This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGD. NO . D. 1.. ( N ) ( 14-0007 / 2003-05 रजिस्ट्रीसं० डी० एल० ( एन ) 04/0007/ 2003-05

भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 37]

No. 37

नई दिल्ली , सितम्बर 7 सितम्बर 13 , 2008, शनिवार / भाद्र 16- भाद्र 22 , 1930 NEW DELHI , SEPTEMBER 7 - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2008, SATURDAY/ BHADRA 16 - BHADRA 22, 1930 इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा संके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग । - खण्ड ३ - उप-खण्ड ( ii) PART II- Section 3-Sub - section (ii)

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

कार्मिक, लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय

(कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 4 सितम्बर , 2008

hereby appoints Shri K Janardhan Reddy, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution in case No. RC 4 /5/2005 - Mum. instituted by Delhi Special Police Establishment in trial courts and appellate /revisional courts or any other matters arising out of the case in the courts established by law in the State of Andhra Pradesh to which provisions of the aforesaid Section apply.

| No. 225/ 63 / 2007 - AVD- III CHANDRA PRAKASH , Under Secy.

कार्यालय मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त , जयपुर शुद्धि-पत्र

जयपुर, 3 सितम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 2523. केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्‌द्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री के जनार्दन रेड्डी , अधिवक्ता को विचारण न्यायालयों और अपील पुनरीक्षण न्यायालयों में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना द्वारा संस्थित मामला सं. आरसी. 4( एस) 2005/मुंबई में अभियोजन अथवा आंध्र प्रदेश राज्य में विधि द्वारा स्थापित न्यायालयों में , जिन पर पूर्वोक्त धारा के उपबंध लागू होते हैं, इस मामले से उद्भुत किन्हीं अन्य विषयों का संचालन करने के लिए विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है। [सं. 225/63/2007- एवीडी- [] ]

चंद्र प्रकाश , अवर सजिव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Departmento Personneland Training)

का.आ. 2524.-आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 10 के खण्ड ( 23 सी ) के उपखण्ड ( vi ) के तहत् अधिसूचना सं. 09/2007-08 दिनांक 30-11-07 के द्वारा " सात्विक जीवनशाला ट्रस्ट, जयपुर " को स्वीकृति दी गई थी । अधिसूचना के पैरा । को लाईन 4 में निर्धारण वर्ष 2006-07 से 2008-09 के स्थान पर " निर्धारण वर्ष 2006-117 एवं आगे के लिए " पढ़ा जाये।

[क्रमांक मुआआआआआ ( मु) /जयः 10 ( 23 सी ) ( vi )2008-09/2069 ] बी. एस. ढिल्लों , मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त New Delhi , the 4th September, 2008 S.O.2523. In exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub-section ( 8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974 ) , the Central Government

(5141)

3272G1/2008 5142

GATTE OF INDIA MEMBER 13 , 2008 BHADRA

OFFRE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONI.R :

INCOME- TAX

CORRIGENDUM

Jaipur, the 3rd September, 2008

S.O. 2524 -In Notification No. 09 :200 30-11-2007 vide which Satwie jeevanshal :: Trust .

appwved to the purpose of sub - clause 131 ) Section 10 sf the income -tax ACT !

200 :.

sant year in P1 . Ime & Smay bereda Jonwards insteadorAY 2006-0

i [ No. JPRA

Bus ) 10C3CK ) 2008 DHILL Commissioner ot luce

वित्त मंत्रालय

मेन विभा

सितम्बर, 200x

1 ६.आ. 2525 भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक ऑज़न्दग को उपधारा 4 का अथ पठित, उपरा मदन शक्तियों का करते हुए केन्द्रीसमर दत्तांचालय में आधिक काळ नव को, डायलगुडी, जिन्का 2008 का समाप्त हो रहा है , के पदभार हो कार्यभार ग्रहण गन्ने नारीख से तीन वर्ग भारतीयनिंगवीरूप में नियुक

[फ. सं. 732

अमिताभ

MMY OF FINANCE

(Department of Pirandel Servig

New Deristh . " September,

0.2525

e ofthe posse

cause of a

wad with

india Av 19-

retary and Secretary ,

Fonet Aftans , inise ofFinance as Gover

Banket lehetlere vew's fron

akii .. karge of the past after Dr. Y. Venugop shomololi cilen Sth Septembe

of the pe

F.Ne.

CULABIVERMA

4,2005

आ. 2520

परामर्श के पश्चात् एतद्वचन्द्र भट का, अधिभन्दनः की तारीख से और 12 में अधिकारी के पद पर भी पहले हो. कारपोरेशन बचारी निदेशक के अभत्र उनके कारपोरेशन बैंक अशवा अगने आदेशों तक जां है ।

44.2 ( 0 ) ? गौ ।। जी. श्री. सिंह, उः NewDelh September, 2018

S.O. 2526.Inshepowers conferred by clause (1 ) af suir-section Schon of the Banking Companies ( Acqustine rastet of Undertakingst Act . 1970-1980 read with sub clause 9 of the Nationalised Banks Manageriet & Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme . (1970 1992 , the Central Governmen aller consultation with the Reserve Bank of India , hereby nominates Shri T. Randra Bhat of Corporation Bank asOfficer Employee torenthe Board of Directors of Corporation Bank, free date of notification and up to 11-12-2009 or until het be an officers of the Corporation Bank or Garden onders , whichever is the earliest

TF No.9-1 2007-130-10 6. B SINGH. Dy Seey.

(बैंक बाचा प्रभाग )

का.आ. 2527 -

अधिनियम , 2006 ( 2006 का 250 की धारा की उपखंड द्वारा प्रद शक्तियों का प्रयोग करनार, एतद‌द्वारा श्री जी.मां.

प्रभग ) के स्थान पर तुर्वेदी, पूर्व संयुक्त सचिकन

तरुण बजाज संयुक्त बीम्न ) को वित्त मंत्रालय तक भारतीय धीमांकक

करनी है ।

प्रतिनिधित्व करने परिन्द्र में सदस्य

2003- बीमा ॥ [ ] गर जिंदल, उप सचिव ( श्रीम ) (Banking & Everance Division ) New Delhi .the September. 2008

$ 0.2527 .-In excicc of the powers conferred by clause ( b ) ( i ) of sub- section1210f Section 12 of the Actuaries Act. 2006 135 of 2009, Le Central Government hereby ¡nominates Sliri Tarun Bajaj , Form Secretary ( Banking & Insurance ) as a member the Coured of the Institute of Actuaries of india to rep the Ministry of Finance till rther desiers vive Strivedi , Ex- Joint Secretary Banking & Insurane :

Na 97-11-2003-1ns .

SANJEEV KUMAR ESOM , Dy Secy. ( Insurance ) [ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

पठित निर्यात ( क्वालिटरौ नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम , 1963 ( 1963का 22 ) की धारा 7 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स एस. जी. एस. इंडिया प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , सत्यभामा (जोशी बिल्डिग ) तीसरा तल , रुआ फ्रांसिसको लुईस गोम्स, पो. ओ. बोक्स 103 , वास्को- डा- गामा , गोआ को, इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए वाणिज्य मंत्रालय , भारत सरकार की अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 3975 और का. आ. 3978 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर 1965 से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में यथाविनिर्दिष्ट खनिज और अयस्क ( समूह- ] ) अर्थात् लौह अयस्क मैंगनीज अयस्क और बोक्साइट और ( समूह-11 ) अर्थात् मैंगनीज डॉयक्साइड का निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए गोआ में उक्त खनिजों और अयस्कोंके निर्यात से पूर्व निरीक्षण करने के लिए एक अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता देती है , अर्थात्:-

( 1 ) मैसर्स एस.जी.एस. इंडिया प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, गोआ, खनिज और अयस्क ( समूह -1) का निर्यात ( निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1965 खनिज और अयस्क ( समूह 11 ) का निर्यात ( निरीक्षण ) नियम, 1965 के नियम 4 के अधीन निरीक्षण का प्रमाण पत्र देने में उनके द्वारा अपनाई गई पद्धति की जांच करने के लिए, इस निमित्त निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद द्वारा नाम‌निर्देशित अधिकारियों को पर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगी;

(i ) मैसर्स एस.जी.एस. इंडिया प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, गोआ , इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के अनुपालन में निदेशक (निरीक्षण औरक्वालिटी नियंत्रण ) ऐसे निर्देशों से, जो नियांत निरीक्षण परिषद द्वारा समय समय पर लिखित में दिए जाएं आबद्ध होगा ।

[फा मं. 5/6/2008 ईआई एण्ड ईपी ]

किरण पुरी, निदेशक MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (Department ofCommerce) New Delhi . the 25th August , 2008

S.O. 2536. In exercise of the powers conterred by sub-section ( 1 ) of Secuon 7 of the Export ( Quality Control and Inspection ) Act , 1963 ( 22 of 1963 ) , read with sub - rule ( 2 ) of rule 12 of the Export ( Quality Control and fuspection ) Rules 1964 , the Central Government hereby recognises M. s . S.G.S. India Private Litnited. Satyabhama ( Joshi Building), 3rd Floor . Rua Francisco Luis Gomes , PO Box 101. Vaso-de-Gama . Goa as an agency for a period of three years with effect from the date of publication of this notification, for inspection of Minerals and ores (Group -1 ). namely , Iron Ore , Manganese Ore and Bauxite and ( Group- 11) , namely, Manganese Dioxide , as specified in the Schedule annexed to the notifications of the Government of India in the Mimstry of Commerce vide numbers S.0 . 3975 dated the 20th December, 1965 and S.O. 3978 dated the 20th December , 1965, prior to the export of the said Minerals and Ores at Goa, subject to the following conditions , namely :

(i) that M/ s . S.G.S. India Private 1.imited . Goa shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by theExport Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followed by them in granting

5145

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13 , 2008- भाद्र 22 , 1930

the certificate of inspection under rule 4 ofthe Export ofMinerals and Orcs , Group-[ ( Inspection ) Rules, 1965 and the Export ofMinerals and Ores . Group - 11 (Inspection ) Rules , 1965 , and

( ii ) that M / s . S.G.S. India Private Limited , Cina in the performance of their function under this notification shall be bound by such directives as the Direcин ( Inspection and Quality Control ) . Export Inspection Council may give in writing from time to time.

[ F. No. 5/6/2008-1& P KIRAN PURI . Director नई दिल्ली, 25 अगस्त , 2008

का.आ. 2537, केन्द्रीय सरकार , निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1964 के नियम 12 के उपनियम ( 2 ) के साथ पठित निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम, 1963 (1963 का 22 ) की धारा की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स एस.जी.एस. इंडिया प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , 1/509 ए, ओल्ड महाबलीपुरम रोड , गवर्नमेंट स्कूल के सामने, तुराईपक्क्रम , चेन्नई को, इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए भारत सरकार के वाणिज्य मंत्रालय , की अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 3975 और का. आ . 3978 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर 1965 से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में यथाविनिर्दिष्ट्र खनिज और अयस्क ( समूह -1 ) अर्थात् लौह अयस्क और ( समूह ।। ) अर्थात् बेराईट्स रड आक्साइड और फेल्डस्पार का निम्नलिखित शतों के अधीन रहते हुए नैन्नई में उक्त खनिजों और अयस्कों के निर्यात से पूर्व निरीक्षण करने के लिए एक अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता देती है, अर्थात्:-

(i ) मैसर्स एस.जी.एस. इंडिया प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , चैन्नई खनिज और अयस्क ( समूह- [ ) का नियांत ( निरीक्षण ) नियम, 1965 खनिज और अयस्क ( समूह -11 ) का निर्यात ( निरीक्षण ) नियम, 1965 के नियम 4 के अधीन निरीक्षण का प्रमाण पत्र देने में उनके द्वारा अपनाई गई पद्धति की जांच करने के लिए, इस निमित्त् निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद द्वारा नामनिर्देशित अधिकारियों को पर्याप्त सुत्रिश्राएं देगी;

( i ) मैसर्स एस.जी.एस. इंडिया प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , चेन्नई, इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के अनुपालन में निदेशक ( निरीक्षण और क्वालिटी नियंत्रण ) ऐसे निर्देशों से , जो निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद द्वारा समय समय पर लिखित में दिए जाएं आबद्ध होंगे ।

[फा सं. 5/ 7/2008- ईआई एण्ड ईपी। किरण पुरी , निदंशक New Delhi, the 25th August . 2008

5.O. 2537. 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) of rule 12 of the Export ( Quality Control and Inspection ) Rule 1964. the Central Government hereby recognises Mis. S.G.S. India Private Limited. 1 / 509A, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Opposite Government School , Thuraipakkiam , Chennai as an agency for a period of three years with effect from the date of publication of this notification , for 51-46

THE L٠٩/ ETT OF INDIAMBER 13 , 2008 BLADE

inspection of Minerals and ores ( Group - 11 , namely , iter Ore, and Cirroup - 1 . antely . Barytes . Red Oxide and Feldspar, as specified in the Schedule annexed to the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministrs Commerce vide numbers S.0.3975 dated the 20th Decem 1965 and SO 3978 slitted the 20th December , 1965 , cierto the export of the said Moerals and Ores an Chennai , subiect to the folloss ing conditions , namely :-

( i ) that Ms. NO.S. India Prasate limited , Chingr shall give adequae facilities to the officers nominated by the port Inspection Council in this Sch010 examine the method of inspection followed ny hom in granting the certificate of inspection under ride i ot the laport of Minerals and Ores Inspectiont Rule , 1965 and the Export of mus and Ores , Group - 11 ( Inspection ) Rules . 1905 .

( ii ) that Ms. S.G.S India Private Limited . seme, in the performance of their function under its notification shall he bound by such directn 2 Director ( Inspection and Quality Controb Expor Inspection Councal was give in writing from

] F. No 57-2008 - אד !!! KIRAN PURE Decor नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस्त, 2008

का.आ. 2538 , ऊंन्द्रीय सरकार , नियांत (कॉल 며 और निरीक्षण ) नियम, 1964 के नियम 13 के उपनियम ( 24 पठित निर्यात क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निर्गक्षण ) अधिनियम २० ( 1963 का 22 ) की धारा को उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वार प्रद प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स मित्रा एस.कं. प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, एम-13 , कंएसएमआईडीसी इंडस्ट्रियन इस्टेट दान नंद. होसपेट-583203 कां, इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की गर्गश्व में तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए भारत सरकार के वणिज्य मंच की अधिसूचना सं. क...आ . 3975 तारीख २0 दिसम्बर 1965 में अ अनुसूची में गधःविनिर्दिष्ट खनिज और अयस्क (समूह ।। अबांतु लौह अयस्क और एगनीज अयस्क का निर्यात से पूर्व निम्नलिखित शतों के अधीन होण्ट में उक्त खनिजों और अयस्कों का निर्माण करने के लिए एक अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता देती है , अ (i ) मैसम मित्रः एस. के. प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , होसपेट, खनिज और अयम्क ( समुद्र -1 ) का निर्यात ( निरीक्षण ) निगम, 1965 के नियम 1 के अधीन निरीक्षण का प्रमाण पत्र देने के দিন उनके द्वारा अपनाई गई पति की जांच करने के इम निमित्त निगांत निरीक्षण परिषद द्वारा नामनिर्देशित अधियों को पर्याप्त सुविधाएं दंगा:

(ii) मैसर्स मित्रा एस. के . प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, होसपेट, इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के अनुपालन में निदेशक ( निरीक्षण एवं क्वालिटी नियंत्रण ) , निर्यात निरीक्षण प्रांरपद द्वारा समय - समय पर लिखित रूप में दिए गए निर्देशों में आगर होगा ।

[फा सं. 5/5/2008- ईआई उण्ड ईपी । New Delhi

dine posers conferred by S.O. 2538 -

Esport (Quality Control sub - section f11er Series

and Inspection ) Act. 15296 rea with sb sale

(2 ) ofrule 12 of the Armin Control and luspecton

Rules 1964. the Coo merent hereby recognises

Ms. Mitra S.K. Privia N. M-13KSSIDC.

Industrial Estate Dar K.

for a period of three fled hear the state of

publication of this rew . Бд " реснее от Minerals

and ores Group- O Manganese Ore

as specitied in the Scentered to the noufications ot

the Government of led the Ministry of Coopereres number vide S.O. 3975 J1200 December, 15965 vier

to the export of the sas Miras amé Ores at Hospet , subject to the follossa:

(i) that M's . Mitak. Prixone Limited . Hospei shall give adequate facilie officers nomin.ted by The Export Inspectionwil in this Tschaille examine the method utirgan Gibsscd by then in granting the certificate of inorgelertake ofthe Fespart of Minerals and Lan- tinstcelloni Rules .

1965;

( ii ) that Ms. Mice Limited . Hospet za notification skand such directives as the Director ( Inspectia Quality Control. Laport Inspection Costnerring from time to the performanse Deir trechon under thus ไม่ทาง

1 No.55 2008-11 KIRAN PURI . Dator नई

का.आ. 2539,

प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स बर्च रोड़, रोयापुरम , चेन्नई को इस अभिनवन में प्रकाशन की तारीख से भीन वर्ष ७८. 2475 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर 1965 काय मंत्रान्नय की

और निरीक्षण ) नियमा पदित निर्यात ( क्वलिन ( 1963 का 22 ) की द्वारा दनकार्यका अधिसूचना से उपावद्ध अनिर्दिष्ट खनिज और अन्क ( समूह- ] ) अर्थात् लौटनी अम्का पानीज સ્વઃસ્વઃ છછછ કુછ છાત્ર ???? છ પૂ નિન ઝળઃ अधीन रहते हुए चेन्नई में दो और अवश्यक कागरण करने के लिए एक अभिक मान्यता प्रदान करना है. अथर्थात :-

( i ) मैसर्स मित्रामिटर चन्नईज और अयस्क अम्लनिक्ष कं नियम 4 के आरक्षणा

उनके द्वारा अपनाईकांच करने में 24 5149 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) )

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13 , 2008/ भाद्र 22 , 1930

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department ofConsumer Affairs)

New Delhi , the 30th June , 2008

S.O. 2541 -Whereas the Central Govemment , 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 ( B ) of Section 36 of the said Act . the Central Government hereby issues and publishe tue certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type ) with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy Class - 111 ) of series "KPS " and with brand name " KINAL " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Kinal Scale Manufacturing Works , 9- Devasya Bungalows , Nicol Naroda Road . Opp. Manoher Villa , Nicol , Ahınedabad , Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/08/ 129;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument ( Platform type ) with a maximum capacity of 1,000kg , and minimum capacity of 2kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 100g . It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply .

max- 1000kg

min -2 kg .

e 100g

III

Class

Holes are being drilled to the bottom and top cover of the indicator of the instrument and a scaling wire is passed through these holes and then lead seal is applied . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50kg . and up to 5.000kg . with verification scale interval ( n ) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for' e ' value of Sg. or more and with ' e' salue of 1x16 , 2x 10 or 5x10. where k is a positive or nagative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the sare mamilacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said apptoved mod been manulaenired .

-2000/20081

RMA

Astrology 3272G1/08-2 $ 150

DIE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SUPEMBUR 13. 2008 BHADRA 22. 1930

[PART I SEC 3 ( ii) ]

30 जून , 2008

का आ. 2542.-- केन्द्रीन कारकानदारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार कर यह समाधान हां गग्य हैं कि भाग मानक अधिनियम , 1976 और यष्ट तथः माप मान और इस बात को संभावना है कि लगान की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल उक्त स्थिर्ट में न महिनदी (महिला दथार्थता बनाः स्रपा और विभिन्न परितियान करना रहेगा;

उधारा ( ? ) और उप भार द्वारा प्रदन शक्तिनों का प्रयोग करने नांदा रोड़ , मनोहर किन्न भनेकानं, अहमदाबाद, गुजगन द्वारा अंकक सूचन सहित अस्करण ( टेवलटाप प्रकार ) के " हैएश्चात उक्त मांडल कह गया है जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डो जाती है ।

माँडमाड का नाम " निल 119/13 ! न किया गया है अनुमोदन प्रा

उन भांडल एक विकृतज प्रकार कः अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरणहै । इनकी अधिकदम क्षमता 30 कि.प्र. र न्यूनतम शा.है सम्यान मापमान अगा. है । इसमें एक आर्थनतुलन युक्ति के जमक शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित धेयप्रभाव प्रकाश उत्पर्थक फर्श नोग्लन परिणाम उपदर्शित कल्य है । उपकरण 230 बोल्ट,और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यवती भाग विदुः पर कार्य करता है ।

max- 30 kg

min - 100g

-2g e

class -II

ए और इन छेदों में से मां है और चीड सील गारगोलकम उपरोक्त दिया गया है

(12 ) दूरा प्रश्न शकिार्य अनुप्रमाणनमंत्र द्वार उर्स सिद्धांत डिज मग है वैसे ही येक यथार्थना : .. न . " " मान केनि रेंज में सत्यापन मायमन करते हुए चोपण करती है और उम्नां सामग्री से सम्मा पालक संचन उपकरण भी होंगे जो एन) और 100 भि ग्रा. या उमस कपन मापमान अंतराल एनएको अधिकता क्षमता 05-0ऋणात्मक पृथक राशन्य हैं ।

निदेशक विधि माग त्रिज्ञान 5153 भारत का राज २४ सितम्बर 13. 2008 भाद्र 22.1930

[ भाग 1 ]- खण्ड 3( i ) ]

New Delhi, the 30th June , 2008

5.0. 2543. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satistied 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 maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exereise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7 ) and ( B ) 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 ( Crane type ) wah digital indication of medium accuracy ( Accuracy Class - III ) of series " KCS " and with brand name "KINAI . " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Kinal Scale Manufacturing Works , 9-Devasya Bungalows . Nicol Naroda Road , Oppp. Mamoher Villa . Nicol . Ahmedabad , Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09-08-130;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( crane type) with a maximum capacny of 5000 kg . and minimum capacity of 20kg . The verification scale interval ( e ) is Ikg. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz atemative current power supply .

max-5000 kg min - 20 kg e 1kg class -III

Holes are being drilled to the bottom and top cover of the indicator of the instrument and a sealing wire is passed through these holes and then lead seal is applied . A typical schematic diagram of scaling provision of the modet is given above.

Further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sob - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with masnoum capacity above 50 kg . and up to 30 tonne with verification seale interval ( 1 ) on the range of 500 to 10,000 for re value of 5g . or more and with ' e' value of lx10 , 2x10 or5x10%, 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 ( 60)/2008 ]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 5154

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA SULPTEMBER 13 , 2008 BHADRA 22. 19

जुलाई , 2008

का.आ. 2544. केन्द्रोथ सरकार का, बिहिनकरी नीदरलैंड मीनिस्टिटूट ( एन एम अर्थसंह द्वारा जारी मॉडल अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र के साथ उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्टगत मांडल ( नीचे दो गई आकृति देखें) बाढ़ और माय मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का (१ ) तथा बाट और पाप मानक ( मॉडल चः अनुजन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंध 1 के अनुरूप है और द्वरा बात की संभावना है कि लगतार वंग की अवधि में भी उक्त मांडल यभाथ । सावंगा और विधिन्न परिन्थिांलयों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा।

अतः. अब, कंन्द्रीय म्रकार, उक्त अधिनियम को 36 की उप धारा ( 7 ) और उप- नाग कायों को प्रसन करते हुए मैसर्स मैटलर टॉलंडू इंम.. 1150 डियरबोर्न ड्राइव , वर्षिगान दि 43085-6712 यू.एस.ए. द्वदूर व मी कपनी द्वारा कहीं और विनिर्मित " डीआईवीए " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचाशित सोलन उपकरण टेबल टाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल कहा गया है । और भारत में बिना किसी परिवर्तन व परिवर्धन के मैसर्स इंटेलिकॉन प्रा.लि. भी 20, संक्टर-25 गांधी कार 382 044. गुजगत द्वारा विपणीत अमादन निह आई एन डी 1090 14 प्रमाण पत्र जारी करनी है । इसमें इसक प्रश्नान् रक्त सीआईडीसी इलैक्ट्रॉनिक्स ॥स्टट किया गया है. भनन्दन उक्त गंडल भार संग्लन आधारित अस्वचालित प्रभार ) का तोलन उपकरणहै । सत्यागन मापमान अंतगल के लिए एन 3000 सत्यान माप अंतराल के सम्बन्ध में 6 कि.ग्रा. Max क्षमता वाले हैं । लिक्विड क्रिस्टल डायोड एल सी डी प्रदेशलन परिणाम उपदर्शिर्शत करता है . डी सी वाया ए सी डी सी एडाप्टर यः होस्ट कम्प्यूटर पर काच है ! ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के किया. की रेंज में अधिकतम

ROGO

मशीन को नीज करने के लिए छंद में से सीनियर सीलिंग पंच का स्थापित किया प्लेट में छेदों के माध्यम से गरमीन को निकाला जाएगा और नवमीत को लगाया जाएगा । मॉडल की लिंग कायद्वान ऊपर दिया गया है ।

आरा 5155 भारत का राजपत्र सितम्बर 13 , 2008/ भाद्र 22 , 1930

[भाग 11 - खण्ड ( ii) ]

New,Delhi , the 4th July, 2008

S.O. 2544. Whereas the Central Government, aller considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, along with the Model approval certificate issued by the Netherlands Meetinstituut ( NMI) , Netherlands is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards ofWeights and Measures Act . 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions :

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections ( 7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificare of approval of the model of non -automatic weighing instrument ( Tabletop type ) with digital indication of "DIVA " series of medium accuracy (accuracy Class - III ) ( hereinatter referred to as the said model ), manufactured by M's . Mettler- Toledo Inc. , 1150 Dearborn Drive, Worthington . Ohio 43085- 6712, United States of America or manufactured anywhere else by the same company and marketed in India without any alteration before or afiter sale in India by t /s. Intellicon Pvt. Ltd. , B -20, GIDC Electronics Est. , Sector -25, Gandhi Nagar- 382 044, Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 /08/ 184;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type ) with a maximum capacity of 6kg ≤ Max ≤ 30kg in respect of verification scale interval n ≤ 3000 for e≥ 2g. The liquid crystal diode ( LCD ) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 7.5V DC or 12 V DC via AC / DC adapter or host computer.

For sealing the machine a custom sealing plate and sealing screw is installed through the hole. The screw is tightened and a wire seal is run through the holes in the plate and screw and then seal is applied . A typical schematic diagram ofsealing provision of the model is given above .

[ F. No. WM- 21 (02 )/2008 ]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of ] .egal Metrology 5156

8 13.2008 BHADE

וויון ता.आ. 2545...कंन्द्रीय क

है कि कामिन

मानकः ( मदिन 4.)

मॉडन भन

उच्चवार्थतः ।

मॉडल का, जिसक

प्राइवेट लि. अररि

علمنا في وثانيا الا

ها باستشد

उक्त मंडल एक विकृत पेज प्रायःः

अधिकतम स्पात 15 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यून्त

कि.ग्रा. सं 15 है । ए

उत्सर्जक द्यभर करता है ।

लिए बांधा गः। है । मंदी

और कोदीय साकार, उस

है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन इस प्रग

उक्त अनुमोदित नाहल विनिर्माण किय

। भि.ग्रा. से 50

अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000

बाले हैं और " इं " मान :

5157 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 13 , 2008/ भाद्र 22 , 1930

[ भाग 11-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 7th July , 2008

5.0. 2545. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval 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 the model of non- automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type -dual range ) with digital indication of"Cub " series of high accuracy ( Accuracy class - 11 ) and with brand name "METTLER TOLEDO" ( hereinafter referred to as the said modell . manufacturedby Mis . Mettler -Toledo (Chang Zhou ) Measurement Technology Ltd. , 111 , West Taihu Road , Xinbei District . Changzhou , Jiangsu - 213 125 , P.R.C. and marketed in India without any alteration before or after sale by Mis . Mettler Toledo India Pvt . Ltd. , Amar Hills , Saki Vihar Road, Powai , Mumbai -400 072 , Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND /09 / 08 / 159 ,

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non -automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type - dual range) with a maximum capacity of 15kg and minimum capacity of 10g. The verification scale interval (c) is 0.2g up to 7.5kg and 0.5g above 7.5kg and up to 15kg . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent substractive retained lare ellect . The Liglu Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

The sealing is done below the weigh pan , where there are two holes screws, through which a leaded wireis fastened for receiving the verification seal and stamp . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub- section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificale of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instuments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50kg . with verification scale interval ( n ) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of Img . to 59mg. and with 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 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 (77 )/2008 |

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 3272 GI /08-3 י : ii

اران

यह गनाधानभव :.

::-

5159

साद्र 22 , 1930

भारत का राजपत्र

[ भाग 1 - खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

New Delhi . the 7th July , 2008

5.O. 2546. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said repon ( 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 madet 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 contened by sub - sections ( 7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate ot approval of the model of non - autontatic weighing instrument ( Platform type ) with digital indication of medium accuracy ( Accuracy class - 111 ) of series " GTC - PI " und with brand name "EASY" ( herematter referred to as the sand modeli , manntacturedby Mrs. Global Trading Corporation . D. No 29-1-5 , Shop No. 2 , L. N. Complex , Seshadri Sasu Street , Governorpet , Vijayawada- 520002 . A. IP . and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /08/ 135 ;

Thesaid model is a strain gauge type lond cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Platform type ) with a maximum capacity of 1000 kg and minimum capacity of kg. The verification scale interval ( e ) is 200 g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cont substractive retained tare eflect Light Fimitting Diode ( LED ) display indicates the weighing results The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 1terty alive current power supply .

On the right side of the indicator 2 holes are made by cutting the diagonally opposite inner plates which are fastened by a leaded wire for receiving the verilication stamp and seal . The instrument can not be opened without torpering 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 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg and upto 5000 kg . with verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e value of 5 mg or mure and with 'e value ol 110210 г 5x10, where k is a positive or nagative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manukicturer un accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved mudel has been manufactured.

JE. No WM- 21181120081

KAMARBOOTHAM . Director of Legal Metrology 5160

TEGAZETI : OF INDIA SEPICBER 13,2008 BHADRA

[PAR! 11 St. 3000

7 जुलाई 2008

का.आ. 25.47.- कंद्रय मर41 काक्षरा उस प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर के पश्चात् यह सम्माधान हो गया मंडल नीचे दी गई आकृति मानक मॉडल का अनुभव निथम, 1987 के उपबंध और नगप मानक अधिनियम 16 का 61 ) ) और बाट तथा माय और इम चाल की संभावना प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त प्रदान करता रहूंगा;

अनाथ सरकार अधिकांश्र ( 7 ) और उ ५ भाग ५ कायों का प्रयोग करने हुए काप्पलकम , शंपात्री शास्त्री ट्रांनापट , विजयवाड़ा $ 20002 द्वार विनिर्मित यथार्थता ॥ चाखला के अंकक सूनन सांन्ति तोलन उपकरण ( टेवलटाप प्रकार के गायका, सिकं काम " जी " है इसके पश्चात् उक्त माडल २ः० और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई जागे करनी है । एन डी ममनुका

कः मान्नलः विकृत कारगर गलानि अन्ववालिन तालन उपकरण है । इसको अधिकतम अंगल ( ड ) ग्रा. है । हनन युक्ति है जिसका शन प्याड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्शित करता है । उपकरण

दकिये जायेंगर द्वारा मोय और सील भालचंद करने के उपबंध

संहाः यह घोषणा करती है और इंद्रांग कर उन (12 ) द्वारा प्रदान शनिध कांड के गनुपका दाग मी सिद्धांत डिसो गामग्री सं. जिससे شهاب خيب على في إازجانتان انطاليا محلية 100 भियना इम्स जमान के रेंज में सत्यापन मान अधिक कं " " एन मन भायमान अंतराल ( एन ) दिए तक को अधिकतम शुभता 5161 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13 , 2008. भाद 22 , 1930

[भाग ।। - खण्ड ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 7th July, 2008

S.O. 2547. 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 ligure 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 conferredby 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 Ingh accuracy ( Accuracy class - 11 ) of series " GTC - JP " and with brand name " EASY" ( hereinatter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by Mis. Global Trading Corporation, D. No. 29-1-5. Shop No. 2, L. N. Complex . Seshadri Sastry Street , Governorpet , Vijayawada- 520002 . A. P. and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/08/ 133 :

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument with a maxinaum capacitys of30 kg . and minimum capacity of 100g . The verification scale interval ( e ) is 2g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent substractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hortz alternative current power supply.

On the right side of the balance 2 holes are made by cutting the diagonally opposite inner plates which are fastened bya leaded wire for receiving the verification stamp and seal . The instrument can not be opened without lampering 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 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg . with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 1 mg. to 50 mg , and with verification scale interval (n ) in the range of5,000 to50,000 for ' e ' value of 100 mg . or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 ' or 5x10 %, where k is a positive or negativewhole 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.

JF . No. WM- 21 ( 81 )/2008 ]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology :

אי יין का 2548.- कवनाका

अन्भुत रिपार्ट पर चिना

الدالة من ارادة علية نايلي بيا الله الله으로보건용

नगानका अधिनियम, १० :

मानक (मांडलों का 108 ?

: नई संभलना है ।

मॉडल यथार्थन चना

છTRAFRRRR 577 છછછM સ્વ-AF

हुए गैस ग्लोन्चन्न ट्रा

विनिर्मित उच्चभ

على الله

प्रकार । कॉल

" इ "

だい एन डी 09-08-13

उक्त भएकप्रका

क्षपना 30 कि.ग्रा.100

प्रदर्श

प्रतिशत व्यत्रकलनात आनन १२) बांच्ट औरथावर्ती भारा नि । प्रবাস

इंडिकंटर के दाएँ और आंतरिक फोटों के

किये जायेंगे जिन्

केला नहीं

का सत्यापन प्राप्त करने के लिए बाँधा जग का एक प्ररूपों चंजिनाय हायरफोन दिग

और कंन्द्रीय सरकार

साडिजाइन

भी ह कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन उस प्रम्गण पत्र उक्त अनुमोदित मांडल विनिर्माण कियागयथार्थता और

100 मि.ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक के " इ " भान के लिए 100

से 100.0000 तक की रेंज में जलन ) सांहत 50 कि.ग्रा.

कं " ई " मान के लिए 500 मान । ×10 , 2010 , 510 , के हैं, जद धनात्एक ना । शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

आर. नुक 5163 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13 , 2008 / भाद्र 22 , 1930

[भाग - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 7th July , 2008

S.O. 2548. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act . the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of "GTC - TB " series of medium accuracy ( Accuracy class - 111 ) and with brand name "EASY" ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Global Trading Corporation , D. No 29-1-5, Shop No. 2, L. N. Complex , Seshadri Sastry Street, Governorpet , Vijayawada- 520002, A, P. and which is assigned the approval mark [ND/09/08/ 134;

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

On the right side of the balance 2 holes are made by cutting the diagonally opposite inner plates which are fastened by a leaded wire for receiving the verification stamp and seal . The instrument cannot be opened without tampering the scal . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

Further. in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50 kg . with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 100 mg . to 2g , and with verification scale interval ( n ) in the range of 500 10 10.000 for ' e' value of 5g , or more and with ' e ' value of 1x10 , 2x10 or 5x10 , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[ F. No. WM -21 ( 81 ):2008 |

K. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of legal Metrology 5164

[PART 11-SFC . 3 ( 11 ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 13 , 2008 /BHADRA 22. 1930

नई दिल्ली, 25 जुलाई , 2008

का, आ. 2549.--- 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 (611 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपत्रंथों के अनुरूप है और इस बात को संभावना है कि लगकर प्रयांग की अवधि में भो उक्त मांडाल यथार्थता चनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त संत्रा प्रदान करता रहेगा:

अतः , अय . केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम को भान 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धार ( दन शक्तियों का प्रयोग करर्त हुए मैसर्स सदनं बेइंग इंस्ट्रमंट ( पी ) लि.. " आशियाना " भिन्लाई जिल्ला दुर्ग छत्तीसगढ द्वारा विनिर्मित पध्यार्थता यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एसडब्ल्यू (00 ) ए. " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अम्वन्धादिन तोलन उपकरण ( वेब्रिज प्रकार के का, जिसके बांड का नाम "स्वास्तिक " है ( जिम इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त माडल कहा गया है और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एनी 1008364 समनुदंशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण -२ त्र आरी करती है ।

उक्न मॉडल एक विकृत गज प्रकार का भार सेल अधारित अस्त्रचालित तोलन उपकरण ( लेद्रिप्रकार है । इसकी अधिकतम श्रूयता 60 टन है ओर न्यूनतम् क्षपना ( 1 ) कि.ग्रा. है । सन्यापन जपपन्न अंतराल ( ई ) 20 कि.ग्रा. है । इसमें यतुलन बुकिा है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उन्क डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तांल्लादर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

...

Swastik

केविनेट के पीछे एक बन्द बहन है जिसमें सीलियो को वेल्ड किया गया और स्थिर बरस में दवानापन्न और कंचिनट ट्रे के पीछे सीलिंग तार दी गई है । ट्रे को कैबिनेट में डालने को अत्र पेन्न को कसा जाता है और सीलिंग नारों में से निकाल कर पंचिंग द्वारा सील किया जाता है । सोल को लोड गिना पंच की नहीं खोल जा सकता । मॉडल को सीलचंद करन का एक प्ररूपी योजनाच डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।

करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है. और केंद्रीय समचार उक्त अधिनियम की धागो भाग ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियोग कि उक्त मांडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उन्ग त्रिनिपांता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के उक्त अनुमोदित मंडल विनिर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित पर्सना के वैसे ही मंक, यथार्थता और कार्य 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक की " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 1000 के रेंज में सत्यापन मापपान अंतगल तिन 5 टन से अधिक और 2( 0 ) टन तक को अधिकतम क्षमता नान्नं हैं और " ई " पात्र 102010110 , के हैं, जो वनात्मकया हैं । और उसी साम्ग्री में, जिससं नोलन उपकरण भी होंग जां कि या शून्य ऊं समतुल्य 5165

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13, 2008/ भाद्र 22, 1930

[भाग - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 25th July, 2008

S.O. 2549. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval 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 conditioης ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7 ) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non-automatic weighing instrument (Weighbridge type ) with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy class- III ) ofseries " SW 001A" and with brand name " SWASTIK " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufacturedby M/s . Southern Weighing Instruments (P) Ltd. , 'Ashiana' Bhilai-3 , Distt . Durg, Chattishgarh and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/08/ 164;

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 of400kg . The verification scale interval (e ) is 20kg . It has a tare device with a 100 percent substractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

"Truck weighbridge Capacity Lato 100 Με.

swastik

We Weige Your Pofil

Afixed locking stud with sealing hole is welded in the back ofthe cabinet and a screw with hole and sealing wire in the back of the cabinet tray is provided in the centre of the fixed stud. After inserting the tray in the cabinet the screw is tightened and the sealing wire is inserted through the holes and sealed by punching . The screw can not be opened unless the seal is broken . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instuments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and up to 200 tonnne with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of5g or more and with ' e ' value of 1x10k, 2x10 от 5х10 , 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 (30)/2008 ]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 3272G1/08-4 5166

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 13.2008 BHADRA 22 , 1930

Paar --SR305 ) | :

नई टली 25 जुलाई , 2008

का.आ. 2550.-- न्द्रीय सरकार का विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उस प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्थात यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का और बाट तथा मत्प मानकः ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातारको अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रधान करना रहगा;

अतः अव केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की मान 35 की उप - धारा ( ? ) और उप - धारा २ दन शक्तियों का प्रांग कां हुए मैसर्स एल सी एम कन्ट्रोल्स पा . लि., प्लाट नं. 34 और 35 , फर्स्ट निक स्ट्रीट , नेहरू नगर , नैत्रई - द्वारा विनिर्मित बार्थता वर्ग X ( 1 ) वाले " ए डल्ल्यू एस एफ एस - एच " श्रृंखला के स्वचालित मंट्रिक फिलिंग उपकरण ( वे फिलर मांडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एल सी एस " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त भीडल साहहै और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई 00107 262 भनुदेशित किय गया है , अनुयांदन प्रमन्त्र -पत्र जो करती है !

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेर प्रकार का गाः मेल अधविभालित ग्रेत्रिमेट्रिक फिलिंग ( है । इसकी अधिकनण क्षमता 50 कि. प्रा. हैं इसकी अधिकतम फिला दर फिल्म प्रति भिन्न है । मशीन को नॉन- फ्री फ्लोइंग उन्मादः जैम पार , मसाले कणों इत्यादि की फिलिंग के लिए डिजाइन किया गया है । प्रकाश उत्अर्क ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम ध्यान करता है । उपकरण 2300 बोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती जड़ विद्युत पदार पर कार्य करता है !

स्टाम्पिंग प्नंट के मट्रांकन के अतिरिक्त पञ्नको व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने बन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल को विक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी ममग्री , यधर्शन डिजाइन, सर्किट डायग्राम , निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि का गनों भर परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा ।

और कंन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त आंधनियम की धारा ३८ को उप- धाम ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रदंग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के इस प्रश्न के अंश्रनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी म्राम्ग्री से , जिम्मसं किया गया है , विनिरिक इसी गन को जैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कं तालन उपकरण भी होंगे जा उक्त अनुमोदित मोंडन 10 कि.ग्रा . से 100 कि की रेंज में है । 5167 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13 , 2008 / भाद्र 22 , 1930

[भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi, the 25th July, 2008

S.O. 2550. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report subunited 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 Measus (Approval of Models ) 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 ( 3 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Goverminent hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model ofAutomatic Gravimetric Filling Instrument (Weigh filler ) belonging to accuracy class X ( 1 ) of AW- SFS- H series with brand name "LCS " ( herein referred to as the saidModel) , manufacturedby M/ s . LCS Controls Private Limited, Plot No. 34 & 35, First Link Street , Nehru Naga . Chennai --600041 , Tamil Nadu and which is assigned the approval marx IND: 09 : 07 262;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based Automatic Gravimetric Filling Instrument ( Weigh filler ) , 11s maximum capacity is 50kg . Its maximum fill rate is 6 fills per minute. The machine is designed for filling the non - free flowing products such as powder , spices , granudes etc. The light emitting diode (LED ) display indicates the weighing result . The instruments operates on 230V, 50Hz alterative current power supply.

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

[F. No. WM- 21 (116)/20071

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director ofLegal Metrology 5168

THE GAZETEE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13 , 2008 /BHADRA 22 , 1930

[PART 11-SFC. 3 ( i ) )

नई दिल्ली, 25 जुलाई , 2008

का.आ. 2551.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में त्रर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) चाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मांडलों का अनुमोटर ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थतः वन ए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब कंन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 16 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( ४ ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स एल सी एम कन्ट्रोल्स प्रा. लि. प्लाट नं. 34 जोर 35 फर्स्ट लिंक स्ट्रीट , नेहरू नगर , चैत्रई -600 041 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता (यथार्थता वर्ग -।। , वालं " ए टब्ल्यू सी एस " श्रृंखला के अंधक सुचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन श्रपकरण ( उबलटाप काऊटिंग सुविधा के साथ ) के महिल क.. जिसके ब्रांडे का नाम " एल सी एस " है जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी: 109 / 107-263 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रनाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

MEMOTE CUSPLAY

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार खेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबलटाप प्रकार तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 10 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 40 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मःपमान अंतराल ( ई ) 2 ग्रा. है । इसर्वे एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोल्लन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 बोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है । इसमें नग गिनन को भी सुविधा है ।

स्टाम्पिर्ग प्लंट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए मीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल को बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता, डिजाइन , सर्किट द्वायग्राम निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि को शर्तों पर परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम को भारा 306 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 उयो त्रिनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से , जिमप्से उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उन्नी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तांलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि.ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " भान के लिए 500 से 10.000 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 नं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 116 ) /200?! आर. नाथुग्यूधम्म , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 5169 [ भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13 , 2008/ भाद्र 22 , 1930

New Delhi , the25th July, 2008

S.O. 2551.-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 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval ofnon- automatic weighing instrument (Counting Table top with facility) with digital indication of " AW- CS " series of medium accuracy (accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " LCS " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model) , manufactured by M/s . LCS Controls Private Limited, Plot No. 34 & 35, First Link Street, Nehru Nagar , Chennai-600041 , Tamil Nadu and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/263;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Counting Scale ) with a maximum capacity of 10kg and minimum capacity of40g. The verification scale interval ( e) is 2g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent substractive retained tare effect . The light emitting diode ( LED) display indicates the weighing result . The instruments operates on 230V, 50Hz alterative current power supply . It is also having piece counting facility.

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12) of. Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instuments of similar make , accuracy and performance ofsame 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 and 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 5x 10 % , 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 ( 116)/2007 ]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 5170

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 13 , 2008/ BHADRA 22 , 19.30

(PAR ) II SFC.3 ( ii ) )

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस्त, 2008

का. आ. 2552. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( कों) में संशोधन किया गया किये गये हैं :

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष क्रम संख्या

(2)

( 1)

1. आईग्स 13849 : 1993

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागू होने कीतिथि (3)

(4)

25 अगस्त, 2008 संशोश्रन संख्या 8 , जुलाई 2008

इन संशोधनों की प्रतिमाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , भनक भवन, 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्लरे -1100002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयां : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी, हैदरावाद , जयपुर, कानपुर , नागपुर, पटना, पूष्णे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में विक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[ संदर्भ : सीईडी राजपत्र ] ए. के. सैनी , वैज्ञानिक ' एक' एवं प्रमुख ( सिविल इंजीनियरी )

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New licht, the 27th August , 2008

S.O.2552 . 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 amendments to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued:

No. & Year of the Indian Standards St. No.

(1)

(2)

1 . IS 138:49: 1993

SCHEDULE

No. & Year of the amendment

(3)

Date from which the amendment shall have elfect (4) Amendment No. 8, July2008

25August, 2 (K)8 Copy of this amendment is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Stantiards , Manak Bhavan. 9. Bahadur Shah Zafar Mary. New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Oñices : New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh . Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahatı , Hyderabad. Jaipur, Kanpur . Nagpur, Patna, Pune , Thiruvananthapuram .

[ Ref: CED /Gazette ] A.K. SAINI , Sc 1 & Head ( Civil Engg . )

नई दिल्ली, । सितम्बर , 2008

का. आ. 2553... भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के निगम ? के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक न्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नोधे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया किये गये हैं :

संशोभित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ग क्रम संख्या

(1 )

(2)

1 . आईएस 15169 : 2002 औद्योगिक उपयोग को सिलाई मशीनों के लिए सुइयाँ- विशिष्टि अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और निधि

संशोधन लागू होने कोतिभि (3)

(4) संशोधन नं. 1 , जुलाई 2008

31 जुलाई , 2008 इस संशोधन को प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली 110002. क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयां : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर , कानपुर, नागपुर , पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में विक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[मंदर्भ एमईटी जो [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

5171

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13 , 2008/ भाद्र 22 , 1930

New Delhi , the Ist September , 2008

S.O. 2553. 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 amendments of the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued :

No, & Year of the Indian Standards SI . No.

(1)

1. IS 15169: 2002 Needles for Sewing Machines for Industrial Purposes- Specification

SCHEDULE

No.& Year of the amendment

Date from which the amendment shall have effect (3)

(4)

31-July,2008

Amendment No. 1 , July2008

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

[Ref: MED/G- 2: 1 ] C.K. VEDA , Se . ' F ' & Head ( Mechanical Engineering)

नई दिल्ली , 2 सितम्बर , 2008

का, आ. 2554. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानक (कों ) के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

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

(1)

(2)

1 . आईएस 15770 : 2008 लाईट डीजन्न तेल- विशिष्टि

2. आईएस 15799 : 2008 तार और बिटूमनी सामग्री की परीक्षण विधियाँ-बिटूमेन का टिकाउपन ज्ञात करना

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हों, की संख्या और वर्ष

(4) (3)

कुछ नहीं

जुलाई, 2008

जुलाई, 2008 कुछ नहीं

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

[संदर्भ : पीसीडी/जी-7 ( गजट) ] डा. ( श्रीमती ) विजय मलिक, निदेशक एवं प्रमुख (पीसीडी)

New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2008

S.O. 2554. In pursuance of clause ( b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

No. & Year and title ofthe Indian

Standards Established

Sl. No.

(1)

L IS15770: 2008 Light diesel ail Specification

2 IS 15799 : 2008 Method for testing tar and bituminous materials-Determination of durability ofbitumen

Date of Established

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

(4) (3)

None

July,2008 None

July,2008 5172

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 13 , 2008 /BHADRA 22, 1930

[ PART 11 SB : 3 ( 10 ) ] Copy ofthis Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Menak Bhavan . 9 , Bphadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi , Kolcata , Chandigarh . Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch offices: Ahmedabad , Bangalore, Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar. Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad . Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur . Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram,

Ret. FCD- G - 7 (Gazette Dr. (Smt.) VIJAYMALIK. Director & Head (POD)

नई दिल्ली, 2 सितम्बर , 2008

का. आ. 2555.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 1 ) के खंड (४ ) में अनुसरण में भारतीय मानऊ ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय पानकों के संशोधन के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में हिने गए हैं में स्थापित हो गए हैं ;

अनुसूची

क्रम संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या , वर्ष

संख्या और शीर्षक

(1)

(2)

आईएस 10319 : 1982 ईथियोन ईम्यूलसीफियबल सान्द्र को विशिष्टि

संशोधन संख्या और तिथि

सशोधन लागू होने की तिथि

(3)

(4)

3. मार्च, 2007

संशोधन संख्या 3

वर्ष 2007

31 मार्च , 2007

संशोधन संख्या

वर्ष 2006

2 आईएस 1051 : 1980 पायरीभ्रम अर्को की विशिष्टि ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

3 आईएस 10369 : 1982 ईथियोन , तकनीकी की विशिष्टि

31 मार्च , 2007

संशोधन संख्या ।

वर्ष 2007

3 ! म्यर्च, 2007

संशोधन संख्या 2

वर्ष 2006

आईएस 11785 : 1986 केपटन ( आद्रकरणीय पाउडर ) डब्ल्यूपी की विशिष्टि

5 आईएस 14251 : 1995 कंपटन , तकनीकी- विशिष्टि

28 फरवरी, 2010 ?

संशोधन संख्या ।

वर्ष 2007

30 अप्रैल, 2007

संशोधन संख्या 2

वर्ष 2007

आईएस 5346 : 1994 संश्लिष्ट खाद्य रंग-निभितियाँ और मिश्रण-विशिष्टि ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

संशोधन संख्या ।

7 आईएस 1698 : 1994 इंडिगो कारमिन , खाद्य ग्रेड- विशिष्टि ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

29 अगस्त, 2008

वर्ष 2008

29 अगस्त , 2008

संशोधन संख्या 1

वर्ष 2009

आईएस 2558 : 1994 पॉसो 4 आर , खाद्य ग्रेड- विशिष्टि ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

29 अगस्त, 2008

संशोधन संख्या 2

वर्ष 2008

आईएस 4467 : 1996 कैरामल- विशिष्टि (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

29 अगस्त, 2008

संशोधन संख्या 1

वर्ष 2008

10 आईएस 8268 : 2001 राईजोबियम जीवाणु कल्चर विशिष्टि ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

29 अगस्त, 2005

संशोधन संख्या ।

वर्ष 2008

It आईएस 14806 : 2000 एजोस्पिरिलम जीवाणु कल्चर

संशोधन संख्या ।

आईएस 14807 : 2000 धुलनशीलनीय फास्फंट जीवाणु कल्चर ( पी.एस. बी. आई. ) विशिष्टि 13 आईएस 13487 : 1992 सिंचाई उपस्कर- उत्सर्जक- विशिष्टि

29 अगस्त 2008

वर्ष 2008

13 जुलाई 2008

संशोधन संख्या

वर्ष 2006

24 सितंत्रर ?

संशोधन संख्या ।

वर्ष 2007

आईएस 15757 : 2007 अनुसरित फार्मूला- अनुपूरक आहार--विशिष्टि

14 अगस्त 2008

संशोधन संख्या 2

वर्ष 2008

आईएस 15757 : 2007 अनुसरित फार्मूला- अनुपूरक आहार-विशिष्टि

30 सितंबर 2007

संशोधन संख्या ।

वर्ष 2007

आईएस 14433 : 2007 शिशु दुग्ध के वैकल्पिक आहार-विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण ) [भाग [ 1- खण्ड 3 (ii) )

(2)

(1)

5173

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13 , 2008/ भाद्र 22, 1930

(3)

14अगस्त2008 संशोधन संख्या 2

17 आईएस 14433 : 2007 शिशु चुग्ध के वैकल्पिक आहार-विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण)

वर्ष 2008

संशोधन संख्या 2

18 आईएस 14124 : 1993 मेलिक अम्ल, खाद्य ग्रेड-विशिष्टि

30जून 2008

वर्ष 2008

30जून 2008 संशोधन संख्या 2 वर्ष 2008

19 आईएस 13704 : 1993 काष्टराजिन (इस्टरणम) के ग्लिसरॉल , खाद्य ग्रेड - विशिष्टि

संशोधन संख्या 2

20 आईएस 4750 : 1996 सोरबिॉल पाउडर , खाद्य ग्रह- विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण)

30जून2008 वर्ष 2008

इन संशोधननों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , १ बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चेन्नई, मुम्बई, चण्डीगढ़ तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर , मुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर , पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं.: एफएडी/जी-128 ] एस. सी. खोसला , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( खाद्य एवं कृषि)

New Delhi , the 2nd September, 2008

S.O. 2555. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub -rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, theBureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the amendment to the Indian Standard, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

SL No. & Year ofthe Indian

No. Standards

(2)

(1)

1 IS 10319: 1982 Specification for Ethion Emulsifiable Concentrates

2 15 1051 : 1980 Specification for Pyrethrum Extracts (second revision)

3 IS 10369 : 1982 Specification for Ethion Technical

4 IS 11785: 1986 Specification for Captan (Wettable Powder) WP

5 IS 14251: 1995 Captan , Technica Specification

6 IS5346: 1994 Synthetic Food Colour- Preparations and Mixtures-Specification (second revision)

7 151698: 1994 Indigo Carmine, Food Grade- Specification (second revision )

8 IS2558 : 1994 Ponceau 4R, Food Grade- Specification (second revision)

9 IS4467: 1996 Caramel- Specification (second revision)

10 IS 8268; 2001 Rhizobium Inoculants-- Specification (second revision)

11 1$14806: 2000 Azospirillum inoculants 12 IS14807: 2000 Phosphate Solubilising Bacterial inoculant (PSBI ) Specification 3272G1/08-5

No. & Year of the Amendment

Date ofwhich the amendment shall have effect

(4) (3)

31 March2007 Amendment No. 3 Year2007

31 March 2007 Amendment No. 4 Year2006

31 March 2007 Amendment No. 1 Year2007

31 March2007 Amendment No. 2 Year2006

28 February2007 Amendment No. I Year2007

30April2007 Year2007 Amendment No, I

29August 2008 Amendment No. 1 Year2008

29August2008 Amendment No. I Year2008

29August2008 Amendment No. 2 Year2008

29August 2008 Amendment No. 1 Year2008

29August 2008 Amendment No. I Year2008 5174

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 13 , 2008/BHADRA 22 , 1930

( 1)

(2)

13 IS 13487 : 1992 Irrigation Equipment -Emitters- Specification

14 IS15757 : 2007 Follow- Up Formula - Comple- mentary Foods- Specification

15 IS 15757: 2007 Follow- Up Formula -Comple- mentary Foods- Specification

16 IS 14433 : 2007 Infant Milk Substitutes--- Specification ( first revision)

17 IS 14433 : 2007 Infant Milk Substitutes- Specification ( first revision)

18 IS 14124: 1994 Malic Acid, Food Grade- Specification

19 IS 13704 : 1993 Glycerol Esters ofWood Rosin (Ester Gums ) , Food Grade-Specification 20 1S4750: 1996 Sorbitol Powder , Food Grade- Specification ( first revision)

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

(4)

03July,2008

Amendment No. S Year2006

24Sep. ,2007

Year2007 Amendment No. I

14August,2008

Year2008 Amendment No. 2

30 Sep. , 2008

Amendment No. I Year2007

14August, 2008

Amendment No.2 Year2008

30 June, 2008

Amendment No. 2 Year2008

30 June,2008

Amendment No. 2 Year2008

30 June, 2008

Amendment No. 2 Year2008

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

[No.: FAD/G- 128 ] S. C. KHOSLA . Scientist ' F ' and lead ( Food & Agri . )

नई दिल्ली, 2 सितम्बर , 2008

का. आ. 2556.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम ? के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिनं भारतीय मानों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गए हैं वं स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

क्रम संख्या

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

( 1 )

(2)

आईएस 4446 : ( भाग 1 ) : 2008 क्लोरोफिल , खाद्य ग्रेड- विशिष्टि: भाग । मैगनीशियम संकुल ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

2 आईएस 4446 : ( भाग 2 ) : 2008 क्लोरोफिल, खाद्य ग्रेड-विशिष्टि : भाग 2 कॉपर संकुल ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

3 आई एस 3827 : 2008 राईबोफलेविन, खाद्य ग्रेड- विशिष्टि : ( पहला पुनरीक्षण)

4 आई एस 15795 : 2008/आई एस ओ 2971 : 1998 सिगरंट और फिल्टर रॉड- सांकेतिक व्यास ज्ञात करना-लेजर बीम द्वारा मापन उपस्करों के प्रयोग की पद्धति

S आई एस 3841 : 2008 3- कैरोटीन , खाद्य ग्रेड-विशिष्टि: ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

6 आई एस 9967 ( भाग 1 ) : 2008/ आई एस आं 14673-1 : 2004 दुग्ध एवं दुग्ध उत्पाद- नाइट्रेट एवं नाईट्राइट का अंश निर्धारण भाग 1 कैडमियम अपचयन तथा स्पेक्टोमेटी पद्धति ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण ) 7 आई एस 9967 ( भाग 1 ) : 2008/ आई एस ओ

स्थापित्त तिथि

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

(3)

(4)

आई एस 4446 ( भाग 1 ) : 1986

30जून, 2008

आई एस 4446 ( भाग 2 ) : 1986

30 जून, 2008

आई एप्स 3827 : 1966

31 मई , 2008

आई एस 3841 : 1966

30 जून , 2008

आई एस 9967 : 1997

30 अप्रैल, 2008

आई एस 9967 : 1997

30 अप्रैल, 2008 [ भाग - खण्ड 3(ii) )

(2)

( 1)

14673-1: 2004 दुग्ध एवं दुग्ध उत्पाद-नाइट्रेट एवं नाईट्राइट का अंश निर्धारण भाग 2 पृथषकृत प्रवाह विश्लेषण पद्धति ( सामान्य विधि) (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

8 आई एस 9967 ( भाग 3 ) 2008 /आई एस ओ 14673-3: 2004 दुग्ध एवं दुग्ध उत्पाद नाईटेट एवं नाईट्राइट का अंश निर्धारण भाग 3 कैडमियम अपचयन तथा इन-लाइन डायलिसिस के साथ द्रव अंतः क्षेपण विश्लेषण पद्धति ( सामान्य विधि) ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

9 आई एस 11623 : 2008 आई एस ओ 5537 : 2004 शुष्क दुग्ध -नमी की मात्रा का निर्धारण ( संदर्भ विधि ) (पष्ठला पुनरीक्षण)

10 आई एस 13488 : 2008 सिचाई उपस्कर- उत्सर्जकी पाइप पद्धतियाँ- विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण ) 11 आई एस 4753 : 2008 पोटाशियम नाइट्रेट , खाद्य ग्रेड-विशिष्टि ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

12 आईएस 6795 : 2007 एकैशिया ( अरेबिक ) गम , खाद्य ग्रेड-विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण)

13 आई एस 7239 : 2007 गम घाटी, खाद्य ग्रेड- विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

14 आई एस 9504 : 2007 एल ( + ) - टार्टारिक अम्ल, खाद्य ग्रेड-विशिष्टि (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

15 आई एस 9505 : 2007 मोनोसोडियम एल- ग्लूटामेट, खाद्य ग्रेड- विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण)

16 आई एस/ आई एस ओ 6492 1999 पशु आहार सामग्री- वसा की मात्रा का निर्धारण

5175

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13 , 2008/ মার 22, 1930

(4) (3)

आई एस 9967 : 1967

31 जुलाई, 2008 आई एस 11623 : 1986

31 जुलाई, 2008

30 सितम्बर , 2008 आई एस 13488 : 1992

आई एस 4753 : 1996

30 अप्रैल , 2008

30 नवम्बर , 2007 आई एस 6795 : 1972

आई एस 7239 : 1974

30 नवम्बर, 2007

30 नवम्बर , 2007 आई एस 9504: 1980

30 नवम्बर , 2007 आई एस 9505 : 1980

31 अक्टूबर , 2007 इन भारतीय मानक ( कों) की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय: 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 । '

[सं.: एफएडी/जी-128 ] एस. सी. खोसला, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( खाद्य एवं कृषि)

New Delhi , the 2nd September , 2008

S.O. 2556.-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

SI .

No.

No. & Year ofthe Indian Standards Established

(1)

1 IS4446 (Part 1 ) : 2008 Chlorophyll, food grade: Part 1 Magnesium complex- Specification (second revision)

2 IS4446 (Part 2): 2008 Chlorophyll , food grade: Part 2 Copper complex- Specification (second revision)

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

(4) (3)

30 June,2008 IS4446 (Part 1) : 1986

30 June,2008 IS4446(Part 2) : 1986

IS 3827: 1966

3 IS 3827 : 2008 Riboflavin , food grade (first revision)

4 IS 15795: 2008/ISO 2971 : 1998 Cigarettes and filter rods Determination of nominal diarneter-Method using a laser beam measuring apparatus

31May,2008

31 May, 2008 5176

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 13 , 2008/ BHADRA 22, 1930

( 1)

(2)

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

(4) IS3841: 1966

IS 384 2008 B - Carotene , food grade... Specification ( first revision)

30 June, 2008 IS9967: 1997

IS9967 ( Part 1 ) : 2008 /ISO 14673-1: 2004 Milk and milk products--Determination of nitrate and niteite conterits Part using cadmium reduction and spectrometry (second revision) Method 7

30April, 2008 IS9967:1997

IS9967 (Pan 2 ) : 2008/ISO 14673-2: 2004 Milk antirmilk products Determination of nitrate and nitrite contents : Part 2 Method using segmented low analysis ( Routine) method ( second revision)

8, IS9967 (Part 3 ) : 2008/ ISO 14673-3: 2004 Milk and milk producis-Determination of nitrate and nitrite contents : Part 3 Method using cadmium reduction and flow injection analysis with in - line dialysis ( Routine ) method (second revision)

30April , 2008 IS9967 : 1997

31 July,2008 IS11623 : 1986

9. IS1523 2008/ISO 5537 : 2004 Dried milk- Detemration of moisture content ( Reference method ( first revision)

31 July. 2008 IS13488 : 1992

10. IS13485: 2008/Irrigation equipment--- Emitting pipe system ( first revision )

30 September, 2008

IS4753:1996

11 . 1 $4753: 2008 Potassium nitrate , food grade --Specification ( second revision)

30April ,2008 IS6795:1972

12. IS6795:2007 Acacia (Arabic) gum , food grade Specification (first revision)

30November, 2007

IS7239; 1974

13. IS7239: 2007 Gum Ghatti , food grade- --Specification ( first revision)

30 November, 2007

IS9504: 1980

14. IS9504: 2007 L ( + ) Tartaric acid, food grade -Specification (first revision)

30 November . 2007

IS9505: 1980

15. IS9505:2007 Monosodium L -glutamate , food grade-Specification ( first revision )

16. IS/ISO 6492: 1999 Animal feeding stuffs- Determination of fat content

30 November . 2007

31 October, 2007

Copy of these Standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkatta, Chandigarh . Chennai , Mumbai und also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar. Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur . Kanpur, Nagpur , Patna, Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.

[No.: FAD/G --128 ) S. C. KHOSLA , Scientist and Head ( Food & Agri . )

नई दिल्ली, 3 सितम्बर, 2008

का. आ. 2557, भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक ( कों) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :-

क्रम

संख्या

संशोधित भारतीय मानक ( को ) की संख्या चर्ष और शीर्षक

( 1 )

(2)

L. आईएस 731 : 1971 की संशोधन संख्या

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागूहोने कीतिथि (3)

(4) 7 जुलाई, 2008

31 जुलाई , 2008 5177 [भाग [ ]- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13 , 2008/ भाद्र 22 , 1930

इस भारतीय संशोधन की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , १ बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद , जयपुर, कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. ईटी 06/टी-2]

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

New Delhi , the 3rd September , 2008

S.O. 2557. In pursuance ofclause (b) of sub -rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 . the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendment to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued:

SCHEDULE

No. & Year of the Amendment

SI . No.

No. & Year ofthe Indian Standards

Date from which the amendment shall have effect (2)

(3)

(4) (1 )

1 .

7July,2008

31July,2008 IS 731: 1971 Specification for Porcelain Insulators for overhead power Lines with a nominal Voltage Greater than 1000 V

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

[No.: ET 06/1-02 ]

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

खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण विभाग

नई दिल्ली, 5 सितंबर, 2008

का. आ. 2558, केन्द्रीय सरकार राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम (4 ) के अनुसरण में उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय ( खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण विभाग ) के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाध ीन भारतीय खाद्य निगम के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों, जिनके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारीवृन्द ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , को अधिसूचित करती है :

1. भारतीय खाद्य निगम, जिला कार्यालय , फरीदकोट, पंजाब

2. भारतीय खाद्य বिগম, जिला कार्यालय , मोगा , पंजाब

[सं.: ई-11011/ 1 /2008 - हिन्दी ] नवीन प्रकाश , संयुक्त सचिव (DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION) New Delhi , the 5th September, 2008

S.O. 2558. In pursuance of sub -rule ( 4) of rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following Offices of Food Corporation of India under the adminis- trative control ofthe Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution ( Deptt. of Food & Public Distribution ) , where more than 80 % of staff have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi :

1. Food Corporation of India, Distt.Office, Faridkot, Punjab

2. Food Corporation of India, Distt.Office, Moga, Punjab

[No.E- 11011 / 1 /2008 -Hindi ) NAVEEN PRAKASIL, Secy.

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13 , 2008 /BHADRA 22 , 1930

5178

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 10 सितम्बर , 2008

का. आ. 2559. - केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में बींना संस्थापन से राजस्थान राज्य में कोटा तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में , जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है, जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाएं जाने के लिये उसमे उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्रीमति भगवंती जेठवानी, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , बीना-कोटा पाइपलाइन परियोजना, भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड. बी -105 इन्द्रा विहार तलवण्डी , कोटा को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 324005 (राजस्थान)

अनुसूची

तहसील : दीगोद

जिला : कोटा

राज्य: राजस्थान

क्र.सं.

ग्राम का नाम

सर्वे नंबर

क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में 1

132

0.0450 1 भाण्डाहेड़ा

133

0.0180

134

0.0750

137

0.0200

[फ्त्र. सं. आर-31015/9/2008 - ओ.आर-11 ]

ए. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव 5179 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 13 , 2008 / भाद्र 22, 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड3 (ii) ]

Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

New Delhi, the 10th September, 2008

S. 0.2559.-Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products Pipeline from Bina terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh to Kota in the State of Rajasthan should be laid by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;

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

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

Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Smt . Bhagwanti Jethwani , Competent Authority, Bina-kota Pipeline Project, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited , B- 105 Indra Vihar Talwandi , Kota -324005 ( Rajasthan) .

SCHEDULE

STATE : RAJASTHAN

TEHSIL : DIGOD

DISTRICT : KOTA

SURVEY NO .

AREA IN HECTARE S.No.

NAME OF VILLAGE

132

1 BHANDAHEDA

0.0450

133

0.0180

134

0.0750

137

0.0200

[No.R-31015/9/2008-O.R. -II ] A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 10 सिवम्बर, 2008

का. आ. 2560.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में बीना संस्थापन से राजस्थान राज्य में कोंटा तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में, जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है, जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

5180

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13 , 2008 /BHADRA 22, 19.30

PART II- SEC . 3 ( i) ) अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50 ) , की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ,

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियों साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिये उसमे उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्रीमति भगवंती जेठवानी , सक्षम प्राधिकारी, बीना- कोटा पाइपलाइन परियोजना, भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , बी-105 इन्द्रा विहार तलवण्डी, कोटा को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 324005 (राजस्थान )

अनुसूची

जिला: कोटा

राज्य: राजस्थान तहसील : लाड़पुरा

क्र.सं.

ग्राम का नाम

सर्वे नंबर

क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में 1

4 1 कैथोड़ी

156

0.0342

161

9.0360

162

0.0050

163

0.3200

164

0.0360

165

0.0720

173/243

0.0072

175

0.0144 2 ताथेड़

772

0.1300

773

0.0486

774

0.0432

825

0.3100

770

0.5800

822

0.1800

[ पा. से. अर. 31015./2008-ओ.आर- ।। ]

संस्थामी, अवर सचिव 5181 [ भाग -खण्ड (ⅱ ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13, 2008 / भाद्र 22, 1930

New Delhi , the 10th September, 2008

8. 0.2560.-Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products Pipeline from Bina terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh to Kota in the State of Rajasthan should be laid by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;

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

Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Smt. Bhagwanti Jethwani , Competent Authority, Bina -kota Pipeline Project, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited , B- 105 Indra Vihar Talwandi , Kota - 324005 ( Rajasthan).

SCHEDULE

STATE : RAJASTHAN

DISTRICT: KOTA

TEHSIL: LADPURA

AREA IN HECTARE

SURVEY NO .

NAME OF VILLAGE

S.No.

156

0.0342 1 KAITHODI

161

0.0360

0.0050

162

0.3200

163

0.0360

164

165

0.0720

0.0072

173/243

0.0144

175

0.1300

772

2 TATHED

0.0486

773

0.0432

774

0.3100

825

770

0.5800

822

0.1800

No.R-31015/9/2008 -O.R. - il ] A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy. 3272G/08-6 5182

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 13 , 2008 /BHADRA 22 , 1930

[ PART 11-Sec. 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 10 सितम्बर, 2008

का. आ. 2561.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 3407 तारीख 21 नवम्बर, 2007. जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 1 दिसम्बर, 2007 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में मांगल्या ( इंदौर) संस्थापन से हरियाणा राज्य में पियाला तथा दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र में बिजवासन तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुंबई मांगल्या पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना के माध्यम से भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक विस्तार पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 3 मई, 2008 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी :

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी न, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन, केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिये अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चिय किया है ;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता हैं ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

राज्य : राजस्थान

तहसील : पिड़ावा

जिला: झालावाड़

क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में ग्राम का नाम

सर्वे नंबर

0.0792

583/194

1. रघुनाथपुरा

[पत्र. सं . आर-31015/9/2008-ओ. आर. | 1 ]

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (i ) )

5183 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13 , 2008 / भाद्र 22 , 1930

New Delhi , the 10th September, 2008

S. 0. 2561- Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.0.3407 dated the 21st November , 2007 , issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) published in the Gazette of India dated the 1 " December , 2007 , the Central Government decisred its intention to acquire the right of user in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying an extension pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Mumbai - Manglya Pipeline Extension Project from Manglya ( Indore) terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh to Piyala in the State of Haryana and Bijwasan in the NCT of Delhi by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;

And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 3rd May, 2008;

And whereas the competent authority has , under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the saidAct, submitted report to the Central Government;

And whereas the Central Government , after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline , has decided to acquire the right of ver therein;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) ofsection 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said land, specified in the Schedule , appended to this notification , is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (4 ) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest on the date of the publication of this declaration, in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

STATE: RAJASTHAN

DISTRICT: JALAWAR

TEHSIL: PIDAWA

AREA IN HECTARE

SURVEY NO .

NAME OF VILLAGE

S.No.

0.0792

583/194

1. RAGHUNATHPURA

[No. R-31015/9/2008-0.R - 11] A. GOSWAMI . Under Secy.

5184

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13 , 2008 /BHADRA 22 , 1930

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 18 अगस्त, 2008

का. आ. 2562.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , चैत्रई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 338/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केंन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-8-2008 , को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/348/2000- आई. आर. ( बी -1 ) ] बी. के. मनचन्दा , अनुभाग अधिकारी MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi , the 18th August, 2008

S.O. 2562. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 338/ 2001 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court Chennai , as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofState Bank of India, and their workinen , received by the Central Government on 18-8-2008.

[No.L-12012/348/2000 - IR ( B- 1 ) ] B. K. MANCHANDA , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 9th July, 2008

Present : K. Jayaraman , Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 338/2001

( In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause ( d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 ( A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) . between the Management of State Bank of India and their Workman)

BETWEEN IParty/Patitioner Sri G. Anuburaja Vs.

: 11 Party/ Respondent TheAsstt. General Manager Region - IV State Bank of India

Chennai -600001

APPEARANCE

For the Petitioner

: M/ s Balan Haridas & R. Kamatchi Sundaresan Advocates

For the Management : K.S. Sundar and R. Uma Maheswari Advocates

[PART 1 SEC. 3 ( ii)

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 12012/348/ 2000 [ ( 1R ( B - 1) ] date- 107-12-2000 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication .

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the dismissal of Sri G. Anburaja by the Management of State Bank of India is legal and justified? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled?"

2. After the receipt ofthe reference, it was taken on file of this Tribunal as ID No. 338/2001 and notices were issued to both the parties and both the parties entered appearance through their advocates and filed their respective Claim Statement and Counter Statement , 3. The averments of the petitioner in the Claim Statement are briefly as follows:

The petitioner joined the services of State Bank of India during the year 1983 and from 1991 , the Petitioner was working in Tiruvannamalai branch of the State Bank of India. While so, he was placed under suspension by an order dated 12-10-1992 , and was issued a charge memo dated 26-10-1992 . The allegations in the charge memo are that the Petitioner had committed misconduct of misappropriation , forgery and making spurious entries in the bank's records resulting in financial loss to the bank. The Respondent conducted domestic enquiry. But the enquiry was conducted in a most unfair manner and the Petitioner was forced to admit the charges and the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law and the Enquiry officer has held three charges framed against the Petitioner have been proved and one charge has not been proved and it was forwarded to the Petitioner and also the Disciplinary Authority . The Petitioner has given a detailed submission to the enquiry report. After issuing 2nd show cause notice , the Disciplinary Authority has differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and held that all the charges including the third charge are proved against the Petitioner and proposed punishment of dismissat froin service without notice. Even the Petitioner in his representation to the Disciplinary Authority mentioned that he cannot possibly differ with the findings of the Enquiry Officer without putting him on notice . But the Disciplinary Authority without considering the valid objections raised by the Petitioner mechanically imposed the punishment of dismissal on 23-08-1993 . Even the Petitioner's appealto the Deputy General Manager of the Respondent Bank ended against him . Even though the Petitioner has written the admission in his own handwriting , it was obtained by coercion by the Respondent Bank authorities and the Petitioner was also forced to remit the alleged financial loss into the bank namely Rs . 1,10,600. Thus , the petitioner is only mere a 5185 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13, 2008/ भाद्र 22, 1930

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

appropriate and commensurate with the gravity of the misconducts . The Petitioner's appeal before the Appellate Authority was also disposed of according to law. Therefore, the Respondent prays that the claim of the Petitioner has to be rejected.

5. Points for determination are:

(0) Whether the dismissal of the petitioner by the Respondent Management is legal and justified?

(ii) To what relief the petitioner is entitled?

signatory to the proceedings which was conducted in a most unfair manner . The enquiry was conducted in a great haste and it was conducted in most hurried fashion. The Disciplinary Authority based on the findings which had been arrived at without any materials had imposed extreme punishment ofdismissal vide order dated 23-08-1993 . The order of the Disciplinary Authority is illegal and is not a speaking order . The domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondent is against the principles of natural justice , fair play and it is further submitted that for the alleged misconduct, the punishment of dismissal is grossly disproportionate . Hence, the Petitioner prays that an award may be passed in his favour.

6. At the first instance on the representation of both parties , the issue with regard to the question as to whether an opportunity was provided by the Disciplinary Authority in case of the Disciplinary Authority having disagreed with certain evidences recorded by the Enquiry Officer was taken up by this Tribunal and after enquiry, this Tribunal has remanded the matter to the State Bank of India to proceed with the case against the petitioner in accordance with the law. As against that order , both the parties have preferred Writ Petitions before the flon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court after hearing both the WPs passed an order on 4-11-2006 allowing both the WPs and quashed the order passed by this Tribunal and also directed this Tribunal to restore the ID on its file and proceed to decide the issue of dismissal of the petitioner employee on merits and in accordance with the law . After remand , the matter was taken by this Tribunal , both parties have argued on merits .

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued though the Enquiry Officer alleged that the petitioner has admitted the charges framed against him , the admission was only conditional and, therefore , the Enquiry Officer has to come to an independent conclusion with regard 10 charges framed against the petitioner . On the other hand , he has based his conclusion only on the admission and come to a conclusion that out of five charges , four charges have been proved which is not legal and therefore, there is no legal acceptable evidence to prove that the charges framed against the petitioner have been proved . As such , the findings given by the Enquiry Officer and the imposition of punishment by the Disciplinary Authority are perverse and reasons given by the Enquiry Officer and also by the Disciplinary Authority are not justifiable . Under such circumstances , the major punishment imposed on the petitioner is to be set aside. On the side of the petitioner, Ex . WI , copy of the written submission filedby him before the Enquiry Officer was marked and on the side ofthe Respondent Ex . Ml to Ex.MIl viz. the enquiry proceedings were marked . Both sides have not adduced any oral evidence and they argued the matter only with records . On behalf of the Respondent, it is argued it is settled position of law that admission is best piece of evidence against the person making the admission.

4. In the Counter Statement, the Respondent has alleged that the Petitioner was working as a Clerk/Cashier in the Respondent Bank's branch at Tiruvannamalai . The allegation that the service of the petitioner was sincere, efficient and utmost to the satisfaction of his superiors is incorrect. He was placed under suspension by an order dated 12-10-92 for the acts of gross misconduct and the same was accepted by the Petitioner and proved and therefore, the Petitioner was dismissed from service . The proved charges are serious in nature . On various dates, the Petitioner has made spurious credit entries in S.B. Account No. 16564/107 in joint names of Smt . M. Maheswari and Sri G. Muthu with an intent to commit fraud on the bank. Further , he has made spurious entrics in S.B , Account No. 204/3 in the name of his Mother Sm1. G. Munirathinammal with an intent to commit fraud in the bank. Further , he has forged the initials of branch officials / Head Clerk to authenticate the spurious entries made in ledger accounts as detailed in charges 1 and 2 and out of the spurious credits afforded to S.B. A/c No. 16564/107, the Petitioner has withdrawn a sum ofRs . 93,600 therefrom on various dates and misappropriated the same. Thus, the Petitioner has committed misappropriation, forgery and making spurious entries in bank's records resulting in financial loss which are prejudicial to the interest ofthe bank and gross misconduct under Para 521.4(j ) of Sastry Award. The Petitioner has accepted all the charges framed against him . As regard to Charge No. 3 , the Petitioner submitted that he had only put his signature for authentication and did not forge the other official's initials. In the enquiry, in the presence of the Petitioner all the documents were produced and marked as Ex . I to Ex. 35. By producing the above documents , it was clearly proved that the Petitioner as an employee ofthe Respondent Bank had misused his position and made spurious credits and withdrew a sum of Rs . 1,10,600 and hence , it is an admitted case of the Petitioner that he has committed misconduct. The enquiry was conducted by observing the principles ofnaturaljustice and as provided under various Bipartite Settlements . The Petitioner participated in the enquiry and availed full opportunity and failed to prove his bona fides and the punishment awarded by the authority was 5186

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 13 , 2008/BHADRA 22 , 1930

PART I - SFC3( 11 ) ]

observed confidence of the depositors would be impaired and hence I find the imposition of punishment viz . dismissal in this case is legal and justified.

Point No. 2

The next point to be decided in this case is to what relief the petitioner is entitled?

9. In view of my foregoing finding that the imposition of punishment viz. dismissal passed against the petitioner is legal and justified , I find the petitioner is not entitled to anyrelief.

10. Thus , the reference is answered accordingly .

(Dictated to the P.A .. transcribed and typed by him. corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 2nd July , 2008 )

K. JAYARAMAN , Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

None

For the 1 Party/ Petitioner

None

For the II Party/Mgmi . :

Documents Marked :

Ex . No. Date Description

EX.WI 14-05-1993 Xerox copy of the wristen submissions filed by the Petitioner before the EnquiryOfficer

Forthe Il Party/Management :

Ex.No Date Description

EX.MI 12-10-1992 Xerox copy of the suspension order

Xerox copy of the charge sheet

EX.M2 26-10-1992

EX.M3 Nil

Xerox copy of the enquiry proceedings

ΕΧ.Μ4 24-05-1993 Хегох соpy of the letter from disciplinary Authority to petitioner enclosing tindings of Enquiry Officer

EX.M5 09-06-1993 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Disciplinary Authority

EX.M6 18-06-1993 Xerox copy of the letter from Disciplinary Authority to petitioner

EX.M7 16-07-1993 Xerox copy of the personal hearing proceedings before disciplinary proceedings

EX.M8 23-08-1993 Xerox copy of the order of dismissal issued to the Petitioner

EX.M9 13-10-1993 Xeгox copy of the letter from petitioner to Appellate Authority

EX.M10 31-12-1993 Xerox copy of the letter from petitioner to Appellate Authority

EX.M11 17-01-1994 Xerox copy of the order of Appellate Authority

However, it is open to the persons making the admission to show why the admission is not be acted upon. In the present case , though the petitioner alleged that his admission with regard to the charges is conditional , he has not established that under what circumstances he has admitted and for what reason the admission was made by him and should not be accepted The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the ruling reported in 2004 8 SCC 88 DTC VS. SHY AM LAL for his proposition . I find much force in the argument of learned counsel for the respondent since the petitioner has admitted the charges framed against him viz , that he has dishonestly and fraudulently makes , signs as well as with the intention to causing it to be believed that such document or part of the document signed , sealed was executed and mis- appropriated the funds of the bank, therefore , it is clear that he had made false documents by initialing the entries with the intention to making it to believe that such document is authenticated by the Branch officials in order towithdraw amounts referred in the charge . In the enquiry, since he has admitted the charges , it is clearly proved that he is committed forgery and defrauded the bank to the tune of Rs , 1,10,600 and misappropriated the same . Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the argument ofthe learned counsel for the petitioner that the admission made by the petitioner is conditional and qualified one , and, therefore , the findings of the Enquiry Officer that he has admitted the charge is without any substance. As I have already pointed that since it is settled law that in case of the admission of the guilt it is always open to the Enquiry Officer and also for the Disciplinary Authority notto hold any detailed enquiry apart from the admission by the petitioner . Then , the learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in one charge the Enquiry Officer has come to a conclusion that the charge has not been proved, only partially proved , on the other hand , the Disciplinary Authority has come to a conclusion that the said charge also proved beyond any doubt and even though , Hon'ble High Court has come to a conclusion that opportunity was given to the petitioner by personat hearing , in this case, the findings given by the Enquiry Officer and the imposition of punishment made by the Disciplinary Authority are based only on the admissions of the petitioner and, therefore , it cannot be taken into consideration and the imposition of punishment has to be set aside. It is his further argument that under Section- 11A of the ID Act, this Tribunal has got ample power to re -appreciate the finding and coine to a different conclusion but I am not inclined to accept this argument because since the petitioner has admitted the charges against him and since the amount involved in this case is very heavy and the amount which belongs to the customers viz . public , I am afraid the discretion given under Section - 11A should beused in this case , Further , it is well settled in a banking business, devotion, diligence and integrity need to be preserved by every bank employee and if this is nou [भाग 11- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 18 अगस्त , 2008

का. आ. 2563.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 143 की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण पणजी के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 50/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-8-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/358/ 1998 - आई. आर. ( बी -1 ) ] बी. के. मनचन्दा, अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 18th August, 2008

S.O. 2563.-1n pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 50/ 1999) of the Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court I, Panaji , as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India, and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 18-8-2008.

[No. L-12012/358/ 1998- IR(B- 1 )] B. K. MANCHANDA, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT- I AT PANAJI

BEFORE ANUJA PRABHIUDESSAI , PRESIDING OFFICER

5187

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13 , 2008/ भाद्र 22, 1930

the services of Shri Suryakant Naik, Ex-Messenger in theirMargao Branch w.e.f. 10-4-1997 , is legal and justified? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled for?"

2. On receipt of the reference IT/50/ 1999 was registered. Notices were issued toboth parties . The Party I has filed his claim statement at Exb . 5. He has stated that he had worked for State Bank of India, Sanvordem , Branch from September 1985 to June 1986. In the year 1991 , the Zonal Office, State Bank of India, Panaji issued letterNo. RM : 1 :AWD: 1844 dated 28th November 1991 calling for interview for considering absorption in Banks Service . IHe participated in the interview and vide letter dated 2-6-1994 he informed that his name was recommended or temporary appointment as Messenger at its branch, as and when necessary. The Party I has stated that on 23rd June , 1994 he joined as Messenger and worked at Madgaon Branch till 1st July , 1995 and thereafter from 8th July, 1995 Till 2nd Aprit 1997. The Party I has stated that he had worked for 410 days and that he had rendered required period of services for absorption .

The Party I has stated that the Party II has terminated his services without issuing any order and that the said termination is arbitrary and illegal and that he is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity in service.

Ref. No. IT/50/99

Party 1 /Employer

Shri SuryakantNaik Sanvordem, Mirabai, Falnem, Sanvorden ,Goa.

V/s

Party II/ Workman

The Zonal Manager, Region - 1 StateBank of India , State Bank Bhavan , M. G. Road, P. В. No. 12 , Panaji , Goa, 403001

Workman/ Party I. D. B. Bhise

Employer/Party II is represented byAdv. M. S. Bandodkar

AWARD

(Delivered on this 17th day ofApril , 2008 ) In exercise ofthe powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Central Government has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-

"( 1 ) Whether the action of the Zonal Manager , State Bank of India, Region - I , Panaji , Goa in terminating 4. The Party Il filed its written statement at Ext.6 . The Party II claimed that the reference is not maintainable and that the Tribunal cannot entertain any dispute for regularization . The Party II has further stated that it used to employ temporary workers and daily wage carners in subordinate staff cadre due to exigencies of work . The Party II , with an intention of abolishing the practice of such temporary engagement , entered into various settlements with the Federation , wherein it was agreed that certain specified categories of temporary employees would be considered for permanent appointment in the bank services against the vacancies likely to arise during 1987 and 1991. The said period was further extended from time to time and in the conciliation proceedings held on 9th June, 1995 before Labour Commissioner (Central ) at Hyderabad, it was agreed that the panels of the temporary employees daily wage/casual employees would be kept alive up to 31st March, 1997 .

5.The Party II has stated that the Party I was engaged as casual workmen for 42 days from September 1985 to June, 1986 at Sanvordem Branch . Pursuantto the circular and an advertisement issued by the Parly 11 , the Party I applied for empanelment and was according empanelled. The Party II has stated that though the Party I was empanelled, he was not engaged during the years 1991 , 1992, and 1993 and that he was employed for the Ist time in the year 1994 between 21-6-1994 το 30-6-1995 for which period he was paid at the mininuum scale applicabic to the 5188

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13 , 2008/BHADRA 22 , 1930

subordinate staff . The Party II has stated that Margao Branch has 14 permanent messengers and there are no vacancies .

6 The Party II has stated that after 8-9-1995 the services of theParty I were utilized as and when required on daily wages. The Party II has stated that Party I does not have any statutory right for permanent appointment. the Party has stated that as per the settlement dated 26-3-1997 four temporary Messengers were inade permanent from 1992 wait list as per their seniority. Since the Purty I was 20th in the 1992 list , he could not he absorbed and his services were discontinued from 1-4-1997 . The Party II has denied that its act of not absorbing the Party I is arbitrary.

7. On the basis of pleadings following issues were framed:

1.Whether the Party I proves that he was employed with the Party II as a Messenger till the date of termination ofhis service?

2.Whether the Party I proves that the Party II terminated his services illegally and without justification from 1-4-1997 ?

3 Whether the Party II proves that the reference is not maintainable?

4 Whether the Party I is entitled to any relief?

5. What Award?

8. The matter was posted for evidence . The Party 1 filed his affidavit in evidence at Exb.13 , however , even before the cross - examination of the Party I could comunеnсу . the parties filed an application , dated 26-8-05 at Exb. 14 stating that they have settled the dispute amicably as per the terms incorporated in the application at Exh . 14. The Parties have requested that the Award should be passed in terms of the settlement at Exb . 14. I have perused the terms at Exb, 14 and in my opinion the same are in the interest of theworkman. Ilence the tenns are taken on record and the consent award is passed in terms of the settlement dated 26-8-05 at Exb , 14,

ORDER

It is agreed between the purries that the management ofState Bank of India , Margao Branch, Goa hereinafter in short referred to as " Management " shall pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fitieen thousand only) to the workman Shri Suryakant Nark by way of an Accounts Payee Cheque No.792611 dated 30-3-2005 drawn on State Bank of India 1 Margao branch in fult and final seulement of all his ( i.e. workman's ) claims which shall included any carned wages . bonus , gratuity , overtime , leave encashment , notice pay etc. if any, arising out of his employment / discontinuance ? tennination and shall also include the claims of the workingm arising out of the reference No. 11: 50/99 .

[PART I-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 2. It is agreedby Mr. Suryakant Naik ( the workman / Party I ) that he shall accept the said amount as mentioned in Clause No.1 herein above in full and final settlertment of all his claims which shall include any earned wages , bonus, gratuity, overtime, leave encashment , notice pay etc. ifany arising out of his employment discontinuance/termination and shall also include all his claims arising out of the reference No.IT/50/1999 and he shall acknowledge the said amount by way of Receipt duly signed by him . The Workman/Party I further confirms that nothing further benefits are due and payable to him by the Management wither due to his employment in the Bank or under the reference No.IT/50/1999 . The workınan Party I has further agreed that this settlement shall satisfy all his claims including his claims under reference No. IT/50/ 1999 and including any claim of reinstatement and/or re- employment.

3. It is further agreed by the Workman / Party | that he shall have no claim of whatsoever nature against the Employer/Party II including any claim of reinstatement and or re-employment .

Inform theGovernment accordingly .

Dated: 17-4-2008

A. PRABHUDESSAL . Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, १५ अगस्त, 2008

का. आ. 2564. औद्योगिक मित्राद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.ची. एम.बी.के. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनकं कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार , औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 19/1990 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-08-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एन-42012/ 110/ 1989 - डी-11 ( त्री ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi . the 19th August , 2008 S.O. 2564. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 19 / 1990) of Central Government , Industrial Tribunal- cunt- 1.abour Court - 1 , Chandigarh ,as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute hetween the employers in relation to the management of BBMB , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 19-8-2008 .

No. L-12012/110/ 1989 - D - 1 (B ) | AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer 5189

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13 , 2008 / भाद्र 22, 1930

[ भाग 1 ]-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT-L, CHANDIGARH

Case ID No. 19/90

Chief Secretary, Nangal Bhakra Labour Union, Nangal Township , Distt. Ropar (Pb.)- 140124

.......Applicant

Versus

Chief Engineer , Bhakra Dam , Nangal Township , Distt . Roppar (Pb. )-140124

Respondent

APPEARANCES

Fortheworkman :

Shri R. K. Singh

Shri Bhagat Singh

For the managment :

AWARD

Passed on 1-08-2008

Government of India vide Notification No. L- 42012/ 110/89 -D - II (B) dated 19-1-1990 referred the following industrial dispute on account of failure of conciliation proceedings for judicial adjudication ofthis Tribunal:

"Whether Sh . Mool Raj S/o Sh . Chint Ram , Fitter is eligible for promotion to the post of Tempolate Marker considering the order of CGIT, Chandigarh dated 13-11-85 and the seniority position in the post in which he is appointed ."

ofaccounts ofhis dues to this Court on or before 15-12-85, The managment complied with the order and the difference ofpay was paid to the workman . Thereafter the management by specific order directed the workman to work on the post towhich he was initially appointed and the office was also directed not to take any work of other responsibility for which the workman was appointed. I have again gone through the entire order . In the order dated 13-11-85 this Tribunal has specifically mentioned that as the workman was made to function on another post to which he was appointed , he be fixed at the relevant slab in the scale of Tempolate Marker to which he was meant to work . Thus , the order dated 13-11-85 was passed by the Tribunal on the basis of the function carried on by the workman and not on the basis ofhis appointment . There was no question mark on the appointment of the workman to the post of Fitter and as the managment has took the work ofthe Fitter after order dated 13-11-85, the workman was thereafter, not entitled for the higher slab. He is entitled for the pay structure on the basis of his appointment letter. His promotion to the higher scale is governed under the rules and regulations governing the parties and not by the order of this Tribunal which was passed on other special facts . Accordingly, the workman cannot make the order of the Tribunal dated 13-11-85 as the tool and guard for this promotion because this Tribunal has never passed the order that he was entitled for the post of Tempolase Marker but the Tribunal has held that he is entitled for the slab of Tempolate Marker as he was made to function as such . Thereafter, he ceases to function as such, so on the basis of this order, the workman cannot claim for promotion to the Post of Tempolate Marker . On the basis of the documents filed by both ofthe parties , it is evident that the workman has been promoted to the post of Tempolate Marker in the year 1998 as per his seniority and it is not disputed.Accordingly, this reference is answered. Let the Central Government be informed. File be consigned.

G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 19 अगस्त, 2008

का. आ. 2565.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार थी.बी. एम.बी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार , औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. । , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 251/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-08-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

It is very simple,reference for judicial adjudication that whether on the basis the order of CGIT, Chandigarh dated 13-11-85; the workman is eligible for the promotion , and whether he is eligible for the promotion as per his seniority on the post to which he was appointed ? On serious scrutiny of the records , it is clear that the workman was appointed on 4-9-73 on the post of Fitter ( Marking). Somedispute on his appointment arose and the matter was referred by the Central Government to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal . Vide its order dated 13-11-85 , the CGIT, Chandigarh hold that the workman was appointed to the post of Fitter ( Marking ) but was given the work to be dischraged for the Tempolate Marker.

[सं. एल-23012/25/2001- आई आर ( सीएम-11 ) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 19th August , 2008

S.O. 2565.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Govemment hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 251/2004) These two posts Fitter (Marking) and the Tempolate Marker are different under different pay scales . Accordingly, on the basis of the nature of work carried on by the workman , this Tribunal vide order dated 13-11-85, directed the managment to fix him at the relevant slab in the scale ofTempolate marker w.e.f. 1-4-1979 , since when he was made to function as such and to submit the statement

3272G1/08-7 5190

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 13, 2008 / BHADRA 22 , 1930

of the Central Government , Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. 1. Chandigarh , as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of BBMB , and their workmen , received by the Centrai Governmemon 19-08-2008 .

[No. L-23012:25:2001 - IR (CM - II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR . Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT- I CHANDIGARII

Case No. I.D. 251 of 2004

Sh. Dhani Ram, General Secretary . BCB / BBMB Mazdoor Union (PW). S-2/ 773 , Sundernagar , Disrict Mandi ( IP )

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

नई दिल्ली , 19 अगस्त, 2008

का. आ. 2566,--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार यो.ची.एम.बो. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में कंन्द्रीय सरकार , औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 147/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-08-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-23012/ 24/ 1997- आई आर ( सी -11 ) |

अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 19th August . 2008

Applicant

Versus

The Superintending Engincer, BBMB , Dehar Power Circle, Dehar Power House . District Mundi (HP )

........Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman : None

None

For the managment :

AWARD

Passed on 7-08-2008

Central Governinent vide Notification No. 1-23012 25/2001 - IR ( CM - 11 ) dated 28th of June , 2004 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

Whether the action of the managment 13BMB , DeharPower House . Slapper, District Mandi ( IP ) in fixing the pay of Sri Ved Prakash son of Shri Cha า สต Lal less than his junior Shir Tulsi Ram as on 1-1-1996 is legal and justified ? If not to what relict the workman is entitled ? "

2. No one is present , on behalf of workonan . Learned representative of the managment is also not present . Since morning this reference has been called number af times . Al 10.45 A.M. , it was ordered to be placed before this tribunal once again at 2 IPM. It is 2.30 now and on repeated calls no one is presem , in spite of having of full knowledge of the proceedings of this reference . The reference is as old as referred tothis Tribunal in the year 2004. On repeated calls since morning no one is present Accordingly , the reference is dismissed in default for non - prosecution . Central Govertinentbe informed accordingly. File to be consigned.

Chandigarh ,

7-8-OR

G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Otticer S.O. 2566. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref . No. 147: 1998) ofthe Central Government , Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court -t , Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BBMB , and their workman , which was received by the Central Govertiment on 19-08-2008 .

[No. L -23012/ 24 / 1997-1R ( C- II ) ]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 147/98

Sh. Madan Lal S / o Sh . Dilip Chand , V.P.O. Bahdala ( H.P. ) Teh , and Distt . Una, Bhavnagar,

Applicant

Versus

The ChiefEngineer, 13hakra Dam, Nangal Township , Dist , Ropar(Pb.)

Respondent APPEARANCES

For the workman :

Sh . R. K. Singh For the managment :

Sh . Bhagat Singh

AWARD

Passed 1-8-2008

Central Government vide notification No. 1. -23012: 24/97-1R ( CM - II ) dated 22-7-98 referred the following industrial dispute for judicial adjudication :

[भाग ।। - खण्ड 3(ii) ]

"Whether the action of the management BBMB , represented through Chief Engineer, Bhakra Darn and Secretary, BBMB in terminating the services of Sh. Madan Lal , Driver w.e. f. 22-11-96 is justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ? " This reference was the result of failure ofconciliation proceedings in the office of Conciliation Officer , Chandigarh. The controversy, as is clear from the pleadings ofthe parties is whether a workman who is on probation can be terminated for his misconduct , without conducting departmental enquiry ? The workman Shri Madan Lal was terminated on 22-11-96 vide order No. 5336/296/D/B/M/ D dated 22-1 -.96 on the allegation of driving the Jeep No. V-42 (PB- 12/3002) on 30-6-96 under intoxication ofwine and driving another jeep No. V-49 ( PB - 16/0147) on 30-7-96 under the intoxication of wine . On previous occasion , dated 30-6-96 the jeep met with an accident whereas , on subsequent occasion dated 30-7-96 the jeep was found abandoned and the driver was found unconscious.

Before passing the above order of termination , a show cause notice was also given to the workman vide letterNo. 4497-95/296- E /BM/ D dated 16-9-90 . The show cause notice was duly received by the workman.

Theworkman disputed his termination on the ground that he was appointed against the substantial vacancy on permanent basis and cannot be terminated without holding an enquiry. On the other hand, the management justified his termination on the ground that rule 7 of Notification bearingNo. 17612/R & R/25/86/ R-4 dated 24-6-94 regarding BBMB Class Ili and Class IV Employees ( Recruitment and Conditions Service ) Regulations, 1994 provides that a person appointed to any post in the service shall remain on probation for a period of 2 years , if recruitedby direct appointment and one year if appointed on promotion . As per the appointment letter, the workman was appointed against a substantial vacancy on regular basis but his service conditions are governed by BBMB Class Ill and Class IV Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Regulations , 1994, As he was directly appointed, so as per the provisions of Rule 7 ofthe above regulation , his services will be on probation for 2 years .

Now the question for determination before this Tribunal iswhether the workman who is on probation can be terminated for his alleged misconduct of driving the vehicle under intoxication , without conducting a departmental enquiry. The management of the respondent has alleged that as per sub clause (b) of Clause III to Rule 7 of the said regulations, the prescribed authority is empowered to dispense with the service of any workman, ifappointed by direct recruitment, if his work and conduct has not been found satisfactory.

In my opinion there is a difference in two terms namely dispense with the services of the workman if the conduct

5191

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13 , 2008/ भाद्र 22, 1930

ofthe workman has not been found satisfactory during the period ofprobation and his termination from the service on ground of alleged misconduct. For farmer, there is no requirement of the departmental enquiry but for alleged misconduct and particularly ifthe alleged misconduct is of such a nature which pats a stigma on the workman, the workman cannotbe terminated without conducting a departmental enquiry, and if it is done it will be violationof principle ofnatural justice which is genesis ofall the laws. rules and regulations .

Hon'ble the Apex Court in Indra Pal Gupta Vs. Model inter College, Thora 1984 Volume 65 FJR 43 ! has held as under:-

It iswell settled that ifthe order oftermination of the service of an employee, including a probationer, carries a stigma. it has to fall to the ground unless it is preceded by an enquiry as contemplated in law. Therefore, where a person wus appointed as a probationer and his services were terminated simplicities under the conditions of service by a letter to the effect that in view of the resolution of the managing committee of the institution he was informed that his services were terminated, but a reading ofthe letter oftermination of service and the resolution of the managing committee which formed part ofthat letter clearly showed that is was merely a camouflage for ay order imposing the penalty oftermination ofservice on the ground ofmisconduct clearly indicating theri they beara mark ofdisgrace or infamy and that the employee was visited with evil consequences, the lower Court erred in holding that the order of terminationwas an innocuous one anddid not carry any stigma, and the employee should be declared to be continuing in service.

Likewise in Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. S.B. National Centre2000 (Volume 96 Supreme Court 607), it has been held by the Apex Court that where the facts for the order of termination were the foundation of order it cannot be said tobe a case of mere motive. It will be considered to be in the nature of stigma and under such circumstances , the employee/workman cannot be terminated from the services without holding a departmental enquiry.

Hon'ble the Apex Court in above mentioned judgment has specifically dealt with the circumstances in which an order ofdischarge ofa probationer can be said to bepunitive depends upon whether the allegations therein which are the cause of the termination ofservices are motive or the foundation . In this context , there is no difference between the cases where the services of a temporary employee are terminated and a probationer is discharged . Hon'ble the Apex Court in the above case further held that:

5192

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 13 , 2008 / BHADRA 22, 1930 [PART 11- S . 3 ( ii ) ]

not been found satisfactory during the probation period of 2 years and as such his services are liable to be dispensed with . The bases of this confion view is again the same that hewas found driving the vehicle under intoxication ofwine on two occasions . After this firm opinion . a show cause notice had no relevancy because the prescribed authority had already make up the mind to dispense with the services ofthe workman even prior to given him the notice . It is also aviolation of principle of natural justice.

!!!indings were arrived at in an inquiry as to misconduct behind the back ofthe officer or without a regular departmental enquiry, the simple order of fermination is to be treated as "founded" on the allegarions and will be bad. But if mequiry was not held and no finings were arrived at and the emplover was not indined to conduct un enquiry but, at the same time, he did not want to continue in service the employee, against whom there were complaints, it would only be a case of "motive and the order would not be bad. Similar is the position if the employer did not want to enquire into the truth oflife allegations because ofdelay in regular departmemal proceedings or doubt ahout securing adequate evidence. In such a circumstance, the allegation would be motive and not the foundation and a simple order of terminanon would he valid.

The effect which an order of termination of services may have on the person'sfuture prospects of employment is a matter of relevant considerar دودز If a simple order of termination was passed that would enable the officer to make good in other walks ofthe without a stigma. Ifthe order contained a stigma, the termination would be badfor the individual concerned must suffer a substantial loss of reputation which may affect his future prospects

Thus , on the basis of the above observation , I am of the view that the action of the management of the BBMB in terminating the services of Shri Madan Lal , Driver w.e.f. 22-11-96 is not justified . It is illegal as no departinental enquiry was conducted and the order of termination was accordingly passed in violation of the principle of natural justice. The workman Madan Lal is no more Hus death certificate is on record . As per the death certificate , the workman dies on 7-12-01 His legal representatives are on record . Under such circumstances , this Tribunal has to again discuss the matter as 10 for what relief is the workman entitled, which is the second part of the reference. It is also stated here that the probation period of any workman is not over merely because he has served for the entire probation period. As per the Rule 7 ( 3 ) of the above regulations , a specific order is required to he passed by the prescribed authority on expiry of the probation period . In such types of cases , where the worlunan is not available to serve or the management has no substantial vacancy to provide the job to the workman , reasonable compensation is the good answer in such types of cases , labour Court or Industrial Tribunal is empowered to grant a reasonable compensation . As the workman is no more , his legal representatives are on record . in my opinion , a compensation of Rs . 25.000 will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the management of the respondent is directed to provide to the legal represen- tatives of the deceased workman a compensation of Rs . 25,000 within a month . [ ut the Central Government be informed. File be consigned.

G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Oflicer नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2008

का. आ. 2567. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनकं कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार , औद्योगिक अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ नं. 1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 73/1992 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-08-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ थ्व ।

[सं. एल-12012/33 / 1992- आई आर ( बी-111 ) ] On careful scrutiny ofthe records and the documents filed by the parties, it is evident that the workman was appointed as a Driver un 25-11-94 against the substantial vacancy on regular basis under the pay scale of Rs . 1020-2130 . His services were terminated during the probationary period of 2 years vide office order No. 5336/296- EBM /D dated 22-11-96 on basis of wo charges ofmisconduct mentioned under Para 2 ( 1 ) and 2 ( 11) . Charges on the basis of which his services were terminated were that he drove the vehicle under the intoxication of wine. Thus , the charges that he drove the vehicle under the intoxication of wine is the basis of his termination from the service and it cannot be termed as mere motive but a stigma that may have serious implication on his future prospects of employment. Accordingly, the decision of the prescribed authority of the management for terininating (discharging) of services of the workman on the basis of the order No. 5336 :296- F. BMT dated 12-11-96 hasno legs to stand as it has been passed without a departmental enquiry and against the principle of natural justice . This order was passed in violation of the principle of natural as no right ofhearing was afforded to the workman while passing this order . Moreover , the show cause notice which is said to be given vide order No. 4497-98-296 -E-BM.D dated 16-9-90 is a face wash because in the second last para of the letter, it is determined act of the prescribed authority that the work and conduct of the workman has

बी. के. मनचन्दा. अनुभाग अधिकारी [भाग 11 - खण्ड 3( ii) )

New Delhi , the 19th August , 2008 S.O. 2567. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 73/ 1992) of Central Government , Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court - 1 , Chandigarh , as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank ofPatiala , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 19-08-2008 .

[No. L-12012/33/ 1992 -IR (B - III )] B. K. MANCHANDA , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARIE

Case No. I.D. 73/92

General Secretary, State Bank of Patiala , Sub StaffUnion, HeadOffice , The Mall , Patiala - 147001 ,

5193

भारत का राजपत्र ; सितम्बर 13, 2008/ भाद्र 22 , 1930

against General Manager using the following words and thus , displayed disorderly and indecent behaviour at the banks premises and thereafter , slipped away from the bank:

" FARH LO JINE MERA LUN PHARNA KERAH GM HAI BAHIN DA LORA " Earlier in the day, Shri Gill reported forduty at Patiala Mall Road, Punjab at 9:45 a.m. and after making his attendance in the attendance register for full day, slipped away from the branch without the permission of the Manager (C& I).

.......Applicant

Versus

General Manager (Operation ) State Bank of Patiala , Sub StaffUnion , Head Office , The Mall, Patiala- 147001 .

........Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman ;

Sh. Raj Kaushik

Sh . N. K. Zakhmi For the management :

AWARD

Passed on 5-08-2008

Central Government vide notification No. 12012/33 / 92 - IR (B - III ) dated 30th June, 1992 referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication on account of failure of conciliation proceedings in the office of Conciliation Officer.

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Patiala in dismissing the services of Shri HamekGill, Peon-cum - Frash w.e.f. 8-6-91 isjustified ? Ifnot, to what reliefthe concemed workman is entitled ? " Ihave gone through the entire file before this Tribunal and the enquiry file of departmental enquiry proceedings against Shri Harnek Gill . On 5-10-90, Shri Harnek Gill was chargesheted as follows :-

Thai on 25-9-90 at about 3 : 15 p.m. , Shri HarnckGili came to the Main Hall of the Head of his building , where the GMO's Sectt . is seated , in a drunken state raised slogans, hurled abuses , derogatory remarks On the basis ofthe charge , Shri Harnek Gill was asked to reply the charge sheet. Shri Gill replied the same which was found unsatisfactory and in order to ascertain the factual position , an enquiry officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry . The enquiry officer after affording the full opportunity of being heard conducted the enquiry and submitted his report , wherein, the charges leveled against the workman were fully proved . A show cause noticewas given to the workman before taking disciplinary action against the workman and after receiving the reply to show cause notice, the disciplinary authurity afforded the opportunity for personal hearing. Thereafter , the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 8-06-91 . The workman Shri Gill preferred an appeal against the order of disciplinary authority dated 8-6-91 , which was dismissed by the appellate authority after affording the opportunity of being heard.

The workman in his statement of claim has disputed his presence at the Head Office on the day in question. The workman has stated that on 25-9-90 , the date in question, he had gone to Rajinder Hospital , Patiala to get his sister- in -law discharged and the inquiry was initiated against him with some malafide motives. There was no complaint lodged against him and he was not provided the copyofthe complaint . When asked for answering the charge sheet leveled against him . Enquiry officer has not afforded him the appropriate opportunity of being heard and the inquiry , accordingly , was conducted against the principle ofnatural justice. All the witnesses who were examined by the Enquiry Officer were prejudiced being a member of another union . On the other hand , on behalf of the management, it is stated in written statement that prорет opportunity ofbeing heard was given .

Enquiry was conducted in a proper , fair and reasonable manner and there was no violation of any of the tules of principle of natural justice .

Both of the parties were afforded the opportunityto adduce the evidence . Shri Harnek Gill filed his affidavit whereas, on behalfof the management, Sh . R. S. Sethi filed the affidavit, 5194

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 13 , 2008 / BHADRA 22. 1930 [PART I - S3 ( ii ) ]

behaviour. In the preliminary enquiry , as more as 17 witnesses were recorded and one of the witness Shri Suncel Arora categorically gave the exact abuses hurledby Shri Harnek Gill . Accordingly, on the basis ofa surprise check on25-9-90 and the report ofthe parliamentary investigation by theVigilance Departmem of the Head Office by Sh . K. J. Wadhan , Officer MMGS - 11 Department of Vigilance, the workman Shri Gill was charge shecred and on his unsatisfactory answer a departmental enquiry was conducted.

Thus, I have no reason to agree on the contention of the workman that he could not have been charge sheeted without a complaint . Hic was charge sheeted on the basis ofa surprise check conducted by the Vigilance Department and on the basis of preliminary investigation conducted by Sh . K.J. Wadhan . Thus , it cannot be said that the initiation of inquiry has no legs to stand as initiated on the basis of surprise check by the Vigilance department and the report of preliminary investigation conducted by the Vigilance Department itselt.

First of all , itwill be proper to discuss the genuineness ofthe enquiry, whether the enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner by the officer competent to conduct the enquiry ? And whether the Enquiry Officer while conducting the enquiry complied with the rules of principle ofnatural justice ?

Shri Harnek Gill was cross - examined by learned counsel for the managerment on 15-2-99 , whereas , Shri R. S. Sethi was cross -examined in the Tribunal on nath in Open Court . This reference was fixed for arguments from 7-6-99 and arguments could be heard on 9-7-08 after 9 years and that too under protest. On 23-5-08, notice was served upon the parties to turn up for arguments for 10-6-08 , On 10-6-08, the Court also tried to get the case disposed ofhy adopting the mechanisin of negotiation and conciliation in l.ok Adalat hut it could not have been possible to dispose of this case in Lok Adalat and 2-7-08 was fixed for arguments . On 2-7-08, learned counsel for the workman moved an adjournment application which was allowed as the last opportunity and parties were directed to argue the case on 8-7-08. Ол 8-7-08 , again it was requested on behalfofthe workman to adjourn the case and considering the age of the case 9-7-08 was fixed . On 9-7-08 , no one turned up for the workman and the arguments of tearned counsel for management were heard and the file was reserved for Award . Learned counsel for the management has argued that the Enquiry Office conducted the enquiry in a very fair and reasonable manner , the charge leveled against the workman was well proved by the statement of witnesses and the document placed before the Enquiry Officer . Proper opportunity of being heard was given to the workman and there is no requirement under law to interfere with the finding of Enquiry Officer and the punishment given by the disciplinary authority.

It has also been argued by Icarned counsel for the management that the words uttered by the workman are so derogatory that it is not possible for the hank to continue the services of the workman and misconduct committedby the workman is of such a nature which warranted his dismissal and no other punishinent ,

I have gone through the enquiry report and of the enquiry proceeding which is in 116 pages and was concluded on 16 dates from 25-10-90 το 26-3-91 . The procedure which was adopted by the Enquiry Officer is very well mentioned in first page of the enquiry repon which in my opinion is a fair and reasonable procedure . The Enquiry Officer was duly appointed by the prescribed authority and it was intimated to the workman as well. It is true that workman in so many letters written to the Enquiry Officer, which he has filed in the proceedings of this Tribunal , has questioned the manner of conducting the Enquiry but after going through the objections raisedby the workman and the enquiry proceedings . I am of the view that on every date of hearing either the workinan in person or his duly appointed representative Shri Ashwani Sharma was present .As more as 7 witnesses were examined by the Enquiry Officer and all of the witnesses were cross- examined cither by the workman or by bis duly appointed representative Shri Ashawani Sharma. The workınan also adduced 4 defense witnesses which were recorded by the Enquiry Officer and cross - examined by the managemem . After perusing and analyzing the evidence oral and documentary, the Enquiry Officer gave his finding that the workman on 25-9-90 , reported for duty at Patiala MallRoad l'unjab at 9: 45 a.m. and alter marking his attendance in thư attendance register for the fiell day slipped away from the branch without the permission of the Manager( CI ) . Further atabout3.15 p.m. he came to the Main Hall of HeadOffice I have gone through the enquiry report . enquiry proceeding, evidence given by the parties before the Tribunal and other materials on record . The first objection raised by the workman is that no charge can be framed against him without a complaint . The copy of the complaint was not provided to him and he could not answer the charge shect properly and accordingly prejudice was cause to him . On perusal of the record , it is evident that on 25-9-90 a surprise check of GMO's Secit . was conducted at about 3:00 p.m . During the course of surprise check, which was conducted by Assistant Cieneral Manager ( Vigilance) . it came to the notice that Shri Harnek Gill, Peon posted at Mall Road, Patiala Branch showed indecent behaviour and allegedly heard abuses in the itmain hall . The report of surprise check by Assistant General Manager ( Vigilance ) was givento GMO and as desired by the GMO the matter was entrusted to K.J. Wadhan, Officer of thisdepartment for investigation . Shri . K. J. Wadhan conducted a preliminary investigation and submitted his report on 27-9-90, holding that Shri Harnek Gill visited the Head Office atabout 3 : 00 p.m. and is guilty of showing disorderly [भाग- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Building where the GMO's Sectt., is seated in drunken state and raised slogans , ' hurled abuses , derogatory remarks against the General Manager by using the following words::

" FARH LO JINE MERA LUN PHARNA KERAH GM HAI BAHIN DA LORA"

Itwas also reported in the enquiry report that in this manner , workman displayed disorderly and indecent behaviour at the bank's premises . On the basis of the enquiry report a show cause notice along with the copy of the enquiry report was given to the workman on 17-6-91 . Shri Gill replied to show cause notice vide letter dated 17-6- 91 and after considering the reply of the workman the disciplinary authority on 8-6-91 passed the order of dismissal without notice in terms of Clause 196 (A) ofthe bipartite settlement , 1966. Thus , on the basis of the above observation , I am of the view that the Enquiry Officer was duly appointed as per the rules ofthe bank by the competent authority. The Enquiry Officer was empowered to conduct the enquiry and he conducted the same in a proper, reasonable and fair manner. On perusing the materials on record, there seems no violation of any of the rule of principle ofnatural justice and accordingly, I have nothing to say on the procedure and manner in conducting the enquiry.

The question for determination before me now is whether the Enquiry Officer has rightly held the charge proved. Before discussing this issue, it is proper to mention that the proceedings before the Tribunal are altogether of different nature than that of the Civil Court. Likewise , in the departmental proceedings conducted by a man of department , it would be expected that all the rules ofthe Evidence Act and the procedure as is applicable in the Civil Courts will not be applied . In the departmental proceedings , ifthe enquiry is conducted as per the manner mentioned in the concerned rules of the department , it will be sufficient. It is true that there is minor contradictions in the evidence recorded by Shri K. J. Wadhan in preliminary enquiry and in the statement recorded by the Enquiry Officer. During preliminary investigation only one witness Shri Suncel Arora gave categorically the exact abuses hurled by Shri Gill whereas , before the Enquiry Officer , Gurinder Pal Singh PW2, Shri Suneel Arora PW4 are said to hear and reported the exact words hurled by Shri Gill. It is a development in the statement of PW2 that he could not reproduce the same words uttered by Shri Gill at the time of incidence to Sh. K. G. Wadhan . It is a minor discrepancy which has no value in the departmental proceedings because as stated earlier , the departmental proceedings are altogether on different footing than that of the proceedings before the Civil Court and on the basis ofthis discrepancy no adverse inference should be drawn by the Tribunal,

5195

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13 , 2008/ भाद्र 22, 1930

The workman also produced as more as 4 defense witnesses. The workman wanted to prove as is clear from the statement of all the 4 defense witnesses , that on the day and time in question he was present somewhere else in Rajinder Hospital , Patiala . The witnesses who were adduced by him have casually stated that Shri Gill was present in the Hospital but no documentary proof before the Enquiry Officer was placed by any of the witnesses. Moreover, in the cross -examination of these witnesses they referred such facts regarding the addresses , relationship between the parties that it is not possible for this Tribunal to believe the story raised by the workman . Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer while discussing the evidence has rightly discarded the evidence of all the 4 defense witnesses . All the witnesses adduced by the management of the bank and recorded by the Enquiry Officer has the firm view that Shri Gill while appearing to the Head Office was in a drunken state . Few witnesses have said that he seems to be in the drunken position . All the witnesses have seen Shri Gill from a remote distance and it was not possible for them to assess whether Shri Gill was in a drunken position . No medical examination regarding his drunken position was conducted. So the EnquiryOfficer was not justified in holding that Shri Gill appeared in the Head Office Building in a state of drunkenness . But he has rightly held that Shri Gill on 25-9-90 at about3.15 p.m. , appeared the Main Hall of Head Office Building raised slogans hurled abuses , derogatory remarks by using the following words:

"FARH LO JINE MERA LUN PHARNA KERATI GM HAI BAHIN DA LORA"

As stated earlier that proceedings before the Tribunal are altogether ofdifferent nature. It was held by the 3 Judges Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and Others Vs. Rattan Singh 1997 11 LL- 50 that " in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidenceunder the Indian Evidence Act may not apply . All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are perinissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. Departmental authorities and Administrative Tribunals must be careful in eval uating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act . The essence ofajudicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules ofnatural justice. Fairplay is the basis and ifperversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment viliate the conclusions reached, such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal cannot be held gond. The simple point is , was there some evidence or was there no evidence - not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular Court proceedings but in a fair common sense way as men of understanding and worldly wisdom will accept." 5196

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 13 , 2008 BHADRA 221830

Thus , considering and applying the principle laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court , I am of the view that the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court must viewed the departmental enquiry and other material on record on the basisofthe principle laid down earlier that where reasonsbic and fair procedure was adopted by the enquiry officer, and there was no violation of any of the rules ofthe principle of natural justice, the Tribunal and the Labour Court has very limited scope to interferer. Accordingly , there is no scope before this Tribunal to interfere in the finding ofthe enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority awarding the punishinent of dismissal of Shri Hamek Gill because the act as proved to be committed by Shri Harock Gill cannot be tolerated in any of the office . If it is tolerated , then the sanctity of the office will be at stake and work culture diminished. Accordingly, the reference is answered in positive that the action of the management of State Bank of Patiala in dismissing the services of Shri Harnek Gill Peon /Frash w.e.f. 8-6-91 isjustified and the workman is riot entitled for any relief. Central Government be informed Filebe consigned.

G. K. SHARMA , Presidm2 Otticer नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2008

का. आ. 2568 ,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक आंफ इंडिया के प्रचंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के च अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण , चण्डीगढ़ नं. । के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. २०११५१ ) प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-08-2008 को पान हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/27/ 1992- आई आर बी 3) वी. के. मनचन्दा, अनुभाग अधिकार New Delhi , the 19th August. 2008 S.O. 2568 .--In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 41 : 1993 ) of Central Governinent, Industrial ' fribunal - cua- Labour Court - I , Chandigarh , as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India, and their workmen , received by the Central Government oη 19-08-2008 .

[No. 1-12012: 27-1992- IR - 33 B. K. MANCHANDA , Section Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE SIRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT.1 . CHANDIGARIT

Case No. L.D. 41/93

General Secretary , State Bank of India, Stall Congre 1303, Sector 23-8 , Chandigarh - 160023

PART B -St Mi The Regional Manager. Stais Bank of India . Region - 1. Sector- 17 , Chandigarh

Responden:

APPEARANCES

Forthe workman

Si Raj Kaushik

siri Ashok Khuilur For the management :

AWARD

Passed or 8-2008

Central Govermentication No.- 1201227 92- IR ( B - 3 ) dated12-3-93 referred the following industrial dispute for judicial adjudictation account of failure of conciliation proceedings .

Whether the atene ofthe managment of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri M. K Sharma w.e.f. 27-3-0 legat and justified ? If not, 16 what relief the work.cois entitled to and from 1น ประ เท date?"

I have gone through de picadings of the parties . 11 is evident from the pleading the workman Shri M. K. Sharina joined the service ! Siate Bank of India on 28-4-81 and was confirmet1-10-81 The workman was transferred from Chandig... Gind Branch , Luhin on 28-11-81 . Some dispute between the workers of the bank and Mr. Arvinder Singh are of Ms. Ajay Foundary Works, Ludhiana took place 10-8-88 in which both ut the parties agitated as per the remedies available to them.

During the enquiry proceedings of said incident the workman was transferred owl Branch oft udhian Theworkman protested ile armster and filed a civil sunt in the Court of Senior sub judicana and the Court Senior Sub -Judge Ludhiana kind enough to pass B ex- parte injunction order :-3-88 in favour of the workınan and worksun reported at Gill Rond Branch , Ludhiana where he was to rejom bot Was THR allowed to do any worker the court of sub -Judge I udhiana vacated the ex- printion order on 21-9-88.

Consequently. the Bramel , mnager nilegally stop the entr's of the workman without gig ens relieving letter and without assigning any the same on the advice of Union Bank of bod fangress the workman withdraw's the civil stored an industrial dispice against the actioti ufagemcal The Central overnmcot refused reise to the Industrial Iribunal excepting the the management the bank that the workatafered by the bank tom one branch to cac chien to which th workman was a member strike notice on the management and acenadinediately started cenciliation proceedings time the concilianon

......Applican

proceedings the man he stared that the 5197 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13 , 2008/ माद्र 22 , 1930

[भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii) )

that he has voluntarily retired from service on the expiry of notice in which he will also be liable to pay to the bank 14 days / 1 month pay and allowances in lieu of the notice.

Another notice which is on record is dated 8-3-90 . Vide this letter (notice ) the workman was informed that he is absent from duty unauthorizely since 23-8-88 from Lodhwal Branch , Ludhiana . Through this notice the workman was also directed vide memorandum no. 12/131 dated 5-9-89 calling upon him to report for duty within 30 days. It is statedby the management that as he has filed to report for dutyby 26-3-1990, it is deemed that he has voluntarily abandoned his services on 27-3-1 990 .

workman stand transferred to Ludhiana Branch and he is at liberty tojoin their. During conciliation proceedings , the management of the bank fails to produce any transfer reliving order . Nor the management was ready to relieve. On the advice of the Union , the workman reported at Ladhowal Branch on number of times to join the duties but the branch manager refused to receive the joining letter on the plea he wilt consult the regional office regarding it and after consulting regional office the workman will he allowed tojoin the Branch . During the conciliation proceedings i came to the notice of the workman that the management of the bank illegally passed the orders of termination in advance without any justification and without serving the letters on the workman on the ground that the workman has voluntarily abandoned his services.

The third letter/ memorandum /notice is dated 27-3-1990 which is said to be the final notice in the written statement filed by the manageinent of the respondent bank. The last three line of para no . I of this notice reads as under :-

"Thus, we have not been left with any alternative but to send you the final notice for abandonment of services by you " .

Admittedly , it is the final notice as said by the management of the respondent bank and rightly alleged in its written statement.

The management of respondent bank disputed these facts in written statement and stated that the workman Shri Sharma was transferred on 16th of August , 1988 to Lodhwal Branch Ludhiana, and in spite of joining at the Lodhwal Branch; he filed a civil suit against the transfer order . The Civil Court at the initial stage granted the stay but the stay was vacated. As the workman had been relieved already, he was not permitted to rejoin after stay order . On number of occasions he was instructed by the Bank to join at the Ladhowal Branch. but he failed. The final notice in this regard was sent to him on 30-3-90 at his recorded address and the same was redirected to 1261 Shimlapuri , Ludhiana. However , this letter was received back with the remarks that no such person stays at 1261 . Shimlapuri , Ludhiana. As even after the final notice, the workman has not joined at the Lodhwal Branch his services were automatically terminated being abandoned. As per the provisions of the bipartite settlement an enquiry in such cases was required.

Bothofthe parties were afforded the opportunity far adducing evidence . Shri M. K. Sharma , the workman , filed the affidavit . On the other hand , Shri Bharat Bhushan Vashist and Mrs. Sukhwinder Kaur filed the affidavits an behalf ofthe management of the respondent bank and both of the witnesses were cross - examined by the learned counsels of the opponent respectively.

On the other hand, the workman has also filed several letters and one ofthe letter is dated 16-1-91 requesting the Manager of Lodhwal Branch to permit himto join , the service . There are two letters written by the workman addressed to the Branch Manager Lodhwal on 16-1-91 regarding the same contents , i.e. permitting him to join al the Branch . In response to these letters the manager of Lodhwal Branch has informed the workman that he is re- ferring this issue to the headquarter whether permission forjoining the services be granted ? The workman has also filed a letter dated 19-9-89 which is answer of the letter dated 5-9-89 written by the Branch Manager Lodhwal Branch advising him to join the services / No doubt there are so many other documents on record which will be dealt with separately at the relevant time. On the basis of the above mentioned letters and other materials on record, this Tribunal has to determine whether the workman has abandoned his services ?

As per the dictionary . " The New International , Websters Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language , Encyclopedia Edition , the meaning of abandonment is as follows :-

The main question before this tribunal for judicial adjudication is whether non -joining by the workman at the Ladhwal Branch under the circumstances of the case shall be deemed to be abandoned his services ? Apart from the other documents filed by both of the parties, there are three important notices which are said to be sent by the management of the respondent bank to the workman . All these notices are admitted to both of the parties.

"Abandonment means to give up wholly, to desert , to for sake or as an effort or attempt to surrender or gave over permanently" .

Thus, this meaning shows that abandonment means gave up a right permanently with intention not to do the work again.

Notice dated 5-9-89 given by the management of respondent bank to Shri Mahesh Kumar Sharma regarding unauthorized absence from duty. Through this notice the workman was advised to report for duty within 30 days from the date of this notice, otherwise it will be deemed

3272 G / 08- B 5198

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 13 , 2008 /BHADRA 2 : 19.30

abscuts bumself from duty for 90 or more consecum days beyond the period of leave originally sanctioned or subsequently extended the management may, alanla !! means for sbandonment of services the antion of the workruan for not joining the duty should be clearly established . If it is not established the abandonment cannot be held to be proved . The same view has been expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Punjab and Sind Bank and others Vs. Sakattar Singh 2001-1 Supreme Court cases 214 as rehed upon the law established in Syndicate Bank Vs. General Secretary . Syndicate Bank Staff Association 2001) . 05 SCC 65. In the above case law, Hon'ble the Apes Court has held that a reading of clause xvi of IV boramine settlement will make it clear that in the event an episee thereafter , give a notice to the employee at the last address calling upon him to report for duty within ofnolice stating , inter alia , the grounds for the ne .. coming to the conclusion that the employer as na intention of joining duty and lirmishing necesser.ne wherever relevant and unless the employee reperis within 30 days of the notice or give an explanation:Cor his absence satis lying the management that he has up another einployment or avocation and that ka nas ho mtention forjosing the duty the employee will be takento have voluntarily reored from the bank service on the expiry of the time fixed to the said notice. In the event of the employee giving a satisfactory reply, he willbe permitted to report for duty thereafier within 30 days from the expiry of the aforesaid notice without the prejudiced to the bank's right to take any action under the law or rules of services. Cader his rule the employee is giving an opportunity to rejomsluty within a stipulated time or explain his position 10 the satisfaction of the managemem that he has 10 intention for not joining duty , and presumption will be drawn at the employee does not require the job any more recited from service . taken On the basis of the notices , evidence , facts and of the case and the law laid down by the ble the Apex Court in above mentioned case , I am anable to accept the contention of the management that it slaitted med ihm workman has retired from the service Frus 201-1990 on the following grounds: ---

ike covagement of the respondent bank is wable 10 establish the date of final notice As per letter dated 5-9-89 the workman was directed to testune bis work and join the duty within 30 days from the date of the notice . Whereas , frwn Better dated 8-3-90 the worknman was informed ihat the workman has voluntarity abandoned the service frucm 27-3-90 . There is another Later onecord dated 27-3-90 which the management claims to be the final notice given to the workman to resume the services . In between these letrers there has been a regular consumo sapure between the workman and the management of the

PART 11 SEC. 3 (ii )] bank. Notice Jated 27-3-90 , which is said to be the final notice . shows that the management has not acted upon the previous two notices dated --9-89 and 80

(2) The reply of the letter 5-9-89 was given by the worknuation 19-9-89 showing the intention to serve the brak . The dispute between the nanagement of the bank and the workinan was not on intention to render the services to the bank but it was on the fact where to join and in what branch he workman has to serve? From afl the transactions , which are on record , it is evident that the mangentent has failed to prove that the workman has pontention to serve to the bank and as inserving somewhere else for his survival . admitted to the parties that noi only the correspondence between them but the proceedings of concilianon have also been pending helure the conciliation oflicer regarding the dispuls the transfer . There are certain other courratumcatton nade by the workman to the managohent of the bank that he wanted to join at Lodhwal branch but he was not permitted on the protest that he can be permitted after obtaining the permission from the head office and what older has been passed by the head office neither was communicated to the workman nor has been Bied on the record.

the Bualdapon the workinan asking to jom the fow the workman can be (3) In its pleading the omanagement of the bank hus adtmitted that he was relired from the services of the bank on 27-3-90 , whereas , the management has claiming ihat the final notice was served upon hinten 7-3-90 . It is loue that M. W. I in bis opening carence of cross - examination has stated tha etter dated 27-3-90 was issued to the worlanan for intorning him about the confusion in tes. But I am unable to accept this contention of the management because the managemchi has not only mentioned in his pleadings thai final notice was given on 27-3-90 but a by the managementof the bank teated 27-3-90 is en record. In this is very well mentioned that it is bin to jestes with 30 days . If vide letter kainst opportunity is given prestinted theservices of the bank חט 27-3-01 wer on perusaj of the record and the evidence the parties ,the intention of the workanan serve the bank is not established Moreover, from the corres- pondence, it clean that the workanan inds boon willing to the sank throughom .

5199

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13 , 2008/भाद्र 22, 1930

[ भाग ।।- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

May be the workman has committed any other misconduct . He was transferred by the management of the bankto which he did not complied with. He was regularly visiting and contacting the officials of the management in the branch from which he was transferred. It may be the case of disobedience of the order of the management but not the abandonment of the services and for disobedience of the order of the management an enquiry is mandatory. Admittedly, no enquiry was conducted .

Thus , 1 am of the view that on the basis of the above observations , it cannot be presumed that the workman has abandoned his services . He might have committed another misconduct for which an enquiry was mandatory and no enquiry was conducted . Thus , the reference is answered in negative that the action ofthe management of StateBank ofIndia in terminating the services ofShri M. K. Sharma w.e.f. 27-3-90 is not legal andjustified. The workman is entitled to serve the bank on the basis of the transfer order made by the management . As the workman has not worked for a pretty long time , on the principle of " no work no pay" he will not be entitled for any back wages . It is prima facie established that the workman was transferred from one branch to another in Ludhiana to which he has nor complied with . Accordingly, this order for permitting the workman tojoin will be effective without any prejudices to the right ofthe management to take any action according to law and rules of the Bank. The management of the bank is directed to permit the workman to join on the branch he was transferred within a month. Let the Central Government be informed. File is to be consigried.

G. K. SIIARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 19 अगस्त , 2008

का. आ. 2569.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण , चण्डीगढ़ नं. 1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 183/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-08-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/105/2000- आई आर (बी-1 ) ]

बी. के. मनचन्द, अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 19th August , 2008 S.O. 2569.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 183/ 2000) of Central Government, Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court - 1 , Chandigarh , as shown in the Annexure, In the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of Patiala, and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 19-08-2008.

[No. L- 12012/ 105/ 2000 - IR ( B - 1 )] B. K.MANCHANDA , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1 CHANDIGARH

Case I.D. No. 183/2000

Smt. Amarjit Kaur W/o Sh . Ashok Kumar, Ro VPO Ramgarh, Distt. Panchkula (Haryana)

........Applicant

Versus

( 1 ) The Branch Manager State Bank of Patiala , Ram Garh, Distt. Panchkula (Haryana).

(2) The Asstt . General Manager- 11 ( Haryana ) , State Bank ofPatiala , SCO Nos . 103-107 , Sector 8 -C , Chandigarh

Respondent

APPEARANCES

None

For the workman

Sh . N. K. Zakhmi For the managment :

AWARD

Passed on 5-8-2008

Central Govemment vide Notification No. L - 12012/ 105/2000 - IR ( B - I) dated 25-5-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudiction:

"Whether the action of the managment of State Bank ofPatiala in terminating the services of Sint . Amarjit Kaur W/o Shri Ashok Kumar w.e.f. 23-7-1999 is just and legal ? Ifnot to what reliefthe workman is entitled to?"

2.No one is present on behalf of workman , Learned representative of the management Shri N. K. Zakhmi is present . Since morning this reference has been called number oftimes . At 10.45 a.m. , it was ordered to be placed before this Tribunal once again at 2 p.in .. It is 2.30 now and on repeated calls to one is present , in spite of having of full knowledge of the proceedings of this reference . The reference is as old as referred to this Tribunal in the year 2000. On repeated calls since morning no one is present. Accordmgly, the reference is dismissed in default for non- prosecution . Central Government be informed accordingly. File to be consigned ,

Chandigarh.

5-8-2008 G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer 5200

THE GAZETTE OF INDIASI PEMBER 13 , 2008 BHADRA 2

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त. 2008

का. आ. 2570, औद्यागिक ि सरकार स्टेट बैंकक का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में पटियाला प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कारों केीद अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवादकीय सरकार अधिकरण , चण्डीगढ़ नं. के पंचा . 1992 ) को प्रकाशित करती है . जो कंन्द्रीय सरका9-08-2004 हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012: 09 /1992- आईआर भी

श्री. कं. मनचन्दा, अनुभाग ऑ New Delhi , the 19th August, 2008 S.O. 2570.- iti porsuance of Secnon 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947; 14 of 1947 ) , tlic Centra Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref No. 117 1992) of Central Cloverment . Industrial Tribunal - ca Labour Court - i , Chandigarh , as shown in the Anne in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of Patiala, and their workmen. received by the Central Government on 19-08-2008 .

No 1-12012041992-7 B. K.MANCHANDA . Secondo

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SURI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMEN INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT CHANDIGARH

Case L.D. No. 11:42

Shri Gurnam Singh Co Shri Tek ( hand Sharma , 24 S Nagar, Civill mes, tudhiana .

Versus

General Manager . State Bank of Patiala , Head lice. The Mall, Patiala - 1-400 )

Formhe

Sh . N. K. Zakkarai For the maangerment

AWAMO

Governinental Inde vii

9/92-18 (33 ! dal 36-2-1 ruferred the fe

PAR S 300 industrial dispute for juuheal adjudication on account int failure ofconciliation pencalings .

"Whether the action ofthe managmera of State Batık of Patiala in dismussing the workman Shri Ciuma Singh , Pean- crm Frash: vide their letter dated 28-1-91 wasjustified if not , what reliefthe workman is entitled to ? "

I have gone through ing reading of the parties Or serious scrutiny of the pleadings , it is evident that the workman was charged counts on 15-3-90 as follows:

1. That on 24-11 workman fraudulently withdrew a summ 10,000 from the Saving Bank Account No. 05359 wmtained by une Shri Jaswant Singh So Sh . Gurdev Singh. resident of village Harpalpur by altering the amount of the wahdrawal form signed and partly filled in by the acenum holder from Rs . 1000 13 Rs . 10,000 and be writing in words a sum of Rs . 10,000 therein After receiving the payment . the worknian handal ver a sum of Rs . 1,000 10 the said Sh. funt Singh atud pocketed the balance amount of Rs . 9.000 .

2. On 8-12-89 , the a sum of Rs . 1 , Account by alter Rs . 1.700 on the withdrawal form partly lilled in and signed by Jaswant Sing and by writing in words a summof Rs . 1700 therein , the workm after receiving assRs. 1,700 from the telfer handed over to Shri Jawant Singh and pocketed the b.:lolRs 1000 . man fraudalently withdrew the aforementioned S.B. the figure of Rs 7010 In The workman reodied to the charge sheet and considering the reply antistatory, the management ordered for and enquy and enquiry officer after conducting the enqury gave it report on both et die charges as well prosed . The scipimary aatharny on the basis of the enquiry repon ! aller giving a show cause notice and the opprometio da personal hearing inflicted punishment of disnussaisite of the workuun on 28-1-92. which gave art the workman to raise this industrial dispute.

The workmen crimshes sted that he was not altorderapa opportunity of being heard , opportunity for co exprication was not given, coquby oftieer was now pynted as per the provisions of law and the disciplinary at its withourapplying its neind inflicted the purtoskmetidassal. On the other land . the management in its wrish sidemeat bas alleged that enquiry was conducted iranand reasonable procedure opportunity of being licarian esry stage was given to the [ भाग ॥- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

workman and there was no violation of any of the rules of principle of natural justice . Both of the parties adduced their evidence as per the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act . The enquiry report and proceedings are on record. I have gone through the entire enquiry file.

First of all , 1 have to discuss whether the enquiry was conducted in a fair, proper and reasonable manner and whether the enquiry officer while conducting the enquiry complied with the principles of natural justice.

On careful perusal of enquiry file, it is evident that vide letter No. 2DP/Per . Dated 7-6-90 Zonal Manager, Personnel (disciplinary authority ) appointed Shri B.S. Luthra as enquiry officer to enquire the matter on the charges leveled against the workman . This letter also contains the procedure to be followed by the enquiry officer while conducting the enquiry and the copy of this letter along with the copy of the charge sheet was served on the workman on 7-6-90 itself. The enquiry officer afforded full opportunity to the workman at every state as is evident from the proceedings of enquiry held on different dates . The workman as MW- I has himself admitted that he participated on each and every hearing of the enquiry, management has produced all the witnesses in his presence and he has cross - examined all of them. No doubt , in his cross - examination , he has also stated that he made complaints against the enquiry officer to the management but of no use. But this fact of making complaint has not find place in the affidavit of the workman or in the claim statement. It has only been mentioned that the enquiry officer was not appointed by the competent authority as per the provisions ofShastri Award and Desai Award read with B. P. Settlement . Thus , this is the casual statement of the workman as in its statement he has further stated that he cannot produce the copy ofany ofthe complaints . Thus , in absence of any such complaints, I am of the view that enquiry officer was duly and properly appointed by the disciplinary authority under the provisions of the relevant rules . The enquiry officer afforded the opportunity, as admittedby the workman , on every date hearing of enquiry. The workman cross - examined all the witnesses of the management . Thus , there seems to be no violation of principle of natural justice by the enquiry officer while conducting the enquiry and the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer in my opinion is a fair and reasonable procedure which causes no prejudice to the workman .

Now it is open for this Tribunal about the approach ofthe enquiry officer while proving both of the charges leveled against the workman . Both of the charges are relating to a man named as Shri Jaswant Singh who has a Saving Bank Account No. 20534/59 in the concerned branch. Shri Jaswant Singh was examined by the enquiry officer who has categorically stated how the fraud was committed with him . On two occasions he took the

5201

भारत का राजपत्र सितम्बर 13 , 2008/ भाद्र 22, 1930

assistance of the workman . On first occasion , the workman withdrew an amount of Rs . 10,000 by making alterations in withdrawal form , gave Rs . 1000 to Shri Jaswant Singh and kept Rs. 9000 for himself. Likewise , on the another occasion he withdrew 1700 in the same manner , kept Rs . 1000 for himself and give Rs . 700 only to Shri Jaswant Singh and thus, misappropriated Rs . 10,000 for his personal use . Shri Jaswant Singh was cross-examined by the workman and the opening sentence of the cross- examination is regarding the taking of loan by the workman from Shri Jaswant Singh to which Shri Jaswant Singh denied . Thus , from the cross -examination and the chief examination of Shri Jaswant Singh , it is evident that the workman admitted that he is having Rs . 10,000 of Shri Jaswant Singh but it was loan towhich Shri Jaswant Singh denied. Shri Jaswant Singh in his evidence has categorically narrated how he came to know about the fraud committed with him . The witnesses of the bank, the concerned Branch Manager and the other employees having also given the evidence regarding the transaction on two occasions and most of the witnesses have specifically stated that the workman Shri Gurnam Singh was the key figure in receiving the cash and partly handed over to Shri Jaswant Singh and keep the balance with him. Thus , the enquiry officer after considering the entire material on record has rightly held both of the charges to be proved against the workman . Shri Jaswant Singh has examined thoroughly and the evidence of Jaswant Singh was well corroborated by other witnesses of the bank . Accordingly, the enquiry officer has rightly held both of the charges well proved against thework.

The enquiry officer was duly appointed. He adopted a fair and reasonable procedure for conducting enquiry.. The enquiry officer also complied with the principles of natural justice and after proper scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the management before the enquiry officer, has rightly given its finding of both of the charges being wellproved.

The workman was working in a financial institution and certainly he committed fraud with the customer of the bank . By such activity not only the trust of the customer in the bank is lost but the confidence of the management in the workman is also lost which is fatal for the functioning of a financial institution like the respondent. For the fraudulent act of the workman the management has rightly dismissed him from the service and accordingly , this reference is answered positively that the action of the management of State Bank of Patiala in dismissing the workman Shri Gurnam Singh Peon-cum- Fras vide theirletter dated 28-1-91 was justified and the workman is not entitled to any relief. Let Central Government be informed. File be consigned.

GK . SHARMA , Presiding Officer 5202

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13 , 2008 / BHADRA 22.1951

नई दिल्ली, 20 अगस्त, 2008

का. आ. 2571, औद्यागिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा । 7 के अनुसरण में. कंन्द्रीय सरकार ड सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियांजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में कंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 13/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-08-2008 को प्राप्त हुःधा था !

[सं. एल-22012/56/2001 आई. आर.। सो एम अजय कुमार गौड़ , डंम्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 20th August , 2008

S.O. 2571. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947114 of 1947), the Ceriral Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 13 2002 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- br Court , Jabalpur us shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the management of Mohan Colliery of WCL, and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 20-08-2008 .

[No.L -22012:56 2001-1CM - J AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORETHECENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGITALCAR/ 13/ 0

Presiding Officer : Shri C. M. Singh

TheGeneral Secretary ,

R.K.K.M.S. ( INTUC ) .

PO: Chandameta.

Workman Unigin Chhindwada (MP )

Versus

General Manager .

WCL . Pench Area ,

PO Parasia.

Managemen Distt.Chhindwara ( MP )

AWARD

Passed on this 4th day of August, 2008 1. TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour uk its Notification No. L- 22012-56-2001 - URICM -1 ) dated 24-12-2001 has referred the following dispute for adjudicaiton by this tribunal : -

"Whether the action of the management of Kukurınunda O'c Mine of WCL .. Pench Arca , P. () Parasia, Distt . Chhindwara ( MP ) in not correcting the date of birth of Shri Sk . Sabbir Sto Sk . Usman as

PART 1 St. 3 (ii ) | 23-8-1952 as per school documents is legal and justified? If not , to what reiiet he is entitled to?" 2. Vide order dated 5-8-05 passed on the ordersheet of this reference proceeding , the referenced proceeded exparte against the workman Sk Sabbir Union , No statement of claim has been filed on behalf of the workman Union.

3. The case of the managethem in brief is as follows . That on 2-5-87 , the workman Shri Sabbir was informed this service particulars including ins date of birth shown in the office record and asked for objection , ifimy . The workman did not file any objection . In Form - B Register and in other office records , the date of both of the workman Ihas been recorded as 1-10-1941. The mesman has raised the present dispute in the year 2000 whereas the retired from services in the year 2001. He has raised the present dispute on the fag end ofhis service . The dispute was cartier raised by the workman through RKKMS Luon and the matter was settled on 2-7-1991. The School Certificate is not genuine and is not a legal document. The wukmah stopped for challenging the date of birth entered in the various statutory registers 4. As the case protecded experte against the workman. Union there is no evidence on record on behalf of the workman/ Union .

5. The management nende lo prove their case filed affidavit of their witness Shri Ratesh Ku , Sinha , theo working as Sr. Personnel oicer in Western Coalfields Limited, Pench Area . Dist! Chhindwara.

6. I have heard Sher : 1. K. Sinusiti , Advocate for management. I have very catchy gone through the evidence un record . The case of the management is fully established and proved froze the ancontroverted and unchallenged affidavit in witness Shri Rajesh Ku. Sinha.

7. Therefore the refeninge is decided in favour of the management and agamst he workman Union without any order as to costs holding that the action of the management of Kukurmula De Mine of WCI . Pench Arca. P.O. Parasia , Distt . Chlomata ( MP ) in not correcting the date of birth of Shri Sabbir Sto Sk . Usman as 23-8-1952 as per school decals is legal and justitied and consequently the workm.tr is Bel canied to any refiel.

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

CAM SINGH . Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 20 अगम्य 2008

का, आ. 2572, गक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा के अनुभगण में केन्द्रीय सरकार क्ल्यू. सो.एल. के प्रचंधतंत्र के संभों और उनके कर्मकारों कं [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

बीच अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 98/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-08-2008 प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं एल-22012/107/1997- आई. आर. ( सीएम - [[ ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the20th August , 2008

S.O. 2572. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 98/ 1998) ofthe Central Govemment Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL , and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 20-08-2008.

[No. L-22012/ 107 / 1997 - IR(CM -11 )] AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT /LC/R/98/98

PresidingOfficer : Shri C. M. Singh

General Secretary,

Κ. Κ.Μ. Ρ . ( HMS) .

PO: Junnardeo,

5203

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13 , 2008 / भाद्र 22 , 1930

services. During his service period of underground mine driller, he had fallen sick and was admitted at Kanhan Area Hospital of the management and during the period of hospitalisation , he was dismissed from service on the ground of absenteesim . In the departmental enquiry , he had submitted the medical certificate for the period of his illness but the Enquiry Officer did not considered the same. Theworkman was not given opportunity to defend himself properly . To minimize the strength of surplus manpower , the management had adopted this illegal way of retrenchment . Absenteeism is not a major misconduct but for a minor misconduct , the punishment of dismissal is not justified and proper . The matter was brought to the notice ofNagpur Headquarter of WCL . But in reply , the management has informed the Union as follows- "Shri Mansoo Sto Adgoo Ex - Dresser Ghodawari Colliery has crossed the age of 40 years and hence not coming in the consideration zone . " It is prayed that the workman be reinstated in service with backwages and all benefits.

3. Vide order dated 12-9-06 passed on the ordersheet of this reference proceeding, the reference proceeded exparte against workman /Union ,

Workman Union

Distt. Chhindwada (MP)

Versus

The Manager,

Ghorawari Colliery ofWCL, PO Ghorawari, Kanhan Area, Distt . Chb.cara (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 6th day of August , 2008 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L -22012/ 107/97 /IR( CM - II ) dated 9-6-98 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-

"Whether the action of the Manager, Ghorawari Colliery, PO:Ghorawari , Tah . Junnardeo, Distt . Chhindwara ( MP) in dismissing Sh . Mansoo S/o Adgoo, driller - cum-dresser ofGhorawari colliery of WCL, Kanhan Area from services w.e.f. 2-8-96 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the worker is entitled ? "

2. The case of workman Shri Mansoo Union is as follows . That the workman had 20 years neat and clean 4. The case ofthe management in brief is as follows: The workman was a regular absentee. He was given various chargesheets, warnings etc. for remaining absent from duty on various occasions . That the services of Shri Mansoo, Ex-Driller- cum - Dresser were governed by the provision of Coal Mines Regulations 1957. " As he was a competent person he was not supposed to remain absent without prior permission / sanctioned leave . The workman should have sent sick report either to the Management/Manager or to the Medical Officer of the Colliery. The absentecism is rampant in the Coal Mine and when the workman remains absent, the work of production of coal is adversely affected. Considering the seriousness of the misconduct , the management is bound to take serious action in the case of absenteeism. The workman absented himself from duty w.e.f. 14-7-85 to 19-7-85. When he reported for duty considering the explanation given by him, he was permitted to resume duty w.e.f. 20-7-85 by issuing him a warning letter No. 1147/85 dated 19-7-85 . He was again absented from duty for the period from 28-9-85 to 15-10-85 . Again a warning letter No. 1713/85 dated 15-10-85 was issued to him for the same . He again absented himself from duty from 11-2-86 to 12-2-86 without permission , intimation or sanctioned leave. Again he was issued with a warning letter. The workman again remained absent from duty w.e.f. 28-2-86 to 2-5-86 . Out of the above ( he was reported to be sick for a period from 7-4-86 to 19-4-86) for remaining absent, he was issued with a chargesheet dated 2-5-86 . The workman submitted reply dated 16-5-86 wherein he admitted the charges levelled against him and assured the management that he will not repeat the same. Considering 5204

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 13 , 2008 / BHADRA 22, 1930

PART II- SLC . 3 ( ii ) |

7. The case of the tratagement is fully established and proved from the unchallenged and uncontroverted affidavit of their witness Stori Lalji Indulkar.

8. Therefore the reference is decided ex parte in favour of the management and against the Workman Union without any orders as to cosis holding that the action of the Manager , Ghorawarı Colliery , PO : Ghorawarı , Teh . Junnardeo , Distt . Chhindwara ( MP ) in dismissing Sh. Mansoo S/ o Adjoo , driller- cum-dresser of Ghorawari Colliery of WCL , Kanhan Area from services w... 2-8-96 is legal and justifed and consequently the workman is not entitled to any relict .

9. 1.ct the copies of the awardbe sent to the Government of India , Ministry of Labour & Employment asper rules.

C.M. SINGH . Presiding Onicer नई दिल्ली, 20 अगस्त, 2008

का. आ. 2573. औद्योगिक विधाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा के अनुसरण में कंन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियांजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट अंग्यांग विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर के पंचाट संदर्भ सं. 39 :1995 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-108 2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22 !! 12 :44 : 1994 - आई आर ( सः । ! ] अजय अभार गौद , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the " Oth August, 2008

S.O. 2573. Je pursuance of Section 17 at the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947114 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 39 194.51 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCI , and their workmen , which was receivedby the Central Government on 20-08-2008.

[ No. 1-22012-448/ 1994-11-11) AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk, Orficer ANNEXURE

the above undertaking given by the workman , a voient view was taken against him and he was issued with a warning letter , the workman again remained absent frop 」 duty from 10-2-87 to 20-4-87 ( date of issue of show cause notice) . For this misconduct , he was issued with a show cause notice dated 20-4-87 . On hearing the workman , the management again considered his case sympathetically and he was permitted to resume duty an issuing a warming letter. The workrtian again remained absent from duty wef. 1-2-88 to 7-9-88 . For this , he was again issued with a chargesheet dated 7-9-88 . In reply, the workman ademned the charge and submitted that he couldnut come on due to illness of his father and uncle. The mag issued a letter dated 7-9-88 w the workman stating ti reply was found unsatisfactory. Adepartmental eyr was conducted against him . In the meantime , the Muthiban was permitted to resume duty w.e.f. 9-9-88 The worlagan again absented from duty w.c.f. 18-7-91 to 9-10-91 . For this misconduct ,he was again issued with a chargesheet dated 9-10-91 . 'The workman submitted his reply . Considering the explanation given by the workman , he was again issued with a warning letter . The workman again remaned absent from duty w.e.f. 1-2-92 10 29-4-92 . After considering the explanation given by the workman and with a view tort him one more upportunity to improve himself, be was permitted to resume duty w.e.f. 2-5-92 and he was issued with a warning letter . The workman again absented himself from 28-5-93 to 25-8-93 . In this manner, the verg remained absent from duty without intomation permission or sanctioned leave several times . The workman absented himselfw.e.f. 1-4-95 1031-8-95, for this misconduct , he was issued with a chargesheet. An enquiry was conducted inte the charges leveled against the workman un accordance with law . The Inquiry Officer after completing the enq.iry submitted the enquiry report dated 31-10-95 holding hou the charges leveled against the workman are proved. Having received the enquiry report, the management a letter dated 11-5-96 to the workman intimating that penting enquiry, he was permitted to resume duty but be rongine absent w.e.f. 1-3-96 without intimation permission or sanctioned leave . He was once again advised tu renen for duty within 3 days of the receipt of this letter . The workman neither replied to the said letter nor reported on duty . The management was left with no option but to teominec nis service vide order dated 2-8-96 .

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

No. CGIT/LC /R/39/ 05

Presiding Officer : Shri C. M, Singh

5. As the case proceeded ex parte against the workman Union , there is no evidence on record an eit ofworkman Union The management in order to prove ticin case filed affidavit of their witness Shri Lalji Indurkar then posted as Dy . Personnel Manager at Datla Sul: Arca , Kanhan Arça in WCL.

.. Workman Union 6. I have heard Shri A. K. Shashi , Advocave learned counsel for the management . I have very careful one through the evidence on record .

Shri Kishan, Sto . Shri Gendlal , Tub Loader, Co. Shri P. K. Ваплетјее . Koyla Mazdoor Sangh , Post Chandametta. Distt . Chhindwada ( MP ) [ भाग 1 ]- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

Versus

The Manager,

Bhamori Colliery ofWCL,

Pench Area,

PO Bhamori -Via-Parasia,

Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 29th day of July , 2008 1.The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide itsNotification No. 1-22012(448)/94 - IR C- II dated 16-2-95 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:-

"Whether the action of the Manager , Bhamori Colliery of WCL, Pench Area , PO Bhamori Via Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara (M.P. ) in dismissing Shri Kishan S /o Gendlal T. No. 2976 Tub -loader of Bhamori Colliery of WCL, Pench Area from services w.e.f. 6-9-88 is justified ? If not , to what relief the worker is entitled to ?"

2. The case of workman in brief is as follows . That the workman Kishan was employed as tub -loader with the Bhamori Colliery , WCL, Pench Area, Parasia since 1976. Due to physical weakness, he remained absent from duty in the year 1988. Thereafter he again joined duty in the Bhamori Colliery but the management without any reason terminated his services in the year 1988 , hence the reference .

3. The case ofthe management in brief is as follows . That workman Shri Kishan was a habitual absentee and therefore a chargesheet dated 5-7-88 was issued to him. The workman replied the chargesheet. Reply was not found satisfactory and therefore a departmental enquiry was conducted against the workman according to rules . The workman during the course of enquiry accepted his guilt. Under the above circumstances , the punishment of dismissal from service was awarded to him .

4. Vide order dated 16-1-07, the reference proceeded ex parte against the workman. As the reference proceeded ex patte against the workman , there is no evidence on behalf ofthe workman on record

5. The managment in order to prove their case filed affidavit oftheir witness Shri D. K. Chourey , then posted asDy. Personnel Manager , WCL, Pench Area.

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

7. The case of the management is fully established and proved from the uncontroverted and unchallenged affidavit ofmanagement's witness Shri D.K. Chourey. The 3272G1/08-9

5205

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13 , 2008/ भाद्र 22 , 1930

reference is , therefore , decided in favour of the management and against the workman without any orders as to costs holding that the action of the Manager, Bhamori Colliery of WCL, Pench Area , PO Bhamori Via Parasia , Distt . Chhindwara (M. P ) in dismissing Shri Kishan S'o Gendlal T.No. 2976 tub - loader of Bhamori Colliery of WCL, Pench Arca from services w.e.f. 6-9-88 is justified and consequently the workman is not entitled to any relief.

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

C. M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 20 अगस्त , 2008

का. आ. 2574.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 126/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-08-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/209/2002 - आईआर( सीएम -11 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 20th August , 2008

S.O. 2574. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 126/2003) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- curn - Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the management of Western Coalfield Limited, and their workmen , which was received by the CentralGovemment on 20-08-2008 .

[No. L. -22012/209/ 2002 - IR(CM - II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORETHECENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/ R/126/03

Presiding Officer : Shri C. M. Singh

Workman/Union The General Sccretary, Bhartiya Koyala Khadan Mazdoor Sangh ( BMS) , Vishwakarma Bhawan, PO.Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara, Chhindwada 5206

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 13 , 2008 /BHADRA 22. 193

Versus

The Manager,

Western Coaltield Limited of Pench Area , PO Parasia , Disit . Chhindwara. Chhindwara

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 7th day of August, 2008 I The Government of India , Ministry of Labou : vide its Notification No 1.- 22012 : 209 /2002 - IR ( CM- II ) ) dated 11-7-2003 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal .

"Whether the demand of the BKKMS from the management of WCL , Pench Area for regularizing Shri Rajendra Singh working in Barkui Central Hospital as Sr. Optometrist in Technical Guide -A is legal and justified ? If so, to what relif is the workman entitled and from what date "?"

2. Vide order dated 29-8-05 passed on the ordersheet of this reference proceeding, the reference proceeded exparte against the workman Union , No statement of claim has been filed on behalf of workman / Union .

3. The case ofthe management in briefis as follows. - Theworkman Union has claimed promotion from the post ofSr. Optometrist Technical Grade-B to the post of the Optometrist Technical Grade A. The terms ofreference are vague. The tenns of reference do not speak from which date the clain has been made by the workman . Workman Shri Rajendra Singh is working as Sr. Optometrist in Barkui Central Hospital in T & S Grade -B . As per cadre scheme, the zone for promotion from 'T & S Grade -B 10 T & S Grade A according to seniority . The official dat of T & S Grade-B is senior Technical action) Optometrist . That in the instant case , the presection order was issued at Area level in isolation and The Rahra Singh was promoted as Sr. Optometrist in T & Gizde Bw.e.f. 19-1-91 . That on the same date by the me ant.ority, he was granted difference of wages of T & SGrade -A w.e.f. 1-4-1992 . That the basic facts of the case are har Shri Rajendra Singh has never worked on higher pade iw nue ut his promotion and sanction of difference it wapest !! under enquiry and review before the Competent Authority . Any letter or order issued wrongly and inadvertently in contravention or rule cannot provide the claim to the illegally benefitted persons . That Shri Ragexdra Singh has never discharged the duties of the higher category. In fact he did duties as per his Jesignation . As already stated, the payment of difference of wages to him which has been made earlier is under xamination .

[ PS3( it) |

4. As the case proceeded esparte against the workınan Union there is no evidence on behalf of the workman Union on record .

5. The management in order to prove their case tiled affidavit of their witness Sari 11 , K. Singh , then working as Dy. Chiefpersonnel Manager at WCT . , Pench Area .

6. I have heard Shri A. K. Shashi , Advocate the learned counsel for the management and perused the evidence on record

7. The case of the management is fully established and proved from the areantroverted and unchallenged affidavit of management witness Stri H. K. Singh .

8. In view of the there , the reference is decided in favour of the management and against the workman [ hion without any orders as to coals holding that the demand of the BKKMS from the management of WCL , Pench Area for regularizing Shri Rajendra Singh working in Barkui Central Hospital as Sr. Optometrist in technical Grade- A is not legal and justified. Consequemly the workman is not entitled to any relief.

9. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Goveminent of India. Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.

CM SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 20 अगस्त , 2008

का, आ, 2575, आद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की ाए । अनुग्ण में केन्द्रीय मरकार एस.ई. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियाजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जबलपुर के पंचार (संदर्भ में. 269/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-08-2008 प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -2201296 1999- आई. आर. (सोएम -11 ) | अजयकु‌मार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delbroth August , 2008

5.O. 2575, tee of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1917 ) , the Central Government herety pushes the award (Ref. No. 269. 1999) ofthe Central Cover Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Jabai shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of $ 1.0 , and their workinen , which was received by the Central Government ол 20-08-2008.

No.1-22012 /96/ 1999 - IR ( CM - I1j | [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) )

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/LC/R/269/99

PresidingOfficer : Shri C. M. Singh

TheSecretary,

JantaMazdoor Sangh (HMS) , Amradandi ,. Store Complex ,

PO: Amlai Colliery.

...Workman/Union Distt. Shahdol

Versus

GeneralManager

Sohagpur Area of SECL,

PO: Dhampuri ,

Distt. Shahdol (MP) ,

Shahdol

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 4th day of August , 2008 1.TheGovernment of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No.L - 22012/96 / 99 / IR ( ( CM - II ) dated 30-7-99 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-

"Whether the action of the Sub Area Manager Burhar SubArea of the SECL, PO : Dhanpuri ,Distt. Shahdol in not regularizing as Machinist with effect from July, 1993 of Sh. Ajay Singh is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled?"

2.Vide order dated 15-3-05 , passed on the ordersheet of this reference proceeding , the reference proceeded exparte against the workman Shri Ajay Singh /Union , 3. The case ofthe management in brief is as follows. Workman Shri Ajay Singh was initially appointed as General Mazdoor Category-1 during the year 1988. He was promoted as Machinist helper Category- Il vide office order No. 816 dated 1-2-94. He did not complete the requisite attendance in a calendar year as on July, 1993. The workman was not issued any authorization to work as machinist by the Competent Authority. Hence he was not entitled for promotion to the post of Machinist . However he became eligible to consider to the post of Machinist Category- IV. His case was considered in the light of recommendations of Departmental Promotional Committee , the workman was regularized as Machinist Category -IV vide office order No. 2662 dated 20-10-95 . As the workman has already been regularized to the post ofMachinist Cat- IV, the present reference becomes infructuous .

4. As the reference proceeded exparte against the workman , there is no evidence on behalf ofworkman/Union on record. The management in order to prove their case

5207

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13 , 2008/ भाद्र 22, 1930

exmined their witness Shri M.1 .. Prajapat , then working as Sub Area Manager in SECL , Sohagpur Arca .

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

6. The case of the management is fully established and proved from the uncontroverted and unchallenged affidait of management's witness Shri M.L. Prajapat .

7. The reference is , therefore , answered in favour of the management and against the workman / Union without any orders as to costs holding that the action of the Sub AreaManager ,Burhar Sub Area ofthe SECL. PO : Dhanриті , Distt. Shahdol in not regularizing Sh. Ajay Singh as Machinist with effect from July, 1993 is legal and justified and consequently the workman is not entitled to any relief.

8. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India , Ministry ofLabour & Employment asper rules.

C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 20 अगस्त, 2008

का. आ. 2576, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.ई. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में कंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 235/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-08-2008 प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/278/1996- आई. आर.( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 20th August , 2008

S.O. 2576-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 235 / 1997) ofthe Central Government industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofSECL , and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 20-08-2008.

[No. 1-22012/278/ 1996- IR(C- 11) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR . Desk Officer ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/LC/ R/235/97

Presiding Officer : Shri C. M. Singh Shri N.L.Pandey,General Secretary , M.P.K.M.S ( HMS) , Amrapali Duplex , Near Radha Swami Satsang, NapierTown,

... Workman/ ( Union Jabalpur.

5208

TIM GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 13 , 2008 /BHADRA 22, 1930

Versus

General Manager ,

SECL , Korba Area, PO Korba Colliery.

Tah. Korba. Distt . Bilaspur

... Management

AWAR

Passed on this 7th day of Agust - 2018 1. The Government ofIndia , Ministry its Notification No. L- 22012-278/96 - IR ( C- 1107 has referred the following dispune for adjudicatish tribunal :

"Whether the demand of the M.P Rela Maniat Sabha ( HMS ) for regularization of St.Rares Kuonared !ather contract workerstlist engaged in them derground mines of Surak Colliery ofSECI . is legal and justified ? If so,tat relief are the workmen entitled and from whichdans 2. Vide onder dated 11-3-05 passed on the ori of this reference proceding the reference pro exparte against the werkerzen Union Nustatcmcular has been filed on behalf of the woskmen Lon alleged by ile maa Asperетето.

nature of work that has been

will be paid by the comme

3. The case of the management in brief is as logo The contractors Sers : Sha R.S. Kaushik and Deer were given certain miscellaneous work which were reg : permanent nor perearms in nature That the execute such miscellaneous work m Vig such as romoval of set . construction of side wall , construction of side pillar. washing, cleaning me .. tenders were invited from the contractors and Sar .. Kaushik was awardeennew order No. 220 dated 14-2-87 for removal of sth ca. Subsequently he was given several work ord removal of silt ele . Somitarly contracter Shri Deen Namin was also awarded contract for execution of miscellursas work in 't Fle was given the work of removal of siltid work order. The said contractor was awarded the of whitewashing are constriction of pillars and drainage. That the aforesaid work were completed rd work completion certificate insince 1 teenagem. That the work of misceanwork It is !! Y engage the alsof him. It is specificamard others were dinar of the contact : execution of drining and oth contractors en werk : illegalityfirregularity in awer η επισης

[PART 11-S . 3 (ii ) ] nature of work to the contractor . It doesnot amount to violation of any production of law. The claims were not engaged by the contractors for execution of the work given to them under the contractor by the management of SECI., KorbaArea .

4. As the case procceded exparte against the workmen/Union , there is no evidence on behalf of workmen Union on record .

5. The management in order to prove their case filed affidavit of their witness Shri V.R.Hakshi then posted as Personnel Manager.

6. I have heard Shri A.K.Shashi , Advocate learned counsel for the management and perused the evidence on record.

7. The case of the management is fully established and proved from the uncontroverted and unchallenged affidavit of management's witness Shri V.R. Bakshi .

8. In view of the above, the reference is decided in favour of the management and against the workmen't ! nion without any orders as to costs holding that the demand of the M.P.Koyla Mazdoor Sahlia ( HMS ) for regularization of Sh.Ramesh Kumar and 44 other contract workers ( list enclosed) engaged in the underground mines 01 Surakachhar Colliery of SCI is not legal and justified. Consequently the workmen are not entitled to any rehet.

9. Let the copies of the award he sent to the Government of India, Ministry nilabour & Employment as per rules.

CM. SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 20 अगस्त, 2008

का. आ. 2577 आंद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( [ 9:47 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केंन्द्रीय सरकार एस.ई. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्यांक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्यागिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 19/1995 ) को प्रकाशित करता है, जो केंन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-08-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012: 6/ 1995- आई आर ( सो -11 ) अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 20th August , 2008

S.O. 2577.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Irulustrial Disputes Acı . 1917114 at 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 119. 1995 ) ofthe Central Govemement Tudustrial Tribunal - carm- Labour Court , Jabalpor as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECt.. and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 20-08-2008.

No 1. -220126 1995 - IR( C-1101 AJAY KUMAR GALUR , Desk Officer [ भाग II- জण्ड 3 (ii) ]

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/LC/R/ 119/95

Presiding Officer : Shri C. M. Singh

The President

M.P.K.M.S (HMS) ,

NawinNagar, Post.Amlai Colliery,

...Workman/Union Distt . Shahdol (MP)

Versus

Sub Area Manager,

Chachai and Rungta Group,

Post Amlai Colliery,

Distt. Shahdol (MP)

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 5th day of August-2008 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L-22012/6/95 -IR (C-II ) dated 22-6-95 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:-

"Whether the action of the Sub Area Manager, Chachai & Rungta Group of Mines of SECL Sohagpur Area of SECL in dismissing Shri Manohar Sto Bahira , T. No. 844 , Viveknagar incline w.e.f. 23-9-1992 is legat and justified ? Ifnot , to what relief the workman is entitled? "

2.Vide order dated 4-5-06 passed on the ordersheet of this reference proceeding, the reference proceeded exparte against the workmen Shri Manohar / union . No statement of claim has been filed on behalf of the workman/union .

3. The case of the management in brief is that workman Shri Manohar was initially appointed as General Mazdoor w.e.f. 4-10-1976. He was a habitual absentee . He was cautioned for his poor attendance and was advised to improve his conduct but he did not show any improvement. The attendance particulars of workman in the year 1989 is only 74 days . He has attended 56 days in the year 1990. He has put 74 days attendance in the year 1991. Due to aforesaid poor attendance and habitual absenteeism without intimation and sanctioned leave , the management was compelled to take disciplinary action against him . The workman was issued with a chargesheet under clause 26.24 of the certified standing orders. The reply submitted by the workman dated 14-5-92 was not found satisfactory. A departmental enquiry was conducted against the workman properly and legally . The Enquiry Officer submisted his report before the Competent Authority holding that the charges arc proved against the

5209

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13 , 2008/ भाद्र 22, 1930

workman . On the basis of findings submitted by Enquiry Officer, proposal was put up by the Colliery Manager for initiating punishment before the Competent Authority i.e. for dismissal from service which was approved by the Competent Authority. That workman Shri Manohar was dismissed fromthe services of the company vide letter dated 23-9-92 . The workman submitted a mercy appeal to the management . On the ground of mercy, the workman was offered re-employment and he was posted at Jamuna & Kotma Area but he was reluctant to resume his duties . At this stage, he submitted his resignation.

4. As the reference proceeded exparte against the workman/union, there is no evidence on behalf of the workman/union on record .

5. The management in order to prove their case filed affidavit of their witness Shri K. A. Sunder, then posted as Dy. Personnel Manager in Amlai & Bangwar SubArea.

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

7. The case of the management is fully established and proved from the uncontroverted and unchallenged affidavit oftheir witness Shri K.A. Sunder . Therefore the reference is decided in favour of the management and against the workman / union without any orders as to costs holding that the action of the Sub-Area Manager, Chachai & Rungta Group of Mines of SECL, Sohagpur Area of SECL in dismissing Shri Manohar S/ o Bahira , T.No. 844, Viveknagar incline w.e.f. 23-9-1992 is legal and justified and consequently the workman is not entitled to any relief.

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

C. M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 20 अगस्त, 2008

का. आ. 2578,- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.ई. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 115/1996 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-08-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22035/13/ 1991- आई.आर. ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 20th August , 2008

S.O. 2578-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 115/1996) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , 5210

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 13,2008/ BHALDRA 22, 1930

fabalpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the management of SECL, and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government an 20-08-2008.

[No.1.-22015/10 / 1991- ( R( C - 11 ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR . Desk Offer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT.

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/ 115/96

Presiding Officer : Shri C. M. Singh

Smt . Anjan,

Dafai. Chirimuri , Prathamik Paathshala ke sameep,

Chirimiri ,

...Workman ייו Distt. Surguja (MP)

Versus

Dy.General Manager .

SECL, Chirimiri collicry, PostChirimiri ,

Distt . Surguja ( MP )

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 31st day of July , 2008 1. The Goverrunent of India , Ministry of labour vide its Notification No 1. -22015/ 13 /91 - IR(C- II ) dated 25-4-96 has referred the following dispute for adjudicarion by his tribunal:

"Whether the action of the management of SPC 、 Chirimiri Colliery in retrenching Sh.Anjan tron service is legal and justified ? If not , what relict th concerned workman is entitled to?"

2. The case of legal heir of deceased workman Sot.Anjan in brief is as follows . That Shri Arjan was in the employment of SECL . Chirmuri colliery, Distt. Surgajt. MP. That to bis surprise , it was informed that he will be retiring trom service on 1-7-89 . His date of birth as shuwa in the school certificate is 17-7-35 The age ofretirement in the colliery is 60 years and thus workman Shri Anjan wonid have completed 60 years only on 17-7-1995 and therefore he is entitled to continue in service till 17-7-95 hun he was illegally retired on 1-7-1989 That the workman niet with authorities and submitted copies of documents as pul of his date ofbirth but the management did not consider the same . When the management refused to decide his age. he filed perition before the Hon'ble High Court . The Hon'bleHigh Court in the petition M.P No 3358.89 directed that the matter be decided by Age Determination Committee . The School Certificate should have been considered by the Age Determination Committee Phat there was no record with the management to show that

[PART 11- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] the age of the workman was other than 17-7-1935 . That no reasons have been given by the Age Determination Committee and the management for rejecting the documents ofthe workman . 1 he action of the management is unjust , unfair and illegal. It is, therefore , prayed that the reference be decided in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased workman and against the managernent.

3.The case of the management in brief is as follows . That the workman has claimed his date of birth as 17-7-1935, whereas as per the record being maintainedby the management of SEC ) , Chirimiri Colliery , the date of birth ofworkman has been recorded as 1-7-1989. The age ofretirement of the employees of the Coal India is 60 years . Therefore prior to attaining the age of 60 years , workman was issued with retiremem notice dated 31-12-1988 . That on attaining the age of retirement, workman stood retired w.c.f. 1-7-1989 . That according to Form- B register. workman's date of birllt is i - 7-1929 The workman was scrved with a copy of service excerpts wherein the date of birth of the deceased work man has been recorded as 1-7-929 . The deceased worsman didnot raise any objection on receipt of notice . On receipt of the order of Hon'bie High Court, the management referred the case of the workman to the Age Determination Committee for determination of the age of the workman. Afler considering the case of the workman as well as the statutory record, the Age Determination Committee has corme to the conclusion that the date of birth recorded in Form - 13 Register as 1-7-1929 is correct . In view of the above , the reference order deserves to be decided in favour of the management and against the workmam.

4. Vide order dated 15-12-05 , the case proceeded exparte against the workman As the case proceeded ex parte against legal heir of workman , there is no evidence on record on behalf of the legal heir ofthe workman, 5. The managemem in order to prove their case filed affidavit of their witness Shri Brij Mohan Rao , then working as Personnel Manager .

6. The case of management is fully established and proved from the uneantroverted and unchallenged alfidavit of management's witness Shri Brijmohan Rao . The reference , is theretore, decided in favour of the management and against the legat heir of the workman without any orders as to costs holding that the action of the management of SDC1 , Chirimiri Colliery in retrenching Sh.Anjan from service is legal and justified and consequently the legal heir of the workman is not entitled toany relief.

7. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India , Ministry of labour & Employment as per rules .

C.M. SINGII. PresidingOfficer [ माग 11-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 20 अगस्त, 2008 का, आ. 2579.- औद्योगिक विषाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार दी बैंक ऑफ राजस्थान लि, प्रबंधत्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 70/1995 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-8-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012 /175/1994-आई.आर. ( बी-3 ) ] बी. के. मनचन्दा, अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi, the 20th August, 2008

S.O. 2579. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 70/1995) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court Jaipur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the management of The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. , and their workmen , received by the Central Govertument on 20-8-2008 .

[No. L- 12012/ 175/ 1994- IR(B -3 ) ] B. K. MANCHANDA , Section Officer

अनुबन्ध केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण , जयपुर केस नं, सी. आई. टी. 70/95

रैफरेंसः केन्द्र सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली का आदेश क्रमांक एल-12012/ 175/94- आई. आर. ( बी.3 ) दिनांक 22-11-1995 श्री विनोद कुमार जैन पुत्र श्री गर्दन लाल , प्लाट नं. 31/71-03 वरूण पथ, मानसरोवर, जयपुर ।

-प्रार्थी

बनाम

दी असिसटेंट जनरल मेनेजर , दी बैंक ऑफ राजथान लि. सी-3 , सरदार पटेल मार्ग , सौ- स्कीम , जयपुर ।

5211

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13 , 2008/ भाद्र 22, 1930

management of the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. is justified in terminating the services of Shri Vinod Kumar Jain Peon & Farrash w.c.f. 21-10-86? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to and from what date !"

2. विवांद जो भेजा गया उसके संबंध में प्रार्थी की ओर से स्टेटमैंट ऑफ क्लेम पेश हुआ कि उसकी नियुक्ति 10-1-85 से 10-3-85 के लिए अप्रार्थी बैंक में की गई थी । उसके बाद अन्य आदेशों से प्रार्थी की अवधि समय - समय पर बढ़ाई जाती रही, इस तरह से पार्थी श्रमिक ने अप्रार्थी संस्थान में जनवरी , 1985 से अक्टूबर 1986 तक लगातार कार्य किया किन्तु अचानक ही अप्रार्थी सस्थान द्वारा 21-10-83 को मौखिक आदेश से प्रार्थी को सेवा से हटा दिया । प्रार्थी को यह आश्वासन अवश्य दिया कि उसे वापस सेवा में रखा जायेगा, इस आश्वासन के कारण प्रार्थी श्रमिक इन्तजार करता रहा लेकिन उसे कोई नौकरी नहीं दी गई । एक शिकायत इस संबंध में सहायक श्रम आयुक्त ( केन्द्रीय ) को प्रस्तुत की गई जिसपर अप्रार्थी कोसमझौता वार्ता हेतु आमंत्रित किया गया लेकिनकोई समझौता नहीं होने से उपरोक्त बिबाद भेजा गया है । क्लेम में प्रार्थी श्रमिक ने अपनी सेवा मुक्ति अनुचित व गैर कानूनी बताते हुए दर्शाया है कि उसने अप्रार्थी संस्थान में लगातार 240 दिन से अधिक दिनों तक कार्य किया एवं प्रार्थी श्रमिक की सेवा मुक्ति से पूर्व औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (जो आगे इस निर्णय में मात्र अधिनियम लिखा जायेगा ) की धारा 25 - एफ की पालना नहीं की गई । प्रार्थी को न तो कोई आरोप पत्र दिया गया न ही कोई जांच की गई । प्रार्थी जो कार्य करता था वह स्थाई प्रकृति का था एवं उसे स्थाई करने के स्थान पर सेवा मुक्त करना अनफेयर लेबर प्रेक्टिस की परिभाषा में आता है । प्रार्थी को एक माह का नोटिस वेतन भी नहीं दिया गया तथा अप्रार्थी संस्थान ने अधिनियम के नियम 77 व 78 की पालना भी नहीं की है । प्रार्थी से कनिष्ठ एवं प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्ति के बाद कई व्यक्तियों को नौकरी पर रखा गया है किन्तु प्रार्थी को यह अवसर नही दिया गया है अत्तः सेवा समाप्ति आदेश दिनांक 21-10-86 गलत व अवैध है जो गलत व अवैध घोषित किया जावे ।

-अप्रार्थीगण

उपस्थित

पीठासीन अधिकारीः श्री गौतम प्रकाश शर्मा , आर. एच. जे. एस.

प्रार्थी की ओर से :

श्री कुणाल रावत

अप्रार्थी की ओर से : श्री आलोक फतहपुरिया दिनांक अवार्ड : 22-7-2008

अवार्ड

1. केन्द्र सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्लो ने उपरोक्त अधिसूचना के जरिये इस आशय का विवाद इस न्यायाधिकरण को अधिनिर्णय हेतु निर्देशित किया है कि " Whether the action of the 3. अप्रार्थी बैंक की ओर से जवाब पेश हुआ । आरंभिक आपत्तियों में बताया क़ि प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति 10-1-85 से 30-3-85 तक की गई थी एवं दिनांक 30-3-85 को हो उसकी सेवा स्वतः समाप्त हो गई । प्रार्थी की ओर से यह विवाद 8 वर्ष बाद लाया गया है जिसका कोई संतोषप्रद कारण नहीं दर्शाया गया है अतः रैफरेंस मात्र इसी आधार पर खारिज होने योग्य है । दूसरा ऐतराज यह रहा है कि प्रार्थी को एक निश्चित अवधि के लिए नियुक्ति दी गई थी, उक्त अवधि के समाप्त होने पर उसकी सेवा स्वतः ही समाप्त हो जाती है अतः धारा 2 (00 ) ( बीबी ) अधिनियम के अनुसार प्रार्थों को रेफरेंस चलने योग्य नहीं है ।

4. मदवार उत्तर प्रस्तुत करते हुए बताया कि प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति किसी स्थाई पद पर एवं किसी भी तरह की चयन प्रक्रिया अपनाये बिना मात्र 10-1-85 से 10-3-85 तक ही की गई थी । इस तरह से प्रार्थी ने संवा समाप्ति के एक वर्ष पूर्व की अवधि में निरन्तर रूप से 240 दिन कार्य किया , यह सिद्ध नहीं है अतः धारा 25 - एफ अधिनियम 5212

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13 , 2008 /03HADRA 22 , 1930

का फायदा प्रार्थी को नहीं मिल सकता एवं प्रार्थी के अन्य जो कथन रहे हैं उन सभी को अस्वीकार किया गया है । साक्ष्य में प्रार्थी परीक्षित हुआ एवं बैंक की ओर से श्री मूलचंद जैन के बयान हुए । 5. बहस सुनी । प्रतिनिधि प्रार्थी की बहस है कि प्रार्थी ने अपना कथन स्टेटमैंट ऑफ क्लेम में विस्तार से दर्शाया है एवं साक्ष्य में प्रार्थी स्वयं परीक्षित हुआ है । प्रार्थी के कथनों के अनुसार उसने 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य किया एवं वह कार्य स्थाई प्रकृति का था । उसके शपथ पत्र में यह भी आया है कि पारस कुमार जैन व मोहन लाल शर्मा जो उसके साथ सेवा से हटाये गये थे उन्हें तो वापस नौकरी में ले लिया एवं रैगुलर भी कर दिया गया है तथा उससे कनिष्ठ श्रमिक आज भी संस्थान में कार्यरत हैं । इस तरह से उनकी बहस है कि धारा 25 - एक के प्रावधानों के अनुसार उसे कोई नोटिस वेतन नहीं दिया गया , भारा 25-जी व एच की पालना भी नहीं की गई है ।

6. अप्रार्थी ने अपनी बहस में बताया कि प्रार्थी ने सेवा समाप्ति की तिथि से पिछले एक वर्ष में लगातार 240 दिन कार्य किया . इस तथ्य को सिद्ध करने का भार प्रार्थी पर था किन्तु प्राथों की ओर से कोई साक्ष्य पेश नहीं हुई है । प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति प्रदर्श एम-1 से की गई थी जो 60 दिन के लिए थी । फिर उसकी नियुक्ति 20 दिन के लिए अर्थात् 30-3-85 तक बढ़ाई गई थी । इस तरह से प्रार्थी ने विपक्षी बैंक में मात्र 80 दिन ही कार्य किया है अतः प्रार्थी के मामले में धारा 35 - एफ अधिनियम लागू नहीं होती । प्रदर्श एम । को देखने से प्राथों कीनियुक्ति अस्थाई थी एवं अस्थाई नियुक्ति जो एक निश्चित अवधि के लिए एवं निश्चित वेतन पर की गई थी एवं उक्त अवधि समाप्त होने पर उसका नियुक्ति आदेश स्वतः ही समाप्त हो जाता है । उनको आगे बहस है कि प्रार्थी ने अपनी जिरह में स्वीकार किया है कि उसकी नियुक्ति किसी विज्ञापन के आधार पर अथवा कोई साक्षात्कार लेकर नहींकी गई थी तथा यह भी स्वीकार किया है कि वर्ष 1५५७ में आवेदन स्थाई नियुक्ति हेतु लिये गये थे , प्रार्थी ने भी आवेदन किया , उसे साक्षात्कार के लिए भी बुलाया गया लेकिन उसका चयन नहीं हुआ । उनकी आगे बहस है कि सेवा समाप्ति वर्ष 1986 में की गई है एवं विवाद वर्ष 1995 में अर्थात् ५ वर्ष बाद लाया गया है जिसकः भो कोई कारण नहीं बताया गया है ।

7. मैने बहस पर गौर किया । प्रार्थी ने सेवा समप्ति से पूर्व एकः वर्ष में निरन्तर 240 दिन कार्य किया , इस तथ्य को सिद्ध करने का भार प्रार्थी पर था किन्तु प्रार्थी श्रमिक की ओर से ऐसी कोई साक्ष्य पेश नहीं हुई है । इसके विपरीत प्रदर्श एम व एम-2 को देखने में प्राथों श्रमिक ने अप्रार्थी बैंक में 10-1-85 से 30-3-85 तक हो जाये किया जो अवधि 240 दिन नहीं होती । प्रदर्श एम को देखने से उसकी नियुक्ति नितान्त अस्थाई एवं एक निश्चित अवधि के लिए को गई थी । अस्थाई कर्मचारियों की कोई वरिष्ठता सूची विपक्षी बैंक में रखी जाती थी, ऐसा प्रार्थी का कथन नहीं है । जब तक यह सिद्ध नहीं हो जाये कि वरिष्ठता सूची थी तब तक वरिष्ठता सूची जारी नहीं करने का आधार उचित नहीं है। धारा 25 एच अधिनियम के उल्लंघन के संबंध में भी कोई विश्वसनीय साक्ष्य प्रार्थी की ओर से पेश नहीं हुई है। पारस्त कुमार जैन व मोहन लाल को पुनः नौकरी पर लेने का चताया है लेकिन उनका कोई नियुक्ति पत्र पेश नहीं हुआ है न हो वं साध्य के

PART 1 SEC. 3( ii ) ] लिए पेश हुए। प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति निश्चित अवधि व निश्चित वेतन पर की गई थी अतः धारा 2( 00)( नोबो ) के अन्तर्गत प्रार्थी का नागला छंटनी का नहीं रह जाता है । रेफरेंस भी वर्ष 1986 के चाद वर्ष 1995 में लाया गया है । इन सब कारणों से प्रार्थी का क्लेम स्वीकार होने योग्य नहीं है अतः भारत सरकार द्वारा भेजे गये रैफरेंस का उत्तर निप्न प्रकार दिया जाता है :

" बैंकऑफ राजस्थान लि. के प्रबन्धन द्वारा श्री विनोद कुमार जैन , पीऔन-फर्राश की सेवाएं दिनांक 21-10-86 से समाप्त किये जाने की कार्यवाही उचित एवं वैध है । प्रार्थी किसी अनुतोष का अधिकारी नहींहै। "

5. अवार्ड आज दिनांक 22-7-2008 को खुले न्यायालय में लिखया जाकर सुनाया गया जो कंन्द्र सरकार को प्रकाशनार्ध नियमानुमार भेजा जावे ।

गौतम प्रकाश शर्मा , पोठासीन अधिकारी नई दिल्ली, 20 अगस्त , 2008

का, आ. 2580, औद्यागिक विनाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का ( 4) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार दी बैंक ऑफ राजस्थान लि, प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जोधपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 108/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार व्हां 20 8. 2008 प्राप्त हुआ था !

[सं. एलः120012280/ 2003- आई. आर. ( बो -1 ) | बी. अं. मनचन्दा, अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the20th August , 2008R

$.O . 2580.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No 08-2001 ) of Industrial Tribunal -cuin - labour Court . Jodhpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industral dispute benveen the management of The Bank ofRajasthan 1.td. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20-8-2008.

No.1-12012-280-2003-12-13-1 BK MANCHANDA , Section Officer अनुबन्ध

: - औद्योगिक विवाद अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , जोधपुर पीठासीन अधिकारी श्री पुष्पन्द्र सिंह हाड़ा, आर.एच.नं.ए.स. औद्योगिक विवाद् ( केन्द्रीय ) संस्त्या 8.2004 श्री राम अवतार अग्रवाल पार्फत प्रेसिडेन्ट राजस्थान करत एक वर्कस आरंगनाईजेशन एम्स, बी. बो. जे. मण्डिया रोड ब्रॉच पानी मगढ़ ।

प्रार्थ

बनाम

1. सहायक महाप्रबन्धक, दी बैंक ऑफ राजस्थान लि. क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , चौपासनी रांड बोम्बे मोटगं चौराहा, जोधपुर । [ भाग 1 ]- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2. प्रबन्ध निदेशक, दी बैंक ऑफ राजस्थान लि. प्रबन्ध निर्देशक , केन्द्रीय कार्यालय सी-3 , सरदार पटेल मार्ग , सी स्कीम , जयपुर ।

-अप्राधीगण रेफरेन्स अर्न्तगत धारा 10 औद्योगिक विषाद् अधिनियम ,

1947

उपस्थित:-

( 1 ) प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि श्री ललित शर्मा उप . । (2 ) अप्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि श्री ओमसिंह सीनीयर प्रर्सनल मैनेजर उप. 1

अवार्ड

दिनांक 12-06-2008

1. भारत सरकार ने अपनी अधिसूचना क्रमांक एल-12012/280/2003 ( आई आर. बी -1 ) दिनांक 22 अप्रैल , 2004 के तहत निम्न विवाद् अर्न्तगत धारा 10 औद्यौगिक विवाद , अधिनियम, 1947 इस न्यायालय को रेफर किया है ।

"क्या नियोजक प्रक्षन्ध निदेशक दी बैंक ऑफ राजस्थान लि. केन्द्रीय कार्यालय , जयपुर एवं सहायक महाप्रबन्धक , दी बैंक ऑफ राजस्थान लि. , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , जोधपुर द्वारा अपने कर्मकार श्री राम अवतार अग्रवाल निलम्बित मुख्य खजांची को निलम्बन काल में प्रस्तुत आवेदन पत्र दिनांक 8-4-2003 पर त्यौहार अग्रिम ऋण स्वीकृत नहीं किया जाना उचित एवं वैध है? यदि नहीं तो कर्मकार अपने नियोजक से क्या राहत पाने का अधिकारी है ? "

2. उक्त रेफरेन्स इस न्यायालय में प्राप्त होने पर दिनांक 25-5-2004 को दर्ज रजिस्टर किया जाकर पक्षकारों को नोटिस जारी किये गये । प्रार्थी कीओर से मांग- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया जिसका अप्रार्थी की ओर से जवाब पेश किया तथा प्रार्थी ने मांग पत्र के समर्थन में स्वयं का शपथ-पत्र प्रस्तुत किया तथा अप्रार्थी की ओर से ओमसिंह का शपथ- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया गया व यह पत्रावली वास्ते जिरह प्रार्थी हेतु नियत है । आज प्रार्थी की ओर से एक प्रार्थना- पत्र इस आशय का प्रस्तुत किया गया है कि उसके व अप्रार्थी बैंक के मध्य समझौता दिनांक 7-6-2008 को हो गया है अब उसका कोई विवाद् शेष नहीं रहा है वह इस विवाद को लोक अदालत की भावना से आगे चलाना नहीं चाहता है । अतः इस प्रकरण में नो डिस्पयुट अवार्ड पारित किया जाये ।

3. चूँकि प्रार्थी व अप्रार्थी के मध्य लोक अदालत की भावना से समझौता हो चुका है तथा प्रार्थी ने विवाद को समझौते के माध्यम से तय कर लिया है और उसका अप्रार्थी में किसी प्रकार का विवाद् शेष नही रहा है अतः अब वह इस प्रकरण को आगे चलाना नहीं चाहता है फलस्वरूप इस प्रकरण में नो डिस्पयुट अवार्ड पारित किया जाता है। 4. इस अवार्ड को प्रकाशनार्थ भारत सरकार को प्रेषित किया जावे । 5. यह अवार्ड आज दिनांक 12-6-2008 को खुले न्यायालय में सुनाया गया ।

पुष्पेन्द्र सिंह हाड़ा, न्यायाधीश 3272 G /08-10

5213

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13 , 2008/ भाद्र 22 , 1930

नई दिल्ली , 20 अगस्त, 2008

का, आ. 2581.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार वेस्टर्न रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 08/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-8-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-41012/ 221/ 1995- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ] बी, के. मनचन्दा, अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi, the 20th August, 2008

S.O. 2581. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Governinent hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No. 08/1997 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court Jaipur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway, and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 20-8-2008 .

[No. L-41012/221 / 1995- IR (B- 11 ) ] B. K. MANCHANDA , Section Officer

अनुबन्ध

केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण , जयपुर केस नं. सी. आई . टी, 08/1997

रैफरेंसः केन्द्र सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली का आदेश क्रमांक एल-41012/221 / 95- आई, आर. ( बी. 11 ) दिनांक 28-1-1997 श्री मणी शंकर शर्मा आत्मज श्री मालीराम जी शर्मा , मालियों की गली, लाल सिंह जी का डेरा , स्टेशन रोड, सीकर ।

-प्रार्थी

बनाम

1. यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया जरिये जनरल मैनेजर, पश्चिमी रेलवे, चर्चगेट , बम्बई।

2. डिवीजनल रेलवे मैनेजर , पश्चिमी रेलवे , जयपुर। 3. वरिष्ठ मंडल यांत्रिक इंजीनियर ( स्थापना ) पश्चिमी रेलवे , जयपुर ।

4. सहायक यांत्रिक इंजीनियर ( प्रथम ) पश्चिमी रेलवे , जयपुर ।

-अप्रार्थीगण

उपस्थित्त

पीठासीन अधिकारी: श्री गौतम प्रकाश शर्मा, आर. एच. जे. एस.

प्रार्थी की ओर से

श्री सुरेन्द्र सिंह

अप्रार्थी की ओर से : श्री बी. एस. बरार

दिनांक : 30-5-2008 [PAR ; 11 S.3 ( ii ) ] 5211

TEIE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 13 , 2008 /BHADRA 22. 1930

अवार्ड

कार्यालय आदेश प्रदर्श उन्न्यू के द्वारा सुना भी गया है । प्रार्थी का यह कथन कि उसकी नियुक्ति स्वतंत्र आधार पर कि गई. को नही माना गया एवं उसकी संत्रः समाति को उचित एवं वैध बनाते हुए क्लेम खारिज होने योग्य अवायाः ।

4. क्लेम के समर्थन में प्राथी ने स्वयं के बयान करवाये तथ्या अप्रार्थी की ओर से श्री जी. एल. मोग्गा के बयान करवाये गये। बहस सुनी, पत्रावली का अन्त्रलोकन किया।

1. भारत सरकार , कं श्रम मंत्रालय , की आज्ञा क्रमांक 41012/221/95 दिनांक 28-1-97 से निम्न अनुसूचों का विवाद "Whether the action of the management of Western Railway, Jaipur is justified in teminating the services of workman Shri Manishankar Sharma w.e.f. 18-5-94 (AN ) afier completing continuous service w.e.l.16-10-82 to 18-5-94 . If not to what relief the werkmun is entitled and from what date " अधिनिर्णय हेतु इस अधिकरण को प्राप्त हुआ है ।

5. प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि न अपनी बहस में वही आभार रखे हैं ओ आधार क्लेम में लिये गये हैं एवं चत्ताधा कि करुणामूलक आधार के संबंध में अप्रार्थों की ओर से कोई लाक्ष्य पेश नहीं हुई है । जैसा कि अप्रार्थी ने अपने जवाब में प्रताया कि प्रार्थी के संबंध में उनके पिता द्वारा आवेदन प्रस्तुत किया , उक्त आवेदन प्रस्तुत नहीं हुआ है और न ही आदेश प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू में इस आशय का उल्लेख है कि प्रार्थों की नियुक्ति करुणामूलक आधारों पर उसके पिता के स्थान पर दी गई है । उनकी बहस है कि प्राभी के पिता की ओर से जो वाद कंन्द्रीय प्रशासनिक अधिकरण में लाया गया नऋत वाद में अप्रार्थी को ओर से ऐसा कोई अभिवचन नहीं लिया गया है कि प्रार्थी का वाद चलने योग्य नहीं है क्योंकि प्रार्थी ( माली एम ) ने अपने स्वास्थ्य के आधार पर सेवा निवृति ले ली थी एवं भाली एम के आवेदन पर उसके पुत्र को करुणामूलक नियुक्ति दी गई हो। उनकी घास है कि प्रशानिक अधि करण के निर्णय के संबंध में एक रिव्यू याचिका प्रस्तुत हुई. उक्त रिव्यू याचिका में अप्रार्थी की ओर से यह कथन किया गया कि श्री माली राम के स्थान पर उसके पुत्र को संत्रा में लिया गया है अतः मूल निर्णय पर पुनः विचार क्रिया आये , लेकिन अप्रार्थों और से पेश उक्त रिव्यू आवेदन को भी अस्त्रोंकार कर दियः गयाः इसमें भी यह आधार बताया कि अप्राधों ने माली राम द्वारा त्वर्थ गयं बाद में इन तथ्यों का समावेश नहीं किया और नहीं करने का कोई कारण भी नहीं बताया। प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि को आग बहस है कि प्रार्थी की ओर से जो जवाब नोटिस प्रदर्श ५ का दिया उसमें भी अपनी नियुक्ति स्वतंत्र रूप से दिया जाना बताया। इस तरह से प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि की बहस है कि प्रार्थी को जां भेत्रः मुक्ति की गई है वह अनुचित व अवैध है व मनमाने तरीके से की गई है जिले अधास्त किया जाये।

6. अप्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि ने अपनी नहस में चनाया कि प्रदर्श

डब्ल्यू-4 कारण वत्ताओं नोटिस में प्रार्थी को जिन आधारों पर नियुक्ति 2. प्रार्थों श्रमिक की ओर से स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम पेश हुआ जिसके अनुसार तथ्य इस तरह से हैं कि प्रार्थी को कार्यालय आदेश दिनांक 14-10-82 से अस्थाई रूप से कैरेज क्लीनर के पद पर वेतनमान 196-232 में नियुक्ति दो गई । उसे दिनांक 24-2-89 को चरिष्ठ क्लीनर के बेतनमान 775-1025 पर तदर्थ पदोन्नती दी गई । प्रग्थों के पिता मालीशम शर्मा अप्रार्थी रेलवे में इलैक्ट्रिक फिटर के पद पर कार्यरत थे जिन्हें दिनांक 31-12-82 से , उनके स्वास्थ्य के आधार पर अनुपयुक्त पाते हुए सेवा निवृत कर दिया जिसके संबंध में श्री मालीराम द्वाग कंन्द्रीय प्रशासनिक अधिकरण , जोधपुर बैंच में वाद पेश किया जो जयपुर बैंच को स्थानान्तरित कर दिया एवं उक्त बाद सं. 1546/46 का निर्णय श्री माली राम के पक्ष में हुआ । उक्त निर्णय के पश्चात् अप्रार्थी रेलवे प्रशासन ने रिव्यु याचिका सं. 21/89 पेश की जो खारिज हो गई । कंन्द्रीय प्रशासनिक अधिकरण ने अपने निर्णय से पालीएम को वैकल्पिक कार्य हेतु नियुक्ति देने के लिए निर्देशित किया जिसके आधार पर मालीराम को पुनः सेवा में लिया गया । आगे कथन किया कि प्रार्थी को मंत्रा इस आधार पर समाप्त की गई कि उसे गालीराम जां अस्वस्थ हो गये थे , के स्थान पर करुणा के आधार पर नियुक्ति दी गई एवं चूंकि मालीराम पुनः सेवा में आ गये थे अतः प्रार्थी की सेवा सकाई। अपने क्लेम में आगे बताया कि नियुक्ति रूप से हुई थी न कि उसके पिता के स्थान अधार पर हुई । आगे बताया कि प्रार्थी को सेवा नांदत के पूर्व कोई नाटिय अथवा एक माह का अंतन व छंटनों का मुआवजा नहीं दियः भवाः प्रत्थी की सेवा अवैध व अनुचित रूप से समहल की गई है जिसे अवैध घोषित किया जावे एवं प्रार्थी को पुनः છ છછ ????

दी गई उनका अनुदान प्रदर्श

डब्ल्यू-1 में भर क्राउन है। गन्नी यह कथन

कि उसे नियुक्ति योग्य नहीं

है। प्रार्थी को जोर आवेदन

दिया अथवा इसन *???????????????????? ?????? છે , વિઝાઃ

किया तो उस जिस है

किबिना प्रक्रिरसाइनियुक्ति देने

काकोई कारण

है कि प्रार्थी को पिर ही

नियुक्ति दी गई है एसपी का पुनः सनाले लिग्गण गमः

तब प्रार्थी की सेवाएं समनगई हैं। ऐसा करने का अधिकार 3. काम के जचव में अप्रान्नी ने बताया किया कि प्रार्थी के दिलीपीन विधुत फिटर के पद पर थे किन्तु उन्होंने अपना स्वास्थ्यकर नहीं एवं चिकित्स्य के आधार पर 31 3-82 को सेवा निवृति से में तथा उनी स्थान पर करुणामूलक आधार पर श्री भाली ५ द्वारा अपन पुत्र प्रार्थी को नौकरी में रखने का निवेदन किया जो मानवीय अधाने पर स्वीकार किया गया । रार्थी को नियुक्ति के संबंध में कथित पद के लिए कोई विज्ञापन जारी नही किया गया न ही कोई अन्य आबेदन आमंत्रित किये गये बल्कि प्रार्थी को नितान्त करुणाक आधार पर उसके पिता के स्थान पर लिया गया ... नौकरी में रख लिया तब प्रार्थी की सेवा [भाग - खण्ड 3( ii) )

2004 ( 3 ) पेज 65 ( राजस्थान ) सुनील सिंह चारण विरूद्ध सी.एम.डी अजमेर विद्युत वितरण निगम लि. अजमेर आदि पेश किया । 7. मैनें बहस पर गौर किया । जहां तक मणी शंकर की नियुक्ति आदेश दिनांक 14-10-82 से हुई एवं उसकी सेवा समाप्ति के आदेश दिनांक 18-5-94 तक प्रार्थी मणी शंकर अप्रार्थी रेलवे में कार्यरत रहा तथा उसके पिता श्री माली राम की पुनः नियुक्ति केन्द्रीय प्रशासनिक अधिकरण के आदेश की अनुपालना में वैकलिपक पद पर की गई, ये तथ्य विवाद रहित हैं। इस रैफरेंस के निर्णय हेतु निम्न बिन्दु ही महत्वपूर्ण एवं तय करने हेतु हैं: -

1. क्या मणी शंकर की नियुक्ति उसके पिता के स्वास्थ्य सही नहीं होने से उसके पिता के स्थान पर करुणामूलक आधार पर की गई अथवा स्वतंत्र रूप से की गई ?

2. क्या जब माली राम को पुनः सेवा में ले लिया गया एवं उसके उपरान्त प्रार्थी श्री मणी शंकर को सेवा मुक्त कर दिया जाना उचित एवं वैध है ?

8. प्रार्थी की ओर से अपने स्टेटमैंट ऑफ क्लेम में कहा गया है कि उसकी नियुक्ति14-10-82 को अस्थाई रूप से कैरेज क्लीनर के पद पर की गई थी। आदेश प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू होना बताया। अपने क्लेम में प्रार्थी श्रमिक ने अपने पिता श्री भाली राम संबंधी तथ्य भी प्रकट किये हैं। क्लेम में आगे बताया कि उसकी नियुक्ति उसके पित्ता के एवज में नहीं की गई बल्कि स्वतंत्र रूप से. की गई है। यदि उसकी नियुक्ति उसके पिता के स्थान पर एवं करुणामूलक आधार पर की जाती तो जो याचिका उसके पिता की ओर से केन्द्रीय प्रशासनिक अधिकरण में दायर की गई उसमें अप्रार्थी यह तथ्य अवश्य प्रकट करते जबकि उक्त कार्यवाही में अप्रार्थी की ओर से इस संबंध में एक भी शब्द नहीं कहा गया है। फिर एक रिव्यू याचिका अप्रार्थी विभाग की ओर से पेश हुई जिसमें इस आधार पर केन्द्रीय प्रशासनिक अधिकरण को उनके आदेश को रिव्यू कराना चाहा कि माली राम के स्थान पर उसके पुत्र को नियुक्ति दे दी गई है , अतः प्रशासनिक अधिकरण अपने निर्णय दिनांक 4-4-89 पर पुनर्विचार करे , उक्त रिव्यूपिटीशन भी अस्वीकार हुई है। प्रार्थो की ओर से स्वतंत्र रूप से नियुक्ति के संबंध में इस नियुक्ति हेतु कोई विज्ञपित्त अप्रार्थी की ओर से जारी हुई हो , नहीं दर्शाया गया है । इस पद हेतु प्रार्थी का कोई साक्षात्कार हुआ, उसकी तिथि आदि भी नहीं दर्शायी है । प्रार्थी ने इस पद हेतु आवेदन देना अपनी जिरह में स्वीकार किया है लेकिन उक्त आवेदन की कोई प्रति भी पेश नहीं हुई है। प्रार्थी ने अपनी जिरह में वैकेन्सी निकाली यह भी उल्लेख किया लेकिन उक्त वैकेन्सी के संबंध में कोई साक्ष्य पेश नहीं की है । अप्रार्थी का कथन , जैसा कि ऊपर वर्णित्त अनुसार रहा है कि प्रार्थी को नियुक्ति उसके पिता के स्थान पर करुणामूलक आधार पर दी गई थी , के संबंध में अप्रार्थी के नियुक्ति आदेश प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू- । के क्रमांक में ' कॉम्प/ मणीशंकर आदि का उल्लेख होने के आधार पर बताया है कि प्रार्थी को नियुक्ति कॉम्पनसेट ग्राउण्ड पर अर्थात करुणामूलक आधार पर दी गई थी। यह अवश्य है कि अप्रार्थी की ओर से मालीराम का कोई आबेदन कि उसके स्थान पर उसके पुत्र को नियुक्ति दे दी जावे , आदि पत्रावली पर नहीं है । इसी तरह से प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-4 कारण बताओ नोटिस जो प्रार्थी को जारी

5215

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13, 2008/ माद्र 22, 1930

किया, उसमें सभी तथ्यों का उल्लेख हुआ है। पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध सामग्री से यह तथ्य भी सिद्ध होता है कि श्री माली राम पिता प्रार्थी जो कि स्वास्थ्य कारणों से जिस पद पर वे पदस्थापित थे , उस पद के कर्त्तव्य निर्वहन में अनफिट हो गये थे तथा केन्द्रीय प्रशासनिक अधिकरण ने भी श्री मालीराम को स्वास्थ्य के आधार पर निकालने के एवज में वैकल्पिक नियुक्ति देने के आदेश दिये थे । अतः यह तथ्य सिद्ध है कि जिस पद पर मालीराम थे वे उस पद के लिए स्वास्थ्य कारणों से उपयुक्त नहीं रहे थे ।

9. उपरोक्त विवेचन अनुसार प्रार्थी की ओर से यह कथन कि उसकी नियुक्ति के संबंध में वैकेन्सी निकाली गई थी, उसने आवेदन किया था , किन्तु न तो विज्ञप्ति पेश हुई है न ही आवेदन की प्रति पेश हुई है । इसके विपरीत प्रार्थी के पिता का स्वास्थ्य खराब हो जाने से उन्हें पूर्व के पद पर उपयुक्त नहीं माना गया था यह तथ्य सिंद्ध पाथा गया है एवं प्रार्थी के नियुक्ति आदेश में शब्द ' कॉम्प' क्रमांक में ऑकत है। इस प्रकार जो परिस्थितियां एवं साक्ष्य पत्रावली पर पाई गई हैं, उसे देखने से मैं पाता हूं कि प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति उसके पिता मालीराम के स्थान पर करुणामूलक आधार पर दी गई थी। 10. जब प्रार्थी के पिता को पुनः सेवा में ले लिया एवं प्रार्थी की. नियुक्ति करुणामूलक आधार पर थी अतः प्रार्थी को शोकॉज नाटिस प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-4 देकर सुनवाई के बाद उसकी जो सेवा समाप्त की गई है , उक्त आदेश उचित एवं वैध है अथवा नहीं , अब इस बिन्दु पर देखना है। करुणामूलक नियुक्ति के संबंध में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के निर्णय 2007 एल.एल.जे ( एस.सी. ) पेज 230 स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया व अन्य विरूद्ध सोमवीर सिंह जिसमें माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के पूर्व निर्णय उमेश कुमार नागपाल विरूद्ध हरियाणा राज्य ( 1994) 4 एस.सी.सी. पेज 138 को उदृत करते हुए दृष्टान्त का निम्न विषेचन उदृतहुआः

"As a rule, appointment in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitations of applications and merit . No other mode ofappointment nor any other consideration is permissible . Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post . However , to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case , there are some exceptions carved out in the interest of justice and to meet some contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases , out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet , a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassioriate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The objet is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post held by the deceased. " 5216

PAR: 11 St.

JUL GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 13 , 2008/ BHADRA 22.0

केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक जयपुर के पंचाट ( मंद मं 14/1996 ) को प्रकाशित कर जो कंन्द्रीय सरकार को 2008 को प्राप्त हुआ थः ।

[सं -1994 आई आरची । श्री. नं. मनन्दन्दा, अनुभाग अधिकारी NewDella. the 20th August, 2008

5.O. 2582. In prince of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 4714 of 1947 ) , the Central Governmem hereby putsastes the award ( Ref. No. 14 ofthe Central Government sisteral Tribunal- cum - Lab Court , Jaipuras slow in the Acnesture , in the Indksirud Dispute hetween the employers in relation to the management of Alwar Bharatpa Gramin Anchalik Buck, and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 20-8-2008.

No.1-2012 2321994-13-31 B.K MANJIANDA , Section Ocker

अनुवन्ध

केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण , जयपुर केस नं. सी. आई, टी, 14/96 रेफरेंसः केन्द्र सरकार , श्रप पंत्रालय, नई दिल्ली का आदेश क्रमांक एल-12012/232/94- आई. आर( बी. ) दिनांक 19-3-1996 श्री बांके बिहारी शर्मा सुन्दर गति ब्राहमण, पुग्ण बयाना बयपुर (राज.)

प्रार्थ

बनाप

11. इस विवेचन को देखने से कोई भी नियुक्ति जो सानिक पदों के लिए दो जाती है वह मात्र सभी से आदनप्रतएवं गुणवगुण पर ही दिये जाने का उलनख है अर्थात गावअन्क निति के संबंध में सार्वजनिक विति आवश्यक होना द्वारा ही किये जाने का उल् मान्य नहीं बताणः लेकिन करुणाक नि अपवाद मानी गई है तथा इस विवेचना में करून वं व किन कारणों से दी जायेगी, आदि का का हस्तगत प्रकरण में श्रो माली राम को पुनः सेवा में से लिया गया है. इन हालात में प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति जो करूष्णमूलक आधार पर गई थी, उसे समाप्त कर दिया जाना मंगे एय में गलत व अवध नहीं कहा जस सकता । माली राम कां पुनः नियुक्ति कंन्द्रीय प्रसारनिक अधिकरण के निर्णय अनुसार दी गई डम्रमे भी प्रार्थी जिः कि नियुक्ति करूणामूलक आभार दी गई थी, आपने पद पर बने कोई हक प्राप्त नहीं होता न ही इस संबंध में प्राथ की ओर में सांई दृष्टान्त भी पेश हुआ है। इसके विपरीत प्रतिनिधि अाश्री कोअर में दृष्टान्त 2004 ( 3 ) डब्ल्यू, एल. सी. ( राजस्थान ) 65 सुनील सिंह नान्न विरूद्ध सी.एम.डी. अजमेर विद्युत वितरण निगम लि. पेश किया, कर देखने से इस दृष्टानत में प्रार्थी का नियुक्ति आनुग्रहिक आधार पर दी गई थी लेकिन जब पता चला कि उसकी बढ़ा भाई पहले से ही जि विभाग में सेवारत है एवं इस तथ्य का ज्ञान होने पर उसले सेवाएं समाप्त की गई जिसे माननीय उच्च न्यायालय न मही भान है। हस्तगत प्रकरण में भी श्री भाली गम को पुनः नियुक्ति मिन्नी है उक्त नियुक्ति चाहं प्रशासनिक अभिकरण के आदेश से मिली किन करूणामूलक नियुक्ति जो प्रार्थी को दी गई, उन कायम रहन का प्रार्थी अब अधिकारी नहीं रह जाता एवं उसकी जां लेवाएं इस पर समाप्त की गई हैं वह मेरे मत में उचित एवं वैध है। तपाईक का उत्तर निम्न प्रकार दियः जाता है;

1. चंयरमैन लभार्गण अंचलिक बैंक. आर. पी. रामं को कोटी, कन्नी गुर्जर का चौराहा , भरतपुर ।

2. ब्रांच मैनेजर, अलवर भरतपुर ग्रामीण आंन्तिक बैंक, आर. शर्मा की कोठी, कन्नी गुर्जर क चौराहा, भरपुर

" पश्चिमी रेलवं , जयपुर के प्रवन्धन द्वारा श्री मणी शंकर शर्मा की सेवाएं दिनांक 16-10-82 से 18-5-94 में रहने के पश्चात् दिनांक 18-5-94 से समाप्त किया जाना उचित एवं वैध है । प्रार्थी कोई अनुतोष पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है। "

अप्रार्थीगण

उपग्थिन

7. अवार्ड आज दिनांक 30 5 2008 को खुने न्यालय में लिखाया जाकर सुनाया गया जा फंन्द्र सरकार का अनियनूसार भेजा जाये।

पीठासीन अधिकारीः श्री गौतम प्रकाण शमां , आर, एच, जे. एस. प्रार्थी की ओर से अप्रार्थी की ओर से : श्री उम्मेद सिंह श्री अजय गुप्त दिनांक अचाई: 13.6 2008

अवार्ड

नई दिल्ली, 20 अगस्त, 2018 का. आ. 2582 औद्योगिक विद বিবিকে ১৩৫ (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भरतपुर ग्रामीण आंचलिक बैंक केत्रो सिं उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक कन्या में

1. केंन्द्र सरकार उत अधिसूत्तना के जरिये इस विवाद इस न्यायाधिकरणा क अधिनिर्णय हेतु निर्देशित किया कि Whether the action of the managerment of the Alwar Bharatpur Gramin Anchalik Bank.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ji) ]

Bharatpur is justified in terminating the services of Shri Banke Bihari Sharma w.e. f. 3-1-847 Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

2. प्रार्थी श्रमिक की ओर से स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम पेश किया गया जिसके संक्षेप में तथ्य इस प्रकार हैं कि प्रार्थी , अप्रार्थीगण के यहां जनवरी 1983 से 20-2-84 तक दैनिक वेतन भोगी कर्मचारी के रूप मे अटलबंध शाखा भरतपुर में कार्यरत रहा । अप्रार्थीगण ने गलत रूप से प्रार्थी को सेवा मुक्त कर दिया जिसके विरूद्ध प्रार्थी ने राजस्थान उच्च न्यायलय , जयपुर में एक रिट याचिका सं. 3156/89 प्रस्तुत की जिसे दिनांक 24-1-91 को प्रार्थी ने इस अधिकरण के समक्ष विवाद पेश करने की अनुमति के साथ विथड्रा कर लिया जिस पर यह विवाद इस अधिकरण में पेश हुआ । प्रार्थी ने अपने सेवा मुक्ति आदेश को इन आधारों पर चुनौती दी है कि प्रार्थी ने जनवरी 1983 से 20-2-94 तक अप्रार्थी के यहां लगातार कुछ कृत्रिम गैप सहित कार्य किया है , उसकी नियुक्ति स्थाई पद के विरूद्ध श्री साहब सिंह के नौकरी छोड़ देने के कारण रिक्त पद पर हुई थी और उससे चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी कीसेवाएं ली जाती थी , प्रार्थी को वाउचर्स के जरिये 9 रूपये प्रतिदिन के हिसाब से भुगतान किया जाता था व उसने 6 माह तक लगातार कार्य किया है उसके बाद उसे एक - एक दो - दो दिन का कृत्रिम गैप देकर भुगतान किया गया है । अप्रार्थी के यहां अब भी कार्य मौजूद है और प्रार्थी को हटाकर श्री देवी राम को कार्य पर लगाया है जो अनुचित , अवैध व अनफेयर लेबर प्रेक्टिस है । प्रार्थी का कथन है कि उपरोक्त आधारों पर प्रार्थी की सेवा मुक्ति अनुचित व अवैध है तथा औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 ( जो निर्णय में आगे मात्र अधिनियम लिखा जायेगा ) की धारा 25 - एच के साथ - साथ नियम 78 औद्योगिक विवाद केन्द्रीय नियम 1957 का भी स्पष्ट उल्लंघन है । प्रार्थी का कधन है कि श्री देवी राम को उसके बाद सेवा में लिया जाकर उसे स्थाई भी कर दिया है जबकि उससे पहले प्रार्थी को कोई काम पर आने की सूचना नहीं दी अतः प्रार्थना की कि उसकी सेवा मुक्तिअनुचित व अवैध घोषित को जाकर उसे पुनः सेवा में स्थाई नियुक्ति प्रदान की जावे ।

3. अप्रार्थी ने क्लेम का जवाब पेश कर बताया कि प्रार्थी ने जो रिट याचिका माननीय उच्च न्यायलाय में पेश की थी उसकी संख्या 3150/89 थी न कि 3156/89 तथा उसमें प्रार्थी ने अपनी नियुक्ति तिथी जनवरी , 1982 बताई है जबकि वर्तमान क्लेम में जनवरी 1993 में दैनिक वेतन भोगी के रूप में काम पर लेना बताया है । अप्रार्थी ने जवाब में आगे बताया कि प्रार्थी को विपक्षी सं. 2 द्वारा जनवरी 1983 से 2 जनवरी 1984 के मध्य कभी कभी पानी मिलाने व सफाई आदि के कार्य के लिए दैनिक मज़दूरी पर रखा गया । प्रार्थी को न तो स्थाई पद के विरूद्ध नौकरी पर रखा न ही साहब सिंह को स्थाई पद के विरूद्ध नौकरी पर रखा । साहब सिंह भी विपक्षी सं. 2 शाखा में पानी पिलाने व सफाई आदि का कार्य करता था और साहब सिंह के नही आने पर कभी कभार प्रार्थी से वही कार्य कराया जाकर उसे उस दिन की दैनिक मज़दूरी दे दी जाती थी । प्रार्थी द्वारा फरवरी 1984 में कोई कार्य नहीं किया गया बल्कि जनवरी 1983 से जनवरी 1984 तक कभी

5217

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13, 2008/भाद्र 22, 1930

कभी कुल मिलाकर 69 दिवस कार्य किया गया जिसका भुगतान उसे समय समय पर दे दिया गया । 2 जनवरी 1984 के बाद प्रार्थी ने अप्रार्थी के यहां कोई कार्य नही किया है क्योंकि उसके बाद वह स्वयं ही कभी काम पर नहीं आया और वह बैंक का कोई कर्मचारी नहीं था अतः उसे सेवा पृथक करने का प्रशन ही पैदा नहीं होता । प्रार्थी के नहीं आने पर कभी- कभी देवीराम से व साहब सिंह से काम ले लिया जाता था । काफी वषों के बाद उक्त कार्य हेतु पद सृजित हुआ तब नियमानुसारं देवीराम की स्थाई पद पर नियुक्ति की गई जो अनुचित व अवैध नहीं कही जा सकती । प्रार्थी 2-1-84 के बाद स्वयं ही काम पर नहीं आया अतः देवीराम से तात्कालिक आवश्यकता पूर्ति हेतु काम लिया गया , इन हालात में अधिनियम के प्रावधान लागू नहीं होते न ही नियम 78 की कोई उल्लंघना हुई है । अतः क्लेम खारिज होने योग्य बताया ।

4. बहस सुनी, पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया । प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि की बहस है कि प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति जनवरी , 1983 से 20-2-84 तक अप्रार्थी बैंक में दैनिक वेतन भोगी कर्मचारी के रूप में रही । प्रार्थी को सेवा से पृथक करने के संबंध में प्रार्थी के द्वारा एक रिट याचिका माननीय उच्च न्यायालय जयपुर के समक्ष पेश की जो याचिका सं. एकल पीठ 5156/89 दर्ज हुई जिसे 24-1-91 को इस अधिकरण में चलने की अनुमत्ति के साथ विथड्रा किया गया । उनकी बहस है कि सेवा समाप्ति के पूर्व प्रार्थी ने अप्रार्थी बैंक में लगातार 6 माह तक कार्य किया तथा उसके पश्चात 6 माह की अवधि में एक - एक दो -दो दिन का कृत्रिम गैप देकर भुगतान किया गया । आगे बहस को कि प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्ति के बाद अप्रार्थीगण के लिए आवश्यक था कि ये किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को सेवा में लेने से पहले प्रार्थी को पुनः नियुक्ति का अवसर देते जबकि श्री देवीराम को कार्य पर लिया और उसे बाद में स्थाई भी कर दिया जबकि देवीराम को कार्य पर लेने से पूर्व प्रार्थी को सेवा का अवसर नहीं दिया । उनकी बहस है कि प्रार्थी स्वयं परीक्षित हुआ है व उसने अपना कथन सिद्ध किया है । 5. अप्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि ने अपनी बहस में बताया कि रिट याचिका दिनांक 24-1-91 को विधद्धा कर ली , उक्त याचिका इस आवेदन के साथ विधद्धा की गई हो कि वह अधिकरण में पेश करना चाहता है , संबंधी कोई आदेश नहीं हुए हैं । इसके अतिरिक्त प्रार्थी को दैनिक मजदूरी पर आवश्यकता अनुसार कार्य पर बुलाया गया था एवं प्रार्थी ने कुल मिलाकर 69 दिन अप्रार्थी बैंक में कार्य किया है । प्रार्थी को कोई नियुक्तिआदेश नहीं दिया गया था जब जब आवश्यकता हुई बुलाया गया अतः उसे सेवा से पृथक करने का प्रश्न ही उत्पन्न नहीं होता । देवीराम को जो नियुक्ति दी गई वह नियुक्ति उचित आधार पर दी गई थी जबकि प्रार्थी ने तो पहले से ही कार्य पर आना बंद कर दिया था एवं दिनांक2-1-94 से काम पर नहीं आया तथा वह अपनी इच्छा से कहीं चला गया था । अतः अप्रार्थीगण ने धारा 25 - एच का उल्लंघन किया हो , नहीं पाया गया है । उनकी आगे बहस है कि सेवा समाप्ति दिनांक 3-1-84 के बाद वर्ष 19-3-96 को यह रैफरेंस लाया गया है जो 12 वर्ष देरी है एवं प्रार्थी का यह कथन भी मान लिया जाये कि THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 13 , 2008 / RHADRA 22、19

5218

उसने रिट याचिका पेश की तो वह भी दिनांक 24-1-91 कको बिट्टा कर ली थी तब भी वर्ष देरीना विवाद प्रस्तुत हुआ है तथा इस देश का कोई कारण नहीं दर्शाया है । उनकी यह भी वहस है कि प्राली ने अपने स्टेटमेंट ऑफ बलम में दिनांक 20-2-84 तक कार्य करना बताया है जबकि रेफरेंस में संवा समाप्ति की तारीख 3-1-84 हैं , उस संबंध में प्रार्थी की ओर से संशोधन भी करवाना चाहा एवं अआवेदन भी पेश हुआ किन्तु उक्त आवेदन पर कोई कार्यवाही नहीं हुई है विसम्मे भी प्रार्थी का क्लेम स्वीकार होने योग्य नहीं है । अतः प्राथी का कत्लंभ अस्वीकार होने योग्य चतायय ।

6. मैंने वहस पर गौर किया । प्राथों व अप्रार्थी की जओ साध्य आई उसका भी अध्ययन किया ।

7. प्राथी ने माध्य के रूप में स्वयं का शपथ पत्र देश किय बताया कि उसने रिंट याचिका पेश की जो वापस ले लो जिसको आदेश प्रदर्श-१ होना बताया जंकिन उक्न आदेश पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध नहीं है । अपने शपथ पत्र में उसकी संत्रा समाप्ति के बाद देत्रीराम को कार्य पर लिया गया, वही बढ़ाया है । इसके विपरीत अप्रार्थी की ओर कां वी. आर पोरवाल परीक्षित हुए हैं जिन्होंने प्रार्थी के संबंध में बताया कि उसने जनवरी 1983 में जनन्त्ररी 19x4 तक 22 दिन ही कार्य किया । प्रार्थी ने स्वयं ही काम पर आना बंद कर दिया । उसको काफी नहीं नाद एक नया पद सृजित हुआ जिस पर देवीराम की नियुक्ति निदणानुसार किये जाने का उल्लंग्य किया है । इस गवाह में जिरह में प्रार्थी ने एक वर्ष में 240 दिन कार्य किया के संबंध में सुझाव दिया जिम्ए मंबंध में गवाह का अभन्न रहा है कि प्राथों ने मात्र 69 दिन ही कार्य किया थ तथा देवीराम की नियुक्ति उगकी याददाश्त के अनुसार जुलाई, 198 में होनी बताई । अप्रार्थीमण ने धारा 25 एच का अन्बन कियः ह इस दायित्व को निभाने का भार प्रार्थी पर था । प्राथों न अपने कथन या अभिवचनों में इंचौगम को कब नियुक्ति दी, ऐसा उल्लेख नहीं किया है । इसके विपरीत अप्राधींगषण ने अपने कथनों में प्रार्थी के नहीं आने पर काफी असे बाद काम पर लिये जाने का उल्लेख किया है । प्रकरण में प्राथी ने 2-110 दिन कार्य किया हो. ऐसी कोई साक्ष्य नहीं आई है जर्याक अप्रार्थी गवाह को ऐसा सुझाव दिया गया था । प्राथों को फरवरी , 1984 से कार्य पर लेना बंद कर दिया जिसका यह रफरेंस ब 1996 में लाया गया है इसमें पूर्व माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय में एक याचिका पेश करने का बताया एवं उसे विदड्डा कर लिया , इन संबंध में कोई आदेश भी पेश नहीं हुए हैं एवं वर्ष 1999 में दि याचिका की त्रिभः। किया जाना दशांया है उसके बाद भी पांच बाद यह संरें लाया गया है ओ देरीना है एवं इस देरी का कांड कारण नहीं दर्शना गया है । इस सारे विवंदन से मैं पता हैं प्रकरण में गारा 25 एच अधिनियम का उल्लंघन होना प्रार्थी की से सिद्ध नहीं हुआ है तथा रेफरेंन्न उपरोक्तानुसार देरी से पाय एवः, उक्त देरी का भी कोई विश्वसनीय कारण नहीं दर्शाया गया है .

8. प्रकरण में पक्षकारान की ओर से दृष्टान्त पेश हुए कीओर से पेश दृष्टान्त एस. के. सिविल हिंट याचिका गं ..।। निर्णय दिनांक ५०। में श्रमयायालय द्वारा प्रार्थी को संत्रा

PAR: II Sr.J कोअनुचित एवं अवैध माना लसेनः नियोजन का अधिकार

दिये जाने के आदेश नहीं मानते हुए 10,000 रुपये

न्यायालय ने उका आदेश की उपास्त करते

के आदेश दिया । के प्रार्थी को पुनः सेवा में नियां

डब्ल्यू. एल. सी. ( राज. ) 1992 में चारा 25 जो व 25-11-9 को उल्लंघन माना तथा यह भी नाके प्रार्थी को मं समाप्ति के बाद उससे कनिष्ठ की सेवा कायमरी ना दो और को सेवा में लिया गया । हरनाथको सेवा जयं 1984 में समाप्त किये जाने काय चान्ण गया है तथा देयोगम क उसके तुरंत बाद सेवा में लिया हा. ऐसा नही पाया गया है बल्कि अप्रार्थी के गवाह के अनुसार वर्षदेचारा को लिया गया भ अतः यह दृष्टान्त भो प्रार्थी को को महीं करता । दृष्टान्त , एल, आर. 2000 (3 ) पेज 44 शनको चिस रामचन्द्र श्रृंगी के मामले में उन्ार्थी निद्वारा कई अवसर दिये आनं के बाद भी जो रिकार्ड प्रार्थी द्वारा भगना पश नहीं किया गया अ०१:

विभाग के विरूद्ध प्रतिकूल अध्धारा ली गई किन्तु स्नान प्रकरण में ऐसा कोई रिकार्ड मांगा महान किया गया ह पाया गया है । दृष्टान्त आर

209 राजस्थान राज्य विरूद्ध जन्म यूनियन गंगानगर सिटी इस मद सिद्ध करने क नियांजक पर माना गया लेकिन कथन नहीं है कि उसने 240 मिनाल नवीनतम विधि निर्विवाद

किया इस तथ्य को श्रमिकहा

1994( राज. ) पेज 5.39 में देभाननीय जवान न्यायालय द्वारा भारित दृष्टान्नगाल दृष्टान्त जो माननीय राजस्थानव मान्नांव न्यायालय द्वारा पारित किययनाये जाने के संबंध देरी हुई है उसपर स्पष्टीकरण आवश्यक मान्य इस संबंध में प्रार्थी की ओरो..

पेज 455 नंदनगढ़ी बैंकलिनाध्चनकुटीश जिसके अनुसार 7 वर्ष बाद जोगा था, उक 'भी क्लेम स्वीकार नहीं करने का

५. उपरोक्त सारे विकि प्राथी का स्वीकार होने योग्य नहीं हैनिकाए जाता है :

"अलवर भरतपुर ग्राःपिए के अन द्वारा श्री बांके बिहारी शनांक

किये जाना उचित एवं बैंकका अधिक 5. अवार्ड आज दिनको खुलेयालय लिखा जाकर सुनाया गया भेजा जाये । [ भाग ॥ - खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 20 अगस्त, 2008

का, आ. 2583.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार ऑफिसर कमाण्डेन्ट 27 कम्पनी ए.एस.सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विषाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. -1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 115/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-8-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं एल-13012/14/98- आईआर(डीयू) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 20th August , 2008

S.O. 2583 -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 115/99) of the 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 ofOfficer Commandant 27 CompanyASC, and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 20-8-2008.

[No. L- 13012/ 14/98 - IR(DU ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRIGYANENDRAKUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT-1 , CHANDIGARH,

Case No. I.D. 115/99

Sh. Suraj Parkash S/o Sh . Kishan Lal Rio 326, B.C. Bazar (Haryana), Ambala Cantt (Haryana )-133001

Applicant

Versus

TheOfficer Comandant, 27 Company, ASC ( Supply) , Type- F, Ambala Cantt . ( Haryana ) -133001

Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman: Workman in person

For the management : Shri J.S. Bisht

AWARD Passed on 8-8-2008

Central Government vide notification No. L- 13012/ 14/98- IR (DU ) dated 26-4-1999 , has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the Officer Commandant 2.7

5219

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 13 , 2008/ भाद्र 22 , 1930

Company ASC,. Ambala Cantt . in terminating the services of Sh. Suraj Parkash S/o Sh. Kishan Lal is legal and justified ? If not, to what reliefthe workman is entitled?"

The present reference was made by the CentralGov- erument on the failure of conciliation proceedings for adju- dication 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 full backwages and all consequential benefits in the interest ofjustice, equity and fair play.

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 8-8-2008 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 agreed10 pay Rs.2000/- to the workman as full and final settlement towards each and every claim of the workman if he withdraw his reference in Lok Adalat subject to the approval of the Government . The workman made a statement that he is ready to accept Rs. 20000- towards retrenchment compensation and other legal expenses etc. in full and final settlement of his claim . The prescribed authority ofthe management and the workman during the hearing of this case in pre Lok Adalat agreed upon the abovementioned terms and conditions . It is proposed to dispose offthis reference in Lok Adalat . Accordingly the reference is returned to the Central Government as settled in Lok Adalat. Central Government be infromed . Filebe consigned to record.

G..K . SHARMA, PresidingOfficer Chandigarh 8-8-2008

नई दिल्ली , 20 अगस्त , 2008

का. आ. 2584 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.बी. एम.बी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. -1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 79/94) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-8-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/47/93 - आई आर ( डी यू) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 20th August , 2008

S.O. 2584.--In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 79/94) ofthe Central Goverment Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour 5220

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 13 , 2008 / BHADRA 22. 1930

Court , No. 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation ta the management of B.B.M.B. , and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 20-8-2008.

No. L -42012/47/ 93 - iR& Dil ' ) | AJAY KUMAR GAUR. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA . PRESIDINGOFFICER, CENTRALGOVT. INDUSTRIAL. TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH.

Case No I.D. 79/94

The Chairman , Nangal Bhakra Majdoor Sangh , Quarter No.35-G, Nangal Township, Punjab 140124 .

[PART II SEC. 3( ii ) ] on 15-3-90 while he was re - einployed as Store- Clerk his salary was not protected which is against the own circular letter of the management no. 525961 / BBMB / 1717/46 dated 13-7-76.

The management filed this written statement alleging that it was a fresh appointment of the workman on 15-3-90 in compliance of the terms of the settlement in between the workman and the management on 2-3-90 , before the Regional Labour Commissioner( C), Chandigarh. Regarding the circular letter dated 13-7-76; the managemen has stated that this circular letter is applicable on those workmen who have been re - employed on daily wages basis and not on the workmen who has been appointed against the permanent vacancy.

Applicant

Versus

The Chief Engineer , Bhakra Dam , Bhakra Beas Management Board. Nangal Township, Distt . Rupar ( Pb . )

Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman: Sri R.K. Singh

For the management: Sri Bhagat Singh

AWARD

Passed on 07-8-2008

Central Governmem vide notification no . 42012 :47 93 , IR ( DU ) dated 11-8-94 referred the following industral dispute for judicial adjudicution:

"Whether the workinan Shri Raj Kumar on reappointment is entitled for protection of his pay kast drawn before retrenchinent and if not to what other relief is he entitled to ?"

On careful scrutiny of the pleadings of both of the parties, it is evident than the workman Shri Raj Kumar was firstly appointed as Store - Clerk under the Bhakra Dam Administration w.c.f 30-8-65 in the work charged capacity and was retrenched on 30-6-69 . Thereafter , he was employedat Beas - Satluj Link Project , Sunduttagar Dis11 . Mandi Hinnachal Pradesh w.e.f. 11-7-69 in the work charged capacity and his pay was protected on re - employment . He remained employed with the Satluj Link Project . Sundarnagar till 12-7-79 . 11e was again re - employed by the BSI . Project we.t. 8-5-81 with the protection of his salary and was finally retrenched on 30-3-84 . He was agair re- employed on 15-3-90 as Store - Clerk with the inita pa scale without the protection of salary ot his previous work . Hence , this industrial dispute The workinan has chainted that on every re - employment his salary was protected ma Ihave heard learned counsels for the parties work ma in person and perused all the materials on record . The settlement dated 2-3-90 on the basis of which the workman was re-employed on 15-3-90 is on record . As per the terms of the settlement the management agreed to offer fresh appointment to workman Shri Riy Kuinar for the post of Store-Clerk(BBMB , regular ) . in Nangal workmanship region . at Nangal , within a period of one week from 2-3-90 subject to medical fitness . It was also agreed upon that the workman Shri Raj Kumar will not claim back wages for the period he was unemployed. It was aiso further agreed upon that in case of any doubt about interpretation of any term . the decision of Regional Labour Commissioner ( C ) . Chandigarh shall be final ,

From the terms of settlement it is clear that it was a fresh appointment against a regular vacancy ofthe workınam Shri Raj Kumar and the circular letter which he mentioned in his settlement of claim is relating to the employees who have been appointed on dady wages basis . The further letter explaining the circumstances under which the circular letter dated 13-5-76 was passed is also on record . This letter dated 26-7-89 , make it clear that the instructions issued vide letter dated 13-5-76 were applicable only in respect of retrenchted work charged employees on their reappointment in work-charged capacity . It is true that the workman Raj Kumar was retrenched workmen but his reappointment was not in work charged capacity . He was appointed on regular post in compliance of the settlement dated 2-3-90 .

In tem No.1 of the settlement the word "fresh appointment" is written and it is acceptable to hoth of the parties. The term " fresh appointment means that the appointment has no concert with the previous appointments In term No 2 , the workman Shri Raj Kumar specifically agreed that he will not claim any back wages . Thus , on the basis of the terms of the settlement dated 2-3-90 between the workman . Shri Raj Kumar and the management and on the basis of the fetter no . 26263701 ) 1061/88/85, dated 26-7-89 , it is clear that the workman is not entirled for the protection of pay - scale in any form. Moreover, the term No. 4 of the settlement also hars the [ भाग 1 ] -खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

jurisdiction of any adjudicatory authority except the Regional Labour Commissioner ( C) , Chandigarh . On the basisof the above observation , I am of the view that the workman is not entitled for the protection of pay as prayed and the reference is accordingly answered that the workman Shri Raj Kumar on re - appointment is not entitled for protection of his pay last drawn before retrenchment and is not entitled for any other relief. Let the Government be informed. File is to be consigned.

G.K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 20 अगस्त, 2008

का. आ. 2585 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 , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. - 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 215/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-8-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/19/2000- आई आर ( डीयू) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 20th August. 2008

S.O. 2585 -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Govemment hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 215/ 2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , No. I Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom , and their workman, which was recevied by the Central Government on 20-8-2008 .

[No. L-40012/ 19/2000-1R (DU) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH .

Case No 1. D. 215/2000

Miss. Ranjodh Kaur C/o Sh . N.K. Jeet , President , Telecom Labour Union , N- Mohalla Hari Nagar , Lal Singh Basti Road, Bhatinda (Punjab)-151005

5221

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13 , 2008 / भाद्र 22 , 1930

AWARD

Passed on 8-8-2008

Central Government vide notification No. 1.-40012: 19/2000 IR ( DU ) , dated 29-5-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the General Manager . Telecom , Hoshiarpur(Pb ) in ordering disengagement /termination of services of miss Ranjodh Kaur a workman engaged through contractor Sh .Ashok Kumar Sharma , w.e.l. 1-5-99 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date?

The present reference was made by the Contral 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 full backwages and all consequential benefits in the interest ofjustice , equity and fair play .

The management turned up and opposes this application.

Asper office memorandum dated 30-4-08 , this case was fixed in pre lok adalat meeting on 8-8-2008 for its disposal by adopting the mediation and conciliation mechanism . With the efforts of the Tribunal , the workman agreed to withdraw her reference . The management also agreed to undertake to ensure that the workman will get wages as per DC rates and the payment shall be made in the presence of the management and also undertake to pursue that her services to continue through contractor . The prescribed authority also ensure that whenever there will be the regular appointment in the department, she will be given full opportunity as per rules and regulations of the department. 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 seuled in Lok Adalat . Central government be informed. File be consigned to record.

G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer

.Applicant

Versus

The General Manager , Deptt. of Telecom . Hoshiyarpur

Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman : Workman in person For the management : Sh . Dharam Pal

3272G08-11

Announced 8-8-2008

नई दिल्ली , 20 अगस्त, 2008

का. आ. 2586 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, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. ], चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट SIF GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13 , 2008 / BHADRA 23, 1930

( संदर्भ ) को कारित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय को 20 ন রুশ' ।

-40012: 78/ 2004-आई.आर. डॉ.ग.) ] अजय कुमर गैड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

Oth August , 2008

S.CL 2000 , pursuance of Secuon in the Industrial spas A. 1917 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Goverment sebe publishes the award (Ref . No.305) of the Centralesa ladustial Tribunal - com- sour Court Noor as shown in the Amesare in the Indusu al die between the employers in relation to the thenayamata Deparment of Felecom , ato their Workman, wabastecevied by the Cenu sitios

1-4001278-204פאן-ER DUJI SLAY KUMAR GALUR . Desk Olicer

ANNENURE,

Before Shri Gyanendra Kumar Sharma , Presiding Officer . Central Government ludustrial Trilumai - cum- Labur: Court, -4, Chandigarh .

Case No 10 3 2005

Sh. Sukhyai Singh Son of Shri Ekam Singh . Co Shri N. K. Jeet, House 27349 , Mohalia Hari Nagar. Lat SinghBasti Road . Learnan Punjab

Versus

The General Manger , Telecom , BSNL , E- 10 B Building . Behind HPO . Batinda (Punjab )

PART N S Learned representative of the Pranagement Shri Anish Babbar is present . Since morning this reference has been called number of tinies ! !!! . 45 cm .it was ordered to be placed before this tribunal once again at 2 pm . It is 2.30 now and on repeated calls no one is present , in spite of having full knowledge of the proceedings of this reference . The reference is as old as referred to this Tribunal in the year 2005. On repeated calls suce morning no one is present . Accordingly, the reference is dismissed in default for non - prosecution . Central Cinvernment be informed accordingly . Fite to be consigned

ON SHARMA, PresidingOliver Chandigarh 7-8-08

अधिकरण जयपुर के पंचाट का. आ. 2587 . गिज विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का ।4 ) की धारा के अनुसर में कंन्द्रीय सरकार सी.पी. डक्ल्यू.डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र में संबद्ध नियंत्रकां और उन कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट धारिक विवाद में कंन्द्रीय औद्यागिक संदर्भ सं... कां प्रकाशित करती है. जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-20 प्रान्त हुआ था [सं. एल-420129.1995 आई.आर. डी.यू. अन्य कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi . the 20th August , 2008

S.O. 2587 .... n pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947: 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Industrial Tribunal - cum - l aliour Court , Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of C.P W.JD .. and their workman , which was recevied by the Central Government on 20-8-2008.

Respondent

APPEARANCES

Forthe workmai:

For the management

Sh . Anish Babur

AWARD Dassed on 7-8-2008

Centraitinst , vide notification No. L -4001278 2004- IR ( DU ) dited Sta December , 2004 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adiudication :

"Whether the action ofthe management of Telecom (BSNL) an terminating the services of Shri sukkpal singh, Fx -Driver, w.e.l. 1-3-99 without complying with the provisions of the 1 D. Act is just and legal ? It nol , to what relset the concerned workman is carit.ed to and from which date ?"

2. No one is present, on behalf of the workman

[ n . ] 42012: 19 : 1995 - IR ( D : ) | AJAY KUMAR GALUR . Desk Officer

अनुबन्ध

केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण, जयपुर केस नं. सी. आई . टी. 23/1996

रैफरेंसः केन्द्र सरकार, श्री मंत्र , रई दिल्ली का आदेश क्रमांक एल-42012/19 /95 आई.आर.डी.यु. दिनांक 24-1-1996 श्री पोकर राम पुत्र श्री दुर्गां भील गंच थाप्न तहसील सिंचना जिला बाड़मेर ।

प्रार्थी कार्यकारी अभियन्ता वॉी.एफ. आर. सी.पी. डब्ल्यू, डीजैसलमेर রান)।

अप्रार्थी [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( 1 ) ]

उपस्थित

पीठासीन अधिकारी: श्री गौतम प्रकाश शर्मा , आर. एच . जे . एस.

प्रार्थी की ओर से : श्री जे. एल. शाह

अप्रार्थी की ओर से

श्री आर. के. जैन

अवार्ड

दिनांक अवार्ड : 28-5-2008

1.भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय की आज्ञा क्रमांक 42012/19/95 दिनांक 24-4-96 से निम्न अनुसूची का विवाद "Whether the action of the management of CPWD in termina ing the services of Shri Pokar Ram Bheel is proper and legal and justified if not, to what relief the workman is entitled to" अधिनिर्णय हेतु इस अधिकरण को प्राप्त हुआ है । 2. प्रार्थी श्रमिक की ओर से स्टेटमैंट ऑफ क्लेम पेश हुआ जिसके अनुसार प्रार्थी का कथन है कि उसकी नियुक्ति दिनांक 11-11-91 को विपक्षी संस्थान में बीकानेर में बेलदार के पद पर हुई थी, नियुक्ति तिथि से वह लगातार कार्य पर जा रहा था व उसका कार्य संतोषप्रद था । कार्यकारी अभियन्ता बी.एफ. आर सी.पी.डब्ल्यू.डी ने अपने मौखिक आदेश द्वारा प्रार्थी को दिनांक 23-3-93 से सेवा मुक्त कर दिया । आगे वर्णित किया कि प्रार्थी की सेवा मुक्ति के बाद विपक्षी संस्थान के बीकानेर कार्यालय को समस्त कर्मचारियों के साथ जैसलमेर स्थानान्तरित कर दिया । प्रार्थी ने अपने एक वर्ष की सेवा में 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य किया अतः औद्योगिक विषाद अधिनियम 1947 ( जो निर्णय में आगे मात्र अधिनियम कहलायेगा ) के अन्तर्गत वह श्रमिक की परिभाषा में आता है तथा विपक्षी संस्थान पर अधिनियम के प्रावधान लागू होते हैं । प्रार्थी को सेवा मुक्ति का कोई कारण नहीं बताया व न ही उसे कोई लिखित में आदेश दिया गया । उसे सेवा मुक्ति के पूर्व एक माह का नोटिस अथवा उसके एवज में एक माह का वेतन नहीं दिया न ही छंटनी का मुआवज़ा दया गया । प्रार्थी सेवा मुक्ति के बाद भी बीकानेर में ड्यूटी पर उपस्थित होता रहा एवं विपक्षी उसे सेवा में लेने के आश्वासन देते रहे किन्तु उसे सेवा में नहीं लिया गया । जब कार्यालय जैसलमेर स्थानान्तरित हो गया तो वहां भी कई बार वह गया और सेघा में लेने का निवेदन करता रहा लेकिन उसे सेवा में नहीं लिया गया । सेवा मुक्ति को अनुचित , अवैध , ब‌नियतिपूर्ण व प्राकृतिक न्याय के सिद्धांतों के विपरीत अपने क्लेम के चरण सं. ४ के उप चरण " अ " से " ऊ " में उल्लखित अनुसार बताया है एवं निवेदन किया कि प्रार्थी की सेवा मुक्ति को अनुचित व अवैध घोषित करते हुए उसे सेवा में बहाल किया जावे व समस्त लाभ दिलायें जायें । 3. अपने जवाब में अप्रार्थी ने अंकित किया कि प्रार्थना पत्र काफी देरी से प्रस्तुत किये जाने से चलने योग्य नहीं है तथा प्राथों को एक निश्चित कार्यक्रम " सीमा हकबंदी " के लिए एक निश्चित समयावधि के लिए दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिक के रूप में कार्य पर रखा गया था एवं जिस कार्य के लिए उसे रखा गया वह कार्य समाप्त हो गया । ऐसी स्थिति में अधिनियम के प्रावधान इस प्रकरण में लागू

5223

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13 , 2008/ भाद्र 22 , 1930

नहीं होना बताया । मदवार जवाब देते हुए बताया कि प्रार्थी को विपक्षी विभाग में कभी भी कोई नियुक्ति प्रदान नहीं की गई बल्कि " सीमा हकबंदी " के निश्चित कार्यक्रम पर दैनिक वेतन भोगी के रूप में निर्धारित मजदूरी को दर से दैनिक वंशन के आधार पर कार्य पर लिया गया था एवं खण्ड बीकानेर के लिए ही उसे कार्य पर लिया गया एवं खण्ड बीकानेर का कार्य समाप्त हो जाने के बाद उक्त निश्चित कार्य भी समाप्त हो गया । आगे बताया कि प्रार्थी को कभी भी कार्य से हटाया नहीं बल्कि वह स्वयं ही बिना किसी सूचना व अवकाश स्वीकृत कराये कार्य छोड़कर चला गया तथा बीकानेर का कार्य समाप्त होने पर बीकानेर खण्ड को समाप्त कर दिया एवं जैसलमेर खण्ड में कार्य शुरू किया गया जो कार्य अब समाप्त हो चुका है । प्रार्थी कभी भी बोकानेर अथवा जैसलमेर कार्य पर नहीं आया है न ही उसे पुनः कार्य पर लेने का कोई आश्वासन दिया गया । जहां तक प्रार्थी के बेरोजगार बैठे होने का प्रश्न है . इस तथ्य को प्रार्थो स्त्र्य सिद्ध करे एवं प्रार्थी का क्लेम खारिज होने योग्य बताया ।

4. साक्ष्य में स्वयं प्रार्थी पांकर राम परीक्षित हुआ च अप्रार्थी की ओर से श्री डी.के. पंजवानी के बयान करवाये गये ।

5. दोनों पक्षों की बहस सुनी । प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि ने अपनी बहस में बताया कि प्रार्थी ने प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू । पत्र प्रार्थी को पुनः सेवा में रखने हेतु लिखा , उक्त पत्र में सभी तथ्यों का उल्लेख किया गया है तथा प्रार्थी को नौकरी से हटाने के बाद उससे कनिष्ठ तीन श्रमिक राजेन्द्र कुमार, जितेन्द्र कुमार व पुखराज को काम पर रखा गया है । पत्र डब्लयू-2 से सी.पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. मजदूर यूनियन ने कार्यपालक अभियन्ता जैसलमेर को उसे पुनः नौकरी में लेने तथा उसके पापले में क्या प्रगति हुई , संबंधी लिखा गया है । प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-3 पत्र अधिशासी अभियन्ता बार्डर डिवीजन । जैसलमेर द्वारा यूनियन को लिखा गया है जिसमें प्रार्थी को पुनः कार्य पर रखने का आश्वासन दिया गया । प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-4 पत्र 'केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के कार्यपालक इंजीनियर जैसलमेर द्वारा पांकरराम को पुनः कार्य पर रखनं हेतु अपने अधीन अभियन्ताओं को लिखा था । प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-5 भी इसी आशय का पत्र है । उनकी आगे बहस है कि प्रार्थी ने सेवा समाप्ति से एक वर्ष पूवं की अवधि में 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य किया, इस तथ्य को अप्रार्थी ने अस्वीकार नहीं किया है । इसके बावजूद भी प्रार्थों श्रमिक को सेन्त्रा से हटाने से पूर्व एक माह का नोटिस अथवा नोटिस बेनन नहीं दिया न ही सेवा समाप्ति संबंधी कोई मुआवजा दिया गया । प्रार्थी से कनिष्ठल श्रमिक कार्य कर रहे थे तथा सेवा मुक्ति के समय कोई वरिष्ठता सूची जारी नहीं की गई । उन्होंने अपने तर्क के समर्थन में दृष्टान्त ( 1 ) आर.एल.आर 1982 पेज 848 ( राजस्थान ) किशन कुमार विरुद्ध यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया , ( 2 ) डब्ल्यू.एल.सी. 1994 ( 2 ) पेज 227 इन्श्योरेंस विभाग विरुद्ध रामेश्वर प्रसाद, ( 3 ) एम.सी.सी. 1993 पंज 696 डी. के. यादव विरुद्ध जे.एम.ए. इण्डस्ट्रीज़ आदि न ( 4 ) आर.एल. डब्लयू, 1991 ( 1 ) 577 ( राज. ) जनरल मैनेजर नार्दर्न रेलचं विरुद्ध जज, सी. आई.टी. पेश किये ।

6. अप्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि ने अपनी वहस में बताया कि प्रार्थी कां एक निश्चित अवधि के लिए अर्थात बार्डर फेंसिंग बीकानेर डिवीजन के कार्य पर लिया गया था एवं उक्त कार्य के समाप्त होने पर उक्त GAZETTE OF INDIA : NPE MBER 13 , 2008 /BHADRA22、

PART -S4 3 ( it ) ] बायां अधिनियम के प्रार्थी

সামদ ।

इसके अतिरिक्त उनकी

मका कार्य समाप्त होने के

डिवीजन का प्रार्थो स्वयं ही उप

निश्चित अवधि के लिए निकर

अनुसार नोटिस वतन अथवा

धारा 15 -जीव

20 :3

248

अन्य पेश किय

अवधि में

بشريدابن फ

'नरन्दर बिना कि

हो गया था । चूंकि प्रार्थी जहां कार्यग्न था वह कार्य एक परियोजना के रूप में था एवं उक्त परियोजना के पूर्ण होने तक ही था तथा प्रार्थी को उक्त कार्य पर दैनिक वेतनगी ए में लगाया गया था अतः उक्त कार्य समाप्त होने पर कंजल ही नहीं चल्कि अन्य जो भी कार्यरत थे उन सभी को कार्य पर लेना माल नहीं रहा । इन हालात में प्रार्थ का प्ायला छंटनी की परिभाग नहीं आता बल्कि धारा 2 ( 00 ) ( बीবী ) की परिधि में आता है। इसमें उनकी ओर से पेश दृष्टान्ट य থা यू.पी.लैण्ड डेवलपमेंट कापोरशन निन्द्ध अमर सिंह, एग्जीक्यूटिव इंजीनियर , कर्नाटक राज्य कि सोमासैट्टी आदि, व हिम'चल प्रदेश राज्य विरुद्ध नांचा के अध्ययन किया । इन सभी में नियुक्त थे, उक्त परियोजना को जहः श्रमिकगण किसी समाप्ति पर जो श्रमिक कलम १. उनको संत्रा भी स्वतः ही स्पाप्त हो जाने का सिद्धान्त प्रतिकिया है । हस्तगत प्रकरण में भी जां तथ्य प्रकट हुए हैं उनसे है कि प्राधी ने न्बीकानेर प्रोजेक्ट में कार्य क्रिया जहां कार्य समाप्त हो गया एवं दन्यर प्रोजेक्ट जैसलमेर के लिए शुरू किया गया था । प्रार्थक ओर से एसी काई विधि नहीं बताई गई कि पहले प्रोजेक्ट के के उपरान्त जो नया अंजेक्ट शुरू किया उसमें भी पहल प्रत श्रमिकों को लगा किस तरह से आवश्यक था। इसके प्रदर्श उब्ल्यू-3 , 4 , मारल में जो दस्तावेज यथा देखने से अप्रार्थी विभाग की ओर से प्रार्थी कां संत्रा प्रयास भी किये गये थे किन्तु 1995 में जैसलमेर प्रोजरान हो गया । अतः प्रधों के गह मामला छंटनी की परिधि नियोजक के लिए धारा आना है और यदि ऐसा नहीं है वो कया जाना भी अवश्यक नहीं था जो दृष्टान्त प्रार्थों को उनका भी मेरे अध्ययन नहीं है जो कि परियंजना किया । उनमें से कोई एवं श्रमिक का दैनिक माया गना हो एवं उस परियाजना कं समाप्त हो जाने में रहने का प्रतिपादित किया हो रहा.

זי

५. प्रार्थी का मनपूर्व श्रमिकों को चांगलता

सची जारी नहीं करता नष्ट श्रमिकों को जैसलमेर

प्रजेक्ट में कार्च पर दिन में प्रार्थी ने अपने कथनों पं

कोई भी नाम या दुष्टान् अमुक अमुक श्रमिक जी

उसके साथ थे अथवा उन्हें काम पर लिखाव

प्रार्थों को नहीं लिया । हमिद्धान्त है कि दैनिक वेतन

भोगी कर्मचारियों के पागल गुची जारी करना भी अवश्यक श

नहीं है । इस सारं विचर्षकि प्रार्थीका क्लेम

स्वीकार हाने योग्य नहीं है अवार्ड पारित किया

" सो.पी.डन्न्लयू.डी. के प्रदन पोकर गम भोल के सेवाएं शुरु हुआ

ममाप्त करने को कार्य एवं न्यायसंगत है जार्थी

कोई अनुदोष प्राप्त करने

* સ્વછ છછછ ??? શ્ર છ ?? ?????

आजको खुने न्यगलय में

7. अवार्ड

लखाना जाकर सुनाया गयप्रकाशनार्थ नियमानुसार

ৎসা জান । [ भाग [ I- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 21 अगस्त, 2008

का.आ. 2588.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय पुणे के पंचाट को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-8-08 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40012/29/2004- आई. आर. ( डी. यू. ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 21st August , 2008

S.O. 2588.-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, Pune as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 21-08-2008 .

[No. L-40012/29 /2004-IR (DU) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHRIKANT K. DESHPANDE , INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL MAHARASHTRA AT PUNE

Reference ( IT) No. 64 of2004

5225

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13 , 2008 /भाद्र 22, 1930

the schedule that , "Whetether the workman Shri Ramrao Vishnu Thorat, was in employment as casual mazdoor in theDeptt. ofTelecom/BSNL, under Sub Division Daund continuouslyfrom 1-1-99 1031-12-99 ? Ifso, the action of the management in orally terminating/disengaging w.e.f. 1-1-2000 without any notice and compensation is legal andjustified and to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date" . him 2. The brieffacts of the case of Shri Ramrao vishnu Thorat, (Party No. 2) are as under that , the party No. 2 was employed by the department of the Telecommunication Daund Sub Division at Telephone Exchange , Walki as part time/ full time employee and was doing the work to join telephone cables, to rectify telephone and cable faults, to dig trenches , to climb telephone poles and work on overhead telephone lines , to clean the office and fill water under the supervision and control of Junior Telecom Officer ( JTO) Kedgaon . He was being paid by JTO by obtaining signature on form ACG - 17 and paid monthly wages of Rs. 1000/- and attendance was recoded in the muster roll . However on 1-1-2000 the JTO , Kedgaon discountinued his services without any notice or compensation . Thereafter the JTO Kedgaon continued to provide him work but wages were paid in cash without obtaining signature .

FirstParty

The Principal General Manager , BSNL , Bajirao Road, Pune-411002 .

And

...Second Party

Shri Ramrao Vishnu Thorat , Post-Walki , Tal-Daund , Pune.

In the matter of reinstatement with continuity of service.

CORAM: Shri Shrikant K. Deshpande. Member.

Appearances: Shri H. Y. Deo, Advocate for first party .

Shri A. Y. Shikarkhane , Advocate for second party.

AWARD

Delivered on 19-07-2008

This is a Reference made by the Central Government Ministry of Labour, vide its order dtd. 07-10-2004 in exercise ofpowers conferred by Clause-( d ) ofSub- Sec . ( 1 ) and Sub- Sec . (2A) of Section - 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and referred the dispute in relation to the management of BSNL and Their Workman , in respect of matter specified in .

The party No. 2 added that All India SC/ ST Union pursuaded his case for permanency, accordingly the details regarding the employment of the party No. 2 alongwith similar situated workmen were called for considering their case for regularization , accordingly the details were sent after 3-1-03 , however prior to that the dispute has been raised. The part No. 2 further added that in the meantime he wasworking under the part No. 1 till 1-5-03 and paid wages in cash, however thereafter they stopped giving work . Lastly the party No. 2 urged that there is sufficient full time work with party No. 1 and he could be absorbed on the regular vacant post , still the party No. 2 prays that party No. I be directed to absorb the second party in the regular vacancy'in Group- D from 1-1-2000.

3. The BSNL (Party no . 1) strongly resisted the statement of claim by reply and denied all the contentions of the party No. 2 in totality. The party No. I contended that the statement of claim is not filed within the prescribed period, there is no employer and employee relationship between the parties . The party no. I were not paid by DOT/ BSNL therefore the party No. 2 was not the employee of partyNo. 1.

The party No. I further contended that , the party No. 2 maybe working under the contractor who were allotted the work by tender and he was working under the Contract Act, hence the contractors are under the obligation to maintain the record. The party No. 2 was never directly in service or under supervision of the party No. 1 , hence the claim about the service does not aríse The party no . I also contended that their establishment is 5226

[PART --SA 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 13 , 2008 /BHADRA 22. 1920

governed, managed and controlled by rules and regulations ofDOT, New Delhi . On formation of BSNL w.e.f. 1-10-2000 one time relaxation was given in conversion in full time casual labour . The application from PTCL and certificate from controlling authority were called to ascertain the genuine regarding information received from field. accordingly the committee was formed and member visited to the respective units and submitted the list . However the name of part no . 2 did not find place in the list and since he was not paid by DOT/ BSNI . therefore he was not considered for permanency. Lastly the party no. I urged that the claim of party no . 2 is illegal therefore he is not entitled for any rehef and ultimately requested that the Reference be answered in the negative .

4.My learned predecessor has framed the issues a Exh. 2, I have re- arranged and properly verded those issues asbelow and my findings and reasons to them are as below:

ISSUES

FINDINGS L. Does the party no. 2 proves that he is employee of the party no. 12

No ;

Yes:

2. Does the party no.1 prove that the party no.2 was engaged by contractor ?

3. Does the party no.2 proves that the party no.l had illegally terminated the services of party no.2 without complying the provisions of S.25F of the ID Act ?

Does not survive .

No. 4. Whether the party no.2 is entitled to get reinstatement with continuity of service?

5. What Award ?

As per order below .

REASONS

5. ISSUE No. 1 & 2 : These issues are inter- related therefore answered together .

After carefully scanning the oral evidence of the partics available on record it seems that , the party no.2 deposed befor the court that he joined as a casual labour atTelephone Exchange Walki which comes under Kedgaon Division of the party no.1 and carrying out the cleaning work ofoffice , fetching water , cleaning batteries . He was reporting to JTO Kedgaon and in case of any default in telephone line JTO used to direct him to repair the said fault . He further deposed that there was no system of recording attendance , he was getting Rs . 100 עלןומזון singing on ACG- 17 , however after taken over by the BSNE . practice of signing on ACG - 17 was discontinued .

Though the party no 2 specitically pleaded in the statement of claim that bus attendance was bemg recorded in the muster roll , howeverpruty No. 2 deposed contrary t the pleadings that there was o0 system of recoding attendatice . Furthermore in cross - examination the party no.2 stated that there was separate teleplione exchange at Walki and the distance is about 50 kms , there was no regular staff at Walki telephone exchange and he was the only casual labour at Walki and amending the work of repairing as per the instructions from 10. Kedgaon and also stated the excepting repairing work other work was carried out by the contractors .

6. It has come on record through oral evidence adduced onbehalf of the party no.1 that there was ban 10 the recruitment and employmen of the casual labours kor any type of work since 1996. The party no. 1 started giving the work of excavating trenches , laying and joating underground telephone cables , erection of DP and pillars in the rural areas to the contrackers. It has also come record that the party no.2 never worked during 16-5-9710 30-5-02 as a regular employee or casual labour or castill cmployce under JTO kedgaon . the payment of wages were never made to the party nos the party no.1 nor the signatures of the party no.2 was obtained on ACG - 17 or on other documents . The parts no 2 was not employee of the Telecommunication departinent and never worked under thesupervision and control of the EO Kedgaon, his name was not on the muster roll nor the party no.2 was paid any time on pay roll. The witnesses of the party not were fully cross-examined on behalf of the party no 2.however he could not bring substantial material on record.

From the above discusses ural evidence available on record it can be safely send that the party no.2 never worked regularly or casual empyee with the party no . 1 he was not on the master roli nor on pay roll . There was no staff at Walki Telephone Ischange and the work which was alleged to have been performed by the party no.1 Wils given to the contractor . Sun.hely the casual labours were not being paid their wages on ACG - 17 , 0onder such circumstances it is very d:: ticult to accem that the party no.2 was working as a casual labour with party no . 1.

7. As regards the decimmcntary evidence it seems that ; during the proceedings the party no.2 sought productionofACG - 17 regarding payment of wages made by JTO Kedgaon alongwitlı muthly work orders , however the party no.1 denied the martenance of such record, therefore my learned predecessor observed that the party no.2 may produce the secondly evidence to that effect and accordingly rejected the application . However no such secondary evidence has been place on record by the partyNo.2 .

Furthermore it revea's that the party No. 2 relied on the original complaint book ( Ex.1-92as well as veron copies of proforma prescribed for part ume casual labour ( 1.xh.

[ भाग 1 ] -खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

U- 10) . On careful perusal of the entries in the complaint book (Exh . U- 9) it seems that those entries are inrespect of work alleged to have been performed by the party No.2 after 22-4-01 and there is no entry rgarding the work performed bythe party No.2 from January 99 to 31-12-99 . Similarly in the prescribed proforma (Exh.U- 10 ) there is no whisper that party No.2 worked as casual employee any timewith the party No.1 thus merely on the basis ofworking days shown for the year 1999 in the proforma it will be unsafe to infer about casual employment of the partyNo.2 withthe party No.1 , Not only this but there is no mention in the proforma that to whom it was submitted by the party No. 2. Similarly the material coloumn of the proforma appears to be blank . Thus I do not think that these documents are any way helpful to party No. 2 to show that he was working as casual labour with the party No.1 .

8. From the above discussed oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, I reiterate that the party No. 2 was never worked as casual or regular employeewith the party no . 1 , he was not on the muster roll of the party no . 1 nor paid the wages on pay rolls like daily wages or casual employee by JTO Kedgaon . Moreover the work alleged to have been performed by the party no.2 appears to have been given to the contractor . The contractor used to make the payment to the employees working under him therefore it is very difficult to accept that the party No.2 was the employee ofthe party No. 1. At the most the party no. 2 appears to have been the employee ofthe contractor and not of party no. 1 , hence I answer these Issues accordingly.

9. ISSUE NO . 3 : I have observed earlier that the party no.2 was not the employee of the party No. 1 it means there is no relationship of employer and employee between the party No. 1 & party No. 2 and in absence of that there is no question of continuous service as well as the compliance ofthe provisions of law while terminating the services of the employee therefore this issue does not survive, hence I answer this Issue Accordingly .

10. ISSUE NO. 4 : I have observed earlier that the party No.2 is not the employee of the party no.I and in absence of relationship of employer & employee between the party No.1 and party No. 2, the party No. 2. is not entitled for any protection under law and party No. 2 is not entitled for any relief as prayed.

It is partinent to note here that , in the statement of claim the party no.2 has specifically stated that even after termination w.e.f. 31-12-99 he was taken in service and since then he was working with party no.1 under JTO Kedgaon till 1-5-03 . The paty No. 2 further stated that there is sufficient full time work under SDE Daund at Kedgaon and other places and at other stations with the party No. 1 and hecould absorbed in regular vacant post , therefore prayed for direction to the party No. 1 to absorb him in regular

5227

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13 , 2008/ भाद्र 22 , 1930

vacancy in group- D from 1-1-2000 with the consequential benefits. In fact I have observed earlier that party No. 2 was not an employee of the party No. 1 , therefore not entitled for any relief as prayed , nor there is question of any directionto the party No. I to absorb the partyNo. 2 in regular employment of the party no. 1.

It isworthwhile to mention here that by this reference the dispute regarding the termination of party No. 2 w.e.f. 1-1-2000 has been referred to this court for adjudication and except that no other issue has been referred to this court for adjudication , so the claim made by the party No. 2 regarding absorption in regular employment of the partyNo. I is certainly not within the ambit ofthe Reference referred for adjudication therefore this court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the same and grant reliefaccordingly. In brief the party no.2 is not entitled for relief as prayed , hence I answer this Issue in the negative.

In the result I proceed to pass the following Award. AWARD

I. The Reference is answered in the negaitve.

2. Party No. 2 is not entitled for any relief as prayed.

3. Parties to bears their own costs .

4. Copies be sent to the appropriate authorities . PUNE: DATE: 19-7-2008

SHRIKANT K. DESHPANDE , Industrial Tribunat नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्त , 2008

का.आ. 2589 -औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, कंन्द्रीय सरकार भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय पुणे के पंचाट को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-8-08 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -40012/28/2004- आई. आर. (डी. यू. ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 21st August, 2008

S.O. 2589.In pusuance 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 , Pune as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, and their workman , which was received by the CentralGovernment on 21-08-2008 .

[No. L-40012/28/2004 -IR ( DU ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer 5228

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 13. 2008 / BHADRA 22. 14.30 P381 11-5 . 3 ) ] ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHRIKANT K. DESHPANDE , INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL MAHARASHTRA AT PUNE

Reference ( IT) No. 61 of2004

First Party

The Principal General Manager .

BSNL . BajiraoRoad.

Pune-411002 .

And

.... SecondParty

Shri Sanjay Pandurang Sonawane,

Post : Patas Station , Teh : Daแท ส

Pune.

The party No. 2 added that All India SC ST Un pursuaded his case for permanency , according the details regarding the employenment of the party No. 2 alongwith similar situated workmen were called for considering their case for regularization , scendingly the details were sent after 3-1-03 , however prior to that the dispure has heen raised. The part No. 2 further added that in the meantime he wasworkingunder the parts Nis till 23-8-2003 and paid wages in cash however thereafter they stopped giving work . fastly the party No. 2 urged that there is suflicient full time work with party No. 1 and he could be absorbed on the regular vacant post , thus the party No. 2 prays that party No. I be directed to absorb the second party in the regular vacancy inGroup- D from 1-1 -Cup

In the matter of reinstatement with continuity of service .

CORAM : Shri Shrikant K. Deshpande.Member.

Shri H. Y. Deo . Advocate for lirst party.

Appearances:

Shri A. Y. Shikarkhane . Advocate For second party .

AWARD

3. The BSNL ( Parts No strongly resisted the statement of claim by reply and denied all the contentions of the partyNo.2 in totality . The party Na.l contended that the statement of claim is an filed within the prescribed period , there is no empleyar Se employee relationship between the parties . The party Nu . I were not paid by DOT BSNL therefore the pany wits for the employee of partyNo.1 .

Delivered on 19-07-2008

This is a Reterence made by the Central Government Ministry ofLabow. vide its order dtd . 11-10-04 in exerese ofpowers conferred by Clause ( d ) of sub - sec . ( 1 ) and sub- sec.( 2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 and referred the dispute in relation to the Mangement of BSNL and their Workman , in respect of matter specified in the schedule that. " Whether the workman Shri Sanjay Pandurang Sonawane was in employment as Castal mazdoor in the Dept. of Telecom BSNL , under Sub Division Daund continuously from 1996 10 31-12-99 ? If so , the action of the management in orally terminating disengaging him w.e.f. 1-1-2000 without any notice and compensator is legal and justified and to what relief the concerned workin is entitled to and from which date" .

The party No. 1 lfurther contended that the party No2 may e working under the contractor who were allotted the work by tender and he was working under the Contract Act, hence the contractors are under the obligation to maintain the record. The party No.2 was never direcily in service or under supervision of the party No.1, hence the claim about the service dues cotarise The party No.Talso contended that their estes grient is governed, managed and controlled by rules andregulations of DD1 . New Dell: On formation o[ BSN ] 100onetinte relaxation was given in conversation in till tune casual labour ! he application from PTCE. and cornficate from contralling authority were called 10 ascertain the genuine regarding information received from field . secordingly the commаlее was formed and member istted to the respective unts and submitted the list . However the rate of part No. 2 did not find place in the list and since the wis not paid by Dor BSNI. therefore he was et considered for permanency Lastly the party No. 1 urged that the claim of party No. 21s legal therefore he is not enti ; ed for any relief and ultimately requested that the Referencebenswered m the negative

4. My leamed predecessor his tramed the issues at Exlh. 2, 1 have re - arranged tuki properly verded those issues as below and my findings and results to them are as below

ISSUES

FINDINGS

No:

( 1 ) Does the party So proves that he is employee of the paris No. 12

2. The brief facts of the case of Shri Sanjas Pandurang Sonawane ( Party No. 2 ) are as under that , the party No. 2 was employed by the Department of the Telecommunications Daund Sub Division at Telephone Exchange Kedgaon as part time fall time employee and was doing the work to jon telephone cables , 10 recti telephone and cable taults . to dig trenches , to club telephone poles and work on overhead telephone Imes , to clean the office and till water under the supervision ad contral ofJunior Telecom Officer ( JTO ) Kedgaon . He was being paid by 110 by obtaining signature on loren ACG- 17 , paid monthly wages of Rs . 1000 and attendance was recorded in the muster roll . However ott 1-1-2000 the ITO Kedgaondiscontinued his services without any notice or compensations Thereafter the TO Kedgaon continued to provide him work but wages were paid in cash without obtaining signature .

Yes.

(2) Does the party No. prove that the party w . 2 was engaged by contractor ?

[ भाग 1 ] - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(3) Does the party No.2 proves that the party No.1 had illegally terminated the services ofparty No.2 without complying the provisions of $.25F of the ID Act ?

Does not survive;

No (4) Whether the party No. 2 is entitled to get reinstatement with continuity of service ?

(5) What Award ?

As per order below.

REASONS

5. ISSUE NO. 1 & 2 : Both these issues are interrelated therefore answered together . In the present reference the dispute appears to be regarding status of the party No.2, i.e. whether the party No. 2 is an employee of the party No.1 or the employee of the contractor . The subsequent issue depends on earlier issue and to discharge the burden regarding the status, the party No.2 has examined himself alongwith Mr. Balgude , the then officiating line Inspector on his behalf. Whereas the party No. I has relied on the evidence ofMr. Tiwari , Ovhal & Gundecha, JTO's & Sub- Divisional Engineer in rebuttal .

6. It has come on record that , the party No.2 was working at Sub -Division Daund . Telephone Exchange Kedgaon of the party No.1 , he was required to dig pits , to carry out cleaning work, to carry out repairing work of telephone fault and joined the cables . He was performing these works as per the direction of the Line Inspector Mr. Balgude who was working under the supervision of Mr. R. P. Tiwari , JTO. He was getting Rs . 1000/-p.m . towards the wages , the JTO Kedgaon was the drawing and disbursing authority and at the time of payment his signatures were obtained on ACG- 17. His attendance was recorded on muster attendance rolls and since telecommunication department is taken over by BSNL he was getting salary by cash without signing any receipt .

It has further come on record that the name of casual labours only appears on the muster roll of JTO and the employees on the muster roll were getting their names included in the pay rolls while receiving the wages and party No.2 fairly admitted that he was never paid on pay rolls . Though the party No.2 denied that he was never enrolled on the muster roll of JTO , however as per adminssion given by the party No.2 regarding non- receiving the wages on pay roll , it can be safely inferred that the party No.2 was not on the muster roll nor on the pay roll of the JTO Kedgaon .

7. It seems that the party No.2 has examined Mr. Balgude , Line Inspector on the point of supervision and control over his work and accodingly he deposed that the party No.2 joined the duties in Telephone Exchange Kedgaon and working as a helper to cable joinder with him. Mr. Tiwari , JTO used to allott the work to the party No.2 and the party No.2 was working as per the direction of Mr. Tiwari and Line Inspector , he used to supervise the work ofthe party No.2 and used to sign the diary maintained 3272G1/ 08-12

5229

भारत का राजमन्त्र : सितम्बर 13, 2008 / भाद्र 22, 1930

by the party No.2 for verification of work done by him . However in the cross-examination witness stated that he used to carry out the construction of new telephone lines with the help of 10 to 12 persons and their attendance register was standing in his name. The labours working with him were on muster roll , they were casual labours on dailywages and carrying out the erection work of telephone lines only, the witness fairly admitted that the name ofthe partyNo.2was never appearing on his muster roll when he was in Sub -Division Daund. The witness also deposed that after 1998 the construction work ofthe telephone lines were being carries out through contractor , since then the practice ofmaintaining muster roll was stopped. However those muster rolls were in respect of casual labours working withLine Inspector .

The witness further deposed that since 1998 the construction of telephone lines i.e. putting overhead wires as well as underground cable work was heing carried out through contractor and since then the practice of maintaining muster roll as well as engagement of casual workers for the said work was stopped . When the contractor was appointed for carrying out the cable work and overhead wire work, they used to appoint their casual labours and contractor used to make payment of their casual labours. The casual labours working with party No.I were getting their wages by putting their signatures on the last coloumn of the muster roll and they were not getting the wages by not signing on ACG - 17 .

8. It has come on record through oral evidence adduced on behalf of the party No. 1 that , there was ban to the recruitment on employment of the casual labours for any type ofwork . Since 1990 the party No. L. started giving the work of excavating trenhes , laying and jointing underground telephone cables , erection of D and pillars in the rural areas to the contractors . The party No. 2 Sanjay Pandurang Sonawane never worked during 1991 to April 1997 and 16-5-97 10 30-5-02 as regular employee , casual labour or casual employee under JTO Kedgaon payment ofwages wee never made to the party No.2 by the party No.I nor the signatures were obtained on ACG - 17 . The party No. 2 was never employee of Telecommunication Department and never worked under the supervision and control of JTO Kedgaon . The attendance of the party No.2 wasnever recorded in the muster roll nor paid any time by JTO. The witness were cross-examined by the party No.2, however could bring substantial material on rerord.

It isworth while to mention here that , the party No.2 has stated about recording attendance on muster roll as well as getting the payment by signing on ACC - 17 . The partyNo. 2 fairly admitted that he never received the wages on pay rolls and as per the oral evidence of the witness ol the party No. 2 the casunt labours working with the party No.I were getting their wages by putting their signalures in the last column of the muster roll and they were not getting their wages by signing on AC- 17 . This itself shows that the party No.2 was never on the muster roll of the partyNo. 1 nor he was any time paid wages on the pay rolls like the other casual workers working with party No. 1 .

$230

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 13 , 2008 /BHADRA 22. 1930 [PART 11- SIX . 3 ( ii ) )

court. In fact though the party No.2 stated on oath that his attendance was recorded on muster attendance rolls however there is no explanation as to why the production of those muster rolls was not sought by the party No.2 from the party No. 1 and in absence of that by no stretch of imagination it can be said that party No.2 was working as casual employee on misier roll of the party No.l and he was being paid wages on pay roils .

9. From the above discussed oral evidener available on record it can be safely interred that the party No. 2 never worked as a regular or casual employee under JTO Kedgaon . He was not on the muster roll nor on pay roll of JTO Kedgaon . The work perforined by the party No. 2 appears to have been given to the contractor. As regards the supervision and direction to the work, the party No.2 appears to have been relied on the oral evidence of Mr. Balgude, Lime Inspector , however he clarified that the warne ofthe party No.2 was never appearing on the muster rolis . The contractors used to make the payments of the casual labours working with them and also clarified that the casual labours were not getting their wages by signing ACG- 17 . Though the party No.2 stated that he was performing the work as per thedirection of Mr. Balgude, however Mr. Balgude deposed otherwise that Mr. Tiwar . JIO used to allot the work to the party No.2 and the party No.2 was working as per the direction of Mr. Tiwari , Linder such circumstances on the basis of above discussed oral evidence it is very difficult to accept that the party No. 2 was working as a casual labour in Sub -Division Daund of the party No.1

10. After considering the crul evidence available on record let us consider the documentary evidence relied by the party No.2 to substantiate their claim before the court . It reveals that during the proceedings the party No. 2 sought production of form ACC - 17 regarding payment of wages made by TO Kedgaon alongwith monthly work orders . however the party No. i denied the maintenance of such record therefore iny learned predecessor observed that the party No.2 may produce the secondary evidence to that effect and accordingly rejected the applicatior , however no such docurrents are placed on record.

Much reliance has been placed by the party No.2011 xerox copies ofdocuments Exh . U - 7 & U -8 . On perusal of these documents it seems that those are the proforma prescribed for part time casual labour and bears the signature of party No.2 . However there is no whisper in the proforma that the party No.2 worked as casual employee any time with the party No.1 and merely on the basis of certain working days shown year wise in the proforina it cannot be inferred about casual employment of the party No.2 with the party No.1 Furthermore signatory of the certificate i.e. JIO denied their signatures appearing on the documents alleging that the signatures is forged . In case on denial ofsignature on the xerox copies of pra forma, the party No.2 was at liberty to sought production original documents i.e. original proforma from the party No 1 if the originals were submitted to party No. I but no such production was sought by the party No.2 for the reasons best known to him . Not only this but there is no mention on the proforma that to whom it was submitted by the party No. 2 Similarly the material coloumns ofthe proforma appears to be blank and Exh . UB does not bears the various stamps and signatures lise Exh . 1-9 , therefore I do not think that these documents are any way helpful for the party No.2 to demonstrate that he was working as casual labour with partyNo. 1 .

From the above disenssed oral as well asdocumentary evidence available on record . I reiterate that the party No.2 was never worked as casual or regular employee with the party No. 1. He was not on the muster roll ofthe party No. I nor paid the wages on pay roils like daily wages or casual employee by JTO Kedgaon . the party No.2 never worked under the supervision & control of JTO Kedgaon of the pany No. 1. Moreover the work which was performed by the party No.2 was given to the contractor . The contractor used to make the payment to the employees working under him therefore it is very difficult to accept that the partyNo. 2 was employee of the party No.1 At the most the party No.2 appears to be tine layee of the contractor and nol the party No.1 , hence anden these issues accordingly .

Furthermore it reveals that the party No.2 relied on various documems which are placed hetere the court alongwith list 1: xh. U - 17. On careful perasal of those original documents available on record it seems that those are in respect of tusiracusa about the work given by 110 Kedgaon & JTO Yewat, the inspection report for Septen 2002 . and July 2003 alongwith diaries maintained by the party No.2. In fact it has come on record that TO Yesor & ITO Kedgaon are different and $ 10 Yewat has no concern with JTO Kedgaon , therefore the instructions issued by JTO Yewal are not an all material in the present case . Santularly though the documents at Exh . 1-98 Exh U - 10 hears the signature of itO Kedgaon , however those chits documents are of 2003 is aher the period of termນ 1:31:00 of party No. 2 therelere not useful to decide about the employment of the party No.2 with party No, I and merely on the basis ofdiaries regarding the work performed by the party No.2 . It is very difficult to accept that the party No.2 was working with party No I that too as casual employee,

22. Issue No. 3 1 have observed earlier that the party No. 2 was not the employee of the party No.1 it means there is no relationship of employer & employce between the partyNo. 1 and Party No. 2 and in absence of that there is no question of continuous service as well as the compliance of the provisions of law while terminating the services of the employee titerefore this issued does not survive , hence | answer this issue accordingly .

1 ) Furthermore in spite of direction to produce the secondary evidence regarding the ACG - 17 ie in respect of payment made 10 the party No. 2 no attempts were made on behalfof party No. 2. l'o bring such material before the [ भाग 1 ] - खाण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

13. Issue No. 4: I have observed earlier that the party. No. 2 is not the employee ofthe party No. I and in absence of relationship ofemployer & employee between the party No. 1 and partyNo. 2, the party No. 2 is not entitled for any protection under law and party No. 2 is not entitled for any reliefas prayed.

It is pertinent to note here that, in the statement of claim the partyNo. 2 has specifically stated that even after termination w.e.f. 31-12-99 he was taken in service and since then he was working with party No.I under JTO Kedgaon till 23-8-03 . The party No.2 further stated that there is sufficient full time work under SDE Daund at Kedgaon and other places and at other stations with the party No. 1 and he could absorbed in regular vacant post, therefore prayed for direction to the party No.1 to absorb him in regular vacancy in group - D from 1-1-2000 with the consequential benefits . In fact I have observed earlier that partyNo.2was not an employee of the party No. 1 , therefore not entitled for any relief as prayed , nor there is question ofany direction to the party No. I to absorb the party No.2 in regular employment of the party No. 1 .

It isworthwhile to mention here that by this reference the dispute regarding the termination of party No. 2 w.e.f. 1-1-2000 has been referred to this court for adjudication and except that no other issue has been referred to this court for adjudication , so the claim made by the partyNo. 2regarding absorption in regular employment of the party No. 1 is certainly not within the ambit of the Reference referred for adjudication , therefore this court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the same and grant relief accordingly. In brief the party No. 2 is not entitled for relief as prayed, hence I answer this issue in the negative.

In the result 1 proceed to pass the following Award .

AWARD

1. The Reference is answered in the negative.

2. Party No. 2 is not entitled for any relief as prayed .

3. Parties to bears their own costs .

4. Copies be sent to the approprate authorities .

SHRIKANT K. DESHPANDE, Industrial Tribunal Pune:

Date: 19-7-2008

नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्त, 2008

का.आ. 2590.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार टेलीकॉम कोएकसीएल केबल प्रोजेक्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय जबलपुर, के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी जी आईटी /एल सी आर/209/90 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-8-08 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-40011 / 10/90- आई आर ( डी यू) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 21st August , 2008

S.O. 2590 -In pusuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central

5231

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13 , 2008 /भाद्र 22, 1930

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/ LC/R/209/90 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Jabalpur , as shown in the Annexure in the Industrialdispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Coaxial Cable Project , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 21-08-2008.

[No. L-40011/ 10/ 90- IR ( DU ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR- COURT, JABALPUR No. CGIT/LC/ R/ 209/90

Presiding Officer : Shri C.M. Singh

-Workman/Union TheBranch Secretary, Akhil Bhartiya Tar Yantirk Karmachari Sangh. Line Statf and Group-D, Mandal Abhiyanta Telegraph , Branch: Jabalpur (MP )

Versus

Management TheDivisional Engineer, Telecom Coaxial Cable Project. M.I.G. -2, Govind Bhavan , South Civil Lines, Jabalpur

AWARD Passed on this ith day of August, 2008 1. The Government of India , Minstry of Labour vide itsNotification No. L-40011 / 10/90-1R ( DU) dated 27-10-90 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal:-

"Whether the action of the Div . Engineer, Telecom Coaxial Cable Project , Jabalpur in retrenching S /Shri Gopichand Chakole and 16 others casual workers w.c.f. 1-5-88 is justified ? If not, to what relief the workers concerned are entitled to ? "

2. In this reference , notices were issued to the parties by Registered AD post which were received back with the endorsement ofthe postal department that the parties donot reside on the given address. Again several times, notices were issued to the parties under Certificate of Posting. Those notices have been received back without service perhaps from the above reason as endorsed above by the Postal Department . Under the circumstances , this Tribunal is not left with any option but to close the reference for no dispute award.

3. It appears from the above that none of the parties is interested in the dispute and perhaps no dispute is left between them. Therefore , it is just and proper to pass no dispute award. No dispute award is passed in this case without any orders as to costs .

5232

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 13 , 2008 / BIIADRA 22, 1950

4. Let the copies of teh award be sent to the Governmentof India , Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.

C. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 21 अगस्त, 2008

and referred the dispute in relation to the Mangement of BSNL and Their Workman , in respect of matter specified in the schedule that , " Whetirer the workman Slvi Nitesh D Shelar was in ensployment a casual macduor in the Dept. of Telecom/BSNL . der Sub Division Durani continuously from 1997 10 31-12-99 Ifso the action of the management in orally terminating disengaging hon w.cf. 1-1-2000 without um notice and compensation is legal and justified and to what rebel the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date".

का.आ. 2591.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विषद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , पुणे के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या... ) का प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-8-08 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40012/25/ 2004- आई आर ( डी यू ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 21st August , 2008

of S.O. 2591 -In pusuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 19:47 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref . No. the industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Pune , as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 21-08-2008 .

No. 1. -40012 /25/2004 - IR ( DU ) ]

2. The brief facts of the case of Shri Shesh D Shelar ( Party No. 2 ) are as under that , the party No. 2 was employed by the departament of the Telecommunications Daund Sub Division at Telephone Exchange Warwand as part time / full time employee and was doing the work to join telephone cables , to rectify telephone and cable laults , to dig trenches , to climb telephone poles and work on overhead telephone lines , to clean the office and fill water under the supervision and contralot Junior Telecom Officer ( JTO) Kedgaon . He was being paid by JTO by obtaining signature on form ACG - 17 and paid monthly wages of Rs. 1000/-and attendance was recorded in the muster roll . However on 1-1-2000 the JTO , Kedgaon discontinued his services without any notice or compensations . Thereatter the STO Kedgaon continued to provide him work but wages were paid in cash without obtaining signature.

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHRIKANT K. DESHPANDE , INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

MAHARASHTRA AT PUNE

Reference(TT) No. 63 of 2004

ThePrincipal General Manager .

First Party

BSNL , Bajirao Road. Pune-411002.

And

Second Party

The party No. 2 added that All India SCST Uni pursuaded his case for permanenes ,accordingly the detaris regarding the employement of the party No. 2 alongwith similar situated workmen were called for considering their case for regularization , accordingly the details were sent after 3-1-03 , however prior to that the dispute has been raised. The part No.2 further added that in the meantime he wasworking under the party No. I till 23-8-2003 and paid wages in cash however thereafter they stopped giving work . Lastly the party No. 2 urged that there is sufliciem full tune work with party No.I and he could be absorbed on the regular vacant post, thus the party No.2 prays that party No. I be directed to absorb the second party in the regular vacancy in Group -D from 1-1-2000).

Shri Nitesh D. Shelar , Post Kangaon , Patas Station . Tal -Daund. Pune .

In the matter of reinstatement with continuity of service .

CORAM : Shri Shrikant K Deshpande , Member .

Appearances : Shri H. Y. Deo , Advocate for first party.

Shri A. Y. Shikarkhane , Advocate for second party.

3. The BSNL. ( Parly No 1 strongly resisted the statement of claim by reply and denied all the contentions of the party No. 2 in totality The party No. I contended that the statement of claim is not filed within the prescribed period, there is no employer and employee relationship between the parties . The first party were not paidby DOT BSN1 . therefore the party No.2 was not the employce of partyNo. 1.

AWARD

Delivered on 19-07-2008

Thisis a Reference made by the Central Governmen! Ministry of Labour , vide its order dtd . 11-10-04 in exercise ofpowers conferred by Clause-( d ) of Sub - Sec. ( 1 ) & Sub- Sec.(2A) of Section - 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 19-47

The party No.1 further contended that the party No.1 may be working under the contractor wise were allotted the work by tender and he was working under the Contract Act , hence the contractors are under the obligation to maintain the record . The parts No 2 was never directly m service or under supervision of the party No. 1, hence the [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (1 ) ]

claim about the service does Hot arise . The party No. I also contended that their establishment is governed, managed and controlled by rules and regulations ofDOT, New Delhi. On formation of BSNL w.e.f. 1-10-2000 one time relaxation was given in conversation in full time casual labour. The application from PTCL and certificate from controlling authority were called to ascertain the genuine regarding information received from field, accordingly the committee was formed and member visited to the respective units and submitted the list . However the name of part No. 2did not find place in the list and since he was not paidby DOT/ BSNL therefore he was not considered for permanency. Lastly the party No. I urged that the claim of party No. 2 is illegal therefore he is not entitled for any relief and ultimately requested that the Reference be answered in the negative.

4.My leamed predecessor has framed the issues at Ex.02, I have re-arranged and properly worded those issues as below and my findings and reasons to them are as below:

ISSUES

FINDINGS

No (1) Does the party No. 2 proves that he in employee of the party No. 17

Yes;

(2) Does the party No. I prove that the party No.2 was engaged by contractor ?

(3) Does the party No. 2 proves that the party No. I had illegally terminated the services of party No. 2 without complying the provisions of $ .25F of the IDAct ?

Does not survive;

No:

(4) Whether the party No. 2 is entitled to get reinstatement withcontinuity of service ?

(5) What Award ?

As per orderbelow,

REASONS

5. ISSUE NO, 1 and 2 : Both these issues are inter- connected.The subsequent issue i.e. (issue No. 2) depends on the earlier issue i.e. ( issue No.1 ) , therefore those are answered together .

After carefully scanning the oral evidence of the parties available on record it seems that , the party No. 2 deposed before the court that he was working as a office- boy with the party No. 1 since 1997. He was appointed by Mr. Tiwari , JTO and he was getting Rs . 1000 pm and JTO used to obtain his signatures on ACG- 17 . He further deposed that he was cleaning the office, fetcing water , and besides the work of office-boy he was also doing the work of defecting faults by climbing on the pole and he was 3272G1 /08-13

5233

भारत की राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13 , 2008 / भाद्र 22, 1930

attending the defect fault as per the direction of Mr. Tiwari .

Though the party No. 2. has specifically pleaded in the statement of claim that, his attendance was being recorded in the muster roll, however the party No. 2 never deposed about the same before the court. Moreover the partyNo.2 fairlyadmitted that his name was not appearing on the muster roll maintained by the Telephone Departinent as well as party No.1 In view ofthis and particularly in the light ofadmission given by the party No.2 it can be safely said that the party No.2 was not on the muster roll and he was not paid on pay rolls .

6. It has come on record through the oral evidence adduced on behalf ofthe party No. I that there was ban to the recruitment on emplyment of casul labours for any type ofwork. Since 1990 the party No.1 started giving the work ofexcavating trenches , laying and joining underground relephone cable, erection of DP and pillars in the rulral preas to the contractors. It has also come on record that the party No. 2 never worked during 16-5-97 to 30-5-02 and neverworked with JTO as a regular emplyee or as a casual labour or casual employee under JTO Kedgaon . The party No.I never made payment on wages to the party No.2, nor the signatures were obtained on ACG - 17 or on any other documents . The party No. 2 was never an employee ofthe department of the Telecommunication and never worked under the supervision and control of JTO Kedgaon , his name was not on the muster roll and nor paid any time by the JTO. The witness was fully cross -examined by the party No.2, however they could not bring any substantial material on record in rebuttal .

From the above discussed oral evidence available on record it can be safely said that the party No. 2 was not onthe muster roll nor on the pay roll of JTO Kedgaon , the work which was alleged to have been performed by the partyNo.2 appears to have been given to the contractor and the casual labours were not getting their wages on ACG- 17 . Under such cirumstances it is very difficult to accept that the party No. 2 was working as a casual labour with partyNo. 1.

7. After considering the oral evience available on record let us consider the documentary evidence relied by the partNo.2 to substantiate their claim before the court. It reveals that during the proceedings the party No.2 sought production ofACG - 17 regarding payment of wages made by JTO Kedgaon alongwith monthly work orders , however the party No.I denied the maintenance of such record therefore my learned Predecessor oberved that the party No.2may produce the secondary evidence to that effect and accordingly rejected the application , however no such documents are placed on record .

Moreover it reveals that the party No. 2 relied on various documents which are placed before the court alongwith list Exh . U- 7 . On careful perusal of those documents available on record it seems that, the party 5234

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 13 , 2008/ BHADRA 22. 1930 [PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

that the party No. 2 was employee of the party No.1 At the most the party No. 2 appears to be the employee of the contractor and not the party No.1 , hence I answer these issues accordingly .

9. Issue No. 3 : I have observed earlier that the party No. 2 was not the employee of the party No. 1 It means there is no relationship of employer and employee between the party No. I and Party No. 2 and in absence ofthat there is no question of continuous service as well as the compliance ofthe provisions of law while terminating the services of the employee therefore this issued does not survive, hence I answer this issue accordingly.

No. 2 relied on the diaries maintained by him . There appears certain entries regarding the work performed by the party No. 2 , but there is absolutely nothing on record to show that those work was directed by the party No. 1 and the party No.2 has maintained such diaries as per the instructions of the party No.1 . Similarly there are certain enries about the work, which was performed by the party No.2 in the month of September 2000, however the services of the party No. 2 appears to have been terminated after 31-12-99 . Under such cirumstances I do not think that certain entires in the diary maintained by the party No.2 are any way helpful to the party No.2 to establish before the court that he was working as casual labour with the partyNo. 1.

10. Issue No. 4: 1 have observed earlier that the party No. 2 is not the employee of the party No. I and in absence ofrelationship ofemployer & employee between the party No. 1 and party No. 2, the party No. 2 is not entitled for any protection under law and party No.2 is not entitled for any relief as prayed.

1 8. Furthermore is spite of direction to produce the secondary evidence regarding the ACG- 17 i.e. in respect ofpayment made to the party No. 2 no attempts were made on behalf of paity No. 2 to bring such material before the court. In fact though the party No. 2 stated on oath that his attendance was recorded on muster attendance rolls however there is no explanation as to why the production of those muster rolls was not sought by the party No. 2 from the party No. 1 and in absence of that by no stretch of imagination it can be said that party No. 2 was workingas casual employee on muster roll of the party No. 1 and he was being paid wages on pay rolls .

It is pertinent to note here that , in the statement of claim the party No. 2 has specifically stated that even after termination w.e.f. 31-12-99 he was taken in service and since then hewas working with party No. I under JTO Kedgaon till 23-8-03 . The party No.2 further stated that there is sufficient full time work under SDE Daund at Kedgaon and other places and at other stations with the party No.t and he could be absorbed in regular vacant post , therefore prayed for direction to the party No 1 to absorb him in regular vacancy in group- () from 1-1-2000 with the consequential benefits . In fact I have observed earlier that partyNo. 2was not an employce of the party No. 1 , therefore not entitled for any relief as prayed, nor there is question ofany direction to the party No.1 to absorb the party No.2 in regular employment of the party No. 1 .

1 Much reliance has been placed by the party No.2 on xerox copies of documents Exh . 1-7 which is the proforma prescribed for part time casual labour and bears the signature of party No. 2. However there is no whisper in the proforma that the party No. 2 worked as casual employee any time with the party No.1 thus merely on the basis of certain working days shown year wise in the proforma it will be unsafe to infer about the casual employment of the party No. 2 with the party No. 1. Furthermore though the witness of the party No. I admitted his signature on the proforma however specifically denied that the partyNo. 2 worked under his control and supervision . Not only this but there is no mention in the proforma that to whom it was submitted by the party No.2 Similarly the material colourns of the proforma appears to be blank, therefore . I do not think that this document is any way helpful to the party No.2 to show that he was working as a casual lahour with the party No. 1 .

It isworthwhile to mention here that by this reference the dispute regarding the termination of party No. 2 w.e.f. 1-1-2000 has been referred to this court for adjudication and except that no other issue has been referred to this court for adjudication . so the claim made by the partyNo. 2 regarding absorption in regular employment of the party No. I is certainly not within the ambit of the Reference referred for adjudication , therefore this court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the same and grant relief accordingly . In brief the party No.2 is not entitled for relief as prayed , hence answer this issue in the negative .

In the result I proceed to pass the following Award.

AWARD:-

1. The Reference is answered in the negative.

2. Party No. 2 is not entitled for any reliefas prayed .

3. Parties to bears their own costs .

4. Copies be sent to the appropriate authorities .

Pune :

Date: 19-7-2008

From the above discussed oral as well as documentary evidence available on record , I reiterate that the party No. 2was never worked as casual or regular employee with the party No. 1. He was not on the muster roll of the party No. I nor paid the wages on pay rolls like daily wages or casual employee by JTO Kedgaon . The party No. 2 never worked under the supervision and control of TO Kedgaon ofthe partyNo. 1. Moreover the work which was performed by the party No. 2 was given to the contractor . The contractor used to make the payment to the employees working under him therefore it is very difficult to accept SHRIKANTK. DESHPANDE , Industrial Tribunal , PUNE 5235 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13 , 2008/ भाद्र 22 , 1930

[ भाग 1 ] -खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 21 अगस्त, 2008

का. आ. 2592, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायलय पुणे के पंचाट को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-8-2008 प्राप्त हुआ था।

1947 and referred the dispute in relation to the Management of BSNL and Their Workman , in respect of matter specified in the schedule that , " Whether the workman Shri Mahadeo Baban Thorat was in employment as casual mazdoor in the Deptt . ofTelecom/ BSNL , under Sub Division Daund continuously from 1998 to 31-12-999 Ifso, the action of the management in orally terminating/ disengaging him w.e.f. 1-1-2000 without any notice and compensation is legal and justified and to what reliefthe concerned workman is entitled to and from which date ".

[सं. एल -40012/26/2004- आई. आर. ( डी.यू. ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 21st August, 2008

S.O. 2592.-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 , Pune as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, and their workman , which was received by the Central Govemment on 21-08-2008.

[No. L-40012/26/2004- IR (DU) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

2. The brief facts ofthe case ofShri Mahadeo Baban Thorat (Party No. 2) are as under that , the party no . 2was employed by the department of the Telecommunications Daund Sub Division at Telephone Exchange Khurbav as part time/full time einployee and was doing the work tojoin telephone cables , to restify telephone & cable faults, to dig trenches , to climb telephone poies and work on overhead telephone lines , to clean the office and fill water under the supervision and control of Junior Telecom Officer (ITO) Kedgaon. He was being paid by JTO by obtaining signature on form ACG- 17 and paid monthly wages of Rs. 1000/ and attendance was recorded in the muster roll , However on 1-1-2000 the JTO, Kedgaon discontinued his services without any notice or compensation . Thereafter the JTO Kedgaon continued to provide him work but wages were paid in cash without obtaining signature.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHRIKANT K. DESHPANDE, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL MAHARASHTRA AT PUNE

REFERENCE (TT) NO. 62 OF 2004

The Principal General Manager , BSNL, Bajirao Road, Pune-411002.

First Party

And

Shri Mahadeo Baban Thorat Post-Khurbav , Tal- Daund, Pune.

Second Party

The party no . 2 added that All India SC/ST Union pursuaded his case for permanency, accordingly the details regarding the employment of the party no. 2 alongwith similar situated workmen were called for considering their case for regularization , accordingly the details were sent after 3-1-03 , however prior to that the dispute has been raised. The party no . 2 further added that in the meantime he was working under the party no . 1 till 30-11-03 and paid wages in cash, however thereafter they stopped giving work. Lastly the party no . 2 urged that there is sufficient full time work with party no . I and he could be absorbed on the regular vacant post, still the party no . 2 prays that party no. I be directed to absorb the second party in the regular vacancy in Group-D from 1-1-2000.

In the matter of reinstatement with continuity of service.

Coram: Shri Shrikant K. Deshpande, Member.

Appearances : Shri H. Y. Deo, Advocate for first party. Shri A.Y. Shikarkhane , Advocate for second party.

3. The BSNL (Party no . 1 ) strongly resisted the statement of claim by reply and denied all the contentions ofthe party no . 2 in totality. The party no. 1 contended that the statement of claim is not filed within the prescribed period, there is no employer & employee relationship between the parties . The first party were not paid by DOT/ BSNL therefore the party no . 2 was not the employee of partyno. 1 .

AWARD

Delivered on 19-07-2008

The party no. 1 further contended that, the party no . 2 may be working under the contractor who were allotted the work by tender and he was working under the Contract Act, hence the contractors are under the obligation to maintain the record . The party no. 2 was never directlyin service or under supervision of the party no . 1, hence the This is aReference made by the Central Government Ministry of Labour, vide its order atd . 11-10-04 in exercise ofpowers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub- sec. ( 1 ) & Sub- sec. 2(A ) of Section - 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, (PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 13 , 2008/BHADRA 22 , 1930

5236

Though the party no . 2 has specifically pleaded in the statement of claim that his attendance was being recorded in the muster roll , however the party no . 2 never deposed about the same before the court. Moreover the party no, 2 admitted that Mr. Ovhal , ITO never obtained his signatures on ACG - 17.

claim about the service does not arise . The party no. I also contended that their establishment is governed , managed and controlledby rules and regulations of DOT , New Delhi . On formation of BSNL w.e.f. 1-10-2000 one time relaxation was given in conversion in full time casual labour. The application from PTCL and certificate from controlling authority were called to ascertain the genuine regarding information received from field , accordingly the committee was formed and member visited to the respective units and submitted thelist . However the name ofparty no. 2 did not find place in the list and since he was not paid by DOT? BSNL, therefore he was not considered for permanency. Lastly the party nu . I urged that the claim ofparty no .2 is illegal therefore he is not entitled for any relief and ultimately requested that the Reference be answered in the negative .

4. My learned predecessor has framed the issues at Exh. 02, I have re -arranged and properly wurded those issues as below and my findings and reasons to them are as below-

FINDINGS

ISSUES

No:

1. Does the party no . 2 proves that he is employee of the party no . 1 ?

6. It has come on record through oral evidence adduced on behalf of the party no . 1 that , there was ban to the recruitment on employment of casual labours for any type ofwork. Since 1990 the party no, I started giving the work of excavating trenches . laying and jointing underground telephone cable , erection of DO and pillars in the rural areas to the contractors, fle further deposed that the party no. 2 never worked during 16-3-97 to 30-5-02 and never worked with him as regular employee or as a casual labour and or casual employee under JTO Kedgaon , the payment of wages were never made to the party no . 2 by party no. I nor signatures were obtained on ACG - 17 пог on any other documents . The party no. 2 was never employee of the Department of Telecommunication and never worked under the supervision and control of JTO. Kedgaon . His name was not on muster roll nor the party no . 2 was paid any time by the JTO . The witnesses were fully cross - examined by the party no . 2, however they could not bring any substantial material on record.

Yes;

2. Does the party no . 1 prove that the party no . 2 was engaged by contractor?

3. Does the party no . 2 proves that the party no . 1 had illegally terminated the services of party no . 2 without complying the provisions of S. 25 F of the ID Act? Does not survive;

From the above discussed evidence available on record it can be safely infer that the party no . 2 was not on muster roll nor on pay roll of JTO Kedgaon . The work performed by the party no. 2 appears to have been given to the contractor and casual labours were not getting their wages on ACG - 17 . Under such circumstances it is very difficult to accept that party no . 2 was working as a citsttitl labour with party no. 1 .

4. Whether the party no. 2 is entitled to get reinstatement with continuity of service?

No;

5. What Award?

Asperorder below.

REASONS

5. ISSUE No. 1 and 2 Both these issues are inter- connected . The subsequent issue i.e. (issue No. 2 ) depends on the earlier issue i.e. ( Issue No. 1 ), therefore those are answered together .

7. After considering the oral evidence available on record let us consider the documentary evidence relied by the party no. 2 to substantiate their claim before the court . It reveals that during the proceedings the party no. 2 sought production ofACG - 17 regarding payment ofwages made by JTO Kedgaon along with monthly work orders . however the party no. I denied the maintenance of such record therefore my learned Predecessor observed that the party no. 2 may produce the secondary evidence to that effect and accordingly rejected the application , however no such documents are placed on record.

After carefully scanning the oral evidence of the parties available on record it seems that , the party no. 2 deposed that he was working since 1998 at Khuthav Telephone Exachange with party no . 1 and he used to perform various work such as cleaning office, fetching water, cleaning the batteries, digging the pits for cable work, to join the cables and over head wires as per the instruction of Mr. Tiwari , JTO and after his transter Mr. Ovhal , JTO was giving instructions regarding the work. He was getting wages in signing ACG - 17, and after taken over by BSNI . he was getting salary by cash and not on ACG- 17.

Moreover it reveals that the party no . 2 relied on some documents which are placed before the court alongwith list Exh . L -4 . On careful perusal of those documents it seems that , by document Exh . U - 8 certain direction were given by Mr. Ovhal to Mr. Thorat about the work , however those directions were given on 4-10-03 1.2 after the period of termination of the party no , 2 , therefore not useful to decide about the employment of the party no. 2with the party no . 1 during 1998 to 31-12-99 and merely on that basis it is very difficult to accept that the party no. 2was working with party no . I as casual employee .

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

8. Furthermore in spite of direction to produce the secondary evidence regarding the ACG - 17 i.e. in respect of payment made to the party no . 2 no attempts were made on behalf of party no. 2 to bring such material before the court. In fact though the party no . 2 stated on oath that his attendance was recorded on muster attendance rolls however there is no explanation as to why the production ofthose muster rolls was not sought by the party no . 2 from the party no . 1 and in absence of that by no stretch of tmagination it can be said that party no. 2 was working as casual employee on muster roll of the party no. 1 andhe wasbeing paid wages on pay rolls.

Much reliance has been placed by the party no . 2 on xerox copies ofdocuments Exh . U -9 . On perusal ofthese documents it seems that this is a proforma prescribed for part time casual labour and bears the signature of party no. 2.However there is no whisper in the proforma that the party no. 2worked as casual employee any time with the party no. 1 thus merely on the basis of certain working days of 1998 to 1999 it cannot be inferred about casual employment of the party no . 2 with the party no. 1 . Furthermore though the witness ofthe party no . I admitted his signatures appeared on the proforma , however denied that the party no. 2 was working under his control . Not only this but there is no mention in the proforma that to whom it was submitted by the party no . 2. Similarly the material columns of the proforma appears to be blank, therefore, I do not think that these documents are any wayhelpful to the party no . 2 to show that he was working as casual labour with party no. 1.

$237

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13 , 2008 / भाद 22, 1930

11. ISSUE No. 4 : I have observed earlier that the party no. 2 is not the employee of the party no. and in absence ofrelationship ofemployer and employee between the party no. I and party no . 2, the party no. 2 is not entitled for any protection under law and party no . 2 is not entitled for any relief as prayed.

It is pertinent to note here that , in the statement of claim the party no. 2 has specifically stated that even after termination w.e.f. 31-12-99 he was taken in service and since then he was working with party no . I under JTO Kedgaon till 30-11-03 . The party no . 2 further stated that there is sufficient full time work under SDE Daund at Kedgaon and other places and at other stations with the party по. 1 and he could be absorbed in regular vacant post, therefore prayed for direction to the party no. 1 to absorb him in regular vacancy in group-D from 1-1-2000 with the consequential benefits . In fact I have observed carlier that party no. 2was not an employee of the party no . 1 , therefore not entitled for any relief as prayed , nor there is question ofany direction to the party no. I to absorb the party no . 2 in regular employment of the party no. 1 .

It is worthwhile to mention here that by this reference the dispute regarding the termination of party no . 2 w.c.f. 1-1-2000 has been referred to this court for adjudication and except that no other issue has been referred to this court for adjudication , so the claim made by the party no. 2 regarding absorption in regular employment of the party no. I is certainly not within the ambit of the Reference referred for adjudication therefore this court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the same and granı relief accordingly. In brief the party no. 2 is not entitled for relief as prayed, hence I answer this Issue in the negative.

In the result I proceed to pass the followig Award . AWARD

1. The Reference is answered in the negative.

2. Party no. 2 in not entitled for any reliefas prayed.

3. Parties to bears their own costs.

4. Copies be sent to the appropriate authorities . Pune:

Date: 19-7-2008

9. From the above discussed oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, I reiterate that the party no. 2 was never worked as casual or regular employee with the party no. 1. He was not on the muster roll ofparty no. 1 nor paid the wages on pay rolls like daily wages employee or casual employee by JTO Kedgaon , party no . 2 was never under supervision and control of JTO Kedgaon ofthe party no. 1. Moreover the work which was performed by the party no. 2 was given to the contractor, and contractor used to make the payment to the employees working under him , therefore it is very difficult to accept that the party no. 2 was employee of the party no. 1 , at the most the party no . 2 appears to be an employee of the contractor and not of party no. 1 , hence these Issues are answered accordingly.

10. ISSUE No. 3 : I have observed earlier that the party no. 2was not the employee ofthe party no. I itmeans there is no relationship of employer and emplyee between the partyno. I and party no . 2 and in absence of that there is no question of continuous service as well as the compliance ofthe provisions of law while terminating the services of the employee therefore this issue does not survive, hence I answer this Issue accordingly.

SHRIKANT K. DESHPANDE, Industrial Tribunal नई दिल्ली, 5 सितम्बर , 2008

का. आ. 2593 -केन्द्रीय सरकार , खान अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 35 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा । द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , एतद्‌द्वारा , अगले आदेशों तक निम्नलिखित अधिकारियों को मुख्य निरीक्षक खान के अधीनस्थखान निरीक्षक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है :-

1. श्री भूषण प्रसाद सिंह

2. श्री देव कुमार

3. श्री श्याम सुन्दर प्रसाद 5238

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13 , 2008 /BHADRA 22, 1930

4. श्री राजोब पाल

5. श्री बिपुल बिहारी सतियार

6. श्री कमल कुमार शर्मा

7. श्री रामअवतार मीणा

8. श्री मनोरंजन डोले

[फा. सं. एस -29025/1 / 2008 - आईएसएच -11 ] सुभाष चन्द, अवर सचिव New Dethi , the 5th September , 2008 S.O. 2593. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) ofSection 5 of the Mines Act, 1952 (35 of 1952 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints the following officers as Inspector of Mines sub - ordinate to the Chief Inspector of Mines , until further order :-

1. Shri Bhushan Prasad Singh

2. Deo Kumar

3. Shyam Sunder Prasad

4. Rajib Pal

5. Bipul Bihari Satiar

6. Kamal Kumar Sharma

7. Ramawater Meena

8. Manoranjan Doley

[ F.No. S-29025 / 1 /2008- ISH. ] ] ] SUBHASH CHAND, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 8 सितम्बर , 2008

का. आ. 2594, कंन्द्रीय सरकार , शिशु अधिनियम , 1961 ( 196 ) का 52 ) की धारा 2 के खंड ( ङ ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और केन्द्रीय शिक्षुता परिषद् से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियमों के प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रौद्योगिकी के क्षेत्र में, निम्नलिखित विषयों को अभिहित व्यवसायों के रूप में विनिर्दिष्ट करती है , अर्थात्:-

"स्नातक और तकनीकी प्रशिक्षु

1. टैक्सटाइल डिजाईनिंग

2. जैव-प्रौद्योगिकी

3. इलैक्ट्रानिकी और जैव- चिकित्सीय इंजीनियरी 4. इलैक्ट्रानिकी और संचार इंजीनियरी

5. बायोमेडिकल इंस्ट्रूमैनटेशन इंजीनियरी

6. फैशन प्रौद्योगिकी

7. गारमेन्ट और फैशन प्रौद्योगिकी

B. आधुनिक कार्यालय व्यवहार प्रबंधन

9. हर्बल प्रौद्योगिकी

10. यात्रा और पर्यटन प्रबंधन

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) तकनीकी ( वृत्तिक ) प्रशिक्षु

1. आटोमोबाईल इंजीनियरी प्रौद्योगिकी

2. आटोमोबाईल मैकेनिक

3. सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी

4. रेडियो और टेलीविजन इंजीनियरो

5. इलैक्ट्रानिकी प्रौद्योगिकी "

[फा. सं. डीजीईटी-23 ( 13 ) ( 3113 ) / 2008- एपी ) तरसेम लाल , उप सचिव New Delhi , the 8th September, 2008

5.0 . 2594. in exercise of the powers conferred by clause(e) ofSection 2 of the Apprentices Act , 1961 ( 52 of 1961 ) , and after consultation with the Central Apprenticeship Council , the Central Goveminent hereby specifies the following subject fields in technology as desigated trades for the purposes of the said Act. namely:-

"Graduate and Technician Apprentices

1. Textile Designing

2. Bio- Technology

3. Electronics and Bio-Medical Engineering 4. Electronics and Communication Engineering 5. Bio -Medical Instrumentation Engineering 6. Fashion Technology

7. Garment and Fashion Technology

8. Modern Office Practice Management

9. Herbal Technology

10. Travel and Tourisın Management

Technician (Vocational ) Apprentices

1. Automobile Engineering Technology

2. Automobile Mechanic

3. Information Technology

4. Radio and Television Engineering

5. Electronics Technology" . ( F.No. DGET - 23 ( 13 )( 3113 )/ 2008 -AP FARSEM LAL, Dy. Sery. नई दिल्ली , 22 अगस्त , 2008

का, आ. 2595. जबकि केन्द्र सरकार का विचार है कि केरल , कर्नाटक और तमिलनाडु राज्यों में बागान कर्मचारी की श्रेणी में कर्मकारों और बागान नियोक्ताओं के बीच औद्यागिक विवाद है:

[भाग - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार का विचार है कि उक्त विवाद इस प्रकृति का है कि इससे संबद्ध या प्रभावित बागान कर्मचारियों की श्रेणी में कर्मकार और बागानों के नियोक्ता एक से अधिक राज्य से संबद्ध हैं और इसका न्यायनिर्णयन राष्ट्रीय न्यायाधिकरण द्वारा किया जाना चाहिए;

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 7 ( ख ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए श्रम मंत्रालय की दिनांक 12 जुलाई , 2000 की अधिसूचना संख्या एल-51014/1 /2000 -आई आर ( पीजी ) द्वारा राष्ट्रीय न्यायाधिकरण का गठन किया , जिसका मुख्यालय कलकत्ता में रखा गया, और जस्टिस श्री बी.पी. शर्मा को इसका पीठासीन अधिकारी नियुक्त किया और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उप धारा ( 1 क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उबत औद्योगिक विवाद को न्यायनिर्णयन हेतु उक्त राष्ट्रीय न्यायाधिकरण को संदर्भित किया । और जबकि जस्टिस श्री बी.पी. शर्मा ने उक्त राष्ट्रीय न्यायाधिकरण काकार्यभार 2003 में छोड़ दिया ।

अतः अब राष्ट्रीय न्यायाधिकरण का गठन किया जाता है जिसका मुख्यालय कोलकाता होगा और जस्टिस श्री सी.पी. मिश्रा इसके पीठासीन अधिकारी होंगे और उक्त विवाद को न्यायनिर्णयार्थ उक्त राष्ट्रीय न्यायाधिकरण को इस निदेश के साथ संदर्पित किया जाता है कि जस्टिस श्री सी.पी. मिश्रा इस मामले में जस्टिस श्री बी.पी. शर्मा द्वारा कार्यभार छोड़ने के चरण से आगे की कार्रवाई करेंगे और इसका विधि के अनुरूप निपटान करेंगे ।

[सं. एल -51014/1/2000- आई आर ( पीजी ) ]

कल्याणी मिश्रा, उप निदेशक New Delhi , the 22nd August, 2008

S.O. 2595. Whereas the Central Government was ofthe opinion that an industrial dispute existed between the workmen in the category of plantation staff and the employers ofplantations in the states of Kerala , Kamaraka and Tamil Nadu ,

And whereas the Central Government was of the opinion that the above dispute was of the nature that workmen in that category ofplantation staff and employers of plantations belonged to more than one State are interested in , or affected , by such a dispute and should be adjudicated by a National Tribunal ;

Andwhereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7 (B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) constituted a.National Tribunal vide Ministry of Labour's Notification No. L-51014/1/2000 - IR (PG ) dated 12th July, 2000 with headquarters at Calcutta and appointed Justice Shri B.P. Sharma as its Presiding Officer and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1A ) of Section 10 ofthe

5239

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 13 , 2008/ भाद्र 22 , 1930

said Act, referred the said industrial dispute to the said National Tribunal for adjudication .

Andwhereas Justice Shri B.P. Sharma relinquished charge ofthe above said National Tribunal in 2003.

Now, therefore , a National Tribunal is constituted with headquarters at Kolkata with Justice Shri C.P. Mishra as its Presiding Officer and the above said dispute is referred to the said National Tribunal for adjudication with the direction that Justice C.P. Mishra shall proceed in the matter from the stage at which it was left by Justice Shri B. P. Sharma and dispose of the same according to law.

[No. L-51014/1 /2000- IR(PG)] KALYANI MISHRA, Dy . Director नई दिल्ली, 2 सितम्बर , 2008

का. आ. 2596.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 10/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-8-2008 प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल-12011 /28/ 1997 - आई आर. ( बी -11 ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 2nd September, 2008 S.O. 2596. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Govemmenthereby publishes the award Ref. No. 10/98 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Jaipur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial disputebetween the management of Union Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 19-08-2008,

[No. L- 12011 /28/ 1997- IR ( B- II ) ] RAJINDER KUMAR , Desk Officer

अनुबंध

केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण , जयपुर केस नं. सी.आई.टी. 10/98

रैफरसः केन्द्र सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली का आदेश क्रमांक एल. - 12011 /28/97 - आई. आर. ( बी. ( 1 ) दि. 21-4-1998 सर्वश्री कन्हैया लाल एवं हनुमान प्रसाद जरिये महासचिव, यूनियन बैंक एम्पलाइज यूनियन , 49 , रघुविहार, महारानी फार्म, दुर्गापुरा , जयपुर।

-प्रार्थी [PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 5240

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 13, 2008/BHADRA 22 , 1930

बनाम

सहायक महाप्रबन्धक , यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया , एस.डी.एम. अस्पताल परिसर, बापू नगर, जयपुर ।

-अप्रार्थीगण

उपस्थित

पीठासीन अधिकारीः श्री गौतम प्रकाश शर्मा, आर.एच.जे.एस.

की एक निश्चित प्रक्रिया है और उसके लिए प्रार्थी श्रमिक का आवेदन देना और उसे साक्षात्कार में बुलाने का अर्थ नियुक्त हो जाना नहीं है , यह साक्षात्कार में उपस्थित होने हंतु सूचना मात्र है, नियुक्ति होना या न होना चयन प्रक्रिया के परिणाम पर निर्भर करता है । अपने कार्य के अतिरिक्त प्रार्थी श्रमिक ने जो चपरासी का कार्य किया है उसके लिए उसे भुगतान कर दिया गयः था । अच वह किसो अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है अतः क्लेम खारिज होने योग्य बताया ।

प्रार्थी की ओर से : श्री आर. सी. जैन

अप्रार्थी की ओर से श्री रूपिन काला

दिनांक अवार्ड : 25-7-2008

अवार्ड

4. इसो रैफरेंस में अन्य श्रमिक हनुमान प्रसाद का मामला भी भेजा गया था किन्तु हनुमान प्रसाद की ओर से स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम पेश नहीं हुआ और न ही हनुमान प्रसाद की ओर से कोई स्वाक्ष्य पेश हुई है ।

1. केन्द्र सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली ने उपरोक्त अधिसूचना के जरिये इस आशय का विवाद इस न्यायाधिकरण कः अधिनिर्णय हेतु निर्देशित किया है कि

5. प्रकरण में श्रमिक कन्हैया लाल की ओर से एवं अप्राथर्थी बैंक की ओर से साक्ष्य पेश हुई और प्रकरण बहस अंतिम में रखा गया। इसी प्रकम पर दिनांक 22-7- 2008 एक समझौता श्रमिक व अप्रार्थी बैंक के मध्य 18-7-2008 को हो जाने संबंधी पेश किया व समझौता हो जाने से समझौते को शतों के अनुसार ही अवार्ड पारित करने की प्रार्थना की ।

"Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India, Jaipur in not regularising the services of S / Shri Kanhaiya Lal and Hanuman Prasad part time sweepers as peon in violation ofBanks own the said workmen are entitled to and from which date ?

6. समझौते के संबंध में संलग्न आवेदन जो कि स्वयं श्रमिक कीओर से पेश हुआ है , में स्पष्ट उल्लेख किया गया है कि उसके व बैंक के मध्य समझौता हो गया है और प्रकरण को वह आगे चलाना नहीं चाह रहा है तथा समझौते के अनुरूप ही अवार्ड पारित करने की प्रार्थना की । मैंने समझौते को देख । समझौता प्रपत्र पर श्रमिक व विपक्षी बैंक की ओर से वरिष्ठ प्रयन्धक के हस्ताक्षर हैं । इन सभी तथ्यों को देखते हुए मैं इस प्रकरण में समझौते के अनुसार अवार्ड पारित किया जाना उचित समझता हूं । अतः राज्य सरकार द्वारा भेजे गये निर्देश का उत्तर निम्न प्रकार दिया जाता है :

" प्रार्थी श्रमिक कन्हैया लाल एवं अप्रार्थी बैंक के मध्य समझैता हो जाने से प्रकरण में उक्त समझौते की शर्तों के अनुसार अवार्ड पारित किया जाता है ।

समझौता दिनांक 18-7-2008 जां 22-7-2008 को पेश हुआ अवार्ड का अंग रहेगा । प्रार्थी हनुमान के संबंध में कोई क्लेम व साक्ष्य पेश नहीं होने के कारण प्राधों हनुमान प्रसाद कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है । "

2. विवाद जो भेजा गया उसके संबंध में प्रार्थी की ओर से स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम पेश हुआ कि श्रमिक श्री कन्हैया लाल को अंशकालीन सफाइकतां के पद पर अंचलीय कार्यालय नई दिल्ली के पत्र दिनांक 24-5-1990 के द्वारा 200 रुपये प्रत्तिमाह पर बैंक की चावनपुग शाखा जिला भीलवाडा में नियुक्ति दी गई जहां प्राथों नं 2-7-1990 को कार्य ग्रहण किया और 1-1-1991 से उसे बैंक लेत्रा में कन्फर्म कर दिया । प्रार्थी निर्देशानुसार 1997 तक नियमित चपरासी की तरह बिना अवरोध कार्य करता रहा । बैंक द्वारा 3-1-1997 को अंशकालीन चपरासियों को व अन्य कर्मचारियों को पूर्णकालीन चपरासी व हमाल के पद पर नियुक्ति देने हेतु परिपत्र जारी किया जिसमें प्रार्थी ने भी आवेदन किया और उसे साक्षात्कार हेतु भी आमंत्रित किया गया किन्तु दुर्भावना के कारण चपरासी के पद पर नियुक्ति हेतु उसकी अनुशंसा नहीं की गई जबकि उसके पिछले कार्यों व निष्ठा को देखते हुए उसका चयन चपरासी के पद पर किया जाना चाहिए था । इस प्रकार प्रार्थी यूनियन का कथन है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक का पद परिवर्तन हंतु चयन नहीं किया जाना श्रम विरोधी नीति है, अतः निवेदन क्रिया किप्रार्थी श्रमिक चपरासी पद पर नियमितकरण पद परिवर्तन करवानं का अधिकारी है अतः उसे पद पर पूर्व सेवाओं की निरन्तरता में चपरासी के पद पर नियमित किया जाये ।

5. अवार्ड आज दिनांक 25-1-2008 को खुलं प्यायालय में लिखाया आकर सुनाया गया जो केन्द्र सरकार को प्रकाशनार्थ नियमानुसार भेजा जावे ।

3. अप्रार्थी बैंक की ओर से जवाब पेश हुआ जिसमें बताया कि अंशकालोन सफाईकर्ता से चपरासी के पद पर पदोन्नति या परिवर्तन

गौतन प्रकाश शर्मा , पीठासीन अधिकारी Printed by the Manager . Cant of lesa Press , Ring Roid . Mayapuri , New Delhi- 064 and Published by the Lertrolles el Publications . Delhi - 110054