This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGD.NO.D.L. ( N) 04 / 0007/2003-0 राष्ट्रिी में. सी. एल. (५१ ) 04/ 0007/2003-05

भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 18]

नई दिल्ली, अप्रैल 27 मई 3, 2008, शनिबार/वैशाख 7 वैशाख 13, 1930

No. 16] NEW DELHI, APRIL, 27-MAY 3, 2008, SATURDAY/VAISAKHA 7- VAISAKHA 13, 1930 इस भाग में भित्र पृष्ठ संख्या दी कांती है जिससे कि यह पुत्रक संकलन के रूप में राके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation.

भागवण्ड उप-खण्ड (II)

PART II-Section 3-Sab-dyotira (ii)

भारत सरकार के मोझलयों ( रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर ) द्वारा जारी किए गए साविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं StatutoryOrders and Notifications Lasned by the Miniriries of the Gormant of India (Other than theMinistry ofDefence)

वित्त मंत्रालय

(रावण विभाग)

( केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क आयुक्त का कार्यालय हल्दिया आयुक्तालय )

कोलकाता , 24 अप्रैल , 2008

सं. 2/2008 -सीमा शुल्क ( एम.डी. )

का.आ. 928.- सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 52 ) के साथ पठित एम.एफ. डी. कार सर्क्युलर सं. -31 /2003 सीमा शुल्क, दिनांक 07 अप्रैल 2003 की बारा -152 के अन्तर्गत दिनांक 01 जुलाई 1994 को चारी अधिसूचना -33/1994 सी.रा. ( एन.टी. ) द्वारा सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम , 1962 की बाध -01 में प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, विकास आयुक्त , फालटा विशेष आर्थिक क्षेत्र , वाणिज्य मंत्र , माता सरकार के पत्र सं. -2 ( 1 )/यू-5/2007/2790 दिनांक-17-09-2007 द्वारा अनुमोदित मैसर्स युनाइटेक नैनोटेक प्रोडक्ट्सको कारकाना स्थल, प्लॉट नया 03 , हावड़ा पॉलिपार्क, मुलागोरी , संकररावल , पश्चिम बंगाल, पिन-711313 , को रातप्रतिशत ( 100 % ) निर्माताई की के उ‌द्देश्य से सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 52 ) की धारा-9 के तहत एतद्‌द्वारा वेयर हाऊसिंग स्टेशनोनित किया है

[सी. सं. IV ( 16) 2/केवलटेकनिक / 07 /7125-54]

सी. एम. मेहरा , आंबुको

(2001) 2002

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2008/VAISAKHA 13, 1930

[PART 1 Sec . 3(ii )]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

(OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE HALDIA COMMISSIONERATE)

Kolkata, the 24thApril , 2008

No. 2/2008-CUSTOMS (NT)

S.O. 928. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 9 of the Customs Act, 1962 as delegated by NotificationNo. 33/ 1994-Customs (NT) dated 1st July 1994 issued under Section 152 ofthe Customs Act, 1962 (51 of1962) read with MFDR Circular No. 31/2003 - Customs dated 7th April 2003 , the factory premises of M/s United Nanotech Products Ltd. , at Plot New 03, Howrah Polypark, Dhulagori , Sankrail , Howrah, West Bengal , Pin -711 313 are, hereby, decalredtobe a Warehousing Station under Section 9 ofthe Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) for the purpose ofsetting up ofa 100% Export Oriented Unit, as approved by the Development Commissioner , Falta Special Economic Zone, Ministry ofCommerce,Government of India . Vide their letter No.-2( 1 )-U-5 /2007/2790 dated 17-09-2007.

[C. No. IV( 16) 2/CE/ HAL/TECH/RW/07/7125-54]

C. M. MEHRA, Commissioner

कार्यालय मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त

जयपुर, 28 अप्रैल, 2008

सं. 03/2008-09

का. आ. 929. आयकर नियम , 1962 के नियम 2 सीए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 वां ) की धारा 10 के खण्ड( 23 सी ) की उपधारा ( vi ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त , जयपुर एतद्‌द्वारा निर्धारण वर्ष 2003-04 एवम आगे के लिए कथित धारा के उ‌द्देश्य से " मारूत नन्दन एजुकेशनल सोसायटी , खैरथल , जिला अलबर " को स्वीकृति देते हैं:

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

[क्रमांक:मुआआआआआ ( समन्वय ) /जय/ 10 ( 23सी ) (vi )/2008-09 ]

एस. सी. कपिल , मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Jaipur, the 28th April ,2008

No. 03/2008-09

S.O. 929. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- clause ( vi) ofclause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income- taxAct, 1961 (43 of 1961) read with rule 2CA of the Income- taxRules, 1962 the Chief Commissioner of Income -tax, Jaipur hereby approves " Marut Nandan Educational Society, Kharthal, Distt. Alwar" for the purpose of said section for the Α.Υ. 2003-04& onwards:

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

[No. OCIT/JPR/Addl.CIT( Coord .)/10 (23C)(vi )/2008-09]

5. C. KAPIL, Chief Commissioner of Income- tax

जयपुर, 28 अप्रैल, 2008

सं. 04/2008-09

का.आ. 930.-आयकर नियम , 1962 के नियम 2 सीए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 वां) की धारा 10 के खण्ड ( 23 सी) की उपधारा ( vi ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त, जयपुर एत‌द्वारा निर्धारण वर्ष 2006-07 एवम आगे के लिए कथित बारा के उद्देश्य से " दीपशिखां कला संस्थात्र , जयपुर " को स्वीकृति देते हैं :

[क्रमांकः मुआआआआआ ( समन्वय ) /जय/ 10 ( 23सी ) (vi )/2008-09 ]

एस. सी. कपिल, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त 2003

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2008/वैशाख 13 , 1930 :

[ पलखण्ड (ⅱ))

Jaipur , the 28th April, 2008

No. 04/2008-09

S.O. 930.In exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub-clause (vi) of clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income- taxAct, 1961(43 of 1961) read with rule2CA ofthe Income- tax Rules, 1962 the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax , Jaipur herebyapproves "Deepshikha Kala Sansthan , Jaipur" for the purpose of said section for the A.Y. 2006-07 & onwards.

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

[No.CCTT/ JPR/Addl.CTT ( Coord .)/ 10(230) (vi)/2008-09] S. C. KAPIL, Chief Commissioner ofIncome-tax

( वित्तीय क्षेभाई विधाप ) नईदिल्ली , 28 अप्रैल , 2008

को,आ. 931, राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रवन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम , 1970/1980 के खण्ड 3 के उपखण्ड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित , बैंककारी कम्पनी (उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम, 1970/1980 की धाय 9 की उपधारा ( ज) तथा ( ३ -क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्‌द्वारा , श्री पी.वी. गुडिरेड्‌डी, को अधिसूचना की तिथि से तीन वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अमवा जगले आदेश होगे तक, जो भी पहले हो , इलाहाबाद बैंक के निदेशक मण्डल में अंशकालीन गैर- सरकारी निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।

[फा. सं. 9/22/2006- पीओ-1 ] जी. बी. सिंह , उप सचिव

(Department of Financial Services)

NewDelhi , the28thApril ,2008

5.0. 931.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section 3 (h) and (3-A) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer ofUndertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause ( 1 ) ofclause 3 ofthe Nation- alizedBanks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme , 1970/1980 , the Central Government hereby nominetes Shri P. V. Gudireddy as part- time non -official Director on the Board of Directors ofAllahabad Bank for a period ofthree years from the date of notification and/or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 9/22/2006-BO-I)

G. B. SINGH, Dy. Secy.

वाणिज्य और उच्छद्योग मंत्रालय

(वाणिज्य विधान)

आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 16 अप्रैल , 2008

का.आ. 932. केन्द्रीय सरकार की निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम , 1963 ( 1963 का 22 ) की धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह राय है कि भारत के निर्यात व्यापार के विकास के लिए ऐसा करना आवश्यक और समीचीन है कि आयुर्वेदिक, सिद्धा, यूनानी और उत्पादों को निर्यात से पूर्व क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण के अधीन होना चाहिए ;

और, आयुष विभाग द्वारा आदेश फा. सं. 11020/5 /97-डीसीसी ( आयुष ) तारीखा 14 अक्तूबर, 2005 और उसके पश्चात्जारी किये गये पश्चात्वर्ती आदेशों द्वारा विहित क्वालिटी मानकों को विचार में किये गये हैं,

और आयुर्वेदिक , यूनानी और सिद्ध उत्पाद सैद्धान्त्रिक रूप से संदूषण और सूक्षमजीवों से मुक्त होते हैं किन्तु जब उन्हें अस्वास्थ्यकर विधि से उठाया- घरा या उपचारित किया जाता है तब संदूषण पश्चातवतीं विघटन हो सकता है ।

और, इसलिए, आयुर्वेदिक , यूनानी और सिद्ध उत्पादों के उत्पादन के सभी चरणों में तप्या फसल काटने , प्रसंस्करण , उठाई- धराई, भंडारण और परिवहन के दौरान सही स्वास्थ्यकर रखरखाव के लिए, आवश्यक अपेक्षाएं अधिकथित की जानी चाहिए,

> और प्रसंस्करणकर्ता का मुख्य उत्तरदायित्व है कि वह यह सुनिश्चित करें कि आयुर्वेदिक , युवानी और सिद्ध उत्पाद इस प्रस्ताव में अधिकमित अपेक्षाओं को पूरा करते हैं । 2004

[PART 11- SBC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2008 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1930

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा नामनिर्दिष्ट सक्षम प्राधिकारी देश में क्वालिटी मानकों का दक्ष अनुपालन सुनिश्चित करेगा । और, केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उक्त प्रयोजन के लिए नीचे विनिर्दिष्ट प्रस्ताव बनाए हैं और उन्हें निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण) नियम, 1964 के नियम 11 के उपनियम ( 2 ) की अपेक्षानुसार निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् को भेज दिया है ;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) नियम, 1964 के नियम 11 के उपनियम ( 2) के अनुसरण में प्रस्ताव को उन साधारणजनों की जानकारी के लिए प्रकाशित करती हैं, जिनके उनसे प्रभावित होने की सम्भावना है और यह सूचना दी जाती है कि ऐसा कोई व्यक्ति , जो उक्त प्रस्तावों के सम्बन्ध में कोई आक्षेप करना या सुझाव देना चाहता है , यह उन्हें इस आदेश के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से 30 दिनों के भीतर भारतीय निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् तीसरा तल , नई दिल्ली वाईएमसीए कल्चरल सेंटर बिल्डिंग , । , जयसिंह रोड, नई दिल्ली-110001 को भेज सकता है ।

प्रस्ताव

1. यह अधिसूचित करना कि आयुर्वेदिक, यूनानी और सिद्ध उत्पाद निर्यात से पूर्व क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण के अधीन होंगे ;

2. इस आदेश से संलग्न उपाबन्ध में उपवर्णित आयुर्वेदिक , यूनानी और सिद्ध का निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण , निरीक्षण और मानीटरिंग ) नियम, 2008 के प्रारूप के अनुसार क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण के प्रकार को विनिर्दिष्ट करना ;

3. इस आदेश में संलग्न अनुसूची में यथा उपवर्णित विनिर्देशों को आयुर्वेदिक , यूनानी और सिद्ध उत्पादों के लिए मानक विनिर्देश के रूप में मान्यता देना ;

4. अंतरराष्ट्रीय व्यापार के अनुक्रम में आयुर्वेदिक, यूनानी और सिद्ध उत्पाद के निर्यात को तब तक प्रतिषिद्ध करना, जब वह उसे लागू मानक विनिर्देशों के अनुरूप न हो और उसके साथ निरीक्षण प्रमाणपत्र या इस बात का प्रमाणपत्र न हो कि ऐसी इकाई निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम, 1963 की धारा 7 के अधीन स्थापित निर्यात निरीक्षण अधिकरण द्वारा अनुमोदित और उसके द्वारा उसकी मानीटरिंग की गई है, जिसके अंतर्गत क्षेत्र के विभिन्न स्थानों पर स्थित उसके उपकार्यालय भी है ।

अनुसूची

निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम 1963 की धारा 6 के अनुसार मान्यताप्राप्त आयुर्वेदिक, यूनानी और सिद्ध उत्पादों के लिएविनिर्देश:-

(क) आयातकर्ता देशों के राष्ट्रीय मानक अनुसार होंगे , या

( ख) विदेशी क्रेता और निर्यातकों के बीच करार पाए गए संविदाजन्य विनिर्देश होंगे परन्तु यह तब जब वे आयातकर्ता देशों की स्वास्थ्य अपेक्षाओं को पूरा करते हों ।

(ग ) ऐसे किसी आयुर्वेदिक , यूनानी और सिद्ध उत्पादों की दशा में , जिसके लिए उपयुक्त ( क ) और ( ख ) में कोई मानक उपलब्ध नहीं है, ऐसे मानक, यदि कोई होंगे , जो निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम , 1963 के उपबंधों के अधीन गठित विशेषज्ञ समिति द्वारा विरचित किए गए हों,

परिशिष्ट

निर्यात के लिए आयुर्वेदिक, यूनानी और सिद्ध उत्पादों के विनिर्देश

1. भारी धातु के लिए अनुज्ञेय सीमा:

क्र. सं.

अनुज्ञेय सीमाएं

भारी धातु की अन्र्तवस्तु

(1)

(2)

लीड (पीबी)

10पीपीएम

0.30 पीपीएम

केडिमियम (सीडी)

3 पीपीएम

अरसेनिक (एएस)

। पीपीएम

भरक्यूरी ( एचजी) [श्राम II- 3(il) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2008/वैशासा 13 , 1930

2. सशक ओवमार अवशेष :

क्र.सं.

गाशक जीवमार

( 1 )

1..

डीडीई डीडीटी + डीडीडी का योग 3.

एल्डरीम + द्वाबल्ढरीन का योग 4.

एचसीएच ( हिक्स्त्र क्लोरा साइक्लोरिक्सन ) एचसीबी (हिक्सा क्लोरा बनेक्सीन) 5.

एल्कोसर

लीमहन

क्लोरोदन

इंडोसल्फन और उसके इसमोर 3. एल्फोटयाक्सिन:

एल्फोधक्सिन:

(1)

बी ।

बी। जी 1 बी 2 + जी 2 का योग 3. माझोबाथल संदूषण सीसाएं:

क्र. सं.

पैरामीटर

(1)

स्टेफिलोकोकस ओरियस/ग्राम

सालमोनेला प्रजाति 10 ग्राम

स्यूडोमोनास ऐरोजिनोसा

ईकोली / 10 ग्राम

कुल प्लेट गणना ( टीपीसी)

कुल ईस्ट एवं मोल्ड

+प्रासंगिक प्रयोग के लिए 10 ग्राम की सीमा होंगी

2005 अनुज्ञेयसीमाएं

(2)

0.01पीपीएम -

1.00 पीपीएम -

0.05 पीपीएम-

0.30 पीपीएम -

0.10 पीपीएम -

0.02पीपीएम -

0.60 पीपीएम -

0.05 पीपीएम -

3.00 पीपीएम

अनुज्ञेय सीमाएं

(2)

5.0पीपीबी

10.0 पीपीएम-

अनुज्ञेय सीमाएं

(2)

अनुपस्थिति

वही

कही

10/ ग्राम

10 / ग्राम.

( 3 ) भारी धातुओं के सम्बंध में परीक्षण उन उत्पादों के लिए लागू नहीं होंगे , जो प्रासंगिक उपयोग के लिए हैं,

(2 ) उपरोक्त विनिर्देश सीमाएं सम्बन्धी वाले गैर- मानक उपयोग वाले आंतरिक या बाह्य आयुबोदक , यूनानी और सिद्ध उत्पादों को लागू नहीं होंगी,

(3 ) स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय , भारत सरकार के आयुष विभाग द्वारा जारी किए गए प्रकाशन " परीक्षण के न्याचार - आयुर्वेदिक , यूनानी और सिद्ध औषधि ", भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान फार्माकॉपिया प्रयोगशाला , गाजियाबाद , मार्च, 2007 और भारतीथ आयुर्वेदिक फार्माकॉपिया और भारतीय यूनानी फार्म्सकोंषिया का परीक्षण संदर्भ दिया जाये । د

2006

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2008/VAISAKHA 13, 1930

[PART II-Sec. 3 (i )]

उपाबंध भिर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम, 1963 ( 1963 का 22 ) की धारा 17 के अधीन बनाए जाने के लिए प्रस्तावित प्रारूप नियम,

( 1 ) संक्षिप्त नाम और प्रारम्भ

1. इन नियमों का संक्षिप्त नाम आयुर्वेदिक , यूनानी और सिद्ध का निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण , निरीक्षण और मानीटरिंग ) नियम 2008 है ।

2 ये राजपत्र में अंतिम प्रकाशन की तारीख को प्रवृत्त होंगे ।

(2) परिभाषाएं- इन नियमों में जब तक कि संदर्भ से अन्यथा अपेक्षित न हो , -

( क) " अधिनियम " से निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम , 1963 ( 1963 का 22 ) अभिप्रेत है, ( ख ) आयुर्वेदिक सिद्ध या यूनानी औषध के अन्तर्गत ऐसी सभी औषधियां हैं जो निदान उपचार या निवारण में ( मानवों या पशुओं में रोग या विकार के) आंतरिक या बाह्य उपयोग के लिए आशयित हैं और जिन्हें ( आयुर्वेदिक, सिद्ध या यूनानी तिब्छ अयुर्विज्ञान चिकित्सा पद्धतियों) की प्राधिकृत पुस्तकों में वर्णित किए गए फार्मूले के अनुसार अनन्य रूप से विनिर्मित किया गया है ।

( ग ) " अभिकरण " से चेन्नई , दिल्ली, कोलकाता, कोच्ची और मुम्बई में अधिनियम , 1963 की धारा 7 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन स्थापित्त कोई एक निर्यात निरीक्षण अभिकरण ( मिनअ ) अभिप्रेत है ,

( घ ) " बैच " का अर्थ है आयुर्वेदिक सिद्ध या यूनानी उत्पादों की गुणवत्ता जो एक ही दिन कच्ची सामग्री के समान स्रोत से संग्रह या प्रसंसाधित किए गए हैं ।

( ङ ) " परिषद " का अर्थ है निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम , 1963 की धारा 3 के तहत स्थापित निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद ।

( च ) " सक्षम प्राधिकारी " का अर्थ है चेन्नई , दिल्ली , कोच्ची , कोलकाता और मुम्बई में निर्यात (क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम , 1963 की धारा 7 के तहत स्थापित कोई एक निर्यात निरीक्षण अभिकरण ( निनिअ ) अभिप्रेत हैं;

( छ ) " परेषण " से एक या अधिक ग्राहकों के लिए प्रसंस्कृत और उसके पश्चात् आशयित आयुर्वेदिक, यूनानी और सिद्ध उत्पादों की मात्रा अभिप्रेत है ।

(3 ) निरीक्षण या प्रमाणन के प्रकार- भारत से निर्यातित आयुर्वेदिक, सिद्ध और यूनानी उत्पादों की सुरक्षा और स्वालिटी सुनिश्चित करने और इन उत्पादों का निधि व्यापार सुकर बनाने के लिए तीन प्रकार के निरीक्षण या प्रमाणन पद्धतियों में से किसी एक का अनुसरण किया जाएगा , अर्थात्:- स्तर 1 - भारी धातु नाशकजीषमार, एफलाटोक्सिन और सूक्ष्मजीवी जैसे संदूषकों की बाबत सुरक्षा सुनिश्चित करने के लिए परेषण, निरीक्षण या स्तर 2 - प्रस्तावित प्रणालियों में प्रसंस्करणकर्ता द्वारा अन्तिम उत्पाद की क्वालिटी और उत्तम विनिर्माण पद्धति का कार्यान्वयन सम्मिलित होगा , या

स्तर 3 - विनिर्माता द्वारा प्रस्तुत किया गया डालियर के स्वतंत्र पुनर्विलोकन के माध्यम से सुरक्षा, क्वालिटी और उत्पादन क्षमता !

4. अनुपालन का आधार:-

( 1 ) निर्यात के लिए आशयित आयुर्वेदिक, सिद्ध और यूनानी उत्पाद अनुसूची के परिशिष्ट में अधिसूचित मानकों का अनुपालन करेंगे । इसके अतिरिक्त उत्पाद निम्नलिखित अपेक्षाओं का भी पालन करेगा, अर्थात्:-

Ⅰ. आयुर्वेदिक सिद्ध और युनानी औषधियों के लिए औषधि और प्रसाधन सामग्री अधिनियम 1940 (23 जून 2000 को यथा पुनरीक्षित ) के अधीन अधिसूचित उत्तम विनिर्माण पद्धति जीएमपी का कार्यान्वयन यदि स्तर 2 के अधीन प्रमाणित किया गयाहै ।

FL. दो देशों के बीच किए गए द्विपक्षीय करार के अनुसार आयातकर्ता देश की अपेक्षाओं के अनुरूप हाजियर का पालन , यदि स्तर 3 के अधीन प्रमाणित किया गया है ।

(2) स्तर 2 के अधीन प्रमाणन

( क) उद्योग अथवा प्रसंस्करण का यह मुख्य दायित्व यह सुनिश्चित करना है कि वह निर्यात के लिए आयित आयुर्वेदिक सिद्ध और यूनानी उत्पादों का उत्पादन, भंडारण और परिवहन के सभी चरणों पर उपयुक्त स्वास्थ्यकर और विनिर्माण परिस्थितयों में हैं और उत्पाद अधिनियम की धारा 6 के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा आदेश में दिए गए विनिर्देशों के अनुरूप है । 2007

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2008 /वैशाख 13 , 1930

[ मान II- साण्ड 3( ii) ]

( ख) सक्षम प्राधिकारी स्थापनों की यह सुनिश्चित करने के लिए नियमित निगरानी करेगा कि आयुर्वेदिक, सिद्ध और यूनानी उत्पादों के उत्पादन , भंडारण और परिवहन के सभी चरणों में स्थापन द्वारा अच्छी विनिर्माण पद्धतियों ( जी एम पी) और अच्छी स्वास्थ्यकर पद्धतियों ( जी एम पी ) को अपनाया जाता है । स्कीम की प्रभावी निगरानी के लिए निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद इस विषय में अनिवार्य अनुदेश जारी करेगी ।

(ग ) सक्षम प्राधिकारी अपना यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि स्थापन उनके द्वारा किए जाने वाले क्रियाकसापों की प्रकृति के सम्बन्ध में अपेक्षाओं को पूरा करते हैं, स्थापनों को अनुमोदन प्रदान करेगा । परिषद अनुमोदित प्रतिष्ठानों को एक सूची तैयार करेगी , जिसमें से प्रत्येक को एक व्अधिकारिक संख्या दी जाएगी ।

(3 ) परिषद नियम 3 में यध्वविनिर्दिष्ट निरीक्षण या प्रमाणन की प्रभावी मानीटरिंग के लिए समय-समय पर आवश्यक अनुदेश जारी करेगी !

5. पैकिंग और लेबल लगागा. आयुर्वेदिक सिद्ध और यूनानी उत्पादों को निर्यात के लिए स्वास्थ्यकर तरीके से स्वच्छ खाद्य ग्रेड की पैकिंग सामग्री में औषधि और प्रसाधन सामग्री अधिनियम , 1940 के नियम 161 में अधिकथित उपबंधों के अनुसार पैक किया जाएगा । प्रत्येक पैकेज में निम्नलिखित सूचना सुपाठ्य रूप से और अमिट रूप से अंकित की आएगी, अर्थात्:-

(i ) औषधि का नाम

( ii ) सभी घटकों की सूची

(iii ) सकल भार और शुद्ध पार/संख्य/मात्रा

( iv ) प्रसंस्करणकर्ता या विनिर्माता का नाम और पता

( v) विनिर्माण अनुज्ञप्ति संख्या

(vi ) बैच या लॉट संख्या

(vii ) विनिर्माण की तारीख

(viii ) आयुर्वेदिक सिद्ध/यूनानी औषधियां

(ix ) यदि औषधी बाहरी अनुप्रयोग के लिए है तो इस पर " केवल बाहरी उपयोग बहें लिए शब्दों का प्रयोग " ।

6. प्रमाणपत्र जारी करणा

सक्षम प्राधिकारी प्रसंस्करणकर्ता या निर्यातकर्ता के अनुरोध पर आयातकर्ता देश की अपेक्षाओं के अनुसार आयुर्वेदिक , यूनानी और सिद्ध उत्पादों के निर्यात के लिए प्रमाणपत्र जारी करेगा ।

7. प्रमाणन फीस

आवेदक द्वारा निर्यात निरीक्षण अभिकरण को निम्नलिखित द्रों पर प्रमाणन फीस संदत्त की जाएगी , कार्थात्:-

(क ) स्तर 1 प्रमाणनः प्रत्येक परेषण के लिए बैंचवार वास्तविक आधार पर, प्रयोगशाला परीक्षण प्रभार 5,000 रु. की दर परः । (ख) स्तर 2 प्रमाणनः 50,000 रु. प्रतिवर्ष की दर पर ।

(ग) स्तर 3 प्रमाणनः किए गए उपदाय प्रभारों के आधार पर ।

8.अपील

( 1 ) स्तर 1 या स्तर 2 या स्तर 3 प्रमाणीकरण के अधीन निर्यात निरीक्षण अभिकरण के विनिश्चय से व्यधित कोई आवेदक ऐसी इंकारी की संसूचना की प्राप्ति के दस दिन के भीतर अपील कर सकेगा जो निदेशक ( आई एंड क्यूसी ) को निर्दिष्ट श्री वाएगी । अपील का निपटारा आवेदन प्राप्त करने की तारीख से पन्द्रह दिन के भीतर किया जाएगा । ऐसी अपील पर निदेशक (आई एंड क्यूसी ) का विभिश्चय अंतिम होगा ।

[फा. नं. 3/ 14/2007-इंअर्थ एंड ईपी]

हृदिरा मूर्ति, उप- सचिव 2008

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 3 , 2008/ VAISAKHA 13, 1930

[PART I Sec . 3(ii)] MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

ORDER

New Delhi , the 16th April , 2008

S.O. 932. Whereas in exercise of the powers conferredby section 6 of the Export ( Quality Control and Inspec- tion) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963 ), the Central Government is ofthe opinion that it is necessary and expedient to do so for the development ofthe Export Trade of India that Ayurvedic , Unani and Siddha products should be subject to quality control and inspection prior to export

And whereas, the quality standards prescribed by the Department of Ayush vide Order F. No. 11020/5/97- DCC(Ayush) dated the 14th October , 2005 and subsequent Orders issued thereafter have been taken into account;

Andwhereas,Ayurvedic, Unani and Siddha products are in principle free of contamination and micro- organisms but contamination and subsequent decomposition may occur when handled and treated un -hygienically;

And, therefore, the essential requirements should be laid down for correct hygienic handling of Ayurvedic, Unani and Siddha products at all stages of production and during harvesting, processing, handling , storage and transport;

And whereas, it is the primary responsibility of the processor to ensure that Ayurvedic, Unani and Siddha products meet the requirements laid down in the proposal;

And whereas, the competent authority nominated by the Central Government shall ensure the effective compliance of the quality standards in the country;

Andwhereas,the Central Government has formulated the proposal specified below for the said purpose and has forwarded the same to the Export Inspection Council as required by sub-rule ( 2) of rule 11 of the Export ( Quality Control and Inspection ) Rules, 1964;

| Now, therefore, in pursuance ofsub- rule (2) of rule 11 ofthe Export (Quality Control and Inspection ) Rules, 1964, theCentral Government hereby publishes the proposal for information of the general public likely to be affected thereby, and notice is hereby given that any person who desires to make any objection or suggestion with respectto the said proposals may forward the same within thirty days of the date of publication ofthis Order in the Official Gazette to the Export Inspection Council of India, 3rd Floor, New Delhi YMCA Cultural Centre Building , 1 , Jai Singh Road, NewDelhi - 110001.

PROPOSAL

1. To notify that Ayurvedic , Unani and Siddha products shall be subjected to quality control and inspection priortoexport.

2. To specify the type of quality control and inspection in accordance with the draft Export ofAyurvedic , Unani andSiddha (Quality Control , Inspection and Monitoring) Rules , 2008 set out in the Annexure appended to this Order;

3. To recognise the specifications as set out in the Schedule as appended to this Order as the standard specifi- cation for Ayurvedic, Unani and Siddha products ; and

4. To prohibit the export of Ayurvedic , Unani and Siddha products in the course of international trade unless it conforms to the standard specifications applicable to it and is accompanied by a certificate of inspection or certificate that such unit is approved and monitored by the Export Inspection Agency established under section 7 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection ) Act, 1963 including its sub offices located at various places ofthe region.

SCHEDULE

Specifications for Ayurvedic , Unani and Siddha products recognised as per section 6 of the Export ( Quality Control and Inspection) Act , 1963 shall be-

(a) Of national standards of the importing countries; or

(b) Contractual specifications agreed to between the foreign buyer and the exporters provided the same are satisfying the health requirements of the importing countries;

(c) In the case of any Ayurvedic, Unani and Siddha products for which no standard is available at ( a) and (b ) above, the standards, if any, as formulated by the Specialist Committee constituted under the provisions of theExport (Quality Control and Inspection) Act , 1963 .

2009

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2008/वैशाख 13, 1930

[ भाग 11--खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

APPENDIX

SPECIFICATIONS OF AYURVEDIC, SIDDHA AND UNANI PRODUCTS INTENDED FOR EXPORTS 1. Permissible Limit ofHeavy Metals :

S. No.

HeavyMetalContent .

(1)

Lead(Pb)

Cadmium (Cd)

Arsenic (As)

Mercury(Hg.)

2. Pesticides Residues:

S.No.

Pesticides

(1)

Quinolphos

DDE+DDT+DDD sum of 3.

Alderin+Dieldrin sum of 4.

HCH (HexaChloro Cyclohexane) 5.

HCB (Hexa ChloroBenxene) 6

Alechlor

Lindane

Chlordane

Endosulfan & its isomers 3. Aflatoxina :.

S.No.

Aflatoxin

(1)

1. BI

B1+G1 +B2+G2 sum of

4. Microbial Contamination Limits :

Parameters

S.No.

(1)

Staphylococcus aureus/g.

Salmonella sp./10g.

Pseudomonas aeruginosa 4

E.Coli/10g.

Total PlateCount (TPC) 6

Total Yeast & Mould

*: For topical use, the limit shall be 107 /g .

Permissible Limits

(2)

10ppm

0.30 ppm

3ppm

1 ppm

PermissibleLimits

(2)

0.01 ppm

1.00 ppm

0.05ppm

0.30 ppm

0.10ppm

0.02ppm

0.60 ppm

0.05ppm

3,00 ppm

PermissibleLimits

(2)

5.0 ppb

10.0ppb

Permissible Limits

(2)

Absent

-do-

10/g.*

10/

(1) Tests for heavy metals are not applicable for products meant for topical use.

(2) The above specifications limits shall not be applicable to Ayurvedic, Unani and Siddha products , having non -human application (internal or external).

(3) Testing reference to be made to the publication " PROTOCOL FOR TESTING-Ayurveda, Unani and Siddha medicines", Pharmacopoeia Laboratory for Indian medicines , Ghaziabad, March, 2007; and Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia of India and Unani Pharmacopoeta of India, issued by Department of AYUSH, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare , Government ofIndia.

1438 GM08-2 2010

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 3 , 2008 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1930

[PART I SEC.3(ii)]

ANNEXURE DRAFT RULES PROPOSED TO BE MADE UNDER SECTION 17 OF THE EXPORT ( QUALITY CONTROL AND INSPECTION) ACT 1963 (22 OF 1963)

1. Short title and commencement .( 1) These rules may be called the Export ofAyurvedic, Unani and Siddha (Quality Control, Inspection and Monitoring) Rules ,2008.

(2) They shall come into force on the date of their final publication in the Official Gazette ;

2. Definition. In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,-

(a) "Act" means the Export (Quality Control and Inspection ) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963) ;

(b) "Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drug includes all medicines intended for internal or external use for or in thediagnosis , treatment, mitigation or prevention of(disease or disorder in human beings or animals, and manufactured) exclusively in accordance with the formulate described in the authoritative books of (Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani Tibb systems of medicine);

(c) " Agency" means any one of the Export Inspection Agency at Chennai , Delhi, Kolkata, Kochi, and Mumbai established under sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Act;

(d) "Batch" means a quality of Ayurvedic , Unani and Siddha Products collected or processed from the same source of raw materials on the same day ;

(e) "Council" means Export Inspection Council established under Section 3 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act 1963 ;

(1) " Competent Authority" means any one of the Export Inspection Agencies (ElAs ) established under Section 7 ofExport ( Quality Control and Inspection) Act , 1963 at Chennai, Delhi , Kochi , Kolkata and Mumbai;

(g) " Consignment" means a quality of Ayurvedic, Unani and Siddha products processed and subsequently intended for one or more customers ;

3. Types of Inspection or Certification. In order to ensure the safety and quality of Ayurvedic, Unani and Siddha products exported from India and facilitate smooth trade of these products , any one of the three types of inspec- tion or certification systems shall be followed, namely:-

Level 1 : Consignment wise inspection for ensuring safety with regard to contaminants such as heavy metals, pesticides , aflatoxins and microbes ; or

Level 2: Systems approach to include end -product quality as well as implementation ofGood Manufacturing Practices(GMP) by the processor; or

Level 3: Safety, quality and efficacy through independent review of dossier submitted by the manufacturer.

4. Basis ofcompliance. ( 1 ) Ayurvedic , Unani and Siddha products intended for exports shall comply with the standards notified in the Appendix to the Schedule. In addition , the product shall also comply with the following require- ments, namely:-

L Implementation of Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) Notified under Drugs and CosmeticAct, 1940 (as revised on the 23rd June 2000) for Ayurvedic, Unani and Siddha medicine, ifcertified under Level 2.

I. Compliance of the Dossiers to the requirements of the importing country as per bilateral agreements between the two countries , if certified under Level3.

(2) Certification under Level 2

(a) It is the primary responsibility of the industry or processor to ensure that Ayurvedic, Unani and Siddha products intended for export are processed and handled at all stages of production , storage, and trans- port under proper hygienic and manufacturing conditions and that the products conforms to the specifi- cations given in the Order by the Central Government under Section 6 of the Act ;

2011 [भगखष्ठ ( i) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2008/वैशाख 13 , 1930

= (b) The Competent Authority shall conduct regular monitoring of the establishments to ensure that Good ManufacturingPractices (GMP) and Good Hyglenic Practices (GHP) are adopted by the establishment at all stages ofproduction, storage and transport ofAyurvedic, Unani and Siddha products. For effective monitoring ofthe Scheme, Export Inspection Council will issue necessary instructions in this regard;

(c) Having satisfied itself that the establishments meet the requirements with regard to nature ofactivities theycarry out , the Competent Authority shall accord approval to establishments. The Council shall draw up alist ofapproved establishments , each ofwhich shall have an official number.

(3) TheCouncil shall issue necessary instructions from time to time for effective monitoring ofthe inspection or certification as specified in rule3.

5. Packing and labelling-Ayurvedic, Unani and Siddha products for export shall be packed in hygienically clean food grade packing material as per the provisions laid down in Rule 161 ofDrugs and CosmeticAct, 1940.

Each package shall be legibly and indelibly marked with the following information , namely:-

Name ofthe drug

(1) List ofall ingredients

(ⅲ) Gross weight and net weight/numbers/volume

(iv) Name and address of processor or mamufacturer,

(v) Manufacturing Licence Number

(vi) Batch or lot number

(vii) Date ofmanufacture

(viii) Ayurvedic/Siddha/Unani medicines

(bc) Usethewords "FOR EXTERNAL USE ONLY" , if the medicine is for external application .

6. Issuance of certificate. On request from the processor or exporter, the Competent Authority shall issue certificate(s) for export ofAyurvedic, Unani and Siddha products as per the requirements of the importing country.

7. Certification fee, Certification fee shall be paid by the applicant to the Export Inspection Agency at following rates , namely:--

(a) Level 1 Certification :@Rs . 5,000 for every consignments+ Laboratory test charges on actual basis, batch wise.

(b) Level 2 Certification :@ Rs . 50,000/Annum

8. Appeal ( 1) Any applicant aggrieved by the decision ofthe Export Inspection Agency either under Level 1 or2 or3 Certification , may, within 10 days of the receipt of the communication of such refusal prefer an appeal which will be referredby theAgency to the Director ( I& QC). The appeal shall be disposed ofwithin fifteen days from thedate receipt ofapplication . The decision oftheDirector (I&QC) to such an appeal shall be final .

[F. No. 3/14/2007-EL& EP]

INDIRA MURTHY, Dy. Secy.

2012

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2008/VAISAKHA 13 , 1930

[PART IISec. 3 (ii) ]

नईदिल्ली , 16 अप्रैल , 2008

का.आ. 933 , केन्द्रीय सरकार , निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1964 के नियम 12 के उपनियम ( 2 ) के साथ पठित, निर्यात (क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम , 1963 ( 1963 का 22 ) की धारा 7 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदच शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स क्वालिटी सर्विसिज एंड सोल्यूशन्स ( गोवा ) सुवरन बांडेकर बिल्डिंग , दूसरा तल , स्वतंत्र पथ, वास्को-दा-गामा , गोवा-403 802 को इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में , प्रकाशन की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए भारत सरकार, वाणिज्य मंत्रालय , की अधिसूचना सं. का. आ. 3975 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर , 1965 के साथ संलग्न अनुसूची में यथा विनिर्दिष्ट खनिज और अयस्क ( समूह -1 ) अर्थात् लौह अयस्क , मैंगनीज अयस्क फैरोमैंगनीज्ज सहित फैरोमैगनीज स्लेग और बोक्साइट जिसके अंतर्गत कैलसींड बोषसाइट भी है का निर्यात से पूर्व गोवा में उक्त खनिजों और अयस्कोंका निम्नलिखित शतों के अधीन रहते हुए निरीक्षण करने के लिए एक अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता देती है, अर्थात् - (i ) कि मैसर्स क्वालिटी सर्विसिज एंड सोल्यूशन्स ( गोवा ) , गोवा खनिज और अयस्क समूह- का निर्यात ( निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1965 के नियम 4 के अधीन निरीक्षण का प्रमाण - पत्र देने के लिए उनके द्वारा अपनाई गई निरीक्षण पद्धति के परीक्षण के लिए, इस निमित्त निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् द्वारा नामनिर्देशित अधिकारयिों को पर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगी ;

( ii ) मैसर्स क्वालिटी सर्विसिज एंड सोल्यूशन्स ( गोवा) , गोवा इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के अनुपालन में निर्देशों से आबद्ध होगी, जो निदेशक ( निरीक्षण और क्वालिटी नियंत्रण) , निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् समय- समय पर लिखित में दे ।

[फा. सं. 5 /1/2008-ईआई एंड ईपी )

इंदिरा मूर्ति, उप सचिव

New Delhi , the 16th April ,2008

S.O. 933. In exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub -section ( 1 ) of section 7 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963 ) , read with sub- rule (2) ofrule 12 ofthe Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises M /s. Quality Services and Solutions (Goa ) , Suvarn Bandekar Building. , 2nd Floor, Swatantra Path , Vasco - da-Gama , Goa -403802, as an agency for a period ofthree years with effect from the date ofpublication ofthis notification , for inspection of Minerals and Ores (Group- 1 ) , namely, Iron Ore , Manganese Ore, Ferro Manganese including Ferro Manganese slag and Bauxite including calcined Bauxite as specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce number 5.0 3975 dated the 20th December, 1965, prior to the export ofthe said Minerals and Ores at Goa , subject to the following conditions , namely:-

(i) that M/ s . Quality Services and Solutions (Goa) , Goa shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followed by them in granting the certificate of inspection under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores , Group- I (Inspection) Rules,1965;

(ü) that M/s. Quality Services and Solutions (Goa) , Goa in the performance of their function under this notifica- tion shall be bound by such directives as the Director ( Inspection and Quality Control ), Export Inspection Council may give in writing from time to time.

[F. No. 5/ 1 /2008- EI &EP ]

INDIRA MURTHY, Dy. Secy.

वस्त्र मंत्रालय

नईदिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल , 2008

का.आ. 934,-सार्वजनिक परिसर ( अनाधिकृत व्यक्तियों का निष्कासन ) अधिनियम , 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) के खंड (3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा उक्त अधिनियम के उद्देश्य के लिए नीचे दी गई तालिका के कॉलम ( 1 ) में उल्लिखित अधिकारियों को राजपत्रित अधिकारी वर्ग के समतुल्य अधिकारी होने के कारण ' एस्टेट अधिकारियों ' के रूप में नियुक्त करती है जो उक्त तालिका केकॉलम ( 2 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट सार्वजनिक परिसरों के सम्बन्ध में उनके अपने अधिकार क्षेत्र की सोभा में उक्त अधिनियम के द्वारा अथवा उनके तहत एस्टेट अधिकारियों सम्बन्धी प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करेंगे और कर्तष्यों का निर्वहन करेंगे । [भाग II खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

अधिकारी का पद‌नाम

(1)

1. उप निदेशक ( ए एंड ए)/उप सचिव ( तक. )/ समन्वय , केंद्रीय रेशम बोर्ड, केंद्रीय कार्यालय, बैंगलूर

2. उप निदेशक ( ए एंड ए ) केंद्रीय रेशम उत्पादन अनुसंधान एवं प्रशिक्षण संस्थान, गैसूर

3. उप सचिव/सहायक सचिव ( तक. ) / क्षेत्रीय विकास कार्यालय , चेत्रई

4. उप सचिव ( तक ) सहायक सचिव ( तक. ) , क्षेत्रीय विकास कार्यालय , हैदराबाद

5. संयुक्त सचिव ( तक. ) / उप सचिव ( सक. ) , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , केंद्रीय रेशम बोर्ड, मुंबई

6. उप सचिव ( तफ. ) / सहायक सचिव ( तफ. ) , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , केंद्रीय रेशमं बोर्ड , भुवमेश्वर

7. उप सचिव ( तक ) सहायक संचिव ( तक. ) , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , केंद्रीय रेशम बोर्ड, श्रीनगर जम्मू 8. संयुका सचिव ( तक. ) / उप सचिव ( तक. ) , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, केंद्रीय रेशम बोर्ड , नई दिल्ली

9. संयुक्त निर्देशक (असा.) / उप निदेशक (ए एंड ए) , केंद्रीय तसर अनुसंध्धान एवं प्रशिक्षण संस्थान, 10. उप निदेशक (ए एंड ए) , सहायक निदेशक ( ए एंड ए) , केंद्रीय रेशम उत्पादन अनुसंधान एवं प्रशिक्षण , संस्थान, बहरामपुर

11. संयुक्त सचिव ( तक. ) उप सचिव ( तक्र. ) सहायक सचिव ( तक ) , क्षेत्रीय विकास कार्यालय , केंद्रीय रेशम बोर्ड, गुवाहाटी

2013

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2008/वैशाख 13 , 1930

तालिका

सार्वजनिक परिसर की श्रेणियां एवं अधिकार क्षेत्र कीस्थानीयसीमा

(2)

केंद्रीय रेशम बोर्ड के नियंत्रणाधीन बैंगलूर और उसके आस-पास के परिसर ।

कर्नाटक राज्य ( बैंगलूर को छोड़कर ) में केंद्रीय रेशम बोर्ड के नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर ।

तमिलनाडु और केरल राज्यों में केंद्रीय रेशम बोर्ड के नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर ।

आंध्र प्रदेश राज्य में केंद्रीय रेशम बोर्ड के नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर । महाराष्ट्र , गोवा और गुजरात राज्यों में केंद्रीय रेशम बोर्ड के नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर । "

उड़ीसा , मध्यप्रदेश और छत्तीसगढ़ राज्यों में केंद्रीय रेशम बोर्ड के नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर ।

जम्मूव कश्मीर राज्य में केंद्रीय रेशम पोर्ड के नियंत्रणाभीत्र परिसरः । पंजाब , राजस्थान , हरियाणा , हिमाचल प्रदेश , उत्तर प्रदेश और उत्तराखण्ड राज्यों में केंद्रीय रेशम बोर्ड के नियंत्रणाधीन पस्सिर ।

: बिहार और झारखण्ड राज्यों में. केंद्रीय रेशम बोर्ड के नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर ।

पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य में केंद्रीय रेशम बोर्ड के नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर ।

असम , मेघालय , अरुणाचल प्रदेश , मणीपुर , नागालैण्ड, मिजोरम , त्रिपुरा और 'सिक्किम कयों में केंद्रीय रेशम बोर्ड के नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर ।

[फा. सं. 25011/1/2008-रेशम ]

भूपेन्द्रसिंह, संयुक्त सचिव 2014

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 3 , 2008/VAISAKHA 13 , 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ]

MINISTRY OF TEXTILES

NewDelhi , the 29thApril, 2008

5.O. 934.-In exercise of powers conferred by Section (3) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints the officers mentioned in column ( 1 ) ofthe Table below,being officers equivalent to the rank of a gazetted officer to be "Estate Officers " for the purpose of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on the Estate Officers by or under the said Act, within the limits of their respectivejurisdiction in respect of the public premises specified in column (2) of the said Table.

TABLE

Designation of theOfficer

Categories ofpubile premises and local limits of jurisdiction

Premises under the control of the Central SilkBoard in and around Bangalore.

1. DeputyDirector (A&A)/ Deputy Secretary (Tech)/Co- ord , Central SilkBoard , Central Office, Bangalore

Premises under the control of the Central Silk Board in the State ofKarnataka (Except Bangalore) .

2. Deputy Director (A&A)/ Central Sericultural Research & Training Institute , Mysore .

Premises under the control of the Central Silk Board in the States of Tamil Nadu and Kerala

3. Deputy Secretary/ Assistant Secretary (Tech), Regional Development Office, Chennai

Premises under the control ofthe Central Silk Board in the State of Andhra Pradesh,

4. Deputy Secretary (Tech)/ Assistant Secretary ( Tech), Regional Development Office, Hyderabad

Premises under the control of the Central SilkBoard in the States of Maharashtra , Goa and Gujarat

5. Joint Secretary (Tech)/ Deputy Secretary (Tech ), Regional Office, Central SilkBoard,Mumbai

Premises under the control ofthe Central Silk Board in the States ofOrissa, Madhya Pradesh and Chattisgarh .

6. Deputy Secretary(Tech)/ Assistant Secretary(Tech), Regional Development Office, Central SilkBoard , Bhubaneshwar

Premises under the control of the Central Silk Board in the State of Jammu & Kashmir .

7. Deputy Secretary (Tech) Assistant Secretary (Tech) , RegionalOffice, Central SilkBoard, Srinagar /Jammu

Premises under the control of the Central Silk Board in the States ofPunjab, Rajasthan, Haryana , Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Uttrakhand.

8. Joint Secretary (Tech )/ Deputy Secretary (Tech), Regional Office, Central SilkBoard, NewDelhi

Premises under the control of the Central Silk Board in the States ofBihar and Jharkhand .

9. Joint Director (Admn. )/ DeputyDirector (A &A) ; Central TasarResearch and Training Institute, Ranchi

Premises under the control of the Central Silk Board in the State of West Bengal .

10. Deputy Director (A &A)/ Assistant Director (A&A) , Central Sericultural Research & Training Institute, Barbampore

Premises under the control of the Central Silk Board in the States ofAssam , Meghalaya , Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Nagaland, Mizoram , Tripura and Sikkim .

11. Joint Secretary (Tech) Deputy Secretary (Tech)/ Assistant Secretary (Tech), Regional Development Office , Central SilkBoard,Guwahati

[F. No. 2501 1 / 1 /2008-Silk ]

BHUPENDRA SINGH , Jt. Secy.

2015 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2008/वैशाया13 , 1930

कृषि मंत्रालय

(कृषि एवं सहकारिता विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 21 अप्रैल, 2008

का.आ. 935.-केन्द्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ को सासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप निकम (4) के अनुसरण में कृषि एवं सहकारिता विभाग , कृषि मंत्रालय के नियंत्रणाधीन राष्ट्रीय सहकारी प्रशिक्षण परिषद्, नई दिल्ली के निम्नलिखित कार्यालय को जिसके 80 % कर्मचारीवृन्द में हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है :-

मधुसूदन सहकारी प्रबंध संस्थान , राष्ट्रीय सहकारी प्रशिक्षण परिषद्, यूनिट-8 , भुवनेश्वर-751012 (उड़ीसा)

[संख्या 3-6/2004-हिन्दी मीति] पंकज कुमार, संयुक्त सचिव

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(Department ofAgricukure nad Cooperation)

NewDelhi , the 21st April, 2008

S.O. 935-In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purposes ofthe, Union) Rule, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies following Office of the National Council for Cooperative Training, NewDelhi under the control ofthe Department ofAgriculture and Cooperation, Ministry ofAgriculture, 80% staffwhereof have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi

Madhusudan Institute of Co-operative Management,

National Council for Cooperative Training ,

Unit-8, Bhubaneswar-751012, (Orissa).

[No.3-6/2004-Hindi Neeti ) PANKAJ KUMAR,Jt. Secy.

( कृषि अनुसंधान एवं शिक्षा विधाय )

नई दिल्ली , 24 अप्रैल , 2008

का.अ. 936. केन्द्रीय सरकार, कृषि अनुसंधान एवं शिक्षा विभाग , राजभाषा ( संघ के सासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियमावली 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में राष्ट्रीय पादप आनुवंशिक संसाधन व्यूरो , पूसा , नई दिल्ली के क्षेत्रीय केन्द्र, अकोला ( महाराष्ट्र) को जिसके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करती है ।..

[फा. सं. 13-2/2002-हिंदी] देवेन्द्र कुमार उतवाल , अवर सचिव (Department ofAgriculture andExigestion)

New Delhi, the24thApril,2008

:: S.O. 936-Inpursuance ofSub Rule (4) ofRule 10 ofthe Official Language (use for official purpose of theUnion) Rule, 1976, the Central Government , Ministry ofAgriculture, Department ofAgricultural research and Education hereby notifies the Regional Centre , Akola Maharashtra of National Bureau ofPlarit Genetic Resources , Pusa, New Delhi where more than 80% of staffhave acquired the working knowledge ofHindi . :..

[F.No. 13-2/2002-Hindi )

D. K. CHHATWAL, Under Secý:

( पशुपालन , डेवरों और वास्यपालन विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 25 अप्रैल , 2008

का.आ. 937.-सक्षम प्राधिकारी के अनुमोदन से यह फैसला किया गया है कि " समेकित मात्स्यिकी परियोजना " जो पशुपालन , डेयरी और मत्स्यपालन विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में एक अधीनस्थ कार्यालय है , का नाम " राष्ट्रीय मारिस्यकी पोस्ट हार्वेस्ट प्रौद्योगिकी और प्रशिक्षण संस्थान" कर दिया जाए ।

[संख्या 5-3/2008 - मातिक्ष्यकी ( प्रशासन ) ] डी. चौधुरी , निदेशक (म्प्ररिस्यकी प्रशासन ) 2016

THE GAZETIE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2008/VAISAKHA 13, 1930

[PART II SEC . 3( ii ) ] (Department of Animal Husbandary, Dairying and Fisheries)

New Delhi, the25th April , 2008

S.O. 937. With the approval ofthe competent authority it has been decided to rename " Integrated Fisheries Project", asubordinate office under the administrative control ofDepartment of Animal Husbandary, Dairying and Fisheries as "National Institute of Fisheries Post Harvest Technology and Training".

[F. No. 5-3/2008 -Fy.Admn.]

D. CHAUDHURI , Director (Fy . Admn. ) उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल , 2008

का.आ. 938.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक (को ) में संशोधन किया गया/ किये गये हैं :

अनुसूची

क्रम संख्या

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

( 1 )

(4)

(2)

(3)

31जनवरी , 2008

संशोधन संख्या में 3 जनवरी 2008

आई एस 101 ( भाग 8/खंड 2) : 1990 पेन्ट, वार्निश और सम्बन्धित उत्पादों के नमूने लेने और परीक्षण की पद्धतियाँ भाग 8 वर्णकों और अन्य ठोस पदार्थों का परीक्षण खंड 2 वर्णक और अवाष्पशील पदार्थ

(तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

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

[संदर्भ: सीएचडी 20/आई एस 101 ( भाग 8/खंड 2) ]

ई. देवेन्दर , वैज्ञानिक- एफ ( रसायन ) MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

NewDelhi, the 22ndApril,2008

5.0.938.In pursuance ofclause (b) ofsub-rule ( 1 ) of Rule ( 1 )of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

SL.No.

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

No. and year of the amendment

No. and year ofthe Indian Standards

(3)

(4)

(1)

(2)

31 January,2008

Amendment No. 3 January,2008

IS 101 (PART 8/SEC2 ) : 1990 Methods of Sampling and Test for Paints , Varnishes and Related Products Part8 Tests for Pigments and Other Solids Section 2 Pigments and Non- Volatile Matter (Third Revision) 2017

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2008/ वैशाख 13 , 1930

[ भाग II--खण्ड 3( ii) ]

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

[Ref: CHD 20/18 101 (PART 8/SEC2) ] E. DEVENDAR, Scientist -F (Chemical)

नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल , 2008

का.आ. 939.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम ? के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि

क्रम संकमा स्थापित भारतीय मानक (कों) की संख्फ वर्म और शीर्षक

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

(2)

(3)

(4)

( 1)

31 दिसम्बर , 2007 आई एस 1640:2007 चर्म , बाल और चमका की पारिभाषिक शब्दावली (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

इस भास्तीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली , कोलकाता , चण्डीगण, चेत्रई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदरावाद , जयपुर, कानपुर , नागपुर, पटना, पूर्ण तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ: सीएचडी 17/आई एस 1640] ई. देवेन्दर, वैज्ञानिक- एफ ( रसायन )

NewDelhi , the 22ndApril , 2008

$.O. 939.In pursuance ofclause (b) of sub-rule (1 )of Rule 7 oftheBureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl.No.

Date ofEstablished No. & Year ofthe Indian Standards Established

No. & year of Indian Standards, ifany, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

31 December, 2007 IS1640:2007Glossary ofTenns relating tohides, skins and leather (First Revision)

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

[Ref: CHD 17/18 1640]

E. DEVENDAR, Scientist -F (Chemical) 1438 G1/08-3 2018

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2008/VAISAKHA 13 , 1930

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 22 अप्रैल , 2008

का.आ. 940,-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतष्‌द्धारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक (कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :

क्रम संख्या

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

(1)

(2)

आई एस 9825 :2003 क्लोरीनकी गोलियों-विशिष्टि ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि संशोधन लागूहोने की तिथि

(3)

(4)

31 मार्च , 2008

संशोधन सं. नं. 1 जनवरी , 2008

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

[सं सीएचडी 01 / आई एस 9825 ]

f ई . देवेन्दर , वैज्ञानिक- एफ ( रसायन)

New Delhi, the 22nd April ,2008

S.O. 940. In pursuance ofclause (b) of sub- rule ( 1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

Sl .No.

No, and Year ofthe Indian Standards

(1)

(2)

1 .

IS9825 :2003 Specification for Chlorine Tablets (Second Revision)

SCHEDULE

No. and year of theamendment

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

(4)

(3)

31 March2008

Amendment No. 1 . January2008

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

[Ref: CHD 01 /IS 9825]

E. DEVENDAR, Scientist -F (Chemical)

नई दिल्ली , 22 अप्रैल , 2008

का.आ. 941.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं:-

क्रम संख्या स्थापित भारतीय मानक( कों) की संख्या (1)

(2)

आई एस 2796:2008 मोटर गैसोलीन- विशिष्टि

(चौथा पुनरीक्षण)

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि

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

(3)

(4)

आई एस 2796 : 2000

अप्रैल, 2008

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , भानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर , पटना, पुणे तथा तिरुवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ पीसीडी/जी-7 ( गजट)

डॉ. डी. के. चौधरी , वैज्ञा- एफ एवं प्रमुख ( पैट्रोल , कोयला एवं सम्बन्धित उत्पाद) [भाग-खष्द 3 ( ii) ]

2019

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2008/वैशाख 13 , 1930

New Delhi, the 22ndApril ,2008

S.O. 941. In pürsuance of clause (b ) ofsub- rule (1 ) ofRule 7 of the Bureau of Indian StandardsRules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedulehereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

SL.No. No. and Year and title of the Indian Standards Established

(2)

(1)

IS2796:2008 MotorGasoline- Specification (Fourth Revision)

Date of established

No. and year of Indian Standaris, if any, Supersededby the New Indian Standard

(4)

(3)

IS2796:2000

April,2008

Copyofthis Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Idudian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg,NewDelhi- 110002 and Regional Offices New Delhi , Kolcatta, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices; Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Gowahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: PCD/G-7 (Gazetic)] Dr. D. K. CHAUDHURI, SCF & Head (PCD)

गाई दिल्ली, 23 अप्रैल, 2008

का.आ. 942.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन विनयम ) 1988 के उपनियम (5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाईसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे रद्द कर दिए गए हैं : -

लाईसेंस संख्या

क्रम संख्या

साईसेंस धारी का नाम व पता/फर्म का नाम व पता

1. 1837262

अनुसूची

कारण टिप्पणियां

रद्द तिथि

संख्या मामा

लाईसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु/ प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक एवं मानक संख्या

03-10-07

1592: 89

एस्वबेटस सीमेंट के दाब पाइप

जे जे पी इंडस्ट्रीस प्राप्. लि. , गाईजाम्माबाद

2 6179881 तेको इभजीनियंग सरीविस्सप्रा. लि. गुरूर.

6607068

एस आर इंडस्ट्रीस सीगारायाकुद्धा

31-10-07 फेक्टरी का बदलव

विद्युत प्रयोजनों के लिए रबड़ की 5424 : 69 पेट की विशिष्टि

14543 : 04 15-10-07 मानक चिन्ह

कादुरुपयोग

करना

पेकेजबंद पेय जल ( पेकेजबंद

प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के

अलावा)

4 6696598 विजया इंडस्ट्रीस ऑगोल

14543 : 04 15-10-07 मालक चिन्ह का दुरुपयोग

करना

पेकेजबंद पेय जल ( पेकेजचंद

प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के

अलावा)

5. 6697297 पूनीता एनटरप्रेजस

15-10-07

14543 : 04

असफल परीक्षण रिपोर्ट

पेकेजबंद पेय अस ( पेकेजवंद

प्राकृकि मिनरल जल के

अलावा)

6 6718585 मार ई केबल्स एण्ड कन्डक्टर्स

08-10-07

398(4)

असफल परीक्षण रिपोर्ट

शिरोपरि प्रेषण प्रयोजन के

लिए एल्यूमिनियम चालक विशिष्टि

[सं. सीएमडी/13: 13 ]

ए, के. तलवार, उप महानिदेशक ( मुङ्गर ) 2020

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2008/VAISAKHA 13, 1930

New Delhi , the23rd April , 2008

S.O. 942. In pursuance of sub -regulation ( 6) ofthe regulation 5 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

List ofLicences Cancelled Between 1-10-2007 and 31-10-2007

IS No.

Firm Name/City

Reason

Product

Remarks Licenoc No.

SL No.

Date of Cancellation

8 1. 1837262

JS 1592 :1989

03-10-2007

asbestos cement

pressure pipes

J.J.P. Industries Pvt. Limited Nizamabad

renewal of licence Firm not applied for or before its validity i.c. 15-06-2007

2. 6279881

[S 5424:1969

31-10-2007 Shifting of Premises,

rubber mats for

electrical purpose

Thejo Engineering Services (P) Ltd. Gudur

dueto Shifting of premises and non- payment of dues the licence standas expired

6607068

IS 14543 : 2004

15-10-2007 Misuse of ISI Mark S.R. Industries Singarayakonda

packaged drinking

water (other than

packaged natural

mineral water)

4. 6696598

IS 14543 :2004

15-10-2007 Misuse of ISI Mark Vijaya Industries Ongole

packaged drinking water ( other than packaged natural mineral water)-

5. 6697297

IS 14543 :2004

15-10-2007 Failing Test Report Punitha Enterpriese Kaikalur

packaged drinking

water (other than

packaged natural

mineral water)

6. 6718382

IS 398:

Part 4: 199 aluminium conductors 8-10-2007

R.E. Cables & Conductors Pvt. Ltd. Cherlapally

for overhead transmission purposes; part 4 aluminiun alloy stranded conductors (aluminium magnesium siltcon type)

[No. CMD/13: 13 ]

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

नई दिल्ली , 24 अप्रैल , 2008

का.आ. 943. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन विनियम ) 1988 के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाईसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

भारतीय मानक शीषर्क

विभाग स्थिति स्टेटर्स लाईसेंस संख्या

लाईसेंसधारी का नाम

क्रम संख्यां

व पत्ता

भা মা संख्या

स्वीकृत करने कीतिथि वर्ष/माह

8 L 6760682 5-11-2007

एमटीडी परिचालित मैसर्स विजय ज्वेलर्स एण्ड जेम्स 5-9-30/25 , सतगुरु कॉप्लेक्स बशीरबाग हैदराबाद

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, 1417-99 आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन 2021

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2008/वैशास्त्र 13, 1930

[भाग II-साफ 3 (ii) ]

2 6760783 5-11-2007 मेसर्स न्यूआर.एस. ज्वेलर्स जीएफ , शाप नं. 28 , ई.बी. प्लाजां राजगोपालाचारी स्ट्रीट गवर्नरपेट, विजयवाड़ा-522002 कृष्णा जिला

7-11-2007

6765288

मेसर्स श्री सरस्वति नेवलर्स , 3-4-870/4/2, पहला मंजिल, बरकतपुरा, हैदराबाद-500027 4. 6765389 7-11-2007 मैसर्स शारदांबा ज्वेलर्स , ही. नं. 6-1-203, मेईन रोड, नरसारावपेट, नरसारावपेट , गंटूर-522681 5. 6765692 20-11-2007 मैसर्स विनायक स्टील्स लिमिटेड , 97 /ई , जेपी दर्गा रोड, कोतूर, शादनगर तालुक, महबूबनगर जिला

6 6763082 14-11-2007 मेसर्स तिरुपति उद्योग लिमिटेड, इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया , 132 के वी सब स्टेशन के पास , कोत्तूर, महबूबनगर जिला-509228 7. 6765187 16-11-2007 मैसर्स श्री सरस्वतिज्वेलर्स , 3-4-870//2 पहला मंजिल, बरकतपुरा , हैदराबाद-500027 6760581 6-11-2007 नंदी इरिगेषन सिस्टम्स लिमिटेड , एफ 4 , एण्ड 5 आई ई नंघयाल-518502 ( एपी) कर्नूल जिला

20-11-2007

9. 6775591

मैसर्स आखवा टेक डोर नं. 22-230, साईपुरम कालूनी गोल्लपूडी-521225 विजयवाडा रूरल कृष्णा जिला 10. 6768496 26-11-2007 मेसर्स लिखिता पेकेजड ड्रिंकिंग वाटर नं. 3-412 , सोमभनात नगर अनंतपुर (ए पी)

B 5

1417-99 एमटीडी परिचाखित आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

1417-99 एमटीडी परिचालित स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मित्रधातुएं आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

1417-99 एमटीडी परिचालित स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

सिवही परिचालित कंक्रीट प्रबलन के लिए उच्च 1786: 85 समार्थि विकसित इस्तपांत धड़ और तार

2062-2006.

तप्त बेल्लित अल्प , मध्यम एवं उच्च तन्यता के संरचना इस्मात

2:12:03 एमटीडी परिचालित चांदी एवं चांदी मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन विशिष्टिः

पेथजल आपूर्ति के लिए 4985: 2000 अप्लास्टिकृत पी वीं सी पाइप

परिचालित

14543: 04 एफण्डी

पेकेजमंद पेय जल ( पेकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

14543: 04 एफएंडी परिचालित पेकेजबंद गेम जल ( पेकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

[सं. सीएमडी/ 13 : 11 ]

ए. के. तलवार, तप महानिदेशक ( मुहर ) 2022

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2008/VAISAKHA 13 , 1930.

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) )

New Delhi , the 24th April,2008

5.O. 943. In pursuance ofsub -regulation (5) ofthe regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

SL CML

IS No. and

Licence Name and Address GOL Date No. No.

Product

5 1 . 6760682

5-11-2007 Vijay Jewellers and Gems, 5-9-30/25 , Satguru Complex, Bashirbagh , Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh

Remarks

Status

Validity Division

8 5-11-2010 MTD Operative

IS 1417:1999

Gold and gold alloys

jewellery/artificts

fineness and marking

2. 6760783

5-11-2007 NewR. S. Jewellers, GF S. No. 28 , E. V. Plaza, Rajagopalachari Street, Governorpet Krishna, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh-520002

3 . 6765288

7-11-2007 Sri Saraswati Jewellers, 3-4-870/A/2, Ist floor , Barkatpura, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh -500027

5-11-2010 MTD Operative

IS 1417 :1999 Gold and gold altoys jewellery/artificts fimeness and marking

19-11-2010 MTD Operative

IS 1417:1999

Gold and gold alloys

jewellery/artificts

fineness and marking

4. 6765389

7-11-2007 Saradamba Jewellers , D.No. 6-1-302, Main Road , Guntur, Narasaraopet, Andhra Pradesh-522601

19-11-2010 MTD Operative

IS 1417:1999

Gold and gold alloys

jewellery/artificts

floeness and making

6765692

20-11-2007 M/ s. Vinayak Steels Ltd. , 97/E, J.P. Dargah Road , Kottur Shadnagar Tq. Mahbubnage , Mahaboobnagar , Andhra Pradesh

6. 6763082

14-11-2007 21-11-2008 CED Operative

IS 1786: 1985 High strength deformed steel bars and wires for con- cerete reinforcement

14-11-2008 MTD Operative

IS 2062: 1999

Steel for general

structural purposes

Tirupati Udyog Ltd. , 8-2-629/1/2/3 , 11 Floor , Vish Bhavan , Road No. 12, Banjara Hills , Hyderabad- 500034, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh-500034

7. 6755187

16-11-2007 Sri Saraswati Jewellers, 3-4-870 /A/2 , 1st Floor Barkarpura, Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh-500027

8. 6760581

6-11-2007. 19-11-2010 MTD Operative

LS 2112:2003 Silver and silver alloys , jewellary artefacts , fineness and marking

5-11-2008 CED

Operative

IS 4985:2000

Unplasticized pvc

pipes for potable

water supplies

Nandi Irrigation Systems , Limited, F -4 & 5, Industrial Estate Kurnool , Nandyal , Andhra Pradesh -518502

9. 6768496

26-11-2007 Likhita Packaged Drinking Water, D. No. 3-412, Somanath Nager , Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh-518502

10. 6765591

20-11-2007 3-12-2008 FAD

Operative

IS 14543 :2004 Packaged drinking water (other than packaged naturai mineral water)

19-11-2008 PAD Operative

IS 14543:2004

Packaged drinking

water (other than

packaged natural

water)

Aqua Tech. , Door No. 22-30, Saipurarm Colony, Gollapudi -521225 VijayawadaRural , Krishna District, Krishna, Goltapudi, Andhra Pradesh - 521225

[No.CMD/ 13: 11 ] A. K. TALWAR , Dy. Director General (Marks) भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2008/वैशाख 13 , 1930

[भाग -खण्ड 3(ii) ]

2023:

नई दिल्ली , 24 अप्रैल , 2008

का. आ. 944.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन विमियम ) 1988 के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गये है , ये रदद् कर दिए गए हैं:-

अनुसूची लाइसेंस संख्या लाइसेंसधारी का

टिप्पणियों

कारण

रद्द

मामा.

लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु

क्रम संख्या

नाम व पता/फर्म का नाम व पता

प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक एवं मानक संख्या 1 6533671

तिथि

संख्या

15-11-07

14543 :04

मानक चिन्ह का दुरूपयोग करणा

पैकेजबंद पेय जल

[पेकेजबंद प्राकृतिक

मिनरल जल के अलावा]

सई किष्ण पकेजह डिनकिंग वाटर इंडस्ट्रीस

6668290

श्री साई प्रता एवं कंपनी पुसूर

30-11-07

14543 :04

फैक्टरी का बदलाव

पैकेजबंद पेय जल

[पेकेजबंद प्राकृतिक

मिनरल जल के अलावा ]

3 6705068 .आर वी बेवारजस मेदक

145430430-11-07

असफल परीक्षण रिपोर्ट

पेकेजबंद पेय जल

[पेकेजबंद प्राकृतिक

मिनरल जल के अलावा]

6730572 महादेव श्रीगोपाल एवं कंपणी

27-11-07

14543: 04

मानक चिन्ह का दुरूपयोग

पैकेजबंद पेय जल

[पेकेजबंद प्राकृतिक

मिगरल बल के अल्पवा]

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

NewDelhi , the24th April, 2008

S.O. 944, In pursuance of sub- regulation (6) of the regulation 5. ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations , 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given belowhave been cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:-

SCHEDULE

LicenceNo.

ISNo.

Firm Name/City

S. No.

Sai Krishna IS14543:2004 6533671

Packaged

DrinkingWater

Industries Durshed Village

IS14543:2004 6668290

Sri Sai Partha &Co. Puttuur

Remark

Reason

Product

Date of Cancel- lation

15-11-2007 due to misuse

packaged

drinkingwater

(other than

packaged

naniral mineral

ofISI mark on pouches which was not covered under scope of licence

water)

30-11-2007

packaged

Shifting of Premises

drinkingwater

(other than packaged natural mineral water) 2024

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2008/VAISAKHA 13 , 1930

4 1

6705068

IS14543: 2004

RVBeverages

Medak

4 6730572

IS 14543 : 2004

Mahadev Srigopal& Company Nirmal

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

Failing Test

30-11-2007

Report

packaged drinkingwater (other than packaged natural mineral water)

27-11-2007

packaged drinkingwater (other than packaged natural mineral water)

Misuse of ISI mark on 250ml pouches which is not covered under the scope of the licence.

[No. CMD/13: 13 ]

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

नईदिल्ली , 24 अप्रैल , 2008

का.आ, 945.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन विनियम ) 1988 के उपनियम (5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अभिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गये है , वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं:-

अनुसूत्री

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता लाइसेंस संख्या

क्रम संख्या

स्वीकृत करने की तिथि वर्ष माह

6771283 10-12-07

मेसर्स पी. मनोहरलाल ज्वेलर्स, 20-5-47, शाह- अलि-बंडा , हैदराबाद-500002 2 6771384 10-12-07 मेसर्स वैष्णवि ज्वेलर्स डी. नं. 16-3-138, शराफ बाजार , तेनालि-522201 गुंटूरे जिला

6774289 18-12-07

मेसर्स पदद्म श्री ज्वेलर्स, 7-2-386, अशोक नगर पहला मंजिल, पॉट मार्केट सिकंदराबाद-500 003 6774390 18-12-07 मेसर्स आकुल कोटेश्वरराव अंब सन ज्वेलर्स, 5-37-22, चौथा लेन , ब्रॉडीपेट, गुंटूर-522002 5 6774592 18-12-07 मेसर्स महालक्ष्मी गोल्ड पेलस , डी.नं. 23-12-318 , गांधी रोड, ऑगोल-523001 प्रकाशम जिला

स्थित्तिस्टेटर्स

विभाग

भारतीय मानक शीर्षक

भामा संख्या

परिचालित

1417-99 एमटीडी

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण /शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

एमटीडी परिचालित

1417-99

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

परिचालित

1417-99 एमटीडी

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

परिचालित

एमटीडी

1417-99

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

परिचालित

एपटीडी

1417-99

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं , आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन [ भाग II-खाष्ठ 3 ( ii) ]

18-12-07

6774693

2025

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2008/वैशाख 13 , 1930

1417-99 एमटीडी परिचालित

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं,

आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता

एवं मुहरांकन

मेसर्स प्रेम ज्वेलरी मार्ट 7-2-756, पॉट मार्केट सिकंदराबाद-500003 हैदराबाद जिला

20-12-07

675089

1417-99 एमटीकी परिचालित

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं,

आभूषण शिल्पकारी शुद्धता

एवं मुहरांकन

मेसर्स चगनलाल ज्वेलरी बी-1 , मयूर कुशाल कॉम्पलेका गनफौंड्री, हैद्राबाद-500 001 8 6775392 20-12-07

1417-99 एमटीडी परिचालित

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं,

आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता

एवंमुहरांकन

मेसर्स कृष्णा पेरल्स एंड ज्वेलर्स , 6-3-883 /2/3 , टोपाऊ बिल्डिंग के पास , हैदराबाद-500082 9 6775594 20-12-07

1417-99 एमटीडी परिचालित

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं,

आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता

एवं मुहरांकन

मेसर्स शिव ललिता ज्वेलर्स डी. नं. 27-14-70, दत्तात्रेयकॉम्प्लेक्स, राजगोपालाचारी स्ट्रीट विजयवाड़ा -520002

20-12-07

10 6776091

1417-99 एमटीडी परिचालित

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं,

आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता

एवं मुहरांकन

मेसर्स के. के. ज्वेलर्स 7-2-847, पॉट मार्केट सिकंदराबाद -500 003 हैदराबाद जिला

11 6776394.. 20-12-07

1417-99 एमटीडी परिचालित

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं,

आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धक

एवं मुहरांकन

मेसर्स श्रीनिवासा ज्वेलरी मार्ट 27-16-110/ 1 , बिसेंट रोड , गवर्नरपेट विजयवाड़ा-520 002 कृष्णा बिला

12 6770685 06-12-07 मेसर्स अन्नामलभ्यार शंकरी सीमेंट्स प्रैवेट लिमिटेड , सर्वे नं605/2, डी, चिपरई रोड बोम्मासमुद्रम विलेज गुडिपाला मंडल-517132 चित्तूर जिला ( एपी) 13 6775897 20-12-07

1489 पीटी । सीध्दी परिचालित

पोर्टलैंड पोजोलाना सीमेंट (प्लाई एश आधारित) (केवल ग्राइडिंग यूनिट के रूप में)

2112:2003 एफएडी परिचालित

चांदी एवं चांदी मिश्रमातुएं,

आभूषण शिल्पकारी शुद्धता

एवं मुहरांकन

पेसर्स आकुल कोटेश्वरराव एंड सन ज्वेलर्स, 5-37-22, चौथा लेन , ब्रॉडीपेट गुंटूर-522002 14 6774491 19-12-07

2112:2003 एफएडी परिचालित

चांदी एवं चांदी मिश्रधातुए ,

आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता

एवं मुहरांकन

मेसर्स महालक्ष्मी गोल्ड पेलस डी.नं. 23-1-318, गांधी रोड ओंगोल -523 001 प्रकाशम जिला

1438 GUOB- 2026

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 3 , 2008/VAISAKHA 13 , 1930

15 6776495 10-12-07 पेसर्स अगरवाल फैन्ड्रीस सर्वे नं. 66 , पेट बशीराबाद, मेड़चल तालुका, रंगारेड्‌डी जिल्ला-500 855 16 6776802 17-12-07 मेसर्स रेडसन इंडस्ट्रीस प्रा.लि. 32केएम, नरस्टापूर हाईवे एस. नं. 178 एंड 179, गागिल्लापूर बिलेज रंगारेड्‌डी जिल्ला -500 855 (एपी)

17 6778196 19-12-07 एस एस इंडस्ट्रिस सर्व-317/1 , कृष्णापुरम विलेज सिके डिनी (मनडल ) कडपा ( ए पी)

18 6768294 03-12-07 मेसर्स विजय लक्ष्मी इंडस्ट्सि , सर्वे-99/ए, उडामहेशवरविलेज , कोडंगलमंडल महबूबनगरे जिला ( एपी) 19 6768904 05-12-07

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

परिचालित

सिड्डी

2830: 1975

सामान्य संरचना इस्पात में पुनर्वेल्लन के लिए कार्बन ढलवा इस्पात बिलेट इंगट, बिलेट , ब्लूम और स्लैब

7285 :पीटी सिइडी परिचालित

1:04

फिर से भरे जा सकने वाले जोद रहित इस्पात के गैस सिलेन्डर- प्रसामान्यीकृत इस्पात सिप्लेन्डर

12269:1987

53 ग्रेड के साधारण पोर्टलैंड सीमेंट (केवल ग्राइडिंग यूनिट के रूप में)

12269: 1987

53 ग्रेड के साधारण पोर्टलैंड सीमेंट (केवल प्राइडिंग यूनिट के रूप में)

12786: 1989

सिंचाई उपस्कर-छलनी

टाइपफिल्टर

मेसर्स ब्लूम इरिगेशन सिस्टमस प्रैवेट लिमिटेड ए. आई, ईए, पी इंडस्ट्रिल एस्टेट सूरमपल्ली विलेज गन्भविरम मंडल कृषण जिला ( एपी ) 20 6768803

एफएडी परिचालित

सिंचाई उपस्कर- एमिटर्स

05-12-07 मेसर्स ब्लूम इरिगेशन सिस्टमस प्रैवेट लिमिटेड ए.आई.ई.एफ.पी इंडस्ट्रिल एस्टेट सूरमपल्लीविलेज गन्नावरय मंडलं कृषण जिला ( एपी ) 21 6771182 12-12-07 मेसर्स सुशीला बीवेरेजेस हाऊस नं . 8-4-370/604 सुशीला टावर्स राजनगर, बोराबंडा, हैदराबाद 22 6777497 24-12-07 मेसर्स के. के.एन. फूडस एण्ड बीवरेजस , संक्रान्तीपल्ली विलेज के.जी. सतराम पोस्टः-517 42 बंगारूपालयम मंडल चित्तूर जिल्ला आंध्र प्रदेश 13487 : 92

एफएडी परिचालित 14543: 04

पेकेजबंद पेय जल [भेकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ]

एफएडी परिचालित

14543: 04

पेकेजबंद पेय जल [भेकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा। [भाग -खष्ठ 3( ii) ]

2027

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2008/वैशाखा13 , 1930

23 677804 19-12-07 मेसर्स बेसी भावना प्रोडक्टस नं. 25-353 एम.पी. वेंकटाचलम लेआउट पलमगेर-517408 चित्तूर जिल्ला आंध्र प्रदेश 24 6775291 20-12-07 मेसर्स श्री विध्नेश्वरा एन्टरप्राइज कोर नं.28/260 जाकिर हुस्सैन नगर रोड , नेल्लूर, मेल्लूर जिल्ला आंध्रप्रदेश

25. 6774895

एफएकी परिचालित 14543: 04

पंर्ककरण पेय जल [पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ]

परिचालित 14543: 04 एपाएडी

पेकेजमंद पेय जल [पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ]

परिकलित 14543: 04 एफ़एडी

पेकेजबंद पेय जल

10-12-07 एस एल एन एस इंडस्ट्रीज़ प्लाट नं ? एंड 8 डोर नं. 1-4-255, गंगा नगर नियर एच एल सी कालोनी अनंतपूर आंध्र प्रदेश 26 6772285

[पेकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलाव्त ]

परिचालित

04 एफएडी

14543:

पेकेजबंद पेय जल

10-12-07 श्री साई आखावा इंडस्ट्रीज़ यांगटिपल्लेविलेज बंगनपल्ली मंडल कर्नूल , आंध्र प्रदेश 27. 6772487

गंगेत्री ड्रिंकिंग वाटर ,

10-12-07

डोर नं. 13-165, कसापुरम रोड गुंटकल मंडल अनंतपूर, आंध्र प्रदेश

[पेकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा]

एफएडी परिचालित 14543: 04

पेकेजबंद पेय जल [पेोजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा]

[सं. सीएम की 13:11 ] ए. के. तलवार , उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर)

New Delhi , the 24th April,2008

S.O. 945.In pursuance of sub-regulation ( 5) ofthe regulation 4 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars ofwhich are given inthe following schedule:

SCHEDULE

IS No.& Licensee Name &

Product Address

S. CML No.

GOL Date

5 2

Remark

Status

Division

Validity

11-12-2010

IS 1417 ; 1999

10-12-07 P. Manoharlal Jewellers

1. 6771283

20-5-47

Shah-ali-Bande

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

Hyderabad

Andhra Pradesh 500002

MTD Operative 2028

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 3, 2008/VAISAKHA 13 , 1930

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

10-12-07 IS1417: 1999

11-12-2010 MTD

2 6771384 Vyshnavi Jewellers

Operative D. No. 16-3-138

Guntur

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

ShroffBazar Tenali Andhra Pradesh 522201

18-12-07 IS1417 :1999

3. 6774289 Padam Shree Jewellers

11-17-2010 MTD Operative 7-2-386 ,Ashok Nagar

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

IstFloor PotMarket Hyderabad Secunderabad Andhra Pradesh 500003

18-12-07 IS 1417 : 1999

4. 6774390 Akula Koteswara Rao

17-12-2010 MTD Operative

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

&Son Jewellers 5-37-22, 4th Lane Brodipet Guntur Andhra Pradesh 522002

5. 6774592 Mahalakshmi Gold

18-12-07 IS 1417 : 1999

17-12-2010 MTD Operative Palace

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

D. No. 23-1-318 Gandhi Road. Prakasam Ongole Andhra Pradesh 523001

18-12-07 IS1417:1999

6. 6774693 Prem JewelleryMart

17-12-2010 MTD Operative Hyderabad

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

7-2-756, PotMarket Secunderabad Andhra Pradesh 500003

20-12-07 IS 1417 : 1999

23-12-2010 MTD

7. 6775089 Chhaganlal Jewellery

Operative Complex

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

B- 1 , Mayur Kushal Gunfoundry Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh 500001

23-12-2010 MTD

Β. 6775392

20-12-07 18 1417 : 1999

Operative Krishna Pearls &Jewellers

6-3-883/2/3,

Near Topaz Building

Gold and goldalloys, jewellery/ artefacts- fineness and marking-

Punjagutta Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh 500082 2029 [भाग -खण्ड (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : माई 3 , 2006/वैशाख 13 , 1930

23-12-2010 MTD

15 1417 : 1999

Siva LalithaJewellers 20-12-07

9. 6775594

Operative

Gold andgold alloys, jewellery/ artefacts- fineness and marking-

D. No.27-14-70, Dittatreya Complex RajaGopalachari Street,Krishna Vijayawada Andhra Pradesh- 520002

1S 1417 : 1999

23-12-2010 MTD

20-12-07

10. 6776091 K. K. Jewellers

Operative

Gold andgold alloys, jewellery/ artefacts- fineness and marking-

7-2-847, PotMarket Hyderabad Secunderabad Andhra Pradesh- 500003

IS 1417 : 1999

20-12-07

25-12-2010 MTD Operative 11: 6776394

Gold andgoldalloys, jewellery/ artefacts- fineness and marking-

Srinivasa Jewellery Mart 27-16-1101 , BesantRoad Governorpet Krishna Vijayawada Andhra Pradesh- 520002

09-12-2008 (ED

15 1489: Part 1:1991

06-12-07

Operative 12. 6770685

Portland pozzolana cement

part I flyash based

Annamalaiyar Sankari Cemonts PvtLtd. No.605/20 Chittaparai Road PallurVillage,Gudipala Mandal Chittor Andlura Pradesh- 517132

23-12-2010 MTD

20-12-07 IS2112 : 2003

13. 6775897

Operative

Silver and Silver alloys, jewellery artefacts- fineness and marking-

Akula Koteswara Rao& Son Jewellers 5-37-22,4th Lane Brodipet Guntur Andhra Pradesh- 522002

182112 :2003-

17-12-2010 MTD

19-12-07

14. 6774491

Operative

Silver and Silver alloys ,jewellery/ artefacts- fineness and marking-

Mahalakshmi Gold Palace D.No.23-1-318 Gandhi Road Prakasam Ongole Andhra Pradesh- 523001

JS2830; 1992

25-12-2008 MTD

10-12-07

Operative 15. 6776495

Carbon steel cast billet ingota, billets, blooms and slabs for re- rolling into steel for general structural purposes

Agarwal Foundries RamaTowers, TSK Chamber IInd Floor,5-4-83 M.G.Roed, Hyderabad Secunderabad Andhra Pradesh- 500003 2030

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2008/VAISAKHA 13 , 1930

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

25/12/2008 MED

16. 6776802 Redson Industries

17-12-2007 IS7285: Part1:2004

Operative

Refillable seamless steel gas

cylinders- part I:

normalized steel cylinders

PvtLtd32 KM, NarasapurHighway S.No. 178 & 179 Gagillapur Village Rangareddi RangareddyDistrict Andhra Pradesh

19/12/2007 IS 12269 : 1987

30/12/2008 CED

17. 6778196

Operative

53grade ordinary portland cement

SS Industries SurveyNo. 317/1 , Krishnapuram Village, C.K. Dinne (M) , Engg . College(Post), Cuddapah Andhra Pradesh- 516003

02/12/2008 CED

18. 6768294

03/12/2007 IS 12269: 1987

Operative

53 grade ordinary portland cement

Vijay Lakshmi Industries 11-2-1069, BazarGhat Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh- 500004

04/12/2008 FAD

19. 6768904

(P05/ 12/2007 15 12786 : 1989

Operative

Irrigation equipment - polyethylene pipes

for irrigation laterals

Bloom Irrigation Systems Ltd., 54-15-17 Srinagar Colony Vijayawada-520008 Krishna Vijayawada Andhra Pradesh- 520008

04/12/2008 FAD

20. 6768803

P 05/12/2007 IS 13487: 1992

Operative

Irrigation equipment - emitters

Bloom Irrigation Systems ( Limited 54-15-17, Srinagar Colony RingRoad Vijayawada-520008 Krishna Vijayawada Andhra Pradesh- 520008

10/12/2007 IS 14543: 2004

11/12/2008 FAD

21. 6771182

Operative Susheela Beverages Η.Νο.8-4-370/604,

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

Susheela Towers Rajnagar , Borabanda Rangareddi Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh

IS 14543: 2004

24/12/2007

22. 6777497

226-12-2008 FAD Operative

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

K.K.N. Foods & Beverages Sankranthi K.G. Sathram, Post PalliVillage Bangarupalayam Mandai Chittoor District - 517427 Chittor Sankranthi Palli Village Andhra Pradesh- 517427 [भाग I-खण्ड ( il) ]

1 2

23. 6777804 Jey Cee Aqua Products

2031

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2008/वैराडा 13 , 1930

30/12/2008FAD Operative

19/12/2007 IS14543:2004

No.25-353

M.P.Venkatachalam

LayoutPalamaner -

517408

Chittoor District

Chittor Palamaner

Andhra Pradesh 517408 Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

23/12/2008 FAD

20/12/2007 IS 14543:2004

Sri Vighneswara

24. 6775291

Enterprises D. No.28/260 Zakeerhussain Nagar Road Nellore:

Nellore District

Nellore

Andhra Pradesh

Operative Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)-

18/12/2008 FAD

10/12/2007 IS 14543: 2004

25. 6774895 SLNS Industries

PlotNo.7& 8 D.No.1-4-255, GangaNagar Near HLCColony Anantapur Andhra Pradesh 515001

Sri Sai Aqua Industries

Operative Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)-

13/1212008 FAD

10/12/2007 IS 14543:2004

26. 6772285

Yagantipalle Village. BanganpalleMandal

-Kurnool Andhra Pradesh

Operative Packageddrinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)-

10/12/2007 IS 14543:2004

27. 6772487

WalkerD.No. 13-165, KasapuramRaod

Gangothri Drinking Guntakal Mandal Anantapur Andhra Pradesh

13/12/2008 FAD Operative Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

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

नई दिल्ली, 25 अप्रैल , 2008

का.आ. 946. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक म्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अभिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक ( को ) में संशोधन किया गया किये गये हैं :

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

(1) (2)

1. 10322 ( भाग 5/खंद 3 ) : 1987

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और विधि संशोधन लागू होन की तिथि (3)

(4)

17अप्रैल 2008 4, नवम्बर 2007

इस भारतीय संशोधन की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 बहादुर शाह जाफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: कोलकाता, वण्डीगढ़, चैत्रर्मा, मुम्बां तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, मोपाल, भूवनेश्वर, कोयम्बटूर, गुम्दी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, मागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में विक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ: इंटी 24/टी -76 ] पी. के. मुखर्जी, वैज्ञा. एफ एवं प्रमुख्छा ( विद्युत तकनीकी ) 2032

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2008/VAISAKHA 13 , 1930

[PART II-SEC.3 ( i) ]

NewDelhi , the 25th April, 2008

S.O. 946.- In pursuance of clause (b) ofsub-rule (1 ) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendment to the Indian Standards , particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed bas been issued:

SCHEDULE

Sl .No.

No.& year ofthe

Amendment

No. &Year ofthe Indian Standards

(1)

(2)

(3) 1.

Date from which the Amendment shall have effect

(4)

4,November 2007

IS10322 (Part S/Sec3) : 1987

Specification for Luminaires:

Part 5 Particular Requirements , Section 3 Luminaires for Road and Street Lighting

17April2008

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

[Ref: ET24/T-76] P. K. MUKHERJEE, Scientist ' F' & Head (Elec . Tech)

दिल्ली, 28 अप्रैल , 2008

का. आ. 947. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम 1988 के नियम 4 के उप- नियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक न्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं:-

फरवरी 2008 में स्वीकृत किये गये लाइसेंस क्रम सं. लाइसेंस संख्या लाइसेंसी का नाम व पता (1) (2)

(3 )

1. 7819694 ज्योजि पावर ट्रांसमिशन प्रा. लि. ,

मात्रु ज्योज ग्राउंड फ्लोर , एग्रो

पेट्रोल पम्प के सामने , रामजी

मंदिर के पीछे, गोंडल , अहमदाबाद 2

7818187 सोनी जयेंद्रकुमार शांतिलाल ,

133 , सुपरमाल , नवरंगपुस टेलिफोन एक्सचेंज के पास , सी जी रोड लाल बंगला के पास ,

अहमदाबाद

7818490

श्री महाकालीज्वेलर्स ,

7/1492 अथवास स्ट्रीट ,

पुरनमाता मंदिर के पास , मलेसाई नवसारी 396445

अनुसूची

उत्पाद का नाम तथा आई एस नंबर

लाइसेंस स्वीकृत करने की तिथि (4)

(5)

13-2-2008 एलूमिनियम कंडक्टर फार

ओवरहेड ट्रांसमिशिन परपस

आई एस 398 ( पार्ट 2) ; 1996

1-2-2008 स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं

के आभूषणों/शिल्पकारी

शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

आई एस 1417:1999

4-2-2008 स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं

के आभूषणों/शिल्पकारी

शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

आई एस 1417: 1999 [ भाल -खण्ड (if) ]

(1)

(3)

(2)

4 7818591 चोकसी मुलचंदभाई शंकरदास पटेल शाक मार्केट के पास, गांधी चौक, पी ओ दीसा, बनसकांय-385535

5 7820376 धनसुई ज्वैलर्स, 108 नेशनल प्लाजा, लाल बंगला के पास, सी जी रोड , अहमदाबाद

7820477 सोनी विनोष चंद्रा, नटवरलाल , 3/539, चोकसी बाजार, पी ओ पैटलाद, डिस्ट्रिक्स आनंद

7. 7820578 सुवर्णदीप ज्वैलर्स, 135 मणीरत्न काम्पलैक्स , गाँव विजापुर, मेहसाना-382870

8 7820679 शोभालालज्वैलर्स, एट कृष्णा शेरीनाका, कारोलिया पोल, एम जी रोड, मांडवी, वडोदरा-390001 7822077 दीवाज्वैलर्स, 41 , सरदार पटेल मार्केट, मंसा, ता मंसा, गांधीनगर

+ 10 7822178 गांडालाल पंजीभाई तथा सन्स, प्लाट नंबर 80/81 , अरिहंत काम्लैक्स, कटरगाम दरवाजा , कुबेरनगर 1 , स्वामीनारायण मंदिर के पीछे , सूरत

11. 7822279 दिनेशचंद्र मटरवरलाल सोनी , आजाद चौक , जारीड-390519 वडोदरा

12. 7822380 श्री महालक्ष्मी ज्वैलर्स, 11, कृष्णा एस्टेट, कृष्णानगर रोड , सैजपुर बोषा, अहमदाबाद

13. 7823584- श्रीजसुभाई ज्वैलर्स, जी 13 , पनोरमा काम्पलैक्स , आर सी दत्त रोड , अलकापुरी, वडोदरा

14. 7821479 हैली प्लास्ट इंडस्ट्रीज (पुरान्त) 17/18 , निर्माण इंडस्ट्रीज एस्टेट, फुलपाडा, श्मशान गृह के सामने , एके रोड, सूरत

1438 GV08-

2033

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2008/वैशाख 13 , 1930

(4)

(5)

4-2-2008 स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुझ्यंकन आई एस 1417: 1999

15-2-2008 स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ग, मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन आई एस 1417:1999

15-2-2008 स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं. के आभूषणों/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन आई एस 1417:1999

15-2-2008 स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन आई एस 1417:1999

19-2-2008 स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुख्यंकन आई एस 1417:1999

19-2-2008 स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन आई एस 1417 :1999

19-2-2006 स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन आई एप्स 1417:1999

19-2-2008 स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूवओं/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धया एवं मुंहरकिन आई एस 1417 : 1999

25-2-2008 स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं. मुहरांकन आई एस 1417 1999

18-02-2006 पीवीसी ईसूलेटिड केबल ( एच डी) . आई एस 1554 (पार्ट 1 ): 1988 2034

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2008 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1930

(2)

(1)

(3)

15. 7823281

स्पीस फलेपप्प्रुफ कंट्रोल गीयर प्रा. लि. , ए-203 , भद्रालोक , ओल्ड पादस रोड, वडोदरा

16. 7822582

विका प्लास्टिक इंडस्ट्रीज ब्लाक नंबर 794/1 , पोस्ट वडसर, ता कलोल

17. 7817993 जियल इंजनियरिंग , 6, राजकमल एस्टेट, कुबेश्वर महादेव के पीछे , जी की हाई स्कूल रोड के पास , सैजपुर बोघा, नरोडा रोड, अहमदाबाद

18. 7823483

राकेट बुड इंडस्ट्रीज 55, जी आई डी सी, खेरालूरोड, विसनगर मेहसाना 19. 7819593 श्रीनिलोसकर इंडस्ट्रीज ए-10 , प्रकाश एस्टेट, रीटर नगर के पास , वसट्रल रोड, अमराई वाडी, अहमदाबाद

20. 7823786 ईश्वरकृपा इंडस्ट्रीज, 24, करूणासागर ऐस्टर , सोनिया सिरामिक्स के सामने , अनिल स्टार्च रोड , नरोडा रोड, अहमदाबाद

21.. 7819896 नीरव एंटरप्राईसिस, सरसवती सोसाइटी नगर , पंचवटी कलोल, गांधीनगर

22 7821681 राज एंटरप्राइसिस , ए/25/ 117 , कृष्णा इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, गोरखा इंडस्ट्रियल के सामने , गोरखा रोड, वडोदरा -390016 23. 7821782 हिमजल, एल एस नंबर 136 , (पैकी) राखियाना , अहमदाबाद

24 7822481

एस पी इंडस्ट्रीज बी 12 , गोल्डन ट्रायंगल , बैठक पेट्रोल पम्प के पास , देवी मल्टीपलैक्स के पीछे , एन एच नंबर 8 , नरोडा, अहमदाबाद

[PART II Sec. 3 ( ii)] (4)

22-02-2008 फलेमब्रुफ एनकैलोरर्स फार इलैक्ट्रिकल एपरेटस आई एस 2148:2004

20-2-2008 यूपी वी सी पाईप फार पोडेक्ल पोर्टर सपलाईस आई एस4985:2000

01-02-2008 सबमर्सिबल पम्पसैट आई एस 8034:2002

25-02-2008 कनडयूट फार इलैक्ट्रिकल इंस्टालेशन 9537: पार्ट 3:1983

13-02-2008 ओपनवैल सबमर्सिबल पम्यसैट आई 14220: 1994

28-02-2008 ओपनवैश सबमर्सिबल पम्पसैट आई 14220: 1994

14-02-2008 पैकजबंद पेयजल आई 14543 2004

19-02-2008 पैकजबंद पेयजल आई 14543:2004

[सं. सी एम डी/ 13:11 )

ए. के. तलवार, उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर ) 2035

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2008/वैशाख 13 , 1930

NewDelhi , the 28thApril, 2008

S.O. 47.In pursuance ofsub -regulation (5) ofthe regulation 4 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given inthe following Schedule:

SCHEDULE

LICENCE GRANTED FOR THE MONTH OF FEB., 2008

LicenseeName.

Product & IS No.

DateofGOL S.No. LicenceNo.

13-2-2008 1.

7819694

Aluminium conductors for overhead transmission purposes: Part 2Aluminium conductors, galvanized steel reinforced 398(Pt.2):1996

Jyoti Power Transmission Pvt. Ltd. Matru Jyot, Ground Floor OppAgroPetrol Pump,Behind Ramji Mandir Gondal ,Ahmedabad

1-2-2008 2.

7818187

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

Soni Jayendra Kumar Shantilal, 131 SupermallNr Navranpura Telephone Exchange, C.G. Road, Near Lalbunglow, Ahmedabad

4-2-2006 7818490

ShreeMahakali Jewellers

Gold andGold Alloys, Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking

IS 1417: 1999

7/1492,Athwas Street,Near PurnamataTemple Malesai Navsнгі -396445

4-2-2008 7818591

GoldandGoldAlloys, Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking

Choksi Mulchadbhai Shankardas Patel Near Shak Market Gandhi Chawk, PO Deesa Dist .Banaskamha-385535

IS1417: 1999

15-2-2008 5.

7820376

Dhanusi Jewellers 108National Placza Opp. Lal Bunglow , C.G.Road, Ahmedabad

GoldandGoldAlloys, Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking IS1417: 1999

15-2-2008 6.

7830477

Soni VinodChndra Narvarial , 3/539 ChoksiBazar, P.O. Petlad, Dist .Anand

Gold andGoldAlloys, Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking IS1417:1999

15-2-2008 7820578

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

Suvarnadeep Jewellers 135, ManiratnaComplex Village:Vijapur Distt. Mahesana-382870

15-2-2008 8.

7820679

Shobhalal Jewellers

GoldandGoldAlloys, Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking IS1417: 1999

At Krishna Sheriņaka KaroliyaPole, M.G. Road Mandvi, Vadodara-390001

19-2-2008 9.

7822077

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

Diva Jewellers 41, Sardar Patel Market Mansa, Ta MansaDist. Gandhinagar 2036

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 3 , 2008 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1930

7822178

10.

Gandalal Panjibhai & Sons Plot No. 80/81 Arihant Complex KatargamDarwaja Kubernagar- 1Behind Swaminarayan Tample Surat 11.

T822279

Dinesh Chandra Natvarlal Soni Azad Chowk Jarod-390519 Dist. Vadodara

12.

7822380

Shree Mahalaxmi Jewellers 11 , Krishna Estate KristaNagar Road SaijpurBogha, Ahmedabad

7823584

13,

Shree Jasubhai Jewellers G-13 , Panorama Complex R. C. Dutt Road, Alkapuri Vadodara

14.

7821479

Helly Plast Industries (Old), 17/18- Nirman Industries Estate Fulpada, Opp . Smashan Gruh , A. K. Road , Surat

7823281

15.

Spece Flameproof Control Gears Pvt. Ltd., A/203 , Bhadralok, Old PadraRoad, Vadodara 7822582

16.

Ambica Plastic Industries BlockNo. 794/1 , Post: Vadsar, TA : Kalol

17.

7817993

Jinal Engineering 6,Rajkamal Estate, B/H, Kubereshwar Mahadev, NearG. D. High School Road, Saijpur Bogha, Naroda Road, Ahmedabad 7823483

18.

Rocket Wood Industries 55, GIDC Kheralu Road Visnagar, Mehsana 7819593

19.

Shree Niloskar Indsutries A/ 10 Prakash Estate NR, Rita Nagar Vastral Roadamaraiwadi Ahmedabad

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

19-2-2008 GoldandGoldAlloys, Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking IS1417: 1999

19-2-2008 Gold and Gold Alloys , Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking IS1417: 1999

19-2-2008 GoldandGoldAlloys , Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking IS1417: 1999

25-2-2008 Gold and GoldAlloys , Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking IS1417: 1999

18-2-2008 PVC Insulated Cables(HD) IS 1554(PLI): 1988

22-2-2008 FlameproofEnclosures for electrical apparatus IS2148: 2004

20-2-2008 UPVC Pipes for Potable Water Supplies IS4985:2000

1-2-2008 Submersible Pumpsets Specification IS8034:2002

25-2-2008 Conduits for Electrical Installation 9537: Part 3: 1983

13-2-2008 Openwell Submersible Pumpsets IS14220: 1994 [पाप -सष्ठ 3 (li) ]

20.

7823786- Iswharkrupa Industries 24, KarunasagerEstate Opp. Soniya Ciramic Anil Starch RoadNaroda Road Ahemdabad

21.

781896

NiravEnterprises, Saraswati Soc nagar Punchyati,Kalol , Gandhinagar 22.

7821681

RajEnterprises, A/25/ 117, Krishna Indl. Estate, Opp.Gorwa Ind. Estate,GorwaRoad, Vadodara-390016

23.

7821782

Hinjal L. S.No. 136(Paiki), Rakhiyana Ahmedabad

24.

7822481

S. P. Industries B/12,Golden Triangle NR. Bethak Petrol Pump B/HDevi Multiplex N. H. No , 8Naroda Ahmedabad

2437

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2008/वैशाख 13 , 1930

28-2-2008 Openwell Submersible Pumpres IS14220: 1994

14-2-2006 Packaged Drinking Water IS14543: 2004

19-2-2008 PackagedDrinking Water IS14543: 2004

19-2-2006 Packaged Drinking Water IS-14543:2004:

20-2-2008 Packaged Drinking Water IS14543:2004

[No. GMD/13:11 ]

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

नई दिल्ली , 28 अप्रैल , 2008

कन. आ. 948. - भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम 1988 के नियम (5 ) के उप नियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेन्सों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द ( Cancelled ) कर दिया गया है :-

अनुसूची

लाइसेन्सध्धारी का नाम व पता लाइसेंस

क्रम सं

फरवरी 2008

8696511 मैसर्स आर. एस. इण्डस्ट्रीज (रोलिंग मिल्स) लिमिटेड ए-241-242, रोड नं. 6 ढी विश्कर्मा ओद्योगिक क्षेत्र जयपुर-302 013 (राजस्थान)

रद्दकरने कोतिथि लाइसेन्सके अंतर्गत वस्तु क्रन्म से संबधित भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक व संबधित मा. म्यू

26-1-2006 आईएस8500: 1991

स्ट्रक्चरल स्टोल- हाई स्ट्रेन्य क्वालिटीज ) माइक्रोअलायड (मोजिसन एण

[सं. सी.एम की /13 : 13 ]

ए. के. क्लवार, उप महानिदेशक (मुहर ) 2038

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 3 , 2008/VAISAKHA 13 , 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]

NewDelhi , the 28th April, 2008

S.O. 948. In pursuance of sub-regulation ( 6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Cetification) Regulation, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence (s) particulars ofwhich is/are given below has/have been Cancelled with effect from the date indicated.

SCHEDULE

$.1 LicenceNo. Name and Address of the Licensee

No. (CMM)

(2)

(3)

(1)

Feb2008

8696511

M/ s. R. S. Industries (Rolling Mills ) Ltd. A-241-242, Road No. 6D Vishwakarma Industrial Area Jaipur -302013 ( Rajasthan)

Dateof Cancellation Article /process with relevant Indian Standards covered by the licence cancelled

(5)

(6)

26-1-2008 IS8500: 1991 Structural Steel -Microalloyed (Medium & High Strength Qualities)

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

नई दिल्ली , 28 अप्रैल , 2008

का. आ. 949, - भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम 1988 के नियम (4 ) के उप नियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेन्सों, के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे स्वीकृत कर दिये गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

लाइसेन्सधारी का नाम व पता

चालूतिथि

क्रम सं

लाइसेंस नं.

फरवरी

2008

01.

8909094 30-1-2008

02.

8909195 30-1-2008

30-1-2008

8909603

03.

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक क संबंधित भारतीय मानक 4

398 (भाग 4) : 1994

एएएसी

मैसर्स ओसवाल केबल्स प्रा. लि. 139, औद्योगिक क्षेत्र, झोटवाडा जयपुर- 302 012 ( राजस्थान)

398 ( भाग 4) : 1996 एसीएसआर

मैसर्स ईश्वर मैटल इण्डस्ट्रीज एफ-79 बी, रोड नं. 6 विश्वकर्मा औधोगिक क्षेत्र जयपुर- 302 013 ( राजस्थान )

14151 ( भाग 1 ) : 1999 पीई पाइप्स फॉर स्प्रिंकलर सिस्टम्स

मैसर्स मोहित पोलीटैक प्रा. लि. एफ- 139 , रोड नं. 6 रीको औद्योगिक क्षेत्र, बिन्दायका जयपुर ( राजस्थान ) [भाग खग्ण (ii) ]

04. 8910887 6-2-2008

05. 8911586 19-2-2008

8911889

06.

22-2-2008

2039

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2008/वैशाख 13 , 1930

2554 ( भाग 1 ) : 1988 पीवीसी इन्सुलेटेड ( एचडी)

केबल्स

गैसर्स सैटेलाईट केचल्स प्रा. लि. , एफ-626, औद्योगिक क्षेत्र, पोष-1 , भिवाडी- 301 019. जिला-अलवर (राजस्थान) .

1417 : 1999 स्वर्गापूवों पर हॉलमार्किंग

: मैसर्स अग्रेका ज्वैलर्स , 246, जौहरी बाजार, जयपुर-302 003 ( राजस्थान )

1417: 1999 स्वर्णाभूषों पर हॉलमार्किंग

मैसर्स जय जगदीश ज्वैलर्स , शॉप नं. 315 , जौहरी बाजार , जयपुर -302 003( राजस्थान)

हर्स सी एम डी /13 :11 ] ए. को. तलवार, उपमहानिदेशक ( मुहर )

NewDelhi , the28thApril ,2008

80.99n pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulation, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars ofwhich are given in the following Schedules.:

SCHEDULE

Name andAddress of the Licensee

OperativeDate No.

LicenceNo. (CM/L-)

4 Feb2008

01. 8909094 30-1-2008

1 8909195 30-1-2008

02.

31-1-2008

03. 8909603

04.

6-2-2008

8910887

19-2-2008

8911586

Article/Process Coveredby. -the licences and the relevant IS:Designation

(5)

398(Part4):1994

M/s. Oswal Cables Private Limited, 139, Industrial Area, Jhotwara, Jalpur-302012 (Rajasthan)

398(Part2):1996

ACSR

M/s, Ishwar Metal Industries , F-79 B, RoadNo. 6, Vishwakarma IndustrialArea, Jaipur-302013 (Rajasthan)

14151 (Part 1):1999 PEPipes for Sprinkler

Systems

Ma. Mohit Polytech Pvt . Ltd. , F-139, RoadNo.06, RIICO IndustrialAren, Bidayaka, Jalpur (Rajasthan)

1554(Part 1): 1988

PVC Insulated (HD) Cables

M/s. Satellite Cables Private Limited, F-626, Industrial Area, Phase- 1, Bhiwadi- 301019 Dsitt. Alwar (Rajasthan)

1417:1999

Hallimerking ofGold

M/s.Ashoka Jewellers,

246, Johari Bazar,

Jaipur-302003 (Rajasthan)

8911889 22-2-2008

06.

Jewellery

1417:1999

M/s . Jai Jagdish Jewellers, Shop No. 315 , Johari Bazar, Jaipur -302 003 (Rajasthan)

Hallmarking ofGold Jewellery

[No , CMD/13: 11] A. K, TALWAR, Dy. Director General (Marks) 2040

[PART JJ-SEC. 3(ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2008/VAISAKHA 13 , 1930

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल , 2008

the same was registered as I.D. No 42 of 1993 on 30-11-1993. On the transfer ofthe case to this Tribunal , it was received and registered as I.D. 591 of2005 on 23rd of August ,2005. It reads as under:

का.अ. 950.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल पोल्ट्री ब्रिडिंग फॉर्म के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार , औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं 11, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 591/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

"Whether the action of the Management ofCentral Poultry Breeding Farm, Chandigarh in not paying overtime allowance at the rate of 6( six) hours per week for the work, alleged to have been done by 104 (one hundred four) workers, members the Union (as per list attached) for the period 17-11-86 to 31-12-91 tothe tune of46 (forty six) hours in excess ofspecified 40 (forty) hours on an average in a week is legally just & Valid? If not, then to which relief, these workmen are entitled to and from which date?" [सं. एल-42011/23/93- आई आर ( डी.यू.) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi , the 7thApril, 2008

Ongetting notice ofthe reference the parties appeared through theircounsel and filed their pleadings in the shape ofstatefnent ofclaim , written statement and rejoinder.One ofthe workmen, Mithu Ram and Shri J.N. Vora, Director of the Management appeared as witnesses who were cross- examined by the opposite party. The parties also placed on record a number ofdocuments and also argued in the matter. The workman even filed written arguments.

S.O. 950.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 591 / 2005) CentralGoverrument Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, No.11 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Poultry Breeding Farm and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on07-04-2008.

[F. No , L-42011/23/93 -IR (DU) ) AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT- IL, SECTOR 18- A, CHANDIGARH

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRIKULDIP SINGH

CASE L.D. No. 591/2005

Registered on: 23-8-2005

Date ofDecision: 14-3-2008

1 Harnek Singh and Ors . care ofGeneral Secretary, Central Poultry Breeding farm workers Union , Chandigarh

Petitoner

Versus

Central PoultryBreeding Farm, Industrial Area, Chandigarh ,

...Respondent

APPEARANCE

For the Workman :

Mr. Madan Mohan , Advocate

Mr. K.K. Thakur , Advocate

For theManagement :

AWARD

The claim of the Petitioner Union is that the workers asdetailed in the reference are working for the management andtheywere earlier working under the control ofthe Union Territory Administration , Chandigarh, but later on they came under the control of Ministry of Agriculture , Department ofDiary, Government of India. That during the period from 31st of December 1991 and even before that , theywere working for the management from 8.00am to 1.00 pm and from 2.00 pm to 5.00pm. On the recommendation of the 4th Pay Commission , the Central Government switched over to 5 days a week w.e.f 1st January 1986. However, theworkers were required to work from 8.00am to 5.00pm with only second Saturday and Sunday off. The office ofthe poultry farm worked from 10.00am to 5.00pm with second Saturday off. Thus the workmen served the management for 56 hours a week against the prescribed40 hours a week. The workers approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and during the pendency of their petition the Managerment issued order dated 03-01-1992 effective from 06-01-1992 as a result ofwhich the petition ofthe workers was withdrawn with the liberty to file fresh one . The petitioners are claiming over time of 6 hours a week for 266 weeks for the period 17-11-1986 to 31-12-1991 . It is further their claim that although the Management has conceded the claim of the workman on paper , but for want ofclearance from the Ministry , they are not paying the arrears to the workman; that the workmen are engaged in maintaining very costly livestock, therefore, they are required to work overtime , and that in the departments like Horticulture, the workers are paid overtime at double the rate of ordinary wages . Therefore , the workers too are entitled thereto. The petitioners have prayed for passing the award in their favour,

Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide their order No: L-42011 /23/93 - IR(DU ) dated nil referred the followingdispute for the adjudication of this Tribunal and 2041 [ 00]

भारत-कन राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2008/ वैल 13 , 1950

rules and regulation of tothom and so they are wale war the period Ith17th ofNov, 1900% NANON 19 T further claimed that dining the thickthe the coming cascadeur work for avere thaw the prod theyworked for 6 day conciliation inthe proceedings De Manage the messo deed 3ml of Jummary, 1992 beligg to the working hoursto40 fhotz 46 parvek

I have gone through the the and love alpeppasidorad the arguments made by the counsel for the partiesp The claim oftheworkanen has beca opposedby the Mangement. It is chained by thera that the Maongement being an office of the Goverment of fodis is nỌC MI iwberry, therefore, uot subject to the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 , hereinafter to be refered toa "Act , Aswording to than thờ Menginant organlastion overby Devil fromthe Chandigarh Adaaktaalia Biostat ofApril, 1978 for Pureline Breeding Programme fortroller production with the objective of laptoving dirant-coonemic twin ofpureline. The porkry products ofthe Mingensent are being supplied to the factmere on no profitno loss basis. Moreover , the workers No Gorranty Costel Government rules and, thavire, theydo not fullwithin the ambit ofthe Act and rules made there under.On merits, it is the claim of the management that the workers named are not the workmen as they are waployees ofCentral Governancat governed by Civil Servico Rados. It is aditted bythem that the Central Poultry Deroding Paris, Chandigarh isa Live Stock Farm inwhich bewerking hours are being kopt flexible tom 40 to46 work considering the work lond; and that the range of working hours do not attract any over time allowanor or financial benefits as per the financial rules.

to Before examining the clain orbe partial on me, it is required that the prelini Management are considered it. The main p objection of the Mana ofGovernment of India economic traits ofpurefine trong breeding programme and engaged is not an industry. It is further this chain th Management is not engaged in cui nến đ the poultry products developed by the art the poultry farmers on no proft no loạt b theyare not an industry. The oth isthat since the workmen and Central Goverment employees and their services being govermeld Government tules and regulations, therefore, they are not workmen. For these reasons the reference is not maintainable and should be dismissed. Isee preliminary objections raised, ?

Contesting the claim ofworkmen about theworking hours, it is stated by the Management that the Adorinistrative staff of the Management at Chandigarh is working from 9.50 am to 5 pm with halfan hour lunch break froạn 1.30mm to 2.00 . They have denied that the working hours in the Management fum were from 10.AM to 5 PM. It is further claimed by them that so as to maintain cordial, relations with the workers and in good faith the working hours were re-adjusted vide order No CPBF/CH/Estt -31/ 91/24-33 deeed 3rd ofJanuary, 1992. Under that arrangement the iwurfonen veere to perform their duties from 9 am to 5 pm with one hour banch break from 1 P.Mto 2PM and15-20 minutes to break. In case work load increasedtheworking schedule was to be from 8am to i pru nód from 2pra to 5 prα with one hour hunch brosk and in view of exigencies of Gowemment work and it being live stock faras, the working hours could vary from 40to46 hours a week under six days working pattern. The over time could be calculated onlyon day's besis and not on weekly basis and one hour extra working did not entitle for financial reuneration. The Managment has deployed sufficient stall to safe guard the costly live stock and no one was put to over time work. For gaantie holidays , compensatory leave was given. In Publicwerka departmçut, claimed by the Management , the beneft ofovertime was given to work charged and master rollwerkers and not to regular employees who enjoyed all the benefits ander CCS rules. Among the claimants25 are group'C' employees and rest group 'D ' employees. The petitioners are therefore no entitled to over time allow.co.

Hon'ble Supreme Court ofte of Bangalore Water Supply and Seworage Board Vorres Rajappa, reported as 19710778fakian of" Industry" a given bylting Banerji's cie mported as AFR 193 wherein it was held that "when Canisasyonalisativity, organized by co-operation berean am میر for ther production and or calculated to satisfy the lan facie there is an industry" . Their benda Vedic bill that the absence of profit motivo or painatteis inelovent, be the venture in public, joint prof sector. The true foous is functiountack the nature ofthe activity, wikia employer and employectations. In th ofthe Apex Court the Manignom slut theyare not meladatryskygrubk is clear that they are eng programame for braida prodaction. They that the worlamento engaged to takes of my live stock. So the wicking of the mang being done by rystematic activity and b operation between the employw and waplog . irrelevant that the project was being y In the rojolader the workmen have claimed that they we governed by cirollers , annexure A-3 to A-5, as all the 1436 GUDB-6 2042

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2008/VAISAKHA 13 , 1930

[PART 11-Sec. 3(i )) department of Government of India. Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case ofBhag Singh and another versus DeputyDirector,Animal Husbandry and another reported 2005 (1 ) RSJ 211 has held that the said department is an industry. The management , therefore, is an industry. It is also now well settled that a government employee who falls within the definition of a workman under the Act even if governed by Civil Service Rules is a workman . Thus I Find no merit in the preliminary objections of the Management and the same are rejected.

the calculation of over time could be done only on day's basis and not on week's basis. It is further their claim that the Management had deployed sufficient staff and no workmanwas made to work overtime . For gazette holidays compensatory leave was given to the workmen. Commenting upon the circular of CPWD employees it is their case that the overtime in that department was given towork charged staff/ muster roll workers for working on Sundays and on their rest day and that, benefit was not available to regular employees who were enjoying all benefits underCCS rules. The workmen being permanent government employee, thus are not entitled to that relief. Moreover, the circulars of other departments , issued in different circumstances could not govern the working of theworkmen.

The main claim ofthe workmen as made out by them in paragraph No. 4 oftheir statement ofclaim is that during the period 17th ofNov. 1986 to 31st of Dec. 1991 they had worked for the Management from 8 AM to 1 PM and then frem 2PM to 5 PM with second Saturday and Sundays off as rest days whereas on the recommendations of 4th Pay Commission the Central Government had switched over to five days aweek with daily working hours from 9 AM to 5 PM w.e.f. Ist of January, 1986. Thus the workmen were madeto work for fifty four hours per week against the prescribed limit offorty hours per week. Their further claim is that theyhad filed petition before CAT and during the pendency of said petition the Management issued order dated 3rd of January , 1992 made effective from 6th of January, 1992, thereby admitted the claim ofthe workmen. In view of that order the petition before the CAT was withdrawn. Their further claim is that in other regular establishments of Government of India like CPWD, Horticulture, the field staff is paid overtime at double the ordinary rates ofwages. The workmen are claiming overtime for6 hours perweek for 266 weeks for the period 17th of Nov. 1986 to 31st ofDec. 1991.

The Management has contested this claim of the workmen. According to them all Central Government Offices at Chandigarh work from 9 AM to 5.30PM where five days aweek is prevalent whereas the administrative staff ofthe management works from 9.50AM to 5 PM with half an hour lunchbreak and 1.30 to 2 PM. Denying the knowledge of anypetition having been filed by the workmen , it is stated by them that in view of the demand of workers unions , the working hours were re-adjusted vide order CPBF/CH/Estt- 31/91/24-33 dated 3-1-1992 subject to approval by the Governinent . By virtue of that order the workmen were required to work from 9AM to 5PM with one hour lunch break from 1PMto 2PM. They were also allowed 15-20 minutes tea break. However, ifthe work load increased the workmen were required to work from 8 AM to IPM and from2PMto 5 PM with one hour lunch break. The working hours thus varied from 40 to 46 hours a week under six daysworking pattem . However, working for one our in a daycould not entitle them for financial remunerntsin as par government standing instruction as they were engaged in live stock farm. The overtime allowance could begin only after having worked for more than one hour extra. Mureover,

Ihave considered the rival contentions ofthe parties . Onrecord I find letter No.37-15/85 LDII dated 24th ofOct., 1985 issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, New Delhi. By virtue ofthe said letter the CentralPouliryBreeding Farms were required to follow the practice ofsix days a week with second Saturday as holiday as the fivedays a week scheme was applicable only to civil administrative offices whose functions were broadly of Secretarist in nature . The. Management has categorically denied that the workmen had served for 54hours perweek during the period in question . They have thus denied not only the entitlement of the workmen for overtime remunera- tionsbut also the fact that the workmen in fact had worked for overtime, beyond their prescribed working hours. It is claimed by the Management that they had deployed sufficient staff intheir farm keeping in mind the costly live stock and there was no necessity for the workmento work over time. In support oftheir claim made in paragraph 7 of their claim petition, that the Management has already conceded their demand on paper but they are unable to meet the same pending clearance from Ministry, the workmenhave placed on record no documentary or other evidenceexcept the report of failure of conciliation made byALCO, Chandigarh dated 21st of June, 1993 which is not a substantive piece of evidence and is only his opinion . On what basis the Conciliation Officer came to the conclusions that the workmen had served the Management for46 hours a week, is not shown as the report is not accompanied by any evidence nor the workmen have producedthat evidence in the case. In his statement, before this Tribunal ,Mithu Ram, one of the workmen who appeared aswitness in the case could also not elicit any evidence to show that the workmen had worked for the Management beyond the prescribed hours of their duty, and that the workmen if worked overtime were entitled to overtime remunerations as were paid to the workmen in CPWD and Horticulture Departments ofGovernment of India. In order toget parity in pay on the principle of " equal pay for equal work", the workmen were required to show that the work done by the petitioners was similar to that performed by 204976

भारत का राजपत्र : गई 3 , 2006/ 13 , 1930

[ 13 (H)]

And

tho smipleyon of CPWD and Horticulture Department. They have falled to shewthet.

Teir Workmen

AshrafYunus Shaikhi,

P.O:Gopaldas Rond, Near D.K. High School,

P.O.: Chinchami , TalikaDahario,

THANE401503.

APPEARANCE

FortheEmployer

-After going through the entire record ofthe file I am ofthe opinion that the workmen have failed to show that they had worked overtime for six hours a week for 266 weaks from 17th ofNov., 1986to 31st ofDec., 1991 for the management and so they are entitled to overtime remunerations for that working at double the rates of ordinarywages. In my opinion the workmen are not entitled to any refier.The reference is answered against them and the awird ispassed.

Mrs.Nandini Maion, Advocate

FortheWorkanen

Mr. UmeshNaber, Advocate,

Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for neccssary action and the file be consignod torecords aher due completion.

KULDIP SINGH, PresidingOfficer

नईदिल्ली , 8 अप्रैल , 2008

Date ofreserving Award: 23rd October, 2007 Dateofpassing ofAward: 14th December,2007.

AWARD:

The matrix ofthe facts as culled out from the proceedings are as under

अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 या 14) की धारा 17 में केन्द्रीय सरकार देना बैंक के के बीच, अनुबंध मिश्री सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण/ अम प्रकाशित की है , को पंचाट ( संदर्भ संकन 2/68/2001 ) को ही सरकार को 7-4-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

1.TheGovernment of India, Mindstry ofLabearby itsOrderNo. L-12012/ 17 /2001 -IR (D- 1) dated 10th May 201 in exercise of the powers confured by clause (d) of section( 1 ) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 20 Industriel Disputes Act, 1947 lave refered the hillwing dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

[८ एल-12012/17/2001 -आई आर(ची- II ) ] रावेन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 8th April,2008

"Whether the action of the Management of Dope Bank, Mumbel by terminating Shri Ashrafraf Yuwws Shach from the services ofthe Back w.ef. 20-4-1999 and refusal to treat him as a permaneat employee of the bank w.e.f. 8-9-1986 is justified and proper? If not, thenwhat relief the wurkmen is entitled to?" 8.0. 951.In pursuance of Section 17 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Goverament hereby publishes the Award Ref.2/ 68/2001 of theCent, Govt. Indum, Tribunal-oun-Labour CourtNo.2, Mumbai as shown in the Annoure, in the industrial dispute between the management ofDena Bank and their workmen, received by theCentral Government on7-4-2008

[F.No. L-12012/17/2001 -IR (B- IT)] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

MEPORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

A.A.LAD,

PRESIDING OFFICER

REFERENCE No. COIT-2/68 OF2001

Employers inRelation to the Management of

DENABANK

1stParty

TheAssistint Gunchů Manager ,

Gabesk Bhavan, 2nd floor,

2. To support the subject matter refacred in the reference, the Statensent ofClaim is filed by the concamed Workman at Exhibit 7 making out the case that , be joined the 1st Party as a Sepoy on 8th September, 1986 Chinchani villagewhere Ist Party has itsBranch.He was asked towork inplace of a permanent Sepoy employed by the said Chinckmei Branch. That time there were 2 Seppe employed at Chincheni Branch. After joining as Bedli Sepoy, concerned.Workinen was doing his dytikasinopely honestlyand diligently to the utmost satisfaction of hie superiors. The other permanent Sepoywho pas wording at Chinchani Branch was promoted as a Cloak th concerned Workman was the only Sepoy perfporting and duties of 2 Sepoys. He was having the knowledge of Marathi, Hindi and Gujarati language. He was she in a positiontowrite English . Looking to his sincere work and interest, he was appreciated by Ma superion. The was permittedtowork till 1998 on that post. However witho confirming him in the employinent or taking int ぞ ! permanent employee, he was taked not to report off By w.e.C 1998.

Dena Bank, Thate Region, Swani Gyan JivandasMarg, Deder,Mumbai400004.

2044

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 3 , 2008/ VAISAKHA 13 , 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

due procedurewas followed while employing SecondParty inthe employment ofthe Ist Party. Even no appointment is given. No recruitment rules were followed while taking 2nd Partyin the employment ofthe 1st Party by the Bank. Even no name of second party was included in the Panel of eligible candidates to be made permanent. Since he was engaged purely on temporary basis and since he worked as a casual worker he cannot seek permanency. Even he was appointed as a sub- staff and was not empanelled for taken him against sub-staff against permanent vacancy. Evenhe was not sponsored by Employment Exchange nor he came through the Employment Exchange. It is denied that two Sepoys were working at the relevant period at ChikiliBranch. It is also denied that, 2nd Party was doing duties of another Sepoy who was promoted as a Clerk . Bank says that it has no idea whether he was having knowledge ofMarathi, Hindi, Gujarati besides of English languages. It is denied that, there was work with the Ist Party and vacancy of Sepoy in the Ist Party Bank at Chinchani Branch . There are recruitment rules. Post of Sepoy is filled in by superiors and unless and until permission is given Branch Manager cannot appoint anybody on that post . It is denied that 2nd Party worked for more than 280 days . He was appointed year to year from 1986to 1990 by the Branch Manager unauthorisedly. BranchManager was not empowered to employ workman as a Sepoy. Since was not appointed permanently by following rules of appointment and procedure of appointment, he cannot see protection. The prayer of2nd Party to continue on duty or appoint him is nothing but to workby making back door entry depriving others seeking permissionto contest for the said post. So it is prayed that, prayer prayed by the 2nd Party be rejected.

3.Accordingto second party, workman , heworked for more than240 days. His case is that he worked for more than282days in each year between 1986 to 1998. Looking to his sincerework Branch Manager by letter dated 26-5-90 hisnamewas recommended to Regional Office to regularize kim in services and the concerned Branch Manager brought to thenotice ofthe regional office the need of the Bank as' well as the sincere work done by the concerned workman. Sincehe was working there for more than three calendar years and is cutitled for employment as a regular employee oftheFirstParty, there was no response from the Regional Officeto the letter of the Branch Manager dated 26-5-90. Another letter of recommendation dated 3-11-90 was sent. Though he was constantly recommended by the Branch Manager looking to his work and sincerity, he was not continued in the employment of the First Party and after walting for two years, Branch Manager of the First Party byhisletter dated 27-2-92 recommended to the Regional Office, that, the post is vacant and concerned workman havingworked for more than 240 days can be regularized in that post. However hood, was given to the recommen dation ofBranch Manager and no steps were taken by the Regional Office to regularize Second Partyworkman in the employment of the First Party.As no replay was given the Second Party, concerned Workman by his letter ofJuly, 1993 approached the Branch Manager and requested him to consider is grievances. On that also the Branch Manager madecorrespondence with the Regional Office which was notconsideredby the Regional Office . No communication was made by the Regional Office with the Branch Manager andto the concerned workman , so notice dated 1-7-97 was givenby the concerned workman through his Advocate. Then by letter dated 3-10-97 for the first time First Party informedto Advocate that, Second Party cannot made permanent in the employment ofthe First Party.

6.Inview ofthe above pleadings my Ld .Predecessor framed following Issues at Exhibit 11 which I answer as follows:

FINDINGS

ISSUES

1. Does Shaikh prove that he worked continuously from 1986 till 20th April, 1999 in the bank? Yes

2. Whether management proves that the reference is not maintainable as averred in Written Statement, para. 2(a)&(b)? No

3. Whether the management complied with the provisions ofSection 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act? No

4.Whether the management is justified in refusing to treat Shaikh as a permanent employee of the Bank w.e.f. 8/9/867 No 4.Accordingto Second Party, since heworked for more than 12 years continuously and though Branch Manager was recommending his name time and again to make him permanent in the employment ofthe Firat Party, no decision was taken by the superiors . Said attitude of the First Party is nothing but not permitting concerned workmanto enjoy rights permanently with first party.As a result ofthat concerned workman is unable to continue his duty and enjoy his protection given which he got by working with the First Party for more than 240 days in every calendar year . So he prayed that, the decision taken by the First Party in not permitting Second Party to work fromApril, 1999 be declared null and void and direct First Partyto reinstate Second Partywith benefits ofbackwages and continuity ofservice.

5. Whether the action of the management of Dena Bank, Mumbaiby terminating Shri AshrafYunus Shaikh from theServices ofthe Bank w.e.f. 20-4-1999 is justified and proper? No 5.This is disputed by the 1st Party by filing Written Statement at Exhibit 9 making out the case that, Reference in the present form is not maintainable before this Tribunal. Therewas no termination. Second Party was working on temporary basis. He was never made permanent and no 2015

3, 2008/ 13 ,1930

6. What reliefShaikh is entitled to?

Asper orderbelow.

ISSUE No. 1:

Exhibit 12 shows the number ofdays wotlood by 2nd Paky and those are not seriously disputed by list Party. 30alt this evidence brought on record reved the 2nd Paly worked continuously tom 1986 to April, 1999. The ly case of the Bank is that he worked as стропну барвоуч and was not appointed by following nichijouent rolk Burden ofproving ofhis working more than 240 days a cach calendaryear is discharged by him and for expressli of case lawa -published in 2008 (1) LLJ SG 492,201 Gul .400,2008 (1) LLJ MP. 48, 2008 (1) LLJ Mad 43, 2007 ( 1) LLJMåd. 652. So I do not find any diffically to conclude that, 2nd Partyworked continuously from 1986 to 1999 with the Ist Party's Branch as Sopoy. So I've the Issue in the affinitive

ISSUE No. 2:

8. Ist Partymade out the case that, referase isbet tenable becausa dispute is not espoused by any Unisa It is the case of the soutagemont that, it is not industri dispute. Besides in iu chọc of the management that there's nomaster and servant rolationship between the Wikim and the Management ie. 2nd Party and the of Party. It care that, he was not regularly appointed by list Piety. S on this count it is case ofthe 1st Party that, reference i tenable . These grounds are taken by the Montagemont para-2 of the Written Stement. As for reason that dispute is not espoused by the Union, bi ity contidered view that dispute should be rapoused by Dufen only if is notnecessary. It is the dispunt of the concernedWorka regarding his employment . It is not necessary thatUnion should espouse it. Even individual Workman can approach concern bymaking grievance about his own dispute under Section 2(a) (k) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Section2 (k) which reads as under:

"Section 2 (k): " Industrial Dispete" means y dispute or difference between employers and employers, orbetween employers and workmon, or between workmta , or botwear workasın sad workanen, which is connected with the omployment ог мол-серіозиent or the lenins of employment oz, with the conditions of labour , of say ролик"

9. As per this definition, industrial dispute means any dispute, or difference between employer and eployce." It is not necessary that it should be espoused by theUnion and individual is restricted. And apert from thest, if that was the criteria, since the dispute is recommended but theCentralGovernment, ifat all the 1st Partywas'aggrieved : bydecision ofthe Central Govermarest to sent refeyonce to thisTribunal,itIt ought to challenge the said decisien before the appropriate forum or Court and Ist Party cannot challenge it here since dispute is afready referred for adjudication. Other ground taken by the 1st Party Hat there is no employce or employer relationship and to reference is not tenable has no morning an Bank admitted that, 2nd Partyworked with it from 1986 to 1999.

7.The missed regarding continuous working of2nd Party hour 1986 l 1999. Came ofthe 2nd Partyis Aut,beworkund continuonly from 1996til 20thApril, 1999 and it is the case then, he worked for every year in those yours for more than 206 days , Employior whoworked for more than 240 days in cach calendar year can claim pononcy. Chee of the concomed workanen is that he warlord for more thin 220 days bis euch calendar year from 1986 to April, 1999. This is disputed by the Ist Party in replay. To support that, 2nd Party placed reliance onthe deppalions of amplyse of the Ist Party, io. Jaswantial Vyes who depoed at Exhibit 21. He says that, he was Branch Manager at Chinchasi between 1986 to 1999.Не stame that, 2nd Party was paid under voucher. This witness is unable to rapport and Party's claim of his working for more than 200 days in auch caleader your. For that 2nd Party again examined himself at Exhibit 22 by flling un affidavit in Bou of examination- in- chief. Where he admits that he was not given appointment order . He aho admits thut, he has not signed master roll . He states that, he registered his neve in the Employment Exchange and payunt win made weekly. He states that his name was not recommended by the Employment Exchange. He also states that, no lotter of termination was given by the Bank. Ther 2nd Party placed reliance on the affidavit of Uday D. Pardo, the customer of the Bankwho filedhis deposition Bxhibit 28 where be deposed that, he knows 2ndParty working with lit Party.He states that, he was visiting that Bank flower 1967:Then 2nd Party placed relience on affidavit ofone employee of Int Party viz K. H. Oza, who is examined atExfrible 29who'states that, he knows 2nd Party workman whowas working with Chinchani Branch from 1986. One Lady was theManager in 1986 ndien 2nd Partyjoined Ist Party, Herstsins that, 2nd Party worked from 1986to1999. He staten that, Vyas rocomanded concerned workman for his porastnency. He states that, he has seen the letter like page 15 and 16 written by said BranchManager.He also still that nowober ofBranch Managers recommended 2nd party workinn . Against that Ist party examined R.M.Roddy at Exhibit 32 by filing his affidavit in lieu of Examination in Chief, who states that, he admits the copy of comeninication took between Chinchani Branch and Regional Office produced at Exhibit 12 frons pages15to 19, Evenhe admits that, he made comespondence with Regional Office for the2nd Party. Besides this evidence, 2nd Party har produced number of documents with Exhibit 12 and har given Hat ofhis working days from 1986 to 1999 which are bot worineslydisputed by the Bank. Besides copies of correspondence from page 3, and from pages 6 to 22 by which comcomedBranchManager recommended 2nd Party worktum in the employment ofthe 1st Party which is also not seriously dispated by Ist Party. Besides page 23, 2046

[PART I-Sec. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2008/VAISAKHA 13 , 1930

It may be that he worked in different category and not as per the criteria ofthe Ist Party. That does not mean that he is not a employee . But the fact is that, he worked contimiously from 1986 to 1999, So in my considered view on these counts, it cannot be observed that , reference is not maintainable as stated in para 2 (a) , (b) ofthe Written statement of the Ist Party. So I answer this issue to that effect.

ISSUE No. 3 :

25F was followed and even it is not the case of the 1st Partythat, they followed procedure ofSection 25 F before asking 2nd Party not to work with it. The case of the 1st Party is that, he was never appointed and it is he whowas never recruitedby following the procedure of recruitment. It is also the case ofthe Ist Party that , neither appointment letter was given nor termination letter was issued to the concerned Workman. All this reveals that, no provisions ofSection 25 F were followed while by taking actionbythe Ist Party. So I conclude that, provisions of Section 25F have not been followed while terminating the services of the 2nd Party, So I answer this issue accordingly.

ISSUE Nos , 4 to 6 :

11. Now question is whether action taken by the 1st Party in preventing 2nd Party not to report on duty on the ground that,he was neither appointed nor recruited by following the Recruitment Rules and since he is not terminated by given termination letter and appointed by appointment order can be legal or otherwise?

12.Here 1st Party admits that , he worked from 1986 to 1999. Ist party also admits that, he was recommended by the Branch Manager. Ist party also admits that, its superiors recommend 2nd Party and permit 2nd Partyto work as its employee. According to 1st Party when such in appointment is made , it cannot be said that the employee working on such a post can seek permanency. For that Ist party'sAdvocate placed reliance on various judgments viz. citation published in 2006 (4) SCC- I of Apex Court while deciding the appeal field by Secretary, State of Karnataka and others . Vs. Umadevi (3) and others. She also placed reliance on citation published in 2006 ( 1) SC page 667 which was laid by Apex Court while deciding case of State of U.P. vs Neeraj Awasthi and others. She also placed reliance on the decision taken by Apex Court while deciding case of Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. ys, Workman, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Published in 2007 ( 1 ) SCC page 408 and on citation published in 2006 ( 1 ) SCC page 479 ofthe Apex Courtwhile deciding appeal of UP States vs. Uday Narian Pandey . However it all those cases the places of the concerned Workmanwas in public sector services where as case before us isofvacancy in Bankwhich is rather ofa private nature, Besides in case of Unadevi and others all those employees were temporarily engaged on daily wages in Commercial TaxesDepartment in some of the district of Karnatakawho worked for more than 10 years and who claimed permanency on that basis. Even Director of Commercial Taxes recommended their absorption, however, Government did not recommend. However, in that case the work for which hewas appointed does not subsist still on the basis of the workdone by them for more than 10 years they were claiming permanency.Whereas case at hand reveals that, he worked as Sepoy at Chinchani Branch . It is not the case of the Chinchani Branch that, the post is filled in and regular 10, It is the case of 2nd Party that, since he worked for more than240 days in each calendar year , from 1986to 1999,he got protection under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 aswell as 2nd Party cannot be terminated without following due process of law and without following the procedure as laiddown under Section 25 F. Admittedly no any provision is followed by Barik given under Section 25 Fbefore preventing him to perform his duties . For that 2nd Party's Advocate placed reliance on citation published in 2005 [ 11 CLR page 1028, While deciding case of PM Yellatti ys the Assistant Executive Engineer, Apex Court observed that, ifthe Workman works continuously for more than 240days inayear such an employee is entitled to get protection and such employee cannot be terminated without following due process of law in that case concerned Workman was appointed on daily wages by the Executive Engineer on 26-11-1986. Said Workman worked upto 28-5-1994, When he was terminated he was getting salary of Rs 910/- per month. At thetime of termination he claimed that, heworked for more than 240 days in every calendar year before termination ofhis services . In that case without following provisions ofSection 25 F of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, the concerned Workman was stopped from attending his duties. Said termination was challenge by him . before ConciliationOfficer who submitted failure report and, the concerned Government sent dispute for adjudication questioning the decision of the Management in that case, "whether it is justified on which it was observed that, it was notjustified action since no provisions of Section 25 F were followed" . Even he placed reliance on citation published in 2005 II CLR page 177 where Hon'ble High CourtofBombay while deciding case ofFashion Exim India pvt. Ltd. vs Chintamani Ambolkar & anr , observed that, non compliance of Section 25 F amount to breach of provisions and action taken without following such provisions cannotbe sustained. Even same type of view is taken by Honourable Rajasthan High Court while deciding case of Keshu Lal & Anr . Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors . published in 2005 II CLR page 817 and Gujrat High Court while deciding the case of Moti Ceramic Industries vs. Jivuben Rupabai and others published in 2000 (3 ) L.LN. page 736 observed that, when employee worked for'12 years on dailywages and when his services are terminated without following due process of law it is illegal . Same view is even observed by A.P. H.C. published in 2008 (1 ) LLJ 187. So all this reveals that , no provision of Section 1847

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2008/वैशाख 13 , 1930

1stParty. So 1 conclude that, 2nd Party must get post with the 1st Party as a Sepoy. : -

15.It is a matter ofrecord that fitom 1998, 2nd Party did not work with 1st Party, Ist Party is a commercial commpany. It is looking after funds of the publicwho are depositing with it as a custodian and Bank has to take care of themoney. Such & Bank has to keep the safe custody of themoney deposited by the customers . Rather it is aweek of social nature and social Institute which renders social services, such an Institution cannot be saddled with the cost by passing order of back wages, Even it is not the case of 2nd Party that, during that period he remain unemployed and he furs suffered Financial lost. So in, my considered view, 2nd Party is not entitled for back wagés. Hencethe order:

ORDER

a) Reference is partlyallowed,

b) Ist Party is directed to take 2nd Party, Ashraf Yurus Shaikh in the employment within 90 days from the knowledge of this order. It is observed that2nd Party is not entitled for bockwages.

c) No order as to its costs.

Bombay,

Dated 14thDecember, 2007

A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer.

नईदिल्ली , 8 अप्रैल , 2008.

aitployee in working in his placed, Other citation ofApex Count published in 2006 ( 1 ) SC page 667 State of UP . vs. Neend Awasthiand others is niso on different footingas in that case, postwas also a public post whereas post with us is ofBank, Branch Manager as power to take help of employee and continuous working of the 2nd Party reveals that, therewas permanent vackercy. It also reveals that, it is ofaperennial type ofwork and nobody is working on that post . That means, still the post is lying vacant. Even recommendation made by various Branch Manager reveals that, theywere in need of a man for the post ofSepoybut caly because there was no permission to regularize him, theywere unable to regularize him . The citation referred published2007 (1 ) Indian Drugs & Pharmaceutical Ltd. va. Workman, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Published in 2007 ( 1 ) SCC pate 408. (Supra ) whereApex Court observed that, Court cannot create the post where "none exists nor, issue directions to absorb or regularize the employce. Butbere, it is not case like that type. Hore concerned Workman worked on it for a number ofyears, The citation published in 2007 ( 1 ) SCC nose 257 in case of State ofU.P. and other vx. Desh Raj is also on different footing as employees involved in that case, were appointed illegal and irregularly whereas it is not the casewith Zad Partywhich isbefore us . Besides , as referred above, citation published in2005 III CLRpage 1028 the decision was given bytheApex Court in case of P.M. Yellati vs. the Assistant Executive Engineer empower the 2nd Party to claim pennaryency byvirtue ofwork done for more than 240days in calendaryear.The another citation produce by 1stParty's Advocate,by producing copy of decision , in Writ Petition Ne 17of 2004 (Dena Barik vs. You Gooni Naik)is in my considered view in on different facts. In that case, Workan involved worked for 93 days- only whereas the employee before us has worked for more than 9 years continuously which cannot be compared with the nature ofthework done by Venu Gopal Naik involved in the said WritPetition.

का.आ. 952,--औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार केनरा बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औनिक अधिक न्यायालय बैंगलोर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 28/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुमा मा। 13.So ifwe consider all this , coupled with casemade out by botk, 1 conclude that, 2nd Party is entitled for employment with IstPuty.

[सं. एल-12012/233/2003- नाई बीना ) ]

राजिन्त्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi ,the 8th April,2008

S.O. 952 In pursuance of Section 17. of the Industrial Disputes.Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 28/2004 ofthe Cent. Govt. Indus, Tribunal - cum- Labour Coat, Banglore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank, and their workamen, received by the Central Government on 07-04- 2008

14. Besides it is not his mistake that Bank is not getting pennission to appoint him or regularize him. He cannotblame thuat, Bank has not recruited him by following dueprocess of recruitment rules . On the contrary it is brought on recordby the 2nd Party's affidavit at Exhibit 12 which reveals Bank made various efforts. All this reveals that,Bankmade recommendation from time and again but permission was not given . So question arises whether for that 2nd Party can be held responsible? In my considered view 2nd Party worked for 9 years. with the Ist Party and when he is not getting the job andwisezi he is deprived ofworking with the Ist Party only, for sake of so called sanction in my considered view he cannot be stop in claiming post with the

[No. L-12012/233/2003 -IR (B- II)] RAJINDER KUMAR, Denk Officer 2048

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2008/VAISAKHA 13 , 1930

[PART IISEC. 3( ii ) ] ANNEXURE

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

Dated: 20thMarch, 2008

admittedly worked with the management for a period of more than 240 days before he was refused work, the action of the management also amounts to illegal retrenchment in the absence of compliance of mandatory requirements of Section 25F of the ID Act. Therefore, he requested this tribunal to pass an award reinstating him in service with continuity of service and other consequential benefits.

Present: Shri A.R. SIDDIQUI, PresidingOfficer

C. R. No. 28/2004

1PARTY

: Shri Prashantha M.

S/o Mahabalelshwar,

R/oGourikeri Road, At& Post Talguppa,

Taluk: Sagar,

Shimoga Distt. Karnataka State

II PARTY

: The DeputyGeneral Manager,

CanaraBank,

D.A. Cell, CircleOffice, No. 86, M.G. Road, Banglore- 560001

AWARD

1.TheCentral Government by exercising the powers conferredby clause (d) ofsub-section 2A ofthe Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute -vide order No , L-12012/233/2003- IR(B-11) dated29-4-2004 for adjudication on the following Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank is justified in terminating the services ofShri M. Prashantha, part time employee? Ifnot, what relief theworkman is entitled to?"

3. The Management by its counter statement while, resisting the claim of the first party among other things contended that one Smt . Devanuma, the Grand Mother of the first party was appointed as part time employee at Talaguppa branch for the purpose ofcleaning and sweeping ofthe said branch premises. She retired from the services of the bank on 30-6-2000 on attaining the age of superannuation and it is consequent to her retirement , personswere engaged including the first party for the limited purpose of cleaning and sweeping of the said branch an somedays. The first party was free to do any outside work after attending the work of cleaning and sweeping ofthe said branch. His engagement was purely on daily wage basis andto meet the contingency, pending recruitinent of suitable candidate for the said post. Subsequent to the retirement ofSmt. Devamıma, Talaguppe branch was advised to forward the application from the suitable candidates for the said post and the management received eight applications but there was no application given by the first party for the said post . The management contended that as perthe regular recruitment process of the bank in respect ofengaging part time employees, persons who conformed to the prescribed norms and guidelines laid down are sponsored through Employment Exchange and they only can be engaged as regular part time employees . The management being a nationalized bank cannot deviate from the prescribed procedure in terms of recruitment of part time employees; that the first party was never appointed by the management and he does not come under the definition ofthe workman. Therefore, the provisions of ID Act are not applicable to his case. In the result, the question ofpayment of retrenchment compensation or any benefit to the first party does not arise , that as per the regular recruitment process of the second party bank, the bank has appointed suitable candidate for the post of part time employee at the said branch after calling for the applications from the suitable candidates. The management denied the contention of the first party that he worked with the said branch continuously for a period of240 days without break inservice and contended that he was being engaged in the vacancy of part time employee occasionally and intermittently and there was no continuity in his engagement . Therefore , the management requested this tribunal to reject the reference,

2. The case ofthe first party as made out, in the Claim Statement, in brief and relevant for the purpose is that he was appointed as Sweeper to attend the cleaning work on daily wage basis we.f. 1-7-2000 at Talugappa branch, Canara Bank and worked with the said branch continuouslyup till 28-2-2002. The management refused work to him w.e.f. 1-3-2002 without issuing any memo or noticeand without paying any compensation at the timeof refusal ofthe employment. His request with the management to consider his case favourably by providing him the employment vide representation dated 8-8-2002 fell on deafyears. He, then, issued a notice on 5-5-2003 but there wais no reply from the management. Therefore, he raised an industrial dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),Bangalore resulting into the failure report and then into thepresent reference proceedings . The first party therefore, contended that the action of the management in refusing him employment w.e.f. 1-3-2002 despite the fact that he workedcontinuously from1-7-2000 to 28-2-2002 was illegal and therefore , the action amounts to illegal termination of service . He contended that when he

4.During the course oftrial , the management filed an affidavit evidence of one Mr. Srikanath said to have been working as Sr. Manager at Regional Office , Shimoga. In his affidavit the witness just reiterated the various contentions f 2649

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2008/वैशाख 13 , 1930

[भाग 1] 3(li ) ]

taken by the management in its counter statement. In his further examination chief eight debit alips were markedat Ex.MI series and a register for having made payment of wages to the first party and others was marked as Ex . №2. In his cross cccaccination it was elicited that from 01-7-2000 the first partywas engaged for sweeping and cleaning purpose along with others till permanent employee was posted, it was clicited that there was no mention in his affidavit that along with the first party others were also being engaged for the said purpose during the said period. Itwas clicited that the register at Ex. M2 is in respect of personswhoworked as ' coolics' in the branch. He denied the suggestion that coolie wages were paid on monthly beria,

7. Whereas, learned counsel for the flest paisy with equal vehemence contended that the veryragisterskuwing the payment of wages to the first party produced by the management at Ex. M2 is sufficient enough to substatinte the case of the first party thathe worked with the management continuously for a period of2 years and that ineach ofthe said two calendar years he workedwith the management continuously for a period of 240 days and more. He also contended that apart from the said gainer the vouchers at Ex. M2 seriesund Wi serios producand-by the management itself must falsify the case of the management that first party did not workwith is beach in the aforesaid manner. Therefore , learned cougel submitted, that when the first party admittedly worked with,the management in the above fashion, then be fulfilled the requirement ofSection 25 (B ) ofthe ID Act and in the moult theaction ofthe management refusing him wock amounts to retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) of the ID Act becoming illegal termination there being no compliance ofSection 25F of the IDAct .

5.As against this the first party also filed the affidavit bywayofexamination chief repeating the averments made by bias in the coin statement. In his further examination chiefbe referred to the two vouchers and attendance register produced by the management and they were marked at Ex. WI and Ex. W2 series . He further referred to his representation dated 8-8-2002 and the legal notice issued on his behalf and they were marked at Ex, W3 &W4 respectively. In his cross examination he denied the suggestion that he was not being paid monthly salary of Rs. 1100 und that he was not being paid onlythe wages for the work done by hon as ind when needed . He deniedthe suggestion that he did not work with the bank continuously for a period of2 years and that he did not work continuously foraperiod of240 days in a calendar year . He also denied the suggestion that he was not one of the candidateswho hed appliedfor the said post ,

8.After having gooo through the roourds, I find substance in the arguments advanced for their fint party.. Having regardto the above said pleadings of the parties and the fact undisputed that the first party was being engaged by the management bank branch or dully wane basis, the only important point to be estalatishved in thơ thịt instance by the first party was that "whether he worked with the management continuously for aporiad of240 days ina calendar year inmediately procedingerfume of annko him by the management and if so, the notion of thic management amounts to retrenchment and illegal termination in the light ofthe provisions of Section (ου) readwich Section 25 of the ID Act . In the instit waswell argned for the first party that the fery regimer at Ex.M2 produced by the menagement will cllook the buce that the first party worked with the management continuously for a period of240 days in a colonder year immediately before his services wer's: discontamwed. A perusal of the said register pertaining to the period in question makes it abundantly clear that the services of the first party were being engaged na against the vacancyund part time employee doing the job ofsweeper and clostor right from 1-7-2000 untill 28-2-2002. Thewear which take being paid to the fint perty during the aferent pocied werebeing shown as 'coolle' all- along Find fall see the first partyadmittedly was doing the job of mercaper and cleaner, it is not understandable as to why the wages pall tothe first partywere being taken to beans coolletapas that in order to overcome the legal implications in denying thewages paid to the first party as wages paid to temporary part time eraployee, the nmsongament though منع proper to term those wages as ' coolic' as otherwise it is improbableto believe that the first party worked as ' coolie' 6. Learned counsel for the management vehemently argued that the various vouchers filed by the management marked at Ex. MI acries and WI series would make it abundantly clear that the first party was paid wages as ooolie wages for the days he was engaged at the said branchto do the job of sweeper and cleaner. He contended that the services rendered by the first party during the period in question were not continuous and that he was being engaged bythe branch intermittently andtherefore, be cannot elsim otherwise. While referring to the above saidattendance register marked at Ex. W2 which was produced by the messagement at the request of the first party, learned counsel submitted that this is the attendance register twintsleed only in respect of regular employees and therefore, name of the first party finds no mention in the said register. He argued that the services of the first partybeing engaged as and when needed and that hewas not being appointed in any capacity either temporary or permanent following the recruitment rules of the bank, he cannot claim any right much less the right ofreinstatement or take the help of provisions ofSection 25F ofthe IDAct readwith Soction 2(oo) thereof. 1438GL06-7 2050

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2008/VAISAKHA 13 , 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)]

9.Now, coming to the relief of reinstatement sought forby the first party. He admittedly having worked with themanagement on daily wage basis and there being further admission on the part of the first party that to the post he held the management has already appointed somebody else and he is working to the post, relief of reinstatement underthe facts and circumstances is neither advisable nor desirable. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the fact that the management being a nationalized bank has to followthe procedure prescribed and the rules with respect to the appointment of a temporary employee . Therefore, thefirstparty since worked as a daily wager cannot get the reliefof reinstatement to the post which has already been filled up by the management by following the required procedure prescribed for the purpose.

10.As far as the relief ofback wages concerned , the first party in his affidavit evidence before this tribunal has stated that he has no other source of income and he has been unemployed after he was refused work by the management. There has been no suggestion on behalf of the management refuting the said statement . The management also did not produce any evidence before this tribunal to suggest that the first party has been gainfully employed during the period he was away from the service of the management. However, the aforesaid bold statement of the first party cannot be taken to be a gospel truth particularly, keeping in view the fact that he wasjust working as daily wager with the bank during the aforesaid period. It just cannot be believed that the first party was all along idling his time without working and without earning his livelihood. Therefore, having kept the above said factor in the mind , the nature ofthe job the first party was doing, the daily wages he was earning while working with the management bank and the period of service he rendered with the management bank , it appears to me that ends ofjustice willbe met , if the first party is awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.1 lakh towards bis full and final settlement of the claim against the management. Hence the following award:

AWARD

The management is directed to pay a sum ofRupees One Lakh to the first party as compensation in lieu of his full and final settlement of the claim against the management . The amount shall be paid within a period of 3months from the date ofpublication of the award , or else itmust carry interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum till its realization . No costs.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 20th March, 2008)

andwas paid coolie for that . It was also weli argued for the first party that though the first party worked contiasously during the above said period he was given somme artificial break of one or two days in each of the month, whenever his services were engaged by the management. The other documents produced by the management namely, the aforesaid vouchers marked at Ex.M2 series and W1 series also speak to the fact thatthe first party was being paid wages and accordingly debit voucherswere prepared by the bank for few of the months. Ex.M2 series will reveal that these were the vouchers prepared for the wages paid to the first party from the month of July2001 onwards till the month of February 2002. The other two vouchers produced by the management are for the months of August 2000 and September 2000. It is to be noted that the management infinet did not dispute the fact that the first party was in the service ofthe management working to the vacancy of part time employee doing the job of Sweeper and Cleaner right from the month of July 2000 till the month of February 2002. Its only contention was that he did not work with the management continuously and that his services were being engagedby the management as and when they were needed.As already discussed above, the payment register at Ex.M2 makes it abundantly clear that the services of the first partywere being engaged in every month of the aforesaid two years all along and he was being given break in service for one or two days every month , artificially, inorder to overcome the legal implications, the management apprehended of facing in future. Therefore, this being an artificial break in service, the management cannot be allowed to take up the contention that the services of the first party were not continuous so as 10 attract the provisions of Section 2(00) read with Section 25F of the IDAct . As noted above , admittedly the management did not comply with the provisions of Section 25F ofthe ID Act, as noted above, the first party being in service of the management in the aforesaid period therefore, has fulfilled the requirement of continuous service of 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding refusal of work to him by the bank. The first party has fulfilled the requirement of Section 25B ofthe ID Act, therefore, it was incumbent on the part of the management to have complied the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act before the services of the first partyweredispensed with. In the result , the action of the managentent amounts to retrenchment as defined under Section 2 (oo) of the ID Act, resulting int illegal termination forwant of compliance of Section 2 : F ofthe IDAct. Therefore, there is no hesitation for this tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the action of the management in terminating the services ofthe first party was illegal and void abinitio.

A. R. SIDDIQUL, Presiding Officer भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3, 2008/बैसाख 13 , 1930

SCHEDULE

नई दिल्ली, ४ अप्रैल , 2008

"Whether the action ofthe management ofNew Port Trust in imposing a punishment of rebutim of increment on the workanan Sari Ajith Kumar in the 1993 for absence without permission isjust one ? not,what reliefthe workman is entitled for?"

कर.अ. 253. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 पर 14) को लय 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार न्यू मंगलोर (पोर्ट ट्रस्ट ) के तंत्र के संनियोजकों और उनको कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुर्धन में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक 'अधिकारण श्रम व्यायलय, बंगलोर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 47/2007) यने प्रस्तशित कराती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-45011/5/2006 -आईआर (बी -11 ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 8th April, 2008

2. In response to the notions into the bothofthemmade appearance through counsels on 27- 2007. Thereupon, the matter came to be posted for filing of the claim statement by the first party adjourning the caм for the said purpose up till 22-02-2008, Nokther the first party nor the counsel representing him tarned up or filed the claim statement. Thánâng điểm asnot filed and the case was ponede Statement by the management and in the managem alsodid not choose to filo the counter , the com is posted for awurd.

50. 955. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmathereby publishes the award (Ref. No. L. D.47/ 2007) ofthe Central Goverminentbudustrial Tribuniel-cum- Labour Court, Bungloce as shown in the Annexurs in the Industriel Diepute between the management ofNew Manglore Port Trust and their workmen, received by the Contral Government 7-4-2008. on

[No. 1-45011/3/2006- IR(B- II) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Dated:27th March, 2008

Present: Shri A.R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer

3.As couldbe read from the reference schodule, the primary burden was cast upon the mangerment to jentify its action imposing the panikusent in question for the alleged misconduct of authorized sbeence commented by the fust party. However, since the first party hinwolf. has not choosen to come forward and flie the claim statement challenging the above said action of the management making out the grounds, the manager : notsupposed to justify the above said action, After having raised the dispute and getting the diepate referend to this tribunal it was, bounden duty for the first party to have challenged the action ofthe pangement by filing his claim statement making out a case as to why the action of the management is not justified. Therefore, in the light ofbis conduct, the only inference to be drawnwould be that he is no more interested in prosecuting the proceedings. In the result, there is no point in keeping the matter pending anymore and hence the following award:

C.R.No.47/2007

AWARD

The reference stands rejected. No costs.

IPARTY

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her cemented and signedby me on 27th March,2008)

A. R. SIDDIQUI, Presiding Officer : The General Secretary, NewMangalore PortStaff Asson, NearNMPT Adan. OfficeBuilding, Panambur , MANGALORE-575010

नई दिल्ली , 8 अप्रैल , 2008

PARTY

का.आ. 954. ओनिक निवारनिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 : The Chairman, NewMangalore Port Trust, Panambur, MANGALORE-575010

AWARD

का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुस्मन में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिीिट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संकट नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औक्रोनिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकारक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यापाराम मोरटर्न 20243 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-4-2008 को अ हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/189/2002 -आईआर( 1 ) ]

राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेक्ना अधिक The Central Governthent by exercising the powers conformedby clause (d) of sub-section 2A ofthe Section 10 ofthe IndustriaiDisputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute videorderNo.1-45011/5/2006- IR(B- II) dated 19th February, 2007 for adjudication on the following schedule:

2052

[PART II-SBC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2008 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1930

NewDelhi , the 8thApril, 2008

S.O. 954.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 20/2003 of the Central Government Indus . Tribunal - cum-Labour Court,Banglore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 7-4-2008.

[No. L- 12012/189/2002-IR(B- II)]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Dated:31stMarch, 2008

Present: Shri A.R. SIDDIQUI , PresidingOfficer

C.R. No. 20/2003

I PARTY

: Shri Prahlad Shatwaji Ingale (Sincedeceased, Rep.by LRs)Ghataprabha Taluk, Gokak, Belgaum District Karnataka State.

PARTY

reported the matter to the appropriate authorities and in the result, the very action of the management in holding thedepartmental enquiry to ascertain the fact as to whether the first partybelonged to the Scheduled Caste or notwas without anyjurisdiction having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in catena ofcases. He contended that findings were also bad for the reason that the enquiry officer relied upon certain documents without any proof and the photostat copy of the certificate in the absence of original caste certificate. The enquiry officer further did not properly consider the various contentions taken by the first party and relying upon unacceptable documentary and oral evidence proceeded to hold that charges leveled against the first party are established. The first party then challenged the disciplinary proceedings followed by the enquiry report on the ground that the management was fully aware of the original suit filed by himbefore the JMFC, Gokak in OS No. 75/1997 and also the fact that he had raised the dispute before the Hon'bleHigh Court by way of Writ Petition earlier to filing ofthe said suit. Therefore, the first party contended that having regard to the above said facts and the service of more than 20 years rendered by the first party with unblemished record, the management was not justified in passing the impugned punishment order . Therefore , he requested this tribunal to set aside the dismissal order with a direction to the management to reinstate him in service with continuity of service and other consequential benefits.

: TheAsstt. General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Zonal Office, Syndicate Towers, Udupt , Karnataka State.

AWARD

1.The Central Government by exercising the powers conferredby clause (d) of sub-section 2A ofthe Section 10 ofthe IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute videorderNo. L-12012/ 189/2002-1R(B- II) dated 17th March 2003 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank in dismissing the services of Shri Prahlad Sharwaji Ingalevide order dated 21-10-1997 is legal and justified? If not , what relief the concerned workman is entitled to"?

3. The management by its counter statement, while, justifying the impugned punishment order asjust and legal , the enquiry proceedings as conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the findings of the enquiry officer as based upon sufficient and legal evidence , on facts however , contended that in the matter of recruitment and other related matters the bank is required to follow the Government of India guidelines making it obligatory on the part of the bank to follow the reservation policy in employment and promotion to certain categories like SC/ST, Ex- serviceman , Minority Community and other backward castes. The management, then, contended that in the case on hand the first party produced a false certificate stating that he belonged to scheduled caste and secured the appointment against the vacancy reserved for Scheduled Caste , though , he in fact did not belong to the said category and obtained undue benefit which was not otherwise available to him. The management contended that while joining the service as Attender in the year 1976 the first party had submitted application dated 6-12-1976 seeking the appointment to the above said post declaring that he belonged to the Scheduled Caste. He had produced acertified copy of the certificate dated 30-8-1976 said to have been issued by the Tahsildar, Jamkhandi declaring thathe belonged to backward community under ' A ' Group. He then appeared for the promotion test on 10-9-1989 2.The first party, while challenging the impugned punishment order dated 21-10-1997 dismissing him from service as unjust and illegal , challenged the enquiry proceedings on various grounds alleging that it was not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice (pleadings with regard to the enquiry proceedings omitted as there is separate finding on the of preliminary issue on the said point) . He also challenged the enquiry findings as perverse and arbitrary on the ground that in case ofany discrepancy in the caste declared by him, the bank does not get any jurisdiction to investigate into the matter as it comes within the jurisdiction of the Revenue authorities . Therefore, at best the management could have 2053 [ पन -खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2008/वैशाख 13 , 1930

against the vacancy reserved for Scheduled Castes. However, in the year 1995 the management came to know that 'Gondhali Caste' does not come under SC category and the first party belonged to backward community . Therefore, the management issued a charge sheet dated 5-6-1995 in that respect and when the explanation submitted by the first party to the charge sheet was not found satisfactory, adepartmental enquiry was conducted, duly participated by him taking the assistance ofDR and it is after the findings ofthe enquiry officer holding him guilty ofthe charges and ufter having followed the necessary procedure in, firnishing copy of the findings to the first party, getting his explanation thereon and after giving him an opportunity ofpersonal hearing be was rightly andjustly removed frum service . Therefore , the nienagementjustified the impopood punishment order as well the fairness, and validity ofthe crieptiry proceedings and the findings of the enquiry officer and requested this wibunal to reject the refrence.

4. Keeping inview the respective contentions ofthe pazitjos with regard to the validity and Cairness or otherwise of the enquiry proceedings , this tribunal on 22-8-2005 framedthe following prelisninary issue:

7.Thelearned counsel for the first party, veluently. argued that the management was in the first instance not justified much less had jurisdiction to go into probing of authenticity of the alleged caste certificate produced by the first party and it was the appropriate autisority tomely. the revenue authority which was having jurisdiction over the matter. Learned counsel in order to prove his point that it was the revenue authority having jurisdiction over the matter, cited thedecision reported in AIR 1995 SC page 54 and adecision reported in 1998 Lab IC Page 66 and alap an award dated 31-1-2006 passed by the second Additional Labour Court, Bangalore. His contention was that asper theabove decisions there was a direction by the Supremie Court toallthe stateGovernments to constituae a comentee into the verification and issuance ofsocial status certificate like.SC/ST certificate and it is the said committee which was competent to go into the matter and to decide as to whether any such social status certificate issued for the purpose ofeducation or for appointment purpose was valid orauthenticated certificate or not .The leamed couruel in this regard also toole support of the inreported decisiont of ourHon'ble High Court in WA No. 4452/95 clubbed with4453/95dated30-7-1997 found mention in the adoresaid award passed by the Labour Court.

"Whether the Domestic Enquiry conducted against the first party by the second party is fair and proper".

8.Whoress , the learned counsel for the parungerment supported the enquiry findings and contended that the management was perfectly and legally justified in conducting departmental enquiry to find out the validity and ausbesticity of the caste certificate produced by the first party, after having come to know that be misrepresinted and played freed upon the management in sicering the employment by producing a false certificate.

9. After having gone through the records, more particularly, the aforesaid decisions of their loodship of Supreme Court and the passages from the aforesaid uweported decision in the writ appeals of our Hon'ble HighCourt referred in the aforesaid award, I find substance in the arguments advanced for the first party. Their Lordship ofSupreme Court in the aforesaid first case laid down certain procedures as under:

5. During the course of trial of the said issue, the management produced the enquiry officer as MWI and got marked six documents at Ex. W1 to W6 including the enquiry findings . When, the matter stood for cross examination ofMMW1 on 10-10-2006, learned counsel for the first party filed a meno conceding the fairness of enquitywith a permission to lead evidence on other issues. Accoedingly, DE issue was wwwcred is favour of the managemont, permission was given to the first party to file his affidavit on other issues and he was cross examined on thevery sanse date. There was no evidence to be let on the other point by the management and therefore, case carme tobe posted to hear arguments on merits. After having beard the learned counsels for the respective parties, the matter, thus, is posted for award.

6. Now, therefore, in the light of the above finding recorded by this tribunal on the DE inue in favour ofthe menagement, the important points , now, to be considered wouldbe:

L "Whether the managerment was justified in conducting a departmental enquiry against the first party into the controversy in question.

Whether the enquiry findings suffered from any perversity, ifso,

"Regarding issuance, scrutiny, and approval ofthe caste certificata social status certificate, The Hon'blo Suprotne Court directed all the StateGoven to coustituse a comesittee ofthree officers, atmaly an additional orjoint socretary or any officer higher in rank of the director of the cancomed department, (II) the Director , Social Welfare Tribal Welfare/ Backward Class Welfare, ta the case may be, and (III) in the case of SC anothes officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuence of the social status certificates , The Hon'ble SC further directed thiet in the case of the ST, the Ressach Officerwho has intimate knowledge in the verificatida and issuance of the social status certificates be included. The Hon'ble SC has further stated in the Whether the dismissal order passed against the first party is illegal and unjust, if so, what reliefs the first party is entitied for." 2054

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2008 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1930

followingway as to what should be done as soon as the findings is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee:

As soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate obtained was false , on its cancellation and confiscation simultaneously , it should be communicated to the concerned educational institution or the appointing authority by registered post with acknowledgement due with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment . The Principal etc. of the educational institution responsible for making the admission or the appointing authority , should cancel the admission/ appointment without any further notice to the candidate and debar the candidate for further study orcontinue in office in a post . Thus it is evident from the principle laid down in the above cited case law that it is only specially constituted committee which is empowered to declare a caste certificate issuedby &concerned authority as false and not an enquiry committee set up by the management."

Inthe aforesaid second decision , their Lordship of SC made a reference to the observations made by the Hon'ble High Court ofMadras as under:

"It is settled law that a caste community certificate issued by an empowered public authority under seal continues to be a valid document till it is cancelled by the said authority or by his superior authority, The contents in the certificate are to be treated as correct and every public authority, undertakings , bodies institutions , etc , which are bound by instructions relating to such certificates are bound to act upon them, so long as they are not cancelled. It is alsowell settled by many decisions ofourHigh Court and also by the Apex court that in no disciplinary proceedings , the genuineness or correctness of their contents can be gone into." OurHon'bleHigh court in the aforesaid unreported decisions in the writ appeals made the following observations:

"These two appeals arise out of a common order madebythe learned single judge in two writ petitions . The respondents in each of these cases are employed in the establishment of the appellant . They claimed that they belongto Kotegara caste which is notified as a scheduled caste by the President in terms of Article341 ofthe Constitution of India. However , on verification, the applicant found that they belonged toRama Kshatriya caste and therefore, the claim made by them was false that they belonged to SC. The basis upon which the respondents had claimed that belong to SC was a certificate issued by Tahsildar in terms ofan executive order issued by the Governmen ofKamataka . The learned single judge took the view

[PART II-SEC- 3 ( ⅱ) ] that when the certificate has been issued by the concerned authority, it was not open to the bankto question the correctness of the same and that certificate could be corrected only by the concerned authority and for this proposition , he placed reliance upon the decision in WP 1235/83 and 1236/83 on 1-8-1994 by the High Court of Judicature ofMadras . The other contention raised that whether the appropriate authority has passed the order or not and whether there was due application of mind to the relevant facts may all pale into insignificance ip the view we propose to take in these matters.

So far as the basic question raised in these cases is concerned, it is a matter over which the SC had expressed sufficient concerned and in Madhuri Pail & Anr . Vs. AddI . Commr. Tribal Development and others AIR 1995 SC 94. The SC examined the entire matter and indicated the procedure for issuance of social status certificate for members belonging to SC/ST on having found the present procedure adopted by the authorities concerned was wholly unsatisfactory. Based on that decision this court in WP18012 / 89 and connected matters disposed of on 27-1-1995 gave certain directions . Based on this direction, the Government has now constituted a committee by a notification issued on 8-9-1995. The security committee will have to examine the question whether a person belongs to SC/ST or otherbackward classes ie, as indicated by the SC to issue an appropriate certificate regarding social status. In the circumstances , the appropriate course: tobe adopted in these cases is to quash the order made by the appellant, reinstate the respondents in their original employment and refer the matter to the concerned committee to verify whether the certificate issued by the Tahsildar is appropriate and await its decision before taking any further steps in the matter."

- 10.Therefore, in the light of the above said principles and the observations made by their Lordship of SC and our Hon'ble High Court , it becomes crystal clear that the procedure adopted by the management in initiating DE against the first party into the controversy in question was highly and totally incorrect as the jurisdiction to go into the matter was resting with the aforesaid committee to be formed by the State Government under the aforesaid notification dated 8-09-1999. As could be read from the records , the impugned punishment order against the first party has been passed somewhere in the year 1997 when the aforesaid notification was very much in force and in vogue. Therefore , conducting of DE against the first party into the above matter was in violation of the aforesaid notification and the guidelines provided therein and then dismissing the first party in the light of the findings of the enquiry officer as argued for the first party was again [ I--कप 3( ) ]

2055

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2008/पैसाख 13 , 1930

his Civil suit and to raise the dispute in accordance with the provisions of ID Act. The first party since litigated beforethewrong forum in the Grat instance by filing a WP and then by filing a Civil suit wisting about 4 to 5years period, he cannet be granted any relief of backwages for theaforesaidperiod. With regard to the subsequent period. Le, from the date of the reference made before this tribunal on 17-03-2003 uptill the dateof his doush which.topkplace on11-09-2004, he must get full back wages, there being any evidence produced on behalf of the amenint to suggest that he has been gainfully employed during the said period . As noted above, the first party was reported tobe dead during the pendency of the proceedings, his LRshave been brought on record. Therefore, the relief of the aforesaid back wages has to be made in favour of the LRs of the deceased workman and hence the following award:

AWARD

The management is directed to pay full backwages to the LRs ofthe deceased workman for the period in between 17-03-2003 and-11-09-2004 with all other benefits including the benefit ofcontinuity ofservice.

No costs.

A. R. SIDDIQUL, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, ४ अप्रैल , 2008

का.आ. 955.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 को 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुखरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के मीत्र्य , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालयं चण्डीगढ़ नं.-2 के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 801 /2KS ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-4-2008- को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/142/2003 - आई आर ( बी-1 ) अवय कुझर, डेस्क अकि

New Delhi, the Sth April, 2008 certainly illegal and unjust liable to be set aside as arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. That apart, here is the case where the management has not taken a contention that the first party cheated the revenue authorities concerned in obtaining a false certificate declaring him of ' Gondhali Custe' and then securing the job in the bank by making a false representation. On the other hand as noted above, it is the case ofthe management that the first party secured the job showing himself belonging to the said Gondhali cante coming under the category of SC and that said Gondhali Caste itself, did not fall under SC categtry. Wheat the said Gondhali Caste does not come under the definition of SC, then , it is not understandable as to what made the management to act upon the said certificate of the first party and to give him the benefit ofSC appointing him under the reservation policy. Therefore, when the management acted upon the above said certificate showing that the first partybelonged to Gondhali Caste, assuming that Gondhali caste came under the category ofSC then, now it cannot be allowed to contend that the first party made misrepresentation ofhis said caste and secured the employment falsely under the reservation quota . The first party in fact as noted above submitted the certificate saying that he belonged to SC. Therefore , in the first instance the revenue authorities committed wrong in certifying that the said caste carne under the category of SC- and it is thereafter the management committed a mistake in acting upon the said certificate and giving the appointment to the first party under reservation quota treating him as belonging to the SC. Therefore , after having committed such eblunder and after having slept over the matter for aperiod of over 20 years , in my opinion the management was notjustifiedin coming out with the charge againsา the first party for the misconduct alleged. Therefore , in the light of the above, there is no hesitation in the mind of this tribunal to come to the conclusion that the findings of the enquiry officer suffered from perversity. In the result, it goes without saying that the impugned punishment order passed by the management on the basisof those findings was bad and illegal. The first party has been reported to be dead somewhere in the year 2004 itself. Now, therefore , the question of any further enquiry to be conducted against him by the aforesaid committee under the said notification does not survive. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid findings and the fact that the first party expired during the course ofthe pendency of the present proceedings , relief of reinstatement also does not survive.

S.D. 955.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Govemment hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 8011 2K5 ) of Central Governument Industrial Tributusi- cum- LabourCourt- II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India, and their workanen , received by the Centrul Government on 8-4-2008.

11. Now comingto the question of back wages.As seen above, the first party canse to be dismissed from service byorderdated21-10-1997 and whereas , he appears tohave rained thedispusewith the conciliation authority concerned somewhere subsequent to 28-09-2001 when be withdrew

[No. L- 12012/142/2003-IR(B- 1)) AJAY KUMAR, Desk Offices 2056

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 3, 2008/VAISAKHA 13 , 1930

[PART 1 Sec. 3(il)] ANNEXURE

CENTRAL COVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT-IL, SECTOR 18-A, CHANDIGARH

PresidingOfficer : SHRI KULDIP SINGH

Case 1.D. No: 801/2005

Registered on; 6-9-2005

Date ofDecision: 14-03-2008

Gurdeep Singh

C/oGeneral Secretary,

StateBank of India Staff Congress (Chandigarh Circle) 3030/1, Sector 44 -D, Chandigarh.

Petitioner

Versus

AGM, StateBank of Iridia,

Region L, Zonal Office Punjab , Sector 17 , Chandigarh.

20-11-92 is just and legal ? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled to and from which date?" After getting the notice the workman filed statement of claim to which the Management filed the written statement. They denied all the claims made by the workman and stated that the workman had willfully abandoned the job and did not report forduty for194days during 1990-92 . They supported their claim with the affidavit of the respondent . The workman also filed his affidavit, but thereafter be did not come to prosecute his case . The averments made by the parties have remained not proved as the workman has not come in thewitness box to stand to the cross-examination of the Management. Except the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits ofthe workman and the respondent, there is no evidence on record to show that it is the Management which had terminated the services of the workman on 20th ofNov, 1992 and that order was not just and legal . On record I do not find any evidence in support ofclaim ofthe workman . The averments made by him in the affidavit are rebutted by the Management by counter affidavit. In the circumstances the workman has failed to prove that the Management had terminated his services on 20-11-1992 illegally.He is therefore , not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered against him and the award is passed.

Respondent

APPEARANCE

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

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer For the Worloman : Mr. Arun Kumar Batra , Advocate.

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल , 2008

For the Management : Messrs . Tilak Raj Arora and Sanjeev K. Arora , Advocates

AWARD

का. आ. 956. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ त्रावनकोर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , इरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई. डी. 12/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/80/2005- आई आर( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi ,the 8th April,2008

The Parties continue to be absent. They were not present even on the last and last but one dates. The parties have behaved in the same fashion on earlier dates also. Theworkman last attended the Tribunal on 19th ofMarch , 2007, Thereafter he did not bother to come to attend to his case. On his behalf Shri A. K, Batra, Advocate appeared and filed his memo ofappearance, but he failed to file his authority letter to appear, therefore, his presence was not acknowledged on 22-8-2007, Thereafter also the workinan has not appeared nor has produced any evidence. It gives rise to believe that the workman is not interested to prosecute his case.

S.O. 956.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2005) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court , Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank ofTravancore, and their workmen, received by the Central Goverzumem on 8-4-2008 .

[No. L-12012/80/2005- IR(B- 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer The Ministry of Labour , Government of India vide thetrOrder No L- 12012/ 142/2003 -IR (B- 1 ) dated 7th ofNov, 2003 desired ofthis Tribunal to adjudicate upon "Whether the action of the Asstt . General Manager, State Bank of India, Region-1 , Punjab, Chandigarh in terminating the services of Shri Gurdeep Singh, Ex- Messenger w.e.f.

2057

[भाग -3(H) ]

भारत का राजपत्र मई , 2008/वैशाख 13, 1930

ANNEXURE

and excessive . According to the mingit has committed serious misconduct endodocoryca ne leniency is the matter ofprodu

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

5. In the light ofthe above cottentions the points arise forconsideration: done the following Present:

Shri P. L. Norbert, B. A., LL. B., PresidingOfficer

1. Is theworkman guilty? Ifso, towhat extent?

1. Whether the ping ?

(Thursday the lith day ofDeaanbaar2007/15th Aprahayees1929):

3. Towhat reliefs, if mythewodn ED. 12/2005

Discussion

: C. Rameran, Leela Nivas, NewNES Block, Vettlyoor KaviP.O

Thiruvananthapuram -13.

6. PointNo. 1 Two and26-3-2003 consisting of 14 changls welo kh workman, Ext. MI is theEnquiryairy File, Part 1 of Ext.Mi contains memano of chargescharges dated 04-02-2003

ByAdv., Sri . C. Anil Kumar

90, 40 acrem was dead.by Munsiff's Court, Thirumahp

": The Manging Director , StateBank ofTravuncore HeadOffice, Poojara, Thiruvanantap - 12.

ByAdv. Sri .Paulson

(2) Ori25-07-2002the world flour permission find was invited infor with oütsiders. ייןידני C.Varghese

This case coming up for final hearing on 06-12-2007, thisTribenial - cum-LabourCourt on 11-12-2007 passed the following

AWARD

Facts

(3) The worker, had complained to the Br was sent in the letter pad of apad of a political organization ofwhich the worker yer the pond Secretarys It is without permission of the bankby that the werker had assumed the chiκες. of General Secretary

(4) The workorhad mirared the whowhite bank is mating troumplein to thang

and canberrasitfurb The workman hat golề tổ Univerny Cholest House in search ofathing the work in the bank

(6) The workman bad gontimed on apprcy ofUniversity Authorities and the mode of allotting rooms in the quant houες ποπusing the status of an imp الله

The worleman Shrikemesan wom a poosinf State Bit ofTravessore for 22 years . While se in 2003 he was change-showed for misconduct of issuing choques without sufficitat frode bu his account, derasading and sooosting Teilbe promisingcomployment in the bank, guaranteeing a lomwithout permission ofthe bank and induring Hability in a loan transaction leading to arrest warrant in execution ofdecree. Adomestic enquiry was conducted and hewas found guilty of 11 charges and partly guilty of 3 charges. TheDisciplinary Authority however did not fully ap with the findings ofnas of Enquiry Officer and heldthat all the charges stood fully proved The Disciplinary Authority thereafter imposed a punishment of dismissal from service. Inappeal the worker did not succeed. Hence the reference. agree

(7) to (16) The worker land issued choques 46 creditors for vir tolera Kad returned for corre recount.

(11 ) The worker, had demandy R4. 45,000, from Sri K. Shall no pent in beak

2. The woekanan has challenged the validity of onquiry on different grounds. The question was decided neaprelinajomy issue and found that the enquiry is vitiated for vinintion ofthe principles ofnatural justice. Thorçafter the sopangerunt adduced fresh evidence to establish the changes and deface side two adduced evidence in support the defence contention .

(12) The workmanducatom avalled by 3... B withest permission ordio bald

3.The evidence consists of the oral testimony of MWs. I to 6 and decutionary evikinod ofBats..M 1 to M4(2) on the side of management and Wwland Ext. WI on the alde ofworknes

(13) The workman bad daemunali smo nachh Rs. 50,000 hoà SH S. Xaychumar for his son in bank

4. Accordingto the workman there are no materials to support the charges. The punishment imposed is harsh 1438G/08-8 2058

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2008/VAISAKHA 13 , 1930

[PART II SEC. 3(1)] (14) The worker had taken Sri S. Jayakumar to the houses of certain persons telling the latter that theywere high officials of the bank who would conduct the recruitment and showed some copies ofappointment orders with the intention of making pecuniarygain.

7. Accordingto the bank these acts are prejudicial tothe interest of the bank and are willful insubordination, disobedience of lawful and reasonable order of the management, neglect ofwork, breach of rule ofbusiness of the bank and incurring debes to an extent consideredby the management as excessive.

At the same time he admits that prior permission of the Mamagerwas necessary to arrest. But he says that neither policehadmet him nor was he aware ofany criminal case against the worker and the arrest warrant was issued in a civil case.It appears that MWS mistook Amin for police . Therewas no occasion for Amin to seek police help to execute the arrest warrant . There is no evidence or case for the management that Amin was accompanied by police . Since Amin was in civil dress and had first met the manager forthepurpose ofexecution of arrest warrant, there was no chance for attracting anybody's attention about the arrest . The liability arose in a civil case. The management, has not been able to point out which Rule or Regulation or instruction orprovisions ofBipartite Settlement is breached bytheworker by causing an arrest warrant to be issued by &civil court. There is no evidence to show that Amin had been searching for the worker all over the premises ofthe bank or the worker had resisted the arrest and the Amin had tried to overpower him which created scene in the bank and the incident was watched curiouslyby the customers . In the above circumstances I hold that the fundings ofEnquiry Officer regarding charges 1 and 12 are not based on materials and therefore cannot stand.

10. Charges 2 to 6 relate to a series ofacts in respect ofthe same incident, namely that the workman had gone out without permission during duty, that he was involved in altercation with outsiders , that he had chased his adversaries up to University Guest House, that he had complained toRegistrar of University about the incident in University campus. In his official capacity as General Secretary of a political organisation, that he had not obtained permission of bank to become an office bearer of the organization, and that he was imputing to Registrar underhand dealings in allotment of guest house rooms.

8. Charges 1 and 12 are in respect of the same transaction, namely, standing guaranty for Sint. S. Geetha Kumary.The allegation is that the workman stood guarantee without permission of the bank for Smt. S. Geethakumary in a chitty transaction and created an unpleasant situation in bank by causing an arrest warrant to be issued by the court. Ext. M 1 page 13 contains Photostat copy of Application Form ofguarantor . The subscriber ofchitty is Smt. S. Geetha Kumary. Ramesan is the guarantor. Hehad agreed for recovery from his salary in case of default of kuri instalments by Sant. S. Geethakumari . An Employment Certificatewithdetails of salary ofRamesan was issuedby the then Manager of the bank. The purpose of salary certificatewas for guaranteeing a chitty transaction. This is evident from Ext . M 1 page 13 and 14. MW5 was the Manager ofKerala University office campus Branch of S. B. T. where the workonan was working . He admits that application form containing a format of salary certificate was filled up and issued by Manager and the purpose of the certificate was for standing guaranty in a chitty transaction. At the same time he says that the worker had stnod guaranty without the permission of the bank. The version ofMW5 cannot be correct in the light of documents at pages 13 and 14ofExt. Ml .As per records the bank had given permission to the workman.

9. An urest warrant was issued by Principal Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram in execution of decree in O.S. 389/96. The decree is in respect of the aforementioned chitty transaction of Smt . Geethakumary. Amat was brought by Amin of the Court to the bank. The workerwas not found there. Hence Amin returnedwithout enforcement of urest warrant. At that time MW5 was the Branch Manager. He says that the worker conting to know about the arrest warrant, took leave and left the bank and obtained a stay order from the High Court. But the attempt ofAmin to execute arrest warrant created a some in the bank. But he admits in the cross examination thit Amin had first met him before trying to execute the warrant.He also admits that he had granted leave to the workman on 25-07-2002. He has also a case that the officer who had tried toarrest the workman was not the Amin, but police.

11. On the date ofthe incident on 25-07-2002 MW4 Smt, Sudhamani the Deputy Manager was in charge ofthe Branch Manager. She says that worker had gone out on that day tround noon without her permission. According totheworkman (WWI) since the branch was in University office campus staff from different branches used to make requests to enquire about degree certificates, mark lists, examination details etc. of their children. On 25-07-2002 astafffrom Kollam Branch had made a similar request to enquire about the migration certificate ofhis daughter. The workman thus with the permission of MW4 had been to the University on 25-07-2002. However he does not name the staffofKollam Branch who had made the request and has not cited him as a witness . MW4 says that she had not asked WWI to enquire about the academic details of any student on that day. If the version of the workman were true he could have found out the staff who had made the request and disclosed his name . There is no evidence to show that the workman had obtained permission to go out on25-07-2002 . The statement of Deputy Manager (MW4) therefore is more probable and believable. The conduct of 2050

3 , 2006/13,1930

the worten Jorving the place ofduty without permisis amounts to neglect ofwerk.

proper channel (the bank) , as the incident had happened during duty time. It is amisconduct ofbranch of any rule of business of the bank or instruction for the running ofway department as perBipartite Soulement.

12. Regarding altercation with outsiders the explanation ofworker to memo ofcharpes is that whenbe was on his way to University office to enquire about the migration certificate ofa child of a staff ofthe beak some students haud natacked his and manhandled him. His version in the box is that while he was on his way to waiversity offico sense students belonging toS. F. L. chased by palice, haud senind the University compound wall fram outside and on seeing the workar and his friend doomed in handleam clothes, atinckend them and best them.

15.The complaint was seat in his official capacityas General Socretary of "Bharathiya Dalit Congress (1) and inthe letter pad ofthe organisation (vide page 5ofExt.Mil). Theworker adanite that the organisation is it Dalitwing Congress (1)(page-23 of WWI) . No permission was adught from the bank before taking charge of the post of an office boarer ofan organization ofa political party. It is abreach ofthe rule ofbusiness of the bank or baiks instruction es per clause 19.7(d) ofBiparthe Settl

16.The next allegation is that the worker had quado www.rapted comments in the complaint against officers.of the University alloging irregular and illegal allotment of University guest house roome: The Registrar forwarded the complaint to the Zonal Manager ofthe bank with an endorsement on the complaint as follows:- "I should not be put to trouble by your employes on crintined cheer". It appears that Registrar was annoyed by the allegatione in thecomplaint. Theworker instead of therely complaining about the incident of assaultby students, had tried to tread on Registrer's toes . Since the bank wis functioning inUniversity campus, the main otstomer wir the Univoraky. Itwas improper for the worker to have cant aspersions στι Registrar or imputing underkand dealings on officers of University in allotting guest house rooms. It is sast prejudicial to the interest of the biak falling within cla 19.5(j) ofBipartite Settlersent.

M'W4 admits that none ofthe staff orofficers ofthe bank hadwitmemed the incident. She came to know ofthe incident from the workanın himself as well as from castomers. The worionan does not admit that there was any altercation. On the same day ofthe incident the worker kadsuburimed a complaint to MW4 . It was forwardedby hertoZonal office on the next day. That complaint is not produced by the management. On the next dayhe had sent acomplaint to the Registrar ofUniversity ofKorale about the incident. Copy ofthe complalat is contained in Ext. M1 page 5 to 7. The worker has the same version in the complaint shout the incident, namely, that he was beaten by S. F. I. students. The very reason why he made a complaint to the Ragistine is bocaman ofthe involvement of students in the incident. Nobody except the management tells phout altercation. From where did the management obtain this information is not known. Whereas complaint sant toRegistrar and the explanation to memo of charges reveal that there was no altercation,but it was a nob attack without provocation. The reason for the attack is that the worker andhis friend wore mersbers ofcongress party. In the clecomstances the version ofworker alone can be true. The worlonas therefore, is no way responsible for the incident and hehas not cominitod any act of indiscipline.

13. The next allegation is that he had chased the students to University Guest House , Nobody has soоси this part ofthe insident. But the worker admits that hehad been to guest house along with the staffofthe guest house. But that is not a misconduct. He had not misbehaved or committed any criminal act in the guest house. The only misoninduct that he has committed is that lie bed gone to guest house during duty hours without permission oftho bank for which there is a spanie chege as mentioned

14.The next allegation is that he had complainedto the Registrar of University about the incident directly. But the case ofworker is that the complaint given first to MW4 was net acted upon by her until the next day and that too aseelyby forwarding it to Zonal office.Henceon 26-7-2002he made a complaint to the Registrar of University directly.Whatever be the reason the complaint shouki kave been forwarded to the Registrar through

17. Charges7 to 10 relate to insuence of cheques and dishonor of choques for want of suffleient Bands. Twe cheques even dated 20-7-2002 for Rs. 3,000 each were isaodbytheworker . Theywere presented on 25-07-2002 for clearance.But they were returned forwant of finds in hisaccount. Ext.Mi pags- 115 is choque Rotara Regiour. It.. shows that cheque No. 5886 & 8595 bank on 23-07-2002 and again on 25-07-2002 and were returned for want of sufficient funds in the account. Accordingto the worker the choques were presented according to the convenience of the creditors . Whenbe cameto know that cheques were returned , he met the creditors on the next day and settled the treactiva However süblequirt settlementwill not expunge the nice ofmisconduct. Page 118 ofExt.Mél is copy of statement of account of the worker. It shows that between 17-07-2002 and30-07-2002 the balance in his account was Ra . ロー P1.5 and maxims Rs . 607 Ps.5 . Therefore at the time be kad issued the choques there was se sufficient beken So also when chequee were presented twice on 23-07-2002 and25-07-2002 there was no sufficient belange. The rem of these two cheques were reported to Zonal officerend AssistantGeneral Mamager by the Branch Manager. Th be,bas committed the misconduct of ipourring debts.ton 7 2060

[PART 1 Sec . 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2008/VAISAKHA 13 , 1930

extent considered by the management as excessive falling under clause 19.7 ( 1 ) ofthe Settlement.

about Sreekumar . But he denies that he had either accepted money from Shaji or Jayakumar promisingjob or had issued cheques or promissory notes to any one of them.

18.Another cheque No. 5891 dated 31-10-2002 for Rs. 2100 issued by the worker was presented on 11-11- 2002 and was returned due to insufficient balance in the account. Page 116 of Ext.M1 contain copy of cheques Returned Register. It shows that the above cheque was presented on 11-11-2002 and was returned for insufficient funds. Page 118 contain copy of statement of account of worker. The balance amount in the account between date ofissue and presentation of the cheque is Rs.134 Ps.5 and Rs. 1132 Ps.5 respectively. Pages 8-121 contain copy of letter sent to Assistant General Manager by Branch Manager reporting about return of cheque in question. The answer ofthe worker to this allegation is thatwhen the cheque was presented though there was no sufficient balance, on the next day the transaction was settled . The misconducthowever is already committed.

19. The next allegation is that another cheque No. 5885 dated20-08-2002 for Rs . 10,000 issued by the worker was presented on 19-12-2002, but was returned due to insufficient funds . Page 117 contain copy of cheque returned Register . As per that on 12-12-2002 the cheque was presented and returned with the instruction to present it again. It was presented again on 19-12-2002 and was returned forwant of sufficient funds . Copy of statement of account is at page- 118 . When the cheque was issued the balance as per statement of account was Rs . 64 and when thecheque was presented on 19-12-2002 the balance was Rs.2633 Paise S. A copy of memorandum contained in page 122was sent to AGM by Branch Manager informing that the above cheque of the worker was returned for want of sufficient funds. The return of cheque is admitted by the worker. But he says that he was only a surety to an education loan taken by his friend's son and towards securityhehad issued the cheque (page 33 of WW1 ). It is not abelievable story.Aguarantor does not normally issue acheque . Moreover that friend ofworker is not examined. He incurred a debt in excess of his means by this transaction .

20. Charge No.11 and 13 is that he had demanded and accepted bribe ofRs. 45,000 and Rs.50,000 respectively from Shri. K. Shaji, Kattakada, Trivandrum and S. Jayakumar, Vedivechankoil , Trivandrum assuring employment to the former and son ofthe latter in bank.

22.Regarding transaction with Shri Shaji, a complaint was sent by himto the bank on 19-12-2002, copy ofwhich isExt. M3 (same document at page 124 ofExt.Ml ) . As per the complaint the workman had promised him jab in S.B.T. and accepted a bribe of Rs.45,000 and issued a cheque . Neither employment was given nor money was returned . Thecomplaint is silent about the date of payment ofmoney. But in the box he (MW2) says that on 13-4-2000 Rs . 20,000 was paid and a blank cheque was issued by the worker. Again on 29-4-2000 another sum of Rs . 20,000 was paid. On 5-5-2000 Rs . 5,000 was also paid. When the last payment was made the cheque given on 13-4-2000 was taken back by the worker and filled up for an amount of Rs.45,000 andwas given back to him . Besides a promissory note was also given by the worker . After some time the worker repeatedly demanded hack the promissory note . Al last he returnedthe promissory note. Then another cheque for Rs. 45,000 was issued to him by the worker. Those cheques are Exts .M2 and M2(a) both dated 1-1-2003 . The dates were written by him at the time ofpresenting it. But theywere returned for want of sufficient funds . Exts.M4 andM4(a) are cheque return memos issued by VysyaBank. The cheques do not bear the signature of the worker . His admitted signatures in deposition (WW1 ), claim statement, (page 112 to 114 of Ext.MI ) complaint of worker to the Registrar ofUniversity dated 26-7-2002, (page 127 ofM1) andEmployment Certificate issued from bank to the worker dated 6-6-2000 , do not tally with the signatures in Exts.M2 andM2(a).According to the worker cheques were issued by Sreekumar and not by him. The worker has no account in Vysya bank. The cheques were drawn on Vysya bank . Shri .Shaji has no case that Sreekumar was involved in the deal with the worker,It is difficult to believe the case of Shaji that the worker had issued a cheque and a promissory note initially and later two cheques for Rs. 45,000 each in consideration of the bribe taken. Shaji admits that he had paidonly Rs .45,000.But he got two cheques for Rs. 45,000 each. It is wreasonable to think that even for the sake of security a bribe taker would guarantee double the amount ofdebt. It is all the more improbable that a person who takes illegal gratification would dare to create a record of such a transaction. On the other hand the circumstances go to show that the transaction relates to a private finance. There are still more suspicious circumstances to disbelieve the story of Shri Shaji .

23.According to Shaji the complaint (Ext.M3 ) he had sent to the bank was written by a tea vendor of a tea shop . Hedeposes thatwhile he was in a tea shop he had enquired whether anybody was available for preparing a complaint. The tea shop owner told him that he would prepare the complaint .According to Shri Shaji the tea vendor was also adocumentwriter and he had sometimes attended the office 21.The worker has denied the allegation both in his explanation to the memoranda of charges as well as in the box.According to the worker Shri Shaji had lent Rs. 25,000 to one Sreekumar who was an employee of State Bank of Travancore and a friend of his . Later Sreekumar was dismissed from service . The worker had guaranteed the loan. So also Sreekumar had borrowed some money from Shri Jayakumar who was known to the worker . One day Jayakumar had approached the worker and had enquired 2061 3( )]

3, 2006/पैसा 13 , 1930

eniployinent itselfis fubriented, thir allegation should alie cramble.

ofitdoctodent writer. At that time Shaji was a graduate (B.Com), Stilthe sought the help of a tea vender towrite a simple compliant in Malayatan addressing the Brunch Manget. Kila too good a story to be believed. The comphalt itselfwis given 2 % yours after the alleged deal with the workinan. He tid not lodge a complaint withthe police nordid the file a civil suit for recovery of the mount nor didstile complaint usitler section 138 ofthe Negociable lasticht Act before Magistrate Court. He and shelled outRs.49,000 and had not recovered even a pie . MW6 thể unele ofShaji. He is spinning ayten like Shaji rogarding the transaction. Det he admits the Sanji wan told from VyayaBank that the choques belonged to Sreekumar and therewas no sufficient fund in the account ofSreekumar, This is against the case ofShaji that cheques were issued byworker. Thus the allegation of taking bribe promisingto provide employment is not true.

27.The contention of the leamed counsel for the management , based on the ruling in Shri . J. D. Jain V. Management of State Bank of India and another 1982/1- LLJ 54, that even hearsay evidence is admissible in departmental proceedings, and bouce the testimony of managerment witnesses about what they heard from others isto be relied on, has no relevance as nobodyhas tendered any how'say evidenice. The ether decleloill refered by the learnedcoumel in State ofHaryane V. Rattan Singh 1982-1- LLJ46. Itwas heldby His Lordship V.R,Krishna y J. as he then was, that in a domestic caquiry the strict and sophisticated rule of evidence under the Indian Evidenic Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. The simple point is, was there some evidenco or was there no evidence. Sufficiency, of evidence in proof of the findings by a domestic Tripamal is beyond scrutiny, Absence of any evidence in support of a fading is captainly available t the court to look into because it amounts to an exror oflay apparent pa second. Coming to the case on hand except regarding certain , minor misconduct, other changes are totally unsupported by evidence asalready discussed.The findings of Enquiry Officer to that extent is perverse and cannot stand andrequires interference.

24. Regarding the transaction with Jayakumar, it is statedby Shri . Jayakumar (MW3 ) that his son Rajeevwho had studied upto 10th standard wil without ajob.He came to know through his friend, Jayachandran Nair that the worker could secure &job for Rajeev in Bank. So Jayakanuar and his son appriched the worker, discussed about the job and gaveRs. 50,000 on 16-08-1999.Butjob promised was not given. Hence he doteaded back the money, bur received, only a cheque for Rs . 11,000 . That cheque was presented butwas returned for want of sufficient finds in the accourtt.

For the reasons stated aberne held that the worinnad is guilty ofthe first limb-of- olungeNo. (2), Charger (3 ), ( (6), (7), (3), (9) and (10). All except things No. (6) at miner misconduct. ٤٠

28. Point No. 2: The punishments imposed by the DisciplinaryAuthorityare:

: (1) That the CSE is brought down to a lower stage in the scale of pay by two stages, with owulative effect regarding charges ( 1 ), (2), (3 ), (4) and (5)

(2) That the next increment due to the CSE be withheld for two years with cumulative effect in respect of charges (6), (7), (8), (9), (10) and( 12).:

(3) That the CSEbe dimsired widest noticeren account ofcharges- 11, 13 and14.

29. I have found that the major charges ( 11, 13 and 14) for which major punishments were imposedby Disciplinary Authority , are not proved. Hence the punishment ofdismissal from service cannot stand and has tobe set aside.

25.About the transaction Jayakoimaraest a complaint toBank and copy is at page 41 and 42 of Ext.M 1. The complaint is dated 17-3-2003 .The complaint was given to back 4yelers after the transaction , Jayakumer has not lodged any complaint to police .He has not filed any suit to recover the amount. He has not filed a complaint under Section 138 oftheNegotiable Instruments Act either . Jayakumar saya that the chequeleatbelongs to Sreekumar.In the complaint to the bank asthing is mentioned about the cheque transmetion. It is in the box that he is weaving a new story ofcheque.Had he given Rs. 50,000 to the worker, he could have got a cheque for the entire amount and not for Rs.11,000The alloged cheque for Rs. 11,000 was presented in Vysya Bank and the cheque was drawn on Vysya Bank. The worker bed no account in Vysya Baak and hencehe could nothave issued a cheque to Jayakumar . According to Jayakumar along with his complaint, cheque and dishonourmomo were forwarded to bank. But they are not produced. Thewhole condiet of Jayakumar coupled with the evidence and circumstances indicate that the case of Jayakumer is putthe....

26.ChargeNo.14 laconnected to charge No.13 . The allegation is that Jayakumar was taken to the houses and. offices of certain persons telling him that they were high officials ofbank with a view to make him believe that the deal was actuallic and the worker could secure the job promised. Since the very story of payment of bribe for

30.The only gross trisconduct prevail is charge No. i.e. , making unwarranted contents in the complaint scht to the Registrar of University. The punishment is withholding ofincrement for 2 years with cumulative effect. The other charges proved are minor misconduct.However the punishment Imposed for iftior miliconduct are bringing down to lower stage in the scale of pay by tied ringeswill cueadative effect and withholding of Merement for 2 years 2062

[PART 11-Sac. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 3, 2008/VAISAKHA 13, 1930

with cumulative effect. They are all major punishments provided in clause 19.6 of 1st Bipartite settlement dated 19-10-1966 and clause- 21 ( iv) of6th Bipartite Settlement dated14-2-1995, Whereas the punishments that couldbe imposed legally for minor misconduct are only minor punishments within clause 19.8 . They are:

(a) be warned or censured; or

(b) have an adverse remark entered against him; or

11,13 and 14 are not proved . He is entitled to be reinstated at the earliest as soon as the award becomes enforceable asper S- 17A of Industrial Disputes Act with continuity of service and consequential benefita, but without payment ofbackwages. However be is found guilty of first part of charge No. 2 , charges 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 and are liable for the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period not longer than six months as per clause 19.8 of 1st Bipartite Settlement. He is also guilty of charge No.6 and is punishable by withholding increments for two years with cumulative effect as provided in clause 21 (iv) (d) ofthe 6th Bipartite Settlement . There is no order as to cost.

The awardwill come into force one month after its publication in the official gazette.

Typed, corrected and passed by me on this the I ith dayofDecember, 2007.

P.L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the Workman

14-08-2007

Sri.C.Ramesan

Witoras for the Management

MWI 14-07-2006 Sri. T. K. Hariharan.

MW2

19-12-2006

Sri . Shaji K.

Sri. Jayakumar. MW3 24-01-2007

MW4 08-03-2007 Sint. Sudhamani .

MW5 21-03-2007 Sri .K. Prabhakauran Nair.

Sri. Anil Kumar.

MW6

03-04-2007

Exhibits for the Workinan

Sincepunishments are clearly not in accordancewith Bipartite Settlements they are to be altered. It was submitted by learned counsel for the worker that the management has no complaint against the worker regarding his performance ofduty. MW5 was the Branch Manager at the relevant time. Page 10 of his deposition reveals that the management was satisfied with his work andhe was obedient to his Superiors. The maximum punishment as per Clause 19.8 is stoppage of increment for a period not exceeding 6months . That alone is the maximum punishment that canbe imposed as per law for first part ofcharge No.2 and-charges (3 ), (4), (7), (8 ), (9) and ( 10 ). It wasurgedby the leamed counsel for the worker that considering the nature ofmisconduct and the background of worker and the satisfactory manner in which duty was performed by him, the bare minimum punishment alone is warranted, ifat all he is to be punished. On the other hand learned counsel for the management submitted that there is no room for a misplaced sympathy in case of this nature where a series ofmisconduct are committed by the worker . So far as charge No.(6) is concerned the worker had stepped beyond the pales of propriety by casting aspersions on the officials of University and put the management in an embarrassing position. Considering the nature of that misconduct the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is reasonable andjust and calls for no leniency.

Carbon copy of page No.159 of Enquiry Proceedings.

Exhibits for the Management

Domestic Enquiry File.

M2 01-01-2003 Cheque No , 200857 of Vysya

BankLimited.

31. The other charges proved are first part ofcharge No. 2and charges (3), (4), (7), (8), (9) and (10) and they are minor misconduct . A number of cheques were issued by the worker without keeping sufficient balance in his account .A deterrent punishment is the only check against repetition of the same misconduct. In the circumstances therefore the maximum punishment as per clause 19.8 is justandproper.

M2(a) 01-01-2003 Cheque No.200858 of Vysya Bank Limited .

M3 Photostat copy of complaint filedby Sri , K. Shaji, to theBank Manager, SBT.

32. Point No. 3. In view of the above findings I hold that the workman is entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service and consequential benefits but without payment of arrears ofbackwages.

Conclusion

21-01-2003 Cheque return memo ofVysya Bank, Vazhuthacaud Branch.

M4(a) 21-01-2003 Cheque return memo of Vysya Bank, Vazhuthacaud Branch.

In the result, an award is passed finding that the action ofthe management in dismissing the workman from service w.e.f. 15-4-2004 is notlegal andjustified as charges 2043

भारत का एकपत्र : मई 3 , 2008 /वैसा 13 , 1930

[ক্ষা II- 3(1)]

नई दिल्ली, 8अप्रैल , 2008

ofsubstitution was allowed. Shri Ridika Mious of theheir ofthe deceased worknwin wes substituted andhe filed the Written Statement.

का.मा. 957. औद्योगिक विकार अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 कर 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ किसकेको संयों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में विनिंष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार भौक्रोनिक अधिकरणसं बनवाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्त 76/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-4-2008 को प्राप्त

[स. एल-12012/3/1996 -अई आर ( बी.1} ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अभिकारी

NewDelki , the 8th April,2008

8.0.957 In purezance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 76/1997) oftheCent, Govt . Indus . Tribunal-cum Labour CourtNo. II, Dhasbed as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dlapute betivoon the management ofState Bank of India, and their werkinen, received by the Central Government on-06-04-2008,

[No. L-12012/3/1996- IR (B- 1)]

AJAYKUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

AKPOR THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DUDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2)

ATDHANBAD

PRESENT

SHRI NAGENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer. In the matter ofan Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1 ) (d) ofthe l. D. Act. , 1947.

ReferenceNo. 76 of 1997

Parties

:Employers in relation tothe management of State Bank of India, Patna and theirworkman.

On behalfof the workman :

Mr.Ambuj Nayan Choubey, Advocate.

On behalfofthe employers : Mr. K.N. Gupta, Advocate.

State Sharkfund

Banking.

Industry : Dated, Dhanbad, the 19th March, 2008 AWARD

3. The case ofthe concerned workinen as disclosed in the Written Staternent is that the concerned worknjen late Sachidanand Mishra was appointed as Typisi -cua- Clerk in StateBank of India ut Calcutta in the year 1974. Thereafterhe was transferred to Local HeadOffice at Patha, Bibar in the year 1979 and since then he was serving to the best ofsatisfaction to their superior. There was nothing against him , neither any show cabic nor any njeno was ever issued to him . However, the promotion of the conogrned workman was due as he was the sciorment in the cadre but the same was not allowed nor any officiating postwas givento the coucemed workman while the juniors weregiven. He roquestod the management in this reged but nothing was done. Then he flled & Writ application before theHon'ble High Court for promotion and during the pendency of the Writ application he was promoted to the postofHeadCleric. However, due to the roster offiling Writ application themanagement was beised and vindictive 'against hien and transferred from Exhibition Road Branch to KunkarbaghBranch in the year 1989. & further appias that it has been mentioned of illegal deduction of pay thr which the concerned workanan took thelter of the cout and order for payment was made by the How'ble bout . The officials oftheBank became buised and started to Virtiruite the concerned worlumat in various ways 1. e. Croquet transfer from one branch to another. Dotufa bete bod mentioned of such transfer: Not only this'Palueand fabricated memos, frivolous and busclose charges againit the concerned workihan was inade and binned domestic enquirywas conducted and inspite of the objection of the concerned workman the decuments were solici upon in the enquiry withoutbeing proved. Inspite of several requests/objection the original documents were not Produced and theEnquiry Officer relied on the phose cupy of the document. Even the appeal of the concerned workman was kept pending. The astiinde of the management was also clear from the fact that withlisa wack four memos were issued containing the similac ergon Even sprunting and accepting that the enquiry was fair the concerned workman does not deserve the captial punishment which led to his death . The concoraod workman was mentally sortured so hard that ultimatelybe losthis life leaving behind his wife and four children . Prayer hasbeen made to set aside the order of diavis TheGevt, oflodia, Ministry ofLabour, in exercise of the pawers canfared on theat woder Section 10( 1 )(d) of the 1. D. Act, 1947 has refiseved the following dispute to this Tirikumal for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 12012/ 3/96-1 (B-1) dated, the 23rd June, 1997.

SCHIDULE

"Whether the action ofthe management ofStateBank of Inido, Patna in dismissing Sh . Sachchidanand Mistra isjustified? Ifnot, to what relief the workman isentitledto?"

4. The W. S: -cum -rejoinder on behalf of the management Bank has been filled. It has been shued that theprevious record of service of the concerned worlosin has never been satisfactory and inspite of repeated warning, sincere counselling and awarding of minor punishment at times , he did not improve himself and continued to commit his misconduct. He was stulbitual offender. In the written Statement question is also been rmised that the substituted legal heir of the concerned workman is not the only legal heir.The concemed worlukan hadraised frivolous regrievances and disputes against the management on several eccasions and tried to prekriso the management, He had filed a case before the Labour 2. It appears that the concerned worktum had died during the pendency of the reference. A substitution petition of the legal heir of the concerned workman Schidanand Mishra was flied and accordingly the prayer 2064

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2008/VAISAKHA 13 , 1930

Court under the Payment of Wages Act claiming certain wages towhich he was not entitled to and which was not allowed. He had also filled a Writ application before the Hon'ble Court making grievances against his so- called refusal to promote, non-grant of teller to him and the said Writ application either was dismissed on merit or the same has been withdrawn.

5. It has futher been stated in para- 13 and 14 that in the year 1979 and two departinental proceeding were initiated against the concerned workman on various charges ofmisconduct and upon taking a lenient view of the matter be was infliction the following punishments :-

(1) Punishment of stoppage three increments in February, 1984while he was posted at PatnaMarket Branch.

(U) Stoppage of two increments while he was posted atExhibition RoadBranch.

The Bank issued a chargesheet dated 28-12-91 against the concerned workman . It was alleged that despite repeated instruction of the manager (Accounts) ofService Branchhe did not care to maintain the Bank's discipline and neglected the work allotted to him . It was also alleged that he left office on 3rd, 4th, 7th, 8th and 9th October, 1991 st 1.00P.M. , 11.30 Α . Μ. , 12.30 P.M. 11.30 A.M. and 12.30 P.M. respectively without taking permission from the competent authority of the Branch and also did not attend tothework allotted to him . It was also stated in chargesheet that a suitable notings to the effect ofhis leaving the office before time was made in the attendance register, but after tampering those he changed his departure times to read as 12.30 P.M. and 2,30 P.M., respectively although he had left office much earlier .

6.Afurther statement have been made in the Written Statement of the management that reply filed by the concernedworkman was not satisfactory and acceptable and accordingly a domestic enquiry was initiated, Both the charges stood proved. The competent authority came to the conclusion that the concerned workman had committed gross misconduct and on cosideration of the document (details have been mentioned) and also comments of the concernedworkman final order of punishment Le. dismissal from theBank services was passed in accordance with the terms of para 521 (5)(a) ofthe Sastry Award as retainedby Desai Award and was inflicted upon the concerned workman. A appeal was also filed by the concerned worlanan befor the Appellate authority and after providing opportunity of hearing to the concerned workman the appeal was rejected. It has further been stated that the Bankhas taken action against the concerned workman as provided under the rules of the Disciplinary proceeding. Punishment has been awarded after holding a proper and fairdomestic enquiry into the charges levelled against the concernedworkman .

7. In the rejoinder portion the statement made în para 4to 11,13 are said to be matter of record while the statement made in para 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 it has been stated that the same are not correct and denied. Further it has been stated that the concerned workman is not entitled to getany relief,

[PART I-Sec. 3( ii) ] B.Theconcerned workman has filed a rejoinder and it has been stated that the statement made in para-2 is baseless and frivolous statements made in para-3 to 5 are the allegations levelled without any material . The statement made in para- 13 to 26 are the matters of record and require to be proved beyond anydoubt . The statement made in para -28 is misconceived. Further the statement made in para 33 and 34which is by way of rejoinder, it has been reiterated that the punishment is not justifiable against the charges levelled against the concerned workman .

POINTS TO BE DECIDED

"Whether the action of the management of StateBank of India, Patna in dismissing Sh. Sachchidanand Mishra is justified? Ifnot, to whatre lief theworkman is entitled to?"

FINDING WITH REASONS

10. Before proceeding further it may be mentioned that vide order dt. 10-5-2005 the then Presiding Officer has decided the matter of the fairness and propriety of the domestic enquiry, From perusal ofthis order it appears that while considering the facts , circumstances and other materials on record relating to the domestic enquiry conductedbythe E. O, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry conducted by the E.O.against the concerned workman was fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice . Thereafter the case was fixed for hearing argument on merit.

11. Ld. Lawyer for the concerned workman has vehemently argued that the domestic enquiry conducted bythe E. O. was not fair and proper and the charges levelled against the concerned workman have not been proved.He has further submitted that the Enquiry Officer failed to appreciateto take into consideration ofthe several materials during the course of the enquiry proceeding. In fact, the original documents have not been produced during the enquiry proceeding and the materials like attendance sheet was not before the Enquiry Officer and he relied on photo copy. In fact the officers who were biased against the concerned workman have manufactured the documents, had tampered the attendance document only to show that the concerned workman has interpolated the document and in fact it is not the concerned workman who interpolated document. It is the Bank Officer who were hostile had interploated the document. Attention was initiated towards Ext. M-5 attendance Register to show as to how the time of arrival and departure were tampered. He has vehemently submitted that such documents have been created by the management only to victimise the concerned workman. He has further submitted that even in the enquiry report the Enquiry Officer has not discussed and examined the various documents and exhibits and simply be had mentioned that the charges have been proved. He has not given any finding specifically andthe findings are based on no materials and simply has been said that the charges stand proved. In this connection he has invited attention towards the following portion ofthe enquiryreport.

'Now I am to determine whether the action on the part ofShri Mishra was justified , Under the facts and भारत का राजपत्र मई 3 , 2008/पैशाला 13, 1930

circumstances of the case and considering the docmits, ovidεινούς πολερό ΡΕX- 1 PEX-13 ser crified commitation and the deposition recorded by the Prosecution Witnesses PW- I to PW-5 under Examination -in-Chiefand under crom- comination atit whole as well as considering the folks DEX- 1 to DEX-13 and the version of Shri Mishra us Delfinorwitness, 1 an clear in my mind that Shri S. N. Miura You comenitted misconduct for whichhehes been charged.

As a result, my findings is that the change No. 2 standa provod.

In totalityoftheenquiry both the charges , i.e. charge No. 1 and Charge No. 2 are proved. This is thy Endings."

12. 14. Lawyer for the concerned workman has vehemently argued that there are several decisions of the MobileCurt and the Hon'ble Apex Court that this Tribunal cananimeall the saterials available onrecordand even the that can be caminad whether the charges levelled against the concerned workman during the enquiry have bean perved or not insphe ofthe fact that earlier domestic engiry was held fair and proper. However, it may be metioned that not any judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court or Hon'ble High Court is support of the contention that once the domestic enquiry was held fair and proper even then this court is competent to see whether the charges have been established or not.

13.On the otherhand Ld. Lawyer for the management have vehimantly wgued that once the domestic enquiry was fikir, proper and in accordance with the principle of netaneljusticethis court commot look into the fiuct whether the charges have been established or not. This Court is only campowered to see whether quantuan of penishment ewendedto the concorned workunan isjustified inthe facts and circumstances of the case or not or the concerned workanen deserves any other lesser punishment. He has submitted that in accordance with Section 11A of the I. D. Act, 1947 1 Court is toto examinee onlyonly the order ofdischarge or dimnimal is justified or not. In support of his costention he has fileda decision reported in 2005 Lab I. C. 1986. Не bea further submitted that the quantum of punishment awarded to the concerned workman in the facts and circanetarices is not excessive. It is in accordancewith the law.Hence this referuate may be answered accordingly. Hehre albo lad decision reported in 2005(2) Supreme 140, 2005 (1 )Supreme 447 and 2006 (2) Sopreme 1281.

14. The fint question has to be consideredwhether this court can examine the fact that the charges proved during the course ofengiry proceeding can be examined or notwhee bedoematic enquiry has been found ftir, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice. In this comection Section 11A ofthe L. D. Act, 1947 readsas :

Where as Industrial dimpute relating to the discharge or dintiemel of a workman has been referred to a Labour Count, Tribunal or National Tribunel for adjudication and in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court , Triennal orNational Tribunal, as the combopadshut order of discharge σε απ may, by its award, net mide the order of di dismissel and direct on such terms and and condicione, to or give such other relief to the the award ofany lesser patte discharge or diimiest case may requiry."

15.Ld. Lawyer for the concerned workma vehementlyargued that in this care during dome the enquiry officer has not considered the contradictions in the evidence of the w attendance registers woso not produced be Officer. The documents were tampered Management officials and the s consideration by the enquiry officet . He referred PEX-II , copy of the attendence. pogle originals were not prod concerned workman and also crued a this issue. He has submitted that the coun was victimised by the officers of the Be proceeding was initiated paly ta workmom somehow.arathee . The Beak offices www.k against this workman and in course of victimi concemed workano was transformed from a place to another. He has submitted that in thelo cho hands ofthis court is not limited and it cam very well apprase the evidence and cmaterials produced during enquiry. He has subsoqucntly filed a decisient c AIR 1984 SumeCourt 1805 o can re-appraise the evidence adduced during Hehas also refered another decision.roposind inAR SupremeCourt 454.

16. La Lawyer for the concerned word further subreittedthat a parflanctory antiry werendumid bythe enquiry officer.He has not tonalit and materials on record it wocendio wa enquiry report does not discsies and he has passed reasoned order Talber it was full of perversity.TheEnquiry Offlow bathinly regarding his finding just for comington that the concemed worldman is guilty fre levelled against him. He har etteredthe last ported the enquiry report which reads a fallows :

"Now I amam to determine whether the act on the of Shri Mishra was justified. Under circumstances of the cas documents, evidenora bed PEX- critical examination and the dep the prosecution witars PW-LS Examination- in-chief an whole as well as considering the publike DEX-13 and thethe version ofSari Min witness, I un clear in maled Gal has committed misconduct for whic charged. 1

As a result, my findings is that the charge Hp. 2 stands prove.

2066

[PART I-SEC. 3 (ii) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2008/VAISAKHA 13, 1930

Intotality ofthe enquiry both the charges, i.e, charge No. 1& Charge No. 2 are prove. This is my findings. "

Referring the above aspect of the enquiry report he has submitted that in this circumstances it is necessaryto re-appraise the evidence of the domestic enquiry.

19. While going through the enquiry report it appears that the Enquiry Officer in his report has given details of each and every document. He has further examined and mentioned the evidence and exhibits ofthe management in details, He has further mentioned details ofdefence case and every aspect ofthe case . In his finding portion relating to charge No. 1 he has given details ofall the evidence and depositions of the witnesses relating to the matter that chargeNo. 1 has been established. Similar is the position with regardto charge No. 2. In fact it appears that he has considered the matter from all angles examining and scrutinising all the exhibits , evidence of witnesses and materials available on record and then he came to the conclusion which shows that charge No. 1 and 2 have been established against the concemed workman.

20. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submission made by the Ld . Lawyers for both the parties and judgement of Hon'ble Courtreported in 2005 Lab I, C. 1986 I am left with no option other than to consider the matter of quantum of punishment only. In this case the following charges were framed against the concerned workman .

"(1) That despite repeated instructions of the Manager Accounts of Service Branch to you, you did not careto maintain the Bank's discipline and neglected thework allotted to you.

(ii) That you left office on 3rd, 4th, 7th 8th & 9th October, 1991 at 1.00 P.M. , 11.30 Α.Μ. , 12.30 Ρ.Μ. 11.30 Α.Μ. & 12.30 P.M. respectively without taking permission from the competent authority of the Branch and also did not attend to the works allotted to you . A suitable noting to the effect of your leaving the office before time was made in the Attendance Register, but after tempering it , you changed your departure times to read as 5.30 P.M. &2.30 P.M. respectively although you left office much earlier, as stated above. "

In the charge sheet marked as Ext. M- 1 reference has also been made that the same will amount to gross misconduct under paragraph 521 (4)( e ) and (j ) of Sastry Award as retained by Desai Award. The charges are said to be proved against the concerned workman .

17. On the other hand Ld. Lawyer for the management has vehemently submitted that under Section 11A ofthe L D.Act, 1947 this court has only to consider the quanturn of punishment as it has already found that the domestic enquiry was fair , proper and in accordance with the principles ofnatural justice .He has referred to a decision reported in 2005 Lab I. C. 1986 to show that the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court has been pleased to hold that once the Labour Court found that domestic enquiry was Valid and legal it cannot subsequently proceed to record conclusion that the charges against the employee were not proved. He has further submitted that the evidence andmaterials collected during domestic enquiry as well as the enquiry report shows that legal evidence is on the record and the same was considered, scrutnised and discussed and thereafter the Enquiry Officer submitted a reasoned enquiry report. He has further submitted that it is not a case of no legal evidence as stated by the Ld . Lawyer for the concerned workman where question of re- appraisal of evidence , if any can arise . He has also submitted that the Ld. Lawyer for the concerned workman haspointed out only the last portion of the enquiry report to show that evidence and materials were not considered and scrutinised by the Enquiry Officer . But this is not a fact, the enquiry report runs into 21 pages in which specific details of all the documentary evidence , evidence ofthe witnesses have been referred. In fact the enquiry report also shows that all the materials of the management and defence have been referred discussed and scrutinised. Thereafter in the concluding portion the Enquiry Officer has come to a finding holding the concerned workman guilty for the charges levelled against him . He has further submitted that the enquiry report as well as the materials available on record with the original attendance Register PEX- I was submitted and PEX -II is the photo copy ofthe attendance Register. He has submitted that such document is on the record to show that the attendance registers are interpolated. He has further submitted as far as the question of victimisation is concerned the concerned workman has himself produced as defence witness but nowhere he has stated about the specific name of the offficer and the manners in which he is said to have been victimised. He has again submitted that in accordance with the provision of 1. D. Act as well as the judgement of theHon'ble High Court and further on the basis of the materials avilable on record this court has no scope to re- appraise the evidence and materials collected during the course of domestic enquiry when already domestic enquiry has been held valid and legal while deciding preliminary issue.

20A, Ld. Lawyer for the concerned workman has vehemently agrued that the matter relates regarding unpunctual or irregular attendance, ( ii ) neglect ofwork, negligence inperforming duties which is mentioned in para 521 (6) (b) and 521 (6)( c) respectively which shows it is a minor misconduct as mentioned in para 521 ( 6) 19.7. He has submitted that a person who is found guilty for minor misconduct can be warned or censured or have the adverse remarks entered against him or have his increment stopped for aperiodnot longer than six months. Ld. Lawyer for the concerned workman has submitted that at best the concerned workman is guilty for the minor misconduct and in any case it is not a gross misconduct but he has been dismissed from the job which is meant for gross misconduct. Hehas further submitted that even for the gross misconduct thereare provisions like warning, censure, adverse remarks, fine, stoppage of increment etc. but in the instant case he has been dismissed without notice . The maximum 18. It may again be stated that on 5-10-2005 the prelliminary issue regarding validity of the domestic inquiry has been decided and it has been found that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer was fair, proper and in accordance with the principle ofnatural justice.

[भाल -खष्ठ 3 (ii) )

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2008/वैशाख 13 , 1930

punishment has been awarded to him which is notwarranted in the present facts and circumstances. The punishment is shocking.At best the concerned workman should have been awarded punishment provided for minor misconduct. Inanycase if it is considered the case ofgross misconduct dismisul without notice is not the appropriate punishment in the present facts and circumstances ofthe case. He has submitted that the concerned workman may be awarded lesser punishinet.

thepractice oftampering concemed registers to show that heworked as per office hours . Such actact of anemployaloyeewill naturally encourage other staff to adept sech practice which can seriously affect the working oftumBinkthích is & commercial and financial lastitution. It see the relationship ofthe Bank with its customer which willbe ultimatelyprejudicial to the Interest ofthe Bank and th to involve the Bank it serions loss. It ha dolentand that the concerned workman was pot doing the allotiof duties which caused wilful insubordination or disobedience ofany lawful and reasonable order of the management or ofhis superior. Thus it appears that the concerned workmas is guilty for the gross misconduct and not for the minor misconduct .

23.Now the question wises as to whethere the punishment awarded to the concerned worloman is justified The concerned workman haa boạn dismiquod from the service.Nodoubt even for the grous misconduct shore are provision for giving other punishment

21. L'd. lawyer for the management has submitted that the charges were framed against the concerned workman for gross misconduct which has been mention in the chargesheet. The Act of the concerned workmanwas fur gross misconduct and not for minor misconduct in accordance with the provision of Bipartite settlement.He has furthersubmitted that the Bank is-commercial institution and ifthe sets committed by the concerned workman is followed by the other workman it will seriously affect the discipline ofthe Bankwhich will be ultimately prejudicial to the interest ofthe Bank and will likely involve theBank in serious loss. The Bank may not maintain professional relationship with its customer due to retention of such employees .He has also referred decisions reported in 2005 (2) Supreme 140, 2005(1 ) Supreme 447and 2006(4 ) Supreme 281. It may be mentioned hare that the Ld. Lawer for the concerned workinman has also filed decisions reported in AIR 1987 Supreme Court 2386, AIR 1989 Supreme Court 3268 AIR 1993 Supreme Court (1197 in support of his contention that the concerned workman is entitled for the reliod as prayed for.. :-

22. Prom perusal of the contents of the Book, the service condition otc. of State Bank of India employees including: 5th Bipartite Settlement it appears that clause 5214(e) 19.5(0) and clause 521 (4)(j ) 19.5 (1) reads as folloows:-

Clause521.4(c) 19.5(6)

24. Ld. Lawyer for the management hy syy that it is not the first instance when the concerned wardaneg committed such misconduct, he committed such misconduct earlier also. He was punished early which is mentioned in pura - 13 of the W.S. ofthe management. He has submitted thet in the year 1979, 1982, two departinantal proceedingswere initiated sgsinst the concurred workanae. However, lenient view was taken and accordingly he was awarded punisthebent ofstoppage of theter istines in February, 1984 wake was posted in Park branch, Another punishment ofstoppinge of two increments while he was posted in Exhibition Road branch was awarded. But in spite ofthese punishment the concerned yearkmen did not amend himself. There is no question of victimisation . The concerned workman has not alted anything specifically during his evidence in course of enquiry proceeding how and inwhat matuner he has been victimised. Such plea la being taken only with aView for light punishment

تھے

Clause521 (4)(1) 19.50

Wilful insubordination or disobedience of any lawful and reasonable order of the management or ofa superior. Doing any act prejudicial to the interests of the Bank, or gross negligence involving or likely to involve theBank in serious less.

25.From perusak ofthe record it appears that there is no specific denial bo the bonsorned workman regarding initiation ofdepartmental proeceding on earlier two occasions and punishment awarded as stated by the Ld. Lawyer for the management wild mentioned fine Fot W.S. of management. The penishment awarded is not shocking and warhivircumstances ofthe case.

26. It may be mentioned that the facts and circumstances of the case appecase appears to be different thun the facts and circumstances mentioned in the other decisions submitted by the parties and accordingly the sand fire bột being discussed in details.

27. In the above facts wild circumstances of the cus and also considering time sulmission of both the parties I findthat the concerned workman is not entitled for way relief.Accordinglyfollowing Award is rendred

"The action ofthe management ofState Bank of India , Patna in dismissing Sh. Sochichidatiand Mishra is justified. Consequently, Rrishike mi , substituted legal heir of the dopessed condermod workman Sachchidanand Mishra is ant ventitledto get anyrelief."

From perusal of enquiry report as well as from the documents referred during the enquiry proceeding aswell asthe evidence of witness including P. K. Roy Choudhury PW-5 shows that duties were allotted to the concerned workman but he neglected the same. The evidence ofthe management witnesses B. Ganguly, A. K. Chakhiyar,Md. Junwarse as well as P.K& Roy Choudhury and the documents slsowe that the concerund workman was leaving the office much earlier than the schedule working hours and thus it appears that he was not working in the office as per working boyrs, Not only this it also appears that the concerned registers have been interpolated tampered with a viewto show that the concormed workman was leaving the Bank Office before the schedule time . This appears to be a serious matter. It is not a simple case that the concerned workinan was negligent in his duties and was habitually leaving the BankOffice before the schedule time rather he indulged in

NAGENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer 2068

[PART I-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2008/VAISAKHA 13, 1930

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

नई दिल्ली , 8 अप्रैल , 2008

क्र.आ. 958. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार साऊथर्न रेलवे के प्रबंचतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण इनाम्कूलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 93/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-41012/168/2001 - आई आर( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 8thApril,2008

8.0. 958.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 93/ 2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum Labour Court, Ernakulam, as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of SouthernRailways , and their workmen, received by the CentralGovernment on 2-4-2008.

[No. L-41012/ 168/2001 - IR (B- 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present:

Shri P. L.Norbert, B.A., LL.B., PresidingOfficer (Tuesdaythe 25th day ofMarch, 2006/5th Chaitra 1930)

Shri T.N. Dinamani was working as Gatetian at Cherthala of Southern Railway. While so , on account of participation in strike his service along with others was terminated. Later as per the order of the Government all except the workman were reinstated. The workman approached Central Administrative Tribunal and obtained an order in his favour . Thereafter he was reinstated and joined service in the Quilon Division of Southern Railway on 22-12-1994. Later he was empanelled and in a vacancy ofGroup 'D' at Mavelikkara Section he was appointed as temporary Gangman . However, after appointment the seniority of the workman was not properly fixed by the Railway. He is entitled to get seniority on a par with Smt . M.K. Ammini who was a Gangwoman working at Mavelikkara, Hence the workman approached CAT once again for getting his seniority properly fixed. The Chief Personnel Officer was directed by the Hon'ble CAT to consider the representation of the workman and pass necessary orders . Accordingly the ChiefPersonnel Officer , Madras considered the representation of the workman and passed an order on 12-8-1997 . It was observed in the or der that the workman is entitled to get seniority on a par with Smt. M.K. Amnini and directed the Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, Trivandrun to revise the seniority oftheworkman so as to bring it equal to the position assigned to Smt.M.K.Ammini. However the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer statedthat Smi. Ammini was working in Mavelikkara Section and Shri Dinamani was transferred from Mavelikkara to Alapuzha Section and hence his seniority cannot be revised. According to the workman the said order of Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer is illegal . He is entitled to get his seniority revised.

L.D. 93/2006 (LD. 07/2003 of Labour Court, Eruskulam)

Workman/Union :

: TheGeneral Secretary, Southern Railway men's Union, Prakash Bhawan, Thripunithura ByAdv.Shut C.S. Ajith Prakash

Management 2 The Divisional Personne] Officer , Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapигат

ByAdv. Shri . A. C. Devy.

This case coming up for hearing on 25-3-2008, this Tribunal-cum- Labour Court on the same day passed the following.

AWARD

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

"Whether the denial of seniority and consequential benefits to Shri T.N. Dinamani , Gangman, Cherthala on par with his juniors by the management of Southern Railway, Trivandrum is justified? Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitled? 4

3. An ex -parte award was passed on 12-4-2007. Thereafter the management filed I.A. 16/2007 for setting aside the award. That was allowed on 6-12-2007. Again the case was posted for evidence . But the management and counsel are remaining absent continuously . The reference was made in 2002. The workman has field proof affidavit and has produced 3 documents in support ofhis contentions . Ext . Wl is the order of CAT in OA, 615/97 directingthe Railway to consider the representation of the workman regarding fixation of seniority. Ext . W2 is an order ofChiefPersonnel Officer wherein it is mentioned that his servicehas been regularized and he was asked to joinduty as Gangman at Mavelikkara as per the order dated 15-3-1996. With regardto seniority the Divisional Railway Managerwas directed to consider that aspect and bring up his position ofseniority in Mavelikkara in Permanent Way Section to a level not lower than the position assigned to Smt. M.K. Ammini or any similar juniors . Ext.W3 is the order of Sr.Divisional Personnel Officer dated 2-3-1998 stalking that Smt. Amumini was working as Gangwoman in Mavelikkara Section andworkman was transferred to Alapuzha Section andhence seniority on a par with Ammini cannot be fixed. In the proof affidavit the workman has reiterated his contentions in the claim statement . The evidence tendered भारत का राम्बत्र माई 3 , 2008-वैरारा 13 , 1930

[ মল Ⅱ -কন 3 ( i) )

ANNEXLUDE

by the claiment is unchallenged and the management remaine ex parte. The claim of the workman thus stands proved. :

BENORE THE EINTRAG GOVERNM INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT

Dated: 18thMarch, 2008

MANGALORE

Shri AR, SIDDIQUI , PRESIDING OFFICER

C.R. No. 01/2003

4. In the result, an award is passed finding that the warlawan, Shri T.N. Diuuanl is entitled toget his seniority fixedon apar with bis juniors and he is entitled to get all consequential benefits . The parties will suffer their nepective costs. The award will take effect one month actor tes publication in the Official Onzeite. :

IPARTY

PARTY

Shri M.Basavaraju,

TheDirector,

Central Seriouture

C/o. Shri S.V. Nagendra,

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by bor, corrected and passed by me on this the 25th dayofMarch, 2008.

Rassench-and

Advocate,

Timining Enotita.1 J

Kalyana Bhavan,

P. I. NORBERT, PrezidingOfficer

ThyagarajaRoad,.

Appendik

Mysore, MYSORE-570004

E Witems for theWorkman/Union

Musanda Vadi Rand

MYSORE-57008 WW! -Sarl T.N. Dinamani (Affidavit)

AWARD

Winnt for theMotagement -NR.

Exhibits forthe Warkman/Union

W1 -Certified copy of order in O.A. 615/97 dated 16-6-1997of the CAT, Ernakulen Bench,

1.The Cantal Government by exerting the powds conferred by clause(d) ofsub-section 24 ofthe Boetion 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 bas referted this dispute vide order No. L-42012/73/2002-18(CM-719 desid 26th December, 2002 for adjudication on the following Schedule:

SCHEDULE

Letter No. P.363 /1/CN/MS / LAW/606 dated 12-4-1997 issued by chief Personnel Officertothe worlowan

W3 Photbatat copy of letter No. V /P 536/VV01. XI dated2-3-1998 issued from Divisional Office to theworkonstn.

"Whether the actiontion of the momagnmomagineat ofCentral Silk Board (CSRTI ) in removing the workman Shei M.Basavaraju from services is legal and justified? Ifact, towhat relief the workman is entitled to?"

Exhibits fortheManagement -Nil.

2.A charge sheet dated 14-11-1995 can be served upon the first party in the following terms:

नई दिल्ली, ह अप्रैल , 2008

ChargeSheet

ThatShri M. Bastvaraju, TSFW( U/S ) while working as TSFW in the farm management and economic.rection of CSRAT, Mysore since 1-9-1994 has stolen a GL, Pipe belongingto the lestitute on5-12-1994 at 10.00PM, Thp above act of Sari M.Basavaraju, TSFW.constitute serious misconduct on his part and thus he failed to maintais absolute integrity and honesty. Hence the charge

1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सेंट्रल सौ. रि एकेनिकों और उनके कर्मकोरों के बीज , मनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 01/2003 ) को प्रकाशित की है , जो सरकार को 3-4-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/73/2002- आई आर( सीएम- II) ]

अवन कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 8thApril, 2008

2.0. 999.-la porsuance of Section 17. of the Inakustrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government berolky pablishes the Award Ref.No.01/2003 oftheCentral Govenunent Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Sericulture Rasearch & Training Institute, and their wordines, received by the Central Government on 8-4-2008.

[No.1-42012/73/ 2002 -IR (CM- U )]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

"That Skari M. Basov , TSFW EPF No. 241 while working as TSFW in the fan mengamat and noonomic section ofCSR & TI , Mysore- alece 1:0-1994 has summitted aserious misconduct and stolen the employers preparty on 5-12-1994 at about 10.00 P.M. he was mughe noveland of the Institute by the Security guards vin Shri Gureiddaish and Shri Gopalarwany who wore on dutywhen he was found dishonestly removing aGl pipa costing about .Rs. 2,000 belonging to the Lostitate thesaid was kept in the new land for irrigation purpрезе. Shri M. Bagavaraju, TSFW caught red handellly by the security garde of the instients and handed over to the police for his criminal involvement in the institutapatinis Therefore, it is evident that Shri Baat TOW EPF No.241 (U/S), Mysere has stolen the Employers property and thus coaumitod a serious act of misconduct which is prejudicial to the interest ofthe instituie: Henco thechange," 2070

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2008/VAISAKHA 13, 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

6. Keeping in view the respective contentions ofthe partieswith regard to the validity and fairness or otherwise ofthe enquiry proceedings this tribunal on 1-9-2004 framed the following Preliminary Issue:

"Whether the DE conducted against the first party by the second party is fair and proper?" 3. There being no reply to the charge sheet by the first party, a departmental enquiry was conducted against him and on the conclusion of the enquiry, enquiry report was submitted holding him guilty of the aforesaid charges. Thereupon enquiry report was sent to the first party along with the show cause notice on 30-3-1998 and once again not receiving any reply from the first party he was dismissed from service by passing the impugned punishment order.

7. During the course of trial of the said issue the management examined the enquiry officer as MWI and got marked 9 documents at Ex. WI to W9 . The first party examined himselfas WWland in his cross examination a document at Ex. W10 was marked , After hearing the learned counsels for the respective parties, this tribunal by order dated 27-11-2006 answered the above said issue in favour ofthe management recording a finding to the effect that the DE held against the first party is fair and proper . Thereupon, I have heard the learned counsels on merits of the case i.e. on the point of alleged perversity of the findings and the quantum of the punishment and posted the case this day for award.

4.The first party by way of his claim statement challenged the enquiry proceedings as not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the enquiry findings as not based on the sufficient and legal evidence. The first party contended that during the course of enquiry the competent and material witnesses namely Shri Gurusiddaiah and Shri Gopalaswamy working as security guards and said to have caught him red handed while committing the theft of the property belonging to the management have not been examined and whereas , the enquiry officer relying upon the hearsay evidence of some other witnesses and some police records held the first party guiltyofthe charges. Therefore, the enquiry findings suffered from perversity. The first party contended that the first information report and the statements recorded by the police which have been considered by the enquiry officer in holding him guilty of the charges were not the documents relevant and the evidence sufficient tohold him guilty of the charges. Therefore, the enquiry report is not based on sufficient and legal evidence and therefore, the enquiry findings are liable to be set aside. The first party also contended that the impugned punishment order passed/based on the above said findings of the enquiry officer as illegal and unjust and therefore, is liable to be set aside.

8. Learned counsel for the first party, by filing the written arguments has challenged the enquiry findings as well as the dismissal order . He contended that the enquiry findings suffered from perversity as they were not based upon any direct or circumstantial evidence to connect the first party with the guilt. He took the court through the findings of the enquiry officer to prove his point that the evidence either oral or documentary relied uponby the enquiry officer was neither sufficient nor legal as the witnesses examined for the managerment were not the eye witnesses who had seen the first party committing the theft or making an attempt to commit the theft of the property belonging to the management . He stressed on the point that the aforesaid Shri Gurusiddaiah and Shri Gopalaswarny, security guards said to have caught the first party red handed while committing theft ofthe G. I Pipe belonging to the management were not examined and therefore , the enquiry officer was not justified in just relying upon the reports made with regard to the theft and the hearsay evidence of the witnesses examined before him in holding theworkman guilty of the charges. He also contended that with regard to the theft in question a police complaint was lodged and after due trial ofthe prosecution , the first party has been honourably acquitted by the competent Magistrate court by judgment dated 20-2-1999 and therefore, the dismissal order passed against the first party subsequent to the above said judgement passed by the criminal court is liable to be set aside on this count itself.

9. Learned counsel representing the management was not available when the matter was taken up for arguments on several dates of hearing. Now, therefore, in the light of the aforesaid finding recorded by this tribunal answering the abovesaid preliminary issue in favour ofthe manage- ment that the enquiry conducted against the first party is fair and proper , the only two questions which come up for consideration wouldbe-

5. The management by its counter statement, while not disputing the fact that the first party was working with itas a casual labourer w.e.f. 4-9-1987 and was confirmed in service as time scale farm worker since 1-9-1992 however, contended that the first party was caught red handed by the security of the management while he was trying to steal some materials belonging to the management , which incident happened on the night of 5-12-1994 . The management then contended that after conducting the formalities, a criminal complaint was lodged against the first party for the act of theft and an FIR was filed with the concerned police station. In the meanwhile a charge sheet was issued to the first party on 14-11-1995 and there being no reply to the charge sheet DE was conducted and it is after the conclusion of the enquiry, enquiry report was submitted holding the workman guilty of the charges . The management further contended that enquiry report dated 23-3-1998 was furnished to the first party along with the show cause notice on 30-3-1998 and there being no reply from the first party he was dismissed from service keeping in view the seriousness of the misconduct committed by him. Therefore , the management contended that enquiry conducted against the first party is fair and proper and the enquiry report holding him guilty of the charges is based on sufficient and legal evidence and in the result , the dismissal order passed against him is just and legal .

1071 [भाग -खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का सबमत्र मई 3 , 2008/वैशाख 13 , 1930

(1) "Whether the enquiry findings suffered from perversity and ifnot,

(0) The punishanent ofdieunissal passed against the first partywas not proportionate to thethe gravity ofthe charges ofmisconduct committed by him. "

was also givenite prepare himself toattend the inquiry, the allegation that the principite ofnatural justion was not followed in theproinding is far from truth. Shri Besavaraju disk mat the buyireason or documents in support of his cleirs that the department has, pat the blame of theft on his maliciously. By considering the ocal and documentary evidence and statemente made by PresentingOfficer and changed bom thisclear that the charges,Jovelled against Shri Barever boen proved beyond doubt".

10. On going through the records , more particularly, thevery findings of the enquiry officer I find substance in the arguments advanced for the first party that the charge ofmisconduct of theft levelled against the first party has not been substantiated by sufficient and legal evidence during the course of enquiry conducted against the first party!After having discussed the documents produced by the management as well as the oral testimony of the management witnesses, the learned enquiry officer hais recorded his reasonings and findings on pages 6 and7 of the enquiry report running as under:

10. Therefore, from the panseal of the aforesaid Finding /reasonings, it is crystal slow that the learned enquiry officer while belding the first party guity of the charges ofmisconduct in oqommitting thest ofthe property belonging to the manageusent, mainly, reliud supon( some reports given by the offlours of the matugt ninely Shri Mahesh Kumar and Dr.. Ç.K. Kamble and the report of theSub Inspector ofthe Police inaddition to the FIR, jissued against the first party. It is seen from the swaald nowonings that the prosecution though had cited the above said Stri Gurusiddaiah and Shri Gopalaswamy as their witnesses but theywere not examined during the course ofenquiry. It isvery interesting rather strange to note that despite the said two competent material witnesses who could have spoken to the alleged theft being committed by the first party,were not examined during the course ofenquiryand much less no other witness was examined to speak to the fact that the first partywas caught red handed in committing the theft simply relied upon some bearsay evidence and thereports made to the authorities concerned with regard tothe theft alleged to have been committed by the first party.Those reports undisputedly were made on the basis ofthe reports ofthe commission oftheft by the first party bythe aforesaid security guards and therefore, when they themselves were not examined , the theêri cathod enquiry officerwas notjustified in holding the first partyworkinah guilty of the charges mainly on the basis of the aforesaid reports and the report said to have been mước bỷ để 900 Inspector of the police prepared during the court ofhi investigation against the first party. That put an notel above, there was a criminal compliant mode gainst the first partyby the management and after havững Postřed the case agairist the first party under Section 381 IPC Charge Sheet was filed against the fast party before the competent magistrato ofert. After chee trial of the said chod the fust partywas acquitted honourably by the said cont Fram the perusial ofthe judgmentocopy produced before this court and mariced at Ex. WI , it cambe very well gathered that the prosecution did not substantiate the charge offr alleged theft against the first pocty by producing thosaterak and competent witnesses namely Shri Gutesidiishithd Shri Gopalaswamy. Learned Magistrate while rentandingins finding of acquittal against the first party recorded his reasoninga ut pera 11 of the said judgoment running asunelony.

"ShriGurusiddalah and Shiri Gopalaswamy, Guards ofGSB , Mysore have caught Shri M. Basavaraju red handed when he was carrying away aGI Piple from officepremises un 5-12-1994 (night) . Shri Mahesh Kumar, SecuritySupervisor as per the information of Dr.C.K. Kamble, Joint Director , I/C ofSecurity has complained to Sub Inspector, Vidyaranyaporam Police Station and filed the FIR with PS Cr No. 206/94, dated 6-12-1994 under section 379 of Indian Penal Code. Shri Basavaraju denies the changes of theft made by the Security persons and the Joint Director but he has not given any reasons and also there is. no defence witness supporting his denial . The Sub Inspector in his subsequent letter dated 11-7-1995 has given the details of crime committed by Shri M.Basavaraju, during the course of investigation it was revealed the offence under Section 381 Indian Penal Code. Hence the charge sheet has been submitted tojudicial magistrate court, Mysore and the case is under trial . Shri Basavaraju says that the case filed in Police station is on false grounds but not able to substantiate . In addition to FIR filed and report of Sub Inspector documentary evidence given. by Shri Mahesh Kumar and Dr. C.K. , Kamble , supports the involvement of Shri Basavaraju in the theft. Dr. C.K. Kumble, JD both in his oral evidence and letter informed the involvebent of Shri Busavaraju in the theft. Furtherhe has also complained that Shri Basztvaraju has committed2-3 times minor theft in the department previously andhe has warned by him . Though the previous character is not inmportant in the criminal cases the present offence is confinned. Three prosecution witnesses viz, Mahesh Kumer, Guruaiddalah and Gopalswamy did not attend the hearing in spite of sufficient correspondence. Hence the documentary evidence given by them in their letters and FIR seem sufficient to draw the conclusion on the involvement of Shri Basavaraju in the theft . All the required docuriems were given to the charged labour and sufficient time

"The evidence of Phi 1 24 raw that th Gurusiddappa and Gopalaswenty are the matbal 2072

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2008/VAISAKHA 13 , 1930

[PART 11Sec . 3( ii) ]

after about six months of the judgment rendered by the competent magistrate court acquitting the first party honourably from the charge of theft levelled against him. Therefore, dismissal order passed on the aforesaid findings is liable to be set aside not only for the reason that the findings were not based on sufficient and legal evidence but also for the reason that the first party was acquitted of the charge oftheft leveiled against him much earlier to the dismissal order passed against the first party. Therefore, dismissal order is liable to be set aside as illegal unjust and void ab initio.

12.Now, the next question to be considered would be the relief to be granted to the first party. Since the dismissal order passed against the first party is held to be illegal and unjust , the natural corollary would be his reinstatement in service.

13. Comingto the question ofback wages and other benefits, it is to be noted that the first party though was dismissed from service by order dated 20-8-1999 appears tohave raised the dispute with the conciliation authority concerned, somewhere, in the year 2002 as could be evident from the date of reference of this tribunal. Therefore, he cannot be given any relief with regard to the back wages forthe period from the date ofthe dismissal till the date of the reference to this tribunal made on 31-12-2002.

witnesses in this case . Gopalaswamy PW3 has not stated before court that he arrested the accusedwhile he was taking away the pipe . PW1 stated that he received information on 5-12-1994 at 10 PM.PW3 stated that security people told him at 6 PM that the accused was arrested on 5-12-1994 at 10 PM , why theydid not produce him before PWI who was on duty in the sameplace . Gurusiklappa is not examined even sufficient opportunity was given . MO.1 is 20 feet length pipe and it is bigger in size.The lifting of the same from the premises ofCSRTI itselfcreates doubt in the prosecution store,Because it cannotbe easilytakenawayby any person. The said pipe being lengthy and heavy requires some sort offorce,which cannot be easily taken away by any person. Then how the said story of the prosecution has to be believed. PWs . I and 4 were only hearsaywitnesses. Gopalswamy has not deposed that he saw the accused taking away the pipe. Gurusiddappa who is amaterial witness is not examined, So, the evidence on record do not establish that the accused was lifting awaythe pipe with intention to take it for his unlawful gain. For the above reasons held, prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt . Accordingly, I answer pointNo.1 in the negative and Point No.2 as per the final order.

14. Now, the next question would be as to what the extent the back wages to be granted to the first party. Though the first party before this tribunal was given opportunity to give his evidence on the point of gainful employment but failed to utilize the said opportunity. In the result, we have no evidence before this tribunal as to whether the first party was doing any employment during the periodhewas out of the service of the management.At the same time the management also has not produced any evidence beforethis tribunal to suggest that the first party has been gainfully employed during the period he was away from the management. Therefore , having regard to the latches both on the part of the first party as well as on the part ofthe management , it appears to me that ends of justicewill be met, ifthe first party is awarded 50 per cent of the back wages from the date of the reference i.e. w.e.f. 1-1-2003 till thedate ofhis reinstatement in service with all other consequential benefits including the benefit of continuity of service. Hence the following award:

AWARD

The management is directed to reinstate the first party into its services with 50% ofthe back wages w.e.f. 1-1-2003 till the date ofhis reinstatement with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits . No costs.

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 18th March, 2008)

A. R. SIDDIQUI, PresidingOfficer 11. Therefore, from the reading of the above said passage ofthe judgment it becomes crystal clear that the learned magistrate rejected the evidence of the two witnesses namely said Mahesh Kumar and said Kambli holding that their evidence was hearsay evidence and that said Shri Gurusiddaiah and Shri Gopalaswamy who were material witnesses were not examined by the prosecution. Accordingly, the learned magistrate as noted above, came to the conclusion that there was no evidence on recordto establish that the accused (the first party) was lifting away the pipe with intention to take it for his unlawful gain . The learned magistrate further held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the first party beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, when the competent magistrate court itself did not attach any credence to the evidence led by the prosecution during the course of trial , it was very strangewhen the learned enquiry officer based his findings on the so called report and the statement prepared by the police sub Inspector during the course of investigation before he filed the charge sheet in the court . In the result , and the reasons foregoing, there cannot be any hesitation in the mind of this tribunal to come to the conclusion that the findings ofthe enquiry officer suffered from perversity and therefore are liable to be set aside . It is further tobe noted that despite the judgement by the competent court rendered on 22-2-1999 the disciplinary authority in this caserelying upon the aforesaid finding ofthe enquiry officer passed the impugned punishment order on 20-8-1999 i.e.

2073

भारत का राजपत्र : मेई 3 , 2008/वैशाख 13, 1930

[ भाग - 3 ( il) ]

नई दिल्ली, 9 अप्रैल , 2008

कर.. 960, औद्योगिक विवाद अमिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की बारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैं जी. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधखंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औगक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण ( में ) , चमक को पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 172/2000) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था। r

[सं. एल-20012/465/99 - आई आर ( सी-1 ) ]

स्नेह तसा बक्स , डेस्क अधिकारी

2.The case ofthe concerned workinan in short is that Kanhai Dhobi was working as Night Guard at Madhuban D. G. Station ofM/ s. BCCL. He was performing workwith entire satisfaction of the management. One Spi Ramesh Rajak his dependent son- in- law was requested the management to offer employment under the provisich ofNCWA . From the statement made in Witten Statement it appears that Ramesh Rajak har demanded omployment onthe ground ofpermanent disablement of Kanbai Dholi but the samewas nof considered by the management . The demand ofthe union for employment to the dependerit of Kanhai Dhobi is proper, legal and justified in accordaunde with the provision ofNCWA..

New Delhi, the 9thApril,2008

S.O. 960 -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 172/ 2000) Central Governement Industrial Triborial (No.11) Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the meruugement ofM/ s B. C. C. L. and their worknathwhich was received by the Central Government on 09-04-2008.

3. From W. S. - cum-rejoinder submitted on behalfof the management it appears that the application for employment ofthe son - in-law of Kanhai Dhobi was quade after a delay of two and half years. Kanhai Dhobi wa declaredmedically imfit on 28-1-94. No explanation hys been given as to why the application was made after such a longdelay. In the facts and circumstances, Razmesh Rajak the son- in-law of Kanhai Dhobi is not entitled for employment under compassionate ground after lapse of long years.

[No.L-20012/465/99- IR(C-I) ]

SNEH LATAJAWAS, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

4. In the rejoinder portion statement made in W. S. by the concerned workman in para 4,9,10,11,12 have been denied.About para 2,3,4,9,10,11 and 13 it has been stated that either the same are matter of record or not relevant.

BEFORE THE CENTRALGOVERNMENT DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

SHRI NAGENDER KUMAR, PresidingOfficer.

5. It appears that on behalf of the contertell workman/ sponsoring unton no any further rejoinder hus beenfiled.

6. POINTS TO BE DECIDED

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

ReferenceNo. 172 of2000

PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management of M/ s. BCCLand their workman.

APPEARANCES:

Onbehalfof the Workman : None

"Kya Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh ki mang lại Shri Kanhai Dhobi , night guard, Madhuban D.G station, BCCL, key abrita damad Shri Ramesh Rajek ko anukampa aadhar par niyukti dee jaya, uchit evam naya sangat hain ? yadi han to karmkar athabe unkey ashrit kis laav key patra hain ?".

Onbehalf ofthe employers +

7. Findingwith reasons

Mr. D. K. Vem , Advocate.

State: Jharkhand

Industry:Coul.

DatedDhanbad, the 24th March, 2008. AWARD

Inspite ofgiving several opportunities the concernell workman/sponsoring union has not produced any witness and any document in support of his claim . The burden of proof rests upon the concerned workman/ sponsoring union to prove his case.Thus there is no material on record tohold that Ramesh Rajak, the dependent son- in- law of Kanhai Dhobi , NightGuard, Maduban D. G. Station, BCCL is entitled for employment as prayed for. In the result, the followingAward is rendered:-

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise ofthe plowers conferred on them under Section10 (1) (d) ofthe 1. D. Act., 1947 has referred the following. disputeto this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order No. L-20012/465/99 (C-P), dated, the 29thNovember,2000,

SCHEDULE

"Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh ki mang ki Shri Kanbai Dhobi, night guard , Mohuban D. d. station, BCCI, key ashrita damad Shri Ramesh Rajak ko anukampa aadhar par niyukti deejaya, uchit evam naya sangat Nahi Hain. Atta karmkar atchaba unkey whrit kis laav key petranshi Hain ?"

NAGENDRA KUMAR, ProsidingOfficer "KyaRashtriyaColliery Mazdoor Sangh ki mang ki Shri Kanhai Dhobi , night guard, Madhuban D. G. station, BCCL, key ashrita damad Shri RameshRajak ko anukampe aadhar par alyukti dee jeya, uchit ovannaya sangat hain ? yadi han to karmkar athaba unkey shrit kis laav kay patra hain?"

1438 01/06-10 [ भाग -सखण्ड 3( ii ) ]

2017

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2008/वैशाख 13 , 1930

ReferenceNo. 232 of1999

PARTTES: Employers in relation to the management of Sijua Area ofM/ s BCCL and their workman,

APPEARANCES :

On behalfofthe Workman : Mr. J. N.Das, Advocate.

Onbehalfof the employers :

Prosn perusal of the proceedings of the inquiry it becomes quite obvious that 6 witnesses have deposed against the delinquent . It is found proved that the delinquent driver was in a drunken state . It is also proved that he asked Ma. Philip to sit by his side and when she refusedhedropped her on the main road. It is also found proved that the workman disobeyed the orders of his superiors and he left the premises without punching his card.

Mr.D.K. Vouns :::

Advocate.

State: Jharkhand

Industry:Coal.

Dated, Dhanbed, the 20th March, 2008 .

AWARD

The workman has committed act of moral turpitude . Hehas misbehaved with the lady staff in a drunken state. He,has dis-obeyed the orders of the superiors, so the punishment is not harsh and shocking to conscience of the, court.

The referones is replied thus:

The Government of India, Ministry of baboor in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under Section 10 (1 )(d) of the I. D. Act. , 1947 has referred the following disputeto this Tribunal for adjudication vide their onder No. L-20012/527/98 C- I dated, the 17th May, 1999.

The action ofthe managerment ofAir India, NewDelhi . in dismissing Sa, Mukesh Kumar , Driver vide management's orderdated17-08-1990 isjustified . The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief prayed for.

SCHEDULE

The award is given accordingly.

Date24-3-2006

R.N. RAI , PresidingOfficer

मई दिल्ली, 9 अप्रैल , 2008

"KYA LOYABAD COLLIERY B.C.C.L.DWARA SHRI DUKHAN MAHATO PUMP OPERATOR KO 1-7-97 SEY, UNKO FORM B MEYN DEE GAI JAN MTARIKH KEY ANUUSAR, SEVA NIVRIT KIYA JANA SAMAYAPURVA SEVA NIVRITI HAIN ? YADI HAN TO KARMKAR JIS SAMBANDHMEY KIS RAHAT KEY PATRAHAIN ?

का.आ. 963 , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की करा 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 अविकरण ( सं. II ) , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 232/90 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/527/98- आई आर. (सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 9thApril, 2008

S.O.963.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 232/90) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.II) Dhanbad now 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 workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 9-4-2008.

[No. L-20012/527/98- IR (C-1)] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO- 2) AT DHANBAD.

2. The case of the concerned workman in short is that a public notice was pasted at the pit top inwhich the name of Dukhan Mahato , Pump Operator appeared that hisservicewillbe terminated from 1-7-97, His father's name was mentioned as Narayan Mahto in place ofRupaMabato which caused confusion . He approached the managersant through the union which was confiumod that he is goingto superannuate on 1-7-97 . The mather was talcon by the union with the General Manager (P) who told thatthe saund will notbe changed and the services ofShri Mahatowill be terminated from 1-7-97. As per statutory record i.e. I. D. Card register and service excerpts the date of birth of the concerned workman has been written as 1947. Dueto confusion the name of Dukhan Mabato fias appeared in thelist ofworkers to be superannuated in utter violation of the Standing Orders. The matter was to be taken up with the RLC (C) Dhanbad but he was not in the station. The services excerpts contains the date of birth in respect of this workman as 1947 and date of employment as 9-4-1971 and then he should have been retired from service in the year2007. This is a case ofmanipulation by the management. Prayer has ben made to pass an Award for reinstatement of the concerned workman in service with full back wages and other amenities.

PRESENT

SHRI NAGENDER KUMAR, Presiding Officer.

Inthematter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 (1) (d) ofthe 1. D. Act, 1947

3.On behalfofthe management W. S.-cup-rejoinder has been filed which shows that a Form B Register in respect ofthe concerned workman was maintained. This is a statutory register which shows that the date ofbirth of 2078

[PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2008 /VAISAKHA 13, 1930

प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

the concernedworkman recorded as 1937 and accordingly notice of superannuation of the concerned workman was issued w.e.f. 1-7-97 . Since the concerned workman attained the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years in the year 1997, therefore, the management superannuated him.

[सं. एल -20012/16/2000- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 9th April , 2008 4. In the rejoinder portion it has been stated that para 6,7 and para 9 to 12 of the W.S. of the workman are not correct. About other paras it is said either the same are matter ofrecordand not relevant. Prayer has been made to hold that the superannuation of the concerned workaman is legal and justified and the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief.

S.O. 964. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 208/ 2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.1 ) Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofM / s . B. C. C. L. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 09-04-2008 .

[No. L-20012/ 16/2000- IR (C-1 )] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

5. A rejoinder has also been filed by the concerned workman explaining the details as to how his name has been wrongly appeared as the person who is going to superannuate from 1-7-97 . He has further explained that the concerned workman will attain the age of 60 years on 1-7-2007 and not on 1-7-97 . Prayer has been made to pass Award in favour of the concerned workman .

BEFORE THECENTRAL GOVERNMENT 6. POINTS TO BE DECIDED

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO- I, DHANBAD In the matter of reference under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the I , D. Act . , 1947.

Reference No. 208 of2000

PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management of KustoreArca of M/ s BCCL and their worksman.

PRESENT

"KYA LOYABAD COLLIERY B.C.C.L. DWARA SHRI DUKHAN MHATO PUMP OPERATOR KO 1-7-97 SEY, UNKO FORM BMEYN DEE GAL JAN- MTARISH KEY ANUUSAR, SEVA NIVRIT KIYA JANA SAMAYAPURVA SEVA NIVRITI HAIN ? YADI HANTO KARMKAR IIS SAMBANDH MEY KIS RAHAT KEY PATRA HAIN ? "

7. FINDING WITH REASONS

SHRI NAGENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer APPEARANCES

On behalfof the Management : None

On behalf ofthe Workman : Shri Bhola Nath Yadav,

State: Jharkhand

From perusal of record it appears that several opportunities were given to the concerned workman to produce evidence but he did not take step to produce any witness or to get the documents exhibited. It further appears that application was by the Ld . Lawyer for the concerned workman and prayer was made to pass a ' No dispute Award.

Concernedworkman . Industry: Coal. Dated 27th March , 2008 ,

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/ 16/2000 (Coal- 1 ) dated 24-7-2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal: -

The onus lies on the concerned workman to prove his case but he has failed to produce any witness or got the document exhibited. It appears that he has not been able to establish his case. It also appears that as per information furnished by the Ld , Lawyer the concerned workman has died and it appears that no prayer has been made for substitution . In the circumstances , a 'No dispute' Award is passed in this case presuming non - existence of any industrial dispute between the parties.

Schedule

NAGENDRA KUMAR, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली , 9 अप्रैल , 2008

"क्या भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के कुस्तौर , क्षेत्र के राजापुर ओपेन कास्ट प्रोजेक्ट (R.O.C.P. ) साउथ भरीया के प्रबंधन द्वारा कर्मकार श्री भोला नाथ यादव को आटोहेल्पर के पद पर नियमित एवं वदनामित न करना एवं कर्मचारी को उसके किए गए कार्य की श्रेणी के वेतनमान को न देना बिधिक एवं न्याय की दृष्टि से उचित एवं ठीक है ? यदि नहीं तो कर्मकार किन लाभों के हकदार हैं ? "

का.आ. 964.--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 विषाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण ( सं. 1 ) , घनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 208/2000 ) को [ भाग -खण्ड 3(ii) ]

After having received the Order No. L-20012/16/2000 (Coal -1) dt. 24-7-2000 the aforesaid reference from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication ofthe dispute a reference case No. 208 of2000 was registered on 7-8-2000 and accordingly Sri T. P. Jha, Advocate appeared and filed Writter, Statement on behalf of sponsoring Union,

From the perusal of the order sheet ofthe record it transpires thatboth the parties have filed their written statements & rejoinder in support oftheir claim. From the side of the management as well as workmen few Zerox copies ofdocuments as also been filed and the case was placed to adduce evidence by the management.

On26-3-2008 a petition signed by Sri Vijay Kumar Yadav, Secretary ofsponsoring Union alongwith one zerox copyof Identity card duły signed by Sri Bhola Nath Yadav. Workman concerned, who was present in the Tribunal personally and submitted that the demand raised by him. Sponsoring Union has already been fulfilled by the management and as such he dose not intend to contest their case further,

Hehas alsoprayed that in view of such development in this case & NO DISPUTE Award may bepassed.

In view of such it is ordered:

ORDER

That let a "NO DISPUTE AWARD be and the same is pessed. Send the copies of the Award to the Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment , New Delhi for information and needful . Reference is accordingly disposed NAGENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 9 अप्रैल , 2008

का.आ. 965, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैं, ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधर्वत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण कोलकाता के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 39/96 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -20040/38/95-आई आर (सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi, the 9thApril, 2008

$.O. 965. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Govemanent hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 39/96) ofthe Central Govermanent Industrial Tribunal Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . Ο.Ν. G.C. andtheir workman, which was received by the Central Government on09-04-2008,

2079

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2008/वैशाख 13 , 1930

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

L Reference No. 39 of1996

PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management of Oil and Natural Gas Commission mad thei workmen:

PRESENT

Mr:JusticeC. P. MISHRA, PresidingOfficer APPEARANCES

Onbehalf ofthe Management : Mr. S. K. Karmakar, Advocate.

Onbehalf ofthe Workmen : None

State:West Bengal .

Industry: Oil & Natural: Gas

Dated: 24th March, 2008.

AWARD

By Order No. L- 20040(38 )/95 IR ( Coal -I ) dated 2-12-1996 the 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:

4 "Whether the demand of ONGC Workers Association for payment wages, allowance to the . casual/contingent workers at per with regular workman of corresponding categories of ONGC is justified? If so, to what rolief are the workmen entitled?"

2.When the case is called out today, none apperas for the workmen, nor any step is taken on their behalf ofto proceed with the matter. Learned Advocate for the manage- ment,however, is present and states that none is appearing on behalfofthe workmen since long so that the matter can be proceeded with and therefore it is clear that the workmen. are no longer interested in the matter and as such the case maybe disposed ofby passing a "No Dispute"Award. It appears from the rebord that no step is taken on behalfof theworkmento proceed with the matter since 11.10.2004 inspite ofservice ofseveral notices. It is accordingly clear that the workmen are no longer interested in the matter.

3. Since the workmen are not interested to proceed with the mistter and the management also is in favour of disposal of the matter by passing a "No Dispute" Award, this Tribunal has no other alternative but to dispose ofthe matterby passing a "No Dispute" Award. A "No Dispute" Award is accordingly passed and the present reference is disposedof.

C. P. MISHRA, Presiding Officer Dated,Kolcata

[No. L-20040/38/95- IR(C-4) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer The24th March, 2008 2080

[PART 11SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2008/VAISAKHA 13, 1930

नई दिल्ली, 9 अप्रैल , 2008

of NCWA and not providing monetary benefit as per para 9-5-2000 (ii) and ( iii ) is justified ? Ifnot, what relief the dependent is entitled to ?"

का.आ. 966. औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैं आई. आइ. एस. सी. ओ. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण ( सं. 1 ) , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 108/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/482/97 - आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 9th April, 2008

The written statement has been filed on behalf of workinan stating that Late S. Bhattacharjee was working as store keeper at Chasnalla colliery since long with unblemished record ofservice. He died on 9-10-94 during the service period . As per NCWA and also as per policy decision of the management the dependent of late S.Bhattacharjee is entitled for employment. The dependent oflateS.Bhattacharjee namely Sukla Bhattacharjee applied for her appointment but without any effect. Details has been given regarding as to how she is entitled for appointment . Details has also been mentioned regarding disputes adjudication as the conciliation proceeding has failed. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances prayer has beenmade to direct the management to provide monetary compensation as well as employment of dependent of S.Bhattacharjee with retrospective effect with all arrear of wages and consequential benefit in accordance with provision ofNCWA.

S.O. 966. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 108/ 2000 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.1 ) Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . I. I. S. C. O. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 09-04-2008.

[No. L-20012/482/97 -IR (C -1 ) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD .

Inthe matter ofa reference under Section 10 (1 ) ( d) (2A) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Reference No. 108 of 2000

PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management of Chasnalla Colliery of M / s [ ISCO and their workman.

Written statement- cum - rejoinder of behalf of management which has been stated the management has not accepted the NCWA . It is said that the management of Chasnalla colliery did not agree to provide employment to the dependent of employee and to provide financial compensation . The company is in BIFR facing acute financial hardship , it is difficult to consider to employment at this stage. The concern workman was working as clerk. in the office and was not a worker of mine . He met natural death and his heirs received all the benefit like gratuity, Provident fund etc. No right for appointment on compassionate ground exist. In the rejoinder portion making further clarification . It has been prayed that the concerned lady orher son not entitled for any relief.

PRESENT

SHRI NAGENDER KUMAR, Presiding Officer. APPEARANCES

Forthe management

: Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

: None

State: Jharkhand.

Industry: Coal

It appears that no rejoinder to the W/S-cum- rejoinder filed by the management has been filed by the concerned workman. It also appears that no document has been filed on behalfofconcerned workman in support of her claim. She has also not taken further steps to establish the claim rather a petition has been filed by the concerned petitioner Sukla Bhattacharjee to pass NO DISPUTE Award. However, she did not pressed the same in spite ofissuance ofnotice.

Dated 24th March, 2008 AWARD

In the aforesaid facts it appear that there is NO DISPUTE between parties . Accordingly the following Orderis made.

ORDERED

By order No. L - 20012/482/ 97 - IR ( Cosl - I) dated 10-2-2000 the Central Government in the Ministry ofLabour has in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub -section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

SCHEDULE

That let a "NO DISPUTE" AWARD be and the same is passed. Sendthe copies of the Award to the Government of India, Ministry ofLabour & Employment, New Delhi for information and needful . Reference is accordingly disposed off.

NAGENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer "Whether the action ofthe management of Chasnalla Colliery of not providing employment to he dependent of late S.Bhattacherjee as per para 9-4-02 [ भाग खाण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल , 2008

का.आ. 967:-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बौच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम मंत्रालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 26/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12011/ 121 /2006- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi, the 10thApril,2008

2081

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2008/वैशाख 13 , 1930

(3) In response to the notice of the Tribunal, the petitioner appeared and filed Statement ofClain. During the proceeding on 20/02/08 , even before appearance of the respondent Management, the petitioner A.S. Barde and the general secretary of the Union have filed the Pursis that the workman before A.L.C. has reconciled the matter and now there is no cause to pursue against the management Union Bank and requested to pass the necessary orders. Since the petitioner has settled the disputes before A.L.C. there remain no disputes for ventilating the grievances to the petitioner . He has voluntarilyfiled the Pursis and requested to pass the award, Hence this no dispute-award.

Date: 11-3-2008

S.O. 967.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award (Ref. 26/2007) of the Cent. Government Industrial Tribunal -cum Labour Court, Nagpur, as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management ofUnion Bank of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10-4-2008.

[No. L- 12011/ 121 /2006- IR (B - II)) RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI A.N. YADAV PRESIDING OFFICER, OGIT-CUM- LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No. CGIT/NGP/26/2007

Date: 11/03/2008 .

Petitioner : Shri P.S. Berde Through the Secretary, Union Bank StaffUnion, C/OUnion Bank of India, Gandhibag, Nagpur Petitioner (PartyNo. 1) Versus

Respondent : The Regional Manager, Union Bank of India, Ashirwad Complex, Ramdaspeth Nagpur Dist.Nagpur: Respondant: PartyNo. 2 AWARD

[Dated:20th Feb.2008j

The Central Government after satisfying the existenceofdisputes between Shri P.S. Barde through The Secretary, Union Bank Staff Unlon , CO Union Bank of India, Gandhibag, Nagpur. Petitioner;- (Party No. I) the Regional Manager, Union Bank of India , Ashirwad Complex, Ramdaspeth Nagpur. Dist , Nagpur.Respondant: - Party No. 2 referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its Letter No. L- 12011 / 121 /2006- IR (B- II) dated 1-5-2007 under clause (d) of sub-section (1 ) and sub -section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 [ 14 of 1947] with the following schedule:

A.N. YADAV , PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल , 2008

का.आ. 968. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बिहार स्टेट को- ओपरेटिव बैंक लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , पटना के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 04/2007): को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-4-2008 को प्राप्तः हुआ था।

(सं एल-12012/178/2006-आई आर( बी -1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 10thApril,2008

S.O. 968.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Ceutral Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 04/2007) of Industrial Tribunal -cum Labour Court, Patne as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management ofBihar State Co- oprative Bank Ltd. , and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10-4-2008.

[No. L- 12012/ 178/2006- IR (B-1) ] AJAY KUMAR, DeskOfficet

ANNEXURE

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

ReferenceNo. 4(C) of2007

Between the management of the Bihar State Co- operative Bank Ltd. , Ashok Rajpath , Patna and their workman Shri Samod Kumar, House No. 5, North S. K. Puri, Boring Road,Patna.

For the management : Shri R. N. K. Sharma, Authorised Representative

For theworkmen

(2) "Whether the action of the management ofUnion Bank of India in respect oftheir Munda Branch in initiating disciplinary action and to recover Rs . 1,66,558 against Shri P.S. Barde, Head Cashier only on the charges of negligence in duty is proper , legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?" 1438 GJOB-11

Shri B. Prasad. General Secretary, Bank Employees Federation , Bihar.

Present

: VasudeoRam,PresidingOfficer, Industrial Tribunal , Patna 2085 [भाग खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2008/वैसाख 13 , 1930

नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल , 2008

का.आ. 969.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल डेयरी रिसर्च इंस्टिट्यूट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , बैंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 90/99) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -42012/42/99- आई आर( डीयू) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 10th April ,2008

S.O. 969. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 90/99 ) Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the managerment ofNational Dairy Research Institute and their workman, which was received by the Central Government. on 10-04-2008 .

December 1978 drawing a daily wage ofRs . 12 and inthe month of January 1987 his daily wage enhanced to Rs.15 During the year 1988 , the casual daily wage once again was enhancedto Rs . 22 and later on it had been enhanced to Rs . 24 during December 1994. He contended that after having worked with the management continuously for a period of 16years , he made request to regularize his services but instead of granting his request, the management refused his services w.e.f. 14th December 1995. However, he attended the duties without payment of wages and worked as such for about six months up till May 1996 when once again his services were terminated orally without giving any notice or compensation. Therefore, the action ofthe management refusing him the employment amounts to retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) ofthe ID Act, read with Section 25F thereof. He contended that he has worked with the management for a period ofmore than 240days in a calendar year but his case was not considered for absorption of his services on regular basis; that the management did not issue him service certificate to deny him benefit ofregular absorption but he managed to take a certificate on 19-01-1987 certifying to the effect that he was working as a casual daily wage employee since Janpary 1983. Therefore, he requested this tribunal to pass an award reinstating him in service with full back wages , continuity ofservice and other consequential benefits.

[No. L-42012/42/99- IR (DU)J

AJAY KUMAR, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

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

Dated:20th March 2008

PRESENT: SHRI A. R. SIDDIQUI, PresidingOfficer

C.R.No. 90/1999

IPARTY

The ChiefExecutive,

National Dairy Research Instt. ,

Audgodi,

BANGALORE- 560030

ThePresident, Distt.Agriculture WorkersUnion, JawaharNagar, HISSAR-125001

1.The Central Government by exercising the powers conferredby clause (d) ofsub-section 24 ofthe Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide orderNo. L-42012/42/ 99 /IR( DU) dated27th July, 1999 for adjudication on the following schedule:

3. The management by its counter statement in the first instance took up the contention that there has been no relationship of employer and employee between it and the first party and that the first party has no lacus standi to approach this tribunal and this tribunal has nojurisdiction to try and adjudicate the claim of the first party. The management then went on denying almost all the allegations/ averments made in the claim statement by the first party and took up the contention that at no time the first party was workingwith the management and that at no come the management had an occasion to refuse employment tohim much less in the month of December 1995 or at any time subsequently. The management also contended that the certificate dated 19-01-1987 is a concocted document obtained by the first party in collusion with the officials of the management, who were not competent to issue such certificate. The management took up the contention that it has stopped engaging daily wage workers since 1982 and never engaged any worker on daily wage basis , thereafter. It contended that the management regularized the services ofthe eligible casual workers and daily wage workerswho were engaged prior to 1982. Therefore, the management requested this tribunal to dismiss the reference.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management ofNational Dairy Research Institute in refusing employment to Shri SyedMushthappa is legal and justified? Ifnot , to-what reliefthe workman is entitled?"

2.The case ofthe first party workman as made out , in the claim statement, in brief, is that he joined the services ofthe management as a daily wage employee during

4. During, the course oftrial , the management filed the affidavit of witness by name Shri J A S Sayuja said to have been working as Administrative Officer at NDRI , Adugodi , Bangalore . In her affidavit she simply relerated the various contentions taken by, the management in its counter statement in denying most of the averments made in the claim statement filed by the first party. In her cross examination it was elicited that they had maintained the 2086

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 3 , 2008/VAISAKHA 13, 1930

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

refusing him service without the compliance of Section 25F amounts to retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oc) of the I.D. Act.

wage register for daily wagers working up till the year 1982 so also the attendance register for them up till 1982 and they were being paid wages weekly. She denied the suggestion that the first party was working as Sweeper- cum-peon from December , 1978 and was drawing daily wages at the rate of Rs. 12 initially to be enhanced at Rs . 24 per day in 1994. She was unable to say if one Mrs. K. Sumithra working as a Scientist with the management has issued a certificate in favour of the first party dated 19-1-1987 marked at Ex.W1 .

5.As against this, the first party also filed his affidavit bywayofevidence repeating, almost, the same averments as made out in the claim statement and got marked the above said certificate in his favour at Ex . W1 . In his cross examination it was elicited that he had no document to show that he joined the services of the management in December 1978. He denied the suggestion that he did not work with the management from December 1978 drawing thewages of Rs . 12 initially, Rs . 15 in 1987 and then Rs . 22 and Rs . 24 in 1994. He denied the suggestion that the certificate at Ex . WI is not for the work he has done with the management but might be for having worked under the said Smt . Sumithra who issued the certificate.

6. The first party on his behalf also examined one witness by name Shri M.Gurappa by filing his affidavit, wherein, he averred that he knew the first party workman as he (WW2) worked with the management as a Watchman since 1960 and retired from the services during the year 1997. He stated that the first party was working with the management as a daily wage employee since December 1978 and worked as such up till December 1996. In his cross examination he was unable to say who was doing what work and who were all the workers under the management. It was elicited that there were in all 60 workers but he knew the name of the first party alone and not of others . He was also unable to give the designation of the first party but according to him he was doing all sorts of work.

7. Learned counsel for the management as well as the learned counsel for the first party have filed their written arguments on line with their respective contentions taken by way of pleadings . In sum and substance , the learned counsel for the management has argued to the effect that the first party has failed to establish the various contentions taken by him . He argued that the first party never worked with the management as a daily wager or as a permanent employee at any point of time and this fact has been proved by the management by producing the muster rolls being called for the first party, himself.

9. After having gone through the records , I do not find substance in the arguments advanced for the first party. Keeping in view the fact admitted by the first party himself that he was working with the management ondaily wagebasis, the only point to be considered would be as to "whether the first party was able to substantiate that he worked with the management continuously for a period of 240 days in any of the calendar year much less in a calendar year immediately preceding his termination ofthe services". As seen above, the first party apart from examining himself and taking the support of the statement of WW2 and the aforesaid certificate at Ex .WI produced no other papers to substantiate the fact that he was working with the management right from the year 1978 till May 1996. The certificate at Ex .W1 of course reads to the effect that one Smt. Sumithra who was working with National Dairy Research Institute of the managerment issued the certificate tothe effect that the first party has been working as casual dailypaid attender since January 1983 off and on on daily wages ofRs. 15. Therefore , the certificate which was issued in the month of January 1987 , as it is does not support the case ofthe first party that he worked with the management since the year 1978 as claimed by him . This certificate at the most will help the first party to suggest that he had been workingwith the management since January 1983 all the date the certificate was issued. Now, in order to attract the provisions of Section 2(00) read with Section 25F of the ID Act, the moot question to be considered before this tribunal is whether the first party worked with the management continuously for a period of 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date ofthe alleged termination ofhis services . Except the above said certificate whichwas issued in the year 1987, absolutely no document has been produced by the first party to speak to the fact that subsequent to the year 1987 he was in the employment of the management. As far as refusal of the work, the first party in his claim statement and in his affidavit itself has come out with a conflicting versions . In the first instance he says that his services were refused by the management in the month of December 1995 and in the same breath he says that even then he worked with the management without wages and it is in the month ofMay 1996 again the management refused employment to him . On the face of it itself, the above said versions given by the first party are not believable. It just cannot be expected of him to have worked with the management for about a period of six months after he was refused work in the month ofDecember 1995, itself, that without wages. The oral evidence of his witness, WW2 is again not worth credence for the simple reasonthat hewas unable to say the names ofother workers except the name of the first party who worked with the management while , he was in the service of the management. Moreover, according to his affidavit the first partyworkedwith the management till December 1986. He 8.Whereas, learned counsel for the first party taking the support of the aforesaid certificate at Ex. WI and the statement ofthe first party and the statement of his witness, WW2 argued that the first party has been working with the management all along since the year 1978 uptill May 1996 and therefore , he worked with the management continuously for a period of 240 days and more in each calendar year and in the result , the action of the management 2087 [ भाग II खण्ड 3 (H) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2008/वैशाख 13 , 1930

NewDelhi, the 10th April, 2008.

$.O. 970. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 288/ 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofM/s. B. P. C. L. and their workman, which was receivedbythe Central Govemcient on 10-4-08 .

[No. L-30012/ 126/97-IR (C-I) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer never stated that the services of the first party were terminatedby the management in the month of December 1995 and he worked with the management without wages thereafter uptill December 1996 , Therefore, as it is the oral testimony of WW2 does not inspire any confidence in the mind of the court in supporting the case of the first party that the first party was working with the management since December 1978 till December 1996. Secondly, in the absence ofanydocumentary evidence much less wage slips or any appointment order in favour ofthe first party itjust cannot be believed that the first party was working with the management all along continuously right from the year 1978 till May 1996 and that he worked for a period of240 days in each of the calendar year between the said period.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM Present:

SHRI P.L. NORBERT, B.A. , LL.B., PresidingOfficer (Friday the28th day ofMarch, 2008/8th Chaithra, 1930) LD. No. 288 of2006

(ID.48/98 ofLabour Court, Ernakulam)

Union

:TheGeneral Secretary, Petroleum Employees Association, C/o.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , Dr. SalimAli Road, Kochi- 682014.

ByAdvocate Sri. Ashok B. Shenoy.

Management : The Deputy General Manager (P),

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , 1- Ranganathan Gardens, Off: 11th Main Road, Annanagar , Chennai - 600040.

ByAdvocate M/ s.Menor & Pai , 10. As against the abovesaid oral and documentary evidence produced by the first party as noted above , the management examined said Shri Sayuja said to have been working as Administrative Officer and he sworn to the affidavit that at no point of time the first party workedwith the management much less during the aforesaid period. His statement in cross examination was not shaken on behalfofthe first party supporting his case in any manner . From his statement before this tribunal, it is very much clear that subsequent to the year 1982 the management has stopped engaging the dailywage workers and therefore, question of the management engaging the first party subsequent to the year 1982 or earlier to the year 1996 at anypoint of time did not arise. In the result, there cannot beanyhesitation for this tribunal to come to the conclusion that the first party failed to establish that he worked with the management for a period of 240 days in any of the calendar year in between 1976 and 1996 much less during a calendar year preceding the date ofhis alleged termination from services . Therefore , provisions of Section 2(00) read with Section 25F of the I.D. Act do not attract. Hence the followingaward.

AWARD

The reference stands rejected. No costs.

This case coming up for settlement in the Lok Adalat heldon 28-03-2008 , this Tribunal - cum - Labour Court on the same day passed the following:

AWARD

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed byme on 20th March, 2008)

This is a reference under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) ofIndustrial DisputesAct:

A. R. SIDDIQUI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल , 2008

When the matter came up for adjudication parties agreed for a settlement . Accordingly, the dispute was taken up inAdalat and negotiated . Parties came to a settlement and a memorandum of settlement was drawn by them. In the result, an award is passed in terms of the settlement between the parties and the memorandum of settlement alongwith the agreement arrived in Adalat will form part of theaward.

का.आ. 970. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैं. बी. पी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीय , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , अरनाकुलम के पंचाटू ( संदर्भ संख्या 288/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on thisthe 28thdayofMarch,2008.

P.L. NORBERT, PresidingOfficer

Appendix:Nil.

[सं. एल-30012/126/97- आई आर(सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लक्षा जवास, डेस्क अधिकारी 2088

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2008 /VAISAKHA 13, 1930

FORM H

MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT UNDER SECTION 18 ( 1 ) OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947

Representing employer: Bharat Petroleur CorporationLtd. Represented by: Kurian Parambi Senior Manager Employee Relations, South

Representing workmen: Petroleum Employees Association B. Balagopalan , General Secretary,

K.K.Rajan& A. Jayarajan - Casual workanen

2 workmen

Broad description , category and number ofworkmen covered by the settlement :

SHORTRECITAL OF THE CASE

[PART I SEC . 3 (ii) ] wages , bonus , gratuity (excluding PF) or any other dues in connection with their casual engagement or non- engagement or under any other head .

3. On payment of the amount referred to clause ' 2 ' above, Shri Rajan and Shri Jayarajau shall have no claim whatsoever against the Corporation either in the pending matter LD. No. 288 of2006 before the CGIT- cum- Labour Court or otherwise .

4. The management and the Union /casual workers agree to file a copy ofthe settlement in I.D. No. 288 of 2006 with a request to pass an award in terms of the settlement.

5. TheUnion and the workers agree that they will not raise any dispute or claim before any court or legal forum or authority for any monetary benefits or otherwise on account of the casual engagement or non- engagement ofShri Rajan and Shri Jayarajan .

6. It is agreed that this settlement shall not be cited as a pattern or precedent to countenance any claim of any other casual workman ,

Both the parties agree to the above terms .

Dated at Kochi this 27th day of March 2008

Union/Workinen:

Management:

Kwrian Parambi

Petroleum Employees Association, Ernakuları raised an industrial dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner ( C ) claiming permanent employment in the services ofthe Corporation (Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited) for Shri K.K , Rajan and Shri . A.Jayarajan who had been engaged on a casual basis at Cannanore Depot . Following a failure of conciliation, the matter was originally referred to the Labour Court , Ernakulam ( C ) and numbered as I.D. No. 48 of 1998. Subsequently the dispute was transferred to the Central Govt , Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Emakulam and renumbered as I.D. No. 288 of2006.

B.Balagopalan

K. K. Rajan : Received D. D. No. 344323 dt. 26-3-08 for Rs . 3 lakhs A. Jayarajan :Received D.D. No. 344322 Dt. 26-3-2008 for Rs . 3 lakhs Witnesses :

1. Sobhan George , Advocate Sd/-

2. C. K. Shiba

Duringthe pendency of the matter before the CGIT cun Labour Court, Emakulam, the Union approached the management with a request for exploring the possibility of an out of court settlement . After prolonged discussions , the parties have arrived at a settlement on the following terms:

TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT:

1. It is agreed between the parties that Shri Rajan and Shri Jayarajan, casual workmen, are not eligible for regularisation and that the management has no casual work to offer them and consequently they will not continue to be engaged any more as casual workmen at Cannanore Depot or at any other establishment of the Corporation.

2. In consideration of clause ' 1 ' above , having regard to the circumstances undergone by Shri Rajan and Shri Jayarajan and on humanitarian grounds and with a viewto rehabilitate them , the Corporation agrees to pay Shri Rajan and Shri Jayaran a lumpsum amount of Rs.3 lakhs each (Rupees three lakhs only) vide Demand Draft Nos.344323 and 344322 respectively dated 26-3-2008 in full and final settlement of all their claims against the Corporation including claim for any earned IN THECGIT-CUM- LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM 1.D. No. 288/2006

Thematter is settled after negotiation with the parties, the terms ofwhich are incorporated in a memorandum of settlement signed by parties concerned and will form part ofthe award . It is clarified that the settlement is full and final and the claimant will have no right whatsoever to raise any dispute or claim against the management, Demand Draft for 3 lakhs each is handed over to the claimant in the Adalat.

Dated this the 28th day of March, 2008 .

Sd/- Management Sd/-

Union:

Workanen:

Sd/-

Sd/

( 1 ) K.K. Rajan (2) A. Tayarajan

Counsel for Union Sd/-

Counsel for Management Sd/- Mediator 2089 [भाग -खण्ड (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2008/वैशाख 13 , 1930

नई दिल्ली , 10 अप्रैल , 2008

का.आ. 971. औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार हम्फ्यू, सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 171/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/83/1992- आई आर( सी-1) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 10thApril, 2008

(3). In response to the notice of the Tribunal , the petitioner appeared and filed Statement ofClaim before the C.G.I.T. Jabalpur where the dispute was pending. The respondent had also filed the W.S. and the case was pending for filing the rejoinder if any by the petitioner. However the petitioner did not sttain the Tribunal at Jabalpur. Consequent upon the establishment of this Tribunal at Nagpur , the reference was transferred to it. This tribunal also issued the notice to the petitioner but petitioner did not attend the Tribunal . Right from 23-06-2005 the petitioner's or their counsels are not attending the court. It appears they are not interested in prosecuting the Petition/Reference . Hence it is dismissed for their defaults and this no dispute award.

Dated13-03-08

A.N. YADAV, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल, 2008

S.O. 971.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) of the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 171 / 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribupal-cum- Labour Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of W.C.L and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-04-2008.

[No. L-22012/83/1992- IR(C-II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

का.आ. 972. औद्योगिक विवाद अभिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंकऑफ हड़िया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, कोल्हापुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 01/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था। BEFORE SHRI A. N. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM- LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR,

[सं. एल-12012/281/2002- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी Dated: 13thMarch2008,

CaseNo.OGIT/NGP/ 171/2003

NewDelhi , the 10thApril ,2008 Petitioner: Shri Om Prakash Falake and 3 others through President, Rastriya Koyala Khadan Mazadur Sangh , W.C.L. Coat Easted Civil Lines Nagpur-440001 Petitioner;- (PartyNo. 1)

Versus

S.O. 972. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 01/2003 ) of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kolhapur , as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, receivedby the Central Government on10-04-2008.

Respondent: The General Manager, ( LR . ) W.C.L. Union Coal Easted Civil Lines , Nagpur-440 001 Dist. Nagpur. Respondant: -(Party No. 2)

[No. L-12012/281/2002-IR (B-1)) AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer AWARD [Dated: 3rdMarch, 2008]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, MAHA, ATKOLHAPUR.

Reference (IT)No.1 of2003.

Between:

TheAsstt. General Manager, StateBank of India,Pune, Maharashtra, Pune.

...IstParty The Central Government after satisfying the existence ofdisputes between Sari Om Prakash Falake and3othersThrough President, Rastriya Koyala Khadan Muzadur Sangh . W.C.L.:- (Party No. I) . The General Manager Coul Easted Civil Lines Nagpur-440 001, No.2 referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its LetterNo. L-22012/83 /92- IR(C- II) Dt. 09-06-1992 under clause(d). ofsub- section ( 1) and sub-section (24) ofSection 10 ofIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 [ 14 of 1947] with the following schedule:

And

(2)."Whether the action of the management to ask the contractor to terminate the services of the four workman, who were engaged in prohibited category of employment for W.C.L. at Workers Training Institute, Wardha is legal and justified? If not, to what relief these workmen are entitled to?"

... Ind Party

The DeputyGeneral Secretary, StateBank Karmachari Sena, C/ o Stri W.M. Babar, 7/11 , Sudhindra Nagara, C.S. Pasth, Dahisar, (E)Mumbai .

1438 95/ 08-12.

2090

[PART -SEC. 3 (10)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 3 , 2008/VAISAKHA 13, 1930

In the matter of : reinstatement in service with continuity & full back wages

Coram: P.S.S. Shinde, Industrial Tribunal ,

Appearances: Shri Y.R. Khot, Adv . for the Ist Party Shri A.T. Upadhye, Adv. for the ind party.

AWARD (Dictated in open court on 2-2-2008)

The present reference is preferred by the Goverrunent of India, Bharat Sarkar , Ministry of Labour /Shram Mantralaya under the powers confered by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the I.D. Act, 1947 and referred the dispute for adjudication between the parties in relation to the management of State Bank of India, Pune and the workmen employed under it in respect ofthe matter specified in the Schedule which reads as under:

working in the said bank. In Kolhapur district about 200 to 300 employees are working in the said Bank, Shri B.D. Bagane resumed his duties with first party bank as messenger-cum - peon on daily wages at first party's Treasury bank at Laxmipuri branch and worked there up to 1994 on daily wagę basis . Thereafter said employee was transferred to Dasara Chowk Branch which is a main office ofthe first party bank at Kolhapur and worked there from 1994 to 1997. Shri Bagane therefore worked with the first party bank for more than 240 days in a year. Even though Shri Bagane worked with the first party bank more than 240days in a year, he was not made permanent in servite with an intention to not to give him the benefits of permanency. The concerned employee Shri Bagane was doing all the work ofpeon in the bank which was given to him . He was sincere and honest. After oral termination of services of Shri Bagane he wrote 2/3 letters to the bank for reinstaternent but in vain. The concerned employee Shri Baganewas getting Rs . 2112 as wages . The termination of services ofconcerned employee Shri Bagane was without complying the provisions of Sections 25 F, G & H of the I.D. Act 1947 and without complying the terms and conditions as laid down in Sastri/Desai Award, "Whether the action of the management ofStateBank of India, Kolhapur in terminating the services of Shri B.D. Bagne and Shri M.B. Sarnaik w.e.f. 31-3-97 without complying with the provisions of Sec.25F,G and Hof 1.D,.Act , 1947 is legal and justified?, If not , what reliefthe concerned employees are entitled to?".

2.On receipt ofdispute for adjudication, notices were served to both parties and accordingly the Second Party i.e. State Bank Karmachari Sena through the President of the Sena filed a Statentent of Claim below EX.U -3 with the contention that the second party sent notice of demandto the first party bank and demanded reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages in full for both the employees . The first party, however, refused to entertain the demand for the Same was not legal. The second party therefore raised the dispute before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Central ) at Pune through his Conciliation Officer under LD, Act. The first appeared before the Concilation Officer, Pune but due to negative apporach of the first party, the conciliation proceeding ended in failure . The Conciliation Officer therefore , sent the dispute to the Government with a report that the matter be referred to the Tribunal for adjudication. Hence the Government sent notice for adjudication of the dispute to this Tribunal .

4. Another employee Shri Mahesh Balaso Sarnaik was also appointed orally in the year 1987 as a messenger- cum-peon at Ist party's Udyamnagar Branch, Kobapur and worked there up to 1996 and thereafter to main branch i.e. Dasara Chowk Branch of the Ist party Bank on dailywage basis. Though he completed 240 days ofservice in a year, hewas not conferred the benefits of permanency and kept daily wager so that he could not get the benefits of permanent employee . According to the second party the first party absorbed other daily wage employees in the service and made them permanent . There is huge and sufficientwork available with the first party to give work to these two employees . Entire work of the second party is perennial nature, some ofthe settlements held between the first party and other unions about absorption of the daily wagers ofwhich benefit was extended to many other daily wagers except these two employees concerned in the present reference, though they rendered continuous service with the first party. The first party is in the habit of maintaining independent and separate attendance registers for temporary employess ofdaily wagers . The termination order issued to those two employees concerned in this reference is from March , 1997 being without following procedure and provisions of law which amounts to retrenchment. Hence the termination imposed on these two workmen is illegal , improper and bad in law . Though the workmen were neither given any notice nor wages in lieu of notice while terminating their services . The first party even failed to offer the compensation to both the workmen to treat the concerned workmen as retrenched. The first party also failed to follow the principles of last come first go by maintaining seniority list. The first party 3. The workman concerned Shri Bhikaji Dhodiram Bagane was appointed in February , 1988 as a messenger- cum-peon in the State Bank of India , Treasury Branch,Laxmipuri , Kolhapur, The said appointment was given orally by the Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Dasara Chowk which is main branch office in Kolhapur, The first party is a banking industry and reputed Nationalised Bank, having so many branches all over the Country . The said bank is giving various types of services to the eligible customers such as accepting deposits , lending money etc. and thousands of employees are [ 3(ⅱ)]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2008/वैशाख 13, 1930

2011 retained regular employees and on that count also the termination effected on these two employess is illegal. It is settled law that any employee who works 240 days or more continuously within a period of one year the concerned employee should be offered and paid compensation as if retrenched.As such, the workmen concerned in the present reference are entitled for declaration of their termination as illegal , and prayed relief of reinstatement in service with continuity of service and hack wages in full.

1 !

5. The first party appeared in the matter and filed written statement below Ex.C-4 wherein initially raised virious objections about maintainability of the reference on the visious grounds . According to the first party the alleged dispute is not an industrial dispute but it is an individual dispute. There is no community interest in the reference.The alleged issue affects only two workmen . It is not an issue which has any connection with other workmen and, therefore, the dispute does not fall within the theaning ofSec. 2(k) ofthe I.D. Act. Hence this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the present reference . The statement ofclaim filed and dispute raised is at the instance ofsald State Bank Karmachari Sena which is unrecognised and minority union. The Hon'ble Apex Court of India clearly observed in Bombay Union ofJournalists V/s The Hindu reported in 1961 II LLJ page 436 that in each case inescertaisingwhether an individual dispute has acquired the character of an industrial dispute, the test is whether on the dats of the reference the dispute was taken up as supported by the union of the workmen of the employer against whon the dispute is raised by an individual workmen or by number ofworkmen . In the matter of Shree Gopal Paper Mills Ltd. V/s State of Haryana reported in 1968 Lab . L. C. 1259 the Hon'ble Court has observed that the representative character ofthe union his to be gathered from the strength of the actual number of co- workers sponsering the dispute as well in Nellai Cotton Mills V/s Labour Court reported in 1965 ILLJ 95 the Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that the mere fact that a substantial mumber of workmen of the establishment in which the concerned workmen were employed were also members of the unionwould not constitute espousal . It must be shown thatthey participated in or acted together and arrived at an understanding by a resolution or by other means and collectively supported the dispute. The fact that an industrialdispute is supported by other workmen will have to be established either in the form of a resolution of the union of which the workman may be a member or the workosen themselves who support the dispute or in any othermanner.The Hon'ble Court has, therefore , to consider the question as tohow many ofthe fellow workmen actually espoused the cause of the concerned workman by participating in the particular resolution ofthe union.Hence it is beld inNellai Cotton Mills that in the absence of such determination by the Tribunal, it cannot be said that the individual dispute acquired the character of an industrial dispute and the Tribunal will not acquire jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute. In view of the above case laws, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the dispute

unless the union proves that the individual dispute حفظ beencollectively espoused by the union after passing of the resolution to that effect in the general body meeting of theunion . The second party workman failed to file authority letterfor raising alleged industrial dispute and hence there is non compliance of provisions of Section 36 of the LID. Act. It is submitted by the first party that nos filing of authority letter by the second party workmen, the management ofparty No. 1 is not under any obligation to participate inanyway or to answer any ofthe proceedings/ application . The second party union has not produced any evidence in support of the fact that the concerned two employess are their members . The first party management denied thecontentions reaised in the statement of claim by the union on behalf of their workmen . The first party submitted that the workmen concerned in this discpute on temporary basis working as messenger /waterman and due to administrative exigencies , they are employed on temporaybasis. Without prejudice to various rights availabletotheBank under the relevant provisions of law and without prejudice to any of the submissions which partyNo. 1 shall be making hereinunder, it is submitted by the first party that the concerned workman will be duly considered by the bank for permanent services, as porthe seulement dated 17th November , 1987 and accordingly, was agreed that temporary employces and casual labourеть would be given one time opportunity to be absorbed and forthat purpose panels for absorprion would be kept alive upto 31st March, 1997. The said settlement is a settlement within the meaning of Sec. 2(p) of the I.D. Act, which also binding on the parties as per ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR SC page 251 between Pukar Singh Vis Heavy Engineering Corporation . In ruposeto said settlement the bank gave an advertisement in the newspapers calling upon all the eligible temperary employess to apply for the permanent appointment is the subordinate cadre, subject to certain morms and accordingly these two employees applied to the bank, they warg interviewed by the bank's Interview Committee and werý listed in the waiting list at Sr. Nos. 63 and 78 for permanen employment , respectively. The waiting list came to bị expired on 31-3-97 as per the settlement, It is specifically agreed between the Bank and the Federation vide clause 12 of the settlement dated 17-11-87 that all disputes rajond by any person shall be deemed to have been actiled by virtue of said settlement. The workmen were appoined on dailywage basis by the Branches, who have no authority toappiont any persos in such category. Such appointment are andwere illegal , irregular and impermissible under that rules oftheBank. It is submitted that inicial appointment of the workmen were on purely temporary basis and the purpose ofwhich the workmen were engaged in in compeleteddisengagement oftheir services was inevitable, The alleged agreement of service was void ab intio: Any such agreement of service caqunot be enforced in the court of law. It is submitted that only in case of administrative exigencies the branch manager can engage any person on casual or temporary basis. It is denied that the conserτικά -1438 Guda-13 2092

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 3 , 2008 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1930

[PART 1 SEC. 3( ii)]

to show that he has worked for 240 days , continuously in the preceding 12 months as per the section 25 B ofthe Act . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that proper enquiry shouldbe made to find out whether the concerned workman had actually worked for not less than 240 days during a period of 12 calender months immediately preceding the retrenchment/ termination. If an employee is remaining in service for 240 days within a peroid of 12 calender months commencing and counting backwards from date of retrenchment , then the employee is deemed to be in continuous service . The continuous servie of 240 days shouldbe under the same employer. The working ofthe applicant in different branches in different category cannot be clubbed together. Similarly, earlier part time employment cannot be taken into account for computing 240 days of service. The provisions of Chapter V- A of I.D. Act will not be applicable unless the workman has completed service of 240 days in a single cagegory, as defined under Sec.25-B of the Act. In no case , it will apply to cases where workman has not completed continuous service of240 days. In case the interpretation /claim as given by the workman in his application is accepted , then it will be not only against the express intention of Legislature as incorporated in the provisions of law, but it will be impracticable and impossible to implement such interpretation/clain, In such cases , even a casual labour with service period of one day could assail his disengagement on the ground that those engaged in the afternoon on that day on which he was engaged, has been retained in service. This will be extreme height of imagination and cannot be said to be reflecting the true and correct intention of Legislature being the extending various benefits contained in Chapter V-A ofthe said Act. In view of this position of law, the provisions of Section 25-G, read with rute 77 will be applicable only to those cases wherein the workman has put in 240 days service or not less than one year. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that if an employee is reinstated -consequent upon illegal termination, then he shall be reinstated in his original service on the same terms and conditions in which he was working earlier. In other words, atemporary employee cannot become permanent employee upon reinstatement. His status shall remain the same, which was before termination . As such, in this case, since permanency cannot be granted under the law, therefore, the applicant has no case.: 'The first party on the basis of aforesaid contentions prayed for answering the reference in negative and in favour ofthe party No. 1 bank and against the workmen holding that the wormen are not entitled to anyrelief.

6 Considring the pleadings and counter pleadings ofboth the parties , I have before me the following points for my determination .

workmen were working regularly in the establishment of the party No. 1 and the party No. 2 has completed more than 240 days during the said period. It is denied thatthe services ofthe concerned workmen were illegally retrenched without following the procedure. It is also denied that the other employees were absorbed. Even presuming but not admitting that ifvacancy is available it is the sole discretion ofthe partyNo. I to either engage an employee or to keep the post vacant. It is denied that the provisions of Section 25F ofthe I. D. Act are applicable to the instant case . Since theworkmen were not found suitable for the work, there is no question ofgiving notice or compensation to them before disengaging them . It is denied that the services of the workmen were illegally retrenched without following due procedure of law . It is denied that alleged termination isillegal , unsustainable in law. It is submitted that as per the settlement with the Federation no temporary employee can be continued after 31-3-97 and hence the services of the workmen were disengaged and said disengagement is not illegal , improper and bad in law . In fact, if the Bank continued their services after 31-3-97 then there is breach of settlement and it would have been bad in law . If the prayer of reinstatement with continuity and back wages in full is granted then there is totally breach of settlement and the management of the bank will have to face the consequences . The bank has acted according to the settlement reached between the Bank and the Federation . Therefore, the workmen are not entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity in service and back wages in full . According to the bank the temporary employees have no right over the permanency as if right and temporary employees ifconferred permanency then in that case, that will be a backdoor entry, which is not permissible in law. Theworkmen were considered for permanent appointment only because of the settlement arrived, however, the workman being not found suitable in the interview, they were not considered. The employees concerned have no case at all on merits as well in the eyes of law. The Hon'ble Apex Court in clear terms held that termporary employees have no right ot the post, therefore , concept of retrenchment cannot be granted to the daily wage employees . The Issue in dispute have been racked up after the gap of more than 3 years . On top of it , there is no whisper for explanation such inordinate delay in raising the alleged industrial dispute. The applicant simply wish to have the advantage ofsuch undue delay in his favour. The policy of industrial adjudication is that stale claims should not be encouraged unles there is a satisfactory explanation for detay . Apart from the obvious risk to industrial peace from the entertainment of claims after long lapse of time , it is also necessary to take into account the unsetting effect which it is likely to hae on the employes financial arrangement and to avoid dislocation of industry. The Full Bench of Supreme Court has held that even if the workmen are not partyto a settlement, and if the settlement is just and fair, it will be binding on bil the workmen and even when settlement is not araising out of the conciliation proceeding . It is submitted that the applicant before claiming any reliefhas

(1) Whether action of the first party by terminating the services ofthe two workman namely Shri B.D. Bogane and Shri M.B. Sarnaik w.e.f.31-3-97 is illegal, improper and bad in law ?

2093

भारत क्त राजपत्र: मई 3 , 2008/वैशाख 13, 1930

[ भाग 1] खष्ट 3(it) ] .

(n) If yes, whether the workmen concerned are entitled to reliefs as prayed for?

(i) What order?

7. My findings on above points are as under:

(1).Yea

(a) Partly yes.

(iii) Reference is allowed as per order below..

REASONS

But considering the peculiar facts and circumstances appearing in his case, I am of the opinion that the workmen concerned having worked for more than 240 days during theperiod of 12 months preceding the date of vergination, in my opinion, the first party ought to have followed the procedure that of offering the compensation with either notice or wages in lieu of notice. The first party admittedly hasnot done so. Therefore, in my opinion, the termination has to be held as illegal , improper and bad in law. harumy opinion , there was no reason for the first party to refuge to followthe procedure and provisions of lawwhileterminating the services of the workmen concerned. Even if theredo not accrue any right over the employment by the workmen concerned, then the termination ought to have been by following due procedure. The first party has failed to follow procedure and therefore, termination imposed has to be held as illegal , improper and bad in law. Accordingly, I answer the issue in the affirmative.

9) Esse no.2: The second party has prayed for relief ofreinstratement with continuity of sevice and back wages in full . Second party has established that the termination imposed on the workmen concerned is illegal, improper and bad in law by virtue of which. second party has established enitlements of the relief to the workmen concerned. I do not find any reason to grant any other relief to the second party and its member for whom the present reference is raised . However, while granting relief, itwould be appropriate to see that the second party and more particularly the coricrned workrnen have not at all expressed as regards employments status after termination and what are the efforts they made for employment . As such, I am of the opinion that the workmen concerned alongwith second party is entitled for the relief that can be ofreinstatement of two workmen with continuity of service butwithout back wages. I do not find any reason to impose the burden of back wages on the first party. In the circumstances, I answer issue No. 2 partly in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following award.

AWARD

(1) The Reference is partly allowed.

( ) The action of the first party by terminating the services of theworkmen namely Shri B.D.Bagane and Shri M.B. Sarnaik is hereby held as illegal.

(i) The workmen concerned Shri B.D. Bagane and Shri M.B.Sarnaik are entitled for the relief of reinstatement with continuity ofservice, however, without backwages.

(iv) In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.

(v) Awardbe sent for publication in accordance with law.

P.S. SHINDE, Industrant Tribunu

Kolhapur.

Date2-2-2008

8. Heard the arguments advancedby the learned advocates of both the parties in consonance with the contentions raised in the Statement of Claim and written statement. The parties concerned in the present dispute have not at all filed any document in support of its contentions . The second partyhowever, filed affidavit in lieu of oral deposition of its President below Ex.U -4. He was cross examined at length by learned advocate for the first party. The first party has not adduced any oral evidence. In the case of second party the employee concernell on the dispute came to be terminated without following process of law though they have rendered continous service of more than 240 days in a period of 12months prior to their termination. As against the same, it is the contention of the employer that the workmen coscerned have not at all worked for 240 days in a year and further more they have not right to claim permanency and reinstatement irrespective of the fact that they have completed240days within a period of one year.The affidavit filled by the witnesses of the second party is reiteration of the facts as appearing in the statement of claim. In the presentcaseinhand, it is material to note that the settlement ofwhich reference is given by the first party is in the custody of first party, the attendance record if at alt maintained, is also in the custody ofthe first party. Thus all relevant documents are in the custody of the first party, sven the seniority list is prepared of the daily wagers is also in the custody of the first party, but none of these documents are produced by the first party for the reasons best known to him. Said documents ought to have been producedto prove the contentions taken in the written statement but there appears no attempt of any sort from that angle: The first party has not al all assigned any reason forthe same. In the absence of documents more particularly attendance record and the wage record , I left with no alternative butto believe the statement of the witness which shows that the workmen concerned have worked for more than 240 days and the first party is in need of service of auch mesengers /peons and there is ample work to provide to such category of employees . Even the agreement/ settlement entered into between the parties i.e. First party and the union indicates such temporary employees were absorbed as regular employees which indicates requirement of the first party of such employees. No doubt, the law of the land is crystal clear which shows that unless there is approved and sanctioned post and there is procedure followed by the parties concerned while recruiting the workmen, theyhave no right over the post and employment.

[PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] 2094

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2008 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1930

नई दिल्ली , 10 अप्रैल , 2008

का.आ. 973.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार लाइफ इंशोरेन्स कार्पोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , बैंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 69/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-17012/08/2003- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ]

अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 10th April , 2008

S.O. 973. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Govemment hereby publishes the Award (Ref.: No. 69/ 2003) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum Labour Court, Bangalore , as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workmen, received bythe Central Government on 10-4-2008.

[No. L- 17012/18 /2003- IR(B - 1 ) }

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

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

1-7-1999 at their branch at Puttur and worked with the management continuously till the date of his termination on 21-12-2002, on which date the management asked him not to attend office on the ground that they have appointedanother person to work in his place . Ife contended that during his service hewas paid consolidated wage of Rs . 900 per month and discharged his duties continuously for a period ofmore than240 days and therefore, was eligible for permanent post . However , the management refused employment to him without any reason in order to provide job to one Mr. Ganesh in his place for which the management has no authorityto do so. He contended that after he was appointed, the management started saying that his appointment was on temporary basis and therefore, he was liable to be removed from service without notice etc. He contended that his appointment was made his name being sponsored through employment exchange and it was against the permanent vacancy and therefore, management cannot be allowed to contend that he was appointed on temporary basis and was liable to be removed from service on the appointment ofa permanent employee in his place . Therefore, he challenged the action ofthe management before the conciliation officer which resulted into the present reference proceedings . In the result, the first party requested this tribunal to pass an awardwith a direction to the management to reinstate him in service with all the back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits .

Dated: 19th March 2008

PRESENT SHRI A.R. SIDDIQUI PRESIDING OFFICER

C.R. No, 69/2003

IJ PARTY

PARTY

The Sr. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Jeevan Krishna ,

Shri Ammu, Sio Shri Madara, Singani House, Puttur Kasba,

UDUPI- 576101

Puttur Taluk

AWARD

1. The Central Governmentby exercising the powers conferred by clause (d ) of sub- section 2A of the Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Acı , 1947 has referred this dispute víde order No. L- 17012/18/2003 -JR(B - 1 ) dated 27th November 2003 for adjudication on the following Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of LIC of India , D.O. , Udupi is legal and justified in discontinuing the services ofShri Amnmu as part time Sweeper with effect from 22-10-2002 ? Ifnot, to what reliefthe workman is entitled for?"

2. The case of the first party workman as made out in the claim statement , in brief, and relevant for the purpose is that he joined the services ofthe management as per the reference made by the District Employment Exchange on

3. The management by its counter statement in the first instance took up the contention that the reference itself is not maintainable before this tribunal in the light of the provisions of LIC Act , 1956 amendedby Act of 1981 . While coming to the facts of the case, the management contended that the first party was appointed as a part time sweeper-cum -cleaner at their Puttur branch office in the temporary vacancy which arose on account of the retirement of the existing Cleaner /Sweeper on 1-7-1999. He worked upto 21-12-2002 and that he was a candidate sponsored by the Mangalore Employment Exchange for temporary appointment as part time sweeper/ cleaner . The management contended that whenever it required the services of the first party as a substitute part time sweeper they had engaged him for that purpose. Therefore , there was no question ofhis termination . The management further contended that the first party was appointed purely on temporary basis on stop gap arrangement due to the retirement of the permanent sweeper /cleaner and accordingly it had issued a conditional appointment order dated 25-6-1999 in favour of the first party with specific condition that the appointment was temporary and only until the appointment of a candidate on a regular basis or transfer of regular employee was made . Therefore, the first partywas discharged when a regular permanent appoint- ment was made for the vacancy and one Mr. Ganesh was appointed as regular sweeper -cum-cleaner to the place the first party was working . Therefore, the management contended that the appointment of the first party was 2095 [माग खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2008/वैशाख 13 , 1930

temporary appointment that too on contractual basis . subject to the condition that he will be removed from service whenever aregular employee was appointed to the vacancy to which he was posted. In the result, the management requested this tribunal to reject the reference.

counsel submitted that the appointment was made after the name of the first party was sponsored through employment exchange in response to the very request of the management and the appointment was against the permanent vacancy, the management cannot be allowellto contend that his appointment was on temporary basis and that he was liable to be removed from service when a appointment was made to the aforesaid job ofSweeper- cum-Cleaner. He also contended that when the first party workedwith the management undisputedly, for a period of more than 240 days in a calendar year, his services could not have been dispensed with without the compliance of provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act and therefore, it was a case of retrenchment and in the result, the fliest paty isentitled for the reliefofreinstatement and other bes 4. During the course of trial , the management exanmined one Mr. Ganesh said tohave been working with it as Manager, P& IR departinent. In his affidavit the said witnesswasjust to reiterate the various contentions taken by the management in the counter statement. In his cross examination itwas elicited that the first party was in the employment of the management from 1-7-1999 to 21-12-2002 all along. It was further elicited that his appointment was made his name being sponsored through EmploymentExchange. It was elicited that the management didnot pay any compensation nor issued any notice to the first party before he was discontinued from service.

5.As against this the first party also filed his affidavit evidence repeating the various averments made in his claim statement referred to supra. In his cross examination itwas elicited that there was an appointment order in writing inhis favour appointing him as Cleaner -cum- Sweeper dated 25-6-1999but itwas not received by him. He admitted that one Smt. Lalitha was working earlier to the place he was appointed on her retirement. He admitted that his services were discontinued after the appointment ofone Mr. Ganesh as a permanent Cleaner and Sweeper. He denied the suggestion that he was taken into service on temporary basis subject to the appointment ofa permanent employee to the saidjob as per Ex.M1 shown to him. In his further examination chief the first party stated that in the employment exchange letter he received there was a mention that the job was on permanent basis and that letter was colleted by the management from him . In his cross examination it was elicited that he had no copy of the said letter.He denied the suggestion that as per the said letter it was the vacancy for temporary, employment and not for permanent employment,

7. Whereas , learned counsel for themanagementalso while repeating the various contentious taken in the counter statement by way ofhis written arguments further contended that calling for the list from the employment exchange even for temporary appointment is under the LIC ( Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions 1993 and therefore, only because the mami of the first party was sponsored through the employmint exchange it cannot be said that it was for a permaneatpost. Hetook support of the statement of the first party ins cross examination that his services were discontiosod after the appointment of one Mr. Ganesh as permanent closйст which was in accordance with the very conditions Wid down inthe appointment order marised befure this tributal stEx.M !, which document was not disputed or denied by the first party. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that theappointment ofthe first party as could be read fromthe aforesaid appointment order at Ex.MI wawas purely on temporary basis with a specific condition that he with be removed from service as soon as a permanent employee was appointed to the place held by him. He contendedtist it was the appointment on temporary basis falling under the provisions of Section 2(oo) (bb) of the ID Act and mot the case ofretrenchment as defined under Section 2 (oo) pf the IDAct.

8. After having gone through the records mote, particularly, the aforesaid appointment order at BK.ΜΙ , I find substance in the arguments advanced for the management. The massagement as noted above, before s tribunal has produced the attested copy ofthe appointment order at Ex.M1 in support of the contention that the appointment ofthe first party was on temporary basis and that itwas to the period pending employment ofacidic on regular basis . From the perusal of clause 2ofthemid appointment order, it becomes crystal close that the appointment ofthe first party was on temporary basis and itwas for the period pending employment of a candidate on regular basis. Clause 2 of the said appointment onder reads as under: "your employment on a temporary basis as aforesaid shall be governed by the provision ofthe Life Insurance Corporation of badia(Employment ofTempo Staff) Instructions, 1993 and the period ofemployment is limited ( i ) to the period pending employment of a candidate

on a regular basisl, (ii) to the period from (iii) to aperiod of........ days from the date ofyour joining service."

6. Learned counsel for the first party in his written arguments while reiterating the various averments made in the claim statement as well as the stand taken by the management in its counter statement , took up the contention that the first party worked with the management continuously for a period of more than 240 days and therefore, he was entitled for reguler appointment particularly, when his name was sponsored through oumployerest exchange and was taken into service on the assurance given by the management that his services will be regularized some times , thereafter. He referred to the statement of MWI in his cross examination wherein he stated that the names of the candidates were sent to the masagerment in response to the request as per the indent preparedby the management and that indent was in respect ofthe part time workman only . He contended that if the copyofthe said indent were prodused, the real facts wouki have been revealed. He further contended that as per the statement of MWI , the first party was appointed in the place of permanent employee being retired from service and therefore, it cannot be said that the appointment ofthe first party was on temporary basis. Therefore, learned 2096

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3 , 2008 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1930

[PART II-SBC, 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 11 अप्रैल, 2008

का.आ. 974, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 कां 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ बड़ोदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध निर्याजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 32/1996) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-4-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/286/95- आई आर( बी-11 ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 11thApril, 2008

S.O. 974.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/ 1996) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum Labour Court No. 2 , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers to the management ofBank ofBaroda, and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 10-04-2008.

[No. L- 12012/286/95 - IR(B-11)

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT, NEW DELHI PRESIDING OFFICER : R.N. RAI L.D. No. 32/1996

IN THE MATTER OF :

Sh. Hari Shartца,

So. Sh. Ram Sewak Sharma, Rio. Khudaganj , Shahjahanpur , U.P.. .....Claimant VERSUS

The Regional Manager,

Bank ofBaroda, R.O : Khudaganj , Shahjahanpur PIN - 242001.

.....Respondents

AWARD

The Ministry ofLabour by its letter No.L-12012/286/95- IR(B- II) Central Government Dt. 22/25-3-1996 has referred the following point for adjudication :

The point runs as hereunder:

"Whether the action of the management ofBank of Baroda, Shahjahanpur in terminating the services of Sh. Hari Sharma, Peon w.e.f. 25-10-1994 is legal and justified? Ifnot, what relief is the said workman entitled 9. There is no denial of the fact that this was the appointment order under which the first party was taken into service ofthe management as a substitute candidate. Although, the first party as noted above , in his cross examination denied the receipt of the said appointment order but was not in a position to deny the existence of the said order or the genuineness of the terms and conditions ofthe said appointment order. Therefore, we must proceed on the assumption that the appointment of the first party was as per the terms and conditions of the aforesaid appointment order at EX.M1 and is that were to be the case, it is further to be assumed that his appointment was on temporarybasis for a limited period pending appointment ofaregular employee to the post he held. The fact that the first partywas taken into service after the services ofone Smt . Lalitha came to be an end by way of retirement as noted above, has been admitted by the first party himself in his cross examination . It is also admitted by the first party that he was discontinued from service when the aforesaid Shri Ganesh was appointed on regular basis as Sweeper-cum-cleaner to the job he was discharging . Therefore, when the management has acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the above said appointment order in the light ofthe very admissions made by the first party noted above , by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the action of the management was arbitrary. Illegal or against the principles ofnatural justice. The first partyvery well knew the fact that his appointment was on temporary basis liable to come to an end as soon as a fresh candidate appointed on regular basis was posted to hisplace . Only because his name came to be sponsored through employment exchange as rightly was argued on behalf of the management , it cannot be said that his appointment was for a permanent post particularly, in the light of the very terms and conditions of the aforesaid appointment or der at EX.MI. It was well argued for the management that even for an appointment of temporary post, the management when happens to be a public sector undertaking has to seek the names of the candidates from the employment exchange concerned. Therefore , the contention ofthe first party that his name being sponsored through employment exchange, it is to be presumed that it was for permanent vacancy is not tenable . It was well argued for the management that the case on hand falls under the definition of provisions of Section 2 (00 ) ofthe ID Act and not under Sectioin 2 ( oo) read with Section 25F of the LD Act . It was a contractual appointment for a limited period laying down a clear condition in the appointment order that services ofthe first party will come to an end when a permanent employee is posted to his place . Therefore, provisions of Section 2(00 ) of the ID Act will not attract to the facts of the present case and it cannot be said that it was a case of retrenchment. In the result, and the reasons foregoing, 1 must record a finding to the effect that the action of the management in discountinuing the services of the first party is legal and justified and therefore , reference must fail . Hence the following award . AWARD

The reference is rejected. No costs.

The workman applicant has filed claim statement . In the claim statement it has been stated that the workman was initially engaged as Peon at Khudaganj Branch of the bank under the Shahjahanpur Region w.e.f. 9-1-1984 . Не worked there for about 600 days at the above branch including Sundays and Holidays , He was asked by the management not to come to his duties after 16-3-1990.

A. R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer 2097 [पन -खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 3 , 2008/वैशाखा 13 , 1930

That he was again engaged from 16-7-1990 to 18-9-1990 and thereafter the workman was given engagerment at the same branch frum 9-1-1994 and he worked continuously up to25-10-1994.

That the workman has worked continuously from 15-4-1991 to 25-10-1994. His services were illegally terminsted by the management without payment of any retrenchment compensation and pay in lieu ofnotice.

The management has filed affidavit and along with affidavit a chart is annexed which shows the working day's oftheworkman. In the affidavit it has been mentioned that theworkmanworked for 98 days in 1997,114tleys in1988, 162days in1989,39 days in 1990, 118 days in 1991 , 26 days In1992. Thereafter he worked as ad hoc/temporary daily wager in Khudaganj Branch from April , 1991 to 25-10-1994 pending regular posting pursuant to the bank's advertisement of empanelled candidates .

The management has filed written statement. In the written it has been stated that the workman was a daily wager.He was engaged as per the need of the management. He has worked for 98 days in 1997, 114 days in 1988, 162 days' in 1989, 39 days in 1990, 118 days in 1991 , 26 days in1992.

It has been further mentioned in this affidavit that Sh. Sharma has not carned eligibility benefits u/s 25-F of the ID Act, 1947 in view of the guidelines given. The management has made a chart, a part of the affidavitwhich indicates that the workman has worked for 220 days in the year 1994. Another chart has been annexed certified by the management which reflects that in the year 1993 the workmanhasworked for 196 days..

It was submitted fromthe side ofthe workman that the workman has not completed 240 days either in the year 1993 or in the year 1994.

Ithasbeenheld inAIR 1986 Supreme Court 458 as under:

That on receipt of the government policy decision, guidelines and directions were issued and advertisement was also issued in National Dailies inviting application for short listing and empanelling those persons who had worked on temporary basis at any ofthe branches/offices in the bank as Peon for 90 days or more during the period 1-1-1982 to 31-12-1990 for consideration oftheir cases for future vacancies subject to the conditions specified in the notification.The candidates found eligible and suitable for regular employment have been given regular employment and those who are still on the panel will hopefullybe employed in near future against the vacancies taking place.

"Industrial Disputes Act ( 14 of 1947) Sections 25F and25B(2)-Workman- Continuous service -Actualworkdag daysCalculation - Sundays and other paid holidays can be taken into account. (Employees-Continuous service)",

Ithas been furtherheld in AIR 1986 Supreme Court 132 as under:

In the case of the workman herein , even ifhe might have responded to the bank's above mentioned advertisement yet he could not be considered for even empanelment as he did not fulfill the eligibility criteria or conditions on his own admissions .

"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947 )-Se.2(00) 25F and ZA Retrenclument- Striking offname ofworkmen fropp rolls amounts to retrenchment-Non observations of procedure in S.25 F-Retrenchment is invalid-Dispute is covered by S.2A."

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In the rejoinder he has reiterated the avérments of his claim statement and has denied most of the paras of the written statement. The management has also denied most of the paras ofthe claim statement.

Evidence ofboth the parties has been takon.

"Striking offthe name ofa workquun from the rolls by theemployer amounts to termination ofservices and such termination is retrenchment within the meaning of5.2(oq) ifeffected in violation ofthe mandatory provision comaine inS. 25 F' and is Invalid."

Hoard argument som both the sides and perused the papers on the record.

From perusal of the pleading of the parties the following issues arise for adjudication:

1.Whether the claimant has performed 240 dayswork in acalendar year?

2. Whether the claimant has entitled to reinstate ment/compensation?

ISSUE No. 1:

It is settled lawthat Sundays and Holidays are to be included while calculating the working days ofthe workman . The management witness has admitted categorically in the affidavit that since there was no appointment of regul candidate, so the workman discharged the duties in Khudaganj Branch from April , 1991 to 25-10-1994. From the aboveit becomes quite obvious that the management has calculated the days when the workmen worked in bank and for which payinent has been made . Sundays and Holidays have not been calculated. If 52 Sundays and GazettedHolidays are added to 196 days of actual worké performed by the workman, the working days of the worksman exceed240 days . In the year 1994 also the worloman has worked for 220 days as per the admission of the management . It has not anywhere been mentioned that Sundays and Holidays have been courtedwhile calculating the working days ofthe workman.

Theworknanhas boen engaged all the year roundat least in the years 1993 and 1994. The management has Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that he worked from 1984 to 1994 and he has worked continuously during all the years of his employment. The workman has not filed cogent documentary evidence ,He has filed only typed copy ofhis working days. Itdoes not bear the seal and signature of the management. However, the managementhas filed true copy from paper no. 157 to 161. These documents indicates that the workman has not completed 240 days work' in any of the years of his employment.

2098

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 3 , 2008 /VAISAKHA 13 , 1930

wrongly calculated only the working days of the workman forwhich payment has been made . Sundays and Holidays have been left out . In case Sundays and Holidays are counted the workman has worked for more than 240 days at least in the years 1993 and 1994. The management has also filed affidavit along with true copy ofworking days of the workman which indicates that the workman was engaged by the management right from 1984. Thus, the workman has worked for 240 days as per the admission of themanagement in the years 1993 and 1994.

This issue is decided accordingly.

ISSUE No. 2.

Itwas submitted from the side of the management that the workzman did not have qualification for absorption in class IV, as he has studied beyond 8th standard, so his name was not included in the panel prepared by the management. The management has filed photocopy of certificate ofHigh School of 1985 in which Sh. Hari Sharma has been shown High School passed in 1985 from UP Board, Allahabad.

: The management has filed document 139 which indicates that the workman Sh . Hari Sharma has passed intermediate examination in the year 1988 from UP Board This document has also been admitted by the workman. Thesedocuments prove that the workman was intermediate pass in 1988 and he has passed High School in the year 1985. The eligibility criteris so far as engagement of class IV employees is concerned is only 8th pass. The workman has been shown as 8th pass and his age has been shown as 16years . The workman was 8th pass in the year 1984but the has subsequently passed High School in 1985 and Intermediate in 1988. Thus , the workman jacks educational qualification foremployment as Class - IV employee in the bank. He is highlyeducated.

It is settled law that age and educational qualification are tobe considered at the time of initial engagement . The workman was engaged as casual labour and it is not necessary that for casual labour educational qualification should be verified at the initial stage.

The workman has not worked for more that 90 days from theyear 1984 to 1992. He has worked for 240 days in the year 1993 and in 1994. The workman is not entitledto reinstatement as he does not possess requisite qualification for empanelment as Class IV employee, in view of his higher qualification. The workman has worked continuously for almost 10 years and he has not been paid retrenchment compensation and pay in lieu of notice.

In the facts and circumstances the workman is entitled toRs . L, 00, 000 (Rs. One Lakh Only) as compensation in. lieu of retrenchment compensation.

The law cited by the management is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

This issue is decided accordingly.

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] The reference is replied thus :

The action of the management of Bank of Baroda, Shahjahanpur in terminating the services of Sh. Hari Sharma, Peon w.e.f. 25-10-1994 is neither absolutely legal nor justified. The workman applicant is entitled to Rs . 1,00,000 (Rs .One Lakh Only) as compensation in lieu of retrenchment compensation within two months from the date of the publication of the Award .

TheAward is given accordingly . R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 16 अप्रैल , 2008

का.आ. 975.-भारत के राजपत्र के भाग- II , खण्ड 3 , उप- खण्ड ( ii ) दिनांक 20 जनवरी , 2007 में का. आ. संख्या 205 द्वारः प्रकाशित श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां शामिल की जायेंगी, यथा:-

क्रम संख्या

50. मैसर्स सेभी कंडक्टर लेबोरेटरी , एस.ए. एस. नगर , पंजाब । [फा. में एस-38014/46/2007- एसएस-1 ] एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 16thApril,2008

S.O. 975. In the Notification of the Ministry of Labour and Employment published in the Gazette of India, Part-II, Section3, Sub-section (ii ) dated 20th January, 2007 vide S.O. No. 205, the following entries shall be inserted, namely:-

Sl.No.

50, M/ s. Semi -Conductor Laboratory, S.A.S. Nagar , Punjab.

[F.No, S-38014/46/2007 -SS.I ] S.D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 25 अप्रैल, 2008

का. आ. 976.-राष्ट्रपति श्री हरि मंगल सिंह को दिनांक 1-4-2008 ( पूवाह ) से उनके 65 वर्ष की आयु का होने अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय , धनबाद । के पीठासीन अधिकारी के रूप में नियुक्त करते हैं ।

[फा. सं. ए-19011 /01/ 2005 - सीएलएस -11 ] पी के ताप्नकार, अवर सचिव NewDelhi , the 25th April , 2008

S.O. 976. The President is pleased to appoint Shri Hari Mangal Singh as Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court, Dhanbad- 1 w.e.f. 1-4-2008 ( F.N. ) till the date he attains 65years of age or until further orders , whichever is earlier .

[F. No.A- 19011 /01 /2005-CLS - 11 ] P. K. TAMRAKAR, Under Secy.

Printedby the Manager, Govt. of Indie Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064

and Published by the Controllet of Publications, Delhi - 110054.