This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्री सं. 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. 14]

No. 14

नई दिल्ली,, मार्च 30 अप्रैल 5 , 2008 , शनिवार/चैत्र 10 - चैत्र 16, 1930 NEW DELHI , MARCH 30- APRIL 5, 2008, SATURDAY/CHAITRA 10-CHAITRA 16 , 19:30 इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके

SeparatePaging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग ।।-खण्ड 3-उप-खण्ड ( ii)

PART II-Section 3-Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों ( रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर ) द्वारा जारी किए गए साविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं StatutoryOrders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE (Department of Legal Affairs) New Delhi, the 18th March, 2008 विधि और न्याय मंत्रालय (विभि कार्य विभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 18 मार्च, 2008

का. आ. 725. केन्द्रीय सरकार , दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 ( 1974 का 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , श्री धैर्यशील अप्पासाहेब नालावड़े , अधिवक्ता की, अपर लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्ति की अवधि को , मुंबई उच्च न्यायालय में भारत संघ या केन्द्रीय सरकार के किसी विभाग या कार्यालय द्वारा या उसके विरुद्ध सभी दांडिक मामलों का जिसके अतंर्गत सभी दांडिक रिट याचिकाएं , दांडिक अपीलें, दाँडिक पुनरीक्षण * दाडिक निर्देश और दांडिक आवेदन भी हैं, संचालन करने के प्रयोजन के लिए इस शर्त के अधीन कि श्री धैर्यशील अप्पासाहेब नालावड़े ,. अधिवक्ता दो वर्ष की विस्तारित अवधि के दौरान भारत संघ या केन्द्रीय सरकार के किसी विभाग या केन्द्रीय सरकार के किसी कार्यालय के विरूद्ध ऊपर निर्दिष्ट किसी दांडिक मामले में मुंबई उच्च न्यायालय में उपर्सजात नहीं होंगे , 17 मार्च , 2008 से दो वर्ष की और अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेश होने तक, इनमें से जो भी पूर्वत्तर हो , विनियमित और विस्तारित करती है ।

S.O. 725.In exercise of the powers conferredby sub-section ( 1 ) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2of 1974), the Central Government hereby regularises and extends the term of appointment of Shri Dharyasheel Appasaheb Nalawade, Advocate as Additional Public Prosecutor for the purpose ofconducting all criminal cases including criminal writ petitions , criminal appeals, criminal revisions , criminal references and criminal applications by of against the Union of India or any Department or Office of the Central Government, in the High Court of Judicature at Mumbai , with effect from 17thMarch , 2008 , for a further period oftwo years or until further orders,whichever is earlier , subject to the condition that Shri Dharyasheel Appasaheb Nalawade , Advocate shall not appear against the Union of India or any Department or Office of the Central Government in any criminal case referred to above in the High Court of Judicature at Mumbai during the extended period of two years.

[सं. फा. 23 (2 ) /2008-न्यायिक ]

[F. No. 23 (2)/2008 -Judl . ] M. A. KHAN YUSUFI , Jt. Secy, andGC एम. ए. खान यूसुफी, संयुक्त सचिव और सरकारी काउंसेल

1064G1/2008

(1473 ) 1474

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2008/ CHAITRA 16 , 1930

[PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] वित्त मंत्रालय (राजस्व विभाग )

तक ऐसे लेखाकार द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित एवं हस्ताक्षरित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट मामले में क्षेत्राधिकार रखने वाले आयकर आयुक्त अथवा आयकर निदेशक को प्रस्तुत करेगा:

(iv) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान तथा प्रयुक्त राशि का अलग विवरण रखेगा और उपर्युक्त लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट के साथ लेखा परीक्षक द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित विवरण की प्रति प्रस्तुत करेगा । नई दिल्ली, 20 मार्च, 2008 का, आ. 726.केन्द्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयाजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम 1976 के नियम 10 के उपनियम्र (4) के अनुसरण में राजस्व विभाग के अधीन केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क एवं सीमा शुल्क बोर्ड के निम्नलिखित कार्यालय को जिनके 80 % कर्मचारीवृन्द्र ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है ।

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

( क) पैराग्राफ के उप-पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अलग लेखा बही नहीं रखेगा; अथवा

आंकड़ा प्रबंधन निदेशालय फेन्द्रीय उत्पाद एवं सीमा शुल्क ,. ढी एल एफ सेन्टर , ग्रेटर कैलाश -2 , नई दिल्ली ।

(ख ) पैराग्राफ । के उप-पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा [फर. सं. 11012( 1 ) 2008 - हिन्दी-2 ] मधु शर्मा, निदेशक ( राजभाषा )

(ग) पैराग्राफ । के उप- पैराग्राफ में उल्लिखित वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए पाप्त एवं प्रयुक्त दान का अपना विवरण प्रस्तुत गहीं करेगा; अथवा

MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) New Delhi, 20th March ,2008

(घ) अपना अनुसंधान कार्य करना बंद कर देगा अथवा इसके अनुसंधान कार्य को जायज नहीं पाया जाएगा; अथवा

$.O. 726. In pursuance of Sub Rule 4 of rule 10 of the Official Language ( use of official purpose of the union) Rules 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the following office under the Central Board of Excise & Customs , Department of Revenue , the 80 % staff where of have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi .

(ड. ) उक्त नियमावली के नियम 5 ग और ऽङ के साथ पठित उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नहीं करेगा ।

Directorate ofData Management, Customs & Central Excise, DLF Centre,Greater Kailash - 11 , New Delhi .

[F. No. 11012 ( 1 )2008-Hindi-2] MADHU SHARMA , Director (OL)

[अधिसूचना सं. 46/2008/फर सं. 203/8/2008- आ.क.नि. - 11 ] सुरेन्द्र पाल , अवर सचिव (Central Board of Direct Taxes) New Delhi , the 25th March,2008 (केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड. ). नई दिल्ली , 25 मार्च , 2008

S.O. 727. It is hereby notified for general infor- mation that the organization Institute of Kidney Diseases & Research Centre and Institute of Transplantation Sciences , Ahmedabad has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause ( ii ) of sub-section ( 1) of section 35 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ( said Act) , read with Rüles SC and SE of the Income- tax Rules , 1962 (said Rules) , with effect from 1-4-2007 in the category of 'other Institution , partly engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions, namely:-

(0) The sums paid to the approved organization shall be utilized for scientific research;

का. आ. 727.-सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतद्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली, 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली) के नियम. ऽग और उड़. के साथ पठित्त आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 (फक्त अधिनियम ) की धार। 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ 1-4-2007 से संगठन इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ किड़नी डिज़ीज़ेन एण्ड रिसर्च सेंटर और इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ ट्रासप्लान्टेशन साइसिस , अहमदाबाद को निम्नलिखित शत्तों. के अधीन आंशिक रूप से शांधः कायों में संलग्न ' अन्य संस्था' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है , नामत:-

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

( i ) अनुमोदित संगठन को प्रदत्त राशि का उपयोग वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए किया जाएगा;

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

(iii ) The approved organization shall maintain separate books of accounts in respect of the sums received by it for scientific research, reflect therein the amounts used for carrying out research , get such books audited by an accountant as defined in the explanation to sub- section (2 ) of Section 288 of the said Act and furnish the report of such audit duly signed and verified by such accountant to the Cominissioner of Income- tax or the Director of Income-tax having jurisdiction over the case, by the due date of furnishing the return of incomeunder sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 139 of the saidAct;

(iii ) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए इसके द्वारा प्राप्त राशि के संबंध में अलग बही- खाता रखेगा जिसमें अनुसंधान कार्य करने के लिए प्रयुक्त राशि को दर्शाएगा तथा उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 288 को उपधारा ( 2 ) के स्पष्टीकरण में यथा परिभाषित किसी लंखाकार से अपनी खाता बही की लेखा परीक्षा कराएगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 139 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अंतर्गत आय विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने की नियत तिथि 1475 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2008/चैत्र 16 , 1930

[ भाग 11-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

जयपुर, 26 मार्च , 2008 संख्या 20/2007-08

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

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

का,आ. 729.- आयकर अधिनियम , 1962 के नियम 2सीए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 वां) की धारा 10 के खण्ड ( 23 सी ) की उपधारा (vi ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त , जयपुर एत‌द्वारा निर्धारण वर्ष 2007-08 एवं आगे के लिए कथित धारा के उद्देश्य से " जयपुर स्कूल समिति , जयपुर " को स्वीकृति देते हैं बशर्ते कि समिति आयकर नियम , 1962 के नियम , 2 सीए के (a) fails to maintain separate books of accounts referred to in sub- paragraph (iii ) of para- graph 1; or

(b) fails to fumish its audit report referred to in sub-paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1 ; or

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

साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 10..के उपखण्ड ( 23सी) की उपधारा ( vi ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप कार्य करे । [क्रमांक: मुआआआआआ (समन्वय )/जय/10( 23सी) (vi )/07-08/7714] एस. सी. कपिल , मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त Jaipur , the 26th March, 2008 No. 20/2007-08

(d) ceases to carry on its research activities or its research activities are not found to be genuine; or

(e) ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions of clause (ii ) of sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the said Act read with rules SC and SE ofthe said Rules.

S.O. 729. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause ( vi ) ofclause (23C) ofSection 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 " Jaipur School Samiti , jaipur " for the purpose of said section for the A. Y. 2007-08 and onwards.

[Notification No. 46/2008/F . No. 203/8/2008/ ITA- II ] SURENDER PAL, Under Secy.

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

कार्यालय , मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त जयपुर , 25 मार्च, 2008 संख्या 19/2007-08

[No. CCIT/ JPR/ Addl.CIT( Coord. )/ 10( 23C )( vi )/2007-08/ 7714] S. C. KAPIL, Chief Commissioner of Income- Tax

खान मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 25 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 728.-आयकर अधिनियम, 1962 के नियम 2सीए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 196 ) का 43 वां) की धारा 10 के खण्ड (23 सी ) की उपधारा ( vi ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त , जयपुर एतद्‌द्वारा निर्धारण वर्ष 2002-03 एवं आगे के लिए कथित धारा के उद्देश्य से " बाल हित शिक्षा समिति, अलवर " को स्वीकृति देते हैं ।

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

[क्रमांक: मुआआआआआ (समन्क्य) जय/10( 23सी) (vi )/07-08/7715] एस. सी. कपिल, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त

का.आ. 730.-केन्द्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उपनियम (4 ) के अनुसरण में, खान मंत्रालय के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन उपक्रम हिन्दुस्तान कॉपर लिमिटेड की इकाई इंडियन कॉपर काम्पलैक्स, पूर्वी सिंहभूम, झारखंड जिसके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारी- वृंद ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, अधिसूचित करती है।

होगी । 2. यह अधिसूचना राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से प्रवृत्त OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Jaipur, the 25th March , 2008 No. 19/2007-08

[संई-17011 /1/2006 -हिन्दी] अनिता बाजपेयी पाण्डे, संयुक्त सचिव

MINISTRY OF MINES NewDelhi, the 25th March, 2008-

S.O. 728. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause ( vi) ofclause (23C ) ofSection 10 ofthe Income- taxAct, 1961 (43 of 1961 ) read with rule 2CA ofthe Income taxRules, 1962 the Chief Commissiorier of Income-tax, Jaipur hereby approves " Bal Hit Shiksha Samiti , Alwar " for the purpose of said section for the A. Y. 2002-03 and onwards .

S.O. 730-In pursuance ofsub-rule (4) ofthe Official Language (use for official purpose of the Union) Rules , 1976the Central Government hereby notifies the Indian Copper Complex , East Signhbhum, Jharkhand an unit of Hindustan Copper Limited where more than 80 % staff have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi .

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

[No. CCIT/JPR/ Addl.CIT(Coord . )/10 (23C)( vi)/

2. This notification shall come into force from the date ofpublication in the Official Gazette.

2007-08/7715] S. C. KAPIL, Chief Commissioner of Income- Tax

[No. E-17011 /1/2006-Hindi] AJITA BAJPAI PANDE, Jt. Secy..

1476

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2008/CHAITRA 16 , 1930

(PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

( उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 5 मार्च , 2008

का, आ. 731,-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है किउक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स ग्लोबल विझर, 47 एफ , ब्लॉक- सी सौ, हरी नगर , नई दिल्ली -110064 द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " जी डब्ल्यूटी " क श्रृंखला अस्वचालित अंकक सूचन सहित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटॉप प्रकार) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " ग्लोब " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/07 /371 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण -पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबलटॉप प्रकार ) का तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 250 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 5 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट , 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

सिलिंग व्यवस्था को स्कीम संबंधी व्यवस्था

स्यम्पिंग प्लेट को सील करने के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए भी सीलबन्द किया जाएगा तथा मॉडल को बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा । मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का विशिष्ट स्कीम डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि रक्तमॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के जैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो । मि.ग्रा.से 50 मि.ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के' ई ' मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई" मान 1 × 10 , 2× 10* अथवा 5× 10* , के हैं, जहां पर के धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 208 )/2007 ]

आर माथुरबूथम , निर्देशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1477 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2008/चैत्र 16 , 1930

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department ofConsumer Affairs)

NewDelhi , the 5th March, 2008

S.O. 731.-Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non -automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with digital indication of "GWT" series of high accuracy (Accuracy class - II ) and with brand name "GLOBE" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Global Weigher, 47-F Block- CC, Hari Nagar , New Delhi- 110064 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /07/371;

The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non -automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with a maximum capacity of30 kg. and minimum capacity of 250 g . The verification scale interval ( e) is 5 g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Fig. 2 Schematic diagram of sealing provisions of the model

In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and model shall not be changed in terms of its material, accuracy, design , circuit diagram , working principle, etc. before or after sale. A typical schematic diagram of the sealing provision of the model is given above.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, make and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg . and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 50000 for ' e ' value of 1 mg. to 50 mg . and with number ofverification scale interval ( n) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' e' value of 100mg . or more and with ' e' value of 1×10 , 2x10 or 5x10%, k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F.No. WM-21 (208)/2007]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 1478

[PART JI-SEC .3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5 , 2008/CHAITRA 16 , 1930

नई दिल्ली, 5 मार्च, 2008

का. आ. 732, -केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा ठसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 को उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स ग्लोबल विद्वार , 47 एफ , ब्लॉक- सी सी, हरी नगर, नई दिल्ली -110064 द्वारा विनिर्षित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " जी डब्ल्यूपी " श्रृंखला के स्वतः सूचक , अस्त्रचालित , अंकक सूचन सहित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " ग्लोब " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त पॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/07/372 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 200 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल (ई ) 100 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाष है । प्रकाश उत्ार्जक डायोड ( एलईडी ) तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

सिलिंग व्यवस्था की स्कीम संबंधी व्यवस्था

स्टाम्पिग प्लेट को सील करने के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए भी सीलबन्द किया जाएगा तथा मॉडल को बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा । मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का विशिष्ट स्कीम डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण -पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 प्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 50 कि.ग्रा. से अधिक और 5000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 ×10 , 2 × 10% अथवा 5 ×10 % , के हैं , जहां पर ' के' धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य है ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 208 )/2007 ]

आर. माथुरबुधम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1479

भारत का प्रथमत : अप्रैल 5, 2008/चैत्र 16 , 1930

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

NewDelhi, the 5th March, 2008

S.O. 732. Whereas the Central Goverament, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformitywith the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise ofthe powers coaferred by sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the self indicating, non- automatic (Platform type ) weighing instrument with digital indication of "GWP " series ofmedium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name "GLOBE" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model) , manufactured by M/s. Global Weigher, 47 -F, Block-CC, Hari Nagar, New Delhi -110064 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 /07/372, The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument with a maximum capacityof200 kg. and minimum capacity of 2 kg . The verification scale interval ( e) is 100 g. It has a tare device with 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Fig. 2 Schematic diagram of sealing provisions of the model

In addition to sealing the stamping plate, sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and model shall not be changed in terms of its material, accuracy, design, circuit diagram, working principle, etc. before or after sale. A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of same series with maximum capacity above 50kg. and upto 5000kg. and with number of verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 500 to 10000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10%, 2× 10 or 5 × 10%, k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F.No. WM-21 (208)/2007]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 1480

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2008/CHAITRA 16 , 1930

(PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 5 मार्च , 2008

का, आ. 733.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा (7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स राज सिस्टम्स , महालक्ष्मी मार्किट यार्ड, पुणे-37 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " आई सी टी " श्रृंखला के अस्वचालित , अंकक सूचन सहित , तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " आइकॉन " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/07/323 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 40 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल (ई) 15 कि. प्रा. तक 2 ग्रा. और 15 कि.ग्रा. से ऊपर 30 कि. ग्रा. तक 5 प्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एलईडी) तोलन परिणाम उपद‌र्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है । सिलिंग व्यवस्थाकी स्कीम संबंधी व्यवस्था

स्टाम्पिग प्लेट प्लेट को सील करने के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा तथा मॉडल को बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री, यथार्थता, डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शतों पर परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा । माडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का विशिष्ट स्कीम डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 को उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे हो मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तौलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि.ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्राम या उसस्ने अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल (एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और 'ई' मान 1 × 10*, 2 × 10* या 5 × 10 * , के हैं, जहां पर के धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 38 )/2007 ]

आर, माथुरबूथम , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1481

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5 , 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

[ भाग खण्ड ( N ) ]

New Delhi, the 5th March, 2008

S.O. 733. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferredby sub -sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act; the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic (Table top type) weighing instrument with digital indication of " ICT" series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class-III) and with brand name " ICON" (herein referred to as the said Model), manufactured by M/s . Raj Systems, Mahalaxmi Market, Market Yard , Pune -37, Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND /09/07/323;

The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non -automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type) with a maximum capacity of30kg . and minimum capacity of40 g. The verification scale interval (e) is 2g . upto 15 kg . and 5g above 15 kg . and up to 30kg. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED) display indicates the weighing results. The instrument operates on 230 Volts, 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Fig 2. Schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model

In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and model shall not be changed in terms of its material , accuracy, design , circuit diagram, working principle, etc. before or after sale. A typical schematic diagram of the sealing provision of the model is given above.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg. with verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 100 mg . to 2g . or with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g. or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10 %, 2 × 10 от 5х10%, к being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F.No. WM-21 (38)/2007 ]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 1064GI/2008-2 1482

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2008 /CHAITRA 16 , 1930

[PART I -SEC . 3 (ii)]

नई दिल्ली , 5 मार्च, 2008

का. आ. 734. -केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स राज सिस्टम्स, महालक्ष्मी मार्किट यार्ड, पुणे -37 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग-111 ) वाले " आई सी भी " श्रृंखला के स्वतः सूचक अस्वचालित, अंकक सूचन सहित , तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " आइकॉन " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/07/324 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज्जा प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्थचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसको अधिकतम क्षमता 500 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता । कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 300 कि.ग्रा. तक 50 ग्रा. और 300 कि.ग्रा. से ऊपर 500 कि.ग्रा. तक 100 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्ययकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एलईडी) तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

1 सिलिंग व्यवस्था की स्कीम संबंधी व्यवस्था

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट प्लेट को सील करने के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए भी सौलबन्द किया जाएगा तथा मॉडल को बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शतों पर परिवर्तिय नहीं किया जाएगा । मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का विशिष्ट स्कौम डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण - पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से अधिक और 5000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और ' ई ' मान 1 × 10* , 2× 10 * या 5 × 10 , के हैं, जहां पर के धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 38 )/2007 ]

आर, माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1483

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5 , 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

[भाग II खण्ड 3 (i ) ]

New Delhi , the 5th March , 2008

S.O. 734. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below ) is in conformitywith the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the saidAct , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the self indicating, non -automatic (Platform type ) weighing instrument with digital indication of " ICP" series of medium accuracy, (Accuracy class- III ) and with brand name " ICON " (herein referred to as the said Model ) , mariufactured by M/s. Raj Systems , Mahalaxmi Market , Market Yard , Pune - 37 , Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/324;

The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of500kg . and minimum capacity of 1 kg . The verification scale interval (e ) is 50g. upto 300 kg. and 100g above 300 kg. and up to 500kg. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply

Fig2. Schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model

In addition to sealing the stamping plate, sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and model shall not be changed in terms of its material, accuracy , design , circuit diagram, working principle, etc. before or after sale . A typical schematic diagram of the sealing provision of the model is given above.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of same series with maximum capacity above 50kg and upto 5000 kg. and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 100 mg . to 2g. or with verification scale interval (n) in the range of500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10 , 2 × 10k or 5 × 10 , k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F.No. WM-21 (38)/2007]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 1484

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL, 5, 2008/ CHAITRA 16 , 1930

[PART 11-SEC.3(i ) )

नई दिल्ली, 7 मार्च, 2008

का. आ. 735. -केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है किउक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में मी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा (7) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स एवरी इंडिया लि. , प्लाट नं. 50-54, सेक्टर-25 , बल्लभगढ़ -121004 , हरियाणा द्वारा विनिर्मित साधारण यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग-III ) वाले " एच एल 211 ए" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम "एवरी " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/07/371 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 300 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि.ग्रा . है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई) 100 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेगतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एलईडी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम ठपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्मिग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल को बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 प्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से अधिक और 5000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और ' ई ' पान 1 × 10 *, 2× 10 , 5 × 10 * , के हैं , जो चनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 (164)/2007;

आर माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1485 [भाग -खण्ड 3 ( ⅱ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

NewDelhi , the 7th March, 2008

S.O. 735. Whereas the Central Government, after cousidering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with theprovisions ofthe Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of non -automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with digital indication of "HL211A " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " Avery" (herein referred to as the said model ), manufactured by M/s. Avery India Ltd, Plot No. 50-54, Sector- 25,Ballabhgarh-121004, Haryana and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/371 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non -automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with a maximum capacity of 300kg and minimum capacity of 2kg . The verification scale interval (e) is 100g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode ( LED) display indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.

In addition to sealing the stamping plate, sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and model shall not be changed in terms of its material , accuracy, design , circuit diagram, working principle, etc. Sealing provision has been given at the side of the indicator of the machine along with stamping plate. A typical Schematic diagram of the sealing arrangement of the model has been given above .

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50kg and up to 5000kg with verification scale interval ( n ) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g or more and with ' e ' value of1 × 10k, 2x10 or 5x10 , k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the saine manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F.No. WM-21 (164)/2007 |

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrolog 1486

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2008/CHAITRA 16 , 1930

नई दिल्ली , 7 मार्च , 2008

का. आ. 736. - केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और पाप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः, अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स बेंकटेश्वर वेडंग स्केल्सा# 1-7-1074/सी/3 , श्री दत्त्य साई कमर्शियल कॉमप्लैक्स , सप्तगिरी थियेटर के सामने , आर टी सी " X " रोड हैदराबाद-500020 द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " वी डब्ल्यू एस- एम पी" श्रृंखला के अस्वचालित अंकक सूचन सहित , तोलन उपकरण ( टेवलटाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " तुला " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/07/279 सम्मनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यायन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एलईडी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट , 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और * मॉडल को बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता, डिजाइन , सर्किट डायष्यम , निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तितं नहींकिया जाएगा ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो । मि.ग्रा. से 50 मि.ग्रा. तक के " ई" मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान । × 10 * , 2 ×10* या 5× 10 * , के हैं, जो घनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 137)/2007] आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1487

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

[भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

NewDelhi, the 7th March, 2008

S.O. 736. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with theprovisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the saidAct, the Central Govemment hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non-automatic weighing instrument (Tabletop type) with digital indication of " VWS -MP " series of high accuracy (Accuracy class - II) and with brand name "TULA " (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s. Venkateshwara Weighing Scales , # 1-7-1074/C/3 , Sri Datta Sai Commercial Complex , Opp. Sapthagiri Theatre , RTC ' X' Road , Hyderabad-500020 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/279;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument ( Tabletop type) with a maximum capacity of30kg and minimum capacity of 100g . The verification scale interval (e) is 2g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) display indicates the weighing results. The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50kg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e' value of Img to 50mg and with number ofverification scale interval (n) in the range of 5,000 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10 , 2 ×10k or 5x10, k being a positive or negative whole pumber or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F.No. WM-21 ( 137)/2007]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 1488

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2008 /CHAITRA 16 , 1930

[PART I-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 7 मार्च , 2008

का. आ. 737.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल (नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ;

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित (टेबलटॉप प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमत्ता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 5 प्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यषकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एलईडी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल को बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन, सर्किट डायग्राम , निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शतों पर परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि.ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक के " ई" मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई" पान 1 × 10 %, 2× 10 * या 5 ×10*, के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फ़ा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 137 )/2007 ]

आर. माधुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1489

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

[भाग खण्ड (ii)]

NewDelhi , the 7th March , 2008

S.O. 737-Whereas the Central Govermunent , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformitywith the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic (Table top type) weighing instrument with digital indication of " VWS-TB " series of medium accuracy (accuracy class- III ) and with brand name " TULA" ( herein referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M/ s . Venkateshwara Weighing Scales, # 1-7-1074/C/3 , Sri Datta Sai Commercial Complex, Opp . Sapthagiri Theatre , RTC ' X' Road, Hyderabad-500020 andwhich is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/280;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with a maximum capacity of 30kg and minimum capacity of 100g. The verification scale interval (e) is 5g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent substractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED) display indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50kg with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 100mgto 2g or with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g or more and with ' e' value of 1 ×10 , 2x10 or 5× 10%, k being apositive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F.No. WM-21 (137)/2007]:

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 1064 GI/2008-3 1490

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL, 5 , 2008/CHAITRA 16 , 1930

[PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii )]

नईदिल्ली , 7 मार्च, 2008

का. आ. 738. केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल (नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा (8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स वेंकटेश्वर बेइंग स्केल्स# 1-7-1074/सी/ 3 , श्री दत्ता साई कमर्शियल कॉमप्लैक्स , सप्तगिरी थियेटर के सामने , आर टी सी " x " रोड हैदराबाद-500 020 द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग-II ) वाले " वी डब्ल्यू एस पी पी " श्रृंखला के अस्वचालित अंकक सूचन सहित, तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफॉर्म प्रकार) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " तुला " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/07/281 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( प्लेटफॉर्म प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 600 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2.5 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 50 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एलईडी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

: स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा तथा मॉडल को बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता, डिजाइन, सर्किट डायग्राम, निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शतों पर परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण - पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो । मि.ग्रा. से 50 मि.ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से 5000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई" मान 1 × 10% , 2 ×10* या 5× 10*, के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूणर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 137 ) /2007]

आर. माधुरबूथम, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1491 [ भाम ॥-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 5, 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

New Delhi , the 7th March,2008

S.O. 738. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with theprovisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and. Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the saidAct, theCentral Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate ofapproval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type ) with digital indication of " VWS- PP" series ofhigh accuracy (Accuracy class-11) and with brandname "TULA " (berain referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s. Venkateshwara Weighing Scales , # 1-7-1074/C/3 , Sri Datta Sai Commercial Complex, Opp . Sapthagiri Theatre, RTC.'X' Road, Hyderabad-500 020 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/281;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with a maximum capacity of 600kg and minimum capacity of 2.5kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 50g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent substractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50.Hertz alternative current power supply.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50kg and up to 5000kg and with number of verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of Img to 50mg and with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10%, 2×10% or 5x10%, k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design , accuracy and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F.No. WM-21 ( 137)/2007]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 1492

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5 , 2008/CHAITRA 16 , 1930

[PART SEC.3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, १ मार्च , 2008

का. आ. 739. -केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स वेंकटेश्वर वेइंग स्केल्स# 1-7-1074/सी/3 , श्री दत्ता साई कामर्शियल कॉमप्लैक्स, सप्तगिरी थियेटर के सामने , आर टी सी " X " रोड हैदराबाद-500 020 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग-III ) वाले " वी हब्ल्यू एस पी एफ " श्रृंखला के स्वतः सूचक , अस्वचालित , अंकक सूचन सहित , तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " तुला " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/07/ 282 समनुर्देशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है । उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 4 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 200 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एलईडी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम ठपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट , और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल को बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , निष्पादन सिद्धत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण - पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा . से अधिक और 5000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई" मान 1× 10*, 2× 10%, 5× 10%, के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य है ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21( 137)/2007 )

आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1493 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3(i ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5 , 2008/चैत्र 16 , 1930

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2008

S.O. 739. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections (7 ) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of the self indicating, non-automatic (Platform type ) weighing instrument with digital indication of "VWS - PF " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class- III) and with brand name "TULA " ( herein referred to as the said Model) , manufactured . by M/s. Venkateshwara Weighing Scales, # 1-7-1074/C/3 , Sri Datta Sai Commercial Complex , Opp . Sapthagiri Theatre , RTC 'X' Road, Hyderabad-500 020 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 07/282;

The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 1000kg and minimum capacity of 4kg. The verification scale interval ( e) is 200g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED ) display indicates the weighing results. The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.

In addition to sealing the stamping plate, sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and Model shall not be changed in terms of its material , accuracy, design , circuit diagram, working principle, etc. before or after sale.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of same series with maximum capacity above 50kg and up to 5000kg and with number of verificatico scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of of 5g or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 or 5 × 10%, kbeing the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured .

[F.No. WM-21 (137)/2007 ]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 1494

[PART II-SEC. 3( i ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2008/CHAITRA 16 , 1930

नई दिल्ली, 7 मार्च, 2008

का. आ. 740.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है किउक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ।

अतः , अथ, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा (7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स लिब्रार सिस्टम्स, बी बी पाटिल कम्पाउंड , थाने-421 204 द्वारा विनिर्मित विशेष यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग-1 ) वाले " आरबी-223" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " लिब्रार " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/07/343 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक इलेक्ट्रो मेगनेटिक फोर्स कम्पेंशन सिद्धांत पर आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 220 ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 मि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल (ई ) । मि.ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एलईडी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृ‌ति 2. मॉडल के सीलिंग करने के प्रावधान का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

बोटम प्लेट पर और इंडीकेटर के साइड प्लेट पर दो छेद करके सीलिंग की जाती है और इन छेदों से टिव्सट सीलिंग त्तार डाली जाती है और उसके बाद लीड द्वारा सील की जाती है । मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान के टाइपिकल सिमेटिक डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो । मि.ग्रा. अथवा उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 50,000 की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. वक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10%, 2× 10 अथवा 5 × 10%, के हैं, जहां पर ' के' धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 107) /2007 ]

आर माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1495 [ भाग खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5 , 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

New Delhi, the 7th March,2008

S.O. 740. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformitywith the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the CentralGoverument hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval ofthe Model of non-automatic weighing instrument (Tabletop type) with digital indication of special accuracy (Accuracy class-1 ) of series " RB-223 " and with brand name " LIBRAR" (hereinafer referred to as the said Model) , manufacturedby M/ s. Librar Systems , B.B. Patil Compound, Thane-421204 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/343;

The said Model is an Electro Magnetic Force Compensation Principle based non- automatic weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 220g and minimum capacity of 100mg . The verification scale interval (e) is Img. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED ) display indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts, 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.

Figure-2. Schematic diagram of sealing provision of the Model.

The sealing is done by making two holes, one in bottom plate and other in the side plate and a twisted sealing wire is passed from these holes and then sealed by the lead. A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the Model is given above .

Further, in exercise of the powers conferredby sub -section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximura capacity upto 50kg with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 50,000 or above for ' e' value of Img or more and with ' e' value of 1×10*, 2×10% or 5x10%, where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer inaccordance where the same principle, design and with the same materials with which , the said approved Model has been manufactured

[F.No. WM-21 (107)/2007)

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 1496

[PART II-SEC.3 (ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5 , 2008/ CHAITRA 16 , 1930

नई दिल्ली, 7 मार्च , 2008

का. आ. 741.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है किउक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स लिब्रार सिस्टम्स , बी बी पाटिल कम्पाउंड , थाने -421 204 द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग-II ) वाले " एसबी-100000" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " लिब्रार " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात्'उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/07/344 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक इलेक्ट्रो मेगनेटिक फोर्स कम्पेंशन सिद्धांत पर आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 10 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 5 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 0.1 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलने युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्त्सर्जक डायोड ( एलईडी) तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 बोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति 2. मॉडल के सीलिंग करने के प्रावधन का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

बोटम प्लेट पर और इंडीकेटर के साइड प्लेट पर दो छेद करकै सीलिंग की जाती है और इन छेदों से टिव्सट सीलिंग तार डाली जाती है और उसके बाद लीड द्वारा सील की जाती है । मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान के टाइपिकल सिमेटिक डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण -पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि.ग्रा. से 50 मि.ग्रा. तक के ' ई ' पान के लिए 100 से 50,000 की रेंज में और 100 मि.ग्रा. अथवा उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2× 10* या 5 × 10 , के हैं, जहां पर ' के ' धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 (107 )/2007]

आर. माधुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1497 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5 , 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

New Delhi , the 7th March , 2008

S.O. 741-Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approvaj of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic weighing instrument (Tabletop type ) with digital indication of high accuracy (Accuracy class- II ) of series " SB- 100000 " and with brand name " LIBRAR " (hereinafter referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M/s. Librar Systems , B.B. Patil Compound, Thane -421204 and which is assigned the approval mark IND /09/07/344;

The said model is an Electro Magnetic Force Compensation Principle based non-automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with a maximum capacity of 10kg , and minimum capacity of 5g . The verification scale interval (e) is 0.1g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing results. The instrument operates on 230 Volts, 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure-2. Sealing arrangement

The sealing is done by making two holes , one in bottom plate and other in the side plate and a twisted sealing wire is passed from these holes and then sealedby the lead. A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.

Further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model sha !! also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50kg . with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e' value of img . to 50mg, amd with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' e ' value value of 100mg. or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k, 2 ×10 or 5×10 , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F.No. WM-21 ( 107/2007]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 1064 G1/2008-4 1498

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5 , 2008 /CHAITRA 16 , 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 7 मार्च, 2008

का. आ. 742. - केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्सलिब्रार सिस्टम्स , बी वी पाटिल कम्पाउंड , थाने -421 204 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " टी डब्ल्यू एस -30 टी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( क्षेत्रिज प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " लिब्रार " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त पॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/07/345 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्तमॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल अश्धारित अस्वचालित ( वेब्रिज प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 टन है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई) 5 कि.ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्पक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाष है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एलईडी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति 2. मॉडल के. सीलिंग करने के प्रावधान का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

बोटम प्लेट पर और इंडीकेटर के साइड प्लेट पर दो छेद करके सीलिंग की जाती है और इन छेदों से टिब्सट सीलिंग तार डाली जाती है और उसके बाद लीड द्वारा सील की जाती है । मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान के टाइपिकल सिमेटिक डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि हक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण - पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अमुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के जैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. अथवा उससे अधिक के ' ई' मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल (एन ) सहित 5 टन से ऊपर और 100 टन तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1× 10*, 2× 10* या 5× 10 %, के हैं, जहां पर ' के ' धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

(फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 (107 )/2007]

आर, माधुरबूथम, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1499

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( i) ]

New Delhi, the 7th March ,2008

S.O. 742. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non -automatic weighing instrument (Weighbridge type) with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy class- III) ofseries "TWS-30T" andwith brand name " LIBRAR" (hereinafter referred to as the said model ), manufactured by M/s. Librar Systems,B.B. Patil Compound, Thane -421204 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/3445;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Weighbridge type) with a maximum capacity of 30tonne and minimum capacity of 100kg . The verification scale interval (c) is 5kg. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternate cürrent power supply.

Figure 2. Sealing arrangement

The sealing is done by making two holes, one in bottom plate and other in the side plate of the indicator and a twised sealing wire is passed from these holes and then sealed by the lead . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Contral Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity 5 tone and upto 100 toone with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or more and with ' e' value of 1× 10 , 2x10 or 5x10 , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F.No. WM-21 (107)/2007]

R. MATHURBOOT , AM, Director of Legal Metrology 1500

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5 , 2008 /CHAITRA 16, 1930

[PART 11-Sec. 3 (ii)]

नई दिल्ली , 7 मार्च, 2008

का. आ. 743.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा घाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स सेवेना पैकेजिंग सिस्टम प्रा. लि. , X/519-बी , किजाक्कमबलम -683 562 , इरनाकुलम जिला, केरल द्वारा विनिर्मित यथार्थता वर्ग X( I ) वाले "जी डब्ल्यू" श्रृंखला के स्वचालित ग्रेविमैट्रिक फिलिंग उपकरण ( बैग फिलर ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " सिपैक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/07/237 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्तमॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित स्वचालिक ग्रेविमैट्रिक फिलिंग ( बैग फिलर ) उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 100 कि.ग्रा. है । इसका अधिकतम भराव दर 6 भराव प्रति मिनट है । मशीन का निर्माण फ्री फ्लोइंग उत्पादों जैसे पाउडर, मसाले , ग्रैन्यूल्स आदि के भराव के लिए किया गया है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एलईडी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल को बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , निष्पादन सिद्धांद आदि की शतों पर परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदस शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्ता मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण - पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्नी से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 10 कि.ग्रा. से 100 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 108 ) /2007 ]

आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1501

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5 , 2008/चैत्र 16 , 1930

[ भाग II-खण्ड ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 7th March, 2008

S.O. 743. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 ofthe said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of Automatic Gravimetric Filling Instrument (Bag filler) belonging to accuracy class X( 1 ) of "GW" series with brand name " SEPACK " (herein referred to as the said model ), manufactured by M/s. Sevens Packaging Systems Pvt. Ltd. , X/519 -B , Kizhakkambalam- 683 562, Ernakulam district , Kerala and which is assigned the approval mark- IND/09/07 /237;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based Automatic Gravimetric Filling Instrument (Bag filler). Its maximum capacity is 100kg. Its maximum fill rate is 6 fills per minute . The machine is designed for filling the non- free flowing products such as powder , spices, granulesetc. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing results. The instruments operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.

In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shatt also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and model shall not be changed in terms of its material , accuracy , design , circuit diagram, working principle, etc.

[F.No. WM-21 (108)/2007)

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology.

1502

[PART II-Ssc. 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2008/CHAITRA 16 , 1930

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली , 19 मार्च , 2008

का. आ. 744.- 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 दिये गये मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/ किये गये हैं:

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

क्रम संख्या

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

संशोधन लागू होने कीतिथि

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

2 मार्च, 2008

1 मार्च, 2008

आई एस 13346: 2004 की संशोधन संख्या 2

इस भारतीय संशोधन 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, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ: ईटी 22/टी-31 ]

पी.के. मुखर्जी , वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख( विद्युत तकनीकी)

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi , the 19th March , 2008

S.O. 744. In pursuance of clause (b) ofsub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendment to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued :

SCHEDULE

Sl . No.

No. &Year of the Amendment

No. &Year ofthe Indian Standards

Date from which the Amendment shall have effect

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

2March, 2008

1 March, 2008

Apparatus for Explosive GasAtmosphere-

IS 13346: 2004 , Electrical General Requirements

(First Revision)

Copy ofthis Amendment is available 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: ET 22 /T-31 ]

P.K. MUKHERJEE, Scientist ' F ' & Head ( Electrotechnical)

नई दिल्ली , 19 मार्च , 2008

का. आ. 745.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन विनियम ) , 1988 के उप- नियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :

1503

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (il) ]

अनुसूची

स्थितिस्टेटर्स

भाभा सं. विभाग

भारतीय मानक

शीर्षक

क्रम संख्या

लाईसेंस संख्या

स्वीकृत करने की विधि/वर्ष/माह

लाईसेंस धारी का नाम व पता

(1) (2)

(3)

(5)

(7)

(6)

(8)

(4)

25-10-2007

1. 6757895

1417-99 एमटीडी परिचालित

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं , आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मेसर्स तोताराम सागरलाल एंडसंस 4-1-968 , आबिद रोड हैदराबाद-500 001

2 6757996 25-10-2007

1417-99 एमटीडी परिचालित

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मेसर्स विजय कुमार शंकरलाल ज्वेलर्स 5-9-29/3 सिबर्टी क्रास रोड वशीरबाग हैदराबाद-500 029

3. 6754182 4-10-2007

1417-99 एमटीडी परिचालित

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मेसर्स महेश्वरी ज्वेलरी मार्ट, डी.नं. 11-49-52 शिवालयमस्ट्रीट विजयवाडा, कृष्ण जिला

4. 6756085 16-10-2007

1417-99 एमटीडी परिचालित

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं , आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकम

मेसर्स श्री शारदा ज्वेलरी मार्ट, 11-42-75 रामगोपाल स्ट्रीट विजयवाडा-520001 कृष्णा जिला

16-10-2007

5. 6756186

एमटीडी

1417-99

परिचालित मेसर्स मंगाई पेरल्स 5-9-46 , बशीरबाग हैदराबाद-500 063

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

6. 6756287 17-10-2007

1417-99 एमटीडी परिचालित

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धवा एवं मुहरांकन

मेसर्स श्री दुर्गाज्वेलर्स 7-1-618/एनजी/जी21 से जी 23 , आदित्या एनक्लेव सारथी स्टूडियो के सामने अमीरपेट, हैद्राबाद -500 016

7. 6757693 25-10-2007

1417-99 एमटीडी परिचालित

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मेसर्स नल्लमल्लीस एनवीआर एक्सक्लूसिव 23-1-342(1) गांधी रोड ऑगोल-523 001 प्रकाशम जिला

8 6758190 30-10-2007

1417-99 एमटीडी परिचालित

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मेसर्स कुंदन ज्वेलर्स लुबिनिज्वेल माल शाप नं. 1 , रोड नं. 2 बंजारा हिल्स हैदराबाद-500 034 1504

[PART II SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5 , 2008/CHAITRA 16 , 1930

(3)

(4)

(1) (2)

(6) (7) (8)

(5)

30-10-2007

9. 6758291

2112-03 एमटीडी परिचालित

चाँदी एवं चाँदी मिश्रधातुएं,

आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता

एवं मुहरांकन विशिष्ट्रि

मेसर्स शुभमज्वेलर्स, एंड पेरल्स 12-13-1265 तारना हैदराबाद-500017

10. 6758392 30-10-2007

1417-99 एमटीडी परिचालित

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं,

आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता

एवं मुहरांकन

मेसर्स मां शांती ज्वेलर्स शाप नं. 10 , अन्नपूर्णा ब्लॉक -1 , आदित्य एनक्लेव अमीरपेट हैद्राबाद -500 016

11. 6758493 30-10-2007

एमटीडी

1417-99

परिचालित

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं,

आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता

एवं मुहरांकन

मेसर्स राजाज्वेलर्स 16-3-491 , मेन बाजार अनंतापूर, इंददपूर गुंटूर आन्ध्र प्रदेश

12. 6758594 30-10-2007

1417-99 एमटीडी परिचालित मेसर्स खञ्जाना ज्वेलरी प्रा.लि. 5-37-50, चौथा लाईन ब्राडीपेट, गुंटूर

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं ,

आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता

एवं मुहरांकन

13. 6759091 25-10-2007

1489: सौइडी परिचालित

पोट्टलनड पोजालाना

भाग 1:91

मेसर्स श्रि चक्रा सिमंट लीमिटेट, 6-3-668/10/66 दुरगानगर कलिनी

हैदराबाद

30-10-2007

परिचालित 14. 6758901

1786:85 सीइडी

कंक्रीट प्रबलन के लिए उच्च सापयिं विकसित इस्पात धड़ और तार

मेसर्स ग्लेड स्टील प्रा.लि. सर्वे नं. 196, पगिं येड ऐलिकट्टा विलेजशादनगर मंडल , महबूबनगर जिला आन्ध्र प्रदेश

1786 :85 सीइडी परिचालित 15. 6755588 -15-10-2007

कंक्रीट प्रबलन के लिए

उच्चसामर्थि विकसित

इस्पात धड और तार

मेसर्स कामाक्षी स्टोलस प्रा.लि. आर एस नं. 93/4 कडिभि पोत्तवरम आईडीएं जीकेएम कोंडपल्ली

विजयवाडा कृष्णा जिला

15-10-2007

परिचालित

1786 :85 सीइडी

16. 6755689

कंक्रीट प्रबलन के लिए' उच्च सामर्चि विकसित इस्पात धड और तार

मेसर्स शालीमार अलाईस प्रा.लि., सर्वे नं. 157 ई 157 यू, आईडीऐ त्तीगापुर विलेज , कोत्तूर मंडल महबूबनगर

जिला-509 325

17. 6752986 1-10-2007

1786:85 सीइडी परिचालित मेसर्स संजय अलाईस

कंक्रीट प्रबलन के लिए उच्च सामर्षि विकसित इस्पात धड और तार

प्रा.लि. , नक्कापल्लि, मोरम पोस्ट, कुप्पम रोड पालपनर एन एच -4 चित्तूरू जिला-517 432 आन्ध्र प्रदेश 1505

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5 , 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) )

(7) (B)

(6)

(5)

(4)

(1) (2) (3)

25-10-2007

2112-2003 एमटीडी परिचालित 18. 6757794

चांदी एवं चांदी मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मेसर्स मल्लमल्लीस एनवीआर एक्सक्लूसिव 23-1-342( 1 ) गांधी रोड, ओंगोल -523001 प्रकाशम जिला

17-10-2007

2112-2003

परिचालित

एफएडी

19. 6756489

चांदी एवं चांदी मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मेसर्स श्री दुर्गा ज्वेलर्स 7-1-618/एनजी/जी21 से जी23 , आदित्य एनक्लेव सारधी स्टूडियो के सामने अमीरपेट, हैदराबाद-500016

परिचालित

11673-92 एफएडी

20 6753887 8-10-2007

सोडियम हाइपोक्लोरइट कीविशिष्टि

मेसर्स वटार टेक इंजीनियर्स सर्वे नं 72, अनाराम जीनाराम मेदक आंध्र प्रदेश

एमइडी परिचालित 8-10-2007

21. 6753786

सौर सपाट पट्टिका

संग्राहक

12933 भाग 1:04

मेसर्स श्री शक्ति आल्टरनेटिव एनर्जी लिमिटेड एफ-8 , एस.आई.ई. बालानगर

हैदराबाद-500 037

एफएडी परिचालित

14543114

12-10-2007

22 6754889

वेर्केजबद पेयजल (पेकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

मेसर्स तमई आक्या इंडस्ट्रीस ढोर नं. 1144/4 अम्मवारीपल्ली मार्कापूर-523 316 मार्कापूर मंडल प्रकाशम जिला आंध्र प्रदेश

एफएही परिचालित

14543 :04

23.

12-10-2007

6757289

पेकेजबंद पेयजल (पेकेजबंद प्राकृ‌तिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

मेसर्स साई राम फूड्स एंड बीवेरेजस 4-4-178, चैधरी काली नियर पुलिस स्टेशन विकाराबाद-501 101 रंगारेड्‌डीजिला

परिचालित

एफएडी

14543 :04

16-10-2007

24. 6755790

मेसर्स पीएमपी एंटरप्राईजेज पेकेजमंद पेयजल (पेकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

सर्वे नं. 438 , वेलेमेल्ला विलेज रामाचंद्रापुरमं मंडल मेडक जिला

एफएडी परिचालित

पेोजखंद पेयजल

14543 :04

30-10-2007

25. 6758089

(पेकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

मेसर्स श्री साई कृष्णा इंडस्ट्रीस, सर्वे सं. 273/1 के. जी. रोड, ब्रम्हमगारी कालोनी, त्रिपुरातकम पोस्ट एवं मंडल, प्रकाशम जिला आंध्र प्रदेश

[सं. सी एम डी/ 13 : 11 ]

ए. के. तलवार , उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर ) 1064GI/2008-5 1506

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 5, 2008 /CHAITRA 16 , 1930

[PART I-SEC. 3 ( ii )]

New Delhi , the 19th March , 2008

S.O. 745. In pursuance of sub -regulation (5 ) of the 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

IS No. & Product

GOL Date SNo. CMLNo.

License Name and Address

1 2.

4 1. 6757895

25-10-2007

Status Remarks

Division

Validity

IS 1417: 1999

Totaram Sagarlal & Sons 4-1-968 , Abid Road Hyderabad-500001 Andhra Pradesh

MTD

25-10-2008

Operative

Goldand gold alloys ,

jewellery/artefacts-

fineness and marking

2. 6757996

25-10-2007 IS 1417:1999

25-10-2008 MTD Operative

Gold and gold alloys ,

jewellery/artefacts-

fineness and marking

Jewellers 5-9-29/3 Liberty Cross Road Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500029 Andhra Pradesh Vijay Kumar Shankerial

04-10-2007 3. 6754182 Maheswari.Jewellery Mart D. No. 11-49-52 Sivalayam Street Krishna Vijayawada-520001 Andhra Pradesh

IS1417 : 1999

09-10-2010 MTD Operative

Gold and gold alloys,

jewellery/artefacts-

fineness and marking

16-10-2007 IS 1417:1999

4. 6756085 Sree Sarada Jewellery Mart 11-42-75, Ramgopal Street Krishna Vijayawada-520001 Andhra Pradesh

15-10-2008 MTD Operative

Gold and gold alloys ,

jewellery/artefacts-

fineness and marking

5. 6756186 Mangatrai Pearts S5-9-46 , 16-10-2007 Basheerbagh , Hyderabad-500063 Andhra Pradesh

MTD Operative 15-10-2008

IS1417:1999

Gold and gold alloys,

jewellery/artefacts-

fineness and marking

17-10-2007 6. 6756287 Sri Durga Jewellers 7-1-618/NG/G21 toG23 Aditya Enclave opp:. Sarathi Studio Ameerpet Hyderabad-500016 Andhra Pradesh

25-10-2007 7. 6757693

16-10-2010 MTD Operative

1 $ 1417 :1999 Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/artefacts- fineness and marking

IS 1417 : 1999

MTD Operative 25-10-2008

Gold and gold alloys ,

jewellery/artefacts-

fineness and marking

Nallamalli's NVR Exclusive 23-1-342(1 ) Gandhi Road Prakasam Ongole-523001 Andhra Pradesh

8. 6758190

30-10-2007 Kundan Jewellers Lumbini Jewel Mail Shop No. 1 Road No. 2 Валјага HillsHyderabad-500034 Andhra Pradesh

9. 6758291

30-10-2007 Shubham Jewellers and Pearts 12-13-1265 Tamaka Hyderabad-500017 Andhra Pradesh

29-10-2010 MTD Operative

IS 1417: 1999 Gold and gold alloys, jewellery/artfacts- fineness and marking

IS 1417: 1999

29-10-2010 MTD Operative

Gold and gold alloys .

jewellery/artefacts-

fineness and marking

1507-

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2008/चैत्र 16 , 1930

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

5 2

IS 1417: 1999

30-10-2007 6758392

10.

Goldand gold alloys, jewellery/artefacts- fineness and marking

Shop No.10, Annapurna Maa Shanti Jewellers Block, i , Aditya Enclave, Amoerpet, Hyderabad-500016 Andhra Pradesh

30-10-2007 6758493

11.

MainBazar Anantapur, Hindupur- 515201 , Andhra Pradesh Raja Jewellers, 16-3-491,

IS 1417:1999 Gold andgoldalloys, jewellery/artefacts- fineness and marking

30-10-2007 12. 6758594 Khazana JewelleryPvt . Ltd., 5-37-50, 4th Line BrodipetGuntur , Andhra Pradesh

IS 1417: 1999 Gold and gold alloys, jewellery/artefacts- fineness and marking

25-10-2007 13. 6759091

IS 1489:Part1: 1991 Portland pozzolana cement, Part I flyash based Sri Chakra Cements Limited, 6-3-668/10/66 Durganagar Colony, Punjagutta, Hyderabad-500082 Andhra Pradesh

30-10-2007 29-10-2010 MTD Operative

29-10-2010 MTD Operative

31-10-2008 CED Operative

30-10-2008 CED Operative

IS1786:1985

14. 6758901

High strength

deformed steel

bars and wires

forconcrete

reinforcement

M/s . Glade Steel Pvt. Ltd. , SurveyNo. 196, Pargi RoadEllikatta Village, Shadnagar (M) Mahbubnagar Mahaboobnagar, Andhra Pradesh

15-10-2007 15. 6755588

IS1786: 1985 High strength deformed steel bars andwires for concrete reinforcement

M/ s . Kamakshi Steels (P) Lad. , R.S. No.93/4, Kadimi Pothavaram IDA ,GKM Kondapalli Krishna Vijayawada Andhra Pradesh

15-10-2007 16. 6755689

IS1786: 1985 High strength deformed steel bars and wires for concrete reinforcement

M/ s . Shalimar Alloys Pvt. Ltd. SurveyNo. 157E, 157U IDA, Tighhapur (V) Kothur (M) Mahbubnagar Mahaboobnagar -509325 Andhra Pradesh

01-10-2007 17. 6752986

IS 1786: 1985 High strength deformed steel bars andwires reinforcement for concrete

M/ s, Sanjay Alloys Private Ltd. Nakkapalli Moram Post Kuppam RoadPalaner, Chittor-517432 Andhra Pradesh

25-10-2007 18. 6757794 Nallamalli's NVR Exclusive 23-1-342(1 ) Gandhi Road Prakasam Ongole-523001 Andhra Pradesh

1 $ 2112 :2003 Silverand silver alloys , jewellery/ artefacts- fineness andmarking

17-10-2007 19. 6756489

Operative

14-10-2008 CED

CED

14-10-2008

Operative

03-10-2008 CED

25-10-2008 MTD Operative

16-10-2010 MTD Operative

[ S2112 :2003

Silver and silver

alloys,jewellery/

artefacts- fineness

andmarking

Sri Durga Jewellers 7-1-618/NG/G21 toG23. Aditya Enclave Opp: Sarathi StudioAmeerpet Hyderabad-500016, Andhra Pradesh 1508

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2008/ CHAITRA 16 , 1930

1 2

08-10-2007 20. 6753887

[PART II-SEC 3 ( ii ) ] 5

08-10-2008 CHD Operative

IS11673:1992

Sodium hypochlorite

solution

Water Tech Engineers , Sy.No.72, Annaram (V) Jinnaram (M) Medak Andhra Pradesh

21. 6753786

08-10-2007 Shri Shakti Alternative Energy Limited F-8, SIE, HyderabadBalanagar- 500037, Andhra Pradesh

MED

08-10-2008

Operative

IS 12933:Part1 :2000

Solar flat plate

collector-:Part

requirements

22. 6754889

12-10-2007 Thanmai Aqua Industries D.No.1144/4 Ammavari PalliMarkapur-523316 MarkapurMandal Prakasam District Prakasam Markapur Andhra Pradesh

6757289

23.

11-10-2008 FAD Operative

IS 14543 :2004 Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineralwater)

12-10-2007 IS 14543 :2004

22-10-2008 FAD Operative

Packageddrinking

water (other than

packaged natural

mineralwater)

Sai Ram Foods& Beverage4-4-178, Chowdary ColonyNear Police Station, Vikarabad, Rangareddi-501101 , Andhra Pradesh

24. 6755790 PMP Enterprises Sy. No.438, Velemella Vilag Ramachandrapuram Mandal Medak, Andhra Pradesh

25. 6758089

30-10-2007 Sri Sai Krishna Industries, Sy. No. 273/1 , K.G.Road Brahmamgari Colony Tripuranthankam PO & Mandal Prakasam District Prakasam Tripuranthakam, Andhra Pradesh

15-10-2008 FAD Operative

16-10-2007 IS 14543 :2004 Packageddrinking water (other than packaged natural mineralwater)

29-10-2008 FAD Operative

IS 14543:2004 Packageddrinking water(othe than packagednatural mineralwater) .

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

नई दिल्ली, 20 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 746,- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिये गए है:- विनियम , 1988 के नियम ( 4 ) के उप नियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक

अनुसूची

क्रम. लाइसेंस

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

चालूतिथि

सं

जनवरी 2008

15-01-2008

8900985

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक व संबंधित भारतीय मानक

458:2003

प्री-कास्टकॉक्रीट पाईप्स

मैसर्स किशन एण्टरप्राईजेज , 1 , प्रेम नगर तितारदी चुंगी नाके के सामने , उदयपुर-313001 (राजस्थान) 1509

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

[ भाग II- खण्ड ( it ) ]

3 1

20-12-2007 2

8887013

31-12-2007 8887417

28-12-2007 8887619

03-01-2008 8888116

8888722

07-01-2008.1 7

08-01-2008 8889118

01-01-2008 8889724

11-01-2008 9

8889825

8900177

11-01-2008 11

11-01-2008 8900278

27-12-2007 12 8886819

27-12-2007 13

8886920

27-12-2007 14 8886617

1417 : 1999 स्वर्णाभूषणों की डालमार्किंग

मैसर्स शिव ज्वैलर्स पुराने नगर पालिका ऑफिस के पास, हनुमानगढ़ -335512 (राजस्थान)

1417:1999 स्वर्णाभूषणों की हालमार्किंग

मैसर्स महालक्ष्मी ज्वैलर्स नानी बाई स्कूल के सामने , पंखा रोड़ , चूरू-331001 (राजस्थान)

1417:1999 स्वर्णाभूषणों की हालमार्किंग

मैसर्स पवन कुमार मगनलाल ( सराफ ) जामा मस्जिद, पाला रोड़ बाँसवाड़ा 327001 ( राजस्थान )

1417:1999 स्वर्णाभूषणों की हालमार्किंग

मैसर्स मुरलीधर ज्वैलर्स 16 -ई ब्लॉक , शीतला माता पार्क के पास गंगानगर (राजस्थान)

1417: 1999 स्वर्णाभूषणों की हालमार्किंग

मैसर्स डी. के. ज्वैलर्स , बी- 8. - 9 . अरिहन्त प्लाजा , मालवीय नगर, जयपुर ( राजस्थान )

1417 :1999 स्वर्णाभूषणों की हालमार्किंग

मैसर्स अमरदीप ज्वैलर्स , तहसील रोड़ , जैन मन्दिर के सामने , खेरवाड़ा, जिला -उदयपुर (राजस्थान)

1417:1999 स्वर्णाभूषणों की हालमार्किंग

मैसर्स इरोज स्टोन्स 750 , इरोज टॉवर आचायर्यों का रास्ता, किशनपोल बाजार जयपुर-302003 ( राजस्थान )

1417: 1999 स्वर्णाभूषणों की हालमार्किंग

पैसर्स हैप्पी ज्वैलर्स मेन बाजार, पुराना बाजार हनुमानगढ़ -335513 (राजस्थान)

1417:1999 स्वर्णाभूषणों की हालमार्किंग

मैसर्स अलंकार ज्वैलर्स मेन मार्केट , हिसारिया मार्केट के पास हनुमानगढ़- 335513 (राजस्थान )

2112:2003 रवत आभूषणों की हालमार्किंग

मैसर्स अलंकार ज्वैलर्स मेन मार्केट , हिसारिया मार्केट के पास, हनुमानगढ़ 335513 ( राजस्थान )

1554 ( भाग 1 ): 1988 पीवीसी इन्सुलेटेड ( एचडी )

मैसर्स राजस्थान केवल्स एण्ड कण्डक्टर्स प्रा. लि. , प्लॉट नं. ए -190 ( सी ) , रोड़ नं. 1 -डी, विश्वकर्मा औद्योगिक क्षेत्र , जयपुर - केबल्स 302013 ( राजस्थान)

7098 ( भाग ) :1988 एक्सएलपीई इन्सुलेटेड पीवीसी केबल्स

मैसर्स राजस्थान केबल्स एण्ड कण्डक्टर्स प्रा. लि. , प्लॉट नं. ए-190 ( सी ) , येड़ नं. 1-डी, विश्वकर्मा औद्योगिक क्षेत्र, जयपुर- 302013 ( राजस्थान )

8112: 1989 43ग्रेड ओपीसी

बैसर्स भरोसा सीमेण्ट प्रा. लि. , एसपी -1 , रीको औद्योगिक क्षेत्र, नीम का थाना , सीकर-332713 ( राजस्थान ) 1510

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2008/CHAITRA 16 , 1930

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

07-01-2008

8888621

एरियल बन्च्ड केबल्स 14255: 1995

मैसर्स श्री वर्धमान पॉवर प्रा.लि. , जी- 849, रोड़ नं. 14, विश्वकर्मा औद्योगिक क्षेत्र , जयपुर-302013 ( राजस्थान )

8886213

20-12-2007

14333:1996 एचडीपीई पाईप्स फॉर सिवरेज

मैसर्स पूरमा प्लास्ट प्रा. लि. , बी-494 , भिवाडी औद्योगिक क्षेत्र , फेज-1 , भिवाडी-301019 जिला अलवर (राजस्थान)

8888217

04-01-2008

14333 :1996 एचडीपीई पाईप्स फॉर सिवरेज

मैसर्स निम्बस इण्डस्ट्रीज , ई -35 , बगरू जयपुर-303007 ( राजस्थान) औद्योगिक क्षेत्र ( विस्तार ) बगरू,

25-01-2008

8908294

398 ( भाग 4) : 1994 एएएसी

मैसर्स राजस्थान ट्रांसमीशन वायर्स प्रा.लि. ए-190 , रोड़ नं. 1 - डी, विश्वकर्मा औद्योगिक क्षेत्र , जयपुर -302013 (राजस्थान)

8907494

11-01-2008

1417:1999 स्वर्णाभूषणों को हालमार्किंग

मैसर्स गौरव ज्वैलर्स एण्ड ज्वैलर्स 68 , पेच एरिया , भीलवाडा-311001 (राजस्थान)

20 8907595

24-01-2008

2112:2003 रजत आभूषणों की हालमार्किंग

मैसर्स गौरव ज्वैलर्स एण्ड ज्वैलर्स 68 , पेच एरिया भीलवाडा-311001 (राजस्थान)

8907696

24-01-2008

1417:1999 स्वर्णाभूषणों हालमार्किंग

मैसर्स निखार ज्वैलर्स 40 , राणा सांगा मार्केट, चित्तौडगढ़ -312001 (राजस्थान)

21-01-2008

8906189

14930 ( भाग 2):2001 कन्ट्यूट सिस्टम्स फॉर इलैक्ट्रिकल इन्सटालेशन

मैसर्स तिरूपति प्लास्टोमैटिक्स प्रा. लि. (यूनिट नं. 2 ) एफ -543 , रोड़ नं. 6डी विश्वकर्मा औद्योगिक क्षेत्र, जयपुर- 302013 ( राजस्थान)

[सं. सी एम डी/ 13 : 11 ] ए. के. तलवार , उपमहानिदेशक ( मुहर )

New Delhi , the 20th March , 2008

S.O. 746.In pursuance of sub-regulation (5 ) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification) Regulation , 1988 , the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the following schedules.

SCHEDULE

Name and Address of the Licensee

OperativeDate

Sl . No.

LicenceNo. (CM/L)

Article/Process Coveredby the licencess and the relevant IS: Designation (3)

(4)

(5)

( 1 ) (2)

JAN2008

458-2003

01 8900985

15-01-2008

Precast Concrete Pipes

M/s Kishan Enterprises , 1 , Prem Nagar , TITARADI Opp.Chungi Naka, Udaipur-313001 (Rajasthan) [ भाग II-खण्ड ( ii) ]

1511

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5 , 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

(3) (1) (2)

20-12-2007 02 8887013

31-12-2007 06 8887417

28-12-2007 04 8887619

8888116

03-01-2008 05

07-01-2008 8888722

07 8889118

08-01-2008

10-01-2008 08 8889724

11-01-2008 09 8889825

11-01-2008 10 8900177

11 8900278

11-01-2008

27-12-2007 12 8886819

27-12-2007 13 8886920

27-12-2007 14 8886617

07-01-2008 15 8888621

(5)

(4)

1417:1999 Hallmarking ofGold Jewellery

M/sShivJewellers, NearOld Nagar PalikaOffice, Hanumangarh -335512 (Rajasthan)

1417:1999 Hallmarking ofGold Jeewllery

M/s. Mahalaxmi Jewellers , Nani Bai School Ke Samme, Pankha Road, Churu-331001 (Rajasthan)

1417:1999 Halimarking ofGold Jewellery

M/ s. Pawan Kumar Maganlal ( Saraf) JamaMaszid, Pala Road, Banswara- 32700 ) (Rajasthan)

M/s .Murlidhar Jewellers , 16-E Block, Near Sheetla Mata Park Ganganagar (Rajasthan)

1417:1999 Hallmarking ofGold Jewellery

M/s.D.K. Jewellers, B-8-9 , Arihant Plaza, Malviya Nagar,Jaipur (Rajasthan)

1417:1999 Hallmaring ofGold Jewellery

M/s. Amardeep Jewellers Tehsil Road, Opp .Jain Temple Kherwara, Udaipur (Rajasthan)

M/s. Eros Stones, 750, Eros Tower, Achariyon Ka Rasta, Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur-302003 (Rajasthan)

1417:1999 Hallmarking ofGold Jewellery

M/s. Happy Jewellers , Main Bazar , PuranaBazar, Hanumangarh-335513 (Rajasthan)

M/s .Alankar Jewellers , MainMarket, NearHissariaMarket , Hanumangarh -335513 (Rajasthan)

1417:1999 Hallmarking ofGold Jewellery

M/s . Alankar Jewellers , Main Market, NearHissaria Market, Hanumangarh -335513 (Rajasthan)

2112:2003 Hallmarkingof SilverJewellery

1554(Part 1): 1988 PVC Insulated (HD). Cables

M/s . Rajasthan Cables & Conductors Private Limited, Plot No. A- 190(C), RoadNo. 10-D, Vishwa Karma Industrial Arca Jaipur-302013 (Rajasthan)

7098 (Part 1 ) : 1988 XLPE Insulated PVC Cables

M/s. Rajasthan Cables & Conductors Private Limited, Plot No. A- 190(C), Road No. 1-D, Vishwa Karma Industrial Area Jaipur-302013 (Rajasthan)

8112:1989 43GradeOPC

M/s. Bharosa Cement Private Ltd. SP- 1 , RJICO Insuatrial Area, Neem Ka Thana, Sikar -332713 (Rajasthan)

14255;1995 AerialBunched Cables

M/s. Shree Vardhman Power Pvt. Ltd.,G-849, Road No. 14, Vishwakarma Industrial Area Jaipur -302013 (Rajasthan) 1512

(2)

(1 )

(3) 16 8886213

20-12-2007 17 8888217

04-01-2008 18 8908294

25-01-2008 19 8907494

11-01-2008

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5 , 2008/ CHAITRA 16 , 1930

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

(4)

(5)

14333:1996

HDPE Pipes for Sewerage M/s .PurmaPlast Private, Ltd. B-494, Bhiwadi IndustrialArea Phase- I , Bhiwadi ,Disst. Alwar-301019 (Rajasthan)

14333:1996 HDPEPipes for Sewerage M/s. Nimbus Industries, E-35, Bagru Industrial Area ( Extn.), Bagru , Jaipur-303007 (Rajasthan)

398(Part4) : 1994

M/s . Rajasthan Transmission Wires Private Limited, A- 190, Road No.1 -D, Vishwa Karma Industrial Area, Jaipur-302013 (Rajasthan)

1417:1999 Hallmarking ofGold Jewellery

M/s. Gourav Jewellers

68, Pech Area, Bhilwara -311001

(Rajasthan)

20 8907595

24-01-2008 M's, Gourav Jewellers , 68 Pech Area Bhilwara-311001 (Rajasthan)

21 8907696

24-01-2008 22 89061189

21-01-2008

2112:2003 Hallmarking ofSilver Jewellery

M/ s . Nikhar Jewellers, 40 , Rana Sanga Market Chittorgarh -312001 (Rajasthan)

1417:1999 Hallmarking ofGold Jewellery

14930 (Part 2):2001 ConduitSystems for Electrical Installation .

M/s. Tirupati Plastomatics Pvt . Ltd. , (Unit No. 2) F-543 , Road No. 6D V. K. I. Area, Jaipur -302013 (Rajasthan)

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

नई दिल्ली , 20 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 747.-- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम, 1988 के विनियम 4 के उप - विनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिनके विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं को लाइसेंस प्रदान किए गए हैं:

अनुसूची

उत्पाद

पार्टी का नाम एवं पता ( कारखाना )

क्रम लाइसेंस सं

वैधता तिथि संख्या

1 2

1. 7810070 31-12-2008

आइ एस सं./भाग/खण्ड/ वर्ष 4

12463:1988

निरोधकारी विद्युतरोधन खनिज तेल

साह पेट्रोलियम लिमिटेड,406/7 ,

एम्बेसी सेंटर, नरिमन पॉईट,

मुंबई-400021

2. 7812882

10-01-2009 3. 7810272

01-01-2009

1293 :2005

आयुष होम अप्लाएंसेस , 01 वाडिया इस्टेट , बिल्डिंग सं. 16 के सामने , बैल बाजार , ओल्ड कुर्ला, कुर्ला-400070

250 वोल्ट और 16 एम्पीयर तक की रेटित करंट के लिए प्लग और सॉकेट निर्गम

12463:1988 निरोधकारी विद्युतरोधन खनिज तेल

साह पेट्रोलियम लिमिटेड , प्लॉट से 5 से 10 , दिवान और साह इंडस्ट्रियल इस्टेट , विलेज वालीस , धाने वसई पूर्व 1513

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2008/चैत्र16, 1930

[ भाग- खण्ड (ii)]

25-12-2008

4. 7806988

एशीयन इलेक्ट्रॉनिक्स लि, 68 , एम आई डी सी ,सातपुर, नासिक -422200

25-12-2008

5. 7807081

एशीयन इलेक्ट्रॉनिक्स लि. , 68 , एम आई डी सी,सातपुर, नासिक-422200

25-12-2006

6. 7807283

एजीएस इलेक्ट्रो, वसंत कंपाऊंड, चिंचोली रेलवे फाटक के पास , मालाड- पश्चिम, मुंबई 400064

7. 7810171

31-12-2008

एफसीजी हाई टेक प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , 362/1 , श्री गणेश इंडस्ट्रीयल इस्टेट, कांचीगाँव, दमण-396210

बती उपकरण भाग 5- 10322: भाग 5 सैक. 1

: 1985

विशेष अपेक्षाएं खंड । स्वमान्य प्रयोजी वती उपकरण

10322 : पाग 5: सैक. 2

:1985

बती उपकरण भाग 5- विशेष अपेक्षाएं खंड 2 अतंराली भती उपकरण

38541997

घरेलू और समान कार्यों केलिएस्विच

5780 :2002

विस्फोटी गैस वायुमंडलों के लिए विद्युत उपकरण - आंतरिक सुरक्षा " ! "

विशिष्टि

[सं. के प्रषि / 13 : 11 ] ए. के. तलवार, उपमहानिदेशक ( प्रमाणन)

NewDelhi , the 20th March, 2008

8.O. 747.- 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 the grant of licences particulars ofwhich are given below inthe following schedule:

SCHEDULE SL No.

Licence No.

Validity Date

Product

Name and Address (factory) of

theParty

4 1

7810070 31-12-2008 Sah Petroleums Ltd. , 406/7 , Embassy Centre, Nariman Point, Greater Bombay Mumbai-400021 7812882

10-01-2009 Ayush HomeAppliances, 01 , Wadia Estate, OppBldg .No. 16, Bail Bazar, Old Kurta, Greater Bombay, Kurle-400070

01-01-2009

7810272

Sah Petroleums Limitted, Plot Nos .5 to10, BehindDewan & Shah Industrial Estate, Village Valiv, Thane, Vasai (East)

7806988 25-12-2008

IS No./Part/Sec/ Year

6 5

12463:1988 Inhibited mineral insulating oils

1293:2005 Plugs and socket outlets of250 volts and rated current up to16amperes

12463:1988 Inhibited mineral insulating oils

IS10322:

Luminaires

Part5:

Part 5 Particular

Asian Electronics Ltd., 68 , MIDC, Satpur,

Nashik, Maharashra422200

7807081 25-12-2008

Sec 1 : 1985 requirements, Sec. 1

General purpose luminaires

IS10322:

Specification for

Part5

Luminaires-Part 5:

AsianElectronics Ltd 68, MIDC , Satpur ,

Nashik, Maharashtra 422200

1064G1/2008-6

Particular

Sec. 1:1985 Requirements-

Section 2: Recessed Luminaires 1514

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2008/CHAITRA 16 , 1930

7807283 25-12-2008 Ags Electrico , Vasant , Compound, NR Chincholi R'y Phatak , Greater Bombay, Malad -W, Maharashtra -400064

7810171 31-12-2008 FCG Hi Tech Pvt. Ltd., 362/1 , Shree Ganesh Indl . Estate , Kachigam , Daman-396210

[PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

1 $ 3854:

1997

Switches fordomestic and similar purposes

Electrical Apparatus IS 5780:

2002

forExplosiveGas

Atmopheres - Intrinsic Safety " I "

Specification

[No. CMD/ 13 : [ 1 ] A. K. TALWAR, DDGM

नई दिल्ली , 20 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 748. - भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 5 के उप विनियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिनके विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, को उनके आगे दर्शाई गई तिथि से रद्द कर दिया गया है :

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम एवं पता

রুম संख्या

लाइसेंस संख्या

1. 7054361

अनुसूची

रद्द करने की तिथि

लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु/प्रक्रम संबद्ध भारतीय मानक स्वहित

3854:1997

व्हिक्टर इंडस्ट्रोज, गाला सं. 206 , दूसरा माला, आशीर्वाद इंडस्ट्रीयल इस्टेट , राम मंदिर रोड, गोरेगाँव पूर्व, मुंबई-400104

2 7772290

09-01-2008

घरेलू और समान कार्यों के लिए स्विच

2148 :2004

एफ सी जी पॉवर इंडस्ट्रीज प्रा. लिमिटेड, 362/1 बी, गणेश इंडस्ट्रियल इस्टेट, कांचीगांव दमण , दमण -396210

3 7749497

03-01-2008

बिजली के उपस्करों के लिए ज्वालासह आवरण

1554 : भाग । : 1998

नवीन इंडस्ट्रीज, यी के सं. 1965 के पीछे , ओ टी सेक्शन , थाने , उल्हासनगर-421005

4. 7717181

21-01-2008

पीवीसी रोधित ( हैषी ड्यूटी ) बिजली के केबल भाग 1 : 1100 बोल्ट तक कार्यकारी वोल्टता के लिए भाग 2 : 3.3 किचा से 11 किया तक के कार्यकारी वोल्ट हेतु

4250:1980

नेलसन इंडस्ट्रीज, यूनिट से 40 और 122 , ब्ल्यूरोज इंडस्ट्रियल इस्टेट, सी सी आई के पास बोरिवली पूर्व , मुंबई -400066 5. 7753993

18-01-2008

निजली के घरेलू खाद्य मिक्सर ( द्रवीकारक और ग्राइंडर ) की विशिष्टि

01-01-2008

1554: भाग 1 : 1988

टेक्नोफ्लेक्स केबल्स, ई/ 1 शिंगटे कंपाउंड , कोकनीपाडा, दहिसर पूर्व, मुंबई-400068

पौषीसी रोधित ( हैवी ड्यूटी ) बिजली के केबल भाग 1 : 1100 वोल्ट तक कार्यकारी वोल्टता के लिए भाग 2 : 3.3 किक्षा से 11 किवा तक के. कार्यकारी वोल्ट हेतु 1515

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2008 /चैत्र 16, 1930

[ भाग 11-खण्ड (ii ) ]

08-01-2008 6 7703170 यूनिटि इंडस्ट्रीज,

4250 : 1980 बिजली के घरेलू खाद्य मिक्सर ( द्रवीकारक और ग्राइंडर ) की विशिष्टि

रूम सं. 5 , सांता निवास , जी ए लिंक रोड , साकीनाका, मुंबई-400072

04-01-2008

4250 : 1980

7. 7738694

बिजली के घरेलू खाद्य मिक्सर ( द्रवीकारक और ग्राइंडर) की विशिष्टि

विमल अप्लाएंसेस , ई-46 , स्पान इंडस्ट्रियल कॉम्प्लेक्स , दादरा , सिलवाला रोड, दादरा नागर हवेली , दादरा , यूटी

[सं. के प्र वि/13: 13 ]

ए. के. तलवार, उपमहानिदेशक ( प्रमाणन )

NewDelhi , the 20th March, 2008

S.O. 748. 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

Date ofCancellation Name and Address of the licensee

Sl. No.

Licence No.

Article/Process with relevant Indian Standard covered by the licence cancelled

1 2

09-01-2008

3854:1997

1. 7054361

Switches fordomestic and similar purposes

Victor Industries, GalaNo. 206 ,2nd Floor, Ashirwad Inds . Heavy Industrial Estate, Ram Mandir Road, GreaterBombay,Goregaon(E) Mumbai-400104

03-01-2008 2

2148 :2004

7772290

Flameproof enclosures as mentioned in Annexure-A

FCG Power Industries Pvt. Ltd. 362/ 1B, Ganesh Industrial Estate, Kachigam , Damanın, Darnan-396210

21-01-2008

1554: Part 1 : 1988

3. 7749497 Navin Industries , Behind BK. No. 1965, O.T. Section , Thane Ulhasnagar-421005

"PVC Insulated (Heavy Duty) Electric cables single/multicore , PVC sheathed, armoured/ un- armouredwith copper/alluminium conductor having overall diameter upto and including 55 mm , sheath type ST- 1 and Type A insu- lation, category-01 for working voltages upto and including 1100 Volts excluding cables for low temperature condition and mining use" 4250:1980

18-01-2008 4.

Nelson Industries

7717181

Unit No. 40 & 122, Blue Rose Industrial Estate , NexttoC.C.I. ,Greater Bombay, Barivli (E)-400066

Domestic electric Food Mixer (Liquidizer& Grinder) for 500W , 230V, ac , 50Hz, Class I appliances , Insulation Class H, Jar capacity for liquidizer 1.0 litre and for grinder 100 ml , Rating30 min (5 minutes on and 2 minutes (Rest)

01-01-2008

1554:Part 1 : 1988

5. 7753993 TechnoflexCables E/1 , Shinghte Compound , Koknipada,Greater Bombay Dahisar (E)-400068

Single/multicore, sheathed, cooper /aluminium conductor, armoured/un- armoured , PVC Insulation type A , sheath type ST 1 , cagegory 01 , excluding low temperature conditions and mininguse 1516 .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2008/CHAITRA 16 , 1930

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

5 6

4250:1980

08-01-2008 7703170

550W, 230Vac, 50 Hz, Rating 30 min. (5min. On, 2 min . rest) , Appliances Class 1 , Insulation ClassH. JarCap. Liq . I lit. and Grinder 100ml .

Unity Industries RoomNo. 5, SantaNiwas, G.A. LinkRoad; GreaterBombay Sakinaka,Mumbai -400072

4250:1980

04-01-2008 .

7738694

" Domestic electric food mixer and grinder of 500W, 230V, ac, 50Hz, 30 minute rating(5 minute ON, 2 minute OFF), class I appliance , class of insulation H"

Vimal Appliances, E-46, Span Industrial Complex , Dadra, SilvassaRoad, Dadra andNagarHaveli, Dadra(UT)

[No. CMD/13: 13 ]

A. K. TALWAR, DDGM

नई दिल्ली, 25 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 749,- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम ? के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वह स्थापित हो गया है :-

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि क्रम संख्या

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

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

4 1 .

30 नवम्बर , 2007 आई एस/ आई ई सी 60320-1 : 2001 घरेलूऔर ऐसे ही सामान्य प्रयोजनों के लिए साधित्र युत्मक भाग 1 सामान्य अपेक्षाएँ

इस भारतीय मानक की एक प्रति भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली , कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालायों अष्ठमदाबाद, बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ: ईटी 14/टी-80 ]

पी. के. मुखर्जी, वैज्ञा. एफ एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी )

NewDelhi, the 25thMarch, 2008

Б.О. 749.-In рагsuance ofclause (b) of sub- rule ( 1 ) ofRule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the Indian Standards to the Indian Standards , particulars ofwhich is given in the Schedule heretp annexed has been issued :

SCHEDULE

Sl . No, No, & Year ofthe Indian Standards

Date of Established

No.&.Year ofthe Indian Standards, ifany, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(1)

(3)

(2)

(4) 1.

30November 2007 ISMEC60320-1: 2001

Appliance couplers for household and similar general purposes Part I General requirements

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

[Ref: ET 14/T-801

P. K. MUKHERJEE, Sc . ' F' & Head (Electro Technical) 1517-

भारत का राजपुत्र : अप्रैल 5 , 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ⅱ) ]

कोयला मंत्रालय

नईदिल्ली, 28 मार्च, 2008

कर.आ. 750,-केन्द्रीय सरकार , सरकारी स्थान ( अप्राधिकृत , अधिभोगियों की बेदखली ) अधिनियम 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और भारत के राजपत्र भाग II , खण्ड 3 उपखण्ड ( ii ) , तारीख 29 अक्टूबर , 2005 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. का. आ. 3953 , तारीख 24 अक्टूबर, 2005 को उन बातों के सिवाय अधिक्रांत करते हुए, जिन्हें ऐसे मधिक्रमण से पूर्व किया गया है या करने का लोप किया गया है , नीचे सारणी के स्तम्म ( 1 ) में उल्लिखित अधिकारियों को, जो साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के अधिकारी हैं और केन्द्रीय सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारी की रैंक के समतुल्य अधिकारी हैं, उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए सम्पदा अधिकारी नियुक्त करती है , जो उक्त सारणी के स्तम्भ ( 2 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट सरकारी स्थानों के प्रवगों की बाबत अपनी अधिकारिताओं की स्थानीय सीमाओं के भीतर उक्त अधिनियम द्वारा या उसके अधीन सम्पदा अधिकारियों को प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग और उन पर अधियेपित कर्तव्यों का पालन करेंगे ।

सारणी

क्र. सं. अधिकारी का नाम पदनाम

सरकारी स्थानों के प्रवर्ग और अधिकारिता की स्थानीय परिसीमाएं 2

मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स, लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर तथा उमरिया जिले में फैले जोहिला क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय के क्षेत्र के भाग ।

1. स्टाफ अधिकारी (खनन ) क्षेत्रीय मुख्यालय जोहिला, क्षेत्र मुख्य महाप्रबंधक नौरोजाबाद का कार्यालय , जिला उमरिया (म.प्र)

2 उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक अभिकर्ता, पाली उपक्षेत्र , द्वाकघर बिरसिंहपुर पाली , जिला उमरिया ( म.प्र. )

मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर तथ्था उमरिया जिले में फैले जोहिला क्षेत्र के पाली उपक्षेत्र के क्षेत्र भाग ।

3. उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक अभिकर्ता , पिनौरा विन्ध्याउपक्षेत्र , डाकघर विन्ध्या, जिला उमरिया (म.प्र. )

मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर तथा उमरिया जिले में फैले बोहिला क्षेत्र के पिनौरा विन्ध्या उपक्षेत्र के क्षेत्र भाग ।

4 उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक/अभिकर्ता , उमरिया उपक्षेत्र, डाकघर उमरिया , जिला उमरिया ( म.प्र. )

मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर तथा उमरिया जिलें में फैले जोहिला क्षेत्र के उमरिया उपक्षेत्र के क्षेत्र भाग ।

5. उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक/ अभिकर्ता , नौरोजाबाद उपक्षेत्र , डाकघर उमरिया, जिला उमरिया ( म.प्र. )

मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर तथा उमरिया जिले में फैले जोहिला क्षेत्र के नौरोजाबाद उपक्षेत्र के क्षेत्र भाग ।

6. उप महाप्रबंधक, एसईसीएल गेवरा क्षेत्र , डाकघर गेवरा परियोजना , जिला कोरबा ( छ.ग. )

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर तथा कोरबा जिले में फैले गेवरा क्षेत्र के गेवरा परियोजना के क्षेत्र भाग ।

7. उप महाप्रबंधक , एसईसीएल दीपिका परियोजना , जिला कोरबा ( छ.ग. )

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर तथा कोरबा जिले में फैले गेवरा क्षेत्र के दीपिका परियोजना के क्षेत्र भाग ।

उपमुख्य इंजीनियर उत्खनन , केन्द्रीय उत्खनन कर्मशाला, डाकधर गेवरा , जिला कोरबा ( छ.ग. )

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर तथा कोरबा जिले में फैले गेवरा क्षेत्र के केन्द्रीय उत्खनन कर्मशाला के क्षेत्र भाণ ।

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर तथा सरगुजा जिले में फैले भटगांव क्षेत्र के कार्यालय महाप्रबंधक भटगांव क्षेत्र के भाग ।

9. उपमुख्य कार्मिक प्रबंधक , कार्यालय महाप्रबंधक भटगांव क्षेत्र , डाकघर जरही, पोस्ट भटगांव , जिला सरगुजा (छ.ग. )

10 उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक/ अभिकर्ता, दुग्गा उपक्षेत्र डाकघर मरगांव कालरी , जिला सरगुजा ( छ.ग. )

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर तथा सरगुजा जिले में फैले भटगांव क्षेत्र के दुग्गा उपक्षेत्र का भाग ।

i 1518

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2008/CHAITRA 16 , 1930

11. उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक/अभिकर्ता , कल्याणी उपक्षेत्र, डाकघर जरही, भटगांव कालरी , जिला सरगुजा ( छ.ग. )

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर तथा सरगुजा जिले में फैले भटगांव क्षेत्र के कल्याणी उपक्षेत्र का भाग ।

12. उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक/अभिकर्ता , भटगांव उपक्षेत्र , डाकघर जरही, पोस्ट भटगांव कालरी , जिला सरगुजा (छ.ग. )

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर तथा सरगुजा जिले में फैले भटगांव क्षेत्र के भटगांव उपक्षेत्र का भाग ।

13. उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक/अभिकर्ता, बुढ़ार उपक्षेत्र रेलवे स्टेशन अमलाई , डाकघर धनपुरी , जिला शहडोल (म.प्र. )

मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर तथा शहडोल जिले में फैले और सोहागपुर क्षेत्र के बुढ़ार उपक्षेत्र के क्षेत्र भाग ।

मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा अनूपपुर जिले में फैले और सोहागपुर क्षेत्र के शारदा खुली उपक्षेत्र के क्षेत्र भाग ।

14. उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक/अभिकर्ता , डाकघर शारदा खुली खदान उपक्षेत्र रेलवे स्टेशन अमलाई , डाकघर . अमलाई पेपर मिल , जिला अनूपपुर (म.प्र. )

मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा शहडोल अनूपपुर जिले में फैले और सोहागपुर क्षेत्र के अमलाई तथा बंगवार उपक्षेत्र के क्षेत्र भाग । 15. उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक/ अभिकर्ता, अमलाई तथा बंगवार उपक्षेत्र, रेलवे स्टेशन अमलाई , डाकखाना धनपुरी , अमलाई तथा बंगवार उपक्षेत्र , जिला अनूपपुर (म.प्र )

मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा शहडोल जिले में फैले और सोहागपुर क्षेत्र के राजेन्द्र और नवगांव उपक्षेत्र के क्षेत्र भाग ।

16. उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक अभिकर्ता, राजेन्द्र नवगांव उपक्षेत्र, रेलवे स्टेशन बुढार, हाकखाना खैरहा , जिला शहडोल (म.प्र)

मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा शहडोल जिले में फैले और सोहागपुर क्षेत्र के अमलाई खुली खदान उपक्षेत्र के क्षेत्र भाग ।

17. उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक अभिकर्ता, अमलाई खुली खदान उपक्षेत्र, अमलाई डाकखाना , संजय कोयला नगर , जिला शहडोल ( म.प्र. )

मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ढून लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा अनूपपुर जिले में फैले और सोहागपुर क्षेत्र के धनपुरी खुली खदान उपक्षेत्र के क्षेत्र भाग ।

18. उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक अभिकर्ता, धनपुर खुली खदान उपक्षेत्र , अमलाई डाकखाना , संजय कोयला नगर , जिला अनूपपुर (म.प्र. )

मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा शहडोल जिले में फैले सोहागपुर क्षेत्र के क्षेत्रीय स्थापना के क्षेत्र भाग ।

19. रपमहाप्रबंधक स्टाफ आफिसर ( खनन ) क्षेत्रीय स्थापना, रेलवे स्टेशन अमलाई पो.आ. धनपुरी, जिला शहडोल ( म.प्र. )

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर तथा कोरबा जिले में फैले कोरबा क्षेत्र के स्थापना क्षेत्र के भाग ।

20. उपमुख्य खनन अभियंता स्टाफ आफिप्तर ( खदान ) कोरबा क्षेत्र , डाकखाना कोरथा कालरी , जिला कोरबा ( छ.ग.)

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर तथा कोरबा जिले में फैले कोरबा क्षेत्र के राजगमार उपक्षेत्र के पाग ।

21. उप महाप्रबंधक उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक/अभिकर्ता परियोजना अधिकारी , राजगमार उपक्षेत्र, डाकखाना ओमपुर कालरी , जिला कोरबा(छ.ग. )

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर तथा कोरबा जिले में फैले कोरबा क्षेत्र के बांकी उपक्षेत्र के भाग ।

22. उप महाप्रबंधक उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक/अभिकर्ता परियोजना अधिकारी , बांकी उपक्षेत्र , डाकखाना बांकी मोंगरा , जिला कोरबा ( छ.ग. )

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्‌स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर तथा कोरबा जिले में फैले कोरबा क्षेत्र के सुराकछार बलगी उपक्षेत्र के भाग ।

23. उप महाप्रबंधक/उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक/अभिकर्ता परियोजना अधिकारी , सुराकछार/ बलगी उपक्षेत्र, 'डाकखाना करघेरा , जिला कोरबा( छ.ग. )

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर तथा कोरबा जिले में फैले कोरबा क्षेत्र के ढेलवाडीह सिंघाली बगदेवा बलगी उपक्षेत्र के भाग ।

उप महाप्रबंधक उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक/अभिकर्ता परियोजना अधिकारी , देलवाडीह सिंघाली बगदेषा उपक्षेत्र, डाकखाना कटघोरा , जिला कोरबा ( छ.ग. ) 24.

[ भाग H-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

25. उप महाप्रबंधक/उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक/ अभिकर्ता परियोजना अधिकारी , मानिकपुर उपक्षेत्र, डाकखाना मानिकपुर, जिला कोरबा( छ.ग. )

26. उपमुख्य अभियंता, केन्द्रीय कर्मशाला डाकखाना कोरबा कालरी , जिला कोरबा ( छ.ग. )

27. स्टाफ अधिकारी ( खनन ) , जमुना कोतमा क्षेत्र, डाकखाना जमुना कालरी , जिला अनूपपुर ( म.प्र. ) 28. उपमहाप्रबंधक, गोविंदा उपक्षेत्र डाकखाना गोविंदा कालरी , जिला अनूपपुर( म.प्र. )

29. उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक , आमाडांड उपक्षेत्र डाकखाনা मलगा कालरी , जिला अनूपपुर( म.प्र. )

30. उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक , भद्रा उपक्षेत्र , डाकखाना भदरा कालरी , जिला अनूपपुर(म.प्र. )

31 . उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक, 'कोतमा उपक्षेत्र , ढाकखाना कोतमा कालरी , जिला अनूपपुर( म.प्र. )

32. उपमहाप्रबंधक/ स्टाफ आफिसर (खनन ) ,वैकुण्ठपुर, जिला कोरिया ( छ.ग. )

33. उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक, कटकोना उपक्षेत्र , डाकखाना कटकोना , जिला कोरिया (छ.ग. )

34. उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक, झिलमिली पाण्डवपारा उपक्षेत्र , डाकखाना झिलमिली , जिला कोरिया ( छ.ग. ) 35. उपमहाप्रबंधक/ उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक , चरचा वेस्ट कालरी , जिला कोरिया ( छ.ग. )

36 उपमहाप्रबंधक/उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक, चरचा ईस्ट कालरी , जिला कोरिया ( छ.ग. )

37. कार्मिक प्रबंधक, रायगढ़ क्षेत्र छोटे अट्टरमुर्रा, पो. बा.नं. 27 , डाकखाना रायगढ़ (छ.ग. )

38. उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक, छाल उपक्षेत्र, हाकखाना छाल, जिला रायगढ़ (छ.ग. )

1519

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5 , 2008/चैत्र 16 , 1930

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर तथा कोरबा जिले में फैले कोरबा क्षेत्र के मानिकपुर उपक्षेत्र के भाग ।.

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर तथा कोरबा जिले में फैले कोरबा क्षेत्र के केन्द्रीय कर्मशाला के भाग ।

मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभीः परिसर तथा अनूपपुर जिले में फैले जमुना- कोतमा क्षेत्र के क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय के क्षेत्र भाग ।

मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा अनूपपुर जिले में फैले जमुना- कोतमा क्षेत्र के गोविंदा उपक्षेत्र के क्षेत्र भाग ।

मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा अनूपपुर जिले में फैले जमुना- कोतमाक्षेत्र के आमाडांड उपक्षेत्र के क्षेत्र भाग ।

मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा अनूपपुर जिले में फैले जमुना कोतमा क्षेत्र के पदरा उपक्षेत्र के क्षेत्र भाग ।

मध्य प्रदेश रुज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा अनूपपुर जिले में फैले जमुना- कोतमा क्षेत्र के कोतमा उपक्षेत्र के क्षेत्र भाग ।

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर तथा कोरिया जिले में फैले बैकुण्ठपुर क्षेत्र के क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय के भाग ।

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर तथा कोरिया जिले में फैले वैकुण्ठपुर क्षेत्र के कटकोना के भाग ।

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर तथा कोरिया जिले में फैले वैकुण्ठपुर क्षेत्र के झिलमिल ष पाण्डवपारा उपक्षेत्र के भाग ।

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर तथा कोरिया जिले में फैले बैकुण्ठपुर क्षेत्र के चरचा वेस्ट के भाग ।

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर तथा कोरिया जिले में फैले बैकुण्ठपुर क्षेत्र के चरचा ईस्ट के भाण ।

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर तथा रायगढ़ जिले में फैले रायगढ़ क्षेत्र के क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय के भाग ।

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर तथा रायगढ़ जिले में फैले रायगढ़ क्षेत्र के छाल के भाग । 1520

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5 , 2008/ CHAITRA 16 , 1930

39. उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक , बरौद उपक्षेत्र, डाकखाना बरौद, जिला रायगढ़ (छ.ग. )

40 उपमुख्य चिकित्सा अधिकारी/चिकित्र अधीक्षक, केन्द्रिय चिकित्सालय मनेन्द्रगढ़ , ढाकखाना महेन्द्रगढ़ , जिला कोरिया (छ.ग.)

41. उपमुख्य खनन अभियंता( बचाव ) , एसईसीएल खान बचाव केन्द्र, मनेन्द्रगढ़ रेलवे स्टेशन, डाकखाना मनेन्द्रगढ़ , जिला कोरिया ( छ.ग. )

42. उपमहाप्रबंधक/ स्टाफ आफिसर ( खनन ) , हसदेव क्षेत्र , पोस्टसाउथ झगराखाण्ड कालरी , मनेन्द्रगढ़ रेलवे स्टेशन , जिला कोरिया (छ.ग. )

43. उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक/अभिकर्ता परियोजना अधिकारी , बहेराबांध उपक्षेत्रीय समुह , रेलवे स्टेशन बिजुरी , द.पु. म. रेलवे डाकखाना बहेराबांध, जिला अनूपपुर ( म.प्र. ) 44. उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक/अभिकर्ता परियोजना अधिकारी, कुरजा उपक्षेत्रीय समूह , रेलवे स्टेशन बिजुरी , द.पु.म. रेलवे डाकखाना बिजुरी , जिला अनूपपुर (म.प्र. ) 45. उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक/अभिकर्ता परियोजना अधिकारी , बिजुरी उपक्षेत्रीय समूह , रेलवे स्टेशन बिजुरी , द.पु.म. रेलवे डाकखाना बिजुरी , जिला अनूपपुर (म.प्र. ) 46 उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक/अभिकर्ता परियोजना अधिकारी , राजनगर खुली खदान उपक्षेत्र , रेलवे स्टेशन बिजुरी , द. पु. म. रेलवे डाकखाना राजनगर, जिला अनूपपुर (म.प्र.)

47. उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक/अभिकर्ता परियोजना अधिकारी , राजनगर उपक्षेत्र , रेलवे स्टेशन बिजुरी , द.पु.म. रेलवे डाकखाना राजनगर, जिला अनूपपुर (म.प्र.) 48. उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक/अभिकर्ता परियोजना अधिकारी , रामनगर उपक्षेत्र , रेलवे स्टेशन बिजुरी , द.पु.म. रेलवे डाकखान। राजनगर, जिला अनूपनुर ( म.प्र. ) 49. उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक/अभिकर्ता परियोजना अधिकारी, झगराखांड उपक्षेत्र , रेलवे स्टेशन मनेन्द्रगढ़, द.पु.म. रेलवे डाकखाना राजनगर, जिला कोरिया ( छ.ग. ) 50. उभमहाप्रबंधक उप क्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक, कुसमुण्डा खुली खदान परियोजना, डाकखाना कुसमुण्डां कालरी , जिला कोरबा (छ.ग. )

51 . उपमहाप्रबंधक उप क्षेन प्रबंधक, लक्ष्मण खुली खदान परियोजना, डाकखाना कुसमुण्डा कालरी , जिला कोरबा ( छ.ग. )

[PART I- SEC . 3 (ii )]

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के के सभी परिसर तथा रायगढ़ जिले में फैले रायगढ़ क्षेत्र के बरौद उपक्षेत्र के भाग ।

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर तथा कोरिया जिले में फैले हसदेव क्षेत्र के केन्द्रिय चिकित्सालय के भाग ।

छत्तीगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर तथा कोरिया जिले में फैले हसदेव क्षेत्र के एसईसीएल खान बचाव केन्द्र मनेन्द्रगढ़ के भाग ।

मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा कोरिया जिले में फैले और हसेदव क्षेत्र के क्षेत्र भाग ।

मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा अनूपपुर जिले में फैले और हसेदव क्षेत्र के बहेराबांध उपक्षेत्र समूह के क्षेत्र भाग।

मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा अनूपपुर जिले में फैले और हसेदव क्षेत्र के कुरजा उपक्षेत्रीय समूह के क्षेत्र भाग ।

मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा अनूपपुर जिले में फैले और हसेदव क्षेत्र के बिजुरी उपक्षेत्रेय समुह के क्षेत्र भाग।

मध्यप्रदेश राज्यमें स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा अनुपपुर जिले में फैले और हसेदव क्षेत्र के राजनगर खुली खदान उपक्षेत्र के क्षेत्र भाग ।

'मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा अनूपपुर जिले में फैले और हसेदव क्षेत्र के राजनगर खुली खदान उपक्षेत्र के क्षेत्र भाग ।

मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा अनूपपुर जिले में फैले और हसेदव क्षेत्र के राजनगर उपक्षेत्र के क्षेत्र भाग।

मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा कोरिया जिले में फैले और इसेदव क्षेत्र के झगराखांड उपक्षेत्र के क्षेत्र भाग।

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा कोरबा जिले में फैले और कुसमुण्डा क्षेत्र के कुसमुण्डाखुली खदान परियोजना के क्षेत्र भाग।

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा कोरबा में फैले और कुसमुण्डा क्षेत्र लक्ष्मण खुली खदान परियोजना मेत्र भाग। [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

1521 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

52 स्टाफ आफिसर योजना परियोजना कुसमुण्डा क्षेत्र , डाकखाना कुसमुण्डा कालरी , जिला कोरबा ( छ.ग.)

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ट्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा कोरबा जिले में फैले और कुसमुण्डाक्षेत्र के क्षेत्र भागः

53. उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक, चिरमिरी भूमिगत उपक्षेत्र , डाकखाना चिरमिरी कालरी , थाना चिरमिरी , तहसील मनेन्द्रगढ़ जिला कोरिया ( छ.ग.)

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा कोरिया जिले में फैले और चिरमिरी क्षेत्र के चिरिभिरी भूमिगत उपक्षेत्र के क्षेत्र भाग ।

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा कोरिया जिले में फैले और चिरिमिरी क्षेत्र के चिरिमिरी खुली खदान उपक्षेत्र के क्षेत्र भाग।

54. उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक , चिरमिरी खुली खदान उपक्षेत्र , डाकखाना चिरमिरी कालरी , घाना चिरमिरी, तहसील मनेन्द्रगढ़ जिला कोरिया ( छ.ग. )

55 उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक , कुरासिया उपक्षेत्र , ढाकखाना गोद्रीपाय , थाना चिरमिरी , तहसील मनेन्द्रगढ़ जिला कोरिया (छ.ग. )

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्यमें स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा कोरिया जिले में फैले और विरिमिरी क्षेत्र के कुरासिया उपक्षेत्र के क्षेत्र घाग ।

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित'साग्यं ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा कोरिया जिले में फैले और चिरिमिरी क्षेत्र के कोमनहिल उपक्षेत्र के क्षेत्र भाग ।

56 उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक, गार्थ चिरमिरी डोमनहिल उपक्षेत्र, डाकखाना दोमनहिल , धात्रा चिरमिरी , तहसील मनेन्द्रगढ़ जिला कोरिया ( क.ग )

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा कोरिया जिले में फैले और चिरिमिरी क्षेत्र के वेस्ट चिरमिरी कोरिया उपक्षेत्र के क्षेत्र भाग ।

57. उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक, वेस्ट चिरमिरी कोरिया उपक्षेत्र, डाकखाना वेस्ट चिरमिरी , धागा पोडी , तहसीह मगेन्द्रगढ़ , जिला कोरिया (छ.ग. ) .

58. उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक, एनसीपीएच उपक्षेत्र, डाकखाना हल्दीबाडी,थाना चिरमिरी , तहसील मनेन्द्रगढ जिला कोरिया ( छ.ग.)

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा कोरिया जिले में फैले और चिरिबिरी क्षेत्र के एनसीपीएच उपक्षेत्र के क्षेत्र थाग।

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा कोरिका जिले में फैले और चिरिमिरी क्षेत्र के रानी अटारी उपक्षेत्र के क्षेत्र भाग।

59. उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक, रानी अटारी उपक्षेत्र, डाकखाना पुटीपखला , थाना पसान , तहसील कटघोरा , जिला कोरबा (छ.ग.)

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा कोरिया जिले में फैले औरे चिरिमिरी क्षेत्र के मुख्य महाप्रबंधक कार्यालय के क्षेत्र भाग।

60. स्टाफ अधिकारी ( खनन) मुख्य महाप्रबंधक कार्यालय, चिरमिरी , क्षेत्र डाकखाना वेस्ट चिरमिरी, थाना पोढी, तहसील मनेन्द्रगढ़ जिला कोरिया (छ.ग.)

61. मुख्य चिकित्सा अधिकारी , क्षेत्रीय चिकित्सालय, कुरासिया डाकखागा गोदीपारा , थाना चिरमिरी , तहसील मनेन्द्रगढ़ , जिला कोरिया ( छ.ग. )

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा कोरिया जिले में फैले और चिरमिरी क्षेत्र के क्षेत्रीय चिक्तिसालय कुरासिया के क्षेत्र भाग ।

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा सरगुजा जिले में फैले और मिश्रामपुर क्षेत्र के क्षेत्र भाग ।

62 उपमहाप्रबंधक क्षेत्रीय योजना अधिकारी , एसईसीएल , बिश्रामपुर क्षेत्र , रेलवे स्टेशन विश्रामपुर पो.आ. विश्रामपुर कालरी , जिला सरगुजा ( छ.ग. )

63. उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक , कुम्दा उपक्षेत्र , रेलवे स्टेशन विश्रामपुर , पो.आ. बिश्रामपुर कालरी , जिला सरगुजा ( छ.ग. )

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा सरगुजा जिले में फैले और बिश्रामपुर क्षेत्र के कुम्दा उपक्षेत्र के क्षेत्र भाग ।

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा सरगुजा जिले में फैले और विश्रामपुर क्षेत्र के रेहर गायत्री जयनगर उपक्षेत्र के क्षेत्र भाग ।

64. उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक , रेहर गायत्री जयनगर उपक्षेत्र, रेलवे स्टेशन विश्रामपुर , पो.आ. विश्रामपुर कालरी , जिला सरगुजा (छ.ग. )

1064G1/2008-7 1522

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2008/CHAITRA 16 , 1930

(1)

(2)

65. उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक , विश्रामपुर खुली खदान उपक्षेत्र , रे. स्टे. बिश्रामपुर, पो.आ. विश्रामपुर कालरी , जिला सरगुजा (छ.ग. )

66. उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक , अमेरा उपक्षेत्र रेलवे स्टेशन बिश्रामपुर, पो.आ. विश्रामपुर कालरी , जिला सरगुजा ( छ.ग.)

67. उप महाप्रबंधक ( श्रमशाक्ति/कल्याण ) , एसईसीएल मुख्यालय डाकखाना नं. 60 , सीपत रोड डाकखाना बिलासपुर ( छ.ग. )

68. नगर प्रशासक , एसईसीएल मुख्यालय डाकखाना एसईसीएल , सीपत रोड डाकखाना बिलासपुर (छ.ग.)

69. मुख्य महाप्रबंधक डान्कुनी कोल काम्पलेक्स डाकखाना डान्कुनी, जिला हुगली (प.बं. )

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

(3)

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा सरगुजा जिले में फैले और बिश्रामपुर क्षेत्र के बिश्रामपुर खुली खदान उपक्षेत्र के क्षेत्र भाग ।

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा सरगुजा जिले में फैले और विश्रामपुर क्षेत्र के अमेरा उपक्षेत्र के क्षेत्र भाग ।

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा बिलासपुर जिले में फैले और बिलासपुर एसईसीएल के मुख्यालय के क्षेत्र भागः ।

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के संबंधित सभी परिसर तथा बिलासपुर जिले में फैले और बिलासपुर एसईसीएल के मुख्यालय के क्षेत्र भाग ।

पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य में स्थित साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के हुगली जिला में फैले डान्कुनी कोल काम्पलेक्स के भाग । नोट- विभिन्न क्षेत्रों/ईकाईयों स्थापनाओं के सभी साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड बिलासपुर ( छ.ग. ) के नियंत्रणाधीन या उसके अन्य परिसर , आवसीय एवं गैर- आवसीय भवन भी सम्मिलित हैं ।

[नं. 43022/1 /2003- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू] एम. शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF COAL

NewDelhi , the 28th March, 2008

S.Q. 750. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction ofUn -authorised Occupants) Act , 1971 (40 of 1971 ) and in supersession of the notification ofthe Government of India in the Ministry of Coal Number S.O.3953 dated the 24th October, 2005 published in the Gazette of India Part- II , Section 3, sub- section ( ii) , dated the 29thOctober, 2005 , except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession , the Central Government herebyappoints the officers mentioned in column (2) ofthe Table below, being the officers of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited and equivalent to the rank ofGazetted Officers ofthe Central Government , to be the estate officers for the purposes ofthe said Act , who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on the estate officers or under the saidActwithin the limits oftheirjurisdiction in respect ofthe categories ofthe public premises specified in the corresponding entry in column (3 ) of the said Table .

Sl. No. Designation of the Officer

(1)

(2)

1. StaffOfficer (Mining) AreaHors . Johilla Area, Office oftheCGM , Nowrozabad Distt: Umaria (MP)

2 Sub Area Manager/Agent, Pali Sub Area, PO :Birsinghpur Pali , Distt: Umaria (MP)

3. Sub Area Manager/Agent, Pinoura- Vindhya Sub Area, PO: Vindhya, Distt: Umaria (MP)

TABLE

Categories ofPublic Premises and local limits ofjurisdication (3)

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part ofArea Officer ofJohilla Area spread over in the District Umaria situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh .

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Pali Sub Area of Johilla Area spread over in the District Umaria situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh .

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part ofPinoura-Vindhya Sub Area of Johilla Area spread over in the District Umaria situated in the State ofMadhya Pradesh .

1523 [भाग ॥-खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2008 /चैत्र 16, 1930

(2)

(3)

( 1)

Sub Area Manager /Agent, Uinaria Sub Area, PO: Umaria Distt : Umaria (MP)

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limitedand forming part ofUmariya Sub Area of JohillaArea spread over in the District Umaria situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh..

5. Sub Area Manager/Agent, Nowrozabad Sub Area, PO: Nowrozabad Distt : Umaria

'All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part ofNowrozabad Sub Area of Johilla Area spread over in the District Umaria situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

Dy.GeneralManager. SECL, Gevra project, PO: Gevra Distt: Korba (CG) 495452.

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Gevra Project Aren and spread over in the District Korba situated in the State of Chhatisgarh .

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Dipka Project/Area and spread over in the District Korba situated in the State of Chhatisgarh.

Dy.General Manager , Dipka Project , SECL , DipkaArea , PO: Dipka Project, Distt: Korba(CG)495452.

Dy. ChiefEngineer (Excv) Central Excavation Workshop . PO: Gevra Distt: Korba (CG)

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Central Excavation Workshop ofGevra Area and spread over in the District Korba situated in the State of Chhatisgarh

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and formning part of Bhatgaon Area and spread over in the District Surguja situated in the State of Chhatisgarh.

Dy, Chief Personnel Manager , Office ofG.M. BhatgaonArea , PO : Jarhi , Post: Bhaigaon , Distt:Surguja(CG)497235

10. Sub Area Manager/Agent , Dugga Sub Area, PO: Bhatgaon Colliery, Distt: Surguja (CG)497235

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Dugga Sub Area of Bhaigaon Area and spread over in the District Surguja situated in the State of Chhatisgarh.

11. Sub Area Manager/Agent , Kalyani Sub Area, Jarhi , PO:BhatgaonColliery, Distt: Surguja(CG) 497235

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Kalyani Sub Area of Bhatgaon Area and spread over in the District Surguja situated in the State of Chhatisgarh.

12.

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Bhatgaon Sub Area of Bhatgaon Area and spread over in the District Surguja situated in the State of Chhatisgarh .

Sub Area Manager/Agent, Bhatgaon Sub Area, Jarhi, PO:Bhatgaon Colliery, Distt :Surguja( CG) 497235

13.

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Burhar Sub Area of Sohagpur Area and spread over in the District Shahdol situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

Sub Area Manager/Agent, Burhar Sub Area , Railway Station Amlai, PO: Dhanpuri , Distt :Shahdol ( MP)

14.

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Sharda OCM Sub Area of Sohagpur Area and spread over in the District Anuppur situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

Sub AreaManager/Agent , P.O. Sharda OCM Sub Area, Railway Station Amlai , PO:Amlai Paper Mills Distt: Anuppur(MP).

15.

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Amlai & Bangwar Sub Area of SohagpurArea and spread over in the District Shahdol Anuppur situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

SubArea Manager/Agent, P.O. Amlai & Bangwar Sub Area, RailwayStationAmlai, PO: Amlai , Distt : Anuppur (MP) .

16.

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Rajendra Navagaon Sub Area of Sohagpur Area and spread over in the District Shahdol situared in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

Sub AreaManager/Agent/ P.O. Rajendra Naavagaon Sub Area , RailwayStation Burhar, PO: Khairaha Distt : Shahdol (MP) 1524

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2008/CHAITRA 16 , 1930

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

(2)

(3)

17.

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Amlai OCM Sub Área ofSohagpur Area and spread over in the District Shahdol situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

Sub Area Manager/Agent/P.O. Amlai OCM Sub Area Amlai , PO: Sanjay KoylaNagar Distt: Shahdol (MP)

18, Sub Area Manager/Agent/P.O. Dhanpuri OCM Sub Area Amlai , PO: Sanjay KoylaNagar Distt:Anuppur (MP)

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Dhanpuri OCM Sub Area of Sohagpur Area and spread over in the District Anuppur situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh ,

19.

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited andforming part of Area Establishment of Sohagpur Area and →spread over in the District Shahdol situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

Dy.General Manager, StaffOfficer (Mining) Area Establishment, Railway StationAmlai , PO: Dhanpuri , Distt: Shahdol (MP)

20.

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Korba Area Establishment , spread over in the District Korba situated in the State of Chhatisgarh, Dy . CME/SO (Mines), KorbaArea, PO: Korba Colliery , Distt: Korba(CG).

21 .

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Rajgamar Sub Area of Korba Area and spread over in the District Korba situated in the State of Chhatisgarh.

Dy. General Manager / SAM/ Agent/ Project Officer, Rajgamar Sub Area, PO: OmpurColliery, Distt: Korba(CG) .

22.

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Banki Sub Area of Korba Area, spread over in the District Korba situated in the State of Chhatisgarh .

Dy . GM/SAM/Agent/PO , Banki SubArea , PO:BankiMogra, Distt: Korba ( CG) .

23.

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Surakachhar/Balgi Sub Area of Korba Area spread over in the District Korba situated in the State ofChhatisgarh.

Dy. GM/ SAM/Agent/PO, Surakachhar/Baigi Sub Area, PO: Katghora, Distt:Korba (CG).

24.

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part ofDhelwadih -Singhali-Bagdeva Sub Area of Korba Area , spread over in the District Korba situated in the State of Chhatisgarh.

Dy.GM/SAM/Agent/PO , Dhelwadih-Singhali-Bagdeva Sub Area, PO: Katghora, Distt: Korba(CG).

25.

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part ofManikpur Sub Area of Korba Area , spread over in the District Korba situated in the State of Chhatisgarh .

Dy.GM/SAM/Agent/PO , Manikpur Sub Area, РО :Малікриг, Distt:Korba(CG).

26.

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields, Limited and forming part of Central Workshop of Korba Area spread over in the District Korba situated in the State of Chhatisgarh .

Dy. ChiefEngineer, Central Workshop, PO:Korba Colliery, Distt: Korba(CG)

27.

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part ofArea Office , Jamuna Kouma Area, spread over inthe District Anuppur situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh .

StaffOfficer (Mining), Jamuna -Kotma Area, PO : Jamuna Colliery, Distt:Anuppur( MP) : 484444

28.

All the premises belongingto South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Govinda Sub Area, Jamuna Kotma Area, spread over in the District Anuppur situated in the State of MadhyaPradesh.

Dy. General Manager, Govinda Sub Area, Govinda Colliery, Distt:Anuppur (MP) 1525

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2008/चैत्र 16 , 1930

[भाग 1 ]-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

( 1)

(2)

(3)

29.

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited arid forming part of Amadand , Jamuns Kotima Area, spread over in the District Anuppur situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

Sub AreaManager, Amadand, PO: Malga Colliery, Distt: Anuppur (MP)

30.

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Bhadra , Jamuna Kotma Area, spread over in the DistrictAnuppur situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

SubArea Manager, Bhadra, PO: BhadraColliery, Disit: Anuppur(MP).

31.

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Kotma Sub Area of Jamuna Kotma Area, spread over in the District Anuppur situated in the State ofMadhya Pradesh,

Sub Area Manager , Kotma Sub Area , PO: Koma, Distt: Anuppur(MP).

All the premisesbelonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part ofArea Office Baikunthpur Area , spread over in the District Korea situated in the State ofChhatisgarh.

Ly. General Manager, SO (M) PO: Baikunthpur, Distt: Korea(CG)

33. Sub Area-Manager, Katkona , PO: Kotkona,

Distt: Korea (CG)

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Kotkona , Baikunthpur Area, spread over in the District Korea situated in the State of Chhatisgarh.

Sub Area Manager, Jhilimili & Pandavpara Sub Area, PO :Jhilimili.

Distt:Korea (CG)

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Jhilimili and Pandavpara Sub. Area of Baikunthpur Area, spread over in the District Korea situated in the State of Chhatisgarh .

35. Dy. General Manager/SAM, PO: ChurchaWest Colliery,

Distt: Korea (CG).

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Churcha West Colliery of Baikunthpur Area, spread over in the District Korea situated in the State of Chhatisgarh.

36. Dy.General Manager/SAM, PO: Churcha East Colliery,

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Churcha East Colliery of Baikunthpur Area, spread over in the District Korea situated in the State ofChhatisgarh.

Distt: Korea (CG ).

37.

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Area Office of Raigarh Area, spread over in the District Raigarh situated in the State of Chhatisgarh .

Personnel Manager, Rajgarh Area, Chhote Attanmurah , P.B. No. 27, PO Raigarh , Distt:Raigarh (CG) 496001

SAM

38.

All the premises belongingto South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Chhal Sub Area of Raigarh Area, spread over in theDistrict Raigarh situated in the State of Chhatisgarh .

Chhal Sub Area, PO: Chhal , Distt: Raigarh(CG)

39.

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limitedand forming part of Barod Sub Area of Raigarh Area, spread over in the District Raigarh situated in the State of Chhatisgarh .

SAM. Barod Sub Area . PO:Barod, Distt: Raigarh (CG )

40.

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Central Hospital , Manendragarh of Hasdeo Area, spread over in the District Korea situated in the State of Chhatisgarh.

Dy. CMO/MS. Central Hospital , Manendragarh , PO: Manendragarh, Distt: Korea(CG)497442.

11 .

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of SECL Mines Rescue Stationt , Manendragarh of Hasdeo Area , spread over in the District Korea situated in the State of Chhatisgarh .

D. CME (Rescue) , SECL Mines Rescue Station , Manendragarh Rly. Stn. PO:Manendragarh Distt:Korea (CG) 497442.

1526

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL . 5. 2008 CHAITRA 16 , 19.30

PARI 11 50.3 (ii) | ( 1)

(2)

(3)

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coralfields Limited and forming part of Hasdeo Area, spread over the District Korea situated in the State of Chhatisgarh.

42. Dy.General Manager ! StaffOfficer ( Mining) . Hasdeo Area. PO: South Jhagrakhand colliery , Manendragarh Rly. Stn . Distt: Korea ChhatisGarh .

All the premises belonging to South Eastem Coolfields Linrited and fortning part of Behrabandh Sub Area of Hasdeo Area . spread over in the District Anuppur situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

43. SAM'AGENT. Behrabandh Sub Area, Rly. Sur . Bijuri SFC Railway. PO: Behrabandh 484440 Distt: Anuppur (MP) .

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Kurja Sub Area of lasdeo Area , spread over in the District Anuppur situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh .

4. SAM/AGENT. Kurja Sub Area , Rly. Stn . Bijuri SEC Railway. PO: Bijuri :484440 Distt: Anuppur (MP ) .

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Bijuri Sub Area of Hasdeo Area, spread over in the District Anuppur situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh .

45. SAM/AGENT, Bijuri Sub Arça , Rly. Stn . Bijuri SEC Railway , PO: Bijuri :484440 Distt:Anuppur(MP) .

All the premises belonging to South Eastem Coalfields Limited and forming part of Rajnagar Sub Area, OC of Hasdeo Area , spread aver in the District Anuppur situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh 46, SAM/AGENT, Rajnagar Sub Area, O.C. , Rly. Sim . Bijuri SEC Railway. PO: Rajnagar : 484446 Distt :Anuppur ( MP) .

All thepremises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Ramnagar Sub Area of Hasdeo Area , spread over in the District Anuppur situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

47. SAM'AGENT, Rajnagar Sub Area , Rly . Sm . Bijuri SEC Railway, PO: Rajnagar:484446 Distt:Anuppur(MP) .

48.

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Ramnagar Sub Area of Hasdeo Area, spread over in the District Anuppur situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

SAM/AGENT, Ramnagar Sub Area , Rly. Stn . Bijuri SEC Railway, PO : Jhimmar Colliery: 484446 Distt:Anuppur(MP).

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Jharkhand Sub Area of Hasdeo Area, spread over in the District Korea situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Chhatisgarh ,

49. SAM/AGENT /PO Jharkhand Sub Area , Rly. Stn . Manendragarh SEC Railway , PO: Rajnagar:484440 Distt: Korea Chhatishgarh

50.

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Kusmunda OCP of Kusmunda Area , spread over in the District Korba situated in the State of Chhatisgarh.

Dy.GM/SAM Kusmunda OCP, PO: Kusmunda Colliery, Distt : Korba(CG ),495454

51 .

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Laxman OCP Kusmunda Area, spread over in the District Korba situated in the State of Chhatisgarh.

Dy.GM/SAM Laxman OCP, PO: Kuşmunda Colliery, Distt: Korba(CG ), 495 454 1527

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5 , 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

[ भाग ॥-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

(3)

(2)

(1)

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limitedand forming part ofKusmunda Area, spread over in the District Korba situated in the State of Chhatisgarh.

StaffOfficer project and Planning Kusmunda Áréa, PO: Kusmunda Colliery, Distt: Korba(CG).495454

53.

Allthe premisesbelonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Chirimiri UG Sub Area, of Chrirmiri Area, spread over. in the District Korea situated in the State of Chhatisgarh.

SubArea Manager , Chirimiri UG SubArea, PO: Chirimiri Colliery, Thana- Chirimiri , Tah: Manendragarh, Distt: Korea(CG).

54.

Allthe premisesbelonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Chirimiri OC Sub Area, of Chirimiri Area, spread over in the District Korea situated in the State of Chhatisgarh.

Sub Area Manager, Chirimiri UG SubArea, PO: Chirimiri Colliery, Thana Chirimiri , Tah: Manendragarh , Distt: Korea(CG) .

55.

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Kurasia Sub Area, Chirimiri Area, spread over in the District Korea situated in the State of Chhatisgarh .

Sub AreaManager, Kurasia Sub Area, PO:Godri Para, Thana-Chirimini, Tah: Manendragarh, Distt:Korea(CG).

56.

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Duman Hill Sub Area, of Chirimiri Area, spread over in the District Korea situated in the State of Chhatisgarh .

Sub Area Manager, NorthChirimiri, Duman Hill SubArea, PO: Duman Hill, Thana-Chirimiri , Tah:Manendragarh ,

Distt: Korea (OG).

57.

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of West Chirimiri-Korea Sub Area , ofChirimiri Area, spread, over in the District Korea situated in the State ofChhatisgarh.

SubArea Manager, WestChirimiri -Korea Sub Areн, PO: West Chirimiri , Thana- Pondi , Tah : Manendragarh, Distt: Korea(CG) .

58.

All the premisesbelonging to South Eastem Coalfields Limited and forming part ofNCPH Sub Area, of Chirimiri Area , spread over in the District Korea situated in the State of Chhatisgarh .

SubArea Manager, NCPH Sub Area, PO: Haldi Badi , Thana- Chirimiri , Tah: Manendragarh, Distt: Korea(CG) .

59.

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Rani Atari Sub Area of Chirimiri Area, spread over in the District Korba situated in the State of Chhatisgarh.

Sub Area Manager , Rani Atari Sub Area, PO: Putipakhna, Thana- Pasan, Tah: Katghora, Distt: Korea(CG) .

60.

Allthe premises belongingto South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of CGM Office of Chirimiri Area, spread over in the District Korea situated in the State ofChhatisgarh ..

StaffOfficer (Mining), CGM Office, Chirimiri Area , PO: West Chirimiri , Thana- Pondi , Tah: Manendragarh, Distt : Korea (CO) .

1528

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5 , 2008/CHAITRA 16 , 1930

(PART 11 SEC. 3 (ii )] (1)

(2)

(3)

61.

All the premisesbelonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Regional Hospital Kurasia, of Chirimizi Area , spread over in the District Korba situated in the State ofChhatisgarh.

ChiefMedical Officer, Regional Hospital Kurasia, PO: Godri Para, Thana- Chirimiri , Tah: Manendragarh, Distt: Korea (CG) .

62.

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of CGM Office of Bishrampur Area , spread over in the District Surguja situated in the State of Chhatisgarh .

Dy.General Manager/Area PlanningOfficer, SECL BishrampurArea, Rly. StationBishrampur P.O. Bishrampur Colliery Distt. Surguja(Chhatisgarh)

63.

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Kumda Sub Area of Bishrampur Area, spread over in the District Surguja situated in the State of Chhatisgarh .

Sub AreaManager , Kumda Sub Area, Rly.Station Bishrampur P.O. Bishrampur Colliery Distt: Surguja (Chhatisgarh)

64.

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Rehar-Gayatri-Jainagar Sub Area , of Bishrampur Area Spread over in the District Surguja situated in the State of Chhattisgarh .

Sub Area Manager , Rehar-Gayatri - Jainagar Sub Area, Rly.Station Bishrampur P.O. Bishrampur Colliery Distt: Surguja (Chhatisgarh)

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Bishrampur O.C. Sub Area , of Bishrampur Area , spread over in the District Surguja situated in the State of Chhattisgarh.

65. SubArea Manager, Bishrampur O.C. SubArea, Rly. Station Bishrampur P.O. Bishrampur Colliery

Distt: Surguja (Chhatisgarh)

66.

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Amera Sub Area, of Bishrampur Area , spread over in the District Surguja situated in the State of Chhatisgarh .

SubArea Manager, Amera Sub Area , Riy.Station Bishrampur P.O. Bishrampur Colliery Distt: Surguja (Chhatisgarh)

67.

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of SECL Hqrs . ofSECL Bilaspur, spread over in the District Bilaspur situated in the State of Chhatisgarh.

Dy.General Manager (MP&W), SECLHeadquarters, P.O. SECL SeepatRoad, PO: Bilaspur (CG)495006.

68,

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of SECL Hars . of SECL Bilaspur , spread over in the District Bilaspur situated in the State of Chhatisgarh .

TownAdministrator, SECL Headquarters , P.O. SECL Seepat Road , PO: Bilaspur (CG)-495006.

69.

All the premises belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited and forming part of Dhankuni Coal Complex spread over in the District Hugli situated in the State of West Bengal ,

ChiefGeneral Manager, Dhankuni Coal Complex, Р.О. Dhankuni Distt: Hugli (WB) .

NOTE: All premises belonging to various Areas/Units/Establishments includes other premises , residential and non- residential buildings belonging to or under the control of South Eastern Coalfields Limited , Bilaspur (CG) .

ง. 43022/1 /2003 -PRIW] M. SHA: IBUDDIN , Under Secy.

[भाग -खण्ड (li ) ]

1529

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

नई दिल्ली , 28 मार्च, 2008

का. अ . 751.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि इससे उयाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्त किए जाने की संभावना है;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम, 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस क्षेत्र में कोयले के लिए पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है;

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक सं. डी. जी. /8669 तारीख 14 नवम्बर, 2007 का निरीक्षण महाप्रबंधक ( गवेषण प्रभाग ) , सेंट्रल माइन प्लानिंग एण्ड डिजाइन इंस्टीच्यूट , गॉदयाना प्लेस,कॉके रोह , रांची के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक , । , काउंसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट, कोलकत्ता के कार्यालय में या जिला कलेक्टर , जिला रायगढ़ , छत्तीसगढ़ के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ।

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाली भूमि में हितबद्ध सभी व्यक्ति उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उपधारा ( ? ) में निर्दिष्ट सभी नक्शों चारों और अन्य दस्तावेजों को इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिन के भीतर महाप्रबंधक ( गवेषणा प्रभाग ) , सेंट्रल माइन प्लानिंग एण्ड डिजाइन इंस्टीच्यूट , गोंद‌वाना प्लेस , कॉके रोड , रांची को भेजेंगे ।

अनुसूची

स्थांग सेंट्रल ईस्ट " ए " ब्लाक , मांद रायगढ़ , कोयला क्षेत्र

जिला- रायगढ़ ( छत्तीसगढ़ )

रेखांक सं. डीजी/ 8669 तारीखा 14 नवम्बर, 2007

सभी अधिकार

क्रम सं.

जिला ग्राम

ग्राम संख्या

थाना तहसील

कोरबा

523500

डेंगुरडीड

रायगढ़ 2

324300

करतला

रायगढ़.

सुदमा

525200

कोरबा

सरसा देवा

रायगढ़ बोरो

321600

धभरजयगढ़

रायगढ़ 5. वनक्षेत्र सुरक्षित वन क्षेत्र

सीमा वर्णनः

कख

टिप्पणी

क्षेत्रफल ( हैक्टर में लगभग)

क्षेत्रफल ( एकड़ में लगभग)

8 6.

456.0

184.5

भाग

726.5

भाग 1795.0

297.0

120.5

भाग

भाग सुदमा गांव में

शामिल

76.0

भाग 188.0

2736,0 (लगभग)

1107.5 (लगभग)

रेखा (लाइन ) स्यांग गांव फे " क " बिन्दु से आरंभ होती है, और वन सीमा के किनारे बिन्दु " ख " पर मिलती है । ख-ग रेखा (लाइन ) , बोरो ग्राम के पश्चिमी छोर से गुजरती हुई तथा डेंगुरडीह गांव के पूर्वी किनारे के " ग " बिन्दु पर मिलती है । रेखा डेंगुरडीह गांव से गुजरती हुई बिंदु " घ " पर मिलती है ।

घ-क रेखा डेंगुरडीह गांव से गुजरती हुई स्यांग गांव के बिंदु " क " पर मिल जाती है ।

[फा. से 43015/3/2008- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-1 ]

एमः शहाबुद्दीन, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 28th March, 2008

S.O. 751.Whereas it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the lands in the locality mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed;

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

1064G1/2008-8 1530

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5 , 2008/CHAITRA 16 , 1930

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii)] The plan number DG/8669 dated the 14th November 2007 of the area covered by this notification can be inspected at the office ofGeneral Manager ( Exploration Division), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute , Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi or at the office ofthe Coal Controller , 1 , Council House Street, Kolkata or at the office of the District Collector, District Raigarh, Chattisgarh.

All persons interested in the land covered by this notification shall deliver all maps, charts and other documents referred in sub-section (7) of section 13 of the said Act to the General Manager (Exploration Division ) , Central Mine Planning and Design Institute, Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi within ninety days from the date ofpublication ofthis notification in the official Gazette,

SCHEDULE

SYANG CENTRAL- A BLOCK,

MandRaigarh Coalfield, Distt. Raigarh , Chhatisgarh

Plan bearing number DG/8669 dated the 14th November 2007

AllRights

Sl .No. Village

Thana/ Tehsil

Village No. 2

Korba

523500 Dhengurdih

Kartala

Shudma

$24300 3.

Korba

525200 Sarsadewa

Boro

321600

Dharamjai

Garh

Forest

Total

BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION

A-B:-

District

Remarks

Areain (Hectares Approx)

Areain(Acres Approx)

456.0

184.5

Part

Raigarh

1795.0

726.5

Part

Raigarh,

120.5

Part 297.0

Raigarh

Part

Raigarh

include in Shudma village

188.0

Part

76.0

Raigarh

1107.5 (Approximately)

2736.0 (Approximately)

The line start at point ' A ' in village Sayang and meets point ' B ' on the edge offorest boundary.

B-C: The line passes through western part of village Boro and meets point ' C' on the edge of eastern part of villageDengurdih ,

C-D: - The line passes through Dhengurdih village and meets point 'D' .

D-A- The line passes through village Dhengurdih and meets point 'A' in village Sayang

[F. No. 43015/03/2008 -PRIW- 1 ] M. SHAHABUDEEN, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 28 मार्च , 2008

का. आ. 752, केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्त किए जाने की संभावना है;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस क्षेत्र में कोयले के लिए पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है;

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक सं. डी.जी./8668 तारीख 14 नवम्बर , 2007 का निरीक्षण महाप्रबंधक ( गवेषण प्रभाग ) , सेंट्रल माइन प्लानिंग एण्ड डिजाइन इंस्टीच्यूट , गोंदवाना प्लेस , कॉके रोड, रांची के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , काउंसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट, कोलकत्ता के कार्यालय में या जिला कलेक्टर, जिला रायगढ़ , छत्तीसगढ़ के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ।

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाली भूमि में हित्तबद्ध सभी व्यक्ति उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उपधारा ( 7 ) में निर्दिष्ट सभी नक्शों, चाटों और अन्य दस्तावेजों को इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिन के भीतर महाप्रबंधक ( गवेषणा प्रभाग ) , सेंट्रल माइन प्लानिंग एण्ड डिजाइन इंस्टीच्यूट, गोंदवाना प्लेस , कॉके रोड , रांची को भेजेंगे । 1531

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5 , 2008/चैत्र 16 , 1930

[ भाग 1 ]-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

अनुसूची

स्वांग इंस्ट " या" ब्लाक , मांद रायगढ़ , कोयला क्षेत्र

जिला-रायगढ़ ( छत्तीसगढ़ )

रेखांक सं. डीजी 8668 तारीख 14 नवम्बर , 2007

सभी अधिकार

टिप्पणी

जिला

क्रम सं. ग्राम

ग्राम संख्या

क्षेत्रफल (एकड़ मेंलगभग )

याना तहसील

क्षेत्रफल (एकड़ में लगभग)

1081.0

437.5

भाग 1. सिरका

321500

धरमजयगढ़

रायगढ़

भाग 2

1041.0

421.5.

बोरो

321600

रायगढ़

धरमजयगढ़

345.0

भाग 3.

852.0

रायगढ़

सुरक्षित वन क्षेत्र

वनक्षेत्र

कुल

1204.5 (लगभग)

2974.0 (लगभग)

सीमा वर्णनः

क-ख रेखा ( लाइन ) बोरो गांव के " क " बिन्दु से आरंभ होती है , और वन के पूर्वी भाग में बिन्दु " ख " पर मिलती है ।

ख-ग रेखा ( लाइन ) , जंगल के पश्चिमी छोर से गुजरती हुई " ग " बिन्दु पर सिरका गांव के पूर्वी किनारे पर मिलती है । ग-घ रेखा माला के किनारे से गुजरती हुई बिंदु " घ " पर वन के किनारे सिरका गांव के उत्तर पश्चिम भाग में मिलती है । घ-क रेखा वन से गुजरती हुई बिंदु " क " पर वापस मिल जाती है ।

[फा. सं. 43015/2/2008- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-1 ]

एम. शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 28th March , 2008

S.O. 752. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the lands in the locality mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed;

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

The plan number DG /8668 dated the 14th November 2007 ofthe area covered by this notification can be inspected at the office ofGeneral Manager (Exploration Division), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute, Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi or at the office ofthe Coal Controller , 1, Council House Street, Kolkata or at the office of the District Collector, District Raigarh, Chattisgarh .

All persons interested in the land covered by this notification shall deliver all maps , charts and other documents referred in sub-section (7 ) of section 13 of the said Actto the General Manager (Exploration Division), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute, Gondwana Place , Kanke Road, Ranchi withing ninety days from the date ofpublication of thisnotification in the official Gazette.

SCHEDULE

SYANG EAST-B BLOCK,

MandRaigarh Coalfield, Distt. Raigarh, Chhatisgarh Plan bearing number DG / 8668 dated the 14th November 2007

AllRights

SI .No.

District

Remarks Village

Thana/ Tehsil

Village No.

Area in (Acres Approx)

Area in (Hectares Approx)

8 1

Sirka

1081.0

437.5

Part

1041.0

421.0

Boro

321500 321600

Par't Dharamjai Garh DharamjaiGarh

Raigarh Raigarh 1532

3 3.

Forest

Total

BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION A-B:-

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5 , 2008/CHAITRA 16 , 1930

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

852.0

345.0

Part Raigarh

1204.0 (Approximately)

2974.0 (Approximately)

The line start at point ' A' in village Boro and meets point ' B ' Eastern part of the forest.

B-C- The line passes through western part ofthe forest and meets point ' C' on the edge of north eastern part ofvillage Sirka.

C-D The line passes along the bank of Mala and meets point 'D' in the north western part of village Sirka on the edge of forest .

D-A:- The line passes through in the forest and meets point 'A' .

[F.No.43015/02/2008 -PRIW -1 ] M. SHAHABUDEEN , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 28 मार्च, 2008

का. आ. 753. केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्त किए जाने की संभावना है;.

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) की धारा 4 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस क्षेत्र में कोयले के लिए पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है;.

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक संख्याक एनईसी/एल एंड आर/जागुन/01 तारीख 2 जनवरी , 2003 का निरीक्षण महाप्रबंधक, नार्थ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स , कोल इंडिया निमिटेड , पो.आ. मार्भेरिटा , जिला. तिनसुकिया, राज्य असम कि कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक, । , काउंसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट, कोलकता के कार्यालय में या उपायुक्त जिला तिनसुकिया , असम के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है । इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाली भमि में हितबद्ध सभी व्यक्ति उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उपधारा ( 7 ) में निर्दिष्ट सभी रेखांक चाटों और अन्य दस्तावेजों को इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिन के भीतर महाप्रबंधक, नार्थ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स , कोल इंडिया लिमिटेड , पो. आ. मार्पोरेटा, जिला तिनसुकिया , असम को भेजेंगे ।

अनुसूची

जागुन ब्लाक, उपमंडल मार्चेरिटा ,

जिला-तिनसुकिया , असम

सभी अधिकार

भंडार वाले वन

थाना क्रम सं.

नामफाई

जागुन 2

तिनकोपानी

जागुन

कुल सीमा वर्णनः

(रेखांक संख्याः एनईसी/एल एंड आर/ जागुन/01 , तारीख 2 जनवरी , 2003 )

टिप्पणियां

क्षेत्र (हैक्टे.)

क्षेत्र (एकड़ )

220

543

भाग तिनसुकिया

692

280

भाग तिनसुकिया

1235

500

रेखा " क " से आरंभ होती है , और जागुन- मिआउ रोड के समानान्तर पूरब की ओर से होकर गुजरती है तथा बिन्दु " ख " पर नामचिक नदी के निकट मिलती है । क-स्त्र

-ग रेखा नामचिक नदी (जलधारा की प्रतिकूल दिशा ) के किनारे पूरब की ओर से गुजरती है और बिन्दु " ग " पर मिलती है । ग-घ रेखा नामफाई भंडार वन से दक्षिण की ओर नामचिक नदी के किनारे से गुजरती है और तिनकोपानी भंडार वन के बिन्दु " घ " पर आगे दक्षिण में मिलती है । 1533

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

घ-

रेखा , तिनकोपानी भंडार वन से होकर पश्चिम की ओर से गुजरती है और बिन्दु " ड " पर मिलती है ।

द-च रेखा तिनकोपानी भंडार वन से गुजरती है और बिन्दु " च " पर मिलती है ।

च-क रेखा उत्तर की ओर से गुजरती है और जागुन मिआठ रोड के निकट बिन्दु " क " पर मिलती है ।

[संख्या 43015/1/2007-पी आर आई डब्ल्यू-1 ]

एम. शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 28th March, 2008

S.O.753. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the lands in the locality mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquistions and Development ) Act , 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , the CentralGovernment herebygives notice of its intention to prospect for coal therein;

Theplan bearing number NEC/L& R/ JAGUN/01 dated 2nd January, 2003 of the area covered by this notification can be inspected at the office of General Manager North Eastern Coalfields , Coal India Limited , P.O. Margherita, District Tinsukia, Assam or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata or at the office of the Deputy Commissioner, District Tinsukia, Assam .

All persons interested in the land covered by this notification shall deliver all maps , charts and other documents referred in sub- section (7) ofsection 13 ofthe said Act to the General Manager: North Eastern Coalfields, Coal India Limited, P.O. Margherita, District Tinsukia, Assam within ninety days from the date ofpublication of this notification in the Official Gazette.

SCHEDULE

JAGUN BLOCK

Sub-Division, Margherita, District Tinsukia , Astam

Plan bearing number NEC/ L & R/ JAGLUN/01 , dated 2nd January, 2003

All Rights

Sl . No.

Thana

Remarks

District Area inAcres Area in Hectares

Name ofReserve Forest

220

543

Part 1.

Tinsukia

Jagun

Namphai

Tinsukia

692

280

Part Tinkipani

Jagun

Total

500

1235

BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION

A-B:- Line Starts from ' A ' passes towards East Parallel to the Jagun-Miao Road and meets at point 'B' near NamchikRiver.

B-C:- Line passes along the Bank of Namchik River ( Upstream ) towards East and meets at point 'C'.

C-D- Line passes along the bank ofNamchik river towards South through Namphai Reserve Forest and meets further south at point ' D ' of Tinkopani Reserve Forest .

D-E- Line passes towards West through Tinkopani Reserve Forest and meets at point 'E' .

E-F- Line passes through the Tinkopani Reserve Forest and meets at point ' F' .

F-A:- Line passes towards North and meet at point ' A ' near the Jagun Miao Road.

[F. No.43015/01/2007 -PRIW- J ]

M. SHAHABUDEEN , Under Secy.

1534

[PART 11-SEC.3 ( ii ) ] THEGAZETTEOF INDIA: APRIL 5, 2008/CHAITRA 16, 1930

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 31 मार्च , 2008

का. आ. 754.- भारत सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय के का.अ. 2599 दिनांक 10.09.2007, द्वारा पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे उसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा जायेगा) की धारा 3 (1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचना प्रकाशित कर, दादरी (उत्तरप्रदेश राज्य में ) से पानीपल (हरियाणा राज्य में) तक, प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड़ द्वारा "आर. एल.एन.जी. स्पर पाइपलाइन" के सम्बन्ध में उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में निर्दिष्ट तहसील मोदीनगर जिला गाज़ियाबाद ( उत्तरप्रदेश राज्य) की भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी,

और , उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को दिनांक 03.12.2007 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी , और , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने भारत सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ।

और, भारत सरकार ने उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित करने का विनिश्चय किया है ।

अत्तः, अब, भारत सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुये घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित किया जाता है ।

और, भारत सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुये यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार भारत सरकार में निहित होने की बजाय सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड़ में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

राज्य : उत्तर प्रदेश

जिला : गाज़ियाबाद

तहसील : मोदीनगर

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा संख्या

गाँव कानाम

हेक्टेयर

वर्गमीटर

एयर

5 1

521

1. बसन्तपुर सैंतली

[फा. सं. एल-14014/29/2006- जी. पी. ]

के. के. शर्मा, अवर सचिव 1535 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5 , 2008 /चैत्र 16, 1930

Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

New Delhi , the 31st March , 2008

5. 6. 754.Whereas by notification of Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, published in the Gazette of India vide number S.O. 2599 dated the 10th September 2007 , issued under sub- section (1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) , (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , the Government of Indía 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 pipeline for the transportation of Natural Gasfrom Dadri in the state of Uttar Pradesh to Panipat in the state of Haryana by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the " R- LNG Spur pipeline from Dadri to Panipat" in Tehsil Modinagar, District Ghaziabad , in Uttar Pradesh State;

And whereas , copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the public on 03.12.2007 .

Andwhereas, the Competent Authority has under sub - section (1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act, submitted his report to the Government of India.

And whereas , the Government of India after considering the said report is satisfied thatthe right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification should be acquired;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferredby sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Government of India 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 saidAct, the Government of India hereby directs . that the right of users in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Government of India , vest from the date of publication of this declaration ; in Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

District : Ghaziabad

Tehsil: Modinagar

State : Uttar Pradesh

Area

Khasra No.

Nameof Village

Hectare Are

Square Meter 1

521

1. BASANTPUR SAINTLI

[F. No. L-14014/29/2006-G.P.J

K. K. SHARMA, Under Secy.

1536

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2008/ CHAITRA 16, 1930

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 31 मार्च , 2008

का. आ. 755.- भारत सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय के का.आ. 2598 दिनांक 10.09.2007, द्वारा पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे उसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा जायेगा) की धारा 3(1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचना प्रकाशित कर, दादरी (उत्तरप्रदेश राज्य में) से पानीपत (हरियाणा राज्य में) तक, प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड़ द्वारा "आर.-एल.एन.जी. स्पर पाइपलाइन" के सम्बन्ध में उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में निर्दिष्ट तहसील बड़ौत जिला बागपत (उत्तरप्रदेश राज्य) की भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी,

और, उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को दिनांक 03.12.2007 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी,

और, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने भारत सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ।

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

और, भारत सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुये यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार भारत सरकार में निहित होने की बजाय सभी दिल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड़ में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

राज्य: उत्तर प्रदेश

जिला : बागपत

तहसील : बड़ौत

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा संख्या

गाँव का नाम

हेक्टेयर

वर्गमीटर

एयर

5 1

269

1..कोताना बांगर

438

182

00 2. जागोस बांगर

[फा. सं. एल-14014/30/2006-जी. पी. ]

के. के. शर्मा, अवर सचिव 1537

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

[ भाग II- संण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 31st March , 2008

S. 0. 755.-Whereas by notification of Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas , published in the Gazette of India vide number S.O. 2598 dated the 10th September 2007, issued under sub-section (1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , the Government of India 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 pipeline for the transportation of Natural Gasfrom Dadri in the state of Uttar Pradesh to Panipat in the state of Haryana by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the " R - LNG Spur pipeline from Dadri to Panipat " , in Tehsil Baraut, District Baghpat, in Uttar Pradesh State;

And whereas , copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the public on 03.12.2007,

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

And whereas , the Government of India 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 Government of India 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 Government of India hereby directs that the right of users in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Government of India, vest from the date of publication of this declaration , in Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

State : Uttar Pradesh Tehsil : Baraut

District: Baghpat

Area

KhasraNo.

Name of Village

Are

Hectare

Square Meter

269

00 1. KOTANA BANGAR

438

182

00 2.JAGOS BANGAR

[F. No. L-14014/30/2006-G.P. ]

K. K. SHARMA , Under Secy. 106+GI/2008-9 1538

THE GAZETTE , OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2008/CHAITRA 16, 1930

[PART I-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 31 मार्च , 2008

का. आ. 756.-भारत सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय के का.आ. 2800 दिनांक 10.09.2007. द्वारा पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे उसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा जायेगा) की धारा 3 (1) के अधीन अधिसूचना प्रकाशित कर, दादरी (उत्तरप्रदेश राज्य में) से पानीपत (हरियाणा राज्य में) तक, प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड़ द्वारा "आर, एल.एन.जी. स्पर पाइपलाइन के सम्बन्ध में उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में निर्दिष्ट तहसील खेकड़ा जिला बागपत (उत्तरप्रदेश राज्य) की भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी,

और, उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को दिनांक 03.12.2007 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी, और, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने भारत सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ।

और, भारत सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुये यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार भारत सरकार में निहित होने की बजाय सभी विल्लंगमों से भुक्त होकर इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड़ में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

तहसील : खेकडा

जिला: बागपत

राज्य : उत्तर प्रदेश

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव का नाम

खसरा संख्या

हेक्टेयर

एयर

वर्गमीटर 1

5 1. উল্লা

109

[फा. स. एल-14014/30/2006-जी. पी. ]

के. के. शर्मा, अवर सचिव 1539 [पत ][- 3 ( it ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5 , 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

New Delhi , the 31st March, 2008

S. O.756-Whereas by notification of Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas , published in the Gazette of India vide number 8.0 . 2600 dated the 10th September 2007 , issued under sub-section (1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Rightof User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , the Government of India 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 pipeline for the transportation of Natural Gas from Dadri in the state of Uttar Pradesh to Panipat in the state of Haryane by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the " R- LING Spur pipeline from Dadri to Panipat" in Tehsil Khokra , District Baghpat, in Uttar Pradesh State;

And whereas, copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the public on03.12.2007.

Andwhereas, the Competent Authority has under sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act, submitted his report to the Government of India.

And whereas, the Government of India 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 percise of the powers conferred by sub-eection (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 saidAct, the Government of India hereby directs that the right of users in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Government of India , vest from the date of publication ofthis declaration , in Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

State: Uttar Pradesh

Tehsil : Khekra

District: Baghpat

Area

KhasraNo.

Name of Village

Are

Hectare

Square Meter

109

1.Khaila

[F. No. L-14014/30/2006-G.P.

K. K. SHARMA, Under Secy.

1540

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2008 /CHAITRA 16, 1930

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 7 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 757. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय संरकार बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंघाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 43/99) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/135/ 1998- आई आर( बी ] [ ] ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi , the 7th March, 2008

S.O. 757.- pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.43/99) of the Central Government Indus . Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of India , and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 5- 3-2008.

[No. L- 12012/ 135/ 1998- IR ( B- II )] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI R.G SHUKLA PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL- TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, KANPUR Industrial Dispute No. 43 of99 Sri R. K. Savita son of Sri Ram c/o Radhey Shyam Chaubey , 87/221 Acharya Nagar, Kanpur

AND

The Regional Manager Bank of India Jivan Bhawan LICBuilding Sanjai Place , Agra .

AWARD

1. Central Govt . MOL, New Delhi vide Notification No.L- 12012/ 135 /98/ IR ' B - II'dated 4-3-99, has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal:

Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in terminating the services of Sh . R. K. Savita w.e.f. 16-4-97 is legal and justified and whether he is entitled for reinstatement with back wages and other consequential benefts? If not, to what relief he is entitled for ?

2. The case of the workman in short is that the authorities of the opposite party bank are not competent to flout the statutory rules for their personal benefit or gain . It is further pleaded that the workman was continuously working at the vacant post of peon at branch

[PART IISec . 3( ii) ] office Tirvaganj of the opposite party bank in District Farrukhabad w.e.f. 23-12-83 still he was being paid his wages on daily rate basis . Workman completed 240 days of continuous service and when he raised his demand for wages like regular and permanent employee ofthe bank he was assured by the concerned authorities of the bank that further action in his case will be taken in due course oftime after consultation with the Central Office of the Bank . Workman has further pleaded that from the branch where hewas working a regular employee by name Raj Kumar was transferred to some other branch and the services of theworkman were utilized by the bank on the vacant post caused due to transfer of regular and permanent employee of the branch , still the workman was paid his wages on daily ratebasis instead of making payment of wages at full scale wage like regular employee. The course adopted by the opposite party is unfair labour practice and with a view to vitimize the workman and discriminatory as well. The workman when started raising his continuous demand for making him regular and permanent employee and for regular paybefore the authorities of the management , this act of the workman seriously annoyed them as a result of the same the services of the workman were dispensed with by the authorities of the bank w.e.f. 15-4-97 and that the workman had not been paid any notice, notice pay De retrenchment compensation by the bank at the time of termination of his services w.e.f. 16-4-97 which is utter disregard to the mandatory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , and rules made there under despite the fact that the workman completed more than 240 days f continuous year during the intervening each calendar years . It is in gross violation of Sec . 25F of L.D.Act and on the basis of it has been prayed that the workman be reinstated in the service of the bank with full back wages and continuity of service together consequential benefits attached with the past.

3. The claim of the workman has been refuted by the opposite party bank vehemently on the ground that the workman was never appointed by the bank against any regular and permanent post ofpeon , that the workman was never subjected to any regular selection process, that the workman was never issued any appointment letter or termination letter by the bank and that in the absence of breach of service condition , it cannot be said that the action ofthe opposite party bank is.bad in law. Therefore, on the basis of above it has been prayed by the bank that the claim ofthe workman is liable to be rejected.

4. Workman has also filed rejoinder in support of his claim petition but nothing new has been alleged therein except reiterating the facts already pleaded by him in clains petition.

5. After exchange of pleadings between the partic.. : both parties oral as well as oral evidence in support their claim and counter claim .

6. Heard the arguments at fength and have ! perused the records of the case .

1541

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5 , 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

[भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.71/99) of the Central Government Indus . Tribunal -Cum Labour Coun, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Bank of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Govemment . on 5-3-2008.

[No. L- 12012/76/1998-IR (B- II) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

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

Industrial Dispute No. 71 of99 In the matter of dispute between:

Central Bank Shosit Employees Association TheRegional Secy. CBSEA 2/334, Rui Ki Mandi Shahganj Agra.

AND

The Regional Manager

Central Bank of India 37/2/4 Sanjai PlaceAgra.

AWARD

7. From the pleadings of the workman there in no dispute about the fact that the workman was a daily rated employee engaged by the opposite party bank without holding any selection process and without granting any appointment letter in favour of the workman. It is also the admitted position in the case that the workman has not disclosed the breach of service conditions applicable to him. If the same has not been pleaded or proved by the workman, he cannot be granted any protection of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , as the provisions of the Act cannot be réad in isolation ignoring theservice conditions applicable on the workman for the time being.Admittedly the workman was not governedby any ofthe service conditions applicable in the bank during theperiod ofhis casual or daily rated employment. Further Industrial Forums cannot be used as a measure for providing back door entry in the public employment on account of breach ofprovisions of Industrial disputes Act, 1947, unless it is pleaded and proved that the provisions of service conditions are in consistence with the provisions oftheAct . Moreover, in view of the law laid down bythe Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in leading case Smt. Uma Devi which apply with full swing to the facts and circumstances ofthe instant case, the workman cannot be held for any reliefand his claim is liable to be rejected being devoid of merit, misleading and misconcieved.

1. Central Govt . MOL. , New Delhi vide Notification No.L- 12012/76/98 /IR ( B- 11 ) dated 30-3-99, has referredthe following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal

Whether the action of Central Bank of India in imposing penalties upon Yogendra Singh Bhandari , Clerk Agra Cantt. Agra vide order dated 3-6-96 is legal and justified? If not what relief is workman entitled?

8. For the reasons discussed above, tribunal is of the opinion that there is neither any illegality in the action oftheopposite party bank nor unjustifibilitywhen workman was removed from the daily rated employment of the bank. Tribunal' is also of the opinion that being dailyrated casual employee he has no right or title to claim employment in the bank only on the ground of breach of provisions of I. D. Act, 1947 , In any view of the matter, the claim suffers from infirmities and merit therefore is liable to be rejected accordinglythe claim of the workman is rejected.

9. Held that the workman will not be entitled for any relief pursuant to the present reference order.

R. G. SHUKLA , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 7 मार्च, 2008

2. In the instant case after exchange of pleadings and conclusion of evidence by the contesting parties when the case was taken up for final hearing on 7-9-07, authorised representative instead of arguing the case ( merit submitted before the Tribunal that since worker hes taken away file and that he has no instruction in the case. This virtually means that the workman no more is interested in prosecuting his case and in view of it, tribunal do not considers it expedient to give full details ofthe case. Under these circumstances it is held that the workinan is not entitled for any relief pursuant to the present reference. Award is given accordingly.

का.आ. 758.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947

R. G. SHUKLA , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 10 मार्च, 2008

का ।4 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालाय कानपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 71/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/76/1998- आई आर( बी-11 ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

का.आ. 759.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का ( 4 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स कृष्णा वी. :सलगांवकर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/70/2003 ) को प्रकाशितल करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

NewDelhi , the 7th March , 2008

[सं. एल-391012/6/2003- आई आर( बी-1 ] ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी S.O. 758. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central 1542

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5; 2008/CHAITRA 16, 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] NewDelhi , the 10th March,2008

Ex-8. Issus were framed at Ex - 15 and thereafter matter was posted for recording evidence .

3. Meanwhile, both agreed to keep matter for consideration in lokadalat. By filing settlement purshis Ex-27 they agreed to dispose of the reference . Hence the order:

ORDER

S.O. 759. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 2/70/ 2003) of the Central Government Indus.Tribunal -Cum Labour Court, No.2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M's Krishna V.Salgaonkar, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10-3-2008 .

Inview ofPurshis filed at Ex-27 by both, reference is disposedof.

[No. L-39012/6/2003 - IR (B- II ) ]

Date: 25-01-2008

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

A.A. LAD , Presiding Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT MUMBAI

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 , MUMBAI

Ref. CGIT No. 2/70 of 2003

PRESENT

M/S. KRISHNA V. SALGAONKAR

A.A. Lad , PresidingOfficer

MR. JAYANT K. SALGAONKAR

Employer ReferenceNo. CGIT-2/70 of 2003

Partner

Vis

Employers in relation to the management of M/s. Krishna V. Salgaonkar

SHRI SATISHA, PATKAR

Workman TheDirector,

M/s. Krishan V. Salgaonkar,

SETTLEMENT IN RESPECT OF DISPUTE UNDER REF, CGIT NO . 2/70/2003

Seen Between M/ s . Krishna V. Salgaonkar, Mr. Jayant K. Salgaonkar, Partner

29, IDA Mansion, 18, Vaju KotakMarg, Fort, Mumbai 400001 ,

V/ s

There Workmen

Shri Satish Patkar,

B/403, Shridarshan, PlotNo.34, Sector 9 , Khanda Colony. New Panvel (W) 410296.

PresidingOfficer We Shri Jayant K. Salgaonkar Partner ofM/ s. Krishna V. Salgaonkar ( employer) and Shri. Satish A. Patkar Applicant (Employee) in respect of Ref. CGIT 2/70 of 2003 herby state that we have decided to settle thedispute under reference and the Term of Settlementby making payment of Rs.75,000 ( Rupees Seventy five thousand only) for full and final settlement of the dispute under reference .

APPEARANCES :

FOR THE EMPLOYER

: Mr. M.V. Amberkar

Advocate.

For full& final settlement three post dated cheques will be given on 25-01-2008 . On recepit of full amount of Rs. 75,000 ( Rupees Seventy five thousand only) the case will be withdrawn by the second partyworker.

FOR THE WORKMEN

: Mr. J. H. Sawant

Advocate.

We jointly request the Hon'ble Tribunal to give an settlement award on the subject .

Mumbai ,dated 25th January, 2008

Submitted on 25th day of January, 2008.

AWARD

ForEmployer/ Management

JAYANT K.SALGAONKAR, Partner

SATISH A. PATKAR M/S KRISHNAV. SALGAONKAR Workman

The Government of India, Ministry of Labourby its Order No. L-39012/6/2003 -IR(B -II ) dated 14-10-2003 in exercise of the powers conderred by clause (d ) of sub- section ( 1 ) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the industrial Dispute Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

Postdate& Cheque No.659846 dt.24-1-2008 for Rs.25,000 Postdate& Cheque No.659897 dt 25-2-2008 for Rs.25,000 Postdate& Cheque No. 6559898 dt 25-3-2008 for Rs.25,000 All Cheques drawn in Punjab & Maharashtra Co- op Bank Ltd.

नई दिल्ली , 7 मार्च, 2008

"Whether the action of the management of M/s . Krishna V. Salgaonkar , Clearing and Forwarding Agents,Mumbai in orally terminating the services ofShri Satish Patkar w.e.f. 6-8-2001 is justified? If not, what relief the workman Shri Satish Patkar is entitled to?"

का.आ. 760,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का (4) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल बैंक 2. Claim statement is filed by second party at Ex-б . It is replied by first party by filing Written Statement at [ भाग खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 48/99) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/192/1998 - आई आर ( बी-11 ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi, the 7th March, 2008

5.O. 760.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 48/99) of the Central Govemment Indus .Tribunal -Cum- Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Disputebetween the management of Central Bank ofIndia and their workmen, received by the Central Governinsent on 5-3-2008.

1543

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5 , 2008/चैत्र 16 , 1930

that the workman was engaged by the opposite party bank asdaily rated casural worker for which he was being paid Rs, 10 perday excluding Sunday and holidays and which wasgradually enhandced to Rs . 25 per day . He was made payment inhis own name through vouchers and no some occassionthe payment was made to him benami .The mode adopted by the opposite party as pleaded by the workman is unfair labour practice . On the basis of above , workman has sought indulgence of this Tribunal with prayer to grant bim relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.

4. Claim of the workman has been refuted by the opp. party bank on a number of grounds given in the statement ofclaim which need not be incorporated in the bodyofaward as admitted according to this own pleadings the workman was engaged by the bank as daily rated workman.

[No. L- 12012/ 192/1998-4R(B-II ) ]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RG SHUKLA PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, KANPUR Isdustrial Dispute Case No.48 of99

In thematter ofdispute between: Rajesh Kumar Yadav, HouseNo. 52/60 Pandiriba, Allahabad.

AND

TheRegional Manager Central Bank of India RegionalOffice Lanika Varanasi .

AWARD

1. Central Govt. MOL , New Delhi videNotification No. 1-12012/192/98- IR( B- II) dated 8-3-99 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal Whether Sh. Rajesh Kumar Yadav has worked with the management ofCentral Bank ofIndia from 2-1-89 to31-7-93 without any break?

Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India in terminating the services ofSh. Rajesh Kumar Yadav w.e.f. 1-8-93 isjustified ? If not towhat reliefthe workman is entitled for?

2. At the outset before embarking upon the merit of caseit maybe stated that it is settled legal position that a daily rated employee, casual employee , adhoc or temporay employee has no lein on regular and permanent post irrespective ofthe fact that he had worked much more than 240days of continuous service in each calendar year during theperiod ofhis retention in the service of his employer, 3. From the pleadings of the workman as well as of theopposite party bank it is admitted position in the case 5. In the case ofHimanshu Kumar Vidyarthi versus State of Bihar and in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka versus Smt. Devi the Apex Court has laid down specify on the point that a casual labour, employed on daily wage temporary worker, adhoc employee or an employee employed for short gap arrangement has no lien or right to claim regular employment in public employment against any regular and permanent post unless he has cleared the regular selection process . The law laid down. by the Hon'ble Supreme Court fully apply to the facts and circumstances of the case , therefore , applying the law in the case ofthe workman, it can be safely inferred that the workman cannot be held entitled for any relief what to say. about reinstatement as claimed by him.

6. There is yet another angle from which the claim of the workman is not sustainable in the eye of law. The fact that the bankingemployees are governed through service conditions and that the workman in his entire pleadings has not whispered even a single word as to which provisions of service regulations applicable on him was breached by the bank while dispensing with his casual and daily rated employment . Therefore, unless it is pleaded and proved provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, would not directly come into play in the case of the workman , therefore, workman cannot be held entitled for the relief as claimed by him . It further appears that the claim ofthe workman is misleading, mişconcieved, devoid ofmerit and based on misinterpretation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1047, under these circumstances, the claim of the workman is liable tobe rejected:

7. For the reasons discussed above, the claim ofthe workman is accordingly rejected holding that the cannot beheld any entitled for any relief,

8. Reference is therefore , decided in favour ofthe opposite party and against the workman.

R.G. SHUKLA, Presiding Officer 1544

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 5, 2008/CHAITRA 16, 1930

नई दिल्ली, 10 मार्च, 2008

का, आ. 761.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 कर 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार तूतीकोरिन पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधि करण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 19/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-44011/7/2006- आई आर( बी-11 ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th March, 2008

S.O. 761-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 19/ 2007) of the Central Govemment Indus .Tribunal -Cum Labour Court , Chennai as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Tuticorin Port Trust and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 10-3-2008.

[No. L-44011/7/2006 - IR (B - II ) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Tuesday, the 25th Sept. , 2007

PRESENT : K.JAYARAMAN, PresidingOfficer Industrial Dispute No. 19/2007

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub -section ( 1 ) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), between the managerment ofTuticorin Port Trust and their Workmen)

BETWEEN

1Party/Petitioner The General Secretary

Tuticorin Port Trust Democratic StaffUnion, Tuticorin

Vs.

: 11 Party/Respondent The Chairman Tuticorin Port Trust, Tuticorin

APPEARANCE :

None

For the Petitioner

S. Yashwanth For the Management :

AWARD

The CentralGovernment, Ministry of Labour vide its OrderNo. L-44011 /7/2006- IR( B- II ) dated 4-5-2007 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

[PART 11-Sec. 3(ii ) ] The schedule mentioned in that order is!

(1) Whether the demand raised by Tuticonrin Port Trust Democratic Staff Union for regularization and fixation of pay of Sri Devadhass and Sri D.Devasahayam w.e.f. 24-07-1995 to 23-01-1-2001 basisand re - fixing the pay for the post of mechanic w.e.f. 24-1-2001 isjust and legal? Ifnot, towhat relief the concerned workmen are entitled?

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute , this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 19/2007 and issued notices to both sides . The petitioner union even though received notice twice has not appeared before this Tribunal to contest the same and set exparte . On the other hand , the Respondent entered appearance through their advocate and filed their memo of objection .

The point ofdetermination is :

(1) Whether the demand raised by Tuticorin Port Trust Democratic Staff Union for regularization and fixation of pay of Sri Devadlass and Shri D. Devasahayam w.e.f. 24-7-1995 to 23-1-2001 basis and re - fixing the pay for the post of mechanic w .. ", 24-1-2001 is just and legal?

(01) To what relief the concerned workman are entitled?

Point(i) & (il)

3. As already pointed out, the petitioner union even though raised the dispute before the labour authorities has not appeared before this Tribunal even after two notices. The union was set ex- parte and its Respondent in its memo of objection alleged the union has raised the dispute for regularization of Sri S. Devadhass and Sri D. Devashayam who are earlier held the post of Khalasi and subsequently promoted as Asstt . Mechanic on ad- hoc basis. Since the post in question is only a temporary one viz. that the concemed employee were appointed on adhoc basis and further adhoc appointment was also not approved by the Ministry, they are not given any relief and they were also not eligble for promotion to the post of Asstt.Mechanic as per the approved Recruitment Rules at the point of time. Therefore , they are not entitled to any relief.

4. In this case, though the petitioner union has raised the dispute for the regularization of the concerned employees , they have not come to this forum to establish the fact as to how they are entitled for regularization and also fixation as claimed by the union since the burden of proving the concerned employees are entitled for regularization is upon the petitioner union and since the petitioner union has not discharged this burden with no satisfatory evidence and I am of the opinion the petitioner union is not entitled to get any relief as claimed by them. Therefore, this ID iş dismissed but without any cost .

1545 [भाग [[-खण्ड 3(ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

TheGeneralManager (P)

5. Thus, the reference is answered accordingly.

Bankof India

Mumbai South Zone

(Dictated to the P. A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the25th Sept. , 2007)

K. JAYARAMAN, PresidingOfficer

Bank of IndiaBuilding 70-80, M.G.Road Fort Mumbai 400023 .

Witnesses Examined :-

None

THEIR WORKMEN

For the 1 Party/Petitioner :

None

For the IlParty? Management :

TheGeneral Secretary

Documents Marked:-

On the petitioner's side

Date

Bank of India Staff Union Bank of India Building 70-80, M.G.Road Fort Mumbai 400023.

Ex.No.

Description

APPEARANCES:-

-Ni-

FOR THE EMPLOYER :

From theManagement side:

Mr. LL. D'Souza Representative Ex. No.

Date

Description

FOR THE WORKMEN :

Nil

Mr. M.B. Anchan Advocate. नई दिल्ली , 10 मार्च , 2008.

Mumbai , dated 29th January,2008.

AWARD PART

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No.L- 12011 / 10/2003/ IR(B- II) dated 20-05-2003 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

का.आ. 762. औद्योगिक विषाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) को धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरर्णाश्रम न्यायालय नं. -2, मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/29/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/ 10/2003 - आई आर( बी -1 ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

"Whether the action of the Management ofBank of India, Mumbai South Zone, Mumbai in dismissing Shri Sanjay Shete from service w.e.f. 10-8-2001 is justified? If not,what reliefthe workman Shrt Sanjay Shete is entitled to?

NewDelhi, the 10thMarch,2008

S.O. 762. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 2/29/ 2003) of the Central Goverment Indus. Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, inthe Industrial Dispute between the Management of Bank of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10-3-2008.

[No. 1-12011 /10/2003 - IR(B - II ) ]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

A. A. Lad Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT 2/29 of2003

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF BANK OF INDIA

2. Claim statement is filed by General Secretary of theUnion making out case that concerned workman Sanjay Shetewas a permanent sub-ordinate staff and was member ofUnion. On 18-7-2000 chargesheet was served on him alleging that he did some withdrawal in the accounts of Shri Purushotam Singh and Shri Rama lyer of Maheshwari Udyan Branch by using fraudulent cheques and suppressed the evidence about the said so that act cannot bedetected ,by taking help ofother staff namely Dalvi and Deshmukh and destroyed the documents used in the transaction . As per chargesheet, it was alleged that concerned workman was responsible for the serious loss to the Bank to the tune of Rs. 1,55,000 and as such , he committed an offence under clause 19.5 (j ) ofthe FirstBi- partite Settlement dated 19-10-1966 . According to union, farce ofenquirywas made by Bank by issuing show- cause notice dated 9-3-2001 , Concerned workman was not perminted to take help of defence representative . Investi- gation report was not submitted to the concernedworkman. Thewitnesses examined in the investigation were not made availble for cross and basing on that Inquiry Officer declared concerned workman guilty of the charges . It is 1064G1/2008-10 1546

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2008/ CHAITRA 16, 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( i) ) alleged that other workmen involved in the so called in- cident were not prosecuted, Scapegoat was made of the concerned workman to hide others and as such, decision taken on such a fauity enquiry of termination is not just and proper . Even finding given by Inquiry Officer is not on the evidence placed before him who observed concerned workman guilty of charges levelled against him . So it is prayed that enquiry conducted be declared not just and proper, findings perverse and reinstate concerned workman with all benefits .

workman was punished as per standing orders by issuing punishment ofdismissal . It is stated that concerned workman was given opportunity to represent his representative. Inquiry Officer evalauated the evidence on record and evidence given by the witnesses . Both were heard after evidence and basing on the evidence placed, finding was given which did not require to be interfered . So it is submitted that the prayer of concerned workman for declaring enquiry not proper and findings perverse be rejected and punishment awarded on the said be confirmed.

4. In view of above pleadings , issues were framed at Ex- 19 . Out ofthose, issues Nos. 1 & 2 are on the point of enquiry which are treated as preliminary issues and which are answered as follows:

Issues

Findings

(i) Whether enquiry is fair and proper? (a) Whether findings are perverse? yes. No.

Reasons

Issue No. 1

5. By charge sheet dated 18-7-2000, first party levelled charge of misconduct and doing act fraudulently byshowing negligence .Charge ofdestroying the evidence to suppress the act which was against the interest ofBank is levelled against concerned workman , which is punishable under Standing Orders 19.5 (j ) of the First Bi-partite Settlement dated 19-10-1966 . According to concerned workman , charges levelled against him were not proved. Mere farce was made by the Bank to enable it to take action against concemed workman . No proper opportunity was given to him. Whereas case of the Bank is that full and proper opportunity was given to concerned workman . He participated in the enquiry with his defence representative, Documents were made available which the Bankhas producedbefore Inquiry Officer to the concerned workman and his representative . To prove that concerned workman rely on his affidavit filed in lieu of examination- in-chief. Ex-20 by making out above type ofcase. However in the cross he states that he selected one Milind Singarpure as his defence representative and he admits that management examined four witnesses who were made available for cross , He admits that page 21 ofEx-15 bears his signature. He admits that he did not lead any evidence as he was of the view that he did nothing wrong . He also admits that he was served with show causenoticewhich he replied. Even enquiry was re -opened athis instance. He admits that page 132 of Ex- 15 was served on him . He admits that he initialled it. He admits that, report of Inquiry Officer was kept on record alongwith his staternent. He admits that opportunity was given to cross the Investigation Officer which was not utilised by his representative . He admits signature from page 136 of Ex- 15 as well as page 421. He admits that he was served with show cause notice after enquiry report and personal hearing was given. Second party filed purshis at Ex-21 closing their 3. This is disputed by the Bank by filing reply Ex- 9 making out case that concerned workman at the relevant timewas a sub-staff at Maheshwari Udyan branch between 23-03-1988 to 01-01-1998 .It was alleged that concerned workman fraudulently collected payment ofSavings Bank A/ c No. 421 against token Nos . 41 & 44 on 10-10-97 to the tune of Rs . 30,000 and on 23-10-97 to the tune of Rs . 20,000. All these reveals that concerned workman was involved in the fraud by obtaining cheque bookby stealing those from the record of the Bank. It is further alleged that , concerned workman was suspended during the investigation . One of the customer, Purushotam Singh was maintaining savings bank account No. 5451 with Maheshwari Udayan branch which was dormant from 20-06-1988 and credit balance in said account on 01-01-1997 was Rs.96,408.08 paise . It was alleged that concerned workman conspired with Dalvi the other staff working at Maheshwari Udyan branch and fraudulently obtained cheque book bearing serial Nos . 453141 to 453150 in SB Account No. 5451 of the aforsaid person and fraudulently withdrew amount ofRs . 80,000 from the said account on various dates . It is also alleged that said workmah unauthorisedly wrote the summary payment scroll book and then managed to destroyall relevant documentary evidence regarding cheque book, requisition slips , account opening forms and other relevant documents to unable to detect the act. It was also alleged that one Rama lyer was having Saving Bank account No. 421 in the said branch and it was dormant since 1994 and in that account Rs.76,382.66 paise were shown balance . This workman with the help of Dalvi and Deshmukh fraudulently obtained оп 04-07-1997 a cheque bearing serial Nos . 622326 to 622350 of the said account number and managed to withdraw Rs. 75,000 . Accordingly concerned workman was chargesheeted on 18-07-2000 leveling charge of gross negligence , acting against interest of bank and was negligent in thework which involved Bank in serious loss . So departmental enquiry was conducted by levelling charge of misconduct. Shri V.S. Haldankar was appointed as InquiryOfficer in the Departmental enquiry by conclucting five sittings, Inquiry Officer recorded evidence and allowed Bank to produce evidence by giving opportunity to concerned workman to lead evidence and concluded concerned workman guilty of the charges . Said finding was accepted by disciplinary authority and concerned 1547 [भाग 11 खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2008/चैत्र 16 , 1930

Inquiry Officer asked defence representative to present his defence towhich defence representative declared that he do not want to produce any defence documents and witness and will submit the arguments in writing . So this reveals that full opportunity was given but it was denied bythe concerned workman. On the contrary case ofthe concerned workman reveals that opportunity was given, but it was not utilised by the defence representative . Even grievance of the concerne workman is that though witnesses were made available for cross his defence representative did not utilize the opportunity. So all these reveals that opportunity was given to the concerned workman which he denied and now he cannot say that he did not get opportunity to lend evidence. Besides it is not pointed out by cross examining witness what he wantedto prove? No any specific case is made out. So I conclude that enquiry conducted and placed on record is just and proper and does not require to be interfered. Issue No. 2

evidence. Against this , management placed reliance on에 affidavit filed in lieu of examination-in-Chief at Ex-22 describing in what manner opportunity was given to concerned workman and how he paricipated in the enquiry. In the cross he denied suggestion of second party workman . He pointed out statement made of concertied workman which was recorded on page 4 of enquiry. He admits that said statement was not recorded after reopening of the enquiry. It was questioned to witness that, change in the name of Presenting Officer of the first partywas not made known to the concerned workman which is not denied by the witness of the Bank. However in my considered view, changing Presenting Officer is noting but changing an advocate and in that respect, I feel that Bank was not supposed to communicate said change to the concerned workman. Besides it is not pointed out in whatmanner said change ofPresenting Officer affect on the enquiry and on the interest of concerned workman? About evidence it is questioned to the witness but concemedworkman has admitted that he was served with documents .Advocate for second party submitted written arguments at Ex-24 which was replied by first party by Alingwritten arguiments atEx-26.

7. It is alleged by the concerned workman that findings are perverse and Inquiry Officer has no evidence to conclude like that. Findings of the Inquiry Officer produced with Ex- 15 from pages 120 to 127 we find, he discussed the evidence placed before him. Even he narrates the incident and gave anxious though to the evidence placed before him. Even he considered the investigation report which was supplied to concerned workman and relying on that , he concluded that, concerned workman is guilty ofcharges levelled against him . 1. is not pointed out bythe concerned workman and his advocate, how findings of Inquiry Officer are perverse? So considering all that coupled with case made out by both, I conclude that, findings of Inquiry Officer are not perverse.

8. In view of discussing made above , I conclude that enquity is just and proper and findings not perverse. Hence the order:

ORDER

(1) Enquiry isjust and proper and findings not perverse.

(2) Both parties to participate on the point of quantum

ofpunishment.

Date: 29-01-2008

A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer

नईदिल्ली, 10 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 763.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार 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 नं. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/71 //2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-03-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[र्स एल-31011/ 16/2004- आई आर (बी -11 ) ] 6. In that respect , if we peruse the enquiry proceedings placed on record and admission given by concerned workman in his cross , we find page 4, pages 12 to 21 ofEx- 15 bears signature ofthe concerned workman and his defence representative. It reveals that on all these dates concerned workman with his defence representative were present. All these reveals that concemed workman did not step in to witness box and stated anything about the charges leveiled and make out case before Inquiry Officer.On the contrary, before us he admits that he decided not to step into witness box in enquiry because he did nothing wrong. When enquiry proceeding reveals that, concerned workman has participated in the enquiry and got all opportunity and it is not pointed out how enquiry can be held not just and proper, I am of the view that it find dufficult to observe, enquiry is not just and proper. In the enquiry, concerned workman did not led evidence or make out case under the impression that he didnothingwrong. But the evidence placed before Inquiry "Officer shows involvement of concerned workman . The charge ofstealing cheque books of Account Nos. 421 & 545! ofMaheshwari Udyan Branch was levelled , Charge ofdestroyingdocuments is also levelled against him and on that evidence was led by the Bank which is not denied by the concerned workman in his cross . It is not pointed our, bow enquiry was not fair and proper? it is not shown where opportunity was not given to concerned workman though he demanded . It is not shown how he did not get opportunity to make out his case. On the contrary enquiry proceedings more precisely page No. 20 reveals that defence representative declared that , he do not want to cross examine the witness . Page No. 21 also reveals that,

राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी 1548

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 5 , 2008/CHAITRA 16 , 1930

NewDelhi , the 10th March,2008

S.O. 763. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 2/71 / 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , No 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relationto the management of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust , and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government оп 10-3-2008

[No. L-31011/ 16/2004- IR (B - 11)] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

[PART II-SEC.3( ii ) ] Mumbai , dated the 25th January , 2008

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry ofLabourby its Order No.L-31011 /16/2004 /JR ( B -II ) dated 4-5-2005 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the demand made by Nhava Sheva Port and General Workers ' Union for regularisation of service ofShri Hanuman Govind Tandel and 14 others (as per list attached) engaged by the management of JNPT through Central Warehousing Corporation is justified? Ifso , what relief are the workmen concerned entitled to? "

(List)

Sr. No. Name

PRESENT : A.A. Lad , Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT-2 /71 of2005

Employers in Relation to the Management of ( 1 ) JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST

(2) CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (3) M/S . SPEEDY TRANSPORT PVT . LTD.

(1 ) The Chairman

Jawaharlal Nehru PortTrust

Admn. Building , Nhava -Sheva Navi Mumbai-400 707.

Central Warehousing Corporation (2) The Regional Manager Central Freight Station Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust Navi Mumbai -400707

(3) M/ s. Speedy Transport Pvt. Ltd.

BPT 1635 , Mansion Road , Carnac Bunder Mumbai -400-009 .

V/s.

THEIR WORKMEN

The General Secretary

Nhava Sheva Port & General Workers Union

Port Trust Kamgar Sadan, 2nd floor

Nawab Tank Road, Mazgaon

Mumbai-400010 ,

APPEARANCES :-

For the Employer ( 1 ): Mr. L.L.D' Souza : Representative (2) Mr. S.B. Sharma : Advocate

Advocate (3) Ms. Sonia Sunil

For the Workmen Mr. J.H. Sawant Representative 1 Shri Hanuman Govind Tandel

2 Smt . Tulsabai Chandrakant Tandel

3 Smt. Hirabai Nathuram Tandel

4 Shri . Manohar Laxman Mhatre

5 Shri Pandarinath Moreshwar Thakur

6 Shri Parshuram Kashinath Kadu

7 Shri Bharat Laxman Patil

8 Shri Krishana Ramchandra Kadu

9 Shri Chandrakant Jawahar Kadu

10 Shri Ramkrishan Soma Tandel

11 Shri Kesharinath Gajanan Mhatre

12 Shri Mahesh Naresh Kadu

13 Shri Atmaram Govind Tandel

14 Shri Rajendra Yashwant Mohite

15 Shri Baliram Gajanan Mhatre

2 Claim statement is filed by Vice President ofUnion for workman at Ex-7 which was replied by first party by filing written statement at Ex -9 and Ex - 13 . Matter was fixed for framing issues. However both parties requested to keep matter before Lok Adalat , where both parties arrived at settlement and filed purshis at Ex -22 . Hence the order :

ORDER In view of Purshis filed at Ex-22 by both , reference is disposed of.

Date:25-01-2008.

A. A. LAD, PresidingOfficer

Ex-22 BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2 , MUMBAI Reference No. CGIT-2/71 of2005

Employers in Relationtro the Management of ( 1 ) Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust 1549

भारत का प्रजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2008/चैत्र 16 , 1930

[ भाग -खण्ड 3( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

(2) Central Warehousing Corporation : First Party

Vis.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT CHENNAI

Tuesday, the 4th December,2007 Union

PRESENT: K. JAYARAMAN, PresidingOfficer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 43/2006 THEIR WORKMEN represented by Nhava Sheva Port &General Workers : Second Party Application for disposal of the Reference for want of prosecution,

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR

[In the matter ofthe dispute for adjudication under clause (d) ofsub-section ( 1 ) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947), between theManagement and their workman)

The workmen represented by Nhava Sheva Port andGeneral Workers Union beg to apply for disposal of reference for want of prosecution .

BETWEEN

MUMBAI Dete:25-01-08

$d/- [Jaiprakash Sawant] Representative

Sri K. Ravichandran 22, 10th Street, North Jaganatha Nagar Villivakkam Chennai-600049 : Petitioner/ 1 Party

AND

TheSpecialOfficer

NLC Indcoserve

Seen Sd PresidingOfficer

25-1-08

Opp. Thermal Power Station- 1

Neyveli-607807

: Respondent/11 Party Award maybe Passed accordingly

Sd/-

APPEARANCE :

for JNPT

For the Petitioner

:Mr. K. Sathish Kumar, D. Muthukumar . T. Anbu 25-1-2008

For the Management : M/ s . T.S. Gopalan &Co. I have no objection

Sd-

AWARD

Adv. for CWC 25-1-2008

नई दिल्ली , 10 मार्च , 2008

TheCentral Government , Ministry of Labour vide its OrderNo. L-22012/230/2005 /IR (CM- M)-dated 02-08-2006 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal . for adjudication:

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whetherthe action ofthe management ofNLC Indcoserve in dismissing Sri K. Ravichandran from service w.e.f. 19-10-2004 is legal andjustified? Ifnot to what relief is the workman entitled"?

का.आ.. 764.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एन.एल.सी. इंडको सर्व के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बोच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण चैनेई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 43/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं एल-22012/230/2005- आई. आर. ( सी-11 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

2. After the receipt of the Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 43/2006 and issued notices to both sides , Both sides entered appearance through their advocates and filed their claim and counter statement respectively.

New Delhi, the 10th March, 2008

3.. The allegations in the claim statement are briefly as follows:

S.O. 764. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 43/2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of NLC Indcoserve ,. and their workmen , received by the Central Government on. 10-03-2008

[No. 1-22012/230/2005 - IR (C-II) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

The petitioner was appoimed as casual worker in the Thermal Power Station of the Neyveli Lignite Coporation Lud ( NLC) on 12-11-1986 through the Indco serve and the Respondent was absorbed the petitioner on 20-11-1990 and his attendant membership is 1394. While so, on 20-01-1995 , the petitioner was seriously sick due to his chronic peptic ulcer and therefore he applied leave on medical ground on 20-01-1995 and underwent treatment. andwhen he got cured he came to Neyveli and reported for 1550

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 5 , 2008/CHAITRA 16,1930

[PART I-Sec. 3 ( ii) ] duty on 17-04-1998 with necessary medical certificate.Не was advised to come after a week's time and his joining report was forwarded to the Managing Director/ Indcoserve for approval. After waiting for sometime he approached the Special Officer of the Respondent Management with all relevant papers on 22-04-2002 and requestedthemto permit him tojoin the duty. After some time, the petitioner came to know the Officer concerned were not really interested to entertain him back to service though the recommendations were bonafide. Therefore, he raised a dispute and requested the conciliation authority to direct the Respondent to engage him in service . But after filing the case , the Respondent Management passed an illegal dismissal order dated 19-10-2004 against the petitioner. The said order of dismissal passed by the Respondent Management is not maintainable . No charges have been framed by the Respondent and no notice has been served to the petitioner. The leave applied by the petitioner was not rejected by the Respondent . Even assuming that the petitioner was unauthorized absence , nothing prevented the employer to take action under the relevant provisions in the Standing Orders of Indcoserve. In dismissal order, it is stated that the petitioner has been unauthorized absence himself for more than 9-1 /2 years and his whereabouts were also not known to the Society till now. But this allegation is not fair on the part of Respondent when they have received the joining report . The Respondent has slept over the leave applied for and again from 17-04-1998 when the petitioner reported for duty with necessarymedical certificates . Further, it is not open 10 the Respondentto dismiss the petitioner while conciliation was in progress and that too without the approval ofthe conciliation authority and therefore the action of the Respondent is in violation of Section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act. It is also violation of the Indcoserve Standing Orders No. 30, which stipulates as enquiry before passing any order under sub-section of Standing Orders 29.7. Without prejudice to his contentions , the petitioner further stated in any event punishment of dismissal imposed on the petitioner ignoring his unblemished record of service is not vaild and this Tribunal has every right to interfere with quantum of penalty under Sec . 11 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act Since the order passed by the Respondent is in violation. of principles of natural justice and fair play, it is not sustainable and it is unjustifiable. Hence, for all these reasons thepetitioner prays this Tribunal to reinstate him in servicewith full back wages, continuity of service and all attendant benefits.

supply of workinen. Due to the efforts of Government of Tamil Nadu in November, 1988 , it was resolved to form Industrial Coop . Society in Neyveli by absorbing the workmen employed by various contractors and entrust the jobs with minimum wages to the displaced persons and in theyear 1990 , the Respondent Society was formed. Thepetitioner was one of the contract workman and he admitted as a member . To the knowledge of the Respondent, the petitioner was assigned the checking the tickets of at thebeginning and end ofthe shifts and during the rest of the duty hours, he was engaged to attend the duties given byOfficers ofNLC. To the reason best known to the petitioner, he was not reported for duty from 19-01- 1995. The copyofthe petitioner's 2A petition was received by the Respondent only on 13-09-2004 and that after ascertaining the factual position, the Respondent passed orders on 19-10-2004 dismissing him from service on the ground of his continuous absence for 9-1/2 years. The termination is perfectly justified and is not liable to be interfered with for all or any of the reasons urged by the petitioner. It is reliably learnt by the Respondent that after January, 1995 , the petitioner had gone abroad and on his return on19-09-1995, he hasjoined as casual labourDriver- cum-Conductor in JJTC Ltd. , a State owned Transport Corporation and he was also absorbed in the service of the said corporation from 01-04-1999 and it is also learnt by the Respondent, the said Transport Corporation had referredthe petitioner for medical examination as his colour visionwas impaired making him unfit for empolyment as Driver in the year 2000 while he was working in Salem and byanorderdated 12-03-2001 , the State Express Transport Corporation terminated his service. It is further learnt that the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute challenging his termination and the dispute has been taken to Labour Court, Salem in 1.D.No. 635/2004 . It is also reliably learnt that the said dispute is now pending . This Respondent had not received the representation made by the petitioner tothe NLC on 19-04-1998 or 22-04-2002. It is also not true to say that he applied for leave on 20-01-1995 and he reported to the Respondent for duty on 17-04-1998 . This Respondent has no knowledge about what transpired between the petitioner and the General Manager , Thermal Power Station- II of NLC. The petitioner has not disputed his absence from 20-01-1995 . Since the petitioner continued to remain absent , the Respondent was advised to pass an order of termination which it did on 19-10-2004. In view of the factual position , there was no need for any enquiry. When the Respondent was passed this order, there was no I.D. pending conciliation and therefore Section-33 of the 1.D. Act was not attracted . It is not an invariable rule that every order of punitive termination should be preceded by domestic enquiry. It is always open tothe Management to justify the order oftermination which was not preceded by enquiry. Hence , for all these reasons, the Respondent prays that the claim may be dismissed with costs.

4. But, as against this, the Respondent in his counter statement contended the Neyveli Ligriite Corporation (NLC) used to give various jobs to contractors who bring their own men , carry out the work and they are paid charges based on the volume of work carried out or based on the 1551

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5 , 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

[भाग [I-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

Points fordetermination are :

(i) Whether the punishment of removal from service, imposed on thepetitioner by the Respondent Management by its order4-05-2004 is legal and justified?

( ii) Towhat relief the petitioner is entitledto?

PointNo. 1

NLCdated 17-04-1988, 22-04-2002 and 20-06-2004. Ex.W6 isthe copyofthe petition filed before the labour authorities and Ex . W7 is the copy of the order ofdismissal passedby the Respondent Management . Ex. W8 is the copy of the counter statement filed by the Respondent before the conciliationOfficer. Ex. W9 is the copy ofthe rejoisider filed by the petitioner before the conciliation authorities. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued the order of dismissal passed by the Respondent Management under Ex.W7 is in violation of the Standing Orders , Clause 30.1 which says noorder under Clause-29 shall be made excерт after holding an enquiry against the workman concerned inrespect of alleged misconduct in the manner set forth in Clause- 30 . In this case , though the Respondent Management alleged that the whereabouts of the petitioner was not known from 20-01-1995. Respondent Management has not taken any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and only after the petitioner has taken the matter before the labour authorities that only after the service of thenotice from the labour authorities the Respondent has taken the disciplinary proceedings without framing any charge and without any enquiry has dismissed the petitioner from service,which is against the provisions ofthe Standing Orders and therefore , the order of termination passed by the Respondent is not valid in law . Then again, the leamed counsel for the petitioner argued the Respondent without any notice to the petitioner without holding an enquiry, has unilaterally dismissed the petitioner which amounts to violation of natural justice . Further, when the conciliation proceedings are pending before the labour authorities , the Respondent Management has dismissed the petitioner which is against the provisions of Section - 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore the action of the Respondent Management in dismissing the petitioner is void abinitio and therefore , the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for. :

7. But as against this , the learned counsel for the 5. The case ofthe petitioner in this dispute is that he was one ofthe contract workman who after the formation ofthe Respondent Society was admitted as member . While so on 20-01-1991 , he was seriously sick due to his chronic peptic ulcer turning into a complicating ailment required sustained treatment. He applied for leave on medical grounds on 20-01-1995 and underwent treatment and when he got cured and became fit to resume work, he came back to Neyveli and reported for duty on 17-04-1998 with necessary medical certificate including fitness certificates issued by competent medical authority.. But the Respondent Management has not given permission to join duty and therefore,he raised the dispute . But on behalf of the Respondent it is alleged the petitioner was last reported for duty on 19-01-1995, thereafter nothing was heard from him and the Respondent came to know his whereabouts only after the 2A petition under the I.D. Act dated 10-09-2004 and after ascertaining the factual position , the Respondent passed order on 10-10-2002 dismissing him from service on the ground that he was continuously absent for9-1/2 years and the termination is perfectlyjustified and the same is not liable to be interfered with for all or any of the reasons. Further, the Respondent contended, in the meantime the petitioner has gone abroad and on his returm hejoined as acasual labour /Driver-cum-Conductor in NTC, aState owned Transport Corporation and he was also absorbed in the service ofthe Corporation from 01-04-1999 and the State Express Transport Corporation which is a subsidiary of JITC had referred the petitioner for medical examination as his colour vision was impaired making him unfit for employment as a Driver and by an order dated 12-03-2001 , the said Corporation, terminated his service while he made a representation for alternate job, the said Corporationdeclined to entertain his request and after that hehas also raised as I.D. challenging his termination before the Labour Court, Salem which is pending as 635/2004 in the Salem Labour Court . It is false to allege that the petitioner has applied for leave on 20-01-1995 and reported for duty to the Respondent Management on 17-04-1998 and it is his further contention that there is no an invariable rule that every order of punitive termination shouldbe precededbydomestic enquiry.

6. In this case in order to establish his case, the petitioner examined himself as WWI and marked 9 documents . Ex.W1 is the proforma given by him at the time of formation ofRespondent Society. Ex. W2 is the copy of the Identity card given to the petitioner by the Respondent Management. Ex W3 -Ex 5 are the representations givenby the petitioner to the General Manager , NLC and Director,

Respondent contended though the petitioner alleged that hewas seriously ill due to his chronic peptic ulcer and was not able to attend the work from 20-01-1995, though he alleged that he applied leave for his ailment, he has not. produced any document to show that he has applied leave from 20-01-1995 . On the other hand, he has obtained personal passport and he was worked in JJTC, a State Owned Transport Corporation from Sept. 1995 till March 2001 and he absorbed inthe State Transport Corporation and only on 12-03-2001 , the State Transport Corporation haa terminated his service and against his termination, he has also raised a dispute before labour authorities, Salerm and thedisputewas still pending before Salem Labour Court in 1.D. 635/2004 . Further, all the representations made bythe petitioner which was given to the NLC , he has not mentioned anything that he has given leave application for his ailment from 20-01-1995. Further, it is a lie that the petitionerwas affected by ulcer during the period20-01-1995 1552

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2008/CHAITRA 16 , 1930

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

such circumstances , it cannot be said that there is a relationship of master and servant existing between the petitioner and the Respondent Management even after his employment before the Transport Corporation . I find much force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent. Though the learned counset for the petitioner relied on the ruling 244, 2, S.C. CASES , JAIPUR ZILA SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD. Vs. RAM GOPAL SHARMA AND OTHERS and argued under Section 33(2) (b) "when he has not obtained any permission before the labour authorities for taking action against the employee , the employee continues to be in service as ifthe order of dismissal or discharge was never passed " and in this case only after the institution of the proceedings under L.D.Act, the Respondent has taken punitive action against the petitioner and it is not valid and the petitioner should be deemed to have continued in the service of the Respondent Management and therefore, the petitioner is entitledto the relief prayed for . Though , I find some force in the learned counset for the petitioner , I am not inclined to accept his argument because the petitioner after 20-01-1995 has left the employment of the Respondent Management and he joined in the services of the State Owned Transport Corporation in Salern and he has worked for number of years in that Corporation and only after the Corporation has taken disciplinary action for his infirmity hehas cometo forward an application for reinstatement in the Respondent Management . I suppose this is not a case to extend the benefits ofthe 1.D. Act to the petitioner . This demand by the petitioner that he has raised a dispute against the State Transport Corporation for his dismissal before the Labour Court, Salem . It is clear even when the matter is pending before the Labour Court , Salem . He has taken another plea that the Respondent Management has not permitted to join the duty after the illness which is a held statement without any proof and I am of the opinion thatone way or other wants to get a job in the Respondent Management or in the Transport Corporation which cannot be encouraged by the adjudicators under labour Act , As such , I find this point against the petitioner. Point No. 2

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

8. In view ofmy foregoing findings, I find the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

9. Thus , the reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this daythe 4th December , 2007)

K. JAYARAMAN , Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :-

For the 1 Party/Petitioner: WWI Sri.K. Ravichandran

For the II Party/Management: None

to 17-04-1998 because even in this period, he has worked as aDriver that too a regular Driver in the JJTC which is a StateOwned Transport Corporation. While he has worked in the Transport Corporation , it is false to allege that he was given a representation along with the medical certificate to join duty. It is his further argument , that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the Respondent andthe petitioner. No doubt, the Respondent Management has not taken immediate action against the petitioner but his whereabouts were not known to the Respondent Management and has not taken any action and only from the service of notice of the petitioner under Section 2A ofthe I.D. Act , he came to know the whereabouts of the petitioner and has taken against the petitioner. No doubt, every punitive action should be precededby. a domestic enquiry but on exigencies of situation , such dismissal is permissible in certain case when the situation requires, a prompt action should be taken in dismissing the petitioner and the usual procedure to suspend and to enquire a workman would not serve the purpose and not taking promptaction might result in trouble spreading and situation worsening and at time becoming uncontrollable and it is well settled by the Supreme Court " normally, it is theOfficer on the spot who is the best judge of the situation and his decision should not be interpreted with lightly " andhe relied on the ruling reported in 2005 , 7, S.C. CASES , PAGE 764 wherein the Supreme Court has held " the principles ofnatural justice are not rigid or immutable and hence they cannot be imprisoned in a straitjacket and change with exigencies of situation, this mustbe confined within their limits and cannot be allowed to run wild. While interpreting legal provisions , a Court of Law cannot be unmindful ofthe hard realities of life. The approach of the Court in dealing with such case should be pragmatic rather than pedantic, realistic rather than doctrinaire , functional rather than formal and practical rather than " Precedential ". In certain circumstances , an application of principles of natural justice can be modified and even excluded. It can alsobe excluded where the nature ofthe action tobe taken, its object and purpose and the scheme of the relevant statutory provisions warrants its exclusion...... The principles of natural justice have no application when the authority is of the opinion that it would be inexpedient to hold an enquiry and it would be against the interest ofthe security ofthe Corporation to continue in employment , the offender workman where serious acts were likely to affect the foundation of the Corporation " . Taking advantage of this decision , the learned counsel for the Respondent contended in this case the petitioner merely appointed as worker in the Respondent Management and he has joined in the service of the JITC as a regular Driver and he has worked there number of years and after taking action by the State Transport Corporation and after his termination from the service ofthe Transport Corporation , he has also raised a disputebefore the State labour authorities and the matter is pending before the State Labour Court . Under [भाग !!-खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

1553

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5 , 2008 /चैत्र 16, 1930

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 79/2005 Documents Marked:-

From the petitioner's side

Date

Ex.Nos.

Description

WI 05-08-1989 Proformma

W2 31-12-1993 Identity Card of the petitioner

(In the matter ofthe dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between theManagerment ofNeyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. and theirWorkman)

W3 17-04-1998

BETWEEN

Representation given by the petitioner

W4 22-04-2002

Srl A. Chinnasamy | Party/Petitioner

Representation given by the petitioner

WS 20-06-2004

TheChaitman-cum : Il Party/Management Representation given by the petitioner

ManagingDirector Neyveli

W6 10-09-2004

LigniteCorporation Ltd.

Petition filed before the Conciliation Officer

Neyveli

W7 19-10-2004

Арреягане:

Order of Dismissal passed by the Respondent

For the Positioner

M/s . P.V.S. Giridhar

Associates

Counter Statement filed by the Respondent before the ConciliationOfficer .

For the Management: M/ s . Ν.Α.K. Sarma

W9 17-05-2005

AWARD

Rejoinder filed bythe petitioner

From the Management side

Ex.No. Date

Description

The Central Government , Ministry ofLabour vide its Order No. L-22012/361 /2004- IR(CM- II) dated 17-08-2005 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

नई दिल्ली , 10 मार्च , 2008

"Whether the action of the management ofNeyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. , Neyveli in dismissing the services ofSri A. Chinnasamy, T. Gr.Ill ' C' (PF No.34366) is legal and justified? Ifnot,towhat relief the workawan is entitled?" का.अ. 765, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एन. एल.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण चैन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 79/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-03-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

2 After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, itwas taken on file as J.D. No. 79/2005 and issued notices to both sides. Bothsides entered appearance through their advocates and filed their claim statement and counter statement respectively.

[सं. एल-22012/361/2004- आई. आर. ( सी-[ ] ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , देस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 10th March,2008

1. The allegations of the petitioner in the claim staternent arebriefly as follows:-

S.O. 765.In purstance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref.No. 79/2005) ofthe CentralGovernument Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the management of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited,. and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 10-03-2008

[No. L-22012/361 /2004-48 (C- II) )

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THECENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT CHENNAI

Friday, the 7th December,2007 - PRESENT: K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer

The petitioner was joined as a worker in the Respondent Corporation on 25-09-1989 and he was provided this employnient under the scheme of displaced land evictees. Subsequently, he was upgradedby the Respondent as Technical Grade 111 on 17-03-2003 . The petitioner gotmarried with one Jothi on 06-06-2004 arid the said Jothi gave birth to a female child viz. Shanthi. Though, they lived happily for 23 years till 1997, certain misunderstanding were arose and the petitioner subsequently resided separately. The relatives of the petitioner had instigated the petitioner's wife to harass him. Pursuant to that petitioner's wife filed a suit for maintenance before the Sub-Judge at Virudhachalam. In that, it is alleged that the petitioner had illicit contact with oneChandra and deserted her. While so, his wife had also made a false complaint to the Vigilance Officer of the Respondent-Management stating that he had contracted a second marriage with one Chandra and the same is 1064G1/2008-11 1556

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2008/CHAITRA 16 , 1930

Ex.No Date

Description

ExW1 01-02-2002 Identity Card ofthe petitioner Ex.W2 18-06-2001 Maintenance petitioner inOS No. 81/01

Ex.W3 13-08-2002 Show Cause Notice

Ex.W4 03-02-2003 Letter enclosing Enquiry Reportdated 27-11-2002 Ex.W5 08-01-2003 Order ofthe Disciplinary Authority

Ex.W6 29-03-2003 Representation to Appellate Authority

Ex.W7 19-04-2003 Order of Appellate Authority Ex.W8 20-06-2003 Representation to the Direc- tor(Personal NLC Limited) ExW9 20-11-2003 Reply to the Respondentto

Asstt. Commissioner of Labour

07-04-2004 Representation of the ExW10 Petitio-

er to the Assistant Commissi- oner(Central)

Ex.W11 22-09-2004 Representation of the ner's wife Smt. Jothi Petitio- to the

Director (Personnel NLC Limited)

ExW12 11-10-2004 Failure report

Forthe Party/Management:-

Ex.No. Date Description

ExMi

Marriage Invitation ofMrs. C. Santhi

Ex.M2 22-02-2002 Stmement ofthe Ist party ExM3 01-03-2002 Statement ofC. Santhi

ExM4 17-11-1989 Copy of nomination of the Istparty

Ex.MS 25-02-2002 Letter ofPrincipal ,Md. School , Veppenkurichy ExM7

ExM6 02-03-2002 . Statement ofS. Gangabai Statement ofVeerasekaran

: - [PART II-SEC: 3 (ii) ) नई दिल्ली , 11 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 766.-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 औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 20/1993 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12025/01 /2008 - आई. आर.. ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 11th March , 2008

S.O. 766. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial. Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/1993) ofthe Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court- 1, Hyderabad. as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the management ofState Bank of India, and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 11-3-2008

[No. L- 12025/012008- IR(B-1) ) AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - I , AT HYDERABAD PRESENT : Sri T. Anand , M.A. , LL.B. , Chairman (FAC)

Dated this the 25th day of February 2008 Industrial Dispute No.20 of 1993

BETWEEN:

1.Mohammed Hayath Khan (died)

2.Aziz Khatoon W/o . ( late) Hayath Khan

3. Ismail Khan S/o. (late ) Hayath Khan

4.Abdul Hafeez Khan S/o. ( late ) Hayath Khan 5. Shans Khatoon D/ o. ( late ) Hayath Khan

6. Faheema Khatoon D/o . ( late ) Hayath Khan

(2to 6'above are residing at No. 16-4-182/C Chanchalgud, Hyderabad)

(2 to 6 above are Legal Representatives of the deceased PetitionerNo. 1 and brought on record as Petitioners Nos.2 to 6 byorder dated 8-10-2007 in

Petitioners Ι.Α.Νο.14/2007 .) And

ExM8 Marriage invitation of 1st partywith Jothi

ExMD Counter filedby the Jothi in 1.0.P. No. 81 of2001 , Sub- Court, Virudhachalam

ChiefRegional Manager, StateBank of India,

Respondent

Hyderabad

Ex.M10

EnquiryProceedings ExM11

Enquiry report

27-11-2002

Statement ofG. Jothi 01-03-2002

Ex.M12

This case coming up before me for final hearing on 30-11-2007 in thepresence ofSri G.V.LN. Murthy Advocate forthe petitioner and Sri . B.G. Ravinder Reddy, having 1553 [भाग 1 ]-खण्ड 3 ( il) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5 , 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

Documents Marked:-

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 79/2005 From the petitioner's side

Date

Ex.Nos.

Description

W1 05-08-1989 Proforma

W2 31-12-1993 Identity Card ofthe petitioner

(In the matter ofthe dispute for adjudication under clause (d) ofsub-section (1 ) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14-of 1947) , between theManagement ofNeyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. and their Workman)

17-04-1998

BETWEEN

Representation given by the petitioner

Party/Peritioner

Sri A. Chinnasamy

W4 22-04-2002 Representation given by the petitioner

Va.

WS 20-06-2004 .

TheChairman-cum II Party/Management Representation given by the petitioner

W6 10-09-2004

ManagingDirector Neyveli Lignite CorporationLtd.

Petition filed before the Conciliation Officer

Neyveli

W7 19-10-2004

Appearance:

Order of Dismissal passedby the Respondent

: M/ s . P.V.5 . Giridhar

Forthe Petitioner Associates

Counter Statement filedby the Respondent before the ConciliationOfficer.

Forthe Management: M/s. N.A.K. Sarma

W9 17-05-2005

AWARD

Rejoinder filed by the petitioner

From theManagement side

Ex.No. Date

Description

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide itsOrderNo. L-22012/361 /2004- IR(CM- II ) dated 17-08-2005 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

Nil नई दिल्ली , 10 मार्च , 2008

"Whether the action ofthe management ofNeyveli Lignite CorporationLtd. , Neyveli in dismissing the services ofSri A. Chinnasamy, T. Gr.III ' C ' (PF No. 34366) is legal and justified? If not , towhat relief the workman is entitled? ".

का.आ. 765. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एन. एल. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण चैन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 79/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-03-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

2 After the receipt of Industrial Dispose, ibawas taken on file as I.D. No. 79/2005 and issued notices to both sides. Both sides entered appearance through their advocates and filed their claim statement and counter statemeni respectively.

[सं. एल -22012/361 /2004- आई. आर. ( सी-11 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 10th March,2008

3. The allegations of the petitioner in the chim statement are briefly as follows:-

S.O. 765.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.79/2005) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -com-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the management of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, and their workmen, received bythe Central Govemment on 10-03-2008

[No. L-22012/361 /2004-JR (C-[ I )]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT CHENNAI

Friday, the 7th December , 2007 PRESENT: K. JAYARAMAN, PresidingOfficer

The petitioner was joined as a worker in the Respondent Corporation on 25-09-1989 and he was provided this employment under the scheme ofdisplaced land evittees . Subsequently, he was upgraded by the Respondent as Technical Grade-111 on 17-03-2003 . The petitionergot married with one Jothi on 06-06-2004 andthe said Jothi gave birth to a female child viz. Shanthi. Though, they lived happily for 23 years till 1997, certain misunderstanding were arose and the petitioner subsequently resided separately. The relatives of the petitioner had instigated the petitioner's wife to harass him . Pursuantto that petitioner's wife filed a suit for maintenance before the Sub-Judge at Virudhachalam . In that, it is alleged that the petitioner had illicit contact with one Chandra and deserted her , While so , his wife had also made a false complaint to the Vigilance Officer of the Respondent-Management stating that he had contracted a second marriage with orne Chandra and the same is 1064 GI/2008-11 1556

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 5 , 2008/CHAITRA 16 , 1930

Date

ExNo

Description

Ex.W1 01-02-2002 Identity Card ofthe petitioner ExW2 16-06-2001 Maintenance petitioner inOS No.81/01

Ex.W3 13-08-2002 Show CauseNotice

ExW403-02-2003 Letter enclosing Enquiry Reportdated 27-11-2002 ExWS 08-01-2003 Order of the Disciplinary Authority

ExW6 29-03-2003 Representation to Appellate Authority

ExW7 19-04-2003 Order of AppellateAuthority Ex.W8 20-06-2003 Representation to the Direc tor(Personal NLC Limited) ExW9 20-11-2003 Reply to the Respondentto Asstt. Commissioner of Labour

ExW10 Petitio-

07-04-2004 Representation of the er to the Assistant Commissi- oner(Central)

ExW1l 22-09-2004 Representation of the

ner'swife Smt, Jothi Petitio- to the

Director(Personnel NLC Limited)

ExW12

Failure report

11-10-2004

Forthe Party/Management:-

Ex.No.Date

Description

ExMI

Marriage Invitation ofMrs. C. Santhi

Statement ofthe Ist party Ex.M2 22-02-2002

ExM3 01-03-2002. Statement ofC. Santhi

Ex.M4 17-11-1989 Copy ofnomination of the 1stparty

ExM5 25-02-2002 Letter ofPrincipal,Md. School, Veppenkurichy

Statement ofS, Gangabai ExM6 02-03-2002

Statement ofVeerasekaran ExM7

[PART II-SEC. 3( û) ] नई दिल्ली , 11 मार्च, 2008

का.आ. 766, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 को 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 औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 20/1993 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12025/01/2008- आई. आर . ( ची- [ ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 11th March , 2008

S.O. 766. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial .Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes theAward (Ref. No. 20/1993) ofthe Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court - 1, Hyderabad. as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the management ofState Bank of India, and their workmen, receivedby the Central Government on 11-3-2008

[No. L- 12025/01,2008 -IR (B- 1) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

HEFORE THE CHAIRMAN INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -4, AT HYDERABAD PRESENT: Sri T. Anand, M.A. , LL.B., Chainnan ( FAC)

Dated this the25th day of February2008 Industrial Dispute No.20 of1993

BETWEEN:

1.MohammedHayath Khan (died)

2.Aziz Khatoon W/o. (late) Hayath Khan

3. Ismail Khan S/o. (late) Hayath Khan

4.Abdul Hafeez Khan S/o. ( late) Hayath Khan 5. Shans Khatoon Dio . (late ) Hayath Khan

6. Faheema Khatoon Dio . ( late) Hayath Khan

(2 to 6 above are residing at No. 16-4-182/C Chanchalgud, Hyderabad)

(2 to 6 above are Legal Representatives of the deceased Petitioner No. 1 and brought on record as Petitioners Nos.2to6 by order dated 8-10-2007 in

L.A.No. 14/2007 .)

Marriage invitation of Ist partywith Jothi

ExM9 Counter filedby the Jothi in 1.0.P. No. 81 of2001 , Sub- Court, Virudhachalam

ExM10

Enquiry Proceedings ExM11

Enquiry report

27-11-2002

Statement of G. Jothi ExM12 01-03-2002

And Petitioners Chief Regional Manager,

StateBank of India,

Hyderabad Respondent

This case coming up before me for fimal hearing on 30-11-2007 in the presence of Sri. G.V.L.N. MurthyAdvocate for the petitioner and Sri . B.G. Ravinder Reddy, having 1557 [भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

stood over the same for consideration this court passed thefollowing:

AWARD

Goverument of India referred this Industrial Dispute for adjudication and to pass an Award in respect of

"Whether the action of the management ofState Bank ofIndia interminating the services ofShri Mohammed Hayath Khan w.e.f. 28-12-1971 is legal andjustified?

Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

(2)After receiving the remand order from Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.22960 of 1996 this Tribunal issued notice to both the Parties to appear before this Court. On 22-3-2007 the notice of the petitioner returned .Again this Court issued fresh notice to appear before this Tribunal on 17-4-2007. On17-4-2007 both parties filed their continuation memo and the matter is posted for bearing.

(3) The brief facts in the claim statement of the petitioner are as follows:

Bank put forth three different reasons for rojecting his request for reinstatement. On the first occasion , the bank stated that his request could not be considered as the period between his initial appointment and that ofhis last termination was less than 12 calendar months , vide their letterNo. SIB/Estt/ 1734, dated 21-9-1977. On the second occasion, theBank regretted its inability to reinstate him on the ground that his service were tenninated before 1-1-1975, vide letter No. Staff1128 dated 13-6-1978. On the third occasion , hewas informedby the Bank that his claim was rejected as it was stale vide letter of the Bank dated 5-12-1985. He submit that none ofthe reasons showed by the Bank in the three different letters cited above stand to the logicand test of law nor are justified, in replyto the first letter of the Bank, he sent a written representation with full month wise details of his employment together with number ofpayment orders through which bewas paid salary with date of payment order and amount of the payment order from January 1971 to December 1971.To the second letter,he submitted that it was notjustified to reject his claim in the face of several employees who were . reinstated though they were also terminated prior to 1-1-1975. On the third occasion however he raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Hyderabad and on the failure of the conciliation proceedings and on the rejection by the Government of India to refer the matter for adjudication, he had no other go except to file a Writ Petition before the Hon'bleHigh Court seeking reference of the dispute for adjudication and after the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, thedispute has since been referred to the Hon'ble Tribunal for adjudication. He respectfully submit that the action of the management in rejecting to reinstate him into service, in spite ofhis efforts to convince the Bank, is not at all justified particularly when several other employees whowere similarly terminated like him were reinstated. Singling him out is an act ofdiscrimination . Ofall the cases of employees who were thus reinstated, he brought forth on recordthe case of Sri . Hayat Ali who also worked along with him during the same period and was terminated about the same time but was reinstated with full back wages in 1983. Sri .HayatAli served the bank from February 1971, up toDecember 1971 for a total period of240 days as Godown Watchman and the total period ofemployment was only 11 months as against 434 days in his case. Sri Hayat Ali was paid back wages from 16-1-1976 onwards by bankers cheque on or about 12-10-1983 . Sri Ali was also paidbonus for7years.

It is respectfully submitted that he was initially appointed in the State Bank of India, Hyderabad Main Branch asGodown Watchman with effect from 10-9-1970 up to 28-12-1971 with temporary breaks in service in between and thus he had put in more than one year of continous service. He was terminated without any notice with effect from 28-12-1971 and without any reasonable cause. Consequent upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Sundara Money and StateBank of India, the Bank reinstated into service several hundreds of workmen who were all terminated like him without notice and without compliance of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. As part of it, several such workmen were reinstated in several branches in Andhra Pradesh under the administrative control of Local Head Officeand Zonal Office, Hyderabad, with full backwages from 16-1-1976, Le. , the date on which the judgment in SundaraMoneycase was pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court ofIndia. On knowing the information, he made several oral and written representations to the Hyderabad Main Branch seeking reinstatement into service on the ground that he had put in one year of continous service and that he was terminated without notice and without reasonable cause, between 1977 and 1985. On several such occasions, he was informed that the old records of the Hyderabad MainBranch showing evidence of his having served for a continuous period of one year were not readily traceable and that his case would be considered when the records weretraced out. During the long period of 8 years whenhe was regularlypaying visits to the Hyderabad Main Branch to enquirewhether the old records were traced out, several other employces who were similarly terminated were reinstated with full back wages and other attendant benefits. He further submitted that during this period of 8 years between 1977-85, the Bank sent to him three letters rejecting kis request for reinstatement and on three occasions the

4. The Industrial Dispute was disposed off by the then Chairman , Industrial Tribunal - 1 , Hyderabad on 3rd April 1996 holding that the termination of the petitioner- workman from service w.c.f. 20-12-1971 is lagal and justified and that the petitioner- workman is not entitled for any relief. Aggrieved by the Award passed by Industrial Tribunal- I , Hyderabad , the workman preferred a Writ Petition 1560

[PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2008/CHAITRA 16 , 1930

stale. It is contended that the respondent bank has to be blamed for making the clairn stale and there are no latches on the part ofthe petitioner. It is contended that in between 1977 and 1985 several inconsistent stands were taken by the bank without closing the issue once for all. The documentary evidence shows that the petitioner was informed that it is not possible for the bank to reinstate him into service as early as on 13-6-1978 as evidenced by Ex-W4 . There may be some correspondence subsequent to Ex-W5 but merely because some correspondence was entertained by the bank, it cannot be said that the bank has tobe blamed for not closing Issue for several years . In my view the issue has been closed on 13-6-1978 itself.

12. WWI in the cross examination stated as follows:

"In response tothe letter dated 13-4-1978 which has been filed in Ex-W2, 1 have not furnished any appointment order . It is not true to say that I have not gone to the RespondentBank in response to the letter dated 9-5-1978 which is marked as Ex-W3 . I do not remember whether I havemade anywritten representation clarifying the aspects called for in Ex -W2 . I am aware that the Bank has issued a Circular in 1976 whereunder only those people who have worked after 1-1-1975 were being called back in service." letter dated 13-4-1976 by the respondent bank requesting the petitioner to furnish his order as temporary godown watchman Ex-W3 is another letter by respondent to the petitionerdated 9-5-1978 asking him to clarify some of the pointsmentioned in his earlier letter . Ex-W4 is another letter by respondent bank to the petitioner expressing their inabilityto reinstate him, the said letter is dated 13-6-1978. Ex-W5 is letter addressed by the petitioner to respondent bank giving particulars of his salary drawn by him from January, 1971 till December 1971 , It is also mentioned that heworked for 329 days without any break. Ex-W6 is letter dated 10-03-1984 addressed by the deceased petitioner to the Personnel Manager of respondent bank, wherein he stated that large number ex -temporary employees whowere terminated without notice were again reinstated and requestingto extend the same benefit to him as he worked as cash credit watchman at M/s . Gowtham Rolling Mills Moulali Hyderabad after appointment by the bank. In Ex- W6 also , the petitioner has given particulars of payments received by him from 30-9-1970 to 12/1971 . Ex - W8 is the letterbyrespondent bank dated 11-6-1994 to the petitioner asking him to visit the bank on 20-6-1994 at 3.30 PM for negotiations in connection with re-employment into the bank. Ex-W7 is the letter issued by respondent bank on 5-12-1985 informing to deceased petitioner that his claim is rejected as stale claim . Ex- W9 is letter addressed by the deceased petitioner on 9-7-1994 to DeputyGeneral Manager respondent bank requesting to reinstate him . Ex - W10 is the minutes of discussions held before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Ex - W11 is the order ofthe Hon'ble High Court's Writ petition No. 16307/1986 filed by one Hayath Ali . This order was filed to show that Mirza Hayath Aliwho was similarly placed like deceased petitioner who was removed in 1971 while working as temporary godown keeperwas again reinstated in 1976 by respondent bank.

13. In view ofthe above evidence of WWI it cannot be said that there are no latches on the part ofthe petitioner in pursuing the matter . The petitioner has raised dispute in 1985 andkept quite till 10-03-1994 and he raised the dispute before conciliation officer . The conciliation officer considered failure report and thereafter on the representation made by the respondent bank rejected the case ofthe petitioner to refer the dispute under Section 10 (1 ) (d) of the Industrial Dispute Act. The petitioner herein preferred Writ Petition on the file ofHigh Court ofAndhra Pradesh and the said Writ Petition was dismissed on 04-04-1990. Again on the basis of the letter filed by the counsel for the petitioner that there was a mistake in the relief portion , the matter was posted before the bench on 4-3-1993 and on 4-3-1993 order dated 4-4-1990 was modified with a direction to the government to refer the case to the petitioner to Industrial Tribunal . So from 1995 onwards one litigation or the other was pending between the petitioner and the bank . The petitioner died on 14-10-1997. In the writ petition 22960/96. His Lordship Justice Sri . Ramesh Ranganathan observed that it is for the Labour Court, if it finds that the delay was inordinate or belated, to decidewhether any relief should be granted to the workman or he should be refused the relief. For them it is also open to the Tribunal to appropriately mould the relief even in cases where the dispute has been belatedly raised.

14. In view ofthe said observation , I am of the view that though there are latches on the part of the petitioner from 1971 to 1985 for a period of 14 years in raising the dispute, the petitioner can be awarded reasonable compensationfrom 1985 till his death in 1997. The LRs of deceased petitioner are continuing the litigation after the 11. The contention of the respondent counsel is that there is delay of7 years in the first spell and again in the second spell there is delay of another 7 years making it 14 years altogether and so the petitioner has not shown diligence in raising the Industrial Dispute and bank has rightly rejected his claim on the ground that it has become stale.The counsel for the petitioner submitted that in 1976 the said bank has issued circular to reinstate several employees who were terminated from service from 1975 onwards and many employees applied for reinstatement and got reinstaternent in 1976. It is also contended that there was unrest in the banking sector soon after the judgment in Sundermoney's case in 1976 by Hon'ble Supreme Court . So , the delay caused from 1971 to 1976 in raising dispute by the petitioner cannot be attributed to the petitioner because the legal position was settled in 1976 only. With regard to delay of second spell i.e. , from 1977 to 1985 it is the bank which has dragged on the matter without closing the issue . Only in 1985 the bank rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground it hasbecome 1557 [भाग -खण्ड (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2008/चैत्र. 16 , 1930

stood over the same for consideration this court passed thefollowing:

AWARD

Government of India referred this Industrial Dispute for adjudication and to pass an Award in respectof

"Whether the action of the management ofState Bank of India in terminating the services ofShri Mobanuned Hayath Khan w.e.f 28-12-1971 is legal and justified?

Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

(2)After receiving the remand order from Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.22960 of 1996 this Tribunal issued notice toboth the Parties to appear before this Court . On 22-3-2007 the notice ofthe petitioner returned . Again this Court issued fresh notice to appear before this Tribunal on 17-4-2007.On 17-4-2007 both parties filed their continuation memo and the matter is posted forhearing.

(3) The brief facts in the claim statement of the petitioner are as follows:

Bank put forth three different reasons for rejecting bis request for reinstatement. On the first occasion , the bank stated that his request could not be considered as the period between his initial appointment and that ofhis last termination was less than 12 calendar mondis, vide their letter No. SIB /Estt/ 1734, dated 21-9-1977.On the second occasion, the Bank regretted its inability to reinstate him on the ground that his service were terminated before 1-1-1975, videletter No. Staff 1128 dated 13-6-1978. On the third occasion,he was informed by the Bank that his claim was rejected as it was stale vide letter of the Bank dated 5-12-1985.He submit that none ofthe reasons showedby theBank in the three different letters cited above stand to the logic and test of law nor are justified . In reply to the first letter ofthe Bank, he sent a written representation with full month wise details of his employment together with number ofpayment orders through which be was paid salary with date of payment order and amount of the payment order from January 1971 to December 1971.To the secondletter,he submitted that it was notjustified to reject his claim in the face of several employees who were reinstated though they were also terminated prior to 1-1-1975. On the third occasion however he raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ) Hyderabad and on the failure of the conciliation proceedings and on the rejection by the Government of India to refer the matter for adjudication, he had no other go except to file a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court seeking reference of the dispute for adjudication and after the decision of the Hon'bleHigh Court, the dispute has since been referred to the Hon'ble Tribunal for adjudication . He respectfully submit that the action of the management in rejecting to reinstate him into service, in spite of his efforts to convince the Bank, is not at all justified particularly when several other employees who were similarly terminated like him were reinstated. Singling him out is an act ofdiscrimination. Of all the cases of employees who were thus reinstated, he brought forth on record the case ofSri , Hayat Ali who also worked along with him during the same period and was terminated about the same time but was reinstated with full back wages in 1983. Sri .HayatAll served the bank from February 1971 ip to December 1971 for a total period of240 days as Godown Watchman and the total period of employment was only 1 ] months as against 434 days in his case. Sri Hayat Ali was paid back wages from 16-1-1976 onwards by bankers cheque on or about 12-10-1983 , Sri Ali was also paid bonus for7years.

It is respectfully submitted that he was initially appointed in the State Bank of India, Hyderabad Main Branch asGodown Watchman with effect from 10-9-1970 up to 28-12-1971 with temporary breaks in service in between and thus he had put in more than one year of continous service . He was terminated without any notice with effect from 28-12-1971 and without any reasonable cause. Consequent upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Sundara Money and StateBank of India, the Bank reinstated into service several bundreds of workmen who were all terminated like him without notice and without compliance of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act .As part of it, several such workmen were reinstated in several branches in Andhra Pradesh under the administrative control of Local Head Officeand Zonal Office, Hyderabad, with full backwages from 16-1-1976, i.e. , the date on which the judgment in SundaraMoneycase was pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court ofIndia.On knowing the information, he made several oral and written representations to the Hyderabad Main Branch seeking reinstatement into service on the ground that he had put in one year of continous service and that he was terminated without notice and without reasonable cause, between 1977 and 1985. On several such occasions, he was informed that the old records of the Hyderabad Main Branch showing evidence of his having served for a continuous period of one year were not readily traceable and that his case would be considered when the records were traced out . During the long period of 8 years when he wasregularly paying visits to the Hyderabad Main Branch to enquirewhether the old records were traced out, several other employees who were similarly terminated were reinstatedwith full back wages and other attendant benefits. He further submitted that during this period of 8 years between 1977-85, the Bank sent to him three letters rejecting his request for reinstatement and on three occasions the

4. The Industrial Dispute was disposed off by the then Chairman, Industrial Tribunal- 1, Hyderabad on 3rd April 1996 holding that the termination of the petitioner- workman from service w.e.f. 20-12-1971 is lagal andjustified and that the petitioner- workman is not entitled for any relief. Aggrievedby the Award passed by Industrial Tribunal -1 , Hyderabad , the workman preferred a Writ Petition- 1560

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2008/CHAITRA 16 , 1930

[PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii)]

stale. It is contended that the respondent bank has to be blamed for making the claim stale and there are no latches on the part ofthe petitioner. It is contended that in between 1977 and 1985 several inconsistent stands were taken by the bank without closing the issue once for all . The documentary evidence shows that the petitioner was informedthat it is not possible for the bank to reinstate him into service as early as on 13-6-1978 as evidenced by Ex-W4 , There may be some correspondence subsequent toEx-WS but merely because some correspondence was entertained by the bank, it cannot be said that the bank has tobe blamed for not closing Issue for several years . In my view the issue has been closed on 13-6-1978 itself.

12. WW1 in the cross examination stated as follows:

"In response to the letter dated 13-4-1978which has been filed in Ex -W2 , I have not furnished any appointment order. It is not true to say that I have not gone to the Respondent Bank in response to the letter dated 9-5-1978 which is marked as Ex- W3 . I do not remember whether I havemade anywritten representation clarifying the aspects called for in Ex-W2 . I am aware that the Bank has issued a Circular in 1976 whereunder only those people who have worked after 1-1-1975 were being called back in service." letter dated 13-4-1976 by the respondent bank requesting the petitioner to furnish his order as temporary godown watchman Ex- W3 is another letter by respondent to the petitioner dated 9-5-1978 asking him to clarify some ofthe points mentioned in his earlier letter. Ex- W4 is another letter by respondent bank to the petitioner expressing their inability to reinstate him , the said letter is dated 13-6-1978. Ex-W5 is letter addressed by the petitioner to respondent bank giving particulars of his salary drawn by him from Jansiry, 1971 till December 1971 , It is also mentioned that heworked for 329 days without any break . Ex -W6 is letter dated 10-03-1984 addressed by the deceased petitioner to the Personnel Manager of respondent bank, wherein he stated that large number ex-temporary employees whowere terminated without notice were again reinstated and requesting to extend the same benefit to him as he worked as cash credit watchman at M/ s . Gowtham Rolling Mills MoulaliHyderabad after appointment by the bank. In Ex- W6 also, the petitioner has given particulars of payments received by him from 30-9-1970 to 12/1971 . Ex -W8 is the letter by respondent bank dated 11-6-1994 to the petitioner asking him to visit the bank on 20-6-1994 at 3.30 PM for negotiations in connection with re-employment into the bank. Ex-W7 is the letter issued by respondent bank on 5-12-1985 informing to deceased petitioner that his claim is rejected as stale claim . Ex-W9 is letter addressed by the deceased petitioner on 9-7-1994 to Deputy General Manager respondent bank requesting to reinstate him . Ex -W10 is the minutes of discussions held before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Ex- W11 is the order of the Hon'ble High Court's Writ petition No. 16307/1986 filed by one HayathAli . This order was filed to show that Mirza Hayath Ali who was similarly placed like deceased petitioner who was removed in 1971 while working as temporary godown keeper was again reinstated in 1976 by respondent bank.

13. In view ofthe above evidence of WW1 it cannot be said that there are no latches on the part of the petitioner in pursuing the matter . The petitioner has raised dispute in 1985 and kept quite till 10-03-1994 and he raised the dispute before conciliation officer . The conciliation officer considered failure report and thereafter on the representation made by the respondent bank rejected the case of the petitioner to refer the dispute under Section 10 (1 )(d ) of the Industrial Dispute Act. The petitioner herein preferred Writ Petition on the file of High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the said Writ Petition was dismissed on 04-04-1990. Again on the basis of the letter filed by the counsel for the petitioner that there was a mistake in the relief portion, the matter was posted before the bench on 4-3-1993 and on 4-3-1993 order dated 4-4-1990 was modified with a direction to the government to refer the caseto the petitioner to Industrial Tribunal . So from 1995 onwards one litigation or the other was pending between the petitioner and the bank. The petitioner died on 14-10-1997. In the writ petition 22960/96. His Lordship Justice Sri . Ramesh Ranganathan observed that it is for the Labour Court, ifit finds that the delay was inordinate or belated, to decidewhether any reliefshould be granted to the workman orhe should be refused the relief. For them it is also open to the Tribunal to appropriately mould the relief even in cases where the dispute has been belatedly raised.

14. In view of the said observation, I am ofthe view that though there are latches on the part of the petitioner from 1971 to 1985 for a period of 14 years in raising the dispute, the petitioner can be awarded reasonable compensation from 1985 till his death in 1997. The LRs of deceased petitioner are continuing the litigation after the 11. The contention of the respondent counsel is that there is delay of 7 years in the first spell and again in the second spellthere is delay ofanother 7 years making it 14 years altogether and so the petitioner has not shown diligence in raising the Industrial Dispute and bank has rightly rejected his claim on the ground that it has become stale. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that in 1976 the said bank has issued circular to reinstate several employees who were terminated from service from 1975 onwards and many employees applied for reinstatement and got reinstatement in 1976. It is also contended that there was unrest in the banking sector soon after the judgment in Sundermoney's case in 1976 by Hon'ble Supreme Court . So , the delay caused from 1971 to 1976 in raising dispute by the petitioner cannot be attributed to the petitioner because the legal position was settled in 1976 only. With regard to delay ofsecond spell i.e. , from 1977 to 1985 it is the bank which has dragged on the matter without closing the issue. Only in 1985 the bank rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground it has become 1561

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

[ भाग 11-खण्ड-3(ti) ]

death ofthe petitioner . Asper Section 25-F (b) compensation equivalent to 15 days average day for every completed year ofcontinuous service or any part thereof in excess of sixmonths can be awarded in lieu of reinstatement . In my view the petitioner can be awarded a sum of Rs . 12000- (calculated@ 1000/- per month from 1985 to 1997) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing I.D. till the date ofpayment.

15.Accordingly the award is answered directing the paytment ofRs. 12,000 /-per-annum with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing ID till the date ofpaymentas compensation from 1985 to 1997. The reference is answered accordingly. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the25th day ofFebruary2008.)

T. ANAND, Chairman APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for the petitioner

WWI : MohdHayath Khan

WW2: S. AdinarayanaMurthy

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

MW1 : T. NagendraPrasad

Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex-W1 : Letter dated 21-9-1977 of the respondent informing that the bank has regretted to reinstate theworkman.

Ex-W2 Letter dated 13-4-1978 of the respondent informing that the bank has regretted to reinstate theworkman.

Ex-W3 Letter dated 9-5-1978 of the respondent informing that the bank has regretted to reinstate theworkman.

Ex-W4 Letter dated 13-6 1978 of the respondent informing the petitioner that the bank has not reinstated the petitioner.

petitioner.. Ex-W5 : Copy of the letter dated 4-10-1985 of the Ex-W6 : Copy of the letter dated 10-3-1984 of the petitioner for payment of salary.

Ex-W7 Copy of the letter dated 5-12-1985 of the respondent Regional Office to the Branch Manager of the Bank.

Ex-W8 Copy of the letter dated 11-6-1994 гезpondent calling for negotiations.

Ex-W9 : Copy ofthe representation dated 9-7-1994 ofthe petitioner demanding for reinstatement .

Ex-W10: Copy ofthe Minutes of discussion held before the Assistant Labour Commissioner dated 30-3-1981 along with its Annexures, Ex-W11:Order copy ofWrit Petition No. 16307/1986 1064G1/2008-12

Documents marked for the Respondent Ex-MI :Xerox copy ofthe Circular dated 15-9-1976 Ex-M2 : Хегох copy ofthe extract of chapter 23 recruitment to subordinate cadre.

AfterRemand Nil नई दिल्ली , 11 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 767. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ त्रावनकौर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय इरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 167/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/101 /1997-आई आर ( ची-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th March, 2008

S.O. 767. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 167/ 2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , ERNAKULAM as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the management ofState Bank of Travancore , and their workmen , receivedby the Central Government on 11-3-2008 .

[No. L- 12012/101 / 1997 -IR (B- 1) ] AJAY KUMAR, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM Present: Shri P. L. Norbert, B. A., LL.B., Presiding Officer

(Friday the 12th day of January, 2007) L. D. 167/2007

(1.D.2/ 1998 of Labour Court , Emakulam) Workman : P.K. Unni . Lakshmi Vihar, Puduppariyaram Palakkad-678733. Adv . Shri T. C. Krishna Management: The regionalManager, State Bank ofTravancore Zonal Office, Maroor Road, Calicut-763024.

Adv. Shri Vinod Chandran . AWARD

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

1562

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2008/CHAITRA 16 , 1930

(PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] "Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Travancore in dismissing the services of Shri P.K. Unni, Cashier -Clerk from 27-6-96 is justified? Ifnot , to what relief the workman is entitled?"

ofthe management to substantiate the charges before this court by adducing additional evidence. But they have not made any attempt to do so. There is no prayer in the written statement to adduce fresh evidence in order to substantiate the charges . A petition for amendment and incorporation of a prayer for adducing fresh evidence was filed before State Labour Court where the reference was originally pending as M.P. 53/2002. But that court deferred the decision to the final stage along with the reference . The learned counsel for the workman submits on the basis of thedecision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S.R.T.C. v . Lakshmi Devamma 2001 II - L.L.J . 199 (5 - Judges bench) , para 17that the permission to add uce fresh evidence should be sought at the earliest opportunity, that is, when the written statement is filed . There is no prayer in the written statement and despite a petition for permission to adduce fresh evidence, even now the management has not come forward to adduce avidence.

2.A preliminary order was passed regrding validity ofenquiry and it was found by order dated 19-12-2006 that the enquiry is not valid for the reasons that the workman was not allowed to be assisted by a defence representative, that copies of documents relied on by the management were not furnished to the workman on time , that the workmanwas not allowed to be present and participate in the enquiryproceeding, that after two sittings the evidence on management side was adduced on 27-1-1995 without the presence of the workman and that the werkman was not allowed to make submissions during enquiry.Afterthe preliminary order the reference was posted for further evidence. But the management remained absent and there was no representation . Hence the worker was heard and the case was taken for award.

3. The facts in brief are as follows :

The workman was a Cashier in State Bank of Travancore in Koliyadi Branch of Wynad District . On allegations of misconduct he was suspended from service on 14-3-1994 . Thereafter a charge -sheet was issued to him, domestic enquiry was conducted and he was found guilty ofthe charges. In June, 1996 he was dismissed from service . The workman has denied the charges against him and has questioned the manner in which domestic enquiry was conducted. His case is that the enquiry officer violated the rule of natural justice and evidence was adduced ex parte and he was not given fair opportunity, etc. The management on the other side justifies the enquiry proceedings and contends that fair opportunity was given to the workman. But he was making all kinds of troubles and creating obstruction in proceeding with the enquiry and hence the enquiryhad tobe conducted in the absence ofthe workman. However, there is no violation ofprinciples of naturaljustice. The charges were of grave nature and hence the punishment ofdismissal was warranted.

4. Since the enquiry is found to be invalid what remains to be considered are :

6. The charges levelled against the workman are enumerated in Ext . MI Charge Memo (page 2). There are ten charges against him . The main charges are , that he disobeyed the instructions of the branch manager, that he abused the branch manager in the presence of customers and staff more than once , that he was negligent in his duty and that he was absent unauthorizedly . Out of the 10 charges all except charge no. 3 were found against the workman by the enquiry officer . The enquiry report is contained in pages 25 to 33 of Ext . M1 . Seven witnesses were examined in the enquiry and 24documents were marked on the side of management . The list of witnesses and documents are annexed to the report as Annexure - J at page 34 ofExt . M1 . But the entire evidence was adduced without thepresence of the workman , By Ext . M7 he was asked not to be present during the enquiry by the enquiry officer. Thus, evidence was adduced ex parte though the workman did not want to remain ex parte. In the light of preliminaгу order that the enquiry is not valid and in view of the fact that evidencewas adduced ex parte, the findings of enquiry officer cannot be sustained without fresh evidence on record . But the management remained absent and no fresh evidence was tendered . Hence I find that the findings of enquiry officer are not sustainable .

( 1 ) Are the findings sustainable?

7. Point No. (2)

(2) Is the punishment proportionate?

The evidence consists oforal testimony ofWWI on the side ofworkman and MWI and documentary evidence ofExts .M1to M8 on the side of the management.

5.PointNo.(1)

In view ofthe above observation that the findings of enquiry officer are not sustainable it follows that the punishment imposed too cannot be sustained . The disciplinary authority had given an opportunity for personal hearing, as seen from page 71 ofExt . M1 preliminary order of disciplinary authority. The final order was passed by the disciplinary authority on 27-6-1996 and it is contained in page 76, whereby the punishment of dismissal was imposed . However , since the charges are not proved the order of punishment has to be set aside .

1 have found in the preliminary order that the enquiry is not valid for the reasons that the delinquent was not allowed to participate in the enquiry, that the management's evidencewas adduced in the absence of the workman, that theworkonan was not allowed to be represented by a co- worker, that copies of documents were not furnished to him on time and a few more reasons. Hence it is the burden

8. In the result , an award is passed finding that the action of the management in dismissing Shri P.K , Unni , 1563 [ भाग - खण्ड (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the managerment of Heavy Vehicle Factory and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 11-3-2008.

Cashier-Clerk from 27-6-1996, is not legal and justifiable. He is entitled to be reinstated with back wages and consequential benefits. No cost. The award will take effect one month after its publication in the official Gazette.

[No. L-14012/43/1998- IR (DU)] SURENDRA SINGH, DeskOfficer Dictated to thePersonal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 12th day of January,2007.

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Witness for the Workman:

WW1 -Shirt P.K. Unnl

Thursday, 6thDecember, 2007 Witness for the Management:

MW1 -Shri Rama Chandran,

Present : K. Jayaraman, Presiding Officer INDUSTRIALDISPUTE No. 88/2006 Exhibits for the Workman: Nil

Exhibits for the management:

M1- Domestic Enquiry File.

(in the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause(d) ofsub-section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between theManagerment ofHeavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi and their workman)

BETWEEN:

M1 (a)- Copy of enquiry proceedings including deposition.

Sri M, Ramanathan.

FitstParty/Petitioner M2- Copy ofnotice dated 3-1-1-1994 reg . enquiry.

II Party/Management M3- Letterdated 12-11-1994 sent by workman to the Regional Manager of the Bank.

TheGeneral Manager, HeavyVehicles Factory, Avadi , Chennai

M4- Copy ofnotice dated 8-12-1994 reg. enquiry issued by enquiry officer to the workman .

APPEARANCE :

M5- Letter dated 23-12-1994 sent by the workman to the enquiry officer.

Forthepetitioner :

M/s. S.R. Rajagopal &Others

Ms.T. Vijayakumari

Forthe management

M6- Letter dated 13-1-1995 sent by the workman to theenquiryofficer.

AWARD

M7-Notice dated 16-2-1995 issuedby the enquiry officerto the workman,

M8- Letter dated 4-3-1995 sent by the workman to the enquiryofficer.

TheCentral Government, Ministry of Labour vide its OrderNo. L-14012/43/98 -IR(D ) plated 16-02-1999 referred the following industrial dispute to the Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal , Channai,

नई दिल्ली, 11 मार्च, 2008

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the Management ofHeavyVehicles Factory, Avadi is legal and justified in removing Sri M. Ramanathan, Machinist 'B' from his services and if not to what relief the workman is entitled ? " कर.आ, 768, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार हैवी विक्लस फैक्ट्री 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 88/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-14012/43/ 1998- आई आर (डी यू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 11th March , 2008

S.O. 768.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 88/ 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

2.After the receipt ofthis Industrial Dispute the Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal has numbered it as ID 40/99 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearance and fited their claim and counter statement respectively and theTamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal has disposed ofthe matter. on 31-01-2001 against the petitioner. As against this , a Writ Petition was filed in WP No. 10709 of 2001 by the petitioner before theHon'ble High Court . The ble High Court on 17-04-2006 passed an order remanding the matter to the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court to dispose the matter on merits .After receiving the same, this Tribunal has numbered it as L.D. 88/2006 and proceeded with the enquiry.

1564

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 5, 2008/CHAITRA 16, 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 3. The allegation in the claim statement are briefly as follows:-

the dispute for conciliation and since the Respondent Management did not come for any meaningful discussion , the labour authorities sent the failure report to the Govt . and the Govt , referred the same for adjudication. Since findings ofthe Enquiry Officer was perverse and not based on any legal evidence but only on assumption and presumption , the order of penalty imposedby the DisciplinaryAuthority is illegal . Hence, the petitioner prays this Tribunal to pass an award holding that the removal of the petitioner from service by the Respondent is not justified and direct the Respondent for reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service.

4. As against this, the Respondent through the works manager ofHeavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi filed a counter affidavit wherein it is alleged the Heavy Vehicles Factory is one among the Indian Ordance Factories and the activities of the Ordnance Factories cannotbe considered as a Industry under the I.D. Act . The petitioner was removed from service on disciplinary grounds on 27-02-1971 after following the procedure as given under CCS (CC& A ) Rules in 1965. The petitioner has not stated for what reason , he has kept silent for 25 years , therefore the matter is time barred and the reason given in the dispute in agitating the matter now are frivolous and not sustainable before law and is liable to be rejected on this score alone . As per the Administrative Tribunal Act , no Court shall have or entitled to exercise anyjurisdiction , powers or authority in relation to recruitment or such service matters since the petitioner was an ex -employee of the factory and he cannot seek through Industrial Tribunal . Therefore, this Tribunal bas nojurisdiction to try this case. The petitioner who is an ex- employee of the Heavy Vehicles Factory has to abide by the Security Standing Instruction , CCS ( Leave ) Rules etc. and he cannot claim exemption from rulles on the pretext of being so call union representative of unrecognized union and no act or rule provides protection for such violations . The action taken by the Respondent Management does not constitute of I.D. by any stretch of imagination , Since the removal order has been issued in accordance with Rule 14 ofCCS (CCA) Rules , the remedy for the petitioner was to approach the Hon'ble High Court and that too within a reasonable period of time and therefore , the agitation before this Tribunal is hopelessly debarred by limitation because 18 years have elapsed Hence, for all these reasons , the Respondent prays that the claim may be dismissed with costs.

Points for determination are:

(0) Whether the action of the management in removing the petitioner from service is legal andjustified?

(ii) To what relief the petitioner is entitled?

Point No. 1

The petitioner was a Machinist ' B ' in Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi . He joined in the year 1965. He was elected as a member ofthe works commmittee and was elected member ofthe loans committee in 1966. He was also a treasurer of the Heavy Vehicles Factory Employees ' Union from 1966, The Respondent Management was bent upon victimizing the petitioner and removed him from service . So, he was suspended from 11-01-1970 for certain alleged disciplinary proceedings , a Charge Memo was issued to him listing out certain charges. The main charge against the petitioner is that of frequent absentation from work spot , late attendance, group meetings /discussions within the factory premises and inciting workers to desist from doing their duties. The work of the petitioner as works committee member and as a union representative has been cited as instance ofthe charges . An Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer was an Asstt. Manager who was far inferior to the General Manager . Though , the petitioner questioned the appointment of the Asstt . Manager as Enquiry Officer, he was not changed, obviously he was biased and not independent . The case of the petitioner to examine the General Manager of the factory as defense witness was rejected by the Enquiry Officer on the ground that he was a senior officer and therefore he cannot be examined as witness . The General Manager had visited the shop of the petitioner and he used to take the petitioner alongwith him when he visited the factory, but his request forexamining his defense witness was turned down by the Enquiry Officer which amounts to violation ofprinciples of natural justice . The Enquiry Officer submitted his report and the Disciplinary Authority passed a final order of removal from his service from 27-02-1971 . The Respondent viz . the General Manager was in a position of witness in respect of certain charges . He visited the factory on 11-12-1970 and was a witness to the incident . Being in a position of a witness , he is not competent to pass the final order in the petitioner's case . He is biased and prejudiced against the petitioner . The Enquiry Officer was conducted the enquiry in a hasty manner and the entire enquiry was disposed offwithin two months from the date of enquiry. It was a case ofpredetermination to victimize the petitioner for his trade union activities. The Respondent viz . the General Manager had given permission to works committee members one hour every day togather grievances of workers . The charge mainly related to absence from work spot , group discussions/ meetings , incitement of stoppage of work. Therefore, these charges mainly arise out of vindictiveness for his trade union activities . Even an appeal preferredby the petitioner was rejected by the Govt . with a non - speaking order. The petitioner's fact to various charges while without any reason rejected and his efforts were of no avail. The I.D. relating to the petitioner's non- employment was kept alive throughout and was existing. the Regional Labour Commissioner (C ), Chennai took up

5. This dispute was raised by the petitioner against his removal from service by the Respondent Management .

1565 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (in) ]

भारत को राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5 , 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

grievance against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, he has to ventilate his grievance before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and not by choosing this forum . Though , the order of removal was passed on27-02-1971 and his appeal to the Govt . has been rejected on 04-03-1971 and even the petition given to the Ministry of Defence was rejected on 21-02-1972, the petitioner has not given any valid reason for keeping silent for 25 years and therefore it is time barred and agitating the matter now after a long lapse of time is not maintainable. Even assumingwithout conceding that he has got remedy, he has to approach the Hon'ble High Court in the writ jurisdiction within a reasonable time and therefore he cannot raise a dispute after 25 years before this Tribunal Inthe domestic enquiry, ample opportunity was given to the petitioner and he cannot claim unfettered right of absenting from work spot on the plea of union activity and welfare activity and thereby indulege in disrupting the production activity. Though, he has got every right to represent the grievance of the workers , thereby he cannot take any shield on the right of the Management to take action on him . The order of penalty was issued in accordance with relevant rules and it cannot be said that it isdisproportionate to the charges framed against him . For all these reasons , they claim that the claim is to be dismissed.

Five charges were framed against the petitioner and the Disciplinary Authority after following the procedure has removed him from service . The petitioner alleged the main charges against him are that he was in frequent absentation from work, he was come to office late and he conducted group meetings /discussions within factory premises and inciting the workers to desist from doing their duties . Accordingly to the petitioner, all these charges were made to victimize him only for his trade union actvities. It is his further contention , the Enquiry Officer was an Asstt . Managerwhowas far inferior to the General Managerwho is the Disciplinary Authority, Since, the Enquiry Officer is subordinate to the Disciplinary Authority, no justice could be expected from the Enquiry Officer. Even though, he was questioned this appointment of Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer was not changed. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer was biased and not independent . The next contesition is the enquiry was not conducted in a just and proper manner . Though , the petitioner requested the EnquiryOfficerto let him examine the General Manager of the factory as defence witness, since he was a witness for the incident, alleged to have taken place on 11-12-1970, it was re fused by the Enquiry Officer on the ground sincehe is a senior officer and since he is the Disciplinary Authority, he cannot be summoned as witness and petitioner alleged this amounts to violation of principles ofnatural justice. The enquiry was conducted in a hasty manner and the matter was disposed off within two weeks from the date of issuance of charge sheet i, e, within a short span of less than two months . Since the authorities have pre-determined to victimize the petitioner for his trade union activities, the same was imposed on him. In this case, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Respondent himself has given permission to works committee members one hour permission every day to gather grievances of the workers . It is also admitted by the Respondent Management that the petitioner is a member of the works committee and he is also representative of the union though the union has not been recognized by the Respondent Management , The leamed counsel for the petitioner further contended that the charges mainly related to absence from work spot , group discussions/meetings , incitement of stoppage of works but all these charges mainly arise out of vindictiveness for the petitioner's trade union activities and therefore he prays this Tribunal has to pass an award in favour ofthe petitioner.

7. Though, the Respondent alleged that there is a delay on the part of the petitioner the learned counsel for. the petitioner argued that delay or limitation would not apply to labour matters and the petitioner was appealing to various forums since 1972 and it was only in the year 1995, the Labour Ministry, Govt . of India had referred to the Regional Labour Commissioner ( Central ), Channai for conciliation and the managment has not responded for notice which resulted in a failure . Under such circumstances , it cannot be contended that the claimwas barred by limitation and for this the leamed counsel for the petitioner relied on the ruling reported in AIR 1999, SCC, 1351 WHEREIN THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD "sheprovisions of theArt, 137 of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the proceedings under the Labour Act and that the relief under labour act cannot be denied to the workmen merely on ground of delay and even held the Tribunal, Labour Court or board dealing with the case can appropriately mould the reliefby declining to grant backwages to the workman till the date he raised the demand regarding his illegal retrenchment/ termination or dismissal "Further, the learned counsel forthe petitioner argued even in case if this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is to be reinstated in service the reinstatement could not be given now because he has already attained the age of superannuation and the reliefifit is to be given can be moulded by way of lumpsum compensation . Therefore, I am not inclinedby the contentions of the leamed counsel for the Respondent 6. But on behalf of the Respondent, it is contended firstly that the ordnance factory is not an industry and therefore it is excluded from the relevant provisions of ID actand therefore the dispute is not maintainable. Secondly, the petitioner is Ex- Central Govt . servant covered under CCS (CCA) Rules and a charge sheet was issued against him and in a duly conducted enquiry, he was removed from service for the misconduct and even if he got any 1566

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :APRIL 5,2008 /CHAITRA 16 , 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 (it) that only because of the delay the petitioner is not entitled toget any relief.

8. Then the next plea of the Respondent that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim is to be seen.The learned counsel for the Respondent argued under Section 13-B of the ID (Amendment ) Act which exempts certain industries from its jurisdiction . In this case , the Ordnance Factory performs sovereign functions of the state and therefore, it should be excluded from the provisions of the term " industry" as given in the ID Act and therefore the dispute cannot be raised before this forum. But the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on 1994, 2, LLJ . Page665 which followed the decision of 1986 Calcutta [ .C. , Page 1269. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner argued, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of SOUNDARARAJAN VS. GOVT. OF INDIA which was reported in 1994 , 2 , Page 665 has held "the Ordnance Departmentat Avadi is an industry within the meaning of Section-2(1) of the I.D. Act ". Further , various other High Courts have already held the Central Ordnance Depot is a severable unit of Defence Department and is an industry within the meaning of I.D. Act.

Respondent Management has also issued factory order permitting the works committee member to be absent in work spot for an hour daily. The General Manager, the Respondent aggrieved by labour welfare activities of the petitioner and with an intent to victimize the petitioner and curb the labour welfare activities has issued the charge sheet and the intention of the Respondent Management is clear even by mere reading of the charge memo . Even on the date viz. 11-12-1970 of issuance of charge sheet five other members of the union were suspended and the entire factory was tense due to the act of the Management . The crux of the allegation in the charge sheet was that he was absent from work spot without prior permission from the supervisory staff but it is contradictory to the rule framed by theManagement's decision which permits the petitioner to be absent from the work spot for an hour . The charge sheet was issued by the Ceneral Manager who was all along present at the time of incident alleged to have been happened . The Enquiry Officer is a subordinate officer to the General Manager and when he requested him10 summon the General Manager as a defense witness , it was refused on the ground that he was the Disciplinary Authority, therefore, he cannot be summoned by him. Therefore, the entire proceedings conducted by the Respondent authorities were vitiated by malafides and with the only motive to victimize the petitioner for labour welfare activities all actions were taken against him. Even the appeal preferredby the pettioner was summarily rejected without any consideration or basis and without affording any opportunity to him to place his case and to prove his innocence . Therefore , the action taken by the Respondent Management is illegal . Even assuming for argument sake, without conceding that the charges framed against the petitioner have been proved , the punishment imposed on him is disproportionate to the charges framed against him , for the late attendance it cannot be said that dismissal is the punishment. In other words , there is no proof or legal satisfactory evidence that he has instigated the workers to stop work. Under such circumstances , the enquiry conducted by the Respondent authorities is vitiated .

9.Therefore, I find much force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and it is well settled law that even in department discharging sovereign functions if there are units which are severable , they can be considered under Section- 2 (j ) ofthe I.D. Act . Therefore , I am inclined to hold that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this dispute. Even though , the learned counse! for the Respondent contended that the petitioner was removed from service as a result of a disciplinary case under CCS ( CCA) Rules and this action does not constitute an Industrial Dispute and he has to approach the CAT only and not to the Industrial Tribunal and even though the Regional Labour Commissioner has taken the matter , it is not an industrial dispute and the reference itself to this Tribunal is not maintainable , I find there is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent , because if the Respondent has got any grievance against the reference,he has got every right to question the same before the Hon'ble High Court but he has not done anything in that direction therefore , I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent in this aspect also.

10. Then the next thing to be decided in this case is whether the petitioner had mis- conducted himself and whether the action of the Respondent Management in removing him from service is legal .

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended the petitionerwas elected as works committee member and he was Secretary of the loans committee and he was also the treasurer of the heavy Vehicles Factory Employees Union though this union has not been recognized by the Respondent, the petitioner responsible to represent the grievances of the workman to the Management, the

11. But as against this , the learned counsel for the Respondent contended all the witnesses who were examined in the case clearly stated it is only because of the petitioner the work was stopped during the relevant hour and even though some of the witnesses have stated that theyhave not seen the petitioner instigating the witnesses, on that ground alone it cannot be said that the petitioner is not the cause of stoppage of work. The cumulative effect ofall the evidence of the witnesses will clearly show that it is onlybecause of the petitioner's act, the work was stopped and this act of the petitioner amounting to inciting others todesist fromdoing their trades and this act ofthe petitioner alleged are unbecoming of a govt . servant which amounts to gross misconduct and therefore it cannot be said that the enquiry conducted by Respondent authorities is not भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

[ भाग -खण्ड 3(ii) ]

1567

For the II Party/Management : MW1 SriP. Surendran

DocumentsMarked:

From the petitioner's side

proper or just. He further argued that there is no rule that the charge sheet should not be issued by the General Manager viz. the Respondent and Asstt . Manager should notbe an Enquiry Officer, no provision in the Standing Onders or service rules was exhibited before this Tribunal to that effect andhe further argued merely because the General Manager has not been examined in this case, prejudice was caused to the petitioner , on that ground it cannot be sald principles of natural justice has not been exercised.:

12. I find much force in the contention ofthe learned counsel for the Respondent. It is well settled, findings of the Enquiry Officer must be supported by legal evidence and it is also settled perversity vitiates disciplinary proceedings but on the other hand , it is settled law that there is a difference between a finding which is not supported by any legal evidence and a finding which may appear to be not supported by sufficient evidence or may be based on inadequate evidence , therefore , a wrong Finding is not necessarily a perverse finding and finding cannot be described to be perverse merely because it is possible to take different view on the evidence . In this case, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited certain evidence given by the witnesses and argued that they have not established with satisfactory evidence that the petitioner has incited the workmen not to do the work and therefore the charges framed against the petitioner has not been provedbut I am not inclined to accept this contention because only in case where the findings or fact are based on no legal evidence and the conclusion is one to which no reasonable man would corne, it would be a case of perversity and not ofre-appraisal of findigs in this case. On perusal of the evidences adduced by all the witnesses , the cumulative effect of all these evidences will clearly establish, it is only because of the petitioner , the work stopped on 11-12-1970 and he has not obeyed the orders ofthe superiors on that day and only because of this action the other workers were desisted from doing their duties. Therefore, I find the charged framed against the petitioner has been proved as such I find this point against the petitioner.

The next point to be decided is to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?

13. In view ofmy foregoing findings that the action ofthe Respondent Management in removing the petitioner fromhis service is legal and justified , I find the petitioner is not entitled to any relief,

14. Thus the reference is disposed ofaccordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A. transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this daythe 6th December, 2007)

K. JAYARAMAN , Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined:-

For the 1 Party/Petitioner : WWISHM. Ramanathan

Ex No. Date

Description

Ex.W1

Govt. ofIndia Order No. L- 14012/ 43/9- IR(DU) dated 16-02-99 (i.c. Reference)

Ex. W2 : The Supersedes Part I order 691 dated 21-10-1970

Ex. W3

(Charge sheet)memorandum dated01-12-1970.

ExW4 21-12-1970 Letter of M. Ramanathan , Machinist (under suspension) Explanation toGeneral Manager, H.V.F. , Avadi

Ex. W5

Proceedings ofthe Enquiry Authority.

Ex. W6 29-07-1971 Letter ofM. Ramanathan, to the Secretary, Ministry ofDefence Reinstatement appeal submitted.

Ex.W7 27-02-1971 Letter issued by General Manager , HVF regarding imposition of the penalty of removal .

Ex.W8 18-02-1971 Letter ofM. Ramanathan , to the General Manager , HVF, Madras-54 regarding appeal representation.

Ex.W9 08-03-1971 Letter ofM. Ramanathan, by General Manager, HVF regarding appeal.

21-02-1972

Ex.W10

Appeal dated 29-07-1971 rejected byUnder Secretary to theGovt . ofIndia.

02-05-1972

Ex. Wil

Part- 11 Order reg. Termination of Serviceunder General Civil Services.

Ex.W12

Discussion & subsequent order relating to Labour situation in HVF (Minutes ofMeeting)

23-08-1974

Ex. W13

Letter by A.1.D.F. to the General Manager , H.V.F. regarding harassment in HVF .

From theManagement's side

Ex.No. Date

Description

Ex.Ml Chapter 21 Establishment and functions of Central Administrative Tribunal . The Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (no. 13 of 1985)

ExM2 01-12-1970 Charge sheet io Mr. M. Ramanathan 1568

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5 , 2008 /CHAITRA 16, 1930

Ex. M3 06-02-1971 Disciplinary proceedings under Rule-14 ofCentral Civil Services ExM4 27-02-1971 Imposition of penalty ExM5 04-03-1971 Appeal made byMr. Ramanathan/ Workman नई दिल्ली, 12 मार्च, 2008

का.आ 769.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नवेली लिग्नाइट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण घेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 77/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

{ सं. एल-22012/359/2004- आई आर( सी-II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 12th March, 2008

S.O. 769. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 77/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the management of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited and their workman , received by the Central Government on 12-3-2008.

[No. L-22012/359/2004- IR(C - II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Friday, 14th December, 2007

Present: K. Jayaraman , Presiding Officer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 77/2005 [In the matter of the 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 Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. and their workman]

BETWEEN:

Sri Krishna Venkataraman : Ist Party/Petitioner Vs.

II Party /Management TheDirector(Personnel ) : Neyveli Lignite Corporation

Ltd. , Neyveli-607801

APPEARANCE

Forthe petitioner

: M/sD. Hariparanthaman

Sri . N. A. K. Sarma For the management

[PART I -SEC . 3 ( i ) ]

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide itsOrder No. L- 22012/359/2004/ IR (C - II) dated 17-08-2005 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the Management ofNeyveli Lignite Corporation Limited , Neyveli in denying Special Casual Leave to Sri Krishna Venkataraman during the period of his participation in the Mansarovar Kailash Yatra is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?" 2. After the receipt of the Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 77/2005 and issued notice to both sides. Both sides entered appearance through their advocates and flled their claim and counter statement respectively.

3.The allegation in the claim statement are briefly as follows:-

The, petitioner. was joined in the Respondent Management as Unskilled (Casual ) on 05-01-1964 and retired voluntarily from the service on 31-05-2000 as ChiefTime Keeper . The Respondent is a Government of India enterprises and its administrative funetions are being governed by the rules framed by Deptt . of Public Enterprises and Govt. of India . Hence , the petitioner is deemed to be a government servant in all respects . The Indian Mountaineering Foundation (IMF) had recognized the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra as a trekking expedition . Though , this yatra is a pilgrimage, Government of India has recognized as trekking expedition and granted Special Casual Leave to all goverrument employees not exceeding 30days after notification dated 11-04-1985 and 25-10-89. Therefore, all the government servants are eligible for grant of Special Casual Leave for having participated in Kailash Mansarovar Yatra conducted by Ministry of External Affairs . Even , during the petitioner's service , some of the employees of the Respondent Management have participated in the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra. Thus , the petitioner followed suit and participated in the said yatra from 01-09-1999 10 20-09-1999 and was member of the 16th batch of Kailash Mansarovar Yatra conducted by Ministry ofExternal Affairs . He was also issued a certificate by the Ministry dated 30-09-1999 . Even before that , the petitioner applied to NLC on 05-03-1999 to take Passport for the specific purpose of participation in the yatra and accordingly a NOC was issued to the petitioner on 03-04-1999. The petitioner applied on 16-08-1999 Eamed Leave from01-09-1999 to 05-10-1999 for the specific purpose of participating in the said yatra and the leave was duly sanctioned to him . After returning from the yatra, the petitioner has applied on 11-10-1999 to treat the period of absence from 01-09-1999 to 29-09-1999 as Special Casual Leave but though he has made several oral repeated requests, the Respondent has denined the same. He has written letter dated 21-10-2000 and 16-08-2001 to the 1569 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5 , 2008/चैत्र 16 , 1930

[भाग -साण्ड 3 ( ⅱ) ]

petitioner to apply for Passport is merely procedural and does not impose any obligation or liability on the Respondent. The petitioner only after his reveaneat has made a request in this regard for the first time . After ceasing tobe an employee, the petitioner is notjustified in seeking conversion ofEarned Leave into Special Casual Leave. All the terminal dues have been disbursed to the petitioner, therefore, the request for re - opening and de novo consideration is unjustified and it was rightly declined. The case cited by the petitioner is not identical with the petitioner. In that case, Special Casual Leave was given while the individual was still in service, therefore, there has been no discrimination . The grant of Special Casual Leave for the purpose other than those listed in service leave rules of the Respondent Management are decided on a case to case basis , therefore , the claim of the petitioner is merely an afterthought and an attempt to deriye some additional benefits . Hence for all these reasons , the Respondent prays that the claim maybe dismissed in his cost.

Ministry ofExternal Affairs and also the Respondent Management but all efforts of the petitioner proved futile The petitioner represented before the labour authorities. The Labour Enforcement Officer issued notices to the RespondentManagement and there was a conciliation talk but since the conciliation was not fructify, a failure report was sent to the Ministry and the Government has referred the dispute to this Tribunal . The Respondent Management has sanctioned Special Casual Leave and extended this facility to one of its employees by name Sri H. Ramgopal forparticipation in the Kailash Mansarover Yatra 1994. The Respondent Management has also granted Special Casual Leave of30 days to in employee by name R. Srinivasan whowas undertaken an All India Tour on his motorcycle. Thus, the denial ofeligible entitlements to the petitioner is no wayjustifiable and is against the principles of natural justice. Hence, the petitioner prays an award may be passed in his favour to treat the period of leave as under Special Casual Leave and to direct the Respondent to pay the money equivalent to the adjusted and also for costs.

5.Again the petitioner in his rejoinder contended, the petitioner has taken the leave only during his service and he also made a demand to treat the same as Special Casual Leavewhile he was in service. The claim now made bythe petitioner was pertaining to his service grievance at a time when he was in employment and therefore, the Respondent cannot deny that the petitioner is not a workman and the dispute is not an 1.D. There was no delay on the part of the petitioner , on any event there is no limitation prescribed in the I. D. Act to raise Industrial Dispute. Therefore, the reference is valid. In the case of Ramgopal , the order of Government of India was acted upon and , therefore. It cannot be contended that the order of Central Governinent is not applicable to the petitioner , which is only discriminatory and amounts to unfair labour practice. Therefore , the petitioner is entitled to got his Mansarovar Kailash Vatra treamed us Special Casual Leave and to get reimbursement for the same and prays an award may be passed in his favour.

Thepoints fordetermination are:

(1) Whether the action ofthe Respondent- Management in denying Special Casual Leave to the petitioner during the period of his participation in the Mansarovar Kailash Yatra is legal andjustified?

(ii ) To what relief the workman is entitled?

Point No. 1

4. As against this, the Respondent in his counter statement contended, no doubt the petitioner joined the services of the Corporation in the year 1964 and after rendering 34 years of service , he sought voluntary retirement from the Respondent Corporation and was accordingly relieved from the services ofthe Corporation w.e.f. 31-05-2000 . He has neither been dismissed, nor discharged, nor retrenched from the Respondent Management . Therefore , the present reference is not maintainable since it does not constitute an Industrial Dispute in terms of Section 2 (k) read with Section 29(s ) of the I.D. Act , Further , as on 26-09-2003 when the petitioner raised the dispute before the Conciliation Officer as well as on 17-08-2005 , the petitioner was in employment of RespondentManagement. Therefore, the petitioner is not aworkman for the purposes of I.D. Act. Accordingly, this Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The petitioner's clalm deserves to be rejected on the ground of delay, either in theyear 1999 when the petitioner took Eamed Leave for proceeding on yatra or at any time subsequently, no provisions existed in the leave rules ofthe Respondent in granting of Special Cusual Leave to those undertakings the said yatra. The Respondent of Management is a Public Sector Undertaking having its own set of rules and regulations . It has also a certified Standing Order applicable toworkman . The petitioner was governed by the Certified StandingOrder. The rules and orders applicable to Central Government Employees do not automatically apply to the Respondent's employees . Merely because the Central Government Employees eligible for grant ofSpecial Casual Leave for proceeding on Mansarovar Kailash Yatra , it does not follow that such orders automatically apply to the Respondent /Management and he has no right to claim or demand that he should be treated " on par" with the Govemment employees . The issue of NOC to enable the

6. The case of the petitioner is that he was an employee under the Respondent- Management andhe has while in service has participated in Kailash Mansarovar Yatra from 01-09-1999 to 29-09-1999. A certificate was also issued by the Ministry of External Affairs dated30-09-1999 for the same. The Government of India issued notification/circular that all Government servants are eligible for grant of Special Casual Leave not exceeding 30 days for having participated in Kailash Mansarovar yatra conducted by the Ministry of 1064G1/2008-13 1570

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5 , 2008/ CHAITRA 16 , 1930

[PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

Ex .W10 is the copy of the relpy given by the Respondent Management and Ex .WII is the copyofthe complaint made to the labour authorities viz . Asstt . Labour Commissioner (C), Chennai , by the petitioner and Ex. W12 is the copy of the reply given by the Management and Ex, W13 is the copyofthe rejoinder to the Respondent's reply and Ex.W14 is the copy of the extract from Swamy's Compilation of FRSR, Part - III , CCS Leave Rules.

External Affairs , Government of India . Since the RespondentManagement is a Public Sector Undertaking and which is governed by the circular/communication / guidelines/orders issued by the Department of Public Enterprises , hence the petitioner is deemed to be a Government servant in all respects and he is entitled to the Special Casual Leave for the leave period from 01-09-1999 to 29-09-1999 for the participation in the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra and it is his further contention that he has applied for this Special Casual Leave, and the Respondent Management has not given any reply to his request and when he has been allowed to retire voluntarily on his request now they have taken the stand that the claim of the petitioner is belated and, therefore , he has raised this dispute.

8. As against this , on the side of the Respondent, one Jayavelu , Sr. Manager ( Personnel ) , P & D Zone was examined as MWI and on the side of the Respondent 3 documents were filed . The first document is the authorization given to the witness to give evidence and the 2nd document is the extract from the personnel manual in respect of leave and holidays and the 3rd document is the extract of leave entry given to the petitioner from his service register . On behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended the petitioner claimed leave from 01-09-1999 10 29-09-1999 for his participation in Kailash Mansarovar Yatra when he was working in the Respondent Management . Further , he has also made several demands to treat this as Special Casual Leave through various representations and the Respondent Management did not pass any orders till his retirement from service and even there after he has made several representations . Therefore , the claim now made was pertainingto his service grievance at the time when he was employment under the Respondent . Hence, the Respondent cannot contend the first party as not a workman and that it is not an I.D.

9. I find some force in the contention in the learned counsel for the petitioner because no doubt, the petitioner is retired from service of the Respondent on 31-05-2000 but even prior to this date , it is alleged that he made several representations to the Respondent Management and he has also marked certain documents . No doubt , the Respondent Management has contended the receipt of the representations given by the petitioner but I find this denial is only an afterthought because the Respondent has taken different stands in different forums . Before the Labour Enforcement Officer , the Respondent has taken the stand that the petitioner has not obtained any permission to leave the country before undertaking Mansarovar Yatra. According to him , since Kailaslı Mansarovar Yatra involved a foreign trip, the petitioner has not obtained formal permission from the Respondent Management . But, before the labour authorities , the Respondent Management has taken a stand that the Central Government circulars and notitication will not ipso facta applicable to the Respondent Management and therefore the petitioner is not entitled for Special Casual Leave . Only after the petitioner has shown that once the Respondent Management has sanctioned Special Cacual Leave to some of its employees who have under taken Kailash Mansarovar Yatra, the Respondent has taken the stand that the 7. But as against this , the Respondent's contentions arethree- fold. Firstly , the Respondent contended there is no Industrial Dispute since there is no relationship ofmaster and servant in this case and the petitioner is not a workman as defined by the 1.D. Act . Secondly, the petitioner has not given anyjustifiable reason for the delay for making the claim and he applied for this Special Casual Leave 3 years after his retirement and , therefore, it is not maintainable . Thirdly, no doubt the Respondent is a Public Sector Undertaking but the rules and orders applicable to Central Government servants do not automatically apply to Respondent Corporation employee and merely because Government of India has made government servants eligible for Special Csual Leave for proceeding on Kailash Mansarovar Yatra, it does not follow that such orders issued bythe government automatically apply to NLC employees . Hence, the claim is not maintainable before this forum . We will see the Respondent's contentions one by one. The petitioner examined himself as WW I and he marked 14 documents. Ex. WI is the copy of the Office Memorandum ofCentral Govt . , Ministy of Personnel and Trainingdated 11-04-1985, wherein it is stated the provision of grant of Special Casual Leave to government employees participating in Kailash Manasrovar Yatra. Ex.W2 is the copy of the leave account of one Sri Ramgopal. The petitioner produced this document to prove that the Respondent Management has given Special Casual Leave to the said Ramgopal who is an employee of the Respondent Management . Ex. W3 is the NOC given by NLC to the petitioner. Ex, W4 is the copy of the leave letter sent by the petitioner . Ex . W5 is the copy ofthe certificate givenby the Ministry of External Affairs for the participation by the petitioner is Kailash Mansarovar Yatra, Ex. W6 is the copy ofthe letter sentby the petitioner to the Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs stating that the Respondent Management has not given Special Casual Leave for him for undertaking the said yatra . Ex . W7 is the copy of the order of the Respondent Management for voluntary retirement to the petitioner . Ex. WS is the copy of the letters sent by the petitioner to the Under Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs. Ex W9 is the copy of the letter sent by the petitioner to Labour Enforcement Officer, Pondicherty and 1571 [भाग 1 ]- खण्द 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5 , 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

petitioner has retired and his claim was belated.

Furthermore, the claim now made by the petitioner pertains to the service grievance of the petitioner at the time when he was in employment, therefore , I find there is no point in the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent.

facto to all PSUs including NLC. But such circulars, notificationsby Government of India need not necessarily be circulated by Ministry of Coal . It is his further contention since the petitioner had worked in the Respondent organization which is governed by the Circulars /guidelines/orders issued by the Department of PublicEnterprises ofGovt. of India pertaining to all service conditions, the petitioner is deemed to be a Government servant in all respects . Therefore, the notification issued by the Central Government is applicable to the Respondent Management and therefore he is entitled to Special Casual Leave.

10. With regard to the next contention viz. that the petitioner has made this claim belatendly and therefore the claim deserves to be rejected, the Respondent contended, that petitioner has underwent this pilgrimage viz. Kailash Mansarovar Yatra in Sept. , 1999 and he has made his claim for Special Casual Leave only in the year 2003 before the LabourEnforcement Officer i.e. 3 years after his voluntary retirement and he has not given any justifiable reason for the saiddelay in making a claim . Therefore , the claim is not maintainable . But, as I have already pointed out that no doubt the petitioner has not produced document to show that the Respondent has received the representations but fromthe stand taken by the Respondent in different forums , I find the Respondent has want only disputed the fact that the petitioner has made a claim even while he was in service. Therefore, here agin I find there is no point in the contention of the Respondent .

13. Though , I find some force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner , I am not inclined to accept that all the circulars/ communications/guidelines/orders issuedbythe Central Government will ipso facto applicable to the Respondent Management . It is established by the Respondent Management that the Respondent Managemant has got separate rules and regulations and Standing Orders and it is also admitted by the petitioner that he was governed only by the Standing Orders ofthe Respondent Management , under such circumstances , the argunent of the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the circulars and communications issued by Government of India will ipso facto applicable to the Respondent Management is not correct but the learned counsel for the petitioner argued the Respondent Management has sanctioned Special Casual Leave and extended this facility to one of its employee by name Sri H. Ramgopal ( CPF No. 22411) for30 days i.e. from 28-06-1994 to 27-03-1994 fpr participation in the Kailsah Mansarovar Yatra in the year 1994 for which the petitioner has also produced document Ex. W2 . Further, the Respondent has granted Special Casual Leave of 30 days to an employee by name Sri R. Srinivasan (CPF No. 38718) who has undertaken an All India Tour on his motorcycle,when no orders or circulars/ notification issued either by Deptt . of Public Enterprises or Govt. of India and also when no orders from Ministry of Coal on the above subject under such circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner further contended, as a matter of fact, the Respondent Management has been granting Special Casual Leave to various categories for various reasons at their whims and fancles, therefore, thedenial of eligible entitlement ofSpecial Casual Leave to the petitioner is not justifiable.

11. With regrd to third contention ofthe Respondent viz. that the rules and orders applicable to Central Government employees do not automatically apply to Respondent's employees , we will see whether this contention holds good. The learned counsel for the Respondent contended that the Respondent is a Public Sector Undertaking . It has its own set of rules and regulations which has Certified Standing Orders applicable to workman . The petitioner while he was in service was governed by Certified Standing Order of the Respondent Managerment and as per the leave rules, there is no mention about the entitlement of Special Causal Leave to its employees , merely because Government of India has made Government servants eligible for grant of Special Casual Leave for participation in Mansarovar Kailash Yatra it does not follow that such orders issued in 1985 automatically apply to NLC employees and it was further contended unless and until the Respondent Management has introduced by apporpriate procedure the eligibility of entitlementto Special Casual Leave . In the case of Kailash Mansarovar Yatra, the petitioner has no right to claim or dermand that he should be treated on par with government employees and it is his further contention the orders of Government of India relating to grant of Special Casual Leave neither been extended nor applicable to the employees of the Respondent Management and therefore he argued that the petitioner's claim is to be rejected.

12. As against this , on behalf of the petitioner , it is contended the Respondent Management is a Government of India enterprise, the administrative functions of Respondent Management are being govemed by the rules framed by the Deptt. ofPublicEnterprises and/ or ofGovernment No circular issued by Government of India invariably applicable ipso

14. But as against this, the learned counsel for the Respondent contended that the case cited by the petitioner withregard to Ramgopal is not identical with this case. In -the case if Ramgopal , a decision was taken for Special Casual Leave as a special case while the individual was stilt in service büt in the present case of the petitioner, sought this facility after his võluntary retirement and therefore it cannot be said as discrimination among the employees . Further, with regard to the grant of Special Casual Leave to Sri R. Srinivasan , it can also not be comparable to that of the petitioner because the grant of 1572

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 5, 2008/CHAITRA 16, 1930

[PART I-SEC. 3 ( 1ⅱ ) ]

Witnesses Examined: -

For the 1 Party/ Petitioner : WW1 Sri Krishna Venkataraman

For the II Party/Management : MW1 Sri K. Jayavelu

DocumentsMarked:

On the petitioner's side Date

Ex. No.

Description

Ex, W1 11-04-1985 Office memorandum regarding special casual leave toGovt . servants

ExW2

Leave extract pertainingto Mr. Ramgopal

Ex. W3 03-04-1999 No objection certificate issued by Il party for granting Passport

Ex .W4 13-08-1999 Letter from the I Party to the Deputy Chief Engineer (P&D zone)

Ex, W5

Special Casual Leave for purpose other than those listed in the leave rules of the Respondent Coprporation are decided on case to case basis with respect to serving employees and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to any reliefand the claim ofthe petitioner is an afterthought and an attempt to derive some additional benefits from the Respondent. But as I have already pointed out since the Respondent has taken different stands in differents forums, I find only to reject the claim, the Respondent has taken this stand Frain Ex .W2 , it is not established that the sanction ofSpecial Casual Leave to Sri Ramgopal was taken as a special case . No doubt , the said Sri Ramgopal is in service of the Respondent on the ground it cannot be said only because the said individual is still in service that he has been given Special Casual Leave . If really, there is no provision to sanction Special Casual Leave for undertaking Kailash Mansarovar Yatra , the Respondent Management would not have given the Special Causal Leave to Sri Ramgopal .

30-09-1999 Certificate issued by the Ministry ofExternal Affairs for participating in the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra

Ex.W6 21-01-2000 Letter sent by the 1 Party sentto the Ministry ofExternal Affairs, New Delhi

Ex. W7 23-05-2000 Order issued by the Chief Personnel Manager

ExW8 16-08-2001 Letter sent by the I Partyto the Ministry ofExternal Affairs , New Dethi

Ex. W9 03-01-2003 Representation made by the I party to the Lahour Enforcement Officer

Ex, W10 29-07-2003 Reply statement filed by the NLC before the Labour Enforcement Officer

29-07-2003 Representation made by the II Party before the Labour Enforcement Officer

19-08-2003

Ex . W11

15. I find there has been a discrimination between me individuals shown by the Respondent Management and I turiber come to the conclusion only to reject the claim of the petitioner, the Respondent Management has lent stands at different forums . As I have already tira instance , the Respondent Management 1. tal.rn the plea that the petitioner has not obtained permission to leave the country to another country before undertaking the yatra and the Respondent Management has taken different stand before the labour authorities and after showing that the Respondent Management has sanctioned such leave to its employees , now the Respondent has taken the stand that the petitioner has claimed this benelit subsequent to his retirement and therefore the claim is not maintainable . As I have already stated only to reject the claim of the petitioner, the Respondent has taken different stands . As such , I find the denial of the Respondent Management with regard to Special Casual 1 cave to the petitioner during the period of his participation in Kailash Mansarovar Yatra is not justified and is also not legal

Point No. 2

Complaint made by the I party to the Asstt , Labour Commissioner (Central)

25-03-2004

Fx. W12

The next point to be decided to what relief the petitioner is entitled

Counter Statement filed by the II party before the ALC ( Central - 11 )

03-04-2004

Ex. W13

Reply 10 the rejoinder filed by the II party before the ALC (Central - 11)

Ex. W14

Orders regarding casual leave and special casual leve

For the il Party i.Janagement

Date

Ex. No.

Description Ls la view of my foregoing findings that the denial Special Casual Leave to the peritioner by the Respondent Magnet is not legal and not justified, I tind the petitroner is led to the relie Telaimedby him. Therefore, I direet the Respondent Management to treat the period of leave from 1-9-1999 to 19-9-1999 as a Special Casual Leave and to pay the money equivalent to the adjusted Earned Leave of 29 days ,

Ex. M1 28-12-2006 Authorization of Witness

Ex .M2

Extract from Personnel Manual in respect of leave and holidays

Fx. M3

Leave entry.

17. Thus, the reference is answered accordingly. Pleased to the P.A. transcribed and typed by him . corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 4th December, 2007

01-09-1999 to

30-09-1999

KJAYARAMAN , Presiding Ollicer 1573

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

[भाग IIखण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 12 मार्च , 2008

"Whether the action of the management of FCI , Mulankunnathkavu Depot in imposing punishment ofdeduction of2% wages for a total sum ofRs.50,414 from 133 D.P.S. workers from their wages for the month ofSeptember 2000 is legal and justified ? If not, towhat relief they are entitled to?" का.आ 770,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय खाद्य निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 86/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो. केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/6/2001-आई आर ( सी एम-11 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi, the 12th March, 2008

2.On notice both sides entered appearance and filed their pleadings . when the matter came up for evidence, the unions took adjournments on several occasions and finally when it was posted for evidence the unions and counsel remained absent. The management counsel was ready to proceedwith the case. the reference was made in 2001. The unions do not appear to be interested in the matter. In the circumstances it is unnecessary to keep the case pending. There is no substituting dispute for adjudication . Therefor I pass the following award.

S.O. 770. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Govemment hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 86/ 2006) of the Central Goverrunent Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India , and their workmen, receivedby the Central Government on 12-3-2008 ,

3. The action of the management FCI Mulankunnathkavu Depot in imposing punishment of deduction of2% wages for a total sum of Rs.50,414 from 133 D.P.S. workers from their wages for the month of September 2000 is legal and justified and the workers are not entitled for any relief.

[No. L-22012/6/2001 - IR(CM- II )] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed byher, corrected and passed by me on this the 26th dayofFebruary,2008.

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

Appendix P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer Nil

नई दिल्ली, 12 मार्च , 2008 Present: Shri P. L. Norbert, B. A. , L.L.B. Presiding Officer (Tuesday the 26th day of February 2008/7th Phalguna 1929)

I. D. 86 of2006

(I.D.15/2001 ofLabour Court, Emakulan)

Unions

: 1. The Secretary, Headload and General Workers Union , FCI , Mulankunnathukavu , Trichur .

2. The President, Trichur Jilla General Mazdoor Sangham , Trichur.

का, आ. 771, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) को धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय खाद्य निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , पुणे के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 24/2003) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-3-2008 कोप्राप्त. हुआ था।

3. The Secretary, FCI Workers Union , Mulankunnathukavu , Trichur. ByAdv. Sri . C. Anil Kumar.

[सं. एल-22012/357/2002- आई आर( सी एम-11 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 12th March,2008 Management : The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Mulankunnathukavu , Trichur 680581.

By Adv. K. M. Kurian.

This case coming up for hearing on 26-02-2008 , this Tribunal -cum-Labour Court on the same day passed the following.

S.O. 771. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/ 2003) of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Pune (Maharashtra) as shown in the Annexure in the ladustrial Disputebetween the management ofFood Corporation of India, and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 12-3-2008.

AWARD

[No. L-22012/357/2002-IR (CM - II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer This is a reference under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of Industrial Disputes Act . The reference is :-

1574

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2008/ CHAITRA 16, 1930

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

BEFORE SHRIS.S. VYAVAHARE, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT PUNE

Reference (IT) No.24/03

BETWEEN:

Food Corporation of India, 94/102, Koregaon Park, PUNE411001 .

.....First Party

AND

Food Corporation of India, Employees Association, Koregaon Park, PUNE -411001

..... Second Party

Inthe matter of: Reference under Clause (d) ofsub- section ( 1 ) and sub-Section (2A) of Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947.

(hereincalled C.H.M.A) and Central Govt . Health Scheme (C.G.H.S) for outdoor and indoor treatment. According to the Second Party Union, the employees of the first Party have been enjoying the medical reimbursement under above referred scheme since petty long time i.e. by way ofcustom, However the First Party w.e. f. 26-12-2001 has tinilaterally introduced new medical reimbursement scheme which is known as Family Health Plan Ltd. Known as " F.H.P.L. Scheme". The said scheme was implemented or introduced for indoor medical treatment and by replacing two earlier reimbursement medical facilities . It is the contention of the Second Party that, while introducing and implementing F.H.P.L. Scheme, the First Party did not consult the Second Party. The protest letter issued by the second Party union was also not considered by the first Party and the medical health scheme under the name and style of F.H.P.L. Scheme was introduced by the First Party without issuing notice U/s . 9A of the I.D. Act. Therefore , the Second Party claims the implementation of F.H.P.L. Scheme as illegal change .

Appearances Mrs. B.M. Kadam , Asstt.Govt. Pleader for First Party.

Mr. D.G.Kotwal , Zonal Organizing Secretary for the Second Party.

AWARD

4. Inspite of repeated request and protest in writing, the First Party did not stop the implementation of F..H.P.L . scheme and it was continued from December , 2001 to December, 2002. Therefore, the Second Party has approached to Asstt . Labour Commissioner by raising a dispute before him. The Conciliation Officer of the Central Govt . has tried to reconcile the dispute. However , as the dispute was ended in failure, the Conciliation Officer has referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal .

In exercise ofthe powers conferted by clause (d) of sub- sec.1 of Sec . 2A of Sec . 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the Desk Officer ( Conciliation Officer ) ofthe Central Govt . has referred the following dispute to the undersigned for adjudication . The dispute referred to the undersigned is mentioned in the schedule as under:-

5. It is the contention of the Second Party that, because ofimplementation of F.H.P.L. Scheme , the employees ofF.P. were required to sustain a loss of Rs . 46,95,624, in connection of medical bills of the employees of the First Party. The Second Party has claimed the said amount and has also claimled for some strict action against the First Party.

"Whether the action of the management of FCI in relation to the employees employed in the estts . of Dist. Manager, FCI, Pune in withdrawing medical reimbursement facilities indoor/ outdoor under CSMA/CGHS and Direct Payment System hospital w.e.f. 15-12-2001 by introducing the family health plan Ltd , scheme vide circular No. EP.43( 21 ) 99- EHP Vol. IV dt. 10-12-2001 and further vide circular of even number dt. 1-1-2002 without complying with the provisions of Sec. 9A of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified ? Ifnot , to what reliefthe employees are entitled to ?"

2. After the receipt of the reference the notices were issued toFirst Party and Second Party. The Second Party has submitted his Statement of Claim at Exhibit U-3 and has also submitted additional Statement of Claimat at Exh . U- 11 . Whereas, the First Party has filed its Written Statement ofExh . C-5.

6. The First Party has resisted the claim by filing its Written Statement at Exh . C-5 wherein, it is contended that , the scheme made by the Second Party is false , frivolous and notbased on true facts . The First Party has denied all adverse allegations made by the Second Party in respect of alleged illegal change and requirement of notice U/ s.9A of the I.D. Act. The First Party has also denied the locus standi of the Second Party by submitting that, since the First Party has been amalgamated with B.K.N.K. Sangh , the dispute ought tohave been referred in the name of Organizing Secretary of BKNK Šangh . It is submitted that, even the Zonal Organizing Secretary of B.K.N.K. Sangh ( West Zone) has verified and signed the reference . Even then , without making B.Κ.Ν.Κ. Sangh as Party to the proceeding , the reference is bad for non- joinder of necessary party.

7. While admitting CSMA and CGHS medical reimbursement facilities introduced by the First Party, the First Party also admits that , in the year 2001 by replacing these two medical reimbursement facilities , the First Pirty as introduced FHPL scheme . However the First Party categorically denies that, while doing so , the l'irst Party has 3. The Second Party is a union operating with the FirstParty and it is affiliated to B.K.N.K. Sangh . It is the contention of the Second Party that, the employees of Food Corporation of India have been enjoying medical reimbursement facilities extended to Central Govt . employees under Central Services Medical Attendance 1575 [भाग II खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5 , 2008/चैत्र16, 1930

...No

2. Ifso, whether the PartyNo.2 is entitled to claim the consequential relieffor the introduction ofFHPL Scheme?

3. What order?

As per

finalorder.

10. REASONS: -

committed any illegal change. The First Party categorically denies that, the implementation of medical reimbursement scheme forms part ofservice conditions . According to the FirstParty these medical reimbursement schemes are the welfare schemes for the benefit of employees and their dependants and they cannot be equated with the service condition of the employees . The First Party also claims them as perquisites and therefore also the First Party denies the same as service condition . For this reason only , the First Party submits that, by replacing two earlier medical reimbursement scheme, the implementation of FHPL scheme does not amount to illegal change and therefore, no notice is required u/s . 9A of the I.D. Act. It is also the contention ofthe First Party that, the First Party is govermed byFood Corporation of India Act , 1964 and the First Party has powers and is vested with powers and regulations under which the medical reimbursement scheme has been introduced by the First Party and therefore also , for such introduction and implementation of FHPL Scheme, it does not amount to change.

Before going through the evidence on record, itwill not be out ofplace to go through some of the facts which are not seriously disputed . It is admitted position that, the employees of First Party at Pune District.were enjoying medical reimbursement under CSMA and CGHS scheme for indoor and ourdoor treatment. It is also admitted position that, there was another medical reimbursement scheme known as 'direct payment scheme . It is admitted position : that ,be replacing CSMA and CGHS medical reimbursement scheme, the First Party has introduced FHPL medical reimbursement scheme . It is also admitted position that FHPL scheme was implemented only for one year and after2002 by discontinuing FHPL scheme, the First party has continued its earlier medical reimbursement scheme , CSMA and CGHS medical reimbursement scheme. It is also admitted position that, the Second Party is affiliated toBKNK Sangh ,

11. ISSUE NOS.LAND 2: -

8. It is also the contention ofthe First Party that, in comparison to earlier medical reimbursement , the FHPL scheme was more beneficiary and it covers the welfare and interest of larger group of the employees . More benefits are provided under FHPL scheme. Moreover , the implementation of FHPL scheme was on experimental basis muchless from Dec. 2001 to Dec. 2002. Therefore , for implementatin of FHPL scheme, the intention of the First Partywas bonafide . Lastly, the First Party submits that, the Conciliation Officer has referred the dispute for restricted purpose i.e. for the employees of Pune Dist. only. However , the Second Party has claimed the benefit for the employees of Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh , Chandigarh Gujarat and Goa including them in west zone . Accordingto the First Party, the Conciliation Officer did not refer the dispute for the employees of these states and therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the claim ofemployees from M.P. , Chandigarh , Gujarat , Goa and Maharashtra, except Pune District. The First Party therefore, praysto reject the reference.

In view of above admitted position, before going to consider and discuss the evidence of Shri . Kotwal , Secretary ofBKNK Sangh , and witness ofthe First Party, it is pertinent to note that, in present reference , the Second Party has claimed the relief for the employees of Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh , Goa, Gujarat &Chandigarh on the ground that, these states are coming. in west zone . The learnedA.P.P. for the State has strongly objected for considering the relief of the employees except Pune District by submitting that , the Conciliation Officer while sending the referenceto the Tribunal has requested the Tribunal to consider the effect of implementation of FHPL scheme for the employees ofPune District . In view of specific reference submittedby the Conciliation Officer ofthe Central Govt. , I am of the clear opinion that , it is needless to consider the relief claimed by the Second Party in respect of employees of other States except Pune District.

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

ISSUES

FINDINGS

... No

1. Does Party No. 2 prove that the introduction of family health plan limited scheme instead of medical reimburement facilities indoor, outdoor under CSMA/ CGHS and direct payment scheme is an illegal change under Sec . 9A ofL.D.Act?

12. In order to establish the illegal change on the part ofthe First Party, by implementing the FHPL scheme, the evidence of Shri Kotwal who is Zonal Organizing Secretaryof BKNK Sangh is recorded at Exh . UW. I. He has tried to bring on record that the employees of First Party were enjoying inedical reimbursement scheme of : CSMA and CGHS since petty long time. Under the said. schemes the employees of the First Party were getting reimbursement ofthe medical bills by direct payment system. and said scheme was more convenient to the employees of FirstParty. However , suddenly in the year 2001 without consultingto the office bearer of the Second Party, the 1576

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5,2008/CHAITRA 16 , 1930

earlier medical reimbursement schemes were replaced and FHPL scheme was introduced by the First Party. To the said scheme the Second Party claims it as illegal change. Shri Kotwal witness of the Second Party has also tried to bring on record that the Second Party has raised dispute before the Asstt , Labour Commissioner and specific directions were given by Asstt . Labour Commssioner to the First Partyto maintain status quo . Inspite of specific directions and pendency of dispute before Asstt . Labour Commissioner, is the First Party has impleaded F.H.P.L. Scheme andbas thus, violated the provisions of Sec . 33 of the I.D. Act. Shri Kotwal , witness ofthe Second Partyhas tried to bring on record that , because of inplementation of FHPL scheme, the medical claims of the employees ofthe Second Party amounting to Rs . 46,95,624 remained unpaid for which the employees of Second Party are entitled to recover the same .

13. As against this on behalf of the First Party the evidence of Shri Sable and Gola Prasad recorded at Exh. CW -1 and CW -2. Witness Shri Sable has all the while tried tobring on record that, the implementation of FHPL. Scheme is not illegal on the part of First Party, because the medical facilities under FHPL scheme or under CSMA and CGHS are coming the definition of perquisites and they cannot be squated with the service conditions. It is also tried to bring on . record that , the service conditions of the employees ofFirst Party are governed by Staff Regulation andU/s 45 of F.C.I. Act the First Party has right to prepare regulations therefore , the implementation ofFHPL scheme is in consonance with Sec. 78 ofthe Staff Regulation and therefore, it comes in the proviso clause to Sec. 9 A ofthe I. D. Act and therefore, also, there is no question to consider illegal change . Witness Shri Sable has also tried to bring on record how FHPL scheme is more convenient and effective then two earlier Schemes . Witness Shri Gola Prasad has sung the same song of witness -Sable in respect of implementation ofFHPL scheme as per Sec .78 of Staff Regulation. This witness has also tried to bring on recordthat , in pursuance to the objections raised by BKNK Sangh about the implementation of FHPL scheme, a meeting was arranged and it was unanimously agreed about the implementation ofFHLP scheme .

14. From the respective evidence put forth by the parties, it is seen that , it is not disputed that in the year 2001 FHPL scheme was introduced and implemented for one year. Though an attempt has been made by Mrs. Kadam, learned A.P.P. For the State to justify the implementation of FHPL scheme on the ground that, it was more convenient than two other earlier schemes and has tried to show that, under two earlier inedical charms , it was obligatory for the patient to take treatment than to reimburse the amount . The said obstacle was not under FHPL , scheme and patient was at liberty to move after taking treatment because of the amount of bill was ensured with Insurance company through F.H.P. Which was acting as mediator . Secondly, under old schemes the treatment was available

[PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii)]

only in Govt .hospital and in Private hospital the treatment was permissible for 10 days. Whereas such restriction was not-there in FHPL scheme . Thirdly , under FHPL scheme , for special treatment, the certificate ofGovt. hospital against pre-payment by staff was condition precedent whereas in FHPL the recommendation of F.H.P. was required . Fourthly, under old scheme after period of 10 days, the patient was required to be shifted to Govt , hopital whereas under FHPL schme, such restriction was for60 days . With these differences though Mrs. Kadam, learned A.P.P. For the State has tried to bring on record that , FHPL scheme was more convenient and beneficial , I do not find any force in her submissions because admittedly , FHPL scheme was introduced and implemented on experimental basis that too, only for 1 year. After a period of one year FHPL scheme was cancelled and two earlier medical reimbursement schemes were continued. The cancellation ofFHPL scheme after one year coupled with the fact that, old medical reimbursement schemes were continued, that itself goes unsaying that , FHPL scheme was not found suitable, convenient and beneficial . Therefore, I do not accept the submissions advanced by Mrs. Kadam.

15. Now, this takes me to important point for discussion about the illegal change U/s.9A because of implementation of FHPL scheme. Therefore , to my mind, the point around which controversy centres as to whether the implementation of FHPL scheme amounts to illegal change, Sec . 9A of I.D. Act which speaks about illegal change. I would like to reproduce for the purpose of convenience.

"Sec . 9A-Notice of change : No employer, who proposes to effect any change in the conditions ofservice applicable to any workman in respect ofany matter specified in the Fourth Schedule shall effect such change .

(a) without giving to the workmen likely to be affected by such change a notice in the prescribed manner of the nature ofthe change proposed to be effected; or

(b) within twenty-one days ofgiving such notice:

Provided that no notice shall be required for effecting any change -

(a) Where the change is effected in pursuance of any settlement or award ; or

(b) where the workmen likely to be affected by the change are persons to whom the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules, Civil Services (Classification , Control and Appeal ) Rules , Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, Revised Leave Rules, Civil Service Regulations , Civilians in Defence Services (Classification , Control and Appeal ) Rules or the Indian Railway Establishment Code or any other rules or regulations that 1577

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5 , 2008/चैत्र 16 , 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

may be notified in this behalf by the appropriate Government in the Official Gazette, apply."

14-2-02 that itselfgoes to serve the purpose U/s.9 A. Now, admittedly, the Second Party is affiliated to BKNK Sangh and it has stepped into the shoe of BKNK Sangh and therefore, it is not open for the Second Party to object M.O.U. 1.14-2-02 merely on the ground that, it is not signed. bythe officebearer of Second Party. One more thing which requires consideration that , clause 4 ofM.O.U. dt. 14.2.02 also goes to show unequivocally-" For smooth functioning ofthe system and to ensure that the welfare of the employees is not jeopardised , it has already been decided by the management to continue the old system also till such time FHP fully takes over. In other words, the patients can be referred to the private hospitals either empane Bed by the FClor under FHP Scheme till the FHP is fullyoperational."

16. Section 45 of the Food Corporation Act , 1964 gives power to the Food Corporation to make regulations with previous sanction of the Central Govt . and by publishing Regulation in Official Gazette by notifying it . Admittedly, the service conditions ofthe employees of the First Party are governed by Staff Regulation 1971 . Regulation 78 speaks about the allowances and advances and sub-clause 4 and 5 of Regulation No.78 says that, the Food Corporation has right to grant medical charges subject to the condition and has right to decide the terms and conditions for paying medical reimbursement facilities . The combined reading ofSec . 45 of F.C.I. Act and Sec.78 of the Staff Regulation . It is seen that, under these two sections , the Corporation has right and authority to consider the medical reimbursement facilities . Now , with this position , on perusal ofproviso clause 2 of Sec. 9A, it is seen that, notice of change U/s. 9A is not required when theworkman likely to be affected by change are persons to whom the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules, Civil Services Rules , Revised Leave Rules , Civil Services Regulation, Defence Service Rules of Indian Railway Establistment Code are applicable. Now, in present case as earlier Ihave mentioned that , the service conditions ofthe employees of the First Party are regulated by Staff Regulation under which the First Party has right to consider medical reimbursement scheme and Sec. 45 of F.C.L. Act shows that, the First Party has right to make Regulations. By considering these legal position , the only conclusion that can be drawn that, the implementation of FHPL scheme does not come within the ambit of illegal change and therefore, I have no hesitation to conclude that , notice of change U /s . 9A is not required.

18. After taking cursory glance of Clause 4 of M.O.U, it is crystal clear that, two earlier medical reimbursement schemes were agreed to be continued till F.H.P. Fully takes over and patients were permitted totake treatment in private hospital, either empanelled by F.C.I. or under F.H.P. Scheme. Now, the F.H.P.L. Scheme was continued hardly for one year. Considering this aspect, even assuming that , because of FHPL scheme, some inconvenience had taken place , it is very negligible . However, while coming to the conclusion that, the implementation of FHPL does not amountto illegal change, I am ofthe clear opinion that , the negligible in convenience tothe employees of Pune District because of implementation of FHPL, is not sufficient to grant any relief to the employees of Second Party. I therefore , further conclude that, the Second Party has failed to prove that , because of implementation of FHPL schme , the First Party has affected illegal change. I therefore further conclude that, Second Party is not entitled to claim any amount. I therefore , decide Issue No. 1 and 2 in negative and pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Reference in answered in negative .

2. Partiesto bear their cost .

PUNE

Dated: 28th Feb. , 07

8. S. VYAVAHARE, Industrial Tribunal

नई दिल्ली, 13 मार्च , 2008

का,आ 772, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 44/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011 /161 /2005-आईआर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , जैस्क अधिकारी 17. Leaving aside this aspect, it is also pertinent to note that , the First Party has come with a specific case that, after considering the objection of BKNK Sangh for the implementation of FHPL scheme, the meeting was called and M.O.U. was prepapred in which, the implementation of FHPL scheme was discussed. Exhibit C-44 is the M.O.U. dt. 14-2-02. The said M.O.U. is signed by one Mr. Om Pal Singh President of BKNK Sangh. An attempt has been made bythe Second Party to show that, said M.O.U , is not signed by the office bearer of the Second Party. While cross-examining the witness of the First Party, it has tried tobring on record that , mere attendance in the negotiations in connection of M.O.U. does not amount to consent. However, the very appearance of Om Pal Singh , President ofBKNK Sangh also goes to show the notice or intimation given to him about the implementation ofF.H.P.L. scheme. Therefore, even assuming for the sake of arguments that, for implementation of FHPL scheme notice U/s. 9A is required, even then , the attendance ofOm Pal Singh for the purpose of negotiations in connection of M.O.U. dt .

1064 G1/2008-14 1578

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 5, 2008 /CHAITRA 16 , 1930

[PART II-SEC .3 (ii ) ] New Delhi , the 13th March, 2008

3. The allegation in the claim statement are briefly as follows :

S.O. 772. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 44/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Bank, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12-3-2008.

[No. L- 12011 / 161 /2005- IR (B- II )] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Monday, the 17th December, 2007

Present: K. Jayaraman , Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 44 of2006

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d)ofsub-section ( 1 ) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Management of Indian Bank and their Workmen .)

BETWEEN

: I Party/Petitioner

TheGeneral Secretary

Indian Bank Employees Union No.25 , Second LineBeach Chennai -600001 Vs.

Il Party/ Management

TheAssistant General Manager : Indian Bank, Circle Head Circle Office, Kumbakonam

Appearance:

For the Petitioner :

Sri K. J. Arunachalam ,

Authorised Representative

For the Management : Sri T. Jayasankar, Authorised Representative.

AWARD

TheCentral Government, Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 12011 / 161 /2005 - IR (B - II ) dated 2-8-2006 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the refixation of pay of Sri C. Natarajan , Clerk/Shroff vide order dated 15-6-2004 as a result of penalty imposed on him by the management of Indian Bank is correct ? If not, what relief is the disputant concerned is entitled to ? "

The petitioner union espouses the cause of an employee , Sri C. Natarajan who joined the services ofBank of Thanjavur as Clerk on 16-11-1974 . The said Bank of Thanjavur was amalgamated on 22-2-1990 with the Respondent Bank and therefore the concerned employee became the employee of the Respondent Bank from then onwards . While so , the concerned employee was awarded the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect w.e.f. 27-2-1997 for certain misconduct. As a result, the increment fell due on 15-11-1997 for the concerned employee was withheld and released on the next year of increment i.e. 15-11-1998 . The concerned employee had reached the maximum pay in scale effective from 15-11-1998 after he was granted his last increment. Again he was awarded with yet another punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect by order dated 27-3-1999 and the concerned employee has reached the maximum time scale of pay app'icable to his, cadre as early as 15-11-1998. However , with a view to give effect to the punishment of stoppage of increment awarded to him , the 2nd party management considered proper to deprive the concerned employee of his Fixed Personal Pay ( FPP) for which he was eligible after one year of reaching the maximum pay scale . The concemed employee in clerical cadre is eligible for stagnation increment three years after reaching the maximum of scale of pay and the concerned employee is given the stagnation increment effective from 15-11-2000 . Therefore, he is eligible for second stagnation increment which fell due on 15-11-2003. But the Respondent Management did not sanction the second stagnation increment and the Respondent Management has decided to effect the punishment of stoppage of one increment by cancelling the stagnation increment on 31-10-2000 and denying the sanction of the second stagnation increment after a lapse of 5 years. Thus , they want to re- fix the basic pay of the concerned employee on account of the two punishments w.e.f. 27-12-1997 retrospectively and upon such re- fixation to effect recovery from the salary of the concerned employee of the so called excess payment made to him . The proposed action of Respondent Management in trying to unsettle the settled issue in the matter of Implementing the two punishments of stoppage of one increment without cumulatbive effect is illegal . The several representations given by the petitioner union is without any effect. Hence, the petitioner union raised the dispute before the labour authorities and on its failure of conciliation, the matter was referred to this Tribunal . When the matter was pending before the Ministry of Labour, the Respondent Management sought to implement its decision to re-fix the pay of the concerned employee and therefore the filed a Writ Petition in WP No. 15846 of 2006 and obtained an interim stay ofall further proceedings . Hence, for all these reasons, the petitioner prays this Tribunal to hold that the action of the Respondent Management is not 2. After the receipt of Industrial dispute, it was taken on file as 1.D. No. 44/2006 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearance through their advocates and filed their claim and counter statements respectively.

1579

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5 , 2008/चैत्र 16 , 1930

[भाग 11--खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

justifledand consequently to pass an award in favour of the concerned employee.

4. As-against this , the Respondent Management

the year 2002 , the concerned employee has submitted two representations for sanctioning oftwo stagnation increments and after that his case was reviewed and therefore revised sanction order was given to him for the same . "There was no delay on the part of the Respondent Bank as alleged by the petitioner. The petitioner union cannot be allowed to challenge in two different forums simultaneously and it is nothing but abuse of process of law. As per Section- 15 of Madras General Clauses Act , the authority who is empowered to issue an order has the same power to revise /rescind or revoke the order if the original order has been made on an erroneous basis or mistake . Hence, forall these reasons , the Respondent prays that the claim may be dismissed with costs.

5. Again the petitioner in his rejoinder statement contended it is not correct to say that the concerned employee became eligible for Fixed Performance allowance only from 15-11-1999. The concerned employce has reached maximumtime scale as on 15-11-1997 andbecame eligible for Fixed Personal Pay on 15-11-1998 itself. It is also not correct to say that the concerned employee eligible for first second stagnation increment only from 15-11-2001 . The Respondent Management after having failed to implement the punishment cannot at its sweet will and pleasure give effect to the punishment as and when it likes . Ifthe said punishment had been implemented in the year 1997 itself, the concerned employee is entitled to get back the benefits upon completion ofone year and therefore the Respondent Bank in trying to impose the said punishment with retrospective effect by postponing the Fixed Personal Pay and second stagnation increment is illegal and unjustified. Hence, the union prays for an award may be passed in favour of the concerned employee.

Points for determination are :

(1) Whether the re- fixation of pay of the concerned employee by the Respondent Management as a result of penalty imposed on him is correct ?

(1) To what reliefthe concerned employee is entitled ?

Point No. 1

in his counter statement contended the concerned employee viz . Sri C. Natarajan has been worked as Clerk/ Shroff in Mannargudi branch of the Respondent Management. His increment in the time scale applicable to clerical cadre was due on 15-11-1996 and he was sanctioned the increment raising his basic pay to Rs . 5270, While so, on 27-2-1997, he was awarded a punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect . As a result ofthis , he was not entitled to draw any increments that is due on 15-11-1997 and it became due on 15-11-1998 and he was sanctioned as such this increment on 15-11-1998 . By virtue of drawing this increment during 1998 , the concerned employee reached the maximum in the scale of pay and therefore the next increment will fall only on 15-11-2001 i.e. the stagnation increment which is due after 3 years from the date ofreaching the maximum in the time scale. But, the concerned employee again awarded the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect on 27-3-1999. The Fixed Personal Allowance /Pay shall be released only after 12 months from the date of reaching the maximum ofscale in respect of those employees who were in service of the Respondent Bank. Butby order dated 18-2-2000 , the then Zonal Office, Pondicherry inadvertently sanctioned the concerned employee the Fixed Personal Allowance/Pay w.e.f. 15-11-1998. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the concerned employee is deprived of Fixed Personal Pay. The concerned employee was eligible to draw the Fixed Personal Pay only from 15-11-1999 . No doubt, the stagnation increment was sanctioned w.e.f. 15-11-2000 to the concerned employee but the sanction was given inadvertently due to non - implementation of second punishment order imposed on him . The concerned employee still under normal circumstances earn his first, second and third stagnation increments , 3 years , 6 years and 9 years respectively after reaching the maximum in the time scale. Hence, the first stagnation increment though falls due on 15-11-2001 i.e. 3 years after 15-11- 1998, he is not entitled to draw the same because of the punishment imposed on 27-3-1999 . Therefore, the postponement ofrelease of second instalment is a natural corollary to the punishment imposed . The second punishment of stoppage of one increment was imposed on27-3-1999 could be implemented on the next increment which has fallen due on 15-11-2001 by withholding the same until the next increment which was due i.e, only on 15-11-2004, Therefore, one ineligible increment given from 15-11-2000 to 14-11-2004 which has to be recoveredby way ofimplementation of the punishment. Therefore , the allegation that the second stagnation increment was

denied to the concerned employee is misconceived. In

6. The admitted stand in this dispute is, the concerned employee viz. C. Natarajan who is working in the Respondent Bankwas awarded a punishment under Ex. M6 dated 27-2- 1997.The punishment by stoppage of one incrementwithout cumulative effect and again he was awarded a punishment under Ex . M3 dated 27-3-1999, punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. While the Respondent Bank have enforced the punishment of 27-2-1997, it has not implemented the punishment imposed on 27-3-1999 . The case of the petitioner is that he has reached the maximumtime scale as on 15-11-1998 and therefore, the second punishment of stoppage of one increment under Ex. M3 has not been implemented but the Respondent Bank as an alternative delayed the release ofFixed Personal Pay towhich the concerned employee was eligible one year after reaching the maximum pay scale . It is further contention that though [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 1580

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2008/CHAITRA 16 , 1930

it is admitted that he has reached the maximum level only. on 15-11-1998, but the authorities on his misrepresentation released the sanction order for the stagnation increment but the said order is not a correct one. Even after his entitlement for a stagnation increment , the due date ofthe stagnation increment will be on 15-11-2001 . Again , on 3-10-2002 under the original of Ex, M8 , the concerned employee has given a representation and in that he has requested the second stagnation increment from 15-11-2002, But the Branch Manager has sent a letter under the original ofEx . M9 that he is not entitled to stagnation increment as claimed by him . Therefore , again on 3-10-2003 , the concerned employee under the original of Ex. M10 has given a representation with regard to his second stagnation increment. Only after that , the authorities looked into the matter and on 7-6-2004 ordered re- fixation ofhis stagnation increments and the copy of the order is marked as Ex . MII and the Respondent authorities have released the second stagnation increments to the concerned employee underthe Ex. M12 , Therefore , it cannot be said that recoveries of his stagnation increments will not be done by the Respondent authorities. There is no limitation to recover the amount wrongly given to the petitioner, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this case .

the concerned employee entitled to stagnation increment 3 years after reaching the maximum scale of pay, the concerned employee was given the satagnation increment w.e.f. 15-11-2000 and he is eligible for second stagnation incrementwhich fell due on 15-11-2003 but the Respondent Bank did not sanction stagnation increment when it fell due and has also not informed the reason for the delay in sanctioning the second stagnation increment. But he came to know that the Head Office of the respondent Bank has given instructións to the Circle Office which is in Kumbakonam to revise his Basic Pay on account of two punishment w.e.f. 27-2-1997 onwards retrospectively and upon such re - fixation , it has further directed to effect recovery from his salary of the so called excess payment made to him . It is the contention of the learned representative of the petitioner union that MW1 viz . the Manager ofthe Respondent Bank has clearly admitted that it was a mistake on the part ofthe Respondent Bank in not giving effect to the 2nd punishment of stoppage of one increment which was passed under Ex. M3 , therefore the action of the Respondent Bank in trying to implement the punishment of stoppage of increment ordered under Ex. M3 after a lapse of more than 5 years is arbitrary, illegal and unjustified.

7. As against this , on behalf of the Respondent it is contended it is false to allege that the Respondent Management as an alternative delayed the release ofFixed Personal Allowance (FPA ) to the concerned employee . In this case, it is admitted by the concerned employee that he has reached the maximum pay scale ofpay on 15-11-1998. It is also admitted the FPA which the concerned employee was eligible one year after reaching the maximum payscale, therefore he is entitled to get the FPA only in 1999 and therefore the Respondent Management has not delayed the release by one year. It is only due in 1999. Subsequently, the order passed under Ex . M3 dated 27-3-1999 which is a second punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect has to implemented against the concerned employee in the next increment date but due to mistake this order has not been implemented in the sanction of next increments . Stagnation increments will be given to clerical staff once in 3 years after reaching the maximum . In this case, though order was passed in the year 1999 and though the individual has reached the maximum level in the year 1998, the first stagnation increment will be due only on 15-11-2001 and therefore the implementation of the stoppage ofone increment is to be given effect only in the year 2001 . Further, under Ex . M4 dated 18-2-2000 , sanction of FPAto the concerned employce viz. Sri Natrajan, there was also a mistake wherein it is mentioned that the allowance is due w.e.f. 15-11-1998 but acually it should be given only from 15-11-1999 . The concerned employee has given a representation 4-10-2000 , a copy of which marked as Ex. M7 . In that letter, he has said that he has reached the maximum level on 15-11-1997 but this is wrong fact because

8. But, again the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Respondent Bank by trying to implement the punishment of stoppage of increment in the year2005 which was not implement from the date oforder, thus, the Respondent Bank is now converting the said punishment which was only without cumulative effect by making it with cumulative effect. The Respondent Bank is not justified in doing so as the same is ex facie illegal and unjustified . He further contended the action of the Respondent Bank in trying to unsettle the settled issue in the matter of implementing the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and therefore the petitioner is entitled to the relief asked for, Further, he retied on the ruling reported in 1994 , 6 , SCC 154 , BHAGWAN SHUKLA VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS wherein the Supreme Court has held " the appellant employee has obviously been visited with civil consequences but he had been granted no opportunity to show cause against the reduction of his basic pay. He was not even put on notice before his pay was reduced by the department and the order came to be made behind his kwithoutfollowing anyprocedure known to law. There has thus heen aflagrant violation ofprinciples of natural justice and the appellant has been made to suffer huge financial loss without being heard. Therefore, the impugned order by which the pay of the appellant fixed on his promotion as Guardfrom the Train Clerkwas sought to be reduced is not sustainable ". But , again the learned representative of the Respondent contended that this judgement is not applicable to the facts of this case because in the case cited by the petitioner , the reduction of his basic pay was made without any notice to 1581

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5 , 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

[भाग !!-खण्द ( ii) ]

Ex. W3 27-03-1999 Indian Bank, Zonal Office, Pondicherry punishment order imposing the punishments. mentioned therein..

Ex. W4 18-02-2000 Indian Bank, Zonal Office, the concerned employee but in this case on hand it is not so. It is admitted that punishment was awarded to the concerned employee and he has also admitted that it was not implemented by the Respondent authorities . Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that no notice was given to the petitioner before implementing the order of punishment.

Pondicherry letter sanctioning Fixed Permanent Allowance w.e.f. 15-11-2000.

Ex. W5 31-10-2000 Indian Bank, HO /Personnel

Department letter sanctioning 1st stagnation increment w.e.f. 15-11-1998.

Ex. W6 23-06-2004 ID raised by Indian Bank Employees Union before theALC (C) against the alteration of existing service condition of the employee in the dispute..

Ex. W7 17-05-2005 Rejoinder filed by Indian Bank

Employees Union before theALC (C) on the reply of the management on the dispute raised bytheUnion .

For the I Party/Management

Ex.No. Date

Description

Ex. Ml 26-11-1996 Sanction of Annual Increment w.e.f. 15-11-1996.

9. On considering the entire facts of the case and also the argument ofboth sides, i am not inclined to accept the contentions of the learned representative of the petitioner because in this case , it is admitted by the concerned employee by mistake the Respondent authorities have not implemented the punishment imposed on 27-2-1999 , Under such circumstances , I am inclined to accept the contention of the respondent authorities under Ex, M11 under which they have fixed his pay as per the punishments imposed on him. Though, the representative ofthe petitioner, argued 5 years after the imposition ofthe punishment. The Respondent authorities have no authority to interfere with the order but he has not produced any authorityto show that this order cannot be implemented after a lapse of 5 years . Further more, in this case, it is contended that stagnation increment will be given only after 3 years after reaching the maximum. Under such circumstances, I am not accepting the contentions of the petitioner that it is highly improper , unauthorized and unjustified, therefore, I find this point against the petitioner.

Ex. M2 12-12-1998

Point No. 2

Sanction of Annual Increment we.f. 15-11-1998.

Ex. M3 27-03-1999

The next point to be decided in this case is towhat reliefthe concerned employee is entitled?

Punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect imposed on him.

Ex. M4 18-02-2000

10. In this case, in view of my findings above, that the order dated 15-6-2004 is correct and justified, I find the concerned employee is not entitled to any relief in this case

Sanction of Fixed Personal Allowance (FPA) due to computerization w.e.f.5-11-1998 .

11. Thus, the reference is answered accordingly.

Ex. MS 31-10-2000 Sanction of Ist stagnation increment w.e.f.15-11-2000.

Ex . M6 27-02-1997

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this daythe 17th December, 2007.)

K. JAYARAMAN , Presiding Officer

Punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect imposed on him.

Witnesses Examined

Ex. M7 04-10-2000

: None

Forthe 1 Party/Petitioner

Arepresentative from C. Natarajan seeking 1st stagnation increment w.e.f. 15-11-2000.

MWI , Sri A. Balu

For the Il Party/Management :

Ex. M8 03-10-2002

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner's side

Arepresentation from C. Natarajan seeking 2nd stagnation increment w.e.f. 15-11-2002.

Ex. No. Date

Description

Ex. M9 23-04-2003

Ex. WI 26-11-1998 Indian Bank, Zonal Office, Pondicherry letter sanctioning of Annual Increment to C. Natarajan w.e.f. 15-11-1996.

Aletter from the Brunch Manager intimating about inadvertent claim made by C.Natarajan in his letter dated3-10-2002 for2nd stagnation increment w.e. f. 15-01-2002

Ex. M10 03-10-2003 Arepresentation fromi C.Natarajan seeking 2nd stagnation increment w.e.f. 15-11-2003 .

Ex. W2 12-12-1998 Indian Bank, Zonal Office, Pondicherry letter sanctioning of Annual Increment to C.Natarajan w.e.f. 15-11-1998.

1582

: THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5 , 2008/CHAITRA 16 , 1930

[PART I-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

APPEARANCES:

Ex. No. Date

Description

Ex M11 07-06-2004

None

For the Petitioner :

Sanction of 1st and 2nd stagnation increments.

For the Management :

Ex . M12 14-07-2004

M/s.T.S. Gopalan & Co. Advocates

AWARD

Intimating 2nd stagnation incrementwill fall on 15-11-2003 instead of 15-1-1997due to non- i cumulative effect.

Ex M13 01-11-2004 Sanction of 2nd stagnation increment w.e.f. 15-11-2003 .

नई दिल्ली , 13 मार्च , 2008

The Central Government, Ministry ofLabour vide its OrderNo. L-12012/56/2007- IR(B - II ) dated 23-8-2007 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication .

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the Management of Union Bank of India in dismissing the service of Sri R. Veerasamy w.e. f. 25-11-2003 is legal andjustified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ? " का.आ. 773,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 48/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/56/2007 - आईआर ( बी-11 ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 13th March, 2008

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal has numbered it as ID/48 /2007 and issued notices to both sides . The petitioner even though appeared for two hearings has not appeared for subsequent hearings nor filed any claim statement . On the other hand, the Respondent appeared through their advocate. Since the petitioner has not appeared for subsequent hearings , he was called absent and set ex-parte and the Respondent has asked to file his memo of objection and he has also filed his memo ofobjection .

3. The allegation in the objection are briefly as follows:

S.O. 773. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 48/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Union Bank of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12-3-2008.

(No, L- 12012/56/2007- IR ( B - II) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORETHE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAL

Monday, the31st December, 2007

PRESENT:

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No.48/2007

The petitioner who has worked as Special Assistant in the T. Nagar branch of Respondent has done various omissions and commissions thereby he has fraudulently credited a sum of Rs . 89,956/- to the SB A/ c Nos . 44208 & 44063 in which he has got interest . After detecting this fraud, he was issued a charge sheet dated 22-4-2003 . In the enquiry held against him , he has admitted the misconduct but he wanted to explain what led him to commit the misconduct. The petitioner further participated in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer after giving him full opportunity to defend his case has given a finding on 20-10-2003 holding that the charges framed against him were proved . Then , the Disciplinary Authority after following the usual procedure has imposed the punishment ofdismissal . The imposition of the punishment is legal and fully justified . Hence , he prays that this ID may be dismissed with costs.

Thepoints for determination are:

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) ofsub -section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A ) ofSection 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), between the Management of Union Bank of India and their Workmaл . ) BETWEEN

Sri R. Veerasamy

0 Whether the action of the Respondent Bank in dismissing the petitioner from service is legal and justified?

: I Party/Petitioner Vs.

(1) To what relief the petitioner is entitled ?

TheDy.General Manager II Party/Management

Points( i) & (il)

4. As I have already pointed out the petitioner even though appeared before this Tribunal for the 1st and 2nd Union Bank of India Nodal Regional Office 139,Broadway Chennai [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( i ) )

hearings , he has not appeared before the Tribunal subsequently nor filed any claim statement. Therefore , he was called absent and set ex-parte, The Respondent in his memo of objection has clearly stated that petitioner has admitted the charges framed against him in the domestic enquiry and he has further participated in the enquiry. The enquiry held against him is just and proper and there is no room for complaint . He further contended that the Enquiry Offiecer has given full opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case . Under such circumstances , it cannot be said that the enquiry held against him is not proper . The petitioner's appeal against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority has also been rightly rejectedby the Appellate Authority . The Respondent further contended that the petitioner by his commission and omission has fraudulently credited to the tune ofRs . 89,956 to two SBA/c in which he has got interest. Under such circumstances, the dispute raised by the petitioner is without any substance. The Respondent has also filed the copy ofthe charge sheet given to the petitioner which is marked as Ex. MI , the copy of the enquiry filed by him which is marked as Ex, M2 , the ofthe order passed by the DisciplinaryAuthority which is marked as Ex. M3 and also the copy of the order passed by the Appellate Authority which is marked as Ex. M4 . On perusal ofthe documents and on consideration of the entire arguments in this case, I am inclined to accept the contention of the Respondent, The petitioner has not appeared before this Tribunal to establish his case how the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is not valid orjustified. Hence , I find Ist point in favourof the Respondent.

5. The next point to be decided in this case is to what reliefthe petitioner is entitled . In view of my findings that the order passed by the Respondent Management is legal andjustified, I find the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this dispute.

6. Thus, the reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this daythe 31stDecember, 2007.)

K. JAYARAMAN , Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined

1583

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5 , 2008/चैत्र 16 , 1930

Dismissal Order

Ex. M3 25-11-2003

Ex.M4 29-07-2004 AppellateAuthority rejecting the appeal.

नई दिल्ली, 13 मार्च , 2008

का.आ 774, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 कः 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कोलकांता के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 38/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/131/1999-आई आर( बी-1 ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 13th March,2008

S.O. 774. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.38/1999) of the Central Government Indus .Tribunal -Cum Labour Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Disputebetween the management of Central Bank of India, and their workmen , received by the Central Government ση12-3-2008 .

[No.L- 12012/ 131/ 1999-IR (B-II)] RAJINDER KUMAR, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ATKOLKATA :

ReferenceNo. 38 of1999

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Central Bank ofIndia AND

Thetr workman .

Present: Mr. Justice C. P Mishra, PresidingOfficer Appearancer:-

Onbehalfofthe :Mr. T. R. Behers, Law Officer Management

For the 1 Party/Petitioner : None

: MWI , Sri R. Venkatramaiah For the II Party/Mgrht.

Doemnents Marked:

On the Petitioner's side

Ex.No. Date

Description

Nil .....

OntheManagement's side

Ex. No. Date

Description

Ex. MI 22-04-2006 Charge Sheet,

Ex. M2 22-04-2003 Finding oftheEnquiry Officer .

On behalfof the Workman : Mr. D. K. Chatterjee, General Secretary oftheUnion.

State: WestBengal,

: Industry: Banking.

Dated:27th February, 2008

AWARD

By Order No. L- 12012/ 131/99/IR(B- 11) dated 29-09-1999 the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Sections 10( 1 )( d) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

1584

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2008 /CHAITRA 16 , 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ) "Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India, 33, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta- 1 in dismissing Sh. Dulal Chandra Santra , Electrician of Brabourne Road Branch, Calcutta from the services on the charges of fraud isjustified ?Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitled? "

Branch of the Bank by his letter dated 15-11-1993 sus- pended the workman although the said Branch Manager had no authority and power to suspend the workman and as such the suspension order is illegal . It is also stated that the workman as an Electrician could not be in custody of the tokens supplied to the customers of HSS Account holders against the cheques or withdrawal slips with pass book from the Token Counter Clerk. Tokens are received from the Cash Dept. or H/ S/S Department by the Teken Clerk during the beginning of working hours and takens are kept in the custody of the Token Clerk . Before the closing of the Bank all the tokens are kept in safe custody.Therefore , the question of stealing of the token bythe workman could not arise . Furthermore , the manage- ment did not lodge any F.I.R. against the workman with the local Police Station in this regard. The chargesheet issued against the workman in such circumstance is bad and the enquiry held ex parte is also against the principle of natural justice, It is also alleged that in terms ofClause 19.12( c) oftheBipartite Settlement the disciplinary author- itybefore awarding any punishment have to consider the gravity of misconduct, the previous records of the em- ployee and other extenuating or aggravating circumstance, but in this case the same were not at all taken into condideration . It is accordingly stated that the order of punishment in this case is illegal and it is prayed that the same be set aside .

2.This reference has been made at the instance of Central Bank of India Staff Congress (W. B.) .The case of the union is that Shri Dulal Candra Santra who was an employee working as Electrician in the Central Bank of India, Brabourne Road Branch was suspended from service on 15-11-1993 for allegedly committing fraud to the tune ofRs.9,500 on 12-11-1993. The Branch Manager of the concernedBranch of the Bank issued a memo dated 18-11-1993 addressed to the said workman. The Regional Manager as thedisciplinary authority issued a chargesheet dated 19-01-1994 to the said workman . The allegations are that the workman fraudulently filled in the withdrawal slip in the name ofone A. Chowdhury, HSS Account Number 3888 and wrote Rs.9,500 on the said slip. It is alleged that the workman forged the signature on the said withdrawal slip and presented the same in the counter . He stole one token bearing No. BBR 371 /A of the HSS Department of the Branch taking undue advantage of his position as a member ofthe staff of the brik. He affixed the related rub- ber stamp and misrepresented himselfbefore the Second Paying Cashier and managed to receive payment pretend- ing thathe was receiving the money on behalf of Shri A. Chowdhury, The then Branch Manager of belgachia Branch , Shri Biswanath Roy was appointed as Enquiry Officer on 19-01-1994 and on the same day Shri Chittaranjan Ghosh, JMI was appointed as Presenting Officer for the said enquiry. The enquiry was held exparte and in the en- quiry report the Enquiry Officer found the workman guilty ofthe charge as stated above . The union on behalf ofthe workman challenged the validity ofthe enquiry on various grounds. It is alleged that MW-3 ( in the domestic enquiry) Shri Pradipta Das , First Payment Cashier stated that the withdrawal slip was in order in all respect as per the Bank's procedure and accordingly the said witness handedover Rs .9,500 in 19 separate 500-rupee notes to the Second Payment Cashier through Saroj Roy Bhaowmick for pay- ment to one Shri A. Chowdhury. In such circumstance, the workman has stated that the payment of Rs . 9,500 was made to Shri A.Chowdhury and not to him . It is further stated that charges have been framed and brought against the workman without seeing the withdrawal slip for Rs. 9,500 issued HSS Account No. 3888 in the name ofthe accountholder , Shri A.Chowdhury . The relevant withdrawal slip was not produced in the domestic enquiry. Accord- ingly, it is stated on behalf ofthe workman that the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority acted mechanically. Therefore, It is stated that the disciplinary proceeding against the workman should be quashed. It is further al- leged that the then Branch Manager ofthe Braboume Road

3. In its written statement the Bank denies the statements and allegations made by the union on behalf of the workman in the statement of claims and states that the union tried to destort the facts and alleviate the gravity of the misconduct committed by the workman . It is stated that it has been proved by oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the management before the Enquiry Officer that the workman had fraudulently withdrawn Rs . 9,500 from the Braboume Branch of the Bank . It is also alleged that the workman taking advantage of his pa- sition, as an Electrician of the concerned Branch of the Bank perpetrated the fraud of withdrawing a sum of Rs. 9,500 forging the signature of an account holder , namely, A. Chowdhury. It was also not difficult for the workman to obtain the requiste rubber stamp for cash payment and to affix its impression upon the impugned withdrawal slip for obtaining cash payment . It is stated by the manage- ment that the entire modus - operandi of the fraud including the mannerhow he filled in the withdrawal slip at the can- teen oftheBranch and forged the signature of the account holder affixing the rubber stamp impression upon the said withdrawal slip and ultimate destruction of the said slip were all confessed by the workman in his letter ofconfes- sion dated 15-11-1993 executed by him in the presence of the then Branch Manager of the concerned Branch ofthe Bank . Thus, it is found that the fraud was committed bythe workman on 12-11-1993 . It is accordingly stated that the action ofthe Bank in imposing the punishment against the concerned workman is legal , just and proper and it is prayed 1585

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

[भाग -खण्ड 3 ( ii) )

that the claims of the workman be rejected and the reference be answered infavour ofthe Bank .

4. In view of the settled principle of law, as the correctness , legality or validity of the enquiry was challenged on behalf of the workman , which was defended by the management, it was decided to have a preliminary hearing on the point of validity of the enquiry and after hearing the parties this Tribunal vide order dated 29th January, 2004 held the domestic enquiry as conducted in the present case tobe valid. The Tribunal thereafter fixed the case for hearing the parties on the adequacy or otherwise ofthe punishment as imposed in the matter and the parties were accordingly heard on the basis of the materials available on record .

Rs .9,500 and forged the signature on the said withdrawal slip and presented the same at the counter of the Bank.In this connection he also stole one token taking undue advantage ofhis position as a member of the staff and also affixed the rubber stamp and miserpresented himself before the Paying Cashier to get the amount pretending that he was receiving the money on behalf of said Sh . Chowdhury. An enquirywas conducted by Mr. Biswanath Roy and the workman was assisted by one Mr. G.K. Awasthi in the enquiry . The workman along with his defence representative had participated during the enquiry though ofcourse on some dates they remained absent inspite of the fact that sufficient information was given to him in this regard to remain present in the enquiry which was conducted against him after giving him fult and proper opportunity in this regard. This aspect of the matter was dealt with by my learned predecessor while considering the correctness, légality and validity ofthe enquiry held in this regard and it has been held that the domestic enquiry as conducted in the present case was quite legał and valid and it did not suffer from any such violation of the principles ofnatural justice for the sarne in this regard . It is also evident that in industrial law the acts of theft, fraud and dishonesty apart from being exposed to the criminal liability under the criminal law has been treated as acis of misconduct justifying dismissal . Any behaviour of an industrial employee which does not conform to get an uprighteous conduct of an human being or the customs and expected standard of the society such as justice, honesty, integrity etc. may apart from being a criminal offence constitute an act of industrial misconduct .

7. It has been argued on behalf of the workman that 5. It is evident that for inflicting the punishment the management has to comply with the requirements of the relevant standing orders which generally provide that while deciding as towhat punishment shouldbe awarded to the concerned employee , the management has to take into accountthegravity ofthe misconduct, the previous record of the employee , if any or any other aggravating circumstance that may exist. If the order of dismissal or discharge is passed on the charges which have been proved in the domestic enquiry are sufficiently grave to award the punishment of dismissal or discharge , the fact thatthe past record ofthe workman was clean will be ofno consequence . The law before insertion of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 was that the award of punishment under the Standing Orders was a matter for themanagement to decide and ifthere was any justification forthe punishment imposed, the Tribunal could not interfere as it was not required to consider the propriety or adequacy ofpunishment or whether it was excessive or too severe. TheHon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision viz. Hombe GowdaEducational Trust & Anr. V. State of Karnataka& Отя. , 2006 S.C.C. ( L & $) 133 has held that discretionary jurisdiction to interfere with the quantum of punishment can only be exercised when the inter alia it is found no reasonable person could inflict.such a punishment or when relevant facts which would have a direct bearing on the question has not been taken into consideration . The menagement has also placed reliance on number ofcase laws viz. C.L. Subramaniam v . The Controller of Customs , Cochin , AIR 1972 SC2178 , Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B. Naravade etc. , 2005 LAB.I. C. 1333( SC) , V. Ramayana v. A.P. SRTC& Ors. , 2005 S.C.C. ( L&S) 69, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v . M. Chandrasekhar Reddy & Ors . , 2005 S.C.C. (L&S) 282 , Divisional Controller N.E.K.T.C. v . H. Amaresh, 2006 S.C.C. (L& S) 1290 and J.K. Synthetics Lid. v . K.P. Agarwal & Anr. , (2007) 2 S.C.C. 433 wherein the above proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court have been reiterated.

in this case the decision of the disciplinary authority and that ofthe appellate authority are perverse as material placed bythe workman had not been considered at all with proper application ofmind and on careful perusal ofthe material it can be seen that the workınan is not guilty of the charges ofmisconduct. It has also been argued that the punishment isdisproportionate to the alleged misconduct . Particularly, he has referred to the factual aspect of the charge framed against the workman by saying that the workman is Innocent and the so- called confessional letter signed by him is out ofundue presure exercised by the bank staffand furthermore with the deposit of the amount by the workman there is no question of any loss to the Bank and also that there is no legal evidence to show that the workman had committed any such fraud since the so called account holder, A. Chowdhury from whose account the money was said to have been withdrawn had not been produced during the enquiry nor did he maintain any such Account No. 3888 with the Bank and so there was no question of any such withdrawal from that Account or the token being taken by the workman for the same. Also that no FIR had been lodged against the workman regarding any such commission of thett by him at the instance of the Bank 6. It is evident that the allegation against the workman is that he fraudulently filled in the withdrawal slip in the name of one A. Chowdhury for an amount of

1064 G1/2008-15 1586

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 5 , 2008 /CHAITRA 16 , 1930

against the workman about the withdrawal of the said amount by him and then its deposit made subsequently as made by him itself goes to show that he had been very much involved for the said fraudulent transaction made by him causing tinancial loss to the Bank. There is no ground tobelieve him to be innocent that he had been just put to a pressure of the bank staff members to do it as they absolutely had no personal animosity or grudge towards him so as to falsely implicate him or to be a part of fraudulent act done by him in this regard . There is no statement ofany other person or Bank official to support him except his own personal explanation given about the confessional writing Ext. M- 1 . It is found that the other witness so examined on his behalf, i. e. , Subhas Chandra Pakrashi , WW- 2 who also had been posted in that Branch does not support him for this as it is clear from his statement that on the date of occurrence he was not present at all in the Bank premises on that day and nothing had happened in his presence or tohis knowledge as stated by him in the cross -examination that he was not personally acquainted with the factual circumstances of the case at all.

authorities. The alleged withdrawal slip through which the amount was withdrawn also was not produced during the enquiry merely on the pretext that it had been destroyed by the workman himself. Thus , according to him , there is no legal evidence to show the guilt ofthe workman so as to hold him guilty of the charges levelled against him in this case. It is evident that all pleas and points raised bythe workman were fully considered by the Enquiry Officer as well in his report Ext . W-5 during the course ofthe enquiry and he has given his own findings thereon . On the perusal ofthe report ofthe Enquiry Officer and the findings given therein for the withdrawal of the amount by the workman , it is evident that apart from the confessional statement of the workman vide Exts . M -6 and M- 7 , it has been foundby the EnquiryOfficer that the workman did not produce any oral or documentary evidence to defend himself inspite of sufficient time and opportunity having been given to him in this regard. He had also considered the documentary evidence produced by the management, i.e. , Exts. ME- 5 and ME-6 which are confessional letters/ statement written by the workman himself in Bengali which duly signed by him in English as well and his signature was duly verified by the official of the Bank as per his specimen signature with the Bank of his own account . This letter was submitteed by the workman in the presence of four other persons who had also supported this fact during the course of enquiry as well against the workman . Apart from that , the Second Paying Cashier who had actually so paid the said amount personally to the workman had also stated the fact against him to say that the amount was taken personallybythe workman himself through the token given to him on that date . Since the workman was personally known to the Cashier he had handed over the said amount taking advantage of being a member of the staff of that branch and on his assurance that the same was being collected by him on behalf of the real account holder , Shri Chowdhury.

9. On the other hand to prove the case against the workman , the management examined the officcials concerned to prove it viz. Saroj Roy, MW-2 who clearly stated that on that date he had personally handed -over the cash amount to the workman since he had produced the token to him . It is further stated by him that he had enquired from the workman as to how he was receiving the payment and then it was told by the workman that the recipientwas known to him and that he had asked to him to receive the payment on his behalf and as such the amount was paid to him on that date . There is nothing in the cross- examination to show that the said payment was not so made by the Cashier to the workman or that he had given a false statement against him due to any personal grudge or bias against him so that the same could be said to be motivated or false. The other witness Chayan Sengupta, MW-3 was also examined on behalf ofthe management to fully support the charges against the workman that the workman had admitted his guilt before him as per his statement vide Ext . M- 6 . He also denied to have exercised any pressure or influence upon the workman to write this confession , Ext , M-6 . It is also stated by him that the workman himself had deposited the money throuth a depositvoucher, Ext. M-9 putting his own signature thereon and also that he had given in his own writing that he was depositing the money without any pressure or coercion, Ext .M-7.

10. The aforesaid conduct of the workman together with the confessional letter , Ext . M- 6 written by him clearly go to show that there is no question of any false implication on account ofsome animosity or prejudice ofbias against theworkman who also did not mention to any such fact and circumstance while making his appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority to the Appellate Authority vide 8. All these facts are also so bome out from the perusal ofthe statement given by the concerned workman even before this Tribunal as he has admitted here too that he had written that letter of confession of his guilt as he says that "The management and Accountant had called meto chamber and asked me to write down my confessional statement with the assurance that they shall try to help me in the matter and accordingly I wrote this letter . This is the written statement in my pen and signed by me Ext . M- 1 . They had also asked me to return the amount saying that it will not cause any harm and accordingly I had paid the amount. This letter was written and signed by me , marked Ext. M-2. During the enquiry also I had stated this fact." This very statement as given by the workman before this Tribunal itself goes to show that the confessional letter was written by him . There is no such allegation of any undue pressure or any threat given to him so as to show that he had been subjected to any such threat or force to obtain it. This goes to show that the charges levelled [भाग II खण्ड 3(ii) ]

Ext. W-6. It is found therein as well that he had only pleaded formercy for his case in the light ofhis unblemished service career and also taking consideration of his family circumstances and other sympathetic points thathe had no other source of income to maintain them. He assured theBank authorities that in case he was given a chanceto serve the institution he would not commit any such incident in future. It was further stated that since he had fully repaid the loss caused to the Bank by depositing the entire amount of Rs. 9,500 and so he pieaded that whatever mistake he had committed due to lack of knowing legal and technical consequences and it was due to ignorance ofthe banking procedure and on all these grounds it was prayed by him that his appeal be allowed.

11. In view of the above and considering all these facts it clearlygo to show that the charges levelled against the workman were based on positive evidence and sufficientmaterials on the record and the findings ofthe EnquiryOfficer in his report , Ext . W-5 also go to show and prove the charges against him . The findings were on the basis ofthe legal evidence so adduced by the management during the departmental enquiry and the findings of the Enquiry Officer can't be said to be without any basis or perverse. The legal position is that the finding of the Enquiry Officer cannot be challenged on the ground that the evidence adduced before it is insufficient. If there is some evidence to reasonably support the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer , it is not the function of the Industrial Tribunal to review evidence and arrive at its own finding . Adequacy or reliability ofevidence is not a material which can be considered by the Tribunal . The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is to see that the finding is based on some material available on the record . In the case ofdisciplinary enquiry the technical rules of evidencehave no application. Preponderance of probabilities and some materials on record are necessary to arrive at the conclusion whether or not the delinquent has committed misconduct and liable to punishment considering the gravity of the charges so levelled against him by the employer.

12. In Chairman and Managing Director , United Commercial Bank and others v . P.C. Kakkar (2003 Lab . 1.C.1202) it has been held as under:

" 12. To put in dfferently, unless the punshment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference . Further,to shorten litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases , impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In the normal course if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate it would be appropriate to direct the disciplinary authority or the appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed." " 15. .....It needs to emphasised that when a court feels that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, it must record reasons for coming to such a conclusion .

1587

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2008/चैत्र 16 , 1930

Mere expression that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate would not meet the requirement of law. " On the issure of punishment being disproportionate to the offence alleged to have been committed by the workman , the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of U.P. Vs. Sheo Shankar Lal Srivastava & Ors.(2006 Lab. 1.C. 1326) is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"22. It is now well settled that principles of law that theHigh Court or the Tribunal in exercise of its power ofjudicial review would not normally interfere with the quantum ofpunishment . Doctrine of proportionality can be invoked only under certain situations . It is now well settled that theHith Court shall be very slow in interfering with the quantum of punishment, unless it is found to be shocking to one's conscience. " :

13. In this case as the facts proved against the workman go to show that it is not in dispute that the workman was not present on the date of incident in the Bank when the alleged fraud had been so committed by him by withdrawing the said amount from the Bank. It is also not in dispute that he had written the confession letter, Ext. M- 1 after the said fraud was detected on the very next date when the daily cash book and the supplementary cash book did not tally with each other and the fraud came into light on inspection . The argument raised on behalf of the workman about the non -existence ofthe account of one A. Chowdhury or that he being not examined to prove the withdrawal ofthe amount from his account and further non -production of the withdrawal slip through which the money was withdrawn by the workman. etc. does nothold good as it is a case of fraud committed by the workman on the basis of fictitious account and the evidence of withdrawal slip etc. were also so destroyed by him taking advantage of his position as the employee oftheBank and the amount paid to him by the Cashier .As discussed about it earlier these facts were positively proved and established by the management during the enquiry and the concerned officials of the Bank have also appeared in this Tribunal as witnesses viz. Saroj Roy and Chayan Sengupta, MW- 2 and MW-3 respectively to support the allegations made against the workman who also made confession of his guilt as well in this regard videExt. M- 1 which itself could be taken as a legal evidence against him to prove the charges of his fraudulent act done by him of the withdrawal of the amount from the Bank.

14. In view of all these facts the punishment of dismissal from service as imposed upon the concerned workman cannot be said to be disproportionate to the gravity ofthe offence as it was a case offraud whichclearly amounts to a misconduct . The action of the management ofCentral Bank ofIndia, 33, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta- I in dismissing Sh . Dulal Chandra Santra, Electrician of BrabourneRoad Branch, Calcutta from the services on the charges of fraud in thus found to be quite justified and 1588

[PART 11-SEC . 3(ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5 , 2008 /CHAITRA 16 , 1930

proper and as such the workman is not entitled to any relief so claimed by him.

The reference is answered accordingly.

C. P. MISHRA , Presiding Officer

Dated Kolkatta;

"Whether the action of the management of Oriental Bank of Commerce in terminating the services ofthe workmen mentioned in the annexure and not considering them for further employment while recruiting fresh hands under section 25H of the I.D. Act isjustified? Ifnot, to what reliefare the concemed workmen entitled?

The27th February, 2008

नई दिल्ली , 13 मार्च , 2008

The reference so received was registered as ID No. 45 of 1989. It appears that the said reference was then entered as ID No. 76 of 1998 when the same was received back on remand by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereas it should have been restored to its original No. On transfer ofthis reference to this Tribunal , it was registered as 1.D. No. 1140 of 2005 and is being disposed of as such .

का.आ 775. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओरियण्टल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय न. 2 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1 140/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल- ] 2012/550/88 -डी.-2 (ए) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 13th March, 2008

S.O. 775. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1140/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum Labour Court, No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management ofOriental Bank ofCommerce and their workmen, which was received by the Central Govemment on10-3-2008.

[No. L- 12012/550/88- D- 2 (A )] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

In empliance to the notices issued , the parties appeared and joined the issue. They filed their respective pleadings. Management raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the reference and insisted upon deciding the same before calling upon the parties to lead evidence for and against their respective claims . The then learned Presiding Officer vide his award dated 10th of Oct. 1994 allowed the objection raised by the Management and held that the workmen cannot be termed as retenchees and so they are not entitled to any relief. The reference was held to be without merit and the termination of services of the workmen as justified and proper . The workmen approached the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 6685 of 1996. Their Lordships ofthe High Court allowed the Writ petition and quashed the award so passed. They directed the Tribunal to go into the facts of the case once again and answer the reference.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT-II, SECTOR 18- A, CHANDIGARH

PRESIDINGOFFICER:

SHRI KULDİP SINGH

CASE I.D. NO : 1140/2005

Registered on: 23-09-2005

DateofDecision: 18-02-2008

...PETITIONERS

Jagdish Kumar and ors .

VERSUS

Oriental Bank of Commerce , Sector 17, Chandigarh

...Respondent

APPEARANCES

FortheWorkman

Mr. Sandeep Bhardwaj ,

Advocate,

For the Management Mr. Ranjan Lohan , Advocate .

AWARD

Vide their order No.: 12012/550 /88- D2 (A) dated 29th of March, 1989 the Ministry of Labour, Government of India referred the following dispute for the adjudication of CGIT-cwn - Labour Court , Chandigarh:

It may be noted here that as per the schedule attached there were a number of workers whose case was referred for adjudication through the present reference. However , after the remand of the case only three ofthem namely Jagdish Kumar, Yogesh Sharma and Ms. Sunita Rani approached this Tribunal , whereas the other workmen have not appeared nor produced any evidence in support of their respective cases . The other aspect to be kept in mind is that this Tribunal is required to consider the case ofthe workmen as a whole as ifthere was no award passed by my predecessor which was quashed by the Hon'ble High Court . Ithas also to be borne in mind that this Tribunal cannot go beyond the terms of the reference. In the case of Mukand Ltd. Vs. Mukand Staff and Officers Association reported,as 2004( 10 ) SCC 460 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the law that the Tribunal derives its jurisdiction from the reference , In terms of Section 10 , sub- section 4, the Tribunal has to confine its jurisdiction to the point of dispute specified in the reference and confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental there to. With this view in mind, as per the reference, theTribunal is required to adjudicate upon whether the management had terminated the services of the workmen and had not 1589.

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

considered them for further employment while recruiting fresh hands under Section 25H ofthe I.D.Act. Taken from other angle the reference is whether the action of the management in doing so is justified or not.

Ifwe go into the pleadings of the parties we find that the claim of all the three workmen, who are prosecuting their cases is almost similar except the number of days they have worked for the management and the period during which they so worked . Stated in brief the claim of the workmen is that Shri Jagdish Kumar workman worked for the respondentbank from 1-7-85 to18-11-1985 for 89days as peon, Shri Yogesh Kumar worked as a clerk for the respondent at Abahar up to 17-8-83 whereas Ms. Sunita Rani hadworked as clerk from 16-6-86 to 29-11-1986 for 64 days . Further claim of the workman is that the management gave false breaks in the service career of the workman whereas they regularly worked for them. Their further claim is that they could have worked for the management for more than 240 days had the management not put false breaks in their service career as the work was available with them. It is also claimed by them that the management engaged a number of workmen after the termination of their services without providing opportunities to the workmen to opt for working and so they violated the provisions of Section25H oftheAct.

oftheir services .Although in para 5 oftheir claim petition they named three persons such as Mahadev Parshad , Ashok Kumar and another Ashok Kumar having worked for the management for the days shows against them . The management in their written statement denied the claim of the workman as wrong. In that eventuality it was required of the workmen to have produced positive evidenceto support their claim but as stated earlier the workmen have failed to produce any evidence to show that the three named persons had worked for the management after the termination ofthe services ofthe workmen . It is also worth note that shri Jagdish Kumar in his affidavit only made a vague claim in para No.7 that thejuniors to him were retained bythe management while terminated his services . He did not name any person who was junior to him and who was retainedby the management while terminating his services. Shri Yogesh Kumar in his affidavit named some persons in para No. 4 of his affidavit but produced no evidence to support that claim. Ms. Sunita Rani also made similar claim in her affidavit in para 4 but produced no evidence. Whatever is stated by the workmen in this regard,was denied by the witnesses of the management in thelr affidavits andby two of them also in their oral statements recorded in theTribunal .As per the evidence available on the record none of the three workmen had worked for the managerment for 240 days. With regard to the allegation that the management resorted to unfair labour practiceby giving false breaks in the service career of the workmen even when the work was available, Iwould say that there is no reference to this Tribunal to go in that matter and therefore, the same aspect cannotbe considered. Since theworkmen had not worked for the Management for 240 days as per their own admission, before the termination of their services, their termination was not bad in law and theywere not entitled to the protection under the Act. As regards the claim of violation of Section 25H ofthe I.D. Act 1 find no evidence to show that the management had engaged persons after the termination of the services of theworkmen. The workmen have utterly failed to produce any evidence in this regard. In my opinion they are not entitled to any relief and the reference is answered against them. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appopriate Govt. for necessary action and the file be consigned to record afterdue completion ..

KULDIP SINGH, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली , 13 मार्च, 2008

Allthe three workmen appeared as witness in support oftheir respective claims. ShriYogesh Sharma who proved his affidavit Ex, W-3 in his statement claimed that he had worked for the management for 100 days although his presencewas shown only for 87 days . He further admitted thathis appointment not through anyBanking Service Recruitment Board . He however , claimed that his engagement was against the clear vacancy. In the same breath he claimed that the contents of his claim statement are correct . Ms. Sunita Rani in ber statement admitted that her appointment was on temporary basis but denied that it was for a specified period. She further admitted tohave served the management for 65 days , but denied that her appointment was not against the clear permanent vacancy. She further admitted that her recruitment was not done through theBank Service Recruitment Board ; and that she had neverappeared for recruitment through the said board as clerk . The 3rd workman also made a similar statement and admitted that he had served the management for 89 days; and that his appointment was for that period. He fruther admitted that his appointment was not through employment exchange or through recruitment board and he had not faced any test or interview before his engagement.

का, आ 776 , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अजमेर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या....... ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -40012/246/94- आई आर ( डी.यू.) ] The perusal of the statement of the workmen ,who appeared as witness , narrows down the controversy. The workmenhave failed to bring any evidence on record to show that the management had recruited fresh hands after the termination of their services . In their oral statement they did not name any person having been appointed on the posts onwhich they had worked after the termination

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी 1590

[PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5 , 2008/ CHAITRA 16 , 1930

New Delhi , the 13th March , 2008

S.O. 776.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Labour Court & Industrial Tribunal , Ajmer as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom , and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 13-3-2008 .

[No. L-40012/246/94 -IR (DU ) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

अनुबंध

न्यायालय श्रम एवं औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण , अजमेर

(राज. )

पीठासीन अधिकारी श्री आर.एस.स. मीणा , आरएचजेएस प्रकरण प्रकरण संख्या-सीआईटी आर 04/96 [रेफरेंस नं. एल-40012/246/94- आई. आर. ( डी.यू ) दि. 26.2.96 ] राजनिवास पुत्र श्री गोवरधनलाल गांव धाबी करीगरन फुलेराम जिला जयपुर (राज. )

प्रार्थी

बनाम

सब डिवीजनल ऑफिसर ( टेलीफोन ) दूर संचार विभाग , अजमेर

अप्रार्थी

उपस्थितः श्री वी.डी. भार्गव , अधिवक्ता , प्रार्थी ।

: श्री अशोक माथुर , अधिवक्ता, अप्रार्थी ।

दिनांक: 18-2-08

नसीराबाद में 10-3-89 तक काम किया लेकिन 11-3-89 को प्रार्थी को काम पर नहीं लिया जबकि प्रार्थी रोज नियोजक के यहां चक्कर लगाता रहा । प्रार्थी को दि. 27-3-89 को एक पत्र मिला जिसकी पालना में ड्यूटी ज्वाईन करने नसीराबाद गया लेकिन काम पर नहीं लिया और प्रार्थी ने 29-3-89 को अप्रार्थी नं.3 के यहां प्रार्थना पत्र दिया लेकिन कोई जबाब नहीं दिया । प्रार्थी ने संशोधित क्लेम के पैरा नं. ऽए में वर्णित किया है कि उसने अप्रार्थीगण के अधीन दि.13-4-91 से 18-4-91 तक दि. 20-4-91 को ( मदनगंज में ) दि.14-6-91 से 23-6-91, दि. 29-6-91, 30-6-91 से 2-7-91 , 4-7-91 से 5-7-91 व 15-7-91 से 8-10-91 तक कार्य किया । उसके बाद बिना किसी कारण के बदनीयती पूर्वक उसे सेवा से पृथक कर दिया । जिसकी प्रार्थी की वरिष्ठता को नजरअंदाज कर कनिष्ठ श्रमिकों को काम पर रखा जिससे सेटलमेंट की शर्तों का उल्लंघन हुआ। आगे बताया है कि प्यारेलाल व रूपचंद को काम पर रख लिया १ प्रार्थी को 27-3-89, 29-10-91 को काम पर नहीं लिये जाने के कारण निम्नलिखित आधारों पर अपनी प्रार्थना की है:- ( ए ) अप्रार्थी आई.डी. एक्ट के प्रावधानों के अनुसार उद्योग की श्रेणी में आता है ( बी ) प्रार्थी वर्कमैन की तारीफ में आता है ( सी ) प्रार्थी का सेवा पृथकरण आई.डी. एक्ट की धारा 25एफ , जी , एच , का उल्लंघन किया जबकि श्रमिक ने सेवामुक्ति दिनांक से पूर्व के बारह महीनों में 240 दिन काम कर लिया है न तो उसे कोई नोटिस दिया और न ही एक महीने का कोई वेतन या क्षतिपूर्ति दी है । ( डी ) नियोजक के यहां कार्य स्थाई प्रकृति का है जो आज भी हो रहा है जिनमें दूसरे श्रमिकों को नियोजित किया है ( ई ) प्रार्थी ने 1989 तक काम किया है और दो साल पूरा काम करने के बावजूद भी नियमितिकरण नहीं किया और सेवा पृक्करण कर दिया अत: दि. 27-9-89 और 9-10-1991 की सेवा मुक्ति को अवैध घोषित किया जाकर शून्य करार दिया जावे और सेवा में पय बैंक वेजेज के बहाल किया जाये एवं न्यायालय जो उचित समझे राहत भी दिलाने की प्रार्थना की है ।

अवार्ड

केंन्द्र सरकार द्वारा प्रेषित विवाद निम्न प्रकार है: -

"Whether the action of the management of P & T through SDO (T) , Ajmer in terminating the services of Sri Ram Nivas S/ o Sri Goverdhan Lal is legal and justified ? Ifnot , to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

जबाब में अप्रार्थी ने, कथन किया है कि प्रार्थी को कोई नियुक्ति पत्र नहींदिया और न ही सेवामुक्ति का आदेश दिया बल्कि प्रार्थी को आकस्मिक प्रकृति के कार्य पर दैनिक वेतन भोगी के रूप में दि. 1-1-87 से रखा और 11-3-89 से 13-3-89 तक कार्य उपलब्ध नहीं होने के कारण प्रार्थी को सूचित करते हुए 14-3-89 को आने कोकहा किंतु प्रार्थी के नहीं आने पर उनका व्यवहार उचित नहीं होने पर भी उसने काम पर आने को कहा जिस पर वह दि. 12-4-91 को आया और उसे कार्य का अवसर दिया । आगे प्रार्थी के कथनों का खंडन करते हुए स्वयं को उद्योग की श्रेणी में नहीं आना बताते हुए इसे कानूनी प्रश्न होने के कारण उत्तर की आवश्यकता नहीं होना अंकित किया है । अंत में प्रार्थी का क्लेम विशेष व्यय के साथ खारिज करने की प्रार्थना की है।

नोटिस के उपरान्त उभयपक्ष उपस्थित आये । प्रार्थी ने अपने क्लेम के विवरण में अंकित किया है कि उसने नियोजक नं. 3 के अधीन बेलदार के पद पर दि. 1-1-87 से रखा था और दिनांक 1-1-88 को उसकी सेवायें समाप्त कर दी गयी । इस सेवा पृथककरण के विरुद्ध उसने ए.एल.सी. ( सेंट्रल ) के समक्ष आवेदन दि. 6-5-89 को समझौता कराने के लिए गया और वहां प्रार्थी के आवेदन पर दि. 6-5-88 को समझौता संपन्न कराया उसमें समझौता की प्रमुख शर्त यह थी कि प्रार्थी को पुनः काम पर लिया जायेगा और जब तक उसे काम पर नहीं लिया जावेगा उससे जूनियर श्रमिक को भी काम पर नहीं लिया जावेगा । अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने पक्षकारों के मध्य समझौते का उल्लंघन किया और आईडी. एक्ट की धारा 25एफ का पालन नहीं करने पर दि. 22-10-88 को ए.एल.सी. के यहां प्रार्थना की और दि. 28-2-89 को सेटलमेंट किया । इस सेटलमेंट की पालना में प्रार्थी ने

प्रार्थी पक्ष ने अपनी मौखिक साक्ष्य में स्वयं प्रार्थी रामनिवास का शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत कर प्रतिपरीक्षण करवाया । प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य में प्रदर्श डब.1 , 2 दस्तावेजों की प्रतियां प्रदर्शित करवाकर प्रस्तुत की है । अप्रार्थी पक्ष की ओर से गुरमीत छाबड़ा का शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत कर प्रतिपरीक्षण करवाया है। प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य में प्रदर्श एम । लगायत 21 दस्तावेजों की प्रतियां प्रदर्शित करवाकर प्रस्तुत की है । 1591

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5 , 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

मैंने उभयपक्ष की बहस अंतिम मुनी, पत्रावली का गंभीरतापूर्वक अवलोकन किया । विद्वान प्रतिनिधि प्रार्थी ने 25 एफ के वायलेशन के संबंध में बहस नहीं की है। उनका कथन रहा है कि मैं धारा 25एफ के संबंध में कोई बहस नहीं करना चाहता । रूपचंद और प्यारेलाल को प्रार्थी के स्थान पर काम पर रखा गया है जो कि उससे जूनियर है जबकि 6-5-88 के समझौते के अनुसार प्रार्थी से जूभियर को काम पर नहीं रखा जा सकता था । बिना किसी कारण के प्रार्थी को दि. 19-10-91 से सेवा से पृथक कर दिया । प्रार्थी को पुनः काम पर आने के लिए कोई अवसर प्रदान नहीं किया । अप्रार्थी संस्थान ने जो दस्तावेज न्यायालय में प्रस्तुत किये हैं वो , विश्वसनीय दस्तावेज नहीं है और न ही किसी गवाह को न्यायालय में परीक्षित कराया है । प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध बायल्ड होकर कार्यवाही की गयी है और इसलिए उसे सेवा से पृथककिया है। अतः प्रार्थी की सेवामुक्ति को अवैध घोषित करते हुए पुनः बहालमय लाभ परिणामों के करने की प्रार्थना की है।

विद्वान प्रतिनिधि अप्रार्थी का तर्क है कि प्रार्थी ने अपने अभिवचनों में तथा शपथ पत्र में भी बारा 25 एफ के वॉयलेशन का आरोप लगाया है और 240 दिन काम करना बताया है । प्रार्थी का व्यवहार संतोषजनक नहींरहा है और इसके इस व्यवहार के होते हुए भी प्रार्थी को बार-बार काम पर आने के लिए सूचना दी गयी लेकिन बावजूद सूचना के प्रार्थी काम पर नहीं आया है। अबः वह कि फुल एक्सेंट रहा है और स्वयं ही काम पर आना बंद किया है । प्राथर्थी के स्थान पर किसी जूनियर व्यक्ति को काम पर नहीं रखा गया है रूपचंद और प्यारेलाल तो पहले से ही काम पर थे । प्रार्थी को काम पर आने के लिए अप्रार्थी विभाग द्वारा पर्याप्त अवसर प्रदान किया है , उसके बावजूद भी वह काम पर नहीं आया है , इसलिए प्रार्थी के क्लेम को खारिज करने का निवेदन किया है।

हमने उभयपक्ष के तर्क सुने , पत्रावली का गंभीरतापूर्वक अवलोकन किया। प्रार्थी की सेवामुक्ति दि.19-10-91 बतायी गयी है और प्रार्थी ने अपने प्रतिपरीक्षण में स्वीकार किया है कि मैंने विपक्षी के यहां वर्ष 1991 में 97 दिन काम किया है , यह बात सही है । विद्वान प्रतिनिधि प्रार्थी ने दौराने बहस 25एफ के संबंध में कोई तर्क नहींदिये हैं । इससे यह पाया जाता है कि प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि ने अपनी सेवामुक्ति दिनांक पूर्व के बारह महीमों में 240 दिन काम किया है ।

प्रार्थी ने अपने अभिवचन व शपथ पत्र में प्यारेलाल और रूपचंद को उसी काम पर जिस काम को प्रार्थी करता था पर नियोजित करना बताया है लेकिन प्रार्थी ने अपनी साक्ष्य या अभिवचनों में कहीं पर भी यह कथन नहीं किया है कि रूपचंद और प्यारेलाल कासंपूर्ण पता क्याहै और उनकी नियुक्ति दिनांक क्या है , जिससे यह सिद्ध होता है कि वो दोनों श्रमिक प्रार्थी से जूनियर व्यक्ति रहे हैं। इसके विपरीत अप्रार्थी गवाह गुरमीतसिहं ने प्यारेलाल और रूपचंद के संबंध में क्रमशः प्रदर्श एम -17,18 प्रस्तुत किये हैं जिसमें प्यारेलाल को अगस्त 1985 तथा रूपचंद को फरवरी 87 से काम करना बताया है। इस पर विद्वान प्रतिनिधि प्रार्थी का यह तर्क रहा है कि प्यारेलाल और रूपचंद का वर्ष 1991 का रिकार्ड प्रस्तुत नहीं हुआ है इसलिए विपरीत अवधारणा लो जानी चाहिए । हमारी विनम्न राय में इन दोनों श्रमिकों का रिकार्ड प्रदर्श एम-17,18 से यह स्पष्ट हो जाता है कि

दोनों ही श्रमिकों में प्रार्थी के कार्यकाल वर्ष 1991 के पहले काम किया है । पत्रावली में ऐसी कोई साक्ष्य नहीं है और न ही प्रात्वों ने बतायी है कि इन दोनों श्रमिकों को जूनियर के रूप में नियोजित अप्रार्थी ने किया हो । प्रार्थी श्रमिक ने अपने प्रतिपरीक्षण में अत्राधों संस्थान के द्वारा काम पर आने बाबत सूचना व नोटिसेज देना व काम पर नहीं आने बाबत नोटिसेज का मिलना भी स्वीकार किया है। मिर्ची के कार्य - व्यवहार के संबंध में अनार्थी संस्थान द्वारा अपने उच्चाधिकारियों को समय - समय पर सूचना दी है। प्रार्थी अधिका ने हजारी और कन्हैयालाल दोनों व्यक्तियों का अपनी जिरह में काम करना बताया है और कन्हैयालाल के अंडर में भी काम करना स्वीकार किया है । जे.टी.ओ. नसीराबाद में अरिये पत्र प्रदर्श एम-4 प्रार्थी अधिक कीशिकायत एसडी. ओ. को की है । इसके संबंध में प्रार्थी ने अपनी जिरह में स्वीकार किया है कि यह शिकायत जे.टी.ओ. ने लिखवायी थी। प्रदर्श एम -5 , 6 कन्हैया और हजारी के शिकायती पत्र हैं जो जे. टी.ओ. को दिये गये है जिनके आधार पर जे.टी.ओ. ने शिकायती पत्र प्रदर्श एम -4 उपमंडल अधिकारी तार, अजमेर को प्रेरित किये हैं । इसके लिए स्पष्ट रूप से प्रार्थी ने अपनें चयान में खखंडन नहीं कियाहै। आगे प्राथों ने अपनी जिरह में कथन किया है कि प्रदर्श एम -7 में ए से बी पता मेरा सही लिखा हुआ है। भंवरी देवी मेरी पत्नी है। यह सही है कि तारीख 14-3-89 से काम पर नहीं गया तो मुझे विपक्षी ने सूचना पत्र प्रदर्श एम-7 भेजा था जो मुझे मिल गया है । जिसमें स्पष्ट रूप से प्रांर्थी को लिखा गया है कि आप अपनी इच्छा से काम पर नहीं आ रहे है । प्रार्थी ने आगे जिरह में यह स्वीकार किया हैकि मुझे एम-12 नोटिस विपक्षी ने 5-4-91 को भेआ था। प्राथर्थी ने रामस्वरूप प्रजापत को जानना स्वीकार किया है और शिकायती पत्र एम-14 के बारे में प्रार्थी का कथन रहा है कि यह जे.टी.ओ. ने लिखथायी भी इसका भी स्पष्ट रूप से खंडन प्रार्थी ने नहीं किया है , उसने यह स्वीकार किया है कि प्रदर्श एम-15 मुझे नोटिस दिया गया था। प्रदर्श ए-19 नोटिस भी प्राप्त करना स्वीकार करता है और प्रदर्श एम-19 , 20 नोटिस भी प्राप्त करना स्वीकार कर रहा है । अप्रार्थी संस्थान ने अपने जवाब में भी प्रार्थी श्रमिक को दिये गये नोटिस एवं पत्रों के लिए लिख्खा गया है लेकिन प्रार्थी श्रमिक ने इन पत्रों के भायत किसी को कोई प्रत्युत्तर या प्रतिकूल जवाब पेश नहीं किया है । प्रार्थी ने अपने प्रतिपरीक्षण में स्पष्ट रूप से स्वीकार किया है कि मेरे से जूनियर प्यारेलाल व रूपचंद जो काम कर रहे थे उनकी नियुक्ति विधि का मुझे पता नहीं है । अप्रार्थी गवाह ने अपने बयानों में स्पष्ट रूप से कथन किया है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक को काम पर बुलाने के लिए उसके कार्य- व्यवहार के अच्छे नहीं होने के बावजूद भी काम पर आने को लिए समय- समय पर नोटिस दिये हैं प्रार्थी स्वयं जान- बूझकर कार्यसे अनुपस्थित रहा है । अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत इयं दस्तावेजों के संबंध में विद्वान प्रतिनिधि प्रार्थी का तर्क रहा है कि यह विश्वसनीय नहीं है , उससे हम सहमत नहीं हैं क्योंकि ऐसी कोई साक्ष्य पत्रावली में नहीं आयी है और स्वयं प्रार्थी श्रमिक ने भी यह स्वीकार किया है कि अप्रार्थी के द्वारा भेजे गये नोटिस उसे प्राप्त हो गये हैं तो ऐसी सूरत में अविश्वसनीय करार दिया जाना उचित प्रतीत नहीं होता है और न ही इन दस्तावेजों के संबंध में यह पाया जाता है कि ये फेब्रिकेटेड दस्तावेज हो बल्कि विद्धाम प्रतिनिधि का तर्क इतना ही रहा है कि क्रमांक, दिनाक' और पूर्व में 1592

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2008ACHAITRA 16 , 1930

[PART 11-SEC. 3(ii ) )

Workman

: Smt. P.K. Kalliyani , C/o. General Secretary, Southern Railway Casual Labour Union , Edappally North, Kochi-682024.

Management

ByAdv . Sri . C. Anil Kumar. : The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer , Southern Railway, Palakkad. By Adv. M.C. Cherian

This case coming up for hearing on 20-2-2008 , thisTribunal- cum- Labour Court on the same day passed the following:

AWARD

प्रेषित पत्रों का हवाला पश्चात्वर्ती पत्रों में नहीं दिया है। हमारी विनम्न राय में पूर्व प्रेषित पत्रों का हवाला पश्चात्वर्ती पत्रों में दिया जाना आवश्यक नहीं हैं और जिन दिनों को विपक्षी ने नोटिस या पत्र प्रेषित किये हैं उनमें स्पष्ट रूप से तारीखों का हवाला दिया हुआ है। अतः उपर्युक्त साक्ष्य के इस विवेचन के आधार पर हम यह पाते हैं कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक का आचरण एवं कार्य - व्यवहार सही नहीं था उसके बावजूद भी अप्रार्थी संस्थान ने उसको काम पर आने के लिए बार- बार लिखित सूचना दी है और बावजूद सूचना के प्रार्थी श्रमिक ने अप्राधर्थी संस्थान में काम पर उपस्थित नहीं हुआ है , इससे स्पष्ट हो जारा है कि प्रार्थी स्वयं ही काम करने का इच्छुक नहीं था । अतः प्रार्थी द्वारा अपना मामला सिद्ध कर पाने में असफल रहने के कारण कोई राहत पाने का अधिकारी नहीं पाया जाता है ।

आदेश

This is a reference under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act. The refurence is :-

फलतः प्रस्तुत विवाद का उत्तर इस प्रकार से दिया जाता है कि नियोजक , पी. एंड टी जरिये एस. डी. ओ. ( टी ) अजमेर द्वारा प्रार्थी रामनिवास पुत्र गोर्वधन की सेवायें समाप्त किया जाना उचित एवं वैध है , अतः श्रमिक कोई राहत पाने का अधिकारी नहींहै।

आर. एस. मीणा , न्यायाधीश

"Whether the action of the management of Sr. DPO, Southern Railway, Palghat in denying the benefit of service and other connected relief 10 Smt . P.K. Kalliyani , Gangwoman . O/ o the Section Engineer, Koilandi Section on her reinstatement with backwages is just and reasonable? Ifnot to what reliefthe workman is entitled?

नई दिल्ली , 13 मार्च , 2008

2.This reference was made originally to State Labour Court, Ernakulam, Later it was transferred to this court as perthe order ofHon'ble High Court.

3.Both parties entered appearance and filed their pleadings.When the matter came up for evidence, the claim was not pressed. Since the worker does not wish to proceed with the dispute the action of the management is only to be confirmed.

का.आ 777, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 को 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सासदर्न रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , इरनाकूलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 317/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-03-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-41012/57/2000- आई. आर. ( बी-1 ) ]

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 13th March , 2008

In the result, an award is passed finding that the action of the management , Sr. DPO, Southern Railway . Palghat in denying the benefit of service and other connected reliefto Smt . P.K. Kalliyani , Gangwoman , Oro theSection Enginner, Koilandi Section on her reinstaternent with backwages is legal and proper and the worker is not entitled forany relief

Dictatedto the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her , corrected and passed by me on this the 20thday of February,2008.

P. L. NORBERT, PresidingOfficer S.O. 777.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Govemment hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 317/ 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Emakulam as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the management of Southern Railways,, and their workmen , received by the Central Govertiment on 13-3-2008

Appendix : Nil .

नई दिल्ली , 13 मार्च , 2008

[No 141012/57/2000- LR (B-1)) AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present: Shri P.L. NORBERT, B.A , LL.B. , Presiding Officer (Wednesday the 20th day of February 2008/ Ist Phalguna 1929)

का.आ 778. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार साऊदर्न रेलवे. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, इरकाकूलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 319/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था। I.D.317 OF2006

(I.D.21/2000 of Labour-Court, Ernakulam)

[सं. एल -41012/61 /2000- आई. आर. ( बी -1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (it ) ]

1593

भारत का राजपत्र/ अप्रैल 5 , 2008/चैत्र 16 , 1930

NewDelhi, the 13th March, 2008

S.O. 778- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 319/ 2006) of the Central Goverment Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the management of Southern Railways,. and their workmen, which was received by the CentralGovernment on 13-3-2008.

[No.L-41012/61/2000- IR (B-1)] AJAY KUMAR, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM PRESENT: Shri P.L. Norbert, B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer (Wednesday the 20th day of February 2008/ Ist Phalguna1929)

L D. 319 OF 2006 (I.D.23/2000 ofLabour Court, Emakulam) Workman: Smt. K. Kalliyani ,

C/ o.General Secretary,

Southern Railway Casual Labour Union, EdappallyNorth, Kochi- 682024.

ByAdv. Sri . C. Anil Kumar

Management:The Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Palakkad.

ByAdv. Sri C. Anil Kumar

This case coming up for hearing on 20-2-2008 , this Tribunal -cum-Labour Court on the same day passed the following:

AWARD

This is a reference under Section 10 (1) ( d) of Industrial DisputesAct. The reference is;-

"Whether the action of the management of Sr. DPO, Southern Railway, Palghat in denying the benefit of service and other connected relief . to Smt. K. Kalliyani , Gangwoman . Oto the Section Engineer , Koilandi Section on her reinstatement with backwages is just and reasonable? Ifnot to what reliefthe workman is entitled?

2.This reference was made originally to State Labour Court, Ernakulam . Later it was transferred to this court as perthe order ofHon'ble High Court .

3. Both parties entered appearance and filed their pleadings. When the matter came up for evidence, the claim was not pressed. Since the worker does not wish to proceed with the dispute the action of the management is onlytobe confirmed.

1064 G1/2008-16

In the result, an award is passed finding that the action of the management, Sr. DPO, Southern Railway. Palghat in denying the benefit of service and other connected relief to Smt . K. Kalliyani, Gangwomen , O/o the Section Engineer, Koilandi Section on her reinstatement with backwages is legal and proper and the worker is not entitled for any relief.

A Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed byher, corrected and passed by me on this the 20th dayofFebruary, 2008.

P.L. NORBERT, PresidingOfficer.

Appendix : Nit.

नई दिल्ली , 13 मार्च , 2008

कर.आ. 779.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 कर 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार साऊदर्न रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों को बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, इरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 316/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-41012/56/2000- आई. आर. (भी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 13th March,2008

$.O. 779. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 316/ 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the management of Southern Railways , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 13-3-2008

[No.L-41012/56/2000-IR (B- I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURÉ

IN THE CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: Shri P.L. Norbert, B.A. , LL, B. , Presiding Officer (Wednesday the 20th day of February 2008/ 1st Phalguna 1929)

LD.316 OF 2006

(I.D. 20/2000 of Labour Court, Ernakulam)

Workman: Smt . Vijayanımal

C/o.General Secretary, Southern Railway Casual Labour Union ,

EdappallyNorth, Kochi-662024. ByAdv . Sri C. Anil Kumar,

Management: The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, Southem Railway, Palakkad. ByAdv . M.C. Cherian 1594

[PART I-SEC. 3( ii ) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2008/CHAITRA16 ,1930

managerment of Southern Railways , and their workmen , which was received by the Central Govemment on 13-03-2008.

This case coming up for hearing on 20-02-2008, this Tribunal -cum - Labour Court on the same day passed the following:

AWARD

[No. 1-41012/60/2000- IR (B- 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOURCOURT, ERNAKULAM

Present: Shri P.L.Norbert, B.A. , LL.B. , PresidingOfficer (Wednesday the 20th day of February 2008/ 1st Phalguna 1929)

I. D. 318 OF 2006

This is a reference under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of Industrial Disputes Act . The reference is "Whether the action the management of Sr. DPO, Southern Railway Palghat in denying the benefit ofservice and other connected pefiaf to Smt . P.K. Vijayamund Gangwoman, O/o the Section Engineer , Koilandi Section on her reinstatement with backwages is just and reasonable? If not to what relief the workman is entitled

(I.D. 23/2000 of Labour Court, Ernakulam)

Workman: Smt. P. Kasu,

2. This reference was made originallyto State Labour Court , Ernakulam . Later it was transferred to this court as perthe order ofHon'ble High Court.

C/o.General Secretary, Southern Railway Casual Labour Union, EdappallyNorth, Kochi -682024. ByAdv. Sri C. Anil Kumar .

3. Both parties entered appearance and filed their pleadings.When the matter came up for evidence , the claim was not pressed. Since the worker does not wish to proceed withthe dispute the action of the management is only tobe confirmed.

Management: The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Palakkad. By Adv . M.C. Cherian

This case coming up for hearing on 20-02-2008, thisTribunal -cum- Labour Court on the same day passed thefollowing

AWARD

In the result, an arward is passed finding that the action of the management, Sr. DPO, Southern Railway, Palghat in denying the benefit of service and other connected reliefto Smt . P.K. Vijayammal, Gangwoman, O/o the Section Enginner, Koilandi Section on her reinstatement with backwages is legal and proper and the worker is not entitled for any relief.

This is a reference under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of Industrial DisputesAct . The reference is

Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typedby her, corrected and passed by me on this the 20th day of February, 2008.

P.L. NORBERT, PresidingOfficer

Nil.

Appendix

नई दिल्ली, 13 मार्च , 2008

"Whether the action of the management of Sr. DPO, Southern Railway, Palghat in denying the benefit of service and other connected relief to Smt . P. Kasu Gangwoman . Oro the Section Engineer, Shonur Section on her reinstatement with backwages is just and reasonable? If not to what reliefthe workman is entitled?

2.This reference was made originally to State Labour Coun, Ernakulam . Later it was transferred to this court as per the order of Hon'ble High Court.

का,आ 780, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार साऊदर्न रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , इरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 318/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-03-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-41012/60/2000- आई. आर. ( बी -1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

3. Both parties entered appearance and tiled their pleadings.When the matter came up for evidence , the claim was not pressed. Since the worker does not wish to proceed with the dispute the action of the management is only to be confirmed.

New Delhi, the 13th March, 2008

In the result , an award is passed finding that the action of the management , Sr. DPO, Southern Railway . Palghat in denying the benefit of service and other connected relief to Smt . P. Kasu, Gangwoman , Ovo the Section Enginner , Shonur Section on her reinstaterneset with backwages is legal and proper and the worker is entitled for any relief.

S.O. 780. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref No. 318/2006) - of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the 1595 [भाग खण्ड 3 (ⅱ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5 , 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

Dictatedto the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typedby her, corrected and passed by me on this the 20th dayofFebruary,2008.

P. L. NORBERT, PresidingOfficer

the benefit of service and other connected pelief to Smt.P.Rukmaniamma , Gangwoman, Q/O the Section Engineer, Kannanore Section on her re- instatement with backwages is just and reasonable? If not to what relief the workman is entitled?

Appendix Nil

नई दिल्ली, 13 मार्च , 2008

2. This reference was made originally to State Labour Court, Erankulam, Later it was transferred to this court as per the order ofHon'ble High Court .

3. Both parties entered appearance and filed their pleadings.When the matter came up for evidence, the claim was not pressed. Since the worker does not wish to proceed with the dispute the action of the management is only to be confirmed.

का.आ 781.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार साकर्दन रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, इरभाकूलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 320/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-03-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-41012/94/2000-आई, आर. ( बी-I ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 13th March , 2008

In the result, an award is passed finding that the action ofthe management, Sr. D.P.O. Southern Railway. Palghat in denying the benefit of service and other connected relief to Smt. P. Rukmaniamma, Gangwoman , O/O the Section Engineer, Koilandi Section on her re-instatement with backwages is legal and proper and the worker is not entitled for any relief.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 20thday of February, 2008.

P.L. NORBERT, PresidingOfficer

Appendix Nil

S.O. 781. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref . No. 320/ 2006) of the Central Goverment Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the management of Southern Railways , and their workmen , received by the Central Governmenton 13-03-2008 .

नई दिल्ली, 13 मार्च , 2008

[No. L-41012/94/2000- IR(B-1)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

कर. आ 782,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नार्दन रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , इरनाकूलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1303/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-03-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था । Present: Shri P.L. Norbert, B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer (Wednesday the 20th day of February 2008/ Ist Phalguna 1929)

[सं. एल-41012/36/2000 - आई. आर. (गी- ] ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी L. D. 320 OF 2006

New Delhi , the 13th March , 2008 (L.D. 24/2000.ofLabour Court, Ernakullam)

Workman: Smt. P.K. Kalliyani ,

C/o. General Secretary,

Southern Railway Casual Labour Union, EdappallyNorth, Kochi-682024.

Management : The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Palakkad. ByAdv . M.C. Cherian

S.O. 782. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1303 / 2007) of the Central Goverment Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , 11 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the management of Northern Railway.. and their workmen , received by the Central Govemment on 13-03-2008

This case coming up for hearing on 20-02-2008, thisTribunal -cum-Labour Court on the same dary passed

[No.L-41012/36/2000-IR(B- 1)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer thefollowing:

ANNEXURE

AWARD

This is a reference under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of Industrial DisputesAct. The reference is :

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM -LABOUR.COURT II , SCTOR 18- A, CHANDIGARH

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI KULDIP SINGH "Whether the action of the management of Sr. D.P.O. , Southern Railway, Palghat in denying [PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] 1596

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2008/ CHAITRA 16 , 1930

Case 1.D. NO 1303/2007

नई दिल्ली , 13 मार्च , 2008

Registered on: 4-5-2007

Date of Decision: 4-3-2008

The President, All India Retired Railway Men's

Fedration , 205, Laxmi Garden Colony, Dhaki , Pathankote.

Petitioner

Versus

TheDivisional Railway Manager,

...Respondent

का.आ. 783 , - जबकि मैसर्स दिल्ली इंटरनेशनल एयरपोर्ट प्रा. लि. , नई दिल्ली , [ ( दिल्ली उत्तर ) क्षेत्र में कोड संख्या डीएल/31336 के तहत ] ( एप्तदुपरान्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि और प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) (एतदुपरान्त अधिनियम के रूप में संदर्भित ) की धारा 17 की, उप-धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क ) के अंतर्गत छूट के लिए आवेदन दिया है ।

Northern Railway, Ferozpur

APPEARANCE

For the Workman :

Nemo

For the Management :

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry ofLabour, vide theirOrder No : L-41012/36/2006 - IR( B-1 ) dated 7th ofFeb, 2007 referredthe following matter for the consideration ofthis Tribunal :

2. और जबकि, केन्द्र सरकार के विचार में अंशदान दर के मामले में उक्त प्रतिष्ठान के भविष्य निधि के नियम उसके कर्मचारियों के लिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 में विनिर्दिष्ट की तुलना में कम हितकर नहीं है और कर्मचारी भी समान प्रकृति के किसी अन्य प्रतिष्ठान के कर्मचारियों के संबंध में उक्त अधिनियम या कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि योजना , 1952 ( एतदुपरान्त उक्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित) के अंतर्गत अन्य भविष्य निधि लाभ भी प्राप्त कर रहे हैं ।

3. केन्द्र सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा , अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 17 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए तथा इस संबंध में समय - समय पर विनिर्दिष्ट शतों को ध्यान में रखते हुए , उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को उक्त योजना के समस्त उपबंधों के प्रचालन से 01-05-2006 से अगली अधिसूचना तक के लिए छूट प्रदान करती है।

"Whether the action of Divisional Railway Manager, Ferozpur not stepping up the pay of Shri Dev Raj Saini S/o Shri Mohan Lal Saini, retired Station Superintendent , Northern Railway , Sarna from hisjunior Shri Pritam Singh and consequently not fixing the pension accordingly and payment of consequential benefits to the incumbent accordingly wasjustified? If not, what relief the employee is entitled to and fromwhichdate?"

[सं. एस-35015/30/2007- एस. एस-11 ]

एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 13th March, 2008

S.O. 783. Whereas M /s Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi ( under Code No. DL/ 31336 in Delhi (North) region ] ( hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section of ( 1 ) of Section 17 of the Employees ' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

On the receipt of the reference notices were issued. to the parties , but they did not appear . Fresh notice was given to the workman under register cover vide postal receipt No. 3442 dated 2nd ofAugust, 2007. The notice so sent was neither received back nor the workman appeared on 6th September, 2007, the next date fixed in the case. The Tribunal still waited for the workman all this period, but he has not appeared nor anything has been heard from him. The presumption thus goes that the workman bas received the notice but he has chosen not to appear and contest his claim . Since the Management has also not appeared after a notice , it maybe that the parties have settled the matter amicably , therefore, they have not come to the Tribunal .

2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are not less favourable to employees therein than those specified in Section 6 of the said Act and the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided under the said Act or under the Employees ' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred toas the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other establishment of similar character.

3. Now, therefore , in exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (a) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 17 of the said Act and subject to the conditions specified in this regard from timeto time, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the said establishment from the operation of all the provisionsof the said Scheme with effect from 01-05-2006, until further notification .

On record there is neither any claim nor counter claim which can be looked into by the Tribunal. In this the loser is the workman as he has failed to show as to how the Management has failed in their duty to settle the claim of the workman . There is no evidence to show that the Management failed in its duty in not stepping up the pay of Shri Dev Raj Saini Sto Shri Mohan Lal Saini , retired Station Supdt, Northern Railway, Sarna from his junior Shri Pritam Singh and consequently not fixing the pension according. Therefore , the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered against him and the award ispassed. Let a copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for necessary action and the file be consigned to records.

[No. S- 35015/30/2007-SS- IIJ S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer 1597 [ भाग खण्ड ( i ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930-

MAWARD

नई दिल्ली , 14 मार्च, 2008

This is a reference under Section 10 (1 ) (d ) of , Industrial Disputes Act. The references

का.आ. 784.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार त्रिवेन्द्रम एयरपोर्ट अथोरिटी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय कोचीन के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या आई.डी. - 135/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो फेन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-03-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-11012/5/2003- आई. आर. (एम. ) ] एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 14th March, 2008

(A) Whether the contract into between the Electrical Contractors namly ( 1 ) Shri Rajagopal, M/s . Puliyadiyil Service Centre , Pullmood, Trivandnih (2)M/ s. Sreeragam Electricals , Madras, (3)Sterl . S. Sajith, R.K. Electricals, Medical College P.O. , Trivandrum and (4) Mis . Ajantha Electricals and PA Equipments, Puthenchanthai , Trivandrum and the management of Airport Authority of India (NDA), Trivandrum was genuine or a sham contract? (B) Whether the demand of Shri C. Sasidharan , Bhavani Mandiram , Thakidu Vila, Cherukunnam , Maithanam , Varkala P.O. , Trivandrum District an electrical contract labour in the establishment ofAirport Authority of India (NDA) who was engaged through the contractors namely ( 1) Shri Rajagopal, M/s. Puliyadiyil Service Centre , Pulimood Trivandrum, (2)M/s . Sreeragain Electricals , Madras, (3) Shri S. Sajith, R.K. Electricals, Medical College P.O. , Trivandramand (4) M/s . Ajantha Electricals and PA Equipments , Puathenchanthai , Trivandrum is entitled to regularization by the management of Airport Authority of India (NDA), Trivandrum in their establishment is justified ? Ifso, towhat reliefthe concerned workman is entitled to?" S.O. 784. 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. 135/2006) of the Central Government industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Cochin now as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Trivandrum Airport Authority ofIndia and their workmen, which was received by the Central Governmenton 14-03-2008

[No. L- 11012/5/2003 -IR(M)] N. S. BORA , Desk Officer

2. Both Parties entered appearance and filed their pleadings. When the matter came up for evidence, the counsel for the workman did not press the reference.

ANNEXURE

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

Present: Shri P.L. Norbert, B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer (Wednesday the 20th day of February 2008/6th Phalguna 1929)

In the result, an award is passed finding that contract between the Electrical Contractors (1 ) M/s . Puliyadiyil Service Centre, Pulimood , Trivandrum (2) M/s . Sreeragam Electricals, Madras (3 ) Shri S. Sajith, R.K. Electricals, (4) M/s. Ajantha Electricals and P.A. Equipments is genuine and the demend of worker C. Sasidaran for regularisation in Air Port Authority ofIndia, Thiruvananthapuram is not legal and justified and he is not entitled for any relief.

1. D. 135 OF 2006

(1. D. 43/2003 of Industrial Tribunal , Kollam)

Workman : Sri C. Sasidharan,

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 25thday ofFebruary,2008.

Bhavani Mandiram,

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer Thakidu Viļa, Cherukunnam,

Nil 3

Appendix

Maithanam, Varkala P.O. , Trivandrum .

नई दिल्ली , 14 मार्च, 2008

ByAdv. Sri .Anil Narayanan ,

का.आ. 785 , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 Management : TheAirport Director,

Trivandrum Airport Authority of India (NDA)

Trivandrum International Airport,

Trivandrum- 8

ByAdv. V. Santharaam

का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत गोल्ड. माईन्स लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय उदयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 08/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं एल-43012/4/ 1998 - आईआर ( एम ) ] This case coming up for hearing on 25-02-2008 , his Tribunal -cum-Labour Court on the same day passed. the following:

एम. एस. बोरा, डेस्क अधिकारी 1064G1/2008-17 1598

[PART 11-SEC . 3( ⅱ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2008/CHAITRA 16 , 1930

New Delhi , the 14th March, 2008

नियोजित श्रमिकों के वेतन को हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. के समझौता दिनांक 29-9-95 के अनुरूप ही नियमित श्रमिकों के वेतन को संशोधित किये गये थे के अनुरूप दिया जाना उचित है ? संशोधित बेतनमान दिया जाना क्या वैधानिक एवं न्यायोचित है । यदि नहीं तो श्रमिक जो कि भारत गोल्ड माईन्स लि. द्वारा नियोजित थे क्या अनुत्तोष पाने के अधिकारी हैं ?

S.O. 785. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Govemment hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 08/1999) of the Central Government Industrial TribunalLabour Court , Udaypur now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofBharat Gold Mines Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 14-3-2008.

इस सम्बन्ध में प्रार्थी जावर माईन्स मजदूर संघ जरिये वरिष्ठ सचिव गंगासिंह रावत ने स्टेटमेन्ट ऑफ क्लेम पेश किया , जिसके अनुसार विपक्षी सं. 2 हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. भारत सरकार का उपक्रम है, जिसका बाद में ( तत्पश्चात् निजीकरण हो गया) हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. की जावर माईन्स में एक जावर माईन्स के नाम से खदान है । [No. L-43012/4/1998- IR (M) ] N. S. BORA , DeskOfficer

अनुबंध

औद्योगिक विवाद अधिकरपा एवं श्रम न्यायालय , उदयपुर ( राज. ) पीठासीन अधिकारी- श्री बलदेवपुरी गोस्वामी,

आर. एच. जे. एस.

प्रकरण सं. 08/99 आई.टी.आर.

प्रार्थी

जावर माईन्स मजदूर संघ जरिये वरिष्ठ सचिव गंगासिंह रावत जश्वर माईन्स 313901 , जिला उदयपुर-

विरुद्ध

1. श्री प्रबन्धक , भारत गोल्ड माईन्स लि. पोस्ट जावर माईन्स, जिला उदयपुर

विपक्षीगण

2. श्री प्रबन्धक, हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. पोस्ट जावर माईन्स, जिला उदयपुर

उपस्थित:-

प्रार्थी की ओर से : श्री बी.एस. देवपुरा

विपष्ठी सं. 2 की ओर से

श्री बी.एल. गुप्ता

पंचाट

दिनांक 29-2-2008

इस रेफरेन्स से संबंधित तथ्य संक्षेप में इस प्रकार है कि भारत सरकार के श्रम विभाग द्वारा रेफरेन्स अन्तर्गत धारा 10 औ. वि. अधिनियम के तहत इस न्यायाधिकरण को आदेश क्रमांक एल -43012/4/98/आई आर ( एम ) दिनांक 11-01-99 के द्वारा पक्षकारान के मध्य उत्पन्न निम्नांकित विवाद को न्यायाधिकरण को निर्णयार्थ प्रेषित किया । मूल रेफरेन्स अंग्रेजी में इस प्रकार प्राप्त . हुआ:-

Whether the demand of Zawar Mines Mazdoor Sangh regarding wage revision of workmen employedby Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. working at Hindustan Zink Ltd. Zawar Group of Mines , Distt. Udaipur at par with regular workmen whose wages have been revised vide Memorandum of Settlement dated29-9-1995 is legal andjustified ? If not, towhat relief the workmen ofBharat Gold Mines Ltd. are entitled to ?

' रेफरेन्स के अनुरूप इस रेफरेन्स में यह उत्तर देना है कि क्या जावर माईन्स मजदूर संघ की यह मांग की भारत गोल्ड माईन्स जो कि हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. में जावर भाईन्स में कार्य कर रहे हैं , उसके द्वारा

उक्त खान में शाफ्ट सिलिंग हेतु विपक्षी संख्या 2 द्वारा एक ठेका विपक्षी संख्या एक को वर्ष 1979 में दिया गया था और उसके पश्चात् उक्त शाफ्ट सिलिंग के कार्य शुरू करने के अलावा खान उन्नप्त करने एवं अन्य कार्य के लिये विपक्षी सं. 1 को विपक्षी संख्या द्वार। दिये गये । विपक्षी संख्या एक द्वारा जो ठेका विपक्षी सं. 2 की खदान में दिया गया उस ठेके का कार्य करने हेतु विपक्षी संख्या एक द्वारा जनवरी , 1980 में श्रमिक नियोजित किये गये । नियोजित श्रमिकों को जो नियुक्तिपत्र विपक्षी संख्या एक द्वारा दिये गये, उन नियुक्ति पत्र में यह स्पष्ट शर्त थी कि विपक्षी संख्या एक अपने श्रमिकों को विपक्षी सं. 2 के नियमों के अनुसार वेतन , मंहगाई भत्ता व अन्य भत्ते देगा । श्रमिक जो भारत गोल्ड माईन्स द्वारा नियुक्त किये गये थे, कार्य वहीं पर कर रहे थे जो सभी प्रार्थी श्रमिक संघ के सदस्य हैं, जिनकी सूची स्टेटमेन्ट ऑफ धलेम के साथ अनुसूची । के रूप में संलग्न की गई है । सभी श्रमिक विपक्षी संख्या । के द्वारा नियोजित थे , लेकिन उसके साथ- साथ उनके वेतन आदि मामले के लिये विपक्षी सं. 1 के साथ- साथ विपक्षी सं. 2 भी मुख्य नियोजक कानूनी रूप से बाध्य है । प्रार्थीगण के अनुसार प्रार्थी श्रमिक संघ एवं विपक्षी संख्या एक कम्पनी के मध्य निष्पादित द्विपक्षीय समझौते दिनांक 13-6-84 व दिनांक 11-1-90 जो क्रमशः 1-6-80 व 1-1-83 दिनांक - 1-89 से प्रभाषी हुए उनमें भी प्रार्थी श्रमिक संघ एवं विपक्षी संख्या के मध्य याह समझौता हुआ था कि विपक्षी सं । द्वारा नियोजित श्रमिकों को विपक्षी सं. 2 के यहां नियोजित नियमित श्रमिकों को देय वेतन व भत्ते दिये जायेंगे । उपरोक्त वर्णित समझौते के अनुसार विपक्षी संख्या 1 नियोजित श्रमिकों जो कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक संघ के सदस्य हैं और प्राथर्थी संघ जिनका इस विवाद में प्रतिनिधित्व करता है व जिनके नाम इस स्टेटमेन्ट ऑफ क्लेम के साथ संलग्न अनुसूचि । में अंकित है, उन्हें विपक्षी सं. 2 के यहां नियोजित श्रमिकों के समान वेतन का भुगतान दिनांक 1-7-92 से नहीं किया गया, जबकि विपक्षी सं. 2 के यहां नियोजित श्रमिकों को कार्य व विपक्षी सं. 1 के यहां नियोजित श्रमिकों का कार्य एक समान था और वर्तमान में भी है । स्टेटमेन्ट ऑफ क्लेम के अनुसार प्रार्थी श्रमिक संघ भी विपक्षी संख्या एक के मध्य समझौता दिनांक 11-11-90 जो कि दिनांक 30-6-92 तक ही प्रभावी था उसकी अवधि समाप्त होने पर प्रार्थी श्रमिक संघ द्वारा विपक्षी सं. 1 से यह निवेदन किया कि वो आगामी वर्षों के लिये पुनः श्रमिक संघ के साथ श्रमिकों के वेतन में वृद्धि आदि मामलों पर समझौता कर ले किन्तु विपक्षी सं । द्वारा समझौता नहीं किया गया और न उसके द्वारा नियोजित ठेका श्रमिकों के वेतन में द्वारा कोई बढ़ोतरी की गई। विपक्षौ । द्वारा अपने नियोजित श्रमिकों को अन्तरिम राहत विपक्षी सं. 2 के नियमित श्रमिकों के अनुरूप देय हुई यह प्रदान की गईं । प्रार्थना पत्र 1599 [ भाग II खष्ठ 3 ( ⅱ ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5 , 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

अधिकारी ने दिनांक 5-7-01 को कार्यवाही एक तरफा कर दी और विपक्षी सं. 2 की ओर से अबाब पेश हो गया ।

विपक्षी सं. 2 हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. की ओर से जो जमाव पेश हुआ उस जबाब में यही कहा गया कि हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. को बतौर मुख्य नियोक्ता पक्षकार बनाया गया है , अनावश्यक रूप से बनायाःः गया है , क्योंकि मुख्य विवाद भारत गोल्ड माईन्स व उसके श्रमिकों के बीच में है । कोन्ट्रेक्ट लेबर ( रग्युलेशन एण्ड एक्ोलिशन ) एक्ट 1970 के अनुरूप किसी भी रूप में हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. पक्षकार नहीं हो सकता । इसलिये हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. को बत्ौर विपक्षी सं. 2 अनावश्यक पक्षकार बनाया गया है जो नाम हटाया जावे । भौ. कि.. अधिनियम 1947 के अन्तर्गत दायर इस विवाद में मुख्य नियोक्ता किस तरह से पक्षकार नहीं हो सकता । प्रार्थना पत्र के कलेम संख्या 3 में वर्णित विपक्षी सं. 2 कभी भी पक्षकार नहीं था और मही हो सकता था , इसलिये इन समझौते से विपक्षी सं. 2 का कोई सम्बन्ध नहीं होने से उत्तर की आवश्यकता ही नहीं है । वाद में विपक्षी सं. 2 किसी भी रूप में पक्षकार नहीं है और विपक्षी सं. 2 को प्रार्थी श्रमिक संघ की ओर से किसी भी प्रकार के एरियर भुगतान करने के लिये प्रारम्भिक रूप से उत्तरदायी नहीं है । इसलिए वांद में से विपक्षी सं. 2 . का नाम हटाया जाये और खर्चा प्रार्थी श्रमिक संघ से अनावश्यक पक्षकार बनाये जाने से संबंधित दिलाया जावे ।

के अनुसार विपक्षी सं. 2 प्राथों श्रमिक संघ के मध्य एक समझौता दिनांक 29-9-95 को निष्पादित हुआ, जिस समझौते के अन्तर्गत विपक्षी सं. 2 के यहां नियोजित श्रमिकों के वेतन में बढ़ोतरी करणा निश्चित हुआ और यह बढ़ोतरी श्रमिकों को दिनांक 1-7-92 से देय रखी गई । समझौता दिनांक 29-9-95 के अन्तर्गत विपक्षी सं. 2 के अधीन नियोजित श्रमिकों के वेतन में बढ़ोतरी दिनांक 1-7-92 से स्वीकार कर ली गई और बढी हुई दर पर श्रमिकों को वेतन भुगतान किये जाने लगा क्य प्रार्थी श्रमिक संघ के द्वारा विपक्षी सं.। से यह निवेदन किया कि उसके श्रमिकों के नियुक्ति पत्र में जो यह शर्त थी कि उसके श्रमिकों को विपक्षी सं. 2 के यहां नियोजित श्रमिकों के वेतन के समतुल्य वेतन देय होगा तो उसी अनुसार दिनांक 1-7-92 से श्रमिकों के वेतन में बढ़ोतरी की आकर उनके एरियरों का भुगतान किया जावे , किन्तु विपक्षी सं. एक ने उनके आग्रह को स्वीकार नहीं किया । और इस वेतन वृद्धि के समबन्ध में विवाद उन्पन्न हुआ जो प्रार्थी श्रभिक संघ द्वारा भारत सरकार के क्षेत्रीय श्रम आयुक्त (केन्द्रीय) अजमेर को औ. वि. अभि. के अन्तर्गत उठाया और उक्त विवाद पर क्षेत्रीय श्रम आयुक्त अजमेर के द्वारा प्रार्थी श्रमिक संघ व विपक्षी सं. 1 के मध्य समझौता वार्ता ए आयोजित की गई, किन्तु विपक्षी सं. । द्वारा समझौता नहीं करने के कारण क्षेत्रीय श्रम आयुक्त अजमेर द्वारा असफल वार्ता प्रतिवेदन केन्द्र सरकार को प्रेषित किया जिस पर उबत विवाद केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अधिनिर्णयार्थ इस न्यायाधिकरण को अग्रेषित किया गया ।

प्रार्थी पक्ष की ओर से अपने क्लेम के समर्थन में गंगासिंह रावत श्रमिक संघ के प्रतिनिधि पेश हुए है । हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. की ओर से श्री नरेश कुमार पुरोहित अधिकारी पेश हुए हैं । प्रार्थीगण नै स्टेटमेन्ट ऑफ क्लेम में यह निवेदन किया कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक संघ का यह प्रार्थना पत्र स्वीकार किया जावे और यह मांग उचित मानी जाए कि भारत गोल्ड माईन्स में कार्यरत श्रमिकों को वहीं वेतन दिया जाये जो हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लिमिटेड के श्रमिकों को दिनांक 29-9-95 के समझौते के द्वारा दिया गया है यह जुलाई 1992 से एरियर सहित दिलाया जावे और यह मांग न्यायोचित मानी जावे ।

स्टेटमेन्ट ऑफ क्लेम में भारत गोल्ड माईन्स के साथ- साथ हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लिमिटेड को भी पक्षकार बनाया गया । भारत गोल्ड माईन्स की ओर से अभिभाषक श्री बी.एल. असावा उपस्थित आये और एक प्रार्थना पत्र दिनांक 14-6-2000 को इस आशय का पेश किया कि क्लेम के पैरा सं. 3 में जिस अनुसूचि- एक का उल्लेख किया गया है , लेकिन अनुसूची -1 की प्रति दावे की प्रति के साथ संलग्न कर हेतुक दर्शित करने के लिए सूचना जो न्यायाधिकरण द्वारा जारी की गई, विपक्षी संख्या एक को प्राप्त नहीं हुई है और न उक्त नोटिस में ही इसका उल्लेख है । उक्त अनुसूची की प्रति विपक्षी को प्रार्थी से दिलाई जाना आवश्यक है , ताकि अनुसूची का अध्ययन करके उसका समुचित जबाब अंकित कर सके । यह महत्वपूर्ण दस्तावेज है , इसलिये प्रार्थी श्रमिक संघ को यह आदेश दिया जावे कि क्लेम में वर्णित एवं संलग्न अनुसूचित की प्रति विपक्षी संख्या को तुरन्त दे, ताकि जाम दाव्या तैयार करके पेश किया जावें ।

उसीदिन दिनांक 14-6-2000 को अनुसूची की प्रतिलिपि देने का आदेश दिया गया और संलग्न अनुसूची की नकल दिनांक 23-1-01 को दी गई और जबाब में पूर्व पीठासीन अधिकारी ने 16-4-01 को पेशी रखी , हालांकि मेनेजमेन्ट को भी अपना जबाब स्वतः ही पेश करना होता है , लेकिन फिर भी अवसर दिया गया । जमाय हेतु पूर्व में भी अक्सर चाहे गये थे और तत्पश्चात् श्री बी.एल. असावा अभिभाषक ने दिनांक 5-7-01 को हिदायत पैरवी नहीं होना कहा । पूर्व पीठासीन

बहस अंतिम सुनी गई । पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया गया । विद्धान अभिभावक प्रार्थी का तर्क है कि प्रार्थी यूनियन जावर माईन्स वर्कमैन फेडरेशन के श्रमिकों को सर्वप्रथम ठेकेदार कम्पनी' भारत गोल्ड माईन्स ने नियुक्ति पत्र दिया था । नियुक्ति पत्र प्रदर्श सी-2 , सी-5 , सी-6 , सी -7, सी-8 में साफ तौर पर यह शर्तें लिखी हुई थी कि हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. के नियमानुसार ही वेतन का भुगतान किया गया था । कर्मचारीगण को यह नियुक्ति पत्र आरकीदास, सुरेन्द्रकुमार , शंकरलाल , देवीलाल और रामलाल को वर्ष 1984 से 1986 तक जारी हुए थे । इनमें साफ तौर पर ये लिखा है किबेशन हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. के नियमानुसार दिया जायेगा और यह भी लिखा है कि मेडिकल सुविधाएं हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. के अस्पताल में मुफ्त दी जायेगी और इसका उल्लेख बाद के एग्रीमेन्ट में भी इस बात का है । फिर इसके पश्चात् एक मीटिंग दिनांक 13-6-84 को हुई थी जिसमें सीधा ही इन नियुक्ति पत्र के अनुरूप जो हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. ने बेखन एवं भत्ते दिये थे , मिनीट्स में स्वीकार कर लिये गये थे, ये प्रथ्य नहीं बल्कि एक अनुबन्ध का स्थायीकरण और शाश्वत अभिव्यक्ति के रूप में देखा आ सकता है । इसके पश्चात् प्रदर्श सी-14 अनुबन्ध सेटलमेन्ट द्विपक्षीय हुआ है । इसमें भी इन सभी तथ्यों का उल्लेख है। जो अनुबन्ध संख्या 5 के अन्तर्गत घाय 12 ( 3 ) औं. वि. अधिनियम के तहत हिन्दुस्तान जिंक एवं जावर माईन्स वर्कमैन फेडरेशन के बीच हुआ, उसी अनुरूप वो.डी.ए., एवं अन्य शर्तें दी गई । हिन्दुस्तान जिंक अस्पताल में मुफ्त सुविधाएं दिये जाने का तल्लेख भी किया है । विद्वान अभिभाषक प्रार्थी का कथन है कि वर्ष 1989 तक अनुबन्ध ठेकेदार और श्रमिकों के बीच वेतन एवं भत्ते को देने का हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. के अनुरूप चलता रहा , लेकिन बाद में इससे भारत गोल्ड माईन्स मुकर गई और प्रदर्श सी-15 सेटलमेन्ट श्रम विभाग के अधिकारियों की उपस्थिति में दिनांक 29-5-95 को हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. और जावर माईन्स वर्कमैन फेडरेशन के बीच हुआ उसकी पालना 1600

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5 , 2008/ CHAITRA 16 , 1930

दीर्घकालीन समझौता नया नहीं कर भारत गोल्ड, पाईन्स ने नहीं की और यह कहा किहिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. मुख्य नियोजक मूल्यवृद्धि के अनुरूप मंहगाई मत्ता दिये जाने और बढोतरी के क्लॉज जो कि हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. एवं, भारत गोल्ड माईन्स के मध्य हुआ है और मुकर गई इस पर वार्ता करके शीघ्र निर्णय किया जायेगा , लेकिन ऐसा कोई निर्णय नहीं लिया । कर्मचारी अपने पूर्व अधिकारों से वंचित हो गये, अबकि दीर्घकालीन समझौता संख्या 6 के अनुसार ही वेतन एवं भचे प्राप्त करने के प्रार्थीगण को अधिकार हासिल हो गया है । सेवा नियमों में भी संविदा अधिनियम के प्रावधान लागू होते हैं और जन उद्योग जगत में प्रबन्धन और श्रमिकों के बीच समझौता हुआ है तो उससे प्रबंधन बाध्य है और जो ठेकेदार कार्य कर रहा है उसमें से भारत गोल्ड माईन्स मुकर गई है , लेकिन अरावली कन्सक्ट्रशन कम्पनी ने नया सेटलमेन्ट प्रदर्श-20 कर लिया इसमें हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. में कार्यरत श्रमिकों के अनुरूप ही वेतन एवं भचे दिये गये थे , इसलिये अनुबन्ध की पूर्व शर्तों से जावर माईन्स के अनुरूप वेतन नहीं देकर भारत गोल्ड माईन्स मुकर गई है । ये श्रमिक भारत गोल्ड माईन्स के हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. के कार्यरत श्रमिकों के बराबर ही वेतन एवं भत्ते प्राप्त करने के हकदार हैं , यह मांग जायज है कोई नये वेतनमान की मांग प्रार्थी श्रमिक नहीं कर रहे हैं और जो अस्तित्व में है और स्वीकृतशुद्धा है , उसकी मांग कर रहे हैं और यह मांग हर सूरत में जायज है इसलिये रेफरेन्स का उत्तर प्रार्थी श्रमिक संघ के पक्ष में दिया जाये ।

भारत गोल्ड माईन्स के प्रतिनिधि ने कुछ दिन उपस्थिति दी और बीच में फिर उपस्थिति दी, लेकिन प्रार्थना पत्र का कोई जवाब पेश नहीं किया और न ही कोई साक्ष्य इसके खण्डन में पेश की है । हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. के अभिभाषक का तर्क है कि अनावश्यक पक्षकार हिन्दुस्तान जिंक को बनाया गया है । हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. मुख्य नियोक्दा नहीं है और जो समझौता हुआ उनसे हिन्दुस्तान जिंक काकोई सम्बन्ध नहीं है । हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. का वेतन एवं भत्ते देने काकोई दायित्व नहीं है , क्योंकि कोई भी पक्षकार किसी भी समझौते के लिए प्रतिबंधित नहीं है । हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. अनावश्यक पक्षकार है, कोई सरोकार प्रार्थी संघ का भारत गोल्ड माईन्स से वेतन एवं भत्ते देने के हिन्दुस्तान जिंक के अनुरूप मांगने से विपक्षी संख्या 2 का नहीं है । विद्वान अभिभाषक प्रार्थी संघ का तर्क है कि औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम की धारा 7 ( ए ) के तहत द्वितीय अनुसूची भी न्यायाधिकरण के द्वारा किये जाने वाले कार्य के अनुसूचित के अनुरूप यह रेफरेन्स किया गया है और द्वितीय अनुसूची के भाग " बी " का है इसमें इस बात को स्पष्ट लिखा है कि केन्द्रीय श्रम ( रेग्यूलेशन एण्ड एचोलियेशन) एक्ट, 1970 में ऐसा मामला सम्मिलित है जो मामला इस समय न्यायाधिकरण के सामने है , वह हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. मुख्य नियोजक होने से घारा 21 (4) कोन्ट्रेक्ट लेबर ( रेग्युलेशन एण्ड एचोलियेशन ) एक्ट, 1970 के तहत उत्तरदायी है । इस सम्बन्ध में प्रार्थी अभिभाषक ने 1978 एल.आई.सी. पेज 1264 एवं माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय का निर्णय ए.आई.आर. 1972 ( सुप्रीम कोर्ट ) पेज 1942 पेश किया है । साथ ही धारा 21 कान्ट्रेक्ट लेबर ( रेग्यूलेशन एण्ड एबोलियेशन ) एक्ट, 1970 के प्रावधानों के तहत हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. मुख्य नियोक्ता होने से उत्तरदायी है । इसलिये हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. भी आवश्यक पक्षकार है और हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. अगर भारत गोल्ड माईन्स वेतन एवं मत्ते नहीं देता है तो सम्पूर्ण वेतन एवं भत्ते अदायगी के लिये जिम्मेदार है ।

[PART I SEC. 3 (ii ) ] दोनों पक्षों के सकों को सुना गया ।

सर्वप्रथम हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. के दायित्व से संबंधित प्रश्न निर्णय हेतु विवेचन करना आवश्यक है । हालांकि विद्वान अभिभाषक प्रार्थी की ओर से माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय का निर्णय पेश किया है और अन्य निर्णय तथा कान्ट्रेक्ट लेबर पर लिखी पुस्तक एच एल कुम्हार के पेज 74 व 164 में दिये गये निर्णय 1982 सुप्रीम कोर्ट केसेज पेज 235 एवं माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के निर्णय की ओर ध्यान दिलाया है और 1989 एल.एल.आर. पेज 123 केरला की ओर भी ध्यान दिलाया है कि अगर ठेकेदार अपने श्रमिकों को जो कि उसके द्वारा लगाये गये हैं , भुगतान नहीं करता है तो मुख्य नियोक्ता का दायित्व है । ए. आई. आर. 1978 ( सुप्रीम कोर्ट ) पेज 141 , 1978 एल.आई.सी. पेज 1264 अभिभाषक प्रार्थी की ओर से पेश की गई है, लेकिन इस बिन्दु पर विचार करने की कोई आवश्यकता नहीं है , क्योंकि हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. हालांकि मुख्य नियोक्ता है जो कि हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. की ओर से पेश अधिकारी ने स्वीकार किया है, लेकिन चूंकि इस बिन्दू पर रेफरेन्स नहीं है इसलिये रेफरेन्स से बाहर जाकर कोई निर्णय दिया जाना धारा 10 औ.वि. अधिनियम के प्रावधानों की परिधी से बाहर है , इसलिये अभिभाषक प्रार्थी का यह तर्क स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य नहीं है कि अगर भारत गोल्ड माईन्स उसके द्वारा नियुक्त कर्मचारियों को हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. के अनुरूप अगर वेतन नहीं दिया जाता है तो मुख्य नियोक्ता हिन्दुस्तान जिंक अदा करे इस बिन्दूपर कोई रेफरेन्स नहीं है , क्योंकि रेफरेन्स धारा 10 ( 1 ) उपधारा 2(ए) के तहत केन्द्र सरकार के श्रम विभाग द्वारा इस न्यायाधिकरण कोन्याय निर्णयार्थ प्रेषित किया गया है और संक्षिप्त है कि क्या जावर माईन्स मजदूर संघ की यह मांग कि भारत गोल्ड मांईन्स द्वारा जो श्रमिक नियुक्त किये गये हैं उनके वेतन एवं भच्चे हिन्दुस्तान जिंक द्वारा सेटलमेन्ट दिनांक 29-9-95 संशोधन के अनुरूप ही पुनरीक्षित किये जाने योग्य है ? क्या यह मांग उचित है ? यदि नहीं तो भारत गोल्ड माईन्स के श्रमिक क्या अनुतोष पाने के अधिकारी है ? अतः हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. का दायित्व का रेफरेन्स नहीं होने से यह बिन्दू निर्णय किये जाने योग्य नहीं है और इस पर विचार नहीं किया जा सकता है । महत्वपूर्ण विन्दू जो रेफरेन्स का है , जावर माईन्स मजदूर संघ के श्रमिकों को वेज रिवीजन दिनांक 29-9-95 के सेटलमेन्ट संख्या 6 जो कि हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. द्वारा किया गया है , के अनुरूप ही किये जाने की मांग जायज है या नहीं ? यह देखना है ।

इस मांग का जो आधार है से संबंधित सभी कानूनी एवं तथ्यात्मक पहलू का देखा जाना है । तथ्यात्मक पहलू पर बाद में विचार किया जावेगा चूंकि यह मामला मांग जायज है या नहीं ? इस बिन्दूको तय करने के लिये इस न्यायाधिकरण को भेजा गया है । सेटलमेन्ट से संबंधित प्रावधान धारा 12 एवं धारा 18 में है । धारा 12(3) औवि.अधि. के तहत सेटलमेन्ट संख्या 6 जावर माईन्स द्वारा दिनांक 29-9-95 को निष्पादित किया गया था जो श्रम विभाग के अधिकारियों के समक्ष तय हुआ है । औ.वि. अधि. की धारा 18( 1 ) में ही हुआ है , क्योंकि धारा 18 ( 1 ) के प्रावधान स्पष्ट हैं कि जो सेटलमेन्ट श्रमिकों एवं नियोजक के मध्य सीधा होता है एवं मध्यस्थता प्रक्रिया से सम्बन्ध नहीं रखता है और ऐसा सोधा सेटलमेन्ट जो अनुबन्ध से संबंधित पक्षकार है , उन पर बाध्यकारी होता है । धारा 18(1) औ.वि.अधि. के तहत ही यह मांग की गई है । जो बाध्यकारिता भारत गोल्ड माईन्स का वेतनमान हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. के कर्मचारियों 1601

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

[भाग -खण्ड 3 (ii) ] .

किपूर्व में यह संविदा हुई है, उसका नवीनीकरण करके पुनस्यापित की गई या कुछ शतों का ही नवीनीकरण हुआ है , जैसा कि भारतीय संविदा अधिनियम की धारा 62 में उल्लेख है जो कि संथिया नवीनीकरण, संशोषितीकरण और परिवर्तितीकरण से संबंधित है । नवीनीकरण के लिये यह आवश्यक है कि पूर्व संविदा की शतों को समाप्त कर रिक जाये और नई शर्तें लिखी जायें , लेकिन इसमें मूलभूत रातों वन आधार अगर परिवर्तित नहीं होता है वो संविदा का नवीनीकरण नहीं हो सकता है और क्यासी एस्टोपल का सिद्धान्त अमर एगू होता है तो ऐसे पहले के किसी स्टेन्ड के अनुरूप कोई गई सॉषयात्पक स्थितिः नहींबनती है और पूर्व पक्षकारान का एक तरह से पूर्व के संविदांसे मुकरने का अधिकार नहीं है । i के अनुरूप संशोधित करने का अनुबन्ध के आधार पर है । बारा 18(3 ) के तहत इस न्यायाधिकरण के पंचाट की बाध्यता होती है, सीधे अनुक्रन्ध की बाध्यतता का कोई विवाद नहीं हो सकता है । डाटा केमिकल्स लि. बनाम वर्कमेन 1978 एल. आई. सी. पेज 637 में माननीय उच्यतम न्यायालय के निर्णय को अनुसरण किया जा सकता है । -माननीय उच्चतम न्याभालय का जो निर्णय इस बिन्दू. पर हुआ है, उनमें यह अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि सामान्य यूनियन के प्रतिनिधि- से प्रबन्धन अनुबन्ध करता है , सभी श्रमिकों की भागीदारी आवश्यक नहीं है, लेकिन ऐसे श्रमिकों पर बाध्यकारी है और सेटलमेन्ट की शर्ते जो हुई हैं, वह सेवा अनुबन्ध का एक हिस्सा होता है , प्रत्येक श्रमिक जिसका प्रतिनिधित्व श्रमिक संघ ने किया है , इस सेवा शर्तों का लाभ प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी होता है । श्रमिक संघ और प्रबन्धन के बीच जो समझौता हुआ है तथ्यात्मक पहलू पर विचार किया जायेगा । कानूनी स्थिति पर कोई विवाद नहीं है ।

घारा 19 औ.वि.अधि. के तहत ऐसा समझौता कितने समय अस्तित्व में रहता है , इस पर भी विचार किया जाना है , इस सम्बन्ध में यह उल्लेख करना उचित होगा कि धारा 19 ( 2 ) की जो व्याख्या की गई है उसके अनुरूप पक्षकारों के बीच जो समझौता हुआ है , पक्षकायत के बीच समय समाप्ति के पश्चात् भी बाध्यकारी होता है, जब तक कि वो समद के नोटिस से इसको समाप्त नहीं किया गया हो , लेकिन अनुबन्धन की प्रत्यक्ष एवं परोक्ष दोनों रूप में अनुबन्ध की सामान्य शतों को अनुरूम लगातार कार्यकारी बाध्यकारीता के अनुरूप देखा जाना है ।

{ सेवा अनुबन्ध की स्थिति के सम्बन्ध में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय का निर्णय 2003 सुप्रीम कोर्ट केसेज ( एल एण्ड एस ) पेज 200 बैंक आफ इण्डिया बनाम ओ.पी. स्वर्णकार एवं मन्य सुसंगत है । हालाकिः ग्रह मामला स्वैच्छिक सेवा निवृति का है , लेकिन माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय ने पैस नम्बर 50 में स्पष्ट रूप से अभिनिर्धारित किया है कि सेवा में भारतीय संविदा अधिनियम के प्रावधान लागू होते है और सेवा अनुबन्ध भी एक अनुबन्धन की ही विषय वस्तु हैं, जब तक कि कोई कानूनी या कानूनी नियमावली नहीं हो , भारतीय संविदा अधिनियम के प्रावधान भी लागू होते हैं कि सेवा शर्त क्या हैं और इन सेवा शतों के सम्बन्ध में कर्मचारी संविदा की विनिर्दिष्ट पालना कराने का अधिकार भी है, माननीय उच्चतम न्कयालय ने इस निर्णय के पैरा नं. 50 से 64 तक विस्तृत विवरण नियोक्ता एवं कर्मचारी के बीच सम्बन्ध से संबंधित है और पैरा नं. 98 में स्पष्ट रूप से यह उल्लेख किया गया है तथा कोई प्रस्ताव किसी व्यक्ति या व्यक्तियों के समूह या उनके एजेन्ट की तरफ से दूसरे व्यक्तियों की अनुबन्ध की इच्छा दर्शाता है कि किस टर्मस् पर प्रस्ताव रखा गया है, यह प्रस्ताव शब्दों में स्पष्ट भी हो सकता है और प्रस्ताव यदि देने वाले व्यक्ति के आचरण जो कि अप्रत्यक्ष रूप से होता है को दर्शाता है तो पैरा 64 के अनुसार अगर प्रस्ताव और स्वीकृक्ति के सम्बन्ध में जय भारतीय संविदा अधिनियम के प्रावधान लागू होते हैं तो वह स्कीम स्वीकारशुदा स्थिति के अनुरूप प्रकृ‌क्ति का है , संविदात्मक होता है और भारतीय संविदा अधिनियम के प्रावधान लागू होते हैं , सैद्धान्तिक रूप से यह स्थिति स्पष्ट करना आवश्यक है , क्योंकि इस रेफरेन्स में भी यह विन्दू मुख्य रूप से उज्जसपर होता हैं, क्योंकि कोई सेवा नियम या अन्य नियमावली सेवा शर्तों के सम्बन्ध में भारत गोल्ड भाईन्स द्वारा श्रमिकों की नियुक्ति से पूर्व नहीं बनाई गई थी । एक किन्दू संविदा के नवीनीकरण का भी है

इन कानूनी पहलुओं पर विचार करने के पश्चात् तथ्यात्मक रूप से जो माँप जावर माईन्स मजदूर संघ जो कि बाद में जावर माईन्स वर्कमेन फेडरेशन के नाम से हुआ है जो कई संपों का फेडरेशन है , लेकिन मुख्य जावर माईन्स मजदूर संघ ही अमिकों का प्रतिनिधित्व उस वक्त करता था और ज्जावर माईन्स मजदूर संघ ही इसमें पक्षकार है । तथ्यात्मक पहलू को अगर देखा गांव से विषधी सं. 2 हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. उस समय भारत सरकार का उपक्रम थाजो जावर माईन्स, प्राम जाकर , तहसील सराखंड जिला उदयपुर में उसके स्वामित्व की एक खरान यी जो जवर माईन्स के नाम से भीः । हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. द्वारा खान में शाफ्ट सिकिंग हेतू एवं अन्य कार्थ खान को विकसित करने एवं उसकी उपयोगिता का. लाभ लेने हेतू बी भी कार्य प्रारम्भिक अवस्था में किया जाना था, उसका कार्य स्वयं हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. ने न करके ठेका विपक्षी सं.। को वर्ष 1979 में दिया । खान में शाफ्ट सिकिंग के कार्य के अलावा खाम उन्नत करने एवं अन्य कार्य करने के लिये विपक्षी सं. 1 भारत गोल्ड माईन्सने. ठेका लिया और जनवरी , 1980 में इस कार्य हेतु भारत भोल्ड माईन्स द्वारा श्रमिक नियोजित किये गये । इस हेतू जो श्रमिक नियोजित किये गये थे को नियुक्ति पत्र विपक्षी संख्या एक द्वारा दिया गया था ।यह प्रारम्भिक अवस्था थी, इस कार्य हेतु जो मजदूर नियुक्त किये थे, उस समय कोई नियमावली सेवा रातों की और वेतन भत्ते क्या दिये बायेंगे भारत गोल्ड माईन्स के तैयार नहीं थे और जो नियुक्ति पत्र दिये गये थे, दो तरह के नियुक्ति पश्न अरी हुए हैं जो नियुक्ति पत्र जारी हुए हैं उसके बारे में भारत गोल्ड माईन्स की अनुपस्थिति के परिणाम स्वरूप प्रार्थीगण ने हिन्दुस्तान जिंक स्ति. के प्रतिनिधि श्री नरेन्द्र पुरोहित से पूत्र नहीं है , लेकिन जिरह में गंगासिंह ने हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. के अभिभाषक ने पूछा है कि ये नियुक्ति पत्र सी-1 से सी-11: विपक्षी सं एक द्वारा श्रमिकों को दिये गये थे तथ्यात्मक रूप से हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. के अधिकारी को समस्त जानकारी थी, क्योंकि हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. के समक्ष ही भुगतान किया जाना था । श्रमिकों को यथःनियुक्त किया गया था तो नियुक्ति पत्र दिये गये थे और वेतन रिवाईज की मांग की औचित्यता से संबंधित महत्वपूर्ण आधार जो लिया गया है श्रमिकों को दिये गये नियुक्ति पत्रों में लिखी सतों से ही है । प्रदर्श सीट नियुक्ति पत्र आरीकदास, प्रदर्श सी -5 नियुक्ति पत्र सुरेन्द्र प्रसाद, प्रदर्श सी-6 नियुक्ति पत्र शंकरलाल, प्रदर्श ? नियुक्ति पत्र देबीलाल, प्रदर्श सी-४ नियुक्ति पत्र रामलाल है । इनमें शर्ते स्पष्ट रूप से लिखी गई हैं किश्रमिकों को वेजेज हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. के नियमानुसार दिया जायेगा और हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. के अस्पताल में मुक्त झलक्ष्य भी किये जाने की मेडिकल सुविधा दी गई थी । इन नियुक्ति पत्रों को सते 4 यः5 1602

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 5, 2008/ CHAITRA 16, 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]

प्रबन्धक एवं श्रमिक प्रतिनिधियों के मध्य निष्पादित हुआ था । हिन्दुस्तान जिंक प्रिन्सिपल एम्पलोयर थी , यह सही है कि भारत गोल्ड माईन्स द्वारा ठेके का कार्य हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. के हितार्थ एवं फायदे में किया गया था । हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. के प्रतिनिधि ने यह भी स्वीकार किया है किसेटलमेन्ट प्रदर्श सी-14 मीटिंग प्रदर्श सी-13 की पालना में निष्पादित हुआ था जो भारत गोल्ड भाईन्स एवं श्रमिक प्रतिनिधियों के मध्य निष्पादित हुआ था । हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. के प्रतिनिधि ने यह भी स्वीकार किया है कि श्रमिकों को भुगतान उनके प्रतिनिधियों के सामने करना आवश्यक था । प्राथमिक जानकारी श्री नरेन्द्र पुरोहित को हैऔर इससे संबंधित कोई विवाद था तो स्वाभाविक है कि प्रिन्सिपल एप्पलायर को जानकारी थी ।

स्पष्ट हैं , हालांकि कुछ जो नियुक्ति पत्र में समेकित वेतन पर नियुक्त करने का उल्लेख है जो प्रदर्श सी-1 , सी-3 , सी-4 में है इसमें भी 1450 रुपया समेकित वेतन दर्शाया गया है जो हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. में कार्यरत श्रमिकों का ही है , क्योंकि प्रदर्श सी । जनवरी , 91 में जारी हुआ है , जबकि उपरोक्त सी -2, सी-3 , सी-4 वर्ष 1984 से 1986 में जारी हुए थे । उस वक्त कोई नियमावली नहीं थी । अतः नियुक्ति पत्र में स्पष्ट रूप से हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. के नियमानुसार ही वेतन भुगतान किये जाने की शर्ते साफ दर्शाती हैं कि यह अनुबन्ध जो शुरू हुआ था, उसमें हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. के अनुरूप ही वेतन एवं भत्ते देने की शर्तें थी और 1991 में जो समेकित वेतन 1450 रुपये श्री बाबूलाल को लिखा है वह भी हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. में नियुक्त श्रमिकों के बराबर था ।

पक्षकारान की सेवा शताँ से संबंधित कोई नियमावली बनी हुई नहीं थी, इसी अनुक्रम में यह नियुक्ति पत्र साफ तौर पर जारी हुए हैं, लेकिन बाद में वर्ष 1980 से जब कार्य प्रारम्भ हुआ तो क्या प्रक्रिया अपनाई गई, मिनीटस प्रदर्श सी-13 सबसे महत्वपूर्ण है जो पक्षकारान के बीच वर्ष 1980 के बाद प्रथम स्टेज पर क्या स्थिति संविदात्मक रूम से रही , क्योंकि स्टेप बाई स्टेप अनुबंधात्मक स्थिति प्रत्यक्ष एवं परोक्ष रूप से द्विपक्षीय समझौता वादी दृष्टिकोण पर विचार करने का है । दिनांक 13-6-84 की स्थिति नियुक्ति पत्र वर्ष 1984 जो पेश हुए है बाद के है ये मिनीट्स प्रदर्श सी-13 प्रदर्शित हुआ है , जिसके भुगतान से संबंधित पत्र भारत गोल्ड माईन्स का प्रदर्श सी-29 पेश हुआ है । ये मिनीट्स दिनांक 13-6-84 को मिटींग जो जनरल मैनेजर हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. के चेम्बर में हुई थी, इसमें भारत गोल्ड माईन्स की ओर से स्वयं श्री पी.डी. गुप्ता चेयरमेन एवं मैनेजिंग डायरेक्टर उपस्थित हुए और श्री जी.के. मुंशी मैनेजर , अजय आदि ने भाग लिया था फिर हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. की ओर से श्री सिन्हा चीफ मैनेजर भी उपस्थित हुए थे और जावर माईन्स मजदूर संघ की ओर से उनके पदाधिकारी उपस्थित हुए थे । इस मिनीट्स में सबके हस्ताक्षर है जो मूल दस्तावेज मंगाया गया । मूल दस्तावेज सभी का अवलोकन कर लिया गया । इसमें दिर्घकालीन अनुबन्ध जो हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. और श्रमिकों के प्रत्तिनिधियों के बीच 5 सितम्बर , 79 को एवं अन्य दिर्घकालीन अनुबन्धन दिनांक 27 नवम्बर , 1983 को जो हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि एवं जावर भाईन्स मजदूर संघ के बीच हुआ था, के अनुक्रम में भारत गोल्ड माईन्स में कार्यरत श्रमिकों को वेतन भुगतान करने से संबंधित का और भारत व गोल्ड माईन्स के प्रतिनिधि ने यह सूचना हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. प्रबन्धन एवं श्रमिक संघ के पदाधिकारियों को सूचित कर दिया गया था कि इन दोनों अनुबन्धों से संबंधित वेतन का भुगतान शीघ्र ही कर दिया जायेगा और वेतनमान भी देना शुरु कर दिया है , ऐरियर का भुगतान दिनांक 20-7-84 तक कर दिया जावेगा । यह अनुबन्ध स्वरूप मीटिंग स्थिति स्वीकृतशुदा पक्षकासन की सहमति से हो गया 1 प्रदर्श सी-13 में स्पष्ट तौर पर हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. द्वारा जो अनुबन्ध और समझौता किया गया था उन दीर्घकालीन समझौते की लागू ज्यों का त्यों भारत गोल्ड माईन्स ने किया और वेतन एवं भत्ते दिये, यह स्थिति निर्विवाद रूप से सामने आती है , क्योंकि हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. भी इसमें पक्षकार था और हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. के प्रतिनिधि जो साक्ष्य में आये थे श्री नरेन्द्र पुरोहित ने यह स्वीकार कर लिया है , प्रदर्श सी-13 मीटिंग के मिनीट्स है जिसमें श्री बी.के.पी. सिन्हा व श्री नरेन्द्रकोल सम्मिलित हुए थे । प्रदर्श सी -15 हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. के

प्रदर्श सी -14 पहला कदम पक्षकारान के अनुबन्ध का है, मिनीट्स सी-13 के बाद की स्थिति का है । इसमें साफ तौर पर उल्लेख है कि जो पांचवा दिर्घकालीन सेटलमेन्ट जुलाई , 89 में हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. एवं हिन्दुस्तान जिंक वर्कमैन फेडरेशन के बीच हुआ था उसी के अनुसरण में यह प्रदर्श सी -14 अनुबन्ध हुआ था । जुलाई 89 में पांचवा दिर्घकालीन सेटलमेन्ट जो हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. ने अपने श्रमिकों के लिये किया उसी का अनुसरण प्रदर्श सी-14 में किया गया । प्रदर्श सी-14 की जो प्रस्तावना है , उसमें साफ तौर पर यह लिखा गया है कि पांचवा दिर्घकालीन समझौता जो कि हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. एवं हिन्दुस्तान जिंक वर्कमैन फेडरेशन के बीच जुलाई, 89 में हुआ है और सितम्बर , 89. में लागू किया गया है , पाईनिंग कोन्ट्रेक्टर के यहां कार्यरत श्रमिकों ने यह मांग की है कि हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. के समकक्ष ही वेतन भुगतान और समान सुविधाएं दी जाये । प्रदर्श सी-14 सेटलमेन्ट कोन्ट्रेट लेबर ( रेग्युलेशन एण्ड एबोलिशन) एक्ट 1970 का उल्लेख है और इसी सेटलमेन्ट में साफ तौर पर लिखा है लम्बे समय से प्रचलित प्रथा चल रही है कि जो माईन्स ठेकदार है , वह भी हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. द्वारा नियुक्त कर्मचारी को जो सुविधाएं हिन्दुस्तान जिंक दे रहा है , अपने कर्मचारी को वैसी हीं सुविधाएं दे , जब यह मामला विचारार्थ नवम्बर , 1989 में आया तो सभी ठेकेदारों ने इस पर सहमति जता दी कि जिस तरह के सेटलमेन्द्र वेतन एवं भत्ते अदायगी हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. एवं हिन्दुस्तान जिंक वर्षामैन फेडरेशन के बीच हुआ है , वही वेतनमान भारत गोल्ड माईन्स द्वारा नियुक्त श्रमिकों को भी देय होगा एवं लम्बी परिपाटी चल रही है यह तथ्य सेटलमेन्ट के पेज नं. 1 में भी लिखा हुआ है । हालांकि इसमें यह भी लिखा है कि अतिरिक्त खर्चे जब तक कि मुख्य नियोक्ता क्षतिपूर्ति अतिरिक्त खर्च की नहीं करेगा और बढ़ोतरी के क्लोज की पालना नहीं करेगा , सम्पूर्ण भार वहन करने की स्थिति में नहीं है । कर्मचारी हड़ताल पर नवम्बर , 1989 में चले गये , फिर सहायक श्रम आयुक्त केन्द्रीय अजमेर ने समझौता दोनों पक्षों का कराया और दिनांक 24-11-89 को यह द्विपक्षीय समझौता हुआ जो अन्तरिम सेटलमेन्ट हुआ था, अंतिम सेटलमेन्ट दिनांक 30-6-90 से पूर्व कर लिया जायेगा ऐसा कहा गया , इस द्विपक्षीय समझौते में साफ तौर पर भर्ती प्रक्रिया के सम्बन्ध में पेज नं. 2 के आईटम । में साफ तौर पर लिखा है कि जो नई नियुक्ति की जायेगी और दो साल से कम कार्य करने वाले अनुबन्ध में समेकित वेतन एक साल के लिये'हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. द्वारा दिया जाने वाले वेतन के अनुरूप दिया जायेगा और अन्य कुशल , अर्द्धकुशल श्रमिकों के सम्बन्ध में श्रम आयुक्त द्वारा जो वेतनमान दिया गया था , हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. के अनुरूप ही दिया 1603 [भाग II-खण्ड ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5 , 2008/चैत्र 16, 1930

प्रबन्धन और श्रमिक संघ श्रमिकों के बीच में शुरु से ही वेतन संबंधित जुड़ी शर्ते तय शुदा थी उससे अन्यथा एक तरफा तौर पर प्रबन्धन ने जो निर्णय लिया है वह श्रमिकों के पक्ष में अगफेवर लेबर . प्रेक्टिस है जो कि पूर्व में विधिवत् समझौता और प्रथा चल रही थी , भारत गोल्ड माईन्स उससे चाध्यकारी है और एकतरफा तौर पर कोई निर्णय नहीं लिया जा सकता है , बाध्यकारिता पूर्व अनुमन्त्र की है , जब तक कि अनुबन्ध समाप्त नहीं किया जा सकता है, रहती है और दूसरा पहलू इसमें यह है कि एक ही जगह कार्य करने वाले श्रमिकों को एक समान वेतन मिलना चाहिये , क्योंकि अलग - अलग ठेकेदारों द्वारा एक ही मुख्य नियोक्ता के यहां कार्य कर रहे थे और दूसरे नियोजक के यहां कार्यरत नहीं थे , दूसरे ठेकेदार मैसर्स अरावली कन्सट्रक्शन क. ने वेतन प्रदर्श-12 के जरिये हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. के समकक्ष दे दिया है जो श्रमिक संघ ने स्वीकार कर लिया है , द्विपक्षीय समझौता स्वीकृत या अस्वीकृत करना दूसरे पक्षकार के विवेक पर निर्भर करता है, लेकिन एक पक्षीय पूर्व के समझौते को रद्द नहीं किया जा सकता है, परिवर्तित मंहगाई भत्ता एवं मूल्य सूचकांक के आधार परही वेतन नियत करने का फार्मूला शुरु से ही चला आ रहा है , इसको न तो समाप्त किया जा सकता है और न ही उससे अलग इटकर ही समझौता निरस्त किया जा सकता है । भारत गोल्ड माईन्स ने हिन्दुसमन जिंक लि. से राशि भी प्राप्त अवार्ड के तहत की है, लेकिन श्रमिकों को बाद में इसका भुगतान नहीं किया है । इन परिस्थितियों में बहुत स्पष्ट है कि हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. के समान जो वेतनमान दिया जाना है, अनुबन्ध की जो शतें हैं इससे भारत गोल्ड माईन्स भी बाध्य है,और इस अनुबन्ध से बाध्य होने के कारण भारत गोल्ड माईन्स के कर्मकार भी पुनरीक्षित वेतनमान कराने के अधिकारी हैं । जिस स्वत्व में छठा सेटलमेन्टदिनांक29-9-95 को हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. एवं श्रमिक संघ.. के बीच हुआ, समाझौते के अनुरूप हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. को बेतन दिया जा रहा था , यह मांग जावर माईन्स मजदूर संघ की विधि सम्मत एवं न्यायोचित है । वेतन पुनरीक्षित इसी अनुरूप कराने के प्रार्थीगण हकदार है ।

जायेगा कुछ केटेगरी का अन्तर जरूर है , बल्कि मूल वेतन में कोई अन्तर नहीं है । दोनों ही सेटलमेन्ट का अवलोकन कराया गया । तत्पश्चात् कोई अनुबम्ध नहीं हुआ है और एक मिटींग दिनांक 16-1-96 को अवश्य हुई है जो सभी श्रमिकों के प्रतिनिधि तथा जो ठेकेदार को हिन्दुस्तान जिंक की खदानों में कार्य कर रहे थे , उनके मध्य हुआ । दूसरे ठेकेदारों ने अनुबन्ध बाद में किये और अरावली कन्सट्रक्सन क. लि. की ओर से जो अनुबन्ध द्विपक्षीय सेटलमेन्ट बतौर किया गया है वह प्रदर्शित हुआ है, वह अनुबन्ध प्रदर्श सी-20 है । भारत गोल्ड माईन्स के समान ही शाफ्ट सिकिंग एवं अन्य विकास का कार्य किया गया था जो अरावली कन्सस्ट्रशन क. एवं अन्य कम्पनी ने भीकिये , जब विवाद उठा तो सभी कम्पनी के प्रतिनिधि और श्रमिक संघ के बीच मीटिंग हुई और इस मीटिंग के पश्चात् अग्रवली कन्सष्ट्रशन के. में श्रमिक संघ के प्रतिनिधि के मध्य द्वि पक्षीय समझौता प्रदर्श सी-20 किया । इसमें भी यह बात दोहराई गई है कि हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. सम्पूर्ण श्रमिकों को किये जाने वाले बड़े भुगतान का दायित्व नहीं ले रहा है और बढ़ोतरी का फार्मूला नहीं होता है तो ऐसा मामला मध्यस्थ को सौंपा जाए तथा मध्यस्थ ने सम्पूर्ण देय राशि हेतू अवार्ड पारित नहींकिया गया । हिन्दुस्तान जिंक और ठेकेदारों के बीच पंचाट का निर्णय दिनांक 24-7-96 को हो गया था, फिर श्रमिक संघों ने सेटलमेन्ट संख्या 6 को लगातार दिनांक 1-7-92 से किये जाने कौ मांग की इस संबंध में वार्ता चलती रही और दिनांक 19-8-96 को ही सेटलमेन्ट दूसरे ठेकेदारों और श्रमिक संघ के बीच हुआ जो प्रदर्श सी-20 है । इसमें भी वहीं वेतनमान केटेगरी एक से सात तक दी गई है जो हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. ने दिर्घकालीन समझौता संख्या 6 किया है, कोई अन्तर वेतन श्रृंखलाओं में नहीं है , कुछ अन्तर अवश्य है , लेकिन कोई विशेष अन्तर नहीं है । अतः दूसरे ठेकेदार अरावली कन्सक्ट्रशन क. प्रा. लि. ने प्रदर्श सी-20 के जरिये अभिक संघ से समझौता क्या कर लिया , लेकिन भारत गोल्ड माईन्स ने नहीं किया, जबकि भारत गोल्ड माईन्स एवं हिन्दुस्तान जिंक के मध्य बढ़े हुए चेतन भार के समान बढ़ोतरी के क्लोज की पालना करने से संबंधित अवार्ड भी दिनांक 24-7-96 को जारी हो गया था । अतः इन परिस्थितियों में यह कहा जा सकता है कि भारत गोल्ड माईन्स ने हिन्दुस्तान जिंक सि. से बड़े हुए वित्तीय भार का पैसा भी प्राप्त कर सिया है और श्रमिकों को कोई नया वेतनमान नहीं दिया जबकि समान कार्य के लिये दूसरे श्रमिकों को दूसरे ठेकेदार ने प्रदर्श सी-20 के जरिये संशोधित वेतनमान दे दिया ।

अतः भारत सरकार के श्रम विभाग द्वारा जरी अधिसूचन्द्र दिनांक 11-1-1999 को उत्तरित करते हुए पंचाट इस प्रकार पारित किया जाता है कि भारत गोल्ड माईन्स के श्रमिक भी दिनांक 29-9-95 के द्वारा जो समझौता हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. एवं श्रमिक संघ के बीच हुआ, उस समझौते के अनुरूप संशोधित वेतन प्राप्त करने के अधिकारी हैं ।

पंचाट प्रकाशनार्थं भारत सरकार के श्रम विभाग को प्रेषित हो.।

बलदेवपुरी गोस्वामी , पीठासीन अधिकारी

नई दिल्ली , 14 मार्च, 2008

का.आ 786. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 इन तथ्यात्मक परिप्रेक्ष पें यह कहा जा सकता है कि शुरू से ही भारत गोल्ड माईन्स भी श्रमिकों के बीच यह समझौता हो गया था किहिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. के अनुरूप ही वेतनमान एवं अन्य सुविधाएं दी जायेगी, लेकिन बाद में भारत गोल्ड माईन्स इस इकरार से मुकर गई और हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. तथा उनके श्रमिकों के बीच जो दिर्मकालीन समझौता संख्या 6 हुआ था उसके अनुरूप भारत गोल्ड माईन्स ने अपने श्रमिकों को वेतन नहीं दिया जो कि वेतन पुनरीक्षित करने का जावर माईन्स मजदूर संघ का अधिकार कानून सम्मत एवं न्यायोचित है ।

का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैं. 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 । ) , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 21/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ. था।

[सं. एल-20012/427/2000- आईआर ( सी -1 ) ] भारत गोल्ड माईन्स द्वारा नियुक्त श्रमिक एवं हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. द्वारा किये गये समझौता दिनांक 29-9-95 के अनुरूप ही वेतन पाने के अधिकारी हैं और यह वेतनमान पुनरीक्षित किये जाने की मांग कानून सम्मत एवं न्यायोचित है ।

स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी 1604

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2008/CHAITRA 16 , 1930

[PART I-SEC. 3( ii) ] New Delhi , the 14th March , 2008

Groupwagebut without any effect. He is working as Cap Lamp Mazdoor against permanent vacancy. Since the Management did not take any step to regularise the concerned workman as Cap Lamp Mazdoor an Industrial Dispute was raised. As the action of the Management is illegal , arbitrary, unjustified and against the principal of natural justice . Prayer has been made to answer the Reference in favour ofthe workman .

S.O. 786. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.21 /2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court, (No.1 ), Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofM/s . B.C.C.L. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 14-3-2008 .

[No. L-20012/427/2000-IR(C- 1 )]

SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO . 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT:

Shri Nagendra Kumar, Presiding Officer

In thematter ofan Industrial Dispute under Section 10( 1 )(d) ofthe I. D. Act, 1947.

ReferenceNo. 21 of2001

PARTIES : Employees in relation to the Manage- ment Dabari Colliery of M/s . BCCL and theirworkmen.

Appearances:

On behalf of the Employers : Mr. R.N. Ganguli,

Ld. Advocate

Onbehalfofthe Workmen Mr. K. Chakraborty,

Ld. Advocate

State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 27th February , 2008

On the other hand the Management has filed written statement-cum -rejoinder stating the Reference is not maintainable. The concerned workman was appointed as Roofvolder in underground mine which is his substantive post . The work of the concerned workman is saftey - related job. The management of the Colliery unduly deployed him in the job of Cap Lamp Mazdoor on surface wth prior permission and sanction of the Competent Authority and delegation ofpower and violation of the rule and policy of theCompany. The job ofunderground Roof Volder attracts higherwages than the surface job ofthe Cap Lamp Mazdoor and the concerned workman willingly accepted deployment in surfacejob in an irregular and illegal manner în connivance with colliery officers . As per decision of the Management on 24-9-1998 the workers below the age of 45yearswho are having underground designation but work in surface should be reverted back to the underground productive work. In such decision the Sponsoring Union ofthe dispute was present. The concerned workman along with others were directed on 20-2-1999 to be present for training on underground job but he did not comply. He disobeyed the order of the Management and raised an Industrial Dispute. The concerned workman is working as Cap Lamp Mazdoor which is not his job.

AWARD

There is no requirement/ vacancies . The concerned workman is doing this job at his own will. Further , in the Rejoinder portion statement made in paras 3 to 6 have been denied about paras I and 2. It is said that same are matter of record.

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour & Employment , 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/ 427/2000 (C- 1 ) dated, the 25th January, 2001.

SCHEDULE

The concerned workman has also filed an Rejoinder stating that the statements in paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 , 12 and 13 are false, frivolous , motivated and denied . He has further explained as to how he is entitled for the relief.

In spite of giving sufficient opportunities the concerned workman did not produce any witness even he has not filed any document in support of his claim . Thus he has not established his claim . In this way he is not entitled to any relief.

"Whether the action of the management of M/s . B.C.C.L. in not regularising the services ofand in not making the payment of the group wage to the workman Sri Sanjay Ganak, working as Cap Lamp Mazdoor in Dobari Colliery under Bastacolla Ares , is justified, legal and proper? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled?

For the ressons stated above the award is rendered asfollow:

"That the action ofthe management ofM/ s . BCCL in not regularising the services of and in not making the payment of the group wage to the workman Sri Sanjay Ganak, working as Cap Lamp Mazdoor in Dobari Colliery under Bastacalla area is justified, legal andproper.

Accordingly, the concerned workman is not entitled toanyrelief."

2. The case of the concerned workman Sri Sanjay Ganak in short is that he was appointed as Roof volder at Dobari Colliery since long with unblemished record of service. The concerned workman as per direction of the management started work as Cap Lamp Mazdoor since 11-12-1997 continuously sin more than 240 days in a calendar year. He represente ! several times for his larisation as Cap Lamp Mazdoor with protection of

NAGENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer Printedby the Manager, Govt . of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 1101164 and Published by the Controlfer of Publications , Deliu - 110054.