This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

2008 आषाढ़ REGD.NO.D.LANDO4/0007/2003 , ज) 04/0007/2009 मारत का राजपत्र

टिप्पण: निर्यातक या प्रसंरकरणकर्ता द्वारा प्रति परंपण मानीटरिंग फीस Foot Note: The Principal tules were miblished vide 2771 ) dated-ah March 2002 in the GazGazette ulol राशि को भुगतान निकटतम रुपए तक पूणांकित किय

ii).

नियंत्रण

भा भारत की राजपत्र The Gazette of India [फा. सं. 2/38/2007- ईआई एंड इपी(1 ) और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम, 1963 ( 1963 का 22 ) की पारा 17 द्वारा प्राधिकार से प्रकाशितप्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, ताजी, प्रशीरित और प्रसंस्कृत جم

किरण SICO BY AUTH धी विधाण , निरीक्षण तथा पाद टिश्यज़ मूल नियम को भारत के राजपत्र, असाधासाप्ताहिकांरंग; भिनन 15 का और संशोधन करने के लिए निम्नलिखित भाग II , खंड -3 , उप -खंड ( ii ) तारीख 4 EEK :

2002 में में 61.21 277( अ) तारीख मार्च 2012

, 26]

No.36]

में प्रकाशित किए गहती भोर के संशोधन JUNE , 2003 , SATURDA VIASA आवार , 1930

14 ष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससेहै जिससे कि यह Nõuprata Regionisaleepingthis Part in order that पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा 'ये में उनको प्रकाशन

S.O. 1518.-in exercise of the powers may be filed as a separate es निरीक्षण तथा मानीटरि लिय के नियन Section 17 of the Export ( Quality Control and daytion

Act 1963 ( 22 of 1963 ),the Central Govemment hereby thickes the संत सराक्रम केरोफोड़कर ) Ruks . 2012 , namely:

ifoney Quality Savory Ordasiaa Noahtumiss Bided by the Ministriepofthe Coreammepool उस (Other than theMinoan का किया आगाज जांच अधिकतम These rules may be called the Export of Homes Quality Contru and Monitoring ) Amendment

Ruies, 2008, (राजस्व विभाग)

(2) Disey shall come into force on the date of their publication )

18200ntrol , Inspection Ita the Fxpori

अधिनियम की धारा 288 की प धिनियम की धारा 288 की में यथा पारिभाषित किसी की लेखा परीक्षा क 139 काकीउप करने की नियत तिथि त सत्यापित एक खास ला (3) भारा भिन्कार रखने वाले आयकरकार निवेशक को प्रस्तुत करेंगी। सं. 2.3842017- ईई एंड इशार

( iv ) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिये प्रवन पाद टिध्यवाथाः प्रमुक्त राशि अमीर और निय लेखा सीधा रिपोर्ट के आधी सत्यापित विवरण,कीया

सामेरिकी जानकारी के लिए 2. एकएक‌द्वारा यह आधसूचित आता सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावलीत नियमावली के नियम ऽग और 5ड.के 330 वो दिनांक 144-2007 से संगठन हिमालयन इटली ग्रान्ट, देहरादून 131 में संलग्न अन्य घस्था' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया ग

2. केन्द्र सरेक्या यह अनुसा অনুবাদির संगठनकिए गए थे परनानुवती संशोधन सेक (4) अनुमोदित 'संगम' को प्ररस पाशि का उपयोग वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए किया जाएगा;

(क) पैराग्राफ के उप पैर國 ( 法 ) 有可能 नही नहींनहीं रखेगा अपवा

( ख) पैराग्राफ । के उप- पात्राण ( पा ) मंगवान अप ताप 25-2 परीक्षा रिपोर्ट

मनमादित संगठन अपने'सकीय सदस्यों अर्थदा इसके consignment parable by the exportersprocessor नामांकित अत्री क thiore, where wch amoum contains a part of

i अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुपान के लिए इसके द्वा

(ग) पैराग्राफ NewDe अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान एवं प्राप 19. In expreise of the powers contepishw paiseor morei be increased to one runee and बही रोगों जिसमें if each part is than fifty paise, it sanh be ign अनुसंधान करने के लिए प्रयुक्त राशि दशाई गई हो, उक्त indentral and fuspssenon) 2263 GI/ 2008

1.N.238 2007- E & LI ) (3165 ) . 1963 ( 22 of 1963 ) .the Central Government hereby

makes the following roles further to amend the Export of KIRAN PURI. Director

*2263 G1/ 08-2 3106

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7, 1930

अपना अनुसंधान कार्यकलाप करपस बंद कर देगा अभया इसके अनुसंधान कार्यकलाप को जायज नहीं पाया जाएगा;

Fre६ ) Onati namels

अथवा

(

छ) उक्त नियममली के नियम ऽग और 5. के साथ पठित वक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उपाय ( 1 ) के खखंड. केबंधों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नहींकरेगा

חי [अधिसूचना सं. 72/2008/फा है. 203/61 /2007-आ क नि- II ]

सुरेन्दर पाल , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department ofRevenue)

(Central Board ofDirect Taxes)

New Delhi , the 18th June, 2008

801504.-it is hereby notified for general information that the organization Himalayan Institute Hospital Trust, Jolly Grant, Dehradun has been approved bythe Central Government for the purpose of clause ( ii) of sub-section ( 1 ) ofSection 35 ofthe Income -TaxAct, 1961 (saidAct), read with Rules SC and SE of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (said Rules) , with effect from 1-4-2007 in the category of other Institution ' partly engaged in research activities subjectto the following conditions , namely:-- (1) The sums paid to the approved organization shall be utilized for scientific research;

(i) The approved organization shall carry out Fuse Nscientific research through its faculty members or its enrolled students;

গাঁর

(ii) The aproved organization shall maintain separate books of accounts in respect of the sums received by it for scientific research , reflrct therein the amounts used for carrying out research , get such books audited by an accountant as defined in the explanation to sub- section (2) of Section 288 of the said Act and furnish the report of such audit duly signed and Verfied by such accountant to the Commissioner নি of Income- tax or the Director of Income -tax पाथ प ving jurisdiction over the case ,by the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 139 ofthe saidAct ;

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

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

ils to maintain sepaate books of accounts referred to in sub- paragraph ( ii) of paragraph 1 ;

(b) falls to furnish its audit report referred to in subparagrph ( iii ) of paragraph 1 ; or

[PART IISec.3( ii)] (c) fails to furnish its statement of the donations received and sums aplied 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 ; от

(e) ceases to conformto and comply with the provisions of clause( ii) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section35 of the said Act read with rules SC and SE ofthe said Rules .

[Notification No. 72/2008/F-No.203/61 /2007 /TTA -II ] SURENDER PAL, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 18 जून , 2008

का. आ. 1505,-सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एत‌द्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली, 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम 54 और 58.के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ दिनांक 1-4. -2005 से संगठन क्रिश्चियन मेडिकल कालेज लुधियाना सोसायटी ,लुधियान को निम्नलिखित शर्तों अधीन आआंशिक रूप से अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों में संलग्न ' अन्य संस्था' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है , नामतः- (i) अनुमोदित संगठन को प्रदत्त राशि का उपयोग वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए किया जाएगाः

(ii ) अनुमोदित संगठन अपने संकाय सदस्यों अभवा इसके नामांकित छात्रों के माध्यम से वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान को जारी रखेगा ;

( ii) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए इसके द्वारा प्राप्त राशि के संबंध में अलग खाता नही रखेगा जिसमें अनुसंधान करने के लिए प्रयुक्त राशि दशर्शाई गई हो , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 288 की उप धारा ( 2 ) के स्पष्टीकरण में यथा परिभाषित किसी लेखाकार से ऐसी खाता -यही की लेखा परीक्षा कराएमा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 139 की उप धारा ( 1 ) के अंतर्गत आय की विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने की नियत तिथि तक ऐसे लेखा द्वारा विधिवत सत्त्यापित एवं हस्ताक्षरित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट मामले में क्षेत्राधिकार रखने वाले आयकर आयुक्त अथवा आयकर निदेशक को प्रस्तुत करेगा ।

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

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

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

( ख) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अधषा 3(H) ]

...भारत का राजापत्र: जून 28 , 2008/ आषाढ़ 7, 1930

(c) fails to furnish its statement of the donations received and sums apoi referred to in sub-paragraph (iv) of paragraph 1 ;

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

(घ) अपना अनुसंधान कार्यकलाप करना बंद कर देगा इसके लापको नहीं पाएगा ; अथवा

(d) ceases to carry on research activities are o

(ड) उक्त नियमावेली के निय उग और उ के साथ पठित *उपत अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड (ii) के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पासव सहीं करेगा ।

(e) ceases to confort to provisions ofclaudiinide (1) of Section35 ofthe sald Act read,with npm 5E ofthe said Rules.

अभिसं. 21 /2000/ 203 /51 /2008 -जापान-11 ]

[NotificationNo.71 /2001/FNo No.71 /2001/F No.203 /51/ 2008/TTM-(1 ) सुरेन्दर पाल, अवर बलिय

SURENDER PAL, Under Secy NewDelhi, the 18th June,2008

नई दिल्ली, 25 2

5.0. 1505. It is boreby notified for vemeral information that the organization Christian Mos College Ludhiana Society, Ludhiana has been approved bytheCentralGovernment for the purpose of chase (il) of sub-section ( 1)ofSection 35ofthe Income -Tax Act, 1961 (saidAct); rond with Rales 50 and SE ofthe Income- tax Rodea, 1962 (saldikalos), with affect from 1-4-2005 in the omageryof' other Institution ' partly engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions , namely:-

(1) The suis paid to the approved organization shaftbe utilized for scientific research;

The approved erganization shall carry out- scientific research through its facukymembers or its enrolled students;

का.आ. 1306. - राष्ट्रीयकृत एवं कर्म उपवन स्कीम,, 1976/1980 के 3 6, खण्ड 7 और खण्ड 88 के उपखण्ड ( 1) के मान सकारा कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरेणधिनियम , 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उपधारा 3 के प्रयोग करते हुए, केंन्द्रीय सरकार परामर्श से , श्री ए.सी, महाजन ( 190 एवं प्रबंध निदेशक, इलाहाबाद बैंक को OK- 07-2000 उसके बाद पदभार ग्रहण करने की और 31-07-2010 क अर्थात उनकी अधिवर्षिता की करीने तक, जो भी पहले हो, केनरा बैंक प्रतिक रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

२८. कालकाना है

(Department ofFl

New Delhi , the 25th J ১০০ নট আ

the S.O. 1506. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) ofsub -section (3 )of Section of () The approved organization shall maintain separate books of accounts in respectof the sums received by it for scientific research , reflect therein the amounts used for sarrying out research get such bouke asitized by an accountant as defined in the expiration to sub section (2) ofSection 988 of the midAct and furnish the report of such audit duly signedand verifiedby such accountant to the Commissioner of Income-tax or the Director of Income -tax having jurisdiction over the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1 ) ofSection 139 ofthe said Act;

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

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

Companies (Acquisition and Hudik deng Act, 1970/1980 , read with sabsolume clause 5, clause 6, clause 7 and substan of the Nationalised Banks Management, and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme, 1970/11970/1980, the Central Government , after consultation with the Reserve Bankof India, hereby appoints Shin .C. 阿孔时团时 56B : 05-07-1950), Chairman and Man Bank as Chairman and Managing Diretorn Cam , Bank from the date of taking charge of the post of or after 01-07-2008 -and till 31-07-2010 1. superannuation or until further Wars ,which (a) fails to maintain sepaáte books of accounts referred to in sub-paragraph ( ii ) of paragraph 1 ; or

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

GB. SINGH, Dy Secy.

316

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7,11930

[PART I-Sec.3 (ii)]

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING विदेश मंत्रालय

NewDelhi , the 28th May, 2007

(सी.पी.वी. प्रभाग ) नईदिल्ली, 16 जून, 2008

का.अ. 1507, -राजनयिक कौसक्षी अधिकारी ( शपथ एवं शुल्क अधिनियम 1948 ( 1948 का 41 पां 2 के अंक (क ) के अंनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वाय भारत का कौंसलाषास, दुबई में श्रीमति कौशल इसरानी, श्री अशोक चौधरी और श्रीपति लक्तिका ओवर सहत्यक को 16-6-2008 से सहायक कौसली अधिकारी का कार्य करने हेतु प्राधिकृत करती है ।

S.O. 1508.- In continuation of this Ministry's Notification of even number dated 02.01.2007 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 5ofthe Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37of 1952) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification ) Rules, 1983, the Central Government is pleased to appoint the following persons as members of the Guwahati Advisory Panel of Central Board ofFilm Certification with immediate effect for a period oftwo years or until further orders, whichever is earlier:

1. Ms. Manjulika Pal

[ टी-4330/01 /2006] प्रीतम लाल , अवर सचिव (कौसुलर) 2. Ms.Laishram Champa

3. Ms. Tinat Atifa Masood

4. Ms. Latika (Queen) Talukdar

5. Shri Bhuban Lakhar

6. Prof. Narendra Nath Sharma

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (C.P.V.DIVISION) NewDelhi,the 16th June,2008

[F. No. 809/3 /2006-F(C) ]

SANGEETA SINGH, Director (Films) नई दिल्ली, 27 मई, 2008

$.0. 1507. In pursuance ofthe clause (8) ofthe Section 2 oftheDiplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees ) Act, 1948 the Cental Government hereby authorize Smt. Kaushal Isrank, Assistant , Shri Ashok Chaudhury,Assistant and Smt . Latika Grover , Assistant to perform the duties of Assistant, Consular Officer in the Consulate General of Indig ,Dubai with effect from lộth June2008.

[No. T-4330/ 1/2006] PRITAM LAL, Under Secy. (Consular)

का.आ. 1509.-इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 5 फरवरी , 2008 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में और चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन) नियमावली , 1983 के नियम 3 के साथ पक्षित चलचित्र अधिनियम, 1952(1952 का 37 ) की धारा 3 की उपधात्तः ॥४.हात अक्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्र सरकार तत्काल प्रभाष से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए और अगले आदेशों तक, केंद्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन मौड़ के संवस्य के रूप में श्री अजय बिजली , 31 , न्यू रोहतक रोड , नई दिल्ली -05 को नियुक्त करती है ।

Section Occup the Governmeti संजना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 28, मई, 2007

[फा. सं 809/ 11 /2007 - एफ (सी) ] संगीता सिंह , निर्देशक ( फिल्म)

New Delhi , the 27th May, 2008 (Дерации 1508 इसइस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 02.01.2007 की समुसांख्यिक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में और चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन) नियमावली, 1983 के नियम 7 और 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम, 1952 ( 1952का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा अहष्ट शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्र सरकार तत्काल प्रभाव से दो की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , केंद्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के गुवाहाटी सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्यों के रूप में निम्नांकित व्यक्तियों को नियुक्त करती हैः-

सूत्रों मंजुलिका पाल

S.O. 1509.-In continuation of this Ministry's Notification ofeven number dated 5th February, 2008 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 3 ofthe Cinemalograph Act , 1952 (37 of 1952) read with rule 3 of the Cinematograph (Certification ) Rules , 1983 , the Central Government is pleased to appoint Shri Ajay Bijli , 31 , New Rohtak Road, New Delhi -05 as a member of the Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of three years and until further orders .

सुनी लैशराम चम्पा

[File No. 809/11 /2007-F(C) ] 3. सुश्री तीगत अतीफा मसूद

* सुश्री लविका (क्कीम ) तालुकदार

SANGEETA SINGH, Director (Films) नई दिल्ली , 28 मई , 2008-

5. श्री मुंबत लखार

श्री नरेंद्र नाथ शर्मा

[फा सं. 809/3/2006-एफ ( सी) ]

संगीता सिंह, निदेशक ( फिल्म)

का, आ, 1510. - इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 13 सितम्बर, 2007 को समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में और चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियमावली, 1983 के नियम 7 और 8 के साथ पतित चलचित्र अधि नियम, 1952 ( 1952 का 37 की धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्र सरकार तत्काल प्रभाव से हो 3109 [ 3 ]

भारत का रामचत्र : जून 28, 2008/7 1950

वर्षों की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेशों तक को भी पहले हो, केंद्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के दिल्ली सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्यों के रूम में निम्मांकित व्यक्तियों को नियुक्त बनती है ।

1. श्री नफे सिंह नम्बरदार , म.नं. 209 , डींडरपुर नक्फनड़ , नई दिल्ली -110043

with rules ? and & of the Cinerunograph (Calinolsouf Rules, 1983 the Central Government is planned to appoint Sent.GulshanRegum, R. No. 154, 1st Floor, AllaRakhin Building, Jecob Circle, Hans Road, 7 Rasta, Mumbai (West) as a member of the Mumbal advisory panel of theCentralBoardund of Film Certification with model effect for aperiod of two your or lentil fordy whichever is carller: Farther orders

[F. No. 809/4/2007-F (C)] 2. श्रीमति इन्दु मात्र, कुमार भवन, आर्य नगर , कोशीपुर -244713, जिला यू.एस. नगर (उत्तरांचल )

SANGEETA SINGH, Director 3. श्री जे.के. पालिद , 56 गौदम बुद्ध रोड, मया -823001 ( बिहार )

नई दिल्ली 28 मई 2008

[फा. नं. 809/7/2007 - एक ( सी) ]

"संगीत सिंह, निर्देशक ( फिल्म)

NewDelhi, the 28th May,2008

5फरवरी , का.आ. 1512-श्री 2008 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के तहत केंद्रीय पि प्रमाणन बोर्ड से अपना त्यागपत्र दे दिया है। सक्षम प्राधिकारी तत्काल प्रभाव से उनकी त्यागपत्र स्वीकार कर लिया है। जग

809/ 11 /2007- प्रक

1. Now Delhi, the

S.O. 1510. In continuation of this Ministry's Notification ofeven number dated 13th September , 2007 and in exercise of the powers conferred byby sub- ssub- section ( 1 ) of Section 5 ofthe Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read with rules 7&8 ofthe Cinematograph ( Certification ) Rules, 1983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint the following persons as members ofthe Delhi Advisory Panel ofthe Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further arders, whichever is earlier:

1. Shri Nafe Singh, Namberdar , H.No.209, Deendarpur , Najaigarh, NewDelhi-110043

$.0.1512.- Shri Girish Kamid who wan appointed as aBoard member of the Central Board of Film Certification vide notification of evemunbendruod 5th February, 2004, has tendwed hieroείρηιεινή Ετρια τζωτι Board of the Contral, Boend ofFilm Cortificatipo De competent authority has accepted the resignationwith immediateeffect.

F. No.809/ 11/2007-F(C)) 2. Smt. Indu Mann, Kumar Bhawan , Alya Nagar, Kushipur-244713Distt. U.S. Nagar (Uttiranchal

SANGEETA SINGH, Director (Films ) 3. Shri J.K. Palit, 56 Gautam Budha Road, Gaya -823001 (Bihar)

नई दिल्ली, 13 जून, 2008

F.No.809/7/2007-F( C)]

SANTA SINGH , Director (Films)

नई दिल्ली, 28 मई , 2008

9 का.आ. 151. इस काम की कि 31 मई, 2007 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में और चलचित्र (प्रान्त) नियमावली, 1983 के नियम 7 और 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्र सरकार तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए और अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले ही, श्री प्रसाद कचेय , ३०७ , कमला कल्पान अपार्टमेरस, कमलानगर , ईसीआईएल (पोस्ट ) सादको केंद्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के वैचराना सलाम के सदस्य को रूममें नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. से. 809/1/2007 -एफ (सी) ]

संगीत सिंह , निदेशक ( फिल्

NewDelhi, the 13th June,2000 का.आ. 1511.-इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 6 अगस्त, 2007 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में और चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियमावली, 1983 के नियम 7 और ४ के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम, 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की भारी 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदेय शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्र सरकार सत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए या'अगले आदेशों तक जो भी पहले हो , केंद्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के मुम्बई सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्य के रूप में श्रीमती गुलशन बेगम , कमरा न.15 ए, प्रथम तल , अल्ला रखिया बिल्डिंग, जेकम सर्कल, हंस रोड, 7 सस्ता, मुम्बई ( वेस्ट) को नियुक्त करता है । :

[फा. सं. 809/4/2007- एफ ( सी) ]

संगीता सिंह, निदेशक (फिल्म)

New Delhi , the 28th May,2008

5,0. 1513. In continuation of this Ministry's Notification of even nümber dated 31stMay, 2007 andth exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 )of Section 5 ofthe Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37of 1932) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification ) Rules, 1983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint Shri Prasad Kota, 305, Kammala Kalyan Apartments, Kamalanagar, ECIL (Post ), Hyderabad as member ofthe Hyderabad advisory penes ofthe Contai 5. 1511. In continüation of this Ministry's Nelestion of even number dated 6th August, 2007 and in wwwke.of the powers conferredby sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 5oftheCinematograph Act, 1952. (37 of 1952 ) read 3170

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2008/ASADHA 7, 1930

[PART IF Sec.3 (ii ) ]

वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय

(वाणिज्य विभाग)

Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders, whichever is earlier:

[F.No.809/ 1 /2007 -F (C) ]

नई दिल्ली, 16 जून , 2008

SANGEETA SINGH, Director ( Films)

का.आ. 1515. केन्द्रीय सरकार , निर्यात (क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम, 1963 ( 1963 का 22 ) की धारा 17 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, दुग्ध उत्पादों के निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण , निरीक्षण और मानीटरिंग ) नियम , 2000 का और संशोधन करने के लिए निम्नलिखित नियम बनाती है , अर्थात्:-

संध्धार एवं सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय (डाक विभाग ) (भवन शाखा) शुद्धिपत्र

नई दिल्ली, 23 जून , 2008

1. ( 1 ) इन नियमों का संक्षिप्त नाम दुग्ध उत्पादों के निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण , निरीक्षण और मानीटरिंग ) संशोधन नियम, 2008 है ।

(2 ) ये राजपत्र में इनके प्रकाशन की तारीख को प्रवृत होंगे ।

2 दुग्ध उत्पादों के निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण , निरीक्षण और मानीटरिंग ) नियम, 2000 के नियम 6 , के उपनियम (ख) के स्थान पर निम्नलिखित रखा जाएगा , अर्थात्:-

"6 फीस

का.आ. 1514.- भारत के राजपत्र के भाग- II 3 ( ii ) दिनांक 11-9-1993 में प्रकाशित अधिसूचना के संबंध में जो केन्द्र सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारियों को डाक विभाग में सम्पदा अधिकारी के तौर पर कार्य करने के लिए नियुक्त करने के बारे में है और तत्पश्चात् एस.ओ. सं. 3209 , 3210 , और 3211 दिनांक 15-02-95 के साथ प्रकाशित अधिसूचना के तहत जारी संशोधन और इस कार्यालय के दिनांक 14-8-2002 के समसंख्भक पत्र द्वारा जारी संशोधनों के तहत दिल्लीसर्किल में आगे निम्नलिखित संशोधन किया जाता है :

सर्किलका

क्षेत्राधिकार

क्रम सं नाम

अधिकारी का नाम

(ख) प्रसंस्करणकर्ता या निर्यातक द्वारा मानीटरिंग फीस का संदाय पोत पर्यन्तनिः शुल्क ( एफ.ओ.बी. ) मूल्य के 0.20 % की दर से उस निर्यात निरीक्षण अभिकरण को किया जाएगा जो प्रति वर्ष अधिकतम 15 लाख रुपए प्रति निर्यातक या प्रसंस्करणकर्ता होगा । "

दिल्ली सर्किल सहायक निदेशक दिल्ली डाक सर्किल

(रा.भा. ) मुख्य पोस्ट मास्टर जनरल का कार्यालय, दिल्ली सर्किल

[संख्या: 2-119/90- भवन]

टिप्पणः निर्यातक द्वारा प्रतिपरेषण संदेय पानीटरिंप फीस की राशि को निकटतम रूपए तक पूर्णांकित किया जाएगा और इस प्रयोजन के लिए जहां ऐसी राशिका भाग पैसे में है , तब यदि वह भाग पचास पैसे या अधिक है तो उसे बढ़ा कर एक रुपए में कर दिया जाएगा और यदि प्रत्येक भाग पचास पैसे से कम है तो उसे गणना में नहीं लिया जाएगा। वर्ती एस चोपड़ा, सहायक महानिदेशक ( भवन )

[फ्नईल सं. 2/38/2007-ई आई एंड ईपी ( 1 ) ]

किरण पुरी, निदेशक (Department ofPosts)

MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND IT (BuildingBranch) CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 23rd June, 2008

पाद टिप्पण: मूल नियम भारत के राजपत्र , असाधारण भाग- II , 'खंड-3 , उपखंड ( ii ) में तारीख 28 नवम्बर 2000 को सं. का.आ. 2720 तारीख 28 नवम्बर 2000 द्वारा प्रकाशित किए गए थे और उनके पश्चातकर्ती संशोधन अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 999 तारीख 13-9-2004, का.आ. सं. 715 तारीखा 25-2-2005 और का.आ. 1397 सं. तारीख 24-4-2007 द्वारा किए गए ।

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY S.O. 1514.-In connection with the Natification published in the Gazette of India in Part-II 3 ( ii ) dated 11-9-1993 in respect ofthe Central Govt. Gazetted Officers appointed to act as Estate Officers in the Department of Posts and amendment issued vide Notification published with S.O. No. 3209,3210 & 3211 dated 15-2-95 and further amendment issued vide this ofice letter of even number dated 14-8-2002 , the following further changes may be made in respect of Delhi Circle: 153.

(Department of Commerce) New Delhi , the 16th June, 2008

Mo Nameof Designationtentariak of Officer indiction

In Delhi Asattimeter ( Delhi Pastai

Chief Postmaser General

S.O. 1515.- In exercise of the powers conferred Section 17 ofthe Export (Quality Control and Inspection ) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963 ) , the CentralGovernment hereby makes the following rules further to almenổi thờitipit of Milk Porducts (Quality Conी हैवमे Monitoring) Rules , 2000 , pam हुए चाः Dont Cicle 2017

( SCHOPRA ANDINmo @rratolog ) .

1. (1 ) These rules may be calledthe, hepprofMilk: Products ( Quality Control Inspectiogand Monitoring ) Amendment Rules , 2008 , [ 3(1)]

B17F

পারে বস বাজার : जून 28 , 2008/ 7, 1930

(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Officini Gapette.

एक रुपए में कर विमा और पेना पैसे से कम है तो, उसे मनमा में नहीं लिया जाएगा । [फाईल सं. 2/38/2007- ईआई एकी

किरण पुरी, निदेशक 2. In the Export ofMilk Products (Quality Control, Inspection and Monitoring ) Rules, 2000, for sub - rule (b ) of rule 6, the folllowing rule shall be substituted, namely

*6FER

पाद टिप्पण : मूल नियम भारत के राजपत्र , असाधारण भाग 2 खंड-3, उपखंड (ii) में तारीख 4. अगाव , 1997 में का.आ. 2078 (अ) तारीख 4 अगस्त, 1997 द्वारा प्रकाशित किए गए थे और पेश्चात्वर्ती संशोधन का.आ. 1443 ( म ) तारीख 19-12-2003 तथा का.आ. 721 तारीख 25-2-2005 द्वारा किए गए । (b )Amonitoring fee @ 0.20 % offree on board (F.O.B.) value shall be paid by the processor or the exporter tothe concernedExport Inspection Agencywith a maxinum ofRs.15 lakha per annum per exporteror processor.

NewDelhi , the 16th June,2001

S.O. 1516.-In exercise ofthe powers conferral by Section 17 ofthe Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963) , the Central Govemment hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Export of Eng Products (Quality Control , Inspection and Monitoring) Rules, 1997,samoly

Note: The amount of monitoring fee for each consignment payable by the exporter shall be rounded offtothe nearest rupee and , for this purpose, where such amount contains a part of a rupee consisting of prise, then, if such part is fifty paise or more, it shall be increased to one rupee and ifeach part is less than fifty paise, it shall be ignored." :

[F.No. 2/38/2007- EI & EP (1)] KIRAN PLURI, Director

1. (1) These rules may be called the Export of Egg Products (Quality Control , Inspection and Monitoring) Amendment Rules , 2008.

Foot Note: The Principal rules were published vide

(2) They shall come into force on the date oftheir publication in the Official Gazette.

2. In the Export of Egg Products (Quality Control, Inspection and Monitoring ) Rules, 1997, for rule6.2 the following rule shallbersabilitused , namely S.O. 2720 dated 28th November, 2000 in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3 , sub-section ( ii) , dated 28th November , 2000 and subsequently ammended by S.0. 999 (E) dated 13-9-2004, 8.0:715 dated 25-2-2005 and S.O.1397 damed 24-4-2007.

नई दिल्ली, 16 जून, 2008

"6.2-A monitoring fee @ 0.20% of free on board (F.O.B.) value shall be paid by the processor or thi exporter tothe concerned Export Inspection Agency with a maximum ofRs . 15 lakha per annum per exporter or processor.

का.मा. 1516. - केन्द्रीय सरकार , निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम, 1963 ( 1963 का 22 ) की धारा 17 द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, अंडा उत्पादों के निर्यात ( क्वालिटी निर्मात्रस, निरीक्षण और मानीटरिंग) निषम , 1997 काऔर संशोधन करने के लिए निम्नलिखित

1. ( 1) इन निधनों का सोसणा नाम अंडा उत्पादों के नियतवालिटी नियंत्रण, निरीक्षण और मानीटरिंग संशोधन नियम, 2008 है ।

Note :The amount of monitoring fee for each consignment payable by the exporter sbalhe rounded off to the nearest rupee and for this purpose, where contains a part of a rupee consisting ofpaise , then , if such part is fifty paise or more , it shall be increased to one rupee and if each part is less than fifty paise, it shall be ignored."

(2 ) ये राजयंत्र में इनके प्रकाशन की तारीख को प्रवृत्त होंगे ।

[F. No. 2/38/2007-EL & ΕΡ (0) KIRAN PURI, Director 2. अंडा उत्पादों के निर्यात ( कालिटी निर्मत्रमरिरीक्षण और मानीटर्याण) नियम, 1997 के नियम 6.2 के स्थान पर निम्नलिखित नियम रखा जाएगा , अर्थावू-

FootNote:The Principal ruies were published vide 50 2078 dated 4th August, 1997 in the Game of India, Pact 1, Section 3 , sub- section (ii ) , damed 4th August, 1997 and subsequenthi amended by S.O. 1443(E) dated 19-12-2003 and S.O.721 dated25-2-2007.

*6.2- प्रसंगारणकर्तामा निर्यातका मानीटरिंग फीस का संदराय पोद पर्यन्व मिधारक के 0.20 % की वर से उस निर्वात विटीजनः अभिकरण को दिया जाएगा से प्रति वर्ष अधिकतमः 15 लाख र अति वर्मा होगा।"

नईदिल्ली , 16 जून , 2008

टिक निर्यातक द्वारा प्रतिपदेन बनीटरिंग फीस की राशि को निकटतम रुपए- यक पूर्णकित क्रियां चाएगा और इस प्रयोबन के लिए जहां ऐसी राशि का भाग पैसे में है, तब यदि वह भाग पचास पैसे या अधिक है. तो उसे बड़ा कर

का.आ.. 1517. - केन्द्रीय सरकार, निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम, 1963 ( 1963 का 22 की पास द्वारा 3172

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7 , 1930

प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, ताजा मुर्गी मांस और मुर्गी मांस उत्पादों को निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण , निरीक्षण और मानीटरिंग ) नियम, 2002 का और संशोधन करने के लिए निम्नलिखित नियम बनातीहै, 1. (1) श्म नियमों का संक्षिप्त नाम ताजा मुर्गी मांस और मुर्गी मांस अपारों के निर्यात (क्वालिटी नियंत्रण , निरीक्षण और मानीटरिंग ) संतोषन नियम, 2008 है ।

( 2 ) थे राजपत्र में इनके प्रकाशन की सारीख को प्रवृत होंगे । 2. शाया मुर्मी मांस और मुर्गी मांस उत्पारों के निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण, निरीक्षण और मामीटरिंग ) नियम , 2002 के नियम 6 के लिए उपनियम 2 के स्थान पर निम्नलिखित नियम रखा आएगा, अर्थात्:-

6फीस

"2- प्रसंस्करणकर्ता या निर्यातक द्वारा मानीटरिंग फीस का संदाय पोत पर्यन्त निःशुल्क ( एफ.ओ.बी. ) मूल्य के 0.20% की दर से उस "निर्यात निरीक्षण अभिकरण को किया जाएगा जो प्रति वर्ष अधिकतम 15 लाख रुपए प्रति निर्यातक या प्रसंस्करणकर्ता होगा । " टिप्पण: निर्यातक द्वारा प्रति परेषण संदेस मानीटरिंग फौस की राशि को निकटतम रुपए तक पूर्णांकित किया जाएगा और इस प्रयोजन के लिए जहां ऐसी राशि का माग पैसे में है, तब यदि वह भाग पचास पैस या अधिक है तो उसे बढ़ा कर एक रुपए में कर दिया जाएगा और यदि प्रत्येक माग पचास ....... पैसे से कम है तो , उसे गणना में नहीं लिया जाएगा । [फाईल सं. 2/38/2007 -ईआई एंड ईपी ( गा ) ]

किरण पुरी , निर्देशक पाद टिप्पण: मूल नियम को भारत के राजपत्र , असाधारण भाग- II , खंड -3 , उपखंड ( ii ) में तारीख 30 दिसम्बर , 2002 , में का. आ. सं. 1378 ( अ) अरीख 30 दिसम्बर , 2002 द्वारा प्रकाशित किए गए थे और उन्हें पश्चात्वर्ती का.आ. सं. 719 तारीख 25-2-2005 द्वारा किया गया । ...זיי

NewDelhi, the 16th June, 2008

[PART I-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 2. In the Export of Fresh poultry meat and poultry meat products (Quality Control , Inspection and Monitoring ) Rules , 2002 , for sub- rule 2 ofrule 6 the following rule shall be substituted, namely:-

6. FEE

"2-Amonitoring fee @ 0.20% of free on board (F.O.B. ) value shall be paid by the processor or the exporter to the concerned Export Inspection Agency with a maximum of Rs . 15 lakhs per annum per exporter or processor.

Note: The amount of monitoring fee for each consignment payable by the exporter shall be rounded off to the nearest rupee and, for this purpose, where such amount contains a part of a rupee consisting of paise, then , if such part is fifty paise or more , it shall be increased to one rupee and if each part is less than fifty paise, it shallbe ignored."

[F. No. 2/38/2007 - ΕΙ & ΕΡ( 111) ]

KIRAN PURI , Director Foot Note : The Principal rules were published vide S.O. 1378 dated30th December, 2002 in the Gazette of India, Part II , Section 3 , sub- section ( il), Extraordinary dated 30th December , 2002 and subsequently amended by S.O. 719 dated 25-2-2005 .

नई दिल्ली, 16 जून , 2008

का.आ. 1518 , -केन्द्रीय सरकार , निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम , 1963 ( 1963 का 22 ) की धारा 17 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, शहद के निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण, निरीक्षण और मानीटरिंग ) नियम , 2002 का और संशोधन करने के लिए निम्नलिखित नियम बनाती है , अर्थात्:-

1. ( 1 ) इन नियमों का संक्षिप्त नाम शहद के निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण , निरीक्षण और मानीटरिंग ) संशोधन नियम , 2008 है । (2 ) ये राजपत्र में इनके प्रकाशन की तारीख को प्रवृत होंगे । 2. शहद के निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण , निरीक्षण और मानीटरिंग ) नियम, 2002 के नियम 6 के स्थान पर निम्नलिखित नियम रखा जाएगा , अर्थात्:-

(6) निरीक्षण फीस

S.O. 1517.-In exercise of the powers conferredby section 17 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963 ) , the Central Government hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Export of Fresh poultry meat and poultry meat products ( Quality Control, Inspection and Monitoring ) Rules , 2002, samely:-

1. (1 ) These rules may be called the Export of Fresh poultry meat and poultry meat products (Quality Control, Inspection and Monitoring ) Amendment Rules,2008.

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

" मानीटरिंग प्रणाली और अनुमोदन के मामले में, निरीक्षण फीस पोत पर्यन्त निःशुल्क ( एफ.ओ.बी. ) के 0.20 % की दर से जो अधिकतम प्रति वर्ष 15 लाख रुपए प्रति निर्यात्क्तक या प्रसंस्करणकर्ता होगा और परेषणानुसार निरीक्षण के मामले में पोत पर्यन्त मूल्य एफ. ओ.बी. के 0.40 % की दर से न्यूनतम 500 रुपए का संदाय प्रति परेषण के अधीन रहते हुए निर्यातकर्त्ता या प्रसंस्करणकर्त्ता द्वारा अभिकरण को किया जाएगा । " [ पन II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

3173

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28, 2008/आषाढ़ 7 , 1930

टिप्पण: निर्यातक या प्रसंस्करणको द्वारा अति परेषण मागीटरिंग फीस की राशि को भुगतान निकटतम रुपए तक पूर्कित किया चाएगा और इस प्रयोजन के लिए जहां ऐसी रााँश का भाग पैसे में हो, तब यदि वह भार्ग पचास पैसे या अधिक है वी उसे बढ़ा कर एक रुपए कर दिया जाएगा और यदि प्रत्येक भाग पचास पैसे से कम है तो , उसे गणना में नहीं लिया जाएगा। :

(फा. सं. 2/38/2007 -ईआई एंड ईपी ( IV) ]

किरण पुरी, निदेशक पाद टिप्पण: मूल नियम को भारत के राजपत्र , असाधारण भाग-11 , खंड-3 , उप-खंड ( ii ) तारीख 4 मार्च, 2002 में सं. का.आ. 277( अ ) तारीख 4 मार्च, 2002 में प्रकाशित किए गए थे और उनके पश्चात्वतीं संशोधन अधिसूचना सं. का. आ.1245 तारीख 14-5-2004 द्वारा किए गए ।

NewDelhi, the 16th June,2008

5.O. 1518.-In exercise of the powers conferredby Section 17. ofthe Export (Quality Control and inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963 ) , the Central Government hereby makes tite following rules further to amend the Export of Honey(Quality Control , Inspection and Monitoring) Rules, 2002, namely

1. ( 1 )These rules may be called theExport ofHoney (Quality Control , Inspection and Monitoring) AmendmentRules,2008.

(2)They shall come into force on the date of their publication in theOfficial Gazette.

2. IntheExport ofHoney (Quality Control , Inspection and Monitoring) Rules ,2002, for rule 6, the following rule shall be substituted, namely:

"(6) InspectionFee

Incase ofapproval and monitoring system , inspection [email protected]% ofthe free on board (F.O.B.) valuewith amaximum ofRs . 15 Lakhs per annum per exporter or processor and in case of consignment wise inspection@ 0.40 % of freight on board ( F.O.B. ) valie subject to a minimum of Rs . 500/; per consignment, shall be paid by the exporter or processor to theAgency. :

Note: The amount of monitoring fee for each consignment payable by the exporter /processor shall be rounded off to the nearest rupee and , for thispurpose, where such amount contains a part of amapee consisting of paise, then, ifsuch part is fifty paise or more, it shall be increased to one rupee and ifeach part is less than fifty paise, it shall be ignored."

[F. No. 2/38/2007-El &EP ( IV) ] KIRAN PURI , Director 2263 G1/08-2

FootNote: The Principal rules were published vide S.O. , 277(E) dated 4thMarch 2002 in the Gazette of India, Part II , Section 3 , Sub -section (ii) , Extraordinary dated 4th March 2002 and subsequently amended by S.0.1245 dated 14-5-2004.

नई दिल्ली , 16 जून , 2008

का.आ. 1519. केन्द्रीय सरकार , निर्यात ( वकालिकी नियंत्रण औरनिरीक्षण ) अधिनियम , 1963 ( 1963 का 22 ) की धारा 17 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , तावी , प्रशीतित और प्रसंस्कृत मछली और मछली उत्पाद निर्यात ( क्वालिटीः नियंत्रण, निरीक्षण तथा मानीटरिंग ) नियम, 1995 का और संशोधन करने के लिए निम्नलिखित नियम बनाती है , अर्थात्:-

1. ( 1 ) इन नियमों का संक्षिप्त नाम ताजी, प्रशीतितऔर प्रसंस्कृत मछली और मछली उत्पाद निर्यात (क्यालिये नियंत्रण , निरीक्षण तथा मानीटरिंग ) संशोधन नियम , 2008 है ।

(2 ) ये राजपत्र में इनके प्रकाशन की तारीख को प्रवृध होंगे । 2. ताजी, प्रशीक्ति और प्रसंस्कृत मछली और मछली अंपाद निर्यात (क्वालिटी नियंत्रण , निरीक्षण तथा मानीटरिय ) नियम, 1995 के नियम 16.2के स्थान पर निम्नलिखित नियम रखा जाएगा, अर्थात् " 16.2. प्रसंस्करणकर्ता या निर्यातक द्वारा मानीटरिंग फीस का संदाय पोत पर्यन्त निः शुल्क ( एफ.ओ.बी. ) मूल्य के 0.20 % की दर से वस निर्यात निरीक्षण अभिकरण को किया जाएगा ओ प्रति वर्ष अधिकतमः 15 लाख रुपए प्रति निर्यातक या प्रसंस्करणकर्ता होगाः । ".

टिप्पण: निर्यातक द्वारा प्रति परेषण मानीटरिंग फीस की राशि को निकटतम रुपए तक पूर्णाकित किया जाएगा और इस प्रयोजन के लिए जहां ऐसी राशि का भाग पैसे में है , तब यदि वह भाग पचास पैसे या अधिक हैं तो उसे एक रुपए कर दिया आएगा और यदि प्रत्येक भाग पचास पैसे से कम हो तो, उसे गणना में नहीं लिया जाएगा।

[फा. सं. 2/38/2007-ईआई एंड ईपी( V ) ] .

किरण पुरी, निर्देशक पाद टिप्पण: मूल नियम को भारत के राजपत्र , असाधारण ..

भाग -11 , खांड-3 , उपखंड ( ii ) में तारीख 21अगस्त, 1995 में अधिसूचना सं. का.उ. 730( अ) तारीख 21 अगस्त , 1995- द्वारा प्रकाशित किए गए थे और पश्चात्वर्ती संशोधन सं. का.आ.. 415 ( अ ) तारीख 11-4-2002, सं. का.आ.... 1029 ( अ ) तारीख 24-9-2002 , सं. का.अ. 1034( अ ) वारीख 9-9-2003, सं. का.आ.717(अ), तारीख 25-2-2000 तथा सं. का. आ. 612 खालील 15-2-07 द्वारा संशोधित किए गए ।

NewDelhi , the 16 June, 2008

S.O. 1519. In exercise of the powers conferred by : Section 17 ofthe Export (Quality Control and Inspection) . Act, 1963 (22 of 1963 ) , the Central Government hereby... makes the following rules further to amend the Export of 3174

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE, 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7 , 1930

Fresh, Frozen and Processed Fish and Fishery Products (Quality Control, Inspection and Monitoring ) Rules, 1995, namely:-

1. (1 ) These rules may be called the Export of Fresh , Frozen and Processed Fish and Fishery Products (Quality Control , Inspection and Monitoring ) Amendment Rules, 2008.

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

2 In the Export of Fresh , Frozen and Processed Fish and Fishery Products ( Quality Control , Inspection and Monitoring ) Rule , 1995 , for rule 16.2 the following rule shall be sübstituted, namely:-

"16.2 A monitoring fee @ 0.20% of free on board (F.O.B. ) value shall be paid by the processor or the exporter to the concerned Export InspectionAgency with a maximum of Rs . 15 lakhs per annum per exporter or processor.

Note: The amount of monitoring fee for each consignment payable by the exporter shall be rounded off to the nearest rupee and, for this purpose, where such amount contains a part of arupee consisting of paise , then, ifsuch part is fifty paise or more , it shall be increased to one rupee and if each part is less than fifty paise, it shall be ignored."

[F. No. 2/38/2007 -EI&EP (V) ]

KIRAN PURI , Director Foot Note: The Principal rules were published vide S.O. 730 (E) dated 21st August , 1995 in the Gazette of India, Part 11 , Section 3 , Sub-section (ii), Extraordinary dated 21st August , 1995 and subsequently amended by S.O. 415 ( E) dated 11-4-2002, S.O.1029 ( E) dated 24-9- 2002 , S.O.1034(E) dated 9-9-2003 , S.O.717 (E) dated 25-2-2005 and 5.0.612 dated15-2-2007.

नई दिल्ली, 16 जून, 2008

का. आ. 1520, केन्द्रीय सरकार , निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) नियम, 1964 के नियम 12 के उप -नियम ( 2 ) के साथ पठित, निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम , 1963 (1963 का 22 ) की धारा 7 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैलर्स इन्सपेक्टोरेट ग्रिप्थ इंडिया प्रा . लि. , पलैट नं. 2 और 3 , चौथा तल , पेस एवेन्यू, एफ. एल. गोम्स रोड , वास्को-डी-गामा, गोवा-403802 में स्थित को इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए , भारत सरकार वाणिज्य मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. का.अ. 3975 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर , 1965 और का.आ. 3978 दोनों तारीख 20 दिसम्बर , 1965 से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट खानिज और अयस्क ( ग्रुप -1 ) अर्थात्लौठ अयस्क, मैंगनीज अयस्क ( मैंगनीज डॉयआक्साइड को छोड़कर ) और बॉक्साइड जिसमें कैल्सिमड बॉक्साइड भी है के निर्यात करने से पूर्व निरीक्षण हेतु निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन उक्त खनिज और अयस्कों का निरीक्षण करने के लिए एक अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता प्रदान करती है , अर्थात्:-

[PART 1 ] SEC.3( ii) ] ( i ) कि मैसर्स इन्सपेक्टोरेट ग्रिष्ध इंडिया प्रा. लि. , गोवा, खनिज और अयस्कग्रुप - 1 का निर्यात ( निरीक्षण ) नियम, 4 तथा खनिज और अयस्क ग्रुप - II का निर्यात ( निरीक्षण ) नियम, 1965 के नियम 4 के अंतर्गत निरीक्षण का प्रमाण पत्र देने के लिए अपने द्वारा अपनाई गई पद्धति की जांच करने के लिए इस सम्बंध में निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद द्वारा नामित अधिकारियों को पर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगी ;

( ii ) कि मैसर्स इन्सपेक्टोरेट ग्रिप्स इंडिया प्रा. जि. , गोवा, इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के पालन में निदेशक (निरीक्षण और क्वालिटी नियंत्रण ) निर्यात निरीक्षण द्वारा समय- समय पर लिखित में दिए निर्देशों से आबद्ध होंगे ।

[फाईल सं. 5/2/2008- ईआई एंड ईपी ]

किरण पुरी, निदेशक New Delhi , the 16th June, 2008 S.O. 1520. In exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Export ( Quality Control and Inspection ) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963 ) read with sub-rule (2) ofrule 12 ofthe Export (Quality Control and Inspection ) Rules , 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises M/ s. Inspectorate Griffith India Pvt . Ltd. , Flat No. 2 and 3, 4th Floor, Paes Avenue , F.L.Gomes Road , Vasco -da-Gama, Goa-403802 , as an agency for a period ofthree years with effect from the date ofpublication of this notification , for the inspection of Minerals and Ores ( Group - I ) , namely, IronOre , Manganese Ore ( excluding Manganese Dioxide) and Bauxite including calcined Bauxite , as specified in the Schedules annexed to the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce numbers S.O. 3975 dated the 20th December, 1965 and S.O. 3978 dated the 20th December, 1965, prior to export of the said Minerals and Ores at Goa, subject to the following conditions, namely:-

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

(ii) that M/ s . Inspectorate Griffith India Pvt . Ltd. , Goa in the performance of their function under this notification shall be bound by such directives as the Director ( Inspection and Quality Control ) , Export Inspection Council may give in writing from timetotime,

[ F.No. 5 /2 /2008 -ΕΙ &ΕΡ ]

KIRAN PURI , Director [ भाग - खण्ड 3( i) )

3175

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28, 2008/आषाढ़ 7 , 1930

इस्पात मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 10 जून, 2008

का. आ. 1521.- केन्द्रीय सरकार , सरकारी स्थान (अप्राधिकृत अभिभोगियों की बेदखली ) अधिनियम , 1971 (1971 का 40 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उऔर भारत के राजपत्र , भाग II , खंड-3 , उप- हांखंड ( ii ) में प्रकाशित इस्पात और दहन मंत्रालय ( इस्पात विभाग ) भारत सरकार की अधिसूचना सं. का. का. 3132 तारीख 30-10-1990 कर अधिकत करते हुए, राजपत्र में इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से "विश्वेश्वरैया आयरन एंड स्टील प्लांट, भद्रावती , कर्नाटक राज्य" (स्टील अथॉरिटी ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड की एक इकाई ) को अधिकारियों को, यो सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारियों के रैंक के समतुल्य हैं और जिनका उल्लेख सारणी के स्टंग ( 1 ) है, उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए संपदा अधिकारी विदुक्त करती है , जो कि उक्त सारणी के स्तंभ ( 2 ) में उल्लिखित सरकारी स्थानों के संबंध में अपने अधिकारिता की स्थानीय सीमाओं के भौतर उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करेंगे और सम्पदा अधिकारियों को दिए गए कर्त्तव्यों का निर्वहन करेंगे:-

क्षेत्र

संपदा अधिकारी का नाम

क्रम

सं व पदनाम

(3)

(1)

(2)

1. एम.एन. वेंकटेश, प्रबंधक, (निधि)

स्टील अर्थारिटी ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड ( सेल ) , भारत सरकार का एक उपक्रम के नियंत्रणाधीन विश्वेश्वरैया आरयन एंड स्टील प्लांट ( वी आई एस पी ) के परिसर जैसे , सम्पूर्ण हुया गांव, भद्रावती तालुक, शिमोगा जिले में भूमि, भवन संरचनाएं ।

सर्वेक्षण सं. 1 से 7 , 8 से 13 , 17 से51, 63 , 65 , 98 से 101 , 122 127 , 129 और 130 में जानापुरा गांव , भद्रावती तालुक, शिमोगा जिले में विश्वेश्वरैया आयरन एंड स्टील प्लांट से संबंधित भूमि, भवन संरचनाएं ।

विश्वेश्वरैया आयरन एंड स्टील प्लांट से संबंधित बुल्लापुरा , उज्जानीपुरा और ऐनेहाली गांव, भद्रावती तालुक, शिमोगा जिले में भूमि, भवन संरचनाएं ।

विश्वेश्वरैया आयरन एंड स्टील प्लांट से संबंधित और निम्ननिखित

(3)

क्षेत्रों में स्थित भूमि, भवन संरचनाएं व हमनें:-

(क) टिगाड़ा, मांचौथेवारू व केसावींभाने गांव , खारीफेरे तालुक चिकमंगलूर जिले में कंम्मामगुंडी लौह अयस्कखानें ।

(ख) बंडीगुड्‌डा व रंगापुरा गाँव पाहावती तालुक, शिमोगा जिले में माडीगुड लाइफस्टोन खानें ।

(ग ) कैंचापुरा गांव , तारीफेरे तालुक, चिकमंगलूर जिला , कर्नाटकके सर्वे सं. 22, 24 व 26 में कैंचापुरा इनाइट खालें । 2. लाल यशोवर्धन, उप प्रबंधक ( विधि)

विश्वेश्वरैया आरयन एंड स्टील प्लांट से संबंधित समस्त शाखा कार्यालयों में भूमि , भवन संरचनाएं:-

(क) कोलकाता में ऑफिस फ्लैट एवरेस्ट हाऊस के चौथे खल बर .लगभग 700 वर्ग फीट का ऑफिस फ्लैट सं. 6 - सी चौरंगी रोड, कोल काला-700071 में ऑफिस फ्लैट सं. 46-सी, जो उत्तर में एवरेस्ट हाऊस के फ्लैट में 6-बी, दक्षिण में एवरेस्ट हाऊस के फ्लैट सं. 6-डी, जिसके पूर्व में ब्रिटिश हाई कमिश्नर के कंपाउंड बया पश्चिम में जवाहर लाल नेहरू रोड, कोलकाता है।

(ख) बंबई के ब्लॉक सं... 3 में प्लॉट सं. 211 पर नरीमन प्वाइंट स्थित महाराष्ट्र सरकार से संबंधित पट्टे की भूमि पर लगभग 1260 वर्ग फौट में आफिस पैलट सं 208-209 । रिक्लेमेशन स्कीम बबई जिसमें कोलाबा डिवीजन का काढ़े- स्ट्रल सर्वे सं. 1957 है और उतर में प्लाट सं. 210 , दक्षिण में प्लॉट सं. 212 , पश्चिम में प्लॉट नं. 224 तथा पूर्व में बंबई रिक्लेमेशनस्कीम तक 90 फौट रोड से घिरा है।

(ग ) 812 स्वइट पर विश्वेश्वरैबा आयरन एंड स्टील प्लांट हाऊस, जिसकी माप उत्तर की तरफ 66 फीट, पूर्व की तरफ 109 फीट, 3176

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ ASADHA 7, 1930

(3)

दक्षिण की तरफ 66 फीट और पश्चिम की तरफ 112 फीट है , जिसका क्षेत्रफल 799.59 वर्ग गज है, जो जे.सी. रोड, बंगलौर -560002 परस्थित है और जिसके उत्तर में 25फीट चौड़ी सड़क है औररोड जेसीरोड से मैसर्स जनता कॉ- ऑप- रेटिव हाऊस बिल्डिंग, सोसायटी लि. तक जाती है तथा अन्य पश्चिम में जे.सी. रोड जनता कॉ- ऑपरेटिव हाऊस बिल्डिंग सोसायटी लि. , दक्षिण में श्री के. बी. अय्यर्स व्यायाम शाला की प्राईवेट प्रोपर्टी तथा पूर्व में जनता कॉ- आपरेटिवे हाऊस बिल्डिंग सोसायटी लि. है।

( घ ) पैल्ट सं. 407 , चौथा तल , भीकाजी कामा भवन, सं. 11 , भीकाजी कामा प्लेस , नई दिल्ली- 110066, जिसका क्षेत्रफल 136-78 वर्ग मीटर है।

[फा. सं. 11 ( 13 )/2007- सेल- आर एस ]

जी. इलियास , संयुक्त सचिव MINISTRY OF STEEL

NewDelhi, the 10th June, 2008

S.O. 1521 - In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises ( Eviction ofUnauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971 ) and in supersession of the Government of India, Ministry of Steel and Mines (Department of Steel ) notification No. S.O. 3132 dated 30-10-1990 published in the Gazette of India Part -II Section 3, Sub-Section ( ii ), the Central Government hereby appoints with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, the officers of Visvesvaraya Iron and Steel Plant, Bhadravati , Karnataka State ( a unit of SteelAuthority of India Limited) being officers equivalent to the rank ofGazetted Officers of the Government , men- tioned in column ( 1 ) ofthe Table to be the EstateOfficers for the purpose of saidAct who shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform the duties imposed on Estate Officerby or under the said Act within the local limits of their jurisdiction in respect of the public premises mentioned in column (2 ) of the said Table.

TABLE

Area

Name and Designation of the EstateOfficers

(2)

(1)

1.H.N.Venkatesh, Manager(Law)

The premises of Visvesvaraya Iron and Steel Plant ( VISP ), under the control ofSteel Au- thority of India Ltd. (SAIL) , a

[PART 11- SEC . 3( ii ) ]

(2)

Government of India Under- taking such as lands , build- ings structures in entire Hutha Village, Bhadravathi Taluk ShimogaDistrict.

Lands , buildings structures in Јапларига Village, Bhadravathi Taluk, Shimoga District in Survey Nos. Ito 7, 8 to 13 , 17 to 51,63,65,98 to 101 , 122 , 127, 129 and 130 belonging to Visves- varaya Iron and Steel Plant.

Lands , buildings structures in entire Bullapura , Ujjanipura and Anehally Villages , Bhadravathi Tatuk , Shimoga District belonging to Visvesvaraya Iron and Steel Plant.

Lands , buildings structures and Mines belonging to Visvesvaraya Iron and Steel Plant and situated in the fol- lowing areas :-

(a ) Keminangundi Iron Ore Mines at Tigada, Manchithe- varu and Kesavinmane Villages Tarikere Tg. Chickmagalore District.

(b ) Bhadigund Limestone Mines at Bandigudda and Rangapura Villages ,Bhadra- vati Taluk, Shimoga District.

(c) Kenchapura Dunite Mines at Survey No. 22, 24 and 26 of Kenchapura Village, Tarikere I aluk, Chikmagalur District, Karnataka.

2.Lal Yashoverdhan DeputyManager (Law)

I.ands , buildings structures in entire Branch Officers belonging to Visvesvaraya Iron and Steel Plant :-

( a) (Office flat at Calcutta bear-

ing No. 6- C measuring about 700 sq . feet on the VI floor of 'Everest House ' , 46 -C , ChowringheeRoad , Calcutta- 700071 bounded on the North by Flat No.6 - B of 'Everest House on the South by Flat No.6 - D of ' Everest House' . On the Eastby Compound of British High Commissioner and 00 the West by Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Calcutta.

3117 [भाग - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28 , 2008/आर्थीक 7, 1930

(2)

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 8 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ।

और केंद्रीय सरकार का , पूर्वोक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार बारने के पश्चात् और झारखण्ड सरकार से परामर्श करने के पराद यह समाधान हो गया है कि इससे संग्लन अनुसूची में वर्णित 645.33 हेक्टेयर (लगभग ) या 1593.98 एकड़ (लगभग) भापवाली भूमि और ऐसी भूमि में या तस पर के सभी अधिकार अर्जित किये जाने चाहिए,

अतः अर्थ , केंद्रीय सरकार, कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्ज और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20) की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त अनुसूची में यथावर्णित 645.33 डेक्येटर (लगभग ) या 1593.98 एकड़ ( लगभग) मापवाली भूमि और ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकार अर्जित किये जाते हैं ।.

(b)Office flatbearing No.208- 209 measuring about 1260 sq. ft. on the lease hold land belonging to the Government of Maharashtra situated at Nariman Point on Plotbearing No. 211 in Block No. III of Bombay. Reclamation Scheme Bombay, bearing Cadastral Survey No. 1957 of ColabaDivision and bounded ontheNorthbyPlot No. 210, on the Southby Plot No. 212, ontheWestby Plot No. 224 and on the East by 90 feet RoadtoBombay Reclamation Scheme.

इस अधिसूचना के अधीन आने वाले क्षेत्र का रेखांक जिसकी सं. एन.टी.पी.सी/सी.एम. से. 9 ( 1 ) चत्ती बरियातु /07/01 तारीख 24-12-07 है, का निरीक्षण उपायुक्त , हजारीबाग (झारखण्डः राज्य) के कार्यालय में या कोषला नियंत्रक , 1 , काउंसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता-700001 के कार्यालय में या अपर महाप्रबंधक (प्रभारी) , पकरी बवाडीह कोयला खनन परियोजना , एनटीपीसी लिमिटेड, लक्ष्मी पेट्रोल पंप के सामने , नवाबगंज , हजारीबाग 825301 ( झारखंड) के कार्यालय में या उप सहाप्रबंधक , (कोयला खनन और घोवमशाला खंड) , एनटीपीसी, लिमिटेड , पीडीआईएल भवन, वेस्ट विंग , प्रथम तल, प्लॉट सं. ए-14, सेवेदर -1 , नोएडा-201301 के कार्यलिय में किया जा सकती है।

अनुसूधी चत्ती बरियातु कोषला আপদ যাত उत्तरी करंगपुस कोयला क्षेत्र

जिला हरीचाग , इतरखंड

रेखांक में एमटीपीसी सीएम से ( 1 ) चत्ती बरियातु /07 /01 (c) Visvesvaraya Iron and Steel Plant House on site 812 measuring 66 feet on the northern side,109 feeton the eastern side, 66 feet on the southern side, 1,12 feet on the westem side having an area of799.59 sq. yards situated in J.C. Road, Bangalore- 560002 bounded by North, Road of25 feetwidth forming an approach road from J.C. Roadto the sitebelongingto M/s . Janatha Co - operative HouseBuilding SocietyLtd. and other west J.C. Road, Southprivate property of Shri K.V. Iyyer's Vyayama Shala cast side belonging to Janatha Co-operative Hous- ing SocietyLad.

तारीख 24-12-07-

सभी अधिकार

(क) राजस्व भूमि.

(d) Flat No.407, at IV floor, at Bhikaiji CaneBhawan, No. 11 Bhikaiji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066 measuring 136.78sq. mts.

क्रम गाम

सं.

[F.No.11 (13)/2007-SAIL-RS)

जिला क्षेत्रफल ( लगभग ) टिप्पणी हक्टर

GELIAS, Jt. Secy.

185.38 457.89 भागे

सती करेवारी 14 हवारीचान

कोयला मंत्रालय

02 जोरदान करेफरी 15

161.72 399.45 मई दिल्ली, 24 जून , 2008

236.52 584.20. भाग

पमार करेदाड़ी 19

583.62 1441:54

(ख) বল মুমিন

ग्राम

क्रम

फिला क्षेत्रफल ( खश्भग) टिप्पणी हेक्टर

सं.

इकारीचान 4.57 11.30

पक्षी केरेदारी

मरियम्तु

बकरीबन 32.74 80.87

फोरदान लेवेदारी 15

पार

केहेमी 19

14.00 60.26 : का. आ. 1522.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , कोयला धारक क्षेत्र (अर्जन और विकास) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) , (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा ? की उपधारा ( 1) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के कोयला बाप की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का. आ. 3555 तारीख 13 दिसम्बर , 2007 द्वारा ओ भारत सरकार के राजपत्र , भाग II , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( तारीख 22 दिसम्बर , 2007 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि और ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर सभी अधिकारों के अर्जन के अपने आशय की सूचना दी थी;

61.71 15344

স্কুল 3178

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2008/ASADHA 7,1930

[PART II SEC.3 (ii ) ) सायंसः

(क) कुल राजस्व भूमिः 583.62 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) -1441.54 एकड़ (लगभग)

(ख ) कुल वन भूमिः 61.71 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) - 152.44 एकड़ (लगभग)

(ग) सकल योग ( कख): 645.33 हेक्टर (लगभग) - 1593.98 एकड़ ( लगभग)

अर्जित किये जाने वाले राजस्व प्लाटों की सूचीः 1. ओरदाग ग्राम से अर्जित किये जाने वाले प्लाट संख्याः

1275से 1652, 1653 ( भाग ) , 1654 ( भाग ) , 1655 , 1656, 1657, 1658 ( भाग ) , 1668 ( भाग ) , 1669 ( भाग) , 1670 ( भाग ) , 1671 (भाग) , 1715 ( भाग ) , 1716 ( भाग) , 1717 ( भाग ) , 1721 ( भाग) , 1722 ( भाग ) , 1905 ( भाग) , 1909 ( भाग ) , 1747 ( भाग ) , 1749 ( भाग) , 1910 , 1911 , 1912 ( भाग ) , 1913, 1914 ( भाग) , 1931 ( भाग) , 1932, 1933 ( পাশ ) , 1934 ( भाग ) , 2187 ( भाग) , 2203 ( भाग) , 2204 ( भाग ) , 2205 ( भाग ) , 2206 ( भाग ) , 2207 ( भाग ) , 2222 ( भाग ) , 2223 ( भाग ) , 2226 ( भाग ) , 313/2927 , 396/2928,397/2929 405/2930, 681/2931 , 1180/2932 , 1267/2933 , 599/2934, 11/2981 , 73/2982, 76/2983 , 76/2984 76/2985 , 76/2986, 76/2987, 76/2988 , 76/2989 , 76/2990 , 76/2991 , 87/2992 , 87/2993, 87/2994, 87/2995 , 2994/2996, 1148/3001 , 3001/3002 , 1101/3003 , 2995/3004, 87/3005 , 668/3006

3. चत्ती बरियातु ग्राम में अर्जित किये जाने वाले प्लांट संख्याः

121 ( भाग ) , 122 से 1567, 1568 ( भाग ) , 1569 ( भाग ) , 1572 ( भाग ) , 1595 ( भाग ) , 1596 ( भाग ) , 1597 ( भाग ) , 1598 से 1719 , 1720 ( भाग ) , 1721, 1722, 1723 ( भाग ) , 1724 ( भाग ), 1725 ( भाग ), 1909 ( भाग ) , 1910 ( भाग ) , 1911 ( भाग ) , 1912 से 1921 , 1922 ( भाग ) , 579/2017, 561/2018 , 500/2019 , 744/2020, 126/2069 (भाग) , 126/2070 ( भाग) , 126/2071 ( भाग) , 126/2072 ( भाग) , 126/2073 ( भाग ) , 126/2074 (भाग) ,126/2075 (भाग ) , 126/2076, 126/2077 , 126/2078 ( भाग ) , 126/2079 , 126/2080 , 126/2081 , 126/2082 , 126/2083 , 126/2084 , 126/2085 , 422/2086 , 422/2087 , 422/2088 , 422/2089, 546/2090, 2090/2091 , 371/2092

2 ( भाग ) , 4 ( भाग ) , 5 से 11 , 12 ( भाग ) , 13 से 449, 450 (भाग ) , 451 से 458, 459 ( भाग ) , 460 ( भाग ) , 462 (भाग) , 466 ( भाग ) , 468 ( भाग ) , 537 ( भाग ) , 538 ( भाग ) , 539(भाग) , 540 ( भाग) , 541 से 546, 547 ( भाग ) , 548 से 561 , 562(भाग ) , 563 से 578 , 579 ( भाग ) , 580 से 583, 584 ( भाग) , 585 से 587,588 ( भाग ) , 590 ( भाग ) , 591 ( भाग ) , 592 ( भाग) , 593,594 ( भाग ) , 595 ( भाग ) , 597 ( भाग ) , 608 ( भाग ) , 609 , 610 , 611 ( भाग ) , 612 ( भाग ) , 622 ( भाग ) , 1031 ( भाग ) , 1032, 1033 , 1034, 1035 ( भाग ) , 1036 ( भाग) , 1037 ( भाग ) , 1038 ( भाग ) , 1039 , 1040, 1041 ( भाग ) , 1042 ( भाग) , 1043 (भाग ) , 1044 ( भाग ) , 1045 ( भाग ) , 1056 ( भाग ) , 1057 ( भाग) , 1058 ( भाग ) , 1059 ( भाग ) , 1060 से 1282, 1283 ( भाग ) , 1284 से 1286 , 1287 ( भाग ) , 1288 , 1289 ( भाप ) , 1290 (भाग ) , 1291 (भाग) , 1310 ( भाग ) , 1665 ( भाग ) , 1682 ( भाग) , 1685 (भाग) , 1686 से 1799, 1800 ( भाग ) , 1801 (भाग ) , 1802 से 1851 , 1852 ( भाग) , 1853 ( भाग ) , 1854 ( भाग ) , 208/1956, 1232/1958, 1220/1959 , 1243/1960 , 177/2020, 2/2022 ( भाग ) ,4/2024 (পাস),

अर्जित किए जाने वाले वन प्लाटों की सूचीः

2. पगार ग्राम में अर्जित किये जाने वाले प्लाट संख्याः

1. ग्राम चत्ती बरियातु में अर्जित किये जाने वाले प्लाट संख्या: 121

2. ग्राम पगार में अर्जित किये जाने वाले प्लाट संख्या: 48 , 87 , 135 , 136और 666

3. प्रप्स जोरदाग में अर्जित किये जाने वाले प्लाट संख्या: 2 , 12 ,13 , 2024, 2022 उपरोक्त वन प्लाट पहले ही उपर निर्दिष्ट राजस्व प्लाटों में सम्मिलित हैं।

धारा 9 ( 1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचित किये जाने वाले ब्लॉक का सीमा वर्णनः-

रेखा क- का- क2-खः

यह रेखा ग्ाम चत्ती बरियातु के उत्तरी पश्चिमी किनारे पर बिन्दु ' क ' से प्रारम्भ होती है और प्लाट सं. - 121 से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु का पर पहुँचती है उसके पश्चात यह रेखा प्लाट सं. 4 से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु 'क2 तक जाती है और फिर यह रेखा आगे उसी दिशा में बढ़ते हुए प्लाट सं. 2069, 2070 , 2071 , 2072, 2073 , 2074 2075 , 2078 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम 1 (भाग) , 3 ( भाग ) , 5 ( भाग ) , 6 से 29, 30 ( भाग ) , 31 (भाग ) , 48 ( भाग ) , 49 से 67 , 68 ( भाग ) , 69 से 135, 136 (भाग) , 137 से 277 , 278 ( भाग ) , 279 से 299, 300 (भाग ) , 301 से 322, 324से 641 , 642 ( भाग ) , 643 ( भाग ) , 648 ( भाग ) , 655 (भाग ) , 662 ( भाग ) , 663 ( भाग ) , 664 (भाग ) , 666 ( भाग ) , 667,668 ( भाग ) , 669 ( भाग) , 670 ( भाग) , 722 ( भाग) , 723 (भाग) , 724 ( भाग ) , 725 ( भाग ) , 726 से 733 , 734 (भाग ) , 735, 736 ( भाग ) , 745 ( भाग) , 746 ( भाग ) , 747 , 748 749 (भाग) , 750 ( भाग ) , 751 , 752 ( भाग) , 753 ( भाग) , 755 ( भाग ) , 756(भाग ) , 757 ( भाग ) , 758 , 759 ( भाग ) , 760 से 853 , 854 ( भाग) , 865 ( भाग ) , 857 ( भाग ) , 858, 859 ( भाग ) , 861 ( भाग ) , 862 (भाग) , 863 ( भाग ) , 864, 865, 866, 867 , 868 ( भाग) , 869 ( भाग) , 870 ( भाग ) , 889 ( भाग ) , 890 ( भाग ) , 891 ( भाग ) , 894 ( भाग ) , 895 ( भाग ) , 896 ( भाग ) , 898 ( भाग ) , 899 ( भाग ) , 900 , 901 ( भाग ) , 902 ( भाग ) , 903 904, 905 ( भाग ) , 906 से 929, 930 ( भाग ) , 93] ( भाग ) , 932 ( भाग ) , 933 से 1205, 1206 (भाग ) , 1207 ( भाग) , 1208 ( भाग ) , 1209 से 1260, 1261 (भग) , 1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 (भाग ) , 1266से 1273 , 1274 (भाग) , 3179 [पन II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28, 2008/आवाड़ 7, 1930

गाम के दक्षिणी पश्चिमी सीमा के जिग्यु 'अ' पर समाप्त होती है । के उत्तरी- पूर्वी सीमा पर बिन्दु ' ख' पर समाप्त होती है ।

रेखा च-छ

रेखा ख-गः

यह रेखा गाम ओरदाग के दक्षिणी-पूर्वी सीषा के बिन्दु ' च ' से प्रारंभ होती है और यह रेखा ग्राम पगार के उत्तरी- पश्चिमी सीमा पर बिन्दु ' ख' से प्रारंभ होती है और प्लाट सं. 5 , 4 , 3 , 1 , 6, 30, 68, 136, 670 , 669, 668, 666 , 664, 663 से गुजरती हुई उक्त गाम के उत्तरी - पूर्वी सीमा पर बिन्दु ' ग ' पर समाप्त होती है । '

रेखा ग-गा - ग -ग३ - घः यह रेखा गाम पगार के उत्तरी- पूर्वी सीमा पर बिन्दु' ग ' से प्रारंभ होती हैंऔर दक्षिण की ओर प्लॉट सं. 662, 300 ,

प्लॉट सं. 1852, 1851 , 1854, 1853 1854, 1665,1682, 1801, 1800 , 1799, 1685, 1686, 1291 , 1290, 1287, 1310 1056 , 1058, 1059, 1045, 1044,1041 1042, 1039 , 1038, 1037, 1036,1035 1031,450,458,459,460, 462,547, 540, 539,537, 538 , 579, 595,594,593 , 591 , 592,590,584, 588, 608 से होती हुई उक्त गाम के दक्षिणी- पश्चिमी सीमा पर बिन्दु ' छ' पर समाप्त होती है ।

रेखा छ-ज

यह रेखा गाम जोरदाग के दक्षिणी पश्चिमीसीमा के. बिन्दु ' छ' से प्रारंभ होती है और उत्तर की ओर मुंदकर प्लाट सं. 612, 611 , 562 , 622, 2024,12, 2102, 2 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्झम के उत्तरी सीमा में स्थित बिन्दु ' ज ' पर समाप्ता होती है ।.

रेखा ज-कः

656, 655, 654, 346, 648, 642,722, 723, 724, 725, 734, 736, 759 757, 756, 755, 753, 752, 750, 745,749, 746, से होकर गुजरती हुई ग्प्रम पगार में बिन्दु गा तक जाती है । इसके पश्चात यह रेखा उसी गाम, में पूषी सीमा के साथ -साथ बढ़ते हुए प्लॉट सं. 746, 747 एवं 846 से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु गट तक जाती है। इसके पश्चात यह रेखा पूर्व की तरफ बढ़ते हुए प्लॉट सं. 846, 847, 853 एवं 855 से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु ग३ तक जाती है । फिर यह रेख्त दक्षिण की तरफ आगे बढ़ते हुए ग्रम पगार के

यह रेखा गाम जोरदाग के उत्तरी- पश्चिमी सीमा के बिन्दु ' ज ' से प्रारं होती है और ग्राम चत्ती बरियाडु के प्लॉट सं 121 से गुजरती हुई उक्त गाभ के उत्तरी पश्चिमी सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु ' क ' पर समाप्त होती है ।.

[ फा. सं. 43015/5/2006/पी आरं आई डब्ल्यू-I ( जिल्द- II ) ] प्लॉट सं. 855, 856, 857, 859, 861., 862,863, 869, 870, 868 , 889, 890 891,894, 895, 896 ,899,898, 901 से होकर गुजरती हुई इसी गाम के प्लॉट सं. 902 पर बिन्दु ' घ' पर समाप्त होती है ।

एम. शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव रेखा घ-८.

MINISTRYOF COAL

NewDelhi , the 24th June, 2008 यह रेखा गाम पगार के प्लॉट सं. 902 पर स्थित बिन्दु ' म ' से आरम्भ होती है और प्लॉट सं. 2226, 2223 , 2222, 905, 2207, 2206, 2205, 2203 , 930, 931 , 932, 1206, 1207, 1208, 1210, 1934, 1933 1931 , 1261 , 1914, 1912 , 1909, 1905 1748, 1274, 1747, 1722, 1721, 1717 1715, 1671,1670 , 1669 , 1668, 1653 1654, 1658 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्रम के पश्चिमी सीमा के बिन्दु ' ड. ' पर समाप्त होती है ।

S.O. 1522 -Whereas , by the notification of the Goverrument of India in the Ministry of Coal , Dumber S.O. 3555 dated the 13th December , 2007, issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and publised in the Gazette of India, Part- 11 , Section 3, Sub-section (ii ) dated 22ndDecember, 2007, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire the lands and all rights in or over such lands specified in the Schedule appended to that notification;

Andwhereas, the competent authority in pursuance of Section 8 of the said Act, has made his report to the Central Government;

And whereas, the Central Government , after considering the report aforesaid and ater consulting the यह रेखा गाम कसी बरियातु के दश्चिणी पूर्वी सीमा के बिन्दु ' ड ' से प्रारंभ होती है और प्लॉट सं. 1720 , 1721 , 1725 , 1724, 1723 , 1709 , 1910, 1911, 1921 1922, 1597, 1596, 1595 , 1266, 1572 1565, 1569 , 1568 से गुजरती हुई उक्त 3180

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2008/ASADHA 7, 1930

[PART I SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

Summary:

(A)Total Revenue Land: 583.62 hectares (Approximately) 1441.54 acres (Approximately)

Government ofJharkhand, is satisfied that the lands mea- suring645.33 hectares ( approximately) or 1593.98 acres(ap- proximately) and all rights in or over such lands as de- scribed in the Schedule appended hereto, shouldbe ac- quired;

(B) Total Forest Land: 61.71 hectares (Approximately) = 152.44 acres (Apporximately)

LISTOF REVENUE PLOTS TO BE ACQUIRED

1. Plots numbers to be acquired in village Jordag:

Now, therefore, in exercise ofthe powers conferred bysub-section ( 1 ) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957),the Central Government hereby declares that the lands mea- suring645.33bectares ( approximately) or 1593.98 acres (ap- proximately) and all rights in or over such lands as described in the Schedule are hereby acquired.

The plans bearing number NTPC/CM/ SEC 9 ( 1 ) CHATTI BARLATU/07/01 dated 24-12-07 ofthe area cov- eredby this notification may be inspected in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag ( Jharkhand State) or inthe office ofthe Coal Controller, 1 Council House Street, Kolkata-700001 or in the office of the AGM ( I/c) Pakri Barwadih Coal Mining Project, NTPC Limited, Opp . Laxmi Petrol Pump, Nawabganj , Hazaribag-825301 ( Jharkhand) or Intheoffice of the DGM ( Coal Mining and Coal Washeries Division), NTPC Limited, PDIL Building, West Wing , First Floor, Plot No. A- 14, Sector- 1 Noida- 201301 .

SCHEDULE

CHATTIBARIATU COAL MINING BLOCK

2 (part), 4 (part) , 5 to 11 , 12 ( part), 13 to449, 450 (part) ,451 to458,459 ( part ), 460 ( part ), 462 (part),466 (part), 468(part), 537(part) , 538 (part) ,539 (part) , 540 (part) ,541 to 546,547(part),548 to561 , 562 (part ), 563 to 578, 579 (part) , 580 to 583, 584 (part), 585 to 587 , 588 (part ) , 590 ( part ) , 591 (part), 592 (part), 593, 594 (part ), 595 (part ), 597 (part) , 608 (part), 609, 610, 611 ( part) , 612 (part ), 622 ( part ), 1031 ( part), 1032, 1033 , 1034, 1035 (part), 1036 (part ), 1037( part ), 1038 (part), 1039, 1040, 1041 (part ) , 1042 (part ), 1043 (part ),1044 (part) , 1045( part ), 1056 (part), 1057 (part ) , 1058 ( part) ,1059 (part), 1060 to 1282 , 1283 (part) , 1284 to 1286, 1287 ( part) , 1288, 1289 (part ) , 1290 (part ) , 1291 (part) , 1310 (part ), 1665 (part), 1682 (part) , 1685 (part ) , 1686 to 1799, 1800 (part), 1801 (part), 1802to 1851 , 1852 (part) , 1853 (part), 1854 (part ), 208/1956, 1232/1958 , 1220/1959, 1243/1960, 177/2020, 22022 (part) ,4/2024(part).

NORTH KARANPURA COALFIELDS IN DISTRICT HAZARIBAG , JHARKHAND

2.Plot numbers to be acquired in village Pagar:-

Plan tumber NTPC/CM/ SEC9 ( 1 ) CHATTI BARIATU/07/

01 dated24-12-07

AllRights

(A) REVENUE LAND

SL. Village Thana Thana District

Remark

No.

Total area (Approxima- tely)

Hectare Acre

01 Chatti- Keredari 14 Hazari- 185.38 457.89 Part

barlatu

bag

02. Jordag Keredari

161.72 399.45 Part

15 Hazari bag

03 Pagar Keredari 19 Hazaribagh 236.52 584.20 Part

Total

583.62 1441.54

(B) FOREST LAND

St. Village Thana

Remark

No.

Thana District Total area No.

(Approxima-

tely)

Hectare Acre

01 Chatti- Keredari 14 Hazari- 4.57 11.31 Part

bariatu

bag

02 Jordag Keredari 15 Hazari 32.74 80.87 Part

bag

03 Pagar Keredari

24.40 60.26 Part

19 Hazaribagh

Total

61.71 152.44

1(part), 3 (part) , 4 (part ) , 5 ( part ) , 6 to29 ,30 (part), 31 (part), 48(part) ,49 to 67, 68 (part) , 69 to 135, 136 (part ), 137to277,278 ( part), 279 to 299, 300 (part) , 301 to322,324 to641, 642 (part), 643 (part), 648 ( part) , 655 ( part), 662(part ), 663 (part), 664(part) , 666 ( part ), 667, 668 (part) , 669 (part), 670(part), 722 (part) ,723 ( part ) , 724 (part ),725 (part ), 726 to 733,734 (part), 735, 736 (part ) , 745 ( part ), 746 ( part), 747, 748,749 ( part), 750 ( part), 751,752 ( part) , 753 (part ) , 755 (part), 756 (part), 757 (part), 758, 759 (part ), 760 to 853,854 (part),855 (part),857 (part), 858, 859 (part), 861 ( part ), 862 (part), 863 (part ), 864, 865, 866, 867, 868 (part ), 869 ( part), 870 (part) , 889 (part ), 890 (part ) , 891 ( part ) , 894 ( part ) , 895 (part), 896( part), 898 (part ) , 899 ( part ), 900, 901 ( part ) , 902 (part), 903, 904,905 (part ), 906 to 929, 930 (part ), 931 (part) , 932( part), 933 to 1205 , 1206 ( part ) , 1207 ( part ) , 1208 (part) , 1209 to 1260, 1261 (part ), 1262, 1263 , 1264, 1265 (part), 1266 to 1273, 1274 ( part ), 1275 to 1652, 1653 (part ) , 1654 ( part), 1655, 1656, 1657, 1658 ( part ) , 1668 (part ) , 1669 ( part ) , 1670 (part), 1671 ( part), 1715 (part) , 1716, 1717 ( part ), 1721 ( part ), 1722 ( part) , 1747 (part), 1749 ( part) , 1905 (part), 1909 ( part ) , 1910, 1911 , 1912 (part), 1913 , 1914 ( part), 1931 ( part), 1932, 1933 (part), 1934 ( part ), 2187 ( part ), 2203 ( part ), 2204,2205 (part), 2206(part) , 2207 ( part ), 2222 (part) , 2223 ( part ),2226 (part) , 313/2927, 396/2928, 397/2929, 405/2930, 681/2931, 1180/2932, 599/2934, 11/2981 , 73/2982, 76/2983 ,76/2984, 76/2985, 76/2986, 76/2987 , 76/2988, 76/2989, 76/2990, 76/2991, 87/2992, 87/2993, 87/2994, 87/2995 , -2994/2996, 1148/3001, 3001/3002 , 1101/3003 , 2995/3004, 87/3005, 668/3006.

3181 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28, 2008/आषाढ़ 7 , 1930

3.Plots numbers to be acquired in village Chatti Bariatu: -

846, 847, 853 , and 855. The line further moves southward through plot num- bers856,857,859, 861 , 862, 863, 869, 870,868,889, 890, 891,894, 895, 896, 899, 898, 901 , ofvillage Pagar and ends at point ' D ' on the plot numbers 902 ofthe said village.

Line D-E:

121 (part), 122 to 1567, 1568 (part ), 1569 (part ) ,1572 (part),1595(part), 1596 (part ), 1597 ( part) , 1598 to 1719, 1720 (part ), 1721 , 1722, 1723 (part), 1724 (part) , 1725 (part), 1909 (part), 1910 (part), 1911 (part ), 1912 to 1921 , 1922 (part), 597/2017,561/2018, 500/2019,744/2020 126/2069 (pert ), 126/ 2070(part); 126/2071 (part ) , 126/2072 (part), 126/2073 (part), 126/2074 (part), 126/2075 ( part) , 126/2076, 126/2077, 126/ 2078 (part), 126/2079, 126/2080 , 126/2081 , 126/2082, 126/ 2083,126/2084,126/2085,422/2086,422/2087,422/2088,422/ 2089,546/2090,2090/2091,371 /2092

LIST OF FOREST PLOTS TO BE ACQUIRED

1.Plotnumbers to be acquired in village Chattibariatu: 121.

2.Plot numbers tobe acquired in village Pagar: 48, 87, 135, 136and666.

The line starts from point 'D' at the plot numbers 902 of the Village Pagar passing through the plots numbers 2226,2223,2222,905, 2207, 2206,2205, 2203,930,931,932, 1206, 1207, 1208, 1210, 1934, 1933, 1931 , 1261 , 1914, 1912, 1909, 1905, 1748, 1274, 1747, 1722, 1721 , 1717, 1715, 1671 , 1670, 1669, 1668, 1653, 1654, 1658 and ends at the point 'E ' on the western boundary of said village.

LineE-F

3.Plot numbers to be acquired in village Jordag: 2, 12, 13 , 2024and2022,

The above forest plots are already included in above mentioned revenue plots.

BoundaryDescription of the Block Area to be notifed w/s9(1)

The line starts from point 'E' at the south -east boundary of the village Chattibariatu passing through the plots numbers 1720, 1721 , 1725, 1724, 1723, 1709, 1910, 1911 , 1921 , 1922, 1597, 1596, 1595 , 1266 , 1572, 1565, 1569 , 1568 and ends at the point ' F ' on the south-west of the said village.

LineA-A1 -A2-B:

Line F-G:

The line starts from point ' A' at the north-west comer of the village ' Cha- ttibariatu passing through the Plot numbers 121 upto point Al , it moves further through plot no.4 upto point A-2 and moves further in the same direction through plot numbers 2069, 2070, 2071 , 2072, 2073 , 2074, 2075 2078 and ends at the point ' B ' on the north -east boundary of the said village.

LineB-C

The line starts from line ' F ' near the south- east boundary of village Jordag passing through the plots numbers 1852, 1851, 1854, 1853, 1854, 1665, 1682, 1801 , 1800, 1799 1685 , 1686, 1291 , 1290, 1287, 1310, 1056, 1058, 1059, 1045, 1044, 1041 , 1042, 1039, 1038, 1037, 1036, 1035, 1031 , 450, 458,459, 460,462, 547, 466, 547, 540, 539, 537, 538, 579, 595, 594, 593, 591 , 592, 591 , 590 , 584 , 588 , 608 and ends at point 'G ' near the south - west boun- dary ofthe village Jordag.

LineG-H:

The line starts from point 'B ' at the north-westboundary of village Pagar. and passing through the plots no. 5, 4,3, 1 , 6, 30, 68,136, 670, 669, 668 , 666, 664, 663, and end at the point 'C ' on the north- east of boundary comer of thesaidvillage.

Line C-C1 -C2- C3

The line starts from ' G' at the south- west corner of the village Jordag moves northwards through the plots numbers 612,611 , 562 , 622 , 2024, 12, 2022, 2. ofthe said village and end at the point 'H' on the north comer of the said village.

LineH-A:

The line starts from point ' H' at the north-west boundary of the village. Jordag and passing through the Plat number 121 ofthe Village Chattibariatu ends at the point ' A ' on the north- west comer ofthe village Chattibariatu.

[F.No. 43015 /5/2006/PRIW - 1 ( Vol.II )] M. SHAHABUDEEN, Under Secy.

-D: The line starts from point ' C ' at the north east of Villag Pagar moves southwards through the plot num- bers 662, 300, 656, 655,654, 346,648, 642,722,723, 724, 725, 734, 736, 759, 757,756, 755, 753, 752,750, 745, 749, 746, of village Pagar upto point CI thereafter the line moves along the eastern boundary of the same village through plot nos.746, 747 , 846 upto point C2 and then it moves towards East upto point C3 through plot nos.

2263 GI/08-3 3182

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ ASADHA 7 , 1930

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

( उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 8 फरवरी, 2008

का.आ. 1523.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, निहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् वह 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 प्रयांग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रख्नेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त संवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ;

अतः अब, कंन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धार 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - भारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स आर. के. इम्पेबस , जाट के कुए का रास्ता, 7वां चौराहा , चांदपाल बाजार , जयपुर , राजस्थान द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग ) वाले " एस डी " श्रृंखला के अस्वचालित, अंकक सूचन सहित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " शार्क ऊम " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी 109/107/432 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमात्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गंज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबलटॉप प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 11 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 50 ग्रा. है सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) । ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक कारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डो ) तांलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और अर्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

MFG: PEX MIPUR RAJ

MAX 11kg Min 50g e.1g

स्टॉपिको सील करने के अतिरिक्त मशान को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए भी सीलबंद किया जाएगा तथा मॉडल को विही 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 शक्तियां का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडन अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदिाका विनिर्माण किया गया है , त्रिनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंग जो । मिली . मिनी ग्रा. एक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 100 मिली ग्रा. या उससे अधिक क के लिए 500 से 50,000 तक और 50 कि.ग्रा . तक की अधिकतम क्षमदा वालं हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 , 5× 10 , के हैं पालक पूर्णांक वा शुन्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं . डब्ल्यू एम 21 ( 233 ) /2007]

आर मानुग्गयूथम, निदेशक, विधिक पाप विज्ञान 3183 [ भांग - खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत को राजपत्र : जून 28, 2008/आषाढ़ 7 , 1930

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department ofConsumer Affairs)

NewDelhi, the 8th February, 2008

S.O. 1523. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformitywith the provisions 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 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval ofmodel ofnon -automatic weighing instrument (Tabletop type) with diigital indication of" ST" series ofhigh accuracy (Accuracy class-II) and with brand name "SHARK/ um" (herein referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M/s R. K. Impex, Jat ke Kuve ka Rasta, 7th Choraha, Chandpole Bazar , Jaipur , Rajasthan and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/432;

The said model is a strain gauge type il based non -automatic weighing instrument (Tabletop type) with a maximum capacity of 11kg , and minimum capacity or 50g . The verification scale interval (e) is 1g . 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 SOHertz alternative cuurent power supply.

AMG:

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 of the modet is given above.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 12 ) of Section 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 and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50kg . and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 180 to 50000 for ' e' value of 1mg. to 50mg , and with number of verification scale interval (n ) in the range of5000to 50,000 for ' e' value of 100mg . or more and with ' e' value of 1x10 , 2x10 or 5x10%, k being the positive or nagative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design andwith the saime materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 (233)/2007)

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 3184

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2008/ASADHA 7, 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii))

नई दिल्ली , ४ फरवरी , 2008

का.आ. 1524.-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 उपधार ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स आर. के. इम्पेक्स , जाट के कुए का रास्ता, 7वां चौराहा , चांदपोल बाजार , जयपुर , राजस्थान द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थताः ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " ए पी- यू" श्रृंखला के अस्वचालित , स्वतः सूचक, अंकक सूचन सहित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एक्यूवा गोल्ड " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 07/433 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी करती है;

उक्त मॉडल विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि.ग्रा. है सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 100 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन 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 ।

MFB:

AQUA GEEDER DIPEN LA

स्टॉपिंग प्लेट को सील करने के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिएखोले जाने से रोकने के लिए भी सीलबंद किया जाएगा तथा मॉडल को बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता, डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम निष्यादन 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 प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्मात्ता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , 'यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से अधिक तथा 5,000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 % , 2 × 10* अथवा 5 × 10 , के हैं , जहाँ पर ' क ' धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूणर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 233 )/2007] आर. माधुरब्रथम, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 3185 [ भाग II 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28, 2008/आषाढ़ 7, 1930

NewDelhi , the 8th February, 2008

S.O. 1524-Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, in satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given belew) is in conformity with the provisionsoftheStandards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards ofWeights 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 ofthe said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the self- indicating, non- automatic (Platform type) weighing instrument with digital indication of "AP- U" series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class-III) and with brand name " AQUA GOLD" (herein referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M/s . R. K. Impex, Jat keKuvekaRasta, 7th Choraha, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur, Rajasthan and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 07/433;

The saidmodel is a strain gauge type load cellbased non- automatic weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of1000 kg. 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 230 Volts and 50Hertz alternative cuurent power supply. The machine is also having facility for conversion of kg.tolitre.

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) of Section 36 of the said Aet, the Centred Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instument of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg. and up to 5000 kg. and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of5 g. or more and with ' e' value of Ix10 , 2x 10% or 5x10% , k being a 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 (233)/2007]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director ofLegal Metrology 3186

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7, 1930

[PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 29 फरवरी , 2008

का.आ. 1525.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् ग्रह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और पाप 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 कोरोना सिस्टम , " सावंत प्लाजा " एस नं. 21/2 , ऑफिस नं. 20 , 21 , 22 ए प्रथम तल , पेट्रोल पम्प के पास , बालाजी नगर , धंकाबाड़ी , पुणे-411 043 , महाराष्ट्र द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " डी एक्स पी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( व्यक्ति तोलन मशीन टिकट मुद्रण सुविधा के साथ या उसके बिना ) के पॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " डिलोजेन्ट स्केल " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/07/166 संपनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी करती है ।

अयत मॉडल एक 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 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति 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 के मुद्दांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल को विक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तित नहीं किया आएगा ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषण्णा करती है किव्वा 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 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 100 कि.ग्रा. से 200 कि.ग्रा. तक की रेंज में अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2× 10 , या 5× 10% , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शूम्यके समतुल्य हैं ।

[ फा, सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21 (73 )/2007 ]

आर माथुरबूधम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 3187 [भाग II- खण्ड 31ⅱ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28, 2008/आषाढ़ 7, 1930

NewDelhi , the 29th February, 2008

S.O. 1525-Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the models described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 ( 60 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) 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 (A) and ( 8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic weighing instrument with digital indication (Person Weighing Machine- with or without ticket printing facility ) ofmedium accuracy (Accuracy class- III) belonging to ' DxP' series with brand name " DILIGENT SCALE" (herein referred to as the said model ), mamafactured by M/s. Corona Systems , " Sawant Plaza ", S.No. 21/2, Office No. 20, 21 22, 1stFloor Nr. petrol Pump , Balají Nagar, Dhankawadi, Pune -411043, Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND / 09 /07/ 166;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument with the maximum 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 230Volts, 50Hertz alternative current power supply.

Further, in exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub -section ( 12) ofSection 36 ofthe said Act, the CentralGovernment hereby declaresthat this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instument of similar 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 10,000 for ' e' value of5g. or more and with ' e' value 1x10%, 2x10 or 5x10 , kbeing 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 (73)/2007 ]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 3188

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008 /ASADHA 7 , 1930

[PART II SEC. 3(ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 29 फरवरी , 2008

का.आ. 1526. केप्द्रीय 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 बैसर्स वी- टैक सिस्टम , डी-140 , प्रथम तल, अजरोंडा, सेक्टर -15ए , फरीदाबाद, हरियाणा द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग II ) वाले " वी टी टी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण (टेबल टाप प्रकार ) के माडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " वी- टैंक " हैं जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी /09/07 / 192 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त माइल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) का तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 प्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल (ई) 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन 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 ।

स्टॉपिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद 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 ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त माडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे तंक्त अनुमोदित माडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि.ग्रा . से 50 मि.प्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. 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 (79)/2007)

आर. माधुरबूथम, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 3189 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( H) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जूদ 28 , 2008/ आषाढ़ 7, 1930

NewDelhi , the29th February, 2008

S.O. 1526. Whereas the CaptralGovernment, 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 ofWeights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards ofWeights and Measures (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 ofthe powers conferred by web-section (7) and (8) of Section 36 ofthe saidAct, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non-automatis weighing instrument (Tabletop type) with digital indication of "VIT" series of high воситаку (Астигмy class- 11) and with bond жане "У-ТЕК" (Dereit referred to as the said model), menutekend by . V-Tek DM, Fint Floor, Ajrondit, Sec. 15A, Faridabad, Haryana and which in nigned the approve

The said model is a strain gauge type lood cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Tabletop type) with a maximeen capacity of30 kg and minimam capacity of 100g. The verification scale interval (e) is 2g. Ithas a tare device with 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) dispiny 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 abo 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.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferredby sub-section ( 12) ofSection36 ofthe said Act, the Central Government horeby declares that this certificate ofapproval ofthe said model shall also cover the weighing instrument ofsimilar muskes andperformance ofsame series with maximum capacityupto 50 kg. and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to50000 for ' e' value of 1 mg to 50mg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of5000to 30,000 for ' ' value of 100 mg or more and with 'e' value of 1 * 10%, 2"10 or 5-10%, k being the positive or negativewhole number or equal to zaro manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the sald approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 (79)/2007]

R.MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 3190

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7, 1930

[PART I-SBC. 3(ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 29 फरवरी , 2008

का.आ. 1527. केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल (नीचे दी गई आकृति देखखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और पाप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स पी-टैक सिस्टम , डी-140 , प्रथम तल , अजरौंडा, सैक्टर-15ए, फरीदाबाद, हरियाणा द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " वी टी पी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के पाडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " वो-टैक " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी /09 /07/ 193 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 200 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता । कि.ग्रा. है सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 50 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन 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 ।

स्टॉपिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिएखोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद 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 आएगा ।

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 जैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से अधिक और 5000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10*, 5 × 10 *, के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21 (79 )/2007]

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

3191

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28 , 2008/ आषाद 7 , 1930

New Delhi , the 29th February, 2008

S.O.1527. 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 ) of Section 36 ofthe said Act, the CentralGovemment hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the self indicating, non- suutomatic (Platform type) weighing instrument with digital indication of "VTP " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class-III) andwithbrand name "V-TEK" ( herein referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M/s . V-Tek System,D-140, First Floor, Ajronda, Sec- 15A, Faridabad, Haryana and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /07/193;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument with the maximum capacity of200kg and minimum capacity of 1kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 50g. It has a tare device with a 100 per. cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) displayindicates the weighing result, The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred bry sub- section (12 ) ofSection 36 ofthe said Act, the Central Government bereby declares that this certificate of approval ofthe said model shall also cover the weighing instument of same series with maximum capacity above 50kg and up to 5000kg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of5g or more and with ' e' value of tx10%, 2x10 or 5x10" , k being a positive or nagative whole mumber or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer with the same principle , design and with the same materialswith which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 (79)/2007)

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director ofLegal Metrology 3192

[PART -SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ ASADHA 7 , 1930

नई दिल्ली, 7 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 15.28.- 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 यामातो स्केल्स कं. लि. , 5-22 सबेनबाचो, आकाशी , जापान-673 8688 द्वारा निर्मित और मैसर्स एटाप फूड प्रोडक्ट्स, मोर्वी राजकोट हाइये , पोस्ट बॉक्स नं . 007 , लाजाई, पोर्वी-363 641 गुजरात द्वारा भारत में विक्रीत यथार्थ वर्ग X ( 1 ) वाले " ए डी डब्ल्यू" श्रृंखला के आटोमेटिक ग्रेषिमैट्रिक फिलिंग इंस्ट्रूमेंट के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " यामातो " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी 109/08/97 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है;

उक्त मॉडल भार सेल आधारित स्वचालिप्त ग्रेविभेट्रिक फिलिंग उपकरण है । इसको अधिकतम क्षमता 100 प्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 1 ग्रा. है और इसका स्केल विभाजन 50 मि.ग्रा. है । लिक्विड क्रिस्टल डायोड ( एल सो डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपद‌र्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है । स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिएखोलने 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 ।

MAKO Yamaltı

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करतो है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उभी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसौ सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उप्पी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही येक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे फिल्म्स्की रेंज 4 ग्रा. से 500 ग्रा. तक है ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21 ( 162)/2007 ] आर माधुरबूथम, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 3193 [ भान 1- अण्ड (11) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28, 2006/ पाद 7. 1930

New Delhi , the 7th March, 2008

S.O. 1528-Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformitywith the provisions ofthe Standards ofWeights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Mesures (Approval ofModels ) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods ofsustained use andto renderaccurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections (7 ) and (B ) ofSection 36 ofthe said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the Automatic Gravimetric Filling Instrument of accuracy class-X ( 1 ) of "ADW" series with brand name " YAMATO" ( herein referred to as the said Model), manufactured by M/s . Yamato Scales Co. Ltd, 5-22 Sabenbacho , Akashi , Japan -673 8688 and marketed in India are M/sAtop FoodProducts, Morbi Rajkot Highway, Post Box No. 007 , Lajai , Morbi -363 641 , Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/08/97;

The said model (see the figure given below) is a load cell based Automatic Gravimetric Filling Instrument with a maximum capacity of 100 g, minimum capacity of 1 g . and with scale division of 50 mg. The Liquid Crystal display (LCD) indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230Volts and 50-Hertz alternate current power supply . In addition to sealing the stamping plate, sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practicesand model shall not be changed in terins of its material, accuracy, design, circuit diagram , working principle , etc belfore or after متمر 1

4005

A.C. X MAX-100 Min

Further, in exerciseofthe powers conferred by sub-section ( 12) of Section 36 ofthe saidAct, the Centref Goverment herebydeclares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instument of similarmake and performance of same series with capacity in the range 4 g. to 500 g. minufactured by the same manufacturer in scoodancewith the same principle , design, accuracy and with the same materials with which, the said approved model bas been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 ( 162)/2007 )

R.MATHURBOOTHAM, Director ofLegal Metrology 3194

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7 , 1930

[PART II Sec. 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 14 मार्च, 2008

का.आ. 1529, केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स वेट्रोनिक्स कंट्रोल्स, 16 , हिन्दुस्तान कोहिदूर इंडस्ट्रियल काम्पलैक्स , एल, बी एस मार्ग , विकरोली ( वेस्ट ) , मुंबई द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग 11 ) वाले " डब्ल्यू बी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( वेब्रिज प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " वेट्रोनिक्स " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/07/434 समनुदेशिव किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( वेब्रिज प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 60 टन है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 400 कि.ग्रा. है सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 20 कि.ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 चोल्टऔर 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 सौलबन्द किया जाएगा तथा मॉडल को बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों परं 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 5 प्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्त्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 5 टन से 150 टन तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान । × 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 (183 )/2007]

आर माथुरबूथम, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 3195 [भाग- खण्ड 3 (i) )

भारत का राजपत्र जून 28, 2008/आषाढ़ 7 , 1930

NewDelhi , the 14th March,2008

S.O. 1529. 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 ofWeights 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) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of non -automatic weighing instrument (Weighbridge type) with digital indication of "WB " series ofmedium accuracy (accuracy class- [ J ] ) and with brand name "WEIGHTRONIX" (herein after referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Weightronix Controls, 16, Hindustan Kohinor Industrial Complex, L, B.S. Marg, Vikhroli (W) , Mumbai , Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/434;

The saidmodel is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument ( Weighbridge type)with a.maximum capacity of 60 tonne and minimum capacity of 400kg . The verification scale interval (e) is 20kg. It has atare devicewith a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The light emitting diode (LED) 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. A typical schematic diagram of the sealing arrangement of the model has been given above .

Further, in exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub-section ( 12) ofSection 36 ofthe said Act, the Central Government herebydeclares that this certificate ofapproval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make, accuracyand performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and up to 150 tonne with verification scale interval (n ) in the range of500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of5g or more and with ' e' value of 1x10 , 2x10 or 5x10%, wherek a positive or nagative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design andwith the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM -21 (183 )/2007]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director ofLegal Metrology 3196

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008 /ASADHA 7, 1930

[PART [ SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 14 मार्च, 2008

कर.अ. 1530.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में कर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाढ़ और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के वपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल स्वार्थत बनाए रखोगा 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 रेमको इलैक्ट्रोनिक वेइंग सिस्टम, 5174-75 कोल्हापुर रोड, कमला नगर, दिल्ली-07 द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग 11 ) वाले " आर टी टी" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके जिसके ब्रांड का नाम "रेमको " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी /09/07 /418 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी करती है ।

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

स्थापन प्लेट को सौल करने के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोसे जाने से रोकने के लिए भी सीलकन्द किया काएमा ग्रंथा मॉडल को बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री, यथार्थता, डिजाइन , सर्किट डाथग्राम निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की रातों पर भरिवर्तित नहीं किया आएगा । मॉडल के सौलिंग 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 बसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे मनुपोषित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मिली ग्रा. से 50 मिली ग्रा. तक " ई " मात्र 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 अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 ×10%, 2× 10*, 5×10", के हैं, को धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूणांक पा हुन्म के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. हब्ल्यू एम 21 (230)/2007 ]

आर माधुरन्धम , निर्देशक , विधिक माप विलग 3197

भारत का राजपत्र जून 28, 2008/आषाढ़ 7, 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 14th March, 2008

S.O. 1530. 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 te render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub -sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 ofthe said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non-automatic weighing Instrument (Tabletop type) with digital indication of " RTT" series ofhigh accuracy ( accuracy class - 11) and with brand name "REMCO" (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Remco Electronic Weighing System, 5174-75, Kolhapur Road, Kamia Nagar , Delhi -07 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/418;

Thesaid model is a strain gauge type load cell based non -automatic weighing instrument ( Tabletop type) with a maximmen capacity of 30kg and minimum capacity of250g. The verification scale interval (e) is 5g. It has a tare device with a100 percent 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.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 12) of section 36 ofthe said Act, the Central Government herebydeclares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instument of similar make , and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg and with number of verification scale interval ( n) in the range of100to50,000 for ' e' value of 1mg to 50mg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 5,000 to 50,000 for'e' value of 100mg or more and with ' e' value of 1x10 , 2x10 or 5x10 , k being a positive or nagative whole number orequal 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 (230)/2007)

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 2263GI /D85 3198

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008 /ASADHA 7 , 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 14 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 1531.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वॉर्णत मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप सानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (पॉडलों 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 रेमको इलैक्ट्रॉनिक वेइंग सिस्टम , 5174-75 कोल्हापुर रोड , कमला नगर , दिल्ली-07 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " आर पी एफ " श्रृंखला के स्वतःसूचक , अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण (प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " रेमको " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी /09/ 07/419 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती हैं ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 500 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि.ग्रा. है सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 100 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेगतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आपेयतुलन 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 लीटर 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 सीलबन्द किया जाएगा तथा मॉडल को बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शतों पर परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा । 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 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से 5000 कि.प्रा. तक की अधिकतभ क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1×10 , 2× 105 , अथवा 5 × 10 , के हैं, जहाँ पर ' के' जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के सभतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 230 ) /2007 ]

आर माधुरवूथम , निर्देशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 3199 [भाग [ I- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारतं का राजपत्र : जून 28, 2008/आषाढ़ 7,1930

NewDelhi , the 14thMarch , 2008

S.O. 1531.--Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the, prescribed amhority, 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 of the powers conferred by sub- sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 ofthe said Act ,the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the self indicating, non- automatic(Platform type) weighing instrument with digital indication of "RPF " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class- III) and with brand name " REMCO" ( herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Remco Electronic Weighing System, 5174-75, Kolhapur Road, Kamla Nagar, Delhi -07 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/419;

* The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non -automatic weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of500kg and minimum capacity of2kg . The verification scale interval (e) is 100g. It has a tare device with 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply. The machine is also having facility for conversion of kgto litre.

Further, in exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub - section ( 12) ofSection 36 ofthe said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval ofthe said model shall also cover the weighing instrument provision ofthe model ofsame series with maximum capacity above 50kg and up to 5000kg and with number ofverification scaleinterval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for'e' value of 5g. or more and with ' e' value of 1x10 , 2x10 or 5x10% , k being the positive or negativewhole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer with the same principie , design andwith the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 (230)/2007)

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 3200

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7 , 1930

नई दिल्ली, 14 मार्च, 2008

का.आ. 1532.-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 प्रिमियर इंजीनियरिंग वर्क्स, 16 ए, हल्दरपारा लेन, हावड़ा-711104 , पश्चिम बंगाल द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग [ ] ) वाले " पी ई ई -9 जे " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचक सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके जिसके ब्रॉड का नांम " प्रिमियर " है ( जिसे. इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी 09/08/15 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित तोलन उपकण ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) हैं । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 20 कि. ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयत्तुलन प्रभाव है । लाईट इमिटिंग डायोड तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति 2 - मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के प्रावधान का स्कोमैटिक डायग्राम

इन्डिकेटर के पीछे की ओर से कपटपूर्ण प्रयोग करने से बचाने के लिए स्टाम्पिंग प्लैट पर सीलिंग रिवेट लगाई जाती है । अंदरूनी सीलिंग तार को रिवेट के जरिए इन्डिकेटर के साथ जोड़ा जाता है ताकि इन्डेिकटर के कवर को बिना दोनों रिवेट सीन को तोड़े खोला ना जा सके । मार्डल के सीलिंग प्रावधान को स्कीमेटिक 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 किउक्त 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 येक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 पि.ग्राम से 50 मि.ग्राम के ई ' यान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापान मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि. ग्राम या उससे अधिक के ' ई' मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापान मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 किलोग्राम तक को अधिकत्तम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2× 10 * , या 5 × 10 *, के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[ फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 170) /2007] आर. माथुग्ग्रथम, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान i

3201 [ भाग - खण्ड 3 (ii) ) .

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28 , 2008/ आषाढ़ 7 , 1930

New Delhi, the 14th March , 2008

S.O. 1532-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 (ApprovalofModels) 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; i Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections ( 7) and (8 ) of Section 36 ofthe said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non-automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of high accuracy (Accuracy class - II) ofseries " PEE- 9- J" and withbrand name " PREMIER" (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufacturedby M/s . Premier Engineering Works, 16A Halderpara Lane, Howrah- 711104 , West Bengal and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/08/ 15;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with a maximum capacity of20kg and minimum capacity of 100g. The verification scale interval (e) is 2g. It has a tare device with 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.

Fig. 2 Sealing arrangement

Sealing rivet is affixed on the stamping plate to avoid fraudulent use at the right side of the scale. Internal sealing wire is connected with the scale through the rivet, so that the scate cover can not be opened without breaking the both rivet seals.Atypical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.

Further, in exercise ofthe power 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 instrument of similar makė, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50 kg with verification scale interval ( rn ) in the range of100 to50,000 for ' e' value of 1mg to 50mg and with verification scale interval (n) in the range of5000 to 50,000 for ' e' value of100mgor more and with ' e' value of 1x10 , 2x10% or 5x10% , wherek is a positive or nagative whole mumber 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 (170)/2007]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director ofLegal Metrology 3202

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2008/ASADHA 7, 1930

[PART I SEC . 3 (ii ))

नई दिल्ली, 14 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 1533. 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 तथा माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) और बाट तथा माप मानक (ॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल - यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा:

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स प्रिमियर इंजीनियरिंग वर्क्स , 16 ए, हल्दरपारा लेन , हावडा-711104 , पश्चिम बंगाल द्वारा विनिर्मित सामान्य यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " पी ई एस -85 / एफ " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचक सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " प्रिमियर " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी /09/ 08 / 16 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्तमॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 300 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता । किलो ग्राम है । इसका सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल 50 ग्राम है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । लाईट इमिटिंग डायोड तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 ' हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति 2 - मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के प्रावधान का स्कीमैटिक डायग्राम

इन्डिकेटर के पीछे की ओर से कपटपूर्ण प्रयोग करने से बचाने के लिए स्टेम्पिंग प्लेट पर सीलिंग रिवेट लगाई जाती है । अंदरूनी सीलिंग तार को रिवेट के जरिए इन्डिकेटर के साथ जोड़ा जाता है ताकि इन्हेिंकटर के कवर को बिना दोनों रिवेट सील को तांड़े खोला ना जा सके । मार्डल के सीलिंग प्रावधान को स्कीमेटिक 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 उस्सी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्राम या उससे अधिक के ' ई ' मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापान मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 किलोग्राम से अधिक और 5,000 किलोग्राम तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और ' ई ' मान 1 × 10 *, 2× 10 , 5 ×10 , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूणर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 170 ) /2007 ]

आर. माधुरवृधम, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान [ पान -खण्ड ( ii) ]

3203

भारत का राजपुत्र : जून 28 , 2008/ आषाद 7, 1930

NewDelhi, the 14th March, 2008

S.0. 1533-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 ofWeights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measurea (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 ofthe powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and (8 ) ofSection 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non-automatic, weighing instrument (Platform type) with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy class- III) ofseries "PES- 85/F" and with brand name"PREMIER" (hereinafter referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M/ s . Premier Engineering Works , 16 A, Halderpara Lane, Howrah -711104, West Bengal and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/08/16;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based: n- automatic weighing instrument (Platform type ) with a maximum capacity of300kg and minimum capacity of 1kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 50g. Ithas a tare devicewith a100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230Volta and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Fig.2Sealing arrangement

Sealing rivet is affixed on the stamping plate to avoid fraudulent use at the back side of the indicator . Internal sealing wire is connected with the indicator through the rivet, so that the indicator cover can not be opened without breaking the both rivet seala. A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision ofthe model is given above.

Further, inexercise ofthe powers conferredby sub-section (12) ofSection 36 ofthe said Act, the Central Government herebydeclares that this certificate ofapproval ofthe said model shall also cover the weighing instuments of similar make accuracyandperformance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg and up to 5,000kg with verification scale interval (n) in the range of500 to 10,000 for 'e' value of5g or more and with ' e' value of 1x10 , 2x10 or 5x10 , 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 ( 170)/2007)

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 3204

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7, 1930

नई दिल्ली, 14 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 1534.-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 तथा माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) और बाट तथा 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 इंडस वेइंग सिस्टम प्रा.लि. , # 14 , 2 एंड स्ट्रीट , कुमारासामी नगर , सिविल एरोड्रोम पोस्ट, कोयम्बतूर -641 014 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यश्यार्थता वर्ग [ II ) वाले " आई डबल्यू एस टी " श्रृंखला अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम ' इंडस ' है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी /09/07/442 सममुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी करती है ।

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

आकृति 2-मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के प्रावधान का स्कीमैटिक डायग्राम

स्टॉपिंग सेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद 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 उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है किउक्त 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. से 2 ग्रा. के ' ई ' माय के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के' ई' मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और सहित 50 कि. ग्राम तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और ' ई' मान 1 ×10% , 2× 10* या 5 × 10 *, के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूणर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 192 ) /2007 ]

आर. माधुरबूधम , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 3205 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28, 2008/आचाद 7, 1930-

NewDelhi , the 14th March,2008

S.O. 1534.-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 ofWeights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards ofWeightsand Meaneres (Approval ofModels ) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained une and to render accurate service under varied conditions; :

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 ofthe said Act, the CentralGovernment hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval ofthe Model of non- automatic (Table top type) weighing instrument with digital indication of " IWST" series of medium accuracy (accuracy class - III) and with brand name "INDUS" (hereinre ferred to as the said model ), manufactured by M/s. Indus Weighing Systems Pvt. Ltd., # 14, 2nd Street, KumarasamyNagar, Civil Aerodrome Post, Coimbatore- 641 014 and which is assigned the approval marc IND/ 09 /07/442;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type) with a maximum capacity of30kg and minimum capacity of 100g. The verification scale interval (e) is 5g. The instrument has additional features like piece counting , meter conversion (for fabric and other material), kg to litre conversion and price computing. It has a tare device with 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.

Fig. 2 Schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model

The sealing shall 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 . t :

Further, in exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub-section ( 12) ofSection 36 ofthe said Act, the Central Government herebydeclares that this certificate ofapproval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similarmake, accuracy and performance of same serles with maximum capacity upto 50kg with verification scale interval (n) in the range of100 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 100mg to 2g or with verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of5g or more and with ' e' value of 1x10 , 2x10 or 5x10%, k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured..

[F. No. WM-21 (192)/2007)

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of LegalMetrology 2263 CL08-6 3206

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2008/ASADHA 7, 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली , 14 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 1535.-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 तथा माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) और बाट तथा माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अथ केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स इंडस वेइंग सिस्टम प्रा.लि. , # 14, सैकंड स्ट्रीट, कुमारासामी नगर , सिविल प्रोड्रोम पोस्ट, कोयम्बतूर-641014 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " आई डबल्यू एस पी " श्रृंखला के स्वतः सूचक, अस्वचालित , अंकक सूचन सहित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम ' इंडुस ' है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/07/443 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का पार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 किलो ग्राम है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 4 कि. प्राप है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 200 प्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनम्त्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उर्सजक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 बोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति 2-मॉडल को सीलिंग करने के प्रावधान का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

स्टॉपिंग प्लेट को सील करने के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए भी सोलबंद 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 आएगा । पाडल 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 मैक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो ऽग्रा. या उससे अधिक के ' ई ' मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन,मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 किलोग्राम से 5000 किलोग्राम तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और ' ई' मान 1× 10* , 2 × 10 *, या 5 × 10% , के हैं, जहां पर " के " धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 192)/2007] आर. माथुरबूथम, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 3207

भारत का राजपत्र जून 28, 2008/ आषाढ़ 7 , 1930

[ भाग I- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 14th March, 2008

S.O. 1535-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 ) 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;

,i Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of the self indicating, non- automatic (Platform type) weighing instrument with digital indication of " IWSP" series ofmedium accuracy (accuracy class- III) and with brand name "INDUS" (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by:M/s . Indus Weighing Systems Pvt . Ltd. , #14, 2nd Street , Kumarasamy Nagar, Civil Aerodrome Post, Colambatore-64 1014 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/443; :

The saidmodel is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with a maximum capacity of 1000kg. and minimum capacity of 4kg . The verification scale interval (e) is 200g. The instrument has additional features like piece counting, meter conversion (for fabric and other material ), kg . to litre conversion and price computing. It has a tare device with 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Eraiting Diode (LED) display indicates theweighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.

Fig. 2Schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model

The sealing shall be done to prevent opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and model shaft notbe 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 .

Furtime, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 12) ofSection36 ofthe said Act, the Central Government bereby declares that this certificate of approval ofthe said model shall also cover the weighing instument of same series with maximum capacity above 50kg. and upto 5000kg, and with number of verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 500 to10,000 for' e' value of 5g. or more and with ' e' value of 1x10 , 2x10 or 5x10 , k'being 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 ( 192)/2007 ]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 3208

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7 , 1930

[PART I SEC.3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 14 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 1536.-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 रखेंगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स विक्ट्री सिस्टम्स , न्यू नं. 23 , ओल्ड नं. 39/1 शिवन कोइल स्ट्रीट, कोयेमबेडु , चैन्नई-600017, तमिलनाडू द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यधार्थता वर्ग-11 ) वाले " वीएस जेपी " श्रृंखला अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसकै ब्राण्ड का नाम ' विक्ट्री' है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी 109/07/510 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

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

मॉडल को सीलिंग करने के प्रावधान का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

सीलिंग उपकरण के तल में और ऊपर के ढक्कन में बायीं और दार्यों ओर छेद करके की जाती है और इन छेदों के आर- पार एक सीस्ल वायर निकाली जाती है । उपकरण के दोनों छोरों पर सीलिंग वायर पर एक चपटी लीड सील लगाई जाती है । मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का एक विशिष्ट सीमेटिक डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।

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

[ फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 (249) /2007 ] आर. माधुरबूथम, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 3209 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 28, 2008/आषाढ़ 7 , 1930

NewDelhi, the 14th March, 2008

8.0. 1536. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the sald report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (ApprovalofMogels ) 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 of approval of non -automatic weighing instrument (Tabletop type) with digital indication of "VS-JP" series ofhigh accuracy (accuracy class-II) and with brand name "Victory" (herein referredto as the said model) , manufactured by M/ s . Victory Systems, New No.23 , Old No.39/1 Sivan Koil Street, Koyambedu, Chennai-600 107, Tamil Nadu and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/07/510;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with a maximum capacity of30kg and minimum capacity of 100g. The verification scale interval (e) is 2g. It has a tare devicewrith 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emiting Diode display (LED ) indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply:

VIETORNSTAR

100002

Schematic arrangement of sealing arrangement

The seating is done by making a hole at the bottom plate and the upper cover of the weighing instrument and fasten a leaded wire for receiving a verification seal . A typical schematic diagram ofthe sealing arrangement of the model has been given above.

Further, in exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub-section ( 12 ) ofSection 36 of the said Act, the Central Government herebydeclares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracyand performance ofsame series with maximum capacity upto 50kg with verification scale interval (n ) in the range of100 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 1 mg . to 50mg. and with verification scale interval (n) in the range of5000 to50,000 for ' e' value of 100mg. or more and with ' e' value of 1x10 , 2x10 or 5x10%, where k being 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 slime materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 (249)/2007]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director ofLegal Metrology 3210

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7 , 1930

[ PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 14 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 15.37.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गईआकृ‌ति 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 विक्ट्री सिस्टम्स, न्यूनं. 23 , ओल्ड नं. 39/1 शिवन कोइल स्ट्रीट, कोयेमबेडु , चैन्नई-600017 तामिलनाडू द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " वीएस टीबी " श्रृंखला अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ग्राण्ड का नाम ' विक्ट्री' है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी /09/07/511 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडले एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेवलटाप प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 किलो ग्राम है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्राम है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई) 5 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्संजक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

मॉडल को सीलिंग करने के प्रावधान का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

सीलिंग उपकरण के तल में और ऊपर के ढक्कन में बायी और दायीं ओर छेद करके की जाती है और इन छेदों के आर - पार एक सील वायर निकाली आती है । उपकरण के दोनों छोरों पर सीलिंग वायर पर एक चपटी लीड सील लगाई जाती है । मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का एक विशिष्ट सीमेटिक 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 उसो 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. से 2ग्रा. तक के ' ई' मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में और 5 प्रा. अथवा उससे अधिक के ' ई ' मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 किलोग्राम तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और ' ई' पान 1 × 10% , 2×10 . या 5× 10 *, के हैं , जहां पर ' के' धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं । *

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 249 )/2007] आर. माथुरबूथम, निर्देशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 3211 [ भाग- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28 , 2008/ आषाढ़ 7 , 1930

New Delhi, the 14th March ,2008

S.O. 1537. 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) 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 ) ofSection 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of " VS- TB" series of medium accuracy ( accuracy class- III ) and with brand name "VICTORY" (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured byM/ s . Victory Systems, New No.23 Old No.39/ 1 Sivan Koil Street, Koyambedu, Chennai - 600 107, Tamil Nadu and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /07/511 ;

Thesaidmodel is a strain gauge type load cell based non -automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with a maximum capacity of30kg and minimum capacity of 100g. The verification scale interval (e) is 5g. It has a tare device with a 100 percent 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 .

Schemattic arrangement of sealing arrangement

The sealing is done by making a hole at the bottom plate and the upper gover of the weighing instrument and fatsten a leaded wire for receiving a verification seal. A typical schematic diagram of sealing arrangement of the model has beengiven above. ( 1 )

Further, in exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub-section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Governm bereby declares that this certificate of approval ofthe said model shall also cover the weighing instuments of similar make, accuracyand performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50kg with verification scale interval (n) in the range of100to10,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg. to 2g, and with verification scale interval (n) in the range of500 to 10,000 for vilke of5g. or more and with ' e' value of 1x10 , 2x10 or 5x10 , where k is a positive or nagative whole number or equal te zero mamufactured by the same mariufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same inaterials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[P. No. WM-21 (249)/2007]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology [PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 3212

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7, 1930

नई दिल्ली , 14 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 1538.-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 तथा माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) और बाट तथा 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 विक्ट्री सिस्टम , न्यू नं.23 , ओल्ड नं. 39/1 शिवन कोइल स्ट्रीट, कोयेमबेडु, चैन्नई -600017 , तामिलनाडु द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " वीएस पीआई " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम ' विक्ट्री' है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी 109/07/512 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 किलो ग्राम है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 4 किलो ग्राम है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 200 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उर्सजक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श लोलन परिणाम उपद‌र्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

मॉडल को सीलिंग करने के प्रावधान का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

सीलिंग उपकरण के तल में और ऊपर के ढक्कन में बायी और दायीं ओर छेद करके की जाती है और इन छेदों के आर- पार एक सील वायर निकाली जाती । उपकरण के दोनों छोरों पर सीलिंग वायर पर एक चपटी लीड सील लगाई जाती है । माडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का एक विशिष्ट स्कीमेटिक 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 किउक्त 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 ऽग्रा अथवा उसके अधिक के ' ई ' मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 किलोग्राम से 5000 कि.ग्रा तक कि 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 ( 249 ) /2007 ]

आर. माधुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 3213 [ भाग - खण्ड 3 (i ) )

भारत को राजपत्र : जून 28, 2008/आवाड़ 7, 1930

New Delhi, the 14th March,2008

S.O. 1538.-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 conferredby sub-septions (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of non- automatic weighing instrumeем (Platform type) with digital indication of " VS- PI" series of medium accuracy (accuracy class - III ) and with brand name "VICTORY" (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured byM/s. Victory Systems, New No.23 , Old No.39/ 1 Sivan Koil Street, Koyambedu, Chennai - 600 107, Tamilnadu and which is assigned the upperoval mark IND/09/07/512;

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

Schematic arrangement of sealing arrangemeni

The sealing is done by making a hole at the bottom plate and the upper cover ofthe indicator from the left side and fasten a lendedwire forreceiving a verification seal Atypical schematio diagram of sealing provision ofthe model is given above.

Further, in exercise ofthe powers conferredby sub- section ( 12 ) ofsection 36 ofthe said Act, the Central Government berebydeclares that this certificate of approval ofthe said model shall also cover the weighing instuments of similarmake, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50kg and upto 5000kg with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5g or more and with " e value of 1x10 , 2x10 or 5x10 , where Kisa 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 (249)/2007]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director ofLegalMetrology 2263G1/08-7 3214

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7, 1930

[PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 14 मार्च, 2008

का.आ. 1539,-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 आकृ‌क्ति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा (7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स विक्ट्री सिस्टम्स, न्यूनं.23 , ओल्ड नं. 39/1 शिवन कोइल स्ट्रीट , कोयेमबेडु, चैन्नई 600017 तमिलनाडू द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " वीएस - पीडब्ल्यू" श्रृंखला अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( सिक्का परिचालित व्यक्ति वेइंग मशीन ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम ' विक्ट्री' है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी 09/07/513 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेला आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( सिक्का परिचालित व्यक्ति वेइंग मशीन) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 150 किलो ग्राम है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 किलो ग्राम है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई) 100ग्रा. 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 ।

मॉडल को सीलिंग करने के प्रावधान का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

सीलिंग उपकरण के तल में और ऊपर के इक्कन में बायीं और दायीं ओर छेद करके की जाती है और इन खेदों के आर - पार एक सील वायर निकाली जाती । उपकरण के दोनों छेदों पर सीलिंग वायर पर एक चपटी लीड सील लगाई जाती है । मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का एक विशिष्ट सोमेटिक डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस 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 ऽग्रा. अथवा उसके अधिक के ' ई ' मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 100 किलोग्राम से 200 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 ( 249 )/2007]

आर माथुरबूथम, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 3215 [ भाग- खण्ड 3000) ]

भारत की राजमंत्र जून 28, 2008/आषाढ़ 7, 1930

NewDelhi , the 14th March,2008

S.O. 1539-Whereas the Central Goverment, 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 ofWeights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of1976) 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 andto render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and (8) ofSection 36 of the said Act, the Central Governntent hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of non-automatic weighing lastrament (CoinOperated-Person Weighing Machine) with digital indication of "VS-PW" series of medium acouracy ( socuracy class- 11) andwith brand name " VICTORY" (herein referred to as the said model), manufactured byM/s, Victory Systeme NowNo.23 OldNo.39/ 1 Sivan Koil Street, Koyambedu, Chennai-600 107, Tamil Nadu and which is assigned the approval mrk IND/09/ 07 /513;

Thesaidmodel is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Coin Opermiad-Person WeighingMachine) with a maximum capacity of 150kg and minimum capacity of2kg.The verification scale interval (e) is 100g. It has a tare device with 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) indicates the woighing result. The instruments operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Schematic arrangement ofsealing arrangement

The sealing is done by making a hole at the bottom plate and the upper cover ofthe indicator from the left side and fastest a leadedwire for receiving a verification seal. A typical schematic diagram ofthe sealing arrangement of the model givenabove.

Further, in exercise ofthe powers couferred by sub- section (12) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government herebydeclares that this certificate ofapproval ofthe said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar 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 10,000 for ' e' value of 5g or more and with ' e ' value of 1x10 , 2x10 or 5x10%, where k is 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 (249 )/2007]

R.MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 3216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008 /ASADHA 7 , 1930

[PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 14 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 1540.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात यह समाधान हो गया है कि तक्त 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 कास वेइंग इंडिया प्रा. लि. , नं. 568 , उद्योग विहार , फेज-V , गुडगांव , हरियाणा द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " सी एल-5000 " श्रृंखला अंकक सूचन सहित प्तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाष प्रकार ) के माडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " सी ए एस " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी /09/08 /10 सपनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त माडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित असवचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 15 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 40 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन म्यापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । लिक्विड क्रिस्टल डिस्पले ( एल सी डी) सोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

सीलिंग बोल्ट से तार निकालकर, तार और लीड के माध्यम से इंडिकेटर के पिछली तरफ , स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के पास सीलिंग पाइंट स्थित है । माडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का एक विशिष्ट सीमेटिक 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 करत्ती 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 100 मि.ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक " ई" मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और "ई" मान 1 × 10* , 2 ×10*, 5 × 10* , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूणर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21 (300) /2007]

आर. माथुरबूथम, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 3217 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28, 2008/आषाढ़ 7, 1930

NewDelhi, the 14th March,2008

S.O. 1540-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 ofWeights 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 of the said Act, the Central Government bereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non-automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with digital indication ofmedium accuгсу (Accuracy class - III) of series "CL-5000" andwith brand name "CAS" (hereinafter referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M/s . Cas Weighing India Pvt. Ltd. , No. 168 , Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgoan , Haryana and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 07/10;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non -automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with a maximum capocity of 15kg and minimum capacity of 40g. The verification scale interval ( e) is 2g. It has a tare devicewith a 100percent subtractive retained tare effect. The Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) indicates the weighing results. The instrument operates on 230Voks, 50Hertz alternative current power supply. 7 Sealing point location is near stamping place at upper case and sealing through wire and lead, passing wire through sealing bolt and upper case of the indicator . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.

Further, in exercise ofthe powers conferredby sub- section ( 12) ofsection 36 of the said Act, the CentralGovemment herebydeclares that this certificate ofapproval ofthe said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg and with verification scale interval (n ) in the range of100 to 10,000 for' e' value of 100mg to 2g and with verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 5000 10,000 for 'e' value of 5g or more and with ' e' value of 1x10% , 2x10 or 5x10%, k is a positive or nagative whole number or equal to zaRO manufacturedby 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 (300)/2007)

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of LegalMetrology 3218

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7 , 1930

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

नई दिल्ली, 14 मार्च, 2008

का.आ. 1541.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि ठक्त 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 कास वेइंग इंडिया प्रा. लि. , नं. 568 , उच्द्योग विहार , फेज-४ , गुडगांव , हरियाणा द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग II ) वाले " डी जैड " श्रृंखला अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के माडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " सी ए एस " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी 109/08/09 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त माडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 300 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता । कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 20 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । लिक्विड क्रिस्टल डिस्पले (एल सी डी ) तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

सीलिंग बोल्ट से तार निकालकर , तार और लीड के माध्यम से इंडिकेटर के पिछली तरफ, स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के पास सीलिंग पाइंट स्थित है । माडल के सौलिंग प्रावधान का एक विशिष्ट स्कीमेटिक 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, डिआइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित भाडल 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 5000 से 50,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित और 50 कि. प्रा. से अधिक और 5000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10%, 5 × 10 *, के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूणर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम 21 ( 300) /2007 ]

आर. माथुरखूथम, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 3219 [पन II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28 , 2008/आषाड़ 7, 1930

NewDelhi, the 14th March, 2008

S.O. 1541. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report subenitted to it by prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 ofthe said Act, the Central Goverument hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with digital indication ofhigh accuracy (Accuracy class- II) of series " DZ" and with brandname "CAS"(hereinafter referred to as the said model ), manufactured by M/s . CAS Weighing India Pvt., No. 568, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgoan , Haryana and which is assigned the approval mark IND /09/08 /09;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument (Platform type ) with a maximum capacity of 300ikg, and minimum capacity of Ikg . The verification scale interval (e) is 20g . It has a taredevicewith a100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) display indicates the weighing results.The instrument operates on 230Volts, 50Hertz alternative current power supply.

Sealing point location is near stamping plate at back side of the indicator through wire and lead , passing wire through sealing bolt. A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.

Further, in exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub -section ( 12) ofsection 36 ofthe said Act, the Central Government hereby declaresthat this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments ofsimilarmake, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg. and up to 5000kg , with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' e' value of 100mg, or more and with ' e' value of Ix10 , 2x10 or 5x10 , where k is 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 (300)/2007]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology.

3220

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7, 1930

(PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 14 मार्च, 2008

कर, आ. 1542. 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 ) और बाट तथा 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 मैसर्सओम इन्स्ट्रूमेंट्स, डी-6, देविकरूपा सोसायटी , महादेव नगर, टेकरा , गोपी बँगला के सामने, बस्त्रालय रोड , अहमदाबाद , गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " ओ एम पी-07 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचक सहित स्वसूचक , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के माडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " ओमैक्स " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी /09/07/528 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त माडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित तोलन अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि.ग्रा. है । इसका सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल 100 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । लाईट इमिटिंग डायोड तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत पर कार्य करता है ।

8916

सीलिंग तुला के इंडिकेटर के तल और ऊपर के ढक्कन में बने छेद के आर- पार एक वायर निकाल कर इसे लोड सील से सुरक्षित करके की जाती है । मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का एक विशिष्ट सीमेटिक 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 किउक्त 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 5 ग्राम या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से अधिक और 5000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2× 10* , 5 × 10 * , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मकं पूर्णाक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21 ( 282) /2007 ] आर. माधुरनूथम , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 3221 [ भाग - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28 , 2008/ आषाढ़ 7, 1930

New Delhi , the 14th March , 2008

S.O. 1542. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfled 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 Measureš (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 ofthe powers conferredby sub- sections (7) and (8 ) ofSection 36 ofthe said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the self indicating , con- automatic (Platform type ) weighing instrument with digital indication of " OMP- 7" series of medium accuracy (accuracy class- III) and with brand name "OMEX" (herein referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M/s. Om Instruments, D-6,Devikrupa Society, Mahdev Nagar , Tekra , Opp. Gopi Bunglows , Vastral Road, Ahmedbad and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/528;

The saidmodel is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 1000kg and minimum capacity of 2kg . The verification scale interval (e) is 100g. It has a tare device with 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diod (LED ) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50Hertz alternative current power supply.

8916 i The sealing is done through the hole made in the bottom plate and top cover of the indicator of the scale and sealingwire is passed through these holes and the lead seal is fixed on the wire . 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 same series with maximum capacity above 50kg and up to 5000kg with verification scale interval (n) in the range of500 to 10,000 for ' e value of5g or more and with ' e' value of 1x10 , 2x10 or 5x10%, k being the positive or nagative whole number or equal to zeru, 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 (282)/2007]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 1263G1/08-8 3222

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7, 1930

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

नई दिल्ली , 14 पार्च , 2008

का.आ. 1543.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित्त 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 अनुमोन) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अथ केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा (7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स ओम इन्स्ट्रुमेंट्स, डी-6, देविकरूपा सोसायटी , महादेव नगर, टेकरा , गोपी बँगला के सामने , वस्त्रालय रोड , अहमदाबाद , गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " ओ एम टी-11 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचक सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " ओमैक्स " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी /09/07/ 527 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 ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । इसका सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल 5 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत्त प्रतिशत व्पकलनात्त्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । लाईट इमिटिंग डायोड तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत पर कार्य करता है ।

सीलिंग तुला के इंडिकेटर के तल और ऊपर के ढक्कन में बने छेद के आर- पार एक वायर निकाल कर इसे लीड तील से सुरक्षित करके की जाती है । मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का एक विशिष्ट सीमेटिक 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. ग्राम से 2 ग्राम के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्राम या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 किलोग्राम तक को 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 (282) /2007 ]

आर माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 3223 [ भाग ॥- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र जून 28, 2008/आषाढ़ 7, 1930

NewDelhi, the 14thMarch, 2008

S.O. 1543. 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 conformky 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 sustaineduse and to render accurate service under varled conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 ofthe said Act, the Central Government bereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval ofthe model ofnon-automatic (Table top type) weighing instrument with digital indication of " OMT - 11 " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class- III ) and with brand name "OMEX" (herein referred to as the said model), manufactured by M / s. Om Instruments, D-6, Devikrupa Society, MabdevNagar, Tekra, Opp. Gopi Bunglows, Vastral Road, Ahmedabad and which is assigned the approval mark INDM09 / 07/527; :

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with a maximum capacity of30kg and minimum capacity of 100g. The verification scale interval (e) is5g. It has a tare devicewith 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230Volts and 50Hertz alternative current power supply.

1911 The sealing isdone through the hole made in the bottom plate and top cover and sealing wire is passed through these holes and thelead seal is fixed on the wire. A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.

Further, in exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) ofsection 36 ofthe said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate ofapproval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instument of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg to 2g or with verification scale interval (n) in the range of500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5g or more and with ' e ' value of 1x10%, 2x10k or 5x10 , k being a positive or nagative whole manber 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 (282)/2007]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Disaster of Legal Metrology 3224

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7, 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]

नई दिल्ली , 14 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 1544.-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;

अंतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा (7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स टोरेंट इंस्ट्रूमेंटस , 93 , नील दिनामेंट, कठवाड़ा रोड, नाँ नरोदा, अहमदाबाद, गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " टी आई टी- आई " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचक सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " टोरेंट " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी / 09/07/02 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेवलटाप प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 5 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयत्तुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

मॉडल को सील करने के लिए इसमें दो छेद एक तल और शीर्ष कवर पर किए जायेंगे और इन छेदों में सील करने के तार डाले जायेंगे । सील को संरक्षित करने के लिए एक चौकोर लीड सील तारसील से की जाएगी । मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का एक विशिष्ट सीमेटिक 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 किं वक्त 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. ग्राम से 2 ग्राम तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्राम या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 किलोग्राम तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई" मान 1 × 10 , 2×10% , 5× 10%, के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूणर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम 21 (214 )/2007 ] आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक पाप विज्ञान 3225 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( il ) ]

भारत का राजगत्र : जून 28, 2008/आषाढ़ 7 , 1930

NewDelhi , the 14th March ,2008

S.O. 1544.-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 of approval of the model of non-automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy class- III) of series "TTT- 1 " and with brand name "TORRANT" ( hereinafter referred to as the said model), manufacturedby M/s . Torrant Instruments, 93, NIL Tenament, Kathawada Road, Nava Naroda, Ahmedabad, Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/08/02;

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 of 100g. The verification scale interval (e ) is 5g. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diod (LED) indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50Hertz alternative current power supply.

For sealing two holes are drilled at the bottom and top cover of the model and a seal wire is passed through these holes .A square lead seal is poured through seal wire to protect the seal . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision ofthe model is given above .

Further, in exercise ofthe powers conferredby sub-section ( 12) of Section 36 ofthe said Act, the Central Goverment herebydeclares that this certificate ofapproval ofthe said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance ofsame series with maximum capacity up to 50kg, with verification scale interval (n) in the range of100 to10,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg. to 2g, and with verification scale înterval (n) in the range of500 to 10,000 for ' e' vahie of5g. or more and with ' e ' value of Ix10 , 2x10 or 5x10 , whee k 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 (2 ) 4)/2007]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 3226

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7 , 1930

[PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 14 मार्च , 2008

का.आ. 1545. 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 एस्से टेराउका लि. , नं. 377/22 , 6ठां क्रास , विल्सन गार्डन, बंगलौर-560 027 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग-[ I ] ) वाले "डीएस-673 " श्रृंखला के अस्वचालित , अंकक सूचन सहित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम डीजी " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी 109/08/26 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 15 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 40 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

DS-673

स्केल के तल में चार छिद्र किए गए हैं । इन छिद्रों में से एक में स्टील प्लेट लगाई गई है जिसे बोर स्कू के साथ फिक्स किया गया है तथा इस छिद्र तथा स्क्रू में से सत्यापन स्टाम्प एवं सील को प्राप्त करने के लिए लीड वायर को सख्ती से बांधा गया है । सील हटाए बिना उपकरण नहींखुल सकता है । मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का स्कोमवार 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 किउक्त 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 त्तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि. ग्राम से 2 ग्राम तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मायमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्राम या उससे अधिक़ के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) 50 किलोग्राम 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. डब्ल्यूएम 21 (280 ) /2007 ]

आर माथुरबूथम . निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 3227 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28, 2008/आषाढ़ 7 , 1930

New Delhi , the 14th March,2008

S.O. 1545-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 andika render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 ofthe said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval ofthe model ofnon-automatic (Table top type) weighing instrument with digital indication of " DS-673 " series of medium accuracy (accuracy class - Ill ) and with brand name "DIGI " (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Essae-Teraoka Limited, No. 377/22, 6th Cross,. WilsonGarden, Bangalore-560027 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/26;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with a, maximum capacity of 15kg . and minimum capacity of40g. The verification scale interval (e ) is 2g. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diod ( LED) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230Volts and 50Hertz alternative current power supply.

DS-673

At the bottom ofthe scale , four mounting holes are provided . A steel plate is provided to one of these holes , which is fixedwith abored screw and a leaded wire is fastened through this hole and the screw for receiving the verification starip and seal . The instrument can not be opened without tampering the seal . 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 ofthe said Act, the Central Government herebydeclares that this certificate ofapproval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments ofsimilar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg. with verification scale interval (n ) in the range of100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg. to 2g. or with verification scale interval (n) in the range of500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of5g . or more and with ' e ' value of 1x10 , 2x10 or 5x10k, where k is 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 (280)/2007]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 3228

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7 , 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली , 18 जून, 2008

का.आ. 1546.- 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

संशोधित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

क्रम सं

संशोधन लागू होने कीतिथि (1)

(2)

(3)

(4) L.

संशोधन संख्या 4 जून , 2008

30जून,2008 IS 1956(Part 4): 1975 लौह एवं इस्पात की शब्दावली भाग 4- इस्पात कीचद्दर एवं पत्ती (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

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

तिथि: 18-6-2008

(संदर्भ : एमटीडी 4/टी -9 ]

डॉ. ( श्रीमत्ति) स्नेह भाटला, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी)

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi , the 18th June , 2008

S.O. 1546. 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

Sl.No.

No.& year of the

Amendment

Date fromwhich the amendment shall have effect No. & Year ofthe Indian Standard (s) amendment ( s)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(1)

IS1956 (Part 4): 1975

30 June,2008

Amendment No. 4 June,2008

Glossary of terms relatingto iron and steel Part 4 Steel sheet and strip (first revision)

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg, 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 .

Dated: 18-6-2008

[ Ref : MTD 4/T-9 ]

DR. ( MRS . ) SNEH BHATLA, Scientist ' F' & Head (Met Engg.) 3229

भारत का राजपत्र : जूनं 28, 2008/आषाढ़ 7, 1930

[ भाल - खण्ड (ii) ]

..:

नई दिल्ली , 20 जून , 2008

कर. आ. 1547.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 को नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वह स्थापित हो गया है:

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों) की संख्या

क्रम सं.

वर्ष औरशीर्षक

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

(2)

(4) (1)

(3)

आई एस 11370 : 1985

31मई, 2008 आई एस 11370:2008 विभिन्न प्रकार के प्रलेखों के विवलियोग्राफी विवरण के कम्प्यूटर आधारित विवलियोग्राफी द्वारा डाटा बेस के डाटा तत्व और रिकार्ड

फार्मेंट की मार्गदर्शिका

(प्रथम पुनरीक्षण)

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

तिथि: 20-6-2008

[संदर्भ: एम एस डी/बी-8 अधि ]

पी. पटनागर , वैज्ञानिक ' ई ' एवं प्रमुख ( प्रबन्ध एवं क्षेत्र )

New Delhi, the 20th June,2008

S.O. 1547. 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 al hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

Dateof Established

No. & Year ofthe Indian Standard Establishment

No. &.Year of Indian Standard, if any, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

IS11370: 1985

IS 11370:2008 Guide for data

31May,2008 elements and record format for computer based bibliographical databases for bibliographic description ofdifferent kinds of documents (first revision)

Copyofabove Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafir Marg, New Delhi - 110 002 and its Regional Offices at New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai andalapisy BranchOffices at Ahmedabad , Bangalore, Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur , Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune and Thiruvananthapuram.

Dated:20-06-2008

[Ref: MSD/G-8Notification]

P. BHATNAGAR, Scientist ' E' & Head (Met Engg.) 2263G108-9 3230

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7, 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 24 जून , 2008

का.आ. 1548.- 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 जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वह स्थापित हो गया है :

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि क्रम सं. स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

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

(4)

(3)

(1)

(2)

नहीं

मई , 2008 आई एस 15764 : 2008 वस्त्रादि- कपड़े के फर्श आवरणों का ज्वलन व्यवहार ज्ञात करना

अब यह भारतीय मानक बिक्री के लिये उपलब्ध होगा ।

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

तिथि: 24-06-2008

[ संदर्भ: टीएक्सडी/जी -25 ]

एम. एस. वर्मा , निदेशक एवं प्रमुख (टीएक्सडी)

New Delhi, the 24th June,2008

S.O. 1548.In pursuance of clause (b ) ofsub -rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standard, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Sl .No.

No. & Year ofthe Indian' Standard Establishment

Date of Established

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

(4)

(2)

(3)

(1)

Nil

May,2008

IS15764: 2008 Textiles- Determination ofBurning Behaviour ofTextile Floor Converings

Henceforth, this sttandard will be available for sale.

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

Dated:24-06-2008

[Ref:TXD/G-25 ]

M. S. VERMA , Director & Head (Textiles) 3231 [भाग - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28, 2008/आषाढ़ 7, 1930

नई दिल्ली, 24 जून, 2008

का.आ. 1549.- 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 जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिय गया है वह स्थापित हो गया है :-

अनुसूची

क्रम सं. स्थापित घारतीय मालक ( कों) की संख्या

स्थापित तिथि वर्षऔर शीर्षक

( 1 )

(4) (2)

(3)

30 अप्रैल, 2008 आई एस 15767 : 2008 अल्काइन अथवा अन्य अम्ल रहित इलैक्ट्रोलाइटः वाले द्वितीयक सैल- आंशिक गैस पुनर्संयोजन सहित निकिल कैडमियम प्रिज्मीय द्वितीयक एकल सैल

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

तिथि : 24-06-2008

[संदर्भ: इंटी-11/टी-68 ]

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

NewDelhi, the 24th June,2008

$.0.1549-In pursuance of clause (b) ofsub-rule (1 ) ofRule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifles that the Indian Standards , particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued:

SCHEDULE

SL.No.

No.& Year ofthe Indian Standard

Dateof Established

No.&year ofthe Indian Standards , if any, superseded by theNew Indian Standard

(2)

(3)

(4) (1)

30April ,2008 IS15767:2008 Secondary cells and batteries containing alkaline orother non-acid electrolytes- nickel -cadmium prismatic secondary single cells with. partial gas recombination

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

Dated:24-06-2008

[Ref: ET-11 /T-68]

P. K. MUKHERJEE, Sc. ' F' & Head (Electro Technical) 3232

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2008/ASADHA 7, 1930

[PART I-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 24 जून , 2008

का.आ. 1550.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम ? के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एक्‌ाद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि किस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वह स्थापित हो गया है : -

अनुसूची

क्रम सं

स्थापित्त तिथि स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों) की संख्या वर्षऔरशीर्षक

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 1

अप्रैल 2008 आई एस 13/आईसी 62271-203: 2003 उच्च वोल्टता के स्विचगियर और नियंत्रणगियरः भाग 203 52 किलोवाट से अधिक की रेटिंत वोल्टेज के लिए गैस विद्युतरोधित भातु- संलग्न स्विजगियर

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

तिथि: 24-06-2008

[संदर्भ: ईटी 08 /टी-37 ]

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

New Delhi, the 24th June,2008

8.O. 1550.-In pursuance ofclause (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 has been issued:

SCHEDULE

Sl .No.

No.& Year ofthe Indian Standard

Date of Established

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

(1)

(3)

(4)

IS 13/IEC62271-203 :2003

April,2008 High-voltage switchgear and controlgear: Part 203Gas- insulated metal -enclosed swstichgear for rated voltages above52kV

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

Dated:24-06-2008

[Ref: ET08/T-371

P. K. MUKHERJEE , Sc. ' F ' & Head (Electro Technical ) [ भाग II- खण्ड ( ii) ]

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 28 मई , 2008

का.आ. 1551 ,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैं. बी. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय ( सं. 1 ) , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 9/99) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[फा. सं. एल -20012/261 /98 - आई आर ( सी -1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT NewDelhi , the 28th May,2008 S.O. 1551. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 9/99 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court (No. 1) , Dhanbad, now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofM/s . B. C. C. L. and their workman, which was received by the Central Goverturnent on 28-5-2008.

[F. No. L-20012/261 /98- IR(C-1) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ( NO.1 ), DHANBAD Inthe matter ofa reference under section 10 ( 1 ) (d) (2A) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,

Reference No. 9 of1999

Parties : -Employers in relation to the management of BaroraArea, IM/S ofM/ s. BCCL

And

Theirworkman

Present : Shri Hari Mangal Singh, Presiding Officer Appearances :

None

For theManagement :

For theUnion

: None

State Jharkhand

Industry:-Coal Datedthe 29thApril, 2008 AWARD

ByOrder No. L-20012/261 /98 -IR(C-1 ,) dated 28-1-1999 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- Section ( 1 ) and Sub-Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Insustrial Disputes Act, 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal;

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of at record the date ofBirth of Sri Ram Chandra Munda as 5-7-42 on the Imaginary basis is and not to send him to the Apex Medical Board is justified?"

3233

भारत का राजपत्र ; जून 28, 2008/आषाढ़ 7, 1930'

After having received the Order No. L-20012/261/ 1998- IR (C- 1) dt. 28-1-1999 the aforesaid reference fromthe Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for adjudication ofthe dispute a referene case No. 9 of 1999 was registered on 8-2-1999 but till 5-3-2008 no written statement or claim was filed. Ultimately two notices were issued to the sponsoring Union for filing of written statement by Speed Post/registered Post but till 29-4-2008 no one appears nor any steps have been taken by them.

Inview of such circumstance it seems that the workman or the Union is not interested to contest their case further.And as such, it is ordered:-

ORDER

That let a "NO DISPUTE AWARD be and the same is passed. Send the copies of the Award to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for information and needful . Reference is accordingly disposedof.

H.M. SINGH, Presiding Officer..

1 नई दिल्ली , 28 मई , 2008

का.आ. 1552, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947,( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैं. बी.सी. सी. एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय ( सं. 1 ) , घनबाद के पंचकट (संदर्भ संख्या 186/94 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

: ..: (फा. सं एल-20012/146/ 94-ाई आर सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लक्त जवास , डेस्कअधिकारी

NewDelhi, the28th May,2008.

S.O. 1552.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government bereby publishes the award (Ref. No.: 186/94) oftheCentral Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court (No. 1), Dhanbad, now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s B. C. C. L. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on28-5-2008.

[F. No. L-20012/ 146/94-1R (C-1 )] SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1 ), DHANBAD In the matter ofa reference under section 10 ( 1 ) (d) (2A) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

ReferenceNo. 186of 1994

Parties : Employers in rejation to the management of Lodna Area of M/ s . BCCL,

And

Their workinan 3234

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7 , 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ) Present : Shri Hari Mangal Singh , PresidingOfficer

New Delhi , the 28th May, 2008

Appearances:

For the Management : None

: None

For the Union

State : Jharkhand Industry:Coal

Dated 29th April , 2008

AWARD

S.O. 1553.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Govemment hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 10/99) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court (No. I) , Dhanbad, now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . B. C. C. L. and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 28-5-2008 .

[F. No. L-20012/267/98- IR(C -1 ) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

ByOrderNo. L-20012/ 146/ 94- IR (C- 1) dated 27-7-1994 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- Section ( 1 ) and Sub- Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Insustrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :-

SCHEDULE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL COVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1 ) , DHANBAD "Whether the action of the management of North Tisra Colliery in dismissing Shri Bhudan Bhuian , Minor /Loder is justified? If not , to what reief the concern workman is entitled? "

Inthe matter of a reference under section 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) (2A) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 Reference No. 10 of 1999

Parties :- Employers in relation to the management of Basantimata Colliery of M/s . BCCL,

And Their workman

Present: Shri Hari Mangal Singh , PresidingOfficer

Appearances:-

For the Management None

For the Union : None

Afterhaving received the Order No. L-20012/ 146/94- IR(C-I) dt. 27-7-1994 the aforesaid reference from the Govt. ofIndia, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of thedispute a referene case No. 186 of 1994 was registered on 5-8-1994 and accordingly notice was issued to the parties. Thereafter on 16-12-1996 written statement was filed by the sponsoring Union after serving a copy of the same to the management . On 14-3-1997 written statement cum-Rejoinder was also filed on behalf of the management after serving a copy to the representative ofthe sponsoring Union and ultimately a case was fixed for filing of Rejoinder by the workman and document by the parties on 2-5-97, 26-6-97 & 4-8-97.

State : Jharkhand

Industry:Coal

Dated 29th April , 2008 AWARD

Lastly the case was fixed on 18-3-2008 for filing of Rejoinder by the workman and document by both sides and notices was issued to the parties by speed post fixing the date on 29-4-2008 but no one appears nor any steps have been taken by them.

In view of such circumstance it seems that the workman or the Union is not interested to contest their case further . And as such , it is ordered:

ORDER

ByOrderNo. L-20012/267 /98- IR( C -1 ) dated28-1-1999, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- Section ( 1 ) and Sub- Section (2A ) of Section 10 of the Insustrial Disputes Act , 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal ;-

SCHEDULE

That let a "No Dispute " AWARD be and the same is passed. Send the copies of the Award to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for information and needful . Reference is accordingly , disposed of.

"Whether the action of the management of Basantimata Colliary of M/s . BCCL in dismissing the services ofSri Lakhi Ram Manjhi w.e.f. 21-9-96 isjustified? If not what relief the workman is justified? "

H. M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 28 मई , 2008

Afterhaving received the Order No. L-20012/267/98- IR( C- I ) dt. 28-1-1999 the aforesaid reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of thedispute a referene case No. 10 of 1999 was registered on 8-2-1999 but till 5-3-2008 no written statement or claim was filed. Ultimately two notices was issued to the sponsoringUnion for filing of written statement by speed post/Registered post but till 29-4-2008 no one appears nor any steps have been taken by them.

का.आ, 1553, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैं बी. सी. सी. एल, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय ( सं. 1 ) , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 10/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

In view of such circumstance it seems that the workman or the Union is not interested to contest their case further. And as such , it is ordered :-

[फा. सं. एल-20012/267/98 - आई आर( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी [ भाग ॥- खण्ड 3( ii) ] .

ORDER

That let a"NO DISPUTE AWARD be and the same is passed. Send the copies of the Award to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for information and needful. Reference is accordingly disposedoff.

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 28 मई, 2008

का.आ. 1554, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. बी. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय ( सं. 1 ) , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 101/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[फा. सं. एल-20012/326/93-आई आर( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 28thMay, 2008

S.O. 1554.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 101/97) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court (No. 1) Dhanbad, now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s B. C. C. L. and their workman , which was received bythe Central Government on 28-5-2008.

[F. No. L-20012/326/93- IR (C- 1 ) ]

SNEH LATA JAWAS, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1) ,DHANBAD In the matter ofa reference under Section 10( 1 ) ( d) (2A) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act. , 1947.

ReferenceNo. 101 of1997

Parties:-Employers in relation to the management of LodnaCoke Plant, Lodna Area of M/S BCCL,

And

: Their workman

Present:- Shri Hari Mangal Singh , PresidingOfficer Appearancer-

: Sri H. Nath, Advocate For the Management

None

FortheUnion

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

Dated, the 29thApril ,2008

;

AWARD

By order 'No. L- 20012/326/93 - IR ( C- 1 ) dated 22-11-1995 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has in exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d) ofSub-Section ( 1 ) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :-

3235

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28 , 2008/ आयाद 7, 1930

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Lodna Coke Plant, Lodoa Area, in fixing the pay ofworkman. Sri Adya Nath Tiwari to Rs . 1405 and letter on reducing to 1375/- on the basis ofAudit Report is justified ? If not, to what relief is the concerned workmen entitled. ? "

Afterhaving received the Order No. L-20012/326/ 1993- IR (C-I) dt . 22-11-1995 the aforesaid reference from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute a reference case No. 101 of 1997was registered on 4-12-1995 but pill28-2-2008 no written statement or claim was filed. Ultimately two notices was issued to the sponsoring union for filing ofwritten statement by speed pos /Registered post bat till 29-4-2008 no orde appears nor any steps have been taken by theti In view of such circumstance it seems that the workman or the Union is not interested to contest their case further.And as such , it is ordered:-

ORDER

That let a"NO DISPUTE" AWARD be and the same ispassed. Send the copies ofthe Award to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for information and needful : Reference is accordingly disposed of.

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer नईदिल्ली, 28 मई , 2008

का.आ. 1555.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947-(1947 का14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार है. बी. सी. सी. एल, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय ( सं 1) , पाथर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 206/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [फा. सं. एल-20012/341 /96- आई आर( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the28th May,2008

S.O. 1555. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Centzpl Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 206/97) oftheCentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court (No. 1) Dhanbad, now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofM /s B. C. C. L. and their workmen , which was receivedby the Central Government on 28-5-2008.

[P.No. L-20012/341 /96- IR(C- 1) ] SNEH LATAJAWAS, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD In the matter ofa reference under Section 10( 1 ) ( d) (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 Reference No. 206 of1997

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Moonidih Project ofM/ s . B.C.C.L.

3236

[PART -SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008 /ASADHA 7, 1930

New Delhi , the 30th May , 2008

AND Theirworkman

Present: Shri Hari Mangal Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the Management :

: None

For theUnion

S.O. 1556.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 7/1998) of the Industrial Tribunal, Nashik as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and their workmen , receivedby the Central Government on 29-05-2008 State : Jharkhand Industry: Coal

Dated 29th April , 2008

F.No.o.L- 12012/ 43/ 1997 -IR (B - 11 ) ] RAJINDER KUMAR , Desk Officer AWARD

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI P. W. BHUYAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL COURT , MAHARASHTRA, AT NASHIK

Reference (IT) No.7/98

By order No. L- 20012/341 /96 - IR( C- 1) dated 5/8-12-1997 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labourhas in exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d) ofSub-Section ( 1) and Sub- Section (2A) ofSection 10 ofthe industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

The Regional Manager , Bank ofBaroda,

SCHEDULE

Nashik Region ....First Party And

"Whether the action of the management ofMoonidh Project M/S B.C.C. L. in Imposing the punishment of dismissal from the services w.e.f. 25-8-93 on Sri Suresh Kumar Rishideo, is legal and justified ? If not, towhat relief is the concerned workmen entitled?"

Bank ofBaroda Employees' Congress, The General Secretary BOB Empls.Congress, C/ o.T.H.Naidu , A- 10/40 ,

Pragati Housing Society, Nagpur Coram: ...Second Party

Shri P.W.Bhuyar , Presiding Officer

Appearances: Shri C. A. Deolalkar , Advocate for the first party. Shri Deshpande , Advocate , second party.

After having received the Order No. L-20012/341 / 1996-IR (C- I) dt. 5/8-12-1997 the aforesaid reference from theGovernmnet of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication ofthe dispute a reference case No. 206 of 1997was registered on 15-12-1997 but till 4-3-2008 no written statement or claim was filed. Ultimately two notices was issued to the sponsoring Union for filing of written statement by Speed post/Registered post but till 29-4-2008 no one appears nor any steps have been taken by them.

AWARD (Date: 14-03-2008 )

In view of such circumstance it seems that the workmen or the Union is not interested to contest their case further. And as such, it is ordered:-

ORDER

That let a "NO DISPUTE AWARD be and the same is passed. Sendthe copies ofthe Award to the Govertument of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for information and needful. Reference is accordingly disposedof.

H. M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer

1. The Government of India Mninstry ofLabour has made reference to this Court under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d ) read withSection 12(5) and 39 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, for adjudication of the dispute between the second party Bank ofBaroda Employees' Congress , and first partyBank ofBaroda regarding whether the action of the management ofBank of Baroda in stopping of two increments w.e.f. 01-07-1996 and withdrawal of special allowance w.e.f. 12-04-1996 ofShri A. A. Pote is legal and justified ? Ifnot , to what relief the workman is entitled?

नई दिल्ली, 30 मई, 2008

2.After receipt ofreference to this court statement of claim was filed by the second party workman vide Exh . U-3 and first party filed written statement vide Exh.C-3 .

का.अ. 1556. - औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध निरोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नासिक के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 7/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[फा. सं.. एल-12012/43/97- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

3.It is the contentions of second party workman as per Exh . U -3 that one Mr. A. A. Pote is working with the first party i.e. Bank of Baroda . He was illegally issued the charge sheet dated 02-12-1994 by the Regional Office of Nashik of the said Bank to which he replied but to no use . Mr.Pote did not commit any misconduct either as älleged in the charge sheet or otherwise also . However , the Bank with aviewto punish him held the domestic enquiry. Said 3237 [ भाग 1]- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28, 2008/ आषाढ़ 7, 1930

the punishment order issued to the concerned workman Mr. Pote is required to be quashed. The basic principles ofnatural justice were totally violated in the enquiry by not giving the proper opportunity of being heard to the concernedworkinan.

domestic enquiry is not fair, proper and legal. It is not in accordancewith the provisions of the principles ofnatural justice. The findings of the enquiry officer are not proper as the same are not based on the evidence in enquiry. Thereafter the bank issued the order of punishment to said Shri A. A. Pote by stooping 2 increments w.e.f. 01-07-1996 and withdrawal of special allowance w.e.f. 12-04-1996 ofShri A. A. Pote. The order ofpunishment is dated 30-03-1996. Thereafter the said Shri Pote filed the Appeal against the said order but no use.

5.Theconcerned workman is issued the charge sheat dated 02-12-1994 in respect of LFC i.e. Leave Fare Concession . Though it is alleged in the said charge sheat that the workman Mr. Pote has suppressed the relevant information to the Bank , but the workman did not suppress any relevant information to the Bank. Though it is alleged inthe said charge sheet that he has fraudulently claimed the LFC/encashment of leave by furnishing wrong LFC blocks to the bank at different dates, but the workman bas not fraudulently claimed the LFC/ encashment of leaveby furnishing wrong LFC blocks to the bank at the different dates . The workman has also not attempted to defraud the bank as alleged in the said charge sheet . In view of the charge sheet , it appears that the Bank has decided tohold the enquiry against the workman by appointing Mr.P. K. Sonar, Sr. Manager at Regional Office,Nashik of the Bank. Since the said Shri Sonar , enquiry officer was theManager of the Bank and the concerned warignan was cashier, the workman was always under the promsure of theManager.The enquiry is held in clear atmosphere . The enquiry officer acted prejudicial to the interest of the workman. He did not give proper opportunity ofbeing heard to the workman in the enquiry. He recorded the proceedings as per his whims and fancies. The caputty officer did not act as an impartial enquiry officer in said enquiry. The enquiry officer was appointed only to findtheworkman guilty. The enquiry officer was working under the Disciplinary Authority and therefore, he had obeyed the orders of the disciplinary authority instead of acting as an impartial enquiry officer. The enquiry wis completed within a period of 8 days i.e. from 07-03-1995 te 16-03-1995. The change of the enquiry officer is against theprovisions ofclause 19.14 ofthe Bipartite Settlements in force and even under the law . The arguments advanced on behalfofthe workman were not at all considered by the enquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority also. The said act is therefore, with undue haste and taking misuse of the powers vested in the concerned authority. Mr. S.N. Nandurkar did not conduet any enquiry though he submitted the findings . There was no evidence against the concerned workman Mr. Pote in the enquiry to come tothe conclusions that he has committed any misconduct as alleged.

6. The disciplinary authorship has not considered theclean and unblemished service record while punishing the workman Mr. Pote . The representation filed by the workman is not at all considered by the disciplinaty authority . The said decision is exparte and bence liable to be set aside.

4.Since the said Shri -A. A. Pote is a member of the second party, on behalf of the second party, a demand noticewas sent to the Labour Department of Government of India for directions to the first party to set aside the order of punishment issued to Shri . A. A. Pote . The concerned authority tried to settle the matter amicably, but to no use. Thereafter the proceedings were admitted intoconciliation .The conciliation proceedings also failled. Thereafter, theGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour, NewDelhi by the order dated 23-04-1998 referred the said matter before this Hon . Tribunal for adjudication as per the provisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 as the Central Govt. is of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the employer and employer and therefore , theCentralGovernment sent the reference for adjudication to this Hơn . Tribunal. It is submitted that the concerned workman Mr. A. A. Pote has not committed any misconduct either as alleged in the said charge sheet dated 02-12-1994 or otherwise also , therefore the whole action taken against him by theBank is required to be set aside and it is required tobequashed forthwith. It is further submitted that, initially the enquiry was conducted by one Shri P. K. Sonar and thereafter the enquiry report is submitted by one Shri S. N. Nandurkar , It is nowhere stated or declared that the enquiry conducted by Shri Sonar is denovo or not and as such, the action taken against the workman Mr. Pote based on the enquiry report is required to be set aside. It is worth nothing that, unless the documents are proved in, the enquiry, the same cannot be read as an evidence in the enquiry, because the domestic enquiry is quasi -judicial proceedings.However , in the enquiry which is held against the workman Mr. Pote , the documents were not at all provedby examining the concerned witnesses. Only filling ofdocuments in the enquiry will not suffice the purpose for proving the same . Therefore the concerned witnesses have to be examined in the enquiry, however, the Bank hasutterly failed to examine the concerned witnesses in the enquiry or the reasons best known to the Bank and therefore, it is beyond doubt that, the workman is not given an opportunity to cross - examine the concerned witnesses in the enquiry and inspite of this the enquiry officer bas blindly relied on the said documents which were not proved at all. On this ground alone, the whole proceedings ofthe enquiry are required to be set aside and therefore,based on the illegal and improper enquiry,

2263 GI/08-10 3238

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7, 1930

[PART II-SEC.3 (ii ) ] 7. Other employees who have actually committed misconducts , they have not been awarded any punishment and the workman Mr.Pote though not committee any misconduct ,he is given punishment which itself illegal, bad in law and hence , it is liable to be set aside. Thus the act ofthe Bank is discriminatory and hence liable to be set aside forthwith and impugned order is required to be set aside. Even the concerned documents were also not provided withto the workman on which the enquiry officer relied. The enquiry is only a mare formality to punish the concerned workman. The findings of the enquiry officer are perverse and not based on the evidence in the enquiry. Therefore the punishment order dated 30-03-1996 is required tobe set aside and as such , the increments of the workman & special allowance which are withhold, are required to be released by giving the difference from the due date. Therefore it is humbly prayed that the order of punishment dated 30-03-1996 issued to Shri A.A.Poteby the first party be quashed and set aside.

8. The 2nd party filed documents vide Exh . U-14. The documents are Bank of Baroda- Book of instruction Vol. 12 page No. 428, letter by Sr. Manager to Mr. Pote, dated 17-2-1995 , Show cause notice to C.D'Souza, dated 05-10-1993 , complaint against Mr. C.D'Souza for L.F.C. dated 16-08-1993 .

9. The first party filed their written statement vide Exh. C-3 . It is the contentions of the first party that the reference is not tenable in law as well as on facts and therefore it should be dismissed with cost , Second party Union has no locus standi in the matter and not competent to raise the present dispute , on this ground alone the reference needs to be rejected. The first party employer submits that Mr.Pote about whom this reference is made at the relevant time was working as Head-cashier.

substance as the enquiry conducted in Mr. Pote's matter was in full compliance of the principles ofNatural justice and there is no circumstances to set aside the order. Mr. Nargundkar has acted as Enquiry Officer on the basis of the enquiry proceedings and written arguments submitted byboth the parties . It is submitted that submissions made bythe second party are against the well settled principles of law and the Bank has lead sufficient evidence in respect ofmisconducts committed by Mr. Pote and the allegations made in this para are totally sustainable in view ofthe full- fledge enquiry held in Mr. Pote's case and the inferences drawn about blind reliance on the documents in devoid of any substance as no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer in view and back ground of the facts ofMr. Pote's case and the enquiry officer report is based on the evidence on record as per the dictum of law in that behalf and there is not cause or case for setting aside the proceedings of enquiry and it is denied that the enquiry officer has blindly relied on the documents. It is denied that the enquiry was illegal or improper and there is no case for quashing the punishment order given to Mr. Pote . The submissions made by the second party cannot be looked into independently as the same is part of the enquiry proceedings and the claim made that the workman has not fraudulently claimed the L.F.C / encashment of leave etc. are totally false and the workman has clearly defrauded the bank and the charge sheet and findings of the enquiry findings which are base on legal evidence are being relied upon by the bank in that behalf. Second party made submissions that the workman was always under the pressure ofManager are totally false and the said allegations are made only with an intention to prejudice the mind of this Hon. Court .It is denied that the enquiry officer has acted prejudicial tothe interest of the workman or that he did no give proper opportunity of being heard in the enquiry, it is dendied that the enquiry officer recorded proceedings as per his whims and fancies . It is denied that there was no evidence against Mr. Pote as alleged. It is denied that the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse and not based on evidence in enquiry.

It is therefore, submits that since the action taken by it is legal , valid and proper the reference may please be rejected without granting relief to the second party.

11. First party filed documents vide Exh. C- 5 , documents are charge sheet , corrigendum to charge sheet , order appointing presenting officer , order appointing enquiry officer , proceedings of preliminary hearings . proceedings of regular hearings , documentary evidence ofmanagement , documentary evidence of defence , written arguments of presenting officer written arguments of defence, letter of enquiry officer to disciplinary authority, order appointing other enquiry officer , order intimating the enquiry report to the chargesheeted employee , enquiry report , representation of the chargesheeted employee, order granting time to the chargesheeted employee for 10. It is submitted by the first party that it is denied thatMr. Potedid not commit any misconduct. The domestic enquiry held in this case was per the well settled principles of law and clause 19.14 of the relevant settlement applicable to the bank. It is denied that enquiry is not fair , proper and legal or the same was not in accordance with the provisions of principles of natural justice . It is denied that the findings of enquiry officer are not proper . It is submitted that the findings of enquiry officer are based on evidence in enquiry.It is submitted that the misconducts of Mr. Pote were of very serious nature and no grievance can be made of the punishment given to Mr. Pote and the Appellate Authority for the reasons given in the communication dated 11-06-1996 dismissed the appeal filed by Mr. Pote . Bank submits that initially the enquiryofficer conducting the enquiry was Mr. P.K. Sonar, however, due to some administrative exigencies Mr. Nargundkar was entrusted the job of conducting the enquiry of Mr. Pote . The allegations made about the enquiry conducted by Mr. Nargundkar are devoid of any 3239 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28, 2008/ आषाढ़ 7, 1930

submitting his reply for enquiry report, notice ofproposed punishment, representation of the chargesheeted employee in respone to proposed punishment , order granting time to the chargesheeted employees for hearing on proposed punishment, proceeding of personal hearing. punishment order.

12. In this background offacts following issueswere framedbymy predecessor vide Exh . 0-6 on 16-3-2000to which I have recorded my findings as under.

FINDINGS

ISSUES

1. Whether second party union proves that domestic enquiry conducted by the respondent is not legal fair and proper?

2 Whether second party proves that findings of the enquiry officer are perverse?

3. Whether second party proves that punishment awarded is shockingly disproportionate?

any misconduct, till the First Party Bank has established and proved the charges of availing LFC twice in 4 yeam blocks i.e. 1991 to 1992 and imposed inappropriate , harsh and disproportionate punishment by stopping of 2 increments with commutative effect and special allowance as the 2nd party was the member of the rival union. The other employees i.e. Samose and D'Souza who availed LFC twice in the years being from different union were not proceededwith departmental enquiry on the contrary Shri D'souzawas given promotion by the bank illegally. The 2nd party was deliberately implicated in false charge because of rivalry between the unions and therefore stoppage of 2 increments and special allowance is discriminatory and illegal . On the contrary Ld. Coumsal Deolalkar appearing for the 1st party Bank has contended that the 1st partybank has not proceededwith disciplinary action against the 2nd party deliberately because ofrivalry between the unions. The 1st Party bank had leniently awarded the punishment to the second party even the 2nd partywas involved in grave and serious charge. The second party has made allegation against the 1st party bank which he failed to prove by cogent and concrete evidence before this Tribunal . The punishment given by the 1st party bank to the 2nd party was in the interest of discipline of the bank and First party bank has not committed any illegality in imposing the punishment and therefor the Hon . Tribunal should not interfere with punishment in the said reference.

Yes

4. Whether first party management Bank ofBaroda proves that action ofthe management in stopping two increments w.e.f. 1-7-1996 and with- drawal of special allowancew.e.f. 12-4-1996 is legal andjustified?

5. Whether second party workman is entitled to get any relief?

6 What award and relief?

As per final award.

REASONS

13. I have gone thorough entire record , perused documents and heard Ld. Advocate Shri S.M. Deshpande forsecondparty and Shri C.A. Deolalkar Ld.Advocate for First party.Second party adduced oral evidence vide Exh. U-32 after the order ofHon. High Court dated 29-11-2007 inW.P.No.7099 of2006. First party Bank ofBaroda did not adduce oral evidence.

14.At the out set it is submitted that as fairness and legality ofthe enquiry and perversity of findings are decided bymy pradecessor Presiding Officer by part 1 award dated 07-07-2005 and that award has not been disturbed byHon. High Court, by order dated 29-11-2005 in W.P.No.7099 of 2006and all rights of the parties have been kept open bythe Hon.High Court it is not now open for this court to examine all this things afresh. Therefore point for consideration before this Court would be whether punishment ofstoppage of2 increments and special allowance imposed by bank was harsh and disproportionate or not.

16. The second party workman Shri A.A. Pote sppears toworking with 1st party Bank ofBaroda as cashier and hewas issued charge sheet dated 02-12-1994by Regional Officer, Nashik, and he had filed reply contending that he had not committed any misconduct. There was domestic enquiry held against the 2nd party. The second party alleged that enquiry was not conducted by following the Principles ofNatural Justice and order of punistument of stopping of2 increments w.e.f. 01-07-1996and withdrawal ofspecial allowance w.e.f. 12-04-1996 was illegal . Second party alleged that he had not committed misconduct as alleged in charge sheet and whole action is required to be set aside. It was allegation against the 2nd party that he frequently availed FCR Leave by furnishing wrong LFC block to bank at different dates . Enquiry was not conducted impartially and enquiry was completed within 8days i.e.from 07-03-1995 to 16-03-1995 . The disciplinary authorities has not considered past clean record of service ofthe second party. Representation of the second party was not considered . Other employees who have actually committed misconduct they have not awarded any pumishment and thus act of the bank is discriminatory. Enquirywas mere formality. The First party bank disputad the said contentions and alleged that misconduct against the second party was proved in the enquiry. The second party did not dispute the fairness and legality of the enquiry and the first party bank lias after considering the 15. The Ld. Counsel Deshpande appearing for the secondparty argued that the 2nd party has not committed 3240

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2008/ASADHA 7 , 1930

[PART I SEC . 3 (ii) ] representation of the second party workman imposed the punishment of stopping of 2 increments and special allowance which is proper and legal and Hon. Court should not interfere with the same. The first party bank has not victimised the second party by imposing the punishment as second party was the Union Leader. The second party was involved in fraud ofpublic money after realizing fraud is caught refunded amount of Rs . 892 out of4892, He has not presented prescribed from required for LFC and without sanction ofLFC availed LFC for the period from 03-06-1994 to 11-06-1994 . He was not given the permission to travel by private taxi orjeep and therefore it is false that other persons belonging to different union were allowed to travel byjeep while availing the LFC . On the contrary Bank has shown leniency by awarding the punishment of stopping of 2 increments and special allowance to the second party.

value în law . II party appears to have developed his case in evidence for the first time which cannot be considered at all . The II party in his evidence has admitted all these facts. The allegation that past service record of the II party was not considered at the time of imposing punishment is not correct . The order dated 30-03-1996 refers about considering the past clean service record of the party and therefore, bank has taken lenient approach in awarding punishment of stopping of 2 increments and withdrawal of special allowance. In the interest of discipline ofthe bank Ist party bank has not committed any wrong in awarding the punishment of stopping of 2 increments and withdrawal of special allowance. Said punishment is not harsh and disproportionate. The II party has not been victimized by the Bank in any manner . There was no wisper about vicitmization in the statement of claim of the II party and only for the first time it has appeared in the evidence of II partywhich has less evidential value. The Il party failedto show from record that there was rivalry between union and therefore,hewas victimized and discriminated in awarding the punishment while other employees were scot free. In these circumstances , I think that the punishment of stoppage of2 increments and withdrawal of special allowance is legal andproper and no interference is called for in this reference .

18. Ld. Counsel Shri Deotalkar has placed reliance from the decision ofHon . S. C. reported in 1976 (32 ) FLR page72, in which Hon . S.C. laid down that " Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , Ss.33 , 10 -Application under section 33 for approval or permission- Ambit of jurisdiction of Tribunal Findings of domestic enquiry Interference by Tribunal Well established as on ambit of section 33 laid downby Supreme Court stated. "

Domestic enquiry- Victimization- Meaning of- Plea ofvictimization- Proofof. The principle laid down in this judgment by the Hon . Supreme Court support the contentions ofthe first party bank. Ld. Counsel Shri Deolalkar has also placed reliance from the decision ofHon. Bombay High Court reported in 2000 (85 ) FLR page No. 609, in which Нол . Вотbay High Court laid down that " Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act , 1971 - Item 9 of Schedule IV- Workman- Not allowed to join duties- In order to teach them lesson for joining the petitioner Union- The Proprietor denied to accept them as their employees- No record/register produced by Proprietor- Industrial Court committed patent error in accepting the defence of proprietor and dismissing the complaint- Which call for interference- Complaint allowed-Workman directed to be reinstated and allowed to resume duties ." The principle laid down in thisjudgment by theHon, Supreme Court support the contentions of the first partybank. In the result following award is passed:

AWARD

1. Reference stands rejected .

17. The contentions of Ld. Counsel Shri Deshpande that I partyBank had discriminated in awarding punishment to second party workman by order dated 01-07-1996, therefore order dated 01-07-1996 be set aside does not appear to correct and cannotbe accepted. Record shows that to substantiate the allegations of discrimination in awarding punishment to second party, second party shall have examined Shri Samose and Sahane . Therefore the allegation that Samose and Sahane has been granted private Taxi fare while availing LFC which was denied to second party is not correct . Second party failed to examine Shri D'Souza to prove the allegation that he had availed LFC twice in block of4 years . The document dated 5-10-93 Exh. U-14/3 was disputed by bank as it did not bear seal ofbank and signature of authorized officer of the bank, Second party did not produce any document to show that he was amember of IN TUC Union and Shri Samose and Shri Sahane weremembers of Federation Union to whom bank favoured in availing Taxi fare for LFC . There is nothing on recordto show that D'Souza was member of Federation union and he was given promotion illegally . If Shri Samose, Sahane and D'Souza being members of Federation union i, e , rival union of second party were favoured illegally in availíng LFC facility and there was no disciplinary action of any nature against them and II party was deliberatively picked for imposing punishment, the burden lies upon 11 party to prove the said fact by bringing appropriate and strong material on record, but II party failed in doing so. Therefore there is no legal force in the allegation of second party that there was discrimination in awarding punishment to the II party. Ist party alleged that letter dated 05-10-1996 was forged and fabricated and not bears seal and signature of authorized officer of the bank, therefore, allegation ofthe Il party that bank proceeded departmentally ngainst him because of being member of rival union and minority community cannot be considered . Statement of claim did not disclose anything about Shri Samose, Shri Sahane and Shri D'Souza and only bare allegation of victimization have been made which will have less authentic

2. Demand of quashing and setting aside the punishment ofstopping of2 increments and withdrawal of special allowance of second party workman not considered .

3241

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28, 2008/आषाढ़ 7, 1930

[ भाग - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

3. Award be submitted to the Central Government forpublication.

4.There is no order as to costs.

-Place:Nashik

Date: 14-03-2008

P. W. BHUYAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 2 जून, 2008

का.आ. 1557. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा के प्रबंधषतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के वीच; अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1329/2008 ) को प्रकाशित क़रती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [फा. सं. एल-12012/87/2005- आई. आर. ( बी-II ) ]

राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi, the 2nd June, 2008

S.O. 1557. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1329/ 2008) ofthe Industrial Tribunal , Ahmedabad ( Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and their workmen, receivedby the Central Government on30-05-2008.

[F.No. L- 12012/87/2005- IR (B-II)]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL, TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, AT AHMEDABAD

(BEFORE SHIRI S. S. PANCHAL) Reference ( ITC) No. 1329/08

Reference (C.G.I.Τ.Α. ) No. 89/05

ADJUDICATION

BETWEEN

TheAssistant General Manager,

BankofBaroda, Regional Office,

Opp. Income Tax Office , P.B. No. 11 ;

...FirstParty Ahmedabad(GUIARAT)-380014.

V/s.

Smt. Shushilaben B. Thakker ,

C/o . Y.S.Pathan ,

3493, B/H.Ushakiran Flats, Khanpur.

Ahmedabad (GUJARAT)-380001 .

SecondParty Reference under Section 10 (B) ofthe Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules , 1957.

Appearances ;

Shri Vikram K. Mashar, Learned Advocate, for the first party.

Shri Y. S. Pathan , Learned Advocate , for the second party.

AWARD

(1) The Industrial Dispute between the parties above named has been referred for adjudication under Section 10 (B) ofthe Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules , 1957 by the Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by his following order:

"No. L- 12012/87/2005- IR (B- 11) dated 27th September 2005"

(2) The second party does not want to proceed in this matter andwantsto withdraw the reference vide purshis at Ex.5 and asked for permission to withdraw the reference, The permission to withdraw the reference is granted. The reference thus stands withdrawn, No order as to costs. Place: Ahmedabad Date: 16-4-2008

S. S. PANCHAL, Industrial Tribunal-Cum

LabourCourt नई दिल्ली, 2 जून, 2008

का.आ. 1558. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 878/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[फा.सं. एल -12012/30/2000- आईआर (ची- II ) ] राक्रिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi, the 2nd June,2008

S.O. 1558.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Govemnent hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 178/ 2005) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No 2 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , inthe Industrial Dispute between the management ofPunjab National Bank and their workanen, received by the Central Goverment on 30-05-2008.

[F.No. L- 12012/30/2000- IR (B- T)) RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- IL SECTOR 18- A, CHANDIGARH SHRIKULDIP SINGH PRESIDING OFFICER:

CASE LD.NO:878/2K5

Registered on: 9-9-2005

Date ofDecision : 27-5-2008

Jaswinder Singh S/ o Inder Singh R/ o Sant Nirankari

Petitioner Bhawan, Nilokheri, Kamal 3242

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008 /ASADHA 7, 1930

(PART 11- SEC. 3 (ii ) ] Versus

TheRegional Manager , PNB Regional Office , 1154, Sector 13 , Urban Estate , Karnal Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the Workman : Shri Madan Mohan , Advocate

Forthe Management: Mr. Vishal Agarwal , A.R.

AWARD

The following reference was received for adjudication from the Ministry of Labour , Government of India , NewDelhi:

duties. It is further his claim that the Management had not issued him any notice , neither he was charge sheeted nor any enquiry was held against him . His applications were alsonot rejected. He was wrongly presumed to havejoined some other service which fact was wrong . The management did not give him opportuntiy to explain his position. Since he had put in more than 240 day's Service to the Management , they violated the provisions of section 25 - F by failing to give him notice before terminating his services and without paying him the retrenchment compensation . The Management by making fresh recruitment and by retaining his júniors further violated the provisions of Section 25 -G and 25 - H . He denied that he had voluntarily 'abondoned the service. His prayer is for declaring his retrenchment as illegal , arbitrary and violative of principles of naturaljustice and for a direction to the Management to re- instate him with continuity in service and back wages besides other consequential benefits.

"Whether the action of the Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank , Karnal ( Haryana) in treating the services of Shri Jaswinder Singh S/ o Shri Inder Singh as "voluntarily retired" w.e.f. 3-5-1996 is just and legal ? Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitled? "

On getting the notice of the reference, the parties appeared.The workman appeared through counset whereas the Management appeared through their representative. The workman filed his statement of claim, to which the Management filed the replyduly supported by the affidavit ofShri Munishwar Bajaj, their Officer, Photo copies of a number ofdocuments . The workman also filed his affidavit and produced photo copies of a number of documents . In support of his claim , the workman appeared as witness whereas theManagement examined Shri Munishwar Bajaj , as their witness . Both the parties have submitted written arguments.

Ihave gone through the file and have also considered the rival contentions of the parties.

Stated in brief the claim of the workman is that he hadjoined service with the Management as clerk cum Cashier on 22nd of Feb , 1986. He proceeded on leave to Lucknow with permission w.e.f. 24th of August, 1995. As hefell ill, sohe extended leave upto 20th of Sept, 1995.His illness prolonged so he kept on extending the leave upto 12th of June, 1996 and so on . On 10th of July , 1996 he requested for permission to join duties despite his illness and sent the prayer to Regional Manager, PNB , Karnal, but received no reply nor learnt about the re - action of management on his applications , made for grant of leave. Instead, on 12th of January, 1996 he received a telegram intimating him " Absence unauthorized. Resume duty immediately" . In reply to his legal notice he was informed thathe is deemed to have voluntarily abandoned his job w.t.f. 3-5-1996 , in terms of para 17 (a) of the Bipartite settlement. He admitted to have received letters of the managerment dated 31st of Oct. and 23rd of Nov. 1995 directing him to resume his duties , failing which disciplinary action was to be taken against him . But since hewas ill, therefore, he was not in a position to resume his

The Management has opposed the claim of the workman by raising preliminary objection that since the Petitioner was a workınan as defined under the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 and the action against him was taken under Bipartite Settlements , which governed his services , therefore, the reference is not maintainable and should be dismissed. On merits , the Management admitted that the workinan had joined service on 22nd of Feb , 1986 as clerk cum cashier and was confirmed in service . They have, however denied that the conduct of the workman, during the service, was unblemished and very good . Accordingly to them the workman remained absent from duty un- authorisedly as he did not intimate about his absence from duty to the Management not reported for duty . Thereupon the Management issued notice to hiin on 23rd of June , 1992, in terms ofparagraph 17 ( a ) of Fifth Bipartite Settlement asking him to report for duty within 30 days and also submit his explanation for remaining absent from duty . He was further informedthat if failed in complying with directions hewould be treated to have retired from service voluntarily. In response , the father of workman - Inder Singh , wrote to the Management that the workman has received threatening letter from All India Sikh Federation , therefore , he has gone underground . Ile requested for sanctioning extra-ordinary leave without pay in favour ofthe workman. The workman also wrote letters dated 24th and 7th of Sept , 1992 , making the same request and also for permission to join duties. The Management allowed the workman tojoin his duties on 17th of Sept. 1992 although the explanation given was not convincing , but he did not join the duties . The workman was not given permission to proceed on leave w.e.f. 24th of August , 1995 nor permission to leave the Station was granted to him since he did not make request for the same . On getting his applications dated 31st of August and 20th of Sept, 1995, he was telegraphically informed that " Absence unauthorized . Resume duties immediatly. " It is the further claim of the Management that the application of the workman dated [ भल 11- 3(ii) ]

19th ofSept. 1995 was not received although applications dated21st ofOct. und 21st ofNov. 1995 were received sad the worlanen was informed, at his Lucknow address, vide letter dated 31st of Oct. 1995 that he is being treated as abacat from daty unauthorisedly.Applications dated 22nd ofNov. 1995 and 10th ofJanuary, 1996 were also rejected. He was again informed telegraphically on 23rd ofNov. 1995 that he was being treated absent from duty unauthorisedly and was advised to resume his duties inmediately. In that regard a letter dated 22nd ofDec. 1995 was also sent at his Lucknow address . Leave sought vide applications dated 1.1th of January and 11th ofMarch, 1996 was also not sanctioned. However , application for grant ofleave from 11th ofMarch to 12th ofJune, 1996was not receivedby the Management. An application for extention ofleave upto31st of July , 1996 though was received but before that the workman was conveyed the order of the Competent Authority dated 3rd ofMay, 1996 by letter dated 13th ofJuly, 1996, The Management also deputed an officer to convey the decision of the competent authority at his Nilokheri address but it was told by the neighbours that the workman has gone abroad. An other application for extention of leave from 1st of Augustto 31st of Oct 1996 was received but the workman was convey by letter dated 16th of Sept, 1996 that he has been treated to have voluntarily retired from service in terms ofparagraph 17 (a) ofthe Bipartite Settlement, After agap oftwo years a registered notice dated 1st ofJuly, 1998 was received by the Management .

The further case of the Management is that since the workman had remained absent from duty for more than 90 days and despite notice did not resume his duties within 30days nor submitted satisfactory explanation , therefore , he was deemed to have retired from service voluntarily w.e.f. 3rd of May, 1996, therefore , there was no occasionto allow him tojoin his duttes as per his request dated 10th July, 1996. Denying the claim that the Management has not responded to the applications of the workman for grant and extention of leave or that the workman had come to know about the voluntary cession ofhis employment only by the reply to his legal notice, it is stated by them that since the reply to the workman was sent under registered cover on his last known address, he was deemed to have receivedthe same in ternis ofparagraph 19.16 ofthe Bipartite Settlement. They have further denied that the workman could not resume his duties due to illness and submitted that since the action against the workman was taken in accordancewith parapraph 17 (a) ofthe Bipartite Settlement no enquiry was required to be held against the workinan nor the samewas held. However, all the requirements of Bipartite Settlement were fulfilled. They have further denied having violatedthe provisions ofSection 25 -G or H or the principles ofnaturaljustice,

In support ofhis claim the workman appeard in the witness box and proved his affidavit W1 and also relied

3243

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28, 2008/आभाद 7 , 1930

upon documents W2 to W10. In cross -examination be admitted that he had remained absent from duty from 24th ofAugust, 1995 to 3rd of May, 1996 as the wet it but he had submitted only one medical certificate didied 31st ofAugust, 1995.He further admitted that even on earlier ocamion he had remained absent from duty from 27th ofJamawy to 15th ofSept. 1992 since being related to NirankariMission hewas apprehending terrorist attack on him. He odesind thathe hadno treatment chart or proof ofmedical arosticat except ofthe medical certificate submitted for these woeks. He further admitted that there was no camped or medical leave in his credit except six umedical leaves on half-pay, fourcasual leaves and one privilege leave . He claimedchat he cannot produce his passport having been lost. He admitted to have received letter dated 31st ofOct. 23rd of Nov. and22ndofDec. 1995, 12th ofJanuary , 3rd ofApril and 3rd of May, 1996. It may be noted hore that further examination ofthe workman was deferred for his production ofpolice report regarding loss of his passport. The recoed of the file shows that he did not produce the same nêr submitted any explanation for not doing so.

TheManagement examined Shri MumishwarBajaj as their witness who proved his affidavit exhibit MW1. He admitted that except two, application for grant of leave were received from the workman but the samewere received lateand the leave was not granted as the same was not due to the workman and also for administrative reasons. The rejection ofleave was conveyed to the workman but the letters sentwere received back where upon messenger-was also sent and it was reported that the workman has gone abroad. He admitted that the management has no proof to showthat the workman had gone abroad, but claimed that once he and second time a peon had gone to serve the workman.

Ihave gone through the file andhave also considered the submissions made by the parties.

Theclaim oftheworkan is that the Managerment hes terminated his services illegally without any charge sheet , enquiry and without complying with the provisions of Sections 25-F, Gand H of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1940, hereinafter to be referred to as 'Act . As against to it the claim ofthe Management is that the workman has applied for leave from 31st of August, 1995 to 20th ofSept. 1995in response to which the workman was informed telegraphicallythathe is absent from duty unauthorizedly; and thathe shouki resume duties immediately. In response tohis application for grant of leave from21st ofOct. to2kst ofNov. 1995 he was informed vide letter dated31stofOst . 1995 that he is being treated unauthorizedly absent from duty.Accordingly to the Management the workmanwas informed time and again that he is being teated absent from duty and was directed to resume his duties immediately. Theyhave further claimed that the workman was informed vide letter dated 13th of July, 1996 that the Competent 3244

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008 /ASADHA7 , 1930

athis credit. He also failed to show that he had threats from the terrorists and so went in hiding and could not resume hisduties.All excuses he seems have coined tojustify his absence from duty. The authorities relied upon by the workman do not support him as in this case the management gaveample opportunities to the workman to resume duties and also to explain his absence. They were considerateto allow him to rejoin his tuties on 17th of Sept. 1992 even when he had remained aesent from duty from 21st of January, 1992.

Authorityvide its order dated 3rd ofMay, 1996 has treated him tohave retired voluntarily in terms ofparagraph 17 (8) oftheBipartite Settlement. The workman in his statement before this Tribunal admitted that he had received the letters oftheManagement daod 31st of Oct. 23rd ofNov, 22nd of Dec, 12th of January, 3rd ofApril and 3rd ofMay, 1996. these were the letters by which the Management had conveyed to the workman that his request for grant of leave have not been accepted and he is being treatedto be absent from duty unauthorizedly and was directedto resume his duties immediately. By letter dated 3rd ofMay, 1996he was conveyed to have been treated to have retired vohntarily. In view of this evidence and admission on the part ofthe workman it does not lie in his mouth to claim that the Management had not conveyed him that hisprayer for grant of leave from time to time has not beenaccepted.

There is no denying the fact that the workman being an employee of the Management was govemed by theBi- partite Settlements and awards. Therefore, he was governed byParagraph 17 (a) of fifth Bipartite Settlement. From the record ofthe file it is clear that the workman had remained absent from work for more than 90 days without any leave since as per his own admission he did not have sufficient leave at his credit . The workman is shown to have received the notices ofthe Management but he failed to resume his duties . He further failed to fumish evidence to show that his absence was for the reasons beyond his control ; and that hehad not taken up another employment or avocation ; and that he had the intentions to join the duties . Workman having failed to prove all this cannot claim that he had the intention to join the duties , but the Management did not allow him to resume his duties. The evidence available on record rather shows that the workman had voluntarily retired from the service of the Management and the action ofthe Management to treat him to have voluntarily retired w.e.f. 3-5-1996 was legal and justified . The workman is not entitled to any relief. The award is passed against him.

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

KULDIP SINGH, PresidingOfficer

नईदिल्ली, 2 जून, 2008

का.आ. 1559.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947

का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दूरसंचार विभाग 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 342/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-6-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[फा.सं. एल-40012/ 18/2001- र( डीयू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 2nd June, 2008

There is also no merit in the claim of the workman that since he was ill, therefore, he was not in a position to resume his duties as he himself has admitted that he had submitted only one medical certificate dated 31st ofAugust, 1995 by which he was advised rest for three week. What happened thereafter, he has not explained . He further admitted that he has no treatment chart of a doctor. The workman claimed to have remained ill for about a year but couldhe had not taken the treatment and if taken wiry he failed toproduce the record thereof. Here the version of the Management fits in that the workman has only manipulated his illness and in fact he had gone abroad . It is true that they could not produce any positive evidence to show that the workman was not in the country and had gone abroad, but the circumstances prove that he was not in the country. The workman in his statement admitted that he had obtained the passport after getting NOC from the Bank. When asked to produce the passport, he claimed to have lost the same and said that a FIR was lodged in that regard and took time to produce the copy ofthe FIR, but didnot produce the same nor submitted any explanation for not doing so . Munishwar Bajaj , Manager, the witness of the Management claimed that he himself had gone to the house ofworkman to serve the letter of Management on the workman and he was told that the workman has gone abroad. Accordingly to him the messenger of the Bank sent for the same purpose, had also received the same reply from the neighbours of the workman . The workman has failed to prove his illness to the extent that he could not report for duty . He has withheld the production ofhis passport. This supports the claim of Management that as per his neighbour, the workman had gone abroad. The workman so as to dislodge this claim could have produced any of his neighbours that he was in the country or was ill . Nothing such has been done. Whether the workmanwas ill or not and whether he had gone abroad or not, the fact remains that he had absented from duty without leave.He himselfadmitted that he had very less leave left.

S.O. 1559.-In pursuarice of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central 3245 [भाग [ I- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28, 2008/आवाद 7 , 1930

Government hereby publishes the Award( Ref No.342/ 2005)Central Government- Industrial Tribunal-cum -Laour Court No. II Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofDepartment ofTelecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-6-2008

andjustified? Ifnot , to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?" On getting the notice of the. reference, the parties appeared and filed their picadings. The workman filed his staternent ofclaim and the replication, the Management their reply.The workman also filed his affidavti and the Management filed the affidavit oftheir AGM Trilochan Singh which was substituted with the affidavit oftheir D.E. Shri S.L.Verma

[F. No. L-40012/18/2001 -IR (DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI KULDIP SINGH

CASELD.NO:342/2K5

Registered on: 16-8-2005

Date ofDecision : 2-5-2008

Balbir Singh S/o Shri Narata Ram, VPO Saidpura, Tehsil Sirhand, Patiala.

--PETITIONER

Theworkman has claimed that he was-enaployedse a casual labour and served the Management at Rajpora SubDivision priorto 13th of Feb, 1984 and then at Sirband Sub-Division and was paid wages (@ 1200 pm; that although he had served the Management from Ist of Feb, 1984 to 30th of June, 1990, the Management did not grant him temporary Status.Agitated because of filing ofapplication by the workman before the CAT, Chandigarh, the Management terminated his services since 1998, although by then the workman had put in more than 240 days continous serviceto the Management. He was also not given any notice before the termination ofhis services nor was paidwages for the notice period. He was also not paid the retrenchment compensation. The Management further violated the lawwhen they appointed fresh hands after the termination ofhis services .

Versus

TheDistrict Manager, Telecom Patiala

RESPONDENT

--APPEARANCE

Com Karan Singh, Advocate

For the Workman FortheManagement Shri G.C.Babbar , Advocate

AWARD

The claim of the workman has been opposed by the Management stating that it is hopelessly barred by time. It is further their claim that the workman had served theManagement from Nov, 1983 to Dec, 1985 and left the job at his own. He remained absent from duty. His claim was denied by the CAT Since he could not get the benefit of temporary status being not in the service of the Management on Ist ofOct, 1989. The Managerment has also claimed that they are not an industry and the petitioner is not a workman. The claim of the workman thus has been denied by the Management .

The workman continues to be absent. Management appears through counsel . Mr. Karan Singh Advocate who hadbeen appearing for the workman is present in an other caseand states that he has no instructions to appear in the case . It is on record that the workman had not been appearing in the case regularly for many dates , therefore, a notice under register cover was issued to him vide order dated31st ofJuly, 2007.He appeared on the date fixed for 3rd of Sept, 2007 and sought time to engage a new counsel and also to produce his evidence, Thereafter he has not appeared. He also did not collect the copy of affidavit of witness of the Management . From the conduct of the workman it is clear that he is not serious to prosecute his claim . Therefore, I propose to dispose off the reference in the absence of the workman.

In support of his claim that workman has not produced any evidente . The documents placed on record by him have not been proved nor even his affidavit. As stated above the workman has played hide and seeking with proceedings in this Tribunal . The claim made by him has been denied by the Management . His claim is otherwise also belated, thus bad in law . There is no evidence on record to show that it was the Management which had terminated the services of the workman and the said action of the Management was illegal and unjustified . Therefore, the workman is not entitled to any relief.The reference is answered against him and the award ispassed.

Leta copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for necessary action and the file be consigned. to records after due completion..

Ministry ofLabour, Government of India, vide their orderNo. L-40012/ 18/2001 / IR (DU) dated 12th ofApril, 2001; desired of this Tribunal to adjudicate upon "Whether the action ofthe Management ofTelecom, Patiala in terminating the services ofSh . Balbir Singh s/o Sh . Narata Ram is legal

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer 2263GI/08-11 3246

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008 /ASADHA 7, 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 (i ) ]

SCHEDULE

नई दिल्ली , 2 जून , 2008

" Whether the action of the management of 10/12 PitsKachhi Balihari Colliery under P.B. Area of M/ s. BCCL in dismissing Shri Laxmi Kant Mahato, General Mazdoor from the services of thecompany vide letter dt. 1 /5-3-2005 is fair and justified ? Ifnot , to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ?"

का.आ. 1560,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै.बी. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय ( सं. 11 ) धनमाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 30/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-6-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[. फा. सं एल-20012/176/2005- आईआर( सी-1 ) ]

स्नेह लता अवास , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi, the 2nd June, 2008

S.Q. 1560.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 30/2006) oftheCentral Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court (No. II) Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . B.C.C.L. and, their workonan , which wasreceivedby the Central Government on 2-6-2008.

2. In this case neither the concerned workman nor his representative appeared before this Tribunal . Management, however, made appearance through their authorised representative. It transpires from the record that Regd. Notice and show cause notice were issued to the concerned workman/ sponsoring union . The concerned workman/sponsoring union not only failed to complywith the provisions of Rule 10( B ) of the L.D. (Central) Rules , 1957but also did not consider necessary to respondto the notices issued by this Tribunal . Gesture of the concerned workman/ sponsoring union if is looked into will expose clearly that they are not interested to proceed with the hearing of this case. Under such circumstances , this Tri- bunal finds no ground to adjourn the case suo moto for days together. Accordingly a ' No dispute Award is passed in this reference presuming non- existance of any industrial dispute between the parties .

[F. No. L-20012/176/2005- IR( C- 1 ) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer

NAGENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL ( NO.2) AT DHANBAD

नई दिल्ली, 2 जून , 2008

PRESENT:

Shri Nagendra Kumar , Presiding Officer

Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 (1 )

(d) ofthe I. D. Act. 1947 .

REFERENCE NO . 30 OF 2006

का.आ. 1561.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पै.बी. सी. सी. एन. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय ( सं. II ) धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 7/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-6-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management of P.B. Area ofM/ s . BCCL and their workman.

[ फा. सं. एल-20012/224/2003-आईआर(सी-1 ) ] APPEARANCES:

Onbehalf ofthe workman

None

स्नेह लता जवास, डेस्क अधिकारी :

Shri B.M.

On behalfof the employers

NewDelhi , the 2nd June, 2008

Prasad,

Adocate.

Jharkhand

State:

Industry: Coal

Dated,Dhanbad, the 22nd May,2008.

AWARD

S.O. 1561. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.7/2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court (No. II) Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . B.C.C.L. and their workman, which wasreceived by the Central Government on 2-6-2008.

[F. No. L-20012/224/2003 -IR(C- 1 ) ] TheGovt. ofIndia, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1 ) (d) of the I. D. Act. , 1947 has referred the following dispute to th Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No.L -20012/ 176/2005 - IR (CM-I ) , dated, the Ist June, 2006.

SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer [भाग [[-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3247.

भारत का राजपत्र जून 28 , 2008/आषाढ़ 7 , 1930

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ( NO. 2) AT DHANBAD PRESENT:

Sbri Nagendra Kumar, PresidingOfficer

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

ReferenceNo. 7 of 2004

PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management of Katras,Area ofM/s , BCCL and their workman .

APPEARANCES:

Mr. J.N.

Das On behalf ofthe workman

Authorised

Representative

Shri D. K.Verma On behalf of the employers :

Advocate.

:Coal State: Jharkhand

Industry

Dated, Dhanbad, the 22nd May, 2008

AWARD

TheGovt. ofIndia, Ministry ofLabour , in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1 ) (d) of the 1.D.Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No.L -20012/224/ 2003 -IR-(C-1) , dated, the 17th December, 2003.

SCHEDULE

"KyaBharat Coking Coal Limited, Katras Kshetra KeyPravandhtantra Dwara Karmkar Shrimati Sajli Majhiain(Kamin) Ki Janmtarikh 1-7-46 Key Sthan Par1-7-42 Mantey Huey Unhey Dinank 1-7-02 Sey Seva Nivrith Kiya Jana Uchit Evam Nayasangat Hain , Yadi Nahi to Karmkar Kis Rahat KeyPatraHain ?"

2.The case ofthe concerned workman named Sajli Majhiain in short is that the workman was appointed on 27-12-71 in Angarpathra Colliery (ton). Her date ofbirth hasbeen recorded in the Service Excerpt as 31 years in 1977 according to which her date of birth was 1946. The management had also issued I. D. Card which also shows 31 years during 1977 and her actual date ofbirth tookplace in1946 as recorded in the 1. Card too at column No. "Date ofbirth" and " Date of appointment". The I. D. Card bears No. 29620. All of a sudden she received notice dated 12-2-2002 proposing her forced retirement w. e.f. 1-7-2002 which was amalafide and illegal action of the management for her premature retirement from service . On this notice she approached the management for correction ofher date of birth and she was given assurance that she will not retire w.e.f. 1-7-2002 and the said notice wil be cancelled, Several letters were written to the Senior Management officers in this connection but the management failed to consider the demand of the union . Accordingly an IndustrialDispute was raised before the ALC(C) Dhanbad which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal. Prayer has been made to direct the management to reinstate the concerned workman with all consequential benefits like full back wages with continuity of service , gratuity etc. with retrospective effect i.e. from the date ofher premature and unlawful retirement .

3. The case of the management in short that as per FormB Register the age/date of birth of the concemed workman is recorded as 35 years as on 1977.As per Certified StandingOrder her date ofbirth has tobe taken 1st July of the said year which is 1-7-42 . The Form B Register is maintained under Mines Act which is a statutory Register. For a long time the concerned workman did not raise any dispute regarding date of birth recoded in the Form B Register. Shehas not filed any document in support ofher date of birth. In this view of the matter the concerned . workman is not entitled for any relief.

4. In the rejoinder portion it has been stated that para-2,4,5,7 and 9 of the W. S.ofthe concerned workman is not correct, About rest paras it has been said to be the matter of record. It is also said that there is no merit in the caseofthe concerned workman and prayer has been made to reject the claim of the concerned workman and Award may bepassed accordingly.

5. The concerned workman has also filed a rejoinder in which she has stated that the statement made in para 1,2,6, ofthe W. S. ofthe management is the matter ofrecord. About rest paras further detailshave been mentioned as to how the date ofbirth as clainsed by the concerned workman is correct. In this rejoinder portion reply to the rejoinder has also beenmentioried in which the concerned worlanan has made statement giving details as to how her claim for date of birth is correct and she has been forcibly retired prematurely. Prayer has been made as mentioned earlier while dealing with the case of the W. S. of the workman.

6. POINTS TO BE DECIDED

"KyaBharat Coking Coal Limited Katras Kshetra KeyPravandhtantra Dwara Karmkar Shrimati Sajli Majhiain ( Kamin) Ki Janmtarikh 1-7-46 Key Sthan Par 1-7-42 Mantey Huey Unhey Dinank 1-7-02 Sey Seva Nivrith Kiya Jana Uchit Evam NayasangatHain ? Yadi Nahi to Karmkar Kis Rabat Key PatraHain ?"

FINDING WITH REASONS

7. In spite of giving several opportunities the concerned workman did not produce any witness. They also failed to get the documents exhibited. Onus lies upon theconcerned workman to prove her case whichhasnot been done in the instant case. Accordingly no reliefcan be granted to the concerned workman . In the result, the following Award is rendered:

1 3 (ii) ]

[PART II-SEC.

3248

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7, 1930

: Mr. U. N. Lal , Avocate

On behalf of the employers

State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 15th May, 2008.

AWARD

"Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Katras Kshetra Key Pravandhtantra Dwara Karmkar Shrimati Sajli Majhia in (Kamin ) Ki Janmtarikh 1-7-46 Key Sthan Par1-7-42 Mantey Huey unhey Dinank 1-7-02 Sey Seva Nivrith Kiya Jana Uchit Evam Nayasangat Hain . Atah Karmkar Kissi Rahat Key Patra Nahi Hain. "

NAGENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 2 जून , 2008

The Govt. of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the I. D. Act. , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No.L -20012/ 184/2001 - IR ( C- I), dated, the 10thAugust, 2001 .

SCHEDULE

" Whether the action of the management of BCCL. , in not taking into the account the SPRA while fixing pay of Shri Rambrich Paswan, Turner Helper, in Category -II is legal and justified ? If not,towhat relief is the workman entitled?" का.आ. 1562, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण मैं, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै.बी. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय ( सं. 11 ) धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 220/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-6-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ फा., सं. एल -20012/184/2001 - आई.आर. (सी-1) ]

स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2008

$.O. 1562.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) the Central. Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.220/2001) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court (No. II ) Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the IndustrialDispute between the employers in relation to the management ofB.C.C.L. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 2-6-2008.

[F. No. L-20012/ 184/2001 - IR(C- 1 ) ]

SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ( NO . 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT:

Shri Nagendra Kumar , Presiding Officer

2. The case of the concerned workman Rambrich Paswan, is that he was initially appointed as a piece rated Miner Loader in the year 1986. He continued to work as Piece rated Miner Loader upto 1991 and was paid Spl . piece rated allowance apart from other normal wages paid to a P/RMiner/Loader . The Special piece rated allowance is annual increment to piece rated workers paid annually to a time rated and monthly rated employees which is cov- ered under NCWA . In the year 1992 the employer Mis . BCCL engaged the concerned workman in time rated job Çat. I according to requirement and need. Within a short time he was shifted to the post of Turner Helper Cat. 11 post of time reated as per NCWA . In May/June, 1996 as a piece rated employee the concerned workman was paid a sum of Rs . 11.12 per day as S.P.R.A. and the said S.P.R.A. was not included while fixing wages in time rated Cat . I and II . Due to wrong fixation minus SPRA there was aver- age loss of Rs . 16.00 per day, besides V.D.A , S.D.A etc. As piece rated miner / loader the concerned workman was paid U/G allowance but the same was stopped after shifting on surface in time rated job putting the concerned workman in double loss . The management has adopted a discrimi- nation in adding and ominitting SPRA after conversion from P.R. to T /R job which is violative of the decision of NCWA andalso of BCCL's own guidelines. The concerned workman is entitled for special piece rated allowance after conversion to time rated job from August/September, 1996 till date as per provisions of N.C.W.A.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10( 1 ) (d) ofthe l. D. Act . 1947.

REFERENCE No. 220 of2001

PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management of Kustore Area of M/ s . BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES:

Onbehalfof the workman : Mr. S. C. Gaur, Advocate.

3. 11 appears that the concerned workman has also filed a rejoinder stating that the statement made in W.S. of the mangement in para -3,4,5,6,7 is irrelevant. Beside this it has been stated that the statement made in para- 2 is not fully correct and the statement in para- l is the matter of record. Again in the prayer portion it has been said on to Award for inclusion of SPRA in basic wages of Cat I'll from August/September, 1996 and paymentof revised wages accuring with correct fixation .

3249 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र जून 28, 2008/आषाढ़ 7 , 1930

perprovision contained in NCWA 3-11-3, 3-11-4 and 3-11-5 the concerned workman is entitled for the relief.He has also submitted that as per Ext. W-4 which is a letter of themanagement issued to all area G.M. and all Area Chief G.M. whiledeciding the basic wages SPRA has to be taken into consideration and pay has to be protected to the Miner/Loaders diverted to time rated Cat. I and Cat.J [ grades . He has further submitted that pay ofthe concerned workman is protected and this cannot be reduced by excluding the SPRA in terms ofSection 9A ofthe LD.Act. To support this contention be has also filed a decision reported in 2002 Lab 1.C. 852.

8.On behalfof the management it has been argued that since the concerned workman did not pass the Trade Test after completing the period of2 years he was placed inCat. I General Mazdoor. He was given job on the surface and he was not entitled for underground allowance . Не was posted in time ratedjob , hence he was not entitled for SPRA. It has further been argued that there had been a settlement between the parties and in view of the settlement the concernedworkman has been promoted to the post ofTurner /Helper Cat.II. He has been given notional seniority ofturner and helper with effect from 1-7-1996. This settlement has been signed by the Secretary of KIMP Union Jharia which has raised the industrial disputebefore the ALC ( C), Dhanbad - IV and senior P.O. Kustore/ BhaigoraArea ofBCCL. This settlement was arrived on 20-11-1997 between the parties and in terms of the settlement the order has been issued on 25/26-11-1997 . The settlement is fair, just and legal . In this view of the matter the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief.

9. Before deciding the issue in question it will be releavent to refer the provision of NCWA which reads as follows:-

"3.11.3 Special Piece-Rate Allowance 4.Onthe other hand the management has filledW.S. stating the fact that the concerned workman Rambrich Paswanwas appointed as U.G. Miner /Loader vide order dt.2/3-1-1992. The concerned workman was deployed as Helper Trainee (Turner) with stipulation that after completion oftwo years sucessful training his suitability willbe adjudged and if he is found suitable he willbe placedinCat. II as per office order dt: 27-11-1991 . After two years he was not found fit for the aforesaid post and in the year 1996 he was deployed as General Mazdoor in Cat. I. An I.D. was raised by the General Secretary, KIMP Union before the ALC(C ) , Dhanbad IV demanding for placement in Cat . II. A Tripartite Settlement was arrived on 20-11-1997 in full and final settlement and as per terms of the said settlement Shri Paswan was promoted to the post ofTurner Helper in Cat . II and was allowed notional seniority w.e.f. 1-7-1996 . Now other association in the present case i.e. Coal Mines Workers Engineering Associationhas taken up another I.D. The fixation ofpay was done as per policy of the Company in view of the terms of settlement after promotion . Since the concermed workman was promoted from Cat . I to Cat. II the question offixation ofbasic pay by adding the SPRA in the post of U.G. Miner/Loader does not arise , The matter has already been settled inview ofthe settlement between the parties. The Tripartite Settlement is just, fair, legal and correct. Thedemand of the concerned workman/ union for taking into account the SPRA which the workman had earmed while working as U.G. Miner/Loader is not correct and justified. The concerned workman had consented and interviewed, trade tested by a duly constituted Selection Committee for Trainee (Turner) and final absorption in the regular grade was to be decided subject to his suitability after completion oftwo years training which the workman couldnotdo so. The management had no option other than to place him in general mazdoor Cat. I and he was allowedto draw wages ofCat . I. The concemed workman is not entitled for the relief as prayed for.

POINTS TO BE DECIDED

Piece-rated workers who were on the rolls on 30th June, 2001 and continued to be as on 1st July, 2001, the following amount as indicated against each group, will be paid as SPRA annually in addition to their existing SPRA, to provide motivation for achieving higher productivity. This willbe effective from1-7-2001 (However , the SPRA will accrue from anniversary date of employee concemed).

5."Whether the action of the management ofBCCL, in not taking into the account the SPRA while fixing pay of Shri Rambrich Paswan, Turner Helper, in Category- II is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ?"

Group Rate ofAnnual SPRA (Ra . per day) FINDING WITH REASONS

As perNCWA -VI w.e.f. 1-7-1996

Revised Rates as per NCWA-VII w.e.f. 1-7-2001

I Rs.1.92

537

5.48

Rs.2.14

5.62

Rs.2.60

.To support the case, the concerned workman has produced himselfas witness .On his behalf four documents Le. W-I ;W-2, W-3 and W-4 have been marked as exhibit. On behalfof the management Awadh Bihari Singh, witness has been examined as MW- 1 and further i ! documents have been filed from Ext. M- 1 to M-11 .

5.65

Rs.2.60

7.02

Rs.3.14

7.05

Rs.3.14

7. During the course of arguments Ld . Lawyer for the concerned workman has vehemently argued that as 3250

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( 11) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7 , 1930

SPRA already drawn on and from Ist July, 2001 on- wards will be adjusted and the employees will be entitled to the payment of difference between the rates agreed to herein above and the payment already made to them.

K.I.M.P. raised an industrial dispute. In course of hearing his union entered into a settlement between him and the management which is Ext . M-2 . The terms of settlement have been duly acted upon . Thereafter management issued the order of Tumer Helper marked as Ext. W-3 . By the administrative order of the management his service was regularised as Turner Helper and his pay was fixed vide orderdt . 29-11-1997 . It is not a fact that as General Mazdoor Cat.1 he got regularisation in Cat . II as Türner Helper and he is not entitled to get S.P.R.A. The post of General Mazdoor is time rated. No S.P.R.A. is paid to General Mazdoor.

3.11.4 Piece-rated workers appointed on after 1st July, 2001 will also be entitled to earn the special Piece Rated Allowance after completion ofone year continuous service in the manner time rated workers are granted annual increment on 1st March and 1stSeptember. The Special PRAllowance in respect of Piece- rated workers appointed on after 1st July, 2001 will be regulated as under:

(a) Those who complete one year of service on any daybetween 1st July , 2002 to 31st August , 2002 will get their 1st SPRA on and from 1st September, 2002.

(b) Those who complete one year of service on any day between Ist September , 2002 to 28th February, will get their Ist SPRA on and from 1st March, 2003.

3.11.5 The Special Piece-Rate Allowance will not count for computation of sub rates/piece -rates/pro- rates payment for additional tubs. This amount will, however, be treated as basic for all other purposes .

However, in the present facts and circumstances of the case the matter has to be decided on the basis of evidence and materials on record as to how and in which manner the concerned workman was posted as piece rated employee and was placed as Cat. II Turner Helper and whether he is entitled for the relief as prayed for .

11. MW- 1 has stated that the concerned workman got appointment in the year 1987as Miner/Loader. He was selected for training and his name is appearing at Sl.No. 1 in Ext . M -4 . By this order the concerned workman was allowed to remain on training for 2 years . Vide order dt. 27/29-1-1992 the concerned workman was placed in Cat . I as he did not complete his training successfully. Vide order dt. 20-6-1996 the concemed workman was placed in Cat. I as General Mazdoor . After Tripartite Settlement the concerned workman was placed in Cat . Il as Turper Helper and notionally seniority was given w.e.f. 1-7-1996 without any arrear. From his evidence it appears that the concerned workman had raised industrial dispute. Since theconcernedworkman was placed in T.R. job Cat. 1 is not entitled to get S.P.R.A. which a piece rated worker is entitled to get. During cross -examination he has said that the concerned workman worked as piece rated worker as Miner/Loader from 1987 to 1991. Thereafter he was placed in job training, though he used to draw his wages on piece rated basis. S.P.R.A. is a kind of annual increment which isgiven to piece rated worker only. There was no provision for adjustment of S.P.R.A.. with the basic wages of time rated worker. Thereafter the witness was put question regarding provision of S.P.R.A. in course of that NCWA circular issued by the Headquarters i.e. the S.P.R.A. has to be added in basic wages of piece rated worker when he is converted to time rated worker to which he replied that he does not know.

12. From evidence on record ofboth the witnesses i.c. the concerned workman as well as of the management itappears that the concerned workman was appointed initially as piece rated worker . Thereafter he was converted into time rated worker . It is also not in dispute that while working as piece rated worker the concerned workman was receiving S.P.R.A. However , the S.P.R.A. was not added in his basic wage when he was converted to time ratedworker .

10. WW- 1 in his evidence has stated that he was appointed as Miner/Loader on 15-6-1987 at eastBuggatdih Colliery as piece rated employee . He has produced Ext . W- I wage slip for the months of May and June , 1996. At that time he used to receive SPRA @ Rs . 11.12 P. per month, Thereafter he was accepted by the management as Time rated workerw.e.f. 1-7-1996 . The wage slip issued is marked as Ext . W -2 . In time rated no S.P.R.A. was given . He has produced Ext. W- 3 regarding convertion of time rated worker from piece rated workman . This was issued on 29-12-1987 (which should be 29-12-1997) and his pay was fixed notionally w.e.f. 1-7-1996 to 30-11-1997 . The management refuse to adjust his S.P.R.A. with his wages illegally inspite ofthe circular dt. 3-11-1997 marked as Ext. W-4. He has sustained financial toss. During cross- examination he has stated that he has worked as Miner /; Loader on piece rate basis till December, 1991.After 1991 asper order of the management he took training ofTumer Helper. It is not a fact that as he did not successfully complete the training as Turner Helper for a period oftwo years as per order he was reverted back not as Miner Loaderbut asGeneral Mazdoor Cat.1. Thereafter his union

13. Much argument has been advanced on behalf ofthe concerned workman that in view ofthe provision of NCWA para 3-11-3, 3-11-4 and 3-11-5, piece rated workers are entitled S.P.R.A. when they are converted to time rated category. In this context Ext. W-4 has alsobeen referred.

3251 [भाग 1Ⅱ- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28, 2008/आषाढ़ 7, 1930

14. As per provision in NCWA is concerned that will be examined in the context of the facts and circumstances ofthis case. So far as the relevant portion ofExt. W-4 is concerned it reads as follows :-

"Ext. W-4

On the issue of fixation it was decided that the InitialBasis wages ofthe Category of regularisation plus SPRA earned by a concerned workman will be protected to theextent of the maximum of the scale ofaparticular TR category in which the workman is being regularised; however, those Miners/Loaders whohad already given option to work in a particular Category inTime Rated job, will be fitted in the scale ofpayaccording to the option given."

15. Itwill be relevant to mention here that there is nothing to record to show that the concerned workman had given any option to work in a particular category in time ratedjob and as per circular referred to above the scaleofpaywasto be fixed according to the option which is not a case here.

them on thejob training as SDL Operation and maintenance for a period ofone year. It was also ordered that they will be paid Cat. I wage without any protection of pay and after their placement in the Cat/ Grade as per nature ofjob will be finalised after suitability test . Again from Ext. M-7 it appears that in persuance of order dated 27/29-1-1992 (which appears to be Ext . M -6 ) and subsequently letter from Area Personnel Manager, Kustore Area they have been selected for the post of General Mazdoor Cat . I as approvedby the H.Qrs. vide letter dt. 13/ 15-1-96 from the H. Qtr. were asked to report for duty to the Manager , East Bhuggatdih Colliery putting them on the job training as S.D.L. operation and maintenance for a period of one year from the date oftheir joining . In this Ext. M- 7 the name of the concerned workman and three others have been mentioned. It has been also mentioned that they will paid. Cat. I wages without any protection of pay w.e.f.. 20-6-1996. Vide Ext . M-8 it appears that the concerned workmanwas placed in Cat . Il as Turner Helper, from General Mazdoor Cat. 1 w.e.f. 1-12-1997. He was also given notional seniority with notional fixation w.e.f. 1-7-1996. However, he was not to be given any arrear payment/ financial benefit for the period from 1-7-1996 to30-11-1997 .

16. From the evidence of the concerned workman during cross-examination referred to above it appears that his servicewas regularised as Turner Helper vide Ext. M- 3.However, he has denied that he did not successfully complete the training as Turner Helper for a period of two years , From his further evidence in cross -examination it appears that the post ofGeneral Mazdoor is in time rated category and no S.P.R.A. is paid to the General Mazdoor.

19. From the evidence and documents referred to above it appears that the evidence of MW- 1 is supported by the documents i.e. exhibits mentioned above to show that the concerned workman was given another type of job of training and designation. From the evidence of concernedworkman referred to above it shows that SPRA is not paid to the General Mazdoor and it also appears fromhis evidence that the post of General Mazdoor is in TimeRated Category,

17. In the aforesaid context from the evidence of MW-1 it appears that the concerned workman did not complete his training. Therefore , he was placed in Cat. I as General Mazdoor. Thereafter as per settlement he was placed in Cat. II giving notional seniority without any ancars.

19.However, it appears that the concemed workman has raised an industrial dispute before the ALC (C) , Dhanbad and there had been settlement between the parties on the following terms (Ext. M-2) :---

"1. That Shri Ram Briksh Paswan , General Mazdoor ofEast Bhuggatdih shall be promoted to the post ofTurnerHelper Cat. Il with immediate effect.

2. That the above workman shall be given the notional seniority ofTurner Helper Cat . II w.e.f. 1stJuly, 1996 without any back wages.

3. That the management and the union both shall submit implementation report to theALC/RLC(C), Dhanbad within three months from the date of receipt of this letter failing which it will be presumed that the settlement in question has been implemented in full."

It further appears that after settlement between the parties the order dt. 25-12-1997 Ext. M- 3 was issued. It further appears that prior to the settlement it has been specifically mentioned in Ext. M-7 regarding the fact that there will be no protection of wages. Nothing has been 18. While going through Ext. M - 1 it appears that at Sl.No. 7the name ofthe concerned workman appears and as per Ext. M-1 which is dated 27-11-1991. on the recommendation ofthe D.P.C. the concerned workman and otherswere selected for the job training . This particular concerned workman was placed in Turner Training and his final absorption in regular grade was to be decided as per suitability and availability of the post after completion ofthe training. Vide Ext. M-5 it appears that the concerned workman was allowed to join his duty at East Bhuggatdih Collieryw.e.f.2-1-1992 as helper trainee turner . He was to beunder apprenticeship training for a period of2 years and after completing the training his suitability was to be adjudged by the committee . His existing pay scale and other terms and condition as presently applicable to him fortraininghewill be paid wages from 26-12-1991 . From persual ofExt. M-6 which is dated 27 /29-1-1992 it appears that the concerned workman as well as 5 other persons weregiven theduties of General Mazdoor Cat.I for putting 3252

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008 /ASADHA 7, 1930

mentioned regarding dispute of SPRA while settling the dispute between the parties which has been done after issuance ofExt . M -7 probably due to the reason that there is a change of nomenclature /post/designation of the concernedworkman and he was not entitled for SPRA which alse funds support from the evidence of the concerned workınan during his cross-examination . No fact has been brought on record to show that the settlement as recorded in Ext. M-2 has been done under threat, coercion and alurement . However , subsequently another undustrial dispute was raised by another union.

21. Ld. Lawyer for the concerned workman has vehemently argued that this Industrial dispute is regarding inclusion of SPRA in the wages ofthe concerned worknian while earlier industrial dispute with regard to absorption in aparticular grade. So this is an entirely different industrial dispute.Hence the concerned workman is entitled for the relief. He has again submitted that in view ofSection 9A of the I.D. Act his wages are to be protected and accordingly the SPRA should be included in his wages . Section 9A of the I.D. Act 1947 read as follows :-

"Section 9A

No employer , who proposes to effect any change in the conditions of service applicable to any workman in respect ofany matter specified in the Fourth Schedule shalt effect such change-

(a) without giving to the workmen likely to be affected by such change a notice in the prescribed manner of the nature of the change proposed to be effected; or (b) within twenty- one days of giving such notice:

Provided that no notice shall be required for effecting any such change-

(a) where the change is effected in pursuance of any (settlement or award) ; or

(b)where the workman likely to be affected by the change are persons to whom the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules ,Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal ) Rules, Civil Services (Temporary Service ) Rules, Revised Leave Rules, Civil Services Regulations , Civilians in Defence Services ( Classification , Control and Appeal ) Rules or the Indian Railway Establishment Code or any other rules or regulations that may be notified in this behalf by the appropriate Government in the Official Gazette, apply).

22. From perusal of aforesaid provision it appears that no notice in change is required where the change is effected in pursuance of any settlement or Award .

23.Here in the instant case there is settlement Ext.M -2 on record which does not speak anything about inclusion ofSPRA . It is needless to mention again there has been change of category/designation of the concerned workman.

[PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii) ] In this particular facts and circumstances of the case it appears that the concerned workman is not entitled for the reliefas prayed for.

24. From perusal of the judgement filed by the Ld. Lawyer for the concerned workman it appears that the facts and circumstances of this case its different and the said decision is not applicable in this case. Accordingly the same is not being discussed in details .

25. For the reason stated above the following Award is rendered:-

"The action of the management of BCCL in not taking into the account the SPRA while fixing pay of Shri Rambrich Paswan, Tumer Helper, in Cat. II is legal and justified . Consequnetly, the concerned workman is not entitled to getanyrelief. "

NAGENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 2 जून , 2008

का.आ. 1563, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै.बी. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियांजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय ( सं. (1 ) , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 68/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-6-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[फा. सं. एल-20012/74/2006- आईआर(सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 2nd June , 2008

S.O. 1563.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) the Central Govemmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 68/2006) oftheCentral Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court (No. 11), Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M / s . B.C.C.L , and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 2-6-2008.

[F. No. 1-20012 /74/2006- IR(C - 1 ) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ( NO . 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

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

REFERENCE No. 68 of 2006- 3253

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28, 2008/आषाढ़ 7, 1930

[ भाग 1Ⅱ- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management of E.J. Area ofM/s . BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES:

: None

Onbehalfoftheworkman

: Mr. U. N.Lal , Avocate Onbehalf of the employers

State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal.

Dated, the 15th May,2008 .

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1 ) (d) ofthe 1. D. Act . , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/74/2006- IR(CM -1), dated, the 10thNovember, 2006.

SCHEDULE

" Whether the the demand of Janta Mazdoor Sangh of the management of Bhowra (S) Colliery of M /s . BCCL for regularising Sh . Surendra Kumar Singh and Madhusudan Mahato in the post of Haulage Operator is justified? If so, to what relief are the concerned workman entitled? "

2. In this case neither the concerned workman nor his representative appeared before this Tribunal . Management-side , however , made appearance through their authorised representative. It transpires from the record that Regd. notices as Show cause noticeswere issued to the concerned workmen/sponsoring union. The concerned workman/sponsoring union not only failed to complywith the provision ofRule 10(B ) ofthe I.D. (Central) Rules , 1957 , but also did not consider necessary to respond to the notices issued by this Tribunal . If the gesture ofthe workman/sponsoring union is looked into itwill expose clearly that they are not interested to proceed with, the hearing of this case . Under such circumstances this Tribunal finds no ground to drag on the same for years together. Accordingly a ' No dispute ' Award is passed in this case presuming non- existence of any industrial dispute between the parties.

NAGENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 2 जून , 2008

का.आ. 1564.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैं. वी. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक 2263G1/08-12

अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय ( सं. 11 ) धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 253/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-6-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ फा. सं. एल-20012/260/2001 - आई उबर ( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi, the 2nd June, 2008

S.O. 1564. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 253/2001 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court (No. II) Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute hetween the employers in relation to the management of M/s . B.C.C.L. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on2-6-2008.

(F. No. L-20012/260/2001 -IR(C- 1 )] SNEH LATA JAWAS , DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENTOF INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL( NO. 2) ATDHANBAD

PRESENT

SHRI NAGENDRA KUMAR, PresidingOfficer In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) ofthe 1. D.Act. 1947.

REFERENCE No. 253 of 2001

PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management of Bhurkunda Area of M/ s.C.C.L and their workaman.

APPEARANCES:

Onbehalfofthe workman : None

On behalfof the employers : Mr. D. K. Venna Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 15th May, 2008.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1) (d) of the 1. D. Act ., 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/260/2001-1R(C- 1 ), dated, the 18th September,2001.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the INMOSSA from the management ofBhurkunda Colliery , M/ s . C.C.L for giving promotional benefits to S/Sri Sanjay 3254

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7,19

(PART II-SPC . 3 ( 0 ) | KumarMandal , Badri Koiry, Shankar Sharma and Sardar Singh upon regularisation as Mining Sirdar is proper andjustified? If so to what relief are the concerned workman entitled? "

as Mining Sirdar in itical and Supervisory Grade-C. The promotion is given wahin the cadre. Since the concerned workmen were outside the cadre they were regularised in a cadre 2..n as per the rules ofthe company at the tine of regularisation as Mining Sirdar in monthly rated grade. Their existing basic in their respective cadre was taken into consideration into the slab of Technical and supervisory Grade- C us on 30-6-93 . Their date of increment were unchanged as in the time rated cadre every year. There are cadre scheme in different grades and categories for promotion of the workmen . When a workman is promoted in the cadre scheme the promotional benefit asone increment ofhis existing pay scale is added to their basic and his basic pay is fitted in the slab of promoted grade with change in date of increment. But in the case of regularisation only the existing basic pay of the workman concerned is taken to the pay slab of regularised grade without any incrementai benefit but their last date of increment is kept unchanged. In the above situation the claim of the conetused workmen is neither legal nor justified.

4.In the rejoinder portion about para 3,4,9 10 to 14 of the W.S. of the concerned workmen it has been said that the same are not correct and relevant and the rest paras are matter of record. Prayer has been made to pass Award holding that the concerned workman are not entitled to get any relief.

5. Paints to be Decided

"Whether the domand of the IN MOSSA from the management of Burkunda Colliery, M/ s . C.C.L. for giving promotional benefits to S/Sri Sanjay Kumar Mandal , Badri Keiry, Shankar Sharma and Sardar Singh upon regularsation as Mining Sirdar is proper and justified? If so , to what relief are the concerned workmen entitted ?"

6. Finding With Reasons

Inspite of giving several opportunities the concerned workinen neither filed any document nor proudced any witness in support of their claim . Onus lies upon them to establish their case which has not been done in the instant cuse . Accordingly no relief can be granted to the concerned workmen . In the result, the following Award is rendered :-

2. The case of the concerned workman Sri Sanjay Kumar Mandal , itadri Koiry, Shankar Sharma and Sardar Singh in short is that the action of the management in not following promotional benefits to the concerned workman in the event of up - grading them to the post of Mining Sirdar is improper and unjustified. The dernand of IN MOSSA for giving promotional benefit to the aforesaid workers are quite justified. The action of the management is discriminatory and contrary to the provision of cadre Scheme of Mining discipline formulated by the JBCCI for coal Industries . The concemed workmen were employed in Bhurkunda Colliery and details of designation have been given. It has further been stated that after passing the Statutory examinations coducted by the office of the D.G.M.S. Dhanbad the concerned workmen were qualified to be appointed as Mining Sirdar in coal Industries . Accordingly they applied for promotion in the post of Mining Sirdar in Technical and supervisory Grade -C in the pay scale of Rs.742-40-1762-45-1422 of NCWA- III for consideration oftheir promotion against the vacant post . As per office order dt . 121h/25th June , 1993 the concerned workmen were regularised in the post of Mining Sirdars în Technical Grade -C of NCWA- IV and they were denied promotional benefits . In similar other cases the management allowed the promotional benefits . Details have been given of the orders and the name of the personswho have been given the post of Mining Sirdar . The management adopted double standard policy in the matter of bringing their workers to the post of Mining Sirdar adopting discrimination . As per cadre scheme of Mining supervisory staff circulated vide implementation instruction No. 45 dt . 28-6-1985 ofJBCCI the departmental workers having experience on working on Mines for 5 years and possessing the qualification of Mining Sirdarship certificate, Gas Testing Certificate and Valid FirstAid Certificate from D.G.M.S. can be promoted to the post of Mining Sirdar. In the above circumstances , the management without any basis contrary to the provision of cadre scheme had denied promotion to the concerned workman . Prayer has been made to give direction to the management of Bhurkunda Colliery to allow the concerned workmen for promotional benefits as given in similar cases.

"The demand ofthe INMOSSA from the management of Bhurkunda Colliery , M/ s . C.C.L for giving promotionai benefits to S/ Sri Sanjay Kumar Mandal , Badri Koiry, Shankar Sharma and Sardar Singh upan regularisation as Mining Sirdar is not proper and justified. Consequently, the concerned workmen are not entitled to get any relief. "

NAGENDRA KUMAR , Presiding Officer .

3. A.W S.-cum -rejoinder has been filed by the management slating that the concerned workmen were working in diferent designation in the time rated category from which the regularised to the post of Mining Sirdur . Technical and Supervisory Grade- C in monthly rated scale of payde order dt. 12/25--6-93 . The concemed workinen erent cadre prior to their regularisation 3255 [ भाग- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28, 2008/आषाढ़ 7 , 1930

नईदिल्ली, 3 जून, 2008

अनुसूची

" क्यासी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र द्वारा श्री शंकर कुमार हुई को पदोन्नत किया जाना नियमानुसार एवं कंपनी की मान्य कैदर-स्कीम के अंतर्गत सही है ? यदि नहीं तो, कर्मकार किस राहत के पांत्र हैं.. तथा किस तारीख से ? "

का.आ. 1565,-औद्योगिकं विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की भारा 17 के अनुसरण में केंद्रीय सरकार मै. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केंद्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय ( सं. 1 ) , धनवाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 40/1999) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केंद्रीय सरकार को 3-06-08 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[फा. संख्या- एल-20012/363/1998-माई आर( सी-1 ) ]

स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the3rd June,2008

After having received the Order No. L-20012/363/ 1998- IR (C- 1) dt. 11-3-1999 the aforesaid reference fromthe Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication ofthe dispute a reference case No. 40 of 1999 was registered on 22-3-1999 but till 2-5-2008 no written statement or claim was filed. Ultimately two notices was issued to the sponsoring Union for filing of written statement by speed post/Registered post but till 2-5-2008 no one appears nor any steps have been taken by them.

In view of such circumstance it seems that the workman or the Union is no interested to contest their case further . And as such, it is ordered :

ORDER

S.O. 1565. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Govemmenthereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/1999) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum -Labour Court , (No. 1 ), Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrialdispute between the employers in relation to the management ofM/s . C.C.L. and their workman ,which was received bythe Central Government on 3-06-2008.

[F.No. L-20012/363/ 1998- IR(C- 1 )] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

That let a " No Dispute " AWARD be and the same is passed. Send the copies ofthe Award to the Govt of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for information and needful . Reference is accordingly disposed off.

ANNEXURE

H.M. SINGH, Presiding Officer BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

नई दिल्ली , 3 जून , 2008

In the matter ofa reference under section (10)( 1) (d) (2A) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Reference No. 40 of1999

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of M/s. CCL, Darbhanga House , Ranchi,

AND

का.आ. 1566, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केंद्रीय सरकार मै टिस्को के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केंद्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय ( सं. 1 ) , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 43/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केंद्रीय सरकार को 3-06-08 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Their Workman

[फा. संख्या- एल-20012/381 /1999- आई आर( सी-1 ) ] PRESENT: Shri Hari Mangal Singh , PresidingOfficer

APPEARANCES :

स्नेह लता बवास , डेस्क अधिकारी :None

For theManagement

NewDelhi, the 3rd June ,2008 :None

For theUnion

State: Jharkhand

Industry:Coal

Dated2ndMay2008

AWARD

S.O. 1566.- in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.43/1999) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum-Labour Court, (No. 1 ) , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofM/ s . TISCO and their workmen, which was receivedbythe Central Government on 3-06-2008.

[F.No. L-20012/381 / 1999- IR( C- 1 )] SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer By Order No. 1-20012/363/98 -IR ( C-I ) dated 11-3-1999 the Cental Government in the Ministry ofLabour has in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) sub -section (2A) of Section 10 of the industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

3256

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ ASADHA 7, 1930

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO . I , DHANBAD In the matter of a reference under section ( 10) ( 1 ) ( d) (ZA) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 Reference No. 43 of1999

PARTIES :-Employers in relation to the management of Digwadih Colliery of M/ s . TISCO AND Their Workman

PRESENT : Shri Hari Mangal Singh , Presiding Officer APPEARANCES :

:Sri D. K. Verma , Advocate For the Management

:None

For theUnion

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal Dated 2nd May2008

AWARD

By Order No. L- 20012/381/98- IR (C- I ) dated 11-3-1999 the Cental Government in the Ministry of Labour has in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of Jub -section ( 1 ) sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the industrial Disputes Act , 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :-

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Digwadih Colliery of M/s . TISCO in dismissing Sri Prabir Kumar Ghosh , Ex- U.G . Munshi from services of the company w.e.f. 16-9-1997 is justified ? If notto what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

After having received the Order No. 1-20012/381/ 1998-IR(CI) dated 11-3-1999 the aforesaid reference from theGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute a reference case No. 43 of 1999was registered on 22-3-1999 buttill 2-5-2008 no written statement or claim was filed. Ultimately two notices was issued to the sponsoring Union for filling of written statement by speed post/Registered post but till 2-5-2008 no one appears nor any steps have been taken by them and two notices issue to the workman concerned was returned undelivered with postal remarks addressee is left .

In view of such circumstance it seems that the workman is not interested to contest their case further. And as such, it is ordered:-

ORDER

That let a "NO DISPUTE AWARD be and the same is passed . Send the copies of the Award to the Govt of

[PART 11--SEC . 3 ( ii) ] India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for information and needful . Reference is accordingly disposed off.

H. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 3 जून , 2008

का.आ. 1567,-औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का (4 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केंद्रीय सरकार मै . बी. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केंद्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय ( सं. 1 ) , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 17/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केंद्रीय सरकार को 3-06-08 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[फा. संख्या- एल-20012/203/1998- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 3rd June, 2008 S.O. 1567 ,-In pursuancelance of Section 17 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Goverment hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 17/1999 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, (No. I) , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . B.C.C.L. and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 3-06-2008 .

[ F. No. L-20012/203/1998 -IR( C- 1 ) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ( NO . I, DHANBAD In the matter of a reference under section ( 10) ( 1 ) ( d) (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Reference No. 17 of 1999

PARTIES :-Employers in relation to the management of Kusunda Area ofM/ s . BCCL AND Their Workman

PRESENT: Shri Hari Mangal Singh , Presiding Officer APPEARANCES :

: Sri U. N. Lal , Advocate None

For the Management FortheUnion

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal Dated2ndMay 2008 AWARD

By Order No. L- 20012/203/98 - IR ( C-I ) dated 29-1-1999 the Cental Government in the Ministry ofLabour has in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of [ भाग - खण्ड (ii) ]

3257

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28 , 2008/आषाढ़ 7, 1930

sub-section ( 1) sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the followingdispute foradjudication to this Tribunal :-

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Kusunda Area M/s . BCCL in not accepting the date ofBirth of Sri Bhikhi Barhi on the basis of date of birth recorded in Mining Sirdarship Certificate issued by the Board of Mining examination on 17-2-83 in the light of implementation instruction 76 dated 25-4-88 is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

After having received the Order No. L-20012/203/ 1998-IR (C-1) dt. 29-1-1999 the aforesaid reference from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication ofthe dispute a reference case No. 17 of 1999 was registered on 8-2-1999 but till 30-4-2008 no written statemem or claim was filed. Ultimately two notices was issued to the sponsoring Union for filing of written statementby Speed Post/Registered post but till 30-4-2008 no one appears nor any steps have been taken by them.

In view of such circumstance it seems that the workman or the Union is not interested to contest their case furister.And as such, it is ordered:-

ORDER

That let a "NO DISPUTE Award be and the same is passed. Send the copies of the Award to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for information and needful . Reference is accordingly disposedof.

H. M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 3 जून , 2008

का.आ. 1568.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की चारा 17 के अनुसरण में केंद्रीय सरकार मैं. बी. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केंद्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय ( सं ) धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 11/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केंद्रीय सरकार को 3-06-08 प्राप्त हुआ था 1

[फा. संख्या एल-20012/216/1998 - आई. आर. ( सी-1 ) ]

स्नेह लता अवास , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 3rd June,2008 S.O. 1568.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government here by publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/1999) ofCentral Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum- Labour Court, (No. 1 ) Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . B.C.C.L. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on3-06-2008.

[F. No. L-20012/216/1998 -IR(C- 1 )] SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 1), DHANBAD In the matter ofa referezice under Section 10( 1 ) (d) (2A) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Reference No. 11 of1999

PARTIES: Employers in relation to the managementof Kusunda Area ofM/s . BCCL , AND

Their Workman

PRESENT: Shri Hari Mangal Singh, Presiding Officer APPEARANCES :

:Sri U. N. Lal, Advocate

:None

For theManagement For theUnion

State : Jharkhand

Industry:Coal Dated 2ndMay, 2008 AWARD

By Order No. L- 20012/216/98 - IR (C- I ) dated 27-1-1999 theCental Government in the Ministry of Labour has in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 ofthe IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Kusunda Area ofM/ s. BCCL in superannunting Sri Shashidar Mukherjee , Clerk w.e.f. 7-11-97 without taking in account his date of birth 5-3-1939 is justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?

After having received the Order No. L-20012/216/ 1998-IR(C-I) dt. 27-1-1999 the aforesaid reference from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for adjudication ofthe dispute a reference case No. 11 of1999 was registered on 8-2-1999 but till 30-4-2008 no written statement or claim was filed. Ultimately two notices was issued to the sponsoring Union for filing of written statement by Speed Post/Registered post but till 30-4-2008 no one appears nor any steps have been taken by them.

3258

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2008/ASADHA 7, 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] In view of such circumstance it seems that the workman or the Union is not interested to contest their case furhter.And as such, it is ordered :-

ORDER

Koyla Khadan Karmachari Sangh, Pipla Mines, P.O. Walni , Distt. Nagpur Party No. I and the Sub Area Manager, Pipla Group of WCL , Party No. 2 referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its letter No. L-22012/338/ 1992- IR (C - it ) dt . 9-2-1993 under clause (d) ofsub -section ( 1) and sub- section (2A ) ofSection 10 of ID Act with the following schedule.

That let a " NO DISPUTE" Award be and the same is passed. Send the copies of the Award to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment , New Delhi for information and needful . Reference is accordingly disposed of.

H. M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer

(2) "Whether the action of the management ofWCL, Nagpur for not providing job to Shri Komal M. Deogade, workman from 18-04-1986 to 20-9-1988 is proper and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to "

नईदिल्ली, 3 जून , 2008

का.आ. 1569.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केंद्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केंद्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 73/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केंद्रीय सरकार को 3-06-08 प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[फा. संख्या एल-22012/338/1992- आई. आर. ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

(3) Originally the reference has been transferred from CGIT, Jablapur to this Court . On 30-6-2005 notices were issued on the second time afler transfer of it to the parties . The respondent appeared. However the petitioner did not appear despite of it. Finally on 22-2-2008 when the reference was for filing of the affidavit of the petitioner came up on the board but the petitioner or his counsel or the union did not appear and were absent . Sufficient time was givenupto February, 2008 but the petitioner did not appear and file his affidavit. Hence the petition is dismissed for default ofthe petitioner . Hence this Award .

NewDelhi , the 3rd June,2008

A. N. YADAV, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 3 जून , 2008

S.O. 1569.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Govemmenthereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 73/2003 ) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of M/ s. Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on3-06-2008.

का.आ. 1570,-औद्योगिक विबाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केंद्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सौ.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विजद में केंद्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 30/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केंद्रीय सरकार को 3.06.08 प्राप्त हुआ था । [F.No. L-22012/338/ 1992- IR(C- II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

[फा. संख्या एल-22012/99/ 2004-आई आर ( सीएम -11 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 3rd June, 2008

BEFORE SHRI A.N. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, OGIT-CUM -LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. 73/2003 Dated28-05-2008

The Dy. General Secretary, Koyla Khadan Karmachari Sangh , PiplaMines , P.O. Walni , Distt .Nagpur

1570..תמונות- n pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 30/2005) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the Management of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Goveminent on 3-06-2008 .

PartyNo. 1

Versus

[F. No. L-22012/99/2004- IR( CM -II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

The Sub Area Manager, PiplaGroup ofWCL, P.O. PiplaDistt . Nagpur

PartyNo. 2 BEFORE SHRI A. N. YADAV PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM- LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR AWARD

Case No. 30/2005 Date27-05-2008

The Central Government after satisfying the Existence of disputes between the Dy. General Secrearty, [ मभाग 11- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3259

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28, 2008/आषाढ़ 7 , 1930

Sh . G. N. Shah General Secretary, Koyala KhadanMazdoor Panchayat (HMS) , P.Q. Junnardeo, Distt. Chhindwara (M.P.)

NewDelhi , the 3rd June,2008

PartyNo. 1

Versus

General ManagerWestern Coalfied Limited ofPench Area, P.O. Parasia Distt. Chhindwara.

PartyNo.2

AWARD

The Central Government after satisfying the existence of disputes between The General Secretary, Koyala Khadan Mazdoor Panchayat ( HMS ) , P.O. Junnardeo , Distt. Chhindwara (M.P. ) Party No. I and General Manager Western Coalfied Limited of Pench Area, P.O. Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara , Party No. 2 referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its letter No. L-22012/99/2004- IR (CM- II) dt. 28-02-2005 under clause (d)ofsub -section ( 1) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of IDActwith the following schedule :

"Whether the demand of the Koyala Khadan MazdoorPanchayat from the management ofWestern Coal Filed Limited Pench Area to correct the date of birth ofSmt. Shanti as 1-7-51 as per her matriculation certificate instate of 1-09-49 as recorded at present is just fair andproper ? If so to relief is the workman concerned ?"

The above dispute came for hearing before the Tribunal on 02-04-2008 . The parties were present. The petitionerwithout even filing Staternent ofClaim filed her affidavit alleging that dispute was raised without her consent by the union she has clearly mentioned that she does not want to proceed with it. She has requested to allow her to withdraw it. Accordingly she was allowed to withdraw it. In such circumstances it is clear that neither the workmen nor their union are at all interested in proceedingwith the claim. Hence the reference is withdrawn and no dispute award is passed.

A. N. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 3 जून , 2008

कां, आ. 1571 ,-औद्योगिक विवाद, अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केंद्रीय सरकार ब्यूरो आफ इण्डियन स्टैण्डर्ड्सस के प्रबंधितंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केंद्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 153/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केंद्रीय सरकार को 3-06-08 प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[फा. संख्या एल-42012/166/2001- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी S.O. 1571. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 153/2002) ofCentral Government Industrial Tribunal-Com-Labour Cout No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of Bureau of Indian Standards and their workanen, which was received by the Central Governsent απ3-06-2008.

[F. No. L-42012/ 166/2001 - IR( CM- 1)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDERA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT-1, CHANDIGARH

CaseNo. ID 153/2002

Shri Vir Pal S/o Shri Sohan Lal , HouseNo. 538, Vikas Nagar, Mauli Jagran , UT, Chandigarh

Applicant

Versus

(1)TheDirector General , Bureau of Indian Standards, 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, NewDelhi .

(2)The Director,Bureau of India Standard, Sector -34-A, Chandigarh

Respondent APPEARANCES

For the workmen

Shri D. R. Kainth

Shri G. C. Babbar

For the management

AWARD

Passed on 16-5-2008 in Lok Adalat

CentralGovernment vide notification No. L-42012/ 166/2001 /IR (CM- II) dated 6-08-2002 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action ofthe Director General , Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, and Director,Burasu of Indian Standards, Chandigarh in ordering disengagement/ termination of services of Shri Vir Pal S/o Shri Sohan Lal, the workman engaged through contractor who has completed 240 days is legal and justified? Ifnot towhat relief the workman is entitled to and fromwhich date ?"

The present reference was made by the Central Government on the failure of conciliation proceedings for adjudication ofthe matter referred in the schedule referred above and the workman prayed for declaring the action of themanagement as illegal and invalid and for reinstatement in service with continuity of service with full backwages alongwith 18 per cent interest per annum.

3260

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7, 1930

The management turned up and opposes this application.

As per office memorandum dated 30-4-08 , this case was fixed in pre Lok Adalat meeting on 16-5-08 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 to provide the work to the workman with the contractor as per the policy of the Government. 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 reference is returned to the Central Government as settled in Lok Adalat . Central Government be informed File be consigned to record.

Announced

16-5-08

G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 3 जून , 2008

का.आ. 1572,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केंद्रीय सरकार ब्यूरो आफ इण्डियन स्टैण्डर्ड्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केंद्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 151/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केंद्रीय सरकार को 3-06-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[फा. संख्या-एल-42012/164/2001- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 3rd June,2008 S.O. 1572.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 151/2002) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- Cum- Labour Court No. 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of Bureau of Indian Standards , and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on3-06-2008 .

[F. No. L-42012/ 164/2001 - IR (CM -II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDERA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT-1, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 151/2002

[PART I -SBC. 3 (ii ) ]

Versus

( 1 ) The Director General , Bureau of Indian Standards , 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, NewDelhi .

(2) The Director , Bureau of India Standard, Sector -34 -A, Chandigarh

Respondent APPEARANCES

For the workmen

Shri D. R. Kainth

Shri G. C. Babbar

Forthe management

AWARD

Passed on 16-5-2008 in Lok Adalat Central Government vide notification No. L-42012/ 164/2001 /IR (CM- II ) dated 6-08-2002 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the Director General , Bureau ofIndian Standards , New Delhi , and Director , Bureau of Indian Standards , Chandigarh in ordering disengagement/ Iennination of services of Shrs Om Parkash Sto Shri Sant Lal , the workman engaged through contractor who has completed 240 days is legal andjustified . If not to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ?"

The present reference was made by the Central Government on the failure of conciliation proceedings for adjudication ofthe matter referred in the schedule referred above and the workman prayed for declaring the action of the management as illegal and invalid and for reinstatement in service with continuity of service with fuli backwages alongwith 18% interest per annum .

The management turned up and opposes this application

As per office memorandum dated 30-4-08 , this case was fixed in pre Lok Adalat Meering on 16-5-08 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 to provide the work to the workman with the contractor as per the policy of the Government . 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 reference is returned to the Central Govertument as settled in Lok Adalat Central Government be informed File be consigned to record,

Announced

Shri Om Parkash , Sto Shri Sant Lal , HouseNo.2330 , Sector 52,

Chandigarh

Applicant 16-5-08

G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer 3261

भारत का राजपत्र जून 28, 2008/ पाय 7, 1930

[भाग -अण्ड 3(H)]

नई दिल्ली, ३ जून, 2008

Bureau of Indian Standards, Chandigarh in ordering disengagement /termination ofservices of Shri Rulde Ram son ofShri Prem Siugh the workman togaged through contractor who has completed 240 days is legal andjustified ? Ifnot to what reliefthe workman is entitledto and from which date ?"

कर.आर. 1573, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार म्यूरो आफ शण्डन स्टेटस के प्रबंध से संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कार्यकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में क्षेन्द्रीम सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 149/2002 ) करें प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-06-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ ।

[पगः से एल-42012/162/2001 -आईभार ( सीएम - Ⅱ ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

Thepresent reference was made by the Central Govt. onthe failure ofconcillation proceedings for adjudication ofthe matter referred in the schedule referred above and the workman prayed for declaring the action of the tien- agement us illegal and invalid and for reinstatement in ser- vice with continuity of service with full backwages alongwith 18% interest per annum.

NewDelhi , the3rd June,2008

The mixnagement tumed up and oppoter this appli-

cation.

5.0. 1673. In pursuance of Sectioti 17 of the In- dustrial Diipates Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) the Central Government Reteby publishes the award (Ref. No. 149/ 2002) ofthe Central Governtsent Industrial Tribunal- oun- Labour Court No. 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Antietars inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the managentent of Bureau of Indian Standards, and their workmen, which was received by the Cerifral Gover menton 03-06-2008.

[F. No. L-42012/ 162/2001 -IR(CM-II))

AJAY KUMARGAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

As per office memorandum dated 30-4-08 this case was fixed in pre Lok Adslat meeting on 16-3-08 for ka posal byadopting the medication and conciliation, mach nism. With the efforts ofthe Tribunal the workman agreed towithdraw his reference. The management slamagreed to providethework to the workman with the contracte per the policy of the Govt. The prescribed antal the management and the workmen during the burimet this casein pre Lok Adalat agreed upon the s terms and conditions. It is proposed to ding of thit reference in Lok Adalat. Accordingly the rence in tumedto the Central Govt, as settled in Lok Adalat. Com- tralGovt . be informed. File be consigned to record.

GK. SHARMA, PresidingOfficer

Announced 16-05-08

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDERA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUS TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURTI, CHANDIGARH

नई दिल्ली, 4 जून, 2008

CaseNo. ID 149/2002

Shri Rulda Ram son ofPrem Singh, House No.2282, Dadu Majra Colony Sector38 West, Chandigarh-5.

--Applicaint

Versins

का.मा. 1574, औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार गार्दन रेलवे प्रबंध तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विभाव में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण , चण्डीगढ़ नं.? के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्क 143/2000 ) करे प्रकारिता करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04-06-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[प्ता. सं. एल-41011/39/1999 -आईआर(बी-1 ) ]

एम. एस. बोरा , आर्थिक अधिकारी (1) The Director General Bureau of Indian Standards , 9 , Bahadur Shah Zafir Marg.NewDelhi (2) TheDirector Bureau of Indian Standards Sector-34-A, Chandigarh

-Respondent

New Delhi , the4th June,2008 APPEARANCES:

Shri D. R. Kainth

Fortheworkinen

Shri G. C. Babber

For the management

AWARD

Passed on 16-5-2008 in LokAdalat

5.0, 1574. In pursuance of Section 17 ofthe in dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref No. 143/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribundr Labour Court.No.1, Chandigarh as shown in the bangero inthe IndustrialDispute between the management ern Railways, and their workman, which was received by theCentral Govemnent on 04-06-2008.

Central Govt. vide notification No. L-42012/ 162/2001/ IR(CM- II) dated 6-8-2002 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

[F. No. L-41011/39/ 1999- IR(B-1 ) ]

N. S. BORA, Econaink Officer "Whether the action ofthe Director General, Bureau of Indian Standards , New Delhi, and Director,

2263 G08-13 3262

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2008/ASADHA 7 , 1930

ANNEXURE

KEPORE SHRI GYANENDERA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM -LABOUR COURT- 1, CHANDIGARH

CASE No. LD. 143/2000

[PART I SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 205/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04-06-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [फा. सं. एल -12012/ 168/2002-आईआर( बी-1 ) ]

एन. एस. बोस, आर्थिक अधिकारी

-Applicant

TheDivisional Secretary,Uttar Railway, Karamchari Union, Ambala Division, A.C. Kapoor Ahata,Ambala Cantt.

Versus

TheDivisional RailwayManager,

NorthernRailway,

Ambels Cantt. (Haryana)

New Delhi, the 4th June,2008

-Respondent

APPEARANCES :

: None

Forthe workanen

None

For the management :

AWARD

Parsed on21-5-2008

Central Govt. vide notificationNo. 1-41011 /39/99/IR (B-1) dated24-03-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Ambala Cantt, in denying the undermentioned demands of Uttar Rallway Karamchari Union, Ambala Cantt., is just and legal?"

(1) 47workmen ofTelecommunication section ofNorthern Railway, Ambala Cantt. Listed in Annexure À may be given benefits of screening from the year 1980 instead of23-7-1990.

(2) Shri Bhajna son of Shri Hari Ram, gangman may be givenwages for the period 7-9-84to 7-2-87.

(3) Shri Ashok Kumar son of Shri Bal Mukand, gangman may be given wages for the period7-9-84 to7-2-87.

Ifnot to what relief the workmen are entitled ?" No one is present on behalf of the parties even after notice by this Tribunal and Union also fails to ensure their presence. Accordingly the reference is returned to the CentualGovt. for want ofprosecution by the Union. Central Govt,be informed. File be consigned to record.

Announced

GK. SHARMA, PresidingOfficer 21-05-08

नई दिल्ली , 4 जून , 2008

मा.आ. 1575.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक आफ $.0. 1575.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 205/ 2002) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government оп04-06-2008.

[F. No. L- 12012/168/2002 - IR(B- 1) ] N. S. BORA , Economic Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI A. N. YADAV PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM- LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No. 205/2002

Date28-05-2008 Shri Gopal S/ o Gendalalji Waghmare, Sweeper-cum-Waterman , Semadoh

Branch , Distt. Amravati.

PartyNo. 1

Versus

TheAsstt. General Manager , StateBank ofIndia, Zonal Office ,

PartyNo. 2 S.V. Patel Marg, Nagpur-440001

AWARD Passed on21-5-2008

The Central Government after satisfying the exist- ence of disputes between Shri Gopal S /o Gendalalji Waghmare, Sweper-cum - Waterman, Semadoh Branch , Distt. Amravati , Party No. 1 and The Asstt. General Man- ager, StateBank of India, Zonal Office, S. V. Patel Marg, Nagpur-440001 , PartyNo. 2 referred the same for adjudica- tion to this Tribunal vide its letter No. L-12012/168/2002- IR(B -1 ) dt. 22-11-2002 under clause (d) ofsub section ( 1 ) and sub section ( 2A) of Section 10 of ID Act with the following schedule.

(2)."Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India , Nagpur in awarding the punishment of dismissal to Shri Gopal Gendalalji Waghmare , Sweeper- cum-Waterman, Branch Semadoh, District Amravati w.e.f. 13-04-2001 is justified? Ifnot, what reliefthe said workman is engitled to?" [पल][ 1-3(日) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : खून 28 , 2008/ आपाड़ 7, 1930

AWARD

The Central Government after satisfying the existence of disputes between Smt. Sampdal Di Asstt. Cashier, S.B.I. Main Branch, Sector-1, Diani, D Durg(C.G.) , Party No. 1 and the General Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Sector-1, Bhilmi , Distt.Durg (C.G) , Party No. 2 referred the same for adjudication to thisTribunal vide its letter No. No. L- 1201295/2013- 1) dt. 28-08-2003 under clause (d) afab-estion ( ) : sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of 10 Act following schedule.

(3).The reference came for hearing on08-04-2008. The perusal of record shows that the petitioner is not attending theCourt from 02-01-2007. Infact both the parties have filed their Statement of Claim and the Written Statement respectively and the case was fixed for the affidavit ofthe petitioner . However from February,2007, nobody is appearing for the petitioner and he has not filed any affidavit. The counsel for the respondent fully fileda Pursis requesting to dismiss the reference since the petitioner is not attending the Court. The submissions of the counsel ofrespondent are correct. Hence it is dismissed for the default ofthe petitioner .Hence this Award.

A. N. YADAV,Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 4 जून , 2006

(2) "Whether the action ofthe management of Bank of India, in imposing the punishment of stoypage of one increment and non- payment ofwages for the perioder suspension from 09-04-2000 to 29-06-2000 of Sa Decosta, Assistant Cashier of the Main Drwich, Bit proper and justified? If not, what relief is the workama concerned entitled to?"

का.आ. 1576, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक आफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 225/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04-06-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[फा..सं. एल-12012/95/2003 -आईआर ( बी-1 ) ]

एन. एस. बोरा , आर्थिक अधिकारी

(3) The petitioner in response to the notice appeared and filedStatement of Claim. Similarly the management also filed its Written Statement. After filing thedocomo . the reference was fixed for filing an affidavit ofthe petitioner on15-06-2006. However the petitioner till 08-04-2008 dit not appear and file any affidavit or lead the evidence.It seems that he has no interest because he is not attending the Court and filing the affidavit. Hence the petition is dismissed for the default of the petitioner. The refer stands as dismissed. Hence this Award::

New Delhi, the 4th June, 2008

A. N. YADAV, Presiding Officer

नईदिल्ली, 4 जून , 2008

S.O. 1576 In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) the Central Goverament hereby publishes the award Ref. No. 225/2003 oftheCentral Government Industrial Triburial -cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the manage ment of State Bank ofIndia, and their wordkmen, which was received bythe Central Government on 04-06-2008.

[F. No. L- 12012/95/2003- IR(B-1) ]

का.आ. 1577,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (197 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्देिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार और अधिकरण , चण्डीगढ़ नं. के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 307/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04-06-2008 को संप्य हुआ था ।

N. S. BORA, EconomicOfficer

[फा. सं. एल-12012/160/2004- आईआर( 1 ) ] ANNEXURE

एन. एस. बोय , आर्थि

NewDelhi, the 4th June,2008

BEFORE SHRI A. N. YADAV PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

CaseNo. 225/2003

Date:28-05-2008

Shri Sahodri Decosta,

Asstt. Cashier, S.B.I. Main Branch, Sector- I, Bhilai, Distt. Durg(C.G.) PartyNo. 1

Versus

S.O. 1577. In pursuance ofSection 17 ofthe In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 307/ 2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -quran . Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India, and their workmen, which was received by the CentralGovernment on 04-06-2008.

TheGeneral Manager,

[F. No. L- 12012/160/2004-IR(B-1)] N.S. BORA, Economic Officer StateBank of India, MainBranch, Sector-I, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) PartyNo.2 3264

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7,1930

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDERA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOURCOURT- 1, CHANDIGARH

CaseNo. L. D. 307/2004

Shri SatParkash S/ o Hira Lal,

...Applicant Hargobind Colony, Chanu' Wala Road, Baghapurana, District Moga (Punjab)

Versus

TheAssistant General Manager , StateBank of India, Region-2, ZonalOffice , Ludhiana

.Respondent APPEARANCES :

For theworkman

Shri Raj Kaushik

Shri Ashok Khullar For the management

AWARD

Passed on 16-5-2008 in Lok Adalat

: Central Government vide notification No. L- 12012/ 160/2004/ IR(B-1) dated 16-11-2004has referred the follow- ing dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action ofthe management of State Bank of Indiain terminating the services ofShri Sat Parkash is legal and justified? If not to what reliefthe work- man.is entitled to ?"

[PART II SEC.3 ( ii) ] के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1 , ताम्हीगढ़ के संकट ( संदर्भ संख्या 125/89 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-6-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[फा. सं एल-42012/138/88 -डी- II (वी ) ]

सुरेना सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 5th June, 2008

S.O. 1578.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 125/89) CentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court No. 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Apnexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Salal Hydro Electric Projest and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on5-6-2008 .

[F.No. L-42012/138/88- [D- 1] (B) ]

SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDERA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM -LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH

CaseNo. 1. D. 125/1999

TheGeneral Secretary,

NHPC StaffAssociation ,

Applicant SHEP , Jyotipuram

The present reference was made by the Central Government on the failure ofconciliation proceedings for adjudication ofthe matter referred in the schedule referred aboveand theworkman prayed for declaring the action of the management as illegal and invalid and for reinstatement in service with continuity of service with full back wages .

The management turned up and opposes this application .

Versus

TheExecutive Director,

Respondent Salal Hydro Elect . Project, Jyotipuram

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Asperoffice memorandum dated 30-4-08 , this case was fixed in pre Lok Adalat meeting on 16-5-08 for its disposal by adopting the mediation and conciliation mechanism. With the efforts of the Tribunal the workman agreedtowithdraw his reference . It is proposed to dispose offthis reference in Lok Adalat.Accordingly the reference is returnedto the Central Government as settled in Lok Adalat. Central Governmentbe informed. File be consigned torecord.

Announced

16-508

G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 5 जून , 2008

का.आ. 1578, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सलाल हाइड्रो इलेक्ट्रिक प्रोजेक्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों

: Shri I.S. Sidhu, Advocate

: Shri V.K.Gupta

For the management

AWARD

Passed on 21-5-2008

The Central Government vide its order No. L-42012/ 138/88/D.11 (B) dated 3rd August, 1989 referred this industrial disputes for judicial adjudication to this Tribunal. The nature ofreference, as referred by the Central Government is:-

"Whether the action of the management of Salal Hydro Electric Project, Jyotipuram representedby Executive Director in terminating the services of Sh . Ashwani Kumar , Draftsman w.e.f. 12-3-84 is justified? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

After receiving this reference this Tribunal afforded the opportunity to the workman , Sh . Ashwani Kumar [पन - चन्द्र ( ii) ]

Chandals, and the Management to present their respective clelns and written statements.

The workman alleged in his statement of claim that he proceeded on earned leave duly sanctionedby the AppropriateAuthority, from 6-2-84 to 9-3-84 suffixing 10th and 11th of March, 1984. Thereafter, he fell ill and laformation about his sickness was given to the Prescribed Authority. After facing a long illness, on recovery, he reported to the duty on 30-10-85 along with a Medical Certificate, but the Management refined to take him in duty in ground ofunauthorized absent . The Management ilegally placed him under suspension on20-12-85.Hewas charge-sheeted on 17-1-86 and after holding the enquiry, against the Principle of Natural Justice, was terminated from the service on 16-10-86 w.e.f. 12-3-84. He preferred an appeal against the termination order and his appeal was dismissed on 6-11-86. He was not given an appropriate opportunity ofhewing. Se many Enquiry Officers were changed without say reason because the Management wanted the enquiry report of its choice. Against his objection, the Enquiry Officer kept on changing. It has alsoallegedby workman in his statement of claim that the inquiry conducted by the Management and the punishment givento him is illegal and against the Principle ofNatural Justiceus the enquiry was conducted under the rules not applicable totheworkman.

The Management, through the wrruen statement deniedall theallegations and alleged that full opportunity of hearingwas afforded to the workman. His absence from the duty from 12-2-84was unauthorized and he was rightlyplaced under suspension and after holding an enquiry was rightly terminated from the service. The Medical Certificates which were providedby the workman are fictitious, false andhave been fabricated just to justify the unauthorized absent.

On the basis ofthe pleadings ofparties, this Tribunal also afforded the opportunity to adduce evidence . Affidavits were filed by both of the parties . Cross- examination was also conducted and after hearing the arguments the file was reserved for award.

Instead ofpassing the award proceedings vide order dated 27-4-01 passed an order quashing the enquiry proceedings and the report of EnquiryOfficer for the reason that itwas inviolation ofthe Principle ofNatural Justice as conducted underthe different set ofrules not applicable to theworkman. This Tribunal, vide order dated 27-4-01, was also kind enough to bold that enquiry shall be made bry thisTribunal .Accordingly both of the parties were directed to submit the list of witnesses and the documents in support of the charge labelled against the workman. This Tribunal specifically directed the Management to prove themisconduct of the workman and it was also ordered that at the appropriate stage the workman shall have the right to subenit list of the witnesses and documents in advance.

3265:

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28, 2008/ आमाद 7 , 1930

Itwillbe appropriate to mention that the order dated: 27-4-01, passed by this Tribunal is final and acted uponby the parties as such.

Accordingly, the evidence of the parties was recorded afresh and after hearing the arguhonts the file was reserved once again for the award. The main questions forthe determination of this Tribunal are:-

(1 ) Whether the workman has committed any misconduct byunauthorized absent for theperiod from 12-3-84 to29-10-857

(2) Whether the Medical Certificates dated 13-3-84 as given by Doctor Brij Lal Raghubanaki and Medical Certificate given by Doctor B.S.Nenda are false and fabricated ?

(3) Whether the Medical Certificates providedbythe workman are sufficient to justify the absence of theworkman for the period in question ?

The learned counsel for the workman bus argued that the workmani has submitted two Medical Certificates whichjustified his absence from duty for the alleged period. It was the Management to prove that these Medical Certificates are false and fabricated. TheManagement has not proved this fact. Thus, in absence of the evidence of the Management for not proving the Medical Certificates to be fictitious , these Medical Certificates shallbe considered as genuine and accordingly, the punishment oftermination from the service is liable tobe quaabed.On theother hand, the legal representative ofthe Managemont has argued that procedure for extension of leave on medical grounds is verywell giving in Certified StandingOrdersof theManagement and the workman remain absent against theviolation ofthe rules relating to leave and extension of leave. It has also been argued by learned logal representative of the Management that the Medical Certificates provided by the workman to the Management are not genulne being filed against the rules relating to the leaves.

Firstly, I will discuss the two Medical Certificates given by workman to the Management. The first Medical Certificatedated13-3-86 given by Dr. Brij Lal Raghubanshi isas follows-

"I certify that Sh . Ashwani Kumar S/o Mulchand is suffering from fever. He is under my trestment today the 13-3-84. I advice him to take rest up to his recovery" .

The another certificate is given by Dr. B.S. Nanda in which he certified that Sh . Ashwani Kumar Chandala was advicemedical rest for Limbago from 15-2-84 to 30-10-85. He is medically fit to resume duties on 31-10-85. The fiting ofboth ofthese Medical Certificates is admitted to beth ' thepartiesbut their genuineness and contents are disputed. I have gone through the evidence ofparties. Considering 3266

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7 , 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

an Orthopaedic diseases named as Lumbago, the disease of the backbone .

the natures ofproceedings before this Tribunal , it will not be proper to write down the evidence but to apply the evidence while determining any fact is issue.

Hehas not filed any prescription for the advice given by the Doctor or the X- ray plate to justify his say for suffering the Orthopaedic desease.

After considering the evidence in this regard and considering the nature ofMedical Certificates, I am of the view that the certificate of Doctor Brij Lal Raghubanshi dated13-3-84 , lacks on three counts-

(1) Uncertainty ofperiod for taking restjust for fever, whereas specific period of rest, as per rule, is required to be given.

(2) For wants of the signature of the workman in the presenceoftheDoctor.

(3) Want ofproving the genuineness ofthe certificate bytheDoctor.

So far as an another Medical Certificate (in fact it is a Fitness Certificate) is concerned, in the opinion of this tribunal after considering the entire evidence on the record, It lacks on the following counts:-

It is true that the Management has to prove the misconduct for unauthorized absent absent but when the absent from the service for a long time ( about 600 days) is admitted and the certificates filed by the workman are challengd on the ground of genuinesness, it becames the duty of the workman to show the circumstances which compelled him to remain absent from the duty. The compelling circumstances to remain absent are the special facts within the knowledge of the workman and certainly workmanhas to satisfy the Tribunal , about the reasons for notjoining the duty. In the opinion of this Tribunal , it will notbe proper to direct the Management to prove those special circumstances , which compelled the workman to remain absent from the duty and are within the knowledge of the workman. Once the Management disputed the genuineness and authenticity of the Medical Certificates , it was the duty of the workman and it was open to the workman to prove that the Certificates he has filed are genuine and the remain absent from the duty for a reasonable and bonafide cause .

(1) The date of issuance of the certificate is not mentioned. It is only declared that Sh . Ashwani Kumar Chandala is fit to resurne duty on 31-10-85, whereas, as per the pleadings and the evidence of the workman , he reportedto the duty on 30-10-85 itself. Thus, on what date the certificate was issued is not clear.

(2) For wants of signature of the workman in the presence ofthe Medical Practitioner .

Furthermore, this Tribunal has also to determine whether these two certificates are sufficient to extend the leavefor go for the medical leave as per the rules . It is admitted to both of the parties that the Certified Standing Orders apply for regulation ofleave . I will like to mention rule 16.1 regarding nature of leave, which is as follows:-

(3) From the perusal of this Certificate it is not clear whether Sh . Ashwani Kumar Chandala was under the treatment ofthis Medical Practitioner Doctor B.S.Nanda for the disease of Lumbago.

"Leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right . The sanctioning authority shall have the discretion to refuse, revoke and curtail leave at anytime depending upon the exigencies of work , even though the leave has been sanctioned and the workman has proceeded on leave".

(4) From the Medical Certificate it is evident that the Medical Practitioner who was having expertise in heart and mental diseases advised the workman forthe medical rest for Lumbago .

(5) The genuineness of the certificate has not been provedbytheDoctor.

This shows that the leave cannot be baken as an absolute right and are subjected to the discretion of the sanctioning authority. Rule 16.6 of Certified Standing Orders is as follows :-

(6) The workman has not filed any prescription for the advice given by the Doctor or the X-ray plate tojustify his say for suffering the Orthopaedic disease.

Itis thedutyofthis Tribunal to discuss on the burder ofproof regarding the genuineness of these documents. It is true that vide order dated 27-4-01 , the Management was directed by this Tribunal to prove the misconduct of the workman on the ground of unauthorized absent . The period ofabsent is admitted to both ofthe parties that Sh . Ashwani Kumar was absent for the alleged period . To prove his absence as bonafide , he has moved two Medical Certificates for the overlapping period claiming for suffering

" In case of leave on medical grounds , a workman shall submit along with the leave application a certificate from the Medical Officer Incharge of the Project. If there is noMedicalOfficer Incharge, the Certificate of a Government Doctor/Registered Medical Practitioner will also be accepted. In case the workman happens to be outside, he can submit a certificate from Medical Officer Incharge of GovernmentDispensary /Hospital ofthat place. If there is no suchGovernment hospital/Dispensary, he may produce a certificate from Registered Medical Practitioner . The Management may , in its discretion , ask the workman to get himselfexamined from any other doctor." 3267 [चाग ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28 , 2008/ आपाड़ 7, 1930

= Rule 16.7 is regarding the extension of leave on medical grounds which reads as under:

leave in different mode then mentioned in the rules. From the evidence ofthe workman , no such circumstanceshave been proved. Thus , the telegrams , the simple document send by the workman , no doubt can be treated as an application under the compelling circumstances , are not sufficient for the extension of leaves under the circumstances ofthis case.

"Ifextension of leave is applied on medical grounds and the workman is away from headquarter during the leave, he shall submit bis application alongwith the Medical Certificate from the Medical Officer of a Government Dispensary or Hospital or a Registered Medical Practitiioner. The Medical Certificate must always specify theday forwhich extension is recommended. In such cases, the managementwillhave the right to require the workman tosubmit himselffor examination by a Civil Surgeon and submit a sickness certificate from the Civil Surgeon within specified period. The expenses incurred in making fees and traveling shall be reimbursed to the workman by the Management. Failure on the part ofthe workman tocomply with these instructions will result in the workinan being treated absent without permission."

As the entire enquiry has been quashed by the Tribunal it is not proper to go behind to discuss the charge- sheet and other part of the enquiry proceedings . This Tribunal has conducted the enquiry itself. So , it will be proper to go through the evidence and the relevant documents placed before this Tribunal after order dated 27-4-01 . But this Tribunal is at liberty to look into the circumstances which are not the part of the enquiry proceedings, and are beyond the period of order dated 27-4-01 . There is sufficient material on record that even before initiating the enquiry, the Management afforded the opportunityto the workman tojoin the office. Letters dated 23-4-84 and 28-8-85 which are said to be sent by registered post to the workman by Management and the copy of the postal receipts and the copy of the relevant registerhaving the entry ofthese letters are also on record, proved that management afforded the opportunity tojoin theofficeto the workman. Thus , the wurkman was afforded the opportunity to join the ' service or to show the compelling circumstances for notjoining the office, buthe failed.Apart from it, adequate opportunity by this Tribunal , was given to the workman to prove the compelling circumstances preventing him to join the duty, but he failed to prove any circumstances. ".

Iftheaboverules are applied in the present case, it is clear that the workmen was on sanctioned earned leave from6-2-84 to9-3-84 with permission to affix the holidays which were 10th and 11th of March, 1984, Thereafter, as admitted to the management he sends some telegrams regarding extension of leave on medical grounds . These documents are on record and admittedly have been send bythe brother of the workman and not by him personally. Whereas , Rule 16.7 requires a special procedure to be followed for getting the leave extended. It also requires & Medical Certificate of a particular Medical Officer which was not provided by the workman. The workanen , in spite of the opportunity afforded by this Tribunal has also not shown the circumstances under which he could not file a Medical Certificate of a particular Medical Officer and in a particular manner as required by Rule 16.7.

It is true that this Tribunal has to confine itself fer this case only, but I will not hesitate to mention that discipline and work culture are the backbone of any organization . It is duty ofevery workman/ official / officer to maintain the discipline and be loyal for the work depster! tohim. Itwillbe the real service to the people of India.

Thus, for the reasons mentioned below, I am ofthe view that there is no justification for the absence of the workman from his duty from the period 12-3-84 tp 30-10-85:-

(1) The workman has not applied for the extension of leave as per rules applicabletohim.

Itla the dutyofthe Tribunal to implement the scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which is very well clear from the Objects and Reasons ofthe Act. The scheme oftheAct is for making provision for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes and for certain other purposes. Certain other purposes, in my opinion , includes toprotect the interest of the workman against the arbitrary and illegal actions of the Management. But the scheme , on the other hand, never protects the illegal actions and the misconduct ofthe workman . As per the Principle ofNatural Justice also no benefit should be given to the party forhis own wrong.

(2) The workman has utterly failed to show and prove thecircumstances compelling for his absence from the duty for the period in question.

On perusal on the entire records, it is evident that theworkmanwas permitted by the Prescribe Authorityto remain on leave up to 11-3-84, Thereafter , ifthe workman wanted the extension of leave, he should have applied through the roles applicable to the parties. Ifhe was unable toapply through the procedure mentioned in the rules, he must have proved before this Tribunal the compelling circucutances underwhich he applied for the extension of

(3) TheMedical Certificate providedby theworkmet, as stated earlier, are not genuine and cannotbe treated as the compelling circumstances for the workmantojustify his absence from the duty for the period in question.

i 3268

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2008/ ASADHA 7, 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] (4) No medical prescription has been filed by the workmanto show that he was suffering with such a disease which prevents him to join the duty.

workman . In my view the punishment to the workman , оп applying the scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, depends on the following factors:

(1) The nature ofmisconduct committed and proved.

(2) The circumstances under which the misconduct was committed .

(3) The affect of misconduct on the discipline and work culture ofthe organization.

(4) Last, but note the least expectations ofthe people from the workman of the Central Government.

Ifthe above factors are taking into consideration for the miscomduct committed by the workınan , I am of the view that for more than 600 days the workman remains absent from the office unauthorizely which is in my opinion amisconduct of highest degree.

(5) Being a Government servant he has got a right to get his expenses incurred on his treatment reimbursed from the Management . But as per the evidence, he has not even apply for reimburse meant of the medical claim . Rule 25 of Medical Attendance Rules of the corporation prescribe the procedure for reimbursement of the medical claim . It is beyond my imagination that the workman who is suffering from the disease like Lumbago, is treated for a long time (about 600 days) but he is not having any prescription relating to his diagnosis and treatment, Moreover, in a natural cause , a man ofprudent who is a workman will certainly claim the amount incurred by him on his treatment from theManagement .

The opening words of the Preamble of the Constitution of India "We the people" indicates that everyworkmanhas some accountability toward the people of India . The minimum expectation of the people is that every workman, except in the exceptional circumstances must work in the office.Absent from work almost 600 days withoutany reason is in violation ofaspiration of the people of India affecting the discipline and work culture of the organization.

(6) Surprisingly, a Doctor who is not specialist in the disease Lumbago has treated the workman at his risk . Dr. Nanda, specialist in Mental and Heart disease has giving a certificate regarding the Lumbago disease to the workman. Moreover, certificate given by Dr. Nanda is just a fitness certificate and not for the extension of the leave or for permitting the workman to remain absent for the period in question.

Thus , there should be no leniency in awarding punishmentto the non - functional workman who absented for almost 600 days from the office without any cause . After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and going through the provisions of law as propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court and the High Courts in this regad, I am of the view that only justifiable punishment to the workman is his termination from the service .

Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned above, this Tribunal ordered the termination from the service of the workman from the date of unauthorized absent .

Let the reference be returned to the Central Government as disposed off after affording the opportunity of being heard to the parties. Central Government be informed accordingly. Consign the record.

G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 5 जून , 2008

The above circumstances are sufficient to prove that the workman remain absent from duty from 12-3-84 to 30-10-85 without the authority of law. Accordingly, in the said period his absent was unauthorized which is a misconduct . On the basis of above observation alone, the misconduct is proved . Moreover, one more circumstance exists before this Tribunal which is shown by the letter of S.S.P. of Ropar that the workman also visited abroad for few days . The Management could not collect the material showing his visit to the abroad without permission . But the letter of Superintendent of Police cannot be ignored at all in which he has mentioned that through secret information it is certain that the workman has visited a Foreign Nation for few days . It is another circumstance which add to prove the misconduct of a workman who was willfully absent from the duty and has visited abroad .

Accordingly the misconduct of the workman is proved in the enquiry conducted by the Tribunal .

का,आ. 1579.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डाक विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद मे औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय भीलवाड़ा के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 171/01 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-6-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था । Now, I have an occasion to discuss , about the punishment required to be given to the workman . At the cost of repetition , this Tribunal vide order dated 27-4-01 has quashed the enquiry and the enquiry proceedings which includes the punishment given to the workman . I am not discussing the consequences of the order but discussing afresh about the punishment to be given to the

[फा, सं. एल-40012/99/2001- आई आर. ( डी.यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्कअधिकारी [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

NewDelhi, the 5th June,2008

S.O. 1579.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court, Bhilwara as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Post and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-6-2008.

3269

भारत का राजपत्र जून 28 , 2008/ आषाढ़ 7, 1930

[F.No. L-40012/99/2001 - IR (DU)]

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

अनुबन्ध

श्रम न्यायालय , भीलवाड़ा ( राज. )

पीठासीन अधिकारी- सुश्री उषा अग्रवाल , आर.एच.जे.एस. श्रम विवाद प्रकरण संख्या 171/01 के अधीन वायरमेन के पद पर आउट साईडर बालेसरिया ( बी.ओ. रायला ग्राम ) में दिनांक 2-2-98 से 7-2-2000 तक निरंतर एवं नियमित रूप से कार्य किया । प्रार्थी श्रमिक ने प्रत्येक कलेंडर वर्ष में 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य दिवसों तक विपक्षी के अभीर कार्य किया । इस प्रकार धारा 25 ( बी ) के तहत यसका नियमित नियोजन रहा है । दिनांक 7-2-2000 के बाद से उसे कार्य पर लेने से इनकार कर दिया तथा बिना कोई जांच कार्यवाही संस्थित किये , बिना कोई कारण बतायें प्रार्थी को सेवा पृथक कर दिया । इस प्रकार विपक्षी ने औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम एवं उसके अंतर्गत आज्ञापक प्रावधानों की पालना नहीं की । प्रार्थी श्रमिक के स्थान पर विपक्षी ने अन्य को नौकरी में रुख रखा है । दिनांक 7-2-2000 को अन्य व्यक्ति का चयन कर नियुक्ति प्रदान की गई जो अवैध होकर शून्य है । प्राथी का यह भी कथन है कि वह सेवा समाप्ति के बाद से ही बेरोजगार घाला आ रहा है । प्रार्थी श्रमिक ने समस्त वेतन परिलाभों सहित पुनः पूर्व पद पर नियोजित करवाने की प्रार्थना की ।

....प्रार्थी/ श्रमिक

श्री रफीक खान पठान पुत्र श्री कमरूदीन पठान निवासी- बनेड़ा , जिला-भीलवाड़ा

बनाम

अधीक्षक, पोस्ट आफिस, भीलवाड़ा डिवीजन ,

...विपक्षी/नियोजक

भीलवाड़ा

उपस्थित

-प्रार्थी की ओर से

श्री आर.सी. चैचाणी, अधिवक्ता

-विपक्षी की ओर से

श्री सी.पी. तिवाडी, अधिवक्ता

पंचाट

दिनांक 10-4-08

1. भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय द्वारा आदेश दिनांक 28-6-01 के तहत औद्योगिक विवाद अधि, 1947 की धारा 10 ( 1 ) ( ग ) के तहत निम्न विवाद इस न्यायालय को अधिनिर्णयार्थ प्रषित किया गया:-

"Whether the action of the Supdt. Post Office, BhilwaraDivision, Bhilwara in terminating the service ofSh. Rafeeq Khan Pathan S'o Sh . Kamuruddin Pathan w.e.f. 2-2-2000 is legal and justified ? If not what reliefthe workman concern is entitled to ?" 2. उपर्युक्तानुसार विवाद दिनांक 1-8-01 को प्राप्त होने पर क्रम सं. 171/01 पर दर्ज हुआ तथा पक्षकारान को सूचित किया गया। 3. इस प्रकरण का निस्तारण इस न्यायालय द्वारा पंचाट दिनांक 31-12-04 से कर दिया गया था , लेकिन माननीय राज. उच्च न्यायालय जोधपुर ने आदेश दिनांक 11-9-06 में निर्देश दिया कि रेफरेन्स में सेवा पृथककरण. दिनांक 2-2-2000 के स्थान पर दिनांक 7-2-2000 प्रतिस्थापित कर रेफरेन्स को नये सिरे से निर्णित किया जाये -जिस पर इस न्यायालय द्वारा प्रकरण की पुनः सुनवाई की गई।

4. प्रार्थी श्रमिक की ओर से दिनांक18-1-07 को संशोधित स्टेटमेंट आफ क्लेम प्रस्तुत कर प्रकट किया गया कि प्रार्थी ने विपक्षी 2263 GI/08-14

5. दिनांक 22-3-07 को विपक्षी नियोजक की ओर से जवाब प्रस्तुत कर प्रकट किया गया कि विपक्षी विभाग में दो तरह के कर्मचारी नियोजित हैं-1 . विभागीय कर्मचारी 2. ग्रामीण डाक सेवक । ग्रामीण डाक सेवक नियमित केन्द्रीय कर्मचारी न होकर केवल अंशकालीन तौर पर लगाये जम्ते हैं । इन दोनों तरह के कर्मचारियों के लिए अलग-अलग सेवा नियमावली उपलब्ध है। प्रार्थी को विभिन्न समयावधि में विभिन्न पदों पर विभिन्न यूनिट इंचार्ज के अधीनं वैकल्पिक व्यवस्था के तौर पर तथा कार्यरत कर्मचारियों के अवकाश के दौरान डाक व्यवस्था बनाये रखने के लिए लगाया गया । जिसके भत्तों के भुगतान की स्वीकृति विभिन्न अंतरालों में जारी की गई थी। प्रार्थी को मात्र अल्पकालीन रिक्ति पर ढांक व्यवस्था सुचारू बनाये रखने के लिए लगाया गया था जिसका विवरण निम्न है। अ. भीलवाड़ा मुख्य डाक घर में डाकपाल के अधीनस्थ दिनांक 10-2-98 से 23-10-98 तक प्रार्थी को आठट साईडर वायरमेन के पद पर लगाया गया।

च. श्री सरदार सिंह , डाक वाहक लेबर कालोनी, भीलवाड़ा, के द्वारा दिनांक 10-11-98 से छुट्टी का आवेदन किया तथा प्रार्थी को एवजी के रूप में श्री सरदार सिंह की जिम्मेदारी पर निरीक्षक, डाकघर पूर्व भीलवाड़ा द्वारा दिनांक 14-6-99 तक लगाया गया ।

स. दिनांक 25-6-99 से 27-6-99 तक श्री रामनाथ सिंह, ग्रुप द कर्मचारी , भीलवाड़ा कोर्ट के आकस्मिक अवकाश पर जाने से इनकी जगह पर प्रार्थी ने एवजी के तौर पर कार्य किया । जिसके यूनिटं इंचार्ज सहायक अक्षीक्षक , डाकघर पश्चिम भीलवाड़ा थे। द. इसी प्रकार दिनांक 5-7-99 से 7-2-2000 तक शाखा डाकपाल वालेसरिया ( रायला गांव ) की मृत्यु हो जाने से प्रार्थी को काम चलाऊ व्यवस्था के तौर पर अस्थायी रूप से लगाया गया। अविभागीय शाखा डाकपालन के पद की पूर्ति हेतु आवेदन मांगे गये थे । जिसमें प्रार्थी ने भी आवेदन किया , लेकिन प्रार्थी उपयुक्त नहीं पाया गया तथा वहां उपयुक्त एवं योग्य आदमी को लगाया गया । प्रार्थी श्रमिक ने दिनांक 10-2-98 से 7-2-2000 तक निरंतर कार्य नहीं 3270

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7, 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

7. बहस उभयपक्ष सुनी। उभयपक्ष की ओर से लिखित बहस भी पेश की गई । पत्रावली का ध्यानपूर्वक अवलोकन किया गया ।

8. प्रार्थी द्वारा दिनांक 31-12-03 को साक्ष्य स्वरूप अपनः किया, बल्कि इन्होंने विभिन्न समय में अलग- अलग यूनिट इंचार्ज के अधीन डाक व्यावस्था पनाये रखने के लिए आवश्यकतानुसार कार्य किया था। प्रार्थी ने विभिन्न समयावधि में विभिन्न पदों पर भिन्न-भिन्न यूनित अभारी व अश्रीज निम्न कार्य किया।

1.10-2-98 से 23-10-98 तक आऊट साईडर वायरमेन भीलवाड़ा मुख्य डाकघर के पद पर कार्य किया ।

শিন 10-11-98 से 14-6-99 तक जीडीएस एम सी लेबर कालो वोलनाला के पद पर छुट्टी व्यवस्था में ऐवजी के तौर पर कार्य किया।

स. दिनांक 25-6-99 से 27-6-99 तक ग्रुप द भीलवाड़ा कोर्ट के पद पर छु‌ट्टी व्यवस्था के दौरान कार्य किया ।

६. ग्रामीण डाक सेवक शाखा डाकपाल बालेसरिया ( रायला गांत्र ) की मृत्यु के कारण दिनांक 5-7-99 से 7-2-2000 तक डाक व्यवस्था बनाये रखने के लिए वैकल्पिक व्यवस्था के तौर पर कार्य

उपरोक्तानुसार प्रार्थी ने किसी भी पद पर निरंतर रूप से एक ही यूनिट इंचार्ज के अधीन 240 दिन तक निरंतर कार्य नहीं किया। सभी पदों पर अलग- अलग नियमावली सेवा शर्ते लागू हैं । अतः प्रार्थी धारा 25 ( बी ) के अनुसार कोई लाभ प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है। माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा प्रकरण सं. सिविल अपील सं. 3385/86 1996 एसएलपी 587-588 वर्ष 1992 में दिये गये निर्णय के अनुसार डाक विभाग में कार्यरत कर्मचारी औद्योगिक विवाद अधि. के तहत नहीं आते हैं । प्रार्थी को किसी पद पर नियुक्त नहीं किया गया था , अतः एक माह का नोटिस अथवा वेतन भत्तों का भुगतान मुआवजा आदि देने का कोई प्रावधान नहीं है। प्रार्थी ने दिनांक 10-2-98 से 7-2-2000 तक विभिन्न पदों पर अवकाश अवधि में वैकल्पिक तौर पर एवजी के रूप में डाक व्यवस्था को सुचारू बनाये रखने के लिए विभिन्न यूनिट इंचार्ज के अधीन अंशकालीन बतौर कार्य किया था, अतः उनका किसी पद पर नियुक्ति का अधिकार नहीं बनता है। माननीय कर्नाटक उच्च न्यायालय के रिट पिटीशन नं. 21331-333/2000 में दिनांक 18-8-01 को दिये निर्णय के अनुसार अवकाश अवधि के दौरान अथवा अंशकालीन डाक व्यवस्था बनाये रखने हेतु बाह्य व्यक्ति नियुक्ति का अधिकारी नहीं है । बालेसरिया ( रायला गांव ) ईडीबी पीएम पद के लिए अन्य के अलावा प्रार्थी का भी आवेदन प्राप्त हुआ, लेकिन प्रार्थी का उक्त पद पर चयन नहीं होने से प्रार्थी ने न्यायालय में बाद दायर कर दिया। प्रार्थी से योग्य व्यक्ति उपलब्ध होने से उसे नियुक्ति दे दी गई । योग्य एवं उपयुक्त व्यक्ति को ईडीबीपीएम पद पर दिनांक 8-2-2000 को नियुक्ति दे दी गई। जो नियमित रूप से कार्य कर रहा है । प्रार्थी श्रमिक का स्टेटमेंट आफ क्लंम निरम्मत करने की प्रार्थना की गई ।

शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत किया था। जिसमें उल्लेख किया गया कि 2-2-98 से प्रार्थी ने विपक्षी के यहां वायरमेन के पद पर कार्य किया । उसने 2-2-98 से 2-2-2000 तक निरंतर एवं नियमित रूप से कार्य किया । विपक्षी नियोजक ने दिनांक 2-2-2000 के बाद से बिना किसी समुचित कारण के प्रार्थी को ड्यूटी पर रखने से इनकार कर दिया। विपक्षी ने ऐसा करने से पूर्व उसे एक माह का सूचना पत्र अथवा इसके एवज में एक माह के वेतन की राशि अदा नहीं की। विपक्षी ने छंटनी मुआवजा राशि भी अदा नहीं की । प्रार्थी का शपथपत्र में यह भी कथन है कि उसने वायरमैन पद के कार्य के अतिरिक्त मेंपिओन व ई.डी. (डाक वाहक ) तथा ब्रांच पोस्ट मास्टर के पद के कार्य विपक्षी नियोजक के आदेशानुसार संपादित किये । विपक्षी ने मुझे सेवा से हटाने के बाद उक्त पद पर अन्य व्यक्तियों को कार्य पर रख लिया किन्तु मुझे सेना का कोई अवसर प्रदान नहीं किया। विपक्षी के द्वारा सेवा पृथक करने के बाद से मैं बेरोजगार चला आ रहा हूं तथा मुझे कोई लाभपूर्ण नियोजन प्राप्त नहीं हुआ । मेरी उपरोक्त वर्णित सेला अवधिमें मुझ प्रार्थी से जिन जिन पदों का कार्य कराया वे सभी विपक्षी के यहां स्थायी प्रकृति के कार्य हैं तथा पद रिक्त होने से विपक्षी ने मुझे प्रार्थी से उपरोक्त पदों पर नियुक्त कर कार्य लिया। विपक्षी ने उनके यहांनियुक्ति हेतु उसे सर्वप्रथम जो पत्र भेजा उसकी प्रति प्रदर्श । है । इसके आधार पर मुझे शाखा पोस्ट मास्टर के पद पर नियुक्त नहीं कर वायरमेन के पद पर कार्य हेतु रखा जिसके लिए विपक्षी ने मुझसे एक प्रार्थना पत्र लिखवा कर लिया जिसकी प्रति प्रदर्श 2 है । मेरी सेवा अवधि के दौरान विपक्षी द्वारा आदेशित विभिन्न कार्यों के लिए समय- समय पर सामान उपलब्ध कराने की आवश्यकता हुई जिसके लिए मैंने विपक्षी को लिखित में प्रार्थना पत्र दिये व उन पर विपक्षी की ओर से स्वीकृति प्रदान की गई तथा कई मर्तबा विपक्षी ने लिखित में आदेश देकर मुझ प्रार्थी से कार्य संपादित कराये । ऐसे पत्रों , आदेशों व स्वीकृतियों की प्रतियां प्रदर्श 3 से प्रदर्श 16 है । मेरे कार्य से विपक्षी अथवा अन्य अधिकारियों अथवा सहकर्मियों को कभी भी किसी तरह की शिकायत नहीं हुई । दिनांक 2-2-98 से 26-10-98 तक आऊट साईडर वायरमेन के अच्छे कार्य बाबत विपक्षी द्वारा दिया गया प्रमाणपत्र प्रदर्श 17 है । दिनांक 10-11-98 से 14-6-99 तक डाक बाहक लेबर कोलोनी , भीलवाड़ा के पद पर तथा दिनांक 25-6-99 से 28-6-99 तक ग्रुप डी भीलवाडा कोर्ट डाकघर में आउट साईडर के पद पर तथा दिनांक 5-7-99 से 7-2-2000 तक अविभागीय शास्त्रा पोस्ट मास्टर बालेसरिता के पद पर कार्य कराना विपक्षी ने अपने जवाब में स्वीकार किया है । विपक्षी ने औद्योगिक विवाद अधि. के आदेशात्मक प्रावधानों की पालना किये बिना मुझे सेवा से पृथक किया है । ऐसी स्थिति में मैं अपने पूर्व पद पर समस्त लाभों सहित पूर्व सेवा की निरंतरता में पुनः नियोजित होने का अधिकारी हूं । विपक्षी द्वारा दिनांक 18-5-2004 को प्रार्थी से जिरह की गई । जिरह में प्रार्थी का

कथन है कि मैंने दिनांक 2-2-98 से 2-2-2000 तक हेड पोस्ट 6. दिनांक 23-5-07 की आदेशिका के अनुसार प्रार्थी के अधिवक्ता ने जाहिर किया कि प्रार्थी के पूर्व के बयानों को अंगीकार करते हैं। तुथा और कोई साक्ष्य पेश नहीं करना चाहते। प्रार्थी की साक्ष्य के खंडन में विपक्षी की ओर से मोहम्मद हनीफ का शपथ पत्र पेश किया गया। जिससे प्रार्थी की ओर से जिरह की गई ।

आफिस में कार्य किया । यह गलत है कि मुझे अस्थायी तौर पर 3271 [ भाग -खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28, 2008/आषाढ़ 7 , 1930

(ब ) दिनांक 10-11-98 से 14-6-99 तक जीडीएस एम सी लेबर कोलोनी, भीलवाड़ा के पद पर छुट्टी व्यवस्था में एवजी के तौर पर कार्य किया ।

(स) दिनांक 25-6-99 से 27-6-99 तक ग्रुप द भीलवाड़ा कोर्ट के पद पर छु‌ट्टी व्यवस्था के दौरान कार्य किया ।.

वैकल्पिक आधार पर रखा हो । मुझे प्रार्थना पत्र लेकर स्थायी रखा था । मुझे रख्खा तव पोस्ट थी । विभाग में अभी वायरमेन की पोस्ट है यानहीं मुझे पता नहीं । मुझसे वायरमेन से हटाने के बाद मेन पिओन व डाक वाइक को कार्य करवाया था । यह गलत है कि उक्त कार्य विभाग में टेम्परेरी आदमी करते हों । मैं वायरमेन पद से हटाने के बाद दूसरे काम पर बाहर गया । मैंने अधिकारी के आदेश की पालना की इस लिए वायरमेन के अलावा अन्य कार्य भी किया ।

(द) ग्रामीण डाक सेवक शाखा डाकपाल बालेसरिया की मृत्यु के कारण दिनांक 5-7-99 से 7-2-2000 तक डाक व्यवस्था बनाये रखने के लिए वैकल्पिक व्यवस्था के तौर पर कार्य किया । '

उपरोक्तानुसार किसी भी पद पर निरंतर रूप से एक ही यूनिट 9. विपक्षी की ओर से मोहम्मद हनीफ पुत्र श्री नूर मोहम्मद , अअधीक्षक , डाकघर, भीलवाड़ा एवं मामला प्रभारी अधिकारी ने साक्ष्य स्वरूप दिनांक 6-6-07 को शपथपत्र प्रस्तुत कर बयान किया कि भारत सरकार के डाक विभाग में दो तरह के कर्मचारी नियोजित हैं- पहला, विभागीय कर्मचारी व दूसरा , ग्रामीण डाक सेवक । ग्रामीण डाक सेवक नियमित केन्द्रीय कर्मचारी न होकर केवल अंशकालीन तौर पर लगाये जाते हैं । इन दोनों तरह के कर्मचारियों के लिए अलग-अलग सेवा नियमावली उपलब्ध है । प्रार्थी रफीक खां पठान कोविभिन्न समयावधि में विभिन्न पदों पर विभिन्न यूनिट इंचार्ज के अधीन वैकल्पिक व्यवस्थान के तौर पर तथाकार्यरत कर्मचारियों के अवकाश के दौरान डाक व्यवस्था बनाये रखने के लिए लगाया गया जिसके घरों के भुगवान की स्वीकृति विभिन्न अंतरालों में जारी की गई थी । प्रार्थी को केवल अल्पकालीन रिक्ति पर आवश्यकतानुसार ढाक व्यवस्था सुचारु बनाये रखने हेतु लगाया गया था- जो कि नियमित रूप से नहीं लगाया गया था जिसका विवरण निम्न है-

(अ) भीलवाड़ा मुख्य डाकघर में डाकपाल के अधिनस्थ दिनांक 10-2-98 से 23-10-98 तक प्रार्थी को आउट साईडर वायरमेन के पद पर लगाया गया ।

(ब ) सरदार सिंह डाक वाहक लेबर कोलोनी , भीलवाड़ा के द्वारा दिनांक 10-11-98 से छु‌ट्टीका आवेदन किया तथा प्रार्थी को एवजी के रूप में सरदार सिंह की जिम्मेदारी पर निरीक्षक डाकघर पूर्व, पीलवाड़ा द्वारा दिनांक 14-6-99 तक लगाया गया ।

(स) दिनांक 25-6-99 से 27-6-99 तक ची रामनाथ सिंह , ग्रुप द कर्मचारी भीलवाड़ा कोर्ट को आकस्मिक अवकाश पर आने से इनकी जगह पर प्रार्थी ने एवजी तौर पर कार्य किया- जिसके यूनिट इंचार्ज सहायक अधीक्षक डाकघर पश्चिम, भीलवाड़ा थे ।

(३) इसी प्रकार दिनांक 5-7-99 से 7-2-2000 तक शाखा ढाकपाल कालेसरिया की मृत्यु हो जाने से प्रार्थों को काम चलाक व्यवस्था के तौर पर अस्थायी रूप से लगाया गया अविभागीय शाखा ढाकपाल के पद की पूर्ति हेतु आवेदन मांगे गये थे -जिसमें प्रार्थी ने भी आवेदन किया, लेकिन प्रार्थी उपयुक्त नहीं पाया गया । वहां उपयुक्त एवं योग्य आदमी को लगाया गया । इस प्रकार प्रार्थी ने दिनांक 10-2-98 से 7-2-2000 तक निरंतर कार्य नहीं किया बल्कि इन्होंने विभिन्न समय में अलग - अलग यूनिट इंचार्ज के अधीन हाक व्यवस्था बनाये रखने के लिए आवश्यकतानुसार कार्य किया था । प्रार्थी ने विभिन्न समयावधि में भिन्न यूनिट प्रभारी के अधीन निम्नानुसार कार्य किया-

(अ) दिनांक 10-2-98 से 23-10-98 तक आऊट साईडर वायरमेन भीलवाड़ा मुख्य डाक घर के पद पर कार्य किया ।

इंचार्ज के अधीन 240 दिन तक लगातार कार्य नहीं किया । सभी पदों पर अलग - अलग नियमावली सेवा शर्ते लागू हैं, अतः प्रार्थी धारा 25 (बी) औद्योगिक विवाद अधि. के अनुसार किसी प्रकार का कोई लाभ प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है । सर्वोच्च न्यायालय प्र. सं. सिविल. अपील सं. 3385-86/96 एसएलपी 587-588/ 1992 के निर्णय के आधार पर डाक विभाग में कार्यरत कर्मचारी औद्योगिक विवाद अधि.. के तहत नहीं आते हैं । प्राथों को किसी पद पर नियुक्त नहीं किया गया था, अतः एक माह का नोटिस अथवा वेतन भत्तों का चुक्तान मुआवजा आदि देने का कोई प्रावधान नहीं है । चूंकि प्रार्थी 10-2-98 से 7-2-2000 तक विभिन्न पदों पर अवकाश अवधि में वैकल्पिक व्यवस्था के तौर पर एवजी के रूप में डाक व्यवस्था को सुचारू रूप से बनाये रखने हेतु विभिन्न यूनिट इंचार्ज के अधीन अंशकालीन बतौर कार्य किया था , अतः इनका किसी पद पर नियुक्ति का अधिकार नहीं बनता है । विपक्षी गवाह का शपथपत्र में यह भी कथन है कि बालेसरिया ईडीबीपीएम पद के लिए अन्य के अलावा प्रायों का भी आवेदन प्राप्त हुआ , लेकिन प्रार्थी का उक्त पद के लिए चयन नहीं होने से प्रार्थी द्वारा बाद में प्रकरण न्यायालय में दर्ज करा दिया गया, जबकि इनके योग्य एवं उपयुक्त व्यक्ति उपलब्ध था । इस लिए योग्य एवं उपयुक्त व्यक्ति का चयन कर उसे नियुक्ति दी गई । योग्य एवं उपयुक्त व्यक्ति को ई डी बी पी एम पद पर नियुक्ति दिनांक 8-2-2000 को दे दी गई जो कि उक्त पद पर नियुक्ति रूप से कार्य कर रहा है । प्रार्थी से विभिन्न रिक्त पदों पर एवं अवकाश अवधि में डाक व्यवस्था सुचारु रूप से बनाये रखने हेतु अंशकालीन बतौर विभिन्न यूनिट इंचार्ज के अधीन कार्य किया था, अतः उसका किसी पद पर नियुक्ति पाने का आधिकार नहीं बनता है , अतः प्रार्थी को पूर्व पद पर वेतन वरीयता एवं सेवा के समस्त लाभों सहित सेवा में बहाल 'किया जाना न्यायोचित नहीं होगा । प्रतिपरीक्षा में इस गवाह का कचन है कि यह सही है कि हमारे यहां वायरमेन का पद स्वीकृत है । मुझे याद नहीं कि 2-2-98 से 2-2-2000 तक प्रार्थी ने वायरमेन का कार्य किया या नहीं, में नहीं कह सकता, रिकार्ड देख कर बता सकता हूं । मुझे यह भी ध्यान नहीं कि उक्त अवधि में प्रार्थी के अलावा किसी अन्य व्यक्ति ने भी वायरमेन पद पर काम किया हो उस बाबत यहां रिकार्ड पेश नहीं किया । यह गलत है कि प्रार्थी उक्त अवधि में प्रार्थी की जो डयूटी लेबर कोलोनी वाले पोस्ट आफिस में लगाई गई थी । अब कहा कि उक्त पद पर काम करने वाला व्यक्ति छुट्टी पर गया था-जिससे प्रार्थों की ड्यूटी वहां उस व्यक्ति ने लगाई थी । यह सहीं. है कि इस बाबत सहमति विभाष्ठा की क्षेत्री पड़ती है । लेकिन यह 3272

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008 /ASADHA 7.1930

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) )

है । हमारे यहां भीलवाड़ा में विंग कार्यरत नहीं है , जयपुर में इलेक्ट्रीकल विंग है इस लिए मुझे पता नहीं कि उसमें कितने व्यक्ति किस पद पर काम करते हैं । प्रदर्श ए. 2 प्रमाणपत्र किसने जारी किया , मैं नहीं कह सकता किंतु ए से बी हस्ताक्षर आर. एम. उदावत के हैं । प्रदर्श ए. 3 से ए, ।। विभाग द्वारा निकाले गये प्रार्थी को किये गये भुगतान के प्रमाण पत्र है । यह सही है कि प्रदर्श ए. 3 से ए. 11 द्वारा जो भुगतान प्रार्थी को किया गया है वह वावरमेन की खाली पोस्ट के विरूद्ध किया है । मुझे याद नहीं कि7-2-2000 को वायरमेन का पद रिक्त था या नहींमुझे यह ध्यान नहीं है कि विभाग की जो उपस्थिति पंजिका होती है उसमें वायरमेन का काम करने वाले व्यक्ति का नाम लिखा जाता था व आज भी लिखा जा रहा हो । 7-2-2000 से पहले प्रार्थी का नाम रजिस्टर में वायरमेन पद पर लिखा जाता था , यह मैं नहीं कह सकता । जो उपस्थिति पंजिका व अन्य रिकार्ड विभाग में रखते हैं वह एक निश्चित समय के बाद नष्ट कर दिया जाता है । प्रार्थों के नाम वाली पंजिका विभाग में है या नहीं, मैं नहीं बता सकता । यदि यह काल अवधि से बाहर हो गई होगी तो नष्ट कर दी गई होगी अन्यथा विभाग में होगी । यह सही है कि पोस्ट एंड टेलीग्राफ मेन्युअल में बताई अवधि के अनुसार ही रिकार्ड प्रिजर्व रखा जाता है । किस अवधि का रिकार्ड जाया कर दिया है , इसका रिकार्ड भी अलग से रखा जाता है । यह सही है कि रिकार्ड जाया करने का रजिस्टर मेन्टेन किया जाता है उसे पेश नहीं किया जाता हैं , लेकिन जो रिकार्ड जाया किया गया है उस बाबत पत्र मैंने जवाब के साथ पेश किया है । मुझे पता नहीं कि उपस्थिति बाबत रिकार्ड वर्ष से पूर्व जाया न किया जा सकता हो । मुझे इस बात की जानकारी है कि विभागीय कर्मचारी जिसका कोई प्रकरण न्यायालय में चल रहा हो या विवादित हो उसके प्रकरण के निस्तारण के बाद 3 साल तक उसे सुरक्षित रखा जाता है । यदि किसी व्यक्ति का स्थानांतरण पर किसी व्यक्ति की नियुक्ति दी गई है तो उसे चार्ज दिया जायेगा व नियुक्त न होने पर वेकेन्ट चार्ज रिपोर्ट बना कर उसे रिलीव कर देते हैं । लेकिन किसी बाह्य व्यक्ति को चार्ज नहीं दिया जाता है । सुरेश चन्द्र छपेरा हमारे यहां विभागीय कर्मचारी है । यह गलत है कि प्रदर्श ए 12 के जरिये सुरेश का चार्ज प्रार्थी को दिया हो । इसकी प्रतिलिपिं पर प्रदर्श ए, 12 ए अंकित किया गया । प्रदर्श ए. 12 दस्तावेज हमारे विभाग द्वारा जारी शुदा है या नहीं रिकार्ड देख कर बता सकता हूं , लेकिन लगता विभाग का है । यह सही है कि इसमें श्री पठान को तुरंत वायरमेन का काम देने का लिखा है लेकिन लिस्ट के अनुसार विभाग का एपाइंटमेंट लेटर जारी होता है व चार्ज रिपोर्ट तैयार होती है । इस प्रकार की दोनों चीजें इसमें जारी नहीं हुई । यह मैं जबानी नहीं बता सकता कि प्रार्थी से संबंधित समझौता कार्यवाही 2000 में शुरू हुई थी । मुझे ध्यान नहीं प्रदर्श ए. 13 की एक प्रति हमारे कार्यालय में आई या नहीं ।

आऊट साईडर जो काम करता हो उसकी हाजरी का उपस्थिति पंजिका में अंकन बाबत नियमों में प्रावधान नहीं है , अभी लगाते हैं या नहीं मुझे पता नहीं । यह गलत है कि प्रार्थी को उसके अधिकारों से वंचित रखने के लिए आज मैं झूठा बयान दे रहा हूं ।

10. प्रार्थी की ओर से लिखित बहस में तर्क दिया गया है कि प्रार्थी ने विपक्षी के अधीन दिनांक 2-2-98 से 7-2-2000 तक निरंतर गलत है कि प्रार्थी द्वारा लेबर कोलोनी वाले आफिस में काम करने के बाद मुख्य डाकघर में काम किया जाता हो । वायरमेन द्वारा नियमों में बताए अनुसार काम करना पडता है , लेकिन इस बाबत विभाग में कोई रजिस्टर या अन्य दस्तावेज नहीं रखा जाता है । यह सही है कि भीलवाड़ा कोर्ट वाले डाक घर में रामनाथ सिंह जो अवकाश पर गया था वह विभागीय कर्मचारी था । यह गलत है कि इस अवधि में प्रार्थी ने रामनाथ सिंह के स्थान पर जो काम किया वह विभागीय कर्मचारी की हैसियत से किया बल्कि आउट साईडर की हैसियत से किया । यह सही है कि जिस अवधि में रामनाथ के स्थान पर प्रार्थी ने काम किया वह जो काम रामनाथ कर सकता था वो हो काम प्रार्थी ने किये । यह सही है कि बालेसरिया डाकघर में प्रार्थी ने आउट साईडर की हैसियत से काम किया वो विभागीय अधिकारियों की सहमति से किया था । यह सही है कि हमारे द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रदर्श ए,। में प्रार्थी द्वारा काम किये गये कार्य दिवसों का विवरण है । यह कहना गलत हे कि प्रदर्श ए, । में दर्शाये कार्य दिवसों में शनिवार , रविवार व अन्य अवकाश शामिल न हो । प्रार्थी जहां जिस जगह काम करता था वहां का इंचार्ज अधि कारी प्रमाण पत्र बना कर देता कि उस व्यक्ति ने इस दिन काम दिया उसके आधार पर हम भुगतान करते थे । प्रार्थी जहां काम करता था वहां जिस कर्मचारी के रूप में काम करता उपस्थिति रजिस्टर में यह रिमार्क लगाते कि निश्चित दिन प्रार्थी ने उसके स्थान पर काम किया जिसके आधार पर इंचार्ज अधिकारी प्रमाणपत्र बना कर भेजता था । यह सही है कि प्रार्थी जिस दिन जिस जगह काम करता था उसका अलग से विवरण नहीं है क्योंकि प्रार्थी ने अलग- अलग जगह अलग-अलग हैसियत से काम किया , लेकिन जो. प्रदर्श ए, । पेश किया उसमें प्रार्थी द्वारा किये गये काम की अवधि व स्थान का विवरण है । इसके अलावा अन्य विवरण पत्रावली में पेशशुदा नहीं है । वायरमेन के पद नियम के अनुसार था लेकिन उस पद पर यदि किसी व्यक्ति को एक साल तक काम पर नहीं रखा या ड्यूटी पर नही रखा जाता है तो वह पद अपने आप समाप्त हो जाता है । इस प्रकरण में वायरमेन यमनाथ सिंह द्वारा काम लेना बंद करने के बाद किसी व्यक्ति की नियुक्ति नहीं हुई इस लिए रामनाथ सिंह की कार्य करने की अंतिम तिथि के एक साल बाद पद समाप्त हो गया । इस पद पर अभी किसी की नियुक्ति नहीं की गई । यह पद कितने समय पहले समाप्त हो गया, जुबानी याद नहीं है इस लिए नहीं बता सकता । जवाब पेश करते समय मुझे यह बात नहीं पूछी थी न वकील सा. ने पूछी थी इस लिए उक्त बात आज बताई वो जवाब लिखते समय वकील सा. को नहीं बताई । यह सही है कि प्रार्थी की कार्यावधि के दौरान में भीलवाड़ा नियुक्त नहीं था । यह सही है कि 7-2-2002 को प्रार्थी को पद से हटाने से पूर्व एक माह पूर्व या अन्य किसी तरह को कोई नोटिस नहीं दिया । आज कहा कि आऊट साईडर को हटाने का नोटिस नहीं दिया जाता है इस लिए नोटिस नहीं दिया । यह गलत है कि वायरमेन पद पर काम करने वाले व्यक्ति को हमें हमेशा आवश्यकता रहती है । यह गलत है कि इस पद पर कोई न कोई व्यक्ति करता है । रिपेयरिंग का काम हमारे यहां अलग इलेक्ट्रीकल बिंग देखता है , छोटा-मोटा काम बाजार से करवाते हैं । मैं नहीं कह सकता कि इलेक्ट्रीकल विंग में वायरमेन का पद हो व इस पद पर काम करने वाला व्यक्ति ही यह काम करता हो क्योंकि यह बात मेरे ज्ञान में नहीं 3273 [पाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28 , 2008/आषाढ़ 7, 1930

से 30-9-98 तक कार्य किया । प्रदर्श ए, 11 के अनुसार प्रार्थी ने दिनांक 5-10-98 से 10-10-98, 12-10-98 से 17-10-98 व 20-10-98 से 23-10-98 तक कार्य किया । उक्त दस्तावेजात से यह प्रकट होता है कि प्रार्थी ने प्रदर्श ए, 2 में अंकित तिथि 26-10-98 के पश्चात् 9-2-98 तक कोई कार्य नहीं किया । इसी प्रकार प्रदर्श ए. 5 में अंकित तिथि 7-4-98 के पश्चात् दिनांक 8-4-98 से12-4-98. तक कोई कार्य नहीं किया । इसी प्रकार प्रदर्श ए. 11 के अनुसार दिनांक 1-10-98 से 4-10-98 वकं व दिनांक 11-10-98 को व 18-10-98 से 19-10-98 तक व दिनांक 23-10-98 से 31-10-98 तक कोई कार्य नहीं किया । इस प्रकार उक्त विवेचन से यह स्पष्ट होता है कि प्रार्थी ने उक्त अवधि में निरंत्र रूप से कार्य नाहीं किया तथा बीच - बीच में वह कार्य से अनुपस्थित रहा है । प्रदर्श ए, 3 से ए.।। में यह भी अंकित किया गया कि प्रार्थी को अस्थायी तौर पर आकस्मिक रूप से कार्य पर रखा गया है तथा उसकी सेवा भविष्य में किसी नियुक्ति व नियमित नियुक्ति के लिए नहीं मानी आयेगी ।: पत्रावली में अतिरिक्त विभागीय एजेन्ट सरदार सिंह के अवकाश . प्रार्थनापत्र की प्रति उपलब्ध है जिसमें सरदार सिंह ने बीमारी के कारण अवकाश लेना तथा दिनांक 11-11-98 से 31-1-99 तक 82 दिन का अवकाश का आवेदन किया तथा एवजी के रूप में रफीक खां का नाम भी लिखा तथा उसके नमूने के हस्ताक्षर भी इस आवेदन पत्र में हैं । आवेदन पत्र पर सरदार सिंह के भी हस्ताक्षर हैं उक्त विवेचन से यह प्रकट होता है कि प्रार्थी को डाकघर की व्यवस्था सुचारू रूप से बनाये रखने के लिए अस्थायी तौर पर दैनिक वेतन पर. लगाया गया था तां पूर्णतः आकस्मिक कार्य के लिए लगाया गया था । प्रार्थी को भी स्थायी नियुक्ति के लिए विपक्षी ने साक्षात्कार में बुलाया था, लेकिन साक्षात्कार में यह सफल नहीं हुज्य तथा अन्य योग्य कर्मचारियों का चयन किया गया । इस प्रकार प्रार्थी ने लगातार डाक विभाग में आउट साईडर के पद पर कार्य नहींकिया बल्कि बीच-बीच में अनुपस्थित ही रहा । प्रार्थी को प्रत्येक नियुक्ति के समय स्पष्ट अंकित कर दिया गया था कि उसका कार्य पूर्णतः अस्थायी है और वह किसी प्रकार से स्थायी पद के लिए समायोजित किये जाने के लिए योग्य नहीं होगा तथा उसकी नियुक्ति पूर्णतः अस्थायी है । ऐसी स्थिति में प्रार्थी का कथन है कि उसने नियमित रूप से कार्य किया मानने योग्य नहीं है तथा उसने कार्य भिन्न-भिन्न डाकपाल के कहत कार्य किया--जिनका एक दूसरे से कोई सामंजस्य नहीं है , अतः प्राथर्थी के स्थान पर दिनांक 7-2-2000 से अन्य योग्य व्यक्ति को नियुक्ति दी जाना अवैध नहीं है । प्रार्थी श्रमिक कोई राहत प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।

11. विपक्षी की ओर से प्रस्तुत न्यायिक विनिश्यन सेक्रेटरी , कर्नाटक राज्य एवं अन्य बनाम उमा देवी व अन्य (2006 ) 4 एस. सी. सी. पैज-1 में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा यह सिद्धांत प्रतिपादित किया कि आकस्तिक रूप से दैनिक वेतन पर नियुक्त श्रमिकों को नियमित नहीं किया जा सकता । प्रार्थी श्रमिक भी एक आकस्मिक दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिक था जिसे उक्त न्यायिक विनिश्चय के परिप्रेक्ष्य में नियमित नहीं किया जा सकता है , अतः उक्त न्यायिक विनिश्चय के परिपेक्ष्य में भी प्रार्थी श्रमिक कोई रादत प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहींहै ।

एवं नियमित रूप से कार्य किया है । इस संबंध में विपक्षी की ओर से लिखित बहस में तर्क दिया गया कि प्रार्थी ने उनके यहां विभिन्न समयावधि में विभिन्न पदों पर विभिन्न यूनिट इंचार्ज के अधीनं वैकल्पिक व्यवस्था के तौर पर तथा कार्यरत कर्मचारियों के अवकाश के दौरान डाक व्यवस्था बनाये रखने के लिए कार्य किया । उसे नियमित रूप से नहीं लगाया गया । विपक्षी की ओर से तर्क दिया गया कि प्रार्थी को मुख्य डाकघर में दिनांक 10-2-98 से 23-10-98 तक आकट साईडर वायरमैन के पद पर लगाया गया । इसके बाद सरदार सिंह के छुट्टी के लिए आवेदन करने पर प्राथर्थी को एवजी के रूप में सरदार सिंह की जिम्मेदारी पर निरीक्षक डाकघर पूर्व द्वारा दिनांक 14-6-99 तक लगाया गया एवं साथ ही दिनांक 25-6-99 से 27-6-99 तक, रामनाथ सिंह के अवकाश पर जाने से इनकी जगह प्रार्थी एवजी के रूप में कार्य किया । इसी प्रकार दिनांक 5-7-99 से 7-2-2000 तक शाखत डाकपाल , बालेसरिया की मृत्यु हो जाने से प्रार्थी को काम चलाक व्यवस्था के तौर पर अस्थायी रूप से लगाया । विपक्षी ने अपनी लिखित बहस में प्रार्थी द्वारा दिनांक 10-2-99 से 7-2-2000 तक निरंतर कार्यरत रहने से इनकार किया है तथ्था कहा है कि प्रार्थी ने इस अवधि में अलग- अलग यूनिट इंचार्ज के अधीन आवश्यकतानुसार कार्य किया । प्रार्थीकी. ओर से ऐसा कोई दस्तावेज पेश नहीं किया गया है - जिससे यह प्रकट होता हो कि उसकी नियुक्ति विधिवत रूप से विभागीय चयन प्रक्रिया के माध्यम से हुई हो । विपक्षी द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रार्थी के कार्य विवरण प्रदर्श ए, 1 के अनुसार प्रार्थी ने विपक्षी के यहां दिनांक 10-2-98 से 28-2-98 तक 17 दिन , 1-3-98 से 31-3-98 तक 28 दिन , 1-4-98 से 7-4-98 एवं 13-4-98 से 30-4-98 वचक 25दिन , 1-5-98 से 31-5-98 तक 26 दिन, 1-6-98 से 30-6-98 तक 30 दिन , 1-7-98 से 31-7-98 तक 29 दिन , 1-8-98 से 31-8-98 तक 30 दिन , 1-9-98 से 30-9-98 तक 30 दिन, 5-10-98 से 18-10-98 एवं 20-10-98 से 23-10-98 तक 18 दिन, कार्य करना प्रकट होता है । प्रदर्श ए, 2 अनुभव प्रमाणपत्र के अनुसार प्रार्थी ने मुख्य डाकघर में दिनांक 2-2-98 से 26-10-98 त्तक आउट साईडर वायरमैन के पद पर कार्य किया । प्रार्थी ने अपने क्लेम में 2-2-98 से कार्य करना प्रकट किया है , लेकिन प्रदर्श ए.। सूची के अनुसार प्रार्थी द्वारा दिनांक 10-2-98 से कार्य प्रारंभ करना प्रकट होता है । इसी प्रकार प्रार्थी द्वारा माह अक्तूबर में मात्र 18 दिन कार्य करना प्रकट होता है तथा दिनांक 1-10-98 से 4-10-98 एवं 19-10-98 को एवं 24-10-98 से 31-10-98 तक कार्य करना प्रकट नहीं होता है । इसी प्रकार प्रार्थी द्वास प्रदर्श ए. 3 के अनुसार प्रार्थी ने दिनांक10-2-98 से 28-2-98 तक वायरमैन के पद पर कार्य करना प्रकट होता है , प्रदर्श ए. 4 के अनुसार दिनांक 1-3-98 से 31-3-98 तक कार्य करना प्रकट होता है , प्रदर्श ए. 5 के अनुसार दिनांक 1-4-98 से 7-4-98 व 13-4-98 से 30-4-98 तक कार्य करना प्रकट होता है । प्रदर्श ए 6 के अनुसार प्रार्थी द्वारा दिनांक 1-5-98 से 31-5-98 तक कार्य करना प्रकट होता है । प्रदर्श ए, 7 के अनुसार 1-6-98 से 30-6-98 तक कार्य करना प्रकट होता है । प्रदर्श ए, 8 के अनुसार प्राथर्थी द्वारा 1-7-98 से 31-7-98 तक कार्य किया । प्रदर्श ए, 9 के अनुसार प्रार्थी ने दिनांक 1-8-98 से 31-8-98 तक कार्य किया । प्रदर्श ए, 10 के अनुसार प्रार्थी ने दिनांक 1-9-98 3274

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2008/ ASADHA 7 , 1930

अतः प्रासंगिक विवाद का उत्तर इस प्रकार दिया जाता है कि अधीक्षक, अकघर , भीलवाड़ा द्वारा रफीक खान पठान पुत्र श्री कमरूद्दीन पठान को दिनांक 7-2-2000 से सेवा पृथक करना उचित एवं वैध है । श्रमिक कोई राहत पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।

उपर्युक्तानुसान पंचाट जारी किया जाता है । पंचाट की प्रति प्रकाशनार्थ केन्द्र सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय को भेजी जाये । पंचाट आज दिनांक 10-4-2008 को लिखाया जाकर सुनाया गय्य ।

उषा अग्रवाल , न्यायाधीश नई दिल्ली, 5 जून , 2008

का.आ. 1580, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार क्वालिटी एश्यूरेंस ऑफिसर , रक्षा मंत्रालय के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 132/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-6-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[फा. सं. एल -14011/7/ 2002 - आई आर. ( डी.यू) ]

सुरेन्द्रसिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 5th June , 2008

S.Q. 1580.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Govemment hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 132/ 2002) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of Quality Assurance Officer, M/o Defence and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 5-6-2008.

(F.No. L- 14011 /7/2002- IR(DU)]

SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present: Shri N. K. R. Mohapatra,

PresidingOfficer,

C. G. 1. T. - cum- Labour Court ,

Bubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DUSPUTE CASE NO. 132/2002 Date ofPassingAward- 15th April 2008 Between: I. The Management of the Director General ofQualityAssurance, Ministry of Defence, SenaBhawan, New Delhi- 110011 2 The Quality Assurance Officer , Quality Assurance Estt . (Metals) , Hot Rolling Mill

[PART I SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Road, Rourkela Steel Plant , SAIL , Sundargarh.

......... 1st Party - Managements .

And

Their Workman , represented through the General Secretary , Raksha Utpadan Karmachari Sangh , C/ o . Jagannath Hair Cutting Saloon , Plant Side Road , Sundargarh.

......... 2nd Party-Union .

Appearances:

Shri S. L. Banik SSO- 11 .

For the Ist Party- Managements

Shri R. Karan.

For Himself-The 2nd Party-Workman.

AWARD

TheGovernment of India in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise ofPowers conferred by Clause ( d) ofsub -section (1 ) and sub -section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 14011 /7/ 2002- IR(DU) , dated29-11-2002/ 5-12-2002:

"Whether the action of the Management of Quality Assurance Officer ( Metal ) , Rourkela by not paying thedifferential wages of Class - IV to Class - III from 16-12-1983 to 4-12-1987 to Sh . R. Karan , mazdoor, who had been ordered to perform the duty of Class - lil vide internal circular order No. IMR/ EST / 034, dated 16-12-1983 is justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled for ?"

2. Admittedly on the death of his father the disputant-workman was appointed as a Mazdoor on compassionate ground under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme of the Government on 26-10-1983 in the establishment ofthe Manageinent while he was prosecuting his studies in final B.A. Appearing on behalf of the Union it is claimed by the disputant - workman that after so being appointed as a Mazdoor he was given verbal assurance that he wouldbe adjusted against a post of Clerk when such vacancy would arise and that accordingly he was entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of a Senior Clerk (UDC) vide internal office order No. IMR/Est ./034, dated 16-12-1983 marked Ext .-A from 16-12-1983 10 4-12-1987 . Since for the above period he was not paid wages at the rate of Rs . 320/- per month as applicable to that post he made several representations for his posting in a suitable post befitting his educational qualifications as in the meantime he had passed his graduation. In view of such repeated representations , it is alleged by the disputant- workman that , the work assigned to him was withdrawn from 5-12-1987 though he should have been absorbed against a higher post as per the verbal assurance given to [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( il) ]

3275

भारत का राजपत्र जून 28 , 2008/आवाद 7 , 1930

5. To prove its case the disputant-workman and another have been examined on behalf of the Union while the Management has examined a sole witness in support ofits case.Documents marked Ext.- 1 to Ext:-30 have been filed from the side ofthe disputant - workman while Ext.-A, B and Chavebeen filed on behalf ofthe Management.

FINDINGS

ISSUES NO. П & Ⅲ

him at the time of his initial appointment. So far as the present reference is concerned it is alleged by the disputant- workman that when the Management did not heed to any ofhis representations he raised an Industrial Disputes through his Union culminating the same in the present reference. It is claimed that since he had worked in the capacity of an U.D.C. in place of one Shri D. G. Pradhan from 16-12-1983 to 4-12-1987 he is entitled to get Rs . 320 per month as against Rs . 196 per month under the principles ofequal pay for equal work.

6. These issues being the prime issues they are taken up first.

3. The Ist Party-Management on the other handhas contended that after being appointed as a Mazdoor on compassionate ground the disputant - workman worked for somedays as aMazdoor and thereafter made an oral request tobeadjusted in some other posts so as to facilitate him to prosecute his higher studies and that accordingly on his own request he was given lighter duty so that he can pursue his studies andgain some working experience for his future betterment. It is further contendedby the Management that no-doubt under an internal office order marked Ext. -A thedisputant-workman was asked to work in place of one Shri D.G. Pradhan during the relevant period from 16-12-1983 to 4-12-1987 but during that time Shri D.G. Pradhan was not an U.D.C. but was performing the duties ofan orderly and therefore the question of the workman rendering the services of an U.D.C. does not arise . it is also contended by the Management that the work performed by the disputant- workman did not involve higher responsibilities but the experience certificate grantedto him was on his own request so as to facilitate him to get his name registered in the Employment Exchange and for availing better employment opportunities elsewhere and as such these certificates are of little consequence. It is furthercontended by the Management that the appointment ofworkman being against a regular Govt . post he should have approached the Administrative Tribunal for necessary reliefand as such the present reference is not maintainable . It is also contended by the Management that the concept ofequal pay for equal work is also not applicable in case of the disputant and more so the present claim having been made after lapse of about 13 years the same is not sustainable under law and as such the reference is liable to be declared as not maintainable:

4. On the basis of above pleadings of the parties the following issues have been framed ;

ISSUES

1. Whether the reference is maintainable ?

2 Whether the action of the Management of QualityAssurance Officer (Metal) , Rourkelaby not paying the differential wages ofClass - IVto Class- III from 16-12-1983 to 4-12-1987 to Shri R Karan , workman as per IMR/EST/034 is justified?

3. If not, to what relief he is entitled to ?

Admittedly on the death ofhis father the workanan was appointed as a Mazdoor on compassionate ground as per the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme of the Government with effect from 26-10-1983 . It is deposedby the workman during trial that at the time of such appointment he was prosecuting his studies in B.A. and therefore in view ofhis above educational qualification he was asked to work in higher post from 16-12-1983to 4-12-1987 in place of one Shri D.G. Pradhan as per onder marked Ext.-A. According to the workman the said G. Pradhan was working as an U.D. Clerk and therefore for working in his place he is entitled to get equal pay for equal work for the above period. As against the same the Management has claimed that during the above, period Shri D.G. Pradhan was still working as an Orderly even though he was designated as Examiner - II and therefore the claim of the workman that he was asked to render the duties of an U.D. Clerk can hardly be believed. The said D.G. Pradhan has been examined on behalf of the Management . In his evidence the said witness has deposed that by the time he was transferred vide Ext .-A he was designated as Examiner , Grade - 11 but in practice he was maintaining the diary and dispatch register. he further says, that even after his transfer as Examiner Grade- II he usedto do the same nature of work of maintaining diary and dispatch register. He further says that prior to his above transferhis dutywas to maintain diary and dispatch register and at that time the workman was attached to him to paste the envelope containing the daks etc. but he was never maintaining the dispatch and diary register . During cross- examination it was suggested to him that after his trarisfer vide Ext. -A the workman used to maintain the diary and dispatch worktill he made over the charge to one Shri K. С. Gandha, an LDC on 4-12-1987 . The workman Withess No. 2 Shri T. Kerketta has also deposed that in his evidence that the workman was receiving daks and leave applications of the employees and was processing the same to the higher authorities . He also maintaining leave accounts of the employees. In a latter stage he further deposed that , while working in technical section the main duty ofthe worlainan was only to affix stamps on various letters of the section and that the work performed by the workman was also almost similar with the job which Shri D.G. Pradihan was 3276

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2008/ASADHA 7, 1930

[PART I- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] performing . The aforesaid evidence of the witness thus makes it clear that after being posted in place of Shri D.Ç. Pradhan vide Ext. -A the workman was doing the job of Dispatcher which is different from the job of an UDC . Therefore, the claim of the workman that the job which he was performing was equivalent to that of an U.D.C. cannot bebelieved. The order under which he was transferred to work inplace ofShri D.G. Pradhan vide Ext. -A also indicated that by the time he was so transferred Shri D.G. Pradhan was not working as an U.D.C. He was simply then designated as Examiner Grade- Il which is not at par with the post of an U.D.C. It is the settled law that, while considering as case based on the principal of " equat pay for equal work" , the nature or volume of work performed by adisputant is not alone to be considered but it is to be considered as to the quality ofhis work as also his reliability and responsibiliy to such work. It has been held by the Apex Courts in the case of U.P. State Sugar Corporation Limited Versus Sant Raj Singh and others reported in 2006- III -LLJ-509 that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work, as adumbrated under Article 39 (d) ofthe Constitution of India readwith Article 14 thereof, can not be applied in a vacuum . The constitutional scheme postulates equal pay for equal work for those who are equally placed in all respects.

7. In the casebetween State ofOrissa Versus Balaram Sahu and others reported in 2002 - II- LLJ - 1115 it has futher been held by the Apex Court that though equal pay for equal work is considered to be a concomitant of Article 14 as much as "equal pay for un- equal work " will also be a negation of that right, equal pay would depend upon not only the nature of the volume of work , but also on the qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility as well and though the functions may be the same, but the responsibilities do make a real and substaintial difference.

based on an internal circular No. IMR/Estt. 034, dated 16-12-1983 , His other document shows that he was assigned with some otherjobs from 5-12-1987 and long thereafter lic made two representations on 5-9-1995 , one for his appointment in a higher post as in the meantime he had passed his M.A , with LL.B. Degree and the other for his differential pay for the period 16-12-1983 to 4-12-1987 calculated on the basis of the principles of equal pay for equal work vide Ext. - 29 and 30. The other documents show thatthere after in the year 1996 he for the first time raised a dispute before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner ( Central) through the Union claiming the aforesaid differential pay asalso better service befitting his educational qualification . Ext- 16 shows that his presentation for the differential pay was rejected by the management as the claim for the same was made after lapse of 13 years as discussed earlier. It be noted here that , admittedly the workman was given compassionate appointment by the time he was prosecuting his studies in B.A. and by the time he made his representation Ext.-29 and 30 on 5th Sept. 1995 he had already qualified in M.A. with LL.B. Degree . This with necessary implication suggests that , the workman though was appointed as a Mazdoor was allowed to work in the establishment section so as to facilitate him to prosecute his studies as clained by the Management as otherwise he would not have acquired these qualifications . The workman's conduct of not claiming equal pay for equal work for the aforesaid period until 1996 further indicates, as claimed by the management , that on his own request he was posted in place ofShri D.G. Pradhan during 16-12-1983 to 4-12-1987 so as to acquire service experience for the futurebetter employment . Therefore in such circumstances the claim ofthe workınan totally appears to be mysterious and untenable for the same having been claimed for the first time 13 years after the due date . As I gather from the various documents filed by the workman he has raised the dispute having failed in his persistent attempt to get a suitable post befitting his present educational qualification . Accordingly for the various discussions made in the present and foregoing paras I hold that the workman is not entitle foranyrelief.

ISSUE NO. I

10. Since no evidence worth the name has been adducedby the Management as to the non -maintainability ofthe reference this issue is answered affirmatively.

11. reference is answered accordingly with no relief.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

8. From the evidence adduced by the workman and hiswitness it transpires that the workman was at best doing thejob ofa dispatcher which is un -comparable with the job ofan U.D.C. and therefore his claim for the salary of an U.D.C. for the relevant period stands to no logic . Further- more itbe mentioned here that the principles of equal pay for equal work is only applicable in cases where an unorganized workman is utilized to perform the duties ofa regularpost.But such principles can not be made applicable inter se between two regular posts when such posts have beendifferently classified and method ofappointment and promotion to these posts being differently regulated. Therefore, to the above extend the claim of the workman appears not sustainbale.

N.K.R. MOHAPATRA , Presiding Officer

LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE 2nd PARTY- UNION

W.W.- I-Shri Rudrakshya Karan , W.W.-2- Shri Tintus Kerketta .

9. Further from the various correspondences and representations which have been marked from the side of the disputant-workman it can be gathered that while working in place ofShri D.G. Pradhan from 16-12-1983 to 4-12-1987 the workman simply made a representation on 15-9-1986 (Ext.-5 for better facility and change allowance [भाम -खम 3 (1) ]

LISTOF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALFOF THE 2nd PARTY-WORKMAN.

Ext. -1 - Letter No. IMR/Est /001 , dated 12-10-1983.

Ext.-2-Copy ofthe order of quasi permanent capacity.

Ext. -3 -QMR-Est/ 121 , dated 8-4-1992-No objection -curn- ExperienceCertificate.

Ext -4-Experience Certificate.

Ext.-5-Copy of the letter relating to grant of charge allowance.

Ext.-6-Complaint petition dated 1-2-2001 to the ALC(C) Rourkels.

Ext. -7-Complaint petition dated 25-2-1997.

Ext.-8-LetterNo. RVKS/RKL/ 001 , dated1-3-1997.

Ext-9-LetterNo. RVKS/Rk1 /001, dated 22-7-1997.

Ext-10-Copy ofletter ofRVKS/Rk1 /001 , dated6-9-1997.

Ext -11 -Letter No. RVKS/R1 /001, dated24-2-1998.

Ext-12-LotterNo. 50( 1 )/98 -Rk1 , dated 24-2-1998.

Ext-13-Letter No , OMR/Eat /1046, dated21-2-1997.

Ext-14-Letter dated 24-1-1997 of Shri R. Karan , Mazdoor.

Ext. -15-Letterdated 20-1-1997 ofShri R. Karan, Mazdoor.

Ext.-16-Copy of letter dated 22-1-1997 ofManagement to the Shri R. Karn .

Ext.-17-Copy ofthe letter dated 22-1-97 ofShri R. Karanto theManagement.

Ext.-18-Letter dated 20-12-1996 of Stri R. Karan, Mazdoor.

Ext.-19-Letter dated20-12-1996 ofShri R. Karan, mazdoor .

Ext.-20-Letterdated26-8-1996 ofShri R. Karan , Mazdoor.

Ext-21 -Letter dated 19-3-1996 ofShri R. Karan, Mazdoor.

Bat-22-Letterdated 16-2-1996 ofALC(C), Rourkela.

Ext.-23-Letterdated 12-1-1996 ofALC(C), Rourkela Ext-24-Letter dated 28-12-1995 ofShri R. Karna, President, RVK Sangh, Rourkela.

Ext.-25-Letter No. OMR/Est. /046, dated 8-11-1995 of Managementto Shri Karan.

Ext.-26-Letter dated 31-10-1995 of Shri R. Karan, Mazdoor.

Ext.-27-Letter dated31-10-1995 of Shri R. Karan,Mazdoor.

Ext.-28-Letterdated 25-9-1995 ofShri R. Karan, Mazdoor.

Ext.-29-Letter dated 5-9-1995 ofShri R. Karan, Mazdoor.

Ext.-30-Letter dated 5-9-1995 ofShri R. Karan, Mazdoor.

LISTOFWITNESSES ON BEHALF OFTHE 1st PARTY- MANAGEMENT

MW. - 1 -Shri D. G. Pradhan.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE PARTY MANAGEMENT

Ext.-A-Copy ofInternal Office note dated 16-12-1983.

Ext-B-Copyofduties ofministerial staffdated 19-8-1983.

Ext-C-Copy ofServiceRecord.

2263 G1/08-15

3277

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28, 2008/आषाढ़ 7 , 1930

गाई दिल्ली, 5 जून , 2008

का.आ. 1381.-औद्योगिक विषार अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डाक विन्यांत के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 25/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-6-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[फा. सं. एल-40011 /13/2005- आई आर (डीयू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi, the 5th June,2008

S.O. 1581 -In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 25/2005) Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department ofPost and their worknum, which was received by the Central Government on 5-6-2008.

[F. No. L-40011 /13/2005- IR (DU)] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR PRESENT: Shri N. K. R. Mohapatra,

Presiding Officer, C.G.LT. -cum- Labour Court,. Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 25/2005 Date ofPastingAward-29th April,2008 Between: The Management of:-

1. The ChiefPost Master General, Orissa Circle,Bhubaneswar.

2. The Superintendent of Post Bhabanerivar Division; Bhubaneswar.

3. The Sr. Post Master, G.P.O. , Bhubaneswar,

.......Ist Party-Managemonts.

And

Their Workmen ,. Shri Jitendra Kumar Mohanty& Othens , Speedman , SpeedPost Branch, GPO, Bhubaneswar.

..........2nd Party-Worlunen.

APPEARANCES:

Manoj Kr. Das.

For the IstParty-

Managements.

Inspector ofPosts

Shri J. K.Mohanty.

Forthe2ndParty Workmen.

3278

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ ASADHA 7 , 1930

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

TheGovernment of India in the Ministry of Labour , inexercise ofPowers conferred by Clause (d) ofsub-section (1) and sub -section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L-40011/13/ 2005-IR(DU), dated08-09-2005.

"Whether the action of the Management of Chief PostMaster General , Orissa Circle, Department of Post, Bhubaneswar in stopping payment of compensation @ Re . 1 /- per Km. to Shri Jitendra KumarMohanty & six other Postal Speedmen who havebeen using their own two wheeler før delivery of speed post articles on the direction of the Department and paying them Rs . 425 /- per month in the name of conveyance allowance without considering the actual expenditure for delivery of Speed Post Articles is legal and justified ? If not, what reliefthe workmen are entitled to ?"

And in subsequent corrigendum No. L-40011 / 13/ 2005 - IR(DU ) , dated 5th January, 2005 the following schedule of reference was referred for adjudication ?

3. The Management on the other hand contended thatwhen the centralized Speed Post delivery system was introducted in Bhubaneswar with effect from 14-1-1998 the entire Bhubaneswar Town was devided into four zones and the disputants were engaged to deliver speed post articles and as a temporary measure they were given Re. 1 /- per Kilometer for using their own moped or two wheeler by the Senior Post Master , Bhubaneswar . This arrangement was made subject to the approval of the ministry ofFinance and accordingly the matter was referred to the Business Development Directorate, New Delhi and that ultimately it was decided by the Finance Department that such conveyance allowance are tobe regulated in accordance with SR- 25 of the DoPT. As a result, instead of paying Re . 1/- per each Kilometer the disputants were paid a fixed sum of Rs . 425/- per month with effect from 6-10-2001 . It is further contended that having experienced various difficulties in centralizing the delivery system, the same was abandoned and it was decentralized vide order dated 16-8-2005 of the Supdt . of Post Office , Bhubaneswar Division . It is further contended by the Management that the workmenbeing aggrieved with the above action ofthe Management filed O.A. case No. 686/2005 and many other cases in Central Administrative Tribunal , Cuttack Bench challenging stoppage of Re . 1/ - per Kilometer and as such the present reference is not maintainable in view of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in their common order dated 8-8-2006. Thus in nutshell , it is contended by the Management that the reference is not maintainable at all .

4. On the above pleadings of the parties as many as four issues were framed , ofwhich Issue No. I was in regard to the maintainability of the dispute before the Industrial Tribunal (Central) ,Bhubaneswar.

"Whether the action of the Management of Chief PostMaster General , Orissa Circule , Department of Post, Bhubaneswar in Stopping payment of compensation @ Rs . 1/- per km . with effect from 8-10-2001 to Shri Jitendra Kumar Mohanty, Shri Sanatan Barik, Shri B.N. Mishra, Shri Harmohan Dass, Shri Sarat Chandra Sahoo , Shri Shiba Chandra Naik & Shri Jagannath Jena, Postal Speedmen who have been using their own two wheeler for delivery of speedpost articles on the direction of the Department andpaying them Rs . 425/- per month in the name of "conveyance allowance" without considering the actual expenditure for delivery ofspeed post articles is legal &justified ? If not , what relief the workmen are entitled to? "

5. It be mentioned here that due to non - particupation of the disputants they have been set exparte and hence thisexparte award as follows ,

FINDINGS

6. It is the settled law that no self same dispute can be fought out in two different forums having concurrent jurisdiction over the same . From the evidence of the management and the findings ofthe Central Administrative Tribunal in their order dated 8-8-2006 (ExL - D) it appears that these disputants had filed individually separate Q.A. cases numbering. 686/2005 and 726 to 731 ofthe year 2005 claiming similar relief and that, the said Tribunal having considered their entire claim has already disposed of the same in a common judgement dt . 8-8-06 and as such the present reference is held to be not maintainable under the principles resjudicata .

7. Reference is accordingly answered exparte against theworkman.

Dictated& Corrected by me .

2. Admittedly the disputants named in the reference were working as Speed - men in the Speed Post Wing of G.P.O. , Bhubaneswar for delivery of the SpeedPosts within Bhubaneswar. For the above purpose , they were paid conveyance allowance at the rate ofRe. 1 /- per Kilometer for using their own conveyance , as per letter dated 14-1-98 ofthe Senior Post Master , Bhubaneswar. When the Chief PostMaster,Bhubaneswar seeked for approval ofthe above payment the Business Development Directorate , Post and Dak Bhawan, New Delhi issued a circular on 23-4-2001 intimating all post offices that payment of such allowance should be regulated as per the provisions containing in SR-25 of the DoPT of the Central Government . In consequence thereof the payment of conveyance allowance at the rate ofRe . 1/- per Kilometer was abandoned with effect from 8-10-2001 and fixed T.A. allowance of Rs. 425/- was paid to the disputants as conveyance allowance as perthe above SR -25 . Challenging the above action of the Management for not paying Re . 1 /- per Kilometer a dispute was raised before the Asst . Labour Commissioner ( Central ) which resulted in the present reference.

N. K. R. MOHAPATRA , Presiding Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

3279

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28, 2008/ आषाढ़ 7, 1930

नईदिल्ली, 5 जून , 2008

कर, आ. 1582, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डाक विभाग 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 87/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-6-2008 कसे प्राप्त हुआ था।

[फर. सं. एल-40012/114/98 - आई आर (डीयू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्कअधिकारी NewDelhi , the 5th June ,2008

$.O. 1582-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 87/98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, No. II , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute, between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Post and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on05-06-2008.

[F.No. L-40012/114/98- IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

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

1. D. No. 87/1998 PresidingOfficer : R. N. RAI

In the matter of:

Shri Chandersen, S/o .Moti Ram, Ex. C.P. Chowkidar, Rudiyan, PO:Sakin, Ward No. 1 , TownAreaRudiyan, Distt: Badayun (UP)

Versus

TheSuperintendent of Post Offices,

DakDepartment, Badayun Mandal, Badayun (UP).

AWARD

The Ministry ofLabour by its letter No. L-40012/ 114/ 98-IR(DU) Central Government dr. 16-03-1998 has referred the followingpoint for adjudication:-

The point runs as hereunder

"Whether the action of the management of Post Offices represented by Superintendent of Post Offices, Badayun in terminating the services, of Sh. Chander Sen, Ex . C.P. Chowkidar is legal and justified? Ifnot, towhat reliefhe is entitled," The case ofthe workman is that he was engaged i the post of C.P. Chowkidar after complying with all the formalities just as calling for name from. Employment Exchange, interview, police report etc. and the workman worked for oneyear and eight months till 09-07-1993 and he completed more than 240 days w.e.f 12-11-1991 to 19-07-1993.

That the workman has been retrenched 'by order . dated 19-07-1993 without any notice and retrenchment compensation. No. disciplinary action was taken against the workman,

The case of the management is that the applicant was appointed on: 12-11-1991 as C.P. Chowkidar . On 23-06-1993 , Director Postal Services, Bareilly Region, Bareilly inquired from Inspector PO Badayun as to how appointment ofCP Chowkidar was made in contravention. of Director General Post Letter No. 45-35-37/91 dated 05-06-1991 and Inspector Postal Services was directed to immediately terminate this irregular appointment and in compliance ofthe order, the Inspector Postal Services (W), Badayun terminated the services of the applicant vide order dated 19-07-1993 .

That Sh. Chandersen approached CAT, Allahabad. Itwas also submitted that P & T Department is not an Industry and it is employees are not workmen .

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In the rejoinder he has reiterated the averiments of his slaim statement and has deuied most of the paras of the writton 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.

It was submitted from the side of the workman thot he was engaged after following the proper prosedure and his services have been illegally terminated by the management after his work of one year and eight menths.

It was submitted from the side of the management thathis appointment was made malafidely by the Inspector Postal Services against the guidelines laid down by the Director General Postal Services. The Inspector Postal Services received direction from the management and order from the management for terminating the services in the light of that order the services of the workman have been terminated.

Inthe instant case the appointment of the workman is irregular and against the guidelines laid down by the competent authority . The competent authority directed the 3280

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7 , 1930

InspectorPostal Services to terminate the services of the workman and the services ofthe workman were terminated. The appointment in the instant case shall be deemed to be against the provisions , guidelines and rules .

Ithasbeenheld in (2007) 9 Supreme Court Cases 353 as under:-

" Labour Law Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- 8.25-F-Relief to be given for violation of Grant of compensation instead of reinstatement with full back wages-When warranted- Workman appointed as daily wager, working for only a short period , raising industrial dispute almost six years after dismissal , and there being question as to the whether his appointment had been made in terms of the statutory rules in the first place-Held, relief of reinstatement with full back wages would not be granted automatically only because it would be lawful to do so Several factors have to be considered , two ofthem being as to whether appointment in question had been made in terms of the statutory rules , and the delay in raising the industrial dispute-In present case , keeping in view the nature and period of services , and the delay in raising the industrial dispute , award of reinstatement with back wages substituted by compensation of Rs . 75,000/- Ithas been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that it is not necessary that Tribunal should always pass the order ofreinstatment if the work is not existing and the work is not ofpermanent and regular nature and ifsection 25 F of the ID Act is violated, appropriate order is the order for compensation.

There is delay in this case. The workman was removed in 1993 whereas he has raised this dispute in the year 1998 after five years of delay. His appointment was not as per statutory rules . The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in such circumstances the workman should be given compensation.

It is admitted that the workman has not been paid any compensation .

[PART 11-SEC. 3( ii)] shouldpay retrenchment compensation of Rs . 50,000/-(Rs . FiftyThousand Only) in lieu of retrenchment compensation and one month's pay in lieu of notice within two months from the date of the publication of the award.

The award is given accordingly. Date:03-06-2008

R.N. RAd, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली , 5 जून , 2008

का. आ. 1583.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं- II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 92/88 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-6-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[फा. सं. एल-40012/51 /87 - डी- II ( बी) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 5th June, 2008

5.O. 1583.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 92/88 ) Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, No. II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department ofTelecom and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 05-06- 2008.

[F. No. L-40012/51 /87 -D.II (B)] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL, GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT NO . - IL, NEW DELHI

I.D. No. 92/1988 Presiding Officer : R. N. RAI

In the matter of

It hasbeen held in ( 1997) 8 SCC 767byjudgment of three Judges Bench that Post and Telegraph Department is an Industry. In view of this judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court DET is an Industry.

Inview ofthejudgement ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court as referred to above , the workman is entitled to compensation of Rs . 50,000 (Rs . Fifty Thousand Only) in lieu of retrenchment compensation and one month's pay in lieu ofnotice.

The reference is replied thus:-

The action of the management of Post Offices represented by Superintendent of Post Offices, Buduan in terminating the services of Sh . Chander Sen, Ex. C. P. Chowkidar is neither legal norjustified. The management Shri Laxmi Kant Jha, S/o. Sh . Surender Jha, C/o. Delhi Labour Union , Aggarwal Bhawan , GT Road, Tis Hazari , Delhi-110054.

Versus

The ChiefEngineer , P&T (Civil), Division No. 2, 1-3 , Atul Grover Road, Connaught Circus, 328 [भाग- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28, 2008/आषाढ़ 7, 1930

New Delhi-110001.

on thebasis ofHon'ble Supreme Courtjudgment of equal pay for equal work.

AWARD

The Ministry ofLabour by its letter No. 1,-40012/51/ 87-D-I(B)Central Governanentdt. 03-08-1968has referred the following point for adjudication.

The management witness has admitted in his cross- examination that a new Jeep has been purchased but the Driver was regular one and working on that Jeep. No permission for retrenchment was obtained from the Government.

The point runs as hereunder:-

"Whether the termination of services of Sh , Laxmi Kant Jha, Jeep Driver w.e.f. 17-06-1987by the Chief Engineer, P&T(Civil ) is legal andjustified ? Ifnotto what reliefhe is entitled."

Ittranspires from perusal of the record that the Jeep went out of order. It was discarded and so the services of theworkmanwere terminated. Sh . Daya Nand, Driver was already working with the department so he was continued when a new Jeep was purchased . The workman has not proved that the management has acted in breach Sections 25 F, G & H of the ID Act, 1947. It is true that he has not been paid retrenchment conipensation and one month's pay in lieu of notice . He has not proved that any post is still vacant.

The case of the workman is that he was engaged as CarDriver w.e.f. 17-02-1989 . He was being treated as daily rated/ casual/muster roll workman and continued as such till 16-06-1989. His services were terminated w.e.f. 17-06-1989without assigning any valid reason. At the time oftermination ofhis services no seniority list was displayed. Nonoticewas offered or paid to the workman nor was any servico compensation offered to him . The termination is illegal as ithas been passed in breach of Section 25 F of the IDAct, 1947.

Sh DayaNand the present Driver was continued as hewas working as Driver prior to this workman, No fresh hands have been taken : The retrenchment is illegal , no doubt but no post exists . No fresh hands have been takep after illegal termination ofthe workman , so the workman is only entitled to retrenchment compensation in view ofthe judgment ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court.

Itwas submitted from the side of the managerment that in (2007) 9 SCC 353 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that reinstatement with full back wages should not be granted automatically only because it would be lawful da .. do so. Several factors should be considered jsut as statutory rules and delay in raising the dispute.

*. The case of the management is that the workman was engaged to function as Jeep Driver on a particular Vehicle No. DHC 1660 on daily rated basis @Rs . 21.50 per working day. The above said Jeep became un- serviceable andhis services were no more required after 17-06-1989. He represented to the ALC. He was offered payment of retrenchment compensation at the recommendations ofthe ALC but the workman refused to take the same.

In view of the above judgement the workman is entitledto retrenchment compensation as his appointment was not statutory and there is no breach ofSection 25G H of the ID Act, 1947. The management should pry Rs.50,000/-as retrenchment compensation and pay înt lieu ofnotice.

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

The reference is replied thus:-

Evidence ofboth the parties has been taken.

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

The termination of services of Sh . Laxmi Kant. Jha, Jeep Driver w.e.f. 17-06-1987 by the Chief Engineer, P &T (Civil) is neither legal norjustified. The workman is entitled toacompensation ofRs. 50,000 (Rs . Fifty Thousand Only) byway of retrenchment compensation and one month's pay in lieu ofnotice within two months from the date ofthe publication ofthe award.

It was submitted from the side of the workman that after termination ofhis servicesjunior workmen and fresh hands have been taken and their services have been regularized in breach of Section 25 F of the ID Act, 1947.

The award is given accordingly.

Date:23-05-2008

R. N. RAI , PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 5 जून , 2008

It was submitted from the side of the management that the Jeep was not properly functioning so it was discarded and his services were subsquently terminated. No fresh hands have been engaged. There was only one Driver.

का,आ. 1584,--औद्योगिक विवाद आधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरात The worlonan has stated in his cross-examination that one Driver Sh. Daya Nand on regular basis is still working. He has admitted that he has been paid the dues 3282

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7, 1930

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

appointed in violation of Sections 25 F , G & H of the ID Act, 1947.

श्रम न्यायालय नं.- II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 42/94 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-6-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[फा. सं. एल-40012/201/92- आईआर(डीयू) }

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 5th June,2008

The case of the management is that the workman was engaged as casual labour for completion of the specific work. After completion of the work the workman was relieved . There is no question of paying retrenchment compensation. The respondent is not an Industry.

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

Evidence ofboth the parties has been taken .

$.0. 1584.-in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 42/94) Central Goverment Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. II, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofDepartment ofTelecom and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 05-06-2008.

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

[F. No. L-40012/201 /92- IR(DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

The award hasbeen given in this case by predecessor P.O. , Sh . Ganpati Sharma in the year 1997 holding that P & T Department is not an Industry and it has been set aside subsequently and the case has been again re -stored to its number.

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

PresidingOfficer : R. N. RAI . I.D. No. 42/1994

It was submitted from the side of the workman that hehas worked for 162 days in the year 1991 , 111 days in the year 1992 and 243 days in the year 1993.

In the matter of:-

ShriAli JanMohammed,

It was also submitted that the muster roll list of the casual labourers were prepared counting working days from 17-12-1992 to 17-12-1993 . The workman has worked for 240 days from 17-12-1992 to 17-12-1993 but his name has not been illegally included in the muster roll list.

C/ o . V. K.Gupta, 2/363Namner, Agra(UP).

Versus

It was submitted from the side of the management that the workman was given specific work . He has filed false cerificate of the officers . He has not performed 240 days in the year 1993 so , his name was not rightly included in the list of muster roll casual labourers .

The D.E.T. Telecome Department, Aligarh(UP), PIN:202001..

AWARD

It was also submitted that the management is not and industry, so the provisions of ID Act, 1947 are not applicable to the management .

TheMinistry ofLabour by its letter No. L-40012/201 / 92-IR(DU) Central Government dit. 05-05-1994 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder -

The workman has filed certificates issued by the management. The certificate is on the letter head of the management and it bears the seal and signature of the management . The workman has filed four documents . All the documents bear the signature of either Sub-divisional Engineer or Assistant Engineer.

"Whether the action ofD.E.T. , Aligarh in terminating the services of Sh . Ali Jan Mohammed is legal and justified? If not, what reliefhe is entitledto?"

Thecase ofthe workman is that he was appointed as casual labour at the office of DET, Aligarh and worked during 1989 till December, 1993.

From thesedocuments it becomes quite obvious that the workman has worked for 162 days in the year 1991 , 111 days in 1992 and243 days in 1993. The workman has stated in his cross-examination that all the documents were given to him by the Clerk. He has named the employees who gave him the certificate regarding his working days.

The management witness has stated in his cross- examination that he does not know about the documents That his services were illegally and arbitrarily terminated on31-12-1993 without written orders and without any retrenchment compensation as he has completed 240 days continuous service in one calender year . Juniors . to him were retained in service and new hands have been [ भाग - खण्ठ 3(10) ]

भाकत का राजपत्र : जून 28, 2008/झापड़ 7, 1930

Ex. WWI / 1 to WW1 /4 . He has also stated that he did not know ifthe documents were issued to the workman by the respondent management.

been included in the naustor roll Hat. The tasangomont bes acted in breach ofSections 25 G & H ofthe ID Act, 1947. This workmanwas eligible for being included in the mater roll list prepared in December, 1993: of all the ent labourers whose nanses appeared in the outer soll st have been regularized . The case of this workman has pot been considered illegally and malafidely by the management .

Themanagementwitness has also stated in his cross- examination that no temporary worker is working at present. All the temporary workers till 17-12-1993 have been regularized by the respondent . Thus, the management witness has notdenied specifically the cerificate issuedby the department. The certificates bear the seal and signature of the officers of the management, These certificates are on lutter bead ofthe management so, it cannot be said that thecertificateswere forged.

It was submitted from the side ofthe mausgement that the respondent is not an Industry and the workman has approached the CAT for regularization but this case has been dikmissed by the CAT.

The mariagerment has not examined the signatories ofthe 4 documents to establish that the signatures are forged. The management withness has expressed his un- awareness about the 4 certificates issued by the department.

In certain cases photocopy documents are admissible in evidence, ifthe same has not been denied specifically.

Itwas decided by the D.B. of the Hon'ble Suproine Court and it was held that Telecom Department is not an Industry but later on this matter was referred to a Larger Bench of3 Judges and it has been held in (1997) 8 SCC767 by the Hon'ble 3 Judges that Post and Telegraph Department is an Industry, in view of the Constitution Bench Judgement ofthe Bangalore Water Supply of1978. As such it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court shot Post and Telegraph Department is an Industry and there appears nomerit in the argument of the management that Postand Telegraph Department is not an Industry.

I have perused the muster roll list filed by the management . On perusal ofthe list it becomes quite obvious that the workman Gauri Shankar has worked for 101 days from 17-12-1992 to 17-12-1993 and he was found eligible . Theworkman Sh. Shanti Swarup has worked for 32 days in between 17-12-1992 to 17-12-1993 and he was found eligible and his name has been entered in the muster roll list.

The management witness has stated in his cross- examination as under-

O.A. filedby the workman may have been dismissed by the CAT. The management is an Industry. CAT has no jurisdiction to decide the case of industrial workers.The judgment of CAT has no binding affect as it is without jurisdiction.

The management is an Industry in view ofthe above saiddecision of3 Judges Bench ofHon'ble Supreme Court and the petitioner is aworkman.

" I do not know if Sh . Desh Raj , Vinod, Netrapal and Khem Singh are juniors to the workman and they have been regularized by the department . The muster roll Incharge maintains the register of work. No temporary worker is working at present. Temporary workers were working during the period 1989 till 1993. All the temporary workers til! 17-12-1993 have been regularized by the respondent."

The workman has worked for 241 days in the year 1993 and all the casual labourers who have worked for240 days up to December , 1993 and even those who have performed 101 days and 32 days duties within that period havebeen enrolled in muster roll list but the management has deliberately and with malafide intention ignered.the case of this workman and he has been illegally removed from service . His name should have been included in the muster roll list prepared in the year 1993 but the management has illegally ignored the case ofthe workman . He deserves being included in the muster roll list prepared in the year 1993.

The reference is replied thus :-

From perusal of the statement of cross -examination of this witness it becomes quite obvious that he has not denied that Sh.Desh Raj , Vinod, Netrapal and Khem Singh were notjuniors to the workman. As such the management has regularized thejunior workmen just as Desh Raj , Vinod, Netrapal and Khem Singh whereas the name of this workman has not been included in the muster roll list prepared inDecember, 1993, The eligibility criteriawere 240 days from 17-12-1992 to 17-12-1993 . This workman has worked for 241 days during this period and even the few workanen who have worked for 101 and 32 days have been found eligible and their names have appeared in the muster rolllist.

The action of D.E.T. , Aligarh in terminating the services of Sh. Ali Jan Mohammed is neither legal nor justified. The management should reinstate the workman along with 25% back wages within two months from the date ofthe publication of the award.

The award is given accordingly.

Itbecomes quite obvions from perusal ofthe muster. roll list that the management has included junior casual labourers in the muster roll list whereas the case of this workman has not been considered and his name has not Date:5-6-2008

R. N. RAI, PresidingOfficer 3284

[PART I-Sec. 3 (ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ ASADHA 7, 1930

नई दिल्ली, 6 जून , 2008

Sh. S.C. Jain , Special Assistant w.e.f. 21-7-1994 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled ."

का.आ. 1585. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधि करण/श्रम न्यायालय नं.- II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 74/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-6-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

The case of the workman is that in the year 1992 when he was posted at Summer Field School Extension Counter of the bank under its Greater Kailash, Pt . I, New Delhi Branch he was placed under suspension by an undated order and was followed by a charge -sheet dated 6-11-1992. The Inquiry Officer started the inquiry on 29-6-1993 and concluded it on 8-3-1994,

(फा. सं. एल-12012/94/96- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ]

राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 6th June,2008

S.O. 1585.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 74/1997) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court No. 11, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman , received by the Central Government on 05-06-2008.

[F. No. L- 12012/94/1996- IR(B- II) ]

That the order of the competent authority empowering the Chief Manager, Greater Kailash , Pt . I, New DelhiBranch was not furnished to the workman as required by Clause 19.14 of BPS . A charge-sheet was issued 10% months from the date of suspension , All the documents were not made available to the workman so he could not defend in the inquiry . The inquiry was unfair. The principles of natural justice have not been observed. The charge- sheeting authority has confirmed the charges without considering any evidence to support the charges and has left it entirely to the PO to decide and to choose the document and witnesses . The Inquiry Officer has admitted illegally all the documents filed by the PO without any proof. The DA and AA did not pass reasoned order . The findings ofthe Inquiry Officer are perverse.

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

The case ofthe management is that while officiating as Incharge of Summer Fields School Extension Counter of. GK- I , Shri Jain committed fraud and embezzled various amounts on various dates aggregating to Rs. 12,982 .

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

PresidingOfficer : Shri R. N. RAI.

L.D. No. 74/1997

In the matter of:

Shri S.C. Jain,

When the embezzlement committed by Shri Jain was detected by the Bank, Shri Jain was placed under suspension on 22-12-91 . Shri Jain submitted two letters one dated 20-12-91 and the other undated wherein he in effect admitted the gross negligence and embezzlement committed by him and also agreed to deposit the various amounts of which embazzlement was detected/would be detected.

R/o. C-21 , Shasgi Garden, MayurVihar, Delhi-110092.

Versus

TheGeneral Manager,

Punjab National Bank, HeadOffice, 7, Bhikaji CamaPlace, Africa Avenue, NewDelhi -110066.

AWARD

In his above letters , he also stated that in case there is any shortcoming of any manner in the extension counter noticed pertaining to period of his stay, he may be held responsible for the same . In view of his submissions it became necessary for the bank to verify the complete record ofthe Extension Counter particularly relating to the period forwhich Shri Jain was posted there to find out that there are any more ommissions/commissions were observed on his part which were also considered for the purpose of serving of charge sheet.

TheMinistry ofLabour by its letter No. L-12012/94/ 96- IR(B- II) Central Government Dt. 20-05-1997has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder:-

In charge-sheet dated 6-11-1992 was served upon him for the various acts of omission/corumission committed by him . Shri Jain submitted reply dated 15-1-1993 in response to the above charge -sheet which was considered by the Disciplinary Authority who decided to constitute Departmental Enquiry to look the truth ofallegations leveled "Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank in dismissing the services of [ भाग 1]- काण्ड 3( li ) ]

3265

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28 , 2008/ आफाद 7 , 1930

As such, the action taken by the ChiefManageras DisciplinaryAuthority is in accordancewith the provisions oftheBipartite Settlement. It is incorrect to say that the ChiefManager was not empowered to take disciplinary action. :

against him. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry proceedings wherein Shri Jain was afforded sufficient opportunity to defend himself. After conducting the enquiry the EO submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority and gave the findings that charges against Shri Jain are established. Disciplinary Authority after carefully going through the Enquiry Report and Enquiry Report concurred with the Findings of Enquiry Officer. Banks ure public institutions and employees are expected to act with utmost honesty and integrity since the public entrusts its money with the Bank.

Shri Jain had not only betrayed the confidence reposed in him but also caused substantial financial loss to the Bank and had thus lost the trust of the Bank.

The reasons for serving charge sheet on 6-11-92 cannotbe attributed to the bank as Shri Jain had himself admitted in his letter dtd. 20-12-91 that in case there is any shortcoming in any manner observed on his part during the period ofhis stay at B.C. Summer Fields School, then he maybeheld responsible for the same . This submission wasa pointer to thebank that more omissions/ commissions are likely tobe existing, hence it became necessary forthe bank to conduct inspection of the whole records and thereafter only, served a complete chargeshoot. The charge sheet finally served on Shri Jain contained the complete details ofthe charges leveled against him . It is incorrectto state that the charge sheet was not giving the complete particulars that he could not give reply effectively. In fhet, sufficient opportunity was afforded to him including permission to inspect the records. After inspection ofthe record, Shri Jain was able to submit a detalled reply dated 15-1-1993.

Shri Jain submitted two letters (one dated 20-12-91 and other was undated) of his own violation and admitted that he is responsible for :

Interms ofthe provisions of theBipartite Settlement and principles ofnatural justice the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice dated 4-7-94 proposing punishment ofdismissal without notice and fixed personal hearing for 17-7-94. Shri Jain appeared for personal hearing and submitted reply dtd . 15-7-94 to the show cause notice dated4-7-94and placed his defence before the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority passed speaking orders dated 21-7-94 staring inter-alia that he did not find any reason to reconsider the proposed punishment and proposed punishment of dismissal without notice was confirmed vide Disciplinary Authority Order dtd. 21-7-94.

Making payment of Rs . 2000 on 12-10-91 without debiting the same in the A/c . No. 7294 ofShri Amar Singh .

Making payment of Rs . 10,000 on 26-10-91 without . debiting the same inthe A/c . No. 7294 of Shri Amar Singh.

From the above it is apparent that the enquiry was held in fair and proper manner and punishment was imposed adhearing to the provsions of Bipartite Settlement . Full opportunity was afforded to Shri Jain to place his defence andbe represented by his Defence representative.

For not making entry in cashbook of an amount of Rs . 8100 of A/ c . No. 7339 slthough this amount was deposited by the A/ c. holder in his A/c. cash and a related entrywas made in the Ledgers.

Not creditingand amount of Rs . 1681 in the school A/c in these cases, the amount having been deposited by the parents/ students .

Shri Jain appealed to the Appellate Authority vide appeal dated 3-5-94 and his appeal was considered by the Appellate Authority and after considering the Enquiry record and Enquiry report the AppellateAuthority rejected the Appeal and upheld the proposed punishment of DisciplinaryAuthority vide his order dated 28-3-95 after affording a personal hearing to Shri Jain on 14-11-94.

In addition , he also stated inter-alis, that he is depositing amounts as under :-

Rs.12,000 related to A/c . No. 7294.

Ra.8, 100 related to A/ c . No. 7339.

Ra. 1,681 related to schoolA/ c.

He had even authorized the bank to recover the amounts of claim of the school from his salary . From the contents of these two letters, the only conclusion that can be is admission ofhis lapses on his part by Shri Jain.

Interms ofpara 19.14 of the Bipartite Settlement, the Chairman & Managing Director has appointed various DisciplinaryAuthorities , which were circulated vide bank's circulerNo. 1012 dated 13-4-87. In the year 1991 , theGreater Kailash- 1 branch was a large branch and accordingly for the workmen staff posted at the said branch , Regional Manager, South Delhi was the DisciplinaryAuthority. Shri Jain was placed under suspension under instructions of the Regional Manager . Keeping in view the frauds committed by Shri Jain . Subsequently, when the branch wasupgradedto extra large branch , which was beaded by aChief. Managor , according to the above circular 1012, ChiefManagerbecame the Disciplinary Authority. The Chief Manager as Disciplinary Authority served charge sheet dated 6-11-92 and took final decision in the case.

The charge sheet narrated the allegations against him. Therewas no pre - conclusion sasumed by the beaisas alleged. Bank did conduct a departmental/ enquiry to find out the truth of charges leveled against him.

2203 G1/08-18 3286

[PART I SEC. 3 ( 1ⅱ ) ]

JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7, 1930

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :

Therewas no infirmity in the contents of the charge sheet. Moreover, it is not necessary that the evidence on basis ofwhich charges are framed are to be disclosed in the charge sheet . Moreover bank had never denied opportunity to inspect the relevant to him during the enquiry.

repose its confidence in them . In the instant case the E.C. functioning at the school was for the purpose of mainly collection of fees of the students , maintaining of school accountetc. Shri Jain had misappropriated the funds tendered to him for deposit towards fees of the students or in other accounts etc. whereby he lost the confidence reposed in him . Hence the punishment of dismissal is proportionate to the gravity of the charges found established against him after holding a fair and proper enquiry.

While constituting the enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority had clearly stated that the reply has been considered and is not found satisfactory due to which it was necessary to find out the truth. For this purpose, the EnquiryOfficer was appointed.

Evidence ofboth the parties has been taken.

Fromthe details ofthe enquiry proceedings held on 7-7-93,4-8-93 and 16-8-93 . It is evident that the list of documents and witnesses submitted by the Presenting Officerwas provided to Shri Jain who himself had attended the enquiry proceedings also . (Kindly verify whether Shri Jain was present on these dated or not and accordingly necessary, this part maybe modified).

Heardargument from both the sides and perused the papers on the record.

It was submitted from the side of the workman that the charges were confirmed without considering the evidence. He was not provided all the documents. The InquiryOfficer admitted all the documents filed by the PO. The workman could not know the notification of the competent authority.

Shri Jain had not raised any objection towards the documents relied upon and presented during the enquiry . Accordingly, the documents were taken as exhibits and the contents of same were also confirmed by the managements's witness Shri Y.R. Verma, Asstt . Manager (since resigned from the bank service). This fact is also admitted by Shri Jain in para 3 (1) of claim statement.

It was further submitted from the side of the management that while working as Incharge at the extension counter Summer Field School , GK -I , New Delhi , the workman committed various omissions which reveals that he performed his duties with gross negligence and embezelled various accounts due to which the bank suffered aloss ofRs .24,247 = + interst.

From the records of the enquiry, it is evident that there was only documentary evidence to establish the charges and the same were relied upon. Shri Jain had failed to conduct admission/denial of these documents, the same were confirmedby the Management's witness. Thereafter, an opportunity was afforded to Shri Jain to cross exanine. the witness. (Kindly ensure the factual position from the enquiry proceedings with regard to cross examination of Shri Verma is stated here ) . Reasonable opportunity was afforded by the EnquiryOfficer to Shri Jain for his defence in view ofprinciples ofnaturaljustige.

It was submitted from the side of the workman that the Chief Manager of the Branch of the bank was not competent authority to issue charge-sheet to the workman . It is apparent from the Personnel Division Circular No. 1012 that the incumbent Incharge of each office is empowered to issue charge-sheet on the defaulting workman after obtaining proper approval of the competent authority. In extreme casewhere an employee is involved in a fraud and serious nature of mis - conduct and commits act riots behaviour in the premises of the bank, the incumbent Incharge may take action and get approval of the competent authority.

In the instant case charge -sheet has been issued legallyand validly.

The show cause notice as well as the final order are speaking orders as they give the essential ingredients. These orders refer to the charges leveled, findings of the Enquiry Officer , consideration of the same by the DisciplinaryAuthority and application ofmind on the whole enquiry record etc.Hence, the allegation that the orders are not reasoned is far from facts. Disciplinary Authority hadaccepted not reasoned is far from facts . Disciplinary Authority had accepted the findings ofthe EnquiryOfficer. TheEnquiry conducted was fair and proper.

From perusal ofthe inquiry proceedings it becomes quite obvious that the management has examined only one witness and he has filed all the documents . The workman was assisted by his defence representative. The inquiry proceeding reveals that the workman along with his DR participated in the inquiry and after conclusion of the inquiry the InquiryOfficer directed themto filewrittenbriefs.

The action of the bank having dismissed Shri Jain frombank's service after holding a fair and proper enquiry is legal andjustified particularly in view ofthe nature ofthe banking industry, viz banks are financial institutions whereupon the public entrusts ita hard earned money in the shape of savings, fixed deposits etc. The conduct of employees is required to be above board so that public can 3287 [ भाल 11- खण्ड 3 (1) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 28, 2008/ आषाढ़ 7, 1930

It has been held in 2001 (89) FLR427 as under:-

"It is well settled that a conclusion or a finding of fact arrived at in a disciplinary inquiry can be interferred withby the court only when there is no material for the sald conclusion; or that on the materials, the conclusions cannot be that of a reasonable man, " +

Fruith persal of the charge-sheet it becomes quite obvious that the workman made payment ofRs. 2,000 on 12-10-91 without debiting the same in the A/ c . No. 7294 of Sh. Amar Singh . He made payment of Rs. 10,000 on 26-10-91 without debiting the same in the account of Sh.Amar Singh. He did not make entry in cash book of Ra.1,100 ofA/c. No. 7339. He did not credit the amount of Rs. 1681 in the SB A/c. deposited by the parents/ students.

Theworkman deposited Rs . 12,000 related toA/c. No.7294, Rs. 8,100 related to A/c . No. 7339, Rs . 1681 in SchoolAccount.He authorized the management to recover these amounts from his salary and Rs. 20,000 has been recovered from his salory.

From perusal of this judgment it becomes quite obvious that the Tribunal can interfere with the findings oftheEnquiryOfficer 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 ofthe findings oftheEnquiryOfficer.

From perusal of the Inquiry also it becomes quite obvious that all the documents have been filed in the course of inquiry and copy ofthe same was given to the workinan . Thesewere in the handwriting of the workman.

It also becomes quite obvious from perusal of the inquiry that the workman has not denied the documents filedduring the course of inquiry.

Fromperusal of the inquiry proceedings is bocarina quite obvious that the management exanimed one witness. He produced all the documemts . Most of the documents were in thehandwriting ofthe workman. The workman has himselfdeposited the embezzeled amount and he authorized the bank to recover the amounts of claim of the School from his salary. The documents are themselves proof of embezzlement. The workman has not denied the documents .

The findings of the Inquiry Officer are based on proper analysis of evidence. The order of DA as well as AA are reasoned one. No interference is required.

Itis settled law that in domestic inquiry strict rules of evidence are not applicable . In the instant case the management has examined MWI and he has filed all the relevantdocuments. The workman has participated in the Inquiry along with his defence representative.

: The punishment imposed is neither dis-proporionate nor shocking to the conscience of the Court. The workman has commited acts of grave mis -conduct by making false credits and withdrawing money fraudulently. No interference even in the punistunent is required.

The refrence is replied thus:-

It is settled law that in a domestic inquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There isno allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nesas and credibility. The departmental authorities and "administrative tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the EvidenceAct."

The action of the management of Punjab National Bank in dismissing the services of Sh . S.C. Jain, Special Assistant w.e.f. 21-7-1994 is legal and justified . The workman applicant is not entitled to get any reliefas prayed for.

The award is given accordingly.

Date:3-6-2008

R. N. RAI , PresidingOfficer The sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding bya domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any svidence in support ofa finding is certainly available for the court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record.

नई दिल्ली, 6 जून , 2008

Ithasbeenheld in 1972(25) FLR45 as under :-

का.आ. 1586. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार कोगरा बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबंद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम म्यायालय नं-2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 71/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-6-08 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

An Industrial Tribunal would notbe justified in characterizing the finding recorded in the domestic inquiry as perverse unless it can be 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 possible for some other authority to arrive at a different conclusion on the same evidence.

[फा. सं. एल-12012/92/96-आईआर ( ची- II ) ]

राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी It has been held in this case that in domestic inquiry evidence of a solitary witness is sufficient to hold the changes proved.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7, 1930

3288.

New Delhi, the 6th June,2008 S.O. 1586. In pursunance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award (Ref. 71/1997 ) of the Cent. Government Indus. Tribunal -cum - Labour Court No. 2New Delhi as shown in theAnnexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their workman , received by the Central Government on5-6-2008.

[No. L- 12012/92/1996-IR (B- II)] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

PRESIDING OFFICER: R. N. RAI

L.D. No. 71/1997

IN THE MATTER OF :

Shri Surender Kumar, B-1/13 , Sultanpuri , Delisi -110041.

Versus

TheManager,

Canara Bank, Rajouri Garden, NewDelhi .

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L-12012/92/ 96/IR-(B- 11) Central Government Dt. 19-5-1997 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder ;-

"Whether Sh . Surender Kumar has worked with the management of Canara Bank as Part - time Sweeper for419 days during 1-5-1987 to 31-12-1989 to 11-8-1989 10 11-4-19922. If so , whether the action of the management of Canara Bank in terminating the services of Sh. Surender Kumar, Part- time Sweeper w.e.f. 11-04-1992 and thereafter not providing his one time opportunity for regular appointment as per Government's instructions No. L - 12012/ 57/93 - IR(B -11 ) dated 2-9-1993 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled and from what date."

The case of the workman is that he was recruited in the services of the Canara Bank at its Rajouri Garden, New Delhi Branch to work as a Sweeper against the leave vacancy of a permanent Sweeper . The bank has provided him certificate regarding his work from 17-8-198910 11-04-1992.

The workman has become a protected employee in view of his services for more than 240 days in a calendar year.

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii ) ] The case of the management is that the workman has worked against leave vacancy as part time sweeper of the bank from May, 1987 to December, 1987 for 183 day on daytoday basis and again from 1989 to 11-4-1992 for 115 days on various dates . He was engaged for few hours in a days in the leave vacancy of TTE for the clening the premises.

The workman has worked for 1183 days in 1987, 70 days in 1989,40 days in 1990 and 41days in the year 1992.

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 parasofthe claim statement .

Evidence ofboth the paarties has been taken .

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

It was submitted from the side of the workman that hewasworked for 240 days in every year ofhis employment. He was removed without payment of retrenchment compensation and one month's pay in lieu of notice.

It was submitted from the side of the management that the workman has worked from 1987 to 1992. He has not performed 240 days in any of the years of his employment .

From perusal of the records it becomes quite obvious that the workman has not filed any documentary evidence in support of his working days . He has relied on the certificate filed by the management

It is admitted to the management that the workman hasworked for338 days from May , 1987 to 11-4-1992. The management has filed certified list of working days of the workman. The workman has worked for 183 days fromMay, 1987 to December , 1987. He has worked for 33 days from August, 1989to December, 1989. He has workded for 5.5 days in the year 1990, He has workded for 27 days in 1991 and 14 days in 1992.

The workman has filed certificate dated 11-12-1988 inwhich it has been mentioned that the workman has worked from 1-5-1987 to 31-12-1987 against leave vacancy.

The case of the workamn is that he was engaged against leave vacancy,

Theworking days of the workman in different years indicate that he was given engagement when some staff was on leave . The workman has not filed any document to prove that he has workded for 240 days in any of the years ofhis employment i.e, 1987, 1988, 1989 , 1991 & 1992. His entire case is that he workded for 419 days from 01-05-1987 to 11-04-1992 . It also shows that he has not workded for 240 days in any of the years of his engagement . The workman has not filled any cogent documentary evidence to prove that he has workded for 240 days in any of the 3289

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28 , 2008/ आषाढ़ 7, 1930

[भाग - खण्ड ( i) ]

years ofhis engagement . He has worked for 183 days in 1987 and for less than 100 days in other years of his engagement as has been mentioned above.

Governemat hereby publishes the Award Ref. 26/2004 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cuon-Labour Court No. 2, New Delhi as shown as in the annexure, in the industrial disputebetween the management ofBank of India, and their workman, received by the Central Govermobunt on 05-06-2008.

[F. No. 1-12012/185/1996-IR(B- IT)) RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

It has beenheld in Crystal Electricals Vs. State of Punjab 1988 II LLJ 417 that the provisions of section of 25F ofthe IDAct, 1947 apply only when the workmum has completed240days in 12 months preceding the date ofhis termination. The services of the workman were terminated on 11-04-1992. He has worked for 14 days in 1992, 27 days in1991and55days in 1990 so, he has not workded for240 days either in a calendar year or within 12 months preceding the date of his termination .

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNEMNT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALCUM LABOUR COURT-IL, NEW DELH

PRESIDING OFFICER : R. N. RAI

L.D. No. 26/2004

IN THE MATTER OF:

It is sottled law that affidavits are self serving. On mere assertions in the affidavit in cannot be held that the workman has completed 240 days in all the years of his engagement. This workman has not completed 240 days in anyof the years of his engagement , so Section 25 F of the IDAct, 1947 isnot attracted.

Shri Ramesh Chander,

S/o. Shri Hari Krishan, R/o . 1196/30, Chhotu Ram Colony, Kancheli Road Rohtak-124001 (Haryana).

Versus

The workman applicant has worked with the management of Canara Bank as part-time sweeper from 01-05-1967031-12-1987 and 17-08-1989 to 11-04-1992.Не may have completed 419 days in between May, 1987 to 11-04-1992. He has not performed 240 days in any of the years ofhis employment or 240 days preceding the date of his termination .

The reference is replied thus :-

The Zonal Manager , Bank of India, Zonal Office : SCO-181182, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

AWARD

TheMinistry ofLabour.by its letter No. L- 12012/185/ 2003/IR/(B- II) CENTARAL GOVERNEMNT DL. 19-01-2004 has reffered the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder:-

The action of the management of Canara Bank in. terminating the services of Sh. Surender Kumar , part -time sweeper w.e.f. 11-04-1992 is legal and just . The action of the management in not providing him one time opportunity for regular appointment as per Government instructions No. L-12012/57/93 - IR (B-II) dated 02-09-1993 is legal and justified. Theworkman applicant is not entiled to get any relief as prayed for.

The award is given accordingly.

Date:05-06-2008

R.N. RAI, Presiding Officer

"Whether the action of the management ofBank of India in terminating the services of Sh . Ramesh Chander, S/o. Sh. Hari Kishan, Sub -staff Daftari w.e.f. 19-04-2002is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled."

नई दिल्ली, 6 जून , 2008

The case of the workman is that he was employed on01-09-1989 as Daftari . On08-01-2002 he was marked late and submitted an application.. Instead of considering the application, Sh. Lomar marked red line in the attendance register and abused the workman .

का.आ. 1587, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबंद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं-2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 26/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-6-08 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[फा. से एल-12012/185/2003 - आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ]

That on 23-01-2002 the workman was given charge- sheet for abrusing Sh . Lomar and assaulting him and causing injury . The list of witnesses of preliminary was not given . to him. That the workman was denied assistance ofDR in the inquiry.

राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 6th June,2008

The workman was not fully conversant with the procedure of the enquiry and its technicality thereof. He was made to admit charges under coercion and pressure. The manager, Sh . A, S . Lomar on JPS Jainwal assured the workman that the matter will be compromised ifhe admits S.O. 1587.In pursunance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputés Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central 3290

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 28, 2008/ASADHA 7, 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ⅱ))

bankhas deposed that when he reached the bank he heard some shouting. The altercation was going on outside the premises ofthe bank . He got Sh . Lomar and the workman separated.Hetook Sh . Lomar to Dr. as blood was coming outofhishead.

the charges in writing. The incident of assaulting did not happen in the premises. That the medical officer who prepared the report has not been examined. The Inquiry Officer has not considered the defence evidence in his report. The findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse. TheDA andAA acted with closed mind . The workman was beaten and assulted by Sh. Lomar. The inquiry is not fair .

Sh . A. S. Lommar has examined himself. He has stated inhis cross-examination that the workınan after giving leave application for one day on 01-01-2002 went towards the main gate grumbling and abusing him . He took up his cycle and went out.

The case of the management is that he came late in the branch on 08-01-2002 which was questioned by Sh.Attar Singh Lomar Dy. Manager (Adm. ) , the workman misbehaved with the officer and uttered filthy and derogatory language against him.

The managemnet has examined the InquiryOfficer , Sh. JPS Jainwal . He has recorded the statement of Sh. Lomar and Sh . Ashok Sharma , Staff Clerk .

The inquirywas found vitiated as the InquiryOfficer did not record examination- in-chief on Sh. Lomar the complainant and Sh. Ashok Kumar , Staff Clerk in the presence of the charge-sheeted employee.

Theworkman assaulted Sh, Lomar and in the scuffle grabbed his palm and put in hisjaw, Sh . Lomar bleeded profusely.He suffered a wound he was taken to the hospital and got his palm stitched. A fair inquiry has been held. Theworkmanhas participated in the inquiry. He has cross- examined all the witnesses . He has produced five witnesses . The punishment awarded is also proportionate in view ofthe abusing language used by the workman and biting his palm with teeth by the workman.

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 ofthe paras ofthe claim statement.

Evidence ofboth the parties has been taken.

It is settled law that examination -in-chief of a witness should be recorded in the presence of charge- sheeted employee. I found the inquiry vitiated on this ground alone. The management has examined those two witnesses who were cross-examined by the workman at their satatement of preliminary inquiry. These witnesses have been . examined in the presence ofthe workman . The workman has cross-examined these two witnesses as such the findings of the Inquiry Officer are to be considered in the light of the evidence of these two witnesses and all the other witnesses who have deposed in the course of the inquiry.

Heard argument from both the side and perused the papers onthe record.

I have perused the proceedings of the inquiry. It was submitted that the incident took place outside the premises so domestic inquiry cannot be held for the misconduct which took place outside the bank premises.

It transpires from perusal of the order-sheet that înquiry was held vitiated on the grounds that witnesses of preliminary inquiry were not examined by the Inquiry Officer. The workman was asked to cross- examine the witnesses on their deposition in the preliminary inquiry . The management has examined all the witnesses in the court . This cross-examination was done by the workman .

It appears that the workman went late to join his duty and he was marked absent and he submitted application and he abused Sh. Lomar as he has marked him absent. When Sh . Lomar tried to stop him using abusive language an altercation took place the workman caught hold of the palm of Sh. Lomar under his teeth and bit it . Sh. Lomar received serious injury. It has been proved that hewas taken to the hospital where the wound was stitched.

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that he went late and red line was drawn in the attendance register and the workman submitted application for going late but the Dy. Manager was annoyed and assaulted the workman. While beating, the hand of the Dy. Manager went into his mouth so he had teeth injury on his palm .

The workman has also examined five witnesses . It appears that these witnesses were not at the spot as they have stated that this workman Sh . Ramesh Chander fell down and Lomar went on beating.

All the witnesses examined in the court as well as in the course of inquiry have corroborated the incident, The defence witness has been examined in the course of the inquiry. They were not eye witness as they have giving wrong narration of the entire incident .

It was submitted from the side of the management that the workman misbehaved with the Dy . Manager , Sh. Lomar and bit his palm with his teeth and injury was caused to Sh. Lomar. He was taken to hospital by an employee of the bank and he got his palm stitiched . Proper charge-sheet has been served on the workman . The management has examined in cross Sh. Lomar , Sr. Manager, JPS Jainwal , Sh . Ashok Kr . , Sh . A.S. Lomar. The workman has cross-examined all the three witnesses . The workman bas himselffiled affidavit He has also been cross -examined bythe management. Sh. Ashok Kumar, an employee ofthe

The occurence took place inside the premises . The workman went on using abusing language to the Dy.Manager so he tried to catch hold ofhim and bring him in the permises but the workman bit his palm andhe got serious injury. The workman has not sustained any 3291 [ भाग 1Ⅱ- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28, 2008/ आषाढ़ 7 , 1930

injury in the incident . He has filed affidavit no doubebut it is not of the same day. It appears to be got prepared in defence.

The CSE came 10 minutes late on 08-01-2002, so red mark was put on the attendance register . The workman moved and applicaation for leave on the table ofSah.A.S. Lohmar and started abusing while going out, so the incident took place inside the premises . It might be that when the workmanwas going outaide hurling abuses on Sh . Lohmar be might have tried to catch hold the workman but the workman got hold of his palm and bit with his teeth.

The charges levelled against the workman are found proved on the evidence adduced in the court and evidence adducedbefore the Inquiry Officer . The managementhas examinedthe Inquiry Officer in court also. The management has not violated the principles of natural justice. Proper opportunity has been given to the workman to cross- examine the witnesses and to adduce his own evidence. He has adduced defence evidence in the inquiry as well before theTribunal . The principles of naturaljustice have bem observed. The inquiry is fair.

Ina domestic inquiry it is not necessary to examine the medical officer. The witnesses have deposed that they took himtohospital and his palm was stitched. In a domestic inquiry such evidence is admissible . Even hearsay evidence is admissible for domestic inquiry.

It is settled law that in a domestic inquirythe strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable neous and credibility. The departmental suthorities and administrative tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the EvidenceAct. "

From perusal of the inquiry proceedings it becomes quite obvious that the workman used abusive language to theDy. Manager as he has put a red line against the name ofthe workman in the attendance register. There is every possibility that the workman might have been annoyed . He moved application for leeve and while going on, of grudge he uttered abusive language to Sh. Lohmar, Dy . Manager. The entire incident is proved by the witnesses examined before the Inquiry Officer and the witnesses examined in the Court.

Inthe instant case the inquiry is fair and propor.No interference is required.

The reference is replied thus :-

The sufficiency ofevidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of anyevidence in support of a finding is certainly available for the court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record.

Ithas beenheld in 1972 (25) FLR45 as under:-

The action of the management of Bank of India in terminating the services of Sh. Ramesh Chander , S/o. Sh. HariKishan, sub -Staff, Daftri w.e.f. 19-04-2002 is just and- legal . The workman applicant is not entitled to get any reliefas prayed for.

The award is given accordingly.

Date:04-06-2008

R.N. RAI , PresidingOfficer An industrial Tribunal would not be justified in chitractreriring the finding recorded in the domestic inquiry as perverse unless it can be shown that such a finding is not supported by any evidence, or is entirely opposedto the wholebody of the evidence adduced before it. In a domestic inquiry once a conclusion is deduced from the eviklence, it is not permissible to nasail conchsion even though it is possible for some other suthority to arrive at a different conclusion on the same evidence.

नईदिल्ली, 6 जून 2008

Prom pausal ofthe inquiry it becomes quite obvious that the management examined Sh , A.S. Lohmar , Sh. Ashok Shuma & Sh . Diwakar Kapoor in course of the inquiry. The InquiryOfficer did not record the examination- in-chief of Sh. A.S. Lohmar and Sh . Asliok Sharma in the presence ofthe charge-sheeted employee , so a preliminary finding was given that the inquiry was not fair.

का.आं, 1588, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की भारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भूनिधन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संथ नियोजकों और उनकी कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निरिष्ट औद्यौगिक विचार में कोद्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं-2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 48/1995 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-6-08 को प्राप्त हुआ यां ।

[फा. सं एल-12012/354/94-अ . आर. ( बी-1 ) ]

राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी The management has examined in the Court Sh .A.S. Lohmar and Sh. Ashok Sharma in the presence of the CSE and these two witnesses have been cross-examined by the workman. The management has also examined by the workman. The menagement has also examined the Inquiry Officer in Court and the Inquiry Officer has been cross- exannined by the workman, the CSE.

NewDelhi, the 6th June, 2008

8.0. 1588.-in pursunance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governerant hereby publishes the Award Ref. 48/1995 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour The statemenet of Sh. Lohmar and Sh. Sharma has become admissible in evidence as they have been examined in court in the present of the CSE. These witnesses have proved the biting ofthe palm ofSh. Lotunar by the CSE.

3292

[PART II- Sec. 3 (it) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7, 1930

Principles of natural justice have not been followed. The Inquiry Officer has given findings without any evidence.

Court No. 2, New Delhi as shown in the annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Union Bank of India, and their workman , received by the Central Governemnt on 05-06-2008.

[F.No. L- 12012/354/94- IR (B- II) ]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER:

The case of the management is that as per the staff Circular No. 2309 , Sh . R.M. Khanna , GM (P) , Chandigarh was specified as DA/EO. He held the inquiry as per the BPS and principles of natural justice. The appointment of Sh. Khanna as Inquiry Officer and DA is in order and inquiry held by him is valid and lawful . The charges levelled against the workman were specific and not vague . The inquiry was not conducted with a pre -determind mind and in utter violation of the principles of natual justice.

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

PRESIDING OFFICER : RIN. RAI

LD. No. 48/1995

IN THE MATTER OF:

Smt. Vijay Lakshmi Malhotra,

The inquiry was held as per the provisions of the BPS. The findings ofthe Inquiry Officer are based on mate- rial on record and not on surmises and conjectures . The order ofdismissal is not dis -proportionate in view of the gravity of the offence. The workman temporarily mis- apropriated an amount of Rs . 41,000 ( Rs . Forty One Thou- sand). It was a grave misconduct and it was found proved during the inqiry. There is no victimization by Dr. Lohia.

R/o. HP 144, Mourya Enclave , Pitampura,Delhi - 110034

Versus

The Zonal Manager ,

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

UnionBank of India,

Evidence of both the parties has been taken. 26/28D, Zonal Office, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi - 110001 .

AWARD

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

TheMinistry ofLabour by its letter No. L-12012/354/ 94/IR/(B- II) Central Government Dt. 04-04-1995 has reffered the following point for adjudication.

Thepoint runs as hereunder :-

It was submitted from the side of the workman that the Inquiry Officer and DA cannot be one and the same person.The charges in the instant case are vague and not specific. The charge -sheet has not been signed by the appropriate authority. Dr. Lohia has filed complaint after a long delay. The inquiry is not fair . Principles of natural justice have not been followed. There is no evidence against the workman in the inquiry . The Inquiry Officer has assumed the role of DA. The punishment awarded is illegal .

"Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of IndiaNew Delhi in dismissing Smt. Vijayalaxmi Malhotra Clerkfrom services w.e.f. 12-04-1993 is legal-and justified? Ifnot, to what relief is Smt. Vijayalaxmi Malhotra entitledto."

It was submitted from the side of the management that as per Circular No. 2309, the DA & InquiryOfficer can be one and the same person .

The case ofthe workman is that she was awarded the punishment of dismissal without notice and warming bythe InquiryOfficer vide his order dated 12-04-1993 in the matter ofchaarge -sheet dated 17-09-1992. The Inquiry Officer acted as DA. He conducted inquiry against the workman andhe himself gave the finding and also awarded the punishment . The Inquiry Officer and the DA cannot be one and the same person.

That vague charge- sheet was served. It was 'false and fabricated. The charges were not specific. It was not signed by the competent authority. It is liable to be washed out rightly on this ground alone.

It was further submitted that on 11-06-1992 , Dr. Lohia presented the two cheques of Rs . 25,000 /- and Rs. 2,00,000/-. Both the cheques were handedover to Smt . Malhotra for entering in the cash scroll register . She issued only one token for both the cheques. She advised Dr. Lohia to collect the cash at 1:30 PM, subsequently it was found that the cheque for Rs . 2,00,000/- was not entered in the book of the accounts and could not be traced in the Branch therefore, Dr. Lohia gave written instructionto stop the payment of his cheque for Rs.2, 00,000/- bearing No. 067816 dated 11-06-1992.

That the workman collected a sum of Rs . 41,000/ - from a customer of the bank and she went home with that amount, when inquiry was made , the amount was That the whole inquiry was conducted with a pre- determinedmind and in utter violation ofprinciples ofnatu- ral justice and contrary to the provisions ofthe BPS. The findings drawn by the Inquiry Officer were not based on material on record but on conjuctures and surmises.

3293 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28 , 2008/ आषाढ़ 7 , 1930

recovered from her brother Mr. R.M. Khanna is the InquiryOfficer as well as the DA. He has filed affidavit.He has admitted in his cross-examination as under :-

tokeni was issued by the workman for Rs . 2,00,000 and Rs. 25,000/-. There is no direct witness of handing over of two cheques byDr. Lohia to the workman.

The case ofthe workman is that Dr. Lohia gave her only one cheque and she entered it. She did not receive a cheque ofRs.2,00,000/-,

"The copies of the documents were not suppliedto theworkman before starting the cross -examination of those relevant witnesses . I do not remember if I gave opportu- nityto the workman to produce documents before start of the inquiry. She did not ask for to be defended by an Ad- vocate and was defended by union leader. The time given to the workman to bring her defence representative was two hours as recorded in the file . Disciplinary Authority wai AppellateAuthority:"

Ihave examined the evidence ofthe witnesses MWI & MW2. They have stated on the basis of the circum- stances that theworkman must have received one cheque ofRs . 2,00,000/- from Dr. Lohia. The cheque has not been entered in any register , so it cannot be said that the workman had in malafide intention to mis -appropriate Rs. 2,00,000/-. The other charges against the workman is that Mr. P.N. Khanna, partner Jukaso came to the branch . todeposit Rs . 41,000 / - and there was strike on that day 10 hewas advised to deposit on some other day as he could not receive the receipt.

This witness has admitted in his cross-examination that the copies ofthe documents were not supplied to the workanan before starting the cross - examination ofthose relevant witnesses . This witness has also stated that he didnot remember whether he gave opportunity to the work- manto producedocuments before start of the inquiry.

Ithas been further alleged that the workman went to the office ofMr. Khanna and received Rs . 41,000/-and sise wenthome and when the matter was inquired, her brother deposited the amount.

From the statement of this witness it becomes quite obvious that copies of the documents were not supplied to the workman while she was cross-examining the wit- nesses. She was not given opportunity to produce docu- mentsbefore start of the inquiry.

Thiswitness has also admitted that the time given to theworkman to bring her defence representative was two houra as recorded in the file. He has also admitted that the DAwas the AA

The further case of the workman is that the Branch Manager entrusted her to get the amount of Rs.41 , 000/- from Sh . P.N. Khanna and to deposit with the bank. The workman collected the amount from his office and went home for some purpose in the meanwhile it was reportedto her that she mis -appropriated the money. She sent the money through her brother. The workman has annexed the certificate with the record which indicates that she was suffering from Pshycosis and Shizophrenia. It cannot be said that she had any intention to mis- appropriate the amount. At worst it may be held that she went away with that amount to her home whereas she would have goneto the bank and deposited the amount . Malafide intention cannot be presumed in the circumstances of the case.

From perusal of the statement of this witness it be comes quite obvious that the workman was not supplied copies ofdocuments on which the Inquiry Officer relied. The InquiryOfficer admitted that material documents were not supplied to the workman before the start ofthe cross- examination . This witness has also admitted that the workman was given only two hours time to bring her defence representative.

My attention was drawn by the management to Cir- cularNo.2309 according to which DA/EO can be one and the same person. That circular has not been filed on record. Itappears surprising that an Officer is entrusted the duty ofInquiryOfficer and he has also entrusted with the pow- ers of DA . The DA cannot be aAA .

The charges against the workman is that Dr. Lohia presented two cheques, one of Rs . 25,000/- and other of Rs . 2,00,000/-. One cheque was entered and another was not entered . Dr. Lohia has not been examined on his com- plaint. The alleged incident took place on 11-06-1992. Dr. Lohia filedcomplaint after seven days ofthe incident.

From perusal of the record of the inquiry it becomes quiteobvious that in the instant case the workman has not been supplied the copies of the material documents before the start ofthe cross- examination so, she could not cross- examine the witnesses . The witnesses are hearsaywitness. There is no direct evidence. She was given opportunity of two hours to bring her defence representative. Even ifit is found proved, she issued one token for two cheques, it was simply a irregularity and it cannot be said tobe malafide intention tomisappropriate the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- . The misconduct committed by her is only irregularity. She got Rs .41,000/- and deposited the same day which she had received from Sh . P.N. Khanna as inquiry was made inci- dentally.

Itappearsthat she had no intention to mis -appropri- ate that amount . She might have gone to her housewith some purpose and she would have deposited the same amount on the same day but when she learnt to this effect, she gave the amount to her brother fordeposit.

Ithas been held in AIR 1968 SC 266 that the Inquiry Officer has to observe Rules ofNatural Justice in conduct There is inordinate delay and Dr. Lohia may have been pressurized by some officer to make a complaint against the workman . Dr. Lohia did not appear to depose before the Inquiry Officer . MWI & MW2 have been examined . MW1 has stated that Dr. Lohia made reference for stopping the payment and he gave another cheque of Rs . 2,00,000/- and payment to him was made accordingly. According to him the circumstances suggest that one

2261 Gime 17 3294

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7 , 1930

[PART 11 SEC.3 ( ii )]

नई दिल्ली , 10 जून, 2008

of a domestic inquiry. He should be allowed to cross- examine witnesses and he must be given an opportunity to examine himself and adduce any other evidence that he might choose in support of his case . Inquiry is not an empty formality. The workman must be given reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and also to adduce any other evidence that he may choose.

Ithas been held in AIR 1986 SC as under :-

का. आ. 1589 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का ( 4 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै . यूनाईटेड इन्शोरेन्स इंडिया कम्पनी लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय II , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी सं. 1202/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-6-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[फा. सं. एल 17012/4/2005- आई आर ( एम. ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी That non-supply ofcopies of statement ofwitnesses and copies of documents relied upon causes grave prejudice.

New Delhi , the 10th June , 2008

Ithas been held in AIR 1961 that the charge- sheeted employee must be given opportunity to cross- examine the witnesse's andhe must be supplied all the documents relied upon.

In the instant case the Inquiry Officer and the DA is one and the same person which is against the Rules of Natural Justice. The DA cannot be the Inquiry Officer and the DA cannot be the AA.

S. O. 1589. 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. 1202/2005) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court - Il , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . United Insurance India Company Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-6-2008.

[F. No. L- 17012/4/2005- IR( M) ) KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

The management witness has admitted in his cross-examinatuion that copies of the documents were not supplied to the workman. He has also admitted in cross- examination that he did not remember whether he gave opportunity to the workman to produce documents before start of the inquiry. This witness has also admitted that he gave two hours time to the CSE to bring her deferice representative.

CENTRAL GOVENMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT- II , SECTOR 18- A, CHANDIGARH

Presiding Officer: SHRI KULDIP SINGH CASE I. D. NO : 1202/2005 Resistered on : 3-10-2005 Date ofDecision 3-6-2008

It is admitted that the documents have not been supplied to the workman. It is also admitted that only two hours time was given to bring defence representative . It is also admitted that the CSE was not given opportunityto adduce evidence in defence , as such the inquiry is absolutely unfair.

Rajan Khosla S/o Shri Surinder Kumar Khosla , 416/9 , Mohalla Rishi Nagar, Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur

Petitioner

Versus

The Inquiry Officer has based his findings on the evidence of a witness who has not been properly cross- examined by the CSE so , the findings are perverse . The DA & AA have also acted with closed mind . They have not given reasoned order . The orders of the DA & AA are set aside.

ReviewingAuthority (Award staff) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Regd . and H. Q. 24 , Whites Road, Chenлаі

...Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman Mr: Kuldip Raj Kaila , A.R. For the Management : Mr. D. R. Bansal , Advocate. The workman was removed on 12-04-1993 and this case has been filed after two years of delay . The order- sheet discloses that both the sides have shown indulgence intaking adjournments . In the facts and circumstances of the case the workman is entiled to only 50% back wages .

AWARD

The reference is replied thus: -

The following reference was received by this Tribunal fromthe Ministry of Labour , Government of India vide their No. L - 17012/4 /2005 - IR(M ) dated 2nd Sept , 2005:

The action on't management ofUnion Bank of India, NewDelhi in dismis Smt . Vijayalaxmi Malhotra, Clerk from services w.e.f. 12-04-1993 is neither legal nor justified. The management should reinstate the workman with continuity of service along with 50% back wages within two months from the date of the publication of the award.

The award is given accordingly. Date:04-06-2008

"Whether the action of the Management of M/s . United Insurance India Company Ltd. in removing Shri Rajan Khosla, Ex -Assistant/Clerk from service w.e.f. 2-6-2003 without giving him proper opportunity to defend his case is legal and justified? Ifnot to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date ?"

R. N. RAI , PresidingOfficer [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (1) ]

Thenoticeofthe reference was given to the parties.

Theworlunan appeared through representative on 11th of July,2006 for the first time and the Management put up their presence through their counsel on 12th of Sep. , 2006 for the first time. The workman had submitted his statement of claim by post which was received in this Tribunal on 17th of May, 2006. The Management filed reply to the statement of claim on the day they appeared for the first time and copy of the reply was given to the workman . The workman filedhis affidavit in support ofhis claim whereas the management filed the affidavit of Shri Ravi Bhushan , theirAssistant Manager. Both the workman and witness oftheManagement Ravi Bhushan appeared as witness in thecase.

The claim of the workman is the Management had held a domestic enquiry against him in pursuance of memorandum No. CHRD: PER: 2K1 :3779 dated30-1-2002 but they did not follow the provisions of rule 25 ofGeneral Insurance (Conduct, Discipline andAppeal) Rules, 1975. TheManagement did not give the dates, months and year when the workman did not attend to his duties . They also did not examine their witnesses in support of statement of imputation or misconduct alleged to be committed by the workman.The confession of the workman in the absence of enquiry was meaningless as the recording of his statement . before the examination of witnesses of the management in support of the enquiry amounted to infirmity whichvitiates the very enquiry. The claim of withdrawal of the workman from the enquiry proceedings does not absolve the management of their obligation to hold a fair and proper enquiry. The enquiry is also bad for having been conducted in the absence of the presenting officer . The order ofdismissal ofthe workman is also bad for being non-speaking, having been passed without holding an enquiry. It is also claimed by the workman that his review petition is still notdecided by the Chairman and Managing Director. For these reasons his dismissal from service is bad, illegal and unjustified, therefore, the same may be quashed.

The claim of the workman has been opposedby the managemem . They have raised preliminary objections and have also replied the assertions made by the workman in his claim petition. It is submitted by them that the workman has been removed from service after holding domestic enquiry in accordance with General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline andAppeal) Rules, 1975 as amended up to date, bywhich the workman was governed. During the enquiry theworkman admitted the charges labelled against him. He was further asked to submit the representation about the findings ofthe Enquiry Officer, but he did not make any. It was inthese circumstances, the DisciplinaryAuthority after taking all the aspects ofthe case into consideration imposed the impugned penalty on the workman. The appeal filed by himwas decided against him by Appelate Authority and the review filed by him has not been decided as before that the workinan raised the demand notice before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Chandigarh . Denying the claim

3295

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28 , 2008/ आषाढ़ 7, 1930.

ofthe workman of being possessing sober behaviour and innocent it is claimed by the management that even in the past the workman was served with charge sheet for remaining on unauthorized absence from duty from 25th of June, 1997 to30th ofNov. , 1998. During the enquiry ofthat misconduct the workman admitted the charges and assured thathewill not repeat such a misconduct. He was left with light penalty of Censure. Even thereafter he did notmend his ways while posted in Branch Office, Dasuya andhe was again advised to mend his conduct. It is also ctaimed by the management that since the workman was drawing salary more than 1600/- P.M. at the time of his disengagement, he was not the workman as defined under Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , hereinafterto be referred to as 'Act',

On merits the claim of the management is the enquiry against the workman was conducted in accordance with rules.Hewas served with definite charges in terms of rule 25(3) which he admitted without any reservation before the Enquiry Officer. In view of the admission of the workman there was no need to hold further enquiry and the charges were found to be proved . Denying the allegation about the conduct of theAppelate Authority, it stated by the management that the conduct of the said authority was not biased , unethical , vindictive and disiminative. The order passedby the said authority is speaking order . About the disposal of the memorial ofthe employee it is their claim that since matter went for the consideration of the Assistant Labour Commissioner and then of this Tribunal , therefore, the competent authority haskept its hands off of consideration of the said review petition. Theyhave denied that the workman is entitled to anyrelief.

.Itmay be noted here that the workman has not filed any rejoinder to rebut the facts stated by the management in their writen statement.

From the pleadings ofthe parties it is clear that the services ofthe workman were dispensed with after holding adomestic enquiry. Domestic Enquiry in industrial cases has acquired great significance and industrial adjudication attaches considerable importance to such an enquiry. The Supreme Court has said that an enquiry is not an empty formality but an essential condition to the legality ofthe disciplinary order. In other words, before the delinquent workman can be dismissed for misconduct, the emplyer should hold a fair and regular enquiry in the misconduct and dismissal without holding a regular enquiry would be' illegality. It is also well settled that the disciplinary enquiry has to be quasi -judicial , ' should be held according to the priniciples ofnatural justice and the enquiry officer has a dutyto judicially. As is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Central Bank of India Ltd versus KarunamonyBanerjee, reported as ( 1967) 2LLI 739, the rules ofnatural justice require that the workman prioceeded against shouldbe informed clearly of the charges levelled against him; witnesses should be normally examined inhis presence in respect of the charges ; if statements taken 3296

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2006/ASADHA 7, 1930

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

thesis of the violation of the principles of natural justice or victimization as understood in industrial law, as the question of prejudice does not arise under such circumstances , but in such a case there must be an admission ofguilt by the delinquent workman in clear terns.

previously and given by the witnesses are relied on , they should be made available to the workman concerned; the workman should be given a fair opportunity to examine witnesses, including himself, in support of his defence; andthe inquiry officer should record his findings based on the evidence so adduced. Karnatka High Court in the case ofGRVenkateshwara Reddy versus Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation reported as ( 1995) I LLJ 1011 , has laiddown the following requirements of reasonable procedure subject to any special provisions relating to procedure in the relevant rules , regulations, Standing Orders or a statute:

Inthis regard the statement of the workman recorded inthis Tribunal is very relevant . In his statement he admitted his signatures on MWI / 1 , M- 3 and stated that he had received M- 5 which also contains his signatures . He claimed that whatever the enquiry officer had said, he had written . He further admitted that earlier also he was served with a charge sheet and then also he had given in writing whatever the enquiry officer had told to him. He deniedto have received M-4 and M- 6.

(a) the employee shall be informed of the exact charges whch he is called upon to meet;

(b) he should be given an opportunity to explain any material relied on by the management to prove the charges;

(c) the evidence ofthe management witnesses should be recorded in the presence of the delinquent employee and he should be given an opportunity to cross examine such witnesses;

(d) the delinquent employee shall either be furnished with copies of the documents relied on by the management or be permitted to have adequate inspection of the documents relied on by the management;

(e) the delinquent employee should be given the opportunity to produce relevant evidence-both docmentary and oral which include the right to examine selfand other witnesses ; and to call for relevant and material documents in the custody ofthe employer,

(f) Whenever the inquiring authority is different from disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee shall be furnished with a copy of the inquiry reoport and be permitted to make a presentation to the disicplinary authority against the findings recorded in the inquiry report,

MW 1/1 is the letter dated 2nd of December, 2002 addressedto Shri K.K. Puri , Enquiry Officer, written by the workman in his own hand . Regarding this writing the working has not raised any finger that the said letter was got written from him under duress , coercion or by giving falsepromise. Ifthe letter was not written by the workman at his free will, the first occasion for him to have raised finger against the letter was in his representation to the Disciplinary Authority which he did not make . From the writing MW 1/1 it is clear that the workman is literate person, major and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, physically fit . In the circumstances it cannot be accepted that the admission of charges made by him was not at his free will . Even in the statement ofclaim he did not allege that the admission of charges was not made by him at his free will . Rather he admitted his signature on M - 3 also. This is another admission of charges made by the wrokman on 10th ofSept. 1999. He also admitted to have receivedM-5, which is a notice to him issues by the Branch Manager , Dasuya Branch where he was working. By this letter-notice dated 6th of July , 2001 , he was informed that he has not submitted his clarification about his absence from duty during the period from 22nd of June, 2001 to 4th of July, 2001. He was again advised to submit his clarification within seven days . He was further informed that no leave was lying in his credit. Although the workmar . denied to have received letter M-7, but he did not ask for it evenafter receiving M- 5 in which the reference about the said letter had been made . This shows that the workman hadabsented from duty as no leave was at his credit .There is nothing on record to show that the absence of the workman was for the reasons beyon his control . There is neither claim nor proof to show that the workman was ill or he had any other reason not to attend to his duties . The evidence available on record rather shows that he was a habitual absentee and was punished with ' Censure ' for the same conduct on an earlier occasion . His long absence from duty was not in favour of the working of the management . Despite having been punished with light punishment for a similar misconduct, he did not mend his ways. Thus the punishment award to him cannot be said to be dis-proportionate to misconduct alleged and proved against him.

In this background it is to be seen whether in this case the management had held a fair and proper enquiry against the workman or not . It is noted above that the Mangementhas denied the claim ofthe workman that a fair and proper enquiry was not held . Their claim is that since the workman bad admitted the charges in the enquiry, therefore, there was no need to proceed further in the enquiry. They have relied upon the authority of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vice Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalay Sangathan and another versus Girdhari Lal Yadav, reported as (2004) 6 Supreme Court Cases 325. In the cases reportedas(1967) 2 LLJ 739, 1981 Lab IC 557, ( 1984) ILLJ 197 and 1986 Lab IC1403 , it has been held that in a case where theworkman in answer to the charge labeled against him, admits his guilt , there will be nothing more for the Management to enquire against him and in that case holding ofenquirywould be a mere empty formality.A misconduct owned and admitted by the delinquent workman is ante

The workman has not supported his claim by any law, rules or regulations that even after his admission of :

3297 [पन II- खण्ड 3 ( ⅱ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28 , 2008/ आषाढ़ 7, 1930

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. की. सं. 08/1995 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-6-08 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[फा. सं एल-11012/7/94-आई. आर. (एम. ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 10th June, 2008

S. Q. 1590.-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. 08/1995) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court. II, New Delhi now as whown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Internatiortal Airport Authority of Indiaand theirworkman , which was received bythe Central Government on 10-6-2008 .

[F. No. L- 11012/7/94- IR(M) ]

KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOURCOURT- I NEW DELHI

PRESIDING OFFICER: R.N.RAI . I. D. NO. 08/1995 charges the management was required to have gone through the process ofholding a regular enquiry. The law lay down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and referred to above is to the effect that once the admission of charges is done, theholding of the enquiry further becomes an empty formality: The workman has also failed to show as to how he was prejudiced when his admission was recordedby the enquiry officer in the absence of the Presenting Officer. Moreover, the workman again made the admission of charges on 2nd ofDec, 2002 when the presenting officer was also present. There is also no merit in the claim ofthe woronan that the management had not served definite :charge sheet upon the workman . The workman has not denied that the chargesheet was not served upon him. He has not alleged that the charge sheet was vague. After the charge sheet was read over to him, a fact which he has admitted in his own handwriting. MW 1/1 , he stated that "the charge sheet was read out to me word by word . I confirm that I have understood the charge sheet" . He did not claim that he had not understood the charge since it was vague. He also did not ask for the detail of dates on which he had remained absent from duty without authority. The copy of the charge sheet is on record and it clearly states about the manber ofdays the wrokinen had remained sbsent from duty in a particular month and year. Thus the pleas raisedby the workman are not prove and the law referred tobyhim does not support his case.

IN THE MATTER OF

Shri Surinder Kumar , S/ o. Sh. Bharat Singh , C/o. TaraChand, R/o . F-105, Kitwaris Sarai, Near JantaFlats, Phase-I, NewDelhi -110016.

VERSUS

TheGeneral Manager ,

International Airport Authority of India, NDMC Building, Yashwant Place, Chankyapuri , New Delhi- 110021

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L. 11012/7/ 94- IR(Vivid) Central GovernmentDt. 26-12-1994 has refermed thefollowing point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder:-

After going through the entire record of the file and after due consideration of submissions made by the representative of the workman and counsel for the management I am of the opinion that the action of the management of M/s . United Insureance India Company Lid in removing Shri Rajan Khosla, Ex -Assistant/clerk from service w.e.f. 2-6-2003 is legal and justified. The management had offered to hold a domestic enquiry against him and for that purpose served the charge sheet on him. Theworkman, at his free will, admitted the charges labeled against him . He didnot ask for further time to put up his defence ashe admitted the charges without any reservation. Inthat situation there was no need to proceed further with the enquiry. Thus there is no basis for the workman to claim thathe was not given proper opportunity to defend his case. As discussed above the punishment awardedto the workman was also not dis- proportionate to the mis- conduct alleged and proved against him. The workman is ; therefore, entitled to no relief. The award is passed against him and the reference is answered accordingly.

"Whether the action of the management of International Airport Authority of India in terminating the services ofSh. Surender Kumar is justified? Ifnot, towhat relieftheworkman is entitled?"

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

KULDIP SINGH, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली , 10 जून , 2008

कर. भा. 1590, औद्योगिक विकार अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की बारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इन्टरनेशनल एयरपोर्ट ऑथोरिटी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध

The case of the workman is that he was taken as dailywager by the employer on 10-6-1986 and after reviewing his satisfactory performance his daily wages were converted into contract of service w.e.f. 1-7-1988 on consolidatedwages ofRs. 900/- per month. He was placed inthe category ofGroup-D. He was implicated in false case byDelhi Police on 11-5-1991 and was detained illegally till 23-5-1991 and thereafter he was released on bail . He 3298

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7 , 1930

approched the management but the management refused himjoining.

The case of the management is that the workman was taken on contract basis in the institute of Aviation Airport on 10-5-1996. He was absent for 17 days in 1986, 77 days in 1987 , 28 days in 1988, 28 days in 1989, 35 days in 1990,89 days in February, 1991 .

The further case of the management is that the workmanwas given contractual appointment for fixed term and it was extended by the management for a period of six months . The workman accepted the terms and conditions ofthe contractual appointment . He started absenting unauthorisedlywithout any intimation and prior permission ofthemanagement and he neverjoined till the expiry ofhis fixedterm up to 30-6-1991 . His contractual appointment was not further extended and it came to an end automatically byaflux oftime as per section 2 (00) (bb) ofthe IDAct, 1947. There is no action on the part of the management as contractual employment came to an end on the expiry of the agreed contractual period.

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 parasofthe claim statement .

Evidence of both the parties has been taken .

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

It was submitted from the side of the workman that heworked continuously from 1989 up to 23-5-1991 and he was taken into police custody . He approched the manageement after he was bailed out but his case was not consideredby the management .

It was submitted from the side of the management that itwas mentioned in the contract that the appointment will not confer any right to post . The workman has been given appointment for six mouths for the first time and thereafter it was extended. He was not engaged as a regular workman . He has been paid retrenchment compensation and one month's pay in lieu of notice and wages for 1-5-1991 to 2-5-1991 .

From perusal of the record it transpires that the workman has been given fixed term appointment . It has been extended for six months . He was involved in a criminal case and he was in the habit of remaining unauthorisedly absent in every year. He did not report for duty. The workman was involved in a crminal case . He has been acquitted by the TrialCourt on being given the benefit ofdoubt.

It is settled law that acquittal on the basis of benefit ofdoubt is not applicable to the departmental proceedings . The workman was a casual labour or fixed term appointee. Hewas involved in a criminal case , so the management did not extend further term ofhis employment.

The workman has stated in his cross -examination that after the expiry of contractual period, new contract

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] was not given to him , so as per own admission of the workman his fixed term of engagement was not extended.

It isnot the case ofthe workman that he was a casual labourer and juniors to him have been retained . A casual labourer is just like a probationer and the management has every right todis -continue him ifhe is involved in a criminal case and he is not sincere in his duties.

In the instant case the managernent has stated the days of absence in all the years and it has not been denied, so the management has rightly not extended the term ofhis engagement in view of his being involved in a criminal case and in view of his unauthorized absence during the period of his engagement .

The reference is replied thus:-

The action of the management of International Airport Authority of India in terminating the services of Sh. Surender Kumar is justified . The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

The award is given accordingly. Dated23-5-2008 R. N. RAI , PresidingOfficer. नई दिल्ली , 10 जून , 2008

का. आ. 1591 , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोशन लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कोलकत्ता के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 40/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-6-08 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[फा. सं. एल-30012/61 /2000- आई. आर. ( एम. ) ] कमल बाखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 10th June , 2008

S. Q. 1591.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 40/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the Industral Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Hindustan petroleum Corp. Ltd. and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 10-6-08.

[F. No. L- 30012/ 61 /2000 -IR( M )] KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

CENTTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA Reference No. 40 of2000

Parties: employers in relation to the management of Hindustan Pertroleum Corporation Ltd. AND

Theirworkmen . Present: Mr. Justice C.P. Mishra, Presiding Officer 3299 [ भागII- खण्ड (ii) )

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28, 2008 /आषाड़ 7, 1930

Арреягтивсе:

Onbehalfofthe: Mr. P.B. Chowdhury, Advocatewith Management Mr. S. Paul, Advocate

Onbehalfofthe: Mr. Sankar Dutta the concerned

Workmen workman in person.

Industry: Petroleum.

Dated: 15thMay,2008

washeldwhich ended in failure and the conciliation officer submitted a failure report to the Central Government . Ultimately, the matter has been referred to this Tribunal for adjudication by the Central Government. It is prayed that the management be directed to reinstate the workman with fullbackwages and other consequential benefits from the date ofhis termination on 16-08-1992.

AWARD

By Order No. L- 30012/61/2000/ 1R( M) dated 11-09-2000 the Government of India Ministry of Labour in exercise of its powers under Section 10( 1)( d) and (24) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to thisTribunal for adjudication:

Whether the action of the management of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Calcutta in terminating Shei Sardar Dutta from the service of the Company wr.f. 16-08-92 is legal and justified? If not, towhat nelles Shri Dutta isentitled?" .

11 The managementHindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,hereinafter to be referred as the management has filed awritten statement denying the claims and contentions of the workman as stated in his statement of claims . Management has challenged the present reference as bad in law, misconceived, unsustainable . It is stated that the question of termination of service of the coffcerned workman did not arise because he was appointed on temporary/Casual basis as and when required on daily wage basis and hence the question of his appointmentto regular post does not arise as alleged by him and the Central Govt. had actually prejudged the issue. The dispute in question is also stated to be not an industrial dispute astis the caseofthe concerned workman did not attract Sections 25B and 25F ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. stated that the present dispute has been referred yubor application of mind and without considering then contentions of the management in this regard Regard merit the case of the management is that the concerned workmanwas engaged on temporary casual basis against casual nature ofwork from time to time intermittently and teis hewas not given any appointment letteretter for the same, For recruitment to any sanctioned post have always been dous sit after complyingying with the recruitment rules . Managetocali has denied that he bad rendered continuous service till the date of terminaiton of his termination, on 16-08-1992. According to the management since the workman was engaged purely onon temporary casual naturenature andand that 190top b intermittently sections 25B and 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19471947 are not attracted and he is not entitled to any relief. Management has denied the claims and contentions ofof the workman in seriatim, it is denied that the management has adopted the unfair labour practice and followed the' Hire and Fire 'Fire' policy or that itit had violated the provisions of thof the Industrial Disputes Act, 19 accordingly prprayed that the workman be rejected . that the claim of the concerned

4.Arejoinder is also filed by the workinan denying vi the contentions of the management and reiterating his claims and contentions as made in his statesoont of claims

5.Both the sides have exhibited certain documents in support of their respective case. Out of the doucem filed onTon behalf of the workinan, Ext. W- i is the letter ofthe company to the concerned workinan dated 02-04-1990 189 RAJAL interview. Ext . W-2 is the printed application for employment ofthe company submitted by the concerned workm 08-04-1990: Ext . W- 3 is the certifled copy ofthe order dated 25-09-1998 passet by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutt in C.O.9923(W) of1994. Ext. W -4 is the letter of the wish ? dated 25-05-1999 addressed to the Assistant Latolo 2. This reference has been made at the instance of Shri Sankar Dutta the concerned work then. The case ofthe workman as it appears from his statement of claims inbrief is that after proper interview and selection he was appointed as a Peon against the vacancy in the post of general workman (temporary) upon sponsoring his name by the Tala Employment Exchange , Government of West Bengal alongwith four others . After medical test on or aboutut 25-05-1990 the workzinan joined as a temporary Peon on 2-11-1990 in the office ofthe GeneralManager (Eastern Zone) at &Church Lane , Kolkata - 700001 , but he was not given any letter of appointment. He rendered service continuously till the date of termination of his service on 16-08-1992 a monthly salary ofRs. 1650. No chargesheet was issued to the concerned workman , nor any enquiry was held against him and as such his termination falls under section 2(oo) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, berinafter to be referred as the Act. He was not paid any compensation under Section 25F of the Act and the managerment was guided by the practice of 'Hire and Fire' in this regard . The workman apporached the management for his permanent absorption in the Company, but on 16-08-1992 the management asked him not to attend office any longer without assigning any reason of affording any charge of hearing. After few months one Shri Arup Das and other workmen appointed alongwith the concerned workman were given confirmation for permanency in service and they are still in service of the Company. S/Shri Arup Das , Pradip Mondal, Amar Bag were also similarly appointed like the concerned workman and they were absorbed permanentlyas per rules ofthe company, but discriminatory treatment was made to the concerned workman by termhmating him. He thereafter moved a Writ Petitionbeing case No. 9923 (W) of 1994 before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the said writ petution with liberty to the workman to take recourseto the remedies available under the Industrial Disputes Act . The workman thereafter approachedthe conciliation officer for redressal ofhis grievance and conciliation proceeding 3300

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7 , 1930

[PART 11SEC. 3(ii) ]

other four persons have been made permanent by the management . He was not in a position to show his termination letter because he was terminated without any notice. It is however stated by him that he can show document to the effect that his monthly salary was Rs. 1650. He has further stated that he was appointed temporarily but the work was permanent and his mothly payments were made through vouchers .

Commissioner (Central ) , Kolkata. Ext. W-5 is the letter of the workınan dated 10-01-1994 addressed to the Personnel Manager of the company . Ext W -6 is the letter of the Company dated 14-07-1999 addressed to the Assisant Labour Commissioner ( Central ), Kolkata. Ext . W-7 is also a letter dated 20-09-1999 written by the workman to the Assistant Labour commissioner (Central), Kolkata. Ext. W- 8is a letter of theAssistant Labour Commissioner (Central) , Kolkata addressed to the Company regarding the concillation proceeding in the matter, Ext . W-9 is a letter dated 02-06-2000 written by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) , Kolkata to the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi about the failure of conciliation in the matter . Ext . W- 10 is the identity Card of the workmen issued by the Employment Officer , Sub-Regional Employment Exchange, North Calcutta,Govt . of West Bengal and Ext. W- 11 is the E.S.I. card dated 25-03-1991 issued to the workman .

On the other hand the documents exhibited on behalf ofthe management are Ext. M- 1 is the Recruitment Rules of the Company, Ext, M -2 is a blank salary slip . Ext. M-3 is a printedblank certificate ofthe Company under Section203 ofthe Income-tax Act, 1961 for tax deducted at source from income chargeable under the head "Salaries ". Ext.M-4 and Ext. W-6 are same. Ext M-5 is the original printed application for employment of the company submitted by the concerned workman dated 08-04-1990 . Ext M-6 is a statement regarding the number of days work done bythe workman . Exts . M- 7 , M- 7/ 1 and M-7/2 are three letters written by the Assistant labour Commissioner (Central), Kolkata to the Manager, IR & Recruitment ofthe Company.

7.On the other hand, management has examined two witnesses in this case . MW- 1 , Milan Nag is Senior Human ResourcesOfficer, East Zone of the Company. He does not know the concerned workmen personally and has stated tohave derived knowledge about this dispute from office file . He has stated that the workman.concerned was engagedpurely on casual basis as per files . He has proved the recruitment rules of the company and stated that for recruitment of class - IV category the person has to be recommended by the local Employment Exchange and thereafter necessary skill test and interview are taken . Then if the candidate is found to be fit, he is selected and appointment letter is formally issued. But, in this case rules were not followed . No appointment letter was issued to him. His attendance was maintained by the then pay Roll Officerwhowas also used to maintain register of permanent employees . There was a separate register ofattendance for the workman of permanent cadre and the attendance of casual labour used to be maintained in loose sheet . According to him as per records the concerned workman hadworked only for 16 days in 1990, in 1991 he hadworked for about 227 days and in 1992 he had worked for 235 days . Hedoes not remember till which date in 1992 the workman had worked, but there is some document in this regard . He has further stated that the work of temporary casual labour cannot be compared with the nature of the work of the regular workman. At the time of the engagement of the concerned workman , no vacancy ofpeon in the permanent cadre existed. According to him the workman concerned was probably appointed on leave vacancy. In cross examination the witness has stated that he does not have any knowledge as to when the service of the concerned workman was terminated or whether any termination notice was served upon him . He also cannot say whether the management complied with the provisions of sections 25F of the I.D. Act before termination of the service of the concerned workman or whether he had worked continuously.It is also stated by him that any regular employee who does a salary ofRs 6000 and above is eligible for E.S.I scheme, but he does not know whether the concerned workman enjoyed such benefit.

MW-2, Indrajit Mukherjee is Deputy Manager , HunmanResources ofthe Company who joined in the year 1985. He came to know about the concerned workman while working at the office of the Company at Church Lane, Kolkata and he identified him . He has stated that the concerned workman was engaged in the Company as a temporary casual Peon at the aforesaid office . There is 6. The sole witness for the workman is Sankar Dutta ' the concerned workman himself. He has stated in his evidence that he used to work in the Hindustan Petroleurn Coroporation Ltd. at 6 Church Lane , Kolkata since 2nd November, 1990. He was appointed as a Peon . His name was forwarded by the Employment Exchange for appointment. Along with him four other persons , namely, SanjayMondal , Santosh Manna, Arup Das and Debabrata Dutta Gupta also joined and they are still working and three of them had been made permanent . His Salary was Rs.1650 per month. His service was terminated on 16th August, 1992. Neither any chargesheet was issued nor, 'any enqurly was held against him while he was in service. No compensation was also paid to him at the time ofhis termination .He has prayed for his reinstatement in service with back wages . In cross -examinaiton he has stated that he had recieved appointment letter and referred to Exts . W-1 and W-2 in this regard. He has also stated that the document has been filed to show that the management natified to the Employment Exchange about the requirement ofnames for appointment as Peon . He , however, could not saywhether there is any record to show that the names of Sanjay Mondal, Arup Das , Debabrata Dutta Gupta and Santosh Manna were also forwarded by the Employment Exchange along with him . He has no paper to show that the [ पन 11- 3 (1) ]

3301

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28, 2008/आषाढ़ 7 , 1930

that order of termination has been filed by the workmen before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta , but the application was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse of the remedies available to him under the Act and so this reference has been made to this Tribunal for adjudication ofthe claim of the workman in this regard.

recruitment rules framed by the Company and for recruitment of employees other than management staff candidates are invited from the Employment Exchange.The candidates called from the Employment Exchange are subjected to examination and interview for recruitment in the company. Ext. M- 1 contains recruitment criteria of different ports and the minimum educational qualification fora Peon to be recruited against permanent post is SSC passed or equivalent thereof. Regarding the concerned workman it is stated that he was recruited on exigency of en and he was not given any appointment letter. The witness has proved Ext. M-5 , original application for onsploytsont ofthe concerned workman and it has been pointed out that xerox copy of it mariced Ext. W-2 do not contain the particulars of examination passed , but in the original, however, it is found that his educational qualification is "Madiyarnik failed " . He has statedthat for permanent employees there is a register for attendance, but for the employees other than permanent employees, attendance is recorded on loose sheets by an officer ofn the Pirinses Depts. He has proved a sheet marked Ext. W-6 and stated that it is in the handwriting of one Ramesh Chidigare wherefrein it appears that the conserned worknuti worked for 16 days in 1990, 227 days in the year 1991 and for 135 days in 1992. He has further shitise the theworkers get payments from the CashOffice.Payorder is prepared in duplicate by the Finance Dap t . One copyis tendered to the Cask Deptt, and payment is made and the other oopy in retained by the worldhan Bithself. According to him in the years 1990 to 1992 there was tid vacancy in thepost ofPeon in the organization . In cross- examination the witness bas stoled that all the workmen are entitledto the benefits ofB.B.J. and he admited the B.S.I. Carddated 25th March, 1991 matkad Ext. W-11 . According to his Inowledge only the permanent employees git ex-gratis and leave salary.He has further stated that the question of termination of casual woriman does not arise.

1. As per fhots stated above and the evidenceled by the parties on their behalf it is evident that the action or the management for alleged termination of service of the workmen concerned with effect from 16th August, 1992 in challenged on hobalf of the workmen saying it to be illegal iind unustified as he was appointed as a peon from 2nd November, 1990 after his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange along with four others after medical test hold on 25th May, 1990 though of course , the manegensent did not give any letter ofappointmentto him In this regard. His services were said to have been terminated by the management from 16th August , 1992 without serving any show-cause notice or chargesheet or conducting any enquiry before such termination and also without malcing any compliance ofthe provisions of Section 25Fof the Act. There was also a discrimination made by management as the other four workmen viz . S/Shri Arup Dus, SanjayMondal, Santosh Manna and Debabrata Dutta Gupta issued letter of Permanent appointment by the management . It is also evident that a writ petition against

9. Managernet , however, has denied the aforesaid facts regarding the appointment of the cuncemed workman afterproper interview and selection against a vacancy in thepost of general workman as Peon or that his namewis so sponsoredby the Employment Exchange slong with other fourpersons orhis case being at par with them at all so that anyreliefcould be granted to him in this connection . It has beenalso alleged that he was engaged on temporary/ casual besis as and when required on daily wage basia and no appointment letter was ever isarned to hirtu. It is also denied thathe actuallyworked continuously for 240 days or more in ayear so as to attract the provisions ofBections 25B and 25F ofthe Act. The so called documents . , Exts. W- 1 and W-2allegedto ise appointment letters are also challenged tobe otherwise by subenhsing that the workman on its own showing has mentioned there in the document Ext . W- 1 that be had failed in Madhyamik Examination andto cover it up he had not shown the facts correctly in the educational qustiñestion, column for that purpose. Thus, he also lacks the basic educational qualification required for the post claimed by him for his appointment in the Corporation. The period ofwork as shown by him is also not correct as be hadworked only for 16 days in 1990, 227 days in 1991aid 135 days in 1992 when he was recruited on exigency of service as it is proved by statement given by Indrajit Mukherjee vide Ext. M-6 in this regard. In the cross- examination of the witness the contents of the document Bxt. M-6was not challenged nor shown otherwise so that the same could establish the claim of the workman in thi regard that he had soworked for 240 days in the preceding year from the date of termination of his service.Alsothere is no vacancy in the post ofPoen so that there could have been any permanent appointment as per procedure which is required to be applied for any such appointment made in theCorporation on that post. Regular workers were pald salary through pay slips whereas the concerned workman himself admitted that he was paid the amount of his wages through voucher Ext . M-2. Thus the omus of proofby the workman to have worked for 240 days car has not been discharged which was necessary for him to show it as the legal position is well settled in this regard by number ofdecision ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court .In MohanLala Management of Bharat Electronics Ltd. , AIR 1981 SC 1253: 1981 (3 ) SCC2225 : 1981 -D- LLJ - 70, it is held by the Appr Court that before a wokman can claim retrenchanent bot being in consonance Section 25F of the Act, he hasto show that he has been in continuous service for not leas than one year with the employer who had retrenched him from service. In Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani AIR2002 SC 1147: 2002 (3 ) SCC25: 2002-1-LLJ- 1053 фе ApexCourtheld:

2263 GV08-18 3302

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2008/ASADHA 7 , 1930

"2. In our opinion the Tribunal was not right inplacing the onus on the management without first determining on the basis of cogent evidence that the respondent had worked for more than 240 days in a yearproceding his termination . It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellant . It was then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination. Filing ofan affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had , in fact, worked for 240 days in a year. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for240days or order or record of appointment or engagement for this period was produced by the workman. On this ground alone , the award is liable tobe set aside.... "

More recently, in Rajasthan State Ganganagar S.Mills Ltd. v. State ofRajasthan & Another , 2004 ( 8) SCC 161: 2004-III- LLJ- 832; Municipal Corporation , Faridabad v. Siri Niwas 2004 (8) SCC 195 : 2004- III - LLJ-760 and M.P. ElectricityBoard v. Hariram 2004 (8) SCC 246: 2004- III- LLJ- 144 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the principle that the burden of proof lies on the workman to show that hebadworked continuously for 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment and it is for the workman to adduce an evidence apart from examining himselftoprove the factum of his being in employment of theemployer.

In light of this settled legal position the plea of the workonan that he had worked for 240 days or more in ayear so as to claim the benefit under the provisions of Sections 25B and 25F of the Act does not arise in the present case andwithout discharging this burden casts on him he cannot claim this benefit. Moreover in this case he was just a casual /daily -wage worker ofthe Corporation and as such had no right to the post as he was never recruited at all following the recruitment procedure applicable to that post. and the question of termination of his services in this case did not arise at all as he was only engaged by the Corporation from time to time just on temperary casual basis as and sodisengaged on 16-08-1992 as it has been so alleged by him in this connection.

10. On the perusal of the aforesaid facts and submissions made on both the sides it is evident that the workman has not been able to discharge the initial onus whichwas there on him to give a positive evidence that he had been appointed to any post after following the proper recruitment procedure with appointment letter so issued in his favour. From the statement given by him also it is clear that there is no other document except Exts. W- 1 and W-2, which could be said to be his appointment letter. But the said two documents referred to above in this connection Ext. W-1 is only a copy ofthe letter dated 7th April , 1990 of the Company to the workman just calling him for the

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) , interviewand theother documentExt. W-2 is the application that was submitted by him for this purpose which in noway can be said to be the appointment letter at all to show that hewas given any such appointment through these two documents as alleged by him in this regard. It is also an admitted fact to him that the monthly payments were made to him through vouchers only and jot by any pay slip like other regular employees working in the Corporation.

11. Statement as given by the witnesses on behalf of the managernent in this connection viz. Milan Nag clearly goesto show that as per office record he was engaged on purely on a casual basis The Corporation also had a recruitment rulcs vide Ext . M- 1 and the appointment could be made to the persons in Class - IV category after their names were so sponsored by the local employment exchange and after the skill test and interview were so taken and if the candidate was found so fit and not otherwise. In the case of the concerned workman no such procedure was ever followed and no such appointment letter was given to him. The document Ext . W- I also goes to show than he did not possess the minimum basic educational qualification so that he could have been given any such appointment to the post of Peon under rules , Ext. M- 1 . It is also evident from his statement than there wasno vacancy ofPeon in the Corporation at that time and the workman concerned according to him was perhaps appointed on a leave vacancy only . The other witness for the management MW - 2, Indrajit Mukherjee who had been posted at the office of the Corporation during the relevant period when the workman concerned had so worked or engaged by the Corporation has similarly stated that the recruitment could be made under rules so framed by the Corporation and for this advertisement had to be made in the newspaper followed by the examination and interview ofthe candidates so called by it and also call through the employment exchange for this purpose. In case of the concerned workman no such rules were observed to hold any such examination and more so he did not fulfill the minimura educational qualification for the post ofa Peon to be so recruited in the Corporation as per rules . In fact, according to him the workman concerned was just engaged on exigency of service and not given any appointment letter as such as it is so alleged by him . He has also stated the facts about the period ofwork so done by the workman vide Ext . M- 6 and for this he further stated the facts regarding payments so made to him from time to time for the work so done by workman .

12. Thus, Ext, M -6 is the only document which has been filed by the management in this case showing the actual number of days so worked by the workman concerned in the Corporation during the years 1990 to 1992 . The workman, in fact , has also not challenged the facts stated about it in this document. It is clear from this document that the workman had only worked for 16 days in 1990, 227 days in 1991 and 135 days in 1992, i.e. , upto August when the management allegedly terminated his service.As per reference itself the date of termination of [ मान -खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28 , 2008/आषाढ़ 7 , 1930

3343 service oftheworkman was 16th August, 1992 and as per this document itself the number of days so worked by the concerned wurkmanjust preceding the 12 calendar months prior to it can be shown to be so as per calculation as follows:

Month

No. ofdays

August, 1992

been overlookedby the Labour Court and alsoby theHigh Court. The fact remains that the rompendet has notworked for the statutory period of240days which has boen clearlyestablished by the appellant. It is settledlaw that the workman has to prove that hehadworked for 240 days.In the instant case ,the workman has not established that he has served theappellatit for the statutory period of240 days ." 20

July,1992

June, 1992

May,1992

April,1992

March, 1992

February,1992

January, 1992

In view of the above, the facts on the record are clearly show that the workman concerned neither bad worked continuously for one year nor for 240 days during the preceding 12 calendar months before the alleged dau oftermination ofhis service on 16-08-1992 so as to get ang suchbenefit available to him under the provisions ofSection 25F oftheAct

December,1991.

November, 1991

October,1991

September, 1991

221

14. Also, it is found that the workman concerned had never been appointed according to the rules ofthe Corporation,Ext. M- 1 and also that he was not qualifiedto begiven any such regular appointment to the post ofPeon as ithas been so claimed by him for the same. The appointment of the workman was purely that ofin ad - hoq nature from time to time and for that be had been paid the amount due to him through the vouchers only. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances the action of the management can't be said to be illegal or unjustified which may require any interference by the Tribunal and the claim ofthe concerned workman deserves to be rejected and the workmen is held tobe not entitled to any reliefso claimed by him in this regard.

The reference is answered accordingly.

Dated, Kolkata,

The 15thMay,2008 C. P. MISHRA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली 10 जून , 2008

13. The workman, however ,has submitted that for calculating the total number ofdays ofwork ofa workman in ayear in addition to the actual working days 52 Sundays and 17 holidays are to be added as per rules . If it is so added , then the concerned workman had put in more than240days work in the preceding 12 months from the dateofhis termination . But, he does not show as to under what rules the Sundays and holidays are to be so added to the calculation of actual working days in case of a dailywage worker . In somewhat similar circumstances theHon'ble Supreme Court in H.U.D.A.V. Jagmal Singh (2006-III - LLJ - 152) has clearly observed that in order to get the benefit under Section 25F a workman has to complete240 days the Statutory period provided for this purposeand no such benefit is available to a person who has been appointed as a daily wage earner like the workman concerned . The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this connection are clear enough to say as follows:

का. आ. 1592,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबंद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औघ्नोगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, कोलकाता के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 40/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-6-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[फा. सं. एल-30011/46/2004- आई. आहे (एम. ) कमल बाखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 10th June, 2008

S. O. 1592. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government herby publishes the Award Ref. 40/2004 of theIndustrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kolkata now as shown . in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofBharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. and their workanen , which was received bythe Central Governinent on 10-06-2008.

[F. No. L-30011 /46/2004- IR (M)) KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer " 6. We are unable to appreciate the approach made by the Labour Court in calculating the stator period of 240 days in a year. In our opinion, both the Labour Court and the High Court have failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent has failed to complete the statutory period of 240 days in a year to entitle him for claiming any benefits whatsoever . As already noticed, evidence has been laid to the said fact before the Labour Court but still the issue of attendance of the respondent has been decided in his favour. This apart , the respondent was appointed on as a daily wage earner and not as a permanent employee of the appellant and hence the respondent cannot claim any right to the post in question and that no right has accrued to him to claim any benefit from the appellant. This fact has 3304

[PART 11-SEC. 3(i ) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ ASADHA 7, 1930

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

ReferenceNo. 40 of2004

4. In the circumstances stated above , this Tribunal has no other alternative but to dispose of the present reference by passing a "No Dispute" Award. Accordingly 3 " No Dispute" Award is passed and the reference is disposed of.

C. P. MISHRA, Presiding Officer

Dated,Kolkata, The21stMay, 2008

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Their Workmen

PRESENT : Mr. Justice C.P. Mishra,-Presiding Officer

नईदिल्ली, 10 जून , 2008

Appearance:

Onbehalfof the : Mr. T.K. Banerjee, Advocate with Mr. J. Mondal, Advocate,

Management

On behalf ofthe:

Workmen Mr. D.Bhattacharya, Working President ofthe Union

Dated: 21st May,2008

Industry: Petroleum.

का. आए, 1593,-औद्योगिक विषाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार राजस्थान स्टेट माईन्स एवं मिनरल लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबंद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , उदयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/2001 - आई.टी.आर. ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-6-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

AWARD

1फा. सं. एल-29012/22/ 2001- आई.आर. ( एम. ) ] कम्मल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 10th June , 2008 ByOrderNo. L-30011/46/2004/ IR (M) dated 12-10-2004 theGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of its powers under Section 10( 1 )( d) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

S. O. 1593. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 02/2001- ITR) of the Central Government Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal , Udaypur now as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Rajasthan State Mines Minerals Ltd. , and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 10-06-2008.

[F. No. L-29012/22/2001 - IR ( M ) ] KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer "Whether the action of the management of BPCL, Regional Office Kolkata in declaring 13 closed holidays and one restricted holiday for the year 2004 instead of earlier practice of declaring 14 closed holidays amounted to violation of long term settlement of 1978? Whether the above action of the mananggement is in violation of Section 9A of the I.D. Act or not? Ifso, whether the demand of the Union to declare 16-11-2004 Guru Nanak's birthday as the 14th closed holiday, isjustified or not ? If not , to what relief theworkmen are entitled ? "

अनुबंध

श्री कानाराम पिता भीखाराम मीणा मार्फत , श्री जगदीशचन्द्र मीणा , नि. मीना खेड़ा, तहसील मावली, जिला उदयपुर विरुद्ध प्रार्थी 2. When the case is called out today, none appears for the workmen . Management is however representedby its learned Advocate . It is submitted on behalf of the management that none is appearing on behalf of the workmen since long, for any step is taken on their behalfto produce WW- 1 for his cross - examination . It is, therefore, prayed that appropriate order may be passed for disposal ofthe present reference.

श्री प्रबन्धक , राज . स्टेट माईन्स एण्ड मिनरल लि. , उदयपुर (राजस्थान )

विपक्षी

उपस्थितः-

प्रार्थी की ओर से श्री सुभाष श्रीमाली

विपक्षी की ओर से श्री वी.एल. असावा

3. It appears from the record that both the parties completed their respective pleadings etc. One witness, WW- 1 , namely, Alok Kumar Das was examinted on behalf ofthe workmen who was also partly cross- examined on 16-11-2005 and 7-2-2006 , but he was not produced for his further cross-examination thereafter . It also appears that the representative of the workmen is not appearing since 9-7-2007 nor any step is taken on behalf of the union so that the matter can be deposed ofon merit inspite ofseveral opportunities being given for the same . It is accordingly clear that the workmen are no longer interesid to proceed with the present reference, 3305

भारत का सापत्र : जून 28 , 2008/ाषाई 7, 1930

[ भाग 1]-खण्ड 3(ü ) )

पंचाट

दिनांक 29 अप्रैल,2008

भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय के आदेश संख्या एल -29012/22/2001 आईआर ( एम) न्यू देहली दिनांक 28-3-2001 के द्वारा निव्नांकित विवाद इस न्यायालय को अधिनिर्णयार्थ प्रेषित किया गया:-

प्रार्थना पत्र के अन्य तथ्यों को अस्वीकार किया । विशेष कधन में कह अंकित किया है कि- प्रार्थी को मैसर्स एक्स सर्विस बैग सिक्यूरिटी फोर्स, उदयपुर द्वारा नियुक्ति दी गई थी, ऐसी स्थिति में मैसर्स एक्श सर्विस मैन सिक्यूरिटी फोर्स एवं विजिलेंस सर्विसिज उदयपुर उक्त प्रकरण में आवश्यक पक्षकार है , उसकी अनुपस्थिति में इस विवाद का निर्णय नहीं लिया जा सकता है । ऐसी स्थिति में मैसर्स एक्स सर्विक मैन सिक्यूरिटी सर्विसेत्र , सध्यपुर को पक्षकार नहीं বগাব্দ অজয় কথ तक प्रार्थी का यह बलेम गोपनीय नहीं है । अतः क्लेम प्रार्थना पत्र पर चर्चा खारिज दिए जाने की प्रार्थना की है ।

"Whether the action of the management of Rajasthan StateMines and Minerals Ltd. , Udaipur interminating the service of Shri Kenaram Sto Shri Bhikaram , Ex. messanger/ Courier w.e.f. 1-3-2000 is legal andjustified ? Ifnot, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

प्रार्थी की ओर से स्वयं का शपथ पत्र पेश किया व सम्बन्चित दस्तावेज को प्रदर्शित कराया । प्रार्थी से विपक्षी प्रतिनिधि ने जिरह की। विपक्षी की ओर से श्री महेन्द्रसिंह समेतरा का शपथ पत्र पेश हुत व सम्बन्धित दस्तावेज को प्रदर्शित कराया गया। जिससे प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि ने जिरह की ।

उक्त प्रसंग प्राप्त होने पर न्यायालय द्वारा प्रकरण दर्ज रजिस्टर किया जाकर संबंधित पक्षकारान को नोटिस जारी किए गए । जिन पर प्राचीं की ओर से क्लेम व विपक्षी की ओर से जबाव पेश किया गया ।

पतकायन के प्रतिनिधियों की बहस अतिम सुनी गई। पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया गया ।

बहस के दौरान विद्वान अभिभावक प्रार्थी का तर्क है कि प्रार्थी कानाराम में विपक्षी के नियोकल में करीब 5 साल तक मेहनत और निष्ठा से सेवाएं दी हैं । विपक्षी के यहां मियान है ग्राक लाने और से जाने का कार्य करता था और वितरण भी करता था और उदयपुर आने जाने का किराया पी विपक्षी देता था, लेकिन अचानक सितम्बर , 4 से कार्य करते हुए को दिनांक 1-3-2000 को अब डयूटी पर उपस्थित हुआ तो माकौंटंग मैनेजर श्री महेन्द्र सिंह समेतरा ने मना कर दिया और कहा कि आपको हमारी आवश्यकता नहीं है और आपकी जगह ओम झकता को रखा लिया है। प्रार्थी को बिना कोई सूचना दिए, किया कार्यवाही किये , ग्राभी की छंटनी कर दी है जो ध्वारा 25 (एफ) ओ. दि. अधि. का स्पष्ट उल्लंग है । इस तया से वह 'सेवा मुक्ति अवैध एवं शूम्प है, प्राकृतिका प्रयाण के सिद्धान्तों का इन्न हुआ है । प्रार्थी दूस अवैध सेवा मुषित के कारण विपक्षी के नियोजन में निरन्तर बेठन, वरीयता एवं अन्य लाभों सहित पुनः नियुक्ति का हकदार है और आर्थी काअंतिम वेतनं 2100 रुपए प्रति माह था । जो प्रार्थी को पिछले बेकुर सहित सेवा में लिए जाने का आदेश दिया जाएं। T प्रार्थी की ओर से प्रस्तुत क्लेम के तथ्य संक्षेप में इस प्रकार हैं कि-प्रार्थी की नियुषित विपक्षी द्वारा मैसेंजर/ फोरियर ढाक विपक्षी मुख्यालय, 4 , मीरा मार्ग, उदयपुर से चितौड़गढ शम्भुपुरा लाने ले जाने के लिए दिनांक 24-12-1994 को हुई । प्रार्थी की सेवाएं विपक्षी के नियोजन में हमेशा संतोषप्रद रही । प्रार्थी ने पूर्ण निष्ठा से विपक्षी के अधीन लगभग 5 वर्षों से अधिक सेवाएं दी हैं । प्रार्थी विपक्षी के अधीन हाक लाना, ले जाना, एकीकृत करना , वित्तरण करना आदि करवा था तथा चित्तौड़ से उदयपुर आने व प्राले का किराया विपक्षी द्वारा वहन किया जाता था। दिनांक 1-3-2000 को आर्थी हमेशा की तरह अपनी ड्यूटी पर उपस्थित हुआ तो विपक्षी के मार्केटिंग मैनेजर महेन्द्रसिंह समेतरा ने डयूटी पर लेने से मना कर दिया व कहा कि अग्र आपकी आवश्यकता नहीं है । आपकी जगह ओमप्रकाश को रख लिया है । इस प्रकार प्रार्थों को बिना पूर्व सूचना दिए, बिना अनुशासनात्मक कार्यवाही किए, बिना क्षतिपूर्ति प्रदान किए दिनांक 1-3-2000 से सेवा से पृश्यक कर दिया, जो औवि अधि की धारा 25( एफ ) के विरुद्ध होने से प्रार्थी की सेवा मुक्ति अवैध एवं शूम्प है । प्रार्थी की सेवा मुक्तिप्राकृतिक न्याय के सिद्धान्त के विरुद्ध है । प्रार्थी के बाद वाला श्रभिक आज भी कार्यरत है । प्रार्थी का अंतिम वेतन 2100 रुपए, प्राति माह था। अतः निवेदन है प्रार्थी को विपक्षी के नियोजन में निरन्तर वेतन, परीयता एवं अन्य लाभों सहित पुनः नियुक्ति कराने का आदेश प्रदान करावें।

विपक्षी की और से अपने जबाव में यह अंकित किया है कि- प्रार्थी को विपक्षी द्वारा कभी भी नियुक्ति नहीं दी गई । विपक्षी का एक्स सर्विस मैन सिक्यूरिटी फोर्स एवं विजिलेंस सर्विसेज , उदयपुर के साथ सिक्युरिटी गार्ड उपलब्ध कराने हेतु जो अनुबन्ध हुआ था और प्रार्थी का एक्स सर्विस मैन सिक्यरिटी फोर्स, उदयपुर के निर्देश के अनुसार ही कार्य करता था , प्रार्थी पर विपक्षी का कोई कन्ट्रोल नहीं प्या और उक्त एक्स सर्विस मैन सिक्यूरिटी फोर्स उदयपुर के निर्देश और कन्ट्रोल में ही कार्यरत था और अनुबंध के तहत मासिक वेतन 1731.81 भी उसी संस्थासे प्राप्त करता था । प्रार्थी विपक्षी की सेवा में नहीं रहा इसलिए प्नार्थी की सेवाओं का लेखा-जोख्त नहीं रखा गया।

विद्वान अभिभावक प्रार्थी का कथन है कि प्रार्थी के कथनोंका कोई खण्डन नहीं हुआ है , बल्कि महेन्द्रसिंह समेतरा स्वयं साम्स में पेश हुआ है, उसने ठेकेदार का श्रमिक होना घताया है, लेकिन स में यह भी कहा है कि कानाराम की हाजरी विभाग के इन्चार्ज होऊ वहीं भरता था। भुगतान ठेकेदार नहीं करता था , बल्कि विभाग ही करता था । प्रदर्श- जारी रजिस्टर फर्जी हो ऐसा कुछ भी नहीं कहा गया है । विपक्षी ने जो उपस्थिति रजिस्टर का ब्यौरा पेश किया है चह बाद में बनावटी पेश किया है । विद्धान प्रार्थी का कथन है कि प्रदर्श -2 में कानाराम द्वारा डाक लाने, ले जाने को संजय कुमार ने कहा है और चितौड़गढ़ से उदयपुर आने जाने से संबंधित रेलवे का पास करनादम के नाम का प्रदर्श-3 पेश हुआ है जो समय- समय पर सेवानिवृत भी हुआ है। प्रार्थी की और से जो कागजत पेश किए गये हैं प्रदर्श दम-2 उपस्थिति रजिस्टर बना कर ही पेश किया गया है । भुगतान को दिया 3306

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ⅱ )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7 , 1930

गया था , विभाग द्वारा ही किया गया था , कोई ऐसा रिकार्ड संतोशषजनक पेश नहीं हुआ कि यह कहा जा सके कि उदयराज चारण ठेकेदार के श्रमिक हों, इसलिए लगातार 5 वर्ष सेवा अवधि प्रार्थी ने विपक्षी के अधीन कार्य शम्भुपुरा में करना दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य से सावित है और कोई छंटनी का मुआवजा नहीं दिया गया , बल्कि अवैध रूप से सेवा से पृथक किया गया है।

सिक्योरिटी फोर्स उदयपुर के निर्देशानुसार ही कार्य करता था। प्रार्थी से विपक्षी का कोई नियन्त्रण नहीं था , बल्कि मैसर्स एक्स सर्विस मैन सिक्यूरिटी फोर्स एवं विजिलेंस सर्विसेज , उदयपुर के निर्देश और नियन्त्रण में ही कार्य करता था और मासिक वेतन ठेकेदार ही प्राप्त करता था , इसलिए प्रार्थी जब विपक्षी द्वारा नियुक्त ही नहीं था तो कोई सेवा समाप्ति करने का प्रश्न ही पैदा नहीं होता हैं । प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति मैसर्स एक्स सर्विस मैन सिक्योरिटी फोर्स , उदयपुर द्वारा दी गई थी जिसके कागजात सही स्पष्ट रूप से पेश कर दिए गए हैं। सम्पूर्ण पत्रावली और भुगतान वाउचर पेश किए हैं जो उदयराज को भुगतान किया गया है और संविदा जो ठेकेदार के साथ हुई थी, पेश है और जो लिस्ट भुगतान की है , उसमें कानाराम का नाम बार - बार आ रहा है , जो वर्ष 1995 का सम्पूर्ण रिकार्ड बाद में पेश कर दिया है । , कोई भ्रांति नहीं है , क्योंकि प्रार्थी स्वयं का कथन है कि जो नियुक्ति विपक्षी के यहां हुई थी, राजस्थान सरकार का उपक्रम होने से लिखित आदेश से हो हुई थीं। प्रार्थी ने हाजरी पता नहीं कहां से बना कर पेश की है और हाजरी रजिस्टर भी अगर विपक्षी के अधीन कार्यरत रहा तो 31-31 दिन को हाजरी नहीं भरी जाती है , क्योंकि उपस्थिति रजिस्टर में 'छुट्टियां या रविवार या उसकी एवज में क्षतिपूर्ति अवकाश दिया जाता है , लेकिन 31-31 दिन और पूरे माह की हाजरी भरी गई है, यह उपस्थिति रजिस्टर वैसे भी माने योग्य नहीं रह जाता है , क्योंकि उपस्थिति रजिस्टर सरकारी अनुक्रम में ही भरा जाता है और रविवार के अवकाश सभी श्रमिक को उपलब्ध होते हैं, लेकिन यह उपस्थिति रजिस्टर भी ठेकेदार का ही प्रतीत होता है ।

इस सम्बन्ध में विद्वान अभिवक्ता प्रार्थी की और से माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय की खण्डपीठ का निर्णय मैसर्स राज, को. डेयरी बनाम जज इन्ड , ट्रिब्यूनल बीकानेर पेश किया है जो आर. एल. आर. 2001 ( 1 ) पेज 715 में पारित किया है और यह तर्क दिया है कि राजस्थान में धारा 2 ( एस ) ओ.वि.अधि. के तहत कर्मकार की परिभाषा में ठेकेदार द्वारा जो श्रमिक उपलब्ध कराये जाते हैं वे ही सम्मिलित हैं और तर्क के तौर पर यह मान लिया जाए कि प्रार्थी ठेकेदार का श्रमिक था तो भी प्रार्थी कार्य विपक्षी के अधीन करता था और समस्त कार्य- कलाप विपक्षी के नियन्त्रण में था , इसलिए कर्मकार की परिभाषा में आता है । विद्वान अभिभावक प्रार्थी की और से 2005( 3 ) सीडीआर 2419 राज. राज्य बनाम छगनलाल ही पेश किया है, जिसमें श्रमिक ने एक कलेण्डर वर्ष में 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य किया है और श्रमिक सुरक्षा एजेन्सी के मार्फत नियुक्त हुआ है और यदि धारा 25 ( एफ ) ओ.वि.की पालना नहीं हुई है तो श्रमिक पुनः सेवा में लिए जाने का हक रखता है और पिछला वेतन भी पाने का अधिकारी है । इसी तरह का निर्णय 2005 ( 3 ) सी.डी.आर 2233 (राज. ) पेश किया जिसमें प्रार्थी १ वर्ष से अधिक अवधि के लिए विपक्षी के नियोजन में रहा और प्रार्थी को सेवाएं समाप्त कर दी गई मूल रूप से सेवाएं अगर अवैध समाप्त होती हो तो क्षतिपूर्ति नहीं बल्किपुनः सेवा में लिए जाने का प्रार्थी हकदार है । इसी क्रम में प्रार्थी कीऔर से आर.एल. आर 2002 (2 ) पेज 400 भी पेश किया है । इस नजीर में रीको का मूल आधार यह था कि प्रार्थी की सेवा सुरक्षा एजेन्सी के मार्फत, ली और सुरक्षा एजेन्सी और प्रार्थी के बीच कोई सम्बन्ध नहीं था इसीलिए प्रार्थी ने 240 दिन लगातार कार्य किया तो उसकी सेवा समाजिक छंटनी की परिभाषा में आता है और प्रार्थी की सेवाएं समाप्त अवैध मानी गई, प्रार्थी पुनः सेवा में बहाल होने का हक रखता है एवं 30 प्रतिशत बेत्तन भी दिलाया गया। विद्वान अभिभावक प्रार्थों की और से माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय के उक्त निर्णयों के अनुसरण में प्रार्थी की साक्ष्य को न मानाने का काई कारण नहीं है और विपक्षी की और से जो वे रिकार्ड पेश किया गया है, विश्वास करने के काबिल नहीं है । उदयराज को पेश नहीं किया गया है। जो रिकार्ड पेश किया गया है , उस पर श्रम विभाग का कोई पृष्ठांकन नहीं है। प्रार्थी को पुनः सेवा में बहाल किया जावे और पिछला वेतन भी दिलाया जाए।

विद्वान अभिभावक विपक्षी का कथन है कि प्रदर्श-2 संजय कुमार का लिखा हुआ ही है तो भी डाक लाने ले जाने का काम करता था, इससे कोई अन्तर नहीं पड़ता है , क्योंकि श्रमिक अगर कार्य करता है तो विपक्षी के कार्याल्य में विपक्षी से निर्देशानुसार ही कार्य करता है । विद्वान अभिभावक विपक्षी की और से प्रदर्श-5 से प्रदर्श-29 तक के सभी दस्तावेजों का उल्लेख किया है और यह भी तर्क दिया कि कानाराम ने प्रदर्श -30 के जरिए भीलवाड़ा न्यायालय में औद्योगिक विवाद भी पेश किया है जो कानाराम ने जानबूझ कर इसकी अनभिज्ञता जाहिर की है , लेकिन इसमें भी जो विवाद आया है ठेके पर श्रमिक लेने का आया है , इसके पश्चात् यह दूसरा विवाद पेश कर दिया है । उदयराज को भीलवाड़ा के प्रकरण में पक्षकार बनाया गया है । श्रम निरीक्षक, चित्तौड़गढ़ के यहां भी विपक्षी का यह कहना था कि मांग पत्र से संबंधित न तो इनके कर्मकार है न ही राज. स्टेट माईन्स एण्ड मिनरल के रोल्स पर है नियोजक ने अपनी रेलवे साईडिंग पर सुरक्षा हेतु ठेका दिया हुआ है। इसलिए नियोजक द्वारा कैजुअल श्रमिक नियोजित करने का प्रश्न हो नहीं है। इस प्रकार मांग प्रस्तुतकर्ताओं एवं नियोजक के मध्य कोई विवाद नहीं है। ऐसा विपक्षी की और से पहले ही कह दिया था , इसलिए जब प्रार्थी विपक्षी द्वारा नियुक्त श्रमिक ही नही था तो सेवा समाप्ति करने का कोई प्रश्न ही पैदा नही होता है ।

दोनों पक्षों के उक्त तकों को सुना गया।

विद्वान अभिभावक प्रार्थी की और से एक महत्वपूर्ण तर्क राजस्थान अधिनियम में संशोधन कर दिया गया है जो माननीय विद्वान अभिभावक विपक्षी की और से यह तर्क दिया गया है कि विपक्षी संस्थान एक राज्य सरकार का उपक्रम है । राज्यसरकार के उपक्रम राज, स्टेट माईन्स एण्ड मिनरल लि. उदयपुर ने सुरक्षा के लिए गार्डस , की आवश्यकता हुई और विपक्षी द्वारा एक्स सर्विस मैन सिक्योरिटी फोर्स एवं विजिलेंस सर्विस उदयपुर के साथ सिक्यूरिटी गार्ड उपलब्ध कराने का अनुवन्ध हुआ था और प्रार्थी एक्स सर्विमेन 3307 [ भाग ॥- खण्ड 3 (i) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28 , 2008/आषाढ़ 7, 1930

राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय की खण्डपीठ का निर्णय में आया है । इस पर विचार किया गया। वर्ष 1982 में धारा 2( एस ) ओ.वि. अधि. कर्मकार में संशोधन हुआ था और वर्ष 1982 के अधिनियम 46 के हुमा संशोधन अधिमियम किया गया है और 21-8-1984 से यह संशोधन लागू हुआ। राजस्थान अधिनियम 34 वर्ष 1958 की धारी 31-7-60 से लागू हुई थी जो केन्द्रीय अधिनियम 46 वर्ष 1982 के प्रतिस्थापित होने से पूर्व यह संशोधन लागू था। वर्ष 1984 के बाद यह संशोधन स्वतः ही समाप्त हो गया जो संशोधन 1984 में संशोधन होने को बार कोई नया संशोधन राजस्थान में नहीं हुआ है , इस तथ्य का खुलासा औद्योगिक कानून द्वारा श्री पी.एल. मलिक वर्ष 1999 पुस्तक के पेज 1373 में स्पष्ट रूप से किया गया है और इसी लेखक की नई पुस्तक औधोनिक कानून वोल्यू II के पृष्ठ 1812 में कर्मकार को परिभाषित किया गया है और राज्य संशोधन में महाराष्ट्रऔर पश्चिमी बंगाल का ही उस्लेच्चा है , राजस्थान का कोई संशोधन वर्ष 1984 के बाद का नहीं दर्शाया गया है और न ही विद्वान अभिभावक प्रार्थी की और से ऐसा कोई संशोधन वर्ष 1984 के बाद का पेश किया गया है इसलिए जुलाई 1984 के बाद कोई संशोधन राजस्थान में नहीं हुआ और उसमें ठेकेदार के श्रमिक को मुख्म नियोजक के श्रमिक भानने से संबंधित नहींहै।

प्रार्थी पर यह भी सबूत था कि वो अपनी साक्ष्य से यह साबित करे कि यह विपक्षी के नियोजन व नियन्त्रण में था, लेकिन प्रार्थी ने जिन दस्तावेजों का सहारा लिया है उसके सम्बन्ध में विवेचन नीचे किया जा रहा है-

को 750 रुपए हवलदार को 900 रुपए , सुवेदार को 1100 रुपएऔर कैप्टन को 1500 रुपए दिए गए हैं । हालाकि विद्वान अभिभावक प्राधी ने यह तर्क दिया है कि कानाराम सिपाही नहीं है और जब भूतपूर्व सैनिक नहीं है तो विपक्षी ने कैसे स्वीकार कर लिया। लेकिन बह देखना नहीं है तथा इससे कोई अन्तर ही नहीं पड़ता है । यह अनुबन्ध ठेकेदार और विपक्षी प्रबन्धन के बीच में हुआ था जो कि एक सामान्य सरकारी विभाग के अनुभूत अनुबंध हुआ था। अनुबन्ध में रजिस्ट्रेशन नं. 128/एलएच 26 साफ तौर पर लिया है और मुख्य प्रशासनिक अधिकारी आर.एस.एम. ने यह अनुबन्ध हस्ताक्षरित किया हैं दोनों पक्षों के बीच यह अनुक्ष हुआ है , साफ शर्ते अनुबन्ध में लिखी हुई है इसकी कड़ी में प्रदर्श-3 पेश हुआ है । प्रदर्श -3 में सभी स्थानों पर जो ठेकेदार द्वारा जो सुरक्षा कर्मी उपलब्ध कराये गये हैं का उल्लेख और शर्तें भी विस्तृत रूप से लिखी हुई है और समय- समय पर इसी ठेकेदार का यह अनुबन्ध चल रहा है और पूर्व अनुक्ष' को 'आगे बहाल किया है तथा कागजात वर्ष 1986 से शुरु हुए हैं। वर्ष 1993-96 के भुगतान का ब्यौरा भी दिया गया है और बाउचर नम्बर भी दिए गए है, एक मुस्त भुगतान हुआ है और जब तदकाज के हस्ताक्षर से पत्र भुगतान के समय- समय पर मांग पत्र के रूप में पेश हुए हैं, और अलग- अलग भी जारी हुए हैं। आर. एस.एम.एम. लि. की और से एक पत्र दिनांक 2-8-1995 को जारी हुआ है, जिसमें जुलाई , 1995 माह की उपस्थिति दर्शाई गई है और इसमें कन्ट्रैक्ट सुरक्षा कर्मी जो कि शम्युपुरा में कार्यरत है , उनकी सूची में सातवें, नम्बर में कानाराम का नाम है और शम्भुपुरा में 15 सुरक्षाकर्मी कार्यरत हैं। सिनीयर मैनेजर के हस्ताक्षर से वे कायम डिस्पेंज नम्बर 635 का है यह पत्र कोनाराम को ठेकेदार की सुरक्षा में शम्भुपुरा में बताते हुए उपस्थिति पॉजका का लिखित रेकार्ड पेश हुआ है उस पर कोई विवाद नहीं था , बल्कि 5 वर्ष बाद यह विवाद पैदा हुआ है ।

विपक्षी की ओर से मैसर्स एक्स सर्विस मैन सिक्योरिटीफोर्स एवं विजिलेंस सर्विसेज उदयपुर का श्रमिक कानाराम को बताया गया हैं निवेशक दुकान और वाणिज्यक संस्थान सं. का यह लायन्स प्रदर्श-24 जारीशुदा है । जिसका नवीनीकरण दिनांक 31-12-2004 तक है और विवार इस लायसेन्स का नहीं है । मुख्य रूप से यह देखना हैकि प्रार्थी विपक्षी द्वारा नियुक्त था या नहीं ?

लायसेन्स पेरा हुआ है और जो कागजात पेश हुए हैं , राजस्थान सरकार के उपक्रम के कागजात हैं और नियमित रूप से लिए जाते हैं और जो पत्राचार हुए हैं जो एक तरह से राज्य सरकार के विभाग होने से कसी अनुरूप हुए हैं। वर्ष 1995 से यह श्रमिक ठेके पर लिए जाने का क्रम चला है । उपस्थिति भरने से संबंधित बंयान की और विद्वान अभिभावक प्रार्थी ने ध्यान दिलाया कि हाजरी कानाराम की वहां भरी कती चीऔर जो विभाग का इन्चार्ज होता था , वही भरता था । क्योंकि सम्पूर्ण कागजात विभाग की ओर से पेश कर दिए हैं और मूल अनुबन्ध प्रदर्श-2 पेश हो गया है । मूल अनुबन्ध प्रदर्श-2 में जो शतें हैं, उनमें साफ तौर पर लिखा है कि सुरक्षा कर्मचारी को ठेकेदार द्वारा उपलब्ध कराए गए हैं वो ठेकेदार के आद‌मी रहेगी और उनको बेतन जो देब होगा और सभी सुविधा देय होंगी , सम्पूर्ण दायित्व ठेकेदार का होगा रातों में यह भी है कि किसी भी स्टाफ जो ठेकेदार का कर्मकार है और फैक्ट्री में नहीं रखा जाएगा। यह संविदा पहली बार एक साल के लिए हुई थीऔर भविष्य निधि एवं पी .एफ. के कागजात विपक्षी के कार्यालय में होंगे । अनुबन्ध पर हस्ताक्षर डायरेक्टर उदमराज के हैं और उद्‌चसंच रातें स्वीकार की हैं, उनको स्वीकार किया है सिपाही

इसी अनुक्रम में जो भुगतान मांगा गया है और नोः भुगतान हुआ है, उपस्थिति श्रमिकों की भरी गई थी और उसमें कानाराम का नाम भी आया है जो मूल उपस्थित्ति रजिस्टर पेस हुआ है , इसमें कानाराम का नाम क्रम संख्या 6 पर है और पुलिस निरीक्षक आर.एस. एम.एम. लि. झामरकोटडा जहां शुरू में नौकरी थी , यहां कानाराम का नाम बताया गया है । इसके पश्चात् शम्भुपुरा में गया है । उपस्थिति रजिस्टर के अनुरूप ही उदयराज ने श्रमिकों का भुगतान समय-समय पर मांगा है और हाजरी रजिस्टर प्रमाणित करके दिया है हाजरी रजिस्टर सभी वर्षों के लगे हुए हैं अप्रैल , 1995 के पत्र क्रमांक 133 दिनांक 3-5-1995 हाजरी में कानाराम का नाम भी दर्शा रखा है और उपस्थित्ति बतौर ठेकेदार के सुरक्षाकर्मी बता रखा है लगातार बह रेकार्ड दर्शा रहा है कि और बिल भी बनाकर समेकित भुगतान हुआ है जो उदयराज में बिल की राशि मांगी है और भुगतान उदयराज को हुम्मा है। वर्ष 1996 में भी शम्भुपुरा में ठेकेदार के सुरक्षाकर्मी के बतौर कानाराम का नाम क्रम संख्या 13 पर दर्शा रखा है । उपस्थिति 3-5-1996 को लिखी गई है और हाजरी रजिस्टर की प्रति साथ में लगा रखी है , सभी प्रत्येक माह में उपस्थिति पंजिका लगी हुई है और उदयराज ने जो इन समय में सुरक्षाकर्मी का वेतन था और वेतन का मांग पत्र बना कर दिया और वेतन का भुगतान हुआ है , केशियर ने भुगतान किया है और वाउचर नम्बर लगा कर विभिन्न तसीखों पर भुगतान किया है जो इकट्ठा भुगतान क्रिया गया है , अत्येक सुमर और वर्ष के भुगतान का रिकार्ड जो पेश हुआ है सोया 3308

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ASADHA 7, 1930

[PART 11-SEC.3(11) ]

स्वभाविक है कि विपक्षी के यहां भरी जाती थी और उपस्थिति पर कोई विवाद भी नहीं है। अनुबन्ध ठेकेदार से हुआ था और कार्य स्वभाविक है किविपक्षी के नियन्त्रण में करना था , उपस्थिति जो पेश हुई है, कोई विवाद नहीं है । विद्वान अभिभावक प्रार्थों का कथन है कि प्रदर्श एम-2 , एम-3 , एम-4, एम-5 व प्रदर्श-15 से लगायत प्रदर्श-22 तक के जो कागजात पेश किए गए हैं उसको बाद में बनाकर पेश किए गए हैं और ठेकेदार का आदमी बताते हुए जो हाजरी रजिस्टर लिए गए हैं वे बाद में सोची समझी योजना के तहत लिखे गए हैं । लेकिन यह तर्क मानने योग्य नहीं है क्योंकि विपक्षी संस्था निजि संस्था नहींहै बल्कि राज्य सरकार का उपक्रम है क्योंकि पंजीका में ठेकेदार का आदमी होना लिखा है और यह जून , 1998 में किया है व सीधा शम्भुपुरा में किया गया है वह ठेकेदार का श्रमिक होना मान कर किया गया है और इसमें प्रर्थी के भी हस्ताक्षर हैं, हालांकि प्रार्थी ने यह कह कर टालने का प्रयास किया गया है कि उसके हस्ताक्षर हों तो पढ़ा नहीं। क्योंकि कोई आदमी अपने हस्ताक्षर नहीं पहचानता हो ऐसा नहीं है।

अतः इस सम्पूर्ण दस्तावेजों से यह निष्कर्ष निकलता है कि कात्राराम विपक्षी द्वारा नियुक्त नहीं था और विपक्षी के यहां कोई सेवा शर्ते मानने हेतु बाध्य नहीं था, बल्कि विपक्षी का नियन्त्रण या और उदयराज को इसका भुगतान हुआ है और उदयराज तथा विपक्षी प्रबन्धन के बीच ही अनुबन्ध हुआ है और ठेकेदार एक निश्चित राशि ठेकेदार को दी जाती थी और उसी ने सुरक्षा एजेन्सी के गार्ड उपलब्ध कराए थे, इसलिए विपक्षी द्वारा कानाराम को नियुक्त नहीं किया गया था और यदि विपक्षी द्वारा कानाराम नियुक्त नहीं था तो सेवा से पृथक करने का प्रश्न ही पैदा नहीं होता है।

इसलिए प्रार्थी कानाराम विपक्षी राजस्थान स्टेट माईन्स एण्ड मिनरल लि. का कर्मचारी नहीं था , इसलिए सेवा से पृथक करने का काई प्रश्न ही पैदा नहीं होता है और जब विपक्षी द्वारा नियुक्ति ही नहीं दी तो सेवा से पृथक करने का प्रश्न ही पैदा नहीं होता है, इसलिए प्रार्थी कोई राहत पाने का भी अधिकारी नहीं है ।

अतः भारत सरकार द्वारा प्रेषित विवाद दिनांक 28-3-2001 को उत्तरित करते हुए पंचाट इस प्रकार पारित किया जाता है कि- प्रार्थी कानाराम पिता श्री सीताराम विपक्षी राजस्थान स्टेट माईन्स एण्ड मिनरल लि. उदयपुर का कर्मकार ही नहीं था और उसे विपक्षी द्वारा कोई नियुक्ति ही नहीं दी गई तो विपक्षी द्वारा उसे दिनांक 1-3-2000 या अन्य किसी दिनांक को सेवा से मुक्त करने का प्रश्न ही पैदा नहीं होता है इसलिए प्रार्थी कोई राहत पाने का हकदार नहीं है ।

पंचाट प्रकाशनार्थ भारत सरकार को भेजा जायें ।

पंचाट आज दिनांक29-4-2008 को खुले न्यायालय में लिखाया जाकर सुनाया गया।

गया । आर.एस. एम. एम. लि. का सामान्य खाता दिनांक 1-4-1997 से 31-3-1998 तक का लिखा है , जिसमें पूरे वर्ष का जो वेतन भुगतान के श्रमिकोंको भुगतान किया गया है उसका वर्णन किया गया है और 31-3-1998 तक का है। इसका मिलान बाउचर भुगतान से होता है और लिस्ट में जो दर्शाए गए व्यक्ति हैं, उसमें कानाराम का नाम भी है, फिर बैंक पेमेन्ट बाउचर से भी भुगतान हुआ है और वर्ष 1998 में हुआ है । उदयराज ने पैसे विपक्षी से भांगे हैं और प्रत्येक माह का पैसा जोड़ कर भुगतान वाउचर से हुआ है। सम्पूर्ण उपस्थिति रजिस्टर सत्यापित सहित पेश हुए हैं। कानाराम का नाम इस लिस्ट में है जो बार- बार आ रहा है । जून , 1998 का भी भुगतान इस तरह से ही हुआ है और बाद के समय के भी भुगतान उदयराज को हुए हैं । उपस्थिति रजिस्टर मई , 1998 में कानाराम का नाम है । उपस्थिति स्वाभाविक है किविपक्षी द्वारा ही भरी जाती है और उपस्थिति प्रमाणित करके बिल के साथ उदयराज विपक्ष को सबमिट करता था और जो उदयराज के दस्तख्तों से उपस्थिति रजिस्टर पेश हुए थे, जिनमें साफ तौर पर पत्र में लिखा था कि अटेंडेन्स शीट संलग्न है । सभी ब्यौरा देकर उदयराज प्रशासक से पैसे मांगता था और इसी अनुरूप वेतन का भुगतान हुआ था। यह स्थिति वर्ष 1998 तक चली है । वर्ष 1998 में दिनांक 3-11-1998 के पत्र भी ठेकेदार के श्रमिक के बतौर कानाराम का नाम क्रम संख्या 5 पर दर्शाया गया है । उपस्थिति प्रमाणित की गई है और यह उपस्थिति कोई बाद में बनती नहीं है , क्योंकि 1998 में जो प्रशासनिक अधिकारी होंगे तो बाद में कोई नया पत्र निर्मित हो ऐसा भी नहीं कहा जा सकता है । नवम्बर , 1998 के बाद भी स्थिति इसी तरह सामने आ रही है , क्योंकि प्रमाणिकरण के पश्चात् 39477 रुपए का भुगतान उदयराज द्वारा मांगा गया है । डिटेल और उपस्थिति रजिस्टर का प्रमाणिकरण दिया गया है । अक्टूबर , 1998 की उपस्थिति जो विपक्षी के कार्यालय में उदयराज ने पेश की है , उममें श्री कानाराम का नाम है। बिल इसी अनुरूप नियमित बनते आ रहे हैं। कोई विसंगतता नहीं है । और उदयराज हाजरी रजिस्टर प्रमाणित करके कार्यालय में देता था और विपक्षी के यहां बिल सरकारी कार्यालय की तरह ही बनते हैं और उदयराज ने हर बार हाजरी रजिस्टर प्रमाणित करके दिए हैं। फरवरी , 1999 का रिकार्ड भी विपक्षी का देखा गया, उदयराज में वेतन मांगा है और इस पर उप- अधीक्षक पुलिस आर.एस. एम.एम. द्वारा भुगतान उपस्थिति रजिस्टर पेश किया है, जिसमें कानाराम । का नाम क्रम संख्या 6 पर अंकित है और यह 8 आदमी का वेतन हैड गार्ड पूरे माह और 7 सिक्यूरिटी गार्ड का रुपया 14217.38 रुपया मांगा है। उदयराज ने अटेडेन्स रजिस्टर सेलान करके दिया है और इसका भुगतान भी उदयराज को हुआ है। इसी तरह दूसरे माह का भी उपस्थिति रजिस्टर प्रबन्धन के यहां पेश किए हैं और प्रमाणित प्रतिलिपि प्रमाणिकरण कराई गई है , इसी अनुरूप सम्पूर्ण रिकार्ड जो विपक्षी ने पेश कर दिया है जो ठेकेदार को भुगतान हुआ है। प्रदर्श-43 के जरिए भी भुगतान ठेकेदार का हुआ है।

बलदेवपुरी गोस्वामी, पीठासीन अधिकारी

नई दिल्ली , 10 जून , 2008

का. आ. 1594.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947

का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , नेशनल इण्टरप्राइजेज के प्रबंध कुछ रिकार्ड मूल नहीं है, लेकिन जो रिकार्ड पेश हुआ है उसमें ठेकेदार ने जो राशि मांगी है और भुगतान हुआ है , उसमें कानाराम को ठेकेदार का गार्ड बताया और भुगतान भी ठेकेदार को इस का बिल बनाकर किया गया है । यह सम्पूर्ण रिकार्ड दर्शा रहा है। हाजरी रजिस्टर [भांग 11- खण्ड 3 ( 1) ]

3309

भारत का राजपत्र : खून 28, 2008/आषाद 7, 1930

Distt. Keonjhar by terminating Shri Bankim Mishra Mines, Foreman from service w.e.f. 28-7-2000 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

तंत्र के संबंध में नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आईडी -60/2002 को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्दीय सरकार को 10-6-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[फा. सं एल-29012/ 104/2001-आई.आर. ( एम. ) ]

कमल बाखरू , डेस्कअधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 10th June,2008

S. O. 1594. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government herby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 60/2002) ofthe Industrial Tribunal , Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management ofM/s National Enterprises and their workmen, receivedby the Central Government on 10-6-2008.

: [F.No-L-29012/104/2001 - IR (M)]

KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

2. The 1st Party- Management M/ s National Enterprises is admittedly a Contractor establishment operating in Jajang Iron Mines of M/s . Rungta Mines having its office at Barbil in the District ofKeonjhar. It is. alleged by the 2nd Party Workinan that be joined in the establishment ofthe Management on 1-8-1999 as a Mining Foreman and continued as such from month to mouth with all sincerity. But all ofa sudden on 28-7-2000 be was refused employment without any advance notice or retrenchment compensation and that on his making representation on 28-8-2000 and on 28-7-2000 the same yielded no result. Hence he raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Enforcement Agency, Rourkela on 30-9-2000 culminating the same in the present reference. It is alleged further by the workman that for no fault ofhis own be was terminated illegally by the Management in violation of Section-25F of the Industrial DisputesAct.

CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR

COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present: Shri N.K.R. Mohapatra, PresidingOfficer, C.G.I.T.-cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 60/2002

Date ofPassing Award-28thApril, 2008 Between:

TheManagement of M/s . National Enterprises , Contractor, At/P.O . Barbil , Distt. Keonjhar.

Ist Party Management

And

Their Workinan, Shri Bankim Mistıra, At /P.O. Jajang, Via-Joda, Distt. Keonjhar. -2nd Party-Workman

Appearances:

SrimantaDas -For the 1st Party- Management.

3. Iureply to the above contention ofthe workman it is submitted by the Management that the workman in question was appointed as a Mines Foreman and his duty was supervisory in nature . He was also getting Rs . 1600 per month as his wages and as such he is not a workinan under Section 2 (s ) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is further contended by the Management that the disputant- workmanwas not sincere and regular in attending his duties and that by habit he used to change employer after employer from time to time and that while working in the establishment ofthe Management he get himself involved in a criminal caseand went tojail custody from 5-7-2000. After suffering jail term he came on 26-7-2000 but did not like to work under the Management and in consequence submitted his resignation on 30-7-2000 voluntarily. While accepting his resignation the Management in its letter dated 1-8-2000 asked him to hand over complete charge ofhis office to the Incharge of the Mines and to vacate the quarter's and receive his full and final dues from Barbil office. It is further contended by the Management that having coming to know about such a letter the workman avoided to receive the said letter and absconded and then raised the dispute. With the above averments the Management has contended in nutshell that the present reference is not maintainable in theeye of law.

Shri BankimMishra -For Himself the 2nd Party-Workman. AWARD

4. On the basis of above pleadings ofthe parties the following issues were framed :

ISSUES

1. Whether the reference is maintainable?

TheGovernment of India in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise ofpowers conferred by Clause (d) ofsub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 (14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. -29012/ 104/ 2001-IR(M), dated 2-5-2002.

2. Whether the 2nd Party is a " Workman" as defined under Section 2( s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19477

"Whether the action of the Management of M/s . National Enterprises , Contractor , Jajang Mines ofRungta Mines Ltd. , At./P.O . Barbil ,

3. Whether it is a case of termination or resignation?

2263 GMOB-19 3310

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2008/ASADHA 7 , 1930

4. Whether the dispute can be adjudicated in absence ofthe Principal Employer?

5. If not , what relief the 2nd Party is entitled?

5. After framing of the above issues the case was posted from time to time for hearing but the workman did not appear continuously for which he was set ex-parte on 28-6-2007 and the ex -parte evidence of the Managemen! wus recorded accordingly . Thus this ex -parte award .

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO . 1 , 2, 3, 4 AND 5

6. All the issues are taken up together for the purpose ofconvenience :

The unchallenged evidence of the Management shows that thedisputant was working as a Mining Foreman since 1996 and his duty was to supervise the work ofthose of the workers who were engaged in raising the ore from the mine and that, he was getting a salary of Rs . 3000 per month as is evident from the monthly salary sheet marked Ext.-A. In view of the above the disputant can not be regarded as a workman within the definition of the term and as such the dispute raised by the disputant is not maintainable under Industrial Disputes Act . Further more the evidence of the Management shows that while the workman was in service he got himself involved in a criminal caseand went to jail custody and thereafter did not like to work under the Management. On the other hand he tendered his resignation on 30-7-2000 vide Ext.-B. Ext . -Cindicates that his above letter of resignation was accepted by the Management and he was asked to hand over charge ofhis seat and the quarters allotted in his favour and to collect his full and final dues on any working days after complying the above requirements . Thus when from the above unchallenged evidence of the Management it appears that the termination of the disputant is the resultant out - come ofhis tendering resignation , there appears no merit in the dispute raised by him .

7. Accordingly the reference is answered ex-parte against the workman with no relief.

N. K. R. MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 10 जून , 2008

का.आ. 1595.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. एस. कुमार हैण्डलिंग एजेन्सी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी- 36/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-6-08 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[फा. सं. एल-26011/ 1/2004- आई. आर. ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरु, डेस्क अधिकारी

[PART 1]SEC. 3( ii) ) New Delhi, the 10th June , 2008

S.O. 1595. 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. -36/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court , Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M / s . S.Kumar Handling Agency and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-6-08.

[F. No. L- 26011 /1 /2004- IR( M) ]

KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR Present:

Shri N. K. R. Mohapatra ,

Presiding Officer, C.G.1.T.- Cum-Labour Court Bhubaneswar .

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 36/2004 Dateof PassingAward-21st April, 2008

Between:

The Management of M/ s . S.Kumar Handling Agency, M.M.T.C. Railway Siding , Station Road, P.O. Barbil , Keonjhar.

.... 1st Party- Management .

And

Their Workmen , represented through the General Secretary , North Orissa Workers Union, P.O.Barbil , Dist . Keonjhar .

... 2nd Party - Union .

Appearances:

None.

... For the 1st Party- Management .

...For the 2nd Party- Union

Shri B.S. Parti , General Secretary,

AWARD

1 TheGovernment of India in the Ministry of Labour , in exercise of Powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. I. -26011/1/2004- IR ( M), dated 18-05-2004.

"Whether the demand ofthe North Orissa Workers Union , At /Po.Barbil , Dist . Keonjhar demanding 20% bonus for accounting year 2002-2003 to all workers working under M/ s . S.K. Handling Agency , Contractor, M.M.T.C. , Barbil is justified? If not to what relief the workmen are entitled to ? "

2. This dispute has been raised by the North Orissa Workers Union , Keonjhar claiming 20% Bonusfor theworkers ofthe Management ( M/ s . S. Kumar Handling 3311 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(U) ]

भारत का राजपत्र जून 28, 2008/ आषाढ़ 7, 1930

Agency) aContractor under M.M.T.C. Barbil Railway Sliding for the accounting year 2002-2003.

3. After receipt of the above reference the Union sent bis Statement of claimto the Management but on the failure of the latter to appear the Tribunal sent further notice to theManagementt but it was of no consequence. As a result the said Management was set ex -parte on 13-6-2007 and the exparte evidence of the Union was taken through affidavit .

4. In the aforesaid affidavit the General Secretary of the Union deposed that the establishment of the Management is an industry within the definition of Section2(J) of the Industrial -Disputes Act and that its main business is to load and unload the minerals of the M.M.T.C. at the railway sliding for its further use. To carry out the above business the Management had engaged workers but not paying any bonus as per law. According to him bonus is dependent upon profit carned by the employer and the concept ofbonus is nothing but profit sharing amongst the partners in the process of production /business . He further deposed that since the Management has not come forth and produced any documents relating to his profit and loss account and other documents or figures relating to payment ofwages andbonus tohis workers, the percentage of bouns and ex-gratia at the rate of 20 % as claimed by the Union shouldbe allowed,

5. During cross -examination made by the court thewitness could not say under which act such bonus is payable and what are the various grounds under which such benefit accrues to a worker of the above Management.

renders services as per the illustrations given under 4th Schedule. But there is nothing in the evidence of the Union as to when the Management came into being and when it started rendering service . Furthermore under Section 10 ofthe Payment of Bonus Act , minimun bonus is payable to a worker subject to other provisions of the saidAct @ 8.33 % of the salary or wages earned by the employce during the accounting year or Rs . 100 whichever is higher whether or not the employer. has any allocable surplus in the accounting year . Section 11of the saidAct further postulates that if the allocable surplos exceeds the amount of the minimum bonus payable to the employees under section 10, the employer shall in lieu of such minimum bonus would be bound to pay every employee in respect of that accounting year bonus which shall be an amount in proportionate to the salary or wages earned by the employee during the accounting year subject to a maximum of 20 % of such salary or wages. It be noted here that , while claiming 20% bonus no evidence worth the name has been adduced as to whether the workers were getting earlier any mininum bonus of8.33% in any year prior to 2002-03 accounting year.No evidence has also been placed with the Tribunal as to what are the alfocable surplus shown by the Management in his profit and loss account so as to arrive at to a decision as to the justification of the claim of the Union . During trial the Union Secretary has of course offered an explanation that these documents should have been filled by the Management. But when the Union has raised the dispute claiming 20% of the bonus and there being no whisper from his side as to whether the workers were being paid the minimum bonus as required under section 10 of the Union with the above plea cannot shift the burden to the Management . From the above discussions I thus find that the evidence adduced by the Union is quite unspecific and insufficient to reach at a conclusion and as the reference is answered ex -parte against the Management in negation .

N. K. R. MOHAPATRA, PresidingOfficer

नईदिल्ली, 10 जून , 2008

का.आ. 1596. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरणे में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और तनके कर्मकार्य के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय अहमदाबाद के पंचाट [ संदर्भ संख्या 1210/2008 ( पु.सं.सं. - 1439/04 ) ] को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-6-08 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

6. As per Section 3 of the Payment ofBonusAct 1965 the saidAct is applicable (a) to every factory as defined under Clause -m ofSection 2 of the FactoriesAct and(b) to every other establishment in which 20 ormore persons are employed on any day during an accounting year. Since admittedly the Management was a contractor engaged in amine , his establishment can not be regarded asa factory as per the definition ofthe said term. In so far. the requirement ofClause-b ofSection 3 of the Payment ofBonus Act the Union has also not adduced any evidence as tohow many persons are being engagedby the Management in furtherance of his activities and as such the establishment of the Management can not also bebrought under the purview of Clause -b ofSection -3 of theBonusAct. However , considering for a moment that theManagement used to engage 20 or more persons to carry out his business it is to be seen how far the Management is liable to pay 20 % bonus to its worker .

[फा. सं. एल-30011 /45/2004-आई. आर. ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरु , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 10th June , 2008

S.O. 1596.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) the Central 7. As per special provisions laid out under Section16 of the Payment Bonus Act where an establishment has been newly set up , calculation of bonus payable to the workers is to be calculated ata varied rate up till 8th accounting year following the accounting year in which the employer sells the goods or 3312

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 28 , 2008/ ASADHA 7 , 1930

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1210/ 2008 (old Ref. No1439/04 ) ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court , Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ONGC and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-6-08.

(F. No. L-30011 /45/2004- IR( M ) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI P. R. DAVE

Reference (ITC) 1210/08

OldNo. Reference (C.G.LT.A. ) No. 1439/04 ADJUDICATION Between:

L The Chairman & Managing Director , O.N.G.C. Lad

Tel Bhavan, Dehradun- 248001

2 The Group General Manager ,

O.N.G.C. Ltd. ,

Ahmedabad Project,

Chandkheda, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

.... 1st Party- Union .

AND

Branch Secretary,

O.N.G.C. Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation , DigvijayNagar, Ahmedabad Project, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) .

...2ndParty Appearances:

Shri K. V. Gadhia

...For the 1st Party Shri R. C. Shukla

...For the 2nd Party

AWARD

This Industrial Dispute between the above said partieswas referred by the Under Secretary , Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi vide his Order No. L. 30011/45/2004- IR ( M) , dated 17-08-2004 to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Ahmedabad for adjudication under Section 10 (1) and 10 (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. The subject of the dispute is referred to in the Schedule as under:

SCHEDULE

Whether the demand of ONGC Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation , Ahmedabad regarding (1) Rectification of norms for Electrical staff (2) Affixing or proper seniority to Shri P.T. as , Asstt. Foremen (Electrical ) and ( 3 ) payment of Special Allowance to Electrical Workshop

[PART II--SEC. 3 (ii ) ] Technician doing auto electrical work is justified and legal? If so , what relief the Union is entitled?

2. After this dispute is referred to as mentioned above , again the same dispute is subsequently transferred to this Tribunal for adjudication.

3. It is on record of the reference that the parties were served , the second party had filed statement ofclim on 2-5-2005 and the first party had filed written statement on 1-8-2007 and the matter was thereafter kept for hearing.

4.Meanwhile , the second party through his representative had filed withdrawal purshis dated 28-4-2008 Ex . 7 before this Tribunal praying for closing the case of second party at this stage as the demand is not much benefited to workman and as the individual is not interested as he retires from service of O. N. G. C. Limited .

5.It appears that by filing this withdrawal purshis, the second party wants to withdraw his reference and does not want to pursue further the demand and hence , in the interest of the justice . keeping in view the submissions made in this withdrawal purshis , it is proper to grant permission 10withdraw this reference and hence, the following order is passed.

ORDER

In view of the withdrawal purshis Ex . 7 of the second party, the permission is granted to withdraw the reference as prayed for in this withdrawal purshis and the reference is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

P. R. DAVE, Presiding Officer Ahmedabad. 28-4-2004

नई दिल्ली, 10 जून , 2008

का, आ. 1597,- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1530/2008/पु.सं.सं. - 171 /06 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-6-08 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[फा. सं. एल-30011 /40/2006- आई, आर. ( एम ) ]

कमल बाखरु , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 10th June , 2008 S.O. 1597.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1530/ 3313 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र जून 28, 2008/ आणाद 7, 1930

sbsequently transferred to this Tribunal by order of the competent authority . The dispute between the paties relates to the following demands of the wokmen concerned.

2008 (Old Ref. No. 171/06) of the Central Goverament . Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , Ahmedabad now as shown in theAnnexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ONGC and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 10-6-08.

[F.No. L-30011/40/2006- IR(M)} KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ( CENTRAL) AT AHMEDABAD

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC by violating their own sanction orders No. AMD /HBA/ 292/2000/3078 dated 20-12-2000 in respect of Shri D.K. Pandey and another order vide No. AMD /HBA/2181/ - 2000/730dated4-8-2000 in respect of Shri Siyaram Verna regarding the deductions of HBA advance in 180 installments instead of 90 installments is legal and justified ? If not, witax relief the workmmen are entitledto and to what extent?"

BEFORE SHRI Y. P. BHATT

Reference (ITC) 1530/06

OldNo. Reference (C.G.LT.A. ) 171/06

ADJUDICATION:

Between:

1. The Chairman &Managing Director,

JeevanBharti Building,

After the casewas transferred to this Tribunal, the notices were sent to the parties and the learned representative of the second party had also obtained in adjournment for filing written claim statement. Thereafter, the case was adjourned but on 25-4-2008, the learned representative for the second party workmen filed a purshis at Ex . 8 stating that the loan amount has been recovered from the salary of Shri D.K. Pandey and Shri Siyaram Verma and hence, now the union is not interested toproceed with this case.

O.N.G.C. Ltd Cannaught Place, NewDelhi-110001

2. Executive Director ,

On28-4-2008, the learned representative ofboth the parties took the matter on board and asked this Tribunal to pass appropriate order. After bearing the parties, this Triburial passedthe follwing order.

ORDER

O.N.G.C. Ltd., Ahmedabad Assel, Chandkheda , Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

-Ist Party

AND

The workmen represented by:

General Secretary,

O.N.G.C. Eléctrical & Allied Staff Association ,

C-191, Raheshwari Society, IOC

Tragad Road,

DigvijayNagar,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) .

Shri R.C.Shukla is present for the second party union and Shri K.V. Gadhia is present for the First party management . It appears from this application as also from the submissions of the learned representative Shri R.C. Shukla and Shri K.V. Gadhia that this dispute has now becorte infructuous as the amount/installment for which this dispute was raised has already been recovered by the management of the first party from the salary of the two concerned workmen . Now, therefore, nothing remains for adjudication . This Reference case is , therefore, disposed of as " not pressed" . No order as to costs . Ahmedabad

Dated28-04-2008

-2nd Party

Y.P. BHATT, Industrial Tribunal (Central) Appearances:

नई दिल्ली, 10 जून , 2008

Shri K.V.Gadhia

...For the 1st Party

Shri R.C. Shukla

... For the 2nd Party

AWARD

का.आ. 1598.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल वेयर- हाऊसिंग कॉरपोरेशन , चंडीगढ़ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बौच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय में -1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी-19/1994 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-6-08 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[का. सं. एल-42012/9/92- आई आर( एम ) ] This Industrial Dispute between the above said parties was referred by the Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi vide his Order No. L-3001-1/40/2006 - IR ( M ) , dated 11-9-2006 to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court, Ahmedabad for adjudication under Section 10(1 ) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. The said dispute was

कमल बाखरु , डेस्क अधिकारी 3314

[PART 11-Sec . 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNIE 28, 2008/ASADHA 7,1930

New Delhi , the 10th June ,2008

The present 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 andto regularization of his services and for grant of wages as paid to his regular counterpart chowkidars .

The management turned up and opposes this application.

$.O. 1598.-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. 19/ 1994) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / 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., Chandigarh and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-6-08.

[F. No. L-42012/9/92 -IR(M) ]

KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDERA KUMAR SHARMA PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRALGOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT -1, CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 19/1994

General Secretary CWC Workers Union , SCO 84-85. Sector-17 , Chandigarh .

.....Applicant

Versus

Asper office memorandum dated 30-4-08, this case was fixed in prelok adalat meeting on 23-5-08 for its disposal by adopting the mediation and conciliation mechanism with the efforts of the Tribunal , the workman, a senior citizen , is present. On behalf of the management Shri K.S. Jaryal is present. Long discussion took place and it is settled between the parties that the workman will withdraw his present reference for the reasons that his service was regularized on receiving the consent from the Board of Directors . It has also come to the notice of this Tribunal that as soon as the order of relaxation in age and education was conveyed to the prescribed authority , the services of the workman were regularized without any delay. On this assertion the workman withdraws the present reference . It is proposed to dispose off this reference in Lok Adalat . Accordingly the reference is returned to the Central Govt. as settled in Lok Adalat . Cental Govt . be informed. Filebe consigned to record.

Regional Manager (IC) , CWC Regional Office , SCO 84-85, Sector-17, Chandigarh .

Announced

.....Respondent

23-5-08

G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer Appearances :

नई दिल्ली, 29 मई , 2008

For the workmen

Shri M.M. Putney

Advocate

Shri Pardeep Sharma

For the management

Advocate

AWARD

का.आ. 1599.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू सौ एल के प्रबंधतंत्र , के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 72/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था । Passed on 23-5-2008 in Lok Adalat

(फा. सं. एल-22012/348/ 1997- आईआर ( सी-11 ) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी Central Govt. vide notification No. L- 42012/9/92/ [R(M) dated 1-02-1994 has referred the following dispute to thisTribunal for adjudication:-

New Delhi , the 29th May, 2008 "Whether the following demands raised by CWC Workers Union (NZ & HO) , New Delhi in respect of Shri Kailash Chander on the Regional Manager Central Warehousing Corporation , Chandigarh are justified ? Ifyes then to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date ?"

Demand No. 1: To regularize Shri Kailash Chander from the date of his recruitment .

$.O. 1599.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref . No.72/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Nagpur , now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 29-5-2008 .

[F. No. L-22012/348/1997 - IR(C- 1 ] )] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer 2. To pay him same wages as paid to his regular counterpart from the date of his initial recruitment ?

9315 [भाग 1]-काष्ठ 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 28 , 2008/आषाढ़ 7 , 1930

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI A.N. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, OGIT-CUM- LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Reference No. CXGTT/NGP/75 /2001

Petitioner: Shri Santosh Kumar Gupta C/ o Shri Babulal Gupta (Nema) Near Utapadan VanMandalBara parattar , Mohala, Sioni Tehasil &District Sioni, M.P.

PartyNo. 1

Versus

Respondent : The Sub area Manager , M/ s Western Coal Fields Rajur Sub area PO Rajur Wani Dist Yeotmal (M.S.)

PartyNo.2

AWARD

[Dated: 21 of May,2008]

5-02-84 at about 11 A.M. et office of the Project Officer, Rajur Sub Area and misbehaved with him. Hetried toblack mail him saying that he would publish regarding the misappropriation in the office in news papers. He threatened to kill the Project Officer. It was serious misconduct committed by the petitioner . Accordingly afßer initiating D.E. considering the serious nature of the misconduct, he was dismissed from the service. If bas supported that the enquiry was legal, fair and proper and the punishment of dismissal considering the sovermeks of misconduct was also proper. He was adinittedly dismissed on11-7-84whereashe applied to A.L.C. on31-07-97.after about 13 years . It has contended on behalf of the management that the application being belated is not maintainable. Even the appropriate Government has rehmand toreferthe matter to Tribunal/L.C. because it was belted. It has denied that the petitioner has completed 240 days continuous service in one calendar year and acquired my permanency. Finely it has prayed to dismiss the petition as it iswithout substance.

1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence of the disputes between Shri Santosh Kumar GuptaPartyNo. 1 and Sub area Manager , M/s . Western CoalFieldsRajur Sub area Rajur Wani Dist Yeotmal Party No. 2. The Sub area Manager, M/ s . Western Coal Field Raipur Sub area PO Rajur Wani Dist. Yeotmal referredthe same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its LetterNo. L-22012/348/97 /AR(C-ii) Dt. 01-10-2001 under clause ( d) of sub - section (1 ) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [ 14 of 1947] (1) with the following schedule:--

"Whether the action of the management of Rajur SubArea ofWestern Coalfields Lid . in terminating Sh. Santosh Kumar Gupta, S /o Babulal Gupta Cat . I Mazdoor from services is , legal and justified ? If not towhat reljefSh . Gupta is entitled to?"

In response to the notices of this tribunal the parties No1 and 2 appeared and filed their Statement of claim and W.S. respectively.

2. The petiționer Sh . Santosh Kumar Gupta has claimed that he was appointed as General Mazdoor category no. 1 on 21/22/Nov 1982. He worked up to 11-7- 84. He was dismissed from the services on 11-07-08. Howeverhewas taken back on the same day. The dismissal orderwas not served on him. He learned about i after 1989.

3.Hecontended that on 06-02-84he applied for the Joan of Rs. 2000 in necessary form. He was asked to sign the register for having received the amount without paying any amount . He approached for ventilating the grievances to the management but he was driven out of the office threatening that he would be handed over to the police. He was servedwith the charge sheet on 10-05-84 keeping under suspension. It is alleged that the enquiry was not fair and proper . He was not given opportunity of being heard. It was not in accordance with the principles of natural justice and in accordance with the Standing Orders of the Western Coalfields Ltd. in spite of repeated representations till 1989 and as he was not taken back he took the resource of 1. D. Act by raising dispute before ALC.

4.The respondent filed its w. s. Having denied all the allegations against it , submitted that the petitioner on

5. Firstly let us consider the issue regarding the delay. Apparently the petitioner has approached on 21-07-1997, after 13 years raising the dispute before the Labour Commissioner. It is inordinate and fatal delay though no limitation is prescribed under ID. Act. The petitioner gives the reasons for delay that he was making the representation and was promised. He has filled the alleged 14 copies of his representation in the court on 23-04-07. In fact they are not the copies at all. They are in the hand writing of the petitioner, without any acknowledgement or any signature in tolken of receipt of them. Such type of documents can be prepared at any time. They are not reliable at all . Even assuming that he represented under these applications Once in a year and for 13 years,how they can be helpful for justifying the delay. It is a fact that there is order on record showing that even the appropriate Government initially had refused to refer the dispute to CGIT. It is unknown as to the how the Government has again considered it and changed its earlier decision. There is nothing to prove that any assurance was given as alleged . The petitioner in his statement of claim has mentioned that he was dismissed on 11-07-84 but the order was served in the year 1989. I do not find the order of dismissal in the enquiry papers. There are no disputes regarding the date of dismissal however no documents are produced by the petitioner to prove that it was served in the year 1989. Even his evidence adduced on affidavit is also silent about it. It is not the case ofthe petitioner that it was reason for delay in approaching the Labour Commissioner. I fail to understand as to how the year1989 is referred in the statement of claira and what the base was for it. The reasons given that he was hopeful about taking back and the management has assured him arehard to believe and accept. The same thing regarding his allegations in the statement of claim that the order dated 11-7-84 of the dismissal was taken back. Nothing is submitted on that ground. No proper explanation is given for delay of 13 years. It is considerably in ordinate, treating the reference as stale and raising presumption that it was settle in the light of the principles of the cases mentioned below.

3316

[PART II -SFC. 3 ( ) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28 , 2008/ ASADHA 7 , 1930

and took the pétitioner forcibly from his chamber . Ilis evidence is supported by Khond and Kashyap clerk and guard respectively. Despite of the cross examinations they remained unshaken nothing could be elicited.

6. The management cited case of hon . Karnataka H.C. reported in2004- II -LLJ. page 212, where in the dispute was rejected by LC wherein the termination dated 15-2-1982 was challenged on 14-2-1996 before Labour Commissioner observing that it was stale and deemed as settled by the laps of time . The similar observations were made in reported cases in AIR 2000 - ILLI . 561 by Hon. S.C. and in 1998 LAB 1C page 1702 by HonAllahabad H.C. and refusedto grant any relief. In view of the principles ofthe above cases the Central Govt ought to have refused to refer the dispute. In my view also application of the petitioner being delayed had become stale even at the time of referring it and it is not maintainable . On this ground only the reference is liable to be dismissed ; however 1 am giving my findings on the merit also.

7. While considering validity of the enquiry the management admitted that it was not properly conducted. It requested to set aside enquiry and allow it to prove the charges against the petitioner before the Tribunal .

9. It seems Mr. Barve who is now retired admittedly was not on any cross terms with the petitioner . At present being retired he is totally a disinterested person . The other witnesses are also had no grudge against him undisputedly. They have no reasons to give false evidence that too deliberately against him.. Mr. Barve , Project Officer was highest officer at that place and there were area manager and sub area manager working under him who were dealing with the administrative work of sanctioning loan etc. There was no reason for the petitioner to go to his chamber or to approach him . His story that he has gone to complain against clerks because his signature was obtained is afterthought and baseless. Moreover the petitioner being temporary mazadoor as he had never completed the 240 days continuous servic in one calendar year , was not entitled to loan . Though the petitioner has claimed as permanent there is nothing to prove it. Undisputedly he was appointed 23-11-82 and suspended just on 7-2-84 after the incident before completion of even two years service. There is no order making him permanent . Permanency cannot be obtained automatically . Whatever it may be since the order of dismissal is after the enquiry the question of permanency is immaterial .

10.The petitioner Sh , Gupta stated that his signature was obtained in the register on revenue stamp for having received the amound though it was not paid. His own evidence shows that it was the first time to approach for the loan . The evidence of the management shows that he has not even applied for the loan , It is hard to believe that he had applied and immediately sanctioning the loan, he was askedto sign the acquaintance register. There is nothing to prove of obtaining his signature in token of receiving the amount. The evidence of the petitioner Shri Sharma seems to be totally unreliable which can not be accepted. In the result the management proved the charges i.e. misconduct against the petitioner as alleged by it.

Accordingly the management was permitted to prove the charges against the petitioner . Both the parties asked to adduce the evidence to prove their respective contentions. Accordingly the management examined 1. Sh . Kishor Barve whowas Project Officer, Rajur colony 2. Sh . Chandrashekhar Khod and 3. Sh . Pratap Kashyap who were working as clerk and present at the time of incident. While the petitioner examined himself in his defence. It seems that the petitioner was charged of having committed misconduct on 6-02-84 at 11 AM . by entering in to chamber of Project Officer Sh. Barve. It is alleged that the petitioner demanded a loan ofRs 2000 and on refusal threatened him of publishing some objectionable material against management . He also threatened ofdire consequences, abused in a filthy language and assaulted him which is misconduct as per standing orders. There are no disputes regarding the legal position that it is serious/ major misconduct as per standing order 16 (i) (r) under which a punishment of dismissal can be issued . No doubt he challenged the punishment as shockingly disproportionate which will be considered at the latter part ofthe judgment, suffice it to say that there are no disputes regarding the legal position. The petitioner in defence denies the incident and alleges that his signatures were obtained on the revenue stamp in the register for having received the amount and refused to pay it to him . I heard both the counsels for the parties. They have submitted the written notes ofarguments also . I have gone through the evidence, the documents of the parties and the notes of arguments. On the basis of the record and submissions of the parties the only question that arises for my consideration is as to:-

"Whether the evidence of the management is sufficient , convincing and reliable to prove the charges against the petitioner?"

11. Now let us turn to the issue whether the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct. The alleged incident is of sever nature . The behaviour of the petitioner of entering in to the chamber of the project officer a highest and superior authority at that place, and abusing him in indecent filthy language and misbehaving with him can not be taken lightly. It was of serious nature showing that he has no regard either to the superior officer , or to the rules or even to the law. In fact it was criminal act warranting even the prosecution. Nobody will tolerate such behaviour with highest officer . In my view the punishment ofdismissal was proper, and not at all disproportionale considering his misconduct dated 6-2-84. Hence 1 hold that order of dismissal is proper and justifiable. The petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The reference is answered in the negative . Hence this Award.

A. N. YADAY, PresidingOfficer 8. Mr. Barve the Project Officer has stated as to how the incident has taken place in details. His evidence shows, the petitioner entered in his chamber demanding the loan and on his refusal started threatening and abusing him in filthywords . He has stated the actual words of the abuses . Heeven assaulted him. The security guards, clerks rushed

Printed by the Manager , Govt. of India Press , Ring Road , Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi - 1100.54.