रजिस्ट्रीसे ही० एल० ( एन ) 04/0007/2003-05
REGD . NO. D. L. (N) 04/ 0007/2003-05 भारतका राजपत्र The Gazette of India
प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित्त
?
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप्ताहिक
WEEKLY
नई दिल्ली , जून 15 जून 21 , 2008 , शनिवार /ज्येष्ठ 25- ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930 NEW DELHI , JUNE 15-JUNE 21 , 2008 , SATURDAY / JYAISTHA25-JYAISTHA 31 , 1930 सं. 25) No.25]
इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके Separate Paging le given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II- खण्ड 3- उप-खण्ड ( 11) PART 11-Section 3-Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों ( रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर ) द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं StatutoryOrders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of theGovernment ofIndia :
(Other than the Ministry ofDefence)
गृह मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 6 जून , 2008
का.आ. 1423 , केंद्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप- नियम (4 ) के अनुसरण में, गृह मंत्रालय के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों में हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान रखने बारले कर्मचारियों की संख्या 80 % से अधिक हो जाने के फलस्वरूप उन्हें एतद्द्वारा अधिसूचित करती है:-
क्षेत्रीय परिषद् सचिवालय
( 1) क्षेत्रीय परिषद् सचिवालय , नई दिल्ली ।
केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल
( 1 ) कार्यालय पुलिस महानिरीक्षक, मणिपुर नागालैण्ड सेक्टर, केंद्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल ।
(2) कार्यालय कमांडेंट 165 बटालियन , केंद्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल ।
( 3 ) कार्यालय कमांडेंट 195 बटालियन , केंद्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल , भोपाल ।
(4) कार्यालय पुलिस महानिरीक्षक , प्रशासन सेक्टर , केंद्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल , श्रीनगर ( जम्मू व कश्मीर) ।
[खं 12017/1/2008-हिंदी ] अवधेश कुमार मिश्न, निदेशक ( राजभाषा ) 21720108
(3035)
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NewDelhi, the 6th June, 2008
S.O. 1423.In pursuance of sub -rule(4) ofRule 10 oftheOfficial Languages (Use for Official Purposes ofthe Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices of the Ministry ofHome Affairs where the percentage of Hindi knowing staff has gone above 80%:-
ZONAL COUNCIL SECRETARIAT
(1 ) Zonal Council Secretariat, NewDelhi CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
(1) Office of the Inspector General ofPolice, Manipur &Nagaland Central Reserve Police Force , Imphal .
(2) Office of the Commandant - 165 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force .
(3) Office of the Commandant- 195 Battalion, Central ReservePolice Force,Bhopal .
(4) Office of the Inspector General of Police, Adm. Sector, Central Reserve Police Force , Srinagar, (Jammu & Kashmir) .
[No. 12017/1 /2008-Hindi ] AVADHESH KUMAR MISHRA, Director (OL) 3036
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008/JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
विधि और न्याय मंत्रालय (विधि कार्य विभाग )
नई दिल्ली, 5 जून , 2008
का.आ. 1424, केंद्रीय सरकार, दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 (1974 का 2 ) की धारा 24 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री स्वपनिल शरद पेडनेकर , अधिवक्ता को , मुंबई उच्च न्यायालय में भारत संघ या केंद्रीय सरकार के किसी विभाग या कार्यालय द्वारा या उसके विरूद्ध सभी दांडिक मामलों का, जिनके अंतर्गत दांडिक रिट याचिकाएं, दाडिक अपीलें , दांडिक पुनरीक्षण , दांडिक निर्देश और आपराधिक आवेदन भी है , संचालन करने के प्रयोजन के लिए इस शर्त के अधीन रहते हुए कि श्री स्वपनिल शरद पेडनेकर, अधिवक्ता अपनी नियुक्ति की अवधि के दौरान भारत संघ या केंद्रीय सरकार के किसी विभाग या कार्यालय के विरूद्ध अपर निर्दिष्ट किसी आपराधिक मामले में मुंबई उच्च न्यायालय में उपसंगात नहीं होंगे , इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से एक वर्ष की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेश होने तक , इनमें से जो भी पूर्वतर हो , अपर लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।
[PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ दिनांक 1-4-1999 से संगठन जय रिसर्च फाउंडेशन सोसाइटी, वल्साड , गुजरात को निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन आंशिक रूप से अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों में लंगी ' अन्य संस्था' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है , नामतः- ( i ) अनुमोदित संगठन को प्रदत्त राशि का उपयोग वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए किया जाएगा;
(ii ) अनुमोदित संगठन अपने संकाय सदस्यों अथवा इसके नामांकित छात्रों के माध्यम से वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान को जारी रखेगा;
[सं. एफ 23 (2 ) /2008 - प्यायिक ]
एम. ए. आन यूसुफी, संयुक्त सचिव और विधि सलाहकार MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE (Department of LegalAffairs)
New Delhi , the 5th June, 2008
S.O. 1424. In exercise of the powers conferredby sub -section( 1 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Swapnil Sharad Pednekar, Advocate as Additional Public Prosecutor for the purpose of conducting all criminal cases including criminal writ Petitions, criminal appeals , criminal revisions , criminal references and criminal applications by or against the Union of India or any Department ofOffice of the Central Government, in the High Court ofjudicature at Mumbai, with effect from the dateofpublication ofthis notification in the Official Gizzette, for a period of one year or until further orders, whichever is earlier, subject to the condition that Shri Swapnil Sharad Pednekar , Advocate shall not appear against the Union of India or any Department of Office of the Central Government in any criminal case referred to above, in the High Court ofJudieature at Mumbai during the period of his appointment .
(iii) अनुमोदित्त संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए इसके द्वारा प्राप्त राशि के संबंध में अलग खाता बही रखेगा जिसमें अनुसंधान करने के लिए प्रयुक्त राशि दर्शाई गई हो, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 288 की उप धारा ( 2 ) के स्पष्टीकरण में यथा परिभाषित किसी लेखाकार से ऐसी खाता बही की लेखा परीक्षा कराएगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 139 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अंतर्गत आय की विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने की नियत तिथि तक ऐसे लेखाकार द्वारा विधिवत् सत्यापित्त एवं हस्ताक्षरित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट मामले में क्षेत्राधिकार रखने वाले आयकर आयुक्त अथवा आयकर निदेशक को प्रस्तुत करेगा।
( iv ) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान तथा प्रयुक्त राशि का अलग विवरण रखेगा और उपर्युक्त लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट के साथ लेखा परीक्षक द्वारा विधिवत् सत्यापित विवरण की प्रति प्रस्तुत करेगा ।
2. केंद्र सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापिस ले लेगी यदि अनुमोदित संगठन:-
(क) पैराग्राफ । के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अलग लेखा बही नहीं रखेगा; अथवा
(ख) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा (ग) पैराग्राफ । के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान एवं प्रयुक्त राशि का अपना विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा
[F.No. 23(2)/2008-Judl.]
M.A. KHAN YUSUFI ,Jt . Secy. & Legal Adviser
वित्त मंत्रालय
(राजस्वविभाग)
( केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड )
नई दिल्ली, 9 जून, 2008
का.आ. 1425.-सर्वसाधारण की जमकारी के लिए एतद्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केंद्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली , 1962( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम 5ग और उड़ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम) की धारा 35 की (घ) अपना अनुसंधान कार्य कलाप करना बंद कर देगा अथवा इसके अनुसंधान कार्य कलाप को जायज नहीं पाया जाएगा; अथवा
(३) उक्त नियमावली के नियम 5 ग और ऽड़ के साथ पठित उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड (ii ) के उपबंधों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नहींकरेगा ।
[अधिसूचना सं. 69/2008/फा. सं. 203/ 16/2008- आ क.नि. ] [ ]
सुरेन्द्रपाल , अवर सचिव [ भाग -खण्ड ( H) ].
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008 ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department ofRevenue)
(Central Board ofDirect Taxes) NewDelhi, the 9th June, 2008
S.O. 1425.-It is hereby notified for general information that the organization Jai Research Foundation Society, Valsad,Gujarat has been approved bythe Central Government for the purpose of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) ofsection35 ofthe Income- tax Rules, 1961 ( saldAct), readwithRules SC and SE of the Income- tax Rules , 1962 (saidRules) ,with effect from 1-4-1999 in the categoryof 'other institution', partly engaged in research activities, subject to the following conditions , namely:
The sums paid to the aproved organization shall be utilized for scientific research;
(i) The approved organization shall carry out scientific research through its faculty members or its enrolied students;
(ii) The approved organization shall maintain separate books of accounts in respect of the sims received by it for scientific research , reflect therein the amounts used for carrying out research, get such books andited by an accountant as defined in the explanation to sub -section (2) ofSection 288 ofthe saidAct and furnish the report of such audit duly signed and verified by such accountant to the Commissioner of Income- tax or the Director of Income-taxhaving jurisdiction over the case, bythe due date offurnishing the return of income under sub-section ( 1) of Section 139 ofthe said Act; (iv) The approved organizationshall maintain a separate statement of donations received and amounts applied for scientific research and a copy ofsuch statement duly certified by the auditor shall accompany the report of audit referred to above, 2. The Central Government shall withdraw the approval ifthe approved organization :-
(a) fails tomaintain separate books ofaccounts referred to in sub-paragraph ( iii) of paragraph 1; or (b) fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub- paragraph ( iii) ofparagraph 1; or
(c) fails to furnish its statement of the donations received and sums applied for scientific research referred to in sub-paragraph ( iv) of paragraph 1 ;or (d) ceases to carry on its research activities or its research activities are not found to be genuine; or (e) ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions ofclause (ii) ofsub-section ( 1 ) ofSection 35 of the said Act read with rules SC and SE of the saidRules .
[Notification No. 69/2008/F. No. 203/ 16/2008/TTA-II SURENDER PAL, Under Secy.
3037 (वशीव वातविधान) नई दिल्ली , 11 जून , 2008
का. आ. 1426 ,- भारतीय लघु ठंजोग विकास बैंक अधिनियम , 1989 वर्ष (2000 ) में यश्त संशोधित, की वास (6) ( 1) ( ग) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्मा , श्रीमती रवनीत कौर, संयुक्त सचिव , वित्त मंत्रालय, बित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग , को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेश होने तक श्री राकेश सिंह के स्थान पर भारतीय लघु उद्योग विकास बैंक के बोर्ड में निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।
[फा. सं. 24/4/2002 -आईएफ-1 ]
रमण कुमार गौड़ , मवर सचिव (Department ofFlaancial Services ) NewDelhi , the 11th June, 2008
S.O. 1426.-- In exercise of powers conferred by Section( 6)(1 )(C) ofthe Small Industries Development Bank ofIndiaAct, 1989 as amended in the year 2000 , the Central Government hereby nominates, Mrs. Ravneet Kaur, Joint Secretary, Department of Financial Services; Ministry of Finance, New Delhi as Director on the Board of Small Industries DevelopmentBank of India with immediate effect and until further orders vice Shri Rakesh Singh.
[F. No. 24/4/2002- IF- 1 ] RAMAN KUMAR GAUR, Under Secy. नई दिल्ली, 11 जून , 2008
का.आ. 1427,-भारतीय निर्यात- आयांत बैंक अधिनियम, 1981 ( 1981 का 28 ) की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (छ) के उप- खण्ड ( i ) के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा , श्रीमती रवनीत कौर, संयुक्त सचिव, वित्त मंत्रालय , वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग , नई दिल्ली को श्री सकेश सिंह के स्थान पर माराप्रिय निर्यात-आयात बैंक के निदेशक बोर्ड में निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।
[फा. सं. 24/4/2002-आईएफ-1 ] रमण कुमार गौड़ , अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 11th June,2008
S.O. 1427.- In pursuance of sub-clause (i) ofclause (e) of sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the Export Import Bank of India Act, 1981 (28 of 1981) , Central Government hereby nominates Mrs. Ravneet Kaur , Joint Secretary, Department ofFinancial Services , Ministry ofFinance, New Delhi as a Director on the Board of Directors of Export ImportBank of India vice Shri Rakesh Singh .
[F.No. 24/4/2002- IF - 11 RAMAN KUMAR GAUR, Under Secy 3038
[PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008/ JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
नई दिल्ली, 12 जून , 2008 का.आ. 1428,- निक्षेप बीमा और प्रत्यय गारंटी निगम अधिनियम, 1961 ( 1961 का 47 ) की धारा 6 की उप - धारा (1) के खण्ड (ग ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा डॉ. शशांक सक्सेना , निदेशक, वित्तीय सेवाएंविभाग , को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेशों तक श्री सुदेश कुमार के स्थान पर निक्षेप बीमा और प्रत्यय गारंटी निगम ( डीआईसीजीसी ) के निदेशक मण्डल में निर्देशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।
[फा. सं. 9/7/2007- बीओ -1 ] जी. बी. सिंह , उप सचिव New Delhi , the 12th June , 2008 S.O. 1428. In exercise of the powers conferredby clause (c) of sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the Deposit Insurance andCredit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961 ) , the Central Government hereby nominates Dr. Shashank Saksena , Director, Department of Financial Services as aDirector on the Board ofDirectors ofDeposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICGC)with immediate effect and until further orders vice Shri Sudesh Китат.
[F. No. 9/7/2007-BO-I] G. B. SINGH , Dy. Secy.
गागर विमानन मंत्रालय (एएआई अनुभाग) नई दिल्ली, 11 जून , 2008
का.आ. 1429.-भारतीय विमानपत्तन प्राधिकरण अधिनियम , 1994 ( 1994 की संख्या 55 ) की धारा 3 में निहित शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार श्रीमती विलासनी रामचन्द्रन , अपर सचिव एवं वित्त सलाहकार , नागर विमानन मंत्रालय को तत्काल प्रभाव से भारतीय विमानपत्तन प्राधिकरण बोर्ड में श्री रघु मेनन के स्थान पर अंशकालिक सदस्य नियुक्त करती है ।
[सं एवी-24015/005/94-वीबी ] ओमानन्द, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION (AAI Section) New Delhi , the 11th June , 2008
S.O. 1429.- In exercise ofthe powers conferredby Section 3 oftheAirports Authority of India Act, 1994 (No. 55 of 1994), the Central Government hereby appoints Smt. Vilasani Ramchandran , Additional Secretary and Financial Adviser in the Ministry of Civil Aviation as Part-time Member on the Board of Airports Authority of India vice Shri Raghu Menon with immediate effect.
[No. AV-24015/005/94-VB] OMA NAND , Under Secy.
स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय (स्वाथ्य और परिवार कल्याण विभाग ) नई दिल्ली , 6 जून , 2008 का.आ. 1430.- भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 11 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में एतद्वारा निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्
उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची " डा. एन.टी. आर . स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , विजयवाड़ा, आंध्र प्रदेश " के सामने " मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता " [ स्तंभ ( 2 ) में ] शीर्षक के अन्तर्गत तथा शीर्षक ' पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण' स्तंभ ( 3 ) में ] शीर्षक के अन्तर्गत निम्नलिखित जोड़ा जाएगा , अर्थात् :-
(3)
(2)
एम.बी.बी.एस.
" बैचलर ऑफ मेडिसिन एंड बैचलर ऑफ सर्जरी " ( यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी यदि यह " डा. एन.टी. आर. स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , विजयवाड़ा, आंध्र प्रदेश द्वारा पी ई एस इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ मेडिकल साइंसेज एंड रिसर्च कुप्पम , आंध्र प्रदेश में प्रशिक्षित छात्रों के संबंध में वर्ष 2007 से प्रदान की गई हो । ) [सं. यू-12012/42/2001 -एम्म.ई. ( पी -11 ) ] एन. बारिक , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(Department ofHealth and Family Welfare) New Delhi, the 6th June , 2008
$.O.1430.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2 ) of the Section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ( 102 of 1956) , the Central Government , after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely :-
In the said First Schedule against "Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh" under the heading ' Recognized Medical Qualification' [ in column ( 2 ) ] and under the heading "Abbreviation for Registration" ( in column ( 3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted, namely :-
(2)
(3)
M.B.B.S.
"Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery"
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by Dr. NTR University ofHealth Sciences, Vijaywada , Andhra Pradesh with the effect from the year 2007 in respect of students trained at P.E.S. Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Kuppam, Andhra Pradesh).
[No. U- 12012/42/2001-Μ.Ε. ( Ρ- 11 ) ] N. BARIK, Under Secy .
[भाग - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
3039
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31, 1930
नई दिल्ली, 6 जून, 2008
का. आ. 1431.-भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 11 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में एतद्वारा निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है, अर्थात्
उक्तं प्रथम अनुसूची में " पाण्डिचेरी विश्वविद्यालय , पाण्डिचेरी" के सामने " मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता " [ स्तंभ (2 ) में] शीर्षक के अन्तर्गत तथा शीर्षक ' पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण' [स्वंभ (3 ) मैं] शीर्षक के अन्तर्गत निम्नलिखित जोड़ा जाएगा , अर्थात्-
(3)
(2)
एम.बी.बी.एस.
"बैचलर ऑफ मेडिसिन एंड बैचलर ऑफ सर्जरी ( यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा आर्हया होगी यदि यह पाण्डिचेरी विश्वविद्यालय , पाण्डिचेरी द्वारा पाण्डिचेरी आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान , पाण्डिचेरी में प्रशिक्षित छात्रों के संबंध में वर्ष 2007 से प्रदान की गई हो ।)
[सं. यू-12012/41 /2001-एम.ई. ( पी- II ) ]
एन. बारिक , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 6th June, 2008
S.O. 1431. In exercise ofthe powers conferredby sub-section (2) of the Section 11 of the Indian Medical CouncilAct, 1956 ( 102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-
In the said First Schedule against " Pondicherry Univessity, Pondicherry" under the beading ' Recognized Medical Qualification ' [ in column (2 ) ] and under the heading"Abbreviation for Registration " [ in column(3)] , the following shall be inserted, namely :-
(3)
(2)
"Bachelor of Medicine M.B.B.S. and Bachelor of
Surgery"
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by Pondicherry University, Pondichelry with effect from the year 2007 in respect of students trained at Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences, Pondicherry.)
[No. U- 12012/41 /2001 -Μ.Ε. (P - II ) ] N. BARIK, Under Secy.
नईदिल्ली, 6 जून , 2008
का. आ. 1432,-भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की घाय 11 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में एतद्वारा निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है , अर्षात् उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में " राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , बंगलौर, कर्नाटक " के सामने " मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अहंता " [ स्तंभ ( 2 ) में ] शीर्षक के अन्तर्गत तथा शीर्षक ' पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण' [ स्तंभ ( 3 ) में ] शीर्षक के अन्तर्गत निम्नलिखित जोड़ा जाएगा, अर्थात्
(2) .
(3)
एम.बी.बी.एस.
" बैचलर ऑफ मेडिसिन एंड बैचलर ऑफ सर्जरी " ( यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी यदि यह राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , बंगलौर, कर्नाटक द्वाराः के.वी.जी. मेडिकल कालेज एवं अस्पताल , सुलिया , कर्नाटक में प्रशिक्षित छात्रों के संबंध में वर्ष 2007 से प्रधान की गई हो । )
[सं. यू-12012/ 14/2000 - एम.ई. (पी-II) ]
एन. बारिक , अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 6th June, 2008
S.O. 1432-In exercise ofthe powers conferredby sub-section (2) of the Section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council ofIndia, herebymakes the following further amendments in the First Scheduleto the saidAct, namely:
In the said First Schedule against " Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences , Bangalore , Karnataka" under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [in column (2) ] and under the heading " Abbreviation for Registration" [in column (3) ], the following shall be. inserted, namely:- 1 (2)
(3)
"Bachelor of Medicine M.B.B.S.
and Bachelor of Surgery"
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences , Bangalore , Karnataka with effect from the year 2007 in respect of students trainod at K.V.G. Medical College and Hospital , Sullia, Karnataka. )
[No. U- 12012/ 14/2000 -Μ.Ε . ( Ρ - 1 [ ) ] N. BARIK, Under Secy:
3040
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008 / JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
नई दिल्ली, 9 जून , 2008
का.आ. 1433,-भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम , 1956-( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 11 की उप- धारा (2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में एंतद्वारा निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है, अर्थात्:-
उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में " डा. एन. टी. आर. स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , विजयवाड़ा , आंध्र प्रदेश " के सामने " मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता " [ स्तंभ (2 ) में ] शीर्षक के अन्तर्गत तथा ' पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण ' [ स्तंभ ( 3 ) में ] शीर्षक के अन्तर्गत निम्नलिखित जोड़ा जाएगा , अर्थात्
(2)
(3)
एम. मी. बी. एस.
" बैचलर ऑफ मेडिसिन एंड बैबलर ऑफ सर्जरी " ( यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी यदि यह " डा. एन.टी.आर. स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , विजयवाड़ा, आंध्र प्रदेश द्वारा मेडिसिटी इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ मेडिकल साइंसेज , घानपुर, आंध्र प्रदेश में प्रशिक्षित छात्रों के संबंध में वर्ष 2007 से प्रदान की गई हो ।
[सं. यू-12012/ 111/2000- एम.ई. (पी- II) ]
एन. बारिक , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 9th June, 2008
S.O. 1433.-In exercise of the powers conferredby sub-section (2) of the Section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act , 1956 ( 102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India , herebymakes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely :-
In the said First Schedule against " Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences , Vijaywada , Andhra Pradesh" under the heading ' Recognized Medical Qualification' ( in column (2 )] and under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration" ( in column (3) ] , the following shall be inserted, namely:-
(2)
(3)
M.B.B.S.
"Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery"
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by Dr. NTR University ofHealth Sciences , Vijaywada , Andhra Pradesh with effect from the year 2007 in respect of students trained at Medi- city Institute of Medical Sciences, Ghanpur, Andhra Pradesh.)
[No. U - 12012/111 /2000 -Μ.Ε. (P - II ) ]
N. BARIK, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 10 जून, 2008
का.आ. 1434. भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद्अधिनियम, 1956 (1956 का 102 ) की धारा ।। की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद्से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में एतद्वारा निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है, अर्थात्:
उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में " डा. एन. टी. आर. स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , विजयवाड़ा , आंध्र प्रदेश " के सामने " मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता " [ स्तंभ ( 2 ) में ] शीर्षक के अन्तर्गत तथा शीर्षक ' पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण ' ( स्तंभ ( 3 ) में ] शीर्षक के अन्तर्गत निम्नलिखित जोड़ा जाएगा, अर्थात् :-
(2)
(3)
एम . बी. बी. एस.
" बैचलर ऑफ मेडिसिन एंड बैचलर ऑफ सर्जरी " ( यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी यदि यह " डा एन.टी.आर. स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, विजयवाड़ा, आंध्र प्रदेश द्वारा प्रतिमा आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान, करीमनगर, आंध्र प्रदेश में प्रशिक्षित छात्रों के संबंध में वर्ष 2007 से प्रदान की गई हो । )
[सं. यू-12012/38/2001- एमई ( पी-11 ) ]
एन. बारिक, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 10th June, 2008
S.O. 1434.-- In exercise of the powers conferredby sub- section (2 ) of the Section 11 of the Indian Medical CouncilAct, 1956 ( 102 of 1956 ) , the Central Government , after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:
In the said First Schedule against " Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijaywada , Andhra Pradesh" under the heading ' Recognized Medical Qualification ' [ in column (2 ) ] and under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration ' ( in column (3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted , namely :-
(2)
(3)
M.B.B.S.
"Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery"
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by Dr. NTR University ofHealth Sciences , Vijaywada , Andhra Pradesh with effect from the year 2007 in respect of students trained at Prathima Institute of Medical Sciences, Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh.) [No. U- 12012/38/2001 - ME ( P - II ) ]
N. BARIK, Under Secy.
[ भाग - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
3041
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
संधार एवं सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय
(काक विभाग)
(मिल्डिंग शाखा)
शुद्धि-पत्र
नई दिल्ली, 12. जून , 2008
का. आ. 1435.-भारत के राजपत्र भाग- II , 3 ( ii ) दिनांक 11-9-1993 में प्रकाशित अभिसूचना और भाग- II , 3 ( ii ) में का.आ. सं.
3210 दिनांक 12-11-1994 और का.आ. से 184(अ) दिनांक 19-9-1998 के साथ प्रकाशित अधिसूचना द्वारा जारी संतोधनों में डाक विभाग के सम्पदा अधिकारियों के तौर पर कार्य करने के लिए नियुक्त केन्द्रीय सरकारकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारियों के संबंध में, पश्चिम बंगाल सर्किल में निम्नलिखित परिवर्तन किए गए हैं :-
क्रम सं. हाक सर्किल का नाम अधिकारी का पदनाम 1. पश्चिम बंगाल सर्किल सहा. निदेशक डाक सेवाएं ( स्था ) , मुख्य फेस्टमास्टर जनरल का कार्यालय , पश्चिम बंगाल सर्किल
2. पश्चिम बंगाल सर्किल निदेशक डाक सेवाएं, दक्षिण बंगाल क्षेत्र
3. पश्चिम बंगाल सर्किल निदेशक डाक सेवाएं, उत्तर बंगाल और
सिक्किम क्षेत्र , सिलीगुड़ी 4. पश्चिम बंगाल सर्किल निदेशक डाक सेवाएं, सिक्किम राज्य, गैंगटॉक
क्षेत्राधिकार
मुख्यालय क्षेत्र, कोलकाता क्षेत्र और एमएम क्षेत्र, अंडमान व निकोबार द्वीप समूह को छोड़कर दक्षिण बंगाल क्षेत्र
उत्तर बंगाल और सिक्किम क्षेत्र- सिक्किम राज्य :
कोछोड़कर
सिक्किम राज्य
5. पश्चिम बंगाल सर्किल निदेशक अभ्क सेवाएं, अंदमान व निकोबार द्वीपसमूह , पोर्ट ब्लेयर अंडमान व निकोबार द्वीप समूह
[र्स 2-119/90- भवन] बी. एस. चोपड़ा, सहा. महानिदेशक (भर्वन)
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND ET
(Department ofPests)
(BuildingBranch)
CORRIGENDUM
New Delhi, the 12th June,2008
50. 1435 In the Notification published in the Gazette of India in Part- II, 3( fi ) dated 11-9-1993 in Government Ganitted Officers appointed to act as Estate Officers in the Department of Posts and ameninin pubillated with No. S.O. 3210 dated 12-11-94 and No. S.O. 184 (E) dated 19-9-1998 in Part II, 3 (ii), the following ofthe Central Noristion changes may be made in respect of West Bengal Circle:
8.No. Name of Postal Circle Designation ofOffloor 1. West Bengal Cirele Asstt .Director of Postal Services
West Bengal Circle Director ofPostal Services, South
BengalRegion WestBengal Circle
Director of Postal Services, North
WestBengal Circle
Bengal and Sikkim Region , Siliguri Director ofPostal Services, Sikkim StateGangtok WestBengal Circle
Director ofPostal Services, A & N Islands, PortBlair .
कृषि मंत्रालय
( कृषि एवं सहकारिता विभाग)
नई दिल्ली , 10 जून , 2008
का.आ. 1436,- केन्द्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप- नियम (4) के अनुसरण में कृषि एवं सहकारिता विभाग , कृषि मंत्रालय के नियंत्रणाधीन राष्ट्रीय जैविक होत्री केन्द्र , गाजियाबाद के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय को जिसके 80 % कर्मचारीवृन्द ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है क्षेत्रीय जैविक होती केन्द्र,
34-V , मुख्य मार्ग , हेब्बाल , बंगलौर-560 024 ( कर्नाटक)
[सं. 3-6/2004- हिन्दी नीति]
पंकज कुमार , संयुक्त सचिव Territorial jurisation
H.Q. Rogion , Folkm en and MM (Estt. ) O/ o CPMO, Wat Singal Circle Region except AN Islands Division SouthBengal Region
North Bengal and Silkin Region except Sikkim State
Sikkim State
A& N Islands
[No. 2-119/90-Bldg. ) B. S. CHOPRA, Ant. Blector, General (Bldg.) MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE
(Department ofAgricukurs and Cooperation) New Delhi , the 10th June, 2008
S.O. 1436.In pursuance of Sub- rule (4) of Rule 10 of theOfficial Language (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rule, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies following Regional Office of the National Centre of Organic Farmaing, Ghaziabad under the Control ofthe Department ofAgriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, 80% Staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi
Regional Centre of Organic Farming. 34-V, Main Road, Hebbal, Banglore- 560024 (Karnataka)
[No. 3-6/2004-Hindi Neeti )
PANKAJ KUMAR, Jt. Secy.
3042
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008/ JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] =
उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय
(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )
नई दिल्ली , 7 मार्च , 2008
का.आ. 1437.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा (8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स करेल प्रसिशन ( यांगझड ) कं. लि. , नं. 28 , झिंगयांग रोड , इकनोमिक डवलपमेंट जोन , यांगझउ सिटी , जिआंगसू प्रोविंस, चीन-225009 द्वारा विनिर्मित सामान्य यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग IIII ) वाले " बी आर " श्रृंखला एनलाग सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( मैकेनिकल व्यक्ति तोलन मशीन) के माडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " इक्वीनॉक्स " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे मैसर्स इक्वीनॉस ओवरसीज प्रा. लि. , बी-92 मालवीय नगर , नई दिल्ली-110017 द्वारा बिक्री से पहले या बाद में बिना किसी परिवर्तन के भारत में विपणित किया गया और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी 109/07/349 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है । उक्त माडल मैकेनिकल स्प्रिंग आधारित एनालॉग सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 150 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 5 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 500 ग्रा. है । तोल का परिणाम डायल द्वारा उपदर्शित होता है । MODELBR
स्टॉपिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और माडल को बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री, यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा । माडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का विशिष्ट स्कीम डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त माडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित माडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 1000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 100 कि.ग्रा. से अधिक और 200 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 ×10 % , 5× 10%, के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा, सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 150 ) /2007 ] आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 3043 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) )
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008 /ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS , FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department ofConsumer Affairs)
New Delhi , the 7th March, 2008
S.O. 1437.Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions ofthe Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval ofModels ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and (8 ) ofSection 36 of the said Act , the CentralGovernment hereby issues and publishes the certificate ofapproval ofmodel of non-automatic weighing instrument with analogue indication (mechanical Person weighing machine ) of " BR " series of ordinary accuracy class (Accuracy class III) belonging to ordinary accuracy class (Accuracy class III) with brand name " EQUINOX" (hereinafter referred to as the said model ), manufactured by M/ s. Krell Precision (Yangzhou) Co. Ltd., No. 28 , Xingyang Road , Economic Development Zone, Yangzhou City, Jiangsu Province, China 225009 and marketed in India without any alteration before or after salebyM/s . Equinox Overseas Pvt . Ltd., B-92, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi- 110017 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/349.
The said model is a mecahnical spring based non -automatic weighing instrument with analogue indication of maximum capacity 150kg and minimum capacity of5kg. The value of verification scale interval ' e ' is 500g. The result of measurement is indicatedby a dial.
equine x
MODELBR
In addition to sealing the stamping plate sealing shall also be done to prevent opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and model shall not be changed in terms of its material , accuracy, design , circuit diagram, working principle etc. before or after sale . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision ofthe model is given above .
Further, in exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub- section ( 12) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government herebydeclares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similarmakė, accuracyand performance of same series with maximum capacity above 100kg and up to 200kg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 1000 for ' e' value of 5g or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10%, 2 ×10kor 5 × 10%, k being apositive or nagative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.
[F. No. WM-21 (150)/2007) 2172 G1/08-2
R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director, Legal Metrology 3044
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 21 , 2008 /JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
[PART I SEC. 3 (ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली, 7 मार्च , 2008
का.आ. 1438.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल (नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थित्तियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और उपधारा ( ४ ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स करेल प्रसिशन ( यांगझत ) कं. लि. , नं. 28, झिंगयांग रोड , इकनोमिक इवलपमेंट जोन , यांगझठ सिटी , जिआंगसू प्रोविंस , चीन-225009 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " बी ई " श्रृंखला अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( बेबी तोलन मशीन ) कं मोंदल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " इक्वीनोंक्स " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे मैसर्स इक्वीनोंस ओवरसीज प्रा. लि. , बी-92 मालवीय नगर , नई दिल्ली -110017 द्वारा बिक्री से पहले या बाद में बिना किसी परिवर्तन के भारत में विपणित किया गया और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/07 /350 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्तमॉडल विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( बेबी तोलन प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 20 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 200 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतरास ( ई) 10 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । लिक्विड क्रिस्टल डायोड ( एल सी डी) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 बोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है । उपकरण 9 वोल्ट प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है । स्टॉपिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा. और मॉडल को बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा । मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का विशिष्ट स्कीम डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्तमॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तौलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि.ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. क के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधि क के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 30 कि.ग्रा. की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई" मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10% , 5 × 10 * , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा, सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 150 ) /2007]
आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 3045 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (it) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008 /ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
NewDelhi, the 7thMarch,2008
S.O. 1438.-Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions ofthe Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards ofWeights and Measures (Approval ofModels) Rutes, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 ofthe saidAct, the CentralGovernment hereby issues and publishes the certificate ofapproval ofthe model of non-automatic (babyweighing type)weighing instrument with digital indication of "BE" series of medium accuracy ( accuracy class III) and with brand name "EQUINOX" (herein after referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Krell Precision (Yangzhou) Co. Ltd. , No:28, Xingyang Road, Economic Development Zone, Yangzhou City, Jiangsu province , China 225009 and marketed in Indiawithout anyalteration before or after sale by M/s. Equinox Överseas Pvt . Ltd. , B-92, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi- 110017 andwhich is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/350 .
The said model is a strain gauge type load Cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (baby weighing type) with amaximum capacity of 20kg and minimum capacity of200g . The verification scale interval (e) is 10g. It has a tare device with 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The Liquid Crystal Diode (LCD) indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 9 volts DC power supply.
quine z
In addition to sealing the stamping plate sealing shall also be done to prevent opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and model shall not be changed in terms of its materail , accuracy, design , circuit diagram, working principle etc. before or after sale. A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision ofthe model is given above.
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval ofthe said model shall also cover the weighing instument of simalr make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 30kg with verification scale interval (n ) in the range of100to 10000 for ' e' value of 100mg to 2g or with verification scale interval (n) in the range of500 to 10,000 for ' s ' value of 5gor more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10k , 2 × 10 or 5 × 10%, k being a positive or nagative whole number or equal to zero. manufactured bythe same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.
[F. No. WM-21 ( 150 )/2007 ) ....
R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director, Legal Metrology 3046
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008 / JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) )
नई दिल्ली , 7 मार्च, 2008
का. आ. 1439, केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृत्ति देखखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( १ ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स करेल प्रसिशन ( यांगझत ) कं. लि. , नं. 28 , झिंगयांग रोड, इकनोमिक डवलपमेंट जोन , यांगझक सिटी, जिआंगसू प्रोविंस, चीन-225009 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " ई बी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( व्यक्ति तोलन मशीन ) के माडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " इक्वीनॉवर " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे मैसर्स इक्वीनॉक्स ओवरसीज प्रा. लि. , बी-92 , मालवीय नगर , नई दिल्ली-110017 द्वारा बिक्री से पहले या बाद में बिना किसी परिवर्तन के भारत में विषणित किया गया और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी /09/07 /351 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है । उक्त मॉडल विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 150 कि.ग्रा . है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 100 प्रा. है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण वोल्ट प्रत्यक्ष धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।
मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का स्कीम डायग्राम
> स्टॉपिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल को बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता, डिजाइन , सर्किट डयग्राम , निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शतों पर परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा । मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का विशिष्ट स्कीम डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित माडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 प्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 100 कि.ग्रा. से अधिक और 200 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10% , 2 × 10 % , 5 × 10 * , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 150) /2007 ]
आर. माधुरबूथम , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 3047 [भाग - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008 ज्येष्ड 31 , 1930
NewDelhi, the 7th March, 2008
S.O. 1439.-Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions ofthe Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval ofModels) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods ofsustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and ( 8) ofSection 36 ofthe saidAct, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval ofmodel of non -automatic weighing instrument with digital indication (Person Weighing Machine ) of medium accuracy (Accuracy class- III ) belonging to ' EB ' series with brand name "EQUINOX" (herein after referred to as the said model ), manufactured byM/s. Krell Precision (Yangzhou) Co. Ltd., No. 28 , Xingyang Road, Economic Development Zone , Yangzhou City, Jiangsu Province , China 225009 and marketed inIndia without any alteration before or after sale byM/s . Equinox Overseas Pvt . Ltd. , B- 92, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi 110017 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/351 .
The saidmodel is a strain gauge type load cellbased weighing instrument with the maximurn capacity of 150kg and minimum capacity is 2kg . The verification scale interval ( e) is 100g. The display is ofLight Emitting Diode (LED) type. The instrument operates on 9 volts DC power supply.
In addition to sealing the stamping plate sealing shall also be done to prevent opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and model shall not be changed in terms of its material , accuracy, design , circuit diagram , working principle etc. before or after sale. A typical schematic diagram ofsealing provision ofthe model is given above.
Further, in exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub-section (12) ofSection 36 ofthe said Act, the Central Government herebydeclares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instument of simalr make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity in the range of 100kg to 200kg with verification scale interval (n) in the range of500 to 10000 for ' e' value of5g or more and with ' e' value 1 × 10%, 2 × 10k or 5 × 10%, k being a positive ornagativewhole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.
[F. No. WM-21 (150)/2007)
R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director, Legal Metrology 3048
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 21 , 2008 / JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली , 14 मार्च , 2008
का.आ. 1440.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा (४ ) द्वारा शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स शक्ति यूनिटेक इंस्ट्रूमेंटस प्राइवेट लि. , 202 , वीना इंडस्ट्रीयल एस्टेट, एल बी एस मार्ग , विखरोली ( ई ) , मुंबई -400 083 द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " एस एच टी बी-30" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " शक्ति यूनिटेक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिन्ह आई एन डी/09/07/446 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वाचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमवा 30 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आश्रेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।
स्टम्पिंग प्लेट को सील करने के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए भी सीलबंध किवा जाएगा तथा माहल को बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता, डिजाइन , सर्किट इयग्राम निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा । मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का विशिष्ट स्कीम डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का षिनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि.ग्रा. से 50 मिली ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 50000 की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 100 मिली ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक और 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकत्तम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 *, 2 × 10 * , 5 ×10 , के हैं , जहां पर ' के' धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 (197 )/2007 ]
आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 3049 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठं 31 , 1930
New Delhi , the 14th March, 2008
S.O. 1440.-Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions ofthe Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval ofModels) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods ofsustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the saidAct, the CentralGovernment hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of model of non- automatic weighing instrument (Tabletop Type) with digital indication of "SHTB - 30 " series ofhigh accuracy (Accuracy class-II) and with brand name "SHAKTI UNITECH" (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured byM/s . Shakti Unitech Instruments Pvt . Ltd., 202, Veena Industrial Estate , L.B.S. Marg , Vikhroli (E) , Mumbai -400 083 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/07/446.
The saidmodel is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument (Tabletop type) with a maximum capacity of30 kg. and minimum capacity of 100 g. The verification scale interval ( e) is 2 g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emiting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply. J
The sealing shall be done by single wire at the back side of the indicator to prevent opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and model shall not be changed in terms of its material , accuracy, design, circuit diagram, working principle etc. before or after sale. A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate ofapproval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg. and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 50000 for ' e ' value of Img. to50 mg . and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 100 mg. or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10%, 2 × 10% or 5 × 10 , kbeing a positive or nagative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.
[F. No. WM-21 (197)/2007)
R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director, LegalMetrology 3050
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008/ JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
[PART [ SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली, 14 मार्च , 2008
का.आ. 1441.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता 'बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स शक्ति यूनिटेक इंस्ट्रूमेंटस प्राइवेट लि. , 202 , वीनां इंडस्ट्रीयल एस्टेट , एल बी एस मार्ग , विश्खरोली ( ई ) , मुंबई -400 083 द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " एस एच एम एस -300 " श्रृंखला अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन ( टेबलाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " शक्ति यूनिटेक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिन्ह आई एन डी। 09/07/447 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल एक इलेक्टो मेगनेटिक फोर्स कम्प्रेशन सिद्धांत पर आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 300 ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 0.20 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 0.01 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है विसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।
स्टॉपिंग प्लेट को सील करने के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए भी सौलबंध किया जाएगा तथा मॉडल को बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री, यथार्थता , डिजाइन, सर्किट डयग्राम निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा । मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का विशिष्ट स्कीम डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही पेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि.ग्रा. से 50 मिली ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 50000 की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमाने अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 10 मिली ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक और 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1×10% , 2× 10% , अथवा 5× 10 , के हैं , जहां पर ' के ' धनात्मक या ऋणास्पक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21( 197) /2007 ]
आर. माधुरबूधम , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 3051 [भाग II-खण्ड (i ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008 ज्येष्ठ 31, 1930
New Delhi , the 14th March,2008
S.O. 1441. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions oftheStandards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval ofModeis) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods ofsustained use and to renderaccurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and (8) ofSection 36 ofthe said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of model of non -automatic weighing instrument (Tabletop Type) with digital indication of " SHMS-300 " series of high accuracy (Accuracy class- II) and with brand name " SHAKTI UNITECH" (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Shakti Unitech Instruments Pvt . Ltd. , 202, Veena Industrial Estate, L.B.S. Marg, Vikhroli (E), Mumbai-400 083 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/447 .
The said model is an Electro Magnetic Force Compensation Principle based non-automatic weighing instrument (Tabletop Type) with a maximum capacity of300 g. and minimum capacity of 0.20 g . The verification scale interval (e) is 0.01g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emiting Diode ( LED) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.
The sealing shall be done by single wire at the back side of the indicator to prevent opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and model shall not be changed in terms of its material, accuracy, design, circuit diagram , working principle etc. before or after sale . A typical schematic diagram of scaling provision of the model is given above.
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg. and with number of verification scale. interval (n) inthe range of 100 to 50000 for ' e ' value of Img . to 50 mg . and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of5000 to 50,000 for ' e' value of 100 mg. or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10,2 × 10 or 5 × 10%, k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.
[F. No. WM-21 (197)/2007)
R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director, Legal Metrology 2172 G1/08-3 3052
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 21 , 2008/ JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
[PART I Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली, 14 मार्च , 2008
का.आ. 1442.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स शक्ति यूनिटेक इंस्ट्रूमेंट्स प्राइवेट लि. , 202 , बीना इंडस्ट्रीयल एस्टेट , एल बी एस मार्ग , विखरोली ( ई ) , मुंबई-400 083 द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( मधार्थता वर्ग II ) वाले " एस एच पी बी -100 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " शक्ति यूनिटेक " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिन्ह आई एन डी/09/07/448 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 100 कि. ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 5 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल (ई ) 10 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।
स्टॉपिंग प्लेट को सील करने के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए भी सीलबंद किया जाएगा तथा मॉडल को बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता, डिजाइन , सर्किट डयग्राम , निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा । मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का विशिष्ट स्कीम डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही पेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई" मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से 5000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2× 10 *, अथवा 5 × 10 % , के हैं, जहां पर ' के ' धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 197 )/2007] आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 3053 .
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
NewDelhi, the 14th March , 2008
S.O. 1442. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed nuthority, is satisfled that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions ofthe Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval ofModels) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use andto render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 ofthe saidAct , the CentralGovernment hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform Type) with digital indication of " SHPB- 100 " series of high accuracy (Accuracy class -II ) and with brand name "SHAKTI UNITECH" (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Shakti Unitech Instruments Pvt. Ltd. , 202, Veèna Industrial Estate, L.B.S. Marg, Vikhroli (E), Mumbai -400 083 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/448;
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument (Platform type ) with a maximun capacity of 100kg and minimum capacity of Skg . The verification scale interval (e) is 10g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect .The Light Emitting Diode (LED ) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.
CH
The sealing shall be done by single wire at the back side ofthe indicator to prevent opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and model shall not be changed in terms of its material , accuracy, design, circult diagram, working principle etc.before or after sale . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.
Further, inexercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 12) of Section 36 ofthe said Act, the Central Government herebydeclares that this certificate ofapproval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instument of simalrmake and performance of same series with maximum capacity range above 50kg and up to 5000kg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 5000 to 50000 for ' e ' value of 100mg or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10 , 2x10 or 5 × 10 %, k being apositive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance withthe sameprinciple, design, accuracy and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.
[F. No. WM-21 (197)/2007]
R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director, Legal Metrology 3054
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008/ JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( i ) ]
नई दिल्ली , 14 मार्च , 2008
का.आ. 1443.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा:
अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स शक्ति यूनिटेक इंस्ट्रूमेंटस प्राइवेट लि. , 202 , बीना इंडस्ट्रीयल एस्टेट, एल बी एस मार्ग , विखरोली ( ई ) , मुंबई -400 083 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग 111 ) वाले " एस एच पी सी टी" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के माडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " शक्ति यूनिटेक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिन्ह आई एन डी/09/07/449 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी करती है ;
उक्त माडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि. ग्रा . है और न्यूनतम क्षमत्ता 2 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 100 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है । मशीन में कि.ग्रा. को लिटर में बदलने की सुविधा है ।
स्टॉपिंग प्लेट को सील करने के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए भी सीलबंध किया जाएगा तथा मॉडल को बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम निष्पादन मिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा । मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का विशिष्ट स्कीम डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।
और कंन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम भार 36 की उप - धाय ( 13 ) त शब्झिायरों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है किउक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमापन के अंदर उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिमाण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसौ श्रृंखला के जैसे ही मंक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई" यान के लिए 500.000 सरीज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रां. से 5,000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " " 1 × 1 अथवा 5 × 10 * , के हैं , जहां पर ' के' धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 197 ) /2007 ] आर, माधुरभूथम, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 3055 [भाग. II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठः 31 , 1930
NewDelhi , the 14th March , 2008
S.O. 1443. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions ofthe Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights andMeasures (Approval ofModels) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub -sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval ofmodel of the self indicating, non-automatic (Platform type) weighing instrument with digital indication of "SHPC- IT" series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class- III) and with brand name " SHAKTI UNITECH " (herein referred to as the said model), manufacturedby M/s . Shakti Unitech Instruments Pvt. Ltd. , 202, Veena Industrial Estate, L.B.S. Marg, Vikhroli (E) , Mumbai -400 083 and which is assignedthe approval mark IND/09/07/449;
The saldmodel is a strain gauge type load cell based non -automatic weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of1000kg and minimum capacity of2 kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 100 g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect.The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply. The machine is also having facility for conversion of kg. to litre.
Π The sealing shall be done by single wire at the back side of the indicator to prevent opening ofthe machine for fraudulent practices and model shall not be changed in terms of its material , accuracy, design , circuit diagram, working principle etc. before or after sale . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing insturment of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg and up to 5000 kg and with number ofverification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for 'e ' value of5g or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10,2× 10 or 5 × 10k, k being the positive or nagative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.
[F. No. WM-21 (197)/2007]
R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director, LegalMetrology 3056
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008/JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
[PART II-SBC. 3( ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली, 14 मार्च , 2008
का.आ. 1444.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और याप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स जी एस इंटरप्राइजेज , दाल बाजार , लश्कर, ग्वालियर , मध्य प्रदेश द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग II ) वाले " जीएसटी " श्रृंखला के अस्वचालित , अंकक सूचन सहित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " रिजेंट " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिन्ह आई एन डी /09/07/428 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी करती है;
उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि. ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 250 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल (ई ) 5 प्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयन्तुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता हैं ।
स्टॉपिंग प्लेट कोसील करने के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए भी सीलबंद किया जाएगा तथा मॉडल को बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम, निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा । मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का विशिष्ट स्कीम डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो । मिली ग्रा . से 50 मिली ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक और 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1×10 , 2×10 , 5× 10 %, के हैं, जहां पर ' के ' धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 (240 )/2007 ] आर. माधुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 3057 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
NewDelhi , the 14th March,2008
S.O. 1444 Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions ofthe Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards ofWeights andMeasures (Approval ofModels) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods ofsustained use andto render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and (8 ) of Section36 of the said Act, the CentralGovernment hereby issues and publishes the certificate ofapproval ofmodel ofnon-automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of "GST" series of high accuracy (Accuracy class - II ) and with brand name "REGENT" (herein referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M/ s. G. S. Enterprises , Dal Bazar , Lashkar , Gwalior,M. P. and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /07/428.
The saidmodel is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with a maximum capacity of30kg and minimum capacity of250 g. The verification scale interval (e) is 5g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect.The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.
In addition to sealing the stamping plate sealing shall also be done to prevent opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and model shall not be changed in terms of its material, accuracy, design, circuit diagram, working principle etc.before or after sale .A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (12) ofSection 36 ofthe said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instument of similar make andperformance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50kg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e' value of Imgto 50 mg and with number ofverification scale interval (a) in the range of 5000 to50,000 for' e' value of 100mg or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 or 5 × 10t , k being a positive or nagativewhole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.
[F. No. WM-21 (240)/2007)
R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director , Legal Metrology 3058
[PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008 / JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
नई दिल्ली , 14 मार्च , 2008
का.आ. 1445.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( १ ) और उप - धारा ( ४ ) द्वारा शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स जी एस इंटरप्राइजेज , दाल बाजार , लश्कर, ग्वालियर , मध्य प्रदेश द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग 11 ) वाले " जीएसपी " श्रृंखला के अस्वचालित , अंकक सूचन सहित तौलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " रिजेंट " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिन्ह आई एन डी/09/ 07/429 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 500 कि. ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 5 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 100 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यक्कलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाशं उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।
स्टॉपिंग प्लेट को सील करने के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए भी सीलबंध किया जाएगा तथामॉडल को बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा । मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का विशिष्ट स्कीम डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि. ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5,000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से 5,000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1×10 , 2×10% , 5×10* , के हैं, जहां पर ' के ' धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा से डब्ल्यू एम-21 (240 )/2007 ] आर. माधुरबूथम , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 3059 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
New Delhi, the 14th March, 2008
S.O. 1445 -Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions ofthe Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval ofModels) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use andto render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate ofapproval of model of non-automatic weighing instrument (Platform type)with digital indication of "GSP " series ofhigh accuracy (Accuracy class- 11 ) and with brand name " REGENT" (herein referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M/s . G. S. Enterprises , Dal Bazar Lashkar, Gwalior MP. andwhich is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/429.
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non -automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with a maximum capacity of 500kg and minimum capacity of 5kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 100g. It has atare devicewith a100 percent subtractive retained tare effect .The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 volts and 50Hertz alternative current power supply.
in addition to sealing the stamping plate sealing shall also be done to prevent opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and model shall not be changed in tertus of its material, accuracy, design , circult diagram, working principle etc. before or after sale. A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.
Further, in exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of section 36 ofthe said Act, the Central Government bereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover theweighing instrument of simair make and performance of same series with maximum capacity range above 50kg and up to 5,000kg and with number ofverification scale interval (n) in the range of5,000 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10%, 2x10 or 5 ×10 %,k being apositive or nagative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the sameprinciple, design, accuracy and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.
[F. No, WM -21 (240)/2007]
R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director, Legal Metrology 2172 G /08-4 3060
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008/ JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
[PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii)]
भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो
नईदिल्ली , 11 जून , 2008
का.आ. 1446,-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 अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक( कों) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :-
अनुसूची
संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि
क्रम सं.
संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि संशोधित भारतीय मानक( कों ) की संख्या , वर्ष और शीर्षक
1.
31 मई 2008
संशोधन संख्या । मई 2008
आई एस 14796 : 2000 प्रगलन अपचयन प्रक्रियाओं हेतु भरण सामग्री पर दिग्दर्शिका
इन संशोधनों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक की प्रतियों भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 बहादुरशाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथाशाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद , जयपुर, कानपुर , नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[संदर्भ : एमटीडी 30/टी-19 ]
डॉ. ( श्रीमती ) स्नेह भाटला , वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी) BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS
New Delhi, the 11th June , 2008
S.O. 1446.-In pursuance of clause (b) of sub -rule ( 1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each-
SCHEDULE
No. and year of the amendment
Date from which the amendment shall have effect S.No. No. and year of the Indian Standard(s) amendment(s)
1.
31 May 2008 IS 14796: 2000 Guidelines on feedstock for smetting reduction processes
Amendment No. 1 May2008
Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolcatta , Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad , Bangalore, Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.
[Ref: MTD 30/T- 19 ]
Dr. (Mrs. ) SNEH BHATLA, Scientist ' F ' and Head (Met Engg.)
नई दिल्ली, 11 जून , 2008
का.आ. 1447.-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 अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :-
अनुसूची
संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि
क्रम सं.
संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि संशोधित भारतीय मानक( कों ) की संख्या , वर्ष और शीर्षक
1 .
संशोधन संख्या 3 दिसम्बर 2007
10-1-2008
आई एस 11722 : 1986 पतली भित्ति वाला नम्यशीघ्र युग्मन पाइप
इन संशोधनों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 बहादुरशाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली , कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों: अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर , पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[संदर्भ : एमटीडी 19/टी -68 ]
डॉ. ( श्रीमती ) स्नेह भाटला , वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी) [भाग-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
3061
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008 ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
NewDelhi, the 11th June,2008
S.O. 1447. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub- rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standarda Rules ,1987, theBureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:-
SCHEDULE
S.No. No. and year of the Indian Standard( s) amendment(s)
1. IS 11722: 1986 Specification for thin walled flexible quick coupling pipes No. and year of the amendment
Date from which the amendment shall have effect
10January,2008 Amendment No. 3, December 2007
Copyofthis Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi- 110 002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkatta, Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Paina, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.
[Ref: MTD 19/T-68]
Dr. (Mrs.) SNEH BHATLA , Scientist ' F' and Head (Met Engg.)
नई दिल्ली, 11 जून , 2008
का.आ. 1448, - 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 अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( कों) में संशोधन किया गया किये गये हैं:-
क्रम सं. संशोधित भारतीय मानक( कों) की संख्या, वर्ष और शीर्षक
1. आई एस 4923 : 1997 खोखले इस्पात के खंद संरचनात्मक प्रयोग के लिए-विशिष्टि (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)
अनुसूची
संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि संशोधन संख्या 3 , अप्रैल 2008
1 जुलाई, 2008 इन संशोधनों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक की प्रतियों भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 बहादुरशाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली-110002, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली , कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथाशाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[संदर्भ: एमटीडी 19/22-30 ] डॉ. (श्रीमती) स्नेह भाटला , वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी)
New Delhi , the 11th June , 2008
S.O. 1448. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub- rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each
S.No. No. and year of the Indian Standard(s) amendment (s)
1. IS 4923: 1997 Hollow steel sections for structural use-Specification (Second Revision)
SCHEDULE
No, and year of the amendment
Date from which the amendment shall have effect
I July,2008
Amendment No. 3 , April2008
Copy ofthis Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkatta, Chandigarh, Cheanai, Mumbai sad also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.
[Ref: MTD 19/T-30]
Dr. (Mrs.) SNEH BHATLA , Scientist ' F' and Head (Met Engg.) 3062
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008/ JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
[PART 11-SEC . 3( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 11 जून , 2008
का.आ. 1449, - 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 अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :-
अनुसूची
संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि
क्रम सं.
संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि संशोधित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या , वर्ष और शीर्षक
1.
संशोधन संख्या 1 , जून 2007
30 जून , 2007 आई एस 2812 : 1993 एल्यूमिनियम एवं एल्यूमिनियम मिश्र धातु की मैन्युअल टंगस्टन अक्रिष-गैस आर्क वेल्डिग ( प्रथम पुनरीक्षण)
इन संशोधनों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक की प्रतियों भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन , 9 बहादुरशाह 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 , पूर्ण तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[संदर्भ : एमटीडी 12/टी-25 ]
डॉ. ( श्रीमती ) स्नेह भाटला, वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी)
NewDelhi , the 11th June, 2008
S.O. 1449.-In pursuance of clause (b) of sub -rule (1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :-
SCHEDULE
S.No.
Date from which the amendment shall have effect
No. and year of the amendment
No. and year ofthe Indian Standard(s) amendment(s)
1:
30 June, 2007
Amendment No. 1 , June2007
IS 2812 : 1993 Recommendations for manual tungsten inert- gas arc welding of aluminium and aluminium alloys (First revision)
Copy ofthis Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi- 110 002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkatta, Chandigarh. Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad , Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore, Guwah , Hyderabad , Jaipur , Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.
[Ref: MTD 12/T-25 )
Dr. (Mrs.) SNEH BHATLA , Scientist ' F' and Head ( Met Engg. )
नई दिल्ली, ।। जून , 2008
का.आ. 1450.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड (ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एाद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/ किये गये हैं :-
अनुसूची
संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि
क्रम सं.
संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि संशोधित भारतीय मानक( कों ) की संख्या , वर्ष और शीर्षक
1,
31 मार्च, 2008
संशोधन संख्या । , मार्च 2008
आई एस 6419 : 1996 संरचनागत इस्पात की गैस आवरित आर्क वेल्डिग के लिए वेल्डिग रॉड एवं नंगी इलेक्ट्रोड-विशिष्टि ( प्रथम पुनरीक्षण)
इन संशोधनों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक की प्रतियों भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 बहादुरशाह 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 तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[ संदर्भ : एमटीडी 11 /टी -60]
डॉ. ( श्रीमती ) स्नेह भाटला, वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी) 3063 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ] .
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008 ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
New Delhi, the 11th June, 2008
S.O. 1450.-In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, theBureau 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
Date from which the amendment shall have effect
No, and year of the amendment
S.No. No. and year of Indian Standard(s) amendment(s)
31March, 2008 1.
Amendment No. 1, March2008
IS 6419 : 1996 Welding roads and bare electrodes for gas shielded arc welding of structural steels Specification (First revision)
Copy ofthis Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi- 110 002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkatta, Chandigarh , Chennai, Mumbai and also BranchOffices: Ahmedabad , Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pume, Thiruvananthapuram.
[Ref: MTD 11 /T-60]
Dr. (Mrs.) SNEH BHATLA, Scientist 'F ' and Head (Met Engg.)
नई दिल्ली , 11 जून , 2008
का.आ.1451.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन विनियम ) 1988 के नियम (4 ) के उपनियम (5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्झरा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :-
अनुसूची
भारतीय मानक शीर्षक
विभाग लाईसेंस धारी का नाम व पता
क्रम सं.
स्थिति स्टेटर्स
भा. मा संख्या
लाईसेंस संख्या
स्वीकृत करने की तिथि वर्ष/माह
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7) (8) (1) (2) (3)
सोइडी परिचालित 6801266 28-1-2008 मैसर्स इंडो सीमेंट (टाइल्स)
आईएस
1.
प्राकक्टस
फर्श के लिए सीमेंट कंक्रीट की टाइल्स
1237:1980
सर्वे नं. 17 , मेडिपल्ली विलेज
षटकेसर , रंगारेड्डी जिला
(एपी)
स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र 1417-99 एमटीडी परिचालित 9-1-2008 मैसर्स सय्यद ज्वेलरी
6782591
धातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी
डी. नं. 23/98 , गांधी बाजार , ओल्ड टाउन , अनंतपुर-515005 शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन
परिचालित .
एमटीडी
1417-99
3. 6782894 10-1-2008 मैसर्स मेघना इन्स एंड होटल्स स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी
:
शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन
प्रा. लि. प्लॉट नं . 2-11 , भाग्यगगर
एस्टेट्स कूकटपल्ली ,
हैदराबाद-500 072
एमटीडी परिचालित 4. 6783290 11-1-2008 मैसर्स पी. मनोहरलाल ज्वेलर्स एंड एक्सपोर्टर्स
स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र 1417-99 धातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी
शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन
8-2-674/6/ 1 /ए, रोड नं. 13 , बंजारा हिल्स , हैदराबाद-500 034
एमटीडी परिचालित
1417-99
5. 6783391 11-1-2008 मैसर्स जो. आर. तंगमालिगई
ज्वेलर्स प्रा. लि.
स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी
शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन
नं. 118, प्रकाशम रोड
चंदमामा टावर्स , एनटीआर सर्किल
तिरुफ्ती-517 501 चित्तूर जिला
1417-99 एमटीडी परिचालिता 6. 6783492 11-1-2008 मैसर्स गोवाणी ज्वेलर्स
स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएं, आभूषण शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन
की. नं. 6-9-106, जैन मंदिर रोड, तेनाली-522 201 गुंटूरजिला 3064
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 21 , 2008 / JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] (1)
(3)
(2)
(5)
(4)
(6)
(7) (8) 7.
एमटीडी परिचालित 6783593 11-1-2008
1417-99
स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र घातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन
मैसर्स श्री कल्पतरु ज्वेलर्स , ( इं ) प्रा. लि. 7-2-780 , लक्ष्मी नारायण कॉम्प्लेक्स पहला मंजिल , पॉट मार्केट , सिकंदराबाद-500 003
8. 6783694 11-1-2008
एमटीडी परिचालित
स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र 1417-99 धातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन
मैसर्स श्री भवानी ज्वेलर्स एंड सिल्वर पेलेस, 32-38/बी, शापूर नगर, जीडिमेट्ला, हैदराबाद-500 055
9.
1417-99
6787908 31-1-2008
एमटीडी परिचालित
स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन
मेसर्स कावेरी ज्वेलर्स , डी. नं. 5-37-237 , शॉप नं. जी -5 , रघु मेंशन , 4/1 , बॉडीपेट गुंटूर -522 002
10. 6788001 31-1-2008
1417-99 एमटीडी परिचालित
स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन
मैसर्स श्री लक्ष्मी ज्वेलर्स, 5-25-21 , शॉप नं. 2 एंड 3 , रोहिणी कॉम्प्लेक्स बॉडीपेट, गुंटूर-522002
एमटीडी परिचालित 11. 6788102 31-1-2008
1417-99
स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन
मैसर्स अहमद एंड संस ज्वेलर्स , एस नं सी-22 , मयूर कुशाल कॉम्प्लेक्स गनफौंड्री, आबिट्स हैदराबाद-500 001
1417-99
12
एमटीडी परिचालित 6788203 31-1-2008 मैसर्स कल्याणी ज्वेलर्स, 5-37-220 /04/ 2 ब्रॉडीपेट, गुंटूर-522 002
स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन
1417-99
13. 6788304 31-1-2008
एमटीडी परिचालित
स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन
मैसर्स महाल्क्ष्मीज्वेलर्स , ही. नं. 27-21-2, शॉप नं. 83 , स्वर्णलोक कॉम्प्लेक्स, राजगोपालाचारी स्ट्रीट, गवर्नरपेट, विजयवाड़ा -520 002 कृष्णाजिला
14. 6787403 25-1-2008
इठोडी
आईएस 7809
परिचालित
(भा. 3/से. 1 ): 1986 मैसर्स मेरिक्ट्रो प्रोडक्ट्स ( प्रा. ) लिमिटेड, प्लॉट नं. 200/9 , आईडीए फैस 11 , चेरलपल्ली , हैदराबाद-500 051 आंध्र प्रदेश
विद्युत प्रयोजनों के लिए दाब संवेदी आसंजी टेप भाग 3 : अलग-अलग सामग्रियों कीअपेक्षाएं, खंड 1 : बिना थर्मोसेटिंग आसंजी वाली प्लास्टिक- युक्त पॉली-विनाइल क्लोराइड टेप
14543:04
15. 6778095 17-1-2008
एफएडी परिचालित
पेकेजबंद पेय जल [पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ]
मैसर्स एमएलपी एन्टरप्राइजेस , प्लाट नं. 29 से 32 एवं 35 से 38 इंडस्ट्रीयल पाक सनमपूडी बै-पास कार्नर सिंगरायकोन्डा , प्रकाशम जिला (एपी)
14543:04
16. 6786704 16-1-2008
एफएडी परिचालित
पेकेजबंद पेय जल [पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ]
पैसर्स लालासा इंडस्ट्रिस , सर्वे नं. 71 , इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट कड़ापा ( एपी )
14543:04
परिचालित
एफएडी 17. 6786906 22-1-2008
सर्वे 317/1 , कुष्णपूरम विलेज , सिकेदिनी [ मनडल ] कडपा ( एपी ) एस एस इंडस्ट्सि,
पेकेजबंद पेय जल [पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ] [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (日) ]
(3)
(4) (1) (2)
11-1-2008 Shree Kalpataru Jewels
3067
भारत का राजापत्र : जून 21 , 2008 ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
(9)
(7) (8)
(5)
(6)
Operative 15-1-2011 , MTD
IS 1417: 1999
7. 6783593
Gold and gold
alloys, jewellery/
artefacts- fineness
andmarking
(1) Pvt. Ltd. 7-2-780, Laxmi Narayan Complex, 1st Floor, PotMarket, Adilabad, Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh-500003
11-1-2008 15-1-2011
IS 1417;1999
8. 6783694 Sri Bhavani Jewellers & SilverPalace 32-38/B , Shapurnagar Jeedimetla, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh-500055
Operative
MTD
Gold and gold
alloys, jewellery/
artefacts-fineness.
and marking
Kaveri Jewellers
9. 6787908
D. No. Shop No. G-5, Raghu Mansions, 4/1, Brodipet Guntur , Andhra Pradesh-522002
10. 6788001
31-1-2008 3-2-2011 MTD Operative
31-1-2008 IS 1417 : 1999 Gold and gold alloys, jewellery/ artefacts- fineness and marking
3-2-2011
Operative
MTD
151417: 1999
Sri Lakshmi Jewellers 5-25-21 , Shop No. 2 & 3 Rohini Complex, 3/1 ,Brodipet Guntur, Andhra Pradesh-522002
Gold and gokd
alloys, jewellery/
artefacts-fineness
andmarking
31-1-2008 11. 6788102 Ahmed and Sons Jewellers S.No. C-22 , Mayur Kushal Complex, Gunfoundry, Abids , Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh-500001
31-1-2008 12. 6788203 Kalyani Jewellers
5-37-220/A4/2, Brodipet Guntur, Andhra Pradesh-522002
31-1-2008 Mahalaxmi Jewellers
13. 6788304
D. No. 27-21-2, Shop No. 83, Swarnalok Complex, Rajagopalachari Street, Governorpet Krishna, Vijayawada Andhra Pradesh -520002
M/s . Merrictro Products 25-1-2008 14. 6787403
(P) Ltd. Plot.No. 200/9, IDA Phase II, Cherlapally, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh-500051
2172 G /08-6
3-2-2011 MTD Operative
کو
18 1417 : 1999 Gold and gold alloys, jewellery/ artefacts- fineness and marking
3-2-2011
Operative
MTD
IS 1417 : 1999 Gold and gold alloys, jewellery/" artefacts-fineness andmarking
3-2-2011
Operative
MTD
IS 1417 : 1999 Gold and gold altoys, jewellery/ artefacts -fineness andmarking
ETD
31-1-2009
Operative
IS 7809 : Part 3 : Sec. 1, 1986 Pressure sensitive adhesive insulating tapes for electrical purposes, Part 3: requirements for 3068
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008/ JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
(4) (1) (2)
(3)
17-1-2008
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] (5)
(6)
(8)
(9)
(7)
individual materials, Section 1: plasticized Polyvinylchloride tapes with non- thermosetting adhesive
16-1-2009 FAD
IS 14543 : 2004
15. 6778095
Operative
Packageddrinking
water(otherthan
packagednatural
mineral water)
MLP Enterprises Plot No. 29 to 32 and 35 to 3 , Industrial Park, Sanampudi Bypass Comer Singarayakonda, Prakasam District, Prakasam, Singarayakonda Andhra Pradesh
28-1-2009
IS 14543 : 2004
16. 6786704
16-1-2008 Laalasa Industries Sy. No. 71 , Industrial Estate , Guddapah, Andhra Pradesh
FAD Operative
Packageddrinking
water(other than
packagednatural
mineral water)
17. 6786906
22-1-2008 29-1-2009 FAD
IS 14543 : 2004
Sri Venkata Sai Aqua Industries Khajipet Village and Mandal , Cuddapah Andhra Pradesh
Operative.
Packaged drinking
water (other than
packaged natural
mineral water)
IS 14543 : 2004
30-1-2008 18. 6790489 Metro Food Products 19-4-8/198, Chandrayanagutta, Rangareddi , Andhra Pradesh
7-2-2009 FAD Operative
Packageddrinking
water (other than
packaged natural
mineral water)
31-1-2009 FAD
IS 14543 : 2004
22-1-2008 19. 6787504
Operative
Packaged drinking
water (other than
packaged natural
mineralwater)
Satya Labs Sy.No. 16, Babbuguda Village Balanagar Mandal, Rangareddi , Andhra Pradesh
Warsha Water Works
IS 14543 : 2004
20. 6787605
23-1-2008 31-1-2009 FAD Operative
Packaged drinking
water (other than
packaged natural
mineral water)
Sy. No. 218/1 , H.No. 36-137/3, DefenceColony, Malkajgiri Mandal , Rangareddi, Andhra Pradesh -500094
1-1-2008 IS 14543 : 2004
21. 6782692
9-1-2009 FAD Operative
Packaged drinking
water (other than
packaged natural
mineral water)
Padmaja Bottlings PlotNo. 37, APIIC Ltd., Industrial Estate, Maddurupadu Village , Kavali -524201 Nellore District , Nellore Kavali , Andhra Pradesh-524201 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008 ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
(4)
(5)
(3)
(1) (2)
1-1-2008
3069
(8) (9) (6)
(7)
31-12-2008 FAD
IS 14543 : 2004
22. 6779101
Operative
Packageddrinking
water (other than
packaged natural
mineral water)
Sri Sai Krupa Water Works, Srinivasapuram, Kothapet Village Vetapalem Mandal , Prakasham District, Prakasam,. Kothapet, AndhraPradesh
IS 14543 : 2004
7-1-2008 6785803 ZED AQUA
23.
22-1-2009 FAD Operative
Packageddrinking
water (other than
packagednatural
mineral water)
12-1-925/27/1 , OldMallepally (Feelkhana) ,Hydrabad Andhra Pradesh
FAD
23-1-2009
IS 14543 : 2004
16-1-2008 6785904 Madhavi Beverages
24.
Operative
Packaged drinking
water (other than
packagednatural
mineral water)
Plot No. 366, H. No. 3-25, PrashanthHills, Meerpet Saroornagar Mandal , Rangareddi, Andhra Pradesh
6786502
22-1-2008 28-1-2009 FAD Cancelled
IS 14543 : 2004
25.
Packageddrinking
water(otherthan
packaged natural .
mineral water)
Shakthi Aqua Products Thanjamına Kottalu Village, Palamaner Road, Kuppam -517425 Chittoor District , Chittor Kuppam, Andhra Pradesh-517425
6786603 ECE Industries Limited 22-1-2008 28-1-2009 ETD Operative
IS 14697: 1999
26.
(Unit-2) MeterDivision , 8-4-300/24, AshokMarg, Santhnagar, Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh-500018
Acstatic trans- former operated watthour and var- hour meters , class 0.25 and0.5s
11-2-2009 TED
IS 15627 : 2005
23-1-2008 27. 6791087 MRF Limited
P.B. No. 2, Sadasivapet Medak Andhra Pradesh-502291
:
Operative
Automotive vehicles pneumatic tyres for two and three- wheeled motor vehicles
11-2-2009 TED
IS 15636 : 2005
23-1-2008 6791188 MRF Limited
28.
P.B. No. 2, SadasivapetMedak Andhra Pradesh-502291
Operative
Automotive vehicles pneumatic tyres for commercial vehicles diagonal and radial pły
[No. CMD/13 : 11] A. K. TALWAR, Dy. Director-General (Marks) 3070-
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008 /JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
[PART II -SEC. 3 ( ii) )
नई दिल्ली , 11 जून , 2008
का, आ. 1452, - भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम, 1988 के नियम (5 ) के उप नियम (6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचितं करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द ( Cancelled ) कर दिया गया है :-
अनुसूची
क्रम सं. लाइसेंस नं. लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पत्ता
रद्द करने की तिथि
लाइसेंस के अन्तर्गत वस्तु/ प्रक्रम से संबधित भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक व संबंधित भा.मा.
1 मार्च, 2008
7-3-2008 1. 8478501
1659 : 2004
ब्लॉक बोर्ड
मैसर्स फ्रेण्ड्स प्लाईवुड प्रा. लि. , ई-112 , 113 , रीको औद्योगिक क्षेत्र, एन. एच. 11 , आगरा रोड, बस्सी -303 301 जिला जयपुर ( राजस्थान)
2. 8483086
7-3-2008
2202 ( भाग 1 ) : 1999 बुडन फ्लश डोर शर्ट्स
मैसर्स फ्रैण्ड्स प्लाईवुड प्रा. लि. , ई-112, 113 , रीको औद्योगिक क्षेत्र , एन. एच. 11 , आगरा रोड , बस्सी-303 301 जिला-जयपुर ( राजस्थान )
[सं. सीएमडी/13: 13 ]
ए. के. तलवार, उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर )
New Delhi , the 11th June , 2008 .
S.O. 1452,-In pursuance of sub- regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification ) Regulations , 1988 , the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the Licence (s ) particulars of which is/are given below has/have been Cancelled with effect from the date indicated :-
SCHEDULE
Name and Address of the Licensee
Date of Sl . No.
Cancellation Licence No. (CM/L )
Article/Process with relevant Indian Standards covered by the licence cancelled
March, 2008
1. 8478501
IS 1659 : 2004
7-3-2008
Block Boards
M/s. Friends Plywood Private Limited, E- 112, 113 , RIICO Indl . Area, NH - 11 , Agra Road, Bassi -303 301 Distt . Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. 8483086
7-3-2008
IS 2202 ( Pt. 1 ) : 1999
Wooden Flush Door
Shutters
M/ s . Friends Plywood Private Limited . E - 112 , 113 , RIICO Indi. Area, NH - 11 , Agra Road, Bassi -303 301 Distt. Jaipur (Rajasthan)
[No. CMD/ 13 :13 ]
A. K. TALWAR, Dy. Director-General (Marks)
नई दिल्ली , 11 जून , 2008
का.आ. 1453. - भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 6 के उपविनियम ( 3 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए उत्पादों की मुहरांकन शुल्क अधिसूचित करता है :-
3071
भारत का'राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008 ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
अनुसूची
स्लैग 2 इकाई
यूनतम महकन रास्क
इकाई
बाग अनु. वर्ष
प्रचा तिथि
पर
इकाई दर स्लैब 1
स्लैम । इकाइयां
इकाई दर स्लैब 2 इकयां
दर हशेष
फर
भारतीय मानक सं.
30-4-2008
45.00 सभी
92,700
14166 0
109,000
100 नं.
1994 श्वसन रक्षी पुक्तियां पूरे चेहरे को इक्कने काले मुखौटे
8.00
सभी
0
66,900
100 नं. 78,600
1999
14746
30-4-2008 श्वसन रखी युक्तियां आधे चेहरे बने ऋकने वाले मुखौटे तथा केवस नाक और मुंह को बकने वाले
[सं. क्षेप्रथि/ 13: 10 ]
ए. के. तलवार, उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर )
New Delhi, the 11th June, 2008
S.O. 1453, In pursuance of sub-regulation (3 ) ofthe regulation 6 ofthe Bureau ofIndian Standards (Certification) Regulations , 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, bereby notifies the Marking fee for the products given in the schedule:-
SCHEDULE
Units
Product
ISNo. Part Sec . Year
Pengam Effective Dac
Minimam Marking Fet
Large Scale SmallScale
ng
Units in Slab 2
Uwit Rate Slab t
Units in Slab I
Unit Rate Slab 2
92,700
45.00 All
30-4-2008
109,000
14166 0 0 1994
100 Nos .
Respiratory Protective Devices Full Face Masks
All
8.00
30-4-2008
66,900
78,600
14746 D 0 1999
100 Nos.
Respiratory Protective Devices- HalfMarks and Quarter Masks
[No. CMD/ 13 : 10 ]
A.K. TALWAR, Dy. Director -General (Marks)
नई दिल्ली, 13 जून , 2008
का.आ. 1454 - भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम ? के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( कों) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं:-
अनुसूची
संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि
संशोषित भारतीय मानक ( कों) की संख्या और वर्ष
क्रम सं.
संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि
30अप्रैल 2008
2008
संशोधन संख्या 1 अप्रैल
1. एस पी 6(7) : 1972 संरचनागत इंजीनियर्स के
लिए आई एस आई हैंडबुक
7. सामान्य वेल्डित गर्डर
इन संशोधनों की प्रतियों भारतीय मानक की प्रतियों भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक पवन , प्र , बहादुरशाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002. क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों: अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्यातूर , गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर , कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[संदर्भ : एमटीडी 11 /टी-3 ]
डॉ. ( श्रीमती ) स्नेह भाटला, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी) 3072
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008 / JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
[PART II -Sec. 3 ( ii) ]
New Delhi, the 13th June , 2008
S.O.1454.In pursuance of clause (b) of sub -rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, theBureau of Indian Standards hereby notifles that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :-
SCHEDULE
Sl . No.
No. and year of the amendment
Date from which the amend- ment shall have effect No. and year of Indian Standard(s) amendment(s)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
Amendment No. 1
30April, 2008
SP 6(7) : 1972 ISI Handbook for structural engineers
April,2008
7. Simple welded girders
Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata , Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad , Bangalore, Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna , Pune, Thiruvananthapuram .
[Ref: MTD [ 1 /T-3 ]
Dr. (Mrs.) SNEH BHATLA, Scientist ' F ' and Head (Met Engg.)
पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 12 जून , 2008
का.आ.1455.-भारत सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाईन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 1058 तारीख 9 अप्रैल, 2007 द्वारा, उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा गुजरात राज्य से टेप ऑफ पॉइंट गवासद से मैसर्स सौराष्ट्र सोलिड इन्डस्ट्रीज प्राइवेट लिमिटेड तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाईन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;
और , उक्त राजपत्रित अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 14/05/2007 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;
और, सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है;
और , पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में जनता से कोई आक्षेप प्राप्त नहीं हुए;
और , भारत सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है , उस में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है.
अतः, अब , भारत सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है;
और , भारत सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , निर्देश देती है कि पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार , इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को , भारत सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए, पाइपलाइनें बिछाने का प्रस्ताव करने वाली गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड में निहित होगा और तदुपरि, भूमि में ऐसे उपयोग का अधिकार, इस प्रकार अधिरोपित निबंधनों और शतों के अधीन रहते हुए, सभी विल्लंगों से मुक्त , गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।
अनुसूची
गांव
सर्वे सं
जिला
क्षेत्रफल ( हेक्ट में ) तालुका
पादरा
वडोदरा
132/अ
गवासद
0.0585
130
0.0200
कार ट्रेक
0.0285
0.0071
सौराष्ट्र सोलिड
0,1181
कुल
[फा. सं. एल-14014/50/ '06-जी.पी. ]
के. के. शर्मा , अवर सचिव 3073
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21, 2008 ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
[श्वग - खण्ड 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi , the 12th June, 2008
S.O. 1455.-Wherens , by notification ofGovernment of India in Ministry of Petroleurn and Natural Gas mumber S.O. 1058 dated 9th April, 2007 issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition ofRight ofUsers in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Goveminent of India declared its intention to acquire the right ofuser in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation of natural gas through tap- off point Gavasad to M's Saurashtra Solid Industries Pvt . Limited, in the State ofGujarat by GAIL (India) Limited;
And,whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on 14-5-2007;
And,whereas the Competent Authority has , under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the sald Act, submitted its report toGovernment of India;
And,whereas no objection were received from the public to the laying of the pipeline;
And, whereas Government of India has , after considering the said report, decided to acquire the Right ofUser in the lands specified in the Schedule;
Now, therefore, in exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub-section (1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act, Government of India hereby declares that the Right of User in the land specified in the Schedule is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And, further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 6 ofthe said Act, Government of Indiabereby directs that the Right ofUser in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead ofvesting in Government of India, vest, on this date of the publication of the declaration, in the GAIL ( India) Limited, free from all encumbrances.
SCHEDULE
Taluka
District
SurveyNo.
Area to be acuired ( in Hect.)
Village
132/A
Padra
0.0585 Vadodars
Gavasad
0.0200
130
0.0285
CarTrak
0.0071
Saurashtra Solid
Total
0.1181
[F. No. L-14014/50/206-G.P .]
K. K. SHARMA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 16 जून , 2008
का.आ. 1456.-तेल उद्योग ( विकास ) अधिनियम 1974 ( 1974 का 47 ) की घारा ( 3 ) की उप - धारा ( 3 ) के अण्ड ( ग ) द्वारा प्रस्त् की गई शाक्त्थिों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा श्रीमती रीता मेनन , अपर सचिव , व्यय विभाग , वित्त मंत्रालय को दिनांक 12-6-2008 से 11-6-2010 तक दो साल की अवधि के लिए या अगला आदेश जारी होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, तेल उधोग विकास बोर्ड का सदस्य नियुक्त करती है ।
[सं. जी. -35012/2/9 ] -दित -[[ ]
एस. सी. दास , अवर सचिव
NewDelhi , the 16th June, 2008
S.O. 1456.-In exercise ofthe powers conferred by Clause (c) ofsub- section (3) of Section 3 ofthe Oil Industry (Development) Act, 1974 (47 of 1974) , the Central Government hereby appoints Smt. Rita Menon, Addl . Secretary, Department ofExpenditure , Ministry of Finance , as a Member ofthe Oll Industry Development Board for a period oftwo yearswith effect from 12-6-2008 to 11-6-2010 or untill further orders, whichever is earlier
[No. G-35012/2/91 -Fin.II ]
S. C. DAS , Under Secy.
3074
[PART II-Sec. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 21 , 2008/ JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
नई दिल्ली, 11 जून , 2008
! का. आ. 1457:-केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है की लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि चैन्नै पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मनाली की रिफैनेरी से देवनगुट्टि टार्मिनल, बैंगलुर तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादनों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " चेन्नै- बैंगलुर पाइपलाइन " बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताब है और जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किंया जाए;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वास प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्व है, उस तारीख से, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधिन भारत के राजपत्र से यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियों साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्किस दिन के भीतर उस भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री, ऐल . वेंकटा सुब्बया , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड,चेन्नै - बैंगलुर पाइपलाइन परियोजना, अर्पाटमेंट सं 104, वटसला टार्वस , नाएडु बिलडिंगस , चित्तूर- 517 001 , आन्ध्रप्रदेश को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 3075 [भाग II-राखण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
अनुसूची
राज्य: आन्ध्रप्रदेश
जिला: चित्तूर
मंडल: चित्तूर
क्षेत्रफल
गाँव का नाम
उप-खण्ड सं.
सर्वेक्षण सं खण्ड सं.
वर्ग मिटर
एयर
हेक्टर
1
2
3
4
6
5
145
2B
00
01
21 ४० , नारिगापल्लि
[पत्र. सं. आर -25011 /5/2007- ओ.आर-1 ]
अ. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 11th June, 2008
S. O.1457.-Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum product from Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited , Manali to Devanguthi Terminal, Bangalore, a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
And whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land described in the Schedule annexed to this notification :
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land ) Act 1962 (50 of 1962 ), the Central Govemment hereby declares its intention to acquire the Right of User therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty- one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein , or laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri L. Venkata Subbaiah , Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Chennai - Bangalore Pipeline Project , Apartment No. 104. Vatsala Towers , Naidu Buildings , Chittoor - 517 001. Andhra Pradesh
2172 GV08-6 3076
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008/ JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
SCHEDULE
Mandal: Chittoor
District:Chittoor
State : Andhra Pradesh
Area
Name of the Village Survey No. Sub-Division No.
Are
Hectare
Sq . Mtr .
2
4
3
5
6
145
28
00
01
21 60,Narigapalli
[No. R-25011/5/2007-0.R. -IJ A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.
नईदिल्ली, 11 जून, 2008
का. आ. 1450.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है की लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि पेट्रोलियम कॉपेरिशन लिमिटेड, मनाली की स्किँनेरी से देवनगुट्टि टार्मिनल, बैंगलुर तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादनों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " चेन्नै- बैंगलुर पाइपलाइन " बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधिन भारत के राजपत्र से यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियों साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है , इक्किस दिन के भीतर उस भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबध में श्री, ऐल. वेंकटा सुब्बय्या , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड,चेन्नै बैंगलुर पाइपलाइन परियोजना, अर्पाटमेंट सं 104 , वटसला टार्वस, नाएडु बिलडिंगस . चित्तूर - 517 001 , आन्ध्रप्रदेश को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । [भाग - खष्ठ 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र: खून 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
3077
अनुसूची
मंडल: यादमारि
जिला: चित्तूर
राज्य: भान्ध्रप्रदेश
क्षेत्रफल
गाँव का नाम
उप-खण्ड सं.
सर्वेक्षण से- खण्ड से..
हेक्टर
एयर
वर्गमिटर 1
2
3
4
5
6 03, माध्वरम
84
4D
00
03
24 84
4G
00
01
21 48
1
00
01
21 62
ΘΕ
00
14
57
[फा. सं. आर-25011/5/2007-ओ.आर-1 ]
अ. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव
NewDelhi , the 11th June , 2008
S. O.1458. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum product from Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited, Manali to Devanguthi Terminal , Bangalore , a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited..
And whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose oflaying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right ofUser in land ) Act 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the Right of User therein ;
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty-one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein , or laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri L. Venkata Subbaiah . Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited , Chennai - Bangalore Pipeline Project, Apartment No. 104 , Vatsafa Towers, Naidu Buildings , Chittoor - 517 001 , Andhra Pradesh .
3078
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 21 , 2008/ JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) )
SCHEDULE
State : Andhra Pradesh Mandel : Yadamari
District : Chittoor
Area
Name of the Village Survey No. Sub-Division No.
Are
Hectare
Sq. Mtr.
2
4
5
1
3
03
24
84
4D
00
63 , Madhavaram
01
21
84
4G
00
01
21
1
48
00
14
BE
00
57
62
[No. R-25011/5/2007- O.R.- 1
A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.
नईदिल्ली, 11 जून , 2008
का. आ. 1459.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है की लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि चेन्नै पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मनाली की रिफैनेरी से देवनगुट्टि टार्मिनल , चैंगलुर तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादनों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " चेन्नै- बैंगलुर पाइपलाइन " बिछाई जानी चाहिए :
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किंया जाए;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप-धारा ( 1 ) के अधिन भारत के राजपत्र से यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना को प्रत्तियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है , इक्किस दिन के भीतर उस भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबध में श्री , ऐल. वेंकटा सुब्बय्या , सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, चेन्नै बैंगलुर पाइपलाइन परियोजना, अर्पाटमेंट से 104 , वटसला टार्वस, नाण्डु बिलडिंगस , चित्तूर--517001 , आन्ध्रप्रदेश को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । भारत का राजपत्र : खून 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
अनुसूची
जिला: चित्तूर मंडल गंगाधरनेल्लोर
उप-खण्ड सं.
गाँवकानाम
सर्वेक्षण से- खण्ड सं.
2
3 1
1
321
52, थुगुंद्रम
2
321
2
278
20
279
279
19
3079
राज्य: आन्ध्रप्रदेश
क्षेत्रफल
वर्ग मिटर हेक्टर
एयर
6 4
5
41 00
34
57
14
00
00
86
04
10 00
24 00
03
[फा. सं. आर-25011 /5/2007 -ओ.आर-1 ]
अ. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव :
NewDelhi , the 11th June, 2008
S. O. 1459-Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum product from Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited , Manali to Devanguthi Terminal , Bangalore , a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
Andwhereas,It appears to the Central Government that for the purpose oflaying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the Right of User therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty-one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein , or laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri L. Venkata Subbaiah , Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Chennai-Bangalore Pipeline Project, Apartment No. 104, Vatsala Towers , Naidu Buildings , Chittoor - 517 001 , Andhra Pradesh .
SCHEDULE
District : Chittoor
Mandal : Gangadhara Neliore
Name of theVillage
Survey No.
1
2
321 52, Thugundram
321
276
279
279
State : Andhra Pradesh
Area
Sub-Division No.
Ane
Hectare
Sq. Mtr.
4
6
3
5
1
41
00
34
2
57
00
14
2
88
00
04
10
00
20
08
19
24 00
03
[No. R-25011 /5/2007-0.R.- 1 3080
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008 /JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :
श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 29 मई, 2006
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research , Kalyanpur , Kanpur, in terminating the employment of Sri Rajesh Kumar is legal andjustified ? Ifnot , to what reliefthe worker is entitled to ? "
का. आ. 1460.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन इन्सटिट्यूट ऑफ पल्स रिसर्च के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 158/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-42012/ 255/98- आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi , the 29th May, 2008
S.O. 1460.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 158/99 ) ofCentral Govemment Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008 .
[No. L-42012/ 255/98 - IR (DU ) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work of permanent nature under the premises ofthe opposite party on. It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end of the month by the opposite party as approved by the Central Government at the minimum of the rate . It is also pleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues , the opposite party attached the workman with a licensed contractor. It has also been pleaded by the workman that he was continuing in the services from before the induction of Contractor . Workman is employee of the opposite party. Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officers of the managements . The production of the opposite partywas also used to be sold out to the customers . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of240 days of till he was removed from the service of the opposite party w.e.f. Nil in gross violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but he was not afforded any opportunity of his reemployment . Opposite party has also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service. Onthe basis ofabove ithas been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages , consequential benefits and seniority.
BEFORE SRI R. G. SHUKLA, PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT, SHRAM BHAWAN , A.T.L. CAMPUS , UDYOG NAGAR. KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 158 of 1999
In the matter of dispute between :
Shri Rajesh Kumar, C/o Sh. Rajendra Prasad Shukla, 115/193 A.2 Maswanpur Rawatpur, Kanpur
AND
The Director, Indian Institute of Pulse Research , G.T. Road Kalyanpur, Kanpur
AWARD
1. Central Government , MOL, New Delhi , vide notification No. L- 42012 /255 / 98 IR (DU) dated 3-5-1999
3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exists any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties . The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was ever paid wages by the opposite party directly. In fact they were the employees of the contractor who used to supervise thework ofthe workman . It is also denied that there exists any valid industrial dispute . Workman is not a workman as defined under L.D. Act , nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having engaged the workman in the employment in any capacity what soever nor he was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment , there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules . Since the workman was never in the employment , question of terminating his services from anydate does not arise . Morcover , provisions of Industrial DisputesAct are also not applicable to the workman . On 3081 [भाग II- खंड ( ii) ]
भारत का राज़पत्र : जून 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
thebasis of above , it has been prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of merit, baseless andmisleading.
4.After the exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective cases.
8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a valid industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that he ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or thathewas ever issued any appointment letter , or he was ever paid his wages by the opposite party or his services have ever beenterminated by the opposite party. Therefore, question ofbreach ofprovisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, bythe opposite party does not arise.
9. For the reasons discussed above, it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between theparties, alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by him . Reference is therefore , answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour ofthe opposite party.
R.G. SHUKLA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 मई, 2008
का. आ. 1461.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन इन्सटिट्यूट ऑफ. पल्स- रिसर्च के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 10/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -42012/228/99- आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी 5. Abare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workinan but on each occasion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoidedtoconclude the case. Again further date ofhearing was fixed in the case and when the case was called out representative for the workman found absent and thereafter the arguments advanced by the representative for the management were heard . After the hearing was over in the case, representative for the workman appeared before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain representationbefore, the Ministry seeking transfer of the case from this tribunal but a perusal of the record shows that no such application is available on the record ofthe case.There is also no order received from the appropriate government in this regard . Therefore, the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the representative for the workman and the same stands rejected. Having considered long duration of the pendency of the instant case, the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application.
NewDelhi , the 29th May, 2008
S.O. 1461.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/2000) ofCentral Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Institute ofPulse Research and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008 .
[No. L-42012/228/99- IR (DU) ) SURENDRA SINGH, Deak Officer 6. Tribunal has considered the argumenta advanced inthe case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file. It is the own case that the workman was made the employee of the contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages. The contention of theworkman to the effect that he was working much before the induction of the alleged contractor of which he is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record of the case to substantiate the claim of the workman thathe was in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor.
ANNEXURE BEFORE SRI R. G. SHUKLA PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHRAM BHAWAN, A.T.L. CAMPUS , UDYOG NAGAR, KANPUR Industrial Dispute No. 10 of2000
Inthe matter of dispute between :
7. The argumenta of the opposite party appears to be sound that there exists no relationship of master and servant between them and the so called workman , therefore, there appears no valid industrial dispute between the contesting parties. In the absence of any cogent evidence in support of the claim of the workman , it is concluded that there never existed any relationship of master and servant between the parties and therefore, the alleged workman cannot be held to be a workman within the definition of the workman as given under the Act . If it is no rest issues become infructuous as raised by the allegedworkman in his statement ofclaim and therefore, need no consideration .
Shri Ram Lakhun , C/o Sh . Rajendra Prasad Shukla, 115/193 A.2 Maswanpur Rawatpur , Kanpur 3082
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008/ JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
AND
TheDirector,
Indian Institute of Pulse Research , G.T. Road , Kalyanpur, Kanpur.
AWARD
1. Central Government , MOL, New Delhi , vide Notification No. L-42012/228 /99 - IR ( DU) dated 27-1-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research, Kalyanpur, Kanpur , in terminating the employment of Sri Ram Lakhan w.e.f. 26-6-98 is legal andjustified ? If not , to what relief the worker is entitled to ?"
2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work of permanent nature under the premises of the opposite party on. It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end ofthe month by the opposite party as approvedby the Central Government at the minimum of the rate . It is also pleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues, the opposite party attached the workman with a licensed contractor. It has also been pleadedby the workman that he was continuing in the services from before the induction of Contractor. Workman is employee of the opposite party. Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officers of the managements. The production of the opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers. It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of240 days of till he was removed from the service of the opposite party w.e.f. 26-6-98 in gross violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several fresh handswere inducted by the opposite party but he was not afforded any opportunity of his re- employment . Opposite partyhas also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service. Onthe basis ofabove it has been prayed that the workman maybe reinstated in the service with full back wages , consequential benefits and seniority.
3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exists any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties . The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was ever paid wages by the opposite party directly. In fact they were the employees of the contractor who used to supevise the work ofthe workman . It is also denied that there exists any valid industrial dispute. Workman is not a workman as defined under I.D. Act, nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] engaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor he was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment , there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules . Since the workman was never in the employment, question of terminating his services from any date does not arise . Moreover, provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman. On the basis of above, it has been prayed that the claim of theworkman be rejected being devoid of merit, baseless and misleading.
4. After the exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support oftheir respective cases.
5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occasion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case. Again further date of hearing was fixed in the case and when the case was called out representative for the workman found absent and thereafter the arguments advanced by the representative for the management were heard. After the hearing was over in the case, representative for the workman appeared before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain representation before the Ministry seeking transfer of the case from this tribunal but a perusal of the record shows that no such application is available on the record of the case. There is also no order received from the appropriate government in this regard. Therefore , the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the representative for the workman and the same stands rejected . Having considered long duration of the pendency of the instant case , the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application.
6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced inthe case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file . It is the own case that the workman was made the employee of the contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages . The contention of theworkmanto the effect that he was working much before the induction ofthe allged contractor of which he is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record ofthe case to substantiate the claim of the workman that he was in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor.
7. The arguments of the opposite party appears to be sound that there exists no relationship of master and servant between them and the so called workman , therefore , there appears no valid industrial dispute between 3083 [ भाग II-खंड 3( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21, 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI R. G. SHUKLA PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT SHRAM BHAWAN A.T.L CAMPUS , UDYOG NAGAR, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 11 of 2000 the contesting parties . In the absence of any cogent evidence in support of the claim of the workman , it is concluded that there never existed any relationship of master and servant between the parties and therefore, the allegedworkman cannot be held to be a workman within thedefinition of the workman as given under the Act . If it is so rest issues become infructuous as raised by the alleged workman in his statement of claim and therefore, need no consideration.
In the matter of dispute between :
Shri Rajendra Kumar ,
C/o Sh. Rajendra Prasad Shukla, 115/193 A.2 Maswanpur Rawatpur,
Каприr.
AND
TheDirector,
Indian Institute of Pulse Research ,
8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a valid industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that he ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or that he was ever issued any appointment letter , or he was ever paid his wages by the opposite party or his services have ever been serminated by the opposite party. Therefore, questionofbreach ofprovisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the opposite party does not arise .
G.T. Road Kalyanpur,
Kanpur.
AWARD
9. For the reasons discussed above, it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties, alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by him . Reference is therefore ,. answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour ofthe opposite party.
1. Central Government, MOL , New Delhi, vide Notification No. L -42012/229/99 -IR (DU) dated 27-1- 2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunاف :
R.G. SHUKLA , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 29 मई, 2008
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research, Kalyanpur , Kanpur, in terminating the employment of Sri Rajendra Kumar w.e.f. 26-6-98 is legal and justified ? Ifnot , to what relief the worker is entitled to ?"
का. अग्र. 1462. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 . का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन इंस्ट्च्यूिट ऑफ पल्स रिसर्च के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 11/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -42012/229/99- आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी
NewDelhi , the 29th May , 2008
S.O. 1462. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/ 2000) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum! Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relationto the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008 .
[No. L-42012/ 229/99 - IR (DU) ]
2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work of permanent nature under the premises of the opposite party on. It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end of the month by the opposite party as approved by the Central Government at the minimum of the rate. It is also pleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues , the opposite party attached the workinan with a licensed contractor . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he was continuing in the services from before the induction of Contractor. Workman is employee of the opposite party. Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officers of the managements . The production of the opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers , It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of240days of till he was removed from the service ofthe opposite party w.e.f. 26-6-98 in gross violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but he was not affordedany opportunity ofhis re- employment . Opposite party has also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service.
SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer
2172 GI/08-7 3084.
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008/ JYAISTILA 31 , 1930 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( i ) ] On thebasis of above it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages , consequential benefits and seniority.
the case file . It is the own case that the workman was made the employee ofthe contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages . The contention of theworkman to the effect that he was working much before the induction of the alleged contractor of which he is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record ofthe case to substantiate the claim of the workman that he was in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor.
7. The arguments of the opposite party appears too be sound that there exists no relationship of master and servant between them and the so- called workman , therefore, there appears no valid industrial dispute between the contesting parties . In the absence of any cogent evidence in support of the claim of the workman , it is concluded that there never existed any relationship of master and servant between the parties and therefore , the alleged workman cannot be held to be a workman within the definition of the workman as given under the Act. If it is so rest issues become infructuous as raised by the alieged workman in his statement of claim and therefore, need no consideration .
3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been deniedby the opposite party that there exists any relationship of employer and employee between the contestingparties . The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was everpaid wagesby the opposite party directly . In fact they were the employees ofthe contractor who used to supervise the work of the workman. It is also denied that there exists any valid industrial dispute . Workman is not a workman as defined under I.D. Act , nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having engaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor he was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party . It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment , there is, prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules. Since the workman was never in the employment , question of terminating his services from anydatedoes not arise .Moreover , provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman . On the basis of above , it has been prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of merit , baseless and misleading.
4. After exchange ofpleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective cases.
8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a valid industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that he ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or that he was ever issued any appointment letter, or he was ever paid his wages by the opposite party or his services have ever been terminated by the opposite party. Therefore , question ofbreach of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , by the opposite party does not arise.
9. For the reasons discussed above, it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties , alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by hiın . Reference is , therefore , answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour of the opposite party.
R.G. SHUKLA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 मई, 2008
का. आ. 1463.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) को धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन इन्सटिट्यूट ऑफ पल्स रिसर्च के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 21/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occasion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case . Again further date of hearing was fixed in the case and when the case was called out representative for the workman found absent and thereafter the arguments advanced by the representative for the management were heard . After the hearing was over in the case, representative for the workman appeared before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain representationbefore the Ministry seeking transfer of the case from this tribunal but a perusal of the record shows that no such application is available on the record of the case. There is also no order received from the appropriate government in this regard. Therefore, the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the representative for the workman and the same stands rejected, Having considered long duration of the pendency of the instant case, the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application.
[सं. एल-42012/241/99- आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी 6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced inthe case at length and have also gone carefully through [भाग II-खंड 3 (ii ) ]
New Delhi , the 29th May, 2008
S.O. 1463. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21 / 2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Kampur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Institute ofPulse Research and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008.
[No. L-42012/241 /99 - IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI R. G. SHUKLA , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMEN INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR. COURT, SHRAM BHAWAN, A.T.L. CAMPUS, UDYOG NAGAR, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 21 of 2000 In the matter of dispute between :
Shri Chandra Kumar ,
C/ o Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla 115/193 A.2 Maswanpur Rawatpur, Kanpur,
AND
TheDirector, Indian Institute of Pulse Research , G.T. Road, Kalyanpur , Kanpur
AWARD
1. Central Government, MOL , New Delhi , vide Notification No. L-42012/241 /99 IR (DU) dated 27-1- 2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research , Kalyanpur , Kanpur, in terminating the employment of Sri Chandra Kumar w.e.f. 26-8-98 is legal and justified ? Ifnot, to what relief the worker is entitled to ?"
2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work of permanent nature under the premises of the opposite party on. It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end of the month by the opposite party as approvedby theCentral Government at the minimum of the rate. It is also pleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues, the opposite party attached the workman witha licensedcontractor, It has also been pleaded by the workman that he was continuing in the services from before the induction ofContractor . Workman is employee
3085
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930.
of the opposite party. Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officers of the management. The production of the opposite party was also used to be sold out the customers . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of240 days of till he was removed from the service ofthe opposite party w.e.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provisions ofIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but he was not afforded any opportunity of his reemployment . Opposite partyhas also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service. On the basis ofabove it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages, consequential benefits and seniority.
3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exist any relationship of employer and employee between the contestingparties . The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was ever paid wages by the opposite party directly. In factthey were the employees ofthe contractor who used to supervise the work ofthe workman. It is also denied that there exists any valid industrial dispute , Workman is not a workman as defined under LD . Act , nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having engaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor he was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular' and permanent employment, there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules. Since the workman was never in the employment, question of terminating his services from anydate does not arise . Moreover, provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman . On the basis of above , it has been prayed that the clains of theworkman be rejected being devoid of merit, bascless and misleading.
4. After exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective cases.
5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occasion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case . Again further date ofhearing was fixed in the case and when the case was called out representative for the workman found absent and thereafter the arguments advanced by the representative for the management were heard . After the hearing was over in the case, representative for the workman appeared before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain 3086
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008/ JYAISTHA 31. 1930
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii ) ]
ऑफ पल्स रिसर्च के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अभिकरण श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 14/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-42012/243/99- आई आर ( डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी representation before the Ministry seeking transfer of the case from this tribunal but a perusal of the record shows that no such application is available on the record of the case.There is also no order received from the appropriate government in this regard . Therefore , the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the representative for the workman and the same stands rejected. Having considered long duration of the pendency of the instant case , the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application.
New Delh:, the 29th May, 2008
S.O. 1464.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hercby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 14/ 2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Kanpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute hetween the employers in relation to the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008 .
6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced in the case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file. It is the own case that the workman was made the employee of the contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages . The contention of the workman to the effect that he was working much before the induction of the alleged contractor of which he is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record of the case to substantiate the claim of the workman that he was in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor.
[No. L -42012/ 243/99 - IR ( DU) | SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI R. G. SHUKLA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT, SHRAM BILAWAN , A.T.I. CAMPUS , UDYOG NAGAR, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 14 of 2000
In the matter of dispute between ;
7. The arguments of the opposite party appears to be sound that there exists no relationship of master and servantbetween them and the so called workman , therefore, there appears no valid industrial dispute between thecontesting parties. In the absence any cogent evidence in support of the claim of the workman, it is concluded that there never existed any relationship of master and servant between the parties and therefore , the alleged workman cannot be held to be a workman within the definition of the workinan as given under the Act. If it is so rest issues become infructuous as raised by the alleged workman in his statement of claim and therefore , need no consideration .
Shri Alok Misra , Cio Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla , 115/193 A.2 Maswanpur Rawatpur, Kanpur
AND
TheDirector, Indian Institute of Pulse Research , G.T. Road . Kalyanpur, Kanpur.
AWARD
8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a valid industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that he ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or that he was ever issued any appointment letter, or he was ever paid his wages by the opposite party or his services have ever been terminated by the opposite party. Therefore, question ofbreach of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , by the opposite party does not arise.
1. Central Government , MOL, New Delhi , vide Notification No. 1.-42012/243 /99 - IR (DU) dated 27-1-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal for:
9. For the reasons discussed above , it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties , alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by him . Reference is therefore, answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour of the opposite party.
R.G. SHUKLA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 मई, 2008
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research , Kalyanpur , Kanpur, in terminating the employment of Sri Alok Misra w.e. f. 26-8-98 is tegal and justified ? If not , to what relicf the worker is entitled to ? "
2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work of का. आ. 1464.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन इन्सटिट्यूट [भाग II- खंड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21, 2008/व्देष्ठ 31 , 1930
permanent nature under the premises ofthe oppositeparty on. It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end of the month by the opposite party as approved by the Central Government at the minimum of the rate. It is alsopleadedby the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues, the opposite party attached the workman withalicensed contractor. It has also been pleaded by the workman that he was continuing in the services from before the induction ofContractor. Workman is employee ofthe opposite party. Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officers of the managements . The production of the opposite party was also used to be sold out the customers . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of240days of till he was removed from the service ofthe opposite party w.e.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but he was not afforded any opportunity ofhis re-employment. Opposite party has also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service. On-thebasis ofabove it has been prayed that theworkman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages , consequential benefits and seniority.
3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exists any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties . The workman never remained in direct employment ofthe opposite party nor the workman was everpaidwages by the opposite party directly. In fact they were the employees of the contractor who used to supervise the work of the workman. It is also denied that there exists any valid industrial dispute. Workman is not a workman as defined under 1.D. Act, nor the opposite party is an industry, Management has emphatically denied having engaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor he was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment, there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules . Since the workman was never in the employment , question of terminating his services from any date does not arise. Moreover, provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicableto the workman. On the basis of above, it has been prayedthat the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of merit, baseless and misleading.
4. After the exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support oftheir respective cases.
5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing
3087 arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occasion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoidedto conclude the case. Again further date ofhearing was fixed in the case and when the case was called out representative for the workman found absent and thereafter the arguments advanced by the representative for the management were heard. After the hearing was over in the case, representative for the workman appeared before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain representation before the Ministry seeking transfer ofthe case from this tribunal but a perusal of the record shows that no such application is available on the record ofthe case.There is also no order received from the appropriate government in this regard, Therefore , the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the representative for the workman and the same stands rejected. Having considered long duration of the pendency of the instarit case, the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application.
6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced inthe caseat length and have also gone carefully through the case file .It is the own case that the workman was made the employee ofthe contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages . The contention of theworkman tothe effect that he was workingmuch before the induction of the alleged contractor of which he is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the recordofthe case to substantiate the claim of the workman that hewas in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor.
7. The arguments of the opposite party appears to be sound that there exists no relationship of master and servant between them and the so called workman , therefore, there appears no valid industrial dispute between the contesting parties . In the absence of any cogent evidence in support of the claim of the workman , it is concluded that there never existed any relationship of master and servant between the parties and therefore, the alleged workman cannot be held to be a workman within the definition of the workman as given under the Act. If it is so rest issues become infructuous as raisedby the alleged workman in his statement of claim and therefore, need no consideration .
8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a valid industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that he ever remained in active employment of the opposite party of that he was ever issued any appointment letter , or he was ever paid his wages by the opposite party or his services have ever been terminated by the opposite party. Therefore, question ofbreach ofprovisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the opposite party does not arise.
3088
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008 / JYAISTHA 31 , 1930 [PART II-SEC. 3( ii ) ]
AWARD
1. Central Government , MOL , New Delhi , vide Notification No. L - 42012 /230 /99 - IR ( DU ) dated 27-1-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :
9. For the reasons discussed above , it is held that since instant case is not a valid îndustrial dispute between the parties, alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by him. Reference is therefore , answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour ofthe opposite party.
R.G. SHUKLA , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 29 मई, 2006
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute ofPulse Research , Kalyanpur , Kanpur , in terminating the employment of Smt. Prema w.e.f. 26-6-98 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the worker is entitled to ? "
का. आ. 1465.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन इन्सटिट्यूट ऑफ पल्स रिसर्च के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 12/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-42012/230/99- आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 29th May, 2008
S.O. 1465- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 12/ 2000) of Central Government industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Kanpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relationto the management of Indian Institute ofPulse Research and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008.
[No. L-42012/230/99 - IR (DU)) SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work of permanent nature under the premises of the opposite party on. It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end of the month by the opposite party as approved by the Central Governinent at the minimum of the rate . It is also pleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues, the opposite party attached the workınan with a licensed contractor. It has also been pleaded by the workman that he was continuing in the services from before the induction of Contractor . Workman is employee of the opposite party. Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officers of the managements . The production of the opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of240 days of till he was removed from the service of the opposite party w.e.f. 26-6-98 in gross violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but he was not afforded any opportunity of his re -employment . Opposine party has also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service. Onthe basis of above it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with fult back wages , consequential benefits and seniority.
BEFORE SRI R. G. SHUKLA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, SHRAM BHAWAN , A.T.I. CAMPUS , UDYOG NAGAR , KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 12 of 2000
Inthe matter of dispute between :
Sint. Prema ,
C/o Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla 115/193 A.2 Maswanpur Rawatpur, Kanpur
AND
TheDirector, Indian Institute of Pulse Research, G.T. Road , Kalyanpur , Kanpur
3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exists any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties. The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was ever paid wages by the opposite party directly. In fact they were the employees of the contractor who used to supervise the work of the workman . It is also denied that there exist any valid industrial dispute . Workman is not a workman asdefined under 1.D. Act, nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having engaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor he was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment , there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring 3089 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
[भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii) ]
it is so rest issues become infructuous as raised by the allegedworkman in his statement of claim and therefore, need no consideration.
recruitment rules . Since the workman was never in the employment, question of terminating his services from anydate does not arise. Moreover , provisions of Industrial DisputesAct are also not applicable to the workman . On the basis of above, it has been prayed that the claim of theworkman be rejected being devoid of merit, baseless and misleading.
4. After the exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support oftheir respective cases.
8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a valid industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that he ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or that he was ever issued any appointment letter , or he was ever paid his wages by the opposite party or his services have ever beenterminated by the opposite party.Therefore, question ofbreach ofprovisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the opposite party does not arise.
9. For the reasons discussed above, it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties, alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by him . Reference is therefore, answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour ofthe opposite party.
R.G. SHUKLA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 मई, 2008.
का. आ. 1466.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन इन्सटिट्यूट ऑफ पल्स रिसर्च के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 23/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
5. Abare perusal of the record would goto show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occasion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoidedtoconclude the case. Again further date ofhearing was fixed in the case and when the case was called out representative for the workman found absent and thereafter the arguments advanced by the representative for the management were heard. After the hearing was over in the case, representative for the workman appeared before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain representation before the Ministry seeking transfer ofthe case from this tribunal but a perusal of the record shows that no such application is available on the record of the case. There is also no order received from the appropriate government in this regard. Therefore , the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the representative for the workman and the same stands rejected. Having considered long duration of the pendency of the instant case, the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application.
[सं. एल-42012/232/99- आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 29thMay, 2008
S.O. 1466. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 23/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research and their workanen , which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008 ..
6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced inthe case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file. It is the own case that the workman was made the employee of the contractor and it is the contractor who usedto make payment of wages. The contention of the workman to the effect that he was working much before the induction of the alleged contractor of which he is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the recordofthe case to substantiate the claim of the workman thathe was in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor.
[No. L-42012/232/99- IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI R. G. SHUKLA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, SHRAM BHAWAN, A.T.L. CAMPUS , UDYOG NAGAR, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 23 of 2000 7. The arguments of the opposite party appears to be sound that there exists no relationship of master and servant between them and the so called workman , therefore, there appears no valid industrial dispute between the contesting parties . In the absence of any cogent evidence in support of the claim of the workman, it is concluded that there never existed any relationship of master and servant between the parties and therefore , the alleged workman cannot be held to be a workman within the definition of the workman as given under the Act. If 3090
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008/ JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] In the matter of dispute between :
Smt Rani , C/ o Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla 115/193 A.2 Maswanpur, Rawatpur, Kanpur
AND
TheDirector, Indian Institute of Pulse Research, G.T. Road, Kalyanpur, Kanpur
AWARD
1. Central Government , MOL , New Delhi , vide notification No. L-42012/232/99 - IR (DU) dated 27-1-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :
ever paid wages by the opposite party directly. In fact they were the employees of the contractor who used to supervise the work ofthe workman. It is also denied that there exists any valid industrial dispute. Workman is not a workman as defined under 1.D. Act, nor the opposite party is an industry . Management has emphatically denied having engaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor he was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment , there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules . Since the workman was never in the employment, question of terminating his services from anydate does not arise . Moreover , provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman . On the basis of above, it has been prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of merit, baseless and misleading .
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute ofPulse Research, Kalyanpur , Kanpur , in terminating the employment of Smt. Rani w.e.f. 26-6-98 is legal and justified ? Ifnot, to what relief the worker is entitled to ?".
4.After exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective cases .
5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occasion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case . Again further date ofhearing was fixed in the case and when the case was called out representative for the workman found absent and thereafter the arguments advanced by the representative for the management were heard . After the hearing was over in the case, representative for the workman appeared before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain representationbefore the Ministry seeking transfer of the case from this tribunal but a perusal of the record shows that no such application is available on the record of the case. There is also no order received from the appropriate government in this regard. Therefore , the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the representative for the workman and the same stands rejected . Having considered long duration of the pendency of the instant case , the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application.
2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work of permanent nature under the premises of the opposite party on. It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end of the month by the opposite party as approvedby the Central Government at the minimum of the rate. It is also pleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues, the opposite party attached the workman with a licensed contractor. It has also been pleaded by the workman that he was continuing in the services from beforethe induction of Contractor. Workman is employee of the opposite party. Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officers of the managements. The production of the opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of240 days of till he was removed from the service ofthe opposite party w.e.f. 26-6-98 in gross violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but he was not afforded any opportunity of his reemployment . Opposite party has also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service. On thebasis of above it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages, consequential benefits and seniority.
6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced inthe case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file. It is the own case that the workman was made the employee of the contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages . The contention of theworkman to the effect that he was working much before the induction of the alleged contractor of which he is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record ofthe case to substantiate the claim of the workman 3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exists any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties . The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was [भाग II-खंड 3( ⅱ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
thathe was in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor.
7. The arguments of the opposite party appears to be sound that there exists no relationship of master and servant between them and the so- called workman , therefore, there appears no valid industrial dispute between the contesting parties . In the absence of any cogent evidence in support of the claim of the workman, it is concluded that there never existed any relationship of master and servant between the parties and therefore, the alleged workman cannot be held to be a workman within the definition of the workman as given under the Act. If it is so rest issues become infructuons as raised by the alleged workman in his statement of claim and therefore, need no consideration .
8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a valid industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that he ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or that hewas ever issued any appointment letter, or bewas ever paid his wages by the opposite party or his services have ever beenterminated by the opposite party. Therefore, question ofbreach ofprovisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the opposite party does not arise.
9. For the reasons discussed above , it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties, alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by him. Reference is therefore , answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour ofthe opposite party.
R.G. SHUKLA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 मई, 2008
का. आ. 1467.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन इन्सटिट्यूट ऑफ पल्स रिसर्च के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 7/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-42012/238/99- आई आर ( डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th May, 2008
S.O. 1467-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 7/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Kanpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Institate of Pulse Research and 2172 GI/ 088
3091 their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008.
[No. L-42012/238/99- IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI R. G. SHUKLA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, SHRAM BHAWAN, A.T.1. CAMPUS , UDYOG NAGAR, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 7 of 2000
In the matter of dispute between :
Shui Dadan Prasad, C/o Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla 115/193 A.2 Maswanpur, Rawatpur, Kanpur
AND
TheDirector, Indian Institute of Pulse Research, G.T. Road , Kalyanpur, Каприг
AWARD
1. Central Goverment , MOL, New Delhi , vide notification No. L-42012/238 /99 - IR (DU) dated 27-1-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research, Kalyanpur , Kanpur, in terminating the employment of Sri Dadan Prasad working as Contract worker allegedly under direct supevision of the managemant w.e.f. is legal and justified ? Ifnot , to what relief the worker is entitled to ?"
2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work of permanent nature under the premises ofthe opposite party on. It is alsopleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end of the month by the opposite party as approvedby the Central Government at the minimum of the rate . It is also by pleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid statutorydues, the opposite party attached the workman with a licensed contractor . It has also been pleadedbythe workman that he was continuing in the services from before the induction of Contractor. Workman is employee of the opposite party. Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officers of the managements. The production of the opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers . It has also been pleaded by the workman, that he rendered continuous service of 240 days of till he was removed from the service ofthe opposite party w.e.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several fresh 3092
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008 / JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
handswere inducted by the opposite party but he was not affordedany opportunity ofhis re-employment. Opposite party has also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service, On the basis of above it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages, consequential benefits and seniority.
3. The opposite party has filed replywherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exists any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties . The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was ever paid wages by the opposite party directly. In fact they were the employees ofthe contractor who used to supervise the work ofthe workman, It is also denied that there exists any valid industrial dispute . Workman is not a workman asdefined under 1.D. Act , nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having engaged the workanan in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor he was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment , there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the oppositeparty is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules . Since the workman was never in the employment , question of terminating his services from any date does not arise . Moreover, provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman. On the basis of above , it has been prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of merit , bascless and misleading.
4. After the exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective casca.
5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occasion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case . Again further date ofhearing was fixed in the case and when the case was called out representative for the workman found absent and thereafter the arguments advanced by the representative for the management were heard. After the hearing was over in the case, representative for the workman appeared before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain representation before the Ministry seeking transfer of the case from this tribunal but a perusal of the record shows that no such application is available on the record ofthe case.There is also no order received from the appropriate government in this regard . Therefore , the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the representative for the workman and the same stands rejected. Having considered long duration of the pendency of the instant
(PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] case, the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application.
6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced in the case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file . It is the own case that the workman was made the employee of the contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages . The contention of theworkman to the effect that he was working much before the induction of the alleged contractor of which he is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record of the case to substantiate the claim ofthe workman that hewas in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor.
7. The arguments of the opposite party appearsto be sound that there exists no relationship of master and servant between them and the so called workman , therefore, there appears no valid industrial dispute between the contesting parties . In the absence of any cogent evidence in support of the claim of the workman , it is concluded that there never existed any relationship of master and servant between the parties and therefore, the alleged workman cannot be held to be a workman within the definition of the workman as given under the Act. If it is so rest issues become infructuous as raised by the alleged workman in his statement of claim and therefore , need no consideration.
8. In the end it is concluded for theforegoings that the instant case is not a valid industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that he ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or that he was ever issued any appointment letter, or he was ever paid his wages by the opposite party or his services have everbeen terminated by the opposite party.Therefore, question ofbreach ofprovisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the opposite party does not arise.
9. For the reasons discussed above, it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties , alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled forany relief as claimed by him. Reference is therefore , answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour of the opposite party.
R.G. SHUKLA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 मई, 2008
का. आ. 1468.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन इंस्टिट्यूट ऑफ पल्स रिसर्च के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 13/2000) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -42012/237/99-आई आर ( डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी 3093 भारत कः राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008 /ज्येष्ठ 31, 1930
[भाग II-खंड (ii) ]
New Delhi, the 29th May, 2008
S.O. 1468. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/ 2000) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Institute ofPulse Research and their workman, which was received by the Central Government -on 29-5-2008 .
[No. L-42012/237/99 - IR (DU) ]
SURENDRA SINGH, DeskOfficer
workman was used to be marked by the officers of the managements . The production of the opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of240 days of till he was removed from the service of the opposite party w.e.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. , 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but he was not afforded any opportunity of his reemployment. Opposite party has also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service. On the basis ofabove it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages , consequential benefits and seniority.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI RG SHUKLA, PRESIING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNME INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, SHRAM BHAWAN A.T.J. CAMPUS , UDYOG NAGAR, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 13 of 2000
In the matter of dispute between :
Shri Anil Kumar ,
C/o Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla , 115/193 A.2 Maswanpur Rawatpur , Kanpur
AND
TheDirector, Indian Institute of Pulse Research, G.T. Road , Kalyanpur, Kanpur.
AWARD
1. Central Government , MOL, New Delhi , vide Notification No. L- 42012/237/ 99 - IR ( DU) dated 27-1-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudi cation to this tribunal :
3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exists any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties . The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was ever paidwages by the opposite party directly, In fact they were the employees ofthe contractor who used to supervise thework ofthe workman . It is also denied that there exists any valid industrial dispute , Workman is not a workman as defined under I.D. Act, nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having engaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor he was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment, there is prescribedrecruitment rules and no authority of the oppositeparty is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules . Since the workman was never in the employment, question of terminating his services from any date does not arise . Moreover, provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman . On the basis of above, it has been prayed that the claim of. theworkman be rejected being devoid of merit, baseless and misleading.
4. After exchange ofpleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective cases .
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute ofPulse Research , Kalyanpur, Kanpur , in terminating the employment of Sri Anil Kumar w.c.f. 26-8-98 is legal and justified ? Ifnot ,to what reliefthe worker is entitled to ?"
5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occasion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case . Again further date of hearing was fixed in the case and when the case was called out representative for the workman found absent and thereafter the arguments advanced by the representative for the management were heard. After the hearing was over in the case, representative for the workman appeared before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain representation before the Ministry seeking transfer of the case from this tribunal but a perusal of the record shows that no such application is available on the record ofthe 2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work of permanent nature under the premises of the opposite party on . It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end of the month by the opposite party as approved by the Central Government at the minimum of the rate. It is also pleadedby the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues, the opposite party attached the workman with a licensed contractor. It has also been pleadedby the workman that he was continuing in the services from before the induction of Contractor. Workman is employee ofthe opposite party. Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the 3094
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008 /JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
संख्या 8/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[ सं. एल -12012/239/99- आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi ,the 29th May , 2008 case. There is also no order received from the appropriate government in this regard. Therefore , the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the representative for the workman and the same stands rejected . Having considered long duration of the pendency of the instant case , the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application.
5.0. 1469.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industria) Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government licreby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 8/2000 ) of the Central Goverment Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research and their workınan , which was received by the Central Ciovernment on 29-5-2008.
6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced in the case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file. It is the own case that the workman was made the employee of the contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages . The contention of theworkman to the effect that he was working much before the induction of the alleged contractor of whichhe is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record ofthe case to substantiate the claim ofthe workman thathe was in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor .
[Νο . 1. -42012/239 /99 - IR (DU ) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI R. G. SHUKLA, PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, SHRAM BHAWAN , A.T.I. CAMPUS , UDYOG NAGAR , KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 8 of 2000
In the matter of dispute between :
Shri Kaushal, C/o Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla 115/193 A.2 Maswanpur Rawatpur, Kanpur
7. The arguments of the opposite party appears to be sound that there exist no relationship of master and servant between them and the so called workman, therefore, there appears no valid industrial dispute between the contesting parties . In the absence of any cogent evidence in support of the claim of the workman , it is concluded that there never existed any relationship of master and servant between the parties and therefore , the alleged workman cannot be held to be a workman within the definition of the workman as given under the Act . If it is so rest issues become infructuous as raised by the alleged workman in his statement of claim and therefore , need no consideration .
AND
The Director, Indian Institute of Pulse Research, G.T. Road, Kalyanpur , Kanpur.
AWARD
8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a valid industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that he ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or that he was ever issued any appointment letter , or he was ever paid his wages by the opposite party or his services have ever been terminated by the opposite party. Therefore, question ofbreach ofprovisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , by the opposite party does not arise.
1. Central Government , MOL , New Delhi , vide Notification No. L - 42012 / 239/ 99 IR ( DU) dated 27-1-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :
9. For the reasons discussed above , it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties , alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by him . Reference is therefore , answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour ofthe oppositeparty.
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research , Kalyanpur, Kanpur, in terminating the employment of Shri Kaushal , w.e.f. 26-8-98 is legal and justified ? Ifnot, to what relief the worker is entitled to ?"
R.G. SHUKLA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 मई , 2008
2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker has been enployed to perform the work of permanent nature under the premises of the opposite party on. It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages al the end ofthe month by the opposite party as approvedby the Central Government at the minimum of the rate. It is also pleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues , the opposite party attached the workman का. आ. 1469.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन इंस्टिट्यूट ऑफ पल्स रिसर्च के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ 3095 [भाग II-खंड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र जून 21, 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
for the management were heard. After the hearing was over in the case, representative for the workman appeared before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain. representation before the Ministry seeking transfer ofthe case from this tribunal but a perusal of the record shows thatno such application is available on the record ofthe case. There is also no order received from the appropriate government in this regard. Therefore, the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the representative for the workman and the same stands rejected. Having considered long duration of the pendency of the instant case, the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application.
with a licensed contractor. It has also been pleadedby the workman that he was continuing in the services from before the induction ofContractor . Workman is employee of the opposite party. Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officers of the managements . The production of the opposite party was alsoused to be sold out to the customers. It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of240 days oftill he was removed from the service ofthe opposite party w.e.f. 26-8-98 in, gross violation of provision's ofIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but he was not afforded any opportunity of his reemployment . Opposite. party has also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service. Onthe basis of above it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages , consequential benefits and seniority.
6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced inthe case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file . It is the own case that the workman was nade the employee ofthe contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages. The contention of theworkman to the effect that he was working much before the induction of the alleged contractor of which he is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record ofthe case to substantiate the claim ofthe workman thathewas in the employment ofthe opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor.
7. The arguments of the opposite party appears to be sound that there exists no relationship of master and servant between them and the so called workman, therefore, there appears no valid industrial dispute between the contesting parties , In the absence of any cogent evidence in support of the claim of the workman, it is concluded that there never existed any relationship of master and servant between the parties and therefore, the alleged workman cannot be held to be a workman within the definition ofthe workman as given under the Act. If it is so rest issues become infructuous as raised by the alleged workman in his statement of claim and therefore, need no consideration.
3. The opposite party has filed replywherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exists any relationship of employer and employee between the contestingparties . The workman never remained in direct employment ofthe opposite party nor the workman was ever paid wagesby the opposite party directly. In factthey were the employees of the contractorwho used tosupervise the work ofthe workman. It is also denied that there exists any valid industrial dispute , Workman is not a workman as defined under I.D. Act, nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having engaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor he was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment, there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dekoring recruitment rules. Since the workman was never in the employment, question of terminating his services from anydate does not arise .Moreover , provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman . On thebasis of above , it has been prayed that the claim of the workmanbe rejected being devoid ofmerit , baseless and misleading:
4. After the exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective cases.
8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a valid industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that he ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or thathe was ever issued any appointment letter, orhe was ever paid his wages by the opposite party or his services have everbeen terminated by the opposite party. Therefore, question ofbreach ofprovisions ofthe IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947, by the opposite party does not arise.
9. For the realons discussed above , it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties, alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by him . Reference is therefore, answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour ofthe opposite party.
5. Abare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occasion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoidedto conclude the case .Again further date ofbearing was fixed in the case and when the case was called out representative for the workman found absent and thereafter the arguments advanced by the representative
R.G. SHUKLA, PresidingOfficer 3096
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008/ JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
नई दिल्ली, 29 मई, 2008
का. आ. 1470.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन इन्सटिट्यूट ऑफ पल्स रिसर्च के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 74/2000) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[से. एल -42012/77/2000- आई आर (डी.यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th May, 2008
S.O. 1470. in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 74/ 2000) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Kanpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Institute ofPulse Research and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008 .
[No. L-42012/77/2000 -IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI R. G. SHUKLA , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT , SHRAM BHAWAN A.T.I. CAMPUS , UDYOG NAGAR, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 74 of 2000 In the matter of dispute between :
Shri Inder Pal , C/ o Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla 115/193 A.2 Maswanpur , Rawatpur, Kanpur
AND
The Director, Indian Institute of Pulse Research, G.T. Road Kalyanpur , Kanpur.
AWARD
1. Central Government , MOL, New Delhi , vide Notification No. L- 42012/77 / 2000 - IR ( DU) dated 31-7-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research , Kalyanpur , Kanpur , in terminating the employment of Sri Inder Pal , w.e.f. 26-8-98 is legal and justified ? Ifnot, to what relief the worker is entitled to ?"
2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work of permanent nature under the premises ofthe opposite party
[PART II-SEC: 3 (ii)] on. It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end of the month by the opposite party as approvedby the Central Government at the minimum of the rate . It is also pleadedby the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues, the opposite party attached the workman with a licensed contractor . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he was continuing in the services from before the induction ofContractor . Workman is employee of the opposite party . Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officers ofthe managements . The production of the opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of240 days of till he was removed from the service ofthe opposite party w.e.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but he was not afforded any opportunity of his re- employment . Opposite party has also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service. On thebasis ofabove it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wagcs , consequential benefits and seniority.
3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exists any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties . The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was ever paid wages by the opposite party directly. In fact they were the employees of the contractor who used to supervise the work ofthe workman . It is also denied that there exists any valid industrial dispute. Workman is not a workman as defined under 1.D. Act , nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having engaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor he was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment , there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules . Since the workman was never in the employment , question of terminating his services from anydate does not arise. Moreover , provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman . On the basis of above, it has been prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of merit, baseless and misleading.
4. After exchange ofpleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective cases.
5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occasion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case . Again further date ofhearing was fixed in the case and when the case was called out 3097 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
[भाग -खंड 3 (ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 29 मई, 2008
का. आ. 1471.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन इन्सटिट्यूट ऑफ पल्स रिसर्च के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबंद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 79/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-42012/78/2000- आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी
NewDelhi, the 29thMay,2008.
representative for the workman found absent and thereafter the arguments advanced by the representative for the management were heard . After the hearing was over in the case, representative for the workman appeared before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain representation before the Ministry seeking transfer ofthe case from this tribunal but a perusat of the record shows that no such application is available on the record ofthe case.There is also no order received from the appropriate government in this regard. Therefore, the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the representative for the workman and the same stands rejected. Having considered long duration of the pendency of the instant case , the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application.
S.O. 1471. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 79/ 2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Institute ofPulse Research and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008.
[No. L-42012/ 78/99- IR (DU) ) SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer ANNEXURE
6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced inthe case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file. It is the own case that the workman was made the employee ofthe contractor and it is the contractor who usedto make payment ofwages . The contention of theworkmanto the effect that he was working much before the induction of the alleged contractor of which he is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record ofthe case to substantiate the claim ofthe workman thathe was in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor .
BEFORE SRI R. G. SHUKLA, PRESIDING. OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, SHRAM BHAWAN , ATL CAMPUS, UDYOG NAGAR, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 79 of2000
Inthe matter of dispute between :
Shri Ram Behari , C/o Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla 115/193 A.2 Maswanpur, Rawatpur, Kanpur
AND
7. The arguments of the opposite party appears to be sound that there exists no relationship of master and servant between them and the so called workman , therefore,there appears no valid industrial dispute between the contesting parties. In the absence of any cogent evidence in support of the claim of the workman, it is concluded that there never existed any relationship of master and servant between the parties and therefore , the alleged workman cannot be held to be a workman within the definition of the workman as given under the Act. If it is so rest issues become infructuous as raised by the alleged workman in his statement of claim and therefore , need no consideration..
TheDirector, Indian Institute of Pulse Research , G.T. Road, Kalyanpur , Kanpur. AWARD
1. Central Government, MOL, New Delhi , vide notification No. L-42012/78 /2000 - IR (DU ) dated 31-7-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :
8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a valid industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that he ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or thathe was ever issued any appointment letter, or he was ever paid his wages by the opposite party or his services have ever been terminated by the opposite party. Therefore, question ofbreach ofprovisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the opposite party does not arise.
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute ofPulse Research , Kalyanpur, Kanpur , in terminating the employment of Sri Dadan Prasad w.e.f. 26-8-98 is legal and justified ? Ifnot, towhat reliefthe worker is entitled to ? "
9. For the reasons discussed above , it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties, allegod claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by him . Reference is therefore , answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour ofthe opposite party.
R.G. SHUKLA, Presiding Officer
2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work of permanent nature under the premises of the opposite party [PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 3098
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008/ JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
on. It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end ofthe month by the opposite party as approvedby the Central Government at the minimum of the rate. It is also pleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues, the opposite party attached the workman with a licensed contractor. It has also been pleadedby the workman that he was continuing in the services from before the induction ofContractor. Workman is employee of the opposite party. Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officers of the managements .
avoided to conclude the case. Again further date of hearing was fixed in the case and when the case was called out representative for the workman found absent and thereafter the arguments advanced by the representative for the management were heard. After the hearing was over in the case, representative for the workman appeared before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain representation before the Ministry seeking transfer of the case from this tribunal but a perusal of the record shows that no such application is available on the record of the case. There is also no order received from the appropriate government in this regard. Therefore , the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the representative for the workman and the same stands rejected. Having considered long duration of the pendency of the instant case, the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application.
The production of the opposition of the opposite partywas also used to be sold out to the customers . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of 240 days of till he was removed from the service of the opposite party w.e.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several fresh hands were insducted by the opposite party but he was not afforded any opportunity of his reemployment. Opposite party has also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service. On the basis of above it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages , consequential benefits and seniority.
6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced inthe case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file. It is the own case that the workman was made the employee of the contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages . The contention of theworkmanto the effect that he was working muchbefore the induction of the alleged contractor of which he is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record ofthe case to substantiate the claim ofthe workman that he was in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor.
7. The arguments of the opposite party appears to be sound that there exists no relationship of master and servant between them and the so called workman , therefore, there appears no valid industrial dispute between the contesting parties . In the absence of any cogrut evidence in support of the claim of the workman , it is concluded that there never existed any relationship of master and servant between the parties and therefore, the alleged workman cannot be held to be a workman within the definition of the workman as given under the Act. If it is so rest issues become infructuous as raised by the alleged workman in his statement of claim and therefore, need no consideration .
3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exists any relationship of employer and employee between the contestingparties . The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was ever paidwages by the opposite party directly . In fact they were the employees ofthe contractor who used to supervise the work ofthe workman . It is also denied that there exists any valid industrial dispute . Workman is not a workınan as defined under I.D. Act, nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having engaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor he was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment , there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules. Since the workman was never in the employment , question of terminating his services from anydate does not arise, Moreover , provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman. On the basis of above , it has been prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of merit, baseless and misleading.
8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a valid industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that he ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or that he was ever issued any appointment letter , or he was ever paid his wages by the opposite party or his services have ever been terminated by the opposite party. Therefore , question ofbreach of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the opposite party does not arise.
4. After the exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective cases .
9. For the reasons discussed above , it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties, alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by him. Reference is therefore , answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour ofthe opposite party.
R.G. SHUKLA, Presiding Officer 5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occasion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and 3099 [भाग II- खंड 3(ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21, 2008/व्येष्ठ 31, 1930
नई दिल्ली, 29 मई, 2008
का. आ. 1472.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन इंस्टिट्यूट ऑफ फ्ल्स रिसर्च के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 75/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-42012/79/2000- आई आर ( डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 29th May,2008
S.O. 1472 -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 75/ 2000) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofIndian Institute ofPulse Research and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008.
[No. L-42012/79/2000- IR (DU) ]
SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work of permanent nature under the premises ofthe opposite party on. It is aiso pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end of the month by the opposite party as approvedby the Central Government at the minimum of the rate. It is also pleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues, the opposite party attached the workman with a licensed contractor . It has also been pleadedby the workman that he was continuing in the services from before the induction ofContractor. Workman is employee ofthe opposite party. Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officers of the managements. The production of the opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers. It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of240days oftill hewas removed from the service ofthe opposite party w.c.f. 26-8-1998 in gross violation ofprovisions ofIndustrial DisputesAct 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but he was not afforded any opportunity of his reemployment. Opposite party has also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service . Onthe basis ofabove it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages, consequential benefits and seniority.
BEFORE SRI R. G. SHUKLA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, SHRAM BHAWAN, A.T.I. CAMPUS, UDYOG NAGAR, KANPUR Industrial Dispute No. 75 of 2000
In the matter of dispute between :
Shri Sarvesh Kumar, C/o Sh. Rajendra Prasad Shukla, 115/193 A.2 Maswanpur, Rawatpur ,
Kanpur
AND
TheDirector, Indian Institute ofPulse Research, G.T. Road, Kalyanpur, Kanpur
AWARD
1. Central Government, MOL, New Delhi, vide notification No. L- 42012 / 79/2000 IR ( DU) dated 31-7-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :
3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exists any relationship of employer and employce between the contesting parties . The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was everpaidwagesby the opposite party directly. In fact they were the employees of the contractor who used to supervise thework oftheworkman. It is also denied that there exista any valid industrial dispute. Workman is not a workman as defined under 1.D. Act, nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having engaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor he was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment, there is. prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the oppositeparty is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules. Since the workman was never in the employment, question of terminating his services from anydate does not arise. Moreover, provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman. On the basis of above , it has been prayed that the claim of theworkmanbe rejected being devoid of merit, baseless and misleading.
4. After the exchange ofpleadings between the parties the contesting parties addúced oral as well as documentary evidence in support oftheir respective cases, "Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute ofPulse Research, Kalyanpur, Kanpur in terminating the employment of Sri Sarvesh Kumar w.e.f. 26-8-98 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the worker is entitled to ?"
2172 GI/06-9 3100
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008 /JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
question ofbreach of provisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the opposite party does not arise.
9. For the reasons discussed above, it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties , alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by him . Reference is therefore , answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour of the opposite party.
R.G. SHUKLA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 मई, 2008 का. आ. 1473.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन इंस्टिट्यूट ऑफ पल्स रिसर्च के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 78/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occassion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoidedto conclude the case.Again further date ofhearing was fixed in the case and when the case was called out representative for the workman found absent and thereafter the arguments advanced by the representative for the management were heard. After the hearing was over in the case, representative for the workman appeared before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain representationbefore the Ministry seeking transfer of the case from this tribunal but a perusal of the record shows that no such application is available on the record ofthe case. There is also no order received from the appropriate goverrunent in this regard . Therefore , the tribunat is not inclined to believe the contention of the representative for the workman and the same stands rejected. Having considered long duration of the pendency of the instant case, the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application.
[सं. एल-42012/80/2000-आई आर ( डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 29th May, 2008
S.O. 1473. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 78/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Institute ofPulse Research and their workman , which was received by the Central Goverment on 29-5-2008 .
6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced in the case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file. It is the own case that the workman was made the employee ofthe contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages . The contention of the workman to the effect that he was working much before the induction of the alleged contractor of which he is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record ofthe case to substantiate the claim of the workman that he was in the employment ofthe opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor .
[No. L-42012/80 /2000- IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI R. G. SHUKLA , PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, SHRAM BHAWAN , A.TJ. CAMPUS , UDYOG NAGAR , KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 78 of 2000
In the matter of dispute between :
7. The arguments of the opposite party appears to be sound that there exists no relationship of master and servant between them and the so called workman , therefore, there appears no valid industrial dispute between the contesting parties. In the absence of any cogent evidence in support of the claim of the workman , it is concluded that there never existed any relationship of master and servant between the parties and therefore , the alleged workman cannot be held to be a workman within the definition of the workman as given under the Act . If it is so rest issues become infructuous as raised by the alloged workman in his statement of claim and therefore, need no consideration .
Shri Mahesh , C/o Sh . Rajendra Prasad Shukla, 115/193 A.2 Maswanpur , Rawatpur, Kanpur AND
TheDirector, Indian Institute of Pulse Research , G.T. Road, Kalyanpur, Kanpur
8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a valid industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that he ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or that he was ever issued any appointment letter, or he was ever paid his wages by the opposite party or his services have ever been terminated by the opposite party. Therefore, [ भाग II-खंड 3( ii) ]
3101 भारः, का राजपत्र: जूम 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
AWARD
1. Central Government, MOL , New Delhi , vide Notification No. L-42012/ 80/2000 IR ( DU) dated 31-7-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :
rules. Since the workman was never in the employment, question ofterminating his services from any date does notarise.Moreover , provisions of Industrial DisputesAct are also not applicable to the workman. On the basis of above, it has been prayed that the claim of the workman be rejectedbeingdevoid ofmerit, baseless and misleading.
4. After the exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support oftheir respective cases.
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute ofPulse Research, Kalyanpur, Kanpur, in terminating the employment of Sri Mahesh w.e.f. 26-8-98 is legal and justified ? Ifnot, to what relief the worker is entitled to ? "
5. Abare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments wore granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occasion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoidedto conclude the case.Again further date ofhearing was fixed in the case and when the case was called out representative for the workman found absent and thereafter the arguments advanced by the representative for the management were heard. After the hearing was over in the case, representative for the workman appeared before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain representationbefore the Ministry socking transfer of the case from this tribunal but a perusal of the record shows that no such application is available on the record ofthe case.There is also no order received from the appropriate government in this regard. Therefore , the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the representative for the workman and the same stands rejected , Having considered long duration of the pendency of the instant case, the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application.
2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work of permanent nature under the premises of the opposite party on. It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end of the month by the opposite party as approved by the Central Government at the minimum of the rate. It is also pleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues, the opposite party attached the workman with a licensed contractor. It has also been pleaded by the workman that he was continuing in the services from beforethe induction ofContractor. Workman is employes ofthe opposite party. Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officers of the managements . The production of the opposite partywas also used tobe sold out to the customers, It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of240 days oftill he was removed from the service ofthe opposite party w.c.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provisions ofIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but he was not afforded any opportunity of his re-employment . Opposite party has also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularing him in the service. On the basisofabove it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages, consequential benefits and seniority.
6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced in the case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file. It is the own case that the workman was made the employee of the contractor and it is the contractor whoused tomake payment of wages . The contention of theworkman to the effect that he was working muchbefore the induction of the alleged contractor of which he is alleged to be the employee cannotbe accepted by the tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record ofthe case to substantiate the claim ofthe workman thathe was in the employment ofthe opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor.
3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exists any relationship of employer and employes between thie contesting parties . The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was everpaidwagesby the opposite party directly. In fact they were the employees of the contractor who used to supervise the work of the workman. It is also denied that there exists any valid industrial dispute . Workman is not a workman as defined under L.D. Act, nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having engaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoeverhewas ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment, there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority ofthe opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment
7. The arguments of the opposite party appearsto be sound that there exists no relationship of master and servant between them and the so -called workman, therefore, there appears no valid industrial dispute between the contesting parties . In the absence of any cogent evidence in support of the claim of the workman , it is concluded that there never existed any relationship of master and servant between the parties and therefore, the allegedworkman cannotbe held to be a workman within the definition of the workman as given under the Act . If it is so rest issues become infructuous as raised by the 3102
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008/ JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
[PART II SEC. 3( i ) )
In the matter of dispute between :
allegedworkman in his statement of claim and therefore, need no consideration.
Sant. Munni ,
C/o Sh. Rajendra Prasad Shukla, 115/193 A.2 Maswanpur Rawatpur, Kanpur
AND
The Director, Indian Institute of Pulse Research, G.T. Road , Kalyanpur, Kanpur
8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a valid industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that he ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or thathe was ever issued any appointment letter, or he was ever paid his wages by the opposite party or his services have ever beenterminated by the opposite party.Therefore, question ofbreach ofprovisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the opposite party does not arise.
AWARD
1. Central Government , MOL , New Delhi , vide notification No. L-42012/ 81/2000 IR ( DU) dated 31-7-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :
9. For the reasons discussed above , it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties , alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled forany relief as claimed by him . Reference is therefore, answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour ofthe opposite party.
R.G. SHUKLA , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 29 मई, 2008
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research , Kalyanpur , Kanpur , in terminating the employment of Smt Munni w.e.f. 26-6-98 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the worker is entitled to ? "
का. आ. 1474.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन इंस्टिट्यूट ऑफ फ्ल्स रिसर्च के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 77/2000) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-42012/81 /2000- आई आर (डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 29th May, 2008
S.O. 1474.- In pursuanceuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 77/ 2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Kanpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008 .
[No. L -42012 / 81/ 2000 - IR ( DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work of permanent nature under the premises of the opposite party on . It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end ofthe month by the opposite party as approved by the Central Government at the minimum of the rate . It is also pleadedby the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues, the opposite party attached the workman with a licensed contractor. It has also been pleaded by the workman that he was continuing in the services from before the induction of Contractor. Workman is employee of the opposite party . Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officers of the managements . The production of the opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers.It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of240 days of till he was removed from the service of the opposite party w.e.f. 26-6-1998 in gross violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but he was not afforded any opportunity of his reemployment. Opposite party has also violated the provisions ofrules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service. On the basis of above it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages, consequential benefits and seniority .
BEFORE SRI R. G. SHUKLA, PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT, SHRAM BHAWAN , A.T.J. CAMPUS, UDYOG NAGAR, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 77. of 2000
3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exists any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties . The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was [भाग - खंड 3( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
everpaidwages by the opposite party directly . In fact they were the employees of the contractor who used to supervise theworkofthe workman. It is also denied that there exists anyvalid industrial dispute. Workman is not a workman as defined under I.D. Act, nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having engaged theworkman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor he was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment , there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules. Since the workman was never in the employment , question of terminating his services from anydate does not arise . Moreover , provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman . On the basis of above, it has been prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of merit, baseless and misleading.
4. After the exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective cases .
5. A bare perusal ofthe record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occasion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case. Again further date of bearingwas fixed in the case and when the case was called out representative for the workman found absent and thereafter the arguments advanced by the representative for the management were heard. After the hearing was over in the case, representative for the workman appeared before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain representation before the Ministry seeking transfer ofthe case from this tribunal but a perusal of the record shows that no such application is available on the record of the case. There is also no order received from the appropriate government in this regard. Therefore , the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the representative for the workman and the same stands rejected. Having considered long duration of the pendency of the instant case, the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application.
6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced inthe case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file . It is the own case that the workman was made the employee of the contractor and it is the contractor who usedto make payment of wages . The contention of theworkmanto the effect that he was working much before the induction of the alleged contractor of which he is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record ofthe case to substantiate the claim of the workman
3103 thathewas in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor.
7. The arguments of the opposite party appears to be sound that there exists no relationship of master and servant between them and the so called workman , therefore , there appears no valid industrial dispute between the contesting parties. In the absence of any cogent evidence in support of the claim of the workman, it is concluded that there never existed any relationship of master and servant between the parties and therefore , the allegedworkman cannot be held to be a workman within the definition of the workman as given under theAct. If it is so rest issues become infructuous as raised by the alleged workman in his statement of claim and therefore, need no consideration .
8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a valid industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that he ever remained in active employment of the opposite party of thathe was ever issued any appointment letter, or he was ever paid his wages by the opposite party or his services have everbeen terminated by the opposite party. Therefore, question ofbreach ofprovisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the opposite party does not arise .
9. For the reasons discussed above , it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties , alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled forany relief as claimed by him . Reference is therefore, answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour ofthe oppositeparty.
RG . SHUKLA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 मई , 2008
का. आ. 1475.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन इंस्टिट्यूट ऑफ पल्स रिसर्च के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 76/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -42012/82/2000- आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29thMay, 2008
S.O. 1475.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 76/ 2000) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Institute ofPulse Research and 3104
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008 / JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ) their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008.
[No. L-42012/82/2000 - IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
ofthe opposite party w.e.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but he was not afforded any opportunity of his reemployment . Opposite party has also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service. Onthe basis of above it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages , consequential benefits and seniority.
BEFORE SRI R. G. SHUKLA, PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT , SHRAM BHAWAN, A.T.I. CAMPUS , UDYOG NAGAR, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 76 of 2000
In the matter of dispute between :
Smt. Jamuna Devi , C/o Sh Rajendra Prasad Shukla, 115/193 A.2 Maswanpur, Rawatpur, Kanpur
AND
TheDirector,
Indian Institute ofPulse Research, G.T. Road , Kalyanpur , Kanpur
AWARD
1. Central Government, MOL, New Delhi , vide Notification No. L-42012/ 82/2000- IR (DU) dated 31-7-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :
3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exists any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties . The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was everpaid wages by the apposite party directly. In fact they were the employees of the contractor who used to supervise the work ofthe workman . It is also denied that there exists any valid industrial dispute . Workman is not a workman as defined under I.D. Act , nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having engaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor he was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment , there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules . Since the workman was never in the employment , question of terminating his services from anydate does not arise . Moreover , provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman. On the basis of above, it has been prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of merit, baseless and misleading.
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute ofPulse Research , Kalyanpur, Kanpur , in terminating the employment of Smt. Jamuna Devi w.e.f. 26-8-98 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the worker is entitled to?"
4. After the exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support oftheir respective cases .
2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work of permanent nature under the premises ofthe opposite party on. It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end of the month by the opposite party as approved by the Central Government at the minimum of the rate. It is also pleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues, the opposite party attached the workman with a licensed contractor. It has also been pleaded by the workman that he was continuing in the services from before the induction of Contractor. Workman is employee ofthe opposite party. Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officers of the managements. The production of the opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of240 days oftill he was removed from the service
5. A bars perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occasion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case.Again further date ofhearing was fixed in the case and when the case was called out representative for the workman found absent and thereafter the arguments advanced by the representative for the management were heard. After the hearing was over in the case , representative for the workman appeared before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain representationbefore the Ministry seeking transfer of the case from this tribunal but a perusal of the record shows that no such application is available on the record of the case.There is also no order received from the appropriate government in this regard. Therefore, the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the representative 3105 [भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) )
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31, 1930
संख्या 72/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
for the workman and the same stands rejected. Having considered long duration of the pendency of the instant case, the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application.
[सं. एल-42012/83/2000- आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 29thMay, 2008
S.O. 1476.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 72/ 2000) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Institute ofPulse Research and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008 .
6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced inthe case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file . It is the own case that the workman was made the employee of the contractor and it is the contractor who usedto make payment of wages. The contention of theworkman to the effect that he was working muchbefore the induction of the alleged contractor of which he is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record of the case to substantiate the claim of the workman thathe was in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor .
[No. L-42012/83/2000- IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI R. G. SHUKLA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, SHRAM BHAWAN, ATL CAMPUS, UDYOG NAGAR, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 72 of 2000
In the matter ofdispute between :
7. The arguments of the opposite party appears to be sound that there exists no relationship of master and servant between them and the so called workman, therefore,titere appears no valid industrial dispute between the contesting parties. In the absence of any cogent evidence in support of the claim of the workman, it is concluded that there never existed any relationship of master and servant between the parties and therefore, the alleged workman cannot be held to be a workman within the definition of the workman as given under theAct. If it is so rest issues become infructuous as raised by the alleged workamari in his statement of claim and therefore, need no consideration .
Smt.Tarawati, C/o Sh. Rajendra Prasad Shukla, 115/193 A.2 Maswanpur Rawatpur, Kanpur AND
8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a valid industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that he ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or thathe was ever issued any appointment letter, or he was ever paidhis wages by the opposite party or his services have everbeenterminated by the opposite party.Therefore, question ofbreach ofprovisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the opposite party does not arise.
TheDirector, Indian Institute of Pulse Research, G.T. Road , Kalyanpur, Kanpur
AWARD
1. Central Government, MOL , New Delhi , vide notification No. L-42012/83/2000 - IR ( DU) dated 31-7-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudicationto this tribunal:
9. For the reasons discussed above, it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties, alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any reliefas claimed by him, Reference is therefore , answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour of the opposite party.
R.G. SHUKLA , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 29 मई, 2008
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute ofPulse Research, Kalyanpur, Kanpur in terminating the employment ofSmt. Tarawati w.e.f. 26-6-98 is legal andjustified ? If not, to what relief the worker is entitled to ?"
का. आ. 1476.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन इंस्टिट्यूट ऑफ पल्स रिसर्च के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ
2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work of permanent nature under the premises ofthe opposite party on. It isalsopleaded that the workman was paid wages at 3106
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008/ JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
the end of the month by the opposite party as approvedby the Central Government at the minimum of the rate. It is also pleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues , the opposite party attached the workman with a licensed contractor. It has also been pleadedby the workman that he was continuing in the services from beforethe induction of Contractor, Workman is employee of the party. Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officers of the managements . The production of the opposite party was also used tobe sold out to the customers . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of240days oftill he was removed from the service of the apposite party w.e.f. 26-6-98 in gross violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but he was not afforded any opportunity ofhis re- employment . Opposite party has also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service. On the basis of above it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages , consequential benefits and seniority.
!
3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exists any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties . The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was everpaidwages by the opposite party directly. In factthey were the employees of the contractor who used to supervise thework ofthe workman. It is also denied that there exists any valid industrial dispute . Workman is not a workman as defined under I.D. Act, nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having engaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor he was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party, It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment , there is prescribed recruitment rules.and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules . Since the workman was never in the employment, question of terminating his services from anydate does not arise . Moreover , provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman . On the basis of above, it has been prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of merit, baseless and misleading.
4. After the exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective cases.
5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occasion on
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case . Again further date of hearing was fixed in the case and when the case was called out representative for the workman found absent and thereafter the arguments advanced by the representative for the management wore heard. After the hearing was over in the case, representative for the workman appeared before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain representation before the Ministry seeking transfer of the case from this tribunal but a perusal of the record shows that no such application is available on the record of the case.There is also no order received from the appropriate government in this regard. Therefore , the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the representative for the workman and the same stands rejected . Having considered long duration of the pendency of the instant case, the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application .
6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced in the case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file. It is the own case that the workman was made the employee of the contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages . The contention of the workman to the effect that he was working much before the induction of the alleged contractor ofwhich he is alleged to be the employee cannot be acceptedby the tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record of the case to substantiate the claim of the workman that he was in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor.
7. The arguments of the opposite party appears to be sound that there exists no relationship of master and servant between them and the so called workman , therefore , there appears no valid industrial dispute between the contesting parties . In the absence of any cogent evidence in support of the claim of the worlanan , it is concluded that there never existed any relationship of master and servant between the parties and therefore, the alleged workman cannot be held to be a workman within the definition of the workman as given under the Act . If it is so rest issues become infructuous as raised by the alleged workman in his statement of claim and therefore, need no consideration .
8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a valid industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that he ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or that he was ever issued any appointment letter , or he was ever paid his wages by the opposite party or his services have ever been terminated by the opposite party. Therefore , question of breach of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , by the opposite party does not arise.
[भाग 1]-खंड (ii ) ]
9. For the reasons discussed above , it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties, alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by him. Reference is therefore, answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour ofthe opposite party.
R.G. SHUKLA , Presiding Officer नईदिल्ली, 29 मई, 2008
का.आ. 1477.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन इंस्टिट्यूट ऑफ पल्स रिसर्च के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 82/2000) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-42012/04/2000- आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 29th May , 2008
S.O. 1477-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 82/ 2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008 .
[No. L-42012/84/2000- IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI R. G. SHUKLA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, SHRAM BHAWAN , A.T.J. CAMPUS , UDYOG NAGAR, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 82 of 2000 In the matter of dispute between :
Shri Rajendra Pd. Misra, C/ o Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla 115/193 A.2 Maswanpur , Rawatpur, Kanpur
AND
TheDirector, Indian Institute of Pulse Research, G.T. Road, Kalyanpur, Kanpur
2172 GV08-10
3107
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31, 1930
AWARD
1. Central Government, MOL, New Delhi , vide Notification No. L -42012/84/ 2000 - IR (DU) dated 31-7-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal:
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute ofPulse Research, Kalyanpur , Kanpur , in terminating the employment of Sri Rajendra Pd. Misra w.e.f. 26-6-98 is legal and justified ? Ifnot, towhat reliefthe worker are entitled to ? " 2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work of permanent nawre under the premises of the opposite party on. It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end of the month by the opposite party as approvedby the Central Government at the minimum of the rate. It is also pleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues , the opposite party attached the workman witha licensed contractor . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he was continuing in the services from before the induction of Contractor. Workman is employee of the opposite party. Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officers of the management. The production of the opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of240 days of till he was removed from the service ofthe opposite party w.e.f. 26-6-98 in gross violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. , 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but he was not afforded any opportunity of his reemployment Opposite party has also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service. On the basis ofabove it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages , consequential benefits and seniority.
3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exists any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties. The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was ever paid wages by the opposite party directly. In fact they were the employees of the contractor who used to supervise the work ofthe workman. It is also denied that there exists anyvalid industrial dispute . Workman is not a workman as defined under J.D. Act, nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having engaged the workinan in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor he was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment, there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring 3108
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008 / JY AISTHA 31 , 1930
[PART II- SEC..3 ( 1 ) ]
it is so rest issues become infructuous as raised by the alleged workman in his statement of claim and therefore , need no consideration .
recruitment rules. Since the workman was never in the employment, question of terminating his services from anydate docs not arise. Moreover , provisions ofIndustrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman. On the basis of above, it has been prayed that the claim of the workmah be rejected being devoid of merit, baseless and misleading .
4. After the exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective cases .
8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a valid industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that he ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or that he was ever issued any appointment letter, or he was ever paid his wages by the opposite party or his services have everbeen terminated by the opposite party. Therefore . question ofbreach of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the opposite party does not arise .
9. For the reasons discussed above , it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties , alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimedby him. Reference is therefore, answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour ofthe opposite party
R.G. SHUKLA , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 29 मई, 2008
का. आ. 1478.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की श्रारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन इंस्टिट्यूट ऑफ पल्स रिसर्च के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 81/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occasion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case.Again further date ofhearing was fixed in the case and when the case was called out representative for the workman found absent and thereafter the arguments advanced by the representative for the management were heard . After the hearing was over in the case, representative for the workman appeared before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain representationbefore the Ministry seeking transfer of the case from this tribunal but a perusal of the record shows that no such application is available on the record of the case.There is also no order received from the appropriate government in this regard. Therefore, the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the representative for the workman and the same stands rejected . Having considered long duration of the pendency of the instant case, the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application.
[सं. एल-42012/86/2000- आई आर (डी.यू. ) 1 सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 29th May, 2008
S.O. 1478.- in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 81 ! 2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Disnute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Institute ofPulse Research and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008 .
6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced in the case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file. It is the own case that the workman was made the employee of the contractor and it is the contractor who usedto make payment of wages . The contention of theworkman to the effect that he was working much before the induction of the alleged contractor of which he is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record of the case to substantiate the claim of the workman thathe was in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor.
[No. L-42012/ 86/ 2000- IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI R. G. SHUKLA , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, SHRAM BILAWAN , A.TI , CAMPUS , UDYOG NAGAR , KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 81 of 2000 7. The arguments of the opposite party appears to be sound that there exists no relationship of master and servant between them and the so called workman , therefore, there appears no valid industrial dispute between the contesting parties. In the absence of any cogent evidence in support of the clairn of the workman, it is concluded that there never existed any relationship of master and servant between the parties and therefore, the alleged workman cannot be held to be a workman within the definition of the workman as given under the Act. If 3109 [भाग II-खंड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
In the matter of dispute between :
Shri Jairam Kushowaha , C/o Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla, 115/193 A.2 Maswanpur , Rawatpur , Kanpur
AND
TheDirector, Indian Institute ofPulse Research, G.T. Road, Kalyanpur , Kanpur
AWARD
1. Central Government , MOL, New Delhi , vide NotificationNo. L-42012/86/2000- IR (DU) dated31-7-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :
ever paidwages by the opposite party directly . In fact they were the employees ofthe contractor who used to supervise thework ofthe workman. It is also denied that there exists any valid industrial dispute . Workman is not a workman as defined under L.D. Act , nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having engaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor he was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment , there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules . Since the workman was never in the employment, question of terminating his services from anydatedoes not arise . Moreover , provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman . On the basis of above, it has been prayed that the claim of the workmanbe rejected being devoid of merit, baseless and misleading.
4. After the exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective cases.
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute ofPulse Research, Kalyanpur , Kanpur , in terminating the employment of Sri Jairam Kushowaha w.e.f. 26-8-98 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the worker is entitled to ?"
5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal. to the representative for the workman but on each occasion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoided toconclude the case.Again further date of bearing was fixed in the case and when the case was called out representative for the workman found absent and thereafter the arguments advanced by the representative for the management were heard . After the hearing was overin the case, representative for the workman appeared before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain representation before the Ministry seeking transfer of the case from this tribunal but a perusal of the record shows that no such application is available on the record ofthe case.There is also no order received from the appropriate government in this regard . Therefore, the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the representative for the workman and the same stands rejected. Having considered long duration of the pendency of the instant case, the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application.
2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work of permanent natúre under the premises of the opposite party on. It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end of the month by the opposite party as approved by the Central Government at the minimum of the rate . It is also pleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues, the opposite party attached the workman with a licensed contractor . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he was continuing in the services from beforethe induction ofContractor. Workman is employee of the opposite party . Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officers of the managements. The production of the opposite party was alsoused to be sold out to the customers. It has also been pleadedby the workman that he rendered continuous service of240days oftill he was removed from the service ofthe opposite party w.c.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but he was not affordedany opportunity ofhis re -employment. Opposite partyhas also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service. On the basis ofabove it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages , consequential benefits and seniority.
:
6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced in the case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file . It is the own case that the workman was made the employee ofthe contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages . The contention of theworkmanto the effect that he was working much before the induction of the alleged contractor of which he is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record ofthe case to substantiate the claim of the workmar 3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exists any relationship of employer and employee between the contestingparties. The workoman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was 3110
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008 / JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008 ,
thathewas in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor.
[ No. 1.-42012/ 87/ 2000 - IR ( DU) } SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI R. G. SHUKLA , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, SHRAM BHAWAN , A.T.I. CAMPUS, UDYOG NAGAR , KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 73 of 2000
In the matter of dispute between :
7. The arguments of the opposite party appearsto be sound that there exists no relationship of master and servant between them and the so called workman, therefore, there appears no valid industrial dispute between the contesting parties . In the absence of any cogent evidence in support of the claim of the workman , it is concluded that there never existed any relationship of master and servant between the parties and therefore , the alleged workman cannot be held to be a workman within the definition of the workman as given under the Act . If it is so rest issues become infructuous as raised by the alleged workman in his statement of claim and therefore , need no consideration,
Shn Santosh,
C/o Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla 115/193 A.2 Maswanpur Rawatpur , Kanpur
AND
TheDirector,
Indian Institute of Pulse Research , G.T. Road, Kalyanpur, Kanpur
8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant cast is not a valid industrial dispute as the claimant has paipably failed to establish that he ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or that he was ever issued any appointment letter, or he was ever paid hus wages by the opposite party or his services have ever been terminated by the opposite party. Therefore, question ofbreach of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the opposite party does not arise.
AWARD
1. Central Goversunient, MOL, New Delhi, vide NotificationNo. L-42012/ 87 /2000-1IR (DU ) dated 31-7-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication tothis tribunal :
9. For the reasons discussed above , it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties , alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by him. Reference is therefore , answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour ofthe opposite party.
R.G. SHUKLA , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 29 मई , 2008
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research , Kalyanpur, Kanpur, in terminating the employment of Shri Santosh w.e.f. 26-8-98 is fegal and justified ? If not , to what relief the worker is entitled to ?"
का. आ. 1479.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन इंस्टिट्यूट ऑफ पल्स रिसर्च के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 73/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -42012/87/2000- आई आर ( डौ यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 29th May, 2008
8.O. 1479.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 73/ 2000) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research and
2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work of pennanent nature under the premises of the opposite party on. It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end ofthe month by the opposite party as approved by the Central Goverrunent at the minimum of the rate . It is also pleaded by the workinan that with a view to avoid statutory dues, the opposite party attached the workman with a licensed contractor . It has also been pleaded by the worknjan that he was continuing in the services from before the induction of Contractor. Workman is employee of the opposite party . Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officers of the managements. The production of the opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of240days of till he was removed from the service of the opposite party w.e.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several fresh 3111 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31, 1930
[भाग - खंड 3 (ii) ]
considered long duration of the pendency of the instant case, the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application.
hands were inducted by the opposite party but he was not afforded any opportunity ofhis re-employment . Opposite party has also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service. On the basis ofabove it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages, consequential benefits and seniority.
6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced inthe caseat length and have also gone carefully through the case file. It is the own case that the workman was made the employee of the contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages. The contention of theworkmanto the effect that he was working muchbefore the induction of the alleged contractor ofwhich he is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record of the case to substantiate the claim of the workman that he was in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor.
7. The arguments of the opposite party appearsto be sound that there exists no relationship of master and servant between them and the so-called workman , therefore, there appears no valid industrial dispute betwoon the contesting parties. In the absence of any cogent evidence in support of the claim of the workman, it is concluded that there never existed any relationship of master and servant between the parties and therefore, the alleged workman cannot be held to be a workman within the definition of the workman as given under the Act. If it is so rest issues becomes infructuous as raised by the allegedworkman in his statement of claim and therefore, need no consideration.
3. The opposite party has filed replywherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exists any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties . The workman never remained in direct employment ofthe opposite party nor the workman was everpaidwages by the opposite party directly. In fact they were the employees of the contractor who used to supervise the work of the workman. It is also denied that there exist any valid industrial dispute . Workman is not a workman as defined under I.D. Act , nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having engaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor he was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party. It has alsobeen pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment , there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules . Since the workman was never in the employment, question of terminating his services from any date does not arise. Moreover, provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman. On the basis of above , it has beenprayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of merit, baseless and misleading .
4. After the exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective cases.
8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a valid industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that he ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or that be was ever issued any appointment letter , or he was ever paid hiswages by the opposite party or his services have ever been terminated by the opposite party. Therefore, question ofbreach ofprovisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the opposite party does not arise .
9. For the reasons discussed above, it is held that since instant case is not a valid inchustrial dispute between the parties; alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by him . Reference is therefore, answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour ofthe opposite party.
R.G. SHUKLA , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 29 मई, 2008
5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occasion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoidedto conclude the case .Again further date ofhearing was fixed in the case and when the case was called out representative for the workman found absent and thereafter the arguments advanced by the representative for the management were heard. After the hearing was over in the case, representative for the workman appeared before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain representationbefore the Ministry seeking transfer of the case from this tribunal but a perusal of the record shows that no such application is available on the record ofthe case. There is also no order received from the appropriate government in this regard. Therefore, the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the representative for the workman and the same stands rejected. Having
का. आ. 1480.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन इंस्टिट्यूट ऑफ पल्स रिसर्च के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ 3112
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008 / JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
[PART I-SBC.3 (ii) ] संख्या 99/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-42012/111/2000 - आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 29th May, 2008
S.O. 1480.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 99/ 2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Institute ofPulse Research and their workinen, which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008.
[No. L-42012/ 111/ 2000 - IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
bythe Central Government at the minimum of the rate. It is also pleaded by the workthan that with a view to avoid statutory dues , the opposite party attached the workman with a licensed contractor. It has also been pleaded by the workman that he was continuing in the services from before the induction of Contractor. Workman is employee of the opposite party. Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officers of the managements . The production of the opposite party was alsoused to be sold out to the customers. It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of 240 days till he was removed from the service of the opposite party w.e.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite partybut he was not afforded any opportunity ofhis re - employment . Opposite partyhas also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service. On the basis of above it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages, consequential benefits and seniority.
BEFORE SRI R. G. SHUKLA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, SHRAM BHAWAN , A.T.I. CAMPUS , UDYOG NAGAR, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 99 of 2000
In the matter of dispute between :
Shri Kailash Kumar , C/o Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla, 115/193 A.2 Maswanpur Rawatpur , Kanpur
AND
TheDirector, Indian Institute of Pulse Research , G.T. Road, Kalyanpur, Kanpur
AWARD
1. Central Government , MOL, New Delhi , vide notification No. L- 42012/ 111/2000 - IR (DU ) dated 29-8-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :
3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exists any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties. The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was ever paidwages by the opposite party directly. In fact they were the employees of the contractor who used to supervise the work of the workman. It is also denied that there exist any valid industrial dispute. Workman is not a workman as defined under L.D. Act , nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having engaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor he was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party . It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment, there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules. Since the workman was never in the employment, question of terminating his services from any date does not arise. Moreover, provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman . On the basis of above, it has been prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being de void of merit, baseless and misleading .
4. After the exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support oftheir respective cases.
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research , Kalyanpur , Kanpur , in terminating the employment of Shri Kailash Kumar w.c.f. 26-8-98 is legal and justified ? If not, towhat relief the worker is entitled to ?"
2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work of permanent nature under the premises of the opposite party on. It is also pleaded by that the workman was paid wages atthe end of the month by the opposite party as approved
5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for bearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occasion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and 3113 [भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
forany relief as claimed by him. Reference is, therefore, answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour ofthe opposite party.
R.G. SHUKLA, Presiding Officer
नईदिल्ली, 29 मई, 2008
का. आ. 1481.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 कर 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन इंस्टिट्यूट ऑफ पल्स रिसर्च के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 100/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
avoided to conclude the case. Again further date of hearingwas fixed in the case and when the case was called out representative for the workman found absent and thereafterthe arguments advanced by the representative for the management were heard . After the bearing was over in the case, representative for the workman appeared before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain representationbefore the Ministry seeking transfer of the case from this tribunal but a perusal of the record shows that no such application is available on the record of the case.There is also no order received from the appropriate government in this regard . Therefore , the tribunal is not inclined tobelieve the contention of the representative for the workman and the same stands rejected . Having considered long duration of the pendency of the instant case , the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application.
[सं. एल-42012/112/ 2000- आई आर (डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 29th May, 2008
S.O. 1481. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Govemment hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 100/ 2000) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Institute ofPulse Research and their workman, which was received by the Central Goverment on 29-5-2008.
6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced in the case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file. It is the own case that the workman was made the employee ofthe contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages . The contention of theworkmanto the effect that he was working much before the induction of the alleged contractor of which he is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record ofthe case to substantiate the claim ofthe workman thathe was in the employment ofthe opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor .
[No. L-42012/112/2000- IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI R. G. SHUKLA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, SHRAM BHAWAN , A.T.J. CAMPUS, UDYOG NAGAR, KANPUR
Industrial Disputé No. 100 of200
Inthe matterof dispute between :
7. The arguments of the opposite party appearsto be sound that there exists no relationship of master and servant between them and the so -called workman , therefore, thereappears no valid industrial dispute between the contesting parties . In the absence of any cogent evidence in support of the claim of the workman , it is concluded that there never existed any relationship of master and servant between the parties and therefore, the allegedworkman cannot be held to be a workman within the definition of the workman as given under the Act. If it is so rest issues become infructuous as raised by the alleged workman in his statement of claim and therefore, need no consideration.
Smt. Sajjoo, S/o Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla 115/193 A.2 Maswanpur, Rawatpur, Kanpur
AND
TheDirector, Indian Institute of Pulse Research, G.T. Road, Kalyanpur, Kanpur
8. In the end it is concluded for the, foregoings that the instant case is not a valid industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that he ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or that he was ever issued any appointment letter, or he was everpaid his wages by the opposite party or his services have everbeen terminated by the opposite party. Therefore, question of breach ofprovisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the opposite party does not arise.
AWARD
9. For the reasons discussed above, it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties , alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled
1. Central Government, MOL, New Delhi , vide notification No. L- 42012/ 112/2000- IR (DU) dated 3114
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii ) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008 / JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
29-8-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :
not arise. Moreover, provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman. On the basis of above, it has been prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of merit , baseless and misleading.
4. After the exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective cases .
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute ofPulse Research , Kalyanpur, Kanpur, in terminating the employment of Srut . Sajjoo w.e.f. 26-8-98 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the worker is entitled to ? "
5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occasion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case . Again further date ofhearing was fixed in the case and when the case was called out representative for the workman found absent and thereafter the arguments advanced by the representative for the management were heard. After the hearing was over in the case, representative for the workman appeared before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certam representation before the Ministry secking transfer ofthe case from this tribunal bui a perusal of the record shows that no such application is available on the record of the case. There is also no order received from the appropriate government in this regard . Therefore, the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the representative for the workman and the same stands rejected. Having considered long duration of the pendency of the instant case , the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application.
2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work of permanent nature under the premises of the opposite party on. It is alsopleaded that the workman was paid wages atthe endof the month by the opposite party as approved by the Central Government at the minimum of the rate . It isalso pleadedby the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues , the opposite party attached the workman with a licensed contractor. It has also been pleaded by the workman that he was continuing in the services from beforethe induction ofContractor. Workman is employee of the opposite party. Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officers of the managements . The production of the opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of 240 days of till he was removed from the service of the opposite party w.e.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation ofprovisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . Severat fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but he was not afforded any opportunity of his reemployment . Opposite party has also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service . On the basis of above it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages , consequential benefits and seniority.
6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advaneed in the case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file . It is the own case that the workınan was made the employee of the contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages . The contention ol the workman to the effect that he was working muchbefore the induction of the alleged contractor of which he is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record ofthe case to substantiate the claim of the workman that he was in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor .
7. The arguments of the opposite party appearsto be sound that there exists no relationship of master and servant between them and the so called workman . therefore, there appears no valid industrial dispute between the contesting parties . In the absence of any cogent evidence in support of the claim of the workman, it is concluded that there never existed any relationship of master and servant berween the parties and therefore , the allegedworkman cannot be held to be a workman within the definition of the workman as given under the Act. If it is so rest issues become infructuous as raised by the alleged workman in his statement of claim and therefore, need no consideration .
3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exists any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties. The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was everpaidwages by the opposite party directly. In fact they were the employees of the contractor who used to supervise the workof the workman . It is also denied that there, exists any valid industrial dispute. Workman is not a workman as defined under I.D. Act , nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having engaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever he was ever issued any appointment letterby the oppositeparty. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment, there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules. Since the workman was never in the employment, question of terminating his services from any date does 3115 [ भाग II-खंड ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
AND
TheDirector,
Indian Institute of Pulse Research, G.T. Road, Kalyanpur, Kanpur.
AWARD
8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a valid industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that he ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or that hewas ever issued any appointment letter , or he was ever paid his wages by the opposite party orhis services have everbeen terminated by the opposite party . Therefore, question ofbreach ofprovisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the opposite party does not arise.
1. Central Govemment, MOL, New Delhi, vide Notification No. L-42012/ 113/2000- IR (DU) dated 29-8-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :
9. For the reasons discussed above, it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties, alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by him. Reference is therefore, answered accordingly against the claimant find in favour ofthe opposite party.
"Whether the action of the managerment of Indian Institute ofPulse Research , Kalyanpur, Kanpur, in terminating the employment of Smt. Malti , w.c.f. 26-8-98 is legal and justified ? Ifnot, to what relief the worker are entitled to ?"
R.G. SHUKLA, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 29 मई, 2008
का. आ. 1482.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन इन्सटिट्यूट ऑफ़ पल्स रिसर्च के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके . कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 101/2000 ) की प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं, एल -42012/113/2000- आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी
NewDelhi , the 29th May, 2008
S.O. 1482- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 101/ 2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute berween the employers in relation to the management of Indian Institute ofPulse Research and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008 .
[No. L-42012/ 113/2000 -IR ( DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work of permanent nature under the premises of the oppositeparty on. It is alsopleaded that the workman was paid wages at the endofthe month by the opposite party as approvedby theCentral Government at the minimum of the rate. It is also pleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues, the opposite party attached the workman with a licensed contractor . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he was continuing in the services from before the induction ofContractor. Workman is employee of the opposite party. Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officers of the managements. The production of the opposite partywas alsousedtobe sold out to the customers. It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of240 days of till he was removed from the service ofthe opposite party w.e.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several fresh bands were inducted by the opposite party but he was not afforded any opportunity of his reemployment. Opposite party has also violated the provisions ofrules ofnatural and social justice by not regularising him in the service. Onthe basis ofabove it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages, consequential benefits and seniority.
BEFORE SRI R. G. SHUKLA, PRESIDING
OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHRAM BHAWAN , ALT.L CAMPUS , UDYOG NAGAR, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 101 of2000
Inthe matter of dispute between:
Smt. Malti,
C/o Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla 115/193 Α.2 Maswanpur, Rawatpur, Kanpur
3. The opposite party has filed replywherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exists any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties. The workman never remained in direct employment ofthe opposite party nor the workman was ever paid wages by the opposite party directly. In fact they were the employees of the contractor who used to supervise the work of the workman . It is also denied that there exists any valid industrial dispute . Workman is not aworkmans defined under I.D. Act, nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having engaged the workman in the employment in any 2172 QU/08-11 3116
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008/ JYAISTHA 31 , 1930 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]
the contesting parties . In the absence of any cogent evidence in support of the claim of the workman, it is concluded that there never existed any relationship of master and servant between the parties and therefore, the alleged workman cannot be held to be a workman within the definition of the workman as given under the Act. If it is so rest issues become infructuous as raisedby the alleged workman in his statement of claim and therefore, need no consideration .
capacity whatsoever nor he was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment, there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules . Since the workman was never in the employment, question of terminating his services from any date does not arise. Moreover, provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman. On the basis of above, it has been prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of merit, baseless and misleading .
4. After the exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respectivecases.
B. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a valid industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that he ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or that he was ever issued any appointment letter , or he was ever paid hiswages by the opposite party or his services have averbeen terminated by the opposite party. Therefore, question ofbreach ofprovisions of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , by the opposite party does not arise .
9. For the reasons discussed above , it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties, alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by him. Reference is therefore, answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour ofthe opposite party.
R.G. SHUKLA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 29 मई, 2008
5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occasion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case .Again further date of hearing was fixed in the case and when the case was called out representative for the workman found absent and thereafter the arguments advanced by the representative for the management were heard. After the hearing was over in the case, representative for the workman appeared before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain representation before the Ministry seeking transfer of the case from this tribunal but a perusal of the record shows that no such application is available on the record of the case. There is also no order received from the appropriate government in this regard. Therefore , the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the representative for the workman and the same stands rejected. Having considered long duration of the pendency of the instant case, the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application.
का. आ. 1483.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन इन्सटिट्यूट ऑफ पल्स रिसर्च के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 104/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केंन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-42012/116/2000 - आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 29th May, 2008 6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced in the case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file. It is the own case that the workman was made the employee of the contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages. The contention of the workmanto the effect that he was working much before the induction of the alleged contractor of which he is alleged to be the employse cannot be accepted by the tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record ofthe case to substantiate the claim of the workman thathe was in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor.
S.O. 1483. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 104/ 2000) oftheCentral Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008 .
7. The arguments of the opposite party appearsto be sound that there exists no relationship of master and servant between them and the so called workman, therefore, there appears no valid industrial dispute between
[No. L-42012/ 116/2000- IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer 3117 [भाग II-खंड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
ANNEXURE
Onthe basis ofabove it has been prayed that the worionan maybe reinstated in the service with full back wages, consequential benefits and acniority.
BEFORE SRI R. G. SHUKLA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT, SHRAM BHAWAN, A.T.L. CAMPUS, UDYOG NAGAR, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 104 of2000
Inthe matter of dispute between :
Shri RamDas , C/o Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla, 115/193 A.2 Maswanpur , Rawatpur , Kanpur
AND
The Director, Indian Institute of Pulse Research , G.T. Road, Kalyanpur, Kanpur
AWARD
1. Central Government, MOL, New Delhi , vide Notification No. L-42012/ 116/2000 IR (DU) dated 29-8-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal
3. The opposite party has filed replywherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exists any relationship of employer and employer between the contesting parties. The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was everpaidwages by the opposite party directly. In fact they were the employees of the contractor who used to supervise thework ofthe workman. It is also dented that there exists anyvalid industrial dispute . Workman is not a workman as defined under I.D. Act, nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having engaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor he was ever issued any appointraent letter by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment , there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules. Since the workman was never in the employment, question of terminating his services from any date does not arise. Moreover, provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman. On the basis of above, it has been prayed that theclaim oftheworkman be rejected being devoid ofmerit, baseless and misleading.
4.After the exchange of pleadings between the partles the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective cases .
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute ofPulse Research, Kalyanpur, Kanpur, in terminating the employment of Sri Ram Das w.e.f. 26-8-98 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the worker is entitled to ?"
5. Abare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occasion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoidedto conclude the case . Again further date ofhearing was fixed in the case and when the case was called out representative for the workman found absent and thereafter the arguments advanced by the representative for the management were heard . After the hearing was over in the case,representative for the workman appeared before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain representationbefore the Ministry seeking transfer ofthe case from this tribunal but a perusal of the record shows that no suchapplication is available on the record ofthe case.There is also no order received from the appropriate government inthis regard. Therefore, the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the representative for the workman and the same stands rejected. Having considered long duration of the pendency of the instant case, the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application.
6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced inthe case at length and have also gone carefully through 2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work of permanent nature under the premises ofthe oppositeparty on. It is alsopleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end of the month by the opposite party as approved bythe Central Government at the minimum of the rate. It is alsopleadedby the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues , the opposite party attached the workman with a licensed.contractor. It has also been pleaded by the workman thathe was continuing in the services from before the induction of Contractor. Workman is employee of the opposite party. Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officers of the managements. The production of the opposite party waa also used to be sold out to the customers . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of240days oftill he was removed from the service of the oppositeparty we.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provisions ofIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but he was not affordedany opportunity ofhis re -employment . Opposite partyhas also violated the provisions ofrules of natural and socialjustice by not regularising him in the service.
3118
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008 / JYAISTHA 31 , 1930 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 105/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008 .
the case file . It is the own case that the workman was' made the employee of the contractor and it is the contractor whoused tomake payment of wages. The contention of theworkman to the effect that he was working much before the induction of the alleged contractor of which he is alleged to be the employee cannot be acceptedby the tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the recordof thecase to substantiate the claim ofthe workman that he was in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor.
[No. L-42012/ 117/2000- IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI R. G. SHUKLA , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM -LABOUR COURT , SHRAM BHAWAN, A.T.I. CAMPUS, UDYOG NAGAR, KANPUR Industrial Dispute No. 105 of 2000
In the matter of dispute between :
7. The arguments of the opposite party appearsto be sound that there exists no relationship of master and servant between them and the so- called workman , therefore, there appears no valid industrial dispute between thecontesting parties . In the absence any cogent evidence in support of the claim of the workman , it is concluded that there never existed any relationship of master and servant between the parties and therefore , the alleged workman cannot be held to be a workman within the definition of the workman as given under the Act . Ifit is so rest issues become infructuons as raised by the alleged workman in his statement of claim and therefore, need no consideration .
Shri Deepu, C/o Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla 115/193 A.2 Maswanpur Rawatpur, Kanpur
AND
TheDirector, Indian Institute of Pulse Research , G.T. Road, Kalyanpur , Kanpur
AWARD
8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a valid industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that he ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or that he was ever issued any appointment letter, or he was ever paid his wages by the opposite party or his services have ever beenterminated by the opposite party. Therefore, question ofbreach ofprovisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the opposite party does not arise.
1. Central Government , MOL , New Delhi , vide Notification No. L- 42012/ 117 / 2000 IR (DU) dated 29-8-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :
9. For the reasons discussed above, it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties , alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by him, Reference is therefore, answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour ofthe opposite party.
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research , Kalyanpur, Kanpur , in terminating the employment of Shri Deepu , w.e.f. 26-8-98 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the worker is entitled to ? "
R.G. SHUKLA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 मई, 2008
का. आ. 1484.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन इंस्टिट्यूट ऑफ पल्स रिसर्च के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 105/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं.एल-42012/ 117/2000- आई आर ( डो यू) ]
सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 29th May, 2008
ل
S.O. 1484.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central
2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work of permanent nature under the premises of the opposite party on. It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end ofthe month by the opposite party as approvedby the Central Government at the minimum of the rate. It is also pleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues , the opposite party attached the workman with a licensed contractor. It has also been pleaded by the workman that he was continuing in the services from before the induction of Contractor . Workman is employee of the opposite party. Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officers of the managements . The production of the opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers . It has also been 3119 [भाग 1]-खंड 3(i) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008/प्पेष्ठ 31 , 1930
inclined to believe the contention of the representative for the workman and the same stands rejected. Having considered long duration of the pendency of the instant case, the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application.
pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of240days oftill he was removed from the service ofthe opposite party w.e.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several fresh handswere inducted by the opposite party but he was not afforded any opportunity of his re-employment. Opposite partyhas also violated the provisions of rules of natural andsocialjustice by not regularising him in the service . On the basis ofabove it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages , consequential benefits and seniority.
6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced inthe case at length and have also gone carefullythrough the case file, It is the own case that the workman was madethe employee of the contractor and it is the contractor who usedto make payment of wages . The contention, of theworkmanto the effect that he was working much before the induction of the alleged contractor of which he is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record ofthecase to substantiate the claim of the workman thathe was in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged pontractor.
7. The arguments of the opposite party appears to be sound that there exists no relationship of master and servant between them and the so called workman, therefore, thereappears no valid industrial dispute between the contesting parties . In the absence of any cogent evidence in support of the claim of the workman, it is concluded that there never existed any relationship of master and servant between the parties and therefore, the alleged workman cannot be held to be a workman within the definition of the workman as given under the Act. If it is so rest issues becomes infructuous as raised by the alleged workman in his statement ofclaim and therefore , need no consideration.
3. The opposite party has filed replywherein it has been denied bythe opposite party that there exists any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties. The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was everpaidwagesby the opposite party directly. In fact they were the employees ofthe contractor who used to supervise theworkof the workman. It is also denied that there exist anyvalid industrial dispute. Workman is not a workman as defined under 1.D. Act, nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having engaged theworkman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor he was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment, there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment deboring recruitment rules. Since the workman was never in the eamployment, question of terminating his services from anydate does not arise .Moreover , provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman. On the basis of above, it has been prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid ofmerit, baseless and misleading.
4.After the exchange ofpleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support oftheir respective cases.
8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a valid industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that he ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or thathe was ever issued any appointment letter, or hewas ever paidhiswages by the opposite party or his services have ever been terminatedby the opposite party . Therefore, question ofbreach ofprovisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , by the opposite party does not arise.
9. For the reasons discussed above , it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between theparties, alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by him . Reference is therefore, answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour ofthe opposite party.
R.G. SHUKLA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 29 मई, 2008
5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show. that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occasion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case .Again further date of hearing was fixed in the case and when the case was called out representative for the workman found absent and thereafter the arguments advanced by the representative for the management were heard. After the hearing was over in the case, representative for the workman appeared before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain representation before the Ministry seeking transfer of the case from this tribunal but a perusal of the record shows that no such application is available on the record of the .case.There is also no order received from the appropriate government in this regard. Therefore, the tribunal is not
का. आ. 1485.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन इन्सटिट्यूट ऑफ पल्स रिसर्च के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ 3120
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008 / JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] संख्या 106/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं . एल-42012/ 118/2000- आई आर ( डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 29th May, 2008
S.O. 1485. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 106/ 2000) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Institute ofPulse Research and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008 .
[No. L-42012/ 118/2000- IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer
statutory dues, the opposite party attached the workman with a licensed contractor. It has also been pleaded bythe workman that he was continuing in the services from before the induction of Contractor. Workman is employee of the opposite party. Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officers of the managements . The production of the opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of240 days oftill he was removed from the service ofthe opposite party w.e.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but he was not afforded any opportunity of his re -employment Opposite partyhas also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service . On thebasis ofabove it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages , consequential benefits and seniority.
ANNEXURE BEFORE SRI R. G. SHUKLA , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, SHRAM BHAWAN, A.T.L. CAMPUS, UDYOG NAGAR, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 106 of 2000
In the matter of dispute between :
Smt . Shiv Devi , C/o Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla 115/193 A.2 Maswanpur, Rawatpur, Kanpur
AND
The Director, Indian Institute of Pulse Research , G.T. Road , Kalyanpur, Kanpur
AWARD
1. Central Government , MOL , New Delhi , vide Notification No. L-42012/ 118 /2000 - IR ( DU ) dated 29-8-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :
3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exists any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties . The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was ever paid wages by the opposite party directly. In fact they were the employees of the contractor who used to supervise the work of the workman. It is also denied that there exists any valid industrial dispute. Workman is not a workman as defined under I.D. Act, nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having engaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor he was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party . It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment , there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the oppositeparty is competent to make appointment dehoring recruitment rules . Since the workman was never in the employment, question of terminating his services fram any date does not arise . Moreover, provisions of Industrial DisputesAct are also not applicable to the workman . On the basis of above , it has been prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of merit, baseless and misleading.
4. After the exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support oftheir respective cases .
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research , Kalyanриг, Kanpur, in terminating the employment of Smt. Shiv Devi , w.e.f. 26-8-98 is legal and justified ? Ifnot, to what relief the worker is entitled to ?"
2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work of permanentnature under the premises ofthe opposite party on. It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end of the month by the opposite party as approvedby the Central Government at the minimum of the rate. It is also pleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid
5. A bare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occasion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case. Again further date of hearing was fixed in the case and when the case was called out representative for the workman found absent and भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21, 2008 /ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
[भाग 11- खंड 3(ii)]
thereafter the arguments advanced by the representative for the mimagement were beard. After the hearing was over in the case , representative for the workman appeared before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain representationbefore the Ministry seeking transfer of the case from this tribunal but a perusal of the record shows that no such application is available on the record ofthe case,There isalso no order received from the appropriate government in this regard. Therefore, the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the representative for the workman and the same stands rejected. Having considered long duration of the pendency of the instant case, the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application.
6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced inthe case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file. It is the own case that the workman was made the employee of the contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages. The contention of theworkmanto the effect that he was working muchbefore the induction of the alleged contractor of which he is alleged to be the employee cannotbe accepted by the tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the recordofthe case to substantiate the claim of the workman thathe was in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor.
7. The arguments of the opposite party appears to be sound that there exists no relationship of master and servant between them and the so called workman , therefore, there appears no valid industrial dispute between the contesting parties . In the absence of any cogent evidence in support of the claim of the workman, it is concluded that there never existed any relationship of master and servant between the parties and therefore, the alleged workman cannot be held to be a workman within the definition of the workman as given under the Act. If it is so rest issues become infructuous as raised by the alleged workman in his statement of claim and therefore, need no consideration .
8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a valid industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that he ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or thathewas ever issued any appointment letter , or he was ever paid his wages by the opposite party or his services have everbeen terminated by the opposite party. Therefore, question ofbreach of provisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the opposite party does not arise.
9. For the reasons discussed above , it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties, alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled forany reliefas claimed by him, Reference is therefore, answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour oftheopposite party,
R.G. SHUKLA , Presiding Officer
3121 नई दिल्ली, 29 मई, 2006
कर. आ. 1486.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 कर 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नवोदय विद्यालय समिति के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं . II , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 813/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-42012/117/92- ग्रई आर (डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi, the 29th May, 2008
S.O. 1486.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 813/ 2005) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , No. II Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008.
[No. L-42012/117/92- IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT - II, CHANDIGARH Shri Kuldip Singh, Presiding Officer Case I.D. No. 813/2005 Registered on7-09-2005
DateofOrder 14-09-2007
Petitioner Inderjeet SareenHouse No. 3364, Sector-47D, Chandigarh
Versus
Respondent NavodayaVidyalaya Samiti , Regional Office, Adult Education Building, Sector-42 -A, Chandigarh APPEARANCE
For theworkman : Shri Randhir Singh Manhas, Advocate
Forthe Management: Shri D.R. Sharma, Advocate AWARD
This is an application u/s 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication of the fact that the management changed the service conditions of the workman during the pendency of the proceedings with further prayer that the order impugned be quashed and the recovery already made be refunded to the workman.
3122
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008/JYAISTHA 31 , 1930 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]
loss caused to the Government by the negligence or violation oforders whereas in the present case the recovery wasthat of an excess payment of salary which did not fall in the category of minor punishment . Claiming that the representation made by the workman was considered and result thereof was intimated to the workman through Deputy Director of the management. The salary of the workman was fixed with the approval of the Director.
The claim of the workman is that the matter regarding his service conditions was referred to by the appropriateGovernment for the consideration of this Tribunal ; that during the pendency of that dispute the management changed the service conditions of the workman as he was brought down to the pay of scale of 950-1500 whereas he was working in the grade of 1200-2040. The also ordered the recovery of amount of an amount of Rs . 5009 claiming the same having been paid to the workman inadvertently by the management. The management therefore , changed the service conditions of the workman during the pendency of the proceedings . They also did not take the permission of this Court u/ s 33 of the Act . It is their case that the recovery ordered by the management amounted to minor punishment andthe same could not be imposed without following the procedure laid down . Thus the order of recovery is not supported by law . The management further violated the principle of natural justice and started recovering money @ Rupees, 300 without waiting for disposal of the appeal , the workman filed against the order ofrecovery. The workman has requested for adjudicating whether his service conditions were changed during the pendency of proceedings with further prayer to get him back the money recovered from him along with interest .
Itmay be stated that the reference received from theMinistry ofLabour and referred to by the workman in the application stand disposed of vide order dated 01-08-2007. By the said award it has been held that the management was justified in not granting the pay scale ofRs .1200-2040 to the workman which he was getting before his absorption in the Navodaya Vidyala Samity as his appointment was in the grade of Rs . 950-1500 although he was working in the grade of Rs . 1200-2040 inhis previous department. In view of this it is not correct to claim that the management changed the service conditions of the workman during the pendency ofthe reference in question. As per the award the appointment ofthe workman with the management was in the grade of Rs .950-1500 so he was entitled to salary in that grade only. Ifhe received salary in the grade he was working in his parent department it was under mistaken belief and if the management later on corrected the same, even during the pendency of the reference, it cannot be said that the recovery of the excess money paid to him, violated the service condition of the workman. What the management did wasto set at right the mistake they were committing and in doing to do they did not violate the provision of the Section 33 of theAct.
In view of the discussion made above I do not find any merit in this application which is dismissed . Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Govt . for necessary and file be consigned to records after due completion.
KULDIP SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 मई , 2008 .
का. आ. 1487.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन इंस्टिट्यूट ऑफ पल्स रिसर्च के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 108/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल -42012/ 120/2000 - आई आर ( डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 29th May, 2008
8.O. 1487. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central The management has opposed the claim of the. workman. It is their submission that the claim made by the workman is not correct . That the service conditions ofthe workman were not changed although letter No. PF . 11/CR/Estt./95 / 671213 dated 9th ofDec. , 1993 was issued bythe management. According to them the workman was working in the grade 1200 -2040 in his parent department. However, the mgt. in their notification clearly indicated the pay scale ofthe driver as 950-1500 and it was in response to that letter the workman applied and was taken on deputation. After the completion ofprobation oftwo years the workman was asked ifhe was willingto beabsorbed in the Estt . ofthe management . The workman conscientiously offered for being absorbed in the Estt . of the Mgt. and submitted willingness in writing dated 24-11-1989 . Nodoubt during the period ofhis deputation bewas given wages as per the scale of his parent deptt. But after his permanent absorption in the management he was paid the pay scale of post of driver. When it was found that theworkman has received excess payment the recovery order was passed against him , but that did not change his service conditions . The workman was appointed in the pay scale of Rs . 950-1500 which was the only scale available to the driver with the mgt. The workınan was given due notice of the office order and it is wrong to claim that no opportunity was given to the workman before changing his service condition since the order dated 30-04-1992 was duly served upon him. Admitting that recovery from the pay scale amounts to minor punishment , but only if the recovery of pecuniary [ भाग - खंड 3( ii) ]
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 108/ 2000) oftheCentral Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Kampur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Institute ofPulse Research and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008 .
[No.L-42012/120/2000 - IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI R. G. SHUKLA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, SHRAM BHAWAN, A.T.L. CAMPUS, UDYOG NAGAR, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 108 of 2000 Inthe matter of dispute between :
Shri Sujeet Kumar, C/ o Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukia 115/193 A.2 Maswanpur Rawatpur, Kanpur
AND
TheDirector, Indian Institute of Pulse Research, G.T. Road, Kalyanpur, Kanpur
AWARD
1. Central Government , MOL, New Delhi, vide notification No. L-42012/ 120/2000 IR (DU) dated 29-8-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal:
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute ofPulse Research , Kalyanpur, Kanpur in terminating the employment of Shri Sujeet Kumar, w.e.f. 26-8-98 is legal and justified ? Ifnot, towhat relief the worker is entitled to ? "
2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work of permanent nature under the premises of the opposite party on. It is alsopleaded that the workman was paid wages at theend ofthe month by the opposite party as approvedby the Central Government at the minimum of the rate. It is alsopleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid statutory dues, the opposite party attached the workman with a licensed contractor. It has also been pleadedby the workman that he was continuing in the services from before the induction ofContractor, Workman is employee ofthe opposite party. Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the Workman was used to be marked by the officers of the managements. The production of the the opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers . It has also 2172 GI/08-12
3123
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31, 1930
beenpleadedby the workman that he rendered continuous service of240 days of till he was removed from the service of the opposite party w.e.f. 26-8-98 in gross violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several fresh handswere inducted by the opposite party but he was not afforded any opportunity of his reemployment . Opposite partyhas also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service. On the basis ofabove it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages, consequentialbenefits and seniority.
3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exists any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties . The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was ever paid wages by the opposite party directly. In fact they were the employees of the contractor who used to supervise the work of the workman. It is also denied that there exist any valid industrial dispute . Workman is not a workmanas defined under LD. Act, nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having engaged the workman in the employesent in any capacitywhatsoever he was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment, there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment deboring recruitment rules. Since the workman was never in the employment , question of terminating his services from anydate does not arise . Moreover, provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workman. On the basis ofabove, it has been prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of merit, baseless and misleading.
4. After the exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective cases.
5. Abare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occasion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoided to conclude the case. Again further date ofhearing was fixed in the case and when the case was called out representative for the workman found absent and thereafter the arguments advanced by the representative for the management were heard . After the hearing was over in the case, representative for the workman appeared before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain representationbefore the Ministry seeking transfer ofthe case from this tribunal but a perusal of the record shows that no such application is available on the record of the case.There isalso no order received from the appropriate government in this regard. Therefore , the tribunal is not 3124
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008 / JY AISTHA 31 , 1930 [PART II-SEC , 3 ( ii ) ]
संख्या 107/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
inclined to believe the contention of the representative for the workman and the same stands rejected. Having considered long duration of the pendency of the instant case, the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application,
[सं. एल -42012 /119/2000- आई आर ( डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 29th May, 2008
8.O. 1488.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 107/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Institute ofPulse Research and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008 .
6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced in the case at length and have also gone carefully through the case file. It is the own case that the workman was made the employee ofthe contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages . The contention of theworkman to the effect that he was working much before the induction of the alleged contractor of which he is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record of the case to substantiate the claim ofthe workman thathe was in the employment of the opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor.
[No. L-42012/ 119/2000- IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE BEFORE SRI R. G. SHUKLA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, SHRAM BHAWAN, A.T.L CAMPUS , UDYOG NAGAR, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 107 of 2000
In the matter of dispute between :
7. The arguments of the opposite party appears to be sound that there exists no relationship of master and servant between them and the so called workman , therefore, there appears no valid industrial dispute between the contesting parties. In the absence any cogent evidence in support of the claim of the workman, it is concluded that there never existed any relationship of master and servant berween the parties and therefore , the alleged workman cannot be held to be a workman within the definition of the workman as given under the Act . If it is so rest issues becomes infructuous as raised by the alleged workman in his statement of claim and therefore, need no consideration ,
Shri Rama Kant Tripathi , C/o Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla, 115/193 A.2 Maswanpur , Rawatpur, Kanpur
AND
TheDirector, Indian Institute of Pulse Research, G.T. Road , Kalyanpur, Kanpur
AWARD
8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a valid industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that he ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or that he was ever issued any appointment letter, or he was ever paid his wages by the opposite party or his services have ever been terminated by the opposite party.Therefore, question ofbreach of provisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the opposite party does not arise.
1. Central Government , MOL, New Delhi , vide Notification No. L-42012/ 119/2000 IR (DU ) dated 29-8-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :
9. For the reasons discussed above, it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between the parties , alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any relief as claimed by him . Reference is therefore, answered accordingly against the claimant and in favour oftheopposite party.
R.G. SHUKLA, Presiding Officer
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Pulse Research , Kalyanpur, Kanpur in terminating the employment of Sri Rama Kant Tripathi w.e.f. 31-3-99 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the worker is entitledto ?" नई दिल्ली , 29 मई, 2008
का. आ. 1488.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन इन्सटिट्यूट ऑफ पल्स रिसर्च के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ
2. The case of the workman in short is that the worker has been employed to perform the work of permanent nature under the premises of the opposite party on. It is also pleaded that the workman was paid wages at the end of the month by the opposite party as approved by the Central Government at the minimum of the rate . It is also pleaded by the workman that with a view to avoid [भाग II सखंड ( ii) ]
statutory dues, the opposite party attached the workman with a licensed contractor. It has also been pleaded by the workman that he was continuing in the services from before the induction ofContractor. Workman is employee of the opposite party. Workman performed the work connected with agriculture and the attendance of the workman was used to be marked by the officers of the managements. The production of opposite party was also used to be sold out to the customers . It has also been pleaded by the workman that he rendered continuous service of240 days oftill he was removed from the service ofthe opposite party w.e.f. 31-3-99 in gross violation of provisions ofIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several fresh hands were inducted by the opposite party but-he was not afforded any opportunity ofhis re- employment. Opposite partyhas also violated the provisions of rules of natural and social justice by not regularising him in the service. On the basis ofabove it has been prayed that the workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages, consequential benefits and seniority.
3. The opposite party has filed reply wherein it has been denied by the opposite party that there exists any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties . The workman never remained in direct employment of the opposite party nor the workman was ever paidwagesby the opposite party directly. In fact they were the employees ofthe contractor who used to supervise theworkofthe workman. It is also denied that there exists any valid industrial dispute. Workman is not a workman as defined under I.D. Act, nor the opposite party is an industry. Management has emphatically denied having engaged the workman in the employment in any capacity whatsoever nor he was ever issued any appointment letter by the opposite party. It has also been pleaded that for giving regular and permanent employment , there is prescribed recruitment rules and no authority of the opposite party is competent to make appointment deboring recruitment rules . Since the workmanwas never in the employment, question of terminating his services from any date does not arise. Moreover, provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are also not applicable to the workanan. On the basis of above, it has been prayed that theclaim ofthe workman be rejected being devoid ofmerit, baseless and misleading.
4. After the exchange of pleadings between the parties the contesting parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support oftheir respective cases.
5. Abare perusal of the record would go to show that in the instant case repeated dates for hearing arguments were granted by the tribunal to the representative for the workman but on each occasion on one pretext or the other he sought adjournments and avoided toconclude the case. Again further date ofhearing was fixed in the case and when the case was called out representative for the workman found absent and
3125
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31, 1930
thereafter the arguments advanced by the representative for the management were heard. After the hearing was over in the case, representative for the workman appeared before the tribunal and submitted that he had sent certain representation before the Ministry seeking transfer ofthe case from this tribunal but a perusal of the record shows that no such application is available on the record ofthe case.There is also no order received from the appropriate government in this regard. Therefore, the tribunal is not inclined to believe the contention of the representative for the workman and the same stands rejected. Having considered long duration of the pendency of the instant case, the tribunal also rejected the adjournment application.
6. Tribunal has considered the arguments advanced inthe case at length and have also gobe carefully through the case file. It is the own case that the workman was made the employee of the contractor and it is the contractor who used to make payment of wages. The contention of theworkmanto the effect that he was working michbefore the induction of the alleged contractor of which he is alleged to be the employee cannot be accepted by the tribunal as no documentary evidence is available on the record ofthe case to substantiate the claim of the workman that hewas in the employment ofthe opposite party much before the induction of the alleged contractor,
7. The arguments of the opposite party appears to be sound that there exists no relationship of master and servant between them and the so-called workman , therefore, there appears no valid industrial dispute between the contesting parties. In the absence of any cogent evidence in support of the claim of the workman, it is concluded that there never existed any relationship of master and servant between the parties and therefore , the alleged workman cannot be held to be a workman within the definition of the workman as given under the Act. If it is so rest issues become infructuous as raised by the allegedworkman in his statement of claim and therefore, need no consideration.
8. In the end it is concluded for the foregoings that the instant case is not a valid industrial dispute as the claimant has palpably failed to establish that he ever remained in active employment of the opposite party or that he was ever issued any appointment letter, or he was ever paid his wages by the opposite party or his services have ever been terminatedby the opposite party. Therefore, question ofbreach of provisions ofthe IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947, by the opposite party dees not arise.
9. For the reasons discussed above , it is held that since instant case is not a valid industrial dispute between theparties, alleged claimant cannot be held to be entitled for any reliefas claimed by him . Reference is, therefore , answered accordingly against the claimsunt and in favour ofthe opposite party.
R.G. SHUKLA, Presiding Officer 3126
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 21 , 2008 /JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
नई दिल्ली, 29 मई, 2008
का. आ. 1489.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल वेयर हाऊसिंग कॉर्पोरेशन , गुड़गांव के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय-1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी सं. - 141/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-42012/12/ 1999- आई आर ( एम ) ]
कमल बाखरु, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th May, 2008
S.O. 1489. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. I.D. No. 141/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court- 1 , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Warehousing Corp. , Gurgaon and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008.
[No. L-42012/ 12/ 1999- IR ( M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI GYANENDERA KUMAR SHARMA , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT - 1 , CHANDIGARH Case I.D. No. 141/2000
[PART I- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ) of five increments with cumulative effect imposed on Shri Khazan Singh, WA- I is legal and justified ? Ifnot to what relief the workman is entitled to ?" Thepresent reference was made by the Central Govt. on the failure of conciliation proceedings for adjudication of the matter referred in the schedule referred above and the workman prayed for declaring the action of the management as illegal and invalid and for holding the punishment awarded as illegal and unjustified with all consequential benefits by restoring the scale wages to the workman, as if the order of punishment was not passed .
The management turned up and opposes this application.
Applicant
Shri Khazan Singh, WA- I , New Anaj Mandi , Khauso Road, Gurgaon (Haryana)
Versus
Central Warehousing Corporation,
The Personnel Manager , 4/1, Siri Institutional Area, Hauz Khas, New Delhi .
Asper office memorandum dated 30-4-08, this case was fixed in pre Lok Adalat meeting on 9-5-08 for its disposal by adopting the mediation and conciliation mechanism . With the efforts of the Tribunal the workman agreed to withdraw his reference. The management also agreed for restoration of five increments stopped by way of punishment in the year 1988 with all the consequential benefits w.e.f. the date of this order . The workman further undertake that he will not claim any back wages/ arrears for the past period . The prescribed authority of the management and the workman during the hearing of this case in pre Lok Adalat agreed upon the above mentioned terms and conditions . It is proposed to dispose off this reference in Lok Adalat. Accordingly the management of Central Warehousing Corporation is directed to restore all the five increments with all consequential benefits from today itself. The workman is also directed not to claim any back wages or the arrears for the period from the stoppage of increments and the date of this order. The workman will also not have any right to agitate this issue in future as well . Accordingly the reference is returned to the Central Govt. as settled in Lok Adalat Central Govt . be informed. File be consigned to record.
Announced 9-5-08 .
G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 मई , 2008
.Respondent
Appearances:
For the Workmen
:Sri Arun Batra
For. the Management :Shri Pardeep Sharma
AWARD
Passed on 9-5-2008 in Lok Adalat Central Govt . vide Notification No. L-42012/12/99- IR(M) dated 16-3-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
"Whether the action of the management of Central Warehousing Corporation , Gurgaon over stoppage का. आ. 1490.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंटरनेशनल एयरपोर्ट अथोरिटी ऑफ इंडिया, त्रिवेन्द्रम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विनाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , एर्नाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी सं. 127/2006 एवं 149/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-11011 /5/2002- आई आर ( एम) ]
कमल बाखरु , डेस्क अधिकारी [भाग -खंड (ii) ] :
New Delhi , the 29th May,2008
8.0. 1490.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. L.D. No. 127/2006 and 149/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court, Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of International Airport Authority of India, Trivandrum and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008 .
[No. L- 11011/5/2002 -IR (M)] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer !
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM
Present:
Shri P.L. Norbert, B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer (Monday the 10th day of March 2008) LD. 127/2006 and 149/2006
L.D. 127/2006 (LD. 78/02 of Industrial Tribunal, Kollam)
Workman : Biju D. , SudharsanHouse, TC 13/1067, Kollours Lane , Kannamoola Medical College, P.O. , Trivandrum.
By Adv. T.K. Ananda Padmanabhan .
Management : 1. The Airport Director, Trivandrum Airport Authority of India, Trivandrum
2. Sri . Sajith, Proprietor, M's. R.K. Electricals , PRA-53, Puthupally Lane, Medical College P.O. , Trivandrum
3. Sri . Balakrishman , Proprietor, M/s. New Electricals , Kannamoola; Medical College P.O. , Trivandrum .
MI By Adv. Sri V. Santharam .
M2 & M3 - Ex-parte.
1.D. 149/2006
(ID. 77/02 of Industrial Tribunal , Kollam)
Workman + Madhu, Vilayil Veedu, Vilayil Lane, Kozhiyottu Lane, Palkulangara , Trivandrum .
ByAdv. T.K. Ananda Padmanabhan .
3127
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008/प्पेष्ठ 31 , 1930
Manageinent : 1. The Airport Director, Trivandrum Airport Authonty of India, Trivandrum
2. Sri . Sajith, Proprietor, M/ s. R.K. Electricals, PRA-53 , Puthupally Lane, Medical CollegeP.O. , Trivandrum
3. Sri. Balakrishman, Proprietor, M/s. New Electricals, Kannamoola, Medical College P.O. , Trivandrum.
MI By Adv. Sri V. Santharam.
M2 & M3 Ex-parte.
This case coming up for hearing on 26-2-2008 , this Tribunal -cum - Labour Court on 10-3-2008 passed the following
AWARD
These are references made under Section 10( 1 )( d) of Industrial Disputes Act. The references are coMELOL Hence one of them alone is extracted.
(a) "Whether Shri Biju Dan Electrical and maintenance contract worker deployed in the establishment of International Airport Authority of India at Trivandrum Airport , Trivandrum through the contractors (1) M/s . R.K. Electricals and (2 ) M/s . New Electricals are entitled to regularisationby the management of International Airport Authority of India, Trivandrum in their establishment ?
(b) Whether the contract entered into between (1 ) M/ s . R.K. Electricals and (2) M/s . New Electriclas contractors and the management of International Airport Authority of India, Trivandrum is genuine or a sham contract ? If so, what relief the worker concemed is entitled ? " Since facts and evidence are common these cases are tried together and evidence is adduced in I.D. 127/ 2006 treating it as the main case and disposed of by a common award .
2. The facts in brief are as follows : Shri Biju D. and Shri Madhu B. were employed for carrying out the Electrical and maintenance work of the International Airport , Thiruvananthapuram from 1-5-1991 to 28-2-1994, Thereafter they were not engaged. Hence they claim reinstatement as well as regularisation . According tothemtheywere working as contract labour continuously andwithout break for more than 3 years . The wages were paid by the Airport Authority. The workers had made representations for regularisation. But no action was taken 3128
[PART 11 SBC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008/ JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
learned counsel refers to Exts . M1 , W5 and W7to substantiate his contention . Ext. Ml is copy of O.P. No.3169/94 filed before the Hon'ble High Court ofKerala by theAirport Authority. The contract between Electrical contractors and the company is a sham arrangement made for the purpose of avoiding service benefits to the workmen. The Airport has re- employed similarly retrenched workmen. But the claimants are still out of service. They are to be reinstated and regularized.
3.Accordingto the management the claimants are not workmen falling within the definition of S. 2 ( s) of Industrial Disputes Act and hence they cannot raise an industrial dispute against the company. The contract between company and Electrical contractors is genuine. Accordingto the management the claimants had not worked continuously for more than 3 years even under the contractors. They are not entitled either for re- instatement or for regularisation .The company has neither appointed nor terminated the service of claimants . The O.P. filedbythe union on behalf of 23 similar workers wasdisposed ofbyHigh Court in the light of thejudgement ofHon'ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers case.
4.TheElectrical contractors (managements 2 and 3)
contended in their written statement that they were contractors of Electrical work in the Airport Authority, Thiruvananthapuram. According to the 2nd management there was no dispute between workers and first management during their period from 1-5-1991 to 31-5-1993. They are an unnecessary party . Accordingto the 3rd management their contract work could be continued only for a period of 5 months and due to labour umrest they had to stop the work. During that period the workwas supervised by the 3rd management. In the light of the above contentions the following points arise for consideration:
1. Is the contract sham or genuine ?
2. Are claimants entitled for reinstatement and regularisation ?
The evidence consists ofthe oral testimony ofWW1 andWW2 and documentary evidence of Exts. W ! series toW8 on the side ofworkmen and MW1 and Exts . Mi to M4 on the side ofManagement.
by theUnion on behalf of23 workers including the present claimants . Ext . Pl in Ext. M1 is a list of workers . Sri Madhu is first in the list and Sri Biju 7th in the list. Thereforewhatever is stated in Original Petition is binding on the claimants as well. It is repeatedly stated in O.P. thatthe23 workers in O.P. are contract labourers employed under different contractors from 1-5-1991 to 28-2-1994. In paragraph 2 of the Original Petition it is stated that whenthe 9th respondent in O.P. (M/s . Ajantha Electricals) took up the contract from 1st March 1994 they attempted to deny employment to the workers . The workers have a right to continue in service irrespective of the change of contractors. There is a prayer to direct Airport Authority and 9th respondent to continue the 23 workers as contract labour and not to engage any new workmen. There is yet another prayer to declare that the 23 workers has every right to continue as contract labourers under the 9th respondent or any other contractor appointed by respondents 5 and 6 (Airport Authority) . Ext. P2 in Ext . Ml is a petition filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central) by the union on behalf of 23 workers who are members of the union . It is mentioned in paragraph 2 of the petition that the 23 workers are contract labourers as defined in the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition ) Act , 1970. It is further stated that the management No. 1 is the principal employer and managements 2 and 3 are contractors. It is further stated inExt . P2 that as per Rule 25 (2) (v) (a) ofContract Labour (Regulation and Abolition ) Central Rules , 1971 the Contract labour engaged are entitled to get the samewages , holidays and other conditions of service as in the case of same type ofworkers directly employed by the principal employer. Hence the Assistant Labour Commissioner is requested to conciliate and persuade the management to disburse arrears of wages calculated by taking into account the difference in wages . Ext . P2 is a statement of arrears ofwages . Ext. P3 is a notice of strike issued by the union. The reasons for the strike is mentioned in annexure to Ext. P3 . The opening sentence of the annexure is that unions represent the contract labourers who are engaged in the maintenance of electrical installations, fittings etc. in the buildings of International Airport , Thiruvananthapuram . The demand of the union was for pay paritywith the regular employees ofAirport Authority. Ext. W5 is report of failure of conciliation submitted by Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) to the Secretary , Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi . It is mentioned in paragraph 2 of the report that the workers had claimed that they were working under contractors from 1-5-1991 to 28-2-1994 continuously and they were claiming regularisation. Ext . W7 is an application of Sri B. Madhu to ALC . His case was that he was a contract 5. Point No. 1 : Though the workmen admit that theyarecontract labour , they dispute the contract between the Ist management and the contractors as being sham. On the other hand according to the managements 1 to 3, thecontract is genuine and the claimants were employed onlyas contract workers and not as employees ofAirport Authority. Both claimants are working in Electrical division in the Airport. Sri Biju D. was a Electrician and Sri Madhu was a Supervisor in the Electrical wing. It is pointed out at the very outset by the learned counsel for the first management that the case of claimants that the contract is sham , is a contention taken up for the first timebefore this court and is a wisdom dawned late . The labourer. Thus all along the case of the claimants was [भाग II-खंड 3(ii) ]
that theywere employed under different contractors from 1991 to 1994 February. When a new contractor tookup the contract they were denied employment . Nowhere in the Original Petition or statement submitted to ALC there isacontention that the contract is sham. As rightly pointed outby the learned counsel for the first management, it is for the first time that such a contention is taken up before this court. It is definitely an inconsistent plea and an after- thought. Such a plea is taken to reap the benefits ofthe decision ofHon'ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority's Case.But the inconsistency in the pleadings has laid axe tothe very rootof their case . The first plea is the bestplea and contains the truth untainted by subsequent developments. Therefore on the score of inconsistency alone the case of the workmen are to be thrown out at the threshold. But even going by their own case, I don't think that they have made out a case of sham contract .
6. In Steel Authority of India Limited and Others Vs.NationalUnion Waterfront Workers and others, (2001) 7SCC 1 in paragraph 125 (5) and (6) it is observedbythe Hon'ble Supreme Court:
"(5) On issuance of prohibition notification under Section 10( 1 ) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise , in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to conditions of service , the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the questionwhether the contractor has been interpósed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/ camouflage to evade compliance with various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder. If the contract is found to be not genuinebut a mere camouflage, the so-called contract labourwill have to be treated as employees ofthe principal employer who shall be directed to regularise the services of the contract labour in the establishment concerned subject to the conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose in the light ofpara 6 hereunder.
(6) If the contract is found to be genuine and prohibition notification under Section 10( 1 ) of the CLRAAct in respect ofthe establishment concerned has been issued by the appropriate Government, prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work of any establishment and where in such process , operation or other work of the establishment the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen, he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour, ifotherwise found suitable and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately, taking into consideration the age of
3129
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21, 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31, 1930
theworkers at the time of their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition aa to academic qualifications other then technical. qualifications."
7. The Court has to consider first whether the contract is sham or genuine. If the contract is sham the labourers are to be treated as employees of the principal employer and the principal employer is to be directed to regularise the service of such contract labour subjectto educational qualification, age etc. On the other hand if the contract is genuine a notification under S.10( 1 ) of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act has to be issued by the appropriate Government if the labourers want to stake a claim for regularisation and preference.in recruitment.
In workmen of Nilgiri Co -operative Marketing SocietyLimited Va. State of T.N. and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 514 the test to determine the nature of the contract is considered in paras 32 to 37. In para 37 the main factors tobe considered for determining the nature of the contract are mentioned.
"The control test and the organisation test, therefore , are not the only factors which can be said to be decisive.With a view to clicit the answer , the court is required to consider several factors whichwould have abearing on the result : (a) who is the pointing. authority; (b) who is the paymaster; (c) who can dismiss; (d) how long alternative service lasts; (e) the extent of control and supervision; (1) nature ofthe job e.g. whether it is professional or skilled work; ( g) nature of establishment; (h) the right to reject".
8.Admittedly there is neither an appointment order nor a termination order concerping the claimants . No disciplinary action is taken by Airport Authority against the claimants. According to WWI the wages were paid by contractors in the presence of officers of Airport. But WW2denies that contractor had paid wages . Howeverhe does not specify which official of the Airport Authority had paid the wages and the mode of payment. No doubt the workmen had called for attendance register and long book from the Airport Authority for the purpose of showing that the attendance is recorded and payment is made by Airport Authority . However the Airport Authority did not produce them , but preferred to file an affidavit stating that the records called for were not available with the Airport. It is relevant to note that in view of the contention of Airport Authority that they are not the employer of claimants , they cannot be expected to maintain any record with regard to the service of claimants. Naturally they cannot also produce records relating to the payment of wages to contract workers. Therefore the non-production of attendance register and log book would not be a circumstance to draw an adverse inference against Airport Authority..
3130
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008 / JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( i ) ] 9. Regarding supervision and control nothing is stated by either WW1 or WW2 . In the claim statement also there is no pleading regarding supervision and control .According to the learned counsel for the claimants Ext.W1 series passes will sow that the claimants were working continuously, without break under the Airport Authority from 1991 to 1994. Ext. Wl series are entry permits issued during the period from 4-9-1991 to 23-2-1994 to Sri. D. Biju . But continuous work however long will not make them workers of Airport Authority. Entry permits are issued by the Airport Authority for the purpose ofpermitting entry of persons in Airport premises towork. Without entry passes nobody can enter the Airport premises especially within the buildings . That will not in anyway determine the nature of employment . All the entry passes show that they were issued at the request and address of contractors , though claimants' name is shown . Ext.W6 series are also similar entry permits issued to Sri Madhu , There are no other documents to support the case of the claimants that though they were engaged through contractors they were actually employed by Airport Authority.
Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi and others 2006 (4) SCC 1 shall not be mechanically applied to a case without looking into the facts of that case . In the U.P. State ElectricityBoard case formerly a society was the supplier ofElectricity. While so UP Electricity Board took over the society. Some of the employees in the society were direct employees of the Board and others were employces ofsociety. Along with the society the direct employees of theBoard alone were taken over, but not the employees of society. This was challenged. When the matter came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court it was held that at the time of take over the employees of society enjoyed the same status of direct employees of Electricity Board and it was in violation of Article 14 of the constitution that such employees were discriminated and not treated as employees of Electricity Board . The Judgement was rendered in a case where regularisation was sought on the ground of violation of Article 14 of the constitution . It was in that context that Hon'ble S.C. made observation regarding application of Uma Devi's case to the reported case.However the decision in U.P. State Electricity Board has no application to the facts of this case . The workers were not able to show that they were discriminatedby the Ist management by re - employing or regularising similar other workers .
For the reasons staied above I find that the claimants are not entitled for any kind of reliefs .
10. The evidence on record does not show that the contract is sham and 1st management is the employer of claimants . The notification of 1999 prohibiting contract labour in certain categories of work in Airport stands set asideby virtue ofthejudgement in Steel Authority of India. Unless a fresh notification is issued under Section 10 ( 1 ) ofCLRA Act , an industrial dispute for regularisation will not lie as the contract is genuine.
In the result , an award is passed finding that the claimants are not entitled ether for regularisation or for any other relief and that the contract is genuine. No cost .
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 10th day of March, 2008 .
P.L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer
Appendix
Witnessesfor the Workmen
WW1
19-02-2007 : Sri Biju D.
WW2
19-02-2007 : Sri Madhu .
Witness for the Management
WWI
07-08-2007 SmL, John Nellimala Sarat.
Exhibits for the Workmen
11. Point No. 2 I have already found that the claimants are only contract labourers . There is no jural relationship of employer and employee between first management and the claimants . Even if they worked continuously for more than 240 days , being contract labour, they have not acquired any right for employment under the principal employer. It is needless to say that the contractor is the employer of claimants and so the contractor decides the employment of claimants . When. the contract of 2nd and 3rd managements came to an end, the service of claimants also came to an end. It is for the contractor to decide whether the same workers should be engaged or not. Therefore the first management cannot be asked to reinstate the claimants much less regularise them in service. They are also not entitled for any kind of compensation from the first management.
WI series
: Temporary Entry Permit Card issued to the workmen (15 nos.)
W2
04-10-2001 : Photostat copy ofJudgment in O.P. 3169/1994 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.
The learned counsel for the workmen relying on the decision U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Pooran Chandra Pandey , 2007 ( 4 ) KLT 513 ( SC) contended that employees who have put in long service cannot be denied benefit of regularisation and made to face same selection which fresh recruits have to face. In the reported case the court observed that the decision in Secretary , State of [ भाग I-खंड 3( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008/ण्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
W3
01-01-2002 : Representation submitted
by Sri . Madhu to the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (C), Trivandrum.
W4
14-01-2002 : Photostat copy of reply
submitted by the Manage- ment before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) Trivandrum .
27-2-2002
W5
:Photostat copy offailure of conciliation report submit- tedto the Secretary, Minis- try of Labour and Employ- ment by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C). W6 series
: Photostat copies of Tempo- rary Permit issuedto the workman.
W7
28-1-2002 :Representation submitted by Sri Madhu to theAssis tant Labour Commissioner (C) Trivandrum W8
14-1-2002 : Photostat copy ofreply sub- mittedby the management before theAssistant Labour Commissioneг.
Exhibits for the Management
03-03-94
M1 Copy of Original Petition No. 3169/94 filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.
M2
26-10-99 : Photostat copy of Order in CWP 6540/99 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
M3 08-04-2002 Photostat copy of Judge- ment in LPA 530/02 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
M4 31-01-2003 Order in CC 956/03 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
नई दिल्ली, 29 मई, 2008
का. आ. 1491.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैं. जे. एम. सम्सी एण्ड कं. एवम् मै. वेस्टर्न स्टार 'लाईन्स प्रा. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 2, मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआई टी-2/58/2002 ) को 2172 GL/08-13
3131 प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-31011/3/2002-आई आर ( एम) ] कमल बाखरु , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 29th May, 2008
S.O. 1491. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT- 2/58/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . J. М. Baxi & Co. and M/s . Western Star Lines Pvt. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Govemment on 29-5-2008 .
[No. L-31011 /3/2002- IR (M) ) KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2, MUMBAI Present: A. A. Lad, Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT-2/58 of 2002 Employers in relation to the Management of:
(1 ) M/s. J. M. Baxi and Co.
(2) M/s . Western Star Lines Pvt. Ltd.
1. The General Manager, J. M. Baxi & Co., 16, Bank Street, P.O. Box No. 731 , Mumbai -400001
2.M/s . Western Star Lines Pvt . Ltd. , Bank ofBaroda Building, 3rd Floor, Mumbai Samachar Marg, Fort, Mumbai -400001 . AND
Their Workman
The Vice President, Nhava Seva Port and General Workers ' Union , PortTrust Kamgar Sadan, 2nd Floor, Nawab Tank Road,
Mazgaon, Mumbai -400010 3132
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008/ JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
APPEARANCES
FortheEmployer No. 1 :Mr.P. Ramaswamy, Advocate
For the Employer No. 2 Mr. М. В. Аnchan , Advocate
For the Workmеn
:Mr. J. H. Sawant, Advocate
Mumbai , dated 18th March, 2008
AWARD
TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L-31011/3 /2002 - IR (M) dated 11-7-2002 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section ( 1) and Sub - section 2(A) of Section10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of M/s . J. M. Baxi & Co. and M/ s . Western Star Lines Pvt. Ltd. in terminating the services of76 workmen as per Annexure ' A' enclosed is legal, justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to ? " List as per Annexure 'A'
Sr. No.
Name
1 2
I. Mr. Sunil Sequiera
2. Mr. Mark Pinto
3. Mr. John Fernandes
4. Mr. Dharmesh Kindalkar
5. Mr. Derrick Lobo
6. Mr. A. B. Patankar
7. Mr. G. Elizer
8. Mr. Mohiddin Sheikh
9. Mr. Sailesh Pednekar
10. Mr. Sachin Dalal
11. Mr. S. Y. Rawle
12. Mr. V. K. Singh
13. Mr. Sabbir Sheikh
14. Mr. G. G. Kedrekar
15. Mr. S. R. Bharadwaj
16. Mr. Jackson Fernandes
17. Mr. Deepak Kindalkar
18. Mr. H. M. Mhatre
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 1
2
19. Mr. A. R. Patel
20. Mr. Y.D. Patel
21. Mr. Hemant Dave
22. Mr. Hoshiyar Singh
23. Mr. S. Sarkar
24, Mr. H. R. Kindalkar
25. Mr. ZoozerBengali
26. Mr. Patrick Pasanna
27. Mr. G.S. Chavan
28. Mr. Shrikant Singh
29. Mr. R. V. Shirke.
30. Mr. Balakrishna Nair
31 . Mr. Darryl Lobo
32. Mr. Walliam Balid
33. Mr. Robert Godiwala
34. Mr. P. S. Katkar
35. Mr. B. A. Vaity
36. Mr. Pravin Shirke
37. Mr. Michel Fernandes
38. Mr. Michel D'Souza
39. Mr. O. P. Singh
40. Mr. P. S. Pandian
41. Mr. Pandurang Naik
42. Mr. Domnic Corriea
43. Mr. Sayed Imran
44. Mr. C. S.Gowda
45. Mr. C. R. Poojary
46. Mr. A. K. Singh
47. Mr. L. B. Singh
48. Mr. Suresh Ulvekar
49. Mr. N. Shaji
50. Mr. A. D. Waingankar
51. Mr. Ramachandra Shirke
52. Mr. Satish Dalvi
53. Mr.Robert D'Souza
54. Mr. Sarju Pednekar 3133 [भाग II- खंड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
1 2
55. Mr. Naresh Kindalkar
56. Mr. H. C.Dubey
57. Mr. R. S. Tandel
58. Mr. Dhananjay Thakur
59. Mr. Manohar Sarode
60. Mr. Jayesh B. Gharat
61. Mr. Damodar Thakur
62. Mr. Uttam Mhatre
Mr. Prakash Thakur 63.
Mr. Janardan Koli 64.
Mr. Jagdish Gharat 65.
66. Mr. Pravin Thakur
67. Mr. Smil Masane
these workmen's benefits. In additionto that, I. M. Baxi & Co. has shown these workmen working with Western Star Lines Pvt. Ltd. According to union, actually they areworking for J. M. Baxi & Co. and are not employees ofM/ s . Western Star Lines Pvt. Ltd. In fact M/s . Western Star Lines Pvt. Ltd. is a part and parcel of J. M. Baxi & Co. Though Union signed settlement between union and M/s. Western Star Lines Pvt . Ltd. , in an anxiety to give benefit to the workers, but actually it was an agreement between union and M/s . J. M. Baxi & Co. According to union , the action taken by M/s . J. M. Baxi & Co. through M/s . Western Star Lines Pvt. Ltd. in terninnting these 76 workmen involved in the reference is illegal and unjustified. So it is prayed that, said action brought into force w.e.f. 1-4-2001 against the workers from Sr. nos . 1 to72 and w.e.f. 3-10-2000, for the workers from Sr. Nos. 73 to76be delcared void, illegal and Management No. I bedirectedtotreat them as their employees and prayed to reinstate with M/s. J. M. Baxi & Co. with full backwages and connmity ofservice.
68. Mr. R. G. Gharat
69. Mr. R. C. Pawar
70. Mr. M. A. Khan
71. Mr. S. S. Patil
72. Mr. Surendra Panda
73. Mr. Narayanan
74. Mr. Ramesh Koli
75. Mr. Ramesh Rasal
76. Mr. Jaisinga
2.To establish claim of these workers against first partyNo. 1 and first partyNo. 2, Vice President ofNhava Sheva Port and General Workers Union has filed Claim Statement at Ex- 8 making out case that, 76 workmen involved in the reference whose names appear in the annexure 'A ' of the reference order were attending the work ofM/ s. J. M. Baxi & Co. functioning at majorPorts ofJawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Mumbai and at other ports in India. The work being attended by them was relatedto the shipping agency taken over by M/s . J. M. Baxi & Co. These workmen were attending job of M/s . J. M. Baxi & Co. includingwork of delivery challans, dock entry passes, statement ofloading , correspondence , activity report etc. Inordertodefy the rights and benefits of these workmen, they are not treated as employees by M/s . J. M. Baxi & Co.and theyhave not made therm permanent . According to Vice President of Union, workman were attedning perraanent nature of work ofM/s . J. M. Baxi & Co. though they were shown and treated as workmen supplied by M/s . Western Star Lines Pvt. Ltd. to M/ s. J. M. Baxi & Co.It is case of Union that, said agreement between M/s . J. M. Baxi & Co. and M/ s . Western Star Lines Pvt. Ltd. was sham and bogus and it was made just to deprive
3. This is disputed by First Party No. 1 M/s. J. M. Baxi & Co. by filing Written statement at Ex -9 stating and making out case that, M/s . J. M. Baxi & Co. is a partnership firm engaged in handling ofshipping agency, stevedoring , clearing and forwarding and project transportation at various ports in India including JNPT. It is further contended that the work taken by M/s . J. M. Baxi & Co. is of unloading of bulk fertilizers cargo at JNPT and also bagging the material of bulk cargo into small baggage, stitching them , loading and unloading it to transport it to different Ports. The main work of the emplyees working there is to do that work. Since work is required to be supervised, Company had entered into an agreement with M/s . Western Star Lines Pvt. Ltd. for supply ofsupervisors for supervision of work ofthe dock workers as well as other contract employees . It is contended that, nature of their work intermittent and not continuous which depend on arrival of ships at JNPTwith bulk cargo . However JNPT partially discontinued receiving bulk cargo at its port and accordingly during year 2000-01 there was reduction of work by 50%. In the same year, fertilizers and urea was not imported as bulk cargo to JNPT. According to J. M. Baxi & Co. , the cargo business came down by 50% and as such, requirement of supervisors for supervision came down and hence M/s, J. M. Baxi & Co. informed the Western Star Lines Pvt. Ltd. not to send supervisors for supervision. As a result ofthat M/s . Western Star Lines vt . Ltd , terminated services ofthese supervisors since there was no workwith them with M/s . J. M. Baxi & Co. It is further contended that, these workmen are not workuren under Industrial DisputesAct. Besides, Western Star Lines Pvt . Ltd. has paidretrenchment compensation and notice pay to these workmen as required under Industrial Disputes Act. Since they are retrenched by Western Star Lines Pvt. Ltd. , they 3134
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008/JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
cannot claim relief form M/ s . I. M. Baxi & Co. It is further contended that, there is no employer-employee relationship with these 76 workmen and M/s . J. M. Baxi &Co. There is no master and servant relationship since there was no work and M/ s . J. M. Baxi & Co. intimated its agency i.e. M/ s. Western Star Lines who terminated service of these persons . They have no reason to claim any relief against M/s . J. M. Baxi & Co. So it is prayed that, prayer prayed against M/ s . J. M. Baxi & Co. be rejected.
4.M/s .Western Star Lines Pvt . Ltd. by filing Written statement at Ex- 10 , made out case that , the 76 persons involved in the reference are not workmen at all . They are ' supervisors' since they were getting salary more then Rs. 1,600 per month . Even they are shown as a supervisor. It is further contended that, no demand is made against M/ s. Western Star Lines Pvt. Ltd. So no relief can be granted against it . It is stated that , Western Star Lines , Pvt. Ltd., has nothing to do with M/ s . J. M. Baxi and Co. It is independent body. Number of work was assigned by M/s . J. M. Baxi & Co. to this company which it handled timeand again, It is stated that, import ofbulk cargo came down upto50% between 1997 and 2000. In this situation , ithad no option but to reduce the strength of its man power. Since M/ s . J. M. Baxi & Co. informed it that , M/s. J. M. Baxi & Co. cannot accept the services ofthese 76 employees, no option remained with Western Star Lines Pvt. Ltd. but to terminate the services of these 76 persons by following due process of law . They offered compensation as well as notice pay. Since action taken by Western Star Lines was just and proper, it does not require tobe interfered. So it is submitted that , reference be rejected.
5. Inview of above pleading , my leamed predecessor framed issues at Ex- 14 which I answer as follows :
Yes i. Whether the workers under reference 76 were in the employment ofmanagement of M/ s . J. M. Baxi Co. as averred in statement of clampara 3 ?
ii. Whether union proves that agreements/arrangements between M/ s . J. M. Baxi & Co. and M/ s . Western Star Lines PVL Ltd. was sham, bogus and camouflage in averred in para 4 of the statement of claim ?
Yes
No. ii. Does management M/ s . Western Star Lines Pvt. Ltd. prove that workers under reference are not workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act ?
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
No. iv. Whether the action ofthe management of Mis . J. M. Baxi &Co. in terminating the services of the said workmen under reference is legal and justified ?
No. v. Whether the action of the management of M/ s . Western Star Lines Pvt . Ltd. in terminating the services of the said workmen under reference is legal and justified?
vi . What relief the concemed workmen are entitled to ?
Workmen involved in thereference are entitled forreinstate- ment with 25% back- wages.
REASONS
Issue No. 3:
6. Number of issues are framed on the pleadings of the parties concerned . Issue of ' workman ' is framed on thebasis of pleadings of both managements , since both have taken contention that , persons involved in the reference are not workmen under Industrial DisputesAct. Since this issue goes to the root of the case, I am taking this issue at the beginning for discussion .
7. Case of both the management is that, persons involved in the reference are ' supervisors ' and nor workmen. Even in the written statement M/ s . J. M. Baxi &Co. has made out case which is repeated by the other management i.e. Western Star Lines Pvt. Ltd. addressing these persons as ' supervisors ' . However reference is sent for adjudication by the Government of India treating these persons as workmen .
8. Now let us see that evidence is led by both managements to prove that , persons involved in the reference are not workmen' but are ' supervisors' ? In fact burden lies on both ie. on workman and as well as on both the managements . Mr. Jaiprakash Sawant who is a professional Advocate who as the Vice- President of the Nhava Sheva Port and General Workers Union , in his affidavit Ex -21 , address these persons as ' workmen' . He claims that, these persons were attending permanent nature ofwork. In the cross name of one of the person by name Mhatre is referred describing as a ' supervisor ' at Ex- 15/ 13 . Said Mhatre is described as a ' Welder' . The case of the management is that, he was not doing loading and unloading work . Suggestion was put that except electrician,driver and peon, all other were in the category of supervisors which is denied by Sawant in his cross .
3135 [ भाग II- खंड (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008/ ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
Against that, Management led evidence of one Parikh of whose affidavit is filed at Ex-25. It does not spell any thing about status of these persons . However in the cross , this witness admits that, these employees are not authorised to sanction leave nor authorised to take action against others. He also admits that, these employees were not involved in taking major policy decisions and he admits that, these persons were attending clerical work. Though management examined other witnesses, said witness is silent on the work of nature of work attended bythesepersons.
9. So this is the evidence about status of the persons involved in this reference . Case of both managements is that , since some of the persons were described as 'supervisor and designated to that effect, they are not workmen. But here duties of those persons are not brought on record to take away them from the definition of 'workman'. No specific case is made out to conclude that, persons involved in the reference required to not to call as 'workman' . Merely because they are designated as 'supervisors ' it does not mean that they automatically get status of supervisor. On the contrary , nature of work attended by them in dockyard of loading and unloading and attendingwork of electricians, technicians and driving work or attending clerical work cannot be observed not donebythe workman. It is admitted fact that, these persons were doing that type of work that too in the Dock where both managements were engaged in handling of bulk Cargo. Bulk Cargo means a cargo which is not coming in handling position. To bring cargo in handling position, some process is required and that process of unloading , filling them into small bags , weighing those , recording its numbers , stitching of bags of it and again loading of it in different vehicles to transport it and send out of area of dock. Besides , no specific case is made out by both managements . Quantum of salary of each of them cannot take them away from the definition of' workman ' . Besides it is to be noted that after conciliation proceedings and after sending failure report by Conciliation Officer. 'Government ofIndia' sent this reference for adjudication treating these persons as ' workmen ' . The various steps taken in the case of these persons favour them in concluding that , they are workmen , Naturally burden shifts on management to prove that, they are not ' workmen'. Since that burden is not properly discharged by both managements , I conclude that these persons are workmen. So I answer this issue in the affirmative .
Issue Nos. 1 & 2 :
stevedoring and other port related activities. They were attending job of M/s J. M. Baxi &Co. Said company in order to deprivethese workmen of their rights and benefits, theywere not made permanent by said company and an such, they are entitled to be continued in service in this Company. It is further contended that though these workmen were attending permanent nature of work of M/ s J. M. Baxi & Co. they were shown and treated as workmen suppliedby M/s. Western Star Lines Pvt. Ltd. to M/ s J. M. Baxi & Co. for the work of M/s. J. M. Baxi & Co. According to union said arrangement or agreement between M/s J. M. Baxi & Co. with M/ s Star Line Pvt Ltd. was sham and bogus and it was mere camouflage to deprive these workmen of their benefits . According to union actually workers involved in the reference are the employees of M/ s J. M. Baxi & Co. and not concerned with so called Western Star Lines Pvt . Ltd. which is mere name lender and paper arrangement . It is further stated that, union signed settlement with M/s. Western Star Line Pvt. Ltd. in an anxiety for improvement of service conditions of workmen , which does not mean that, M/sWestern Star Line Pvt. Ltd. is the employer and these employees are their employees . So it is stated that, termination w.e.f. 1-4-2001 of these 72 workmen i.e. workman from Sr. no . 1 to 72 w.e.f. 1-4-2001 and 4 workmen at Sr. no. 73 to 76 w.e.f. 10-3-2000 by M/s J. M. Baxí & Co. was done in violation of principles of natural justice and to vicitmise these workmen and effect of it was given without following provisions of Section 25 F ofIndustrial Disputes Act . It is also stated that M/s J. M. Baxi &Co. through its agent M/s Western Star Lines Pvt . Ltd. retrenched the workmen on the ground of 'work not available' is not just and proper and the termination dated 30-3-2001 issued by the management to the workmen is bad in law. Whereas case of the M/s J. M. Baxi & Co. is that, it entered in to agreement with Western Star Line Pvt. Ltd. for supply of supervisors . The nature ofwork was intermittent and not continuous depending upon the arrival of ship with bulk cargo . According to M/s J. M. Baxi &Co., work of receiving cargo at ports during 2000- 2001 reduced by 50 %. In the same year fertilizer and urea was not imported as bulk cargo. As a result no business of cargo and as it came down by less than 50 % , the requirement of these supervisors eame down and thus M/s . J. M. Baxi & Co. had informed Western-Star Line Pvt . Ltd. that , it does not require services of these supervisors from April 2001. Accordingly, Western Star Lines Pvt . Ltd. might have terminated the services of these workmen. It is stated that, there is no employer - employee relation or master & servant relation between M/s J. M. Baxi & Co. and these employees since the employees involved in the reference are not directly employed by M/ s J. M. Baxi & Co. Union cannot pray to reinstate the employees by M/s J. M. Baxi & Co. Against that, standof the M/s Western Star Line Pvt. Ltd, is that, since no demand was made by these workmen against Western Star 10. The Vice President of Nhava Seva Port Trust andGeneral Workers Union in claim statement Ex-8 made out case that, workers involved in the reference were attending work of management of M/s J. M. Baxi & Co. functioning at major ports of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust and other ports in India, Work of M/s J. M. Baxi & Co. is attended byworkmen which is relating to shipping agency, 3136
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 21 , 2008/ JYAISTHA 31 , 1930 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] LinesPvt. Ltd. reference is not maintainable. It is further stated that, it is independent agency supplying workers to the M/ s J. M. Baxi & Co. It has nothing to do with M/sJ . M. Baxi & Co. It is also stated that since there was Dowork with M/s J. M. Baxi & Co. they informedWestern Star Lines Pvt . Ltd. not to send these workers and accordingly, Western Star Line informd workers not to report on duty. Even they have paid retrenchment compensation to the workers and these 76 employees cannot seek relief against M/ s J. M. Baxi & Co.
11. So we have to see whether the workmen involved in the reference were directly working with M/s J. M. Baxi & Co. or Western Star Line Pvt. Ltd. was having control over these employees ? We have to also seewho is the real employer and whether Western Star Line Pvt. Ltd. is a mere name lender as claimed by the union who was playing role at the instance of M/ s J. M. Bazi & Co. ?
that, M/s . J. M. Baxi & Co. handles the work of bulk cargo at various ports . He admits that , he has not supervised the work of these workers . He admits that seniority list of these workers was never displayed . He unable to state , whether Western Starlines Pvt. Ltd. has valid labour contract license . He admits that , Mr. Dhawle is the General Manager of M/ s . J. M. Baxi & Co. He unable to state whether some workers were directly employed by M/ s . J. M. Baxi & Co. He admits that, his name was published in the diary of M/ s . J. M. Baxi &Co. He also admits that , his name was displayed in the diary ofM/ s . J. M. Baxi & Co. as he is consulted in advisory capacity in respect of finance of the said company. He admits that , he goes through the accounts of M/ s . J. M. Baxi & Co. He admits that , he was appointed by Mr. K. В. Kotak who is the Director of Western Starline Pvt. Ltd. He admits that, said Kotak instructed him to help M/ s. J. M. Baxi & Co. regarding finance . Then one more witness was examined at Ex -27 by name S. Surendra Nath. Hewas examined by filing affidavit in lieu of examination- in-chief who tried to project the scope of M/ s . J. M. Baxi &Co. , its business activities and how it took services of Western Starline Pvt . Ltd. in handling cargo. He also tried to project regarding reduction of cargo and reason behind said reduction as well as instruction of M/s . J. M. Baxi & Co. to Western Starlines Pvt . Ltd. not to send workers on work. In the cross this witness states that, Mr. Naresh Bhai Kotak , Bhagwan Kotak and Krishna Kotak are the partners of M/ s . J. M. Baxi & Co. He also admits that, it is a proprietary concern. He admits that Chaterjee was Chairman upto 2001. He unable to state whether , T. A. Shetty and one Shrivastav for M/ s . J. M. Baxi & Co. were supervising work of these workmen. He unable to state the name of other agency who is helping M/s . J. M. Baxi & Co. in handling cargo . He admits that he has not scen any agreement took place between M/ s . J. M. Baxi &Co. with Western Starline Pvt . Ltd. who agreed to supply services. He admits that, he has no personal knowledge about pages 50 & 51 of Ex- 32 vis - a- vis pages 52-54 of Ex-32. He admits that pages 1-49 of Ex - 32 are the copies ofthe diary published for the year 2005-06 by M/ s . J. M. Baxi & Co. and on that M/ s . J. M. Baxi & Co , closed evidence by filing purshis Ex-30 . Against that Western Starlines Pvt. Ltd. chose not to lead evidence and filed purshis Ex-31 .
13. Written arguments are submitted by union at Ex-37 and by M/ s . J. M. Baxi & Co. at Ex - 38 , whereas it issubmitted by Western Star Lines Pvt . Ltd. at Ex -39 and additional Arguments at Ex-40 .
14. So here evidence lead by M/ s. J. M. Baxi & Co. through S. K. Parekh Ex -25 and S. Surendra Nath Ex-27 shows that M/ s . J. M. Baxi & Co. is concerned with Western Starline Pvt. Ltd. On the contrary S. K. Parekh Ex -25 admits that M/ s .. Western Starline is a sister concern of M/ s . , J. M. Baxi & Co. and Kotak 12. For that, if we peruse the evidence of union filed by it by filing affidavit in lieu of examination- in- chiefof Jaiprakash Sawant Ex - 21 who reproduced all the story as narrated above and as a pleaded by the union . In the cross he denied that , there was reduction in supply of fertilizer in 2001-2002. He deny that employees involved in the reference are not the employees ofM's . J. M. Baxi & Co. He deny that, employees involved in the reference were working under the control ofM/s. Western Star Lines Pvt. Ltd. who supplied the services of these workmen to M/s . J. M. Baxi & Co. He admits that, notice pay was paid by Western Starline vis - a- vis retrenchment compensation to these workers . He named the person S. K. Chatterjee saying that, he was supervising the work of these workers on behalf of M/ s . J. M. Baxi & Co. He has produced relating document at Ex - 15/ 1 . Mr. Sawant claims that appointment orders were issued to these workers byM/ s . J. M. Baxi & Co. Howeverhe unable to produce those appointment orders . He denied that there was reduction in supply of bulk cargo which invite M/ s. J. M. Baxi & Co. to inform Western Starlines Pvt. Ltd. not to sent these workers on work . And on this evidence union closed evidence by filing purshis Ex-24. Against that, M/ s . J. M. Baxi & Co. filed an affidavit of S. K. Parekh in lieu of examination - in -chief Ex- 25 who denied the relationship with workers and made out case that, the workers involved in this reference were working through Western Starline Pvt. Ltd. In the cross this witness states that,he never attended work place where workers wereworking. He unable to state whether, Western Starline Pvt. Ltd. is a part and parcel of M/ s . J. M. Baxi & Co. He admits that M/s , Western Starlines Pvt . Ltd , is a sister concern of M/ s . J. M. Baxi & Co. Mr. Krishna Kotak, Digector ofM/s..Western Starline Pvt. Ltd. appointed him în. He unable to state whether said Kotak is Head of M/s. J. M. Baxi & Co. He admits that, all transactions took place at the instance of Krishna Kotak. He admits 3137 [भाग II-खंड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008/व्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
arrangement just to deprive the rights and benefits to these workers so I answer these issues to that effect.
Issue Nos. 4& 5 :
15. In this reference at the instance of M/s. J. M. Baxi& Co. it is alleged that, Western Starline terminated the service of these workmen. But actually evidence brought on record reveals that , there is no separate entity bynameWestern Starline Pvt. Ltd. who has independent business of supplying labours like this to M/s . J. M. Baxi &Co. On the contrary so called paper arrangement (which isalso not on record) is an arrangement appears made by M/s. 1. M. Baxi & Co. itselfby bringing Western Starline inpicture to deprive the workers to claim their relation with M/s. J. M. Baxi & CO . So no action was taken by M/s. J. M. Baxi & Co. directly but it took said action of termination through Western Starline. So we have to presume that, said action is not an action of Western Starline but is an action of M/ s. J. M. Baxi & Co. itself.
16. Now we have to see whether there was reason to terminate these employees ? Case of the M/ s. J. M. Baxi &Co. is that there was no work available since bulk cargowhich was receiving in the JNPT reduced by50%. They unable to supply work to the workers and so instructed Western Starline not to send these workers on work.
17. Actually as far as so called understanding between M/ s . J. M. Baxi & Co. with Western Starline is concerned, is not brought on record in any form except verbal statement so we cannot accept that Western Star- line was working for M/s . J. M. Baxi & Co. or was supplying the labours involved in the reference to M/s , J. M. Baxi & Co.
18. Ifwe see the position ofreduction ofbulk cargo by 50% in the JNPT as per case made out by first party which was the main reason of M/ s . J. M. Baxi & Co. in terminating these employees , we find that though there was reduction in fertilizer traffic to the extend of 50%, there was growth to the extend of 37.32% in liquid cargo which may reach upto 30 lakhs ( 3 million) by end of year 2001. Besides to show there is reduction in bulk fertilizer traffic no any authentic record is produced by M/ s . J. M. Baxi & Co. to prove it. The evidence produced by M/s . J. M. Baxi & Co. through witness no. 2, S. Surendranath is in the form of xerox copies . No other written evidence is brought or called by M/s . J. M. Baxi & Co. from JNPT to show they have good ground to terminate service ofthese workers . Just they rely on xerox copies which are not authentic one which are not supported by any other evidence . So the main ground taken by M/s . J. M. Baxi & Co. of reduction in bulk cargo by 50% and more is not at all proved to conclude that , no work is available with M/ s . J. M. Baxi & Co.
19. Besides , Western Starline did not lead any evidence and pointed out by which correspondence advised this witness to help Western Starline Pvt. Ltd. Even this witness stated that Krishna Kotak a Director of M/s. J. M. Baxi & Co. appointed this witness with Western Starline . He also admits that , all settlement and transactions took place were at the instance of Krishna Kotak. When Western Starlines is a sister concern of M/s. J. M. Baxi & Co. , and when working of Western Starline Pvt. Ltd. is looked after by person appointed like S. K. Parekh , by Krishna Kotak who is a Director of M/s. J. M. Baxi & Co. Even witness S. Surendranathan does not specifically deny the control and supervision of theMr. Chatterjee and Mr. Shetty on behalf of M/a. J. M. Baxi & Co. on the workers involved in the reference , question arises how workmen can be said not workers of M/s . J. M. Baxi & Co. and workmen of Western Starline Pvt . Ltd.? Here union claims that, there was a bogus agreement between M/ s. J. M. Baxi & Co. and Western Starlines Pvt. Ltd., Infact said agreement is not brought on record which empower M/ s . J. M. Baxi & Co. to say that they really asked Western Starline to supply the services ofworkers , Moreover documents prochiced by union in xerox fonn with Ex- 15 more precisely Ex-15/1 bears the seal ofM/s. J. M. Baxi & Co. Same is the position with document produce with 15/3-9 and that fact is not disputed by M/ s. J. M. Baxi & Co. Besides , this document does not reveal the name of the contractor on the contract. On the right upper portion of wage slip produced from pages 1-9 with Ex- 15 bears the seal of the M/ s . J. M. Baxi &Co. Besides documents produced with Exs . 15/11 &12 is on the letter head of M/ s . J. M. Baxi & Co. Even copy of attendance register produced with 15/13 bears seal/signature of M/ s .. J. M. Baxi & Co. No doubt Vice President, Shri J. Sawant entered into settlement with Western Starline. Still he explains that he entered into settlement with Western Starline for the benefit ofthe workers . Besides letter produced with Ex- 15 /16 addressed toKrishna Kotak by J. H. Sawant reveals that, he brought that settlement in the notice of Krishna Kotak who is Director of M/s . J. M. Baxi & Co. When M/s . J. M. Baxi &Co. is not concerned with these workers as claimed by first partythen how M/s . J. M. Baxi & Co. was controlling activities ofWestern Starline and how it was looking after activities of Western Starlines ? So according to me all these reveals that , Western Star line is a narme lending agency brought on record just to show that, M/ s . J. M: Baxi & Co. is not concerned with the employees andthe employees cannot claim any relief against M /s . J. M. Baxi & Co. If at all M/ s . J. M. Baxi & Co. entered into agreement with Western Starline, then question ariseswhy such type of agreement is not on record ? So all these reveals that the employees involved in the reference are the direct employees of M/ s . J. M. Baxi & Co. and not concerned with M/ s .. Western Starline Pvt . Ltd. It also reveals that , there was no genuine agreement of arrangement between M/s . J. M. Baxi & Co. and Western Starline. Actually it reveals that, so called arrangement between these two was sham bogus and camouflage 3138
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008/ JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 2, मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआई टी 2/36/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-31012/5 / 1997 - आई आर ( एम) ] कमल बाखरु, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 29th May, 2008
S.O. 1492.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT- 2/36/2007) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bombay Port Trust and their workman, which was received by the Central Governanent on 29-5-2008 ,
[No. L- 31012/5/ 1997 - IR (M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
M/s . J. M. Baxi & Co , instructed it not to send these workers on work. It is also not pointed out by any of them astohow they decided to take action against theseworkers ofthese type making ground of no work . On the contrary Western Starline did not lead any evidence . It reveals that, it want to hit the workers by putting gun on the shoulder ofM/ s. J. M. Baxi & Co. and at the same time M/ s . J. M. Baxi & Co. also acting like that and want to hit workers by putting gun on Western Starline . Initially M/ s . J. M. Baxi & Co. and Western Starline did not establish that they entered into any particular arrangement and agreement which empower Western Starline to supply workers of these type and they have supplied workers to M/s. J. M. Baxi & Co. on that basis. Besides both have not shown what is the reason behind terminating the service ofthese workers . The reason shown by Western Starlines of instruction of M/s . J. M. Baxi & Co. is not supported by leading evidence by any of them. So all these leadto conclude that, Western Starlines in the guise of instruction given by M/s . J. M. Baxi & Co. of termination underthe challenge is not legal andjustified. So I answer these issues to that effect.
Issue No. 6 :
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 , MUMBAI
PRESENT :
A. A. Lad, Presiding Officer
Reference No. CGIT- 2/36 of 2007 (Old Ref. No. CGIT- 1/54 of 1997)
Employers in relation to the management of Bombay PortTrust
The Chairman, Bombay Port Trust , Ballard Estate, Mumbai
... 1st Party
AND
Their Workmen
20. When M/s J. M. Baxi & Co. as well as Western Starlines fails to prove that, they have reason to terminate service of these workers , in my considered view, they required to reinstate. It is matter of record that these workers are not working with neither with M/ s . J. M. Baxi & Co. nor with Western Starline Pvt. Ltd. from the date of termination i.e. workers mentioned from St. Nos. 1 to 72 w.e.f. 1-4-2001 and from $1, Nos . 73 to 76 w.e.f. 3-10-2000 . It is also matter of record that , both these companies failed to establish that they have good reason to terminate the services of these workers . No case is made out byboth parties i.e. by union that workers are without job.andbyboth companies that workers involved in the reference are doing job and are gainful employment. When both are sitent on gainful employment, in my considered view, I feel order of reinstatement with 25 % backwages will meet the ends ofjustice hence the order:
Shri Gunaji Bhikaji Masavkar, Sonaji Nagar , Chawl No. 2 , Room No. 2, Mumbra, Distt . Thane 2nd Party ORDER
APPEARANCE :
(i) Reference is partly allowed.
For the Employer Mr. M. B. Anchan, Advocate.
For the Workmen Mr. Jaiprakash Sawant , Advocate.
(ii) M/s J. M. Baxi & Co is directed to reinstate these workers by giving benefit ofbackwages to the extent of25% from the date of reference till they are reinstated.
Date of reserving Award : 31-1-2008 Date of passing of Award : 9-4-2008 Date : 18-3-2008 A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 मई, 2008
AWARD
The matrix of the facts as culled out from the proceedings are as under :
का. आ. 1492.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बम्बई पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक
1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour by itsOrder No. L- 31012/ 5/97 - IR ( Misc. ) dated 30th June , [भाग II-खंड 3(ii) ]
1997 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause(d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the Management ofBombay PortTrust indismissing the services of Shri Gunaji Bhikaji Masavkar is justified ? If not, to whatrelief the workman is entitled ?"
2. 2nd Party in support of his demand has filed Claim Statement at Exhibit 3 stating that, the Docks Manager,M.P. placed the Workman under suspension by his order dated 24h July, 1987 on the ground that a criminal case against him was under trial . The criminal case referred in the charge-sheet ended in clear acquittal. The Workman requested the 1st Party, Management to reinstate him in service with full back wages and other benefits enclosing a copy of the judgment of the criminal Court. Ist Party, Management has initiated a departmental enquiry on the basis of the charge- sheet to the effect that hehas committed theft of film rolls . It was alleged that, theWorkman has committed misconduct punishableunder Rule 22(2) (b) of the BPT Rules and misconduct in violation of Regulation 3 ( 1 ) of the BPT Employees Conduct Regulations . The workman participated in the enquiry. None of the witnesses supported 1st Party, the Management, but yet the Enquiry Officer gave his finding that the charge against the workman was established. The workman brought to the notice of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate authority that the Criminal Court has acquitted the workman on the same charge and evidence, but the Authorities in colourable exercise of their powers imposed the punishment of dismissal of the Workman w.e.f. 23-8-1991.
3. The 1st Party, management in their Written Statement contended at Exhibit 5 that, on 17-2-1987 at about 11.00 a.m. Mr. Naik, Assistant Shed Superintendent noticed at Shed No. 17 some empty cartons on the North side of ' F' Bay. He informed the same to the Police Constable No. 9341 and asked him to inform the Yellow Gate Police Station . On checking it was found that, the pallet containing the film rolls was a part of the consignment of item No. 18 of the vessel 'BOIZENBURG ' . It was also found that 2011 rolls of film were missing. The Police arrested the 2nd Party and others. On 28th February, 1987 Mr. Rajihira has stated that, he alongwith Mr. Ashok Chavan, Keshav Mhatre and Ramesh Jadhav had stolen film rolls on 15-2-1987 from Shed No. 17 and volunteered to show the shop and the person to whom Ashok sold the same . He also led the Police party and pointed one person by name Mr. Roshanlal Ganelal Jain at Ruby Chambers Building , FortMarket , Roshanlal produced one gunny bag containing 7 boxes, each box containing 100 film rolls and they have been recovered on 27-6-1987. The workman 2172 G1/08-14
3139
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
herein in the presence of panchas stated that, he along withGhag, Ashok Chavan, and others had stolen six boxes containing film rolls. He also led the police and panchas toRoom No. 13, Building No. 4/16, ist floor , M. K. Amin Marg and pointed a person by name Gopal Sinha. Gopal Sinha produced one big size card board box containing 14packets each containing 10 film rolls and 8 pieces of film rolls . He also produced 5 card board boxes each containing 100 film rolls, made in Germany. Since the Workmanwas involved in a theft case he was also charge- sheetedbefore the Metropolitan Magistrate. ThePort Trust also issued a charge-sheet and conducted enquiry: Opportunity was given to the Workman following the principles of natural justice . After enquiry, the enquiry officer has given a finding that the charge against the workman has been proved. The disciplinary authority and the appellate authority applied their mind while taking action against the employee and they accepted the findings ofthe Enquiry Officer. Therefore , he was dismissed from service. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
4. In view of the above pleadings my Ld. Predecessor passed Part I Award on the point of fairness ofthe enquiry and on the findings of the EnquiryOfficer and then second time i.e. by Award-Part- II on the point ofwhat relief the Workman is entitled ?
5. Both Awards were in favour of the Workman. Said were challenged by the 1st Party by filing Writ Petition No. 3185 of 2004 and while disposing ofthe said WritPetition the Hon'ble High Court, observed following things about the findings given by this Tribunal on the enquiryand on the findings as well as on the action taken by the Management on the point of the demand of the 2nd Party Workman. The observations were as follows:
"In my view, in the present case , the CGIT has erred in coming to the conclusion that in view ofthe acquittal of the accused in the criminal case, the disciplinary enquiry was liable to be dropped and that since the accused was acquitted and the material which was used against the respondent in thedepartmental proceedings was the same material which was placed before the Criminal Court . The CGIT further erred in holding that in such circumstances, it was not upon for the Disciplinary Authortyto take a contrary view. It wouldbe relevant to reproduce the exact finding of the Tribunal .
"8. It is seen from the record workman Mr. Masavkar along with nine others were charge- sheeted vide 397/P of 1997 under Section 380 read with 114 of Indian Penal Code and were acquitted by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38thCourt, Ballard Pier, Bombay, on 23rd October 89. Their Lordships of the Bombay High Court in Chandrakant Raoji Gaonkar vs. Bombay Port Trust 3140
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008 /JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
isalready on record and the parties are not permitted to lead any further evidence, the CGIT shall decide the said issues. "
6. In view of this position on the basis of the observations made by our Hon'ble High Court while disposing of the Writ Petition No. 3185 of 2004 I have to consider the following Issues , which I answer as follows:
Issues
Answer
No
1. Whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse ?
Yes and Ors. 1995 I CLR 860 , ruled that Hon'ble acquittal in the criminal case on the merits, if charges in criminal case and disciplinary proceedings are common, effect of acquittal in criminal case warrants the dropping ofdisciplinary inquiry . In Abdul Hakim Ahmed vs. District Superintendent of Police 1978 CLR . Their Lordships of the Gujarat High Court held that on the basis of the same material and on the basis of re- appreciation of same evidence which was there before the criminal court , without anything more it is not open to the disciplinary authority to take contrary view and if this is permitted then it would render thejudicial system nugatory."
2. Whether punishment awarded ofdismissal is just and proper?
3. What order ?
Asper orderbelow
REASONS
IssueNo. 1 :
7. As far as Enquiry is concerned, now at this stage it is not necessary to comment on the enquiry and the procedure followed by the Enquiry Officer. While deciding Part- I Award opportunity was given to the Management to lead evidence and prove its case. While passing Award Part- 1 my Ld. Predecessor observed enquiry not fair and properand finding perverse. Then again opportunity was given to the management to lead evidence to show how, their act and how the decision taken by it was just and proper.While deciding that point also my Ld . Predecessor observed that the action of the BPT in dismissing the concerned Workman Shri Masavkar is unjust and improper and directed to reinstate the concerned Workman. It is a matter of record that, the concerned workman is in the employment and the Hon'ble High Court while disposing of the Writ Petition No. 3185 of 2004didnot interfere with that order and gave protection to the workman till CGIT decides this Reference as per directions given in the order dated 26th June, 2007.
In my view, the Tribunal clearly has committed an error of law which is apparent on the face of record. The Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, Delhi (supra) has observed in the said judgment that the confession by an accused was admissible even in departmental proceedings . In view of the said ratio laid down by theApex Court , in my view, CGIT ought to have taken into consideration the evidence on record and thereafter could have recorded its findings after appreciating the said statement which was recorded bythePoliceunder Section 27 of the Evidence Act . The OGIT, therefore, has erred in neglecting the statement merely because it was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It has also erred in neglecting the evidence ofInspector who had carried out the investigation in the criminal case . In my view, therefore, the Awards Part I and II passed by the CGIT are liable to be set aside . The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the inquiry which was heldwas fair and proper. It has , however, proceeded to record a finding that the finding of the Enquiry Officer was perverse .rse. This finding which has been given in Part Award will have to be set aside . Similarly, the Part II Award also will have to be set aside . The matter will have to be remanded backto the CGIT so that it made decide the said reference on the basis of evidence which is already adduced by both the parties and which is on record and thereafter, record its findings after taking into consideration the ratio of the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Police, Delhi ( supra) and Ajit Kumar Nag (supra) on merits and in accordance with law.
It is clarified that both the parties will notbe permitted to lead any further evidence and that the PresidingOfficer, CGIT, shall decide the said issues on the material which is already on record. It is clarified that CGIT shall also take into consideration the evidence which has been held in the inquiry before theDisciplinary Authority. Since the evidence '
8. Now, as per observations , if we peruse the findings as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 3185 of 2004 and if we peruse the proceedings of the enquiry which is on the record in the form of the copy of it , we find, it is filed by Mb . P.T. at Exhibit7. In the said enquiry , Inquiry Officer has recorded evidence of Sub-Inspector Mr. Thomas F.D'Souza who was Investing Officer in that criminal case and who arrested concerned workman involved in the Reference . In the evidence he stated that , during the course of investigations he found that , concerned Workman with the help ofother employees made efforts to commit theft ofthe Pallet film rolls from Shed No. 17 which is situated near Gate No. 17. He states that , he made efforts to trace the concerned workman by visiting his local address and also by visiting his native place . However, he could not 3141 [ भाग 1-सखंड ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008/श्रेष्ठ 31 , 1930
recorded by Police in the firvestigation generally is not acceptable unless it is corroborated by the witnesses before the Court of Law to take care that police should not instrument anybody under that investigating power. Whereas the forum like Tribunal is different and it cannot equatewith the case which is conducted before the Court of law. In the domestic enquiry provisions of the Indian EvidenceAct are not strictly followed as followed in the Court of law. Tribunal is a Court of adjudication. Whereas enquiry is asort of enquiry conductedbythe Department where, procedure of Indian Evidence Act are not admittedly followed. The role of the Inquiry Officer is at the most at par with the investigation machinery which includes policeconducting investigation under Criminal Procedure Code and submit the charge-sheet. But the inquiry is conducted by giving an opportunity to bothand that Inquiry Officer submits its findings to the Management who then think over it and decides what decision canbe taken ? So the provisions of Indian Evidence Act are not strictly followed in the domestic enquiryand relying on the ratio laid in Commissioner of Police, Delhi vs. Nareukira & Ors . AIR 2006 SC page 1800 (Supra) and with the help of this same weight is required to be given to the evidence of the investigation officer whohas stated before the Enquiry Officer that, he arrested this workman , recover stolen articles at his information and recovered those from the shop shown by this workman. He further states that the concerned workman led him to the shop at Bora Bazar from where the articles were recovered. It is to be noted that Sub- InspectorMr. Thomas F. D'Souza investigated the matter and filed charge-sheet against this workman along with others. Even the deposed to that effect in the Criminal Court . But Criminal Court did not rely only on his deposition as it was not corroborated by Panchas who turned hostile. There criminal trials which ultimately resulted in acquittal . Even copy of that judgment is produced where Criminal Court observed that "prosecution has not proved case beyond reasonable doube" and acquitted this workman. Here Inquiry Officer recorded evidence of Sub- Inspector Mr. Thomas F. D'Souzawho was the Govertiment officer and investigating officer in criminal case.He arrested this workman and filed charge- sheet. Even this workmath was charge- sheeted prosecuted. But unfortunately evidences recorded by the Enquiry OfficerofSub-Inspector Mr. Thomas F. D'Souza was not considered while pasting Part I Award and as observed. by the Hon'ble High Court, evidence recorded of Sub- Inspector Mr. Thomas F. D'Souza, in the investigation and given by him in the inquiry was not considered observing it was not considered by the Criminal Court observing that no sufficient evidence was there to convict this workman. Here there was evidence of sub- inspector like this, who had stated before the Inquiry Officer that, he arrested this workman and charge- sheeted him. He also made a voluntary statement before him that, with the trace the concerned workman. He states that, on 26thJune, 1987 be traced the concerned workman in, Thane District and brought him to Mumbai and he detained him and kept him under interrogation. He states before Inquiry Officer that, on 27th June, 1987 he was placed on remand and on the same day he made voluntary statement under Section 27 of Criminal Procedure Code saying that, he along with Harishchandra Tukaram Ghag , Ashok Chavan and 6 others committed theft ofPallet film rolls from Shed No. 17 on 15-2-1987 and volunteered that be will point out those boxes and the shopkeeper and place ofthat shop towhom itwas sold. Accordingly Panchnama to that effect was drawn by this Investigation officer Mr. Thomas F.D'Souza. He further states that, accused led him to one shopby name Mahalaxmi Steel Emporium st BoraBazar, Mumbai and asked one Gopalsinha to produce the articles sold by them . Accordingly said Shop owner produced six card boardboxes containing pallet film rolls when counted theywere totaling to 648 film roila . Said card board boxes alongwith film rolls were taken into custody with the help of concerned workman and statement of Gopalsinha, Shopkeeper was recorded and afterwards a case was filed against the concerned workman along with others . In the cross said witness before Enquiry officer stick with his deposition and case made by him . Except giving suggestions to that witness , no specific case is put up by theDefence Counsel of the concerned Workman . So from the witnesses examined before the Enquiry Officer we find this workman was involved and police were having evidence against him . He denied the suggestion of the Defence Counsel before the Inquiry Officer. Hon'bleHigh Court observed that, evidence recorded before Inquiry Officer of this type ought to have been considered by the CGIT relying on the ratio published in AIR 2006 SC page 1800 laidwhile deciding the case ofPolice Commissioner, Delhi V/s. Narendra Singh . In that case (Supra) also the accused made confession and had pointed out the place where he allegedly concealed 2 revolvers and one pistol. In that case it was not suggested that , no question was put to the witnesses saying that, said document is forged or fabricated. The order was passed by the Magistrate after four years from the date of the institution of the case. Even in that case (supra) said Accused did not complain about writing taken from him by the Investigating Officer. Besides Hon'ble High Court while deciding said Writ Petition No. 3185 of2004 observed that, deciding caseby Criminal Court which is Court oflaw is different in nature than deciding the case by the Tribunal on the basis of the enquiry conducted by the Department. Police in the enquiry records the statement of the Accused and also the statements of the witnesses with the help of Panchas and that, the Police tries to find out who is the real culprit and tho is the real accused and try to give justice to victim . There is direct access and approach to the Police with the public at large in the guise of investigation . To have precaution, the Evidence Act is there and so statement 3142
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008 /JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) )
नई दिल्ली, 29 मई, 2008
का. आ. 1493.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार जवाहरलाल नेहरू पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बौच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआई टी 2/78/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
help of others he committed theft and sold the rolls in BoraBazar.Healso led them and asked that shop owner toproduce the said rolls from the shop which is sufficient toprove that, this workman has nexus and was concerned with that theft. This proves that, the Enquiry Officer having evidence to observe that charges levelled against the concerned workman were proved. Discussing the evidence and relying on that, Inquiry Officer concluded to that effect. He also considered evidence of this witness specificallyand relying on it observed " charges levelled against concerned workman were proved."
[सं. एल-31011 / 18/2002- आई आर ( एम) ] कमल बाखरु , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 29th May, 2008 9. When charges stand proved against concerned workinan and the Enquiry Officer was having evidence to that effect in my considered view one has to observe that findings of the Enquiry Officer were just and proper and does not require any interference. So I answer this Issue to that effect as I do not find that said evidence of. Sub- Inspector Mr. Thomas F. D'Souza is not just and sufficient to conclude that, Enquiry Officer was having no reason tohold concerned workman guilty of the charges levelled against him . So I observe concerned workman is guilty ofthe charges levelled against him. Isaure No. 2 :
S.O. 1493.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT- 2/78/2002) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008 .
[No. L-31011/ 18/2002 - IR ( M ) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2, MUMBAI PRESENT :
A. A. Lad, Presiding Officer .
Reference No. CGIT -2/78 of 2002
Employers in relation to the management of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust
The Chairman ,
Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust , Nhava- Seva Bunder, Navi Mumbai -400 707 .
10. On the basis of the evidence Inquiry Officer submitted his report. It was accepted by the Management andManagement took action of dismissal . If we consider the nature of the offence and the evidence , we find, it is serious offence done by the concerned workman which is also proved against the concerned workman , When said offence is of such a serious nature , and when it proved in my considered view to give warning to others and signal to that effectto others , in the institute like Port Trust which is rather public body is wanted so that others will take lesson of it. In fact concerned workman was the custodian ofsaidarticles .However ,he himself with the help ofothers committed theft of it and sold it in the market to gain something against his duty for which he was posted and paid by first party . Hence , when such an act is proved, in my considered view, punishment awarded of dismissal which is challenged by üre und woman is just nd proper and does not require any interference.
Vis.
Their Workmen
( 1) The General Secretary,
Nhava Sheva Port & General Workers Union, Port Trust Kamgar Sadan, 2nd floor, Nawab Tank Road, Mazgaon , Mumbai -400 010
(2) The General Secretary,
11. This Reference was sent by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi in the year 1997. As per the order of this Tribunal the said workman is getting benefits as Hon'ble High Court has protected him by saying that, " said workman is entitled to get benefits till this Tribunal decides this Reference". According to me, when offence which is of a serious nature and which is proved against the concerned workman , in my considered view the said workman now is not entided for the said protection. Hence , the order ;
ORDER
Reference is rejected with no order as to its costs .
Nhava Sheva Bunder Kamgar Sanghatana (Antargat) , 64, Shopping Centre , 1st floor ,
JNPT Township, Uran , Navi Mumbai -400 707
Mumbai , 9th April , 2008
A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer 3143 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008 /ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
[भाग - खंड 3(ii ) ]
(3) The President,
Transport &Dock Workers Union
P.D'mello Bhavan,
P.D'melloRoad,
CarnacBunder,
Mumbai-400 038
4.Issues are framed at Ex- 12 and matter was placed for recording evidence . Mean while both parties requested tokeep this matter for conciliation in Lok Adalat. By filing purshis Ex- 29, they prayed to dispose of the reference mentioning that they will take appropriate steps as and when required.
APPEARANCES
5. In view of Ex - 29 filed in the Lok Adalat , reference is disposed ofhence the order.
For the Employer : Mr. L.L.D'Souza, Representative
ORDER
For the Workman :
In view of Ex-29 , reference is disposed in Lok Adalat.
Union(1)
: Mr. J. H. Sawant, Representative.
Union (2)
Dated:19-3-2008
: Mr. Bhushan N. Patil , Representative
A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer Exh. No.29 Union(3)
: Mr. Bote Patil, Representative
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2 , MUMBAI Mumbai, dated the 19th March , 2008
Reference No. CGIT-2 /78 of 2002 AWARD
Employers in relation to the management of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust ...First Party
Vis.
Theirworkmen represented by three Union
....SecondParty TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L-31011 / 18 /2002/IR (M) dated1-11-2002 in exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d) ofsub- section ( 1 ) and sub -section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
APPLICATION FOR DISPOSAL OF THE
REFERENCE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR
"Whether the proposed action of the management ofJNPT to convert the Bulk Terminal into Container Terminal on BOT (Build, Operate and Transfer) basis and notby INPT itself or througlijoint venture with other major ports like MbPT is justified ? If not, what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?"
The Unions representing the Second Partyhereby apply for disposal of the above Reference for want of prosecution . The Unions may take appropriate steps at an appropriate time as and when required . This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to allow this application and oblige.
Mumbai ,
Datee: 19-3-2008
Sd/-
1. (Jaiprakash Sawant) VicePresident Nhava Sheva Port and General Workers Union
Sd/- (illegible)
2. Nhava Sheva Bunder Kangar Sanghatana
Sd/-
3. (A. Y. Botrpatri) ,
No objection
Sd-
2. Claim statement is filed by union at Ex- 6 making out case that it was mandatory and obligatory on the part ofmanagement to carry out the services and activities as enumeratedunder Section 42 of the Major Port TrustAct, 1963 departmentally instead of allowing others to carry out its statutory activities . The proposed action of management of JNPT to convert buik terminal in to container terminal on Build, Operate and Transfer basis and not by JNPT itself is illegal , unjustified and does not require to be maintained. According to union , JNPT is statutory and autonomous body. The decision taken by it in allowing other private employers including foreigners to undertake such business in India in the premises of JNPT is against the interest of nation and against the Constitution. So it is prayed that, decision taken by JNPT inconverting bulk terminal in to container terminal and continuing same in BOT basis and not by JNPT itself through joint venture with other major posts like MЪРТ is notjustified.
Secretary, Transport and Dock Workers Union
(Ganesh Naidu )
ForSecond Party -workmen
Respondent due for FirstParty JNPT
3. This is disputed by first party ise. INPT by filing Written Statement at Ex- 10 saying that decision taken by it is just and proper and does not require interference.
3144
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008/ JY AISTHA 31 , 1930
नईदिल्ली, 29 मई, 2008
का. आ. 1494.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. , देहरादून के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई.डी. सं. -121/1994 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-30012/9/ 1993- आई आर ( एम.) ] कमल बाखरु, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th May, 2008
S.O. 1494.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. I.D. No. 121/1994) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court No. II , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ONGC , Dehradun and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008.
[No. L- 30012/9/ 1993-IR (M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT - II , NEW DELHI R.N. Rai, Presiding Officer I. D. No. 121/1994
In the matter of:
Sh. Manohar lal , S/o Sh. Budh Singh, R/ o 68 D. L. Road, Dehradun-248 001 .
Claimant
Versus
The Chairman, ONGC, Tel Bhawan,
Dehradun-248 001.
Respondents
AWARD
TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L-30012/9/ 1993 IR(Misc) Coal-I Central GovernmentDt. 26-10-1994 has referred the following point for adjudication:
The point runs as hereunder:
"Whether the action of the management of ONGC in terminating the services of Sh . Manohar Lal S/o Sh. Budh Singh, Ex. Daily wage helper w.e.f. is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?"
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ) The case ofthe workman is that he was engagedby respondent on 1-1-1989 as daily wager helper in the Civil Engineering Department in Dehradun .
That he performed 240 days duties in the year 1989, 1990 and 1991 and he was illegally retrenched on 17-8-1992 without payment of retrenchment compensation and one month's pay in lieu ofnotice.
That the workman worked on the post of permanent nature and services of such workmen are still required by the management .
That after retrenching the workman illegally on 18-8-1992 the management had engaged another workman at his place and he discharged the work which the workman was discharging .
That the respondents have infringed the provisions of Section 25 F , G & H. That the workman has been removed with malafide intention that he will be engaged permanently .
The case of the management is that the workman was never employed by the management in any of his department in any capacity whatsoever. There never existed the relationship of employer and employee between the respondent and the workman.
That the applicant is not a workman as defined under Section 2( s) of the ID Act, 1947.
That the workman might have been engaged by any one of the contractors to whom the contract for Civil Engineering work was awarded.
That the workinan has not performed any duty for 240 days in any of the mentioned years . There is no question of termination of the services of this workman as the workman was never in employment of the management .
That the workman was neither employed by the respondent nor his services were terminated by the respondent.
The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In the rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his claim statement and has denied most of the paras of the written statement. The management has also denied most of the paras of the claim statement.
Evidence ofboth the parties has been taken.
Heard argument from both the sides and perused the papers on the record.
Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that he has worked continuously for 240 days from 1989 to 1992. He has been retrenched in violation of provisions ofSection 25 -F, G & H of the ID Act, 1947.
3145 [ भाग II-खंड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
नईदिल्ली, 29 मई , 2008
Itwas submitted from the side of the management that there was no employer and employce rolationship between the respondent and workman. The workman may have been engaged by the contractors as contract was awarded for such type ofjob .
का. आ. 1495.- औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 143 की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बी. पी. सी. एल. , नई दिल्ली के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई.डी. सं. -26/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-30012/ 149/2000- आई आर ( एम. ) ]
कमल वाखरु, डेस्क अधिकारी The workman has annexed with the record 10 temporary entry passes which contain his photo and it hasbeen issued on the proforma oftemporary entrypasses. He has filed judgement of CGIT, Guwahati. He has annexed a chart, of his working days . It is typed onplain paper and he has shown that he has worked for 365 days inthe year 1990 and 1991. This chart is a waste papет аз no workman will work for 365 days in a year."
New Delhi , the 29th May, 2008
S.O. 1495- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. I.D. No. 26/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court No. II , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BPCL, New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008.
[No. L-30012/ 149/2000- IR (M)] KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
Theworkman has not filed any other document to showthat he has worked under the control and supervision of the management and he received payment from the management whereas the management has filed documents which show that the workman was working as contract labour with M/ s S. C. Sharma and he was issued photo passes on 8-1-1990 which was renewed up to 31-8-1992 . The management has filed contract agreement and documents of payment made to the contractor. The documents from page no. 129 to 225 are photocopies. They relate to the contract agreement and payment made to the several contractors in the relevant periodoftheworkman.
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT- IL, NEW DELHI
R. N. Rai, Presiding Officer
The workman has not filed any document to prove thathehasworked under the direct control and supervision of the management. The management has filed contract agreement from 1989 to 1992. These documents establish that the contractors engaged labours and payment to them have been made.
L. D. No. 26/2001
In the matter of:
Except of the photo passes which have been issued bythe contractors, the workman has not filed any other document toprove his statement that he has worked under thedirect control and supervision of the management.
Claimant
Sh.Gopal Sharma, Rio RZ/P -212, Raj Nagar- II , Palam Colony, P-Block, NearBaghdola Dwarka, Sector -8, New Delhi-45.
Versus
Theworkman was engaged through contractors .He worked under the control of the contractor and payment tohimwas made by the contractor . So there is no employer and employee relationship between the respondent and the workman. The workman is not entided to get any relief.
The reference is replied thus:
M/ s. BPCL, C/ o ECE House , 28 A , Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi- 110 045 .
Respondents
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L-30012/ 149/2000- IR(M) Central Government Dt, 2-3-2001 has referred the following point for adjudication :
The action of the management of ONGC in 'terminating the services of Sh. Manohar Lal Sto Sh. Budh Singh, Ex. Daily wage helper w.e.f. is legal and justified. The workman applicant is not entitled to get any reliefas prayed for.
The point runs as hereunder :
The award is given accordingly.
Dated: 8-5-2008
R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer
"Whether the action of the management of BPCL in dismissing the workman Sh . Gopal Sharma 3146
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008 / JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
w.c.f. 18-1-1989 isjust and legal ? Ifnot , what relief the said workman is entitled to and from what date ? Whether Sh. Gopal Sharma is entitled for any relief for the period from 18-1-1989 to 1-5-2000 or not."
The case of the workman is that he was appointed by the BPCL on 28-9-1989 being an Ex . Serviceman and was given temporary appointment which was later confirmed on 1-10-1981 through SOO Agra as Heavy Vehicle Driver, Grade- II .
That the workman was dismissed from service based on cooked up and concocted charges consequent to serving of charge-sheet/ show cause notice dated 14-7-1988 and finalization of inquiry.
That the charges were of cock and bull story and was directed to stifle the worker as a Joint Secretary of the union he was their mouthpiece for raising various grievances . The petitioner was also forced to highlight various acts of the management which were unwarranted and highhandedness . The management was annoyed with the petitioner by raising the voice against the management. The management could not involve the workman being a protracted workman so a cooked up charge-sheet was served. Principles of natural justice have not been followed. The Inquiry Officer acted with prejudiced mind and the DA awarded the punishment of dismissal with a closed mind without considering the representation of the workman.
The case of the management is that the workman was not wrongly dismissed on cooked up and concocted charges . It was submitted that Sh . Gopal Sharma was the Driver of the Tank Lorry No. DT- 348 ( 18 KL Capacity) and Sh. Sohan Lal was working in the capacity ofa cleaner onTank Lorry No. DT 348. On 18-4-1988 after delivering 18 KL of Motor spirit to M/ s . Modern Service Station in their first trip, they reported back to Bijwasan Installation at about 1430 hours for the second trip. They were then directed to have the Tank Lorry No. DT-348 filled with 18KLMotor spirit for delivery of 9 KL each at M/ s. Mann Service Station and. M/ s . Shanker Marge Filling Station vide cash memo Nos . 089780 and 089781 respectively.
After filling the Tank Lorry as directed, they left the installation with the loaded Tank Lorry. Just outside the main gate of the installation, two Senior Operations Officers, namely Shi A. K. Madan and Shri M. S. Rohilla asked them to stop the Tank Lorry for a surprise check. Thereupon Shri Gopal Sharma stopped the Tank Lorry. While carrying out the checking, the aforesaid Officers asked Shri Gopal Sharma to unlock the Tool-Box which was in the cabin of the aforesaid Tank Lorry . However, Shri Gopal Sharma did not hand over the keys of the Tool- Box. Thereafter, he was asked to take the Tank Lorry inside the installation for detailed checking . Shri Gopal Sharma
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] brought back the Tank Lorry No. DT-348 inside the installation and he was directed by Shri S. A. Nainar, DeputyManager , Bijwasan Installation to unlock the tool- box . But Shri Gopal Sharma ordered that the lock of the tool-box be broken . However, before the lock could be broken , Sh . Gopal Sharma handed over the keys to Shri A. K. Rana, Tallyman, in the presence of Shri S. A. Nainar, Shri A. K. Madan, Shri M. S. Rohilla , Shri Mayank Malviya , Shri S. K. Malviya , Shri Jagdish Chand (Watchman) , Shri Kartar Singh ( Watchman ) and Shri Dilip Kumar (Fitter ) and after opening the tool - box, three black coloured plastic jerry cans of about 20 litre capacity each, filled with Motor Spirit were recovered from the tool-box of the aforesaid Tank Lorry No. DT-348 , with the intentions of committing theft and therefore, they have committed the following acts of misconduct
(a) Theft , fraud or dishonesty in connection with the Corporation's property.
(b) Possessing and keeping inside the cabin of the Tank Lorry highly inflammable material which is violative of the provisions of the Petroleum Act
They were called upon to submit their written explanations, vide show- cause notice dated 28th April . 1988. S/Shri Gopal Sharma and Sohan Lal submitted their written explanations , vide letters dated 3rd May , 1988 . which were not considered satisfactory and therefore, they were charge-sheeted wide letters dated 14th July, 1988 . Thereafter, a fair and proper domestic enquiry was held in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Since the charges leveled against Sh . Gopal Sharma , were proved in the domestic enquiry , he was dismissed from the services of the Corporation vide Order dated 18-1- 1989 , after considering the gravity of misconduct committed by him and the fact that there were no extenuating circumstance to take a lenient view in the matter . Thus it is to be seen that the action of the Management in terminating the services of Shri Gopal Sharma'the applicant is fair, legal , just and proper.
It is further submitted that the enquiry proceedings initiated against the Applicant in respect of charges leveled against him, vide Charge - sheet dated 14-7-1988 ,were held strictly in accordance with the principles of naturaljustice andthe Applicant was accorded full opportunity to defend himself effectively . The inquiry Officer, had , vide his report dated 3-10-1988 held the Applicant guilty in respect of the charges leveled against hin.
Since the charge leveled and proved against the Applicant were major misconduct, warranting punishment of dismissal and since there were no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view or to mitigate the punishment of dismissal orto award any other punishment, the Management had no other option but to 3147 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21, 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
[भाग - खंड 3(11)]
dismiss theApplicant from the services ofthe Corporation. Accordingly, the Applicant was dismissed from the services ofthe Corporation, videOrder dated 18-1-1989. Thus, the action of the Management in dismissing the Applicant is legal , proper and justified, hence, the Applicant is not entitled to claim any relief, whatsoever, including claim for reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages , as alleged.
him. The statement of the witnesses were recorded in the presence. He cross-examined all the witnesses . He was also offered to adduce defence evidence . He was not. allowed to place on the record certain documents C- 1 10 C-12.He has also admitted that the witnesses examined were not inimical towards him. The Inquiry Officer was not personally biased to him. He has also admitted that hewas offered the opportunity to advance argument after his evidence was closed. He was supplied copy of the inquiry report.
Theworkman has filed certain documents 1 to 12 with the record.
The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In the rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his claim statement andhas denied most of the paras ofthe written statement, The management has also denied most ofthe paras ofthe claim statement.
Evidence ofboth the parties has been taken.
Thecaseofthe management is that these documents were not taken on record. In the documents the workman has made complaints against the corruption of the management no doubt.
Heard argument from both the sides and perused the papers on the record.
It has been held in 1972 (25) FLR 45 as under Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that the charges were cooked up . The inquiry was not conducted fairly and the management with malafide intention did not follow the proper procedure în : conducting inquiry . He was a protected workman and he raised his voice against corruption of the management , so the management was annoyed and the Inquiry Officer and the DAwere pre-determined to diazniss the workman .
"An industrial Tribunal would not be justified in characterizing the finding recorded in the domestic inquiry as perverse unless it canbe shown that such a finding is not supported by any evidence, or is entirely opposed to the whole body of the evidence adduced before it. In a domestic inquiry once a conclusion is deduced from the evidence , it is not permissible to assail that conclusión even though it is possible for some other authority to arrive at a different conclusion on the same evidence."
Ithas beenheld in this case that in domestic inquiry.. evidence of a solitary witness is sufficient to hold the . chargesproved.
Ithas been held in 2001 (89) FLR 427 as under:-
Itwas submitted from the side of the management that the workman was given proper opportunity in the inquiry.He cross - examined all the witnesses . He was also given opportunity to lead his own evidence. The Inquiry Officer after proper analysis of evidence held the charges proved. The DA after considering the representation. of the workman awarded the punishment ofdismissal as the offencewas grave. :
"It is well settled that a conclusion or a finding of fact arrived at in a disciplinary inquiry can be interferedwith by the court only when there is no matecial for the said conclusion; or that on the materials , the conclusion cannot be that of reasonable man."
From perusal of this judgment it becomes quita. obvious that the Tribunal can interfere with the findings ofthe EnquiryOfficer in case it is perverse . The Enquiry Officer has based his findings on oral as well as documentary evidence , It cannot be said that there is . absolute absence ofany evidence in support of the findings of the Enquiry Officer.
The workman has examined his authorized representative Sh. Y. N. Puri in the court. He has stated in his cross-examination that the workman had participated in the inquiry but he participated under protest. He was Joint Secretary, Bharat Petroleum Karamchari Union. Hehas further stated that the workman might have been supplied copy of the day to day proceedings by the Inquiry Officer . He cannot say whether : the workman was allowed to lead evidence in the inquiry ... He has also stated that he could not say whether the workmanwas given opportunity to file written submisміоn. Hehasalso stated that he was given adequate opportunity ofbeing heard by the Inquiry Officer. The report of the Inquiry Officer was furnishedto him .
The workman has also admitted in his cross- examination that the prosecution, witnesses were not inimical to him. He has cross - examined all the prosecution witnesses. The pilfered motor spirit was recovered bythe management officials in the presence of the workman. The management has examined all those witnomen of recovery so thewitnesses according to the own admission of the workman have deposed rightly. They are not imimical to him .
The workman has examined himself. He bas admitted in his cross examination that he filed reply to the charge-shout . The management conducted the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer has explained to him the procedure ofconducting the Inquiry . He was also offered the service ofdefence assistance. The inquiry proceedings were recorded in Hindi and a copy of the same was provided to
2172 G1/08-15 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 3148
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008/ JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
I. D. No. 19/1992
In the matter of :
S/o Sh . C. P. S. Sengar , R/o C/ o Dr. I. K. Kochhar ,
As per admission of the workman the Inquiry Officer was not biased against him so he has given correct finding and the DA has relied upon the report of the Inquiry Officer . The workman has been dismissed from service after following the procedure of inquiry. The inquiry is valid. It is not liable to be set aside .
1039, Rani Bagh,
Sh. Ambrish Kumar Sengar , Claimant
New Delhi - 110 034
Versus
The punishment is also not harsh . The workman was involved in the act of theft of Motor Spirit and the pilfered motor spirit and it was recovered by the officers ofthe managerment in his presence from the lorry driven by him , so the punishment is not harsh in view of the serious misconduct of the workman .
The employees State Insurance Corporation, Through its Director General , ESIC Building, Kotla Road, New Delhi - 110002
The reference is replied thus: -
The Director (Medical) Delhi ,
ESIC Hospital Complex,
Basaidarapur,
New Delhi - 110.015
Respondents
AWARD
The action of the management of BPCL in dismissing the workman Sh. Gopal Sharma w.e.f. 18-1- 1989 is just and legal . Sh. Gopal Shanna is not entitled for any relief for the period from 18-1-1989 to 1-5-2000. The workman applicant is not entitled to get any reliefas prayedfor.
The award is given accordingly.
Dated: 6-5-2008
R. N. RAI, Presiding Officer
TheMinistry ofLabour by its letter No. 1-15012/3/ 1991- IR(Misc . ) Central Government Dtd. 10-2-1992 has referred the following point for adjudication,
नई दिल्ली, 29 मई, 2008
The point runs as hereunder :
"Whether the action of the management to dismiss the services of Dr. Ambrish Kumar Sengar w.e.f. 27-3-1990 is justifed ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to ?
का. आ. 1496.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इम्प्लाइज स्टेट इंश्योरेंस कॉर्पोरेशन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विषाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या आई. डी. सं.- 19/ 1992 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-15012/3/1991-आई आर (एम) ] कमल बाखरु, डेस्क अधिकारी
The case ofthe workman is that he was appointed in the Directorate Medical Delhi , ESIC Scheme , New Delhi vide order dated 16-5-1989 . His appointment was on a monthly remuneration of Rs . 2500 per month . The terms ofappointment was part - time Medical Officer . The workman was posted at ESIC dispensary, Mangolpuri w.e.f. 12-4-1989.
New Delhi , the 29th May, 2008
S.O. 1496.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. I.D. No. 19/1992) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court- 11 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Employees State Insurance Corporation and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008.
Hewas trapped in a conspiracy hatched by the staff of ESIC Dispensary of Mangolpuri , Delhi . The person involved in the conspiracy was Dr. Poornima Lumba, Dr. Ganga Prasad . The registration clerk on duty on 5-3- 1990 in the ESIC dispensary and Sh. Vijay Kumar. As per the principles of natural justice a person cannot be punished un -heard. The workman was not given any opportunity to represent his case but considerably his services have been dispensed with and also imposed severe penalty of dismissal from service .
[No. L- 15012/3 / 1991 - IR (M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
The letter issuedto the workman is also signed by M/s. P. L. Singh who is an sub - ordinate authority to that of appointing authority, punishing authority as such the removal is illegal . No inquiry was held . No opportunity was given and the charges of pilferage was found proved by the management and the workman was dismissed.
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT- IL, NEW DELHI
10NR . N. Rai , Presiding Officer
The case of the management is that the applicant is aqualified Doctor . He was basically and mainly engaged 31.49. [ भाग II- खंड ( ii) )
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
inprofession of intectual activities in diagnosing and prescribing drugs and medicines for the patient. He was not a workman tinder the said act . The engagement ofthe applicantwas & contract for providing professional services as justified from the contract of service.
Ithas beenheld in Sundrambal case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in case the function is purely academic in nature he should be considered as a workman. The workman was a professional . He was diagnosing the diseases and prescribing medicines, so he cannot be a workman.
The second question is whether the dismissal of the workman is legal and valid?
It is admitted case that no inquiry was held and the management without holding any inquiry has foundthe charges of pilferage of medicines proved against Dr. Ambrish Kumar Sengar. Dr. Poornima Lumba has held Dr. Ambrish Kumar Sengar to have pilfered the medicines.
TheHon'ble Supreme Court has beld that part time Doctors should be retained tili regular incumbents become available. The part- time engagerment of the workman was terminated in accordance with the contract for professional services .The order of termination ofpart - time engagement of the applicant was duly approved by the Directorate (Medical Health) who is a competent authority for the purpose and it has been made ample clear in the order dated 17-3-1990. The part- time Medical Officers are appointed as temporary and ad-hoc basis as a stop gap arrangement and the services are governedby the terins specified in the order of their engagement duly accepted by them. It cannot be treated as Civil/Pablic servant for the purposes of normal disciplinary and other rules governing the conditions of services of other regular employees of the corporation. The order has not been passed as a major penalty but as termination simplicitor ofthe part - time engagement of the applicant directly in accordancewith the terms and conditions ofhis part-time engagement. The applicant has full freedom to do private practice even during the period of his part- time ougagement :
In the distrissal order it is specifically mentioned . that he has been dismissed for committing act of misconduct. Such dismissal order caused stigma on an employee and it is settled law that such dismissal order shouldbe given after holding proper inquiry and following theprinciples ofnatural justice . No inquiry has been held in the instant case. No charge-sheet has been served on the applicant and he has been dismissed for misconduct, so such dismissal caused stigma on Dr. Ambrish Kumar Sengar andhe was not able to find any government job after such dismissal carrying stigma on his career so the dismissal is absolutely illegal and arbitrary. Dr. Ambrish Kumar Sengar is not entitled to get any relief by this Tribunal as it has nojurisdiction to try the instant case as he is not a workman .
The reference is replied thus:
Theworkman applicant has filed rejoinder. Inthe rejoinder he has reiterated the averiments of his claim statement and has denied most of the paras of the written statement. The management has also denied most of the paras ofthe claim statement .
Evidence ofboth the parties has been taken.
Heard argument from both the sides and perused the papers on the record,
ThisTribunal has nojurisdiction to decide"Whether the action of the management to dismiss the services of Dr. Ambrish Kumar Sengar w.e.f. 27-3-1990 is justified or not. Dr. Ambrish Kumar Sengar is not entitledto get any relief by this Tribunal as it has nojurisdiction to decide the instant case.
The award is given accordingly.
Date: 14-5-2008
R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 29 मई , 2008
Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that hewas given appointment as part- time Doctor on 16-5- 1989. He was appointed part- time Medical officer in the ESIC Scheme we.f. 20-4-1989 on a consolidated wages of Rs. 2500 per month , His services were terminated.on 27-3-1990 on account of alleged misconduct without bolding any proper inquiry and even without show cause notice.
:
का. आ. 1497.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार हरियाणा मिनरल लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट्र औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई. डी. सं. -34/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
Itwas submitted from the side of the management that Doctor Ambrish Kumar Sengar is not a workman, He was given appointment as part- time Doctor. He did not hold acivil post . His duty was to prescribe medicines. He pilfered some medicines and so his services have been terminated.
[सं: एल-29012/7/2005- आई आर ( एम) ] कमल बांखरु, डेस्क अधिकारी The first question is whether Dr. Ambrish Kitmar Sengar is aworkman ?
3150
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008 / JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
New Delhi , the 29th May,2008
That the respondent management is a public sector company engaged in the business ofmining and quarrying and hence is 'industry' as defined in the act .
That the workman above named was in regular employment of the management since 26th September, 1986.
That however, the services of the workman were dispensed with and the workman was retrenched vide order dated 3rd March, 2003 .
$.O . 1497.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. I.D. No. 34/2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court- II, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Haryana Minerals Ltd, and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008.
[No. L-29012/ 7/2005 - IR (M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
That consequent upon the retrenchment of the workman above named, was paid only 3 months wages but the workman was not paid retrenchmeni compensation interms of Sector 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT- II , NEW DELHI
That further the rule of' last come first go' was not followed in the retrenchment of the workman servicesby the management .
Shri R. N. Rai, Presiding Officer
I. D. No. 34/2005
In the matter of:
Shri B. S. Chhokar,
That the above action as the part of the management is illegal and void and contrary to the Sections 25F, 250, 25H and other provisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Also no prior permission as envisaged by theAct was taken by the management before retrenchment of the services ofthe workman although it employed more than 1000 workmen at the time.
Ex . Asstt. Accounts Officer, C/ o 300/ 21 -A, Faridabad, Haryana- 121 001
Versus
The Managing Director ,
Haryana Minerals Ltd. ,
That on account of the retrenchment of the workman despite has best efforts was unable to same any altermate employment and was on the verge of starvation till 5th January, 2004 when he was able to secure an alternate employment.
Phase-5, Udyog Vihar, H.S.L.D.C. Complex ,
Gurgaon,
Haryana
AWARD
TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L- 29012/7/ 2005-1R( M) Central Governmentdt. 27-4-2005 has referred the following point for adjudication.
That though the workman was not paid any retrenchment compensation by the management however, similarly placed workers were paid retrenchment compensation in terms of Section 25 F of the Act hence the management arbitrarily and unjustly discriminated against the workman in the retrenchment of his services and has indulged in an act of victimization and unfair labourpractice.
The point runs as hereunder :
The management filed written statement . In the written statement it has been stated that as the claimant was as the Managerial Post and not workman hence not covered under the I.D. Act, claim of the claimant is to be dismissed on this ground alone .
"Whether the action of the management ofHaryana Minerals Ltd. , in terminating the services of Shri Bir Singh Chhokar , Asstt. Acctts . Officer , without paying legal dues simultaneously is legal and just ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"
That H.M.L. (Respondent) in its final winding up stage due toheavy financial loss and their employees who were workman were retrenched and those who were on theManagerial post as the claimant were terminated as per the terms and conditions/ clause which were so acceptedby the claimant as per his appointment letter.
The workman applicant has filed claim statement . In the claim statement it has been stated that he was employed with management above named as .Asstt. A/C Officer; the nature of duties of the workman were not supervisory or administrative in nature and hence the claimant above named falls within the definition of workman as defined in the Act.
That ithas happen all due to the Hon'ble Apex Court order by which the Hon'ble Apex Court has banned the mining job in the area, as of the respondenta hence [भाग - खंड ( i) ]
भारत का सबापत्र : जून 21, 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
respondents and all its employees being surplus which was due to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order certainly we are boundby law of the land..
due to financial ions and their employees who were workman were retrenched and those on the managerial post as claimed were terminated without payment: of retrenchment compensation. The workman is not a workman u/ s 2 (s) of the ID: Act, 1947.1
It was submitted that he is entitled to get rotrenchment compensation under section 25 Fof the ID -Act, 1947,
That the contents of para is wrong and denied as the claimant is not workman hence not covered under the provisions ofI.D. Act even the claimant governed by his appointment letter and the respondent's service were terminatedunderthe Provisions of appointment letter and for the same he was paid gratuity and 3 months salary in advance in light of notice period.
It was submitted fromthe side of the management that the applicant was performing duty in supervisory capacity.He is not covered u/s 2 (s ) of the ID Act, 1947. He has been paid dues in view ofhis appointment letter.
That the contents of para are matter ofrecord upto certain extent, however, it is wrong that the nature ofduties &claimant were not supervisory, as the claimant job was ofsupervisory and the post was of Managerial hence the claimant does not fall under the definition of workman as per the I.D.Act.
It is the duty ofthe management to prove by cogent documentary evidence that the workman performed managerial or supervisory duty. The management should produce documents regarding the managerial and supervisory capacity. :.
That the contents of para are wrong and denied as Hon'ble Apex Court order/direction the business of mining has been banned and the job has been stopped and no activity even can be held and due to this all its employees have been terminated or retrenched.
That contents ofpara are matter ofrecord , however, the service of the claimant were terminated as per his appointment letter.
:: The workman has been issued appointinent letter on 20-7-1993 . He has been given the designation of Mining Engincer and be has been appointed in the pay scale of Rs . 2000-3200 . His servipca have been terminated in view of closure of mining operation due to surrender ofAlipur Mines, StateGovernment of Haryana ashis services were found surplus
That contents ofpara are wrong and denied as the applicant is not covered under the definition of workman (ID Act) and for the same he was terminated as per the appointment letter's provisions.
He has been paith three months pay in terins ofhis appointment letter. It has been mentioned in the appointment letter that even after confirmation, his services maybe terminated with three months notice either on other side or pay in lieu thereof.
That the contents of para are wrong and denied as the applicant has to put strict proof of same and also is tot caused under the provisions of the LD. Act.
Ithas not been pointed out as to what managerial duty, the workman performed. No duty chart has been filed assigning to the workman duty in managerial or supervisory ehpacity. The duty of Mining Engineer is operational. In the Mines Act , the office of the Mining Engineer has not been defined as managerial or supervisory.
That the contents ofpara only to mislead theHon'ble Court andand baseless without any proof, as the claimant was on Managerial post and none ofhis equal post have been paid as so alleged by the claimant for the same the claimant has to put strict proof of the same..... '..
The workman applicant has filed rejoinder . En the rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his claim statement and has denied most of the paras of the written statement. The management has also denied most of the paras of the claim statement, .:
Evidence ofboth the parties has been taken.
Heard argument from both the sides and perused the papers on the record.
The management has to prove that the workman was competent to watch over the work of the juniors and submit reports regarding their work in managerial or administrative office. There must be some subordinate employees as the administrator has the power to inspect the work of those subordinate and subunit, confidential reports to the higher authorities, It is for the management to prove that the workman ban boon soigned managerial duty. The workman cannot be said to be Manager or Administrator in view of the nomenclature given to kim. The work of aEngineer is alwaye- operationelo Itwas submitted from the side of the workmen that be was employed with the management as Assistant AccountOfficer w.e.f. 26-11-1986. He is a workman u/s 25F of the IDAct, 1947..
It was submitted from the side of the management that the respondent is in its financial winding up stage
The real test for ascertaining the status and function ofemployee are the primary, basic or dominant nature of duties. The words managerial or supervisory have to be understood in their proper counotation and there mere use cannot be detracted from the truth.
3152
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008/ JY AISTHA 31 , 1930
In(1985) 3 SCC 371 it has been held that the nature ofthe work of a workman is to be ascertained from the dominant nature of duties performed by him and not by nomenclature. In view of this judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court the claimant is a workman . This point is decided accordingly.
Sh . B. S. Chokar has been given designation of Assistant Accounts Officer . An assistant cannot be said tobe aManager or Supervisor. Documents have not been filedto show that he supervised the work of subordinate staff to him and he wrote confidential report and he sanctioned leave. No such documents have been filedby the management.
The applicant in the instant case is a workman and he is entitled to get 15 days wages for every completed year, He is not entitled to get any other relief.
The reference is replied thus :
The action of the management of Haryana Mineral Ltd. , in terminating the services of Shri Bir Singh Chhokar, Asstt. Acctts . Officer, without paying legaldues simultaneously is neither legal nor just . The workman applicant is not entitled to reinstatement . He is only entitled to get 15 days wages for every completed year. He is not entitled to get any other relief.
The award is given accordingly.
Date : 16-5-2008
R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 29 मई , 2008
का. आ. 1498.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार हरियाणा मिनरल लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय II, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई. डी. सं. -35/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-29012/8/2005- आई आर ( एम) ] कमल भाखरु, डेस्कअधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th May, 2008
S.O. 1498. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. I.D. No. 35/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court - II , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Haryana Minerals Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008.
[No. L-29012/ 8/2005 - IR (M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT -11 , NEW DELHI
Shri R. N. Rai , Presiding Officer
1. D. No. 35/2005
In the matter of:
Shri Bharam Parkash ,
Dr. Ambedkar Nagar ,
Workman A- 64, Devli Extension , New Delhi-110 062.
Versus
The Managing Director , Haryana Minerals I.td.. Phase-5 , Udyog Vihar, HSIDC Complex, Gurgaon, Haryana
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L- 29012/8/ 2005 - IR( M) Central Government dt. 27-4-2005 has referred the following point for adjudication:
The point runs as hereunder :
"Whether the action of the management ofHaryana Minerals Ltd. , in terminating the services of Shri Bharam Parkash without paying legal dues simultaneously w.e.f. 3-3-2003 is legal and just ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to ? " That the workman applicant has filed claim statement. In the claim statement it has been stated that the workman above named was employed with the management above named as Mines Foreman w.e.f. 5th August 1986 and the nature of the duties of the workman were not supervisory or administrastive in nature and hence the claimant above named falls within the definition . of a ' workman' as defined in the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947.
That the respondent management is a public sector company engaged in the business ofmining and quarrying and hence is industry as defined in the Act.
That the services of the workman were retrenched by the management vide order dated 3rd March, 2003. That consequent upon the retrenchment of the workman above named, he was paid only 3 months wages calculated on the basis of the last drawn wages of the workman , that is, Rs . 8396 therefore a sum of Rs . 25,188 was paid to the workman.
That no other amount besides the said three months wages in lieu of notice was paid or tendered to the workman by the management .
:
3153 [भाग - खंड 31) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
That the services of the workman were совтіньоця from the date of his appointment, that is , 5th August, 1986 till the date of his termination, that is, 3rd March, 2003.
becanse ofbanning of mining activities by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and management was constrained to terminate/retrench their employees after paying all their legal dues under the terms and conditions ofthe company and applicant also was paid as per the policy of the company and presently nothing is due, and the company is under liquidation process presently.
That bowever, no retrenchtient compensation as envisagedby the provisions of the Industrial disputes Act was paid to the workman.
That also the rule of" last come first go" was not followed by the management in as much as the employees junior to the workman above named were retained by the : management whereas the services of the workman above named were illegally retrenched.
However, he was working as Mining fireman hence it isa completely concealed of facts as the applicant was working only post of Foreman and not the Fireman and who was working on the capacity of Managerial/ Supervisory post hence, does not fall in the category workman as defined in the L.D. Act.
That the applicant was terminated that time the mining activities were banned by the order of theHon'ble SupremeCourt . ::
That the contents of para are wrong and very far from the facts hence denied as the claimant has been paid allhis dues as per the policy of the company and the detail of the payment is as under :
That the above action /termination of services ofthe workman by the management in illegal and void and contrary to the Sections 25F, 25G and 25 and other provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Also no prior permission as envisaged by the Act was taken by the management before retrenchment of the services of the workman although it employed more than 1000,.. workmen at the time.
Amount
Sl . Head of Payment No.
Cheque No.
That on account ofthe retrenchment oftheworkman despitehisbest efforts was unable to secure any alternate employment and is on the verge of starvation till date.
25,188.00
GGB/A279339 dt. 3-3-2003:
1.. Three months pay in lieu ofNotice period
82,345.00
GGB/A279560 dt. 16-5-2003
The management filed written statement raising preliminary objections that the applicant is not covered under the I.D. Act as the applicant was working in the capacity ofSupervisory /Managerial Staff hence , claim of the claimant is liable to be dismissed.
2.
Gratuityas per
policyofthe
company
3.
-do-
8,396.00
Earned Leave Encasliment
That the claimant has been paid all kind ofhis dues atthe time ofhis termination hence under the provisions of set the claimant is not entitled for any thing else .
For payment of encashment of earned beyond: 30days, the officer, alongwith 63 other staffhave already filed a CWP before Punjab & Haryana High Court,vide CWP No. 16043 of2003. The officer is at Sr. No. 15 of the plaintiffs in the said Writ.
::
That as the company was constrained to stop its commercial activity because of the Hon'ble Supreme Court order as such the company is going under the process of liquidation by which the company was constrained to remove all its employees .
The claimant is not covered under the definition of workman under the provisions of LD, Act, however, the claimant has been paid his entire dues as per the policy of thecompany. !
That as the termination order was passed by the Regd. OfficeGurgaon and the applicant was also working in Haryana hence the applicant/claimant has no jurisdictionto file the present claim before the Ld. Central Government Industrial Tribunal ,
The workman applicant has filed rejoindy. In the rejoinder the has reiterated the averments of his claim statement andhas denied most of the paras of the written statement. The management has also denied most of the paras ofthe claim statement .
Evidence ofboth the parties has been taken.
Heard argument from both the sides and perused the papers on the record......
Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that hewas appointed as Mining Foreman w.e.f. August, 1996 As the company has been banned of mining activities along Delhi-Mathura belt by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and partly due to cancellation of Mining , lease ofrest ofthe mines by the State Government due to non-payment of royalty, hence company had to stop its all kind ofactivities, however, it is pertinent to mention here that the company could not pay the royalty due to heavy financial crises on it even all the staff employed in the company for carrying out the work became surplus 3154
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008/ JY AISTHA 31 , 1930 [PART II Sec . 3 ( ii) ] and his duties were not supervisory. He was a workman inview of section 2(s) of the IDAct, 1947,
dominant nature of duties performed by him and not by nomenclature. In view of this judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court the claimant is a workman. This point is decided accordingly.
It was submitted that he should be paid retrenchment compensation in view of Section 25 F of the ID Act, 1947.
It was submitted from the side of the management that the applicant was performing duty in supervisory capacity. He is not covered u/s 2(s) of the ID Act, 1947. Hehas been paid dues in view of his appointment letter.
The workman has been shown as Foreman . He discharged technical duties . He was Mining Engineer. In case he performed some managerial duties incidentally hewill notbecome a Manager or supervisor . No document regarding his working as managerial or supervisory capacity has been filed. He was Mining Engineer . His duties were operational . Operational duty has been defined as the duty of a workman under Section 2 (s) of the ID Act, 1947. This employee is not a Manager or supervisor .
It is the duty of the management to prove by cogent documentary evidence that the workman performed managerial or supervisory duty. The management should produce documents regarding the managerial and supervisory capacity.
The applicant in the instant case is a workman and he is entitled to get 15 days wages for every completed year.He is not entitled to get any other relief.
The reference is replied thus :
The workman has been issued appointment letter on 20-7-1993 . He has been given the designation of Mining Engineer and he has been appointed in the pay scale of Rs . 2000-3200 . His services have been terminated in view of closure of mining operation due to surrender ofAlipur Mines, State Government of Haryana as his services were found surplus.
Theaction of the management ofHaryanaMinerals Ltd. , in terminating the services of Shri Bharam Parkash without paying legal dues simultaneously w.e.f. 3-3-2003 is neither legal nor just. The workman applicant is not entitled to reinstatement. He is only entitled to get 15days wages for every completed year. He is not entitled to get any other relief.
The award is given accordingly.
Hehas been paid three months pay in terms ofhis appointment letter . It has been mentioned in the appointment letter that even after confirmation , his services maybe terminated with three months notice either on other side or pay in lieu thereof.
Date : 16-5-2008 R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 29 मई, 2008
Ithas not been pointed out as to what managerial duty, the workman performed . No duty chart has been filed assigning to the workman duty in managerial or supervisory capacity. The duty of Mining Engineer is operational . In the Mines Act, the office of the Mining Engineer has not been defined as managerial or supervisory.
का. आ. 1499.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार हरियाणा मिनरल लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंयंत्र के संबद्ध निर्योजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय- II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई. डी. सं. -36/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-29012/9/2005- आई आर (एम) ] कमल बाखरु, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 29th May, 2008 The management has to prove that the workman was coinpetent to watch over the work of the juniors and submit reports regarding their work in managerial or administrative office . There must be some sub- ordinate employees as the administrator has the power to inspect the work of those subordinate and submit confidential reports to the higher authorities. It is for the management to prove that the workman has been assigned managerial duty. The Workman cannot be said to be a Manager or Administrator in view of the nomenclature given to him. The work of a Engineer is always operational..
The real test for ascertaining the status and function ofemployee are the primary, basic or dominant nature of duties . The words managerial or supervisory have to be understood in their proper connotation and the mere use cannot be detracted from the truth .
8.O. 1499.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. I.D. No. 36/2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court- II , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Haryana Minerals Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008 .
In(1985) 3 SCC 371 it has been held that the nature of the work of a workman is to be ascertained from the
[No. L-29012/9/2005 - IR ( M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer
} 3155 [भाग 1]-खंड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21, 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31, 1930
ANNEXURE
That no other amount besides the said 3 months wages in lieuof notice was paid or tendered to the workman by the management .
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT - II , NEW DELHI
Shri R. N. Rai , Presiding Officer
That the services of the workman were contienious from the date of his appointment, that is, 24th February 1982 till the date of his termination , that is, 15th December, 2000,
I. D. No. 36/2005
In the matter of :
That, however, no retrenchment compensation as envisaged by the provisions of the Industrial disputes Act was paid to the workman.
Shri O. P. Verma,
H. No. 256 , India Colony, I.P.O. Kanshi , Jharsa, Gurgaon, Haryana
That also the rule of last come first go was not followed by the management inasmuch as the employees junior to the workman above named were retained by the management whereas the services of the workman above named were illegally retrenched.
Versus
The Managing Director,
Haryana Minerals Ltd., Phase-5 , Udyog Vihar , H.S.L.D.C. Complex , Gurgaon, (Haryапа)
That the above action/ termination of services of the workman by the management is illegal and void and contrary to the Sections of 25F, 25G and 25H other provisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Also no prior permission as envisaged by the Act was taken by the management before retrenchment of the services of the workman although it employed more than 1000 workmen at the time.
AWARD
That on account of the retrenchment of the workman despite his best efforts was unable to secure any alternate employment and is on the verge of starvation till date.
The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L- 29012/ 9/2005 - IR(M) Central Government Dt. 27-4-2005 has referred the following point for adjudication:
The point runs as hereunder
"Whether the action ofthe management ofHaryana Mineral Ltd. , in terminating the services of Shri O. P. Verma Cashier & Pur. Officer without paying legal dues simultaneously w.c.f. 3-3-2003 is legal andjust ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"
That though the workman was not paid any retrenchment compensation by the managementhowever, similarly placed workers were paid retrenchment compensation in terms of Section 25F of the Act hence the management arbitrarily and justly discriminated against the workman in the retrenchment of his services and has indulged in an act of victimization and unfair labourpractice.
The Management filed written statement. In the written statement it has been stated that the applicant is not covered under the I.D. Act as the applicant was working in the capacity of Supervisory/ Managerial Staff hence, claim of the claimant is liable to be dismissed.
The workman applicant has filed claim statement in the claim statement it has been stated that the workman was employed with the management above named as Mines Foreman w.e.f. 24th February, 1982 and the nature of the duties of the workman were not supervisory or administrative in nature and hence the claimant above named falls within the definition of a workman as defined in the I.D. Act, 1947.
The claimant has been paid all kind ofhis dues at the time ofhis termination hence under the provision of Act the claimant is not entitled for anything else.
That the respondent management is a public sector company engaged in the business ofmining and quarrying andhence is industry as defined in the Act.
That as the company was constrained to stop its commercial activity because of the Hon'ble Supreme courts order as such the company is going under the process of liquidation by which the company was constrained to remove all its employees .
That the services of the workman were retrenched bythe management vide order dated 15th December2000. That consequent upon the retrenchment of the workman above named, he was paid only 3 months wages calculated on the basis of the last drawn wages of the workman therefore a sum ofRs . 25,671 was paid to the workman .
That as the termination order was passed by the Regd. OfficeGurgaon and the applicant was also working in Haryana hence the applicant/claimant has no jurisdiction to file the present claim before the Ld. Central 217261/ 08-16 3156
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008 / JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
[PARI II SFC. 3 ( ii ) ) Government (Delhi ) Industrial Tribunal hence liable to be dismissed .
That the contents of para are wrong and denied as the applicant is not covered under the provision of J.D. Act hence cannot be compare himself to the workman , however , claimant has been his entire amount as per the policy of the company as well as per the law.
That as the cotupany itself was constrained to stop its all kind of commercial activities hence further constrained to terminate its employees .
That the contents of para are wrong and denied as the company has never employed its staff more than 839 as so alleged by the claimant I , where all the nines are also independent entibes employing less than 100 workers even the claimant herein was not a workman ,
That as the company itself was constrained to stop its all kind of commercial activities hence further constraitsed to terminate its employees .
The contents of the para are wrong and denied. As the company has been banned of mining activities along Delhi-Mathura belt by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and partlydue to cancellation of Mining , lease of rest of the mines by the State Government due to non payment of royalty, hence company had to stopped its all kind of activities, however, it is pertinent to mention here that the company could not pay the royalty due to heavy financial crises on it even all the staff employed in the company for carrying out the work became surplus because ofbanning of mining activitiesby the Hon'ble Supreme Court and management was constrained to terminate / retrench their employees after paying all their legal dues under the terms and conditions of the company and applicant also was paid as per the policy of the company and presently nothing is due , and the company is under liquidation process presently .
That the contents of para are wrong and denied as the entire staff including the claimant had been paid their dues as per the policy of the company as such there is no discrimination against the claimant.
The contents of this para are wrong and hence denied and the claimant has falsely stated in para No. 2 in his claira statement that he was working as Mines Foreman however , he was on the post of Purchase Officer and not Foreman however both the post of in the capacity of Managerial / supervisory capacity hence, does not fall in the category workman as defined in the I.D. Act.
The workman applicant has filed rejoinder . In the rejoinder he has renerated the averments of his claim statement and has denied most of the paras of the written statement . The managemcat has also denied most of the paras of the claim statement.
Evidence of both the parties has been taken.
Heard argument from both the sides and perused the papers on the record .
The contents of this para are wrong and denied when the applicant was terminated that time the mining activities were banned by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The contents of para 6 are wrong and very far from the facts hence denied as the claimant has been paid all his dues as per the policy of the company and the detail of the payment is as under :-
It was submitted from the side of the workman that he was appointed as Mining Foreman w.e.f. 25-2-1982. His duties were nor supervisory or administrative in nature . He falls within the definition of workman under Section 2(s) of the ID Act , 1947. He was paid only three months wages at the time of his retrenchment ,
Amount
Head of Payment
Sr. No.
Cheque No.
25,671.00
It was submitted that he is entitled to get retrenchment compensation under Section 25 F of the ID Ατι, 1947.
158923 dt. 15-12-2000
1. Three months pay in lieu ofNotice period
52,143.00
2. Earned Leave Encashment
039455 dt. 28-12-2001
It was submitted from the side of the management that the applicant was performing duty in supervisory capacity. He is not covered u/ s 2 ( s ) of the ID Act , 1947. He has been paid dues in view of his appointment letter .
3. Gratuity
93,797.00
89424 dt . 3-3-2001
This shows that all the payable dues had been paid and the officer wants to twist the facts .
It is the duty of the management to prove by cogent documentary evidence that the workman performed managerial or supervisory duty . The management should produce documents regarding the managerial and supervisory capacity .
That the contents of para are wrong and denied as when all the employees of the management company have been terminated than how it can be discriminated with the claimant only.
The workman has been issued appointment letter on 20-7-1993 . He has been given the designation of Mining Engincer and he has been appointed in the pay scale of Rs . 2000-3200 . His services have been [भाग II-खंड 3(ii) ]
3157
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
terminated inview of closure ofmining operation due to surrender ofAlipur Mines , State Government ofHaryana as his services were found surplus .
The applicant in the instant case is a workman and he is entitled to get 15 days wages for every completed year. He is not entitled to get any other relief.
This reference is replied thus:-
Hehas been paid three months pay in terms ofhis appointment, letter. It has been mentioned in the appointment letter that even after confirmation , his services maybe terminated with three months notice either on other side or pay in lieu thereof.
The action ofthe management ofHaryana Minerals Ltd. , in terminating the services of Sh. O. P. Verma, Cashier & Pur Officer without paying legal dues simultaneously w.e.f. 3-3-2003 is neither legal nor justified. The workman applicant is not entitledto reinstatement. He is only entitled to get 15 days wages for every completed year. He is not entitled to get any other relief.
The award is given accordingly.
Date: 16-5-2008
R. N. RAI, Presiding Officer Ithas not been pointed out as to what managerial duty, the workman performed. No duty chart has been filed assigning to the workinan duty in managerial or supervisory capacity. The duty of Mining Engineer is operational . In the Mines Act, the office of the Mining Engineer has not been defined as managerial or supervisory.
नई दिल्ली , 29 मई , 2008
का. आ. 1500.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार हरियाणा मिनरल लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई दी सं . 121/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।. :
[सं. एल-29012/25/2005-आई आर ( एम) ] कमल बाखरु, डेस्क अधिकारी The management has to prove that the workman was competent to watch over the work of the juniors and submit reports regarding their work in managerial or administrative office . There must be some subordinate employees as the administrator has the power to inspect the work of those subordinate and submit confidential reports to the higher authorities . It is for the management to prove that the workman has been assigned managerial duty. The workman cannot be said to be a Manager or Administrator in view of the nomenclature given to him. The work of a Engineer is always operational.
NewDelhi , the 29th May, 2008 The real test for ascertaining the status and function ofemployee are the primary, basic or dominant nature of duties. The words managerial or supervisory have to be understood in their proper connotation and there mere use cannot be detracted from the truth .
S.O. 1500-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. ID No. 121/2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court No. II, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Haryana Minerals Ltd. and their workman, which was received bythe Central Government on 29-5-2008 .
In(1985 ) 3.SCC 371 it has been held that the nature of the work of a workman is to be ascertained from the dominant nature of duties performed by him and not by nomenclature . In view of this judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court the claimant is a workman. This point is decided accordingly.
[No. L-29012/25/2005 - IR (M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT - IL, NEW DELHI
Shri R.N. Rai , PresidingOfficer L.D. No. 121/2005
Inthematterof:
Shri K. Shankar Ráo, S/o Sh. K. Santamurty, R/o House No. 1172, Sector 29, Faridabad (Haryana) .
Versus
The management has filed documents which indicate that this workman was Purchase Officer . The workmanhas filed documents in which he had repudiated that he was a Purchase Officer . The order for purchase was given by the Managing Director. No document has been filed to show that he wrote confidential report of any of the employee subordinate to him or he sanctioned leave to any of the employees . He was initially engaged as Cashier . By nomenclature , Purchase Officer , an employee cannot become Manager or Supervisor until it is proved that he has a supervisory and managerial jurisdiction to assign duties to take work and to give confidential report . Such employees will not become Manager or Supervisor even though they discharged the duties of a supervisor or manager incidently.
2172 GI/08-17 3158
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008/JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
TheManaging Director, Haryana Minerals Ltd. , Phase-5 , Udyog Vihar , HSIDC Complex , Gurgaon (Haryana)
AWARD
TheMinistry ofLabour by its letter No. L- 29012/ 25/2005 - IR(M) Central Government dt. 27-04-2005 has referred the following point for adjudication.
The point runs as hereunder:
"Whether the action of the management ofHaryana Minerals Ltd. , in terminating the services of Sh . K. Shankara Rao , Mining Foreman w.e.f. 03-03-2003 is just and legal? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "
That the workman applicant has filed claim statement. In the claim statement it has been stated that the workman above named as Mining Foreman, the nature of the duties of the workman were not supervisor or administrative in nature and hence the claimant above narued falls within the definition of workman as defined intheAct.
That the respondent management is a public sector company engaged in the business ofmining and quarrying andhence is industry as defined in the Act.
That the workman above named was in regular employment of the management since 24th May, 1996.
That consequent upon the retrenchment of the workman above named, was paid only 3 months wages but theworkman was not paid retrenchment compensation in terms of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
That further the rule of ' last come first go ' was not followed in the retrenchment of the workman's services bythe management.
That the above action on the part of the management is illegal and void and contrary to the provisions of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . Also no prior permission as envisaged by the Act was taken by the managerment before the retrenchment of the services of the workman although it employed more than 1000 workmen at the time.
That on account of the retrenchment of the workman the workman despite his best efforts was unable to secure any alternative employment and is on the verge of starvation.
That though the workman was not paid any retrenchment compensation by the management, however, similarlyplaced workers paid retrenchment compensation in terms of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,
[PART I-SEC. 3 (ii ) ) 1947. Hence the act of the management is not only arbitrary but also amounts to unjust discrimination , victimization and unfair labour practice.
The management filed written statement raising preliminary objections that the applicant is not covered under the I.D. Act as the applicant was working in the capacity ofSupervisory /Managerial Staff hence , claim of the claimant is liable to be dismissed.
That the claimant has been paid all kind of his dues at the time of his termination hence under the provisions ofAct the claimant is not entitled for any thing else.
That as the company was constrained to stop its commercial activity because of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order as such the company is going under the process of liquidation by which the company was constrained to remove all its employees.
That as the termination order was passed by the Regd. OfficeGurgaon and the applicant was also working in Haryana hence the applicant/ claimant has no jurisdictionto file the present claim before the L.d. Central Government Delhi Industrial Tribunal hence liable to be dismissed.
As the company has been banned of mining activities along Delhi - Mathura belt by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and partly due to cancellation of Mining , lease of rest of the mines by the State Government due to non payment of royalty , hence company had to stop its all kind of activities , however, it is pertinent to mention here that the company could not pay the royalty due to heavy financial crises on it even all the staff employed in the company for carrying out the work became surplus because ofbanning of mining activities by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and management was constrained to tenninate/retrench their employees after paying all their legal dues under the terms and conditions of the company and applicant also was paid as per the policy of the company and presently nothing is due , and the company is under liquidation process presently.
As the applicant is not workman however, it has been mentioned by the applicant that he was working as Mining fireman hence it is a completely concealed of fact as the applicant was working only post of Foreman and not the Fireman and who was working on the capacity of Managerial/Supervisory post hence , does not fall in the category workman as defined in the 1.D. Act .
The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In the rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his claim statement and has denied most of the paras of the written statement . The management has also denied most of the paras of the claim statement ,
Evidence of both the parties has been taken.
3159 [भाग Ⅱ-खंड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
Heard argument from both the sides and perused the papers on the record.
duties.Thewords managerial or supervisory have to be understood in their proper cannotation and the mere use cannot be detracted from the truth .
It was submitted from the side of the workman that he was appointed as Mining Foreman . His duties were not supervisory or administrative in nature .He falls within the definition of workman under Section2( s) of the ID Act, 1947. He was paid only three months wages at the time of his retrenchment.
It was submitted that he is entitled to get retrenchment compensation unser section 25F of the ID Act, 1947.
Itwas submitted from the side of the management that the applicant was performing duty in supervisory capacity.He is not covered u/ s 2 ( s) of the ID Act, 1947. Hehas been paid dues in view ofhis appointment letter.
In(1985) 3 SCC371 it has been held that the nature of the work of a workman is to be ascertained from the dominant nature of duties performed by him and not by nomenclature . In view of this judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court the claimant is a workman. This point is decided accordingly. The workman has been shown as Foreman. Hedischarged technical duties. He was Mining Engineer. In case he performed some managerial duties 'incidentallyhe will not become a Manager or Supervisor. No document regarding his working as managerial or supervisory capacity has been filed. He was posted as MiningEngineer . His duties are operational . Operational dutyhas beendefined as the duty of the workinan under Section2(s) of the ID Act, 1947. This employee is not a Manager or supervisor.
It is theduty ofthe management to prove by cogent documentary evidence that the workman performed managerial or supervisory duty. The management should produce documents regarding the managerial and supervisory capacity,
The applicant in the instant case is a workman and he is entitled to get 15 days wages for every completed year.He is not entitled to get any other relief.
The reference is replied thus:-
The workman has been issued appointment letter on 20-07-1993 . He has been given the designation of Mining Engineer and he has been appointed in the pay acale of Ra. 2000-3200 . His services have been terminated in view of closure ofmining operation due to surrender ofAlipur Mines , State Government of Haryana ashis services were found surplus.
Theaction ofthe management ofHaryana Minerals Lid., in terminating the services ofSh. K. Shankara Rao,Mining Foreman w.e.f. 3-3-2003 is neitherjust nor legal. The workman applicant is not entitledto reinstatement. He is only entitled to get 15 days wages for every completed year. He is not entitled to get any other relief.
The award is given accordingly.
Dated:16-5-2008
Hehasbeen paid three months pay in terms ofhis appointment letter. It has been mentioned in the appointment letter that even after confirmation, his services maybe terminated with three months notice either on other side or pay in lieu thereof.
R.N. RAJ , Presiding Officer
नईदिल्ली, 29 मई , 2008
Ithas not been pointed out as to what managerial duty, the workman performed . No duty chart has been filed assigning to the workman duty in managerial or supervisory capacity. The duty of Mining Engineer is operational. In the Mines Act, the office of the Mining Engincer has not been defined as managerial or supervisory.
का. आ. 1501.-औधोगिक विर्वाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार हरियाणा मिनरल लिफ्टेिड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रमन्यायालय नं. II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी से. 122/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-29012/24/2005- आई आर ( एम. ) ] कमल बाखरु , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 29thMay, 2008
The management has to prove that the workman was competent to watch over the work ofthe juniors and submit reports regarding their work in managerial or administrative office. There must be some subordinate employees as the administrator has the power to inspect the work of those subordinate and submit confidential reports to the higher authorities. It is for the management toprove that the workman has been assigned managerial duty. The workman cannot be said to be a Manager or Administrator in view ofthe nomenclature given to him. The work of an Engineer is always operational .
S.O. 1501.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. ID No. 122/2005 ) of the Central Government Industriai Tribunal Labour Court No. II , New Delhi now as shown The real test for ascertaining the status and function ofemployee are the primary, basic or dominant nature of [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ) 3160
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008 / JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
Consequent upon the retrenchment of the workman above named, was paid only 3 months wages but the workman was not paid retrenchment compensation in terms ofSection 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Haryana Minerals Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008
[No. L-29012/ 24/2005 - IR (M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer
That further the rule of' last come first go' was not followed in the retrenchment of the workman's services by the management .
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT- IL, NEW DELHI
Shri R.N. Rai, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 122/2005
That the above action on the part of the management is illegal and void and contrary to the provisions of Section 25F, 25G and 2511 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 . Also no prior permission as envisaged by the Act was iken by the management before the retrenchment of the services of the workman although it employed more than 1000 workmen at the time ,
In the matter of:
That on account of the retrenchment of the workman the workman despite his best efforts was unable to secure any alternate employment and is on the verge of starvation.
Shri Rajender Parsad, S/o Late Sh . Tej Ram, Vill. Dabua, P.O. Pali , Faridabad
Versus
That though the workman was not paid any retrenchment compensation by the management however, similarly placed workers were paid retrenchment compensation in terms of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Hence the act of the management is not only arbitrary but also amounts to unjust discrimination , victimization and unfair labour practice.
The Managing Director, Haryana Minerals Ltd. , Phase-5, Udyog Vihar, HSIDC Complex, Gurgaon (Haryana)
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour by its leter No. L-29012/ 24/2005 IR(M) Central Government Dt. 11-11-2005 has referred the following point for adjudication .
The management filed written statement . In the written statement it has been stated that the applicant is not covered under the I.D. Act as the applicant was working in the capacity of Supervisory/ Managerial Staff hence, claim of the claimant is liable to be dismissed.
The point runs as hereunder:
Thatthe claimant has been paid all kind of his dues at the time of his termination hence under the provision ofAct the claimant is not entitled for any thing else .
"Whether the action of the management ofHaryana Minerals Ltd. , in terminating the services of Sh. Rajender Parsad Sio Shri Tej Ram Mining Foreman w.e.f. 27-9-2001 is just and legal? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "
That as the company was constrained to stop its commercial activity because of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order as such the company is going under the process of liquidation by which the company was constrained to remove all its employees.
The workman applicant has filed claim statement . In the claim statement it has been stated that he was employedwiththe management above named as Mining Fireman, the nature of the duties of the workman were not supervisor or administrative in nature and hence the claimant above named falls within the definition of workman as defined in the Act .
That as the termination order was passed by the Regd. Office Gurgaon and the applicant was also working in Haryana hence the applicant / claimant has no jurisdiction to file the present claim before the Ld . Central Government (Delhi ) Industrial Tribunal hence liable to bedismissed.
That the respondent management is a public sector company engaged in the business of mining and quarrying and hence is ' industry' as defined in the Act .
As the company has been banned of mining activities along Delhi - Mathura belt by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and partly due to cancellation of Mining . fease of rest of the mines by the State Government due to non payment of royalty, hence company had to stopped itsall kind of activities , however , it is pertinent to mention The workman abovenamed was in regular employment of the management since 12th April, 1989 . The services of the workman were dispensed with and the workman was retrenched vide order dated 27th September , 2001.
3161 [भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
statement. The management has also denied most of the paras of the claim statement.
Evidence ofboth the parties has been taken.
Heard argument from both the sides and perused the papers on the record.
here that the company could not pay the royalty due to heavy financial crises on it even all the staff employed in the company for carrying out the work became surplus because of banning of mining activitiesby the Hon'ble Supreme Court and management was constrained to terminate/retrench their employees after paying all their legal dues under the terms and conditions of the company and applicant also was paid as per the policy of the company and presently nothing is due, and the company isunder liquidation process presently.
Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that he was appointed as Mining Foreman w.e.f. 1989. His services were terminated on 27th September , 2001. He was paid three months wages and he was not paid, retrenchment compensation in view ofsection 25F ofthe IDAct, 1947. He is a workman u/s 2( s) ofthe ID Act, 1947. The management should pay him compensation u/ s 25F of the ID Act, 1947.
The applicant is not workman however, it has been mentionedby the applicant that he was working as Mining firemanhence it is a completely concealed of facts as the applicant was working only post of Foreman and not the Fireman and who was working on the capacity of Managerial/Supervisory post hence , does not fall in the category workman as defined in the 1.D. Act.
It was submitted that he should be paid retrenchment compensation in view of section 25F ofthe IDAct, 1947.
That the applicant was terminated that time the mining activities were banned by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Itwas submitted from the side of the management that the applicant was performing duty in supervisory capacity. He is not covered u/ s 2( s) of the ID Act , 1947. Hehas been paid dues in view ofhis appointment letter.
That the contents of para 6 are wrong and very far from the facts hence denied as the claimant has been paid allhis dues as per the policy of the company and the detail of the payment is as under:
Amount
ChequeNo.
Sl . Head of Payment
No.
Itis the duty ofthe management to prove by cogent documentary evidence that the workman performed managerial or supervisory duty.The management should produce documents regarding the managerial and supervisory capacity.
0155556 23,1666.00
1. Three months pay in lieu ofNotice period
7,722.00
GGB/A
2. Payment of encashment ofEarned Leave
039496
27,460.00
3. Gratuity
The workman has been issued appointment letter on 20-07-1993. He has been given the designation of Mining Engineer and he has been appointed in the pay scale of Rs . 2000-3200 . His services have been terminated in view of closure of mining operation due to surrender ofAlipur Mines , State Government of Haryana ashis services were found sarplus.
Dt. 6-5-2002
From above it is evident that all dues ofthe officer had been paid and nothing isdue.
Hehas been paid three months pay in terms ofhis appointment letter . It has been mentioned in the appointment letter that even after confirmation, his services may be terminated with three months notice either on other side or pay in lieu thereof.
All the employees of the Management/Company have been terminated thanhow it can be discriminated with the claimant only. The company has never employed its staff more than 839 as so alleged by the claimant, where all themines are also independent entities employing less than 100 workers even the claimant herein was not a workman.
Ithas not been pointed out as to what managerial cuty, the workman performed . No duty chart has been filed assigningto the workman duty in managerial or supervisory capacity . The duty of Mining Engineer is operational . In the Mines Act, the office of the Mining Engineer has not been defined as managerial or supervisory.
That as the company itself was constrained to stop its all kind of commercial activities hence further constrained to terminate its employees . The entire staff including the claimant had been paid their dues as per the policy of the company as such there is no discrimination against the claimant
Theworkman applicant has filed rejoinder . In the rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his claim statement and has denied most of the paras of the written
The management has to prove that the workman was competent to watch over the work of the juniors and submit reports regarding their work inmanagerial or administrative office. There must be some subordinate employees as the administrator has the power to inspect the work of those subordinate and submit confidential reportsto the higher suthorities . It is for the management 3162
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008 / JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
New Delhi , the 29th May, 2008
to prove that the workman has been assigned managerial duty. The workman cannot be said to be a Manager or Administrator in view of the nomenclature given to him. The work of an Engineer is always operational .
Thereal test for ascertaining the status and function ofemployee are the primary , basic or dominant nature of duties . The words managerial or supervisory have to be understood in their proper connotation and the mere use cannot be detracted from the truth.
S.O. 1502. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. ID No. 27/2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. II, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Haryana Minerals Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008.
[No. L -29012/ 35/2005- IR (M ) ] KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM -LABOUR COURT- II , NEW DELHI
Shri R.N. Rai, Presiding Officer
L.D. No. 27/2006
In the matter of :
In(1985) 3 SCC 371 it has been held that the nature of the work of a workman is to be ascertained from the dominant nature of duties performed by him and notby nomenclature. In view of this judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court the claimant is a workman. This point is decided accordingly . The workman has been shown as Foreman.Hedischarged technical duties . He was Mining Engineer. In case he performed some managerial duties incidentally he will not become a Manager or Supervisor . No document regarding his working as managerial or supervisory capacity has been filed. He was posted as Mining Engineer . His duties were operational . Operational duty has been defined as the duty of a workman under Section 2(s ) of the ID Act , 1947. This employee is not a Manager or Supervisor .
Shri Khem Chand , G- 149, SGM Nagar, Badkal Road, N.1.T. Faridabad
The applicant in the instant case is a workman and he is entitled to get 15 days wages for every completed year. He is not entitled to get any other relief.
Versus
The reference is replied thus:
The Managing Director, Haryana Minerals Ltd.. Phase- 5, Udyog Vihar, HSIDC Complex, Gurgaon (Haryana)
AWARD
The action of the management of Haryana Minerals Ltd. , Gurgaon in terminating the services of Sh. Rajender Patsad S/ o Shri Tej Ram Mining Foreman w.e.f. 27-9-2001 is neither just nor legal . The workman applicant is not entitled to reinstatement . He is only entitled to get 15 days wages for every completed year. He is not entitled toget any other relief.
TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L-29012/ 35/2005 - IR( M) Central Government Dt. 29-05-2006 has referred the following point for adjudication .
The award is given accordingly.
The point runs as hereunder :
Dated: 16-05-2008
R.N. RAI , PresidingOfficer
नई दिल्ली, 29 मई , 2008
"Whether the action of the management ofHaryana Minerals Ltd. , in terminating the services of Sh Khem Chand , Security Guard w.e.f. 6-2-2001 is legal and just? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "
The workman applicant has filed claim statement, in the claim statement it has been stated that the applicant was appointed on 9-4-1990 as Security Guard by the management of Haryana Minerals Ltd. , on, monthly consolidated salary of Rs . 660 .
का. आ. 1502.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार हरियाणा मिनरल लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 11 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई दी सं. 27/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
That the applicant was appointed against permanent vacancy. That applicant's work conduct and performance were very satisfactory and he never gave any chance of complaintto the management .
[सं. एल-29012/35/2005- आई आर ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरु , डेस्क अधिकारी 3163 [भाग 1]-खंड 3(ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 21 , 2008/ज्येष्ठ 31 , 1930
That the management of HML terminated the services ofthe workmen in an abrupt illegal and unlawful manner vide letter no, HML./432 dated 5-2-2001,
The applicationare wrong and denied: No injustice havebeen done to the workman. All his dues payable under law had been paid . All the requirement of Section 25F ofthe I.D. Act had been complied with and Section 25FF is not applicable in this case as there is no transfer ofany establishment to any other company. Dues payable under law had been paid.
That the retrenchment order dated 5-2-2001 issued by the respondent management nothing but arbitrary exercise of powers by the management causing great injustice to applicant workman.
Seniority list was always available for inspection and the same is still open for inspection , if the needbe. However, when all the staff strength stand retrenched, so thisholds no goods.
That the applicant workman further begs to submit that before issuing retrenchment order the management didnotbother tocomply with the requirement ofSection 25-F and 25-FF of 1.D. Act, 1947 and whatever terminal dues arising out of forced retrenchment were accepted by the workmen under protest.
Pay of notice period as per section 25F of I.D. Act hadbeen paid. No one had been retained in the service.The company is persuing winding up- process.
That themanagement did not prepare and displayed the seniority list of the workman at the time of issuing retrenchment order.
All the law of the land had been obeyed and as the company is under winding up , 30 по ге-employment is feasible. However, the workman had been re-employed bytheGovernment ofHaryana .
That no retrenchment notice or notice pay in lieu of notice was offered by the management at the time of retrenchment. That the management retain junior hands in service while effecting retrenchment of applicant workman.
The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In the rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his claim statement andhas denied most ofthe paras of the written statement . The management has also denied most of the paras of the claim statement.
Evidence ofboth the parties has been taken, That the applicant workman submits that the action of the management issuing retrenchment order of the applicant workman is bad in law and he is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits ,
Heard argument from both the sides and perused the papers on the record.
The management has filed written statement. In the written statement management raised preliminary objections that even the applicant has not made any representation/notice to respondents regarding his dues , ifany, hence even the remedial action on the part ofthe applicant was to send a calculation chart about his dues to thedepartment but no such legal actionhas been taken byapplicant, hence the present application is prematured and maybe dismissed.
Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that he was engaged as security guard on 9-4-1990 by the management of HML on monthly consolidated salary of Rs. 660. He was appointed against a permanent vacaдсу. His services were terminated illegally , arbitrarily on 5-2-2001 . He has accepted the terminal benefits under protest. The management has not prepared and displayed seniority list. No notice pay or retrenchment compensation was given to him at the time of retrenchment.
That since HML is a dead company so I.D. Act is -not applicable to it. That claim of the applicant is time barred because he was retrenched during the year 2001 and filed this application during 2006 i.e. after five years.
Hewas appointed a daily paid security guard. Rest of the para is matter of record. The workman was appointed as daily paid staff.
Itwas submitted from the side of the management that the management has complied with the requirement of Section 25F of the ID Act, 1947. Seniority list was always available for inspection and the same is open for inspection , None has been retained in service. The company is pursuing winding up process . M/ s. HML is a dead company. The seniority list has been prepared and displayed. The workman has been retrenched by order dated 5-2-2001 and he has been paid compensation u/s 25F of the ID Act, 1947.
The applicant was retrenched from the service company after following all the legal process when his post become surplus due to stoppage of work by the company due to non availability of mining lease fromthe state government and party due to order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which banned mining activities across Delhi Mathura Belt. Even today the company is under winding up andhave retrenched the total stafffrom all cadrea .
From perusal of the record it transpires that the company is under winding up process . The workman has not established that any retrenched employee has been givenjob again. The management has filed seniority list ofthe employees, so seniority list has beendisplayed. The 3164
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21 , 2008 / JYAISTHA 31 , 1930
workman has been retrenched vide order dated 5-2-2001by Mining Manager. He has been paid one month's pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation u/s 25F of the ID Act, 1947..
The workman has not filed any evidence that the respondent is still functioning . He has been paid retrenchment compensation and one month's pay in lieu of notice. He has even accepted it that he has received payment under protest. He has been retrenched in view of closure ofthe factory. Proper retrenchment compensation hasbeengivento him . No work is existing , so there is no question of reinstatement,
The reference is replied thus :
Theaction ofthe management of Haryana Mineral Ltd. , Gurgaon in terminating the services of Sh. Khem Chand , Security Guard w.e.f. 6-2-2001 is legal and just . The workman applicant is not entitled to reinstatement.
The award is given accordingly.
Dated: 13-5-2008
R.N. RAI, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 10 जून , 2008
का. आ. 1503.- केन्द्र सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप - नियम (4) केअनुसरण में निम्नलिखित कार्यालय को, जिनके न्यूनतम ४० प्रतिशत कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है :
क्रम
कार्यालय का नाम
संख्या
(2)
(1)
1. क्षेत्रीय श्रम आयुक्त ( केन्द्रीय ) , लखनऊ, उत्तर प्रदेश 2. सहायक श्रम आयुक्त ( केन्द्रीय ) , इलाहाबाद, उत्तर प्रदेश 3. श्रम प्रवर्तन अधिकारी ( केन्द्रीय ) , गोरखपुर, उत्तर प्रदेश 4. श्रम प्रवर्तन अधिकारी ( केन्द्रीय ) , झांसी, उत्तर प्रदेश 5. श्रम प्रवर्तन अधिकारी ( केन्द्रीय ) , डाल्टनगंज, झारखंड
6. श्रम प्रवर्तन अधिकारी ( केन्द्रीय ) , डेहरी ऑन सोन , बिहार
Priated by the Manager , Govt India Press . Iting Real , Mayer and Published by the Controller of Pablo Da
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
(2)
(1)
7. श्रम प्रर्वतन अधिकारी ( केन्द्रीय ) , मोतिहारी, बिहार 8. श्रम प्रर्वतन अधिकारी ( केन्द्रीय ) , मुजफ्फरपुर, बिहार 9. श्रम प्रर्वतन अधिकारी ( केन्द्रीय ) , कटिहार, बिहार 10. अपर केन्द्रीय भविष्य निधि आयुक्त, वजीरपुर, नई दिल्ली
[सं. ई-11017/1 /2006 -रा. भा.नी. ] शारदा प्रसाद, संयुक्त सचिव New Delhi, the 10th June, 2008
S.O. 1503.-In pursuance of Sub- rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language ( Use for official purposes of the Union ) , Rules, 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies following offices , at least 80 % Staffwhereofhave acquired working knowledge of Hindi
S1. Name of the Office
No.
1. Regional Labour Commissioner ( Central ), Lucknow, U.P.
2. Assistant Labour Officer (Central), Allahabad , U.P.
3. Labour Enforcement Officer ( Central ) , Gorakhpur, U.P.
4. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) , Jhansi , U.P.
5. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central ), Dalton Gunj , Jharkhand
6. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Dehri- On-Sone, Bihar
7. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central),Motihari , Bihar
8. Labour Enforcement Officer ( Central ) , Muzaffarpur , Bihar
9. Labour Enforcement Officer ( Central), Katihar, Bihar
10. Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Wazirpur, New Delhi .
[No. E- 11017/1 /2006- RBN] SHARDA PRASAD, It. Secy.