This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGO.NO.D.LIND04900 रजिस्ट्री से. डी. एल. ( क्ष) (4 /0007/2003-0

भारत कीराजपत्र The Gazette of India

अधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

अलि 20 26, 2006, शनिबार चैत्र 316, 1930

No. 171 NEW DELIR, APREL 28-APRIL 16, 2008, SATURDA YACHAITRA 31- VABAKIA 100

इस भाग में भित्र पृष्ठ संख्या दी लती है कि संकलन के

SeparatePaging is given to this Fart in order that it may be filled as a separat

PART II Section 3-Sub-section (il)

সাব- उप- राण (ii)

और अि

भारत सरकार कोरकोड़कर ) द्वारा जारी किए

SietatoryOrders and Notifications Issued by the Ministrion oftheGovernment ofIndi (Other than the Ministry ofDefence)

कर्मिक , लोक दिय

( और

(पिन कार्यभिधान)

नई दिल्ली, 17 अप्रैल , 2008

नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल , 2003

कोदिनांक 9 अप्रैल, 2008 के अपराक से दो वर्ष की अवधि के लिए चेन्नै में भारत के अपर महासॉलिसिटर के पद पर नियुक्त करते हैं ।

[भा में 18(4)/2008- पिक ]

एम. ए. कान युसुफी, संचिकायंमेल

MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE

(Department of Legal Affairs) NewDelhi, the 10thApril, 2008

S.O. 876.-The President is pleased to appoint Sh . Muthukrishan Ravindaran , Senior Advocate, as Additional Solicitor General of India at Chennai with effect frown the afternoon of 9th April, 2006 for a period of two years.

(F. No. 18(4)2006-Judi .]

M. A. KHAN YUSUFI, X. Secy, andG.C.

कर.आर. 877, केन्द्रीय सरकारको पुलि स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 1946 काम 25 ) 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की प्रयोग करते हुए अरूणाचल प्रदेश सरकार के निधन की। ऑषसूचना सं एचएनवी( ए) -42/08 दिनांक भनटरी, 2008 द्वारा अप्त सहमति से भारतीय दंड संधिष 1860 ( 1860 कर अधिनि सं. 45 ) की धारा 302 और 307 सपना भापुर দিন, 1959 (1959 का अधिनियम ) की बारा 25 (1 ) , 25 ( 1 थी) और 27 (2) एवं ( 3 ) के अधीन देवमाली पुलिस स्टेशन में एवं मामला सं. 24/07 और भारतीय दंड संहिता 1860 (1360 45) की पारा 121 , 506, 511 , 34 सपठित विकि (निवारण ) अधिनिस्म, 1967 ( 196737 ) की पर 10 एवं 13 तथा आयुष अधिनियम , 1959 (1959 54) की वारा 25 ( थी के अधीनस्टेशन में मामला सं. 253.07 तथ प्रयत्नों, दुष्प्रेरणों और नरके में 1387G62008

(1883)

+ 1884

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2008 /VAISAKHA 6, 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

inclusion in the Second Schedule to the said Act of the followingbank namely:

अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किसी अन्य अपराध अथवा अपराधों का अन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्योंकी शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण अरूणाचल प्रदेश राज्य पर करती है ।

"Puduvai Bharathiar Grana Bank (Union Territory ofPuducherry)"

[RPCD.CO.RRB.No.10410-03.05.344/2007-08) V. S. DAS, ExecutiveDirector [ ,228/9/2008 -ए वी डी -11 ] चंद्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS (Department of Personnel and Training).

कार्यालय , मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त , जयपुर , 10 अप्रैल , 2008 सं. 02/2008-09

New Delhi, the 17thApril, 2008

का. आ. 879, आयकर नियम , 1962 के नियम 2 सी के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 वां) की धारा 10 के खण्ड ( 23 सी ) की उपधारा ( iv ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त , जयपुर एतद्वारा निध रिणं वर्ष 2007-08 एवम आगे के लिए कथित धारा के उद्देश्य से " प्रज्ञा चैतन्य फाउण्डेशन ट्रस्ट, जयपुर " को स्वीकृति देते हैं ।

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

[क्रमांक :मुआआआआआ ( समन्वय) /जय/ 10(23सी ) ( iv ) /08-09/163 ] एस. सी. कपिल, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Jaipur, the 10th April , 2008 No. 02/2008-09

S.O. 877.- In exercise of the powers conferredby sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of theDelhi Special PoliceEstablishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Arunachal Pradesh , Home Department , Itanagar vide Notification No. HMB(A)-42/08 dated 8th January, 2008hereby extends the powers andjurisdication ofthe members ofthe Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole of the State of Arunachal Pradesh for investigation into the Deomali Police Station case No. 24/07 under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(Act No. 45 of 1860) read with sections 25 ( 1A), 25( 1B) and 27(2) and (3) ofArms Act, 1959 (Act No. 54 of 1959) and Itanagar Police Station case No. 253/07 under Sections 121 , 506, 511, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No.45 of 1860) read with section 10 and 13 of the Unlawful Activites (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Act 37 of1967) and Section 25 ( 1B) ofArms Act, 1959 (Act No. 54 of 1959) and attempts , abetments and conspiracies in realtion to or in connection with the offences mentioned above and any other offence or offences committed in the course ofthe same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[No.228/9/2008-AVD- II] CHANDRA PRAKASH , UnderSecy.

S.O. 879. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Clause ( iv) ofclause (23C) ofSection 10 ofthe Income- taxAct, 1961 (43 of 1961) read with rule 2C ofthe Income- taxRules, 1962 the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax , Jaipur hereby approves "Pragya Chaitanya Foundation Trust , Jaipur" for the purpose of the said section for the Α.Υ. 2007-08 & onwards:

भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक मुम्बई, 3 अप्रैल, 2008

Provided that the society conforms to and complies with the provisions of sub- clause ( iv) of clause (23C) of Section 10 ofthe Income - tax Act, 1961 read with rule2C of theIncome-taxRules , 1962.

का.आ. 878,-भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक , अधिनियम, 1934 ( 1934 का 2 ) की धारा 42 की उपधारा ( 6 ) के खंड ( क) के अनुसरण में भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक एतदद्वारा निर्देश देता है कि उक्त अधिनियम की दूसरी अनुसूची में निम्नलिखित बैंक को समाविष्ट किया जाए अर्थातः

[No.CCIT/JPR/Addl.CIT ( Coord. )/ 10(23C)( iv)/ 2008-09/163] S. C. KAPIL, Chief Commissioner of Income-tax " पुदुवई भारतियार प्राभा बैंक ( संघ शासित क्षेत्र पुदुचेरी ) "

वित्त मंत्रालय (राजस्व विभाग)

[ग्राआऋवि, आरआरबी सं. 10410/03.05.344/2007-08 ] वी. एस. दास , कार्यपालक निदेशक

( केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड )

नई दिल्ली , 10 अप्रैल , 2008

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA Mumbai, the3rd April,2008

S.O. 878.-in pursuance ofclause ( a) of sub- section (6) ofSection 42 ofthe Reserve Bank of IndiaAct, 1934 (2 of 1934 ) , the Reserve Bank of India hereby directs the

को, आ. 880.-सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतद्‌द्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली, 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम 5ग और ऽघ के [भगखण्ड 3Gi) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 26, 2008/वैशाख 6 , 1930

साभ पठित आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड (ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ 1-4-2006 से संगठन मैसर्स इंडियन एसोसिएशन फॉर दी कल्टीवेशन ऑफ साईस , कोलकाता को निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन अनुसंधान कार्याकलाप में आंशिक रूप से संलग्न ' वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान संघ ' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है , अर्थात्:-

( १ ) अनुमोदित संगठन को प्रदछ राशि का उपयोग वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए किया आएगा;

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

( ill ) 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 की उपधारा ( 2 ) के स्पष्टीकरण में यथा परिभाषित किसी लेखाकार से अपनी खाता- बही की लेखा परीक्षा कराएगा और उक्य अधिनियम की धारा 139 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अंतर्गत आय विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने की नियत तिथि : तक ऐसे लेखाकार द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित एवं हस्ताक्षरित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट मामले में क्षेत्राधिकार रखने वाले आयकर आयुक्त अथवा आयकर निदेशक को प्रस्तुत करेमा :

( iv ) अनुमोदितं संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान तथा अंयुक्त राशि का अलग विवरण रखेगा और उपर्युक्त लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट के साथ लेखा परीक्षक द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित विवरण की प्रति प्रस्तुत करेगा । 2. केन्द्र सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापिस ले लेगी यदि अनुमोदित संगठन:-

(क) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में इल्लिखित अलग लेखा बही नहीं रखोगा; अथवा (ख) पैराग्राफ । के उप-पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेख्न परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा ; अथवा

(ग) पैराग्राफ । के उम -पैराग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त एवं प्रयुक्त दान का अपना विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा (घ) अपना अनुसंधान कार्य करना बंद कर देगा अथवा इसके अनुसंधान कार्य को जायज नहीं पाया जाएगा; अथवा

(रु.) उक्त नियमावली के नियम उप और उब के साथ पत्तिम उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खेड (ii ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नहीं करेगा ।

(अधिसूचना सं. 54/2008/का. सं. 203/43/2007-आ.क.नि.-11] सुरेन्द्र पाल , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

(CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES) NewDelhi , the 10thApril ,2008

S.O. 880.-it is hereby notified for general information that the organization M/ s. Indian Association fortheCultivation ofScience, Kolkata has been approved bythe CentralGovernment for the purpose of clause (il ). ofsub-section (1) ofSection 35 of the Incende- tit 1961 ( saidAct), rondwith Rules SC and 5D of the Incom taxRules, 1962(said Rules) , with effect from 1-4-2006in the category of' Scientific Research Association', subject to the following conditions , namely:-

(1).The sole objective ofthe approved scientific research association ' shall be to undertage scientific research ;

(in) The approved organization shall carry onthe scientific research activity by itself, (i) The approved organization shall maintain books ofaccounts and get such books audited by an accountant is defined in the explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 288 of the said Act and frunich the report of such audit daly signedand verified by such accountant to the Comrajssioner ofIncome-tax or the Director of Income- tax having jurisdictionover the case, by the đức date of furnishing the return of Income under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 139 ofthe paidAct;

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

2. The Central Goverempat shell withdraw the approval if the approved organization: -

(a) failsto maintain books ofasconats referred to in sub-paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph or (b) fails to furnish its audit report seferred 10 in sub- paragraph ( ii ) of porngraph 1 ; or 1886

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2008/VAISAKHA 6 , 1930

[PART II-SEC.3 ( 10) ]

(ख) पैराग्राफ । के उप-पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा : अथवा

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

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

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

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

(e) ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions of clause (ii) of sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 35 ofthe said Act read with rules 5C and 5D of the said Rules.

[Notification No.54/2008/F. No. 203/43/2007/ITA- II ]

SURENDER PAL, Under Secy.

(क ) उक्त नियमावली के नियम 5ग और उब के साथ पलित उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नहीं करेगा । नईदिल्ली , 10 अप्रैल, 2008

[अभिसूचना सं. 55 /2008/फा. सं. 203/123/2007-आ.क.नि. - 11 ] सुरेन्द्र पाल , अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 10th April ,2008

का. आ. 881.-सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतद्‌द्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली , 1962 (उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम उन और उघ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ 1-4-2006 से संगठन मैसर्स टाटा इंस्टीयूट ऑफ फंडामेन्टल रिसर्च, मुम्बई को निम्नलिखित शवों के अधीन आंशिक रूप से संलग्न ' वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान संघ' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है , अर्थात्:-

(i ) अनुमोदित ' वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान संघ' मुख्य उद्देश्य वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान करना होगा;

S.O. 881.-It is hereby notified for general information that the orignization M/s. Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai has been approved by theCentral Government for the purpose of clause ( ii ) of sub-section ( 1 ) ofSection 35 ofthe Income- tax Act , 1961 (saidAct), read with Rules 5C and 5D ofthe Income-tax Rules, 1962( said Rules) , with effect from 1-4-2006 in the category of' Scientific Research Association ' , subject to the following conditions, namely:-

(i ) अनुमोदित संगठन स्वयं वैश्शनिक अनुसंधान कार्य- कलाप जारी रखेमा;

(1) The sole objective ofthe approved 'Scientific research association shall be to undertake scientific research;

(ii) The approved organization shall carry out on the scientific research activity by itself, (i) अनुमेदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए इसके द्वारा प्राप्त राशि के संबंध में अलग बही खात रखेगा जिसमें अनुसंधान कार्य करने के लिए प्रयुक्त राशि को दर्शाएगा तथा, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 288 की उपधारा ( 2 ) के स्पष्टीकरण में वथा परिभाषित किसी लेखाकार से अपनी खाता-कदी की लेखा परीक्षा कराएगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 139 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अंतर्गत आय विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने की नियत तिथि तक ऐसे लेखाकार द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित एवं हस्ताक्षरित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट मामले में क्षेत्राधिकार रखने वाले आयकर आयुक्त अथवा आयकर निदेशक को प्रस्तुत करेगा ;

(i) The approved organization shalt maintain books ofaccounts and get such books audited byan accountant as defined in the explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 288 of the said Act and frunish the report ofsuch audit duly signed and verified by such accountant to the Commissioner of Income-tax or the Director of Income-tax having jurisdiction over the case, by the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub-section ( 1 ) ofSection 139 of the said Act;

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

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

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

(क) पैराग्राफ । के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अलग लेखा बही नहीं रखोगा; अथवा 1687 भारत का रामपत्र : अप्रैल 26 , 2008/वैसाया 6, 1930

:2.. केंद्र सरकार यह अनुमोदन सोहोनीनदि अनुमोदित संगठन

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

(a) fails tomaintain books ofaccounts referred to in sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1 ; or

(क) पैराग्राफ के उप-पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में डस्लि বিমা अलग लेख्ध नहीं नहीं रखेंगा; अपक

(b) fails to fpenis its audit report referred to in sob- paragraph (iii) of peregraph 1; or

r. (ख) पैराग्राफ । के तप पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में ठলिজিয় अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा :

(c) filato furnish its statement ofthe donations received and amounts applied for scientific research referred to in sub-paragraph (iv) ofparagraph 1; or

(ग) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित मौलनिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त एवं प्रयुक्त दान का अपना विवरण प्रत्पुच नहीं करेगा; अथवा

( म) अपना अनुसंधान कार्य करना बंद कर देगा अचनक इसके अनुसंधान कार्य को बावज नहीं पाया जाएगा;

(d) conses to-carry on jo cosearch activities or ita resowrch activities are not found tobe genuine;or

(e) ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions of clause (ii) ofsub-section (1) of Section 35 of the said Act read with rules SC and 5D ofthe said Rules.

(ड. ) उमव नियावली के नियम 5 और 5 क के साथ पठित उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खेड ( i ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नहीं करेगा । [Notification No. 55/2008/F . No. 203/123 /2007/ITA-11 ] SURENDER PAL, UnderSecy.

नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल , 2008

[अधिसूचना सं. 53/2008/फर. सं. 203/56/2006-সংদি-11] सुरेन्द्र पाल , अवर सचिव NewDelhi , the 10thApril, 2008 कर. भा. 382. सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एत‌द्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली, 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम ऽम और उक के साप परिय आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की मारा 35 की उपयाय ( 1 ) कके ) के प्रयोजनार्थ 1-4-2007 से मनात नेहरून दिल्ली गये निम्नलिखित सों के अधीन नुकशाप में आंशिक रूप से संलग्न ' विश्वनिरान ' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है , अर्थात्

S.O. 881.-It is hereby notified for general information that the orignization Jawaharlal Nehqu University, New Delhi, has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause (H) of sub-section (1) ofSection 35 ofthe Income-tax Act, 1961 ( Ach, readwith Rules 5C and SC ofthe Tuttome-tarc Rules ; 1942 (saidRales), with effect from 1-4-2007 in the category.af 'University', partly engaged in romerob activitin mjest to the following conditions, namely:

(1 ) अनुमोदित संगठन को प्रदत्त राशि का उपयोग वैज्ञानिक अनुबंधान के लिए किया जाएगा ;

The man's paid to the approved organization shall be utilized forscientific research;

( 2) अनुमोदित संगठन अपने संकाय सदस्यों अक्वा अपने मेकित मंत्रों के माध्यम से वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान कोरेगा ;

(i) The approved organization shall carry out scientific research through its Biculty members or its enrolled studenta;

(ⅲ) अनुमोरिव संकलन मैनिक अनुसंधान के लिए इसके प अफ राति के संबंध में अलम बहीं खाक रोगा विधायें अनुपान करने के लिए अयुक्त राशि को दर्शाएगा तया, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 288 की उपचारा (2) के स्पष्टीकरण में यथा परिभाषित किसी लेखाकम से अपनी उपज-यही की लेखा परीक्षा कराएगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 139 की उपकारा ( 1 ) के अंतर्गत आग मिचरणी प्रस्तुत करने की नियत तिथि तक ऐसे सेकम द्वारा विविकतचातिवंत लेख परीक्षा रिपोर्ट मामले में क्षेत्राधिकार रखाने वाले आयकर आयुक्त सथक आयकर निर्देशक को प्रस्तुतं करेगा ;

(ii) The approved organization shall maintain separate books of accounts in respect of the sume received by it for scientific research, reflect therein the amounts used for carrying out research, get such books audited by an accoustam as defined in the caplastion to sub-section (2) ofSection 288 of the saidAct and frumish the report of auch audit daly signed and verified by stich accountant to the Compnlasiomer of income-tre-or theDirectorof Income-tax havingjurisdiction over the case, by the due date of furnishing the return of Income under sub- section (1 ) of Section 139of thesaidAct;

(i ) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान तथा प्रयुक्त राशि कन अलग विवरण रहोगा और उपर्युक्त परीक्षा रिपोर्ट के साम लेखा परीक्षक द्वारा निचित सत्यापित विवरण की प्रति प्रस्तुत करेगा ।

(iv) The approved organization shall maintain a separate statement ofdonations received and amovents applied for scientific research and a copy of such statement duly certified by the 1888

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2008/VAISAKHA 6 , 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) )

द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित विवरण की प्रत्ति प्रस्तुत करेगा । auditor shall accompany the report of audit referred to above .

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

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

(क) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अलग लेखा बही नहीं रखेगा ; अथवा (a) fails to maintain separate book of accounts referred to in sub - paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1 ; or

(ख) पैराग्राफ । के उप-पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिर्पाट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा ; अथवा

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

(ग) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त एवं प्रयुक्त दान का अपना विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा: अथवा (c) fails to furnish its statement ofthe donations received and sums applied for scientific research referred to in sub- paragraph ( iv) ofparagraph 1 ; or

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

(e) ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions ofclause (ii) of sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the said Act read with rules 5E and SD of the said Rules,

(ड. ) उक्त नियमावली के नियम 5ग और 5ङ के साथ पंठित उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नहीं करेगा । [Notification No. 53 /2008/F . No. 203/56/2006/ITA - II ] SURENDER PAL, Under Secy.

[अधिसूचना में 51 /2008/फा. सं. 203/86/2007-आ.क.नि.- [1 ] सुरेन्द्र पाल, असर सचिष नई दिल्ली , 10 अप्रैल , 2008

का. आ. 883. सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतद्‌द्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली , 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम 5 ग और 5 ङ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ 1-4-1998 से संगठन वाहिया इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ हिमालयन ज्योलॉजी , देहरादून को निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन आंशिक रूप से शोध कार्यों में संलग्न ' अन्या संस्था' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है , नामत:-

New Delhi , the 10thApril , 2008 S.O. 883. It is hereby notified for general information that the organization Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology, Deharadun has been approved by theCentral Goverument for the purpose of clause ( ii ) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (saidAct) , read with Rules 5C and SE of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (said Rules), with effect from 1-4-1998 in the category of 'Other Institution ' , partly engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions , namely:-

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

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

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

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

( ii) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए इसके द्वारा प्राप्त राशि के संबंध में अलग बही खाता रखेगा जिसमें अनुसंधान करने के लिए प्रयुक्त राशि को दर्शाएगा तथा, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 288 की उपधारा (2 ) के स्पष्टीकरण में यथा परिभाषित किसी लेखाकार 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 तक ऐसे लेखाकार द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित एवं हस्ताक्षरित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट मामले में क्षेत्राधिकार रखने वाले आयकर आयुक्त अथवा आयकर निदेशक को प्रस्तुत करेगा;

(iii) The approved organization shall maintain separate books of accounts in respect of the sums receivedby 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 Commissioner of Income- tax or the Director of Income- tax having jurisdiction over the case, by the due date of furnishing the return of iricome under sub-section ( 1 ) ofSection 139 of the said Act;

( 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

(iv) The approved organization shall maintain a separate statement of donations received [भागखष्ठ 3 ( H) )

and amounts applied for scientific research and a copy of such statement duly certified by the auditor shall accompany the report of andit referredto above.

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

(a) fails to maintain separate books ofaccounts referred to in sub-paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1; or

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

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

(e) ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions of clause ( ii ) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the said Act read with rules SC and 5E ofthe said Rules.

[Notification No. 51 /2008/F.No. 203 /86/2007/ITA-11] SURENDER PAL,Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल , 2008

का. आ.. 884-सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एत‌द्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली , 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम 57 और 5 के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की धारा 35की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ 1-4-2007 से संगठन बनारस हिन्दूविश्वविद्यालय , वाराणासी को निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन अनुसंधान कार्यर्याकलाप में आंशिक रूप से संलग्न 'विश्वविद्यालय' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है , अर्थात्:-

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

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

(iii) अनुमोदिव 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 ता; उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 288 की उपधारा (2 ) के स्पष्टीकरण में यथा परिभावित किसी लेखाकार से अपनी खाता-बही की लेखा परीक्षा कराएंगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 139 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अंतर्गत आय विवरणों प्रस्तुत करने की नियत तिथि तक ऐसे लेखाकार द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित एवं हस्ताक्षरित लेखा परीक्षा रिर्पोट मामले में क्षेत्राधिकार

1889

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 26 , 2008/बैशाख 6 , 1930

रखाने वाले वायकर आयुक्त अथवा उयकर निदेशक को प्रस्तुत करेगा;

(iv ) अनुमोदित,संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान तथा प्रयुक्त राशि करा अलम विवरण रखोगा और उपर्युक्त लेखा परीका रिर्पोट के साथ लेखा परीक्षक द्वारा विधिवत संत्यापित विवरण की प्रति प्रस्तुत करेगा । 2. केन्द्र सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापिस ले लेगी यदि अनुमोदित संगठन:-

(क) पैराग्राफ । के उप-पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखितः अलग लेखा बहीं नहीं रखेगा; अथवा (ख ) पैराम्राफ के उप- पैराक्षफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्ष रिर्पोट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा ; अथवा

(ग ) पैराग्राफ । के 'उप- पैराग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त एवं प्रयुक्त दान का अपना विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा: अथवा (घ) अपना अनुसंधान कार्य करना बंद कर देगा अथवा इसके अनुसंधान कार्य को जायज महीं पाया जाएगा; अथवा

(ड. ) उक्त नियमावली के नियम उग और 55 के साथ पठित उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं होमा तथा उनका पालन नहीं करेगा ।

[अधिसूचना सं. 52/2008/पन, सं. 203/14/2008-आ.क.नि. -11 ] सुरेन्द्र पाल , अवर सचिव NewDelhi , the 10th April, 2008 .

S.O. 884.It is hereby notified for general information thit the organization Banants Hindu University, Varanasi ,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 withRules SC and 5E of the Income- tax Rules, 1962 (said Rules), with effect from 1-4-2007 in the category of 'University' , partly engaged in research activities subject to the following conditionts, namely:-

(1) The suns paid to the approved organization shallbe utilized for scientific research;

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

(i ) The approved organization shall maintain separate books of accounts in respect ofthe sums received by it for scientific,research, reflect therein the amounts used for carrying 1890

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2008/VAISAKHA 6, 1930

[PART II-SEC.3(ii))

बोर्ड अधिनियम, 1987 ( 1987 का 37 ) द्वारा प्राधिकृत उद्देश्यों एवं प्रयोजनों के लिए किया गया है;

( ii ) ऐसा व्यय पूंजीगत व्यय की प्रकृति का नहींहै;

( ⅲ ) ऐसा व्यय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 के किन्हीं अन्य प्रावधानों के अन्तर्गत कटौती के लिए पात्र नहीं है ; तथा

( iv ) उक्त खंड के अन्तर्गत दावाकृत व्यय का एक अलग खाता राष्ट्रीय डेयरी विकास बोर्ड द्वारा रख्न जाता हो । out research , get such books audited by an accountant as defined in the explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 288 of the saidAct and frunish the report of such audit duly signed and verified by such accountant to the Commissioner of Income-tax or the Director of Income-tax havingjurisdiction over the case, by the due date of furnishing the return of incomeundersub-section(1) ofSection 139 of the saidAct;

2. यह अधिसूचना । अप्रैल , 2008 से अर्थात् कर निर्धारण वर्ष 2008-09 और परवतीं कर निर्धारण वर्षों के लिए लागू होगी ।

[अधिसूचना सं. 56/2008/फा. सं. 225/60/2008- आ.क.नि- II ]

सुरेन्द्र पाल, अवर सचिव ( 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.

New Delhi, the 11th April, 2008

INCOMETAX

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

(a) fails to maintain separate books ofaccounts referred to in sub -paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1 ; or

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

S.O. 885. In exercise of the powers conferredby clause (xii) ofsub- section ( 1) of Section 36 of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (43 of1961 ) , the Central Government hereby notifies for the purposes of the said clause, the National DairyDevelopment Board established under section 4 of the National Dairy Development Board Act , 1987 (37 of 1987) for the development of dairy and other agriculturebased allied industries and biologicals , subject to the following conditions , namely :--

(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

(1) the expenditure, claimed as deductible under the Income-tax Act, 1961 is incurred for the objects and purposes authorized by the National Dairy DevelopmentBoard Act, 1987 (37 of1987);

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

(ii) such expenditure is not in the nature of capital expenditure;

( i) such expenditure is not eligible for deduction underany other provision ofthe Income-taxAct, 1961; and

(e) ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions of clause ( ii) ofsub-section ( 1) of Section 35 of the said Act read with rules 5C and SE of the said Rules.

(iv) a separate account of the expenditure claimed under the said clause is maintained by the National Dairy Development Board.

[Notification No. 52/2008 /F . No. 203/ 14/2008 /ITA - II] SURENDER PAL, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 11 अप्रैल , 2008 आयकर

2. This notification shall be applicable with effect from Ist day ofApril, 2008 , that is, for the assessment year 2008-09 and subsequent assessment years .

[Notification No.56/2008/F .No. 225/60/2008- ITA- II ] SURENDER PAL, Under Secy.

( वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग )

शुद्धि-पत्र

नई दिल्ली , 16 अप्रैल , 2008

का. आ. 885.-आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43) की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( xii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा डेयरी और अन्य कृषि आधारित सम्बद्ध उद्योगों और जैविकों के विकास के लिए राष्ट्रीय डेयरी विकास बोर्ड अधिनियम , 1987 ( 1987 का 37 ) की धारा 4 के अन्तर्गत संस्थापित राष्ट्रीय डेयरी विकास बोर्ड को उक्त खंड के प्रयोजनार्थ निम्नलिखित शतों के अधीन अधिसूचित करती है, नामतः-

(i ) व्यय जिसका आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 के अन्तर्गत कटौती योग्य दावा किया गया है, राष्ट्रीय डेयरी विकास

का. आ. 886.-भारत के असाधारण राजपत्र के भाग II , खण्ड 3 , उपखण्ड ( ii ) दिनांक 21 दिसम्बर , 2005 को प्रकाशित, दिनांक 21 दिसम्बर , 2005 के वित्त मंत्रालय , आर्थिक कार्य विभाग 1891 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 26 , 2008/वैशाख 6 , 1930

[ भागखष्ट 3(i))

एतद्‌द्वारा पूर्वोक्त व्यक्ति को यह निर्देश देती है कि वह शासकीय राजपत्र में इस आदेश के प्रकाशित होने के 7 दिन के भीतर पुलिस आयुक्त, थाणे ( पश्चिम ) , महाराष्ट्र के सम्मुख उपस्थिति हो । ( बैंकिंग प्रभाग ) की असाधारण अधिसूचना संख्या का.मा. 1791 ( अ) में, पृष्ठ 9 की पक्ति 8 में आंशिक संशोधन करते हुए " शेयर पूंजी जमा- तेइस करोड़ दस लाख और पचहत्तर हजार " शब्दों को " शेयर पूंषी जमा--चौबीस करोद पांच लाख अस्सी हजार और तीन सौ साठ" पढ़ा जाए ।

[फा. सं. 673/06/2008 -श्री. रा. VIII ] वी. के. खन्ना , उप सचिव

CENTRAL ECONOMIC INTELLIGENCE BUREAU (फा. सं. 1/4/2006- आरआरभी ] एम. के. मल्होत्रा , उप सचिव

-(Department of Financial Servicem)

(COFEPOSA UNET) ORDER New Delhi, the 22ndApril,2008 CORRIGENDUM NewDelhi , the 16th April , 2008

S.O. 886. In partial modification of Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs , Banking Division's Extraordinary notification No. S.O. 1791 (E) dated 21-12-2005 published in the Gazette of India Part II, Section-3 sub- section ( ii) dated the 21st December, 2005, on Page No. 12 line No. 30 the words " Share Caplial Deposit Rupees twenty three crore ten lakh and seventy five thousand" may be read as "Share Capital Deposit Rupees twenty four crore five lakh eighty thousand and three fundred sixty".

$.0. 887.-Whereas the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, specially empowered under sub- section (1 ) ofSection 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention ofSmuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52of 1974) issued order F. No. 673/06/2008-Cus. VIIL, dated14-03-2008 under the said sub - section directing that Shri Vinod Kumar Agarwal, son ofShrt Uma Dutta Agarwal, R/o C-3 , Sunita, Kopri Colony, Thane (Best), Mumbai, Maharashtra ; Alternate address--Partner, M/s . Ruchika Inernational, Banu Mansion lat Floor, 16, Nadirshah Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 , be detained and kapt in custody in Yervada Cetitral Prison, Pune with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods in fature..

[F. No. 1/4/2006-RRB] M. K. MALHOTRA, Dy.Secy,

2. Whereas the Central Govermument has reasons to believe that the aforesaid person has absconded or has been concealing himself so that the order cannot be executed.

केन्द्रीय आर्थिक आसूभन्त्र ब्यूरो (कोफेकलेला यूनिट) आदेश नईदिल्ली , 22 अप्रैल, 2008

3.Now, therefore , in exercise ofthe powers.conferred byClause (b) of sub-section.( I ) of Section 7 of the said Act, theCentralGovernment hereby directs the aforesaid person to appearbefore the Commissioner ofPolice, Thant (W), Maharashtra within 7 days of the publication of this order inthe Official Gazette.

[F. No. 673/06/2008-Cus.V11月 V. K. KHANNA, Dy. Secy.

{ आर्थिक कार्य विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 23 अप्रैल , 2008

का. आ. 887. यतः संयुक्त सचिव, भारत सरकार जिन्हें विदेशी मुद्रा संरक्षण और तस्करी निवारण अधिनियम, 1974 (1974 का 52 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत विशेष रूप से शक्ति प्रदान की गई है , ने उक्त उपधारा के अधीन आदेश फाइल सं. 673/06/2008-से. तु VIII दिनांक 14-03-2008 को जारी किया और यह निर्देश दिया कि श्री विनोद कुमार अग्रवाल , सुपुत्र श्री उमा दत्त अग्रवाल , निवासी- सी-3 , सुनीता, कोश्री कॉलोनी, थाणे (पूर्व ) , मुंबई, महाराष्ट्र वैकल्पिक पत्ता साथी, मैसर्स रुचिषा इण्टरनेशनल , बात्रु मेन्सन, प्रथम तल , 16 , नादिरप्साह स्ट्रीट, फोर्ट, मुंबई -400001 को निरुद्ध कर लिया जाए और येरवदा केन्द्रीय कारागार, पुणे में अभिरक्षा में रखा जाए, ताकि उन्हें भविष्य में चीजों की तस्करी करने से रोकाजा सके ।

2. अतः केन्द्रीय सरकार के पास यह विश्वास करने का कारण है कि पूर्वोषत व्यक्ति फरार हो गया है या स्वयं को छिपा रखा है किससे यह आदेश निष्पादित नहीं किया जा सकताः ।

कर , आ. 888 , केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 ( यथा संशोधित, 1987 ) के नियम 10 के उप नियम ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में, विश्व मंत्रालय , आमिক कार्य विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में भारत प्रविधि और निर्माण निगम लिमिटेड, कारपोरेट कार्यालय , नई दिल्ली, ि 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारीवृन्द ने हिंदी को कभी न प्राप्त कर लिया है , को एक्ाद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है ।

[सं. 11013 /3/ 2008- 飲料 ] अमरनाथ निदेशक ( माले) ": . 3. अतः अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 7 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्ति का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार

138704/08-2 1892

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL, 26, 2008/VAISAKHA 6, 1930

[PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] (Department of EconomicAffairs) NewDelhi, the 23rd April, 2008

after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said First Schedule against "Rajiv Gandhi University ofHealth Sciences , Bangalore , Karnataka" under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification ' [ in.column (2) ] and under the heading Abbreviation for Registration [ in.column(3) ] , the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(2)

(3)

S.O. 888. In pursuance of sub-rule (4) ofRule 10 ofthe Official Language (use for official purposes ofthe Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby, notifies the Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Limited, Corporate Office, New Delhi, under the administrative control of Ministry ofFinance, Department ofEconomicAffairs , whereof more than 80% of staff have acquiredworking knowledge ofHindi .

M.B.B.S.

Bachelor ofMedicine andBachelor of Surgery

[No. 11013/3/2008- HIC] AMARNATH, Director (OL)

स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय (स्वास्थ्य और परिवार कल्याण विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 28 मार्च, 2008

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by Rajiv Gandhi University ofHealth Sciences , Bangalore, Karnataka with theeffect from the year 2006 in respect of students trained at Basveshwara Medical College Chitradurga, Kamataka)

[No. U. 12012/ 112/ 1999-ME(P - II ) ] N. BARIK, Under Secy.

का. आ. 889.-भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त प्रशक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में एत‌द्वारा निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है, अर्थात्

विद्युत मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 21 अप्रैल , 2008

उक्त अनुसूची में " राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय बेंगलूर , कर्नाटक " के सामने शीर्षक " मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अहंता " [ स्तम्भ ( 2 ) में ) के अन्तर्गत तथा शीर्षक ' पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण [स्तम्भ (3 ) में ] के अंतर्गत निम्नलिखित रख्त जाएगा अर्थात्:-

(2)

(3)

एम.बी.बी.एस.

का. आ. 890.--विद्युत अधिनियम, 2003 ( 2003 का 36 ) को धारा 162 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा सरकारी राजपत्र में इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन के पश्चात् कार्यभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से श्री एस. के. ठकराल, मुख्य अभियंता, केंद्रीय विद्युत प्राधिकरण को मुख्य वैद्युत निरीक्षक के पद पर नियुक्त करती है ।

बैचलर ऑफ मेडिसिन एंड बैचलर ऑफ सर्जरी

[फा सं. 42/4/2001- आर एंड आर ] आई. सी. पी. केसरी , संयुक्त सचिव

MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi , the 21st April , 2008 (यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अहंता होगी यदि यह बस्नवेश्वर मेडिकल कालेज , चित्रदुर्ग , कर्नाटक में प्रशिक्षित छात्रों के सम्बन्ध में राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , बेंगलूर, कर्नाटक द्वारा वर्ष 2006 से प्रदान की गई हो)

[सं यू 12012/112/1999- एमई (पी-II ) ]

एन. बारिक , अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (Department ofHealth and FamilyWelfare)

S.O. 890. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1) of section 162 ofthe ElectricityAct, 2003 (36 of 2003), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri S. K. Thakral , Chief Engineer , Central Electricity Authority as Chief Electrical Inspector w.e.f. the date of assumption of charge after the publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.

NewDelhi, the28th March, 2008

5.0. 889.-In exercise of the powers conferredby sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical / Council Act, 1956 ( 102 of 1956), the Central Government,

[F. No. 42/4/2001 -R&R] I. C. P. KESHARI, Jt . Secy.

1893

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2008.मेशख 6, 1930

[र - वध (ii)]

पटोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 15 अप्रैल , 2008

अधिसूचना

का. अ. 891.- केन्द्रीय सरकार एतदद्वारा पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनयिम , 1962 (1962 का 50 ) के धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) के अनुसरण मुन्द्रा-बतिष्ठा कच्चे तेल पाइपलाइन के संदर्भ में, गुरू गोबिन्द सिंह रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड में निहित निम्नलिखित का. आ. नम्बर और अनुरूपी भारत के राजपत्र, भाग 2 , खण्ड 3. उपखण्ड (ii ) में प्रकाशित भूखण्डों में भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार, एचपीसीएल-मित्तख पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड ( गुरु गोबिन्द सिंह रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड की समनुषंगी) में निहित करती है ।

का.आ.

प्रकाशन तारिख

राजपत्र सं०

3778

फरवरी 7, 2002

3780

फरवरी 7, 2002

1092 13

मार्च 30, 2002

1324

अप्रैल 20, 2002

1325 16

अप्रैल20, 2002

1326 16

अप्रैल 20, 2002

1796

जून 1, 2002

1800

जून1, 2002

1877

जून 8,2002

2062

जून 22,2002

2063

जून 22,2002

2298 28

जुलाई 13, 2002

2350 20

जुलाई 20, 2002

2695 34.

अगस्त 24, 2002

3078 39

सितम्बर 28, 2002

3468 44

नवम्बर 2, 2002.

3534

नवम्बर 9, 2002

3676 47

नवम्बर 23, 2002

3725 48

नवम्बर 30, 2002

3850 50

दिसम्बर 14, 2002

3853 50

दिसम्बर 14, 2002

4008 52

दिसम्बर 28, 2002

221 3

जनवरी 18, 2003

374 5

फरवरी 1 , 2003

477 6

फरवरी 8, 2003

का.आ.

प्रकाशन तारिख

राजपत्र से

1043 मार्च 29, 2003

1044

मार्च 29, 2003

1045 13

मार्च29, 2003

1337

मई3, 2003

1386

मई10, 2003

1387

मई10,2003

470%

जून 21 , 2003

1704 25

जून 21, 2003

2198 अगस्त 2, 2003

2199 अगस्त2, 2003

2200 अगस्त 2, 2003

2471 अगस्त 30, 2003

2592 सितम्बर 13, 2003

2647 सितम्बर 20, 2003.

2648 38

सितम्बर 20, 2003

2721 30

सितम्बर 27, 2003

39.

2722 सितम्बर 27, 2003

1387 अक्तूबर 4, 2003

2837 अक्तूबर 4, 2003

3059 अक्तूबर 25, 2003

608 मार्च13, 2004

609 :मार्च 13, 2004

870 मार्च20, 2004

750 मार्च27,2004

751 मार्च27, 2004 1894

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26 , 2008/VAISAKHA6, 1930

राजपत्र सं० प्रकाशन तारिख का.आ.

630

फरवरी 22 , 2003

633

फरवरी 22, 2003

634 B

फरवरी 22, 2003

718

मार्च1,2003

870

मार्च 15, 2003

871

मार्च 15, 2003

11.

877

मार्च 15, 2003

878

मार्च15,2003

974 12

मार्च22, 2003

975

मार्च22, 2003

976

मार्च22, 2003

[PART II-Sec.3 ( ii)] राजपत्र सं०

प्रकाशन तारिख का.आ.

753

मार्च27,2004

755

मार्च 27, 2004

756

मार्च 27, 2004

827

अप्रैल 3, 2004

828

अप्रैल 3, 2004

829

अप्रैल 3, 2004

878

अप्रैल10, 2004

880

अप्रैल 10, 2004

1083

मई 1, 2004

1690 29

जुलाई17, 2004

2317

सितम्बर 18, 2004

[फा. सं. आर-31015/ 12/2008- ओ आर.- II ]

ए, गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 15th April, 2008

NOTIFICATION

S. O. 891.- The Union Govemment hereby vests the Right of User in Land in respect of Mundra Bathinda Crude Oil Pipeline, for the plots of land vested with Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited. pursuant to Clause (4) of Section 6 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in Land)Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), published in the following S.O. numbers and the corresponding Gazettes of India, Part-II , Section- 3 , Sub-section ( ii) , in HPCL-Mittal Pipelines Limited ( a subsidiary of Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited) :

GAZETTE NO .

S.O. NO.

GAZETTE DATE

3778

February 7, 2002

3780

February 7, 2002

1092

March30, 2002

1324

April 20,2002

1325

April 20, 2002

1326

April20, 2002

June1, 2002

1796 22

1800

June 1,2002

1877

June8, 2002

June 22, 2002

2062 25

2063

June 22 , 2002

2298

July13, 2002

2350

July20, 2002

2695

August24, 2002

3078 September 28, 2002

3468

November 2, 2002

November 9, 2002 3534 GAZETTE NO.

GAZETTE DATE

S.O. NO. 13

March 29 , 2003

1043 13

March 29, 2003

1044 13

1045

March 29, 2003

1337

May3, 2003

1386

May 10, 2003

1387

May10,2003

1701

June21, 2003

1704

June21, 2003

2198

August 2,2003

2199

August 2, 2003

2200

August 2, 2003

2471

August 30 , 2003

2592 September 13 , 2003

2547 September 20, 2003

2648 September 20, 2003

2721 September 27, 2003

2722 September 27, 2003 [ भग II- 3 ( ii ) ]

GAZETTE NO.

GAZETTE DATE 5.0. NO. 47

3676 November 23, 2002

3725 November 30, 2002

3850 December 14, 2002

3853 December 14, 2002

4006 December 28, 2002

221

January 18, 2003

374

February 1, 2003

477

February8, 2003

630

February 22, 2003

633

February 22, 2003

634

February 22, 2003

718

March 1,2003

870

March 15, 2003

871

March 15, 2003

877

March 15, 2003

878

March 15, 2003

974

March 22, 2003

975

March 22, 2003

976

IvMarch 22, 2003

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2008/ पैखडा 6 , 1930

GAZETTE NO.

GAZETTE DATE

1367

October 4, 2003

October 4, 2005

3059

October 25, 2003

608

March 13, 2004

+800- 12

March20, 2004 070 13

March 27,2004 750 13

751

March27, 2004

753

March 27, 2004

755

March 27,2004

756

March27,2004

827

April3,2004

828

April 3,2004

829

April 3,2004

878:

April 10,2004

880

April 10,2004

1083

May1, 2004

July17, 2004 1690 38.

2317 September 18, 2004

[F.No. R-31015/12/2008-O.R. - J

AGOSWAMI , Under Sect

नई दिल्ली, 24 अप्रैल , 2008

का. आ. 892.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि कर्नाटक राज्य में देवनगोंदी से नया बेंगलोर अन्तर्राष्ट्रीय एअरपोर्ट, देवनहल्लों, तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादन को परिवहन के लिये इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ।

और ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए इस अधिसूचना से उपाग अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करना आवश्यक है 1

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करतें हुए , उनमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ।

उक्त अनुसूची में हितबद्ध कोई व्यक्ति, उस तारीख से, जिसको राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियों साधारंण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिनों के भीतर, भूमि के उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में लिखित रुप मे आक्षेप श्री आर. आर. जन्नू, सक्षम प्राधिकारी (कर्नाटक), इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, देवनगोंदी से नया बेंगलोर अन्तर्राष्ट्रीय एअरपोर्ट देवनहल्ली तक एटीएफ पाइपलाइन परियोजना, नं 719, गौडफ्‌लोर, 4 क्रास , 7 मैन कल्याण नगर, 1 ब्लाक बेंगलोर-560043 , कनर्नाटक को भेज सकेगा । :

1896

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 26, 2008 /VAISAKHA 6, 1930

[PART SEC. 3 (ii) ]

अनुसूची

तालका होसकोटे

राज्य: कनर्नाटक

जिला : बेंगलोर रूरल

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव का नाम

सर्वे नंबर हिस्सा नंबर

हेक्टर

आर वर्ग मीटर 1

होवली : कंसबा

दोड्ड हुल्लूर

[फा. सं. आर-25011/3/2007- ओ.आर.-1 ]

एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 24th April, 2008

S. O. 892. Whereas, it appears to the Central Government , that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Devanagondhi to New Bangalore International Airport Devanahalli in the State of Karnataka, a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And, whereas , it appears that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right ofuser in the land described in the schedule annexed to this notification;

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

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may , within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land, to Shri . R.R.Jannu , Competent Authority (Karnataka) , Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Devanagondhi to New Bangalore International Airport Devanahalli ATF Pipeline Project , No.719, Ground Floor, 4th Cross , 7th Main, Kalyna Nagar, Ist Block Bangalore- 560043 ( Kamataka).

1897

भारत का रामपत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2008/6, 1930:

SCHEDULE

Teluk: Hosakots

District: Bangalore Rural

Area

Name of the Village

Surveyno.

Sub-Division no.

Are

Hectare

Squimer..

Hobil: Kasaba

DODDAHULLURU

[F.No. R-25011/3/2007-O.R.4 ] S.K. CHITKARA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 24 अप्रैल , 2008

का. आ. 893.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है किं गुजरात राज्य में स्थापित कोयली दहेज पाइपलाइन की शाखा आमोद से हजीरा तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादन के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड ,द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

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

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर, भूमि के भीतर पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में, श्रीमती आशा आर. शाह, सक्षम प्राधिकारी (गुजरात ), इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मकान नं. 3/122, गुजरात रिफाइनरी टाउनशिप, पी. आ. जवाहरनगर, वडोदरा - 391 320, ( गुजरात) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 1898

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2008 /VAISAKHA 6, 1930

[PART 11-Sec. 3 (it) ]

अनुसूची

राज्य

गाँव सर्वेक्षण सं.-

जिला तालुका

उप- खण्ड सं.

क्षेत्रफल

खण्ड सं.

हेक्टेयर

वर्गमीटर

एयर

9 भरुच आमोद

210

इटोला

गुजरात

211

212

226

290

269

281

282

283

385

386

384

382

376

375

374

380

369

451

462

460

461

459

489

488

490

491

493

52 कोलवणा

782

781

754

780

772

779

785

776

791

773

792

793

627

828

826

852

851

850

10 .

853

1026

09.

1015

1017

44 2006-1930

[ 1- (i))

1018

कोलवणा

1019

(जरी)

1025

1024

1020

1023

1021

1022

1011

1010

1089

1114

1128

1115

1116

1117

1118

1123

1207

1208

1223

1224

1225

1251

1252

1253

1256

1255

1254

1250

1287

1255

1327

1329

666

867

1376

1377

1380

1379

1351

1391

548

1400

1408

652

654

682

1404

749

1403

1401

1402

133

वीजीआद

वागरा

138 138704/05-3

00.

09 00

50%.

74 00

40 00

22 00

-43

87 00

14 188888 06

20:

62.

43 00

00 88888 00 00 00

00 1900

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2008 / VAISAKHA 6, 1930

136

वीछीआड (जारी)

142

114

A/ 1

A/2

साचण

121

120

145

135

150

163

168

169

167

185

189

181

180

211

210

212

214

213

225

वागरा

682

683

728

727

724

723

709

722

711

713

714

720

719

718

746

752

762

764

765

795

796

पीसाद

[PART II-Sec. 3 ( 1) ]

9 00

72 00

57 00

53 00

77 DO

64 00

34 00

06 00

18 00

19 00

76 00

50 01

11 00

92 00

75 00

50 00

17 00

68 DO

05 00

71 00

55. 00

25 00

51 00

26 00

69 00

87 00

49 00

34 00

97 00

42 00

62 00

05 00

99 00

15 DO

58 00

83 00

98 00

41 00

DO 00

42 00

82 00

74 কাই 26, 2003

पीसाद

(जारी)

सारण

4 052 37 51

109

108

110

117

150

149

106

147

167

168

159

195

190

188

240

113

साओखा

114

115

116

140

141

152

154

153

156

167

170

223

409

227

228

229

232

نه

255

258

257

270

269

276

00-

35.

00.

20.

00 1902

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2008 /VAISAKHA 6, 1930

[PART !!-SEC. 3(ii))

275

9 साजेखा (जारी)

277

283

255

284

410

295

308

293

310

अमलेश्वर

1012

1013

1014

1031

1032

1038

1042

1039

1048

1045

951

952

941

950

942

944

946

940

946

891

877

878

875

872

867

861

965

854

778

888888 00 00 00 00 00

45 शंखवाड

D 00 00 88888888888 00 00 00 00 00

14 21903

1930

361 )

110

नवेठा

111

112

134

130

135

139

146

145.

149

150

25-

128

150

180

192

217

216

214

312

311

313

310

309

14.

270

324

274

277

188

मुस्तफाबाद (माद्धभुत)

186

157

195

199

00 00 88888888888888 00 00

160

40.

17-

178

200

201

94.

202

179

252

248

249

246

313

316

317

316

339

83.

340

341

10..

337

344

376

45.

369 1904

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2008/VAISAKHA6, 1930

375

मुस्तफाबाद

370

(भाडभुत)

371

(जारी)

437

435

445

351

अंकलेश्वर धंतुरीया

383

381

373

372

337

338

314

330

317

318

316

319

297

296

279

280

281

282

283

284

240

175

176

177

178

179

180

133

24.

[PART II-SEC. 3( 1)

9 00

64 00

53 00

26 00

15 01

36 00

09 00

90 00

82 00

20 00

32 00

38 00

29 00

98 00

44 00

18 00

07 00

57 00

11 00

45 00

95 00

16 00

86 00

96 00

25 00

47 00

61 00

87 00

43 00

10 00

57 00

10 00

63 00

45 00

67 00

14 00

15- 00

47 00

59 00

62 00

94 00

76 00

84 00

32 00

36 00

76 00

58 [1]

2006 ; 1930 3

509

510

507

550

549

548

636

638

635

638

540

642

857

658

560

551

062

069

067

606

220

218

216

217

214

209

189

190

106

179

180

181

171

170

165

164

163

130

हांसोट मोठिया

219

583

दीगस

586

609

608

614

1905

10 00

90 00

58 00

67 00

10 00

26.

36 00

20 00

62 00

20 00

07 00

38 00

30 00

07 00

00. 14

-34 00

19)

.00

45 00

42 00

87 00

80 00

77 00 888

22 00

76 00 1906

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2008/VAISAKHA6, 1930

6 3

615

दौगस

643

(जारी)

616

617

642

618

619

624

525

527

532

529

531

505

503

492

473

470

464

450

451

452

453

454

442

440

436

437

416

404

403

401

402

393

316

317

347

352

354

361

360

338

362

172

अंकलेश्वर मोतवाण

173

191

हांसोट कलम

[PART II- SEC . 3(ii ) ) 7

92 00

08 00

50 00

01 00

60 00

23 00

30 00

81 00

63 00

51 00

64 00

58 00

60 00

70 00

73 00

41 00

49 00

78 00

54 00

99 00

02 00

27 00

58 00

90 00

79 00

10 00 00 88

70 00

32 00

39 00

54 DO

74 00

10 1907

भारत का पत्र अप्रैल 26061930

ニーム

86.

कलम

A/2

(जारी)

07:

526

रोहीद

523

494

8986 07

495

496

521

620

519

476

00 88888888 00

478

.00

474

500

501

502

503

393

-00

363

384

365

366

367

90-

389

360

264

ED.

281

280

276

279

265

277

268

269

00 00 00 00 00 88888888

259

271

270

256

8888 00. 00

00 10 13 00 #858928

255

135

कुडादरा

153

152

888 00 00 00

145

138704/06- 1908

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 26,2008/VAISAKHA 6, 1930

144

कुडादरा

143

(जारी)

A/2

143

A/ 1

143

A/3

143

B/2

139

138

137

133

परक्ट

418

417

415

413

414

288

286

287

285

319

320

325

324

327

328

333

370

368

384

363

341

342

340

109

188

190

186

197

198

199

200

202

203

212

211

210

[PART 11-Sex (10) 7

9 00

77 00

73 00

06 00

48 00

56 00

44 00

09 .

92 00

80 00

57 00

11 00

86 00

30 00

53 00

83 00

34 00

86 00

89 00

85 00

09 00

68 00

54 00

7.2 00

15 00

70 00

45 00

23 00

09 00

46 DO

80 00

40 00

49 00

84 00

33 00

98 00

13 00

96 00

64 00

67 00

84 00

43 00

13 DO

58 00

77 00

86 00

67 00

31 00

19 [ ] ]- мії ) ]

भारत का मम अप्रैल 36 2000/6 1930

6 3

152

परवट

150

(जारी)

148

149

135

133

183

ओभा

184

185

199

171.

169

188

187

217

218

219

220

151

180

144

159

148

147

156

141

156

155

128

127

128

119

118

117

112

455

456

458

-72

1249

1203

1248

1247

1248

1204

1207

1909 7

48 00

07- 00

80 00

22 00

67 00

93 00

23 00

99 00

34 00

01 00

88 00

30 00

94 00

95 00

94 00

06 00

07 00

42 00

85 00

33 00

97 00

58 00

62 00

07 00

97 00

48 00

05 00

51 00

57 00

90 00

03 00

'07

02 1910

PANY 11- SEC 36 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 26, 2008/VAISAKHA 6, 1930

ओभा

1208

1211

(जारी)

1212

1215

1216

1143

1142

1141

1120

1133

1130

1131

1132

1123

[फा. सं. आर-25011/1 /2008- ओ आर. -1 ]

एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 24th April , 2008

5.0.893. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Petroleum Products from Amod (Ex. Existing Koyali to Dahej Pipeline) to Hazira in the State of Gujarat, a branch pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

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

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

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of the notification issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the said Act , as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the laying of the pipeline under the land to Smt. Asha R. Shah , Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limiled , at office Qtrs . No. 3/122, Refinery Township , P.O. Jawaharnagar , Vadodara - 391 320(Gujarat).

1911

26, 2006, 1930

[ 11 ( ii) ]

SCHEDULE

Taluka

Survey / Block No. Sub-DivisionNo.

Village

District

Area Are Sq.mtr.

Hect.

210

Intola

Amod

Bhanuch

Qujarat

.00

...211

12 10

212

00 05 08

225

39 80

290

00 09

269

14 45

281

71:

282

283

00 22

385

388

384

00 16

382

376

375

12 77

374

360

00 26 26

369

04 25

451

00 16 13

462

00 08

480

00 12 15

481

459

499

488

00 05

.00

490

491

17 52

493

00 19

782

Kolwana

781

00 07. 21

754

780

00 70

772

779

19 81

765

776

791

773

44 .

792

00 25

793

11 45

827

828

00 18 32

826

05 71

852

00 23 74

851

00 10

850

853

1026

00 60

1016 1912

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2008/VAISAKHA6, 1930

[PART I SEC. 3 (ii) ] 3

1017

00 01

1018

Kolwana (Contd.)

00 02 15

1019

00 01 87

1025

05 64

1024

01 59

1020

00 13 91

1023

02 18

1021

16 06

1022

1011

17 84

1010

1099

1114

12 09

1128

00 03 98

1115

1116

1117

34 97

1118

1123

1207

1208

1223

1224

00 09 44

1225

1251

1252

1253

05 22

1256

05 43

1255

1254

1250

1287

1286

1327

16 23

1329

666

667

1376

12 62

1377

1380

1379

1381

1391

548

1409

1408

652

00 02 06

854

682

1404

749

00 01 16

1403

00 28

1401

1402

17 भारत का अप्रैल 26, 2008/6, 1930

1915

Vichhiad

133

10 Vagra

136

07 72

AB B

142

00 35 57

114

00. 36 53

A/1

00 07 77

A/Z

..00

00 29 34

00 59 15

121

Sachan

00 14 19

120

00 42 50

145

01 04 11

135

00 16 92

150

10 75

163

32 50

168

17 17

169

167

185

00 26

189

181

00 51

180

211

210

212

87..

214

213

225

682

00 12

Vagra

683

00 20 62

72.5

05 .

727

724

723

00 08. 58

709

00 01 83

722

00 05 98

711

05 41

713

714

42.

720

00 03 00 12

719

15 87

-718

00 06 48

746

752

782

764

00 11

765

795

796

90.

[PART 11-Sac. 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2008/VAISAKHA6, 1930

1914

00 61 34

Pisad

Saran

00 14 81

12 02

00 19 78

109

108

110

117

150

149

156.

147

24 28

167

168

169

195

00 51

190

188

240

113

Sayakha

00 08

114

115

116

19 97

140

141

152

154

153

166

167

170

223

409

227

228

229

232

69 1915

সম্বর জন রক্ষার জप्रैल 26,2002/ 61930

[ ( 1)

255

Sayakha

24 09

256

(Contd.)

257

270

42.

269

276

275

277

00 21

283

16 49

285

284

-21

00 22

410

295

19 32

308

00 29. 70

293

00 29 51

310

09 23

1012

Bharuch Amleshwar

1013

00 58

1014

1031

1032

1038

00 81

1042

20:

00 00

1039

1046

1045

87.

951

952

941

06 35

950

07- 28

942

944

.05

946

940

945

888

00 32.

891

.00

877

878

875

00 09

872

887

27 04

861

865

884

778

03 45

779

Shankhwad

00 12

00 04

138701/06-6 1916

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 24, 2008 VAISAKHA 6, 1930

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

00 18

Shankhwad (Contd.)

00 23 78

00 10 63

00 07 22

00 40 29

Navetha

110

00 .

111

112

00 20

134

00 05 15

136

00 19 67

136

00 10 45

139

146

148

149

00 19 07

150

97 79

126

150

180

DO 19

192

GO 20 69

217

00 18 98

216

00 12 86

214

00 15 87

312

00 16

311

14 62

313

00 01

310

00 29 65

309

270

324

17 60

274

00 29 06

277

04 42

277

29 Mustfabed (Bhadbhut)

158

188

187

15 40

195

199

180

176

200

201

00 15 38

202

179

252

248

00 55

249

246

00 00

313

318

00 21- 51 ( 11) ]

317

00 01

316

(Bhedbhut)

00 27

85 (Contd.)

330

07 83

340

341

19 10

337

344

19 95

376

10 78

45 24

309

375

05 64

370

371

00 90 90

00 30 53

437

03 28

436

00 888 00 14 16

449

351

52 36 Ankleshwar Centra

343

381

373

372

00 15 20

00 15 32

337

330

00 11 29

314

00 25 98

330

317

316

310

00 23 34

319

00 12 57

297

18 11

296

00 06 45

279

05 95

200

00 14

281

282

26 86

283

284

11 25

240

175

176

00 25 46

177.

61.

00 04 87

178

179

00 08

180

00 08 87

133

00-

00 17 63

07 67

00 10 14

18 47

00 09 59.

14 62

16 1918

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL, 26, 2006 /VAISAKHA 6, 1930

[PART 1 ]SEC.3 (ii) ]

76 Dhanturia (Contd.)

00 12

00 02 84

Matiad

509

510

507

550

24 99

549

548

636

638

635

639

640

642

657

658

660

661

662

19 20

669

667

666

15 90

220

16 38

219

218

217

26 47

214

209

189

190

02 40

186

179

180

181

171

170

19 85

165

164

163

130

02 Hansot Mothia

09 1919 भासां का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2008/पैशाख 6, 1930

Mothla (Contd.)

82.

219

583

Digas

586

609

608

614

615

643

616

617

642

618

619

624

526

527

532

529

531

505

503

492

473

470

464

450

451

452

453

454

442

440 .

436

437

416

418

404

403

401

402

393

316

317

347

352

354

24 07

84 15

79:

00 08

26 00 18

53- 02

31 00 05

00 37 45

77 00 21

18 00 18

22 08 00

01 61 00

07 .50 00

01. 95 00

01 00 02

00 05 30

81 00 32

50 00 18

64. 00 16

25 83 00

41 00 20

00 11. 49

00 09 27

105

29 00. 14

18 58 00

13 06 00

4466

00 18 63 1920

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2008/VAISAKHA6, 1930

361

360

Digas (Contd.)

338

362

172

Ankleshwar Motwan

173

191

Hansol Kalam

Rohid

525

523

484

495

496

521

520

519

476

474

500

501

502

503

393

363

364

365

366

367

389

360

264

281

280

[PART1 ] SEC. 3(16)] 6

00 17 24

01 79

00 23 26

00 03 70

17 32

42 F

00 14 39

00 15 74

10 67

00 19 85 A/2

08 26 B

03 23

10 07

00 06 95

06 58

18 99

00 04 87

00 31 07

00 02 48

16 A

00 08 99

12 77 B

00 06

00 00 05

00 09 86

04 89

41 B

06 73

08 1921

भारत का रामपत्र: मप्रैल 26, 2008/वैशाख 6, 1930

[ 3 ( ii) ]

278

Rohid

00 20 47

279

(Contd.)

265

277

00.

268

06 85

269

00 01

200

00 00. 04

271

270

256

255

00 09

135

Kudadara

153

13 64

152

145

17 77

144

A/2

143

05.

A/1.

143

A/3

143

B/2

143

08 44

139

138

07 92

137

00 02

133

00 04

00.

418

Parvel

417

415

413

414

54.

268

286

287

15.

285

00 09

319

320

00 00

325

00 21 09

324

03 48

327

328

333

370

368

33 $4

364

363

35 98

341

00 05

342

03 21

340 1922

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2008/VAISAKHA 6, 1930

[PART I-SBC. 3 (ii)]

189

00 05 98

188

Parvat (Contd)

190

186

04 84

197

198

199

200

202

00 12

203

212

211

210

43 19

152

00 06 48

150

148

149

135

133

33 80

Obha

183

184

35 67

185

199

171

169

168

167

217

218

219

220

161

160

18 88

144

159

146

147

00 08 44

158

141

00 06

156

155

126

127

128

119

118

00 20

117

00 00 00

112 455

08 04

456

458

00 20 .79

48 [ भाग1]-अष्ण ( ii ) ]

भारत का हावापत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2008. चैत्रया 5, 1930

1923

Obha (Contd.)

00 07 49

00 09 24

1249

00 03 51

1203

00 01

1248

$00

1247

04 49

1246

00 09

1204

00 05 93

1207

00 07 02

1208

1211

1212

41.

1215

00 26

1216

05.

1143

.02

34.

1142

08 93

1141

03 71

1129

00 05 07

1133

00 00 05

1130

1131

00 06 81

1132

17 43.

1123

[F. No. R-25011/1 /2008-0.R.4 ] S.K. CHITKARA, Under Sedy,

नई दिल्ली, 24 अप्रैल , 2008

- का. आ. 394.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है किगुजरात राज्य में स्थापित कोयली दहेज पाइपलाइन की शाखा आमोद से हजीरा तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादन के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

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

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर, भूमि के भीतर पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में, श्रीमती आशा आर. शाह, सक्षम प्राधिकारी ( गुजरात ), इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मकान नं. 3/122. गुजरातं रिफाइनरी टाउनशिप, पी. आ. जवाहरनगर, वडोदरा 391 320 , (गुजरात) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

1387G/06-6 1924

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2001 /VAISAKHA 6,1930

[PART [ SBC3 ())

अनुसूची

राज्य

गाँव सर्वेक्षण सं. उप- खण्ड सं.

क्षेत्रफल जिला तालुका

खण्ड सं.

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्गमीटर 1

ओलपाड

गुजरात

ऊमराठी

सुरत

234

243

242

244

245

247

248

249

250

251

250

00 16

305

00 00 00

297

205

294

200

290

268

285

284

283

बडोली

644

645

648

051

655

856

562

563

564

624

573

574

575

576

584

583

563

589

582

580

593

170

00 00 00 00 00 00 88888888888 00 00 00 00 কারে বা চেজবস : মहौल 26, 2010. पैशासा 6, 19.30 4

P पारडीभादोल

199

190

198

203

204

211

214

215

217

219

220

222

223

240

241

239

237

238

236

231

232

255

256

257

कणमी

149

148

207.

207

199

BBAA

200

105

192

193

189

188

186

184

वीहारा

100

110

104

105

102

142

141

144

143

153

154

145

162

1925 7

41 00

55 00

85 00

90 00

27 00

-00

23 00

05 00

12 00

94 00

89 00

37 00

86 00

00 OD

03 00

95 00

36 00

80 00

.75 00

24 00

06 00

08 00

43 00

78 00

02 00

52.

10 00

33 00

30 00

38 00

13 00

41 00

33 00

40 00

93 00

74 00

81 00

32 00

00.

11 00

70 00

59 1926

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26 , 2008 /VAISAKHA6, 1930

.वीहारा

151

149

(जारी)

179

180

183

184

165

188

189

191

196

192

193

मोरथाण

202

206

205

204

203

213

201

200

199

198

191

187

188

189

अछारण

303

314

223

235

234

237

238

248

249

250

274

275

273

252

268

265

सोदीयेर

235

233

234

230

251

252

253

249

256

[PART I SEC.3 ( i)) 7

9 00

50 00

72 00

06 00

95 00

52 00

23 00

27 00

37 00

97 DD

78 00

69 00

59 00

06 00

05 00

03 00

54 00

00 00

18 00

67 00

61 00

89 00

86 00

78 00

69 00

62 00

79 00

10 00

76 00

61 00

12 00

99 00

76 DO

00 00

45 00

66 00 .

71 00

89 DO

42 00

96 00

27 00

85 00

36 DO

95 00

04 00

63 00

42 00

69 1930

267

A सांडीयेर

267

B (जारी)

259

325

324

323

314

319

317

318

352

391

300

389

386

385.

384

383

382

373

381

374

380

378

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

करमला

206

कोसम

313

314

312

311

200

300

289

24 00

78 00

63 00

31 DO

00 00

83.

50 00

60 43

04 00

59.

79 00

87 00

24 00

81 00

11.

17. 00

07 00

18 00

66 00

89 00

55 00

84:

28 00

34 00

05. 00

05 00

49 00

50 00

39 00

00 DO

97 00

25 00

36 00

00 1928

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2006 /VAISAKHA 6, 1930

कोसम

289

250

(जारी)

203

200

261

230

219

218

217

223

127

128

129

130

124

123

122

116

वडोद

228

225

235

238

237

236

239

159

कनाद

156

155

154

180

181

182

183

153

145

144

132

133

134

135

130

128

A/3

101

125

123

सरोली

[PART I-Sec.3( i)) 7

05 00

91 00

59 00

46 00

31 00

63 00

79 DO

64 00

17 00

24 00

28 00 00

31 00

08 00

04 00

39 00

10 00

14 00

39 00

17 00

19 00

69 00

45 00

10 00

61 00

63 00

90 00

13 00

45 00

23 00

42 00

65 00

32 00

95 00

08 00

65 00

97 00

83 00

06 [ I- ( ii) ]

1929

भारत भय राबपता : अप्रैल 26, 2006/6, 1930

सरोली (जारी)

110

197

165

196

168

169

171

चोर्यासी

वीहल

110

वणकला

151

150

149

152

156

157

155

31.

ओखा

86 00

27 00

01 00

45 00

87- 00

09 00

99 00

22 00,

20 00

02.

14 00

57 00

82 00

05 00

37 00

63 00

79 00

19 00

82 00

22 00

92 00

11.

63 00

25. 00

63. 00

15 00

42 00

-96

48 00

19 00

05 00

65 00

76 00

12 00

27 00

45 00

09-

28 00 1930

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRILL 26, 2008 /VAISAKHA 6, 1930

108

107

(सरी)

106

105

104

405

ओलपाड सेगवाछामा .

405

401

400

418

399

363

384

363

316

301 10 310

31710 320

299

275 to 298

264

285

263

266

248

249

253

256

472

चोर्यासी भेसाण

471

105

मलगामा

106

115

109

114

116

117

118

120

121

122

123

219

222

221

223

आसरमा

PART --SA3 ( ii ) ] 7

81 00

26 00

41 00

13 00

01 00

50 00

20 00

16 00

15 00

72 00

وه

63 00

84 00

91 00

46 00

91 00

38 00

39 00

07 00

40 00

30 00

31 00

65 00

93 00

99 00

06 00

68 00

44 00

67 00

27 00

50 00

OD [

1931

माता का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2008/वैसाख 6, 1930

5 2

877

इच्छापोर

878

927

879

926

923

924

918

892

914,

893

894

781.

780

783

784

779

538

542

541

554

622

620+621

619 00

72 00

10 00

17 00

28 00

56 00

19 00

27 00

16 00

80 00

38 00

58 00

07 00

[फा. सं. आर-25011/ 1 /2008-मो.मार-1 ] एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the24thApril , 2008

S.O.894. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public Interest that for the transportation of Petroleum Products from Amod(Ex . Existing Koyall to Dahej Pipeline) to Hazira in the State of Gujarat , a branch pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

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

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right ofuser therein:

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty ond days from the date on which the copies of the notification issued under sub- section (1 ) of section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the laying of the pipeline under the land to Smt. Asha R. Shah , Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, at office Qtrs . No 3/122, Refinery Township, P.O. Jawaharnagar, Vadodara - 391 320 (Gujarat).

1387G/06-7 1932

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2008 /VAISAKHA 6 , 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

SCHEDULE

State District Taluka

Area Village Survey / Block No. Sub -Division No.

Hect. Ane Sq.mtr. 1

9 Umrachhi

Gujaral

00 Surat Olpad

20 89

234

243

00 14

242

244

00 09

245

247

00 17 58

248

249

00 12

250

251

250

305

00 06 87

297

295.

22 46

294

289

01 27

290

04 05

286

265

24 73

284

283.

Vadoli

644

645

648

651

655

656

562

563

01 27

564

624

573

574

575

576

564

583

589

582

580

593

170

01 1933

भारत का रामपत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2008/ पैशाख 6, 1930

Pardibhadol

199

22 41

07 00

190

198

42 55

203

01 55

204

211

00 47 27

214

05 52

215

217

00 07 23

219

220

00 06

222

00 03 12

222

223

00、 25 89

240

00 11 37

241

00. 00

239

00 13 00

237

00 25 03

238

236

02 38

231

17 80

232

06 80

255

256

00 02

257

00 06 Kanbhi

149

00 07 08

148

00 08 43

207

00 23 18

199

BBAA

19 62

200

00 15 02

195

00 17 52

192

00 11 10

193

00 22 33

189

00 34 30

188

17 38

186

23 30

184

00 05 13 Vihara

15 41

109

22 20

110

15 33

104

00 02

105

00 24 40

102

00:19 93.

142

00 13- 74

141

00 01. 61

144

143

153

154

24 45

145

00 03 11

162

00 16 79

152

14.

59 1934

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2008/VAISAKHA6, 1930

Vihara

151

149

(Contd.)

179

180

183

184

185

188

189

191

196

192

193

Morthan

202

206

204

203

213

201

200

199

196

101

187

188

169

Achharan

303

314

223

235

234

237

238

248

249

250

274

275

273

252

268

265

Sandhiar

235

233

234

230

251

252

253

249

256

[PART I SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 6

04 72

16 06

14 95

00 18 69

00 05 59

23 54

00 14

00 15 67

00 15

00 17 81

00 11 89

21 86

26 69

00 22 79

00 35 44

00 06 10

00 30 76

00 08 61

00 34

00 26 76

00 07

00 00

00 23 85

00. 08

00 33 69 [ -3 ( ii) ]

भारत का एचपत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2008/पैशाख 6, 1930

1915 2

207

00 30 24

267

Sandhiar (Contd.)

269

21 54

00-

325

00 19

324

00 21 78

323

00 14 34

314

00 01 63

319

.00 08 45

317

02 31

318

00 06. 37

352

00 21 99

391

48 83

390

00 05 58

389

09 43

386

10 94

385

00 03 65

384

00 04 97

383

05 12

382

00 08 62

373

00 17

381

00 02 79

374

00 00

380

00 10 95

378

420

00 11 81

421

11 17

422

00 16 75:

423

: 72

424

35 67

425

18.

426

00 00 88

03 56

Karmala

00 11 18

00 01 89

00 03 69

00 15 84

00 26 28

00 22 34

00 00

00 05

00 27 86.

08 49

00 16 21:

12 Kosam

296

00 09 09

313

314

00 03. 97

312

00 11 25

311

298.

00 23 38

300

00 11

289

21 18

00 12 [PART II-SEC.3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2008/VAISAKHA 6, 1930

1936

00 29 05

289

00 46

259

Kosam (Contd.)

18 91

263

00 25 59

280

261

230

16 63

219

02 79

218

217

223

00 03 35

127

128

04 19

129

130

07 18

124

00 21 31

123

39 66

122

05 04

116

00 24

228

Vadod

00 01 19

225

235

238

237

00 06

236

239

159

Kanad

00 23

156

155

154

180

13 90

181

182

00 05

183

153

00 13

145

144

132

133

00.

00 11 56

134.

136

130

00 18 23

A/3

128

00 09

101

00 21 65

125

00 25

125

00 19 95

125

CBA

00 04 08

123

00 20

Saroli

00 22

00 [भ ] -3 ( ii ) ]

भारत पर पत्र : मप्रैल 26, 2008/6, 1930-

1937 2

Saroli

00 11 63

(Contd.)

06 30

00 00 48

26 86

00 28 44

00 13 28

00 18 27

110

22 01

00 10 46

00 11 87

00 10 09

15 99

00 17 22

197

155

00 00 29

196

02 14

168

00 32 07

169.

00 1567

171

00 09 82

Vihal

Choryaal

00 00 05

00 22

00 10 79

00 18 79

13 19

18 82

00 23 22 Vankala

110

00 01 02

151

00 23 28

150

12 42

149

00 11 63

152

00 18 58

156

00 15 05

167

00 02 83

155

00 25 16

00 06 16

00 15 98

26 45

00 13 19

00 05

00 05 65

42. 76

00 01 89

220 21 20

00 03 12 Okha

80 [PART I SEC. 3 ( ) ) 1938

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 26 , 2008 /VAISAKHA6 , 1930

8 2

Okha

16 73

(Contd.)

00 09 95

15 28

35 49

108

16 81

107

106

105

104

00 06

405

Segwachhama

Olpad

19 01

406

00 22

401

19 50

400

00 01

418

385

399

00 22 15

383

00 03

384

00 00

363

316

00 18 01

301 to 310

00 09 85

317 to 320

00 25 63

299

275 to 298

264

06 84

265

263

266

00 00

248

249

253

256

472

Bheshan

Choryasi

471

20 40

105

Maigama

05 30

106

00. 15 27

108

115

109

00 23 65

114

00.

116 1939

भारतको राजपत्र: अप्रैल 26, 2008/ बैशाख 6, 1930

117

:00 10 29

118

Malgema (Contd.)

00 17.

119

00 07

120

90.

121

00 05 44

122

13 80

: 123

83 67

219

25 87

222

221

00 01 50

223

00 01

Asarma

00 11 .

09.

00 04 68

30 72

877

Ichhapor

878

32.

927

72.

879

24 40

926

923

24 90

924

00 16 17

918

892

914

893

00 04

694

781

780

00 16.

783

784

779

538

00 24

542

541

554

08 58

622

10: 67

-00-

620+021

17 07

019

[ F. No. R-25011 /1 /2008-0.R. -41 S.K. , CHITKARA, Under Secy. 1387G1/08-a 1940

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2008 /VAISAKHA 6, 1930

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 27 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 895,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. बी. सी. सी. एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण ( सं. II ) , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 116/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/519/2000-आई आर( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi , the 27th March, 2008

S.O. 895. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 116/ 2001 ) of the Central Government Indus . Tribunal (No.11 ) Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s . B.C.C.L. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-3-2008 .

[No. L-20012/519/2000- IR(C- I )] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL, TRIBUNAL ( NO . II) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri Nagendra Kumar, Presiding Officer In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 (1) (d) ofthe I.D. Act ,1947.

REFERENCENo. 116 OF 2001

PARTIES

Employers in relation to the management ofBCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES:

: None

: Mr. D. K. Onbehalf ofthe workman Onbehalf of the employers

Verma,

Advocate. State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal Dhanbad, the 14th March , 2008

AWARD

TheGovt .of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of the 1.D. Act. , 1947 has referred the following dispute to thisTribunal for adjudication vide their Order No.1 .-20012/ 519/2000 (C- 1 ) , dated , the 29th March, 2001 .

SCHEDULE

"Wheter the action ofthe management ofM/s . 13CCL in not providing employment to Shri Baliraj Bhuiya and Shri Mani RajBhuiya on compassionate ground on thedeath oftheir parents Late Bandhu Bhuiya

[PART II- SEC. 3(ii) ] shale picker & Late Rajo Bhuini shale picker of Alkusha Colliery under Kustore Area is Justified , legal and proper? If not, to what relief are the said dependents ofthe workmen entitled ?"

2. The case of the concerned workmen in short is that late Rajo Bhuini and late Bandhu Bhuia were serving under the management ofAlkusha Colliery as Shale Picker . RajoBhuini died on 20-3-89 and late Bandhu Bhuia died on 10-8-92. The dependents of the deceased workmen were not adult at the time when their parents died. The eldest son Jayraz Bhuia was alive at the time of death of Rajo Bhuini who was his another son . An application was filled up but JayrazBhuia died on 12-7-1990 before furnishing the same. Bandhu Bhuia had become upset and was hospitalised and died on 10-8-92 . The dependent of the deceased workmen were not adult at the time of their death hence the employment could not be given and submitted application . Prayer has been made to pass award directing the management to provide employment to Baliraz Bhuia and Sri Maniraz Bhuia in place oftheir parents late Bandhu Bhuia and late Rajo Bhuini under the provisions of N.C.W.A. with back wages and other reliefs .

3. The case of the management in short is that the reference is not maintainable . The sponsoring union has got no locus standi to raise industrial dispute . No employer and employee relationship exists between the persons concerned. The concerned persons are not entitled for employment in view ofthe judgement ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court due to lapse of time as well as in accordance with principles ofNCWA which is purely for appointment on compassionate ground and which cannot be considered after expiry of reasonable period. The parents of the concerned persons had died much earlier . The concerned persons had applied for employment after a lapse of 9 years. Prayer has been made holding that the action of the management is justified and legal and the concerned persons are not entitled to get any relief.

4. From perusal of record it appears that the rejoinder to the W. S. of the management has not been filed.

5. POINTS TO BE DECIDED

" Whether the action of the management of M/s . BCCL in not providing employment to Shri Baliraj Bhuiya and Shri Mani Raj Bhuiya on compassionate ground on the death of their parents LateBandhu Bhuia shale picker and Late Rajo Bhuini shale picker ofAlkusha Colliery under Kustore Area isjustified, legal and proper ? Ifnot, to what relief are the said dependents of the workmen entitled ?" 6. FINDING WITH REASONS

It appears from the record that inspite of giving sufficient opportunities the concerned workmen have neither produced any witness nor got the documents exhibited in support of their claim . The onus lies upon the concerned workmen to establish their case before this Tribunal which has not been done by the concerned 1941 [भाग -खण्ड 3 (ii) )

भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 26 , 2008/वैशाख 6 , 1930

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalfof the workoman

Mr. D. Mukherjen, workmen, Therefore, they are not entitled to get any reliefas prayed. In the result, the following Award is rendered:-

Secretary,

Bihar Colliery

KamgarUnion.

Mr. H. Nath

On behalfofthe Management

Advocate..

State: Jharkhand

Industry:Coal

Dhanbad, the 14th March , 2008

" Whether the action of the management of M/s. BCCL in not providing employment to Shri Baliraj Bhuiya and Shri Mani Raj Bhuia on compassionate ground on the death of their parents LateBandhuBhuiya Shale picker & Late RajoBhuini shale picker ofAllkusha Colliery under KustoreArea isjustified , legal and proper. Consequently, theyare not entitled to get any relief."

AWARD

NAGENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 मार्च, 2008

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour, in exerciseofthe powers conferred on them under Section 10 (1) (d) of the 1.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following. dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No.1-20012/51/2000 (C- 1 ) , dated , the 24th July,2000.

SCHEDULE

का.मा. 896 , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 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. II ) , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 74/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ. था ।

"Whether the demand of the union to regularise Sri Ramesh ChandraGope as Office Pean with pay- protection of Group - VA wages and other consequential benefits is proper and justified ? Ifso, towhat relief is the concerned workinan entitled and from what date ?"

[सं. एल-20012/51 /2000- आई आर( सी-1) ] स्नेह लता जवास, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 27thMarch, 2008

S.O. 896.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Contral Government bereby publishes the award (Ref.No.74/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.II) Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. B.C.C.L. , and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 27-3-2008.

[No. L-20012/51 /2000- IR (C- 1 )]

SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. II) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT:

ShriNagendra Kumar, PresidingOfficer

Inthe matter ofan Industrial Dispute under Section 10 (1) (d) ofthe I.D. Act. , 1947.

REFERENCE No.74of2000

Parties:

Employers in relation to the

2. The case of the concerned workmen in short-is that hewas originally appointed as permanent Miner/Loader in Group- VA on September , 1983. He started to work as Pump Operator against permanent vacancy . The management started to pay him Cat . III wages without protecting his Group VA wages which was objected by the concernedworkman . The managenient assumed for a fabourabledecision . During the course ofemployment the concemed workman received serious injury. He was referred to Patna for specialised treatment . He was under treatment of Dr. Mukhopadhyaya. Thereafterhe was referredto Ahmedabad for further specialised treatment.. Boththe doctors recommended for light duty as he was unable to perform the duties of Pump Operator. He was under treatment from 1992 to February , 1995. The management allowed him to join his duty as Peon. He worked continuously as permanent Peon against permanent vacancy and he has put 240 days attendance in each calendar year.He has been working as Peon since March, 1995 continuously. He represented before the minaganent several times for his regularisation as Peon with protection ofhisoriginalGroup VA wages but without any effect.As perprovision ofNCWA he is entitled for regularisation as Peon. The management failed to take any action on the prayer ofthe concerned workman he then raised industrial dispute before the ALC (C) which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal . Prayer has been made to answer the reference in favour of the concerned workman by awarding regularisation as Peon with protection of GroupVA wages and other consequential benefits.

management ofM/ s . BCCL and their workman.

1942

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2008/VAISAKHA 6, 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the31st March,2008

8.0. 897.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.131/94) of the Central Govemment Industrial .Tribunal -Cum Labour Court, No.II , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of C.P: W.D. , and their workmen, which was receivedby the Central Government on 31-3-2008.

[No. L-42012/135/93 -IR (DU)] AJAYKUMAR, DeskOfficer 3. The case of the management in short is that the reference is not maintainable . The concerned workman is a permanent workman of Bhatdee Colliery designated as Miner /Loader. He was never directed to work as Pump Operator and the management never paid him Cat. IIIwages andhe is still getting wages ofGroup-VA wages . The management has provided the concerned workman light dutyon surface in view of his injury. He is still getting Group VA wages which is more the job which he is performing. Since the concerned workman is not workman is not working as Peon question of regularisation on the said post with protection of wages does not arise.

ANNEXURE

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

4. In the rejoinder portion the statement made in para-2, 3, 10, 11 , 12, and 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, have been denied. It has been stated that the concerned workman is not entitted for any relief.

L.D. NO. 131/1994

5. In the record there is no rejoinder to the W. S. filedby the management,

6. POINTS TO BE DECIDED

PRESIDING OFFICER : R. N. RAI IN THE MATTER OF :

-Claimant

Sh. Rishi Pal, C/o .Regional Secretary, All India CPWD Employees ' Union, Lodai Colony, Inquiry Office, CPWD, New Delhi.

"Whether the demand of the union to regularise Sri Ramesh Chandra Gope as Office Peonwith pay- protection ofGroup- VA wages and other consequential benefits is proper and justified? Ifso, towhat relief is the concerned workman entitled and from what date?"

VERSUS

FINDING WITH REASONS

TheExecutiveEngineer, "R" Division, CPWD, New Delhi . -Respondents

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L-42012/ 135/93 IR(DU) Central Govemment did. 16-11-1994 has referredthe following point for adjudication:

The point runs as hereunder;-

7. It appears from the record that inspite of giving sufficient opportunities the concerned workman has neither produced any witness not got the documents exhibited in support of his claim. The burden of proof rests upon the concerned workman to establish his case before this Tribunal which has not been done in the instant case. Therefore,he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. In the result, the following Award is rendered:-

"Whether Executive Engineer, R. Division, CPWD, New Delhi was justified in not placing Sh. Rishi Pal as Inquiry Clerk and paying the regular wages /scale ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to. " "The demand ofthe union to regularise Sri Ramesh Chandra Gope as Office Peon with pay-protection ofGroup- VAwages and other consequential benefits is not proper and not justified. Consequently, the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief. "

NAGENDRA KUMAR, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 31 मार्च , 2008

Theworkman applicant has filed claim statement . In the claim statement it has been stated that Rishi Pal S/o. Sh. BaljitGiri has been working in " R" Division, CPWD. New Delhi since 01-04-1986 and is workman as per the definition under section 2(s) of the ID Act, 1947.

Thatthe Executive Engineer " R" Division , CPWD , New Delhi is employer as per the definition under Section 2(s) ofthe ID Act , 1947.

That the CPWD is an Industry under Section 2g of the IDAct, 1947,

का.आ. 897, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सी. पी. डब्ल्यू डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्षकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नं. 2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 131/94 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31-3-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

That Shri Rishi Pal has been performing the duties of Inquiry Clerk on Muster Roll and fulfilling the required conditions ofrecruitment of the inquiry clerk.

[सं एल-42012/ 135/93- माई आर ( डी.यू. ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

That the employer has been wrongly paying the wages ofBeldar since the employment.

1943 [ भाग 1]-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 26, 2008 /वैशाख 6, 1930

knowingly signed the related terms and conditions for appointment as Beldar every month

That all the efforts from Sh. Rishi Pal and this Union togetjusticehave remained fruitless.

That the workman has wrongly been designated as Beldar instead of Inquiry Clerk, particularly when the workman has been performing the duty of InquiryClerk.

That the workman should be designated as Inquiry Clerk instead ofBeldar.

That the wages of the workman should be given as that ofan inquiry clerk and the difference ofwages between Beldar and Inquiry Clerk should be paid to the workman.

That suitable penalty should be imposed on the employer for doing injustice with theworkman.

It is submitted that the representations of the workman as well as the union representative as regards regularization ofworkman as Inquiry Clerk were considered bythe competent authority and the same was not acceded to as the workman did not fulfill the terms and conditionis prescribed for recruitment as Inquiry Clerk in the public interest. It is reiterated that the workman cannot be regularized as Inquiry Clerk in violation ofthe prescribed terms and conditions to the particular post. Acceding to such request ofthe workman would adversely affect the administrative function and discipline amongst the stafi members.

The management has filed written statement. In the written statement it has been stated that the Executive Engineer , CPWD , R, Division, New Delhi has no independent legal entity. It is part and parcel of the union of India. The M/o. Urban and Employment Affairs , Department of CPWD, headed by the Director General (Works) as one of its subordinate offices. Unless these controlling authorities are made parties, the dispute in question cannot be adjudicated upon. Therefore , the claim isbad for non-joinder and misjoinder ofnecessary parties and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed .

That it is vehemently denied that the workman has been wrongfully been desigasted as Bekhar instondef Inquiry Clerk. It is stated that since the workcitan had wonload for more than240 days in each calendar year and fulfilled the conditions of regularization in the grade ofBelstar againstwhichhe was engaged and worked, offer ofreguler appointment was given to the workman as Belder and the samewas duly accepted by him. As such further claim of the workman for his regularization as Inquiry Closk and payment therefore, can be accepted as bereinabove explained. It is stated that suck musterial suppression of. factsbe kindlylooked into to test the veracity ofthe claim ofthe workman .

Theworkmanhas filed rejoinder. In the rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his claim statensent and has denied most of the peces of the written statement . The management has albo denied most ofthe peris ofthe claim -statement.

Evidence ofboth the parties has been taken, That the claim has neitherbeen filed by the workman concerned nor is the same verified by him . Likewise, the union involved in the alleged dispute is not competent or authorized to file the instant dispute. In addition to the subenission herein, the alleged claim under reply has not beenproferredwithin stipulated period and in the manner prescribedunder Rule 10(B) ofthe ID (Central) Rule, 1957 nor any sufficient reasons for not preferring the claim in prescribed manner has been explained. As such the claim is notmaintainable on this ground as well .

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

That the workman has no cause ofaction and is not entitled for the relief prayed for.

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that the workman was performing duties of Inquiry Clerk. He enteredthe complaints in the complaint register ofE -Block inquiry in his own handwriting froen 1-4-1986 to January , 1993.

It is stated that the averments therein are misleading and result of intentional concealment of material facts by the claimant. It is stated that the workman was, in fact, engaged w.e.f. 1-4-1986 as Daily Rated Casual Labour purely on temporary basis on Muster Roll and he has accepted the employment as Muster Roll Beldar at his free- will. The fact has intentionally been suppressed by the workman/ claimant.

Itwas submitted from the side of the management that the claimant was engaged as daily rated casual laboir purelyon temporary basis on master roll and has accepted the employment of muster roll Beldar as his free will . He was appointed Beldar on temporary basis by appointment letter dated01-12-1992. He was atsigned the role ofmeester: roll as Beldarby the management, He was paid wages s Beldar for theperiod 21-12-1992 to 20-1-1993 . The Sub- divisional Officer, MW1/3 and MW 1/4 has examined the work assigned to the workmen engaged on'muster roll and paymentto them was made accordingly.

It was further submitted that by letter dated 15-2-1993 the workman was regularized as Beldar fron 5-2-1993 by the management and the workman on 6-2-1993 joined asBeldar.

That it is patently wrong that the workman has been performing his duties as an Inquiry Clerk. In fact, the workmanhas been performing his duties as daily wager on mustér rell. It is specifically mentioned that the workman. does not fulfill the terms and conditions for recruitment as Inquiry Clerk. It is stated that even if it is presumed that the worlonen sometimes performed duties ofInquiry Clerk such assignment of job was neither lawful nor had the same sanction of competent authority. It is stated that there is noprovision for engaging the Inquiry Clerk on muster roll basis in the department of CPWD and the fact has very well been in the knowledge ofthe workman. The workman 1944

[PART 1 Sec.3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2008/VAISAKНА 6, 1930

Itwas further submitted that the workman sometimes performed duties of Inquiry Clerk but such assignment of job was neither lawful nor had the same sanction of competent authority.

It was further submitted that there is no provision for engaging any Inquiry Clerk on muster roll basis in the department. The workman knowingly signed the related terms and conditions for appointment as Beldar every month.

It was further submitted that there is no valid and legal espousal .

Clerk and the CAT has ordered the management to consider the case of regularization in view of circular dated 14-07-1988 issuedby the Dy. Director ofAdmn . The workman has pleaded that he is entitled to be regularized in view of circular dated 14-07-1988 . The CAT has based his findings on the circular dated 14-07-1988 in which it has been mentioned that the workman may be regularized in higher categoryeven ifhe worked in lower category for sometimes subject to the conditions that the services rendered in the lower categories would not be counted for the purpose of seniority. Circular dated 14-07-1988 is not attracted in this case as such the relief granted by the CAT in 1993 cannot be extended to this workman .

From perusal of the records it transpires that the workman has been mentioned in documents Ex.MW/I to Ex.MWV 15 as Beldar and he has received payment as Beldar. The work ofBeldar was assigned to him .

It was further submitted from the side ofthe workman that the management has violated the principles of equal pay for equal work. The workman worked as Inquiry Clerk sohe should bemade payment ofthe initial salary of Inquiry Clerk

Ittranspires from perusal of Paper No.67 (photocopy) dated10-02-1992 that the Assistant Engineer ( IR) Division , CPWD, New Delhi has forwarded the representation of Sh. Shyam Lal and Sh. Rishi Pal, muster roll Beidar regarding theirwillingness to discharge the duties ofInquiry Clerk. It isalso quite vivid from letter dated 19-05-1992 sent by the workman, Sh . Rishi Pal that he has made representations forbeing regularized as Inquiry Clerk.

Itwas submitted from the side of the management that the workman was engaged as Beldar . He worked as Beldar. For sometimes he was entrusted with the work of entering complaints in the complaint register so he is not entitled to equal pay for equal work .

Itwas submitted from the side ofthe workman that in view of 1966 LW 134, AIR 1991 page 173 and in view of DirectivePrinciples ofState policyhas confirmed in Article 30(d) of the Constitution a casual workman cannot be denied the same salary of Class - III employees when he performed the same duties on regular basis . There should be equal pay for equal work and it should be treated as a fundamental right in service jurisprudence.

The workman was initially engaged asBeldar andhe has accepted his designation as Beldar, He has received payment as Bellar and he was regularized in 1993 at the post ofBekiar. He has also accepted his regularization . The records further disclose that the workman has discharged the duties of entering the complaints in the complaint register maintained for the same . The management has also admitted that sometimes due to increase ofwork load the workman was entrusted with the work ofregistering complaints in the complaint register of E-Block.

It has beenheld in (2003 ) 6 SCC 123 as under:- "The principle of" equal pay for equal work" is not always easytoapply. There are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work done by different persons in different organizations, or even in the same organization. It isaconcept which requires for its applicability complete and wholesale identity between a group of employees claiming identical pay scales and the other group of employees whohave already eamed such pay scales . The problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into amathematical formula.

Theworkman was initially engaged as Beldar in 1986. Hehas been given the regular status ofBeldar in 1992 and his services havebeen regularized as Beldar in 1993. Even if it is admitted that he entered the complaints in the complaint register it cannot be said that he shouldbe regularized as Inquiry Clerk. It appears that some Beldars havealso entered the complaints in the complaint register for sometimes. They have performed the duties of the InquiryClerk

It isobvious from thejudgment that the principles of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied everywhere.A dailywager holds no post . Scale of nay is attached to a definite post. This workman was not holding any definite post, so he cannot be compared with the regular and permanent staff for equal pay and allowances .

Ithas been further held in (2003) ISCC250 as under:-

Incase their initial engagement is at the post ofBeldar, they have been given the temporary status at the post of Beldar and theyhave received payment ofBeldar . No right accruedtothem for regularization as Inquiry Clerk on the basisofregistering complaints in the complaint register as there is no post of Inquiry Clerk in the department . Regularization is always ordered against sanctioned post. There is nodesignation of Inquiry Clerk in the management.

My attention was drawn to OA dated 05-05-1993 . The Hon'ble CAT has directed for regularization of Sh. Ramesh Chandra, Ram Nath Singh and Sh. Man Singh Rajput who worked as typist or Dispatch Clerk. These workmen worked as Typist, Inquiry Clerk and Dispatch

"Equal pay for equal work applicability of the principle of, held, depends not only on the nature or volume ofwork but also on the qualitative difference in reliability and responsibilities as well -Even in case of same functions , responsibilitiesdo make a real and substantial difference- It is for the claimant of parity to substantiate a clear-cut 1945 { पाग खण्ड 3 (ii) )

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 26 , 2008/वैशाख 6 , 1930

ANNEXURE

CENTRALGOVT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT-IL, SCTOR 18- A, CHANDIGARH,

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI KULDIP SINGH

CASE LD . NO: 363/2K5

basis ofequivalence and a resulkant hostile discrimination Inabsence ofrequisite substantiating material, High Court erred in granting the NMR workers/daily wagers/casual workers parity in pay with the regularly employed staff merelyon presumption of equality of the nature ofwork - However, such workers, held, entitled to payment of prescribed minimum wages."

Registered on: 18-8-2005 DateofDecision: 14-3-2008

Jaswinder Kumar S/o Ram Lubhya,

HouseNo2160, Sector C, Chandigarh -PETITIONER Ithas beenheld in this case that equal pay for equal workwoulddepend upon not only the nature or the volume ofworkbut also on the qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibilities though the,functions may be the same.

Versus

RESPONDENT

PrincipalGeneral Manager, Telecom, TelephoneDeptt, Sector 18-A , Chandigarh.

APPEARANCE

For the Workman Mr. Arun Kumar Batra, Advocate

Mr. G. C. Babbar, Advocate

For the Management

AWARD

Ittranspires from perusal of the records that the workman discharged the duties of Inquiry Clerk incidentally. Thejob ofregistering complaints is tobe done by the Jr. Engineer. The workman has been entrusted with the work of entering the complaints in the complaint register temporarilyby the Ir. Engineer. The workman was initially engaged as casual labour and his services have been regularized asBeldar. Incidentally performing the duties of InquiryClerk does not entitle him to regularization at the post of InquiryClerk as the workman was initially engaged as casual labour and he has been regularized as Beldar.

The reference is replied thus:

TheExecutive Engineer, R. division, CPWD, New Delhiwas justifiod in not placing Sh . Rishi Pal as Inquiry Clerk and paying the regular wages /scale. The workman is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

The award is given accordingly.

Date:19-3-2008

R.N. RAI , PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 2 अप्रैल , 2008

The workman continues to be absent. For the Management also no body is present. The record of the file shows that the workman has not appeared in person after 21 st ofFeb. 2007. He filed the authority letter ofhis courisel but the counsel also stopped appearing after 4th ofMay, 2007 reporting no instructions . The workman didnot file his affidavit despite repeated directions and has also not produced any evidence to support his claim made in the Statement ofClaim. The Management has derniinid the assertions made by the workman, by their written statement duly supported by the affidavit of Shri Anll Kumar , SDE, C/M - I , Chandigarh . The Management has denied even the relationship of employee and employer between the parties . As against to it the workman has nat produced any evidence. So much so he himself has agt comeinthewitness box to re-iterate the facts stated by him in his statement ofclaim.

का.आ. 898, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , .-11 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 363/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/225/2002-आई आर( डी. यू. ) ]

अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 2nd April, 2008

On record I do not find any evidence to show that theManagement of Department of Telecom, Chandigar had engaged theworkman as peon in May, 1997and they had terminated his services w.c.f. 27-2-1999 without complying with the provisions of section 25 -F of the LD. Act 1947 and their said action was unjust and illegal . In the circumstances the reference received from the Ministry of Labour,Government of India vide their No. L-40012/22 2002- IR(DU) dated 21st of March , 2003 in this regard is answered against the workman bolding that he has failed to prove any claim and therefore, he is not entitled to any relief. The award is passed accordingly.

S.O. 898.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 363/ 2005) Central Government Industrial -Tribunal -cum-labour Court, No.Il Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the manganent ofDepartment of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-4-2008.

Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for necessary action and the file be consigned to records afterdue completion.

[No.L-40012/225/2002-IR(DU) ]

AJAYKUMAR, DeskOfficer

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer 1946

[PART 11 Sec . 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26 , 2008 /VAISAKHA 6, 1930

नई दिल्ली, 2 अप्रैल , 2008

That the full particulars of the workmen who performed their duty as Peon in Group ' D' on dailywages are given as under:

Educational

1. Name Father's Date of Birth

No.

Name

Date of Termi- Qualifica-

nation cation

Date of employ. meat

1. Birender Kişan 4-6-73 24-12-92 17-9-02 8th Pass

Ram

7-5-71 4-5-94 17-9-02 9th Pass

2. Munich Ved

का.आ. 899 , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डायरेक्ट्रेट ऑफ एडल्ट एजुकेशन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 03/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

Ram

17-9-02 10th Pass

2-10-65 12-4-94

3. Kuldeep Sube Singh

[सं. एल-42012/23/2005- आई आर( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौद , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 2nd April, 2008

Theworkmen applicants have filed claim statement. In the clairn statement it has been stated that the workmen had raised the dispute for regularization of their services before the Conciliation Officer-cum- Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) and the first hearing was fixed by thisHon'bleAuthority on 4th September, 2003 at 4.00 Ρ.Μ. S.O. 899.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Governmentbereby publishes the Award Ref.03/2006 of theCent. Govt . Indus , Tribunal-cum Labour Court No-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Directorate ofAdult Education, and their workmen, receivedby the Central Government on 02-04-2008.

[No. 142012/23/2005- IR(CM- II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

That during the pendency of conciliation before the Conciliation Officer-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)the services ofthe workmen S/Shri Birender Kumar, Munish Sharma and Kuldeep Singh were terminated w.e.f. 17-9-2002 without taking prior permission/ approval under Section 33 of ID Act 1947 from the saidAuthority.

ANNEXURE

That the said dispute was dealt by this Hon'ble AuthorityinfileNo. ALC- HQ( R)/8 ( 148)/2002 .

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-

LABOUR COURT -IL, NEW DELHI

LD. No. 03/2006

PRESIDING OFFICER: R.N.RAI.

INTHE MATTER OF:-

Shri Birender Kumar and Others ,

That Shri Roop Chand, Asstt. Labour Commisssiner (Central ) has submitted his failure of Conciliation ( FOC) report to the Secretary , Ministry of Labour, Govt . of India , Shram Shakti Bhawan , Rafi Marg , New Delhi- 110001 narrating all the facts and also violation of Section 33 as well as 25F of Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Copy of the FOC report is annexed as Annexure-4.

C/oThe President,

Janvadi General Kamgar Mazdoor Union , RoomNo. 95, Barracks No. 1/10 , Jamnagar House, Shahjahan Road, NewDelhi - 110011.

VERSUS

TheDirector,

That now the said dispute for their regularization and equal pay for equal work already referred by the Ministry of Labour , Government of India , Shram Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi vide order dated 13-10-03 and the same is pending before Shri S.S. Bal, Ld. Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. I, R.K. Puram, New Delhi . Copy ofthe said order is also annexed as Annexure-B .

Directorate ofAdult Education , 10 -Jamnagar House, NewDelhi.

AWARD

TheMinistry ofLabour by its letter No. L-42012/23/ 2005-(TR (CM- 11 ) Central GovernmentDt. 3-1-2006 has 'referred the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder.

That apart from taking prior permission approval U/s33 ofIDAct 1947 from Shri Roop Chand Asstt. Labour Commissioner. (Central )-cum - Conciliation Officer , the management has terminated the services of the workmen without serving one month notice or one month pay in lieu ofnotice, compensation etc, because the workmen have completed more than 240 days in each of the 12 month calenderyear.

The workmen connected with this dispute had been performing their duties continuously without any single breakduring their employment under the management and the said work is still continuing with the management .

That action of the management terminating the services of the workmen connected with the dispute for "Whether the action of the management of Directorate ofAdult Education , Jam Nagar House, New Delhi in terminating the services of S/Shri Birender Kumar, Munish Sharma and Kuldeep Singh, casual labourers with effect from 17-9-2002 is just, fair and legal? Ifnot to what relief the workmen are entitled and from which date?" [ ())

1947 भारत का राजपत्र : मप्रैल 26, 2008/वैशाख 6, 1930

stabas as they did not fulfill the besis criteria baid down by theDepartment of Personnel & Training.

their regalariation without any prior permission/ approval from Asstt. Labour Commissioner ( Central) so the terplantion orders are honest and the workmen have to be treated is on the service of the managemarit.

That under the scheme, the grant of temporary was to be conferred on all casual labourers in cumpl on the dateof issue ofthese orders and having readored a continous service ofat least 1 year, ie , at least 240-durys in ayear or 206 days (in case of offices having five days a work).

Tast non-Compliance of Section 25 F of IDAct 1947, the termination of services w.e.f. 17-9-2002 is also unjustified, uatsir and illegal so the workmon are entitied tobereinstated in service from the date of their termination.

That the applicant not having compicteal the requiste one years of continuous employment or on the das ofthe Issuance of the Scheme, is., 1-9-1993, could not be conferredwith temporary status . The number of days of continuous employment rendered by each ofthe applicants ason 1-9-1993,which was the effective date for collsidering theeligibilky for grant of temporary status , is given below.

S.No. Name

That the werkers remained unccmployed and could net-get any campleyment after termination of their services on 17-5-2003 although they have been continuously trying for- employment at every possible place sotheyare entitled te bereinstitud in service with full backwages fixed by the appropriateauthority under Minimum Wages Act 1948 free time to time for unskilled laborer by the appropriate authority and continulty of service along with all consequential benefits

No, ofdays of continuou service rendered as on 1-9-93

190

Sul

Binander

SariKuldeep

3. Shri Munish

That the aggrieved applicants, filed a DA in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Benek, Mee Daiki popking regularization and grant of tempormy states in terms ofaforesaid scheme in respondent'soffica The Management has filed written statement, in the written statement it has been stated that the respondent, Directorate ofAdult Education (DAE) is a subordinate office under the erstwhile Department of Elementary Education & Literacy, nowDepartment ofSchool Education &Literacy, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government ofIndia, New Delhi , fiunctioning as a National Resource Contre inthe field ofAdult Education. It provides academic and technical resource support to Nations) Literacy Miselon. The respondent being a subordinate office had to engage casual workers in the past from time on daily wage basis fur work of purely casual seasonal informsionet nature for which no port can be created , The careal workers so engaged were being paid daily wages for the patual days ofworking.

That the claimant were engaged as casual labour on dailywage besia and tertuinated as per details given below:

Neue

St No

Dateof Termination

That the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribeunt, Principal Bench , New Delhi"held the view vide their One dated 17-11-2000, that the scheme was not a one time concession but a ongoing scheme and directed that the cases of the applicants should be considered socording to the provisions of the scheme . The Hon'ble Tr مانسية directed that the action may be takeri with the way from the date of receipt of the order passed The ware received by the respondents on 21-2-2000 through their LearnedCounsel and hence the directions were tobe compliedbefore20-2-2001. : The orders L

24-12-92

engagement Dateofinitial

Shri Birender

17-9-02

4-5-94

Shri Munish

12-5-94

17-9-02

Sai Küldeep

That the respondent consulted Department of Personnel & Training who have notified the Schone dated: 10-9-1993 for grant of temporary status and cheering thet thedifferentBenches ofthe Central AdministativeTribuni , New Delhi had taken conflicting views on the questions whether the scheme was a one timenging scheme. The Department ofPersonaal & Training pointed out that sa Appeal for resolving the conflicting wlewus was already pending before the Supreme Court . The Hon'ble Supreme Count granted stay on 2-3-2000 ngainst a SLP filod: in a similar case on the impugneid onder of the High Court dated15-12-99 in CWP No. 1499/99.

The status and other service benefits for casual workers are regulated in terms of instructions issued by theDepartment ofPersonnel & Training from time to time. TheDepartement ofPersonnel & Training had issued orders for grant of temponery status on a one time basis which were to be enforced w.c.f. 1-9-93 . As per these instructions, the case ofall the casual workers working in this Directorate including the applicants was considered by the respondents and four of them fulfilling the admissibility criteriawere granted temporary status w.e.f. 1-9-1993. however, the applicants could not be granted temporary

That keeping in viον των συλλείng vine of the Hon'ble Contral Administrative Tribunal the issuewhether the eckend was a portione com or an ongoing sohome and considering that the non given by the Hon'ble.High Court would have wid 1387GM08-6 1948

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 26, 2008/VAISAKHA 6, 1930

[PART I-Sec. 3 (i )] repercussions as it was going to effect large number of casual workers already inducted in service in various Departments, the entire matter was at that time already receivingconsideration of the Hon' ble Supreme Court.

26-9-2002. Only on that vary day, the Directorate noticed that any dispute between the Directorate and the casual workers have been raised. Hence, it is clear that there is no violation ofSection 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 .

That keeping in view the above facts of the case, the Hon'ble High Court was prayed by filing a CWP No. 1140/2001by the Directorate (Respondent) to grant a stay on the implementation of the impugned order ofthe Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. dated 17-11-2000.and also a stay against contempt proceedings till the Hon'ble Supreme Court gives a final judgment on the matter.

In this regard , it is submitted that the services of the casual workers working on daily wage basis in the Directoratewere dispensed with w.e.f. 17-9-2002 only after the final decision of the Supreme Court of India in the matter raisedby them in the Hon'ble Tribunal relating to regularization of their services and grant of temporary status. Their request was not agreed to by the Supreme Court of Indiaon the grounds that the Scheme of 1-9-1993 is not an ongoing Scheme and the temporary status can be conferred on the casual labours under that Scheme only on fulfilling the conditions incorporated in clause 4. of the Scheme only on fulfilling the conditions incorporated in Clause 4 of the Scheme, namely, they should have been casual labourers in employment as on the date of the commencement of the Scheme and they should have rendered continous service of at least one year , i.e , at least 240days in ayear or 206 days ( in case ofoffices having 5 daysaweek).

Since the casual labourers (namely Shri Birender Kumar,Munish Kumar and Kuldeep Singh) were not found admissible by the Respondent (Directorate ofAdult Education) as well as by the Ilon'ble Supreme Court of India for grant of even temporary status , their claim of regularization in service had no locus. However, in view of the other opinion taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indiain theirjudgment dated 29-4-2002 "that from Clause 4 ofthe Scheme of the temporary status , it does not appear tobe a general guidelines to be applied for the purpose of giving temporary status to all the casual workers as and whentheycomplete one year of continuous service and it is up to the Union Governmentto formulate any scheme as and when it is found necessary and the casual labourers are tobe given temporary status and absorb them in Group Dposts" the Directorate of Adult Education of its own approached the Department of Personnel & Training for advice as to whether any other benefit of some or like nature can be given to these workers of if there is any proposal (as referred to in the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision) under consideration of the Department of Personnel & Training for granting benefits as a welfare measure to the daily wagers engaged at that point oftime in the office of the Government of India so that the fate of these dailywage workers could be decided accordingly.

As regard their claim of performing duties continuously without any break, for one month notice or one month's pay before dispensing their services, it is stated that they were not performing their duties continuously as their services were engaged in the Directorate as casual workers for performing duties of casual/occasional and of intermittent nature as and when required, whether on working days or holidays . Theywere not working against any specific posts. Hence, the condition of serving one month notice or one month's pay before terminating the services is not applicable in their case. The termination orders are correct and valid. The applicants neither working in respondent's office as on date nor to be treated as in the service ofthe Management. Their claim that the work for which they were engaged is still continuing with the Management is denied as that was ofcasual'occasional and of intermittent nature .Beside, no daily wager has so far been engaged in place of the applicants.

In view of the submissions in foregoing paragraphs, the provisions of the Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not apply to this case . The termination of services with effect from 17-9-2002 is justified, fair and legal as the same was terminated much before the receipt of notice from the conciliation authority (factually received in the Directorate on 26-9-2002 or initiation /start of conciliation proceedings . Hence , the workmen/applicants are not entitled for reinstatement in service.

The representative of the Directorate appeared on 4-10-2002 and submitted that this Directorate is not an industry as this does not render any direct services not is engaged in any production or supply or distribution of goods to satisfy human wants or wishes vide letter dated 4-10-2002. It was also brought the notice ofALC (C) that the matter regarding regularization and grant of temporary status raisedbythe dailywagers has already been decided by theHon'ble Supreme Court of India . The relevant papers were alsohanded over to the ALC . The matter could notbe reconciled as it was stated that the Directorate is an industry and has violated the provisions of Section 33 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947.

The applicants were engaged as casual worker on daily wage basis in this Directorate for work of casual/ occasional and of intermittent nature , which had already over and hence the services of the applicants were terminated from the Directorate with effect from 17-9-2002. No daily wager or any person has since been engaged/ recruited in place ofthe applicant.

No dispute was pending in any court when their services were dispensed with ie . as on 17-9-2002. Also , it "was not brought to the notice of the Directorate by the claimants that any dispute raised by then is pending. The firstnotice addressed to the Director, Directorate ofAdult Education, New Delhi , from the office ofthe Regional Labour Comitiissioner ( C) was received in the Directorate on 1949 भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 26 , 2008/वैशाख 6, 1930

The workmen applicants have rejoinder. In the rejoinder they have reiterated the averments oftheir claim statement and have denied most of the paras ofthe written statement.

Evidence ofboth the parties has been taken.

between the management and the workmen. It carries on systematic activities . It is settled law that an undertaking maybe in Industry even if it has no motive of gainsand it is not carrying on any trade or business. In view of the criterialaiddown is Bangalore Water Supply, Constitution Bench Judgement , the management is an Industry.

This issue is decided accordingly.

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

ISSUE NO. 3

From the perusal of the pleadings ofthe parties the following isroos arise for adjudication:

L' Whether the worlumen have completed240days work inbetween 1992 to 2003 during the tenure oftheir employment?

2. Whether the management is not an Industry?

It was submitted from the side of the management. that a scheme called casual labourers (grant of temporary status and regularization) scheme of GOI of 1993 was formulated. It stipulates that temporary status would be conferred onall casual labourers who are in employment as on10-09-1993, who had rendered continuous service of almost240 dayswork.

3. Whether the workmen are entitled to voluntatement/regularization?

4Towhat amount ofback wages these workmen are ontitled?

SUENO.1

Itwas further submitted that Sh. Birender Kumar has completed only 190 days prior to 10-09-1993 and Sh . Kuldeep and Manish have not performed any duty, so theywerenot given temporary status under regularization scheme ofGOI1993.

It was further submitted that the workmen moved theHon'bleHigh Court ofDelhi for regularization, but the writ has been dismissed . The matter is still subjudice before theHon'bleApex Court . It is admitted that the services of the workmen were illegally terminated while industrial disputewas pending before the ConciliationOfficer, It was submitted from the side ofthe workman that Sh. Birender Kumar was engaged as casual labour by the management on24-12-1992 and his serviceswere illegally terminated on 17-09-2002, Sh. Manish was engaged as casual labour on 04-05-1994 and his services were tempsinated on 17-09-2002. Sh. Kuldeep was also appointed on 12-04-1994 and his services were terminasted on 17-09-2002,

The management in the written statement has categorically admitted the initial date of engagement of these workmen and the date of termination.

Itappears that when the management got notice of raising of the dispute before the Conciliation Officer the services of the workmen were illegally terminated and theroby the management has infringed Section 33 ofthe ID Act, 1947.

From the admission of the management it becomes quine obvious that Sh. Birender Kumar has worked continuously from 24-12-1992 to 17-09-2002 .Sh. Manish has worked from 04-05-1995 to 17-09-2002 continuously and Sh. Kuldeep has also worked from 12-04-1994to 17-09-2002 continuously . It is admittedly proved that the workmen have worked for 240 days in every year oftheir employment almost for 8-10 years.

Itwas submitted from the side of the workmen that thematter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is subjudice regarding the fact whether the workmen deserve to be regularized under the schieme of 1993. It is to be decided by theHon'bleApex Court whether the scheme is one time scheme or it is on going scheme. The matter regarding reinstatement of these workmen is not sabjudice before anyCourt ofLawr

Sh. Birender Kumer las almost worked for 10 years continsously tom24-12-1992 to 17-09-2002. Sh .Manish Kumar and Sh. Kuldeep have worked for almost 8 years from 1994 to 2002

Thus, k stands proved that the workanen haveworked for more than 240 days work in each year of their anaployment from 1992 to2002..

This issue is decided nocordingly.

ISSUE NO 2

Itwas further submitted from the side of the workmen that inview ofthe postulates of Section25F, the management was duty bound to make payment of retrenchment compensation and one months pay in liesi ofnotice. These workmen havebeen illegally removed without paythent of retrenchinent compensation and one month's pay in lieu of notice. As such their services have been terminated in violation of Section 25 F of the ID Act, 1947. Such termination order is illegal , vold and the workmen should be deemed to be still in employment as the muragement committed illegality by violating Section 25 F- of the ID Act,1947.

! Itwas submitted from the side of the management that the directorate is not an Industry as it does not render. any direct services and it is not engaged in any production or supply/distribution ofgoods to satisfy the humanwants and wishes

The management is an undertaking ofthe Central Government . It is run under the Authority of Central Government. There is employer- employee relationship

It is settled law that if a workman has worked for 240days inacalendar year or within 12 months prior to the date of termination of his services he deserves. reinstatement . In the instant case the workmen have worked 1950

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 26, 2008/VAISAKHA 6, 1930

[PART II Sec . 3 (in) ]

hecansurvive long interregnum of unemployment. In the instant case no retrenchment compensation has been paid.

for8-10 years and they have worked continuously for the entire period, so they are entitled to reinstatement.

It was submitted from the side of the bank that reinstatement is not the only relief in all the cases of illegal termination. Section 11 A ofthe IDAct, 1947 provides for payment ofcompensation also .

It was submitted from the side of the workman that compensation is payable in cases where an undertaking has become sick or it has been closed or it is ineconomic loss. It has not been established that the bank is in economic loss and it is a sick Industry.

It was submitted from the side of the management that the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2006 (4) Scale has put down acomplete ban on regularization and reinstatement. The Hon'bleApexCourt has held that employment can only be made on the basis of procedure established in that behalf envisaged by the Constitution . Equality of opportunity is the hallmark and the Constitution enshrines affirmative action to ensure that unequals are not treated equals. So public employment should be in terms of constitutional scheme.

Itwas further submitted that the Constitution Bench Judgment has afforded a right according to which the government is not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on dailywages.

My attention was drawn by the Ld. Counsel ofthe workmanto2000 LLR 523 State ofUP and Rajender Singh. The Hon'ble Apex Court ordered for reinstatement with full backwages as the services ofthe daily wager cleaner who worked for 4 years was dispensed with without following the procedure for retrenchment . In the instant case also no retrenchment compensation has been paid. This case law squarely covers the instant case.

It has been held in 1978 Lab IC 1668 that in case service of a workman is terminated illegally the normal rule istoreinstate him with full backwages.

Myattention was further drawnto AIR 2002 SC 1313. TheHon'ble Supreme Court has held that daily wager even ifserving for a short period should be reinstated.

The Hon'ble Apex Court has not declared the provisions of ID Act un- constitutional, The Government has got no license to make always appointment of daily wagers and to continue them for life time. Fixed term tenure appointments and temporary appointments cannot be the rule ofpublic employment . At the time ofmaking temporary appointmentsArticles 14, 16, 21 , 23, 226 & 309 are infringed. There is no constitutional mandate that the Government is at liberty to go on giving fixed term appointments for the entire tenure ofservice of an employee.

Itwas submitted from the side ofthe workman that in the instantcase Sections 25 F, G ofthe ID Act are attracted. In Section25 of the ID Act it has been provided that if a workman has performed 240 days work and if thework is ofcontinuous and regular nature he should be given pay in lieu ofnotice and retrenchment compensation.

It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that there is no cessation ofservice in case provisions of section 25Fare not complied. In the instant case no compensation has been paid to the workman.

NosuchArticle ofthe Constitution has been pointed out under which the Government or Public Sector units can continue incessantly to give temporary and fixed term appointments again and again. Since fixed term appointments and temporary appointments are not governed by any constitutional scheme, such discrimination will amount to vicious discretion . The Government or Public Sector unit will go on resortingto themethod of pick and choose policy and give temporary and adhoc appointments to their favorites and thus the principles of equality enshrined in the constitution willbe given a go bye . Such is not the intent of the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, in this judgment the provisions of the ID Act governing the services of the worlunan have not been declared unconstitutional . Reinstatement is the remedyprovided in the ID Act for breach of several provisions enumerated therein or for breach ofservice rules provided in various ; labour welfare legistations.

In case aworkman has worked for 240 days in ayear and thework is ofcontinuous and regular nature he should be paidretrenchment compensation. In case retrenchment compensation is not paid Section 25 F of the ID Act is attracted . There is no cessation of his services . He is deemed continued in service in the eye oflaw. In case there is breach of Section 25 F the service is continued and reinstatement follows as a natural consequence .

Section 11 A ofthe ID Act stipulates that in case the Tribunal is satisfied that the order ofdischarge or dismissal was notjustified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstaternent of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstance of the case may require. Accordingto this benign provision this Tribunal has the authority to set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and reinstate the workman on the terms and conditions as Ikthinks fit.

ID Act, 1947 has been enacted to safeguard the interest of the workmen belonging to poor segment of society. It appears that legislature wanted that such workmen should not be harassed unnecessarily so Sections 25 F, U, T and Clause 10 of Vth Schedule have been enacted. The objects and reasons of ID Act, 1947 show that the respondent management should not be permitted to indulge in any unfair labour practice. The workmen should not be engaged for years and then they should be removed all of a sudden . There is provision of retrenchment compensation for his removal . Retrenchment compensation is for compensating him otherwise so that 3600/6 , 1930

The Rouble Apes Gent in 2006 (4) Acale has not dolay at lost-on the part ofthe works in raising dlspute.

chindly the mantiniet isnot applicable inthe fonts and

: Han ble ApesCou in auch circumeticzne t wages - accept to the tow during the onfecond ideoose. In the workman was als ready to work bet be portaitiod on soccer of invalid act ofthe meplayer.

A the livelihood of net anty ofthe spicy buteo of the dependents .Soin case of illegal termination of service the wed akould be reinstated.

In2003 TV AD SC 39 - these Judget Bench ofthe Hon'ble ApexCourt that reinstatement with full baik without payment of and pay in lieu ofnotice .

Reinstatement should not be miscomosired as regularization. By the onder of reinstatement the status quo , nute ofthewwkumen is restored. He is given backwages in opler to coppemente bim for his illegal disengagement .This is aspecial rosody provided in 1D Act and it has not been Smulded and not inde by any judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The provisions of the ID Act are still constitutional and they ire to be given effect too.

In case the workanak is reinstated with back wages the respondents bave overy right, after payment ofback wages and toiutatoment, to rebrench kim villdly following the principles offirst come last go so that Sestioni 25,G & Hofthe IDAct are not violeted.

Inviewofthe law cited above and the facts pertaining in this caso, the worlumen aro entitled to reinstatement.

Itwas sobesilled from the that reinstatement in mil theworkman may be give.commpanention. Bection 11 Ασ the ID Ast, 1947 provides that in came of dimini or discharge is found itlogal reinstatement dumallbe arpal. Itkan beon bald in a contema of.cu Courtthat reinste with riale.The statuto provides for rentalcment . In cortain exceptional cases where the forklar boy diband down or it hau become sick there maybe order for plynion ofcompensation. with full back wagenomm Evern inthe constitutional beach judgment ofUma Devi case the Hon'ble Apex Court has sold that if a workan has worked continuoudy for 10 yours andwithout say of any court of law the Government should consider Thefeasibility ofregularization of suchworloren.

The workmen are manuel workers. They matte doing some sort ofwork offand en. They are not smployed in any vetebliskarrot. They must love Sunthoring socie sect of volk for tuk orn tevhabend for the marvival of their bunity, ba dee dots and circumpompfithcountlic workmen are entitled to 250% hack su

This iunse is decided accordingly.

The reference is replied alumi

In view ofthis constitution bench judgment, the workamen deseve regularization. Whether the scheme of 1993 in the thao be on going schone and theworkinen have completed 10 years service continuously and other workmenhavo completed 8 years service regularly.

Theworkanen are entitled to reinstatement and they dosorve regolarization also.

This issue isdecidedaccordingly.

MBUE NO-4

The notion ofthemaghat ofDictis of t Education, Jure binger blouse, Hour Dellé in terminating the services of 8/5kri Dinander Ker, Manish Shyam Kuldeep Singh, amal Indoners without en 17.9.2002 is neither just nor fair nor topal. The worluan applikat aze ontided anbe eshatated and regularlaod with 25% beck wages within two months bom tục được ofthe paletiestich oftheaward.

The award is given socoolin

N.BAL

Pic: 24-3-20 円

ती 2 मौत , 2018

was reberited by the management that payment full back wages is not the natural cousequence of the order ofdischarge or dismissal being set aside. It has boss in (2003) 6 SCC 141 that it is incbatt upori the wet to decide the gouaian oflack

197 (197 plenary element inmalved it is t 1952

[PART I-SEC. 3( 1)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 26, 2008/VAISAKHA 6, 1930

NewDelhi, the 2nd April,2008

aviewtobuilt up their carrier but that doesnot mean that the employee is employed/deployed as clerk. The worinnen was never authorised to work as clerk against the sanctioned vacancy and the management never gave any assurance regarding his regularisation as clerk. The workman is equating his case with the other employees who have been regularised in the post. As such , the claim of the workman is baseless, misconceaved and deserves to be dismissed.

S.O. 900.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Govemmenthereby publishes the award (Ref.No. 129/1999) ofthe CentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman, which was received by the Central Goverrument on 02.04.2008.

[No. L-22012/ 156/ 1998- IR (C-II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

4. As the case proceeded exparte against the workman, there is no evidence on record on behalf of the workmun.

ANNEXURE

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

5.The management in order to prove their case filed affidavit oftheir witness Shri Charan Singh, then working as SubAreaManager, Amlai OCM in SECL, Sohagpur area.

NO.CGIT/LC/R/129/99

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI C. M. SINGH

6. I have heard Shri A. K. Shashi , Advocate , the learnedcounsel for the management. I have very carefully gone through the evidence on record,

TheGeneral Secretary, M. P. KoylaKhan Lipik Sangh, WardNo. 1, Behind Gadi,

...Workman/Union

PO: Sohagpur, Distt. Shahdol (MP)

Versus

...Management

7. The case of the management is fully proved and established from the uncontroverted and unchallenged affidavit of management's witness Shri Charan Singh . Therefore the reference deserves to be answered in favour ofthe management and against the workman without any orders as to costs.

The SubAreaManager, Amlai O.C. Mof SECL, PO: Amlai Colliery, Distt . Shahdol ( MP) Shahdol .

AWARD

Passed on this 25th day of March, 2008

8. Inview ofthe above, the reference is answered in favour of the management and against the workman Shri K. K. Tiwari without any orders as to costs holding that the action of the management of the Sub Area Manager, Amlai Open Cast Mine , Sohagpur Area ofthe South Eastem Coalfields Ltd. in not giving promotion to Sh. K. K. Tiwari islegal and justified and consequently the workman is not entitled to any relief.

1.TheGovernment of India, Ministry ofLabour vide its Notification No.L -22012/ 156/98- IR( CM- II ) dated 22-3-1999has referred the following dispute for adjudication bythis tribunal;

9. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government ofIndia, Ministry of Labour & Employment asperrules.

C. M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 2 अप्रैल, 2008

"Whether the action of the management of the Sub Area Manager , Amlai Open Cast Mine , Sohagpur Area of the South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in not giving promotionto Sh . K. K. Tiwari is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

2.The orderdated 14-12-05 on the ordersheet ofthis reference proceedings reveals that the reference proceeded exparteagainstworkman Shri K. K. Tiwari as no body put in appearance on behalf of workman inspite ofsufficient serviceofnotice. No statement of claim has been filed on behalfofworkman .

का.आ. 901.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 69/1995 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/405/ 1994-आई आर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 2ndApril, 2008

$.0. 901.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Goverrunent hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 66/1999) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industria!

3.The case ofthe management in brief is as follows . That the workman was initially appointed as General Mazdoor.Hewas working as General Mazdoor , Cat- I at Amlai OCM . The workman at no point of time worked as clerk in colliery store . He was never appokued as clerk. That the qualified person employed as General Mazdoor hasbeen givenpreference for selection to the post ofclerk as and when recruitment takes place. That to enable the existing employees for their selection to the post of clerk, they are granted opportunity to learn the work ofclerkwith :

1953 भारत का राजपत्र : 26, 2008/6 , 1930'

Dispute between the employers in relation to the mmuugement of SECI, and their workman, which was received by the Central Govermanent on02.04.2008.

[No. E-23012405/1994- IR( C-II)]

AJAYKUMARGAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NOLOGITALCR/6695

FRESIDING OFFICER SHRI C. M. SINGH

ThePresident,

R.K.K.M.S

Port Gordaripur(Chirimiri),

Workanen/Union

Distt. Surguja

Versus

Kurasio Sub Area, S.EC.L, The subAreaManager,

PostKurasia colliéry ,

Distt. Surguja

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 25th day ofMarch, 2006

1.The Government ofIndia, Ministry ofLabour vide inNotificationNo. L- 22012( 405 ) 94-ER (C- ID) dated 2-5-95 has referredthe following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:

"Whether the action of the Sub Area Manager, Kurasia SubArea of SECL in taking work ofraising Munshi from S/Shri Kuklip Singh, Sukhdev Singh, SudeshwarPrasad, Benimohan Ata, N. Dinesh Reddy &RamDulara Cat- mazdoors & not regularining them as Raising Munshi (clerkGr- III) is legal & justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitledto?"

was initially appointed as casual mendoorwaf 1-11-1983, Hewas placed as underground Munshi Gr. I wa.f. 3-8-96 and hiswagon were find ancoedingly.That he was peranand as Mining Sinder vide office order deerd 12-6-02- Dzed in mining sinder Gr, "C", As the workman is working in the higher grade, the claing for promotion to the post ofraising Munshi Grill is not paintsimble . Workman Shyi Bon MohtaAta was initially appointed se Gapical Mendoor wa 1-4-85. Hewas picted to the port ofData Entry Opernicy vide office order dated 30-8-02. That on the basis of recommendation of DPC, he was placed in T & $ Gr . "D" vide office order dated 13-12-93: That again on the recommendation ofDPC, he was promoted to the post of PunchVerifierOperator in T& S Gr. É vide office onder dated 21-12-1991. That consequent upon the recommendation of DPC, the worknuun War Agais given pensotich to the post of T& S Gr. C vide order dated 17-11-1995. That theworkanen is working in the higher post thin the chanh đilà thân reference. On this ground, the sild wakimen has no créel That workannt Shri N. Dinesh Reddy was initially oppeiptod as time rated categoryal mazdoor waf 3-2-83.On theharid ofrecommendation of DPC, he has already been placed as Underground Munshi Grade-III w.e.f. 2-8-96yide office order dated23-6-96.That if the workmin hayalrondy been giveal placement of underground Munshi Gr. III , the pr reference becomes infructuous. That Shri Ramdule was initiallyappointed as casual mazdoor w.c.f. 1-11-1983 . That on the basis ofrecommendation ofDPC, he was placed as Magazine/Store issue elak Gel , xide office order dated 30-8-96 . As the workman has already been placed in Magazine/Store issue clerk Gr- ILL, the present reference becomes infructuous. That workman Shri Kuldeep Singh has been promoted to the higher post of EPGH in excavation Gr.E, Shri SukhdevSinghhas reained from the service. Shri Sudesirwar Prasad has been promoted as Miting Străn, Beni Mohan Ata has been promoted to the post ofData Entry Operator, Shri N. Dilesh Reddy has already been giveń placement is underground Munststhi Gr. III and Suri Ramdulire has already been given placement to the post of StoreclerkGr. III andtherefore there is no substance in the claim ofthe claimants and deserves to be dismissed.

2. Vide order dated 29-11-06 passed on the ordersbeet ofthis reference pretoeding, the reference procended exparte againstthe workmen/Union as inspite of sufficient service of notice on workmen/Union , ne body put in appearance on behalfofworkmen/Union,

3.The caseof the management in brief is as follows.

4. As the reforance proceeded experte, gainst the workinen/Union, thone is no evidenge on record on behalf ofworkmen/Union . The management in order to prove their case filed affidavit of their witness Shri Jafar Mohammad, thenworking as Sr. Personnel Officer in SECL, Cali Area.

5.Ihave heard Shri A.K. Shashi , Advocats, learned counsel for the management. I have very carefully go through the evidence on record.

6. The case of the managermont is fully established and proved from the uncontroverted and unchallenged affidavit oftheir witness Shri Jafisr Makamandandthefore the reference deserves to be answered in favour of the management and against the workmen/Union without any orders as to costs .

That the claim made by the workmen S / Shri Kuldip singh, Sukhdev Singh, Sudeshwar Prasad, Benimohan Ata, N. Dinesh Reddy & Ram Dulara is highly belsted. That workaiten shri Kuldeep . Singh was appointed as casual mindoorw.e.f. 1-4-85. He was regularised vide order stated 5-9-87 wthe post ofCar -4w.ef. 1-9-87 .That agala vide order dated-5-3-01 , le slong with the others were promoted as General Muzzafoor Cat-11: That again he was promoted as EPGH in excavation GLE w.e.f. 1-5-03 vide order dated 24-4-03.Workanan shri Sukhdev Singh was initially appointed as casual mazdoor w.e.f. 1-11-1983. He tendered his resignationwhich was accepted by the Management vide office order dated 27-9-97 . As he is no more in service, his claim is to substance . That workman Sudeshwar Prasad 1954

[PART IISEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL26 , 2008/VAISAKHA 6, 1930

AWARD

Passed on this 25th day of March, 2008

ITheGovernmatment of India, Ministry ofLabour vide its Notification No. L- 22012/352/96- IR(C - 11 ) dated 29-8-97/3-9-97. has referred the following dispute for adjudication bythis tribucnal:

7. In view ofthe above, the reference is answered in favour ofthe management and against theworkmen/Union without any orders as to costs holding that the action of theSubAreaManager, Kurasia Sub Ares ofSECL in taking work ofRaising Munshi from S/Shei Kuldip Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Sudeshwar Prasad, Benintohan Ata, N. Dinesh Roddy& Ram Dulara Cat- I mazdoors & not regularising them as Raising Munshi (Clerk Gr- III) is legal & justified and consequently the workmen/Union are not entitled to anyrelief.

"Whether the action of the management of WCL, PenchArea indismissing Sh . Ginda, TimberMistry, from service is legal and justified? Ifnot, towhat relief is the workman entitled and from which date?" 1. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.

C.M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली , 2 अप्रैल , 2008

2.Videonderdated 31-5-06 passed on the ordersheet ofthis reference proceeding, the reference proceeded ex- parte againstworkman/Union as no body put in appearance on behalfof workman Union inspite ofsufficient service ofnotice onworkman/Union. No statement of claim has been filed on behalfofworkman/Union .

आर.आर. 902,-औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की बारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्लू, सी. एल. के प्रबंकतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 256/1997 ) को प्रकासित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुज्जत ना।

[सं. एल-22012/352/1996-आई आर( सी-11) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

3.The case ofthe management in brief is as follows. That workinen was given a chargesheet dated 30-8-95 alleging that he was present only for 81 days in 1994 & 95 days only during 1995. A departmental enquiry was conducted against the workman according to rules properly and legally. The action, of the management is fullyjustified. Themanagement cannot keep such an employee in service who is regularly absenting himself from duty. The workman is, therefore, not entitled to any relief.

New Delhi , the 2ndApril , 2068

4. As the case proceeded ex parte against the workman/Union, no evidence is on record on behalf of workman/Union. In order to prove their case, the management filed affidavit of their witness Shri R.K.Sinha, then working as Sr. Personnel Officer at Shivpuri Sub Area ofWCL, PenchArea.

5.0. 902.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 256/ 1997) of theContral Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Disputes between the employers in relation to the management of WCL and their workman, which was receivedbythe Central Government on02.04.2008.

5. I have heard Shri A. K. Shashi, Advocate , the learned counsel for the management. Ihave very carefully gone through the evidence on record.

[No. L-22012/352/ 1996-IR(C-II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

FEORE THE CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALCUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

6. The case of the management is fully established and proved from the uncontroverted and unchallenged affidavit of Shri R. K. Sinha, management's witness. Therefore the referetice deserves to be decided in favour of management and against the workman Union without any orders as to costs.

NOLOGIT/LC/R/256/97

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRIC.M. SINGH

The General Secretary,

RKKMS (INTUC),

Post Chhindwara,

...Workman/Union

7. Inview ofthe above , the reference is answered in favour ofthe management and against the workmans/Union holding that the action of the management of WCL , Pench Area in diemissing Sh . Ginda, Timber Mistry , from service is legal andjustified and therefore be is not entitled toany relief.

Distt . Chhindwara(MP)

Versus

TheGeneralManager,

WCL, Pench Arca,

8. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment asperrules.

PostParasia,

Distt Chhindwara(MP)

...Management

C.M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer 1955 भारत का राजपत्र : मप्रैल 26, 2008/वैसाख 6, 1930

[ पन (H)]

नई दिल्ली, 2 अप्रैल, 2008

का.मा. 903.-बौधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की कारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार हब्लू, सी. एल. को प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निरिष्ट औजेनिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, अचलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 40/1995 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केंद्रीय सरकार को 2-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/447/1994- आई आर( सी-II ) ]

अवय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

ill for doing his duty with more labour than be could do at his age. Therewas no provision for residence in the colliery. When the workers foll ill, they used to leave the colliery and go to their villages. They used to inform the matagement regarding leaving for their residential village, An agreement had taken place betwssain,workers and the management to assign another work to the weak and siling tub loaders. The Union requested the managomart that workman Sari Lekhraj due ao being ill and work, boasirgend work at time rate. But he was not given the work at time reto and instead he was diagrissod from services on 14-9-92.It is requested that the workman be reinstated in service with allbackwages and benefits.

NewDelhi, the 2nd April, 2008

5.0. 943. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disprater Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.40/1995) of the CentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court,Jahuipur as shown in the Amesure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the manegement of WCL and their workman, which was received bythe Central Government on 2-4-2008.

[No. 1-22012/447/1994- IR (C- II)]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURR

MPORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. COIT/LC/R/40/95

PresidingOfficer: SHRIC. M. SINGH,

3. The caseofthe management in brief is as follows: Thathewasworking as Tub- Loader at Bhamori colllery . Hewas issued a chargesheet di. 9-2-92by the Manager of Bhamori Colliery for the alleged commission ofmisconduct under clause 18( 1 ) of the standing order applicable to Bhamori colliery for habitual Inte attendance and habitual absencewithout leave or without sufficient cause and also for habitual indiscipline. The reply to the chargesheet submitted by the workman was not found satifactory and therefore a depertmental enquiry was conducted against him according to rules . The enquiry was conducted property and legally against him . The enquiry officer submitted his fladings holding that the charges levelled against the workman stand proved beyond doubt.Having satified with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the competent authority passed an order dismissing hien from servicesw.c.f. 14-9-92. Itis emphasised in their pleadings by the management that the action of management in dismissing the services of the workman is proper , legal and justified.

ThePresident,

S.K. M. S. (AITUC), PostEklehra,

Distt. Chhindwarnt .

Workman/Union

4. The ordersheet dated 21-3-05 reveals that the reference proceeded exparte against the Wertonin at loupite ofsuttetservice of notion ortin, no body appearedon hisbehalf,

Versts

TheManeger,

Dharmor)Colllery,

WCL, Post Bhamori ,

Distt. Clahindwara

Managerment

5. Since the case proceeded exparte against the workman, there is no evidence on record on behalf ofhe workman. The managetbent in order to prove their case filedafidavitofShri S.D. Yadav, then working Manager inBhamori colllery ofWCL., PenchArea.

AWARD

Passed on this 25th day ofMarch, 2008

6. [ have heard Shri A.K. Shashi, Advocate leamed counsel for the management . I have very carefully gone through the avidence on record.

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide itNotification No. L- 22012 (447) 94- IR. (C. ID) dated 16-2-95 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:

7. The case ofhe management is fully proved frons the uncontroverted and unchallenged affidavit of their witness Shri 8. D. Yadav. Therefore the reference deservel tobe answered in fixvour of the management and against the workman without wry orders to costs.

"Whetherthe action of the management ofBhamori Colliery ofWCL, Pench Area, PO Bhamori, Distt. Chhindwara (MP) in dismissing Shri Lekhraj Tub Loader, T. No. 1098 ofBhamori colliery of WCL, PonchAres from services w.e.f. 15-9-92 is justified ? Ifnot ,to what relief the worker is entitledto?"

2. The case ofworinas Shri Lekhraj in brief is as follows: That he was working as Tub- Londer, Bhamori colßery. In themine ofBhamori colliery and the campus thereof, there was no proper provision for the air, Workman Lekhraj fell

B. In view ofthe above, the neference is answered in favour of the management and against theworkman Shti Lekhraj without any orders to costs holding that the action of the management ofBhameri Colliery ofWCL , PenchArea, PO Bhattori , Distt. Chhindwara (MP) dismissing Shri Lakhraj Tub Loader, T.No. 1098 ofBlumari colliery ofWCL, Punch Aren from serviotsu w.e.f. 15-8-921 justified and consequernly the workman is not entitled to amy relief.

138701/06-10 1956

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 26, 2008 /VAISAKHA 6, 1930

(PART I-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] 9. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry ofLabour & Employment asperrules.

sub-section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the IndustrialDispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) for adjudication on thebasis ofthe following Schedule:-

SCHEDULE

C.M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली , 2 अप्रैल , 2008

"Whether the action of the management of Regional Office, National Seed Corporation Limited, Guwahati in denying to confer /grant temporary status underGovernment of India, Temporary status Scheme , 1993 inrespect ofS/Shri Gopal Barush , Parstram Haloi, Arabinda Kalita and Mahesh Nath from the date of their joining is legal and justified? Ifnot, to what relief Shri Gopal Baruah and there others are entitled?" का.आ. 904.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल सीड्‌स कापोरेशन लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्षकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , गुवाहटी के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 9/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-4-2008- को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

2. On being appearances of both the parties , the matter is proceeded for adjudication and to pass Award here as per procedure.

[सं. एल-42012/65/2004-आई आर(सी एम-II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 2ndApril,2008

S.O. 904.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 9/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Guwahati as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management ofNational Seed Corporation Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 2-4-2008.

[No. L-42012/65/2004- IR( CM -IT)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI ASSAM.

PRESENT: Shri H.A. Hazarika, Presiding Officer, CGIT-Oun Labour Court, Guwahati .

Inthe matterofan Industrial Dispute between:

The management National Seell Corporation Ltd, Guwahati.

-V

Their Workman Sri Gopal Baruah and 3 others. Ref. Case No. 09 of2005 .

APPEARANCES

For the management: Sri B.K. Das , Advocate.

For the Workman : Sri B. C. Pathak, Advocate& Sri H. K. Gogoi, Advocate.

Date ofAward: 26-3-08.

AWARD

1. TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour, NewDelhi vide its Notification No. L-42012/65 /2004- IR(CM- II ): dated 17-10-2005 referred this Indstrial Dispute arose between the Management ofNational Seed Corporation Ltd , Guwahati and their workman in exercise of power conferred by Clause (d) of

3. The case ofthe Workman ( 1 ) Sri Gopal Baruah, (2) Sri Parauram Haloi, (3 ) Sri Arabinda Kalita in brief that they are employees under the National Seed Corporation Ltd. That Sri Mahun Nath who was also a workman along with them has already left and abandoned his service and not in the fray for his claim, That the name ofthe Workman No. 2 was sponsored bythe Employment Exchange vide letter No. ORd- 177/170/84/1666-1709 dated 18-9-84 as per requisition of the management and he was duly Selected for appointment as Peon inGroup -D with effect from 30-10-1984. But violating the Recruitment Rules the management treated him a Workman on daily wage basis . That the Workman No.3 was also selected and appointed as Peon against the clearvacancy in Group D post with effect from 2-6-1986 vide letter No. [(5) Adm-DSC/GHT/85-86/ 106 dated 11-6-86. That the Workman No. 1 , who is an B.A. passed and having Diploma of Stenography and typing was also duly appointed against the exiting vacancy as LDC with effect from 7-4-1986at Guwahati but he was also placedby the Management as Workman of daily wage basis violating the completd Recruitment Rules , Accordingly the Workman are working 19/20 years of continuous service but still they are not absorbed on regular posts . Even they are deprived from getting benefit of Scheme implemented by the Government of India. That the formulated Scheme is known as Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status & Regularization) Schemt of the Government of India, 1993. That the said Scheme is came into force with effect from 1-9-1993 . Under thatScheme, ifa Casual Worker having been put in continuous service for aperiod at least 240 days (206 days in the case offices observing 5 days week) shallbe entitled for confenment oftermporary status if such worker has been in engagement on the date of issue of the said scheme. As per the scheme the Casual Labourers with temporary status will also be entitled for regularization in Group D post . The workmen are entitled to the benefits of the said scheme as they had been working since 1984-86 continuously and on the dates when the scheme came into force and the notification was issued . The Workmen 1,2 and 3 are still working . The management, though they requested to regularise to them did not regularize them and they were allowed to work on daily wage basis. They raised the matter before the Assistant Labour Commissioner , Guwahati and who has directed the management to settle the matter but management did not 1957 भारत का संवपत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2008/वैशाख 6, 1930

settle the matter.Hence, difs Reference case. They prayed to regularise them and to give all the consequent besefits oftheir posts.

Coordinator ofN. S. C. L. , Guwahati Brouck as their witness Beth of them are cross-extumined by loamod Advente Mr.B.C. Pathak for the wickman,Theworkshor, Sri Goped Baruah, Sri Parsuram Halei, and Sri Arabinda Kalia examined themselves in their side. They are alte examined by learned Advosate Sci. B. K. De for the Management. Heard the argument subsisted to chemist learnedAdvocate Mr. B. C. Pathak for the Wekantand SriB. K. Das for the Management. Perused the submitted byboth the parties.

;

6. The Management witness Gulab ChuckPalink deposedthatthat he knows all the three when worl theNational Seed Corporation Ltd. , Ouwahati Branch CasualWorkers,They are Casual Employed and notriguar employees as per meaning ofthe employees. For the official control over their department is always done se per-C Govemment guidance.No terms and conditions worte with the three workmen to make them regularized Due to losses incurred bythe N. S. C. L. there is no new recruitment in last many years in their department and the Central Government is insisting to reduce the manpower. The CentralGovernment handed over the imatter for reviewwith TataConsultancy Services and Tata Consultancy Service recommended for reducing of manpower. Even for permanent employees a special scheme introduced namely V. R. S. bywhich a regular employée can go out with of handful benefits. As per the advise of Tata Consultancy Service one casual worker under Guwabati Branch opeted for V. S. S. and gone out with handful amount. The contesting three workers were told to adopt V. S. S. and benefit of V. S. S. such as , Pensionery benefit, EPF., Ex gratia, Gratuity were explained to them but they werго досnot opted to go under V.S.S. In cross-examination he said he does not remember at the time of giving evidence thout theexact date of appointment of Gopal Baruch as L.D, C, Parsuram Haloi as worker and Arabinda Kalita as Poon. He also deposed that to his knowledge they worked for about 20/22years on daily wage basis, They wadud continuously . Hedoes not know how many workers are surphus. Thay are not regularized as the fresh recruitment is banned by theGovernment of Indin. TheManagerment witness G D.Baishya similarly told that all the three workers are moli knownto hirm, they are casual workers. He also states that they are very irregular and. not at all punctual on duties. That their services reśnia, only on bumanitarian consideration. For lack of their devational attitude they were warned. In cross examination he stated that instructions were given fug the blend Offlundantian ofmanpower forboth permanent and casual workers, Singe 1984there is no regular recruitment in the Guwahati Regional ofNSCL. Effort has been made from their ond to regularize even now they are still working. Ar Chart it no post try could notbe regularized . Ifthey willget paper strechu from the competant authority they willngularizathen 4. The same ofthe Respondent/ Management in brief that the workmen are Casual Workers and worked pmparelly as the depertiment need their services.They were allowedto continue on the mercy ofRegionalManager of Gumbett Branch, That all the three workmen were irregular in duties and were cautioned time to time with verbal warming. That the National Seed Corporation though having Independent managing-cum -administrative bady yet they are menaged by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India as such, cannot take independent doolalon in the matter of appointment. For regular appointment sanction and approval of Ministry of Agriculture is required. That the National Seed Corporation Ltd. Suffering a huge lous in last few years as a result of that Government of India appointed Tata Consultancy Serviços for restructuring the Corporation . Tat Consultancy Services has taken action plan in respect of all the divisions ofCorporation and requirement. The Tota Consultancy Services recommended 504 daily wage worders me sarplus in the department and their services shouldbe dispensed with . The Tata Consultancy Services recommended reduction of 50% of workers under the VountaryRetirement Scheme: A Volunteer Separate Scheme under which Casual Workers are made discharged with brautful ofbeneßia like ex -gratia, gratuitybesides EPF and a pensionery benefits as admissible under the law . As a result of which the Corporation is bound to reduce manpower because of loss it has suffered in recent past as per action plan given by the Tata Consultancy Services. The Corporation forwarded the name of the workersto higher authority but because of the restriction madeby Government of India, the Corporation is helpless in the matter of reglarization of the workmen. The Government repeatedly insisting of reduction ofthe manpower. Timeto time though few vacancies were created that were specially for competent person for a specificjob . There are 504 workers in N.S.C.L. all over India Branches, They all are in surplus list. The N.S.C.L.. is taking utmost care and being very much sincere in paying the due payment to those casual workers. The M.S.C.L. has not rendered them helpless . Considering the present condition of the Corporation the Workmen ought to have been happily Recepted the V. S. 8. scheme and plan their future . The Corporation has not done any injustice to thera. Having receipt the notice from Assistant Labour Commissioner, the Respondent took the matter to higher authority concerned for confirming temporary status tothe workmen unster the Boheme of 1993 but due to restructuring scheme ofTata ConsulConsultancy Services they could not do it. That out of 504Casual Workers more than 200 workers opted forV.S.S. and gone accordingly. Therefore the management prayed that this proceeding may be ended by ordering the petitioners toto accept V. S. 9. with offered benefits for a suitable ends of the care.

The evidence ofworknum Gopal Bharath, workman Parsuram Haloi , and workinan Arabia Kalita, b together the zist will be that they are working for 19/20 years on casual basis and their services aromelato nel regalarized .

7. On very careful scrutiny ofthe evidence on record I find the Management under the advise of Tasa 1. The Magneet examined Sri Gulab Chand Pichek, Roginial Manager, National Seed CorporationLad Guwahati and Sri Gangadhar Baishya, Administrative 1958

[PART II-Sac. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2008/VAISAKHA 6, 1930

नई दिल्ली, 2 अप्रैल , 2008

का.आ. 905.-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 अधि करण , नं. 2 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1195/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02-04-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/383/2004- आई आर( सी एम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 2nd April, 2008 Consultancy Service want to reduce the manpower from the strength of503 to its half. They introduced the scheme V. R.S. , V. S. S. for the purpose ofreduction of manpower . Ofcoursetheywere offered with benefit ofEPF,Exgratia, Pensionery benefit and gratuity. What I find these schemes are voluntary schemes . If the employee like they may go under the Scheme or if not they may not opt for the same. Here the three employees namely Gopal Baruah, Parsuram Haloi and Arabinda Kalita claimed that they are working for 19/20 years , they are poor men , They should be given Temporary Status for their livelihood . What I find from the evidence and document in the record, admittedly, these threeworkers namely Gopal Baruah, Parsuram Haloi, and Arabinda Kalita are working not less than 19/20 years . I also find under the (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme they are entitled to have grant of Temporary Status . The Definition of Temporary Status is given in the (Grant ofTemporaryStatus and RegRegularization) Scheme as follows:

S.O. 905. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref No. 1195/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management ofFood Corporation of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02-04-2008.

[No. L-22012/383/2004- IR (CM- II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, DeskOfficer ANNEXURE

"4. Temporary Status:-(1) Temporary status would be conferred on all casual labourers who are in employment on the date of issue of this O.M. and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year , which means that they must havebeen engaged for a period of at least 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing 5daysweek)".

CENTRALGOVT, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT IL, SCTOR 18- A, CHANDIGARH

PRESIDING OFFICER:

SHRI KULDIP SINGH

CASEL D.: NO . 1195/2005 Registeredon: 3-10-2005 Date ofDecision : 14-3-2008

8. On perusal of cross examination part of MW.1 , Sri G. C. Pathak, I find admittedly the workmen are working for 20/22 years. It is also admitted that they are working continuously. When the workmen are working continuously for 20/22 years definitely they are covered under the( Grand of Temporary Status and Regulaization). Scheme.

PETTIJONER

Sukhdev Singh S/o Shri Gurdas Singh, C/oTradeUnion Council, Patiala.

Versus

RESPONDENT

The Senior Regional Manager (SRM), FCI , Sector 31 , Near Tribune Chowk, Chandigarh.

APPEARANCE

Mr. Sarabjit,AR Mr. N.K. Zakhmi , Advocare.

For the Workman FortheManagement

AWARD

The workman cotinues to be absent, Management appears through counsel.

9. Under the circumstances , in my opinion, the workmen are working not less than 20 years and that too continuously as evident from the evidence of the Management witness themselves . It is pertinent to note here that in the last part of the WrittenArgument submitted by theManagement it appears that the Managerment want to retain them. If the Management retain them and enjoy their service why so senter workmen will not be given Temporary Status . Admittedly they are senior workers, They should have been given Temporary Status . Hence, in my opinion, the Management is not justified for not conferring the Temporary Status to the concerned three workmen.

10. Under the above facts and circumstances, in my opinion, for ends ofNatural Justice , this is a fit casewhere all the three workmen are to get Temporary Status . The Departmentshould confer Temporary Status to those three workmen. Accordingly this issue is decided in favour of the three workmen and against theManagement.

11. Award is passed accordingly and send it to Government immediately as per procedure.

H. A. HAZARIKA, Presiding Officer

The perusal ofthe record of the file shows that the workman has all along played hide and seek with the proceedings in this case. Despite reported notices the workanan once appeared in person on 23rd of August, 2006, two-three times through his representativewho failed to file his authority letter to appear on behalf of the workman.The counsel for the Management has also failed to file his authority letter to represent the Management . The workman has not filed his claim petition so far. He has notappeared despite notice under registered cover postal receipt No. 8172 dated 5th of Dec, 2007. This shows that . hehas no interest in prosecuting this case.

1949 [पम 3 (ii) ]

भारत का सवापत्र: अप्रैल 26, 2008/वैशाखा 6 , 1930

AWARD

TheMinistry ofLabour by teletter Nos E 2201 367/F /94/RC- II Contri Govembmit Dt: 25-4-1995 Im referredthe following point for adjudication. 1

The point raris as bereander

"Whether the action of the nienagensent ofPCT In denying the seniority ofMrs. Rita Madan , Urnila Mahajan, Geeta Sharma, Neelima Nigam and S/Stiri Sakib Singh Saharwan , Santosh Shom , Surinder Singh, Prem Sumoja and Sentosh Shamsa above the senority of fresh recruitees recruited during 01-11-1973 and March/April , 1976 in fair and justified?Ifnot, what reliefthe concemed workmen areentitled?"

TheGovernment of India, Ministry ofLabour vide their order No. L-22012/ 383/2004 -IR (CM- II) dated 18th of August,2005 desired of this Tribunal to adjudicate upon "Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India in terminating the services of Sh. Sukhdev Singh S/o Sh. Gurdas, Chowkider w.o.f. 1-6-1995 is legal and justified? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?", As'stated earlier the workman has not come forward to put up his case. There is thereftre , nothing on record to show that the workman was dugaged by the Management and it is they who had torminated his services on Ist of June, 1995.Therefore, the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered against him holding that he is. entitled to no relief.

Lat a copy ofthis wward be sent to the appropriate government for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion.

KULDIP SINGH, PresidingOfficer

Theworkmen applicants have filed claim stylounc In the claim statement it has been atated that above referred Asatt .Grade-IIIwere appointed by the Regional Manager, FCI, RO, NewDelhi on adhoc/temporary beals despico fact that regalar vacancies already existed during July 1973 ot that perticuler point of time.

नईदिल्ली, 2 अप्रैल , 2008

That after some time, there was overall reductionin establishment in FCI in North Zone ( in Delhi at RC: sloge) and services of these officials were terminated in 31-10-1973.

कर. आ. 906. औद्योगिक विकार अधिधियम , 1947 (1947 का. 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय खाय निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट योनिक में नीय सरकार औद्योगिक अभि करण, नं. 2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 70/1995 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुजस

That on arrival of fresh vacancies, instractions wire issued by the Hors . To socommodate My thirmahed employees by way of reappointment before making my fresh appointment as is the provision in the hadusIndustrial DisputesAct, 1947 amended from time to time.

[फा. सं. एल-22012/567/एफ/ 1994- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्कअधिकमी

NewDelhi, the 2nd April,2008

That unfrotunately enough it so happened thyt before accommodating some of the retrenched employees who were the rightful claimant, fresh socraient resorted to a clear violation ofthe provisions ofthe IDAct, 1947which provided preference to retrenched employers over the fresh recruits.

That arising as a consequence of this statist matterluad to be represented by the individual unionwhere these retrenched employees also were re- appointed including those who had grown over age such as Sh. Surinder Singh and Sentork Sharma.

6.0.906. In pursuance of. Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the, Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 70/ 1995) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, No. II, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Food Corporation of India and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on2-4-2008 ,

[F.No. L-22012/567/F / 1994- IR(C- II)]

AJAYKUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

That consequent to above anomaly the particnides ofdirect recruits vis-a- vis retrenched employees for the purpose of seniority which is maintained in the PC , Zodal Office(N) were also forwarded accordingly inaking tai dirit recruits senior toto the retrenched employees re-appointedre- poi making the mather frons bad to worse theory. The sonorky list inZonal Office (N)was finalized on the seme basis BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL- TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT-IL, NEWDELHI

LD. NO. 70/1995

PRESIDING OFFICER: R.N. RAI

IN THEMATTEROF:

Sent.Rita Madan & On , C/oTheAdditional General Socretary, FCI Employees '

Congress, E- 12/D(MIG),

-Claimant

Mayapuri ,NewDelhi 110064.

VERSUS

The ZonalManager (N),

FoodCorporation ofIndia,

Thun, rotrenched omployons have been hard is alope they were re-appointed Jeter than the fresh reszeljens alsowewe made junior to those frock recruiteas in sheer violation ofall norms ofjustice and fair play, which is green injustice unabatedly continues without any amanda in matter despite all out hectic offorts ofthe individungsunina through various representation on the subjectile to fact that be one of the latest judgment on the subject in question stating in no ambiguousbiguous termes in antech as that entireperiod of service inchiding thatthat ofdailyvog and temporaryhas to bebe computed towardi s and other benefits, hence this chand before o 4th FloorAnsal Bhawan, K. G.Marg NewDelhi.

-Respondents

1960

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 26, 2008/VAISAKHA 6, 1930

[PART II SEC. 3 (n) ]

09-02-1976 and 06.03.1976 for re-employment ofthese retrenched employees/applicants. :

honour being carte blanchi in the seat of justice with an humble preyor in all carnestness to restore the seniority in favour ofthe retrenched employees from the date of their original appointment including payment of back wages alongwith theinterest plus arrears for the period by which they were appointed later than the fresh recruitess as if was none of their fault and responsibility for the lapse rests with the management akone .

That it is pertinent to mention that the matter as to seniority ofthe fresh recruit vis- a - vis retrenched employees is pending and subjudice in K & K High Court wherein seniority of AG (III) (M) has been challenged in Writ Petition No. 967/86 and 416/87 titled Sh. Kishan Lal &Ors. Vs. FCI andOrs . And the Hon'ble High Court has granted stayorder on 20th October , 1986.

Themanagement has filed written statement. In the written statement it has been stated that the applicants have po locus standi to make any such claim, hence the same is liable to be dismissed in limini.

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

That the applicants have no cause of action against the respondent and the claim application is liable to be dismissed.

Evidence ofboth the parties has been taken.

That the application is vague, malafide without any legal right and the same is liable to be dismissed.

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

It was submitted from the side of the workmen that theywere appointed by Regional Manager, FCI R.O: New Delhi on ad hoc/temporary basis despite the fact that regular vacancy already existed during 1973 at that point oftime. That after sometimes overall reduction in establishment in FCI in North Zone ( in Delhi ) at R.O: alone, services of these officials were terminated on 31-10-1973 .

Itwas further submitted that before accommodating some ofthe retrenched employees fresh recruitment was resorted to, in clear violation of the provisions of the ID Act, 1947.

Tow That it is submitted that the applicants were appointed as AG( III) ( M) in July. 1973 and they were retrenched on 31-10-1973 . After their retrenchment the applicants neither made any claim against the retrenchment or issued any notice to the respondent for the same nor they entitled for any claim. However , as at the time of mitment ofAG (III) (M) in 1976 were re-employed on preference basisas per the Zonal Office (N) D.O. communication No.A -I (21775-76/N2/ dated09-02-1976 attached herewith as Annexure- l and Hors . Circular No.N- 11 /74 -EP dated 06-03-1976 anached herewithas Annexure- II the applicants were re-employed on preference basis and they were given seniority over the fresh recruitees taken in 1976.

Itwas further submitted that the seniority of these retrenched employees should be re- stored from their original appointment including payment ofback wages with interest plus arrears from the date of their original appointment i.e.hily, 1973. along

That is also submitted that it is well settled sa that the retrenched employees have only a right of preference inany future employment by the same employer and po other right. And their re-employment shall be considered as fresh appointment only and the claim ofthe applicants is malafide and without any cause of action .

It was submitted fom the side of the management that these workmen were retrenched on 31.10.1973 que to shrinkage in the work. They were re-employed as AG (III -M) in 1976 on preference basis as per the ZonalOffice (N) D.O. and they were given seniority over the fresh recruitees taken in 1976.

That it is submitted that the pespondent instructed for re-emploment according to the procedure laid down in Annexüre- I & Il attached and the applicants were given perferenca in the appointment made in the year 1976 as per provisions ofthe IDAct, 1947.

The retrenched employees have only a right of preference in any future employment by the same employer and no other right . These workmen have already been given preference over the fresh recruitees in 1976 as AG (III-M). That it is alsodenied that the retrenched employees werenot given preference over the fresh recruitees of1976 asAG (III)(M) . it is submitted that the applicants were given preference in re-employment in 1976 as per provisions of IDAct, 1947 as amended up to date as is also clearly evident from the circulars issued by the respondent which are annexed herewith as Annexure I & II . It is submitted that these retrenched AG ( III)( M) were re-employed during March, 1976 and fresh Panel in respect was drawn in Delhi on31-03-1976.

Itbecomes quite obvious from perusal ofthe evidence ofthemanagementthat during the perind freen 31-10-1973 to06-03-1976 there was no fresh employment for the post of AG (III -M) in Delhi Region, In Delhi Region no appointment whether ad hoc or regular has been made of AG (III -M). The seniority is maintained by the Zonal Office on the basis ofregionwise appointments of the employees on the basis of the seniority and the Zonal Office has to maintain the seniority of all the employees without any interferenceofthe concomed region.

That it is deniedthat the retrenched employees were re-appointed on the representation ofthe union as alleged. It is submitted that the management of the respondent itself took the initiatives and immediately after the relaxation ofban on further employment, issued circulars dated

Ihave perused the seniority list prepared by the Zonal Office, there is no appointee in the post of AG (III-M) in Delhi Region.

भारत को 36 2006/ 6,-1990

[ 3 ]

It alsobecomes quite vivid from the parent of the senlocity listshat it was prepared in 1979 and 1981. InDelhi Region there isan appointartat ofAG(MI-MM) as therewas shrinkage of toonk and there was to han de recrubent. However, there wro appointments the other region . Zonal Office seniority bet is preparedom the basis of sealarity of all the regions . It has belecspecifically meutlowed in the potiority list of 31-12-1979 that the ensployees mity point out errors and omissions in the scarlarity Nat mid service particulars within 30 daya from the date of its preparation. These workmen did not fileany objection tothe seniorky Hut prepared on 31-12-1979. They heive not fled any objection to the seniority list of1961. Theyhave filed this case in the year 1995 after a lapse of 16-17years.

It is settled law that stale claim should not be Postained. They should have raised objections within 30 days when seniority Bat was prepared in 1979.

It was submitted from the side of the management that there is no axplanation of delay. Not to speak of plausible or satisfactory explanation . There is no explotational all wit prevented theworkanen to- approach this forum alter a long period of 16-17 years. It is meeled law that stale chim made after an inordinate and unorphined period should notbe entertained.

The AG. OMD in the othe working continously and angsterly from 1973 these workman merkad for saly 3-4 memb 1973 and they have been again re-employed the game 1976. In case theit seniority toJuly, 1973 is re-story will be put over the employmes regularlyrty working in other regions .These workmen wworkmenworted for 3-4 due to strinkage ofwork hely Arvices were thenchet They were token mass in 1976 they had over the fresh PHONE 1976 in Delhi / artis no justification inducing than wukongty working oraployees of the other regions theseworkmen was legal sono right ! Theyhave been given re-appointment as buy the cheater ofthe FCI. The rights of the worknam whic services ofthe FCI in the other region adversely affected ifthe workanen amplamdo faras the back wages are concemed, th foronly3-4 months. Theywere validly ratreskiod, to vie ofthe provisions of the ID Art, 1947 they are uitkled to re-employment and theythey havehave beenbeen given te- caployment Noworkman ofAG (DI -M ) ofDadhi Engishasheth picail over them. The AG (III - M) ofthe other haplotettotving the management regularly since 1973 capai bei plated belowthese workmen who we appeldi theprovisions of ID Act, 1947, Thay are not ontitled to get evenbackwages.

The refinence, is replied thus: -

My attention was drawn to 2005 (5) SCC page 91 paras 12 and 13 , The Han 'bleApex Court has held that lang delay impedes the maintenance ofthe records,Belated. claim should notbe considered.

It has beenheld in(2001 ) 6 SCC 222 as under

Theaction of the moment ofFCLinding thi seniority to Mrs. Rita Maden, Urmills,Mabaise, Gecta Sharma,Neelima Nigam & S/Shri Sahib Singh Saharwar Samosh Sharoni, Sharinder Singh, Prom Sancjejed Santosh Sharma above the seniority offresh recruberuhod during 01-11-1973 and March /April, 1976 is the Theworkmen applicants areare not entitled to prayedfor. thed to get any

RNRAL Prachting Officer

The award is given accordingly. Date : 18-03-2008

"Law does not prescribe any time limit for the sppropriate govoraneat to exercise its powers under section 10 of the Act. It is pot that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive spøsters which had since been settled. Power is tobe exercised reasonably and in a rational manner . There appolis to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in this case after a lapse of about seven years ofthe order dismissing the respondent from service."

नई दिल्ली 2 अप्रैल , 2000

La the instans case reference has been made after a delay oflong 16-17 years , Limitation,Act is not applicable în ID cuson but stale cases sheukinot be considered,Delay in the instant case is joordinate and relief can be rejected on the ground ofdelay alone.

का.अ. 907. औगिक विकार अधिन 1947 (1947 का. 14 ) की पत्र 17 से अनुपम में देनी निगम प्रशिक्षण संस्थान कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध सरकार औद्योगिक अभिकरण संख्या 100/3005 ) परेको को 02-04-2008 को प्रापा इमामा

[ फर. सं. एल -22012/5/2003 - आई मर गया ।। New Delhi, the 2nd April 201

Italso prunspires from perusal of the records that there was absolute beu on recruitment from October, 1973 to February, 1976 in Delhi Region only. There was no appointment in Delhi Region during the aforesaid period. However , there were appointments in the other regions and those appoistisce have been working regularly since 1973 onwards . These workanten were engaged on ad hoc basis in Puly, 1973: They worked hardly for 3-4 months and there was shrinkage of work, so their services were retrenched, However , when there was relaxation in appointinent, those workanen were given preference and theywere eerstited."

S.G. 907. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 4 of 1947), the Coveral Governesent hereby publishes the Awaad ( Rocios2005) the Cont. Govt. Indus. Tribunal- cum- Labour Coue No 2, 1962

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2008/VAISAKHA 6, 1930

PART 1SEC3( i ) ) New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of FCI Training Institute, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 2-4-2008.

[F.No. L-22012/5/2003 -IR(CM- II)] AJAYKUMARGAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

I.D. No. 108/2005

PRESIDING OFFICER: R.N.RAI .

IN THEMATTEROF:

this petitioner's service period has reached 93 days i.e. more than 90 days, then one day Shri Y.D. Munjal deleted his attendance for three consecutive days in the attendance register with his own handwriting because had his service for this period of three days been counted, then this petitionerwould have got an automatic regularization and confirmation in the Food Corporation of India during those days itselfbecause normal period counted for regularization was 90 days during those days itself which was later on increased to 240 days. A copy of the said make believe AttendanceRegister maintained in the handwriting of Shr! Y.D. Munjal stands already submitted by this petitioner to the Government of India for making a reference of this Industrial Dispute to this industrial Tribunal.

Shri Rakesh Kumar,

191, Janta Jiwan Camp,

Vo ShriNikhid Naryan Singh, C-43, Okhla Phase- III,

NewDelhi - 110020,

VERSUS

That sincethis petitioner's service were terminated in an illegal and arbitrary manner on 6-4-1998 after having workedformore than 240 days in a year in violation ofthe statutory provisions/without following the due process as established by law (and earlier also after having worked for more than 90 days during a year) , so this petitioner was left with no other alternative but to knock at the door ofjustice, Food Corporation of India,

FCI Training Institute,

PlotNo. 87, Sector-18, Gurgaon- 132001 (Haryana)

AWARD

TheMinistry ofLabour by its letter No. L22012/5/ 2003 IR(CM- II) Central Goverament dt. 22-08-2005 has referred the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder:

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Gurgaon in terminating the services of Shri Rakesh Kumar So Shri Nikhid Naryan Singh, Chowkidar w.e.f. 6-4-1998 is legal and justified? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitiled?"

That the above said action ofthe management of the FoodCorporation of India by firstly getting this petitioner appointed through its incharge at the work site (CTI under construction) of the respondent and later on getting this petitioner's services managed through a security agency and thereafter getting the same dispensed with through itsselfappointed security agency i.e. contractor when the job ofguarding the constructed building is continuing even at present by arranging other persons in an illegal and arbitrarymanner and this termination was got done in spite ofthe availability ofjob and after the termination of this petitioner, themanagement has also engaged other persons for the same very work i.e. guarding this building during its continuing even now by engaging other persons as was being performed earlier by this petitioner.

The management has filed written statement. In the written statement it has been stated at the very outset it is submitted that there is absolutely no merit or substance or truth whatsoever in the purported claim filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the allegations an daverments as made by the petitioner vide the present claim , are fulse and frivolous and have been fabricated with obvious motivated reasons . In view of the above; and malafide intention the present claim is liable to be dismissed on this ground itself. It is further submitted that the facts stated in the above mentioned claim before this Honourable Tribunal the petitioner be put on to strict proof of the same.

Theworkman applicant has filed claim statement. In the claim statement it has been stated that this petitioner's services continued as such till 31-3-1996 and thereafter was managed through a contractor security agency to tide over the statute and regulations and to deprive this petitioner of the legitimate of regularization which has becamedue to this petitioner after he has worked for more than the stipulated period of service but since this petitioner used to work over there i.e. site office during its construction stage and thereafter used to perform security duties for the enduse and benefit of the respondent Le . Food Corporation of India but this petitioner's services was not regularized and after having worked for more than240 days his service was orally terminated when he was working through a stage managed security agency and he was verballytold one daythat the agreement has been terminated and his services was no more required and accordingly his services was orally terminated without any written terminacion order having been issued and communicated tohim.

That the services of the petitioner was hired by the respondent through the Agency on the contract basis as perprovisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The few documents related to the services hired by the respondent are being annexed herewith for the kind perusal ofthis Honourable Court and the samemay be read as part of this written statement. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner filed frivolous petitionNo. before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi pleased todismiss the same as withdrawan by'the petitioner.

That he had worked at this site office of the Food Corporation of India, i ,e. Central Training Institte , Gurgaon under construction during its construction stage butwhen 1963 ...

The services of the petitioner ww hired by the respondent through the Agency on the contract basis مع perprovisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970.

NewDelhi .Themartagas made payment to the agracies and agencies paid the workou and deposited the CPF. The workman was never appointed by the Food Corplector of hatta d809 T It is submitted that the wages for the period arhich petitioner worked for FCI was properly and duly paid as per provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition)Act, 1970.

sheetalt has been Itriyaption than It bon black the management . It does iIt does not bow themanagement. pot bear any splende

Gouerwas Tentrated think the survides ofthethe petitiouer Hired by the respondent on through the Agency on the cnct provillous of the Contrace Labour (Regidation &Abolition) Act, 1970.

It was further submitted that itit isis necessary to take intendance of which and Ward guard for the purpose of payment. The webngbombed under the control and supervision of the security agencies who employed him. Βίλες της της σε

ted that the edapendelt hired the services of the petitionerlu alawful manner, and aktio procured its probandeerty legal obligatidas erwards the petitioner, it is fuchonsabmined that nepondent was, action defaulter of any legal act, The positioners claim is not only illegal onjost, improperimproper butbut alsoa against the wand the judgments har kalo been given by the flon'ble Supreme Court ofIndia

The workman bus admitted in bie cross, examination that he was initially enguiled by Mr. Mungal in the 1996. Thereamero showh through different agencies. The humphini Ipters writen by diffunct agerifies and agreements with the agencies . The security, pgencies jave given certificate regarding the working of the workman . It indicates that the workman was dugogodarauf sicbrity agencies . The security AgencyJameeissued certificate

Thomas aplicant has, filed rejoinder. In the rejoinder be haa, πετάςγελος μια ανements of his claim statement and bes denied zuost of the paras of the written statement. The management has also denied most of the phải of thể châm thước 21

mekingement it bocorper quase olhapur that this Was entrusted the hot of me the under construcida kom.: worked under thecentrehod ruforvand Evidence of both the parties has been taken

Hundargument from both the sides and perused the

paperston the iro

nature of work . Engagement of contract labour is t prohibited forfor security work temporary in nature. The với hman was engaged for cuarding the site of the constructios. Fick temporary nature of work the management can take the bele nieresusity agencies for watch andward , The security agencies deci be done and how it isto Be and ward ofthe buil building under contar en is tothe secowity geletes wild h độ phá tường chống The workiffin WordBere the contro than of valve. The worker Barang constructionombu entrustedto decirily agen employeesswedot requerda

was submitted from the side of the workman that the cha thibany alleged by SKYY.D. Munjal, Att. Manager , FoodCorporation of India, Central Training Institute,Block No 87; Bediornali Gurgaon at Chivithar- cm-Peon to Geard the promincs under constudiou afrespondest for the use and bosoft of Food Corporation of India. The Polidor trusted to guard the she office under construction : Theres for the petitionera servitos, were mangard through contractor, ble bas completed 740 days in prety your of his employment. His services werp termipense legally and arbitrarily on 6-4-1998 after having worked for more than 240 days in a year in violation of statutory gry provisions/ without following the due process shed by law.

Taployérataployee relationship between the management and the pyrlmann, He is not entitled to get thebenefits of Section 2359

The tiction of mini Corporation ofIndia,Gurgagnintossinating thep sendent of Shri Rakesh Kumar Sio Shri Nikhil Naryan Singh, Chowkidar w.e.E 6-4-1998 is legal andjustined. The workman is not entitled toget any reliefas prayed for.

The award is given accordingly.

Date:26-3-2008

LISS-AAM tated from the side of the management that the Training Institute was under construction, watch and ward staff was deployed. Tender was invited from the security menetes for supplying Security Guards for watching the premises. M's.retaisos . Ms. V. S. Security, Gurgaon, Ms. Avand Security, management Faridabad &Mis, Great Ex Servicemensaviem Pit Limted, New Dett wele aligned job . The workoman was deputed by these security agencies: The workkinatalied under Mis: VS: Security: Gurgaon in Jan , 195 and Felbruary , 1995. He worked under M/s Ανασκί, δημότη επαναγοραπί from Marab, 1995.10 Depayaker 1995 and frana December , 1996 to April, 1998.He worked under M/ s. Great Ex. Servicemen Private Limited,

1387G/D6-11 1964

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL, 26, 2008/VAISAKHA 6, 1930

Versus

शुद्धि-पत्र नई दिल्ली, 2 अप्रैल, 2008

TheExecutive Engineer, CPWD(Civil), AR- 1st-CD-II , C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, NewDelhi.

AWARD

का.आ. 908.--इस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या एल-22012/259/ 1994-आईआर( सी ) , जो भारत सरकार मुद्राणालय में दिनांक 25-2-2008 को प्रकाशन हेतु भेजा गया था, की तीसरी लाईन में पंचाट संदर्भ संख्या 407/2K5 की बजाय संदर्भ सख्या 497/2K5 पढ़ा जाए।

[सं. एल-22012/259/ 1994- आईआर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

TheMinistry ofLabour by its letter No. L-42012/66/ 91 /D-II (B) Central Government dated 19-12-1991/6-1-1992 has referred the following point for adjudication .

CORRIGENDUM

The point runs hereunder:

NewDelhi, the 2ndApril,2008

S.O. 908, The Reference No. mentioned in the third line of the notification of even number dated 25-2-2008 maybe read as497/2K5 instead of407/2K5 .

"Whether Sh . Babu Lal was the workman of CPWD, New Delhi? If so , whether the action of the management CPWD in terminating the services of Shri Babu Lal w.e.f. 28-6-90 is justifled? Ifnot, what reliefbe is entitled to and from what date?" [F. No. L-22012/259/1994- IR( C- II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer नई दिल्ली , 2 अप्रैल , 2008

The workman applicant has filed claim statement. In the claim statement, It has been stated that the workman was aGovernment workman and he was a Carpenterw.e.f. 3-9-1988 and has drawan last wages @ Rs. 1000 P.M. The workman was deputed at CPWD (Civil), AE - 1st- CD- II CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,NewDelhi ,

का.आ. 909.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी.पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 11 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 10/92 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ

That as per the demand of the above said facilities the management have giving the assurance for providing the said facilities to the workman but instead of providing the legal facilities ,the vindicative management without any cause or reason illegally, wrongfully and unjustifiably terminate the services ofthe workman on 28-6-90 without paying the terminal benefits. The said termination is illegal andvoid.

[सं एल-42012/66/91 -ही- II ( बी ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्कअधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 2nd April, 2008

S.O. 909. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 10/92) CentralGovernment industrial Tribunal- cum -LabourCourt, No. II, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofC.P.W.D , and their workmen , which was receivedbytheCentral Government on 2-4-2008.

[No. L-42012/66/91 -D.II(B)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

That on 28-6-90 when the workman Sh. Babu Lal demanded the above said legal facilities from the Assistant Engineer at the working place but the revengeful management reject the demand of the workman . While on service the workman was shocked on the same day i.e. 28-6-90 when the revengeful management asked him that his servicewere terminated with immediate effect. The said termination is illegal , wrong and unjustified and against the principal of natural justice . The management also withholds the wages for the period of June , 1990. The management has not issued any type ofshow cause notice or charge sheet prior to terminate the services of the wordanen.

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

PresidingOfficer: R.N. Rai LD. No. 10/1992

That the workman so many times approached the management and demanded re- instatement with full back wages and continuity of services but the management willfully reject the demand of the workman, and all the efforts ofthe workman are in vain .

In the matterof:

That the whole action was taken by the management at once and asked the workman that his services were no longer required by the management/authority and his services were hereby terminated with immediate effect i.e. 28-6-90.

Shri Babu Lal, S/o Shri Kanhiya Lal, R/o A-221 , J.J. Colony,Tigree, Khanpur, NewDelhi- 110062.

1965 [भाग ( खण्ड 3 (i) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 26, 2008/वैशाख 6, 1930

Form 11 -A. There was no question of reinstatement as alleged by the claimant.

Contents of this paragraph are absoloutely wrong and hence denied. It was simply a work being done on contract basis. In view of the statement in the preseding pera no. 6, no further reply is required in this regard.

That the authorities action has been taken bythe management which cast stigma on the career of the workman's services , The workman is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of services with fall benefits as the management has been illegally and wrongfully terminated the services of the workman. The workman is unemployed since the date of termination. That the said termination of services of the workmon is illegal, bad in law, malafide being the glaring act ofvictimization .

The claimant was not entitled for any thing ether. than what was payable under the terms of the contract which hadbeenpaid to him frem thme to time. There was no question of rejecting any demand as alleged. No illegal , wrong or justifiable action has been taken against the claimant,

Themanagement has filed written statement. Inthe written statement it has been stated that the suit is not maintainable as the claimant is not a Govt. workman and the LabourCourts have no jurisdiction to try this suit. The suit is Hable to be dismissed on this very ground.

Contentions raised in the corresponding paras of theplaint are denied. It is only a figment of imagination. The claimant is not entitled for reinstatement nor.for any wages because he was never employed as a workman by the Government and all the dues of the contractor havo been dulycleared as per terms of the agreement.

It isreiteratedthat claimant was never a workman of the Deptt. The management/ respondents do not come in pleture in anyway in the matter of his employment. There was no question of any victimizzation as alleged. The claimantwas a contractor and not a workinan.

It is absoletely incorrect to suggest that the claimant wasGovernment workman. He was never appointed as a Carpenter but was given the contract work to do the maintenance and repair work in Government residential quaners aber exacuting short term agreement on prescribed Form 11 -A ofCPWD vide No. 30 /AEI/ CD- 11/88-89 & No. 1 order (photo copy atteched vide Annexure A&B) . The work order was enclosed on 22-5-90 as the work was no more required.

The alleged demand notice dated 16-8-90 was nothing but and after thought device to project himself in the garb ofworkman to sothehow get entry as a workman inCPWD. The claimant was workling as a contractor and all the dealings with CPWD came to an end on the expiry of the contract on the completion of work on22-3-90.

It is wrong and denied that the claimant was performing any duties as a workman. He was not aworkanan but in the capacity of an individual contractor was dealing with the concerned Junior Engineer or Assistant Engineer. There was no question of any satisfaction with the performance of the "work and duties " of the workman by the mainagement/vespondents.

Theworkman applicant has, filed rejoinder, In the rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his claim : statensent and has denied most of the paras of thewritten statement.

Evidence ofboththe parties has been taken.

The claimant is not entitled for any such facilities claimed herein nor he was offered any such facilities in the work contract. The officials 1 to 2had not come in contact with the claimant at any stage of the work contract and bence there was no question of any annoyance .

No Maurance whatsoever was given to the claimant. There was no termiantion of services was as alleged, The work contract expired on 22-5-90 and he was duly paid for the work done through work order for the period ofhis contract. The claimant was not entitled for any terminal benefits as alleged nor there any termination of services was involved in the instant case.

Ittranspires from perusal of the record that the case was posted on 21-2-2008 for argument. It has been transferred to this court vide order dated 11-2-2008:Notice by registered post was sent to both the parties.on. 21-2-2008 fixing 10-3-2008 for Argument. On 10-3-2008 nome appeared. The case was reserved for award. However, the parties were given 7 days time for advancing argument. Nonehas turned up till date. The case is decided on the 1 merits after perusing the oral as well as documentary evidence. Registered notice sent to both the parties has been received back. Both the parties have filed written brief, Perused the writtenbrief.

No payment was ever with-held. The contractdues forMay,90wire paid en 1-6-90 and the claimant had already received the payment, after putting his signature in the books ofaccounts maintained by CPWD. There was no need for issue of any show cause notice or to serve charge shoot as alleged. The claimant was merely a contractor and hisworkcontractwas closed on22-5-90.

It was submitted from the side of the workman that the claimant was engaged as a Carpenter w.e.f. 3-9-1988 and his last drawn salary was Rs . 800 per month . The workman demanded the facilities ofa regular workman but instead of providing the legal facilities the vindictive: management without any cause, illegally, wrongfully-and un-justifiably terminated the services of the worlaten on 28-6-1990without paying the terminal benefit...

Allegations contained in this para are absoloutely wrong andhence denied. The claimant was not entitled for any type of wages or continuity of services . He was a contractor and was given the work against the work-order 1966

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2008/VAISAKHA 6, 1930

[PART I-S&C. 3 (U)] Itwas submitted from the side of the management that the workman was not a government employee and this court has nojurisdiction to try this case. The CPWD is an Industry rum under the authority ofthe Central Government. The workman is allegedly casual daily ratedworker ofthe respondent, so this court has jurisdiction.

The management has filed MWI andMW2, contract agreements for repair of the furniture of government quarters. The workman has signed these two documents . Hehas been given fixed term appointment twice. He has himself stated that he was not sure whether he worked on contract basis or appointment basis . The termination of services ofthe workman is not retrenchment in view of Section 2(oo) (bb) ofthe ID Act, 1947.

The reference is replied thus:

From the perusal of the photocopydocuments filed bytheworkman it transpires that be executed an agreement for doing the work of Carpenter for five months in September, 1988. He has signed all the pages of the agreement . The workman has filed another contract agreement dated 1-4-1989. The workman has worked for five months in view of the agreement.

Sh. Babu Lal was not the workman ofCPWD, New Delhi . The action of the management of CPWD in terminating the services of Shri Babu Lal w.c.f. 28-6-1990 is justified.The workman applicant is not entitled to get any reliefas prayed for .

The award is given accordingly. Date: 24-4-2008

R.N. RAL, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 2 अप्रैल , 2008

Itwas submitted from the side of the management that the workman was given the contract work to do the maintenance and repair work in government residential quarters after executing short term agreement in prescribed form 11 -A ofCPWD in 1988-1989. The work order was closed on 22-5-1990 as there was no requirement . The claimant worked in the capacity of individual contractor under the concerned Engineers,

Thecontract ofthe work expired on 22-5-1990 and the claimant was duly paid for the work done through work order for the period of his contract.

The workman has worked almost for one and half years under two different contracts. It has been specifically stipulated in the contract that he will carry out the work of repair ofgoverument residential buildings .

का. अर.910.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार महानगर टेलीफोन निगम लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 11, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 19/90 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/100/89-डी. (बी) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 2ndApril,2008

Theworkmanhas admitted in his cross -examination thatEx. MWI and MW2 bear his signature . He has further admitted that he did not know whethet he was working as contractor or on appointment basis. He has further said that he has not read the document which he signed and he didnot object to the signing of the documents at any stage. In the oral evidence the workman has also stated he has signed two agreements MWI and MW2 and he was not sure whether he was working on contract basis or on appointment basis. In view ofthis also the workmari does. not deserve reinstatement.

S.O. 910. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 19/90) CentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. II , NewDelhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofMahanagar Telephone Nigarh Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central Goverment σा 2-4-2008.

[No. L-40012/100/89-D.JI (B)] AJAY KUMAR, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

It was further submitted that there was temporary increase inwork and a Carpenter was required for repair of furniture ofthe government quarters, so the workman was given two short term contracts. One from September, 1988 andother from 1990. He performed the work of repair. The workwas of temporary nature . Regular employees could notbe engaged for such short work of repair of furniture of residential quarters.

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALCUM LABOUR COURT-IL, NEW DELHI

PresidingOfficer : R.N :Rai L.D. No. 19/1990

In thematter of:

Shri Ram Kishan, So Shri Roop Lal , R/ oVill. & P.O.: Gharrot, Distt.: Faridabad(Haryana)

Theworkman has not filed any other paper to prove thatheworked continuously for 240 days under the control and supervision of the management except the two agreements. The work of temporary nature such as repair of furniture of government quarters can be got done by engaging any technician or skilled workman. Such work is not perennial in nature . Engagement as contractual labour for shortterm temporary work is not prohibited by Contract Labour(Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. The workman has worked as per assignments for a temporary nature of work and be has not proved that he has worked for 240 days under the control and supervision of the management.

Versus THECYSPILLONE

1067)

failed resulting in the prepis no vino gehow NewDelhi-28.

...

ishapeissurepipes

Khambid Lal Bha

AWARD

petitioner's fundamental righis paranteed onderartiger The Ministry ofLabour by its lear No. L-40042/ 100/ ntral Overmanent bas referred thebas referred the following po 9/D- II Central G for point

provision of adueil bundel llatinu bine sot ni how of The point runs as bereunder :

the workman/ peti 13801 Wacther the action of the managerment of COC V(S ) MINI, stopping Sh. Ram Kishan dally, rate workman to join duty w.c.f. 29-12-88 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is relief the workman is entitled to ?"

unjustified, inkursune causing serice , he works / police do The dupen applicant has filed 1 the chaina supponent it has been stated that the petitioner weckman was initially ongaged na Daily WagesWorkonan by AastDAF ,Enemen, Propes ( Cable), Jorbach, Tolppbope Exchange, under Flyover Bridge,DDefence Colony, New Delhi in September 1981 through Employment Exchange. The alarms of under feriadicion of

That ever since his energement as Dally Wages worarum, the p employment of the Management , eadier known as Delhi Telephone,till Feb. 1986 and later was transferred inMINL, the prosect Management, consequent lipon emifion of Kahainagin Poloptione Nigon Ltd. , untethe-Govt. ofIndi aloriywith the other and DillyWigeswordmcom

odstawowywmation 0029-12-468..

"That the workman developed Illness kind wir to perform his da after giving thek conds to his inability to perform duties on acttront of officer , the workmen

That the workquo petitionor was in blodical Loone w.a.f. 26-9-87 to28-12-18 and that on being declared fit by thể 'nhinding doctor on 20-12-88, the worthian heported For'dults of 29-12-88 alongwith hoodical Certificate and nomicaldmete with the Respondent being wollters Unit

nối đáphết thể trên hư categorically a die pint of implicar shodd what alibawema wahasany couldbe refonvon.me of the applicant's services of whether the applicant abandoned his surving of lignée αλάτι , the when theen le docide whpthor allegatonulkanik Thisiskak between the parties. Such readin law.and.ace: linblectabe struck dumbraged ร arbitrarily did not take the workman on duty, The workman's explanation and request went in vain.

such by not allowing, workman to resume 29-12-81, thethe Respondent No. I impliedly criminated the workmen's services.

That without prejudice the above, it is pon the spillemale ansabouing hustidnattend the could cat attend the died due to this quuman, itto be submitted that the applicant never informati 26-9-1987, for a Jone period Jo

Bad That howorkamo/ petitionen you always willing work, and is will willing to work, but due to hund and rigid 1968

[PART IISEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2008/VAISAKHA 6, 1930

applicant was not willing to continue in service whowas working only on daily-wage basis.

DisputeActetc. does not arise . All the allegations in these paras are based on the so-called termination by the respondentwhich itself is false , therefore, there is no force in any of these allegations .

Theworkmanhas filed rejoinder. In the rejoinder he has reiterated the averments ofhis claim statement and has denied most of the paras of the written statement . The management has also denied most ofthe paras ofthe claim statement.

It may be submitted that as an after- thought and maliciously, the applicant is contending that the applicant reported for duty on 29-12-1988 although this is denied, according to the applicant's own admission his where- abouts from 26-9-87 to 28-12-88 were not known. This clearly amounts to abandonment of services by the applicant .

Evidence ofboth the parties has been taken,

Heard argument from the side of the workman and perused the papers on the record.

The applicant was engaged as daily rated mazdoor in the office ofA.E. (Cable) in September , 1981 under the jurisdiction oferstwhile Delhi Telephones.He continued towork in the said unit till February, 1986. From February, 1986 to September, 1987, the applicant worked in the office ofConstruction Officer (Cable V-South), Mahanagar TelephoneNigam Limited.

Registered notice has been served on both the parties. The workman turned up . None has turned up from the side of the management till today for advancing argument.

It is further submitted that the applicant was never removed from service or his services were terminated. In fact he abandoned his services after 25-9-87 . No communication either written or oral either about leave or his where-abouts was over received by the Respondents. Submissions in this respect have already been made above.

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that hewas initially engaged as daily wages workman by Asstt. Engineer (Phones) in Defence Colony, New Delhi through employment exchange . He was initially engaged as daily wager but he has served the management continuously and regularly till 25-9-1987.

Itwas further submitted that the workman developed sickness and was unable to perform his duties . He informed the management accordingly on being declaring fit on 28-12-1988. The workmen reported for duty on 28-12-1988 alongwith medical certificate. The workman was not taken onduty on 28-12-1988.

It is denied that the applicant was suffering fromT.B. and that he underwent treatment for one year . It is vehemently denied that he proceeded on medical leave w.e.f. 26-9-1987 . Facts of the case are as stated above, accordingto which he abandoned his services w.e.f. 26-9- 1987 and the said sickness is only an alibi to cover up his unauthorized absence .No phone call ever received by any ofhisunit office, where he worked till 25-9-1987 . Hadhe beenreally suffering from a dreaded deseases like T.B. he couldhave received treatment at Delhi itself where many specialist clinics are also available. Medical and fitness certificates appear to be manipulated one and the respondentswould like to withhold any further comments on the medical or fitness certificate at this stage and would make appropriate submissions in this respect at relevant stage.

The case of the management is that the services of the workman were never terminated. In fact he abandoned his services after 25-9-1987 . Since there was no termination of the services of the workman and the workman has abandoned servives of his own accord. The termination is not illegal and the reference is not maintainable. The workman has himself stated that he fell ill andhe did not comefrom26-9-1987 to 29-12-1988. He was a casual labour. He has no right to post . When he did not turn up, other casual labour was engaged in his place. The workman in his cross examination has admitted as under:-

Theapplicant is taking this plea as an after thought bedidnot come to the duties we.f. 26-9-1987 and his where- aboutwere also not known from for quite sometime andhe had abandoned the job ofhis own accord. The question of termination of his services does not arise . The applicant has left blank about his so -called wages per day and therefore, the respondent is not in a position to comment on the same.

"It is correct that I had not sent any application or medical certificate to the management about my illness and request for leave. That I had telephoni- cally informed one Mr. Pipli Sahib and requested him togrant me medical leave. I had telephoned the said officer after I had fallen ill but I cannot tell the date and month. "

It is submitted that the respondent stated the correct position before the Conciliation Officer by filling replydated 14-6-1989, a copy of which is enclosed and marked as Annexure-R-1 .

From the above admission it becomes quite obvious that the workman did not send any application or medical certificateto the management about his illness and he did not make any request for leave . The workman has further admitted that he telephoned to the concerned officer but he expressed his enability to tell the date and month.

The respondent has not terminated the services of the applicant and it is the applicant who has abandoned the job of his own accord, the question of arbitrary termination or violation of the provision of Industrial 1969 मारत का राजपत्र : उसैल 26, 2008/वैशाख 6, 1930

New Delhi , the 2ndApril, 2008 ;

Hehas further admitted that he did not re-collect the name ofDoctor who treated him Kosikalan.

Theweeknas has given his address in his claim Vill. &Post. Gharret, Distt . Faridabad (Haryana), He has filed photocopy ofsertificate ofDr. ofMathurn.

The workman has further admitted as under:

"It is correct that I was not given any termination latter by the management and I myself, stopped coming to resume mywork."

8:0.911.Th pemance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14of 1947, the Central Govhumonk-bareby publishile the (Red No. 67/91) CetiltrulGoverment leduseal Tiband- tim-Labour Court No -11 ,NewDelhi as shown in the Anckart in the Industr Dispute between the employers in relation tớ thị management ofM /s. Kalawati Sarorn Children Hospitalind their workmen, which was regeived by the Central Goverтиленсов 2-4-2008. :

[F.146. L-42012/13990 IROU AJAYKUMAR, DeeltOfficer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT- IL NIÓW DELHI

PresidingOfficer: R.N.Rai

LD. No. 67/1991-

In the matter of:

,7:

Theworkonan has admitted himself that he stopped coming to the work . The workman has not flied any prescriptionofhis treatment of TB. TB is not such a disease that a patient could not move. In case he suffered by TB . He could still contact the maangement, He has admitted that he did not send any application along with medical cortificate.He has admitted that he was absent for one year. He has admitted that he stopped coming to work himself. Section 25F of the ID Act, 1947 is attracted only when there is illegal and arbitrary termination. This is a case of abandonment . The workman was a dailywager. Thehas no right to service , He has voluntarily abandoned thework of casual Inbour. In such circumstances the management may engage another casual labour in hisplace.

Sint: RadhaDevi, W/o Shri Raju, Safai Karamchar / Sweeper, C/oHospitalEmployeesUnion, Aggarwal Bhawan,G.T. Road, TisHazari Courts, Delhi-110054:

........ Claimant :

Verres

The workman has not proved that he was suffering frura TB. He has filed only photocopy ofmedical certificate. The management has termed it as forged one. The workonan is residing at Faridabad whereas the cortificate oftheDr. is ofMathura. The certificate does not appear to be genuine . The,workman has not proved his claim statement. The provisions ofSection 25-F of ID Act, 1947 is pot attracted. It is a case abandonment and not of termination.

TheMedical Superintendent, M/s. Kalawati Saran Children's Hospital, Baba Kharak Singh Marg..

The reference is replind thus :

NewDelhi - 110001 .

AWARD

Theaction of themanagement ofCOC-V(3) MTNL in stepping Sk. Ram Kishan daily rated workman to join dutyw.e.f. 29-12-88 isjustified. The wworkanan applicant is not entitled to get any reliefas prayed for.

TheMinistry ofLabour by its letter No. L-42012 /159 90- IR(DEU) Central Government dated 3-5-1991 li referred the following point for adjudication:

The award is given accordingly.

The point runs as hereunder :

Date25-3-2008

2. R.N. RAJ, Presiding Officer

F: नई दिल्ली, 2 अप्रैल , 2008

Whether the action of the management ofKalawati Saran Children Hospital , New Delhi in terminating the services ofSmt. Radha Devi w.e.f. 10-5-1989 is justified? Ifnot, to what relief she is entitled to and fromwhat date/77 .

का.आर. 911. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947, (1947

फा 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरत में, केन्द्रीय सरकार कलावती सरन फिरवून बॉस्मत के प्रसंगनियोजकोंऔर उनके कर्मकारों कोबीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट सौधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीम सरकार औद्योगिक अभिकरण/ अम ज्यामालय नं.- II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 67/91 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो कैन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ

[फा.सं. एल-42012/ 159/90- आईआर(डीयू) ]

मजस कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

Theworkman applicant has filed claim statement. In the claim statement it has been so that St. Radha Devi joined into the employment ofKalavati Sarus Children' Hospital w.e.f. 29-5-1986 a Sali Karainchari . She was being treated as a dally rated/ casual/ mater toti w and was being paidwages ar fixed and review chinelo timeunder the Minimum Wages Ast by the Di Administration, Delhi for unskilled workers. Now themonth ofApril, 1989 she was being paida, 850 per month while her counterparts who were doing theiricatical 1970

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 26, 2008/VAISAKHA 6, 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

place in 1982. All Hospitals have been excluded as such thisHon'ble Tribunal has nojurisdiction.

workbut being treated as regular employees were being paid their salaries in the pay scale ofRs.750-940/-with usual allowances admissible under the rules. They were alko enjoying other benefits like uniform, casual and medical leave, gazetted/festival/restricted holidays and medical leave etc.which were coinpletely denied to the workman aforesaid. She has an unblemished and interrupted record ofservice toher credit.

That the services of the workman aforesaid have been terminated w.c.f. 10-5-1989 by refusal ofwork by Sh. Ved Prakash Tanwar, Supervisor.

That LadyHarding Medical College andAssociated Hospital including Kalawati Saran Children's Hospital is a subordinate office of DGHS/M/ o . Health and Family Welfare and all the rules and regulations of the Central Government are applicable to the employees of this institution. This institution was taken over by the GOI on 1-2-1978 vide acquisition and Misc. Provisions Act , 1977. In this Act this institution has been excluded from the purview of the IDAct, 1947. Specific prevision made is reproduced below:-

TheAct under Chapter 4- Misc .para 10(2) provides under

That the above action of the management is wholly illegal , bad, unjust and malafide for the following amongst other reasons.

1 . That the job against which the workman aforesaid was working was ofa regular and permanent nature ofjob . In fact, she was working against a vacant post of Safal Karamchari

"Notwithstanding anything contained in the IDAct, 1947, or in any other law for the time being in force, the transfer ofthe services of any officer or other employees employed in, or in connection with the affairs of the Lady Harding College and Hospital or the Kalawati Saran Children'sHospital to the Central Government shall not entitle any such officer or other employees to any other compensation under that Act or any other law and no such claim shall be entertained by any Court/Tribunal or other authority."

That employing persons on regular nature ofjobs and treating them as casual /daily rated/ muster roll workers for indefinite period and paying them lesser remuneration than those who are doing the identical work amounts to unfair labour practices as provided in Section 2 (ra) read with itemNo. 10 ofthe Vth Schedule ofthe ID Act, 1947.

That theworkman aforesaid has been meted out with hostile discrimination as juniors to her have been retained in service and she has been thrown out ofjob.

That it amounts to sheer exploitation of labour.

TheSupremeCourt over ruled their earlierjudgment in the management of Safdarjung Hospital Vs. Kuldeep Singh Sethi and held all hospitals would be within the purview of the ID Act, 1947. The Act has however been amended by Industrial Disputes (Amendment ) Act, 1982 to exclude other hospitals , dispensaries , educational scientific research or training institutes ,

That it is violative ofArticle 14, 16 and 39 (d) ofthe Constitution of India.

Inview ofthe above Labour Court does not have jurisdiction to try the case of Smt . Radha Devi , a daily wageworker.

That no seniority list was displayed, no noticewas given, nó notice pay was either offered or paid and no service compensation was either offered or paid to the workman aforesaid at the time of termination of services.

: An indisciplined and inefficient dailyworker cannot claim the right ofbeing kept in service.

That no notice was served on the appropriate Government foreffecting the retrenchment ofthe workman aforesaid.

It is stated that Smt . Radha Devi was engaged on dailywages basis w.e.f. 29th May, 1986 with usual breaks.

That even otherwise, the impugned termination of services is violative of Sections 25 F, G, H ofthe IDAct, 1947 read withRules 76 and 77 ofthe Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. :

Her work was not found satisfactory. There were repeated written and verbal complaints about irregular attendance, unsatisfactory work from units wherever she was postedtowork. Therefore, her services as a dailywage employeewere discontinued.

That the workman aforesaid is unemployed since 10-5-1989.

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In the rejoinder be has reiterated the averments of her claim statement and has denied most of the paras ofthe written statement. The management has also denled most of the paras of the claim statement,

Evidence ofboth the parties has been taken.

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

The management has filed written statement. Inthe written statement it has been stated that the matter before this Hon'ble Tribunal is misconceived and is not maintaineble under law as the applicant had never been the regular employee of the Hospital, she was only daily rated casual worker and she was only engaged whenever there was anywork for her in the Hospital.

Itwas submitted from the side ofthe workman that the workman Smt . Radha Devi joined in the employment of That the Hospitals do not come within the purview ofthe IDAct, 1947 in view of its amendment which took 1971 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 26; 2008/वैशाख 6, 1930

3(日) 】

Kalawati Saran Children Hospital w.e.f.29-5-1986 as aSafai Keratachari . She was being treated as dailywager andwas being paid wages es fixed and revised.

Fromthe certified copy of the working days filed by the management it becomes quite obvious that the workman has worked for, 226 days in the year 1986-1987 and242days in the year 1987-1988 . Thus, the workman has completed240 days work in 1986-87 & 1987-88 Sundays andHolidays are tobe calculatedwhile cakuling working days in view of the judgment ofthe Hon'bleApex Court and in view of Section 25 (b ) of the ID Act , 1947 whichdefines continuous working.

Thus, the workman has worked for 240 days in two years, la the preceding other two years, she has completed only35days and 25 days work.

That the services of this workman were illegally med on 10-5-1989 by refund ofwork by Sh. Ved Parkash Tanyar, Supervisor . It was fürther submitted that the workman was working against the job of regular and permanent nature ofwork. She was working at the vacant post of Safai Karamchari . This workman has been meted out hostile designation ad junior to her have been retained in service and she has been thrown out ofjob. Ne samority listwas displayed. No noticewas given. No retrencament compensation was given to this workman: The management has violated Section 25F,G&HpftheIDAct, 1947 readwith rule 76 and 77 ofthe IDCentral (Rules) 1957.

It is true that the workman has not completed 240 dayswork in a calendar year prior to termination ofservice or within 12 months preceding the date oftermination of her service. However, she has worked for 240 days in the previous two years.

Itwas submitted from the side of the management that the matter, before this Tribunal is mis-conceived and is not maintainable as the worknian is not a regular employee of the hospital., She was daily rated casual labour and shewas only engaged whenever there was any work for her in the bospital. :

It is settled law that in case a workman has worked for240 days in any of the years of his employsiont he is entitled to retrenchment compensation and notice pay. The management has net paid any retrenchment compensation or pay in lieu of notice to die workинии . It was submitted from the side of the workman that the workman was not punctual and sincere in her work. She was transferred to different places.

Itwas further submitted that the hospital do not come within the purview of ID Act, 1947 in view of its amendment which took place in 1982. All hospitals have been excluded from the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal.

From perusal of the photocopy documents it transpires that the workman was removed as she was not properly performing her work and there were several complaints against her , so the management wat compelled todiscontinue her.

Itwas further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment Safdurjung Hospital Vs. Kuldeep Singh Seth? held that all hospitals would be within the purview of ID Act, 1947 but the Act has been amended by Amending Act, 1982 to exclude the hospitals, dispensaries, Scientific Research and Training Institute etc.

From perusal ofthe working days of this workinan in1988-1989 it becomes quite obvides that she was given only35 days work in 1989-90 and she was given only 25 days work also. This discloses the fact that the workman was not performing the duties sincerely and honestly Le. why she was not permitted to perforní her duties in 1988-89 and1989-90 for the whole year.

...It was submitted from the side ofthe management that no notice regarding un-satisfactory work of the workman has been given to her . The management was duty bound to give memo to the workman and serve a chargesheet and hold inquiry to prove the fact that the performance of the workman was not satisfactory...

"So far is theAmended Act, 1982 is concerned it has not perhaps been enforced so far. It is true that in the Amending Act,Hospitals, Dispensaries etc have been excluded from the definition of Industry. The decision of theBangalore Water Supply of 1978 ofthe Hon'bleApex Court stillholds the field and wherever there is emplover- employee relationship and there is existence of systematic activities which nuty not be for gains or manufacturing of touimodities, the industry will come under the definition of Industry. The change ofdefinition of Industry included in the Amending Act of 1982 has not been enforced, se the inanagement is still an Industry in view ofthejudgment ofthe Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India.

The management has filed documents regarding the working of this Worknian. According to the own admission of the management the workman has worked for 226 days trom 1986 toMarch, 1967. The workman has further worked from April, 1987 to March, 1998 for 240 days . The minagement has also schmitted that in the yours 1988 and 1989, the workman worked for 35 days, and in the year. 1989-1990 she has worked for 25 days . The workmanwas refusedwork on 10-05-1989 as is the case of the claimant.

The workman was not a regular emplestes, She was acasual dailyrated employee, Casual daily rated employee has no right to any post . She has only a right ofbeing conferredtemporary status of a muster roll after performing duties for some years as proecribed. In case the management is compelled to give memo and hold inquiry in respectofunsatisfactory performance ofcasual labourers, there will be no end of chargeslieets and inquiries. So far as casual labours are concerned, they can be removed in case their performances are not found satisfactory.A casual worker is just like probationer and 1387G06-12 1972

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; APRIL 26, 2008/VAISAKHA 6 , 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)] he has no right to post. Serving ofcharge sheet and holding of the inquiry is not essential .

Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofTelecom Factory and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 02-04-2008.

[F.No. L-40012346/ 99- IR(DU) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

ReferenceNo. 16of2000

The services ofthis workman was not satisfactory. It can be ascertained by job assigned to her in 1988-89 and 89-90. She has been assigned job for only 60 days in these two years. This establishes the fact that she was not very much sincere in performing her duties and Le . why she was not engaged all the year round: The management has communicated this fact to the Desk Officerwhen she made a complaint. Thus , the work ofthis workman was not satisfactory i.e. why the management didnot assign her further duties inher last two years.

Parties:Employers in relation to the management of ChiefGeneral Manager, Telecom Factory and Their workmen .

Present:Mr . Justice C.P. Mishra, PresidingOfficer

APPEARANCE :

On behalfofthe Mr. R.N.Bag

: Advocate.

Management

On behalf of the Mr. K. Chatterjee,

Workanen

: Advocate.

State

: West Bengal.

Industry

: Telephone

Dated:

26th March, 2008

AWARD

Theworkman has performed 240 days in the year 1986, 1987, 1988 and she has not been paid any retrenchment compensation or pay in lleu notice . Even if the management found her service un -satisfactory the management was duty bound to make payment of pay in lieu ofnotice and retrenchment compensation for two years services performed for more than 240 days in every year. This workman is not entitled to reinstatement as her work was not found satisfactory but she is entitled to compensation. The management should have made payment of 15 days wages for each completed years and one month's pay in lieu of notice. The management has not done so. She has worked only for two years. In the circumstances she is entitled to Rs.50, 000/- compensation in lieu ofreinstatement and pay in lieu ofnotice not paid in theyear1990.

By Order No.L -40012/346/99 - IR(DU) dated 10-02-2000the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 10( 1 )(d) and (2A) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:.

The reference is replied thus: The action of the management ofKalavati Saran Children Hospital, NewDelhi in terminating the services of Smt . Radha Devi w.e.f. 10-05-1989 is not absolutely justified. The workman is entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rs . Fifty Thousand Only) by way of compensation within two months from thedate of the publication of the award.

"Whether the action of the management ofTelecom Factory, Gopalpur ( W.B. ) in terminating the services of Sh. Sanjib Das w.e.f 1-10-98 is legal andjustified? Ifnot, to what reliefhe is entitled?"

The award is given accordingly.

Date: 26-3-2008

R. N. RAI, Presidinger

नई दिल्ली, 2 अप्रैल, 2008

2. When the case is called out today , none appears for the workman, nor any step is taken on his behalf to proceed with the matter. Learned Advocate for the management is present and prays that appropriate order maybe passed for disposal of the matter. It appears from the record that none is appearing on behalfoftheworkmen since 17-01-2007 inspite ofservice ofnotice, nor any step is taken on hiş behalf so that the matter may be disposed of on merit. In such circumstance it is clear that the workmen is no longer interested in the present matter under reference.

का.आ. 912,-औद्योगिक विवाद अभिश्यिम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार टेलीकोम फैक्ट्री के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कोलकता के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 16/2000 ) की प्रकाशितं करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[फा. सं. एल-40012/346/99 - आई. आर. ( डी. यू) ]

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 2nd April ,2008

3. Since the workman is no longer interested to proceedwith the matter under reference, this Tribunal has no other alternative but to dispose ofthe present reference by passinga "No Dispute " Award . A "No Dispute " Award is accordingly passed and the present reference is disposedof.

Dated Kolkata26-3-2008

S.O. 912. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 16/2000)

C. P, MISHRA, PresidingOfficer [ 3 ( 1) ]

1973 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2008/वैलावा 6, 1930

नई दिल्ली , 2 अप्रैल , 2008

का.मा. 913.-औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 काळ 4) को धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विमान के प्रबंध के संबद्ध और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुगंध में निर्दन्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकारऔद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्कयालय न. [1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 735/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो मोदी सरकार को 2-4-2008 कोप्राप्त हुआ का

पदः सं. बत-40012/380/90- आई मार ( डी.यू. ) ]

अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

HowDelhi, the 2nd April,2008

8.0. 913in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputea Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Govemment hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 735/ '2005) Central Government indus , Tribunal- cun Labour CourtNo Il, Chandigarh as shown in theAnnexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workanen, which aut ropeived by the Central Goverrument 2-04-2008.

[F. No. L-40012/380 /99-IR ((DU) ]

AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer

an affidavit of some responsible officer ofthe Management. Theworkumen has also shown lack of interest in following his case. After 8th of Dec, 2006 the workkilan ptred only on 2nd of August , 2007and neither before nor thereafter. He has not appeared as witness in the case to prove his affidavit. He has also not brought on moord way evidence to show that the Management of Generat Manager, Telecom, Bhatinda hed terminated bir services illegally and without any justification. The claonemade by him has been deniedby the Management in their written statement.Besides having taken legal pleas it is their claim that the Management had entered into contract with different contractors for the supply of labour and there was no occasion for engaging the workman by the Management. The copies of the agreements placed on record support their claim, Against this the workman has not produced any evidence. So much so he himselfhas fek shy to come and stand to the cross-examination of Management. Thus his claim has remained only on paper. On record there is no evidence to show that the Gencest Manager, Telecom, Bhatinde had engaged the workman and he had terminated his services illegally, Thus the reference received from Ministry of Labour, Goverment of India vide their No. L-40012/380/ 99 /IR(DU) dited Sth of Feb, 2000 is answered against the workman holding that họ is not entitled to any relief.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II, SCTOR 18-A,

Let a copy ofthis award be sent to the appropriate Government for necessary action and the file be consigned to records afterdue completion .

CHANDIGARH

KULDIP SINGH, Presidning Officer MUSAIDING OFFICER:

SHRI KULDIP SINGH

नई दिल्ली, 2 अप्रैल , 2008

CABELD.NO 735/2K5

Registered on: 1-9-2005

का.आ. 914.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 Date ofDecision: 14-3-2008

Madan Lat Sio, Shri Guntur Singh C/o Shri N.K.Jeet, Prezident, Telecom Labour Union, Mohalla Hari Nagar , Lal Singh Basti Road, Bhatinda.

-Petitioner

Versus

का 14 ) की बारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय न II , चण्डीगढ़ के पंफर्ट (प्रदिर्भ संख्या 215/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

The GeneralManager, Telecom, Bhatinda, Punjab,

-Respondent

[फा. सं. एल-40012/233/2002- आई आर(ही.यू. ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्कअधिकारी APPEARANCE

i NewDelhi , the2nd April,2008

FortheWorkman :Mr. N. K. Jeet, AR.

For theManagement : Mr. G. C. Babbar,Advocate.

AWARD

S.O. 914. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 215/ 2005 Cent.Govt. Indus. Tribunal -cum Labour CountNo II, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the incharial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workmen, which was received by the Central Governint on02-04-2008.

[F. No. L-40012/233/2002 -IR (DU)] AJAYKUMAR, Desk Officer The parties continue to be absent. Theworkman last attended the Tribunal on 2nd of August, 2007 onwhich date the workinan was directed to produce his evidence, On the request of the workman'a direction was issued to theManagement to produce the record summoned by the worleigh or in the alternative file an affidavit thật the record is not available. The Management reported in writing that the record is not available but failed to certify that fact by 1974

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ⅱ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26 , 2008/ VAISAKHA 6, 1930

ANNXEURE

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALCUM- LABOUR COURT -IL, SCTOR 18-A, CHANDIGARH

PRESIDING OFFICER:

SHRI KULDIP SINGH

CASELD. NO: 215/2KS

Registeredon: 3-8-2005

Date ofDecision: 14-3-2008

Management claimed that they are not an industry but has produced no evidence in support oftheir claim . They further claimed that the workman had earlier raised the same claim which resulted into a reference under I.D. Act registeredas ID. 54 of 2001 but they have not filed any proofto show that both the references arise out of the same cause of action. The management, thus has failed to assist the tribunal properly in answering the reference inhand.

Mohinder Singh Sto Sh . Amar Nath Rio Village & P.O, Jaja, Tehsil Dasuya, Hoshiarpur.

PETITIONER

Versus

TheGeneralManager, Telecom, Hoshiarpur.

RESPONDENT

APPEARANCE

For the Workman: Messrs . Gopal Kumar Saini

and S.S.Khokhar,Advocates .

FortheManagement: Ms. Deepali Puri ,Advocate.

AWARD

Thefollowing reference was received fromMinistry ofLabour, Government of India for adjudication vide their order No L -40012 /233 /2002( IR (DU) dated 25th ofMarch, 2003:

"Whether the action of General Manager , Telecom, District Hoshiarpur interminating the services of Sh. Mohinder Singh S/o Sh. Amar Nath ,w.e.f. 1/3/99 is legal and just ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?"

It is furtherto be taken note ofthat the workanan filed anapplication dated 19th of April , 2006 asking for a direction to the Management to produce the original record of document, photo copies of which he had placed on record andmarked as ' A' to ' G' . The notice of the application was given to the management, but they did not file reply to it and the tribunal by its order dated 21st ofFeb , 2007 directed the Management to produce the documents in the case but they have not produced the said documents . In the affidavit of Shri Dharam pal , their witness they claimed that they had not engaged the workman ; and that they had an agreement with one Shri Ram Krishan, Budh Ram Coloney, Jodhamal Road, Hoshiarpur for providing the labour for performing emergency work. But they have failed toproduce theagreement or even the affidavit of the contractor named to show that there was any such contract between the management and the contractor for providing labour for emergency work. Another fact to be taken note of is the Management stopped appearing in the case through representative or counsel since 7th of Sept, 2006 and the workman last attended the Tribunal on 21st of Feb , 2007 and thereafter he too has not appeared. It is in this situation the tribunal is answering the reference and it is being answered on the basis ofthe evidence available on record.

The claim of the workman is that he was appointed as daily wager against a permanent post on Ist of March, 1992 and he worked for the Management till 28th of Feb, 1999 under the control of SDO Telephones , Urmar, Tanda and over all control of General Manager , Telecom , Hoshiarpur. That on 10th of Feb. 1999 the workman made a representation ofhis regularization in service claimingto have servedtheManagement for more than 240 days without breakwhich annoyed the management and they terminated his services w.e.f. 1st of March, 1999 illegally without passing any written order as by then he had put in seven years of service for the Management without break and hadworked in laying the cable work in UMA Exchange, Urmar, Tanda and in digging the trenches for underground cable along with Gurdeep Lal . That the work ofthe workman was certifiedby Messrs . Surinder Singh and Inderjit Singh on behalf of the respondents . The workman has further alleged that the Management resorted to unfair labour practice by not issuing appointment order in his favour and for not deciding the representations made by him. He has also claimedthat the termination ofhis service is illegal, unwarranted and bad in law since the Management did not hold any enquiry nor charge sheeted him.

Inresponse to the notice of the reference issued by this tribunal the parties appeared . The workman filed his statement of claim and supported the sarne with his affidavit and Photo copies of the document marked as A to G. He also appeared as witness in the case and was cross- examined by the Management through their counsel . The conduct ofManagement in putting upon their case has remained quite strange . All through the proceedings they did not file the authority letter of their counsel who was allowed to appear on their behalf on her filing the Memorandum of appearance dated 25th of August , 2003. They filed reply to the statement of claim dated 25th of Feb,2005 through Shri Dharam Pal , SDE(Legal) in the office ofGMT(D) Hoshiarpur without showing that said SDE was duly authorized by the General Manager, Telecom, District Hoshiarpur to appear on his behalf. The replywas also signed by the MS Deepali Puri , Advocate who too did so without authority as stated earlier . Her authority to appear in the case is not on record . The Management placed on record the Affidavit of said Dharam Pal . in support of their reply, but the reading of the affidavit shows that the Management went far beyond their pleadings in controverting the facts claimed by the workman without first controverting the same in the reply whereas the affidavits are filed only in support of the pleadings . The [ न्द 3(1) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 26 , 2006/वैशाख 6, 1930

1975

prescribed for appointments. Therefore , in the light of law. 1 laiddownby the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the caseSecretary, Stale ofKarnataka and Ons, Versus Umadevi andOrs. reported as (2006) 4 SCC 1 , the warkopen cagnot be reinstated in service, but be is definitely entitled for. compensation for his illegal retrenchment . The Management bytheir illegal act has kept the workman away from service for all these years , putting him and lets fondly in suffering. Considering the facts and circonstances of the caseI am ofthe opinion that the workman is entitled to ! a compensation of rupees one lakh, The Mangement is directed to pay this compensation to the workman within three months from the dete the award becomes enforocable under law. In case they fail to pay the sune, the workapas shall also be entitled to interest on the awarded amount ! along with interest @ 9 % PAfiom the said date. Lot acopy ofthis awardbe sent to the appropriateGovernment for necessary action and the file be consigned to recorda shor.. duecompletion.

KULDIP,SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 2 अप्रैल , 2008

5. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 1947 का 14) की भारी 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकारन बैंक अफ इंडिया ( पंजाब नेशनल बैंक में ।में विलय के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीत , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विभार में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायातमनई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 35/1992 ) को प्रकानिध्य करणी है, वो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था..

[सं. एल-12012/327/91-आई आरी -11) ]

राजिन्द्र कुम्बर , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the2nd April,2008

The Management has opposed the claim of the workman saying that he had raised the same claim which was registered as ID No. 54 of 2001 pending before COTT Chandigarh : that the workman by submitting fresh claimaimn onon the basis of same facts is not worth consideration and the same requires to be dismissed . They have stated nothing about the facts alleged by the workman in his statement as towhen he was engaged, how long he worked and the termination of workman by the Management was in an illeged manner . Since the Management in their reply hat not denied the thets stated in the statement of claim not they have placed on record the copy of the counter they chhimed to have been filed by them in I.D. No. 54 of 2001, it is to be prehimed that they have admitted the claim. of the workman. As noted above the Management controverted the facts claimed by the workinam in his statement of clais in the affidavit of Shri Dharam Pal , their wilness, who was not produced by the Dianagement for the cross- cxamination of the workinan. They cannot claim that they had no occasions to do that as the Management stopped appearing in the onse w.e.f. 7th ofNov, 2006. They didnot comply with the directions issued to them on 21st ofFeb,2007, directing them to produce the record .Even if we accept that whatever facts Shri Dharam Pal brought on record inhis alfidavit for the Management be read as reply tothe claim ofthe workanan , then also the position cannot be better since the Management has not only failedto produce their witness to prove the affidavit filed by him but also has failed to produce the recond or any other evidence to show that no such record was maintainedby them; and that they had not engaged the workman, as is clained by him , or that he had not served the Management for the periodhe claimed to have served them; and they had an agrvoshentwith contractor to provide labour to them for emergency service. In the circumstances the evidence produced by the workman has to be accepted as true as he was cross -examined by the Management.

S.O. 915. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (ReferenceNo. 35/1992) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court No.2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure inthe industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofNew Bank ofIndia (merged withPunjabNational Bank) and theirworkmen, which was received by the Central Government on 1-4-2008 ,

[No. L- 12012/327/91 -TRIS- I) RAJINDER KUMAR, Denk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALCUM LABOUR COURT-INEW DELHI

PRESIDING OFFICER: RIN RAI IDNO.35/1992

IN THEMATTER OF:

Sh.Prahalad,

C/o , Sh. Kumaram, R/ o.7/486, TrilokPari,

New Delhi -110091 .

-Chilment

VERSUS

The perusal of the documents marked 'A' to G show that the workman had served the Management for more than 240days in each year from ist ofMarch, 1992 to 28th ofFeb. 1999, more specifically twelve months preceding thedate ofhisdisengagement on 1st ofMarch, 1999. There has shio como no evidence on record to show that before the disengagement of the worlonen the Management kad given hint notice de paidwages for the notice period and rouvachanent contpensation or they followed the proviεκάσης ofSection 5 - F ofthe Act. Therefore, it is held that the Management hed terminated the services of the workman without following the provisions of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The disengagement of the workman is, therefore, held to be bad in law and is hereby quashed. Now the question to be decided is as to what relieftheworkmen is entitled to. There has come no evidence on record to show that the engagerment of the workoman was in an open competition or by following the procedure 1976

[PART 1]SBC. 34 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2008 VAISAKHA 6, 1930

TheDy. General Manager,

Respondents

NewBank of India, 2ndFloor, Vikrant Tower , Rajendra Place, NewDelhi ,

AWARD

The management has filed written statement. In the written statement it has been stated that the reference made beforethis court is bad because it does not reflect the real disputebetween the parties. Moreover the court constituted undertheAct cannot travel beyond the reference proceeds . Hence the alleged claim filed by the so called workman meritsdismissal.

TheMinistry ofLabour by its letter No.L - 12012/327/ 91-IR(B- II) CentralGovernment Dt. 26-03-1992 has referred the following point for adjudication:

The point runs as hereunder:

That the alleged workman has not come before this court with clean hands and concocted and made up the story/facts according to his taste and moreover, it is admitted case that the alleged claimant was never given the appointment letter because he was never in the employment ofNew Bank of India, the plaintiff bank, as alleged. Hence the alleged claim filed by the so called workman merits dismissal .

"Whether the management of New Bank of India bad employed Sh. Prahalad as a sub-staff in their different branches ie. Extension Counter, Salwan Public School, Cannaught Circus, Holiday Home & Janpath etc. fromMay, 1985 to July, 1990 and thereafter terminated his services w.e.f. 24-07-1990 and ifso, whether the termination ofhis employment wasjust and legal ? Ifnot, to what relief is the workman entitled to."

That the so called workman has never served any densand notice upon the managerment as required under law within reasonable time or before raising the industrial dispute. Hence the alleged claim filed by the so called claimant merits dismissal with cost.

Theworkman applicant has filed claim statement . In the claim statement it is stated that the workinan joined NewBank of India as its employees in July, 1984 at its extension counter at Salwan Public School , Rajindra Nagar , NewDelhi .The applicant worked for about thiree months there as a temporaryPoon.

That from 3rd May, 1985 to 22nd June, 1989 he worked as Peonat L- Block, Cannought Circus, New Delhi Brarich of the said bank.

That the alleged claim filed by the so calledworkman is untenable since the claim is totally misconceived, baseless and without any footing as no such employee in thename of the claimant was working in the bank during the period as alleged by the so called workman. In the absence of any documentary evidence/sppointment letter it cannot even be presumed that he has ever worked in the employment of the bank either on regular or temporary basis.Hence the alleged claim merits dismissal with cost.

That he was asked to join at Bangalore at Holiday Home ofthe said bank.He reported for duty on 26-06-1989 and remained posted there till August, 1989.

That the alleged claim filed by the so calledworkman is much belated and merits dismissal on this score alone being not maintainable . Hence the same merits dismissal withcost.

It is wrong and denied that alleged claimant has worked from 3rd May, 1985 to22nd June, 1989 at L- Block, Cannaught Place, New Delhi Branch ofthebank.

It iswrong and denied that the so called claimant was ever askedtojoin at Bangalore at Holiday Home of the bank and be reported for duty from 26-06-1989 to August, 1989

That in August, 1989 itselfhe was asked to join at Janpath, Cannaught Place, New Delhi Branch of the said bank. He worked at the said Janpath Branch as Peon till August, 1990 when he was illegally removed from the service.Hewas not given any notice, nor any wages in lieu ofnotice. Hewas not paid any retrenchment compensation either from 1984 till date quite a few persons have been recruited in the sub-staff category as Peons in the bank as regular and permanent employees . Thus , he had been denied the right of preferential treatement for regular absorption against permanent vacancies. Denial of this right amounts to violation ofprovsions of ShastryAward, Desai Award and B.P. Settlements (those are mandatory provisions).

Not only this during his employment he was being underpaid, The principle of equal wages equal work was denied. He was asked to work much beyond the working hours without any payment for the same.

It iswrong and vehemently denied that the workman was ever employee of the respondent . When he was never in the service ofthe bank the question ofhis removal from the service does not arise nor the question of giving any notice, or wages in lieu of notice, or any retrenchment compensation does not arise . When he was never appointed in service then how the removal could be illegal asalleged.

was ever It iswrong and denied that the claimant was employed of the respondent. The question that from 1984 tilldate quite a few persons have been recruited in the sub- staff category as Peons in the bank as regular and permanent employees , does not arise . It is also wrong and denied that Payment vouchers by which he used to be paid his wages for the periods ofemployment with the bank are in possession of the bank. However, copies of some of the vouchers were provided to me during the conciliation proceedings. As the vouchers are in the custody of the said employer, the respondent management may please be asked to submit the same along with their written statement.

197 [গাল - (১) ]

भारत का राबपत्र: अप्रैल 26, 2008/वैशाख 6, 1930

thinh to time and he was also doing athor meand works lika fillingwater in cooler and hondro bagni finnach manual work on vouchers . He was not remind byenbe bankas per the recruitmentrales, so he was not allowed to put his signature in the register.

he had been denied the right of preferential trostment for reguler absorption against permanent vacancies .When bothing wrong was done as alleged the question of provisions ofSestri Award and Desti Award does not trise. The whole contents of the para tunder reply are wrong and verthermly denied."

The workman has examined himself. One Mr.A.K. Chopra, Sio: Sh. P.N. Chopra bus fileclaffidavit inhis evidence. He is an employee ofthe back and bekas stated that he visited Bangalore from 26-06-1989 to 4-7-1989 and stayed at Holiday Home at Bangalore.He saw the workmanworking there,

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In the rejoinder he has reiterated the avernents of his claim statement andhas denied most of the parns of the written statement. The management has also denied most of the paras ofthe claim statemen.....

Evidence ofboth the parties has been takan, Written brief has been filed, Heard parties and perused the written brief

From perusal of the pleadings of the parties the following Issues arise for adjudication:

1. Whether the workmin has completed 240 days during the tenure of his employment?

: Another witness Sh. KL. Abroy has also filed affklavit. He was a Clerk in that branch . He kneeded theworking ofthis workman in the bunch, Hobassad thework performed by the workman as handing over of banks books/papers from one seat to another . He used to do thebusiness of cleaning ofcounter, table, furniture esc. Hehas further stated in his affidavitthat he did everything that a Poon does. This witness is an employee of the beak. Hehas notbeen cross examined.

2.Whether the workman is entitled to reinstatement?

3. To what amount ofback wages the workman is entitled to?

ISSUENO. 1

Another witness Mr. Mam Chand has alag filedhis affidavit. Hehas stated in his affidavit that the worknun worked as Peon at the extension counter and this witness alsoworkedwith him. He has also suated that the woduman performedall the duties which a peou does . These two witnesses, the employees of the bank have filed affidavit but theyhave not been cross- exzinined by the bank It was submitted from the side of the workanen that bejoined (New Bank of India) referred to as respondent as ka aumploysai in July, 1984 at its extension counter Salwan PublicSchool, Rajender Nagar, New Delhi for 3 monthsas temporary Peon . He worked as temporary Peon from 3rd May, 1985 to22nd June, 1989 as PeonatL- Block, Cannought Cirele,NewDelhi Branch oftheBank.

It was submitted that he joined at Bangalore at HolidayHome ofthe said Bank. He reported for duty on 26-06-1984 andremained posted there tillAugust, 1989.In August 1989 he was asked to join at Janpath, New Delhi of the mid bank. He worked there tillAugust , 1990. Thereafter be was legally removed from service without any pay or retrenchment compensation,

Itwas further submitted that from 1984 till date a few persons have been regularized in the sub- staff category as Peon in the bank na regular and permanent employees.He wasunder paid during his employment and he was denied equal pay for equal work. Payment was made to him through payment vouchers.

Theworkman has filed letters and vouchers on which he has been authorized to receive daks and papers, Prom perusal of the affidavit filed by the three employees it becomes quite obvious that the workin' worked w temporary Peon in the bank as has been mentikined in the claim statement. He was deputed in Holiday Nome at Bangalore. The bank uployeer whe stayed it Holiday Home at Bangalore has also deposed that the workmen wasworking as Peon there. So the averagents ofthe claim statement of the workman that he worked at difficcant counters and branches of the bank and Holiday Home at Bangalore is proved to the hilt by the affidavit ofthe three employees of the bank. These employees ofthe bank have not been cross-examined by the management. Their testimony goes inrebuted, so on the bells ofiffithevit of these three employees who have appeared MW2 , MW3 &MW4 it is proved that the wurkman was erployed as Peon in the different branches of the bank RomJuly, 1964 toAugust, 1990,

The worlimen has flied photocopy of vouchers on the lotter head of the manegersent . Hehas filed vouchers ofthebank alsonelating to 1983 , 1988, 1989 & 1990. These vonchers prove the engagement of the workman with the bank.

Theworkmen has atleast worked for 2404a 1945, 1986, 1987, 1988 1989, In 1984heas svorked from Julyto December and in the year 1990 he has svorkadup to August, 1990.Hehasworked for 240 days even in the year 1990 the workman has worked for 240 days every year inthe bank in the years referred to above.

Mr.B.K. Batra the Personnel Officer has filed affidavit in evidence. In his affidavit he has stated that the worlonman was not on the pay roll of the branch of the bank. He was merely engaged on contract basis to supply or bring the stationery and other articles as required by the bank from.

Itwas submitted from the side of the bank that he was not recruited as per the recruitmont ruler so he was inot permittedto put his signature on the alliondance register.

1978

[PART 11-SEC. 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 26 , 2008/VAISAKHA 6, 1930

It was further submitted from the side of the bank thatheworked on contract basis and he was made payments for the pertodbe worked. He was not recruited as per the recruitment rules, so there is no question of reinstatement ofthis workman .

The workman has worked as Peon for almost 6-7 years . He has worked continuously for 240 days in everyyear ofhis employment,

५

This issue isdecided accordingly.

ISSUE NO. 2

ID Act, 1947 has been enacted to safeguard the interest of the workmen belonging to poor segment of society. It appears that legislature wanted that such workmen should not be harassed un-necessarily so Section 25F, U, T and Clause 10 ofVith Schodule have been enacted. The objects and reasons of ID Act, 1947 show that the respondent management should not be permitted to indulge in anyunfair labour practice. The workmen should not be engaged for years and then they should be removed all of asudden. There is provision ofretrenchment compensation for his removal . Retrenchment compensation is for compensating him otherwise so that he can survive long interregnum of unemployment. In the instant case no retrenchment compensation has been paid.

It was submitted from the side of the bank that reinstatement is not the only relief in all the cases of illegal termination. Section 11 A of the ID Act, 1947 provides for payment of compensation also ,

It was submitted from the side of the workman that compensation is payable in cases where an undertaking become sick or it has been closed or it is in economic loss. It has not been established that the bank is in economic lossand it is a sick Industry.

Itwas submitted from the side of the management that the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2006 (4) Scale has put down a complete ban on regularization and reinstatement. The Hon'bleApex Court has held that employment can onlybe made on the basis of procedure established in that behalf envisaged by the Constitution. Equality of opportunity is the hallmark and the Constitution enshrines affirmative action to ensure that unequals are not treated equals . So public employment should be in terms of constitutional scheme,

Itwas further submitted that the Constitution Bench Judgment has afforded a right according to which the Government is not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on daily wages .

My attention was drawn by the Ld. Counsel ofthe wurkman to 2000 LLR 523 Sinte ofUP and Rajender Singh. TheHon 'ble Apex Court ordered for reinstatement with full back wages as the services of the daily wager cleaner who worked for 4 years was dispensed with without following the procedure for retrenchment. In the instant case also no retrenchment compensation has been paid. This case law squarely covers the instant case.

It has been held in 1978 Lab IC 1668 that in case service of a workman is tenninated illegally the nonnal rule isto reinstate him with full backwages ,

My attention was further drawn to AIR 2002 SC 1313 . The Hon 'ble Supreme Court has held that daily wager even ifserving for a short period should be reinstated.

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that in the instant case Sections 25 F, G of the ID Act are attracted.

The Hon' ble Apex Court has not declared the provisions of ID Act un-constitutional. The Government has got no license to make always appointment of daily wagers and to continue them for life time. Fixed term tenure appointments and temporary appointments cannot be the ruleofpublic employment . At the time ofmaking temporary appointments Articles 14, 16, 21, 23 , 226 &309 are infringed. There isno constitutional mandate that the Government is at liberty to go on giving fixed term appointments for the entire tenure ofservice of an employee.

In Section 25 ofthe ID Act it has been provided that ifaworkmanhas performed 240 days work and ifthework is of continuous and regular nature he should be given pay in lieu ofnotice and retrenchment compensation .

It has been held by the Hon' ble Apex Court that there is no cessation of service in case provisions ofSection 25 F are not complied. In the instant case no compensation has been paid to the workman.

Incase aworkman has worked for 240 days in a year andthe work is ofcontinuous and regular nature he should bepaid retrenchment compensation. In case retrenchment compensation is not paid Section 25 F of the ID Act is attracted. There is no cessation of his services. He is deemed continued in service in the eye of law. In case there is breach of Section 25 F the service is continued and reinstatement follows as a natural consequence .

No suchArticle ofthe Constitution has been pointed out under which the Government or Public Sector units can continue incessantly to give temporary and fixedterm appointments again and again . Since fixed term appointments and temporary appointments are not governed by any constitutional scheme, such discrimination will amount to vicious discretion . The Government or Public Sector unit will go on resortingto the method ofpick and choose policy and give temporary and adhoc appointments to their favorites and thus the principles of equality enshrined in the constitution will be given a go bye. Such is not the intent ofthe Hon' ble Apex Court. However, in this judgment the provisions of the ID Act governing the services of the workman have not been declared unconstitutional . Reinstatement is the remedy provided in the ID Act for breach of several provisions 1979 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 26 , 2008/वैशाखा 6, 1930

[ भाग ॥ खष्ठ 3 (il ) ]

coumerated therein or for breach of service rules provided in various labour welfare legislations.

order ofdischarge or dismissal being set aside. It has been held in (2003) 6 SCC 141 that it is incumbent upon the labour court to decide the quantura of back wages.

Ithas been further beld in this case that payment of backwages having discretionary element involuced it is to bedealt with the facts and circumstances of the case. No definite formula can be evolved , It has been further held in this case that payment of back wages in its entirety is the statutory sanction. In (2003 ) 4 SCC 27 the Hon'ble Apex Courtheld that in view of delay in reising the dispete and initiating the proceedings back wags need not be allowed. Inthe instant case there is no delay at least on the part of the workman in raising the dispute.

Section 11 A of the ID Act stipulates that incasethe Tribunal is satisfied that the order ofdischarge or dismissal was notjustified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any , as it thinks fit or give such other relief to the workman including the ward of any lesser punishment in lieu ofdischarge or dismissal as the cirumstance of the case may require. Accordingto this benign provision this Tribunal has the authority to set aside the order ofdischarge or dismissal and reinstate the workman on the terms and conditions as itthinks fit.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in 2006 (4) Scale has not annulled Section 11 A ofthe ID Act and the legislaturehas authorized this Tribunal to set aside dismissal or discharge on its consideration and direct reinstatement. The judgment citedby the management is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

In1978 Lab IC 1968 three Judges Beach of the Hon 'ble ApexCourt held that payment of full back wages is the normal rule . In case services have been illegally terminated either by dismissal or discharge or retrenchimint in such circumstanice the workman is entitled to full back wages except to the extent he was gainfully employed during the enforced idleness . In the instant case the workman was always ready to work but he was not permitted on account ofinvalid act ofthe employer.

Athree Judges bench of the Hon' ble Apex Court has held in. 1993 - II- LLJ that termination ofservices affects the livelihood ofnot only of the employee but also ofthe dapendents. So in case of illegal termination of service the workonan should be reinstated.

In 2005 TV AD SC 39 - three Judges Bench ofthe Hon'bleApex Court held that reinstatement with full back! wages is justified , In this case the workman has performed more than 240 days work and he has been retrenched without payment ofcompensation and pay in lieu ofnotice.

Reinstatement should not be misconceived as regularization .By the order ofreinstatement the status quo anteofthe workman is restored. He is given backwages in orderto compensate him for his illegal disengagement . This is aspecial remedy provided in ID Act and it has not been annulled and set aside by any judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The provisions of the ID Act are still constitutional and they are to be given effect too,

It was subenitted from the side of the managemont that reinstatement is not the only remedy. In such cases theworkman may be given compensation . Section 11 A of the ID Act, 1947 provides that in case of dismissal or discharge is found illegal reinstatement should be ordered. Ithas been held in a catena of cases by the Hon'ble Apex Court that reinstatement with fiflf book wages is the fibermal rule. The statute provides fot reinstatement, in curtain exceptional cases where the undertaling his been closed down de ithas become sick there may be order far payуезо ofcompensation.

Incase the workman is reinstated with backwages the respondonts have every right, after payment of back wages and reinstatement , to retrench him validly following theprinciples of first come last go so that Section 25, G& Hofthe ID Act are not violated.

Theworkman is a manual worker . He mustbe doing some sort ofwork off and on. He is not enaployed in any establishment. He must have been doing some sort of work for his survival and his family members. In the facts and circumstances of the case the workman is entitled to get 25% back wages,

This issue is decided accordingly.

The reference is replied thus:

The workman has worked as Pean for almost 6-7 years. He has worked continuously for 240 days in every year ofhis employment. He has not been paid retrenchment conspensation or pay in lieu ofnotice . He shall be deemed to be continued.in service by fiction of law . The Dywanganent is still in existence. It has not become a sick unit, so theworkman is entitled to reinstatement in view of the law cited above.

This issue isdecided accordingly.

ISSUENO.3.

Themanagement of New Bank of Indiahad employed Sh. Prahalad as a sub-staff in their different branches i.e. Extension Counter, Salwan School, Cannanight Circus HolidayHome & Janpath etc. Brom May, 1983 to July, 1990 and thereafter terminated his services w.e.f. 24-07-1990, Thứ termination ofhis employment is neither just nor legal . The Itwas submitted by the management that payment offull back wages is not the natural consequence of the

1387 G408-13 1980

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 26, 2008 /VAISAКНА 6, 1930

management is directed to reinstate the workman applicant within two months from the date of the publication ofthe award along with 25% back wages .

The award is given accordingly.

Date:24-3-2008

R. N. RAJ, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 2 अप्रैल , 2008

का.आ. 916.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल बैंक आफैं इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय न.- II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 29/1992 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं एल-12012/359/91- आई आर ( बी -1[ ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 2nd April, 2008

S.O. 916.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Govemmenthereby publishes the Award ( Reference No. 29/1992) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court No. 11, New Delhi as shown in the annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers inrelation to the management ofCentral Bank of India and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 1-4-2008 .

[No. L-12012/359/91 - IR (B - 11)] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOURCOURT- IL, NEW DELHI PRESIDING OFFICER: R.N. RAI LD.NO.29/1992 IN THE MATTER OF:

Sh . Sansar Singh , Daftri ,

-Claimant WZ- 17, Hari Nagar, Nanakpura, ClockTower, N. Delhi -64,

Versus

TheDy.GeneralManager,

Central Bank ofIndia , Zonal Office, Link House,4, Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg,

New Delhi - 110002.

Respondents

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L - 12012/359/91-1.R (B- II ) Central Government Dt13-03- 1992 has referred the following point for adjudication:

The point runs as hereunder:

"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India in dismissing the services ofSh. Sansar Singh,

[PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii)] Deftri w.e.f. 23-02-1990 isjustified? If not , to what reliefthe workanan is entitled to, "

The case has been remanded by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 21-11-2006. The award of CGIT - I has been set aside by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Tribunal has been directed to consider the matter afresh.

The case of the workman is that he was initially engaged w.e.f 27-6-1970 and from 12-11-1971 he became a regular member ofsubordinate staff and was subsequently designated as Daftri in the year 1974.

That in the year 1989 he was served with a charge- sheet on 24-2-1989 and an inquiry was held against him . After proper completion of the inquiry the DA gave a show cause notice for the purposes of punishment .

That the workman was dismissed on 22/23-2-1990 with immediate effect. The workman has not been absent on three occasions . Clause 19.5 ( 1) provides as under:

19.5 (f) . " habitual doing ofany act which amounts to "minor misconduct" as defined below, "habitual " meaning a course of action taken or persisted in notwithstanding that at least on three previous occasions censure or warnings have been administered or an adverse remark hasbeen entered against him. "

That the workman has been punished for un- authorized absence by giving censure entry. The bank cannothold Inquiry unduly until three times censure entry has been given.

That the workmen at worst committed minor offence by his unauthorized absence and he can be given only censure entry alone.

The case ofthe management is that the workman was in the habit of remaining absent un -authorisedly. He absented himself from the job without sanctioned leave for about 686 days prior to December, 1986. He absented for 126 days without sanctioned leave un-authorisedly in the year 1987. Show cause notice was issued to him .

That show cause notice was issued to him vide order dated 26-8-1998 and he still remained absent, so a censure entry was imposed on him vide order dated 16-11-1988 under P-19.8 (a ) oftheBPS.

That a notice dated 27-8-1988 was issued to the workman for his unauthorized absence from 5-4-1988 to 14-5-1988 and from 19-5-1988 to 11-7-1988.

Hedid not reply to the show cause notice hence a second penalty of censure was imposed upon him vide order dated 16-11-1988 , The workman again remained absent from 18-7-1988 to 3-10-1988

The workman was again given show cause notice vide order dated 16-12-1988 for his unauthorized absence. Hedidnot submit written explanation and the third penalty ofcensure was imposed on himby order dated 6-2-1989. That aftergiving thrice punishment of censure the workman [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (il) ]

1941 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2008/वैशादा 6 , 1930

did not improve and charge-sheet was served on him on 24-2-1989unddepartmental inquirywasheld.

It further transpires from parasal ofthe record that it has boon provided under clause 19.5 (1) of the BPS as under:

That the workman participated in the departmental inquiry and be was assisted by defence representative. Principles ofnatural justicewere followed during the course ofinquiry.

19.5(1). "habitual doing ofany act witick mounts to "minor misconduct " sa defined below, "habitual meaning acourse of action taken or persisted in notwithstanding that at least on three previous occasions opmure or warnings have been administered or an adverse remienk has been entered against him. " :

That the InquisyOfficer found the workman guilty of the charges of unsuthorized habitual absence and the DA after giving show cause notice and considering his representation passed the order ofdismissal with immediate effect.

That theAA confirmed the order of the DA. After giving the 3rd consure entry the management held inquiry under Clase 19.5(1) oftheBPS.

From perusal ofthis clause it becomes quite obvious that in case a workman has bera given censure or warning at least on three previous occasions , a minor misconduct becomes agrave misconduct and inquiry can be held and ithasbeenprovided in clause 9.6 that an employee found guilty of gross misconduct may be dismissed without notice,

Theworkman in his cross-examination has admitted as under:-

بر

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

Evidenceofboththe parties has been taken.

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

"Iwas asked byMr. R.S. Sethto give an application for the past period in which I remained absent but I didnot give the application and he has por told him the period, I do not know whether I was given three times notice regarding the absence from duty before issuingthe charge- sheet for the 4th time for gross misconduct.

It was submitted from the side of the workman that for three acts ofhabitual absence only minor penalty can be imposed. The management illegally held departinental inquiry and punishment to him under clause 19.5(f) ofthe BPS was imposed. He was not absent on the previous three occasions and three times censure entry was not giventohim.

From the above admission it becomes quite obvious that theworkman was so negligent that he did not remember the period ofhis absence and he wanted Mr. Sethi to tell him the period of his absence. The workman did not give leave application despite the direction of Mr. Sethi . The workman has not denied that he has not been giventhree times censure entries regarding his absence from duty before the issuing the charge- sheet for the 4th time for gross misconduct. : ".

The workman has also denied in his cross- examination that he was not running a taxi as private business.

Itwas submitted from the side of the management that the workinan was given thrice punishment by way of censure. The first was for the period ofhis absence for 126 days in the year 1987 and he did not give any reply to the saidnotice, so the penalty of censure was imposed on him on 16-11-1988 . The workman again absented from duty from5-4-1988 to 14-5-1988 and from 19-5-1988to 11-7-1988 and a censure entry was given to him on 16-11-1988. It transpires from perusal of the record that two censure entries were given to him on 16-11-1988 . The first for his 126 days absence in the year 1987 and the second for his absence from 5-4-1988 to 14-5-1988 and 19-5-1988 to 11-7-1988. The punishment of censure was for the second time imposed on him on 16-11-1988 . The workman absented from duty from 18-7-1988 to 3-10-1988 and penalty of censure was imposed upon him vide order dated 6-2-1989.

From perusal ofthe record it also transpires that the workman did not submit explanation to the show cause notice dated16-11-1988 for his unauthorized absence, so the 3rd penalty of censure was imposed on him. The workman did not turn up after the 3rd penalty of censure, an the charge-sheet was served on him vide order dated 14-2-1989. The workman remained absent after the sure entrydated6-2-1989 and so for his absence from 6-2-1989 onwards a charge-sheetwas served on him vide order dated 24-2-1989.

Theworkinanhas been punished under clause9.6of theBPS for gross misconduct. Penalty ofcensure hasbeen given to him on three occasions and still he did not resume his duties so the management served a charge-sheet. He has been rightly punishiéd for his gross misconduct after three occasions of censare penalty. He was a habitual absentee.Hewas un-authorisedly absent for 686 days prior to December, 1986 and 126 days in the year 1987 and thereafter he remained un -authorisedly abgent till the charge-sheet was served ori him . Ihave perused the inquiry proceedings. The management has not violated the principles ofnatural justice. The workcham has been given sufficient opportunity to cruss -examine the witnesses and produce his own defence evidence . The findings of the Inquiry Officer are based on analysis of evidence . The findings are not perverse. The orders ofthe DA and AA are as per the provisions ofthe clause 19.6 oftheBPS .The Workman remained unenthorisedly absent for a long time and he was negligent also in moving leave applications, He remained absent without obtaining leave in advanco. It has been heldin2004 (7) SCC 574 by theHon'ble Supreть :

1982

[PART 1 SEC.3(ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL , 26, 2008/VAISAKHA 6, 1930

AWARD

Court that the management was justified in passing the order ofdismissal in such circumstances.

TheMinistry ofLabour by its letterNo. L-11012/94/ 2006(IR(B-II) Central GovernmentDt. 14-1-2006 has referred the following point for adjudication;

The point runs as hereunder:

The law citedbythe workman is not applicable in the tacts and circumstances ofthe case. No interference in the punishment is required in view of the long un-authorized absence.

Thereference is replied thus:

The action of the management of Central Bank of India indismissing the services ofSh. Sansar Singh, Daftri w.e.f. 23-2-1990 is justified. The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for ..

Theaward is givenaccordingly. Date:24-3-2008

R.N.RAJ , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 2 अप्रैल , 2008

"Whether the allegation of Mahabank Karamchari Sangh, DDA Flat No. 9-B /B-G/S/A, Paschim Vihar , New Delhi-63 against the Regional Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Delhi Region , 6/30-31 , WEA , Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110 005 for breach of settlement in Pension Regulation1993 to payment of pension to Shri G.L. Khurana isjust, valid and legal? Whether the pension ofthe workman hasbeen calculated by the management in accordancewith the definition given under Rule 2 and Rule 20 of theBank ofMaharashtraEmployees' (Pension) Regulations , 1993? If not, what relief is the disputant concerned entitled to andwhat directions are neccessary in the matter,"

Theworkman applicant has filed claim statement. In the claim statement it has been stated that the provisions ofthe Rate ofPension as defined in Chapter IV ofBankof Maharashtra(Personnel Department) letter No. AX 1 /ST/ OSR/24/94 dated 6-4-1994 and Bank of Maharashtra Employee(Pension) Regulation, 1993.

का.अ. 917.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरणा/ श्रम न्यायालय न. 11 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 83/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं एस-12011/94/2006- आई आर(भीम ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्कअधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 2nd April , 2008

Ithas been further stated that the basic pensionwill be fiftyper cent of the average emolument i.e. average of pay drawn by an employee during the last 10 months of his servicesas perRegulation20 ( iv) . The period of10 months for this purpose should be reckoned backwards from the date of retirement as defined in sub-regulation (k) regulation 2.

S.O. 917. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award (Ref. 83/2006) of the Central Government Indutrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No. 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Maharashtra, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 1-4-2008,

[No. L- 12011/94/2006- IR (B- II)]

RAJINDER KUMAR, DeskOfficer

That theBank ofMaharashtra, Accounts andAudit Deptt. CentralOffice, Pune (Staff, Pension Cell ) has made out work sheet showing last 10 months pay details of Mr. G.L. Khurana from January, 2001 to April, 2000 backwards at the left hand side of the worksheet but the average of emolument drawn is not calculated and not considered for authorizing his actual pension which is as under.-

ANNEXURE

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

Thetotal oflast 10 months pay drawn - Rs . 107910 The average one month pay Rs. 10791 26years of qualifying service in the bank.

PRESIDING OFFICER: R.N. RAI [.D. NO . 83/2006

IN THE MATIEROF: Shri G.L. Khurana, C/o. General Secretary, Mahabank Karamchart Sangh, DDA Flats No, 9-B/BG-5 -A, PaschimVihar, New Delhi - 110063 .

Reduce Basic Pension after commutation Rs.4251-1437

Basic pension comes to 10791 × 0.5 X 26/33 - Rs. 4251 Commutation 33% ofbasic pension -Rs.1437 Age: 61 Factor: 9.81 . Communication amount 1437 × 12 ×9.81 Rs.169163.64 -Rs. 2814 Versus

The Dy.General Manager, Bank ofMaharashtra, Delhi Region, 6/ 30-31 WEA Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110005.

This is the actual pension as per Bank ofMaharashtra Employee (Pension Regulation 1993) Clause 20( i ) sub regulation (k) of Regulation 2, which should have been paidto Mr. G.L. Khurana at the time ofhis retirement i.e w.e.f. 1st February, 2001 but the same was not paid to him.

1980

भारत का राजपत्र : 26, 2008/पैशाख 6 , 1930

St. Khurana was entitled for poosion under Bank of Maharashtra (Enployees) Prison Regulations, 1995.

Bank of Maharashtra , Accounts and Audit Department, Contral Office, Pune (StaffPension Cell)have also calculated on the right hand side on the same worksheet, 10months old pay drawn from January,2000to April, 1999 ai under:

The total of 10 months old pay drawn. -Rs.93,964.44

The average ofone month old pay drawn Ra. 9,394,64

The Bank ofMakosrashtra (Bmployoni) Poesien Reguntion, 1995 is an outcome ofBPS with the various onions ofBook Employees analludina Bank's Ammission. The said Bank of Mahtevektra (Employins) Pa Regulations, 1995 is subject to amendment in thew ofthe Industry level settlements between Indian Bank's Association.

For26 years qualifying service, basic pension -Rs.3,701.00

Rs.1, 233.00

Commutation 33% ofbasic pension

Computation Amount

-Rs.1,45,149.00

Raduce passion after commutation Rs.3701-Rs. 1233 - 2,468,00

The midBank ofMaharashtra (Employmns) Pension Regulation, 1995 is subject to amendment is view ofthe Industry level settlements between Indian Bank's Association and various Usione. The disposat wion με Bahabank Kananichari Sangh is also a party to the said Industry level agroenont,

Shri G.L. Khurana was entitled for pensionary benefits on the basis of 70t Industry Level BPS arrived at between Indian Bank's Association sad Union on 27-03-2000. The bank has commenced pension to ShriG.L. Khurana on the basis of the mid 7thBPS Thus, ir.G.L. Khurana is paid commutation amounts Rs. 1,45, 149.00 кгs par old rate ofPay Scale causing difllfirence (Ps.1,69,163.64- Rs.1 , 45 , 149.00) = Rs. 24,014,64 and also paid pensionRa . 3701.00 PM causing difference in pension (Rs.4251 -Rs.3701) -Rs. 550 pan. This difference amount in commutation and in zaonthly pontion has been clairaed vide our letterNo. GLK/ 104/2005 dated 18-10-2005 but bank has not taiken cognizance of the workman's genulse claim andno replyhas been received till today.

That as per the provisions of the said 7th BPS- Pension, in relation to the employee who retires dies wirile in service on or after illet day ofApril 1998, "a" for the purpose ofpension shall be zagrope ofthe"Thy" drawn bythe member of the award staff its of DPS dated14-02-1995 and DA thereon calculated ofwhich inter willbe 1616 in the All India Average Consaver Price ladet.

Wedonot understand under which clause ofPansion Regulation his old basic pay have been taken into consideration for authorizing his pension and commutation whenPF have been decdacted on salary drawn till last month ofhis retirement and bank's contribution of PF have been creditedto pension fund. This is really a great harassment toapensioner.

This shall be subject to necessary amendinate to bemade to the relevant provisions ofthe Bank Employees PensionRegulation, 1995.

Hence the contentions ofShrt Khuram that his Basic Payas per7thBPS has to be reckoned for caloulating the last 10month's pay drawn is wrong and noemict.

The pension regulation was amandat based on the BPS and accordingly was published in the Gazettee on 14thJune,2003,

Further as per the 8th BPS dated 2-6-2005 the definition of"Pay" was amended and the benefit of the said amended/revised pension is already given to the applicant Sh. K.L. K

The bank bas new issued a letter No. AXI /AIFM/ BEPRevisedOnder No. 288 dated 20-10-2005 regarding bank aemployer ponsion payment scheme. Payment ofpension arrears on revision of pay/pension scale to Mr. Khurana Gulshan Lal , PPO No. BOM/2001/6867. We would like to mention that it is not a revision of pay/pension scale. It is well known to thom, pay/pension scale of a retired person cannot be revised. This is the actual last ten months pay drawn and reckoned backwards from the date of his retirement as defined in sub-regulation (k) ofRegulation2. This basis pensionRs. 4251 calculated as per 7thBPS on the right hand side ofthe worksheet sttached to their letter quoted above is the actuel/ correct rate of basic pension and this should have been paid to Mr. G.L. Khuruna from thedate ofhis retirement Le. w.e.f. Ist February, 2001with prevailing rate ofDA.

Since it is not a revision of pay/ pension scale, therefore, DA rate cannot be changed. DA rate can onlybe minimiaod whon major portion ofDA is merged with basic pay pension on revision of paypoqsion scale.

The management has filed reply. In the reply it has been stated that Sh. G.L. Khurana, Ex. Special Assistant, working at Service Branch, Delhi retired from the services of the bank on attaining the age of superannuation ou 31-1-2001 . Shri Khurana was paid the amount of commutation of pension payable to him on 12-6-2001.

That as per the said 8th BPS /johst nete dated 2-6-2005, it is provided for pearion at 50 % ofthe last drawn payin respect ofemployees who have retiradetiro on or afer 1-5-2005-which is beneficial impoverint in the pansion schets in comparison with definition of Day of the 7th BPS. In view of the amsadment i dolinition of "Pay" the effect of liberallastion in apening schoneftom a prospectivedato is extended to all the pompilers ofperasion fund from a prospective date and accordingly popsian at 50% of the last down pay is paid to the retispe of the period 1-4-1990 to30-4-2005 wa£ 01-05-2005.Theesid benefit is also extendedto Shri G... Khurana from 01-05-2005 and rear on accotant ofsane anjouanting to Ra. 2880 /-were paid to him from 1-5-2005 till the date of revision of pension payment orders i.e. 20-10-2005.Hence the demand ofbihri G.L. Khurana is already satisfied by the bank.

1964

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2008/VAISAKHA 6, 1930

[PART I SEC. 3(ii) ] Thus, according to the contention of the respondent bank and in view ofthe foregoing the present dispute raised bythe applicant is liable to be dismissed with costs .

pay drawn by the member of the award staff in terms of 6th BPS dated 14-2-1995 . As such the basic pension of Sh . Khurana was to be calculated in view of the 6th BPS and it has been mentioned in the 7th BPS that pay forthe purpose of pension shall be in terms of 6th BPS dated 14-02-1995.

The answering respondent reserves the right to file a detailed reply and also reserves its right to add to the contents thereof, ifnecessary at a later stage.

It was further submitted from the side of the management that the settlement dated 29-10-1993 was amended by the 7th BPS and the definition of pay in the 7th BPS was the same as was in the 6th BPS.

Therefore , in the light of the aforesaid it is humbly prayed that this Hon 'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to dismiss the instant dispute with costs and or pass such other further orders as it deems fit in the interest ofjustice, equity and good conscience.

From perusal of the records it transpires that the 7th BPStook place on 27-3-2000 and 8th BPS on 2-6-2005. The workman has been made payment of his revised pension in view of the 8th BPS dated 2-6-2005 from May,2005.

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In the rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his claim statement and has denied the averments of the written statement, The management has also denied the averments ofthe claim statement .

Evidence ofboth the parties has been taken.

Heard both the parties and perused the papers on the record. It was submitted from the side ofthe workman that his basic pension has not been calculated according to the 7th BPS but it has been calculated as per the 6thBPS. As per the 7th BPS the total of last 10 months pay drawn is tobe calculated and the basic pension shouldbe fixedatRs. 10,791 .

Italso transpires from perusal of the record that the settlement dated 29-10-1993 was a draft settlement and it was amended by the 7th BPS and in the 7th BPS the definition ofthe pay of the 6th BPS has been retained. It also transpires from perusal of Clause 16 of the 7th BPS that the pay for the purpose of pension shall be the aggregate pay drawn by the member in the terms of the 6thBPS dated 14-2-1995 . The workman has admitted in his cross- examination that he came to know about pension regulation, 1995 in the year 2001 at the time of superannuation and at the time of getting first pension . The workman wants to get his pension calculated in view ofthe pension regulation of 1993 but it was replaced by regulation 1995 and the workman admits the existence of the pension regulation of 1995.

It was further submitted that the actual pension as per the pension regulation 1993 is to be calculated under clause20 (1) sub-regulation (k) of Regulation No. 2 and it. should have been paid to him at the time of retirement wef. 1-2-2001 .

The management has tightly calculated the pension ofthe workman in view of employees pension regulation , 1995.The regulation of 1993 on which the workman claims his pension to be calculated has been amended and modified and replaced by the pension regulation 1995. The pension ofthe workman has rightly been calculated in view ofthe amended regulation , 1995. He is not entitled to get pension in view of the draft settlement of 1993. The demand oftheworkman is not correct .

It was further submitted that the management has taken the average of 10 months pay drawn for the previous period. The PF has been deducted on salary drawn till last month ofretirement of the workman and banks contribution ofPFhave been credited to the pension fund. The bank has revised pension and has paid proper pension vide revised order No. 288 dated 20-10-2005 . The arrears of pensionhave also been paid w.e.f. 20-10-2005.

The reference is replied thus:-

That the workman is entitled to get his pension calculated as per7th BPS and he is entitled to the difference from 1-2-2001 to19-10-2005.

It was submitted from the side of the bank that the pension of the employees of the Bank of Maharashtra is governed by pension regulation 1995 which is an outcome of-7th BPS . The workman was entitled for pensionary benefits on the basis of 7th BPS arrived at between the India's Bank's Association and Union on 27-3-2000 . The bank has commenced pension to Sh. G.L. Khurana on the basis of7th BPS and he has been paid revised pension from20-10-2005 on the basis of8thBPS.

The allegation ofMahabank Karamchari Sangh , DDA FlatNo. 9B/B -G/5/A , Paschim Vihar, New Delhi - 63 against theRegionalManager, Bank of Maharashtra, Delhi Region , 6/30-31, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110005 for breach of settlement in pension Regulation 1993 to payment of pension to Shri G.L. Khurana is neither just nor valid nor legal .The pension of the workman has not been calculated by the management in accordance with the definition given under Rule 2 and Rule 20 of the Bank of Maharashtra Employees' (Pension) Regulations , 1993. The pension of the workman has been rightly calculated under regulation of 1995. The workman is not entitled to any arrears of pension.

The award is given accordingly.

Dated25-3-2008

R. N. RAI, Presiding Officer Itwas submitted that as per provisions of the said 7thBPS, pension in relation to the employees who retires or dieswhile in service on or after Ist day ofApril, 1998 , pay for the purpose of pension shall be aggregate of the 1985 [भाग -खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2008/वैशाख 6, 1930

नई दिल्ली, 2 अप्रैल , 2008

This case coming up for heating on 16-11-2007, this Tribunal-cum -Labour Court on 21-11-2007 pastod the : following:

AWARD

का.आ. 918. औडोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एयरपोर्ट अधोरिटी ऑफ इंडिया, मालापुरम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , ईनर्नालय के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई.डी.55-56/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

These are reference under Section 10 (1) (d) of Industrial Disputes Act . Termination ofservice is challenged andclaim for regularization is raised as per the referepое, Since facts, evidence and issues are common , these. references are tired jointly and evidence is adduced in 1. D. 55/06 as per order in I.A. 49/07.

[सं. एल-11012/1 /2005- आई आर ( एम ) , सं. एल- 11012/4/2005- आई आर ( एम ) ]

2. The facts ofthe care in brief are as follows:-

एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 2nd April, 2008

$.0. 918.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Inchstrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 55 &56 of2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum- Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in Indwerisi Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofAir Port Authority of India, Malapurais and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 2-4-2008,

Claimant Shri . P. K. Saju and Ms. K. Reons ocetend that: theywere appointed as Carpenter and Stenographer respectivelybyAir Port Authority of India Calicut Air Port since 1996. The appointment was made, for the sake of records, through aLabour contractor.Thougla cowarовог changed from time to time , the claimants continued. Claimants hadworked even during periods when there ниге no contracts . The chainants were performing the same. duties as were done by regular employees. However no benefits were given to them. Instructions regarding work were impartedby the offletals of the management. The called contractors never supervised the work. During cach year they had worked more than 300 days...

[No. L- 11012/1 /2005- IR (M) , No. L- 110124/2005- IR(M)]

N. S. BORA , DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

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

Present: Shri PL. Norbert, B.A. , LL.B., Presiding Officer

(Wednesdaythe 21st day ofNovember 2007/ 30th Karthika 1929)

LD. 55 & 56OF 2006

(LD. 55 & 56/2006 (LD. 2/2005 of Labour Court, Kozhikode) Workwa: Sri... P.K. Seju, S'o Krishdan,

PalliyalilHouse, Mukamparambe,

Malappuram, Kerala.

3.Accordingto the management the claimants were never engaged by management . There is no employer employee relationship between the two. They were engaged by the contractor 'A. N. K. George . The contractor is a necessary party to the dispute. On the basis ofan interim order ofHigh court in O.P. they continued in employment . However long the claimants work, no right for regularization accrue to them as they are contract workers. Payment was never made by management directly, exceptwhen instructed by the contractor and out ofmoney due to the contractor. No discrisation was shown by the management to the claimants . The claimants are not entitled for any relief as they were never employed by the management, but by the contractor.

ByAdv. Sri K.S. Mohammed Hashim,

Management: TheDirector,

4. In the light of the above pleadings the following pointsarise for consideration:

AirportAuthority of India, Calicut Airport , Karippur, Malappuram ByAdv. Sri Harris Ρ.Μ.

1. Are the claimants employees of the management?

L.D. 56of2006 (I. D. 3/2005 ofLabour Court, Kozhikode)

Workman: Smt. K. Reent , D/ o . Chathukutty,

2. Whether the termination of service of ciaiments is legal ? ..

Cheruparambil House, Kuzhinama Post, Kondody,Malappuгая.

3. Afe the claimants entitled for reinstatement and regularisation ? " ByAdv, Sri K.S.Mohammed Hashim

Management.TheDirector

AirPortAuthority ofIndia, Calicut Airport, Karippur, Malappuram .

The evidenceconsists of the oral costimony ofWW1 and documentary evidence ofExts: Wil to When the side ofthe claimants and MWI and Exts . Mi to M3-out theside ofmanagement .

ByAdv. Sri HarrisP.M.

1986

[PART -Sic. 3( 6) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 26, 2008/VAISAKHA 6 , 1930

was left to be decided in a labour forum on a reference . Exta,WI to W3 are only permits to enter the premises of AirPort for the purpose ofwork. They too will not show that the claimants are employees of Air Port. Neither continuous work nor permanent vacancy will not confer any right on contract workers nor will they after the character of their appointment. In order to prove that the contractwas a camouflage, the claimants have to establish that , though they were initially employed through contractor, theywere controlled and supervised by officials ofmanagement, wages were paidby management, other service benefits were given by management, their leaves were regulatedby management, the disciplinary authority was themanagement etc. None ofthe documents produced bythe claimants will help them to prove the same .There is nothing on recordto show that there is employer- employee relationship between Air Port Authority and Claimants . On the contrary the claimants ' own admission that they were taken initially for work in Air Port through contractor, cuts at the veryroot oftheir case. The claimants continued toworkon thebasis ofthe order in O.P.12135/2000 till 2006. In the light of the above circumstances I find that the claimants are contract workers and not employees of management.

6. Point No. 1:-Since the claimants are contract labourers, the moment the period of contract comes to an end thework of labourers too comes to an end . It may be true that the claimants must have been working continuously for 240 days and more in an year and they might have been working in permanent vacancies of carpenter and typist. But being contractual workers they don't acquire any right for employment or absorption . It is so held in Secretary State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi , (2006) 4 SCC 1. But it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimants that U.P. State Electricity BoardVs. Pooran Chandra Pandey 2007 (4) KLT 513 ( SC) adifferent note is struck by the Hon'ble Supreme court. It is true that in the decision it is observed that Uma Devi's case cannot be applied to a case where regularisation is sought in pursuance ofArticle 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has said that a decision shall not be mechanically followed without seeing whether it applied to the facts ofa particular case. In U.P. Electricity Board case, the facts are that electric supply was carried out by a Co-operative Electric supply Society.The societywas later taken over by Electricity Board. The Board had then taken a decision that daily wage employees of the society who are being taken over by the Board will start working in Electricity Board in the same manner and position. On 28-11-1996 the Board decided to regularise the services of its employeesworking on daily wage basis . The employees of the society claimed regularization on the footing that they too are daily wage eamers and on take over by the Board they are entitled to the same status and benefits as those ofdailywage earners ofthe Electricity Board. Hon'ble 5. Points Nes. 1 and 3: It is an admitted fact, that the two claimants were engaged initially through a labour contractor.According to the claimants though contractors changed, workers continued. However their case is that the contractor was only a smokescreen between Airport Authorityandworkers. Admittedly no appointment orders or termination orders were issued to the claimants bythe management. According to the claimants they were supervised and controlled by the officials of the management andnot by the contractor. However evidence is lacking regarding supervision and control. It is for the workers to prove the same . Though MWI attempted to saythat claimant Ms. K. Reena has not worked for the Air port,Ext. W2Entry Pass will prove otherwise . However the question is whether she too was employed through contractor or directly by the management. As in the case ofMr. P. K. Saju it is an admitted case ofMs. Reena that shetoo wis engaged initially through contractor.However there is no force in the contention of the management that she was attending to the stenography work of contractor inside the premises ofAir port. No such evidence is let in by the management. Ext. W4 is the attendance register of workers of May 2000. According to MWI this was maintained by the contractor and is produced by the claimants. Ext.M1 is the Register of Wages . Accordingto MWI this is maintained by the contractor. The name of contractor ' A.N.K. George' is shown in the Register as the Establishment. According to the management the Register ofWagesis provided by the contractor to the management for the purpose of remitting P.F. amounts of workers (a statutory liability) out of the money due to the contractor. There is no contra evidence . The claimants were not able to show that wages were paid by the management . Ext.W6 judgment inO. P. 22993/2000 was produced to prove that management was paying wages . But O.P was filed for a direction to Air Port Authority and two contractors to disburse the salary due to the workers including Mr. P.K. Saju and Ms. Reena . The Hon'ble High Court directed respondents 2 to 4 in O.P. to disburse salary within 15 days. The very fact that contractors were made parties in O.P. by the clairmants and other workers itself proves that the labourers were working under contractors. Ext .W7 is a lawyer notice sent on behalf of claimants to the managernent stating that the company was not complying with the direction of Hon'ble High Court in O.P. 12135/ 2000. There was a direction in O.P. directing the management not to terminate the service of claimants for eight months and the Government to refer the dispute to Industrial Tribunal for adjudication , In the notice it is alleged that still the management had denied employment to the claimants. In the reply notice Ext. W8 the management stated that the claimants . were already in service . But it does not mean that they are in the direct service of Air Port Authority. The direction in O.P. was to continue the services ofclaimants in Air Port , but nothing was stated about their status. On the other hand the dispute with regard to regularization 1987 [भागखष्ठ 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2008/वैशाख 6 , 1930

W5 Photostat copy of letter dated 20-5-1998 sent by the management to the Labour Officer , Malappuraka,

W6 Photostat copy of judgment dated 21-08-2000 in O.P. 2939/2008 of the Hon'bleHigh Court ofKerala.

W7 Photostat copy of lawyer notice dated 5-07-2000 jesued on behalfofworkman tothe management.

Supreme Court held that there is no ground for discriminating one set ofemployees who are dailywagers (those ofsociety) . Since the claint is made on the basis of infirmation ofArticle 14 of the Constitution, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the facts and circumstances of that case, Uma Devi's case had no applicationi. So far as thedisputed case is concemed the claimants were contract workers andthere is no case for the claimants that theyare discriminated in the matter of regularisation. But they claim regularisation because they say that they are infact employee ofmanagement. Hence the decision in U.P. State ElectricityBoardhas no application.

WB Photostat copy of reply dated.. 12-07-2000 sent by the managementto the counsel for worfonan.

Photostat copy of office Note dated 26-09-2000 sent by the Senior Managor ofCalicutAirport to the management.

Exhibits for the management

MI Photostat copy of Register of wages for the period from 1-12-1999 to 31-12-1999.

M2 Photostat copy of judgment dated 05-11-2004 in WA 1919/2004 of the Hon'bleHighCourt ofKerala 7. Since the claimants are contract workers the Air PortAuthority has no obligation to provide continued employment. It is for the contractor to decide. There is no question of terminating the service of claimants by the management as they have not appointed. It follows therefore thuat the claiments are not entitled to thebenefits ofSection-25FofIndustrial Disputes Act. On the expiryof theperiodofcontract the service of claimants came to an end automatically. No illegality is committed by masegesent in the matter of employment. Hence 1 hold that engagement and dis-engagement of claimants is the concern of the contractor and not of the management. The management is no way responsible or liable for non employment

M3 Photostat copy of judgment of the Hon'ble AllahabadHigh Court.

नई दिल्ली, 2 अप्रैल, 2006

In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management, in not allowing claimants Shui P.K. Saju and Ms. K. Reena to continue in service and innot regularising them in service, is legal and justified and the claimants are not entitled for any relief. Nocost.

Typed corrected and passed by me on this the 21st day of November,2007,

P. L.NORBERT,Presiding Officer

Appendix

Witness forthe workman

मा.आ. 919. औद्योगिक मायम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) को थारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केंद्रीय सरकार नि ऑयल कॉर्पोरशाम लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण, श्रम न्यायालय कोलफया के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 09/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02-04-2008 को अपत हुआ था।

WW1.

14-08-2007

Sri P.K. Saju.

[सं. एल-30011/88/2000- आई. आर. ( एम. ) Witness for the Manegesnent

एम. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी:

MW1

08-10-2007 Sri P. S. Devakumar.

NewDelhi , the 2ndApril,2008

Exhibits for the workman

Photostat copyDeily permit card issued toSri Saju, P. K.

W2 Photostat copy of Deily Permit Card issued to Smt. Reena, K.

Photostat copy ofAppointment requisi- tion form.

8.0. 919. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14, of 1947), the Congmal Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.09/2003) ofCentral Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Courts Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the: management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on2-4-2008. ,:

Photostat copy of attendance register sheet ofthe management for the month ofMay2000,

No. L-30011 /88/2009- IR( M)) N. S. BORA, Desk Officer 1367 GU06-14 1988

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2008/VAISAKHA 6, 1930

[PART II SBC. 3 ( ii) ] ANNEXURE

नई दिल्ली, 2 अप्रैल , 2008

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALATKOLKATA

Reference No. 09 of 2003

का.आ. 920.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1967 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बाऊला क्रोमाईट माईन ऑफ एफ ए सी ओ आर के प्रबंधर्वत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , श्रम न्यायालय भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई.डी. केस सं. 13/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-04-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था। Parties: Employers in relation to the management of IndianOil CorporationLtd. AND Theirworkmen

PRESENT: Mr. Justice C. P. Mishra, PresidingOfficer

[सं. एल-29012/97/1995-आई. आर. ( एम. ) एन. एस. घोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी Appearance:-

NewDelhi , the 2nd April, 2008 On behalf ofthe : Mr. N.K. Mehta, Advocate

Management : Mr. S. Sengupta, Advocate,

None

OnBehalfofthe :

Worktrien

State : West Bengal

Industry : Petroleuma.

Dated 12th March, 2008

S.O. 920. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1. D. Case No. 13/2001 ) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Baula Chromite Mine of FACOR and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 2-4-2008.

AWARD

[No. L-29012/97/ 1995- IR(M)] N. S. BORA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

By Order No. L-30011 /88/2000 - IR( M ) dated 31-01-2003 theCentral Governinent in exercise of its powers under Section 10( 1 )( d) and (24) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter to be referred as the Act) referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT

Shri N. K. R. Mohapatra,

"Whether the industrial dispute raised by IndiaOil Corporation Ltd.Employees Organisation Haldia Refinery against the management of Indian Oll Corporation Ltd. (HaldiaRefinery, District Midnapore) vide letter dated 24th August 2000 ( copy enclosed) justified? If so, to What relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?"

Presiding Officer, C.G. I. T.-cum- Labour Court , Bhubaneswar.

Tr . Industrial Dispute Case No. 13/2001

DateofPassingAward (Lok Adalat)-3rd February, 2008 BETWEEN:

The Management of the Executive (Mines), Ms. FACOR, Laxmi Bhawan , Kuans, P.O.& Dist. Bhadrak-756 100.

..... Ist Party-Management

And

TheirWorkman , Shri Surendra Singh

represented through the General Secretary, Chrome Zone Employees Union , At. Po . Soso , Dist. Dhanurjayapur -756115 ......2nd Party-Union.

2. When the case is called out today, none appears for the workmen nor any step is taken on their behalf to proceedwith the matter . Management is representedby its leamedAdvocate who has stated that none is appearing onbehalfofthe workmen since long and no useful purpose willbe served by keeping the matter pending further. He has accordingly prayed for disposal of the matter by passing a "No Dispute" Award . It appears from the record that none is appearing on behalf of the workmen since 26-03-2006, лог any step is taken on their behalf to proceed with the present reference. It is accordingly clear that the workmen are no longer interested in the present dispute under reference and the management is also in favour of disposal of the reference by passing a "No Dispute" Award.

APPEARANCES:

For the 1 st Party-

Shri S.X. Routray,

Asst.Manager (Legal)

3. In the circumstances , this Tribunal has no other altenativebut to dispose ofthe present reference by passing a "No Dispute " Award . A "No Dispute " Award is accordingly passed and the reference is disposed of.

Shri B.S. Pati

Management For the 2nd Party- Union

General Secretary.

C. P. MISHRA, PresidingOfficer 1989 भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 26 , 2008/वैशाचा 6 , 1930

[भग 3(ii)]

AWARD

Inthe matter ofan Industrial Dispute between:

The Managemens of Oil India Led. Narangi, Guwahati .

The following dispute is the autopme of a reference made by the Contral Government in their letter No. L.-29012/ 9965- IR( Mac ), dated 13-2-96

Their Workinen , Sri Sekhar Rudra

ADVOCATES C

Mr. S.N. Sumi Senior Advocante, for the Maneg Whether the action of the Management ofBoula Chrbanike Mine of FACOR in dismissing Shri Surendra Singh, R.V. Deiver justified ? If not, to what relief Shri Satendra Singh is entitlet ?"

Mr. N. Sarma

Advocate

Mr. A. Dasgupta.: Advocate, for theWorldnwn

Mr. S. Chakrabarty Advocate

Ref. No. 01 of 2005

DateofAward: 18-3-08

AWARD

2. Today both the parties appeared before the Lok Adalet and by referring to an earlier settlement dated 20-12-2007 between the parties, they submitted for an award on compromise. On persal of the joint petition of compromdee (enttioment dated 20-12-2007) which forma part of the settlement, it appears that the workman has already received Rs. 45,000 in full and final settlement of all his claims with an undertaking thatthat he would not raise any sort ofdispute against the Management pertaining to his service and shall have ao lien over his service in future. In view of the above the reference is answered as per the above terms of compromise as reached between theParties.

9. Reference is nawered accordingly.

N. K. R. MOHAPATRA , ProvidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 2 अप्रैल , 2008

1. The Goverment of india, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi vide its Notification No. L - 30012 /1 /2005 -I (M) dated 27/04/2005 referred this. IndustrialIndustrial.Dispute rose between the management of Oil India Limited, Narangi and their Workman Sri, Sekhar Rudra, in exercise of power conferred by Clause ( d) of Sub-Section ( 1 ) and Sub-section (2A) ofSection 10 of the Industrial Dlustrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) for adjudication on the basis of thethe following Schedule:

SCHEDULE

Whether the action of the bianagement ofOffIndia Lid,,Pipeline FHQ. Guwahati bhi disimparing the alrvice ofSti Sekhar Ruditaw.ef 22/7 /2003's justified? If not, what reliefSti Ridia is enttled to and fromwhen?" काम १२ औोगिक विवार अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 140 की 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार ऑयल के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच संपुर्ण में निर्दिस्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार गिक अभिकरण, प्रभाहाटी के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1/2005 ) करती है, को केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02-04-2008 को

2. This Award is arising out of the preliminary Issue ren after, framed on 12.6.06. The issue framed isis as given bere

"Whether the domestic anquiry cunducted by the [से एल-30012/ 1 /2005 -बाई आहे. (एम.) एन. एस. बोरा, डेस्क अधिकारी Management is Bairo.not?

NewDelhi, the 2nd April,2008

3.0,991.-In pursuguse of Section 17 of the : Industrial Dispute Att, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Gooit hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1/2005) ofCarmel Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court, Guwahat now at whown in the Annexure in the budustrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the Thenagement of Oil India Ltd, and their workninn, which wastelttvold by the Central Government on2-4-2005.

৮

No: 1-30012/ 1 /2005-IR(M) ]

N. S: BORA, DekOfficer

ANNEXURE

BLPORE THE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT,

GUWAHATI

Present:

Sri H. A. Hazarika

PresidingOffion,

3. The preliminary issue was frowned on heining of learned Advocates of both sides. The managemont submitted a petition on 16.3.06. The briefebhuntion ofthe petition is that the management conducted domestic enquiry which was fred, fair and based on Prisciple of Natural Justice and the opportunities were given 10 the workman . Itwas also prayed that the prekinury enquiry may be framed and decided at first and Ifthe protiminary issue is decided against the midnigement the management may be allowed to contest the Reference on mittit The point ofpreliminary enquiry was reed by the management in theit W.S. also. The workman side aghated their lugainst the preliminary hasne by filling in written petition on6.4.06 that for the right of fremtrng the prettinary Have the Management has not exercise the sathe in time and matter is already fixed for evidence. Hombe; the prayer for flaming preliminary issue may be rejected. Inirky onder dated12.6.06 it has been reflected that of this magever was not started and as regarda profintiinary liste kuuthised in the prayer portion ofthe W.8. filed by the Management.

CGIT-cum- Labour Court , Guwahati .

1990

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2008/VAISAKHA 6, 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

submittedby the Management Representative as Exhibits". The workman wanted to cross exarnine the Management Representative. E.O provided opportunities for seeking clarification on exhibited document but not allowed the workman for cross examination, The Enquiry Officer relied only on the exhibited documents at the time ofconsideration ofhis report.Once the workman forgo the promotion . He denied that he has not considered the documents submitted bytheworkman .

4. Thebriefcontention ofthe Management that the domestic enquiry was held against the workman Sri Sekhar Rudra onthe following charge .... that a transfer order was issuedto theworkman vide letter No. PLIR/ 16-2/661 dated 17-7-98. According to the transfer order the workman was transferredto Dumar and released on 23-7-98 but the transfer orderwas not compiled and disobeyed wilfully. For non- compliance of transfer order and subsequent to the same somewritten as well as oral intimations were given to the workman. Further the workman remained absent from his duties unauthorisedly and without permission or leave from the Superintending Engineer. That non -compliance of the orders it was treated as gross misconduct u/ ss 21.1.1 , 21.1.5 , 21.1.7 and 21.1.9 of the Standing Orders.

6. The workman in support of his case against the departmental proceeding deposed that he was transferred toPS-9 Dumar in Bihar and he was released from Guwahati on 21-7-98 to join at Dumar but at that time only one sanctioned post of Superviising Assistant Grade- IX was holding by Sri Padmeswar Kalita. After issuance ofthe charge sheet, Padmeswar Kalita was transferred to Guwahati and one Ratul Saikia was transferred to PS 9 . Dumar.Thus he was not in a position either to join at Dumar or Guwahati unless a fresh order ofhis posting was issued. A copy of enquiry report was furnished to him against whichbe preferred a representation on 23.6.2003 but the Disciplinary Authority failed to consider his contention reflected in his representation dated 23.6.2003 and passed the dismissal order on 21-7-3 . Against the dismissal order he preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority against the order ofdismissal under Section 23.1 of the certified Standing Orders of Oil India Ltd. The Appellate Authority dismissed his appeal . In his cross examination he deposed atthe time ofdismissal the workman was working in Grade- VIII and that post was transferable. He was transfered to Dumar in Bihar from Guwahati Ext . 2 is the transfer order. He did notjoin at Dumar in Bihar and he was released from Guwahati on 21-7-98. His transfer order was not stayedby any Court. Against Show Cause Notice he submitted his reply. He was present at the time of enquiry against him. TheManagement did not examine their witnesses . During the course of enquiry the Management exhibited some documents including his release order. He signed almost all the papers of enquiry proceeding except few papers when he was absent . He submitted his defence case in writing, Thereafter he received the dismissal letter. Along with him one Rangpi was transfered and he does not know whether Rangpi was complied with the transferred order or not. Hepreferred two Writ Petitions wherein he has not mentioned that there is no vacancy at Dumar . He did not complythe transfer order for 4 years from 1998. They have got a Standing Order , an unauthorized absent is a major misconduct under that Standing Order . The Management dịd not inform him about the transfer and release of other workmen. He signed the W.S. after going through it . He deniedthat the Management conducted the enquiry fairly.

7. Heard the argument submitted by learned Senior Advocate Sri S.N. Sarma with Sri N. Sarma, Advocate for the Management. Also heard argument submitted by learnedAdvocates Sri A. Dasgupta and Sri S. Chakrabarty 5. At this stage of preliminary enquiry the Management examined Sri Rajib Goswami , Chief Engineer, Oil India Ltd. (Pipe Line) and he is cross examined by the learnedAdvocate of the workman Mr. A. Dasgupta. The workman Sri Sekhar Rudra examined himself as witness andhe is also cross -examined by learned Senior Advocate Sri S. N. Sarma for the Management . Sri Rajib Goswami deposed that he made the domestic enquiry against the workman Sri Sekhar Rudra. He started domestic enquiry on 14-11-02 . At the prayer of the workman the enquiry was adjourned on 14-11-02 από τι 4-12-02 in presence ofthe workman the Enquiry Officer explained the procedure of the enquiry. The workman was allowed to take help ofhis co-worker and the availed the same . He was also told to examine defence witness and to cross examine the Managementwitness . The allegation against the workman was that he defied to follow the transfer order issued tothe workman. Moreover , the workman was also charged for remaining absent from duty from July, 1998 to May,1999. The workman was furnished with all the documents appertaining to the enquiry . Ext . 2 is the transfer order, Ext. 3advice and release order , Ext . 4a letter issued to the workmanto join at the place ofhis transfer . Vide Ext. 5 the workman was intimated the date, time and venue of the enquiry. The workman took the help of his co-worker Mr.P. K.Medhi for his defence .The management examined various documents , Sri S. N. Mishra was the Management representativewho exhibited the documents .The workman did not examine any witness in his defence . The Enquiry Officer recorded the statement of the workman . Ext. 7 is the Enquiry Proceeding, Ext . 7(1 ) is the signature ofthe Enquiry Officer, Ext. 7(2) is the signature of the Management representative and Ext.7(3 ) is the signature ofthe workman, SekharRudra. Ext. 8 is the report of the E.O. and Ext . 8(1) is signature ofthe E.O. In cross examination Sri Rajib Goswami, E.O. replied that during the course of enquiry no witness was examined by the Management . Managing representative was the Presenting Officer who exhibited the documents . In the enquiry proceeding it is reflected "Quarries put by you can not be in the form of cross examination but only to seek clarification on the documents 1991 3(1U) ]

भारत का तमनत्र : 26, 2008/ 6 , 1930

for theworkman. Perused the exhibited documents , Porused the following Case Laws submitted by the Management a wellas by theWorlanin.

BytheManagement.

(1) (1997)4 Supreme Court Cases 565,

Tara ChandVyas Vrs Chairman & Disciplinary Authority&Ors.

Office on21-7- Butler roadmittedly, thewo concerned did not join in the place ofposting at Dermar in Bihar. It is also adtmitted fiet that the post kiskt by the workman was a transferable pest . Admktedly and categorically the workmes stated in crise dampers "I did not join at Dunnur in Bilbar", My trasfer was not stayedby any Court. It is also admitted by the workm concerned in his cross examination part of evidencethat Idid not comply the transfer order for four years Dom 1998." It is also admitted that there is Standing Ondor unauthorized absent is a major misconduct.

(2) (2006)5 Supreme Court Cases 137, NorthEastors KarnatakaRt Corpa. Vrs Astappe.

(3) (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 187,

Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C....Vrs H.Amaresh.

BytheWorkmen.

[AIR1963 SC1914-( 1963) 2LLJ36]

10.On persaal ofthe documents exhibited, Written Statements and evidence in the record I am fully convinced that the workman concemed willity disobeyed the transfor order and committed gross misconduct. A person in a government or any department must be disciplined flo must maintain the decorus ofthe officeand also obedient He should not be desperate and neglect to carryvent the Office orders .Wast I find the sworlqum dempadalykaiod the legal transfor order and remained sheet for kng period Even as I feel in his cross camelnation that he has por visitedhis piece ofposting, Down

Stir Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd. Vrs TheWorkmen.

11. Under the above facts and circumstances, wat I find theManegement has committed no mistake in passing the order ofdianisaal against the workman concerned, Perused the Case Laws. The Case Laws submitted by the management is befitting with the instant case. The Ouse Laws submitted by the workman is ant belitting with the instant case of the workomen. I also find full opportunity was given by the Enquiry Officer to the workman dusing the course of domestic enquiry. Domestic enquiry wis properly done in the present circumstances of the case, The workman was giveri full opportunity le respect of disputing the exhibited documents, But when the basic things are admitted there is left nothing to show that the documents are not gemine. Uning the above facts and circumstances, what I find management has rightly dismissed the wurkman through a proper and fair D.P.As regards quanturin of punishment I have thoroughly and again scrutinized the record. In such a gross misconduct ofcarryingOfficial Orders and remained absent from duties thebest punislunent is removal a person from the service. Idonot like to interfere the quanturn of punishment made by the Disciplinary Authority or the management concerned.He is rightly dismissed and this panishment is proper.

8. On careful scrutiny ofthe documents and evidence in the record, admittedly there was a domestic enquiry enquired by Sri Rajib Goswami . At the time of giving evidence Sri Rajib Goswami was holding the Post ofChief Engineer (Pipe Line Division) . He issued notice which is admittedly received by the workmen. The enquiry was proposedto start on 14-11-02 and on the date fixed it was adjoumed. The enquiry was started in presence of the workamen. The procedure of enquiry was explained to the workinan and he was allowed to take ancistent ofco-worker which be avalledby engaging Sri P.K. Medhi for help ofhis defeace.The management representative Mr. S. N. Mishra rabmitted the documents at the time of enquiry. The delinquentworlanan was allowed to examine witness from his end and also allowed to make quarries in relation in documents exhibited at Departmental Proceeding. Of course, theworkinan side raised an objection that hewas not allowed to cross examine in the way the workman desires to allow only" querries put by you can not be in the form of cross examination but only to seek clarification on the documents submitted by the management representative as exhibited" . What I find over alltheEnquiryOfficer during the course ofdomestic enquiry allowed the workman for necessary opportunities for his defence.

12. Under the above facts and circumstances, the DepartmentalProceeding and the decision of dismissal is rightlytaken and there is nothing to be interfered.

13. Prepsired the Award accordingly and send it to dieGovernment ar per procedure immediately.

H.A. HAZARIKA, PresidingOfficer 9. On careful scrutiny of the evidence I find admittedly Sri Sekhar Rudra an employee under Management and posted at Guwahati was transferred to Dumur, Bihar. Accordingly he was released fromGuwahati 1992

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2008 /VAISAKHA 6, 1930

[PART I SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

AWARD

नई दिल्ली , 2 अप्रैल , 2008

This is a reference made under Section 10( 1 )(d ) of Industrial Disputes Act. The reference is:

"Whether the industrial dispute raised byBharath Petroleum Corporation General Workers Union against the management of Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd. over not regularisation ofcontract workmenjustified ? Ifso, towhat relief the concerned workmen are entitled?"

का. रुख, 922. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 कां 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉपरिशन लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय ईर्नाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई. डी. 37/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[फा. सं. एल-30011/75/2002 - आईआर (एम. ) ] एन.. एस. बोरा, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the2ndApril,2008

$.O. 922. In pursuance of Section 17 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. I. D. 37/ 2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofBharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on2-4-2008.

[F. No. L-30011 /75/2002 -IR( M)] N. S. BORA , DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

2: Facts of the case in brief are as follows:- The claimant union representing 16 workers content that they were engagedby contractors for work in the management companyBharath Petroleum Corporation since 1976. They have been doing the work of cleaning of petrol , diesel , kerosene tanks and drainage, sweeping of the premises, cutting grass, painting and maintenance of buildings and construction of roads . Though the contractors changed from time to time the workers remained the same throughout. The work is perennial in nature. Without the workers the company cannot function . The work is done under the supervision and control of officers ofthe company. Wages are paidby the company. The workers have been requesting for regularisation for long. But company is adamant and have not considered their request. They have been working for the last more than 18 years . The Central Government issued a notification on 9-12-1996 prohibiting contract labour w.e.f. 1-3-97 with respect to the work of sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings. The worker are entitled to be regularised.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

Present : Shri , P. L. Norbert, B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer (Tuesday, the4th day of March 2008/ 14th Phaiguna 1929)

1. D. 37/2006

(LD. 10/2004 ofLabour Court, Emakulam)

Union

ThePresident,

Bharath Petroleum Corporation General Workers' Union, Head Office, Labour Port, Kalabhavan Road,

Kochi -682018 .

ByAdv. A. X. Varghese.

Management

3.Accordingto the management there is no industrial dispute for adjudication . The workers are contract labourers and there is no master and servant relationship between workers and company . Therefore the workers are incompetent to raise an industrial dispute against the company.The court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute referred. The contract workers were engagedby the company only intermittently and not continuously. Their work is not of a perennial nature . The contractors are deciding who should be engaged in the work. There is no supervision and control of the workers by the officials of the company. It is not correct to say that the Central Government has issued notification dated 9-12-1996 prohibiting employment of contract labour w.e.f. 1-3-97 . There was a notification . But it was struck down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in judgment in Steel Authority of India case. The workers have not acquired any right for regularisation in the company.

4. In the light of the above pleadings the following points arise for consideration:

The Senior Installation Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Lad, Dr. Salim Ali Road, Kochi - 682014.

ByAdv.M/ s. Menon and Pai .

L. Has the court jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute?

2. Is thecontract sham or genuine?

This case coming up for bearing on 26-02-2008, this Tribunal cum -Labour Court on 04-03-2008 passed the following.

3. Are theworkers entitled for regularisation ?

1992 :

भारत का कौल 26 1008/पैसा 6: 1990

AD SHI

[ भ ]

the evidence-consists of the oral bertimony ofWWI and dooussectory ovidence of Eat WI on the side of the minhland Wind W2 on the side of sanegerucut

5. Nos.Fonts Noel 2 : The managerment challenges

to afford them as, opportunity, te, sop Acousting to the learned pournal five time pygam there is poupecifieplending in the clador agent this to contract in shan the passagemantique potahlaamges Aut contention with enough, plondings, in eng The learned opumsel glying proof without pleading cronos by Maanadar mod Company K. Sureof Mern. Depa LL.M. 766 it je observed by Calpatte High Co 味中味理 poins is net pleaded in the written sistergents.s.Tams ? would bo-right in not allowing the party,torah, go the said poles and orgue on it before gods 1 OTASN

To Oriental Pastrance Company Linked T. Pichromani 1992) LL : 901 徒制 abimnoty nodig High Court Buat dribially the Vule is that t any pleading, any amount of ordeочит десети anylise til since subir oral evriende witurping the likely to take the other party altered by

The learned counsel also redors India Limited . Union of India and others 2006, 1037, Paragpoh 26 iss bedande kan

Ualous Ant is entitled toespotthonothei ε. the jurisdiction of thisthis coucourt to adjudicate the dispute. According to the management the workers whose caute is espoused by the union are only contract workers. They do not fall within the definition of workman' under Section 2(s ) of Industrial Disputes Act . The company has not employed them. Such a dispute can be raised only by the regular employees of the company and not by contract workers. There is also no industrial dispute as def Section 20k) of21 ) of Industrial Disputes Act as there is no employer employee relationship between company and the defined in Lastly, it is contended that unless the contract system is abolished by the appropriate Government by notification asas per Section 10 of Contract Labour Legularisation and Abolition) Acf no demand can be made forregularisation and no dispute can be raised by contract workers. There is a prayer in the written statement to consider the question ofjurisdiction of the court as a preliminary isuzue,But to decide that question it is pecessary to consider whather the contrast is sham or toquipe. It is heldby the Hon'ble Supreme court in Steel Authority of IndiaLtd &Others V. National Union Waterfront Workers andOdin 2001-11H-LL.J. 1087 that the courthas to cartsider first whether the construct is sharm or genuine in orderto decide whether & notification U/S 10 of CLRA A requited or not to claim regularisation in service. If the contract is sham even without prohibition of the contract system by notification, dispute saw be raised and absorption can be claimed by contract workers. On the ottier hand if the contract is found to be genome then the contract syment ma to be got abolished by approaching the contented government. Therefore it is necessary to decide the nature of the contract first for which evidence. has to be looked Into. This compelled the Suite Labour cort to defer the issoe to the final stage. :

thì Therefore ifis comendo thi thể chấm of pleadings. The haire it evidence that contract is want of pleadi deciding the dispute . Nothing phố vềthiếu thở vì hội nế stating that the contract is hot genathe but yo deny benefits to workers. On the surebuế rangehành Winesamay top stated in claim statement till the workeds he comed not be sham of genume . But the Bethesdatashe labourers . If they are contract labourers the count Year note per contract should specifically chaltete it if is moth that there is equally no Blendingt mit me wh the company in engaging cơn thiết với tên them of the benefits of labouri 6. It is relevant to note that in the claim statesment the union repeatedly say that the 16 workers in question were engaged in 1906 by contractors and simy worn working coneinuously mode different contractors for the lantmore than 10 years Brη συμπάθειες καιosaremettioned in paragraph (9 )page (2) of the chalmostatunitent Duino where in- dietatem mandiri ploaded that the contact is simiror's emmonlige todoprive thenvorkeuswf the benefits of wertweat labour linglelations. However the learned counsel tpperlig for dreiunion robnits that though the wart "shewnot met there is pleading with negard to the ingrediens bea abitaycontract Kiotrue that the claim suaternion contabis the artenments that shrework is perennial inseturk, that the work supervised Andetetivalledby the officers of the bonapanys and paymeatrisinuade by the светрит ? Востhe andoeuquestion is whotho that plusding is sufficient to draw the attention of the opposiso party and

Tempat from showce of alendings even som the materiala on record the and ofmodi potpreds The only decurrent, that the union bay, produced isRent. M verick in Judges in OP. 17297 of 1997 of 1992 High Court of Kel The these workers yagad the 1994

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 26, 2008/VAISAKHA 6, 1930

[PART I-Sac. 3 ( i))

contractorsmaysometimes engage the same set of workers. Therefore it cannot be presumed that the contract is only a smoke screen between the company and the workers. The wages are paid admittedly by the contractors and not by the company. Other than a sweeping statement of WWI that supervision is done by the officials of the company there is no specific statement as to who was, or who were the officers who were supervising and controlling the workers. No adequate evidence is adduced to support the contention regarding and supervision control . The union has no case that any disciplinary action was taken by the company against any of the workers . Admittedly no appointment orders were issued to the workers nor were theyterminated by the company by any written order. No recorda were called for from the company to prove that the company is the real employer of the workers. In the absence ofsuchevidence regarding the nature of the employment and the absence of specific pleadings regarding the nature ofcontract it is not possible to accept the contention of union that the contract is not genuine.

Ifso, without getting the contract system abolished by notification under Section 10 ofC.L.R.A. Act the union cannot raise an industrial dispute against the compaпу. Points are answered accordingly.

8. Point No.3 : - Though this aspect need notbe considered in view ofthe fact that workers cannot raise an industrial dispute, for the sake of completeness I would dealwith it. Ihave found that the contract is genuine. Ifso the contract workers do not acquire any kind of right for absorption in the management company. Continuous work for240 days or more in an year will not confer any right on them for employment in the company. The decision in Oil &NaturalGasCorporation Limited V. Engineering Mazdoor Sangh, (2007) | Supreme Court Cases 250 reliedby the learned counsel for union is not applicable as it relates to casual /temporary workers and not contract workers . It is held in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others V. Uma Devi and others , 2006 ( 109) FLR 826, paragraph 38 as follows:

notification issued by Central Government on 09-12-1976 prohibiting contract labour in respect ofcertain categories ofwork to be enforced. But the Hon'ble High Court observed that the prohibition order was regarding sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching ofbuildings and whether the workers fall under such categories is a question offact to be decided on the basis ofevidence to be adduced before proper fonam and not in a writ petition . Ext.Wl does not support the case of the union one way or other regardingthe nature ofthe contract. Apart from Ext .Wi the oraltestimony ofWWI who is a worker as well as an office bearer of union alone is there . He also admits that the workers were working under contractors and they were paidby contractors (cross examination page-2 ). Though he says that successive contractors were engaging the same set ofworkers continuously, the union has not been abletoproduce any record or examine any ofthe contractors toprove that it was at the instance ofthe company that the same set of workers were continuously employed by successive contractors . On the other hand MWI and MW2 the management witnesses say that the contract system is not abolished and contractors alone were the choosers of workers. The learned counsel for the management points out that though there was a notification referred supra it is set asidebythe judgment in S.A.I.L. case. It isto be noted that even assuming that prohibition notification made mention in Ext .W1 judgment is in force it relates onlyto sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings alone. It does not refer to cleaning of petrol and diesel tanks, gruss cutting and other maintenance work claimed by the workers. MWI says that the contractors are supervised by the company. He says that the company is allottingwork to contractors and company is supervising such work (page- 8) . Buthe does not know whether according to the change of contractors the workers are changed. He admits that the work is perennial in nature. Howeverthe company has to see whether the work allotted to the contractors is done according to the specifications ofthe company which can be ensured only if officers of the company supervise the work, but not the workers . If theworkers are supervised, it would mean that they may be in fact workers of the company.Yet it is only a piece of evidence to prove the status of workers . MW2 the Sr.Management of the company says that the company supervises the contractors and payment is made by tlie contractor.Hedoes not admit that the work is perennial in nature. However the stand of MW2 regarding perennial nature ofwork does not appear to be correct . Cleaning of tanks, cutting ofgrass etc. are recurring type of work and hence perennial. But union was not able to prove with sufficient evidence that the workers were engaged continuously by different contractors at the instance of the company. The contractors are free to engage anyone asworkers. According to their discretion they may prefer the ex contractworkers considering their experience in the

"When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagenient as a contractual or causal worker and the engagement is not based on proper selection asrecognized by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware ofthe consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation forbeing confirined in theportwhen an Appointment to the post could be made onlyby following properprocedure for selection and in concerned cases, In consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advancedby temporary, contractual or causal employees. It cannot abobe held that the State has held out any promise same category of work. Therefore the successive 1995 [ भाग 1]-खण्ड 3( 1U) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 26 , 2008 /वैशाख 6, 1930.

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s K. J. S. Ahlırwalia Noagaon IronMines and their workman, which was received bythe CentralGovernment on 2-4-2006.

while engaging these persons either to continuethem where theyare or to make them permanent. The State cannotconstitutionally make such a relief ofbeing madepermanent in thepost".

[No. L-26011 /11/2003-IR(M)] N. S. BORA, DeskOfficer In view of the above circumstances I find that the workers are not entitled for absorption in the management company even ifthe industrial dispute lie before this court.

ANNEXURE

CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT: Shut N. K. R. Mohapatra, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T. -cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar .

In the result, an award is passed finding that the workers are not entitled for regularisation and the demand ofthe union is not legal and justified. The award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.

INDUSTRIAL, DISPUTE CASE NO. 8/2004

DateofPasingAward (Lok Adalat) -3rd February

2008

Dictatedto the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 4th day of March, 2008.

BETWEEN:

-Ist Party-Manage- P. L. NORBERT, PresidingOfficer The Management of ment

Appendix

Witness for the Union

WWI 26-02-2007 Sri .Ancelo De Silva,

M/s . K. J. S. Ahluwalia, MinesOwner, Noagaon Iron Mines, At /Po. Barbil , Dist. Keonjhar, Orissa.

Witness for the Management

AND

MW1 19-06-2007 Sri. Sadanandan K. Menon .

-2nd Party-Union.

MW2 17-12-2007 Sri .Kurlan Parambi.

Exhibits for the Union

06-08-2001

TheirWorkmen, represented through the General Secretary, NorthOrissaWorkers Union , Head Office, Orampara, A1 /Po . Rourkela, Dist. Sundargarh -769012.

Certified copy ofjudgment in OP 17797/97 of the Hon'ble High Court ofKerala,

APPEARANCES:

Exhibits for the Management - Nil.

-For the 1st Party

Shri S.K. Routray, Asst. Manager (Legal)

Management.

नई दिल्ली , 2 अप्रैल, 2008

Shri B.S. Pati .

-For the2nd Party Union

GeneralSecretary.

AWARD

The followingdispute is the outcome ofa reference made by the Central Government in their letter No. L. -26011 / 11/2003- IR (M), dated20-2-2004,

का, आ. 923 , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैं. के. जे. एस. अहलूवालिया , नवगाँव आयरन माईन्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई. डी. केस सं-8/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एस -26011/ 11/2003- आईआर ( एम. ) ] एम. एस. बोरा , हेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 2nd April, 2008

"Whether the action ofthe Management ofM/ s. K. I. S. Aliluwalia, Noagaon Iron Mines , At. Po. Barbil, Dist. Keonjhar , by terminating the services of Sh. Panu Munda, Sto . Dubrai Munda, Smt . Sumi Munda, W/ o . Panu Munda and Smt . Mundul MundaW/o. Gangu Munda, Miners with effect from 31-3-2003 without following the provisions of I.D. Act, and without observing the principle of natural justice is justified ? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?"

2. While the matter was sub-judice before the Tribunal the same was placed before the Lok Adalat held S.O. 923. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1. D. Case No. 8/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the

138761/2008-15 1996

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2008/VAISAKHA 6, 1930

[PART I-SEC. 3 (u) ]

Their Workman , Shri R. C. Behera represented through the General Secretary, ChromeZone Employees Union, Boula Chromite Mines At.Po. Soso, Dist. Keonjhar.

....2nd Party/Union.

Appearances:

Shri A. K. Mishra,

Forthe I st Party Management.

Manager(Law)

on 3-2-2008. The parties to the dispute filed a joint petition ofcompromise (settlement dated 30-1-2008 ) whereunder the Management has agreed to take back the disputants into service with 50% of their back wages for the idle period from 1-3-2003 till 30-1-2008 keeping their earlier ser- vice conditions un-challenged. In view of the above the reference is answered accordingly with a direction to the Management to reinstate the workmen in their original post forthwith with the above conditions as narrated in the terms ofcompromisewhich forms part of the settlement.

Shri A. K. Rout,

For the 2nd Party 3.Reference is answered accordingly.

Union

General Secretary.

N. K. R. MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 2 अप्रैल , 2008

The following dispute is the outcome of a reference madeby theCentral Government in their letter No. L. -29012/ 25/96-IR(Mise), dated 17-9-1996.

"Whether the action of the Management of Boula Chromite Mines of M/ s . FACOR in terminating the services ofShri R. C. Behera, Ex-Blaster with effect from 18-9-1995 is justified? If not what relief the workman is entitled ?"

का. आ. 924. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नाऊना क्रोमाईट माईन्स ऑफ मै. एफएसीओआर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या आई. डी. केस सं. 18/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -29012/25/1996- आईआर ( एम. ) ] एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 2nd April, 2008

2. Today by making their personal appearance be- fore the Lok Adalat both the parties pleaded to have al- ready resolved the dispute outside the court on 20-12-2007 andby referringto their said settlement wanted the Tribu- nal to pass an award on compromise . On perusal of the joint compromise petition which forms part of the award it isgathered that the workman having received Rs . 45,000/- in lieu ofhis full and final settlement has agreed not to raise any sort of dispute against the Management pertaining to his service henceforth and shall have no lien over his ser- vice in future.

3. In view of the above settlement between the par- ties the reference is answered accordingly.

S.O. 924. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1.D. Case No. 18/2001 ) of the Central Goverument Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofBoula Chromite Mines of M/s FACOR and their workman , which was received bythe Central Government on 2-4-2008.

[F. No. L-29012/25/1996- IR(M)]

N. S. BORA , Desk Officer

N.K.R. MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 4 अप्रैल , 2008

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALCUM- LABOUR COURT,

BHUBANESWAR

Present: Shri N.K.R. Mohapatra , Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T. -cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.

का. आ. 925.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 69/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था । Tr . INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 18/2001

[सं. एल-22012/350/2004- आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी DateofPassineAward (Lok Adalat) -3rd February 2008

New Delhi , the 4th April , 2008 Between:

The Management of the Executive (Mines ), FACOR, Laxmi Bhaan, Kuans , Dist. Bhadrak.

Ist Party-Management

And

S.O. 925. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , thy Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref.69/2005 of the Cent. Govt . Indus . Tribunal - cum -Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute 1997 भारत का राजपुत्र : मप्रैल 26, 2008/वैशाख 6, 1930

between the management ofM/ s . Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workonam, received by the Coutral Goverament on 04-04-2008

sald order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Sri S.K. Parsley, General Secretary of the Union appeared in the Court to represent the union. Thewritten statement was filed on behalf of the union.

[No. L-22012/350/2004-IR (CM-II)] AJAYKUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUIN- LABOUR COURT ASANSOL

BEYGRENCE No. 9 of2005

Praent:

Inbrief compassthe case ofthe union es et forth in its written statement is that Sri Gorelal Dunadh was the permanent haployee of the company is security gourd a Bankole Colliery, Bankela Aron, M/ s. Eastern Coulfields Limited. The worknun concerted was charge shooted for alleged theft, fread, dishonesty, in connection with the craployers business or property vide charge shootNo.WK/ PD/15 (10)/285, dated29-1-2001.

Sri Md. Sarfaraz Khan, PresidingOfficer,

Partion:

Agent, Bankola Colliery,Under Bankola Area, P.O. Ukhra, Burdwan.

General Secretary, Koyła Mazdoor Congress, Gorai Mansion,G.T. Road, Asansol , Bundwan.

REPRESENTATIVES:

For theApplicant Shri S.K. Pandey, General Secretary

FortheOppositeParty: None,

Industry:Coal

State: WestBengal Datedthe28-1-2008

ORDER

TheThe main case of the union is that the workmen performedhis duty in 1st shift of 28-1-2001 as per the records ofthe manigement. An incident alelered theft ofa piece of raci was reported. The workman who was on duty st the tline ofalleged incidentwas set freewhile SriDusath who was not in duty in the said shift was charge sheeted by the management. The said worlanan Sri Dueado who was ultimately dismissed from the service of the company bolding ex -parte enquiry, ignoring the principles ofnatural justice. It is really said to be strange that the management had taken sach type of berah decision on the basis of bear sayevidence. In the light of the above mentioned fact it in sald tobe absolutely clear that the dismissal of Sri Gorelal Dusadh from the service of the company is illegal and unjusdiled. The workman concomed is since then out of job andhis whole family is on the verge of starvation. The union has sought relief for the reinstalement of the workmum concerned in the service with the payment offull backwages for the period from the date ofdismissalwith all the consequential benefits .

Intrarelse ofpowera conferred by clause(d) ofsub- section ( 1) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947( 14 of 1947), Governmeryt of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/350/2004IR(CM- II) dated 21-7-2005 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

On the other hand it is clear from the perusal of the record that the notices by the registered post was sent to theAgent, Bankoła Colliery, Bankola Arva, P.O. Ukhra , Distt. Burdwan which was received and endorsement to. that effect was made on the A/D by putting the signature with the date ofthe receipt of the notice. Since the date of the receipt of the notice several repeated adjournments were given for the appearance of the management but to noeffect, within delay the reference proceeded for expaче hearing.

"Whether the action of the management ofBankola Collipay cader Benkola Area M/ s Eastern Coalfields Limited indismissing Sh. Gorelal Dusada, Security Guard from Services U.M. No. 693307 from service w.ef 24-4-01 is legal and justified? If not , towhat relief the workman is entitled?

Onhavingreceived the Order No. L-22012/350/2004- IR( CM.II ) dated 21-7-2005 of the above mentioned reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry ofLabour, New Deld, for adjudication ofthe dispute, a reference caseNo. 69of2005 was registered on 17-8-2005 and accordingly an order tothat effect was passed to issue notice through the registered post to the parties concerned directing themto appear in the Court on the date fixed and tofile theirwritten statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims . In pursuance of the

: From the perusal of the record it transpires that the union has filed the list of certain documents consisting copyofthe office order to delete the name ofthe workman concerned from the service of the company, copy of the dismissal order, copy ofthe findings, copy ofthe enquiry report, copyofthe enquiry proceeding and the copy ofthe charge sheet. It is clear from these documents that the (enquiry proceeding was conducted experte in absence of theworkman concerned. There is no even chit ofpaper to show that the notice of enquiry proceeding were sent to theworkman concerned. There is no proof ofthis fact that the workman concerned had personally receive thenotice 138701/08-16 1998

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 26, 2008/VAISAKHA 6,1930

[PART I-Sac. 3(i) )

Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofBegunis Piti Colliery and their workman, which will received by the Central Government on 4-4-2008.

[No.L-22012/432/1998- IR(CM-HI) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT ASANSOL

Present:

SriMd. Sarfaraz Khan, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO: 81 OF1999

Partles:

of the enquiry . Besides this all the witnesses oxamirw during the enquiry proceeding are official and hear say witnesses the information or then evidence is based on second heard information . Besides this the security guard onduty at the pet top not during the relevant bune has also not been examined during the enquiry proceeding and he was set free from the alleged incident of theft. There is no any direct evidence of involvement of the workman concerned in the alleged theft . The EnquiryOfficer finding is based exclusively on the hear say evidence of the said security guard whose lapses in duty concerned the incident oftheft. The management did not appear inthe Court inspite of personal services of the notice so there is no defence casebefore the Court. It is also clear from the record and thedocuments filed by the union that no proper opportunity was given to the workman concerned to defend himself during the enquiry proceeding which amount to direct violation ofthe principle ofnatural justice:

TheAgent,BeguniaProject Colliery , Chanch VictoriaArea, P.O. Barakar, Distt,Burdwan.

Vrs.

TheArea Working President, Janta Mazdoor Sangh,Demagoria Colliery, P.O.KalyaneswariDistt .Burdwan.

In view of the above facts , circuinstance , evidence and discussion made above I am satisfied to hold that the dismissal ofSriGorelal Dusadh from the service is not legal andjustified.And as such in the passed order of dismissal of the delenquent employee is hereby set aside and be is directed to be reinstated with the entering of service with 50% ofthebackwageswhich well serve the ends ofjustice. Accordingly it is hereby

REPRESENTATIVES:

ORDERED

: Sri P.K. Das, Advocate

For the management

For theunion(Workman) : Sri , S.K. Singh , Ares WorkingPresident.

: Coal

Industry

that let an" ex-parte Award" be and the same ispassed in favour of the workman concerned. Send the copies of the awardtotheGovernment of India, Ministry ofLabour, New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.

State

: WestBengal MD SARFARAZ KHAN, PresidingOfficer

Dated the 15-1-2008.

AWARD

नई दिल्ली , 4अप्रैल , 2008

In exercise ofpowers conferred by clause (d) ofsub- section( 1 ) and sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), Government of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No.L- 22012/432/98 - IR(CM- II) dated 7-7-1999 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .

का.आ. 916,--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार वेगुनीया प्रोजेक्ट कोलौरी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उपके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 81/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

SCHEDULE

[ सं. एल-22012/432/1998 - ई आर (सीएम-11 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2008

"Whether the action of the management ofBegunia Project in not protecting the wages of Sh . SabirAli w.e.. 23-10-97 lsjustified? Ifnot, towhat relief is the workman concerned entitled ?"

S.O. 926. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby, publishes the award (Ref. No.81 / 1999) ofthe CentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Afterhaving received the Order No. L-22012/432/98- IR(CM- II) ) dated 7-7-1999 of the above mentioned reference from the Goverment of India, Ministry of Labour, NewDelhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case (i))

भारत का रात्रीत 26, 2006 , 1930-

Dispute between the employers in relasien 20 the management of Easton Coelfields Limited and whats workman, which was received by the Central Governomel on4-4-2008..

[No.L- 23012/591/ 1999 TRIOM AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Dock Offer

BEFORETHE CENTRAL GOVER TRIBUNAL-CUM

No. 41061999 was registered on 23-7-1999 and accoες- kgbingen, to that effont was passed to issue notices through the registoped post to the parties.concerned di - recting them to 無 how to appor inin the court on the date fixed and to the life witni stalesnouts along with the relevant docu mests godaidint ofwitnesses in support of their claims. In pipanse ofthe said order notices by the registered post weep sont to the partics.concerned. Bri S.K. Singh, Area Working President ofthe Union and Sri P.K. Das Advocate appeared in the court to represent the management and the wulon campoctively . The written statements were filed on behalf ofboth the parties concerned in support of theirclaims.

Present:

REFERENCE NO. 60OF 2000

Partier:

TheAgout, Ainritoral Colllery of M/s. ECL, Rania , Burden

Vrs

The Org . Secretary, Colliery. Mazdoor Sabha, Asansol .

From the perusal ofthe record it transpires that the can fixed for bearing of the argument ofthe parties concerned on 29-9-05 but none of the parties on the date fixed. The union left taking any step on its behalf pince 29-9-03 to 12-9-07.Repealed several adjournmentwere given to the uusion to take suitable step but the union did not appear in the court. The reference is very old one. These all prevailing facta, circumstances ofthe case and the regular absence ofthe union go to show that the union has got no interest and does not want to proceed with the case further. In such circumstance it is not proper and advisable to keep record pending any more as no useful purposein tobe served. As such it is hereby

REPRESENTATIVES

ORDERED

: Sri P. K..Goswami, Advocate

For the management

For the union (Workman) : SriN. Ganguly, Advocato.

:Coal

Industry

that let a"No Dispute Award" be and the same is prased. Sandthe copies ofthe order to the Goverment of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.

State

: WestBengal

MD. SARFARAZ KHAN, Presiding Officer

Datedthe2-1-2008.

नई दिल्ली , 4 अप्रैल , 2008

AWARD

1 का.आ. 927,ौचोगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 को 14 ) भी धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार है. सी. एल. के प्रबंधात्रि को संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में सरकार औद्योगिक अभिकरण मासनसोल के पंचाट (संदर्भ 60/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केंद्रीय सरकार को -4-2008 को प्राप्त हुथ्य था।

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947),Government of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No.1-22012/591/99- IR( CM-II) dated 13-7-2000 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudicationby this Tribunal,

[नं प्रा०-2012/591 /1999-आई भार ( सीएम-1 ) ]

SCHEDULE

अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्कअधिकारी

New Delhi,the 4th April, 2008

8.0. 917.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby, publishes the award (Ref. No.60/2000) oftheCentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

*Whether the action of the management of Amritnagar Colbery under BCL in denying miniwa wage plus special Plese RatedAllowances in respect ofSh.Prem Kumar Singh and six others at the time of their conversion from Plece Rated Catagory to time Rated Category since 1993 is legal andjustified?If not, towhat relief the workmen are entitled?"

i 2000

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 26, 2008/VAISAKHA 6, 1930

[PART II SEC. 3( ) )

filedtheirdocuments . It is further clear from the record that the union left taking any step on his behalf since 9-6-06 to 12-9-07. Repeated adjournments were given to the union to take suitable step by him but unfortunately neither the learned lawyer of the union nor the union itself or the workman concerned appeared in the court . The reference is old one and the union or the worlanan is not interested to proceed with the record further. In such prevailing facts and circumstances of the case it is not proper and advisable to keep the old reference pending any more na no useful purpose is to be served. As such it ishereby

ORDERED

After having received theOrder No. L-22012/591 /99- IR(CM-II) dated 13-7-2000 ofthe above said reference from theGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour, NewDelhi for adjudication ofthe dispute, a reference case No. 60 of 2000was registered on 1-8-2000/17-1-2001 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their writen statements along with the relevant documents and a list ofwitnesses in support oftheir claims . In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Sri P.K. Goswami, Advocate and Sri N. Ganguly,Advocate appeared in the court to represent the management and the union respectively. The written statements on behalf of both the parties concerned in support oftheir claims.

that let a "No Dispute Award" be and the same is passed. Send the copies of the order to the Government of Indla, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful, The reference is acordingly disposedof.

MD, SARFARAZ KHAN, Presiding Officer From the perusal ofthe record it transpires that the casewas fixed for filing documents by the parties at their request on 9-6-2006 but none of the parties appeared and

Printed by the Mamager, Govt. of India Press, Ring Road, Maytpuri, New Delhi- 110064

sad Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi- 110054.