the workman. It is also denied that there exist any valid industrial dispute . Workman is not a workman as defined under I.D. Act, nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphaticallydenied having enaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor he was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment , there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules . Since the workman was never in the employment , question of terminating his services from any

8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a vaild industrial dispute as the 1429 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29 , 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

AWARD

1. Central Government, MOL, New Delhi , vide Notification No. L- 42012/233 /2001 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 17-7-2002 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal-

claimant has palpably failed to establish that he ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or that he was ever issued any appointment letter , or he was ever paid his wages by the opposite party or his services haveeverbeenterminated by the opposite party. Therefore , question ofbreach of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the opposite party does not arise.

Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research Kalyanpur , Kanpur , in terminating the employment of Smt . Shanti Devi W/o Chandra Prakash working as Contract worker allegedly under direct supervision of the management w.e.f. 26-8-98 legal andjustified? If not to what relief the worker is entitled to?

9. For the reasons discussed above , it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties, alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by him. Reference is therefore , answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour of the opposite party.

R. G. SHUKLA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 696. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार आई.आई.पी. आर. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 57/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -42012/233/2001- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 3rd March , 2008

S.O. 696. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 57/ 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum- Labour Court , Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research , and their workmen , received bythe Central Government on 3-3-2008.

[No. L-42012/233/2001 - IR (CM - II) ]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

2. The case ofthe workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work of permanent nature under the premises of the opposite party. It is also pleaded thatthe workman was paid wages at the end of the month by the opposite party as approved by the Central Government, at the minimum of the rate . It is also pleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues, the opposite party attached the workman with a licenced contractor. It has also been pleaded by the workman that shewas continuing in the services from before the induction ofContractor. Workman is employee of the opposite party. Workmanperformed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked bythe officers of the Management . The production of the opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of240 days of tills he was removed from the service of the opposite party w.e.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provision of Industrial DisputesAct, 1947. Several fresh hands were inductedby the opposite party but she was not afforded any opportunity of his reemployment . Opposite party has also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service. On the basis of above it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages , consequential benefits and seniority.

BEFORE SRIR.G SHUKLA PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR -COURT,

KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 57 of2002

Inthe matter ofdispute between

Smt. Shanti

W/ o Shri Chandra Prakash Sonkar C/o Sh . Rajendra Prasad Shukla 115/193 A.2 Maswanpur Rawatpur, Kanpur

AND

TheDirector

Indian Institute of Pulse Research G.T. Road Kalyanpur , Kanpur

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2008/CHAITRA 9 , 1930

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

her statement of claim and therefore , need no consideration .

opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules . Since the workman was never in the employment, question of terminating his services from any date does not arise . Moreover , provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman . On the basis of above, it has been prayed that the claim ofthe workman be rejected being devoid of merit , baseless and misleading.

4. After exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective case.

8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a valid industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that she ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or that she was ever issued any appointment letter, or she was ever paid her wages by the opposite party or her services have ever been terminated by the opposite party. Therefore, question ofbreach ofprovisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , by the opposite party does not arise .

9. For the reasons discussed above, it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties, alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by him . Reference is therefore, answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour of the opposite party.

R. G. SHUKLA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च, 2008

का.आ. 697. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार आई.आई.पी. आर. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 45/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/234/2001- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 3rd March , 2008

5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workmanbut on each occasion on one pretext or the other she sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case, Today is further date fixed in the case for hearing arguments in the case . Case was called upon repeatedly in open court but the representative for the workman found absent. After the orders on the order sheet were recorded therepresentative for the workman came before the tribunal and submitted that she had sent certain application for transfer of the case but a perusal of the record show that no such application is available on the record. There is also noorder received from the appropriate government in thiscontext. Therefore , the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the authorised representative for the workman, and therefore , the same is rejected. Having considered the long duration of the pendency of the instant case the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application and the arguments in the case were heard today i.e. on7-1-2008.

S.O. 697. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 45/ 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 3-3-2008 .

[No. L-42012/ 234/2001AR (CM - 11 ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced in the case at length and have also gone carefully through the dase file, It is the own case that the workman was made the employee of the contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages . The contention of the workman to the effect that she was working much before the introduction of the alleged contractor of which he is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the Tribunal asino documentary evidence is available on the record ofthe case to substantiate the claim of the workman that she was in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor.

BEFORE SRI R. G. SHUKLA PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 45 of 2002

In the matter of dispute between

Smt. Kamla W/ o Sri Chotey Lal C/o Sh . Rajendra Prasad Shukla 115/193 A.2 Maswanpur Rawatpur , Kanpur AND

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii)]

The Director

Indian Institute of Pulse Research

G.T. Road, Kalyanpur , Kanpur

AWARD

by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment , there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules . Since the workman was never in the employment, question of terminating his services from any date does not arise . Moreover , provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman. On the basis ofabove, it has been prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of merit, baseless and misleading.

4. After exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective case .

1. Central Government, MOL, New Delhi , vide Notification No. L -42012/ 234/2001 - IR (CM - II ) dated 17-7-2002 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research Kalyanpur, Kanpur, in terminating the employment of Smt . Kamla W/o Sh. Chotey Lal working as Contract worker allegedly under direct supervision of the management w.e.f. 26-8-98 legal ans justified? If not to what relief the worker is entitled to?.

5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workmanbut on each occassion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case. Today is further date fixed in the case for hearing arguments in the case. Case was called upon repeatedly in open court but the representative for the workman found absent . After the orders on the order sheet were recorded the representative for the workman came before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain application for transfer of the case but a perusal of the record show that no such application is available on the record. There is also no order received from the appropriate government in the context. Therefore , the tribunal is not înclined to believe the contention of the authorised representative for the workman , and therefore , the same is rejected. Having considered the long duration of the pendency of the instant case the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application and the arguments in the case were heard today i.e. on 7-1-08.

2. The case ofthe workman in short is that the worker hasbeen employed to perform the work of permanent nature under the premises ofthe opposite party. It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end of the month by the opposite party as approved by the Central Government, at the minimum ofthe rate . It is also pleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues, the opposite party attached the workman with a licenced contractor. It has also been pleaded by the workman that hewas continuing in the services from before the induction ofContractor.Workman is employee of the opposite party. Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked bythe officers of the Management. The production ofthe opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of 240 days of till he was removed from the service of the opposite party w.e.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but she was not afforded any opportunity of his reemployment . Opposite party has also violated the provisions of rules ofnaturaľand social justice by not regularising him in the service. On the basis of above it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages , consequential benefits and seniority.

6.Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced in the case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file . It is the own case that the workman was made the employee ofthe contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages . The contention of the workman to the effect that he was working much before the introduction ofthe alleged contractor of which he is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the Tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record ofthe case to substantiate the claim of the workman that he was in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor.

7. The arguments of the opposite party appears to be sound that there exist no relationship of máster and servant between them and the so called workman , therefore, there appears no valid industrial dispute between the contesting parties . In the absence any cogent evidence in support of the claim of the workman, it is concluded that there never existed any relationship of master and servant between the parties and therefore , the alleged workman 3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exist any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties . The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was ever paidwages by the opposite party directly . In fact they were the employees of the contractor who used to superwise the work of the workman. It is also denied that there exist any valid industrial dispute . Workman is not a workman as defined under I.D. Act, nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having enaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor he was ever issued any appointment letter

988 Gi/08-13 1432

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008/CHAITRA 9 , 1930

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

AND

TheDirector,

cannot be held to be a workman within definition of the workman as given under the Act. If it is so rest issues become infructuous as raised by the alleged workman in hisstatement of claim and therefore , need no consideration.

Indian Institute of Pulse Research G.T. Road , Kalyanpur , Kanpur

AWARD

1. Central Government , MOL, New Delhi , vide Notification No. L -42012/235/2001 - IR( CM - II) dated 17-7-2002 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal-

&. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a vaild industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that he ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or thathe was ever issued any appointment letter , or he was ever paid his wages by the opposite party or his services have everbeen terminated by the opposite party. Therefore, question ofbreach of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the opposite party does not arise.

Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research , Kalyanpur, Kanpur , in terminating the employment ofSmt. Sadhna W/o Ram Parkash working as Contract worker allegedly under direct supervision of the management w.e.f. 26-8-98 legal and justified ? If not to what relief the worker is entitled to?

9. For the reasons discussed above, it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties, alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by him . Reference is therefore , answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour ofthe opposite party.

R. G. SHUKLA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च, 2008

का.आ. 698. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आई.आई.पी. आर. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधि करण कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 46/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[से. एल -42012/235/2001 - आई आर ( सीएम -11 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 3rd March, 2008

SO . 698.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Indusırial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 46/2002) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court , Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Institute of PulseResearch, and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 3-3-2008 .

[No. L-42012/235/2001 - IR( CM - II) ]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker as been employed to perform the work of permanent nature under the premises of the opposite party. It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end of the month by the opposite party as approved by the Central Government, at the minimum of the rate. It is also pleaded bythe workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues, the opposite party attached the workman with a licenced contractor . It has also been pleaded by the workman that she was continuing in the services from before the induction ofContractor . Workman is employee of the opposite party. Workmanperformed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officer of the Management. The production of the opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of 240 days of till she was removed from the service of the opposite party w.e.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provision of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but she was not afforded any opportunity of his reemployment . Opposite party has also violated the provisions ofrules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service . On the basis of above it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages , consequential benefits and seniority.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRIR. G. SHUKLA PRISIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 46 of 2002

In the matter of dispute between

Smt . Sadhna

W/o Sri Ram Parkash

C/o Sh . Rajendra Prasad Shukla

115/193, A- 2 Maswanpur Rawatpur, Kanpur

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29 , 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

there never existed any relationship of master and servant between the parties and therefore , the alleged workman cannot be held to be a workman within definition of the workman as given under the Act . If it is so rest issues become infructuous as raised by the alleged workman in her statement of claim and therefore, need no consideration .

engaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever not he was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment , there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules . Since the workman was never in the employment , question ofterminating her services from any date does not arise . Moreover , provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman. On the basis of above , it has been prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of merit , baseless and misleading.

8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a valid industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that she ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or that she was ever issued any appointment letter , or she was ever paid her wages by the opposite party or her services have ever been terminated by the opposite party. Therefore , question ofbreach of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , by the opposite party does not arise .

4. After exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective case .

9. For the reasons discussed above , it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties , alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by him . Reference is therefore, answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour ofthe opposite party.

R. G. SHUKLA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च , 2008

का.. 699.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आई.आई.पी. आर. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 59/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -42012/236/2001- आई आर( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी 5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments weregrantedby the tribunal to the representative for the workmanbut on each occasion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case . Today is further date fixed in the case for hearing arguments in the case. Case was called upon repeatedly in open court but the representative for the workman found absent . After the orders on the order sheet were recorded the representative for the workman came before the tribunal and submitted that she had sent certain application for transfer of the case but a perusal of the record show that no such application is available on the record. There is also no order received from the appropriate government in the context . Therefore, the tribunal is not inclined to believe this contention of the authorised representative for the workman, and therefore , the same is rejected. Having considered the long duration of the pendency of the instant case the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application and the arguments in the case were heard today i.e. on 7-1-2008.

New Delhi , the 3rd March, 2008

S.O. 699.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 59/ 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research, and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 3-3-2008 .

[No. L-42012/236/2001 -IR (CM - II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced in the case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file . It is the own case that the workman was made the employee of the contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages . The contention of the workman to the effect that she was working much before the introduction of the alleged contractor of which she is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the Tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record of the case to substantiate the claim ofthe workman that he was in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor .

BEFORE SRI R. G. SHUKLA PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 59 of2002 7. The arguments of the opposite party appears to be sound that there exist no relationship of master and servant between them and the so called workman , therefore, there appears no valid industrial dispute between the contesting parties . In the absence any cogent evidence in support of the claim of the workman, it is concluded that 1434

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008/CHAITRA 9 , 1930

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] In the matter of dispute between

Smt . Sadhana

W/ Sri Chhotey Lal

C/o Sh . Rajendra Prasad Shukla

115/193 A.2 Maswanpur Rawatpur , Kanpur.

AND

TheDirector,

Indian Institute of Pulse Research

G.T. Road Kalyanpur, Kanpur.

AWARD

1. Central Government , MOL, New Delhi , vide Notification No. L -42012 /236/2001 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 17-7-2002 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal---

ever paid wagesby the opposite party directly . In fact they were the employees ofthe contractor who used to supervise the work of the workman . It is also denied that there exist any valid industrial dispute . Workman is not a workman as defined under I.D. Act, nor the opposite party is an industry . Management has emphatically denied having engaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor she was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment , there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules . Since the workman was never in the employment, question of terminating her services from any date does not arise . Moreover , provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman . On thr basis of above, it has been prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of merit, baseless and misleading.

4. After exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective case.

Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research, Kalyanpur, Kanpur, in terminating the employment of Smt . Sadhana W/ o SriChhotey Lal working as Contract worker allegedly under direct supervision of the management w.e.f. 26-8-98 legal and justified? If not to what relief the worker is entitled to?

5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occasion on one pretext or the other she sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case. Today is further date fixed in the case for hearing arguments in the case . Case was called upon repeatedly in open court but the representative for the workman found absent . After the orders on the order sheet were recorded the representative for the workman came before the tribunal and submitted that she had sent certain application for transfer of the case but a perusal of the record show that no such application is available on the record. There is also no order received from the appropriate government in this context. Therefore , the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the authorised representative for the workman, and therefore, the same is rejected . Having considered the long duration of the pendency of the instant case the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application and the arguments in the case were heard today i.e. on 7-1-08 .

2. The case ofthe workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work of permanent nature under the premises of the opposite party. It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end of the month by the opposite party as approved by the Central Government, at the minimum of the rate. It is also pleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues , the opposite party attached the workman with a licenced contractor. It has also been pleaded by the workman that shewas continuing in the services from before the induction ofContractor . Workman is employee of the opposite party. Workmanperformed the work connected with agriculture andthe attendance of the workman was used to be marked bythe officers of the Management. The production of the opppsite party was also used to be sold out to the customers .It has also been pleaded by the workman that she rendered continuous service of 240 days oftill she was removed from the service of the opposite party w.e.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but she was not afforded any opportunity ofher reemployment . Opposite party has also violatedthe provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service . On the basis of above it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages , consequential benefits and seniority .

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29 , 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI R. G SHUKLA, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR-COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 48 of 2002

Inthe matter ofdispute between : Smt. Ram Devi W/o Sri Dhani Ram, C/o Sh. Rajendra Prasad Shukla, 115/193 , A- 2, Maswanpur Rawatpur , Kanpur

AND

7.'The arguments of the opposite party appears to be sound that there exist no relationship of master and servant between them and the so called workman, therefore, there appears no valid industrial dispute between the contesting parties . In the absence any cogent evidence in support of the claim of the workman, it is concluded that there never existed any relationship ofmaster and servant 'between the parties and therefore , the alleged workman cannot be held to be a workman within the definition of the workman as given under the Act. If it is so rest issues becomes infructuous as raised by the alleged workman in her statement of claim and therefore , need no consideration.

TheDirector

Indian Institute of Pulse Research G.T. Road, Kalyanpur, Kanpur

AWARD

1. The Central Government, MOL, New Delhi , vide Notification No. L -42012/246/2001 - IR( CM - II ) , dated 17-7-2002 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal

8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a valid industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that she ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or that he was ever issued any appointment letter, or he was ever paid her wages by the opposite party or her services have ever been terminated by the opposite party. Therefore , question of breach of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , by the opposite partydoes not arise .

Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research , Kalyanpur , Kanpur, in terminating the employment of Smt. Ram Devi W/o Sri Dhani Ram working as Contract worker allegedly under direct supervision of the management w.e.f. 26-8-98 legal and justified? If not to what relief the worker is entitled to ? "

9. For the reasons discussed above , it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties, alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by him . Reference is therefore , answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour of the opposite party.

R. G. SHUKLA. , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 700.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आई.आई.पी. आर. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 48/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/246/2001 - आई आर( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 3rd March, 2008

S.O. 700.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 48/ 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research , and their workmen , received bythe Central Government on 3-3-2008.

2. The case ofthe workman in short is that the worker hasbeen employed to perform the work of permanent nature under the premises ofthe opposite party. It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end of the month by the opposite party as approved by the Central Government, at the minimum of the rate . It is also pleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues , the opposite party attached the workman with a licenced contractor. It has also been pleaded by the workman that 'shewas continuing in the services from before the induction ofContractor. Workman is employee of the opposite party. Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance ofthe workman was used to be marked by the officer of the Management. The production of the opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers . It has also been pleaded by the workman that she rendered continuous service of 240 days of till she was removed from the service of the opposite party w.e.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but she was not afforded any opportunity ofher re - employment . Opposite party has also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service . On the basis of above it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages , consequential benefits and seniority.

[No. L-42012/246/2001 - IR (CM- II )] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer 1436

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008/CHAITRA 9 , 1930

[ PART II-SEC. 3( ii ) ]

Tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record of the case to substantiate the claim of the workman that she was in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor.

3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exist any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties . The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was ever paid wages by the opposite party directly. In fact they were the employees of the contractor who used to supervise the work ofthe workman. It is also denied that there exist any valid industrial dispute . Workman is not a workman as defined under I.D. Act , nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having enaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever for she was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party . It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment , there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules . Since the workman was never in the employment, question of terminating her services from any date does not arise . Moreover, provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman, On the basis of above , it has been prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of merit, baseles and misleading.

8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a vaild industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that she ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or that she was ever issued any appointment letter , or she was ever paid her wages by the opposite party or her services have ever been terminated by the opposite party. Therefore , question of breach ofprovisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the opposite party does not arise .

4. After exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective case .

9. For the reasons discussed above, it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties , alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by her . Reference is therefore , answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour of the opposite party.

R.G SHUKLA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 3 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 701.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार आई.आई.पी. आर. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 49/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/245/2001-आई आर( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 3rd March , 2008

5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occassion on one pretext or the other she sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case. Today is further date fixed in the case for hearing arguments in the case . Case was called upon repeatedly in open court but the representative for the workman found absent. After the orders on the order sheet were recorded the representative for the workman came before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain application for transfer of the case but a perusal of the record show that no such application is available on the record . There is also no orderreceived from the appropriate Government in the context. Therefore , the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the authorised representative for the workman, and therefore , the same is rejected . Having considered the long duration of the pendency ofthe instant case the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application and the arguments in the case were heard today i.e. on 7-1-08

S.O. 701. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 49/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Institute of PulseResearch , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 3-3-2008 .

[No. L-42012/245/2001 - IR (CM- II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer 6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced in the case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file. It is her own case that the workman was made the employee ofthe contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages . The contention of the workman to the effect that she was working much before the introduction of the alleged contractor of which she is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the 1437

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 29 , 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRIR. G SHUKLA, PRISIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 49 of2002

Inthe matter ofdispute between

Smt. Pushpa W/o Sri Prabhu Shah C/o Sh . Rajendra Prasad Shukla 115/193 A.2 , Maswanpur Rawatpur , Kanpur

AND

TheDirector Indian Institute of Pulse Research G.T. Road Kalyanpur, Kanpur

AWARD

1. The Central Government, MOL, New Delhi , vide Notification No. L-42012/245/2001 - IR( CM - II) dated 17-7-2002 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :-

3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exist any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties . The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was ever paid wages by the opposite party directly. In fact they were the employees of the contractor who used to superwise the work of the workman. It is also denied that there exist any valid industrial dispute . Workman is not a workman as defined under I.D. Act, nor the opposite party is anindustry .Management has emphatically denied having enaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor he was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment , there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules . Since the workman was never in the employment, question of terminating her services from any date does not arise . Moreover , provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman . On therbasis of above, it has been prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of merit, baseles and misleading.

4. After exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective case .

Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research , Kalyanpur, Kanpur , in terminating the employment of Smt. Pushpa W/ o Sri Prabhu Shah working as Contract worker allegedly under direct supervision of the management w.e.f. 26-8-98 legal and justified? If not to what reliefthe worker is entitled to?

5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman'but on each occassion on one pretext or the other she sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case. Today is further date fixed in the case for hearing arguments in the case. Case was called upon repeatedly in open court but the representative for the workman found absent . After the orders on the order sheet were recorded the representative for the workman came before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain application for transfer of the case but a perusal of the record show that no such application is available on the record . There is also no order received from the appropriate government in the context. Therefore , the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the authorised representative for the workman, and therefore , the same is rejected . Having considered the long duration of the pendency of the instant case the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application andthe arguments in the case were heard today i.e. on 7-1-08.

6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced in the case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file. It is her own case that the workman was made the employee ofthe contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages . The contention of the workman to the effect that he was working much before the introduction ofthe alleged contractor of which he is alleged 2. The case ofthe workman in short is that the worker hasbeen employed to perform the work of permanent nature under the premises of the opposite party on . It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end ofthe month by the opposite party as approved by the Central Government, at the minimum ofthe rate . It is also pleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues , the opposite party attached the workman with a licenced contractor. It has also been pleaded by the workman that shewas continuing in the services from before the induction ofContractor . Workman is employee of the opposite party. Workmart performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officer of the Management . The production ofthe opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers. It has also been pleaded by the workman that she rendered continuous service of 240 days oftill she was removed from the service of the opposite party w.e.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but she was not afforded any opportunity of his reemployment . Opposite party has also violated the provisions ofrules ofnatural and social justice by not regularising him in the service . On the basis of above it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages , consequential benefits and seniority.

1438 :

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2008/CHAITRA 9 , 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI R. G. SHUKLA, PRISIDING OFFICER, to be the employee cannot be accepted by the Tribunal as nodocumentary evidence is available on the record ofthe case to substantiate the claim of the workman that she was inthe employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor.

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 50 of 2002

In the matter of dispute between

Smt . Shanti W/ o Malkhan C/o Sh . Rajendra Prasad Shukla 115/193 A.2 , Maswanpur Rawatpur, Kanpur

AND

TheDirector,

Indian Institute of Pulse Research, G.T. Road Kalyanpur , Kanpur

AWARD

1. The Central Government, MOL, New Delhi , vide Notification No. L - 42012/ 244/2001-1R(CM- II ) dated 17-7-2002 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal-

8 Inthe end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a vaild industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that she ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or that she was ever issued any appointment letter , or he was ever paid his wages by the opposite party or her services have ever beenterminated by the opposite party. Therefore , question ofbreach of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the opposite party does not arise.

Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research, Kalyanpur, Kanpur , in terminating the employment of Smt. Shanti W/ o Malkhan working as Contract worker allegedly under direct supervision of the management w.e.f. 26-8-98 legaland justified? If not, to what relief the worker is entitled to?

9. For the reasons discussed above, it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties, alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by her . Reference is therefore, answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour oftheopposite party.

R. G. SHUKLA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 3 मार्च, 2008

का.आ. 702.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार आई.आई.पी.

आर. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरपा, कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 50/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/244/2001- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 3rd March, 2008

SO. 702. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 50/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Institute of PulseResearch,and their workmen, received by the Central Government on3-3-2008.

[No. L-42012/244/2001 - IR ( CM - II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

2. The case ofthe workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work of permanent nature under the premises of the opposite party on . It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end ofthe month by the opposite party as approved by the Central Government, atthe minimum of the rate. It is also pleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues , the opposite party attached the workman with a licenced contractor. It has also been pleaded by the workman that he was continuing in the services from before the induction ofContractor . Workman is employee of the opposite party. Workman performed the work connected with agrioulture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officer of the Management. The product of the opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers . It has also been pleaded by the workman that she rendered continuous service of 240 days of till he was removed from the service of the opposite party w.e.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but she was not afforded any opportunity of her reemployment . Opposite party has also violatedthe provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising her in the service . On the basis of above ithas been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages , consequential benefits and seniority.

1439

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record ofthe case to substantiate the claim of the workman that she was in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor.

3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exist any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties . The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was ever paid wages by the opposite party directly. In fact they were the employees of the contractor who used to supervise the work of the workman. It is also denied that there exist any valid industrial dispute . Workman is not a workman as defined under I.D. Act , nor the opposite party is an industry . Management has emphatically denied having enaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor she was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party . It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment , there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules . Since the workman was never in the employment , question of terminating his services from any date does not arise. Moreover , provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman. On the basis of above , it has been prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of merit, baseles and misleading.

8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a vaild industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that she ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or that she was ever issued any appointment letter , or she was ever paid her wages by the opposite party or her services have ever been terminated by the opposite party. Therefore, question ofbreach of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the opposite party does not arise .

4. After exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective case.

9. For the reasons discussed above , it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties , alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by her . Reference is therefore , answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour ofthe opposite party.

R.G SHUKLA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 703.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार आई.आई.पी. आर. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 51/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/243/2001- आई आर (सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 3rd March , 2008

5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workmanbut on each occassion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case. Today is further date fixed in the case for hearing arguments in the case . Case was called upon repeatedly in open court butthe representative for the workman found absent . After the orders on the order sheet were recorded the representative for the workman came before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain application for transfer of the case but a perusal of the record show that no such application is available on the record . There is also no order received from the appropriate government in the context . Therefore, the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the authorised representative for the workman, and therefore , the same is rejected. Having considered the long duration of the pendency of the instant case the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application and the arguments in the case were heard today i.e. on 7-1-08 .

S.O. 703. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 51/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Institute of PulseResearch , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 3-3-2008.

[No. L-42012/243/2001 -IR (CM - II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer 6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced in the case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file . It is their own case that the workman was made the employee of the contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages . The contention of the workman to the effect that she was working much before the introduction of the alleged contractor of which she is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the

988 Gi/08-14 1440

[PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008/CHAITRA 9 , 1930

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRIR. G. SHUKLA, PRISIDING OFFICER, CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 51 of2002

In the matter of dispute between

Shri Ramesh Chandra S/ o Ram Sewak

C/o Sh. Rajendra Prasad Shukla 115/193 A.2, Maswanpur Rawatpur , Kanpur

AND

TheDirector, Indian Institute of Pulse Research , G.T. Road, Kalyanpur, Kanpur

AWARD

1. The Central Government, MOL, New Delhi , vide Notification No. L-42012/ 243/ 2001 - IR( CM - II ) dated 17-7-2002has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal--

3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exist any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties . The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was ever paid wages by the opposite party directly . In fact they were the employees of the contractor who used to superwise the work of the workman . It is also denied that there exist any valid industrial dispute. Workman is not a workman as defined under I.D. Act , nor the opposite party Is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having enaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor he was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment , there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules . Since the workman was never in the employment , question of terminating his services from any date does not arise . Moreover, provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman . On therbasis of above , it has been prayed that the claim of the workmanbe rejected being devoid of merit, baseless and misleading.

4. After exchange of pleadings between the parties thecontestingparties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective case .

Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research, Kalyanpur, Kanpur, in terminating the employment of Shri Ramesh Chandra S/o Ram Sewak working as Contract worker allegedly under direct supervision of the management w.e.f. 26-8-98 is legal and justified? Ifnot, to what reliefthe worker is entitled to?

5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occassion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case. Today is further date fixed in the case for hearing arguments in the case. Case was called upon repeatedly in open court butthe representative for the workman found absent . After the orders on the order sheet were recorded the representative for the workman came before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain application for transfer of the case but a perusal of the record show that no such application is available on the record . There is also no order received from the appropriate government in the context . Therefore , the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the authorised representative for the workman, and therefore , the same is rejected . Having considered the long duration of the pendency ofthe instant case the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application and the arguments in the case were heard today i.e. on 7-1-08 .

6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced inthe case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file. It is their own case that the workman was made the employee of the contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages . The contention of the workman to the effect that he was working much before the introduction of the alleged contractor of which he is 2. The case ofthe workman in short is that the worker hasbeen employed to perform the work ofpermanent nature under the premises of the opposite party. It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end of the month by the opposite party as approved by the Central Government, atthe minimum of the rate . It is also pleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues , the opposite party attached the workman with a licenced contractor. It has also been pleaded by the workman that hewas continuing in the services from before the induction ofContractor. Workman is employee ofthe opposite party. Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officer of the Management . The product of the opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of 240 days of till he was removed from the service of the opposite party w.e.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provision of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but he was not afforded any opportunity ofhis reemployment. Opposite party has also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service . On the basis of above it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages , consequential benefits and seniority.

1441

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29 , 2008/चैत्र 1930

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI R. G. SHUKLA PRISIDING OFFICER, alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the Tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the recordof the case to substantiate the claim of the workman that he was in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor .

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 56 of2002

In the matter of dispute between :

Smt. Sadhna w/o Sri Ram Prasad C/o Sh . Rajendra Prasad Shukla 115/193 A. 2, Maswanpur Rawatpur , Kanpur

AND

TheDirector,

Indian Institute ofPulse Research, G.T. Road, Kalyanpur, Kanpur

AWARD

1. The Central Government , MOL, New Delhi, vide Notification No. L- 42012/227 /2001 - IR( CM - II) dated 15-7-2002 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :

Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research , Kalyanpur, Kanpur , in terminating the employment of Smt. Sadhna w/ o Sri Ram Prasad working as Contract worker allegedly under direct supervision of the management w.e. f. 26-8-98 legal and justified? If not, to what relief the worker is entitled to?

9. For the reasons discussed above, it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties , alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by him. Reference is therefore , answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour of the opposite party.

R. G. SHUKLA , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च, 2008

का.आ. 704.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसख्ण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार आई.आई.पी.. आर. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ठ औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 56/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/227/2001- आई आर( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 3rd March, 2008

S.O. 704. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 56/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research, and their workman, received by the Central Government on 3-3-2008 .

[No. L-42012/227/2001 - IR (CM - II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

2. The case ofthe workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work ofpermanent nature under the premises of the opposite party. It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end of the month by the opposite party as approved by the Central Government, atthe minimum of the rate . It is also pleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues, the opposite party attached the workman with a licenced Contractor. It has also been pleaded by the workman that she was continuing in the services from before the induction ofContractor . Workman is employee of the opposite party. Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance ofthe workman was used to be marked by the officer of the Management. The production of the opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers . It has aiso been pleaded by the workman that she rendered continuous service of 240 days of till she was removed from the service of the opposite party w.e.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but she was not afforded any opportunity ofher reemployment . Opposite party has also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice bynot regularising her in the service . On the basis of above it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages , consequential benefits and seniority.

1442

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008/CHAITRA 9 , 1930

3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exist any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties. The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was ever paidwagesby the opposite party directly. In fact they were the employees of the contractor who used to supervise the work of the workman . It is also denied that there exist any valid industrial dispute . Workman is not a workman as defined under I.D. Act , nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having enaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoevernor she was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment , there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules . Since the workman was never in the employment , question ofterminating her services from any date does not arise. Moreover , provisions of the Industrial DisputesAct are also not applicable to the workman. On the basis of above , it has been prayed that the claim ofthe workman be rejected being devoid of merit , baseles and misleading.

4. After exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective case .

5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occassion on one pretext or the other she sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case. Today is further date fixed in the case for hearing arguments in the case . Case was called upon repeatedly in open court but the representative for the workman found absent . After the orders on the order sheet were recorded the representative for the workman came before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain application for transfer of the case but a perusal of the record show that no such application is available on the record . There is also no order received from the appropriate government in the context. Therefore , the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the authorised representative for the workman , and therefore , the same is rejected . Having considered the long duration of the pendency of the instant case the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application and the arguments in the case were heard today i.e. on 7-1-08.

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] Tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record ofthe case to substantiate the claim of the workman that she was in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor.

8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a vaild industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that she ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or that she was ever issued any appointment letter , or she was ever paid her wages by the opposite party or her services have ever been terminated by the opposite party. Therefore , question ofbreach of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , by the opposite party does not arise .

9. For the reasons discussed above, it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties, alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by her . Reference is therefore , answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour of the opposite party.

R.G SHUK.LA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च, 2008

का.आ. 705.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार आई.आई.पी. आर. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 55/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-42012/228/2001- आई आर( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुभार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 3rd March , 2008

S.O. 705.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 55/2002 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research, and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 3-3-2008 .

[No. L-42012/228/2001 - IR ( CM - II )] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer 1443 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI R.G SHUKLA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 55 of 2002

Inthe matter ofdispute between:--

Smt. Vimla W/ o Sri Mannu

C/o Sh. Rajendra Prasad Shukla

115/193 A-2, Maswanpur Rawatpur, Kanpur

AND

TheDirector

Indian Institute of Pulse Research , G.T. Road Kalyanpur, Kanpur

AWARD

1. The Central Government, MOL, New Delhi , vide Notification No. L-42012/228 / 2001 - IR (CM- II ) dated 15-7-2002 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :-

3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exist any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties . The workman never remained in direct employment ofthe opposite party nor the workman was ever paidwages by the opposite party directly. In fact they were the employees ofthe contractor who used to supervise the work ofthe workman . It is also denied that there exist anyvalid industrial dispute . Workman is not a workman as defined under I.D. Act, nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having enaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor she was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment, there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules . Since the workman was never in the employment, question ofterminating her services from any date does not arise . Moreover , provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman. On the basis of above, it has been prayed that the claim ofthe workman be rejected being devoid of merit, baseless and misleading.

4. After exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective case .

"Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research Kalyanpur, Kanpur, in terminating the employment of Smt . Vimla W/ o Sri Mannu working as Contract worker allegedly under direct supervision of the management w.e.f. 26-8-98 is legal andjustified? If not, to what relief the worker is entitled to ?"

5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments weregranted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occassion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case. Todayis further date fixed in the case for hearing arguments in the case. Case was called upon repeatedly in open court but the representative for the workman found absent . After the orders on the order sheet were recorded the representative for the workman came before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain application for transfer of the case but a perusal of the record show that no such application is available on the record. There is also no order received from the appropriate government in the context. Therefore, the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the authorised representative for the workman, and therefore , the same is rejected . Having considered the long duration of the pendency of the instant case the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application and the arguments in the case were heard today i.e. on 7-1-08 .

2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work of permanent nature under the premises of the opposite party on ... It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end ofthe month by the opposite party as approved by the Central Government, at the minimum of the rate . It is also pleaded bythe workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues , the opposite party attached the workman with a licenced contractor. It has also been pleaded by the workman that shewas continuing in the services from before the induction ofContractor. Workman is employee ofthe opposite party. Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officer of the Management . The production of the opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of 240 days of till she was removed from the service of the opposite party w.e.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provision of Industrial DisputesAct, 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but she was not afforded any opportunity of her reemployment. Opposite party has also violated the provisions ofrules ofnatural and social justice by not regularising her in the service . On the basis of above it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages, consequential benefits and seniority.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2008/CHAITRA 9, 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

National Horticulture Board , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 3-3-2008 .

[No. L-42012/251/2005- IR( CM - II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the Tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record ofthe case to substantiate the claim of the workman that she was in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor.

ANNEXURE

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

PresidingOfficer : R. N. Rai

I. D. No. 132 of 2005

In the matter of:-

Shri Chakkar Bahadur , C/ o Shri MurliKumar 627, Gali No. 1 , Bhawani Enclave , Basai Road, Gurgaon (Haryana)

Versus

TheDy. Director,

National Horticulture Board, Plot No. 85, Sector- 18 , Gurgaon (Haryana)

AWARD

8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a vaild industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that she ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or that she was ever issued any appointment letter , or she was ever paid her wages by the opposite party or her services have ever been terminated by the opposite party. Therefore, question ofbreach of provisions ofthe Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 , by the opposite party does not arise.

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L- 42012/ 251 /2005 - IR(CM - II ) Central Government dated 14-12-2005 has referred the following point for adjudication:

The point runs as hereunder :--

9. For the reasons discussed above , it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties , alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as ciaimed by her . Reference is therefore, answered accordingly against the ciaimant and in favour ofthe opposite party.

"Whether the action of the management of National Horticulture Board in terminating the services of Shri Chakkar Bahadur Chand S/ o Shri Dan Bahadur Chand w.e.f. 19-4-2004 is legal and justified? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

R. G SHUKLA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 3 मार्च , 2008

The workman applicant has filed claim statement . In the claim statement it has been stated that the workman was employed as Waiter on 1-11-1999 . He was not given any appointment letter . Payment to him was made on the record ofM/ s . Anirudh Security Agency . The name ofthe workman was taken on record of the management on 1-1-2003 and he was posted as Receptionist Guest House Attendant and Canteen Boy .

That the services of the workman were terminated on 19-11-2004 and his wages at that time was Rs . 4055 .

का. आ. 706. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का (4 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल होर्टिकल्चर बोर्ड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 132/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-3-2008 कोप्राप्त हुआ था ।

Thatno notice pay and retrenchment compensation waspaidtohim.

[सं. एल-42012/251/2005 - आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 3rd March, 2008

The Management has filed written statement . In the written statement it has been stated that the National Horticuiture Board is an autonomous body under the administrative control of Ministry of Agriculture established for the integrated development of horticulture . Its function is largely advisory in nature for the development of horticulture . It has been established to promoted and propagate horticulture with a view to provide facilities/ consultations to the intending horticulturists and S.O. 706. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 132/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of 1445

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29 , 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

year when he was disengaged . Rather the petitioner claimant was employed by the M /s . Anirudh Security Agency who was an independent contractor w.e.f. 1-11-1999. Shri Chakkar Bahadur was engaged , as contingent paid Canteen Boy w.e.f. 1-1-2003 and since the canteen was closed and its activity is not in operation , he was disengaged.

is not involved in any kind of production or sale . Accordingly in view of the "Predominant nature test" propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court it is a non - profit making entity is not engaged in any activity called business, trade or manufacture nor is an undertaking analogous to business of trade and therefore in view of the definition of "Industry" as given in Section 2 (J) ofthe Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 , the National Horticulture Board (here in after called NHB for the sake of brevity) can not by any stretch of interpretation be brought within the purview of definition of" industry" and hence the instant dispute not being and "Industrial Dispute " is not maintainable before this Hon'ble Forum is liable to be dismissed in- limine .

It issubmitted that the respondents never employed the claimant and therefore question either for termination or disengagement does not arise . As already stated there was not even contract of employment between the NHB and the petitioner at any stage . Since the activity for which petitioner Shri Chakkar Bahadur was engaged is no more in operation in the office of NHB , he was disengaged . He was also paid wages for the period he worked in the office ofNHB in the capacity of contractual employee .

It is submitted that there being no contract of engagement and hence no employer- employee relation between the claimant and the respondent , there is no question of any termination and therefore no need for any notice arises in the instant case. The notice of closure of the Canteen was affixed at the gate of the Canteen . On the closure ofthe canteen, the services automatically came to an end and stood disengaged. The rate of wages as alleged isall a matter of record however .

That the contract of engagement is the corner stone of the edifice of the alleged " Industrial Dispute " . It is submitted that the claimant herein was engagedby Security Agency i.e. M/ s . Anirudh Security Agency, Faridabad on contractual basis and was being paid by that agency which inturn was reimbursed by the respondent on monthly basis . The petitioner was engaged through the said Contractor M/s.Anirudh Security Agency , Faridabad w.e.f. 1-11-1999 where the applicant was working as Canteen Boy as per Contract Deed, which was up to 28-10-2003 , the control of Canteenwas taken in the hands of the Management ofthe respondent and the applicant was contractually engaged to run the Canteen w.e.f. 1-1-2003 . The contractual engagement automatically expired on 19-4-2004 on account ofclosure of the canteen.

That in view of the above mentioned submissions it , it isquite clear that there is no industrial dispute withinthe meaning of Section 2 (k) of the . Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and therefore this Hon'ble Court has nojurisdiction over the matter and accordingly the claim is liable to be dismissed.

That the canteen not being in existence and the activities of the canteen not being in operation though there is no question of employing the claimant . Therefore the claim of the applicant cannot be sustained. It is submitted that a contractual/ temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry ofhis term of engagement . It is further submitted that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of this appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent.

That without admitting the applicability of the ID Act, 1947, it is worth mentioning that the claimant has not completed 240days ofhis service in the year which he was disengaged. In the right of aforestated facts it submitted that the claim ofthe petitioner is liable to be rejected out rightly at the stage of admission itself.

That the claim petition of the claimant is beyond limitation and hence time barred accordingly liable to be rejected inlimine itself.

It is reiterated that since the canteen was closed for administrative reasons , the contractual services of the petitioner came to an end/stood disengaged automatically on account of closure of Canteen . The provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not applicable and answering respondent is not an Industry. The respondent has not committed any illegality . The petitioner is not entitled to any relief as claimed in the Demand Notice.

Itisdenied that there was any irregularity committed bythe answering respondent while employing the claimant . It isalso denied that no wages were paid to him as the same is not consonance with the true facts . It is submitted that the claimant was and independent contractor w.e.f. 1-1-1999 .

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

Evidence ofboth the parties has been taken.

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

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman the he wasdirectly employed by the management. The contractor It is submitted that the respondent opened the canteen but due to administrative reasons it was closed and its activities were stopped . Consequently the contractual engagement of the petitioner got automatically terminated. It is further submitted that the claimant had not completed 240 days services with the management in the 1446

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2008 /CHAITRA 9, 1930

ismerely a name lender . The workman worked under the control and supervision of the management.

It was submitted from the side of the management that the workman was directly engaged by the contracting agency.He worked for the agency. There was no employer and employee relation between the management and the workman. The workman in his cross -exmination has stated asunder:-

"Iwas employed with Anirudh Security Agency who were taken contract with National Horticulture Board . Iworked in that Security Agency up to 2003." Itbecomes quite obvious from the statement of the workman in his cross -exmination that he was employed with the agency and he worked in that agency up to 2003 .

[PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] New Delhi , the 4th March, 2008

S.O. 707. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 18/1998 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Andhra Bank , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 3-3- 2008.

[No. L- 12011/34/97-1R(B- II) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 18 of 1998

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Andhra Bank

AND

Their Workmen

Present : Mr. Justice C.P. Mishra, Presiding Officer

Apearance:

Onbehalf of the

: Mr. D. K. Ghosh , Advocate with

Management

Mr. R. Dey, Advocate

Onbehalf of the : None

Workmen

State: West Bengal

From the admission of the workman it becomes established thathe was working as an employee ofthe agency till 2003 . The workman has not filed any documentary evidence in thiscase. His further case is that he was employed directly by the management w.e.f. 1-1-2003 as Guest House Attendant and Canteen Boy and worked up to 18-4-2004. The workman has not filed any documentary evidence in support of his claim . Merely on the assertions in the affidavit it cannot be held proved that the workman was directly engaged by the management. The case of the management is that the workman was engaged through agency on 01-1-2003 to 19-4-2004. The management has also not filed any document on the record. It is the burden of the workman to prove the averments of his claim statement. He has filed no document to show that he was directly engaged by the management and he worked under the control and supervision of the management. Theworkman has failed to prove the averments ofhis claim statement. The workman is not entitled to get any relief.

Thereference isreplied thus:,

The action of the management of National Horticulture Board in terminating the services of Shri Chakkar Bahadur Chand S/o Shri Dan Bahadur Chand w.e.f. 194-2004 is legal andjustified . The workman aplicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

The award is given accordingly.

Date:26-2-2008

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 4 मार्च , 2008

को.आ. 707.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आंध्रा बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कोलकाता के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 18/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12011/34/97- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

Industry: Banking

Dated: 18thFebruary, 2008

AWARD

1. By Order No. L - 12011 /34 /97 - IR( B- II ) dated 14-5-1998 and corrigendums of even number dated 20-7-1998 and 3/5-5-1998 the Central Government in exercise ofitspower under Section 10 ( 1 )( d) and (24) of the Industrial DisputesAct , 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act ) referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication-

"Whether the action of the management of Andhra Bank , Howrah in deducting the wages of S/Shri Khokan Das , Shankar Naskar and Dhiren Ch . Naskar for 11-9-95 and deducting the salary of Shri Pranab Bandhyapadhyay , Samir Mukherjee , Tapas Chatterjee , Apurba Mitra, Jyotirmoy Bhattacharjee , Md . Fozal Rasul , Tapas Dasgupta and SatyaMukul Maity for 12-9-95 is legal ans justified? If not , to what relief the said workmen are entitled ? " 2. When the case is called out today , none appears for the workmen although the management is represented by its learned Advocate . Learned Advocate for the management has stated that no one is apearing on behalf of the workmen for the last several dales and from the conduct ofthe workmen it is clear that they are no longer interested in the matter and the present reference be [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

disposed ofby passing a "No Dispute" Award . It appears from the record that no one is appearing on behalf ofthe workmen nor any step is taken on their behalf to proceed withthe matter since 21-12-2005 inspite ofservice ofseveral notices upon them . It is accordingly clear that the workmen are no longer interested to proceed with the persent dispute under reference .

3. Since the workmen are not interested to proceed with the matter and the management has also prayed for passing a "No Dispute " Award, this Tribunal has no other alternative but to dispose of the present reference by passing a "No Dispute" Award . A "No Dispute" Award is accordingly passed and the present reference is disposed of.

C. P. MISHRA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 4 मार्च, 2008

का.आ. 708.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. बी.सी.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण ( सं. - II ) , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 131/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/ 116/2003 - आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 4th March, 2008

S.O. 708. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 131 / 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court (No. - 11) , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . BCCL and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 4-3-2008 .

[No: L-20012/ 116/2003 - IR( C- I ) ]

SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO . 2) AT DHANBAD

LOK ADALAT

Present : Shri Nagendra Kumar, Presiding Officer In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10( 1)( d) ofthe I.D. Act , 1947

Reference No. 131 of 2003

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Bharat Coaking Coal Ltd. and their Workman .

Appearances:

1 Onbehalf ofthe workman : Sri R.R. Sahay, the concerned workman himself

Onbehalf of the employers : Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate 988Gi/08-15

1447

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29 , 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

Industry: Coal State : Jharkhand Dated, Dhanbad, the 25th February, 2008

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L - 20012 / 116/2003 - IR( C - I ) , dated the 28thNovember, 2003.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the RCMSfrom the management of BCCL , Hdqrs , Koyla Bhavan for changing the designation of Sri R.R. Sahay , Input/ Output Control Assistant w.e.f. June , 1998 and to promote him as Tech . & Supervisor Grade-A w.e.f. 2001 with the designation as Input/Output Control Supervisor is justified? If so to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from what date ?" 2. In response to appeal made by this tribunal for disposing of this case through Lok Adalat management and the concerned workman filed a settlement petition for settling the dispute through Lok Adalat as per terms and conditions stated therein. Perused the petition ofsettlement . Terms and conditions incorporated in the said settlement petition appears to be fair , proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice . Accordingly the same is accepted. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above instant case is disposed through Lok Adalat as per settlement and an Award is passed in terms of settlement entered into between the parties . The settlement petition forms part ofthe Award as Annexure.

NAGENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

Annexure FORM-"H" (RULE 58) MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT

Representative of the Management:

1. C.P.M. (NEE), B.C.C.L. , Koyla Bhawan, Dhanbad

Representative of the Workmen:

1. Secretary, R.C.M.C. ofDhaiya Sheo Mandir Road, Dhanbad

Short Recital of the Case

Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress raised an Industrial Dispute and demanded for restoration/ changing the designation of Shri R.R. Sahay of E.D.P. Department (HQ) and topromote him as Techical & SupervisoryGrade "A" w.e.f. 2001 with the designation as Input/Output Control Supervisor, keeping in view of the following two discriminations held with Sri Sahay (i) in not changing his cadrefromDataEntry Operator cadre to Input/Output Cadre to that of one Sri S.G. Sarkar, Punch Verifier Operator 1448

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008/CHAITRA 9, 1930

Grade"C" whose cadre was changed to Input/Output cadre after submission ofhis graduation certificate some time in 2000 in the light ofa tripartite settlement dated 27-9-1995 held between the management and Sri Sarkar in presence ofthe ALC( C), Dhanbad , irrespective of Sri Sahay who had also submitted his graduation certificate prior to Sri Sarkar in June, 1998 , and ( ii) in not promoting Sri Sahay in T&S Grade "A", keeping in view of the seniority list of Input/Output cadre published on 30-1-1997 in which the name of Sri R.R. Sahay, appears at Sl . No. 4 ( i.e. shown as senior to Sri Om Kumar Singh & Sri Umesh Kumar Singh of serial number 5 & 6 respectively ofthat list) .

After failure of conciliation , Ministry of Labour referred the said Industrial Dispute vide Notification No. 1-20012/ 116/2003- IR(C-I) dated 28-11-2003 tothe CGIT No. 2, Dhanbad. The Hon'ble Tribunal registered the said reference as Reference No. 131 of 2003. The term of reference is as follows:

"Whether the demand of the RCMC from the management to BCCL, Hdqrs , Koyla Bhawan for changing the designation of Sri R.R. Sahay Input/ Output Control Assistant w.e.f. June, 1998 and to promote him as Tech & Supervisory Grade "A" w.e.f. 2001 with the designation as Input/Output Control Supervisor is justified? If so to what relief is the concerned Workman entitled and from what date ?" During the pendency of the case before the CGIT No. 2, Dhanbad, the case of Sri Sahay was re- examined in the light ofopinion dated 15-11-2007 of Sri D.K. Verma the conducting advocate of the case on behalf of the management , whereby & whereunder the advocate has opined that this is a weak case to succeed in the Tribunal as such the management should settle the case through Lok Adalat organized by CGIT level . stich

Keeping in view of the opinion of Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate and the letter of the Presiding Officer , CGIT No. 2, Dhanbad to settle the weak cases , this case was re- exmined by the concerned department.

Accordingly the management as well as the union agreed to settle the aforesaid dispute after approval of the Competent Authority on the following terms and conditions:

Terms of Settlement

(i) That , the management agreed to restore the cadre oftheworkman concerned as Input/Output cadre .

(i) That , the management agreed to promote the workman concerned in Technical & Supervisory Grade " A" w.e.f. 2002 i.e , the date on which Sri Om Kumar Singh & Sri Umesh Kumar Singh were promoted to the post of Input/Output Control Supervisor T& S Grade Input/Output Control Supervisor T & S Grade " А " . i

( ii) That , the workman concerned is not entitled to receive any monetary benefit w.e.f. 28-07-2002 .

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] (iv) That , the workman concerned will get seniority alongwith nontional fixation in Tech . & SupervisoryGrade " A" w.e.f. 28-07-2002 ( i.e. the date on which Sri Om Kumar Singh & Umesh Kumar Singh were promoted to the post of Input/ Output Control Supervisor T&S Grade "A" . ) (v) That the concerned workman will not raise any dispute for payment of wages of T & S Grade " A" for the period from 28-07-2002 to the date of issuance of office order in this connection .

(vi) That, this settlement will not be cited in order cases and this resolves the dispute in to-to.

Signature of the workman's

Representative. ---Sd.-illegible Signature of the management Representative Murlidhar Singh Signature of witness : -Sd.-illegible

Signature ofworkman -Sd.-illegible नई दिल्ली, 4 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 709.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. बी.सी.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण ( सं. -II ) , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 66/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/46/2000- आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 4th March, 2008

S.O. 709. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14) of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 66/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court (No. - II) , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 4-3-2008 .

[No. L-200012/46/2000- IR (C -I) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL(NO. 2) AT DHANBAD LOK ADALAT

Present : Shri Nagendra Kumar, Presiding Officer Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10( 1 )(d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 .

Reference No. 66 of2000

Parties: Employers in relation to the management ofCCL and their Workman 1449 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29 , 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

APPEARANCES :

नई दिल्ली, 4 मार्च , 2008

Onbehalfofthe management : Mr. D.K. Verma, Advocate

Onbehalfofthe workman : Mr. Bhim Bedia, concerned

workman

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 25th February, 2008

AWARD

का.आ. 710. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय संरकार मै. बी. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , ( सं- II ) धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 107/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04-03-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/98/2004- आई. आर. ( सी- Ⅰ ) ] स्नेह लता जवास, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 4th March , 2008

"Whether the action of the management of Argada Colliery ofM/ s . Central Coalfield Ltd. , P.O. Argada Dist. Hazaribagh to withhold two increments of Shri Bhim Bedia ClerkGr. III with cumulative effect is legal andjustified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ?"

S.O. 710. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 107/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, (No - II) Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . B.C.C.L. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on04-03-2008.

[No. L- 20012/98 /2004- IR(C-I) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO . 2) AT DHANBAD

LOK ADALAT

PRESENT

Shri Nagendra Kumar , Presiding Officer 2. In response to appeal made by this tribunal for disposing of this case through Lok Adalat management and the workman concerned appeared. The concerned. workman by filing a petition submitted that he is not willing to contest the case as the dispute in question has been settled with the management. In view of such petition made by the workman, no objection has been raised on behalfof the management side. Perused the petition and heard both sides. Accordingly the said petition filed by the workman isaccepted and the instant case is disposed through Lok Adalat as per petition submited by the concerned workman. The petition of the workman froms part of the Award as Annexure .

In the matter of Industrial dispute under Section 10 ( i ) (d) ofthe I.D. Act. , 1947

REFERENCE No. 107 OF 2004

NAGENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

PARTIES

Employers in relation to the ANNEXURE

M/s. BCCL and their workman. management of Argada Colliery of BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2) DHANBAD

APPEARANCES:

Reference No. 66 of2000

On behalf of the workman : Mr. S.S .. Singh , Area Vice President , R.K.M. Union , Argada Employers in relation to the management of Argada Colliery ofM/ s . Central Coalfields Ltd.

AND

and Mr. Matna Munda , concerned workman.

Their Workman.

Onbehalf of the employers : Mr. D. K. Verma, Advocate

Petition for fixing the case in Lok Adalat

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal .

That, I am not interseted to contest the case .

Dated, Dhanbad, the 25th February, 2008 . AWARD

Hence, the case may be closed and as the dispute has been settled with the management.

For this the Petitioner shall ever pray.

Bhim Bediya 25-2-2008

TheGovt. of India, Ministry of Labour , in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1 )(d) of the I. D. Act . , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/ 98 /2004-1.R . ( C - 1 ) , dated, the 2nd September, 2004.

1450

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2008/CHAITRA 9 , 1930

SCHEDULE

Whether the action of the management of Argada Colliery of M/ s . C.C. Ltd. to dismiss Shri Matna Munda, P.R. W. from the service of the companyw.e.f. 13-1-2003 is just , fair and proper ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ?"

2. Inresponse to appeal made by this Tribunal for disposing of this case through Lok Adalat management and the concerned workman filed a settlement petition for settling the dispute through Lok Adalat as per terms and conditions stated therein . Perused the petition of settlement. Terms and condition incorporated in the said settlement petition appears to be fair , proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice . Accordingly the same is accepted . In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above instant case is disposed through Lok Adalat as per settlement and an Award is passed in terms of settlement entered into between the parties. The settlement petition forms part of the Award as Annexure .

NAGENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer ANNEXURE

Before,

ThePresiding Officer

CGITNo. 2 &

Lok Adalat

Dhanbad Ref. No. 107/2004

Employer in relation to the management ofArgada Colliery AND Theirworkman

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , ( सं- II ) धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 217/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -20012/278/2001- आई. आर. ( सी- I ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 4th March, 2008

S.O. 711.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 217/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , (No - II ) Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . B.C.C.L. and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on04-03-2008 .

[No. L-20012/278/2001 - IR(C -I )] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD LOK ADALAT PRESENT

SHRI NAGENDRA KUMAR, PresidingOfficer In the matter of an Industrial dispute under Section 10 (1 ) (d) ofthe I.D. Act . , 1947 .

REFERENCE NO . 217 OF 2001

PARTIES

Employers in relation to the management of Sijua Area of M/s.B CCL and their workman .

APPEARANCES:

Onbehalf ofthe workman

The humble petition on behalf of management as well as workman to settled no dispute through Lok Adalat . Most respectfully herewith .

(1 ) That both parties agreed to settle no dispute on followingterm and condition.

(a) That the management agreed to reinstate the concerned workman in service with the following terms & condition.

(1) That the intervening period i.e. , from the date of termination to the date of re - instatement shall be treated as 'Dies-Non',

(li) That the workman shall not be entitled for any backwages for the said period,

(iii) That the workman shall be given/granted continuity of service for the limited purpose of gratuity.

On behalf of the opposite party .

नई दिल्ली, 4 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 711.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. बी. सी. सी. एल. के. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच ,

: Mr. N. G. Arun, Member , Central Executive Committee RCMS .

Onbehalf of the employers : Mr. R. N. Ganguly, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad , the 25th February, 2008 . AWARD

TheGovt. of India, Ministry of Labour , in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the I. D. Act . , 1947 has referred the following dispute to thistribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L - 20012/ 278/2001 - I.R. ( C- 1 ) , dated , the 12th September , 2001 .

SCHEDULE

"KyaRashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh kee Bharat Coking Coal Limited , Sijua kshetra key prabandhtantra sey mang kee Shri Israil Ansari ko cat . VI Mey 1-7-89 sey padonnata kiya jaya uchit evam naya sangat hain? Yadi hain to karmkar kis rahat key patra hain ? " 1451

भारत का राजपेत्र : मार्च 29 , 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 4 मार्च, 2008

का.आ. 712.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. बी. बी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , ( सं- II ) , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 15/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04-03-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/364/2000- आई. आर. ( सी- I ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी 2. In response to appeal made by this Tribunal for disposing of this case through Lok Adalat management and the representative of the workman filed a settlement petition for settling the dispute through Lok Adalat as per terms and conditions stated therein. Perused the petition of settlement. Terms and condition incorporated in the said settlement petition appears to be fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice . Accordingly, the same is accepted. In view ofthe facts and circumstances discussed above instant case is disposed through Lok Adalat as per settlement and an Award is passed in terms of settlement entered into between the parties. The settlement petition forms part of the Award as Annexure .

New Delhi , the 4th March , 2008 NAGENDRA KUMAR, PresidingOfficer ANNEXURE BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 AT DHANBAD Reference Case No. 217 of 2001

S.O. 712.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, (No- II ) , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . B.C.C.L. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 04-03-2008 Employers in relation to the Management of Sijua Area ofM/s . Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. AND Their Workmen

[No. L-20012/364/2000- IR(C-I)] SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

That the Government of India, Ministry of Labour , NewDelhi , vide their notification No. L- 20012/278/IR/200- IR(C- I ) dated 12-09-2001 has been pleased to refer this industrial dispute for adjudication with the following Schedule:

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT STRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO . 2) AT DHANBAD PRESENT

SHRI NAGENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

Inthe matter of Industrial dispute under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947

"Keya Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh ki Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Sijua Chetra ke prabhandhtantra se mangki Sri Israfil Ansari KO cato, 6 Me 01-07-1989 se paddonat kiya jay uchit avom nayasangat hai? Yedi Ha to karmkar kis rahat ke patra hai?"

Reference No. 15 of 2001

PARTIES:

The above reference case has been discussed between the parties outside the Court and it has been decided to settle the dispute amicably on, the following terms of settlement :

Employers in relation tothe management of CCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES:

Onbehalf of the employers : Mr. D.K. Verma, Advocate .

Onbehalf ofthe workman

1. That, it has been agreed to settle the dispute on the ground that the workman Sri Israfil Ansari , the concerned workman has already been promoted vide order dated 30-05-1996 as Armature Winder Category VI from1-7-1990 and has also been provided with Service LinkedUpgradation in Tech . & Supv. Grade 'C' w.e.f. 1999.

: Mr. S. K. Ojha,, President, 2. That, this settlement resolves the entire dispute once for ever.

Janta Mazdoor Sangh.

State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal Representing Workman Sd/-

1. Sri N.G. Arun,

Dhanbad, the 25th February , 2008 AWARD

Member , Central Executive

Representing Management Sd/- 1. ChiefGeneral Manager, SijuaArea

Committee, R.C.M.S. & Treasurer

Sd/-

2.Area Personnel Manager , SijuaArea

TheGovt. of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers confered on thèm under section 10( 1)(d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/364/ 2000(C- I ), dated, the 25th January, 2001 .

1452

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 29 , 2008/CHAITRA 9 , 1930

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

fully correct. There is no merit in the W.S. Accordingly , the prayer was made to reject the claim of the concerned workman.

"Whether the demand of Janta Mazdoor Sangh to place Sri Ramjee Ram, Security Guard ( Trainee) as SecurityGuardGroup " G" w.e.f. 29-12-1989 is legal andjustified? If so, to what relief is the concemed workman entitled?"

5. A rejoinder to the W.S. of the management has beenfiled and explained as to how the concemed workman is entitled for his regularisation/promotion inGr. 'G' .

Points to be decided

"Whether the demand of Janta Mazdoor Sangh to place Sri Ramjee Ram , Security Guard (Trainee) as SecurityGuardGroup ' G ' w.e.f. 29-12-1989 is legal and justified ? If so , to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ? "

Finding with Reasons

6. The concemed workman has been examined as WW- 1 on his behalf . The appointment letter has been marked as Ext . W- 1 . On behalf of the management the witness S. S. Raja has been examined as MW- 1 and got marked on proof as Ext . W- 2 and W -2 / 1 (which has already beenmarked as Ext . W- 1 and W-2 the circulardt . 22-1-93 as Ext. W- 3 , the cadre scheme .

2.The case ofthe concemed workman Ramjee Ram in short is that he is a Security Guard Group -G in Central Workshop Barkakana under CCL . He was initially appointed as Security Guard (Trainee ) Cat. I on 28-6-1989 . As per cadre scheme and circulars the Security Guards (Trainee) who have gone under training and successfully completed probation period should be regularised/ promoted in Security Guard Grade ' G' immediately . He had completed his probation period on 28-12-1989 and he hasundergone required training hence he has become eligible for regularisation/promotion to the post of Security GuardGr . 'G' from 29-12-1989 . Inspite of fulfilling all the requirements he has been promoted/regularised in Gr . ' G' witheffect from 10-5-1993 . Thus he is losing seniority for nearly about 3 1/2 years due to laxity on the part of the management . His juniors have got promotion/ regularisation earlier to him and he has been put in financial loss. Inthe seniority list of the Security Guard the name of the concemed workman appears after his many juniors who were appointed later on. Prayer has been made to pass Order/Award for promotion of the concerned workman Ramjee Ram w.e.f. 29-12-1989 as Security Guard Gr. 'G' .

7. The representative of the concerned workman has submitted that the concerned workman ought to have been regularised in Gr . ' G' just after completion of his probation period. But the management did not regularise him in Gr . 'G' and kept mum over the matter . In this situation the management was approached by the concerned workman for his regularisation in Gr . ' G' much earlier but on one pretext or other no regularisation was made and accordingly , the concerned workman is entitled for the relief as prayed for.

8. On the other hand the Ld . Lawyer for the management has vehemently argued that the concerned workman did not raise any objection regarding his regularisation inGr . ' G' . He raised such dispute after a long period in the year 2000. Beside this he was regularised inGrade-' G ' just on receipt of Police verification report and he had been appointed on compassionate ground. Accordingly he is not entitled to get any relief.

3. From the W.S. -cum-Rejoinder it apears that as per case of the management the concerned workman was appointed on compassionate ground under the provision ofNCWA clause 9.4.3. He was placed in Technical and SupervisoryGrade- ' G ' w.e.f. 10-5-93 . The unlon raised the present dispute in the year 2000 after delay of 11 years and hence he is not entitled for any relief. The concemed workman was apointed under special circumstances on compassionate ground . He cannot be equated with other regular employees . As per the cadre scheme the security persons who are in Grade - ' H ' only are entitled for the scale of Gr . 'G ' . After appointment of the concerned workman his particulars and bio -data were sent to the Policefor verification . After receipt of Police verification report he was placed inGr . ' G ' which is based on sanctioned vacant post, satisfactory performance report and satisfactory Police verification report . The management received the Police verification report on 24-8-1992 . The demand of the concerned workman is not legal and not justified.

4. In the rejoinder portion about para- 3 of the W.S. ofthe workman it has been said that the same is not fully correct . Only those persons are entitled for regularisation in Gr. ' G' who are in Gr . ' H' . About paras 6 to 9 the statement made in W.S. has been said that the same are not correct and the statement made in paras 4 and 5 are not

9.To appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the parties , it is desirable to go through the oral as well as documentary evidence available in the record . As per the statement of WW - 1 he was appointed as Security Guard (Trainee) on 28-6-89 in Cat . I. His training period was for 6months . After training he was posted at Central Workshop Barkakana as Security Guard but the management did not regularise him. He was designated as Trainee Security Guard inCat . I. He submitted representation to the management for his regularisation as Security Guard in Gr . ' G ' as per cadre scheme . He submitted his representation prior to 10-5-93 for his regularisation in Security Guard Gr . ' G' . On 10-5-1993 management regularised him on the post of SecurityGuardGrade - ' G' . He was on training for 6 months . But after completion of his training instead of his regularisation in Security GuardGr . ' G ' , his case was considered after 4 years . There are instances that 1453

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

(iii) Appointment of concerned workman as Cat . 1 Mazdoor.

(iv) Cadre scheme for security personnel is not applicable.

(v) Requirement of Police verification report for regularisation in Grade -G only in the case of Security personnel and not as Security Guard trainee personnel .

management had regularised Security Guard after completion of 6 months training . But he cannot recollect the names of those workmen at this moment . His claim is justified and he is entitled for the relief as prayed for during cross - examination he has stated that he has got his appointment as Security Guard (T) on compassionate Ground. He has proved his appointment letter. He raised industrial dispute before the ALC ( C) Ranchi in the year 2000 as the management refused to offer him SecurityGuard in Grade-G in spite ofhis several representations. It is not a fact that regularisation in Grade-G is given only from Grade-H as per NCWA . The other workmen who had got their regularisation as Security Guard in Grade -G did not get their appointment along with him . This is not a fact that those workmen who have got regularisation as Security Guard in Grade-G initially were posted as Security GuardGr.H.

12. As far as question of delay is concerned this reference has been received on 14-2-2001 . It appears.from the evidence on record that prior to the reference made by theGovt. of India the dispute was raised before the ALC (C) during the year 2000. As far as oral evidence of the concerned workman is concerned it appears that he had raised the dispute even prior to 1993 and thereafter he was regularised in Grade-G from 10-5-93 . There is no document on record to show that the dispute was raised prior to 1993 though the concerned workman during oral evidence stated about several representations filed in this regard. However, the representative of the union has submitted that the dispute was raised much earlier before 1993 and due to such reason he has been given Grade-Gfrom 10-5-1993 instead of29-12-89 after completion ofprobation period. He has submitted that when the law and rules provide for regularisation/promotion of concerned workman inGr . - G as per cadre scheme for Security Personnel issued during the year 1985 (much earlier to the appointment ofthe concerned workman ) question of raising any dispute does not arise . The management is not required towait for the representation and raising any dispute . The law/rules ought to have been implemented once the concernedworkman was found suitable in this regard and had completed probation period successfully which is the casehere.

10. On the other hand the evidence of MW - 1 who is working as Personnel Manager in Central Workshop Barkakana is that Ramjiram was appointed on compassionate ground. He had come in Cat.1 (trainee) . He was given . Grade -G. The person who is appointed the details etc. are verified by Police. The police verification report of the concerned workman was received in August, 1992. After receipt of the report he was given Grade-G. When he was posted in Grade-G he raised the dispute regarding Grade-G from 1989 in the year 2006. The appointment to the post is made in accordance with the recruitment rules . In regard to appointment on compassionate ground rules of recruitment are not followed. He remained on training and after completion of training he is appointed as Cat. 1 Mazdoor . His claim for appointment in Grade-G since 1989 is not justified. During cross -examination when he was shown Ext . W- 1 (it appears appointment letter of Ramji Ram) then the witness has said it has been mentioned about the fact of probation for a period of6months . The probation period was not extended. The concemed workman was sent for training as Security Guard at Security Training Institute Pandra. He had completed the training successfully . In the case of first promotion the police verification report etc. are seen . He has alsoproved the circular regarding placement of Security Guard as well as Cadre scheme for security personnel . In response to the question that the workman ought to have been promoted in Grade -G after completing successfully the probation period and training period in accordance with the provision of Cadre Scheme , the witness says that cadre scheme is meant for Security guard Grade- H . He does not know that Jalil Mian , Chatur Prasad , Kaļi Mian , Ramkunjan Mahato were appointed in the year 1989 and were regularised in 1990.

11. From the submission made on behalf of the management it appears that the claim of the concerned workman has been denied on the following ground.

13. As far as cadre scheme for security personnel is concerned workman it apppears to have been issued on 16-1-1985 and this fact has not been disputed by the management. However, it appears that it relates to the Security Personnel of Grade-H . This aspect of the matter will further be discussed in the later portion of the judgement . But all it appears that the concerned workman wasappointed in the year 1989 and the cadre scheme of the Security Personnel is applicable in case if he satisfied thecriteriamentioned therein . From a plain reading ofthis schedule it does not appear that the concerned workman wasrequired to file any representation/ or to raise industrial dispute rather the case of promotion regularisation has to be considered automatically in the light ofthe cadre scheme for Security Personnel . Beside this the management has not shown any law/rule/circular that there is limitation to raise such dispute . Accordingly 1 am of the view that the prayer ofthe concerned workman cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the dispute was at the later stage .

(i) Delay in raising the dispute .

(ii) Appointment on compassionate ground.

14. Much argument has been advanced that the concerned workman was appointed on compassionate 1454

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008/ CHAITRA 9 , 1930

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

probation for 6months. From Ext. W - 2 it appears that during the year on 22-1-93 the Chief of Security of CCL had written letter to all concern regarding regularisation of security personnel in Grade-G in accordance with the office letter dt. 26-3-91 and cadre scheme dt. 10-10-91 . In this letter reference ofSecurity Guard in Grade - H and about Security Guard (T) Cat. I has been mentioned . From perusal of this Exhibit it appears that steps were to be taken for regularisation ofSecurity Guard Grade - H as well as Security Guard Gr . (T) Cat.I who have gone under training and successfully completed the probationary period were to be regularised in Grade -G with immediate effect .

ground therefore he cannot be equated with regular employee so far the promotion /regularisation in Grade-G isconcerned . Beside verbal submission and evidence of MW- 1 no rule/law/circular has been placed before this Tribunal by the management to show that the promotion/ regularisation matter is different to the employee appointed on compassionate ground. A plain reading of Ext . W - 3 , it appears that it is applicable to all concern . There is nothing specifically mentioned that the same is not applicable in the case of employees appointed on compassionate ground . Accrodingly , I do not find any merit in the submission ofthe management that the concemed workman is not entitled for promotion /regularisation merely on the ground that he was appointedon compassionate ground.

16. The representative of the union has explained that the aforesaid letter Ext . W- 3 was issued by the Chiefof Security as the promotion /regularisation matter was not effectively being taken by the management in accordance with the cadre scheme for security personnel which has not been disputed i.e. about issuance of such letter.

17. From a plain reading of Ext . W- 3 it appears that SecurityGuard Grade - H as well as Security Guard (T) both are to be regularised in Grade-G. Thus it appears that Grade- H Security Guard as well as Security Guard (T) Cat.I who have gone under training and have completed training period successfully are entitled for promotion/ regularisation in Grade -G.

18. In the aforesaid context the relevant portion of the Cadre Scheme for Security personnel reads as follows:-

15. The management has raised objection that the concerned workman was appointed as Cat.I Mazdoor. He wasnot a Security Personnel in Grade-H . Therefore, cadre scheme for security personnel is not applicable to him . In thiscontext the concerned workman has not brought any documentary evidence to show that he was a Security Personnel inGrade -H. However , it has been submitted that SecurityGuard (T) Cat. I stands on similar footing of Grade- Hand for all the purpose of regularisation of promotion in Grade-G he has to be considered equal to the Security GuardGrade-H and he ought to have been regularised/ promoted in accordance with the provision of cadre scheme of Security Personnel . In this context while going through Ext.W- 1 it appears that the concerned workman was appointed as Security Guard (T) Cat.I and he was put on

CADRE SCHEME FOR SECURITY PERSONNEL SECURITY GUARD TO SR. INSPECTOR.

Sl . No.

Designation Grade/Scale ofpay

Eligibility for promotion

Mode ofpromotion Minimum qualification (Educational/Tech.)

(i) Literate

1. Security Guard

Tech .⋑ . Gr.G Rs . 580-16-804

DPC/ Interview Selection

( i) All security personnel who are presently inGr . H irrespective of their designation will be screened out. Those who conform to the norms of appointment as Security Guard as mentioned in the Note No. 1 below and are already trained will be placed in Grade 'G' . Those who conform to the norms but are not trained will be sent for training for a period of 3 months and on successful completion of the same will be placed inGr.'G' .

though the designation of the concerned workman is Security Guard (T) Cat. I but it appears that cadre scheme for security personnel is applicable for him also.

19. The relevant portion specifically states about all the Security personnel who are posted in Grade-H irrespective of their designation will be screened out . Considering the contents of Ext . W-2 and W - 3 it appears thatall Security personnel of Grade - H as well as Security Grard (T) Cat 1 are to be screened out and if they satisfy the condition they are to be placed in Grade -G after completion of training period. Accordingly it appears that

20. From Ext . W- 1 it appears that the concerned workman was to be on probation for a period of 6 months . After expiry of this period and on receipt of satisfactory report about his work and conduct his retention in service for further period will be considered . There is nothing on 1455

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29 , 2008 /चैत्र 9 , 1930

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

conditions as required in cadre scheme for security personnel .

record to show that the period of probation of the concerned workman was extended rather the evidence of MW- 1 shows that the period of probation of the concerned workman was not extended . From evidence of MW - 1 it also appears that the concerned workman had completed the training successfully. In accordance with the cadre scheme of Security Personnel it apears that the concerned workman has satisfied the requirement and it also appears that after such completion of training he ought to have beenpromoted/regularised in Grade-G.

24. For the reasons stated above the demand of Janta Mazdoor Sangh to place Ramjee Ram, SecurityGuard (Trainee) as Security Guard Grade-G with effect from 29-12-89 is legal and justified. He is entitled to considered for promotion/regularisation in Grade-G following the procedure as stipulated in Cadre Scheme of Security personnel . In the result, the following Award is rendered :-

"The demand of Janta Mazdoor Sangh to place Sri Ramjee Ram , Security Guard ( Trainee) as SecurityGuardgroup 'G' w.e.f. 29-12-1989 is legal and justified. Consequently he is entitled to be considered for promotion/regularisation in Grade- G following the procedure as stipulated in the cadre scheme of Security personnel . "

Themanagement is directed to implement the Award within three months from the date of its publication in the Gazette of India.

NAGENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer नईदिल्ली, 4 मार्च , 2008

21. Much argument has been advanced that as per provision the concerned workman was promoted/ regularised in Grade-G on receipt of police verification report . In this context para - 10 of the appointmentletter (Ext. W- 1 ) has been referred which shows that at the time of appointment the concerned workman was asked to furnish character certificate from the person not below the rank of MLA/MP/District Magistrate/Gazetted Officer/ Project Officer/ Sr. Personnel Officer of the company and 11 (eleven) copies of passport size photographs 3(three) joint photographs . under para 9.4.3 duly attested . The concerned workman has submitted that after complying with the provision of para- 10 of Ext . W- 1 , the concerned workman had furnished the required certificate of the competent authority . So the question does not arise to keep the matter pending for promotion/regularisation in Grade-G for want of police verification report . The same maybe called for at any stage . But it has nothing to do with regard to the promotion ofGrade-G.

का.आ. 713.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मै . बी.सी.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण ( सं.- II ) , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 89/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकौर को4-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/58/2005- आईआर( सी -1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 4th March, 2008

S.O. 713. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 89/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court (No. - II) , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . BCCL and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 4-3-2008 .

22. On behalf of the management nothing has been brought on record to controvert the fact that the required character certificate by the competent authority was not filedby the concerned workman at the time of appointment . No rule/circular/ letter by the management has been produced to show that the concerned workman will be regularised in a particular grade only on receipt of police verification report . Normally the police verification report is called and it is received at much later stage and the matter of regularisation/promotion has to be considered from the date of completion of the criteria as mentioned in the cadre scheme , particularly in the circumstances when no any letter/circular/law/rule have been placed before this Tribunal by the management that a person can be regularised in Grade-G only when such report is available .

[No. L-20012/58/2005 - IR (C-I) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD LOKADALAT

Inthematter ofan Industrial Dispute under Section 10( 1 )(d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 .

23. For the reasons stated above it apears that the concernedworkman Ramjee Ram is entitled for promotion/ regularisation in Grade-G after he had completed probation period and completed the required training in accordance with the cadre scheme for security personnel . However, the said cadre scheme shows that the mode of promotion has to be done by DPC/ Interview/Selection . In these circumstances the management will take necessary steps for promotion/ regularisation of the concerned workman in Grade-G from the date he had completed probation period and training period i.e. from 29-12-89 as required and other

Present: Shri Nagendra Kumar, Presiding Officer Reference No. 89 of 2005 988 Gi/08-16 1456

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008/CHAITRA 9 , 1930

Parties: Employers in relation to the management ofMines Rescue Station, Dhansar of M/ s . BCCL and their workman .

Apearances:

Onbehalfof the workman : Mr. Naresh Pd . Mahato , the concerned workman himself On behalf of the employers : Mr. U.N. Lal , Advocate State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal Dated , Dhanbad, the 25th February, 2008

AWARD

The Govemment of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1)( d) ofthe I.D. Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 20012 / 58 /2005 - IR( C- I ) , dated the 13th September, 2005.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the INMOSSA from the management of BCCL, Mines Rescue Station Dhansar that upon promotion as Mining Sirdar w.e.f. 29-5-2002 Sh. Naresh Prasad Mahato , may be allowed basic pay protecting the emoluments drawn by him asMinor Loader before the said promotion , is justified? Ifso, to what reliefis the workman entitled ? " 2. In response to appeal made by this tribunal for disposing of this case through Lok Adalat management and the concerned workman filed a settlement petition for settling the dispute through Lok Adalat as per terms and conditions statedtherein . Perused the petition ofsettlement. Terms and conditions incorporated in the said settlement petition appears to be fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice . Accordingly the same is accepted. In view ofthe facts and circumstances discussed above instant case is disposed through Lok Adalat as per settlement and an Award is passed in terms of settlement entered into between the parties . The settlement petition forms part of the Award as Annexure .

NAGENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE

FORM 'H'

Memorandum of settlement arrived at with the workman SriNaresh Prasad Mahato, Minor /Loader placed in Tech.& Supervisory Grade 'C ' and INMOSSA with the Management of Mines Rescue Services , Dhansar.

Representing the Management

1. Sri Bi Rama Rao , CGM, ( Safety& Rescue) Mines Rescue Services , Dhansar

2. Sri Amit Bhushan , Personnel Manager,

(Mines Rescue Services)

Representing the Management

1. Sri Naresh Pd. Mahato , Mining Sirdar , (Mines Rescue Stn. ).Dhansar , RR Murlidih

[PART. II-SEC. 3(ii ) ] 2. Sri V.S. Pandey, Central Jt . Secy. , INMOSSA , Dhanbad

3. Md. Hasim, Secretary, INMOSSA , BCCL Short Recital of the Case

Sri Naresh Prasad Mahato , Mining Sirdar had been demanding for proper fixation of his pay on placement to the post of Mining Sirdar in T& S Gr . ' C ' . An Industrial Dispute was raised by the General Secretary INMOSSA before the Asstt . Labour Commissioner (C) , Dhanbad vide I.D. No. 1/19/2004 E -6 . The same had ended into failure . However, the Indian National Mine Official Supervisory Staff Association and the workman concerned had been demanding for proper fixation of pay in T&S Gr . ' C' . The matter was taken up with the Hdqrs . and after getting approval finally it has been decided to settle the above matter on the following terms & conditions :-

Terms of Settlement

1. That the case of Sri Naresh Prasad Mahato was considered by the Departmental Selection Committee on his acquiring the requisite qualification and experience and onthe recommendation of the said Committee he was placed in T&SGr . ' C ' as Mining Sirdar vide Office Order No. 10382- 407dated 29-5-2002 .

2. That the pay ofSri Naresh Prasad Mahato , Mining Sirdar is fixed at Rs . 7330.00 in the pay scale of Rs . 6724- 202-10360/-w.e.f. 27-6-02.

i 3. That the workman concerned would be entitled to get the annual increment as usual as per policy of the company as under :-

Rs. 7532.00

July, 2003

Rs. 7734.00

July,2004

Rs.7936.00

July,2005

Rs. 8138.00

July, 2006

The next date of annual increment would fall due on July' 07.

4. That Sri Naresh Prasad Mahato and the INMOSSA would withdraw the Ref. Case No. 89/05 from the CGIT No. - II Dhanbad , as no dispute now subsists and the matter stand finally settled once forever .

5. That the above settlement would be treated as full and final in the above matter and no dispute for the same issue would be raised at any forum/court at any point oftime.

6. That the above settlement would be effected after the Reference case is finally disposed offby the CGIT No. - II , Dhanbad .

Representing the Representing the Management Workman/

Association ( INMOSSA ) 1.

-Sd-Illegible Sd 1.--Sd -Illegible Sd 2.

2.--Sd -Illegible Sd -Sd-Illegible Sd

3.--Sd -Illegible Sd [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Witnesses:

1. -Sd Illegible-

2. -Sd-Illegible

Copy forwarded for necessary action

1. The Regional Labour Commissioner (C) , Dhanbad.

2. The Presiding Officer , Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad,

3. The Asstt . Labour Commissioner (C) , Dhanbad.

4. CGM (P& IR), BCCL, Koyla Bhawan.

1457

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9, 1930

AWARD

The Ministry ofLabourby its letter No. L- 12012/ 11 /- 2005- IR(B- II ) Central Government dated 30-5-2005 has referred the following point for adjudication:

The point runs as hereunder :-

-Sd-Illegible

नई दिल्ली, 5 मार्च, 2008

का.आ. 714 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब एवं सिन्ध बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बौच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. - 2, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 45/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/ 11 /2005 - आईआर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 5th March, 2008

S.O. 714. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 45/2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s . Punjab and Sindh Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 5-3-2008 .

[No. L- 12012/11 /2005-IR(B- II)]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

I. D. No. 45/2005

IN THEMATTER OF :

Sh. Mahesh Chand,

S/o Late Sh . Raghubir Saran, R/ o 83 , Attarpura Railway Road , Hapur, Distt. Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh

"Whether the workman Mahesh Chand, S/ o Late Raghubir Singh was in continuous employment in the Punjab and Sind Bank, Hapur Branch, Ghaziabad during the period from 23-11-1987 to 30-5-2003 ? If so whether his termination/disengagement w.e.f. 31-5-2003 without any notice and compensation underSections 25F, G & H ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal andjustified and towhat reliefthe concerned wokman is entitled to ?"

The workman - applicant has filed claim statement . In the claim statement it has been stated that the workman Mahesh Chand S/o Sh. Raghubir Singh was working with the management M/s . Punjab and Sind Bank, Bank House , 21, Rajinder Place , New Delhi and posted last in its branch office Punjab and Sind Bank , Timber Nagar, Garh Road, Hapur, Ghaziabad (UP).

That the workman started his work with the management on 23-11-1987 as a peon and his last drawn wages was a sum of Rs . 4,500/- pm and other benefits .

That the workman was working diligently and honestly and the management had no complaint so far his job concerned.

That the workman was posted at many branches of theabove-saidM/s. Punjab and Sind Bank. He was working. continuously more than 240 days per year , so the workman wasentitled to regularization for the post ofpeon.

Thatthe workman demanded for regularization but the management refused the demand of regularization . The workman has sent many letters to M/s . Punjab and Sind Bank, BankHouse , 21 , Rajindra Place, NewDelhi.

That the workman demanded many times for regularization of services but the management terminated the services of the workman without any notice , charge sheet, without pay and retrenchment compensation . The workman has done his duty very faithfully towards the management and the workman never gave any chance for anycomplaint.

.....Claimant

VERSUS

M/s . Punjab & Sind Bank, Bank House, 21 , Rajindra Place , NewDelhi .

M/s. Punjab & Sind Bank, Timber Nagar , GarhRoad, Hapur , Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh .

That the workman filed his claim statement before ALC for adjudication but the management did not take any interest to compromise/ settle the matter and the Hon'ble ALC transferred the matter to Government of India , Ministry of Labour. There also the management did not take any interest to compromise/settle the matter.

The matter sent to adjudication for the Presiding Officer , CGIT-cum-Labour Court , Rajindra Bhawan , NewDelhi.

....Respondent

Under these circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that the management may be directed to reinstate and 1458

[PART II-SEC.3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008/CHAITRA 9 , 1930

regularize the services of the workman with full back wages and other benefits to the workman in the interest ofjustice.

Sh. Mahesh Chand appears on only a few pages . It is not established by this document that the workman has worked regularly for one year .

The management has filed written statement . In the written statement it has been stated that the workman never worked in Punjab and Sind Bank, Branch Hapur regularly from23-11-1987 to31-5-2003 .

Theworkmanhas filed paper No. B- 98 . From perusal ofthisdocument it transpires that the workman has worked in the years 1987, 1988 , 1989 & 1990 but in every year he has not worked for more than 100 days at the maximum .

That the court has nojurisdiction to decide this case .

That the workman has not completed 240 days work inthe branch and all those workmen who completed 240 days have been regularized at regular intervals . The brother ofthe workman Sh. Devender Kumar completed 240days in a calendar year and he has been given regular appointment.

That the workman was never appointed in the Branch and there is no question of his services being terminated bythebank.

That the workman was called for interview in the years 1992 and 1995 buthe had not completed 240 days , so hewas not selected for filling up the vacancies .

Itwas submitted from the side of the management that the workman was engaged as casual labour on the basis of additional increase of work . As per the bank's policy the workman who completed 240 days were interviewed in 1992 and 1995. This workman was also called for interview but it was found that he has not worked for 240 days in any of the years whereas his brother Sh. Devender Kumar has been given regular employment as he has completed 240 days . The interview letters issued bythe management have been filed on the record thus , it is vividly established that the workman was called for interview on two occasions but he was not given regular employment as he has not completed 240 days work. The other candidates who had completed 240 days work have beengiven regular appointment . The brother of the workman has also been given appointment as he has performed 240 dayswork in a year .

That the workman was engaged in leave vacancy of the casual and regular workers but he has not worked in any branch office for 240 days in a calendar year or preceding the date of termination of his services . His statement regarding his wages being Rs . 4500/- is altogether incorrect .

Theworkmanhas filed rejoinder . In the rejoinder he hasreiterated the averments of his claim statement and has denied most of the paras of the written statement . The management has also denied most of the paras of the claim statement.

Evidence of both the parties has been taken .

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

The workman has filed photocopy of the ledger for his engagement in 2001 and 2002 but he has hardly worked for more than 100 days in these two years . He has filed certificate of the management regarding his working days of 1987, 1988 , 1989 & 1990 but in none of the these years he has performed 240 days ' work . The bank sent interview letters to all the casual labourers and services of those casual labourers have been regularized who performed 240 days work. The workman has performed 420 days ' work from 1987 to 1999. He has not completed 240 days in any calendar year. He has not completed 240 days either in 2001 or2002.

Itissettled law that the burden is on the workman to proveby cogent documentary evidence that he has worked for 240 days in any calendar year or within 12 calendar months preceding the date ofhis termination ofhis services .

The averment of his claim and affidavit that he has worked continuously from 1987 to 2003 is absolutely false . He isnot entitled to get any relief as prayed for .

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that heworked continuously in the Hapur Branch of the Punjab and Sind Bank from 23-11-1987 to 30-5-2003 . His services wereillegallyterminated on 31-5-2003. The workman started hiswork on 23-11-1987 at the wages of Rs . 4500/- .He has worked for more than 240 days continuously per year . He demanded regularization . The management was annoyed andhis services were terminated illegally.

The reference is replied thus:

Itwas submitted from the side of the management that the workman has worked intermittently . He never worked continuously for 240 days . He was engaged against leave vacancy as stop gap arrangement .

The workman Mahesh Chand S/ o Late Raghubir Singh was not in continuous employment in the Punjab and Sind Bank, Hapur Branch, Ghaziabad during the period from 23-11-1987 to 30-5-2003 . The workman - applicant is not entitled to any notice pay and retrenchment compensation u/ s 25 - F, G & H ofthe ID Act, 1947 as he has not completed 240 days in any of the years of his engagement or within 12 months from the date oftermination ofhis services .

The award is given accordingly. Dated: 28-2-2008

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer The workman has filed photocopy of ledger, page B-48 to B -67 . This ledger is regarding payment made to the casual labourers . The payments have been made to several workmen. On some pages the name of the workman also appears . This ledger is for casual labourers of the years 2001 to 2002 bat payment has been made to Sh . Mahesh Chand intermittently for sometimes . From perusal of this ledger photocopy it also transpires that payments to the other casual labourers has also been made . The name of 1459 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29 , 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

नई दिल्ली, 7 मार्च , 2008

sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 33 -B of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947( 14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L - 12012/320/ 1999-IR (B-I), dated 03-03-2003.

"Whether the action ofthe management ofState Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Susant KumarPanda, ex - temporary Messenger isjustified? Ifnot, what relief the disputant is entitled to? " का.आ. 715. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया 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 05/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12012/320/1999- आई आर ( बी- I ) ]

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 7th March, 2008

S.O. 715. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No.05/2003 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- Cum Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of StateBank of India, and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 7-3-2008 .

[No. L- 12012/320/ 1999- IR(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

2. It is alleged by the workman that he was appointed asaMessenger from 6-11-1986 in the State Bank of India, Dharamgarh Branch under the administrative control of the 1st Party -Management. Having continued in that post for several years continuously he made a representation forhis regularization and it was duly recommendedby the Branch Manager in the letter dated 10-7-1997 for the permanent absorption. But unfortunately the Management terminated him from 15-4-1999 without assigning any reason thereof. On his raising an Industrial Dispute the Central Government also initially refused to make any reference forwhich he filed O.J.C. 3656/2000 before the Hon'ble High Court, Orissa. However, the present reference is the outcome of the order of the Hon'ble Court passed in that O.J.C. It is further alleged by the workman that his removal from service not being in accordance with law, he should be reinstated in service with full back wages and other service benefits .

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR PRESENT:

Shri N.K.R. Mohapatra, Presiding Officer , C.G.I.T. -cum Labour Court, Bhaubaneswar .

Industrial Dispute Case No. 5 of2003 Date ofPassing Award 18th January, 2008

BETWEEN:

TheManagement of the Deputy General Manager , State Bank of India, Zonal Office, At./PO./PS . Berhampur ,

Dist. Ganjam, Orissa.

..... 1st Party-Management

AND

Their Workman Shri Susanta Kumar Panda , S/o , Shri B.B.Panda , At./PO . Dharmagarh , Near Arvinda School , Dist . Kalahandi , Orissa Pin-766001.

...2nd Party-Workman

Appearances:

Shri P.K. Mohanty, ...For the 1st Party-

Manager( Law)

Management.

Shri Pradip Mohanty. .... For the 2nd Party- Workman.

AWARD

3. The Ist party Management on the other hand has averrred that the various stands taken by workman are not correct and that the same suffers from suppression of material facts . According to the Management the workman was engaged intermittently during the period 1-1-1986 to 31-12-1987 as a temporary Peon/Messenger against casual vacancy of regular staff. Like the workman many other persons were also engaged in other branches of the bank . To provide regular employment to these workers a demand was made by the workers federation and accordingly a settlement was reached between the State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation on 17-11-1987 and according to the terms and conditions of the said settlement applications were invited from these categories ofworkers and they were categorized as A, B ,C depending upon the period of their engagement . The disputant was accordingly placed under Category -C. In the meantime several other agreements were entered into with the aforsaid Federation extending the period of operation of the settlement dated 17-11-1987. According to the terms and conditions of the said settlement persons categorized as A, B , C were called upon to face necessary interviews and they were empanelled in their respective. wait- list to be absorbed against the existing vacancies and the newly created posts between 31-3-1997 . It is further alleged by the Management that on the basis of several circulars issued in tune with the settlement reached with the Federation many such temporary workers were absorbed depending upon the available vacancy position The Government of India in the Ministry ofLabour in exercise of Powers conferred by Section 7 -A read with 1460

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 29, 2008/CHAITRA 9 , 1930

but the workman in question could not be accommodated for his chances did not come within the cut off date 31-3-1997. As according to the terms of settlement the workmanwas not to be engaged further beyond that date , he filed O.J.C 2917/1997 before the Hon'ble High Court claiming his regularization and continued thereafter as the basis of an order passed by the Hon'ble Court in their Misc . Case No. 2320/97 and on the dismissal of his writ petition ( O.J.C. 2917/97) on 4-12-1998 he was disengaged permanently form 15-4-1999 on payment of one month's advance pay as a precautioner measure . In the above background it is further contended by the Management that, the workman's continuance up till 15-4-1999 , being the outcome of an order of the Hon'ble Court passed in its Misc .Case No. 2320/1997 and his termination from service beingthe resultant outcome of the agreement with the Fede- ration, his above termination can not be treated as retrenchment and as such he is not entitled for any relief asclaimedby him.

4 On the basis of above pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed.

ISSUES

1. Whether the workman was appointed as a Messenger by the Management with effect form 6-11-1986?

2. Whether the workman was in continuous jemployment till the alleged date of termination ?

3.Whether the Management is justified in terminating the services of the workman pursuant to the bi- partite/ tri - parite settlement and without due compliance of the provisions under section 25 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ?

4. It not, what relief the disputant is entitled to?

5. The workman has examined himself in support his case besides producing several other decuments marked Ext. - 1 to Ext. -7 . The Management on the other hand as also examined one of its officers besides producing documents marked as Ext . - A to Ext.-L.

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO . 1,2,3, & 4

absorbed against permanent vacancies and the vacancies to be created by the Management within the cut- off date expiring on 31-3-1997 . It also transpires that when some of the wait- listed candidates could not be absorbed within the cut -off date they used to file several O.J.Cs before the Hon'ble High Court claiming regularization . The workman had also filed one such case bearing No.O.J.C. 2917/1997 for similar relief but admittedly all these cases were dismissed by the Hon'ble Court on the basis of a common judgement passed in O.J.C. 2787/1997 . The said judgement which is available on record indicates further that, one panel for temporary employees and another panel for daily wage/ casual labourer were prepared on the basis of interview/ selection and it was agreed by the Management and the Federation thatthe modalities about drawing of names from either the panel of temporary workers of the panel ofdaily wagers shall be decided administratively on circular basis in consultation with the Federation. It is both on record and evidence that persons drawn from these panel at a given ratio were regularized giving due weightage to the reservation principle . Therefore , in these premises it can not be said that the Management should have regularized the empanelled persons serially. In the instant case it is claimed by the disputant during trial that though he was placed in third position in the list he was terminated while some of his juniors were regularized . He has also named some socalled junior persons who Have been regularized in service but on comparison of the same it is fonud that the names mentioned in the Claim Staternent are different from those mentioned during the trial . Further , during cross- examination he could not say to which category these persons were belonging . Therefore , in absence of substantial materials it can not be said that persons were junior to the workman. On the other hand the evidence of theManagement shows that some of these persons which were subsequently regularized were belonging to the Category-A, while the workman was belonging to Category- C. It is also in the evidence of the Management that as per the settlement and the circulars issued thereon persons belonging to Category- A were to be absorbed first and accordingly the vacancies availble in the Berhampur Zone were all filled up but the workman's position being 48 in Category- C he could not be regularized within the cut- off date for want ofvacancies. While speaking about one Kunu Bhagat who according to the workman was regularized being his junior , the Management Witness has deposed that the said Kunu Bhagat was belonging to non- Messengerial cadre and therefore , according to the agreement , he was absorbed in the post of Messenger his name being in A- Category of non-Messengerial staff. The documents marked Ext. - L shows that the workman was not empanelled in Category -A, but in Category- C his position was 48 but not 3 as claimed by him . Therefore , under these premises the stand of the workman that ignoring his case his juniors were given permanent appointment does not appear to be true .

6. These issues are taken up togather as they are inter- linked. From a common judgement of Orissa High Court passed in O.J.C. 2787/97 and many other cases of 1997 it appears , as contended by the Management , that in order to facilitate regularization of temporary Messengers / workers working in different branch banks of the Management an agreement was reached between the State Bank of India and the Federation on 17-11-1987 and that the said settlement was followed by many other settlement extending the period of the cut off date prescribed under the settlement dated 17-11-1987 . It also transpires from the above judgement that pursuant to such settlement interviews of different temporary workers were made and they were empanelled as wait - listed candidates to be 1461 [ भाग II खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9, 1930

Ext. - 6 -Copy ofthe cheque issued to the workman towards payment of one month advance pay.

Ext.7-Copy of the self made statement prepared by the workman.

ListofWitnesses on behalf of the 1st Party- Management.

M. W. No.1 - Biswa Ketan Das

ListofDocuments exhibited on behalf of the 1st Party- Management.

Ext. -A-Copy of the application ofthe workman for the post of temporary Messenger in the Bank. Ext. -A/ 1 -Enclosure ofExt.-A.

Ext. -A/2- Enclosure ofExt.-A.

Ext. -A/3 -Enclosure ofExt.-A.

Ext. -B-Copy ofsettlemet dated 17-11-1987.

Ext. -C-Copy of settlement dated 16-7-1988 .

Ext. -D-Copy ofsettlement dated 27-10-1988 .

Ext.-E-Copy ofsettlement dated 9-1-1991 .

Ext. -F -Copy of minutes ofmeeting held on 9-6-1995 .

Ext. -G-Copy ofthe settlement dated 30-7-1996.

Ext. -H- Interim order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in OJC2917/97 .

Ext. -J-Xerox copy offinal order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in a common judgement covering O.J.C. No. 2917/97 .

Ext. -K -Copy of counter filed by the Management in OJC2917/97.

Ext. -L -Copy of waiting list of candidates selected for appointment as per interview held on 8/89.

7. It is in the record that when the Management decided to terminate those who could not be regularized within the cut -off date the workman and inany others filed different writs before the Hon'ble High Court claiming their regularization . It is alos on record that , after the aformentioned settlement was reached between the Management and the Federation all the temporary workers and casual workers were asked to submit their Bio Datas detailing therein the period of service they had rendered to the bank and on the basis of their disclosed length of service theywere categorized as A, B and C. The workman during cross - examination has admitted to have filed one such Bio Data marked Ext . -A/ 1 which indicates that in 1986 he had onlyworked for 24 days while in 1987 he had worked for 159 days as temporary Messengers . Therefore by the time the Management contemplated of disengaging the workman and others , pursuant to the settlement, the workman had not worked continuously for 240 days in the preceding year but on the basis of an order (Ext . -H) passed bythe Hon'bleHigh Court in Misc. Case No. 2320/97 arising out ofO.J.C. 2917/97 he was allowed to continue as before instead of facing termination till the disposal of the above O.J.C. Therefore , the subsequent engagement period generated on the basis of Ext . - H being of the nature of "litigious employment" the said period can not be computed while calculating the total working days of the workman. Therefore, when workman had not worked continuously for 240 days by the time the Management thought of terminating him from service , his subsequence disengagement on the basis of the result of his writ can not be termed as illgal termination . Furthermore it has been admittedby the workman that, while disengaging him from job he has paid one month advance pay and according to the Management the said payment was made by the Management to be on the safe side . Under these premises I find no merit in the claim of the workman and accordingly the reference is answered with no relief.

नई दिल्ली, 7 मार्च, 2008 8. Reference is answered accordingly.

N.K. R. MOHAPATRA , Presiding Officer

List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the 2nd Party- Workman,

W.W. No. 1- Susanta Kumar Panda.

List ofDocuments exhibited on behalf of the 2nd Party- Workman

का. आ. 716. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 34/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था । Ext. - 1- Certificate granted to the workman by the Branch Manager.

[सं. एल-12012/16/2005 - आई आर ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी Ext.- 2 -Copy of letter of the A.G.M. to the Regional Office seeking permission to engage the workman .

New Delhi , the 7th March, 2008 Ext. -3-Copy of letter A.G.M. by which the workman was engaged.

Ext. -4-Copy of letter of Br . Manager , Dharmagarh Br. To absorb the workman in the permanent capacity.

Ext. - 5 - Copy of the termination letter issued to the workman.

S.O. 716.-1n pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum- Labour Court , Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank 1462

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2008/ CHAITRA 9, 1930

of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on7-3-2008.

[No. L- 12012/ 16/2005 -IR (B- I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

3. From this point of view, the workman cannot be held entitled for any kind of relief as claimed by him unless his termination of service is set aside and he is reinstated in the service of his employer in the same capacity which he occupied at the time of termination of hisservice.

BEFORE SRI R. G SHUKLA PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL KANPUR.

4. Reference order , therefore , is answered in negative against the workman and in favour of the opposite party.

Industrial Dispute No. 34 of 2005

R. G SHUKLA , Presiding Officer BETWEEN:

नई दिल्ली, 11 मार्च , 2008

Sh . Sharda Prasad S/ o Sh . Barsati Ram

Mohalla Pandul Road, Town Captainganj

PostCaptainganj Distt.Basti , U.P.

का.आ. 717. औद्योगिक विवांद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बर्न स्टैण्डर्ड कम्पनी लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई. डी. 84/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

AND The ChiefManager Personnel& HRD State Bank of India Town HallGorakhpur .

AWARD

[सं. एल-27011/2/2007- आई आर ( एम ) ] एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 11th March, 2008

I. The Central Government, MOL , New Delhi , vide Notification No.L - 12012 / 16/ 2005 - IR ( B - I ) dated 3-9-05 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal

S.O. 717. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. I.D. 84/ 2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 11-3-2008.

SRI KYA PRABANDHAN STATE BANK OF INDIA BASTI DWARA CASUAL MESSENTER SHARDA PRASAD SON OF SRI BARSATI RAM KO BANK KI NAUKARI ME NIYAMIT NA KIYA JANA UCHIT TATHA NYAY SANGAT HAT? YADI NAHI TO KARMKAR KIS ANUTOSH KO PANE KA ADHIKARI HAI?

[No. L-27011 /2/2007-1R (M) ] N. S. BORA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Friday , the 29th February , 2008

PRESENT : K. JAYARAMAN , Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 84/2007

[Inthe matter of dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2(A. ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , between the Management of Burn Standard Company Ltd. and their Workman]

BETWEEN

TheGeneral Secretary Union Salem Mavatta Magenseite Pattali Thozhir Sangam : I Party/Petitioner Arabic College Building Vellakkalpatti Post Salem - 636012

2. Abare perusal of the schedule of reference order would go to reveal that the schedule of reference order is onthe point of non regularisation ofthe service of workman by the management of State Bank of India, Gorakhpur , whereas as per own pleading of the workman as given in para 26 of his claim statement his services have been dispensedwith by the management of State Bank of India with effect from 23-09-04 in breach of provisions ofsec. 25F , 25G and 25H of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , and rules made thereunder . Therefore, it stands clear that the terms ofreference order and the pleadings of the workman are not in confirmity with each other. In view of it the tribunal do not consider it fit to give other factual part of the case as such exercise would be totally futile in the eye of law as the workman is not going to get any relief as claimed by him . Moreover it is settled position of law that regularisation in the service cannot be claimed by such a worker who is not in the employment of his employer and whose services stands terminated. Unless termination ofthe employment is set aside by a competent court of law and the worker is directed reinstatement in the employment of his employer , he cannot claim regularisation of his services.

1463 [भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29 , 2008 /चैत्र 9 , 1930

TheGeneral Manager

: II Party /Respondent

Burn Standard Co. Ltd. PostBagNo. 565 Şalem -636005

5. But both parties have not appeared before this Tribunal to establish their contention and they remained: absent and were set ex-parte. Under this averments , this Tribunal has no other go except to declare that no award canbe passed in this dispute.

APPEARANCE:

6. Thus, the reference is answered accordingly .

For the Petitioner

: None

: Sri M.R. Raghavan

For the Management

AWARD

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 29th February , 2008)

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:-

: None

For the I Party/Petitioner

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-27011 /2/2007- IR(M) dated 3-12-2007 referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

None

For the II Party/Management

The schedule mentioned in the order is:

Documents Marked : From the Petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date Description -Nil

"Whether the management of Burn Standard Co. Ltd. , is legal andjustified in refuting the Salem Mavatta Pattali Thozhir sangam in wage negotiation ? Whether the demand ofwage revision raised by Salem Mavatta Pattali Thozhir Sangam is legal and justified? If so , to what relief is the workmen entitled to ?"

Description

From theManagement side : Ext.No. Date -Nil-

नई दिल्ली, 11 मार्च , 2008

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute , this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 84/2007 and issued notices to both sides . After that the Respondent appeared for the first hearing . He has not appeared for the subsequent hearings . Respondent called absent and set ex-parte .

का.आ. 718.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै . सेठी एण्ड कम्पनी , नई दिल्ली के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय- II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या आई.डी. सं. 225/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था । 3. In this case , even though notices were served to the petitioner twice . He has not appeared before this Tribunal and the petitioner was set ex- parte . After that Respondent was called for memo of objection and even after 4 adjournments neither the Respondent nor its Advocate appeared before the Court . Respondent had also not filed memo of objection. Hence the Respondent also was set ex-parte .

Points for determination are:

[सं. एल-29012/66/1999- आई आर( एम. ) ] एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 11th March, 2008 Whether the management of Burrn Standard Co.Ltd. , is legal and justified in refuting the Salem Mavatta Pattali Thozhir Sangam in wage negotiation ? Whether the demand of wage revision raised by Salem Mavatta Pattali Thozhir Sangam is legal and justified?

(ii) If so, to what relief is the workmen entitled to?"

Point No. ( i) & ( ii)

S.O. 718. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. I.D. No. 225/1999 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court . II , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . Sethi & Co. ,NewDehli and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 11-3-2008 .

[No. L-29012/66/1999 -IR(M)] N. S. BORA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

PRESIDING OFFICER: R.N.RAI I.D. No. 225/1999

4. In the reference , it is mentioned that whether the Respondent's action in refuting petitioner Sangam in wage negotiation is legal and justified and it is mentioned whether thedemand ofwage revision made by the petitioner Sangam is legal and justified . Therefore, the Petitioner Sangam is to establish that they are entitled to represent the demand forwage revision before the management and they have to further establish that their demand of wage revision is also legal and justified. And if they establish both these facts with satisfactory evidence then the burden shifts on to Respondent that their action in refuting to petitioner Sangam is legal.

988 91/ 08-17 1464

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008/ CHAITRA 9 , 1930

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sh. Pritam Singh ,

S/ o. Sh . Tunda Ram , Vill:Anangpur,

-Claimant Faridabad ( Haryana) .

VERSUS

M/ s. Sethi & Co. ,

M - 105 , Connaught Circus ,

Near BMC Company,

NewDehli .

-Respondent

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L- 29012/ 66/ 99 IR( M) Central Government Dated. 9/15-11-1999 has referred the following point for adjudication:

The point runs as hereunder:-

"Whether the action of the management of Silica Sand Mines , Mohabatabad in terminating the services of Sh . Pritam Singh , Mining Mate (Blaster ) w.e.f. 19-02-1998 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled. "

Pursuant to negotiations between the parties entered into full and final settlement , the workman has moved an application for withdrawal of his case . He has been paid Rs. 40,000 (Rs . Fourty Thousand Only ) in full and final settlement. He appeared before me and his signature was again taken and the signature of his own brother and one witness has also been taken . Both the parties have compromised the matter .

No dispute award is given .

Date: 28-02-2008

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 11 मार्च , 2008

का.आ.: 719.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मंधान मिनरल कॉर्पोरेशन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय II , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 82/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -29011 /33/2003- आई आर (एम. ) ] एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th March, 2008

S.O. 719. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 82/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court . No. 2 Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] to the management of Mandhan Minerals Corporation and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 11-3-2008 .

[No. L-29011 /33 /2003 - IR (M) ]

N. S. BORA , Desk Office

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO . 2) AT DHANBAD.

LOK ADALAT.

PRESENT

Shri Nagendra Kumar, Presiding Officer .

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act. , 1947 .

REFERENCE No. 82 of 2003

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management of Mandhan Minerals Corporation and theirworkman .

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf of the workman : Mr. S. N. Ghosh, Advocate .

Onbehalf of the employers : Mr. S. N. Sinha, Advocate .

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Mines (Stone)

Dhanbad, the 25th February, 2008

AWARD

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour , in ex- :ercise of the pewers conferred on thein under Section 10( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act . , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 29011 /33/2003 - IR( M) dated, the 27thAugust , 03 .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/s . Mandhyam Minerals , Pakur in terminating the services of the workman , Sh. Jainarayan Pandey, w. e .f. 18-3-2002 for not complying Section 25 - F of the I. D. Act. , 1947 is legal and /or justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled to ? " 2. In response to appeal made by this Tribunal for disposing of this case through Lok Adalat management and the workman filed a settlemant petition for settling the dispute through Lok Adalat as per terms and condi- tions stated therein . Perused the petition of settlement . Terms and conditions incorporated in the said settlement petition appears to be fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice . Accordingly the same is accepted. In view ofthe facts and circumstances discussed above instant case is disposed through Adalat as per settlement and an Award is passed in terms of settlement entered into between the parties . The settlement petition forms part of Award as Annexur

NAGENDRA KUMAR , Presiding Officer [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

समझौता पत्र

आज दिनांक 23-10-2007 को मैसर्स मध्यान मिनरल कॉरपोरेशन राज बांध , भालपहाड़ी , पाकुड़ , झारखण्ड के प्रबंधक एवं उनके कर्मचारी के बीच निम्न समझौता हुआ । प्रबंधन प्रतिनिधि का नाम कर्मचारी का नाम

श्री जयनारायण पाण्डेय श्री तुलसी पाण्डेय

समझौता

श्री जयनारायण पाण्डेय पिता स्व. केष्टो पाण्डेय ग्राम राजापाड़ा पाकुड़, पोस्ट, जिला पाकुड़ , झारखण्ड मैसर्स महयान मिनरल कॉरपोरेशन , राजबांध , मालपहाड़ी झारखण्ड स्थित क्रशर में कर्मचारी के रूप में कार्यरत थे, विगत 28-2-2002 को मालिक द्वारा कामगार को छटनी किया गया अन्तिम हिसाब के समय दोनों पक्षों में नियोग तिथि को लेबर विवाद उत्पन्न हुआ कर्मचारी श्री जयनारायण पाण्डेय बिहार माईन्स एण्ड क्वारी वर्क्स यूनियन के माध्यम से L.E.O. (C) पाकुड़ के समक्ष विवाद उठाये , L.E.O. (C) पाकुड़ के समक्ष विवाद निपटारा नहीं हुआ। विवाद R.L.C. ( C) पटना बिहार के समक्ष भेजा गया पर यहाँ भी विवाद का निपटारा नहीं हुआ वर्तमान में विवाद औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं. 2 धनबाद में चल रहा है परन्तु कर्मचारी विवाद की चलाना नहीं चाहता एवं आज दिनांक 23-10-2007 को प्रबंधक से बैठकर विवाद का निपटारा कर लिया है , समझौतानुसार कामगार का नियोग की तिथि 1-4-1988 तय किया गया एवं निम्न मद में अन्तिम हिसाब निकालकर कर्मचारी को भुगतान किया गया , कर्मचारी खुशी पूर्वक अपना अन्तिम हिसाब प्राप्त किया । काम की अवधि : 14 वर्ष 10 माह 27 दिन = 15 वर्ष x 15 दिन xदर

60.00 रु.

1. छंटाई क्षति पूर्ति 13500.00

2. ग्रैच्युटी 13500.00-

3. नोटिस पे- 1560.00

(26दिन का)

4. बोनस 2001-2002 3600.00

32160.00

(कुल बत्तीस हजार एक सौ साठ रुपये मात्र ) प्रबंधन प्रतिनिधि का हस्ताक्षर

कर्मचारी का हस्ताक्षर

जयनारायण पान्डेय Tulsi Pandey

23-10-07 23-10-07

मैं श्री जयनारायण पाण्डेय पिता स्व. केष्टो पाण्डेय राजापाड़ा पो , जिला पाकुड़ झारखण्ड मैसर्स महयान मिनरल कॉरपोरेशन राजवांधा , मालपहाड़ी के प्रबंधक से आपसी समझौता द्वारा निकाला गया अन्तिम हिसाब का कुल राशि, बत्तीस हजार एक सौ साठ रुपये प्राप्त कर , बिना किसी दबाव या भय के अपना हस्ताक्षर दिया अब कम्पनी पर किसी तरह का बाकि बकाया नहीं रहा ।

प्रबंधन प्रतिनिधि का हस्ताक्षर

कर्मचारी का हस्ताक्षर

जयनारायण पान्डेय Tulsi Pandey

23-10-07

23-10-07 कामगार श्री जयनारायण पाण्डेय , पिता स्व. केष्टो पाण्डेय राजपाड़ा पो . जिला पाकुड़ , झारखण्ड , मेसर्स महयान मिनरल 988 Gi/08-18

1465

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29 , 2008 /चैत्र 9, 1930

कॉर्पोरेशन राजबांध , मालपहाड़ी झारखण्ड के प्रबंधक से आपसी सहमति द्वारा अपना अन्तिम हिसाब मेरे सामने तय कर कुल रकम प्राप्त किया ।

23-10-2007

मानिक दुबे, महा सचिव नई दिल्ली , 11 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 720. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार कोचीन रिफाईमरी इम्प्लाईज कन्जयुमर को- आपरेटिव सोसाइटी लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय कोचीन के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई. डी. 267/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30011/23/1993- आई आर( एम ) ]

एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th March , 2008

S.O. 720. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. I.D. 267/2006 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Cochin now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Cochin Refinery Employees Consumer Co - op.Society Ltd. and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 11-3-2008.

[No. L -30011 /23/ 1993 - IR (M) ] N. S. BORA , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALCUM - LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM PRESENT: Shri P. L. Norbert, B.A. , L.L.B. , PresidingOfficer

(Monday the 26th day of Novermber 2007/5th Agrahayana 1929)

I.D. 267 OF 2006

(I.D. 23/1995 of Labour Court, Ernakulam ) Union : TheGeneral Secretary, Cochin Refinery

Employees Consumers Co -operative Society Canteen Employees Union, Ambalamughal .

By Adv. C. Anil Kumar .

The President,

Management:

Cochin Refinery Employees Consumer Co - operative Society Limited,

Ambalamughal .

ByAdv. Paulson C. Varghese.

1466

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29, 2008 / CHAITRA 9 , 1930

This case coming up for hearing on 26-11-2007, this Triburial-cum - Labour Court on the same day passed the following:

AWARD

This is a reference made under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of Industrial Disputes Act regarding demand of union for 20% bonus andex - gratia payment for the year 1992-93. When the matter came up for evidence , the counsel for the union filed a memo to the effect that the question of regulatisation of canteen employees by Cochin Refineries is under consideration of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in another I.D. ( 17/2006 ) and the present claim can be successfully established only after a decision in writ petition aforementioned . Hence the union has no objection in closing the reference without prejudice to the right of the unjon to raise the dispute after disposal of petition . It means that the union has no dispute for the time being .

In the result , an award is passed finding that there is no subsisting dispute for adjudication and the action of the management is not challenged for the time being and therefore the reference is closed without prejudice to the right of the unionto raise the dispute again, if it chooses so, after the disposal of Writ Petition ( C) No. 29022/2006 (against 1.D.17/2006 ) . The award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette .

Typed, corrected and passed by me on this the 26th day ofNovember, 2007 .

P. L. NORBERT, PresidingOfficer Appendix-Nii

i नई दिल्ली , 11 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 721. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार कोची लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र को संबंद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय कोचीन के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई. डी. 45/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीध सरकार को 11-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30011/34/2005- आई आर( एम ) ] एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the I 1th March, 2008

S.O. 721. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. I.D. 45/ 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Cochin now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Cochi Refineries Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on11-3-2008.

[No. L-30011/34/2005 - IR (M) ] N. S. BORA , Desk Officer

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALCUM- LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM PRESENT: Shri P. L. Norbert , B.A. , L.L.B. , PresidingOfficer

(Wednesday the 14th day of Novermber 2007/ 23rd Karthika 1929) I.D. 45 OF 2006

( I.D. I /2005 of Labour Court , Ernakulam) Union : TheGeneral Secretary, Cochin Refinery Employees Association , Ambalamughal , Kochi -682302 .

By Adv . Sri . C.S. Ajith Prakash.

Management: The Deputy General Manager (HRD & IR) , Kochi Refineries Ltd. , Ambalamughal , Kochi -682302.

By Adv . M/ s . Menon & Pai .

Thiscase coming up for hearing on 14-11-2007 , this Tribunal - cum - Labour Court on the sarne day passed the following

AWARD

This is a reference under Section 10( 1 ) ( d) of Industrial Disputes Act . The reference is : -

"Whether the action of the managenient of Kochi Refinery Limited in not maintaining agreed manpower in the Welding Section is right ? If not what is the entitled relief ? "

2. Though both sides entered appearance and filed their pleadings , when the matter came up for evidence the union submitted that they are not interested to go on with the dispute and they are not pressing the dispute . Thus there is no existing dispute for adjudication .

In the result, an award is passed finding that the action of the management of Kochi Refinery Limited , is not maintaining agreed manpower in the Welding Section is legal and proper and the union is not entitled for any relief.

Typed, corrected and passed by me on this the 14thday ofNovember , 2007.

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer Appendix: Nil .

नई दिल्ली, 11 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 722. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. चाऊगुले एवं कम्पनी , गोवा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. -1 , मुम्बई के पंचाट 1467 [भाग II--खपूड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29 , 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

(कमलेन्ट सं.- सी जी आई टी-20/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुअस था ।

[सं. एल -29025/2/2006- आई आर( एम ) ] एन. एस . बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the I 1th March , 2008

viewofthe legal pleas taken up by the Company, the learned counsel Shri V.V. Pai , for the Complainant moved an application dt . 17-7-2006 with a prayer that the maintainability ofthe present complaint may be considered first. It is surprising that such an application should have beenmoved by the Company taking up of the preliminary issue but the Company did not chose for it. Instead, the workman has moved the instant application.

3.The argument advaced by the learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record is perused.

4. The following points arise for consideration , as prayed for by the learned counsel for the workman.

(1 ) Whether Section 33 (2)( b) of the Industrial Dispute Act has been violated ?

S.O. 722.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Comp . No. CGIT- 20/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , No. 1 , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Chowgule & Co. , Goa and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 11-3-2008 .

(2) Whether the Complaintant is now estopped from filing the present complaint ?

[No. L-29025 /2/2006- IR(M)] N. Ş . BORA , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 , MUMBAI PRESENT: Justice Ghanshyam Dass PresidingOfficer

Application/Complaint No. CGIT-20 of2003 (arising out ofRef. No. CGIT- 1 /27 of 1996)

Parties: Mr. Narayan Hawlo Gaude Complainant

V/s

Chowgule and Co. Ltd. Opp.Party

Appearances:

For the Opp . Party:

Shri R.N. Shah , Adv.

Shri V.V. Pai , Adv.

For the Complainant:

5. Point No. 1 The Present complaint, is being admittedly filed for violation of the provisions of the Section 33(2)(b) of the Act on account of pendency of CGIT Ref. No. 27 of 1996. Admittedly, the CGIT No. 27 of 1996 was pending before this Tribunal on the day of moving ofthe instant complaint under Section 33 -A of the Act . The reference was decided vide Award dt . 29-3-2004 . This reference was made by the Central Government under clause . (d) ofsub section 1 of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. For considering "Whether the action of the Managing director , Chowgule and Company Ltd. , Chowgule House , Mormugao-harbour in straight- away discharging from servies of Mr. S.S. Nark, Ex- electrician Code No. 1937 as well as the General Secretary of the recognized Chowgule Employees Union w.e.f. 2-11-1995 is just, valid and legal ? If not then , what benefits the workman is entitled to ? "

State:

Maharashtra.

Mumbai , dated this 1st day of September , 2006

AWARD

1. The workman Shri Narayan Hawlo Gaude has mnved the instant applicationdt . 22-5-2003 under Section 33-A of the Industrial Dispute Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The prayer made therein is for withdrawal of thedismissal order and reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service . The ground for the claim is that Chowgule and Co. Ltd. , Chowgule House, Mormugao Harbour, Goa (hereafter referred to as Company) in has violated the mandatory provisions of Section 33 ( 2 ) (b ) of theAct on account of pendency of the Reference CGIT-27 of1996.

2. The application is being contested by the Company onseveral grounds taken up by it in its replydt. 06-8-2003 inter alia on the pleas that there is no violation of the provisions of the Section 33 (2 ) (b ) of the Act and that the present complainant is now estopped from filing the present complaint on account of dismissal of his earlier complaint. Thematter remained pending for one reson or the other . In

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008/ CHAITRA 9, 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

the application with specific words " Permission granted " . Hence, it does not lie in the mouth of the Company to say that present complaint is now barred . It may also be mentioned that the aforesaid complaint was being moved onaccount ofpendency of the reference CGIT-49 of 1995 regarding the dismissal as of two different workmen by the Companyto the workmen of the CGIT - 27 of 1996. Hence , I conclude that the present application is not barred by Order XXIII R. 1 ofCivil P.C.

8. In view of the finding on point No. 1 the result is that the present complaint is not maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed.

JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 11 मार्च, 2008

का.आ. 723. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. चाऊगुले एण्ड कम्पनी , गोवा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. - 1 , मुम्बई के पंचाट (कम्पलेन्ट सं. सीजीआईटी 19/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-29025/ 2/2006- आईआर ( एम ) ] एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 11th March , 2008

of the matter the present workman cannot be said to be concerned in any manner to attract the provisions of the violation of Section 33 (2 ) (b) of the Act . The matter for consideration had come before the Honourable High Court of Orissa in the case of Khagendra Prasad Patra Vs. D.T.M.S.TS. , Koraput and another 1976 LAB I.C. 1260 and the Honourable High Court had held that the mere fact that the petitioner workman was a member of the Union which had taken up the pending dispute of another workmanwill not make him a workman " concerned" in the dispute within the meaning of Section 33 (1)(a). It is the dispute that the workman has to be concerned with andnot only with the parties to the dispute. It is after ascertaining the nature of the pending dispute that the Court can reach the conclusion whether the workman is "concerned" with it or not. No case law has been submitted bythe learned counsel for the workmen to substantiate his arguments that the present workman was concerned in any manner with the pendency of the Ref. No. 27 of 1996 . The necessity for compliance of Section 33 (2)(b ) of the Actwas required for the Company only when there was a pending dispute in between the workman as a group and the Company involving the issues relating to general importance . The pendency of a dispute of a particular employee regarding his dismissal cannot be said to be a dispute relating to the workman as a whole . Hence , I conclude that there was no necessity for the Company to followthe mandatory provisions of Section 33 (2)(b) ofthe Act and seek approval of its action regarding the dismissal ofthe present workman.

5. In this view of the matter the present complaint under Secton 33 -A of the Act is not maintainable.

S.O. 723. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Comp. No. CGIT- 19/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No. 1 , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Chowgule & Co. , Goa and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 11-3-2008 .

[No. L- 29025 /2/2006- IR (M)] N. S. BORA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 , MUMBAI

6. Point No. 2 : The plea of the Company that the Complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint does not appear to have any force for the obvious reason that the previous complaint filed by the workman under Section 33 -A of the Act was got dismissed by him vide applicationdt . 18-11-2002 wherein the prayer was for withdrawal of the Complaint with liberty to file a fresh complaint. The learned Presiding Officer allowed that application vide order dt. 28-1-2003 . The order passed therein runs " The learned counsel for the Complainant Shri V.V. Pai filed an application seeking permission to withdraw the complaint. The permission granted. Application is allowed" .

PRESENT: Justice Ghanshyam Dass , PresidingOfficer

Application/complaint No. CGIT - 19 of 2003 (Arising out of Ref. No. CGIT- 1 /27 of 1996) Parties:

Chowgule & Co. Ltd.

Mr. Chandrakant Radaya Gaude : Complainant Vs. Appearances : : Opp . Party

: Shri R.N. Shah, Adv.

For the Opp . Party

7. The learned counsel for the Company submitted that there was no specific order for granting liberty of filing a fresh complaint . He relied upon a case law AIR 1987 Supreme Court 88 in between Sarguja Transport Service , Petitioner Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal , Gwalior and others and submitted that the present complaint is barred by the provisions of the Order XXIII R.1 of Civil P.C. I feel that this ruling is not helpful on the facts and circumstances of the present case in view of the order of the Tribunal quoted above whereby the Tribunal allowed 1469

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

For the Complainant : Shri V.V. Pai , Adv.

State

: Maharashtra

recognized Chowgule Employees Union w.e.f. 2-11-1995. isjust, valid and legal? If not then, what benefits the workman is entitled to ?

Mumbai , datedthis 1st day of September , 2006

AWARD

1. The workman Shri Chandrakant Radaya Gaude has moved the instant application dt. 22-5-2003 under Section 33 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) . The prayer made therein is for withdrawal of the dismissal order and reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service . The ground for the claim is that Chowgule and Co. Ltd. , Chowgule House, Mormugao Harbour , Goa (hereinafter referred to as Company) has violated the mandatory provisions of Section 33 (2)(b) of the Act on account of pendency ofthe reference CGIT-27 of 1996 .

2. The application is being contested by the Company on several grounds taken up by it in its reply dt.6-8-2003 inter alia on the pleas that there is no violation of the provisions of the Section 33(2)( b) of the Act and that the present Complainant is now estopped from filing thepresent complaint on account of dismissal of his earlier complaint . The matter remained pending for one reason or the other. In view of the legal pleas taken up by the Company, the learned counsel Shri V.V. Pai , for the Complainant moved an applicationdt. 17-7-2006 with a prayer that the maintainability of the present complaint may be considered first . It is surprising that such an application should have been moved by the Company taking up of the preliminary issue but the Company did not chose for it. Instead , the workman has moved the instant application.

3. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record is perused.

4. The following points arise for comsideration , as prayed for hy the learned counsel for the workman.

( 1) Whether Section 33 (2) (b ) of the Industrial Dispute Act has been violated ?

(2) Whether the Complainant is now estopped from filing the present complaint ?

VideAward dated 29-3-2004, it was held that dismissal was bad and the workman was reinstated with back wages . It is clear from the perusal of the record that the reference was wholly with respect to the grievances regarding dismissal of the woekman namely Mr. S.S Naik who was working as Electrician with Code No. 1937 and was holding the post ofGeneral Secretary of the recognized Chowgule Employeess' Union . This cannot be said to be in any stretch of imagination that the dispute was in between all the workmen and the Company, since the reference was only having the subject matter of the dismissal of a specific employee Mr. Nair . It is altotether immaterial that this workman was holding the post of General Secretary. The holding ofpost of General Secretary of the Union was in hisindependent capacity. It was not related with the job which he was required to perorm as Electrician . The dismissal was made by the Company for a particular workman and not the General Secretary. The fact that the workman happened to be General Secretary of the Union did not mean that there was dispute in between the workmen asa community and the Company. In this view of the matter the present workman cannot be said to be concerned in any manner to attract the provisions of the violation of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act . The matter for consideration had come before the Honourable High Court ofOrissa in the case of Khagendra Prasad Patra Vs. D.T.M.S.T.S. , Koraputand another 1976 LAB I.C. 1260 and the Honourable High Court had held that the merefact that the petitioner workmanwas a member of the Union which had taken up the pending dispute of anather workman will not make him aworkman " concerned" in the dispute within the meaning of Section 33(1)(a). It is the dispute that the workmanhas to be concerned with and not only with the parties to the dispute. It is after ascertaining the nature of the pending dispute that the Court can reach the conclusionwhether the workman is " concerned " with it or not. No case law has been submitted by the learned counsel for the workmen to substantiate his arguments that the present workman was concerned in any manner with the pendency ofthe Ref. No. 27 of 1996. The necessity for compliance of Section 33 (2)(b) of the Act was required for the Company only when there was a pending dispute in between the workmen as a group and the Company involving the issues relating to general importance . The pendency of a dispute of a particular imployee regarding his dismissal cannot be said to be a dispute relating to the workman as a whole . Hence , I conclude that there was no necessity for the Company to follow the mandatory provisions ofSection 33 (2)(b) of the Act and seek aproval ofits action regarding the dismissal ofthe present workman .

5. Point No. 1 : The present complaint is being admittedly filed for violation of the provisions of the Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act on account of pendency of CGIT Ref. No. 27 of 1996. Advittedly, CGIT No. 27 of 1996 was pending before this Tribunal on the day of moving of the instant complaint under Section 33 - A of the Act . The reference was decided vide Awarddt. 29-3-2004 . This reference was made by the Central Government under clause (d) ofsub -section 1 of Section 10 of teh Industrial Disputes Act 1947. For considering " Whether the action of the Managing Director , Chowgule and Company Ltd. , Chowgule House, Mormugao-Harbour in straight-away dischargingfrom services ofMr. S.S. Naik, Ex- electrician Code No. 1937 as well as the General Secretary of the

5. In this view of the matter the present complaint under Section 33 -A of the Act is not maintainable .

1470

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 29 , 2008 / CHAITRA 9 , 1930

6. Point No. 2 : The plea of the Company that the Complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint doesnot appear to have any force for the obvious reason that the previous complaint filed by the workman under Section 33 -A of the Act was got dismissed by him vide application dt. 18-11-2002 wherein the prayer was for withdrawal of the Complaint with liberty to file a fresh complaint . The learned Presiding Officer allowed that aplication vide orderdt. 28-1-2003 . The order passed therein runs"The learned counsel for the Complainant Shri V.V. Paifiled an applecation seeking permission to withdraw the complaint. The permission granted. Application is allowed".

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 11-3-2008 .

[No. L- 31011/4/ 1999 - IR (M)] N. S. BORA, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2, MUMBAI PRESENT : Shri A.A.Lad, Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT-2/205 of 1999

Employers in relation to the management of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust

The ChiefManager (Admn) & Secretary Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust AdministrationBuilding Nhava- Sheva Navi Mumbai Pin-400 707 . V/s.

Their Workmen

7 The learned counsel for the Company submitted that there was no specific order for granting liberty of filing a fresh complaint . He relied upon a case law AIR 1987 Supreme Court 88 in between Sarguja Transport Service, Petitioner Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior and others and submitted that the present complaint is barred by the provisions of the Order XXIII R.1 of Civil P.C. I feel that this ruling is not helpful on the facts and circumstances of the present case in view of the order of the Tribunal quoted above whereby the Tribunal allowed the application with specific words " Permission granted" . Hence, itdoes not lie in the mouth of the Company to say that present complaint is now barred. It may also be mentioned that the aforesaid complaint was being moved onaccount ofpendency of the reference CGIT -49 of 1995 regarding the dismissal as oftwo different workmen by the Companyto theworkmen of the CGIT -27 of 1996. Hence , I conclude that the present application is not barred by Order XXIIIR. I ofCivil P.C.

B. In view of the finding on point No. 1 the result is that the present complaint is not maintainable . It is accordingly dismissed.

JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 11 मार्च, 2008

का. आ. 724. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. जवाहरलाल नेहरू पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय सं. -2, मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं.- सीजीआईदी-2/205/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -31011/4/1999- आईआर ( एम. ) ] एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th March, 2008

S.O. 724.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CG1T- 2/ 205/1999 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai now as shown in the The General Secretary Nhava Sheva Port & General Workers Union Port Trust Kmagar Sadan

Mazgaon Mumbai-400010 .

Appearances :

FortheEmployer : Mr. L. L. D'Souza, Representative For the Workmen : Mr. J.H. Sawant, Representative Mumbai , dated , 25th January , 2008

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L-31011 /4/99- IR( M) dated 7-10-1999 in exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following disputeto this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of J.N.P.Τ. in not regularising the 15 contractual workmen (as per annexure) to union's letter performing the job ofsweeping and cleaning work in the premises of JNPT, as demanded by Nhava Sheva Port & General Workers' Union is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to ? " (List)

Sr. No.

Name

1. S/Shri Gajanan V. Mali

2. Arun Ganpat Vadu

3. Dnyaneshwar Dukalya Gharat 1471 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 29, 2008/चैत्र 9 , 1930

Ex-28 4. Jagannath Ramachandra Gharat

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 5. Smt . Jayawantibai Anant Patil

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 , MUMBAI 6. Shri Vasudeo Sitaram Gharat

Reference No. CGIT -2/205 of 1999 7. Ramachandra Mahadeo Gharat

Employers in relation to the management of 8. Chandrakant Padaji Patil

....FirstParty 9. Jagannath Mahadeo Koli

Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust Vs.

10. Hiraman Krishna Patil

Their Workmen represented by

11. Namdeo Dharma Shelke

12. Ananta Vasant Mhatre

13. Jalindar Ramachandra Mhatre

Nhava Sheva Port & General Workers Union ....Second Party Application for disposal of the Reference for want of prosecution

14. Gangaram Laxman Madhavi

May it Please Your Honour

15. DamodarAtmaram Kadu

Theworkmen represented by Nhava Sheva Port and General Workers Union beg to apply for disposal of the reference for want of prosecution and the dispute is not pressed for.

2. Claim Statement is filed by Vice President ofunion for second party at Ex -5 & 5A which was replied by first party by Ex- 7 & 7A. Issues were framed at Ex- 14.

Mumbai, Date : 25-01-2008

Seen

-Sd-

[Jaiprakash Sawant ]

PresidingOfficer

3. On request of both , this reference was placed before Lok Adalat. In which they filed purshis Ex- 28 and agreed to dispose of this reference as per the terms and conditions mentioned at Ex -28 . Hence the order :

25-1-2008

ORDER

Say of JNPT Awardmay kindly be passed accordingly.

In view ofpurshis Ex-28 filed by both in Lok Adalat, reference is disposed of.

Date: 25-1-2008

-Sd- for JNPT

A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer

25-1-2008

Printed by the Manager , Govt . of India Press , Riog Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054: