This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

(27)2763

REGD . NO . D. L. (N) 04/ 0007/2003-05 रजिस्ट्री सं० डी० एल० ( एन ) 04/0007/2003-05

भारत राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 41 ]

नई दिल्ली, अक्तूबर 5 अक्तूबर 11 , 2008 , शनिवार/आश्विन 13- आश्विन19 , 1930 NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 5 OCTOBER 11 , 2008, SATURDAY/ASVINA 13- ASVINA 19, 1930 No.41]

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग II- खण्ड 3- उप- खण्ड (il) PART 11-Section 3-Sub-section ( il )

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 )

गृह मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 26 सितम्बर , 2008

occupants) Act, 1971 ( 40 of 1971 ), the Central Government hereby appoint Shri K. C. Meena, Deputy Director, Sub- sidiary Intelligence Bureau, Shillong a Gazetted Officer of theGovernment of India to be Estate Officer w.e.f. 1-3-2008 for the purpose of the said Act and directs that the said officer shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties, imposed on the Estate Officer by or under the said Act in respect of all Government land and building under the control of SIB Shillong.

[No. 1 /C- 11/83 (SHG )-I/P.F. - II] H. K. SUANTHANG, UnderSecy.

का.आ. 2830,-सार्वजनिक परिसर ( अनधिकृत अधिभोगी कीबेदखली ) अधिनियम 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की धारा -3 के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा श्री के.सी. मीना , उप निदेशक, सहायक आसूचना ब्यूरो , शिलांग , सरकार के एक राजपत्रित अधिकारी को उक्त नियम के उद्देश्य के लिए दिनांक 1-3-2008 से सम्पदा अधिकारी नियुक्त करता हूँ और निर्देश देता हूँ कि उक्त अधिकारी प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करेंगे और उक्त अधिनियम के द्वारा अथवा उसके अन्तर्गत सहायक आसूचना ब्यूरो शिलांग के नियंत्रण में आने वाले समस्त सरकारी रिहायशों के संबंध में सम्पदा अधिकारी को अधिरोपित कर्तव्य का निर्वहन करेंगे ।

वित्त मंत्रालय (राजस्व विभाग) नई दिल्ली , 26 सितम्बर, 2008 [सं. 1/सी-11 /83 ( शिलांग ) -[/पीएफ -11 ] एच. के. सुझानथंग , अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS New Delhi , the 26th September, 2008

का.आ. 2831- केन्द्रीय सरकार राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उपनियम (4) के अनुसरण में राजस्व विभाग के अधीन केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क एवं सीमा शुल्क बोर्ड के निम्नलिखित कार्यालय को जिनके 80 S.O. 2830- in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of un- authorized

(5637)

3768 GI/2008 5638

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 11 , 2008 / ASVINA 19, 19 :0

प्रतिशत कर्मचारी वृंद ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, अधिसूचित करती है ।

केन्द्रीय उत्पाद , सीमा शुल्क एवं सेवा कर आयुक्तालय सूरत-1 गांधी त्याग के सामने , चौक बाजार

सूरत-39,5001

[फा. स्टं 18012/ 1 /2008 - हिन्दी-2 ] मधु शर्मा , निदेशक ( रा.भा. ) MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department ofRevenue) New Delhi , the 26th September, 2008 5.0.2831 In pursuance of Sub Rule 4 of rule 10 of the Official Language ( use ofOfficial purpose of the union ) Rules, 1976 the Central Government hereby notities the following office under the Central Board of Excise & Cus- toms, Department of Revenue , the 80 % staff where ofhave acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-

Comunissionarate of Central Excise , Customs & Service Tax , Surat- 1 , Opposite CGandhi Bagh, ChowkBazar . Surat-395001 .

[ F. No. 11012 /1/2008 -Hindi -21 MADHU SHARMA , Director ( OL) कार्यालय मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त , जयपुर शुद्धि-पत्र

अक्तूबर , 2008

का.आ. 2837- आयकर नियम 1962 के नियम सोए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम 1961 की धारा 10 के खण्ड ( 23 सी) के उपखण्ड ( via ) के तहत अधिसूचना सं. 05:2007-08 दिनांक 24-10 117 को द्वाग " भगवान महावीर कैंसर हॉस्पिटल एण्ड रिसर्च सेंटर, जयपुर " को स्वोकृति दी गई थी । अधिसूचना के पैरा । की लाईन में निर्धारण वर्ष 2006-07 के स्थान पर " निर्धारणा चर्ष 2006-07 एवं भाग के लिए" पढ़ा जाये ।

[क्रमांकः भुआआअभा मु. जग/10 (23सी ) ( via ) 04-002474 ] भो. एस. बिल्लों, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त OFFICT OF THE CHEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX

CORRIGENDUM

Leipur, the 1st October , 2008

S.O. 2832 In Notification No. 05 / 2007-08 dated 24-10-2007 vide which " Bhagwan Mahaveer Cancer Hos- pital and Research Centre , Jaipur " was approved for the purpose of sulkaise ( vua ) of clause ( 230 ) of Section Joof

(PART II- Sbc. 3 ( ii ) ] theIncome-tax Act, 1963 143 of 1961 ) read with rule 2CA of the income- tax Rules , 1947 , the assessment years in Para 1 , line5 maybe read as 2006-07 and onwards " instead ofA.Y. 2006-07.

[No.PR/Add].CIT ( Hqrs . ) / 10 ( 230) (Via)/2008-09/2439] B. S. DHILLON Chiet Commissioner of Income-tax ( वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग ) नई दिल्ली । अक्टूबर, 2008

का.आ. 2833 भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अधिनियम, 1934 ( 1934 का 2 ) की धारा 8 की उपधाग ) के खंड ( घ ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय गरकर, नद्वारा, श्री अशोक चावला , सचिव, आर्थिक कार्य विभाग , वित्त मंत्रलग नई दिल्ली को तत्काल प्रभात्र से तथा अगला आदेश होने तक, डॉ. मुच्चाराव के स्थान पर , भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक के केन्द्रीय बोर्ड में निलो रुप में रामित करती है ।

फा. सं. 9/7/2007 - बोओ ] ] जी. बी. सिंह, उप सचिव (Department of Financial Services) New Deiler . the Ist October , 2008

S.O. 2833--Invercise of the powers conferredby clause ( d ) of sub - sections ( 1 ) of Section & of the Reserve Bank of India Act , 1931 : 2 of 1934 ) , the Central Govern- ment , hereby nominates Shri Ashok Chawla, Secretary. Department ofEconomic Nairs Ministry of Finance tobe a Director on the Central Board of Directors of Reserve Bank of India with immuslime ellect and until further orders vice Dr. D. Subbarao

[ F.No. 97:2007 -HO - 1 ] G1B SINGH,Dy. Seey.

नई दि अनुबर, 2008

का.आ. 2834 कारी विनियमन अधिनियम , 1949 (1949 का 10 ) की धाग द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करतं हुए , भारत सरकार , भारतीय बैंक की सिफारिश पर, एतद्वारा, घोषणा करती है कि उका आर्शन को धारा ॥ की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ग ) के उपक्ष के उपबंध इंॉडयन बैंक पर लागू नहीं होंगे , जहां तक उनक । इंडियन बैंक के अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक श्री एम. एस यूजन का भारतीय बैंकिग तथा वित्त संस्थान की शासी परिषद् ग्रहण करने से है ।

| का.सं. 210/17/2006 -ची -1 ] जी. बी. सिंह, उप सचिव NewDelhi 6th October 2008

$.0.2834- esise ofthe powers conferred ny Section 53 ofthe Banking Regulation Act , 1949 ( 1019-19) , the Governmem of luuia on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India, by declare that the provisions of sub - clause ( i ) of clausub - section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the said Acto apply to indian Bank in so far as it relates king up membership of 5639 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 11 , 2008/आश्विन19, 1930

Shri M. S. Sundrarajan , Chairman & Managing Director, IndianBank on the governing council ofthe Indian Institue ofBanking & Finance.

9. Senior Economic Adviser (Indian Economic Service )/Adviser (Indian Economic Service )/Joint Secretary (Indian Economic Service), Department ofEconomic Affairs . -Member-Secy.

[F.No. 20/ 17/2006-BO - 1 ] G.B. SINGH, Dy. Secy.

[F.No. 11015 /3 /2007 - IES ] RAJAN KUMAR, Director (आर्थिक कार्य विभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 6 अक्तूबर , 2008

नई दिल्ली, 10 अक्तूबर, 2008 का.आ. 2835-नियंत्रक प्राधिकारी , भारतीय आर्थिक सेवा नियम, 2008 के नियम 4 के उपनियम ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , भारतीय आर्थिक सेवा बोर्ड के गठन को अधिसूचित करता है अर्थात्:-

-अध्यक्ष

1. मंत्रिमंडल सचिव

-सदस्य

2. सचिव , आर्थिक कार्य विभाग

-सदस्य

3. सचिव , व्यय विभाग

का.आ. 2836- केन्द्रीय सरकार , भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम श्रेणी 3 और श्रेणी 4 कर्मचारी ( सेवा के निबंधन और शर्तों का संशोधन ) नियमावली, 1985 के नियम 13 के उप नियम ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्धारित करती है कि श्रेणी 3 और श्रेणी 4 के प्रत्येक कर्मचारी को 1 अप्रैल , 2007 को आरंभ होने वाली और 31 मार्च, 2008 को समाप्त होने वाली अवधि के लिए बोनस के बदले में भुगतान , उक्त उप नियम में अन्य उपबन्धों के अध ीन रखते हुए उसके वेतन के 15 प्रतिशत की दर पर किया जाएगा ।

-सदस्य

4. सचिव , योजना विभाग

-सदस्य

5. सचिव , वाणिज्य विभाग

[फा.सं. 2 ( 15 )96 /बीमा-111 ] , श्रीमती सुरिन्दर कौर , अवर सचिष

-सदस्य

New Delhi , the 10th October , 2008 6. सचिव , कृषि और सहकारिता विभाग

-सदस्य

7. सचिव , कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग

-सदस्य

8. मुख्य आर्थिक सलाहकार , आर्थिक कार्य विभाग

-सदस्य-सचिव

9. ज्येष्ठ आर्थिक सलाहकार ( भारतीय आर्थिक सेवा )। सलाहकार ( भारतीय आर्थिक सेवा ) /संयुक्त सचिव ( भारतीय आर्थिक सेवा) , आर्थिक कार्य विभाग

[फा.सं.। 1015/3/2007- आईईएस ]

राजन कुमार , निदेशक

S.O. 2836- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (2) ofrule 13 ofthe Life Insurance Corporation of IndiaClass III and Class IV Employees (Revision ofTenns and conditions of service ) Rules , 1985 , the Central Government hereby determine that , subject to the other provisions ofthe said sub- rule, the payment in lieu ofbonus for the period commencing on 1st day of April , 2007 and ending with 31st March, 2008 to every Class III and Class IV employee shall be at the rate of 15 percent of his/her salary.

(F. No. 2( 15)96 /Ins 11 (Departmentof Economic Affairs )

MS . SURINDER FAUR, Under S New Delhi , the 6th October, 2008

विदेश ल

{सीपीवी विधिवत्र )

नई दिल्ली, 20 सितम्बर 2008 S.O. 2835- In exercise of the poowers conferred by sub-rule (2) ofrule 4 of the Indian Economic Service Rules , 2008, the Controlling Authority hereby notifies the composition of the Indian Economic Service Board、 namely:-

-Chairperson

1. Cabinet Secretary

-Member

2 Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs

-Member

3. Sercetary, Department of Expenditure

का.आ. 2837 - राजनयिक कौंसिली अधिकारी ( शपथ एवं शुल्क) अधिनियम 1948 1948 का का ) के खंड 2 के अंक ( ।। ) के अनुसरण में कंन्द्रीय सरकार एतर्दद्वारा भारत का राजदूतावान , पस्त्रत में श्री सूयां रंग, गहायक को 26-9-2008 से सहध्यक कौसली अधिकारी का कार्य करने तु प्राधिकृत करती है ।

-Member

4. Secretary, Planning Commission

[सं. टी-4330/1 /2000 ) 5. Secretary, Department ofCommerce -Member

प्रीतम लाल, अवर सचिव (काँमुलर ) 6. Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation -Member

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (CPV Division)

7. Secretary , Departument of Personnel and Training --Member

NewDelhi, the 25th Septensber. 2008

-Member

8. ChiefEconomic Adviser, Department ofEconomic Affairs

$.O . 2837-10 pusmance of the clause fit ) of the Section 2 of the Dip'omatk and Consular Officers ( Oaths 5640

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11 , 2003/ASVINA 19, 1950

and fees) Act . 1948, the Central Government hereby authorize Shri Sarya Mani , Assistant to perform the duties of Assistant Consular Officer in the Embassy of tačka . Muscat.

[No. 1. 4330.1 2006 PRETAM LAL. Under Secy ( Consular ) मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय

( उच्चतर शिक्षा विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 6 अक्तूबर , 2008

का.आ, 2838 - कंन्द्रीय सरकार राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप- नियम 4 के अनुसरण में एतद्वारा मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय के अधीन निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों का, जिनके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है : -

1. भारतीय प्रवन्ध संस्थान, प्रबंध शिखर, राऊ- गीथमपुर रोड इंदौर-45333! ( म.प्र. ) , भारत

2. जवाहर नवान्य विद्यालय, वलसर्पाल्ल-517325 , मदनफल्न, चित्तूर जिला, ( आंध्र प्रदेश ) ।

[ सं. 11011-7/2005 - ग. भा.ए., ] अनित्य घटभागर जैन , संयुक्त सचित्र MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

(Department ofHigher Education)

New Usihi ,the 6th October , 20

S.O. 2838- In pursuance of sub- rule ( 4) ofmile to of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules. 1976 , the Cenval Government hereby notifies the following offices under the Ministry of Haan Resource Development , whose more than 31 % mendes of the staff have acquired working knowledge of liada 1. Indian Institute of Management Indore, Prisanth Shikhar, Rau - Pithampur Road , Indore -453331 ( NM.P. ) , India.

2. Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Valasapalle - 517325. Madanapalle (Post) Chitto: Distt . (A.P. )

[No. 11011-7 2005-11 ...

ΑΝΙΤΑ ΒΗΛΙNAGAR JAIN , IL. Secy.

स्वास्थ्य और परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय (दंत शिक्षा अनुभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 25 सितम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 2839- केन्द्रीय सरकार दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 3 के अंतर्गत प्रदत्त शक्तियों का

[ PARIS . 3 ( ii ) | प्रयोग करते हुए स्वास्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय , भारत सरकार की दिनांक 24 जनवरी ०५ की अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 430 में एत‌द्वारा निम्नलिखित मंशोधन करती है; अर्थात:-

उक्त अधिसूचन शीर्षक " धारा-3 के परन्तुक के साथ पठित खंड (क ) के अंतर्गत निर्वाचित" के अंतर्गत क्रम सः ।। जोड़ी जाएगी और उसमें निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां रखी जाएंगी , अर्थात्:-

निर्वाचित हरियाणा दंत 259-208" " 11. डॉ कृष्णा नंद दुने

चिकित्सा

सुपुत्र श्री राम अभिलाग

दुबे मकान नं. 178 .

परिषद

सेक्टर 14,

रोहतक-124001

[ 'का. मं. वी. 120131/2007 -डोई ] राज सिंह , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (Dental Education Section)

NewDelhi , the 25th September ,2008 S.O. 2839-( nentive ofthe powers conferred under Section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of 1948 ), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare No. 5.0. 430 dated 24th January . 1984 namely:

In the said notification under head " Elected under clause ( a) read with proviso to Section 3 " serial No. 11 may be added and following entries may be inserted therein. namely:---

Llected Haryana 25-9-2008 Dental Council

" 11. Dr. Krishna Nand Dubey S'o Shri Ratt Abhilash Dubey H. No. 178 , Sector1-1.

Rohtak-124001

F.No.V 12013 : 1 :2007 - DE RAJ SINGH . Under Secy .

( स्वास्थ्य और परिजार कल्याण विभाग )

नई दिल्ला. । अक्तूबर, 2008

का.आ. 2840- एभत्राउन यूनिवर्सिटी , राडे , आइलैंड , यू एस ए द्वारा प्रदत्त डॉक्टर ऑफ मंडिसीन की चिकित्सीय अहंता भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद अधिनियम, 1956 ( 1956 कर 102 ) कं प्रयोजन के लिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 के अंतर्गत मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता है;

ब्राउन यूनिवर्सिटी स्कूल ऑफ मेडिसिन, एड़े , आइलैंड, यू एस ए द्वारा प्रदत्त डॉक्टर ऑफ पेडिसीन की चिकित्सीय अहंता भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिष ५ आंधनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) के प्रयोजन के लिए मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता है:

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

5641

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 11, 2008/आश्विन 19, 1930

और उक्त अर्हता धारण करने वाले डॉ. रूद्राणी बानिक, अमरीकी राष्ट्रिक, प्रशिक्षण के प्रयोजनार्थ और न कि निजी लाभ के लिए श्राफ आई हास्पिटल , मुंबई से संलग्न हैं.

अतः अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ग ) के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा विनिर्दिष्ट करती है कि भारत में डॉ. रूद्राणी बानिक के चिकित्सा व्यवसाय की अवधि:-

( क) जून , 2008 से एक वर्ष की अवधि तकः अथवा (ख ) ऐसी अवधि तक जिसके दौरान डॉ. रूद्राणी बानिक श्राफ आई हास्पिटल मुंबई से संलग्न हैं, जो भी लघुतर हो, परिसीमित होगी।

[सं. वी. 11016/ 1 /2008 - एमई ( नीति-1 ) ( XIII ) भाग ] के. वी. एस. राव, उप सचिव (Department ofHealth and Family Welfare) NewDelhi , the Ist October , 2008

S.O. 2840- Whereas medical qualification Doctor of Medicine granted by MD Brown University, Rhode Island, USA is recognized medical qualification for the purpose of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ( 102 of 1956) under Section 14 of the said Act ;

Whereas medical qualification Doctor ofMedicine granted byBrown University School of Medicine , Rhode Island, USA is a recognized medical qualification for the purpose of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ( 102 of 1956)

Andwhereas Dr. Rudrani Banik , USA National , who possess the said qualification is attached to Shroff Eye Hospital , Mumbai for the purpose of training and not for personal gain;

Now, therefore , in pursuance of clause ( c) of the sub -section ( 1 ) ofthe Section 14 ofthe said Act, the Central Government hereby specifies that the period ofpractice of medicine by Dr. Rudrani Banik in India shall be limited to:-

(a) a period of One year i.e. from June, 2008 on- wards,; or

(b) the period during which Dr. Rudrani Banik is attached to Shroff Eye Hospital, Mumbai whichever is shorter.

[No. V. 11016/1 /2008- ME(Policy -1) (XIII) Pt. ) K.V.S. RAO , Dy. Secy.

भारी उद्योग और लोक उद्यम मंत्रालय ( भारी उद्योग विभाग )

.नई दिल्ली, 1 अक्तूबर, 2008

का.आ. 2841 ,-सार्वजनिक परिसर ( अनधिकृत दखलीकार की बेद‌खली ) अधिनियम , 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा नीचे दी गई सारणी के कॉलम 1 में उल्लिखित अधिकारी को , जो सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारी की श्रेणी के समकक्ष है , उक्त अधिनियम के उद्देश्योंके लिए सम्पदा अधिकारी नियुक्त करती है , जो प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करेगा और उक्त सारणी के कॉलम 2 में विनिर्दिष्ट सार्वजनिक परिसरों के लिए अपने क्षेत्राधिकार की सम्पदा से संबंधित निर्धारित कार्य करेगा ।

सारणी

अधिकारी का पदनाम सार्वजनिक परिसरों की श्रेणी और क्षेत्राधिकार का स्थानीय सीमा

(2)

(1 )

हिन्दुस्तान केबल्स लि. , रूपनरायणपुर इकाई टाउनशिप और एचसीएल , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , कोलकाता से संबंधित परिसर।

प्रशासनिक अधिकारी (टाउनशिप ) , स्टॉफ नं. 5597 , रूपनरायणपुर इकाई, हिन्दुस्तान केबल्स लि. , कोलकाता

[सं. 1 ( 12)/2008-पीई-[ ] ] एम. आर बाली , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRY AND PUBLIC ENTERPRISES

(Department of Heavy Industry)

NewDelhi , the Ist October, 2008

S.O. 2841. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises ( Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints the officer mentioned in column 1 of the Table below, being officer, equivalent to the rank ofGazetted Officer ofGovernment , to be an Estate Officer for the purposes of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on the Estates ofhisjurisdiction in respect of the public premises specified in column 2 ofthe said Table .

TABLE

Designation of the Officer

Categories of public premises and local limits ofjurisdiction (1)

(2)

Administrative Officer (Township) , StaffNo 5597, RupnarainpurUnit , Hindustan Cables Ltd. , Kolkata.

Premises belonging to the undertaking ofHindustan Cables Ltd. , Rupnarainpur Unit Township as well as premises of HCL, Regional Office, Kolkata.

[No. 1 ( 12)/2008 -PE - II ]

M.R. BALI, Under Secy.

5642

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11 , 2008/ASVINA 19, 1930

(PART I-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

( उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

भारतीन्य मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली, 29 सितम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 2842.-भारतीय पानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम 1988 के नियम ( 4 ) के उप नियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेन्सों के विवरण नांचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे स्वीकृत कर दिये गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

लाइसेंसधी का नाम व पता

क्रम सं. लाइसेंस सं.

चालू तिथि (2)

(1)

(3) जुलाई 2008

01 .

8944302

27-06-2008

04-07-2008 02 8946306

03 .

(04-07-2008 8946710

मैमर्स सनगढंत इण्डिया जिप्सम : ? किनी मॉल स्टांन जैसलमेर एन.एन. 15. नलबाडी जिला बीकानेर (राजस्थान) 8947712

101-107 2008 04.

मैसर्स श्री अरिहन्त केबल्स जी-845 वदनं. 14 निकमा अद्यांटिक क्षेत्र जबपुर -3012 10: 3 धान!

107-300x 05.

894781

मेमन्दं डीस्टॉन्स प्रा.लि. लॉट नं ... बी एवं 5 फेज २ रंजा औद्योगिक क्षेत्र भिवाड़ी जिन्ना- (राजस्थान) 8949110

06 .

मैसर्स एन्थे । उवंशी पम्पम ) इंजीनियर्स प्रा. 19. ए-407 गंड नं. 14 विश्वका औधोगिक क्षेत्र जगत्र भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक व संबंधित भारतीय मानक

(5)

7098 ( ग ) : 1988 क्रॉसलिंक्ड पॉलीथिलीन इन्सुलेटेड पीवीसी शीधेड केबल्स

मैसर्स जयपुर पोलीमर्स इण्डस्ट्रीज 19. करतारपुरा बाईस गोदाम औद्योगिक क्षेत्र, जयपुर -302 006 ( राजस्थान )

7098 ( 2 ) : 1985 क्रॉसलिंक्ड पॉलीथिलीन इन्सुलेटेड पीवीमो श्रेड कंबल्स

मैसर्स पैरामदष्ट कम्यूनिकेशन लिमिटेड एमपी- एण्ड ई-31 हरोको औद्योगिक क्षेत्र स्खुराखंडा, तंत्र करोली जिला-अलवर 30 ] 707 (राजस्धान) 25471 ) : 1976 जिप्सम विडंग प्लास्टर

7098 ( 1 ) : 1988 क्रॉससिक्ट ग्लोथिलीन इन्सुलेटेड पीवीसी थंड कंवल्स

2830442 कार्बन स्टाल फारन्ट बिलेट इन्ट्म

15500 ( 3 ) : 2004 डीपर्वल हण्डाम्पस , कम्पोनेन्ट्स एण्ड स्पेशल दल्दा हैण्डपम्प सब- असेम्बलीज 564. [ भाग 11-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 11 , 2008/आश्विन 19 , 1930

( 1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5) 07.

8949211

18-07-2008

1417 : 1999 स्वर्णाभूषणों की हालमार्किंग

मैसर्स गुरदीप ज्वैलर्स

मेन मार्केट

हनुमानगढ़ टाउन

(राजस्थान)

08 8951194

24-07-2008

1554 ( भाग 1) : 1988 पीवीसी इन्सुलेटेड ( एच डी ) केबल्स

मैसर्स बीएमआई केबल्स प्रा.लि. एफ-83 , एवं 84 , खुशखेडा रीको औद्योगिक क्षेत्र भिवाडी-301 019 जिला- अलवर (राजस्थान)

8951295

24-07-2008

09.

9968 ( भाग 1 ) : 1988 इलास्टोमर इन्सुलेटेड केबल्स

10. 8951905

25-07-2008

374 :1979 इलैक्ट्रिक सीलिंग टाईप फैन्स एण्ड रैग्युलेटर्स

मैसर्स लाम्बा अप्लायंसेज डिग्गी हाउस के अन्दर टोंक रोड, सी-स्कीम जयपुर-302 001 (राजस्थान)

11. 8952095

25-07-2008

303 : 1989 प्लाईवुड फॉर जनरल परपज

पैसर्स पिंकसिटी प्लाईबोर्ड प्रा.लि. एफ-101 ( बी ) एवं एफ-108 (सी) रीको औद्योगिक क्षेत्र आगरा रोड , बस्सी जिला-जयपुर (राजस्थान)

12.

8952604

25-07-2008

694: 1990

पीवीसी इन्सुलेटेड केबल्स

मैसर्स एस.जी. बायर्स एण्ड केबल्स जे-878 , सीतापुरा औद्योगिक क्षेत्र फेज- III , जयपुर (राजस्थान)

[सं. सीएमडी 13:11 ]

पी.के. गम्भीर, उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर ) MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS New Delhi , the 29th September, 2008

S.O. 2842-In pursuance of sub - regulation (5 ) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification) Regulation , 1988 , the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars ofwhich are given in the following schedules.

5644

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . OTOBER 11.2008 /ASVINA 19, 1930

SCHEDULE

Operative Date Licence No. (CM/ I.-)

[PART 11- SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

Name and Address of the

License

SI . No.

(2)

(3)

(1)

July2008

01 .

27-06-2008 8941302

MM's . Japur Polymers Industries 19. Kartaptira Bais Crodain Industrial Area, Jagur -342006 Rajasthan, 8946306

01-07-2008 02.

Ms. Parntioum Communication Limited SP-30A, B. & F-31 Rustrial Area , Khshiera. Village-Karoli, Alsar- 07나 ? (Rajast 03. 89467100

04-107-2008 M's . Sunrise India Gypsum 17KM stile Stone Jaisalme NE1 -15 , Nalbadi Bikaner (Rajatho 894771 ?

04.

[1407-2008

M's. Shree Arihant Cables 6-8-15 A, Road No 14 pur-302013 (Rajastha

11-407-2008 05. 8947813

Ms. DSP Steels Pvt Ltd Plo $ 128-4 and 5 Phase M. RICO Industrial Area Bhiwadi Distt . Alsar -301019 (Rajast

17-07-2008 06. 89.91111

Ms. Urvashi Pumps ) Road , No. 14

07.

8949311

18-407-2008 Article. Process covered by the licences and the relevant IS :Deangnation

(5)

7098 Part 11: 1988 Crosslinked Polyethylene Insulated PVC Sheathed Cables 7098art : 1985 Crosslinked Polyethylene Insuined PVC Sheathed Cables 2547 ( 11 ): 1976 Gypston Building Plaster

709811. 1988 Cross mied Polyethylene Insul.ned PVC Sheathed Cables Curion Steel Cast Billet Ingols Deepseil Handpumps . Components & Spa Tools Handpump Sub- Asserines

1fallen aking of Gold Jewellery

Ms.Cinep Jewellers

Mam Muse

Hoursgarh Town

2-1-407-200118 08.

89514

155 : 1988 Pisted110 ) Cables

Ms. Mables Pvt . 1.td.

1-8881 Kustikbera

thal Area

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

5645

भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 11 , 2008/आश्विन 19 , 1930

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 09.

24-07-2008

8951295

M/s. BMI Cables Pvt . Ltd. F-83 & 84, Kushkhera RIICO Industrial Area Bhiwadi -301019 Distt. Alwar (Rajasthan) 10. 8951905

25-07-2008

11. 8952095

25-07-2008

12. 8952604

25-07-2008

M/s. S.G. Wires & Cables J-878 , Sitapura Industrial Area Phase-III, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

(5)

9968 (Part 1) : 1988 Elastomer Insulated Cables 374: 1979 Electric Ceiling Type Fans & Regulators

M/s. Lamba Appliances InsideDiggi House , Tonk Road C-Scheme Jaipur-302001 (Rajasthan) 303 : 1989 Plywood for General Purposes

M/s. Pinkcity Plyboard Pvt . Ltd. F- 101 (B ) & F- 108 (C) RIICO Industrial Area Agra Road, Bassi Distt. Jaipur (Rajasthan) 694: 1990 PVC Insulated Cables

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

नई दिल्ली, 29 सितम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 2843.-- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम 1988 के विनियम ( 4 ) के उप विनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को आगे दर्शाई तारीख से लाईसेंस स्वीकृत कर दिया गया है ।

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम एवं पता क्रम संख्या

लाइसेंस संख्या

(3)

(1) (2)

8945405

मैसर्स इंद्रा बेवरेजेस , खसरा नं. 146, ग्राम भेडोरा , तहसील बडवारा , कटनी ( म.प्र. ) 2

8953606

मैसर्स भदोरा इंडस्ट्रिज, 4. सेमी अर्बन इंडस्ट्रियल इस्टेट, ढोंगा, टिकमगढ़ , ( म.प्र. ) 3.

8953707

मैसर्स मंगला इंजिनियरिंग लिमिटेड, यूनिट 2 , प्लाट नं. 100 बी, इंडस्ट्रियल नं. 3 , ए बी रोड , देवास, मध्य प्रदेश

8949312

मैसर्स स्वेता इंटरप्राइजेस खसरा नं. 88/29 , भानपुरी रिंग रोड नं. 2 , बिरगाँव, रायपुर ( छ.ग.) 8950192

मैसर्स आइस रॉक फूड एण्ड बेवरेजेस , 791- केटेगराईज मार्केट , बेरासिया, रोड, भोपाल- मध्यप्रदेश 3768G1/08-2

लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत प्रक्रम संबंध एवं भारतीय मानक सहित

स्वीकृत करने की तिथि

(4)

(5)

01-07-2008 आईएस 14543 : 2004 पेकेज्ड ड्रिंकिंग वाटर

09-07-2008 आईएस 14255 : 1995 . एक्सएलपीइ इन्सूलेटेड फेस कंडक्टर्स

आईएस 8472 : 1998

09-07-2008 पम्प रिजनरेटिव आर क्लिअर कोल्ड वाटर

16-08-2008 आईएस 1415 पार्ट : 1999 स्प्रिंकलर पाइपस

16-07-2008 आईएस 14543 : 2004 पैकेज्ड ड्रिंकिंग वाटर 5646

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA OBER 11,2008 ASVINA 19.194)

[PART [ SIA ..

..:

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5:

8954:03

18 (07-2008 पीथमपुर , जिला- धार (म.प्र. मैसर्म, जचदीप इस्पात एलॉयस प्रा.लि. ( यूनिट 3 :, 669-670, सेवा -3 प्रस्ट्रीयन एरिया,

आईएस 2830 : 199 कार्बन स्टील बीलंट इंग बीलेट , ब्लुम्स एण्ड फार रि-रोलिंग इंदू स्टोन्न पनाल स्ट्रक्चरल परपोज

89505964

X- 07 2008

आईएस 458 : 2003 प्रिकास्ट कंक्रीट पाइप

मैसर्स प्रकाश अस्फालिगण् टॉल हाईवेज इंडिया लिमिटेड, ग्राम-दुधी, तहसील - धरमपुग जिला-धार ( मध्य प्रदेशश।

[सं. केन्द्रीय प्रमाणन: 13:11 :

'पो.के. गम्भीर , उप महानिदेशक मुहर New Delhi , the 29th September, 2008

S.O. 2843 .---In pursuance of Sub regulation ( 5 ) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification ) Regulation 1988. of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of liceres particulars of which are given in the following Schedule:

SCHEDULE

IS No. and title

GrantDats No.

Licence Nu.

Name and address of the licensees

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

15) 8945405

IS14543:2004

01-07-2008

Packaged Drinking Water

M/s . Indra Beverages Khasra No. 1:46, Village Rinadora, Tehsil Badawara, Katni (M. P. )

09-07-2008 M's . Bhadora lodustriss 4. Semi Urban Industrial state , Dhonga Tikumgarh ( MP . )

IS 14255 : 1995 XLPE Insulated Alustiziarn phase conductors and bure Aluminium alloy Messenger Conductors

895370 ?

09-07-2008

IS8472:1998 Pumps- Regenerative or clear coldwater-Specification

M's . Mangla Engineering Limited (Unit ( 1) , Plot No. 1004 , Industrial Area No. 3 , A.B. Read . Devas (Μ.Ρ.)

898312

16-07-2008 M's . Sweta Enterprises . Khasra No. 88:29 . Bhanpuri , Ring Road. No. 2. Birgaon. Raipur ( C. G.)

IS14151 ( Part ) : 1999 . Irrigation Equipmen Sprinkler Pipes Speciranon- Part 2: Quick Coupled Polyethylene Pipes

800192

16-07-2008

IS 14543 : 2004 Packaged Drinking Water

Mis . Ice Rock Food and Beverages , 791 -Categorised Market . Bairasia Road , Bliopal . (M. P. )

18-07-2008 Mis . Prakash Asphaltings and Tol ] Highways ( India ) [ imited. Village Dudhi , Tahsil olarampuri Dhar (MP )

895110 :

18-07-2008

IS 458: 2003 Specification for Precis ConcretePipes with and without Renticement I5 2830: 1992

M/ s. Jaideep Ispat and Alloys Pvt . 1.imited ( Unit 111. 669-670 . Sector - III , Industrial Area . Pithampay ( .. P.)

Carbon steel cast bilic ingols , billets, bloonistad slabs for re- rolling into steel kor general structura ! purposes

No. CMD 13.11

P. K. GAMBITIR . Os. Director General Marks ) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 11 , 2008/आश्विन 19 , 1930

5647

नई दिल्ली, 30 सितम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 2844,-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है यह स्थापित हो गया है:--

अनुसूची

स्थापित भारतीय मानक की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक क्रम संख्या

(2)

( 1 )

1 . आई एस 15782: 2008 वस्त्रादि- वस्तुओं के ज्वलन से निकले धुएं द्वारा दृश्यता के हास को ज्ञात करने की पद्धति अब यह भारतीय मानक बिक्री के लिये उपलब्ध होगा ।

स्थापित तिथि नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित्त भारतीय मानक यदि कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष

(4)

(3)

नहीं

अगस्त, 2008 इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो के मुख्यालय मानक भवन, 9 बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली-110002 और इसके क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों नई दिल्ली , कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद , जयपुर, कानपुर , पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ : टीएक्सडी जी-25 | पी. भटनागर, वैज्ञानिक ' ई' एवं प्रमुख (टीए‌क्सही )

NewDelhi , the 30th September, 2008

S.O. 2844. -In pursuance ofclause (b) of sub -rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standard Ruies, 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the Indian Standard , particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each ;

SCHEDULE

SI . No.

No. & Year ofthe Indian Standard Established

(2)

(1)

IS 15782: 2008 Textiles - Method ForDetermining Deterioration of Visibility due to Smoke Released on Combustion of Materials Henceforth, this standard will be available for sale .

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

(4 ) (3)

Nit

August, 2008 Copy of this Standard is available for sale with H. Q. at Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak havan, 9 , Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110002 and its Regional Offices at New Delhi , Kolcatta Chandigarh Chennai,Mumbai and also Branch Offices at Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad da pur, Kanpur . Nagpur , Patna , Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: TXD/G-25] P.BHATNAGAR, Scientist ' E ' & Head ( Textiles )

नई दिल्ली , 30 सितम्बर, 2008

का.आ. 2845.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वह स्थाजित हो गया है:---

5648

TIR GADIL OF ENOROXER 11 , 2008 /ASVINA 19, 1930

क्रम संख्या स्थापित भारतीय मान्वाको संख्या वर्ष और शोधंना ( 1)

1 . आई एसआर एस ओ 105 सो 10: 2006 वस्त्रादिपनकंपनी परीक्षण भाग सी 10 वाजून या सासून और सोडा से धुलाई पर रंग का पक्कापन

अन्न य র মাংরাস मानक बिक्री के लिये उपलब्ध होगा |

PART I- SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि नये भारतीय नानक द्वारा अधिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अधा मानकों यदि कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष

(3)

(4)

सितम्बर, 2008 आई एस 687 :1979, आई एस 4:1979 , आई एस 765: 1979 , आई एस 3361 : 1979,

आई एस 3417 : 1979

इस भारी प्रतिमानक ब्यूरो के मुख्शलय, मानक भवन, ५ , बहादुर शाह अफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 और इसके क्षेत्रीय बासया, डगढ़ चैनई, सुम्नई तथा शशाखा कार्यालयों: अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर, गुन्नाहारीपुत्रनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[ संदर्भ: टीएक्सडी जी -25 ] पी. भटनागर, पंज्ञनिक ' ई' एवं प्रमुख ( टीएक्सडो )

New Delhing 7th September , 2008

S.O. 244

4620clausetores of Rule 7 of the Burcano Indian Standard Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indu Sagadaal in ratores that the had rimdards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have befale indicadest rach ;

SI . No.

No. a Year of the Say Svindards Establ

( 1 )

J Textils for culture J Fasinesstig With Sea or Soup

Henceforth, this standard will

BULE

Dateof Establishment No. & Year of Indian Standards , if any , Supersededby the New Indian Standard

(3)

(4)

September 2008 IS687: 1979. JS 764:1979.11 765:1979 , IS3361 : 1979 and 18 3417: 1979

Copy this Standard available for sale with it at Bureau of Indian Standards , Mauak Bhavan , 9. Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - ind and its Regional orin New Delbi, Kolcatta Chandigail , Chennai , Muntbai and also Branch Offices Ahmedabad, Bdve, Bhopal Bhubaneshwar . Coimbatore. Guwalati , Hyderabad , Jaipur , Kanpur. Nagpur , Patita , Pure , Thiruvaruram

[Ref: TXDG -25 ] P. BHATNAGAR . Scientist E' & [Head ( Textiles )

नई दिल्ली : अक्टूबर , 2008

का. आ. 2646. - भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) क अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करना है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विन नीलं अनुसूची में दिया गया है वह स्थाप्ति हो गए हैं :-

[भाग ।।- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

5649

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 11 , 2008/आश्विन 19, 1930

स्थापित भारतीय मानक( कों) की संख्या

क्रम संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

(2)

(1)

आईएस 737 :2008 सामान्य इंजीनियरी प्रयोजनों के लिए पिटा एल्यूमिनियम एवं एल्यूमिनियम मिश्र धातु की चादर एवं पत्ती- विशिष्टि (चौथा पुनरीक्षण )

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों यदि कोइ हो, की संख्या और वर्ष

(3)

(4) आईएस 737:1986

30 सितम्बर , 2008 इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो मानक भवन, 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 और इसके क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों: अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद , जयपुर , कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ : एमटीडी-7/टी-14 ] डा. ( श्रीमति ) स्नेह भाटला , वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी)

New Delhi , the 1st October , 2008

S.O. 2846.-In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub- rule ( 1 ) of Rules ( 1 ) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the Indian Standard , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

No. & Year of the Indian Standard Established SI . No.

(1)

(2)

IS 737 : 2008 Wrought aluminium and aluminium alloy sheet and strip for general engineering purposes- Specification (Fourth revision)

SCHEDULE

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

(3)

(4) IS737:1986

30 September, 2008 Copy of this Standard is available for sale with H. Q. at Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 , Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices at New Delhi , Kolcatta , Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad , Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur , Patna, Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: MTD - 7 / T - 14]

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

नई दिल्ली , । अक्टूबर , 2008

का,आ. 2847, - भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम ? के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वह स्थापित हो गए हैं : -

स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या

क्रम संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

(2)

( 1 )

आईएस 1136: 2008 पिटों धातु उत्पादों के लिए अधिमानित आकार ( तीसरा पुनरीक्षण )

अनुसूची

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

(4) (3)

आईएस 1136: 1990

30 सितम्बर , 2008 5650

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA OCTOBR11.2008 /ASVINA 19. 1930 :

[ PART 11- S6 3

110002 और इसके क्षेत्रीय इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो मानक भवन, १ बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग, कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, गोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चंनई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, गोपाल भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्पर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद , जयपुर , कानपुर , नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तपुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[ मदर्भ एमटीडी टी-6 ] डा. ( श्रीमति ) स्नेह भाटला गनिक एएफ एवं प्रमुख (एमटीई)

New Dell , the 1st October, 2008

S.O. 2847. -1n pursuance of clause ( b ) of sub -rule ( 1 ) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987. the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the Indian Standard , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

SI . No.

No. & Year ofthe Indian Standard Established ( 1 )

(2)

IS 1136: 2008 Preferred sizes fior wrought metal products ( third revision

Date of Establishmem No. & Year of Indian Standard, ifany . Superseded by the New Indain Standard

(1) (3)

IS 1136:1990

30 September, 2008 Copyofthis Standard is available for sale with Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Banan , 9. Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolcatta Chandigarh . Chennai . Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad. Bangalore . Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar . Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad. Jaipur . Kanpur. Nagpur . Patna, Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.

[ Ref MTD- 7 T1-61

DR . (MRS . ) SNEH BHATLA . Serentist "F" & Head (Met . Engg.)

नई दिल्ली, 3 अक्टूबर , 2008

का.आ. 2848 ,- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम ? के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचिन करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के त्रिवगण नौवे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वह स्थापित हो गए है :-

स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) को संख्या

क्रम संख्या वर्ष और शोर्षकः

( 1 )

(2)

1. आईएस 2540: 2008 चूड़ीदार खुले छिद्र के लिए आयाम ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

2 आईएस 15790 :2008/ आईएसओ 15654 :2004 संचरण परिशुद्धता रोलर चेनों की श्रांति परीक्षण पद्धति

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रटिन भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों गांध कोई हो , की संख्या और वर्ष

(3)

(4)

सितम्बर , 2008

सितम्बर , 2008 इन भारतीय पानकों की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भत्रन , १ , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली-110002 क्षेत्रीय कार्यान्नयों : नई दिल्ली , कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालनों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, गुननेश्वर , कांयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी. हैदराबाद , जयपुर , कानपुर , नागपुर, पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[ संदर्भ: पीजीडी जी -3.5 सु. भट्टाचार्य, वैज्ञानिक ' ई' एवं प्रमुख ( पीजीडी ) [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

5651

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 11 , 2008/आश्विन 19, 1930

New Delhi , the 3rd October , 2008

S.O. 2848.-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 Standard, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SL No.

No.& Year ofthe Indian Standards Established

(2)

(1)

IS 2540 : 2008 Dimensions for threaded centre holes ( first revision) 2.

IS 15790 :2008/ ISO 15654 : 2004 Fatigue test method for transmission precision roller chains

SCHEDULE

Date of Establishment No. & year of Indian Standards , if any , Superseded by the New Indain Standard

(4) (3)

September 2008

September, 2008 Copy of these Standards is available for sale with Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolcatta Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur , Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram .

[ Ref: PGD/G-3.5 ] S. BHATTACHARYA , Scientist ' F ' & Head ( PGD)

नई दिल्ली, 3 अक्टूबर , 2008

का.आ. 2849, 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 निम्न भारतीय मानक में संशोधन किया गया किए गए हैं :-

सशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या औरे

वर्ष

क्रम संख्या

(1)

(2)

1 .

आईएस 15268 ( भाग 1 ): 2002/ आईएसओ 8037-1: 1986 प्रकाशिकी और प्रकाशिक उपकरण- माइक्रोस्कोप- स्लाइड भाग । आयाम , प्रकाशित गुणधर्म और मुहरांकन पद्धति

2 आईएस 15268 ( भाग 2 ): 2002/ आईएसओ 8037-2: 1997 प्रकाशिकी और प्रकाशिक उपकरण- माइक्रोस्कोप - स्लाइड भाग 2 सामान की गुणवत्ता , फिनिश तथा पैकेजिंग का तरीका

3. आईएस 15270 ( भाग 1 ): 2002/ आईएसओ 8255-1: 1986 प्रकाशिकी और प्रकाशिक उपकरण- माइक्रोस्कोप- आवास ग्लास भाग 1 आयाम , छूटें , मोटाई और प्रकाशित गुणधर्म

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधित लागू होने कीतिथि (3)

(4) 1

अगस्त, 2008 1

सितम्बर , 2008

अगस्त, 2008 5652

THE GAZETTE OF INDJA : OCTOBER 11 , 2008/ASVINA 19, 1930

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

(2)

(3)

(4) 4.

सितम्बर, 2008 आईएस 15270 ( भाग 2 ): 2002/आईएसओ 8255-2: 1997 प्रकाशिकी और प्रकाशिक उपकरण माइक्रोस्कोप आवरण ग्लास भाग 2 सामान को गुणतः, फिनिश तथा पैकेजिंग का तरीका

इन भारतीय गानकों के संशोधनों को प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 और क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली , कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदान ' जंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर . गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना , एम तथा तिख्त्रनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध है

संदर्भ : पीजीडीजी-3.5 ]

सु. भट्टादत्रं , वैज्ञानिक ' ई' एवं प्रमुख ( पोजोडी)

New Delhi , the 3rd October , 2008

S.O. 2849. -In pursuance of clause ( h ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rules 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules . 1987, the Bureau of Indiato Standards , hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed bhave been amended on the date indicated against each;

SCHEDULE

SL No.

No. & Year of the Indian Standard Established

No. & Amendmex . &Date

Date of Establishment (2)

( 1)

(4) 1.

(3) 1

Андим . 2008 IS15268 : (Part 1 ) 2002 /1508037-1 : 1986 Optics and optical instrtonents- Microscopes- Slides Part 1 Dutie っこく、 upheal properties and marking

September. 2008 IS 15268: ( Part 2 ) 2002 - ISO 8037-2:: 997 Optics and optical instruments- Microscopes- Slides Part 2 Qualirs of material , sendards of finish and mode of purkaging

August.2008 ES 15270. ( P11 ) 2002-1508255-10 1986 Uphes and optical Microscopes Cover glasses Pan Denensinual tolerances . thicknes and opucal properties

September.2008 Is 15270 ( Part 22001508255 Optics and optical instruments Microscopes Cover glasses Part 2 Qualny of materials , standards of finish and mode ot packaging

Copy of timese amendments Standard is available for sale with the Barcarol Indus Stumdards , Manak Bhavani . 9 ) Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi- 110002 and its Regional Offices : New Delhi . Kellata . Chandigarh . Chemkai . Mumbai and also Branch Ulices Ahmedabad. Bangalors , Birupal . Bhubaneshwar . Coimbatore. Guwahati , Ifyderabad . Jaipur . Kanpur , Nagpur . Paana . Pune . Thiruvananthaputar:

[Ref: PGD G -3.5)

S. BHATTACHARYA . Head ( PG )

अक्टूबर , 2008

का.आ. 2850.भःसंगे एतद्‌द्वारा अधिक नविन आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से अनुमरण में भारतीय मानक उन्हो गिननया गया है :-

5653 [ भाग [ [ - खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 11 , 200 %/ आश्विन 19 , 1930

अनुसूची

क्रम सं.

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

रद्द करने की तिथि

लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु/ प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

लाइसेंस सं. सीएम/एल

1 .

6-4-2008 7425269

पैकेजबंद पेयजल , आईएस 14543 :2004

अमिधारा मिनरल तथा सोडा वॉटर प्रोजेक्ट , एनएच धुलिया रोड, सर्वे नंबर 29 एट कानपुर गाँव हैड पोस्ट वायरा सूरत

7-7-2008 2

7537179

प्लाईवुड फॉर जनरल परपस,

आईएस 303 : 1989

श्री लक्ष्मी युड इंडस्ट्रीज , उओडिया रोड एट महियाल तालुक , टालोड साबरकांटा 383215

15-7-2008 3.

7564990

पैकेजबंद पेयजल ,

आईएस 14543 :2004

भागवद ध्वज मार्केटिंग प्रा. लि, तालब किनारा , शोला गाम, तालुक डैस्करील , अहमदाबाद

[सं. सीएमडी. 13:13 ]

पी.के. गम्भीर, उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर )

NewDelhi , the 3rd October, 2008

S.O. 2850.-In pursuance of sub - regulation ( 6 ) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations, 1988 , ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Date ofCancellation SI . LicenceNo. CM/L-

Name and Address of the licensee

Article/ Process with relevant Indian Standards covered by the licence cancelled

6-4-2008 Amidhara Minerals and Soda

1. 7425269

PackagedDrinking Water, IS14543:2004

Water product NH Dhulia Road, Survey No. 29 at kanpur village Head Post Vyara Distt Surat

7-7-2008 7537179

Plywood for General Purposes, IS303: 1989

Shree Laxmi Wood Industries , Ujediya Road, At Mhiyal , Tal Talod, Distt Sabarkantha 383215

15-7-2008 7564990

Packaged Drinking Water .

IS 14543:2004

Bhagvad Dhwaj marketing Pvt . Ltd. , Talaykimara , Sola Gam , Tal Daskrol; Ahmedabad

[No. CMD/ 13 : 13)

P.K. GAMBHIR, Dy. Director General (Marks)

नई दिल्ली, 3 अक्टूबर , 2008

का.आ. 2851.- 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 गये मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया किये गऐ है :-

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि संशोधित भारतीय मानक को संख्या और वर्ष

क्रम संख्या

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

30सितंबर, 2008 1.

संशोधन नं. 1

सितंबर , 2008

आई एस 6044 ( भाग 1 ) : 2000 द्रवित पैट्रोलियम गैस भंडारण संयंत्रों की रीति संहिता, भाग । वाणिज्यिक तथा औधोगिक सिलिंडर , संयंत्र ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

3768G1/08-3 5654

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11 , 2008/ ASVINA 19,1930

(1 )

(2)

आई एस 12798 : 1989 घरेलू सिलाई मशीन प्लाई व्हील- विशिष्टि

3. आई एम 11872: 1993 घरेलू सिलाई मशीन टांका ग्यूलेटर - विशिष्टि

4. आई एस 13972: 1994 घरेलू सिलाई मशीन बांविन बांइडर समुचय - विशिष्टि

5. आई एस 14899:2000 स्वचल उपयोग के लिए द्रवित पैट्रोलियम गैस ( एल. पी . जी. ) कं धारक विशिष्टि

[PART II --SEC. 3 ( 6 ) ] (3)

(4)

30सितंबर 2008

संशोधन नं. ] सितंबर 2008

30 सितंबर 2008

संशोधन नं. 2 सितंबर 2008

30 सितंबर 2008

संशोधन नं. 1 सितंबर 2008

25सितंबर 2008

संशोधन नं. 5 सितंबर 2008

इस संशोधन को प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूगे, मानक भवन, १ बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली 110002 क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , 'चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनर कोयम्बतर , गुवाहाटी , हैदरावाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर , पटना , पृणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में विक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[ मंदर्भ एम.ई.डी.जी 2: 1 सी. के. वैद्य, वैज़ा एफ. एवं प्रमुख ( एम. इंजीनियरिंग ;

New Delhi , the 3rd October , 2008

5.0.2851 , pursuance of clause ( b ) of sub -rule ( 1 ) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of heshan Standards Rules , 1987 , theBureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that amendmentsto the Indian Standard, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

Si No.

Nu .& Year of the Indian Standard

( 1)

(2)

Sc044 (Part 1 ) 2000 Code of practice for liquefied petroleum gas storage installations Part | Commercial and industrialesijnder installations ( First Revision )

2. JS 12798 : 1989 Household sewing machine- Flywheels - Specification

3. IS 15872 : 1993 Household sewing machine- Stitch regulators - Specification

4 1392: 1994 Household sewing machimes- Bowbut winder ussembly - Specification 5.

151-1899: 2000 1.iquetied petroleum gas (LPG) containers for automotive nse- Specification

No. and yesto the Amendment

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

(4) (3)

30 September 2008 Amendmery 0.1 SeptemberCins

30 September 2008 Amendment September א

30 September 2008 Amendmein N September 2008

30 September 2008 Amendment September CHUS

25 September 2008 Amendment September 200N

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Mamak Blav: 01. 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices New Delhi , Kolkata , Chandigarh hernan , Munthai and also Втласт : Offices : Ahmedabad, Hangalore . Bhopal . Bhubaneshwar. Coimbatore . Guwahati , sambad . Jaipur, kanpur . Nagpur . Palna, Pune , Thiruvant aporom .

[Re : MIDG2: 11 C. K.VEDA . Se .. Få (Mechanical Engineering 565,5 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 11 , 2008/आश्विन 19 , 1930

[ भाग - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

कोयला मंत्रालय

नईदिल्ली, 29 सितम्बर , 2008

का. आ. 2852.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम, 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 7 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 4921 तारीख 19 दिसम्बर , 2006 द्वारा और जो भारत के राजपत्र भाग 2 , खण्ड 3 , उपखण्ड (ii ) तारीख 23 दिसम्बर , 2006 में प्रकाशित की गई थी , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में और उस पर के सभी अधिकारों का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय कीसूचना दी थी ।

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 8 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है । और केन्द्रीय सरकार का पूर्वोक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और छत्तीसगढ़ सरकार से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में यथा वर्णित 559.149 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 1381.657 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माधवाली भूमि में और उस पर के सभी अधिकार अर्जित किए आने चाहिए ।

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि अनुसूची में यथावर्णित 559.149 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 1381.657 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माफ्वाली भूमि में और उस पर के सभी अधिकार अर्जित किए जाते हैं ।

इस अधिसूचना के अन्तर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक सं. एसइसीएल/बीएसपी /जीएम ( पीएलजी ) / भूमि? 318 तारीख 12 मई , 2008 का निरीक्षण कलेक्टर , रायगढ़ ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक , । , कांउसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता-700001 के कार्यालय में या साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड ( राजस्व अनुभाग ) , सीपत रोड, बिलासपुर -495006 ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

कुरूमकेला ब्लाक ( भाग-11 ) जामपाली , मांड-रायगढ़ कोलफील्ड्स

जिला-रायगढ़ ( छत्तीसगढ़ )

(रेखांक स. एसईसीएल/ बीएसपी/जीएम ( पीएलजी )/ भूमि/318 तारीख 12 मई , 2008 )

सभी अधिकार

टिप्पणी

तहसील

ग्राम का नाम

क्षेत्र हेक्टर में

पटवारी हल्का

संख्या

बंदोबस्त संख्या

क्रम संख्या

भाग

घरघोडा

कोसमघाट

2336

रायगढ़

57.6

रायगढ़

घोघरा

भाग

घरघोडा

501997

रायगढ़

कुडुमकेला

कुत : 559.149 हेक्टा ( लगभग ) या 1381.657 एकड़ ( लगभग)

वर्णित किए गए प्लाट संख्या का वर्णन :

632/1 और 633/1

( 1 ) ग्राम कोसमघट ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए गए प्लाट संख्या :

( 2 ) ग्राम घोषरा ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए गए प्लाट संख्या : 1/1 , 1/2 , 2 से 12 , 25, 28 से 42 और 44.

( 3 ) ग्राम कुडुमकेला ( भाग ) में अर्जित किये प्लाट संख्या 173 से 189 , 190/1 , 190/2, 191 से 200, 202, 203, 200 ( भाग ) , 2002

354, 355 (भाग) , 207 से 210 , 308 ( भाग ) , 309/1 , 310 से 322, 323 ( भाग ) , 330 ( माग ) , 332 से 350 , 3510 , 351/2 , 351/3, 352 से (भाग ) , 357 से 387 , 388/1 , 388/2, 389 से 393 , 394/1 , 394/2 , 394/3, 395 से 398, 399/1 , 399/2 , 399/3 , 399/4, 399:5, 400 से 217. 418/1 , 418/2 , 418/3, 419 से 425 , 426/1 , 426/2 , 427 से 430, 431/3 , 431/2 , 432 से 438, 440 से 265, 466 ( भाग ) , 467 में 491, 492/1 , 492/2 , 493 से 495 , 496/1 , 496/2 , 497, 498, 499 , 500 ( भाग ) , 514 ( भाग ) , 515, 516, 517/1 ( भाग ) , 5281 के (भात ) , 528/2, 528/52 , 528/53, 528/54, 528/65 और 183/1983 5656

THE GAVEITE OF INDIA.OCTOBER 11,2008 ASVINA 14.90

[PAR . SC.Sin सीमा वर्णन

क -ख रेखा, ग्राम कुडुमकेला पुनश्वा यामों को सन् पर " क " बिन्दु से आरंभहन्तः ग्राम कुड़नकेला- पुसलटा. घाघरा- पुसलदा ग्रामों को सम्मिलित सोनारा दुई " ख " बिन्दु पर मिलनी है ।

অ- रेखा, ग्राम घाघरा के प्लाट संख्या 12. 12. 25. 14 , 28 , 39, 42, 38,44 की उत्तरी गुजरती हुई " ग " विन्दु पर मिन्ननते है ग-घ रेखा , ग्राम कुडुमकंता में प्रवेश करती है और नाल के उत्तरी सीमा से गुजरती है फिर दया हुई " घ " विन्दु पर मिलती है । की उत्तरी मोना में गुजरती घ-रु रेखा, ग्राम कुडुमकला के प्लाट संख्या 438. 440. 14 को पूर्वी सीमा, के साथ -साध

च-छ प्लाट संख्या 500 से प्लाट संख्या 497 को पूर्वी गांगा साथ - साथ प्लाट संख्या 500 , 504 में होती हुई प्लाट संन्द्रय 5171 की पुत्र सीमा से गुजरती हुई " छ " बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

छ-ज रेखा ग्राम कुडुमकेला के प्लाट संख्यः 517/3 , 4०० में प्लाट संख्या 528/541

ज्ञ $28/53.528/52, 528/2 की दक्षिणी भोमा फिर पहाट संख्या 328/2 की पश्चिमी सीन ये गुन्न दुई " अ " विन्दु पर मिन्नं है झ-অ रेखा, ग्राम कुडुमकेला के प्लार भाग 528: क. 3008 से प्लाद संख्या 300 की दक्षिणी गोलार संख्या 308 से गुजरती हुई "अ " बिन्दु पर मिलती है

अ-ट रेखा , एन कुडुमकेला के प्लाट संख्या 308 , 323 संख्या 317की पश्चिमी सोगा 3500 से प्लट या 333,337 की पश्चिमी सीमा, प्लाट संख्या 355 से फिर प्लच संन्जा 357, 358 , 359 , 209 , 210 का सच सांप प्लाट संख्या 21061.2062 से, प्लाट संख्या 2000 , 202 की पश्चिमी सीमा में गश्ती हुई " ट " बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

की पश्चिमी सीमा से गुजरती है फिर र-ठ-ड-ढ - ण रेखः , ग्राम कुडुमकला के प्लाट संख्या 174.173 की दक्षिणी सोमा तथा प्लाट संख्या ग्राम कोसाट में प्रवेश करती है और 6321,633 की पश्चिमी सीमा, प्लाट संख्या 3 की उन सीमा से गुजरती हुई " ग " बिन्दु पर मिलती है।

ण-क रेखा , भागतः ग्राम कुडुमकला कोनमघाट के सम्मिलित मीमा से गुजरती हुई आरंभिक " ." विन्दु पर मिलती है.

[सं. 43015 20:05 परआईडब्ल्यू

एम. शहाबुद्दीन, अवर मन्निव

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 29th September , 2008

S.O. 2852. Whereas , by the notification of the Government of India me the Ministry of Coal number S. O. 4921 dated the 19th December . 2006 , issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development ) Act . 1957 120 of 1957 ) thereafter referred to as the said Act ) and publisaed in the Gazette of India . Part- II , Section 3 , sub - section ( ii ) dated the 23rd December, 2006 , the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire the land as all rights in or over such lands specified in the Schedule proodsi to that notificacion .

And, whereas , the commpetent authority in pursuance of Section 8 of the said Act iss made his report to the Central Government;

And , whereas , the Central Government afier considering the aforesaid report and after consulting the Governement of Chhattisgarh , is satisfied that the land measuring 559.149 bectares ( approximately ) or 1381.657 acres (approximately) as all rights on or over such hard described in the Schedule appended herete , shouldbe acquired :

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conterred by sub section ( 1 ) of Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development ) Art. 1957, the Central Government hereby declared the land measuring 559.149 hectares (approximately ) or 1381.657 acres ( approximately ) as all rights in or over suct Lines as described in Schedule are hereby acquired.

The plan bearing number SECL/ BSP GM( PILULAND /318 dated the 1211 . 2008 , of the area covered by this notification may be inspected in the Office ot the Collector , Raigarh , ( Chhatisinos in the Office of the Coal Controller , 1, Council House Street. Kolkata - 700 001 or in the Office of the Southeastern Coalfield Immaned . Revenще Section) , Seepat Road , Bilaspur - 495.006 | Chhattisgarh ) .

[भाग [ I- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

5657

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 11 , 2008/ आश्विन 19 , 1930

SCHEDULE

Kurumkela Block (Part - II ) Jampali , Mand-Raigarh Coalfield

District- Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

(Plan bearing number SECL/BSP/ GM/( PIg )/LAND/318 dated the 12th May, 2008 )

All Rights

Name ofvillage

SI . No.

Settlement Number 1. Kosamghat

Tehsil

Ramarks

District

PatwariHalka Number

Area in hectares

0.336

Part Gharghoda

46 2.

93 Ghoghra

Raigarh

57.916

Part

Raigarh

Charghoda

31 Kudumkela

500.897

Part Gharghoda Raigarh

Total:-559.149 hectares ( approximately) or 1381.657 acres ( approximately) Details ofPlot number acquired:

1) Plot numbers acquired in village Kosamghat (part ):- 632/1 and633/1 .

2) Plot numbers acquired in village Ghoghra (part) : - 1/1 , 1/2 , 2 to 12 , 25, 28 to 42 and44.

3) PlotNumbers acquired in village Kudumkela (part ) : 173 to 189,190/1,190/2, 191 to 200, 202, 203 , 206/1 (part ) , 206/2 (part). 207 to 210, 308 (part ) ,309/ 1 , 310 to 322, 323 (part) , 330 (part ) , 332 to 350 , 351/1 , 351/2, 351/3 , 352 to 354, 355 (part), 357 to387, 388/1 , 388/2, 389 to 393, 394/1 , 394/2 , 394/3 , 395 to 398, 399/ 1,399/2, 399/3 , 399/4, 399/5, 400 to 417 , 418 / 1,418/2,41813,419 to 425,426/1, 426/2, 427 to430, 43 1/1 , 43 1/2 , 432 to 438 , 440 to 465, 466 (part ) , 467 to 491 , 492/1 , 492/2 , 493 to 495, 496/1 , 496/2, 497,498,499,500 ( part) ,514 ( part ) , 515, 516, 517/1 ( part) , 528/1 k ( part) , 528/2, 528/52 , 528/53 , 528/54, 528/65 and 183/1983.

BoundaryDescription

A-B Line starts from point " A" on the Common boundary of villages Kudumkela - Pusalda and passes partly along the common boundary of villages Kudumkela-Pusalda, Ghoghra- Pusalda and meets at point "B".

B-C Line passes in village Ghoghra along the Northern boundary of plot numbers 1/2, 12, 25, 10, 28, 39, 42, 38 , 44, and meets at point "C" .

C-D

Line enter invillage Kudumkela and passes along the Northern boundary ofNalla , then Northern boundary of Plot number 438 and meefs at point "D" .

D- E-F-C Line passes in village Kudumkela along Eastern boundary of plot numbers 438,440,441 , through plot number 500, along the Eastern boundary of plot number 497 through plot numer 500, 514 Eastern boundary of plot number 517/1 and meets at point "G " .

G-HI Line passes in village Kudumkela through plot numbers 517/1 , 466, Southern boundary ofplot numbers , 528/54, 528/53, 528/52, 528/2 , then Western boundary ofplot number 528/2 and meets at point " I " .

Line passes in village Kudumkela through plot numbers 528 / Ik , 308 , Southerm boundary ofplot number 309/1 , then through plot number 308, and meets at point " J " .

J-K Line passes in village Kudumkela through plot numbers 308,323 , Western boundary of plot number 317. through plot numer 330 , Western boundary of plot numbers 333 , 337 through plot number 355, then Western boundary ofplot numbers 357, 358, 359, 209, 210, through plot numbers 206/1 , 206/2 , Western boundary ofplot numbers 200 , 202 and meets at point "K".

K-L-M Line passes in village Kudumkela southern boundary of plot numbers 174, 173 Western boundary of plot number.

N-O

173, then enter in village Kosamghat and passes along Western boundary 632/1 , 633/1 Northern boundary of plot number 633/1 and meets at point "O" .

O-A

Line passes partly along the common boundary of villages Kudumkela- Kosamghat and meets at the starting point "A".

[No. 43015/8 /2005 - PRIW - 1 ( Vol -11

M. SHAHABUDEEN , Under Secy.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11,2008 / ASVINA 19, 1930

5658

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली 29 सितम्बर , 2008

का. आ. 2853. कन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनिगम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की उपधारा ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना का. आ. संख्यांक 4209 , दारोग्ध्र 19 अक्टूबर , 2006 और जो भारत के एजपत्र भाग 2 , खण्ड 3 , उपखण्ड ( ii ) तारोख 28 अक्टूबर , 2006 में प्रकाशित की गई थी , द्वारा उसस संलग्न अनुसूची में और इस अधिसूचना में भी संलान अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में 152.997 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) माप वाली भूमि में कांचने का रार्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशा सूचना दी थी;

और उक्त भूवि को न्यायत उक्त अधिनियम की धारः की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन कोई सूचना नहीं दी गई;

अतः अब केंद्राय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा ? की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उपरोक्त अधिसूचना कीविधिमान्यतः को , । अक्टूबर , 2008 से आरंभ होने वाली एक वर्ष की और अवधि के लिए, ऐसी अवधि के रूप में , विस्तारित करती है जिसके भीतर केंद्रीय भरकर उक्त भूमि का या एसी भूमि में या पर के किसी अधिकार का अर्जन कामे के अपने आशय की सूचना दे सकेगी ।

अनुसूची

मुन्द्रधुरयेमोन , झरिया कोल्फील्ड

न बोकारो , झारखंड

रेखांक से, जीर्ड 10 मई , 2008

जिला

वना सं.

क्षेत्रफल ( एकर:

श्राना

क्षेत्रफल (हेक्टेयर्स) क्रम संख्या

ऑशिक

61.199

बोकारो

158.630

चन्द्रपुरा

आशिक

99.827

40.399

बौकागे

चन्द्रपुग

आंशिक

!::

24,199

59.747

बोकारो

चन्द्रपुरी

40.1130

16.200

आंशिक

बोकारो

चन्दपुग

19.768

अशिक

बांकारी

बन्द्रपुरा

378.058 एकड़ ( लगभग ) या 150.00 हेक्टेयर ( लगभग )

एम. शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव [ नं. 43015-2: 2006- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू- [

NewDelh

29th September, 2008

5.0. 2851. Whereas , by the notizicator of the Government of India in the Mimstry of Coal number S. O. 4209 dated the Togtober , 2006. issued under section ( 1 ) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas ( Acquisition and Develop 1957 ( 20 of 1957 ) ( hereinaferred to as the said Act ) and published in the Gazette of India, Part - 11 , section ub- section ( ii ) dated the 28ther. 2006 , the Central Governmem gave notice of its intention 10 prospect for is Lands measuring 152.99 hocares ( approximately ) in the locality specified in the Schedule appended there and also iss the Schedule amused to this notification ;

And, whereas, in respect of the sand la notice under sub - section ( 11 Section 7 of the said Act . bas been given

Now, therefire , in exercise of the poster , conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the said Act . the Central Governear Bereby extend the validity of the above notification for further period of one year commencing from the 1910 October, 2008 as the period within which the Central Government my give notice ol' its intermion to 5659 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 11 , 2008/आश्विन 19, 1930

SCHEDULE

Chandrapura Sub-Basin , Jharia Coalfields

District Bokaro , Jharkhand

Drawing no Geo /470 dated 10th May, 2008

Thana

ThanaNo. District

Ramarks Village

SL No.

Area in acres

Area in hectares 1

107

Bokaro

158.636

64.199

Pari Pipradih

Chandrapura

108

Bokaro

99.827

40.399

Part Chandrapura

Chandrapura

Ratari

110

59.797

24.199

Part

Bokaro

Chandrapura

16.200

40.030

Bokaro

Part Chandrapura

Rangamati

8.000 5

Ghatiari

Bokaro

1.9.768

Part Chandrapura

Total 378.058 acres (approximately) or152.997 hectares ( approximately )

[No. 43015/2/2006- PRIW- [ ]

M. SHAHABUDEEN , Under Secy.

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 29 सितम्बर , 2008

का. आ. 2854, केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड (क ) के अनुसरण में , और भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. का. आ. 831 तारीख 1 अप्रैल , 2004 को अधिक्रांत करते हुये श्री डी. बी. रहेवर , डिप्टी कलक्टर, गुजरात सरकार को प्रतिनियुक्ति पर गुजरात राज्य के राज्य क्षेत्र के भीतर एच.पी.सी.एल. मित्तल पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड ( एच.एम.पी.एल ) की मुंदरा - भटिंडा पाइपलाइन परियोजना के लिये उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन सक्षम अधिकारी के कृत्यों का पालन करने के लिये प्राधिकृत करती है।

[सं. आर-31015/28/2008- ओ आर-1 ] ]

अरुणोदय गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS New Delhi , the 29th September, 2008

S.O. 2854. In pursuance of Clause ( a ) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 ( 50 of 1962 ) and in supersession of notification number S.O. 831 dated the 1st April, 2004, the Central Government hereby authorizes Shri D.B. Rahevar , Deputy Collector , Government of Gujarat on depu- tation to HPCL - Mittal Pipelines Limited to perform the functions of the comptent Authority for the Mundra -Bathinda Pipeline Project, under the said Act , within the territory of the State ofGujarat.

[No. R-31015/28/2008 -OR- IIJ

ARUNODAY GOSWAMI, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली 10 अक्तूबर, 2008

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

का. आ. 285.5,-भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि तमिलनाडु राज्य में ए.के.एम. ओ.एन.जी.सी. जी. जी.एस. से साउथ इण्डिया इडिबल प्रा.लि. तक पाइपलाईन परियोजना के माध्यम से प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए , गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा , एक पाइपलाईन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

और भारत सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाईन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में, जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाईन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है. उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( । ) के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन क भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाईन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में सक्षम प्राधिकारी , गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड , कावेरी बेसिन, 172 - कमाराजर मार्ग , कराईकल -609 602 को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 5660

ASVINA 19,1 מויי

!! GAZETIF OF INDEN2008

:::

नई दिल्लः

अनुसूची

का. आ. 2856 ,- हित में यह आवश्यक स्थेनं.

जिला तालुका

शिल

थिरुवरूर

एनीन होता है कि तमिलनएम साउथ इण्यिा डॉडबल प्रा.लि. से नारंभानमन्नार्डन गरियोजन के माध्यम से प्राकृतिक नए गेल (इदिया लिमिटेड द्वारा , एक पाइननी चाहिए:

!די

और भारत सरकार

7-1

कल

लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीतउस भूमि में. जिममं उक् भाइपलाईन त्रिछाए जाने संतान अनुसूची में वर्णित जार; कार का अर्जन किया

अतः अब, भारत सरल

NewDelni , the Loth Octobeт , 2008

S.O. 2855, hereas it appears to

India that it is necessary in the publie Caterer

transportation Scaralas from AKMONG 1..

और निज पाइपल्गाईन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का 50 ) को धारा 3 की उप करते हुए , उस भूमि में अपने आशय की घोषणा क अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 द्वारा पदत्त प्रॉक्तयों का प्रयाग, अधिकार का अर्जन करने क

कोई व्यक्ति, जो एक वर्णित भूमि में हित्बद्ध है.

South India Edhe vi. Ltd gas pipehtic p State ofTamilnadu, a pepeline should be landby

Limited;

And, where is it appears to Government of for the purpose of saying the said pipeline , it is ne to acquire the Right of User in land under wa tu pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is de seres, the Schedule angesed to this notiticationに

उम तारीख में जिसको उक्त नम को धारा की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत के गजारांशत इस अधिसूचना की अतियः साधारण जनता को दी जाती हैं इन दिनो भीतर, भूमि के नीचं पाहजाने के संबंध में सक्षम प्राधिकारी , गेल ( इण्डिया ) कावेरी ग्रिन 172- कमराजर नार्ग , कराईकल -009 में आश्रम भेज सकेंगः । Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers.mit.ed

ग़वे मं.

तालुका

by sub - section ( 1 ) al Sectier 3 of the Petrelers Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right efl set in Act 1962 ( 50 of 140 Covetunent of India henb its intention to sequore the rigla of user therein

थिरुवरुर धिरुवरूर

280 Any person interested in the land de cut

said Schedule way , within twenty one dass trom de

0.04.0

कुल on which the copies of the notification issued under ...

मंगनम 2/1 18.08.10 लीपी section (1 ) af Sectum el the said Act , as published in the

Gazerte of India are made available to the general p

3: 1

101.5

object in writing thethe lying of the pipeline under

0.102 5 Competent Authority . All dia imited Car

172-Kamarajan Road . Larskal - 6196112.

0.12.0 SCHEDULE

14014-28-2008- जो.पी. ] Survey

District Luka Village

महाप्रभा मदान, अवर सचिव

October . 2008 New Delhi,

: . :

Thiruvarur Thumuar 19. Aliwalam 10 : 3

18-1

17-2

S.O. 2856.-Wher as it appears to Government of India that it is necess transportation of Natural Pvt. Limited to Nacino the State ol' Tamilnadu . ( ludia ) Limited; in the public interest thin for AKM South India Edible Silicates gas pipeline project in pelice should be laid by CGAll.

Total

And, whereas tapes to thosernment of India that for the purpose of lay in the sand pipeline , it is necessary 10 acquire the Right of in land under which the sast [भाग [ ] -खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

5661

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 11 , 2008/आश्विन 19, 1930

pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines (Acquisition of Right ofUser in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), Govemment of India 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 trom the date on which the copies of the notification issued under sub- section ( 1 ) ofSection 3 of the said Act , as published inthe Gazette of India are made available to the general public , object in writing to the laying of the pipeline under land to CompetentAuthority, GAIL ( India) Limited, Cauvery Basin, 172-Kamarajar Road, Karaikal - 609602.

SCHEDULE

Taluka

District

Survey Area to be

Village

No. acquired (in Hect.)

0.04.0

19/1 Karuppur 280

Thiruvarur Thiruvarur

0.04.0

Total

0.08.0

17Adiyakka- 2/1 mangalam

3/1 0.01.5G.P.

0.02.5

11 /7C

0.12.0

Total

[F. No. L- 14014/28/2008 -G.P.] SNEH P. MADAN , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली 10 अक्तूबर , 2008

का. आ. 2857.- भारत सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 (1962 का 50 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड (क ) के अनुसरण में, अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 2143 तारीख 30-5-2006 द्वारा श्री एस. के. राठौर, विशेष भूमि अध्यप्ति अधिकारी गुजरात , गुजरात राज्य में मैसर्स गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा , एक पाइपलाईन बिछाने के लिए उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृत्यों का पालन करने के लिएनियुक्त किया था ;

और उक्त श्री एस. के. राठौर , का स्थानांतरण हो गया है और वे उपरोक्त अधिसूचना द्वारा प्रदत्त कार्यभार को पूरा करने की स्थिति में नहीं हैं ;

अतः अब , भारत सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( क ) के अनुसरण में भारत सरकार के पैट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 2311 तारीख 14-8-2007 को अधिक्रांत करते हुए, नीचे दी गई अनुसूची के स्तंभ ( 1 ) में वर्णित 376BG1/08-4

व्यक्ति को उक्त मैसर्स गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा पाईपलाइन बिछाने के लिए निम्नलिखित अनुसूची के स्तंभ (2 ) में वर्णित क्षेत्र में उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृत्यों का पालन करने के लिए नियुक्त करती है ।

अनुसूची

अधिकारिता का क्षेत्र

व्यक्ति का नाम और पता

(2)

(1)

श्री आर. वी. बरिया ,

गुजरात राज्य का भरूच , बड़ोदरा , पंचमहल और दाहोद जिला । विशेष भूमि अध्यापित अधिकारी , मैलर्स गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड यूनिट-1 , छठा तल , कुबेर भवन, बड़ोदरा-390005 ( गुजरात ) में मानदेय के आधार पर

[फा. सं. एल-14014/20/2005 -जी.पी. ]

स्नेह प्रभा मदान , अवरं सचिव New Delhi , the 10th October, 2008

S.O. 2857. Whereas , in pursuance ofclause ( a) of Section 2 of Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition ofRight ofUser in Land ) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962), Govermament of India vide Notification S.O. 2143 dated 30-5-2006 appointed Shri S.K. Rathore , Special Land Acquisition Officer, to perform the functions of the Competent Authority under the said Act for laying of the pipelineby M/ sGAIL (India) Limited in the State ofGujarat;

And,whereas, Shri S.K. Rthore has been transferred vide the above notification and he is no more in a position to perform the functions assigned;

Now, therefore, in pursuance of clause(a) of Seciton 2 ofthe said Act and in supersession of the notification of theGovernment of India, Ministry ofPetroleum & Natural Gas vide S.O. 2143 dated 30-5-2006, the Government of India hereby athorizes the person mentioned in column ( 1 ) ofthe Schedule annexed to perform the functions of the Competent Authority under the said Act for laying pipelines by the said M/ s GAIL (India) Limited, in the area mentioned in column (2) ofthe said Schedule.

SCHEDULE

Name and Address of the person Area ofJurisdiction Shri R.V. Bariya,

Districts Bharuch ,

Vadodara , Panch Mahal & Dahod of Gujarat State.

Special Land Acquisition Officer , On honorarium basis to M/s. GAIL(India) Limited, Unit- 1 , 6th Floor, Kuber Bhawan , Vadodara-390005 (Gujarat).

[F. No. L- 14014/20/2005-G.P.] SNEH P. MADAN, Under Secy.

5662

THI: GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 11 , 2008/ASVINA 19. 19310

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , ।। सितम्बर, 2008

का.आ. 2858.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धार। । ? के अनुसरण में , केंन्द्रीय सरकार मैं, कोच्चि रिफाईनरिज लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरणः श्रम न्यायालय , एरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 287/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरवता को 11-09-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-30012/60/97- आई आर( मी -1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi , the 11th September, 2008 S.O. 2858. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the C'enitai Govemment hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 287 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court, Emakulam now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Mrs Kochi Refineries Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Governmem on 11-09-2008.

[No. L-30012-60.97 - IR ( C - 1 SNEH LATA JAWAS . Desk Officer ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT; ERNAKULAM Present : Shri. P ... Norbert, B.A.. LL.B. , Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 287/2006

(I.D. No.40149K of Labour Court . Larnakukan Union

: The General Secretary. Koelo Retinerics kemployees Association,

Anibalamughal , Kochi - 082302 By Adv Sri C.S. Ajith Parkası Management The General Manager ( HRM . Kochi Retineries 1 td . , เนปาลปะ นา วมะhat , Kochi-082302 By Adv. Ms. Menon and Thu.

This case coming up for heating 001-06-2008 , this Tribunal - cum - Labour Court on 13-06-2008 pass the following:

AWARD

This is a refurrace made under Section 10 drop Industrial Disputes Act , 1917. The reference is :

"Whether the action of the management of M /s ( ochin Refineries 1.td. in denyme the pust

[PART II SIC . 3 ( ii ) to higher grade in respect of the following 21 workmen is justified ? If not , to what reliet the workmen are entitied ?

Sl.No. Name

Token No. Department

1260

Maintenance 1 . Sh. V. Mathess

1280 Maintenance 2 Sh . C.I. Sunny

Materials

1382

3. Sh. A. Gopalau

1281 Maintenance 4. Sh . M.K. Vargh

5. Sh . K.C. Mathess

617 S& OM 6. Sh . M.K. Jos

1619

S & OM

629

S & OM 7. Sh . M.T. Varkey

623

S & OM 8. Sh . S. Kurain

790

S &OM 9 Sh . George Philips

10. Sh . K. Anto Jaba

1218

S & OM

1204

S & OM 11 . Sh . V. Rajan

1762

12. Sh . Nazimudeen S

Maintenanc

S &OM

1136

13. Sh.Ajay Kum

S & OM 14. Sh . R. Maoi

1417

S & OM 15. Sh. PRCS Nint

S & OM 16. Sh . V.K. Dhar !!

S & OM 17. Sh . D. Johnes

716

Maimenance 18. Sh. James Var

19. Sh. R.S. Pilkku

S& OM

595

S & OM 20. Sh . T. Moharu:

S&OM 21 . Sh . R. S. Pillai

2. The facts of il case in bref are as follows וי workers of Cochin Retenes I. itmited challenges through their union the act of the management in densing promotion at the appropriate unse . According to thens the managerment has delito rely denied the promotion . Ehers is a pormotion policy as per a settlement . The pormulion is denied mainly due to te snol lease on loss of pas. But as per settlement it is not found to deny promenon. Several juniors were promoted over looking the workmen. The management is got 10 employees et their choice. The workers li менееветь ol'the claima iss discriminated . The stores ot workers should has e been given more weight die assessing the eligibulus tur promotion . Besides 1 has to be conducted for promotion as per the pronssion policy However , the management did notilen Leprout committee is not properly constitutes! The pros of promotion is illegal .

3. According the management different notifications were issues the noorgement calling for applications for pronherent pests The workrach who had applied for posts 1d by the 5663 [ भाग- खण्ड ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 11 , 2008/आश्विन 19 ,1930

biased manner or any one ofthe employees were victimized. The contention of the union that a written test has to be conducted before promotion is to be given has no merit as the promotion policy contemplates only one of the two methods of test or interview for promotion . The management conducted interview and assessed the suitability of candidates . That is perfectly in order . If the union does not want an interview but only written test , theyare free to enter into a settlement with the management. As per the present promotion policy settlement either of the above two methods can be adopted by the management and there is no illegality in doing so . As per Ext . M I all the 21 workers were given promotion as and when they were qualified for promotion. Hence there can be no grievance for the workmел .

In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management in denying promotion to 21 workmen is legal and justified and they are not entitled for anyrelief.

The award will take effect one month after its publication in the Official Gazette .

promotion procedure and the result they should have raised different industrial disputes . A common reference is not maintainable. There is no allegation of victimization ofany of the employees. In the absence of such an allegation the workers cannot challenge the decision of the management in the matter of promotion . Besides if the workers in question are given promotion by virtue of an order of the court it will adversely affect the already promoted employees. It is unfair to alter the promotion without hearing affected parties. A promotion policy was introduced by virtue ofan agreement between unions and management and the policy came into effect on 31-07-1973 . A promotion committee was also formed to assess the suitability of candidates for promotion . The committee has to take into consideration 7 factors to test the suitability of the candidates for promotion as per the promotion policy. The 21 workers in the present case did not pass the eligibility test and hence they could not be promoted in the first opportunity. However they were promoted subsequently as and when they became successful in the interview and . assessment . Hence they are not entitled for any further relief.

4. In the light of the above contentions the only point that arises for consideration is:

Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 13th dayof June, 2008.

Whether the management had deliberately denied promotion to 21 workers?

P.L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer APPENDIX

Exhibit for theManagement

The evidence consists of Ext . M 1 , a statement of service details of employees filed by the management .

Ext .M1 - Statement filed by the management regarding promotion given to workmen . नई दिल्ली , 11 सितम्बर, 2008

का.आ. 2859,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार में. कोच्दि रिफाईनरिज लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, कुलम के पंदाद ( संदर्भ संख्या 234/2006 ) का प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-09-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एत्र-30012/69/ 98- आई आर ( सी -10] स्नेह लता जवास, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 11th September , 2008

5.0 . 2859.- In Pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 234/ 2006 ) of the Central Coverminent Industrici Tribunal -cuin- 1.abour Court , Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure in tise industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M /s Kochi Refineries Ltd. and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 11-09-2008 .

5. The point: The cause of 21 workers of Kochi Refineries Limited is taken up by the union that they were not given promotion on due dates. The details of vacancy to different promotion posts are elaborately dealt with in the claim statement as well as in the written statement . 11 is unnecessary to go into the details of each employee in view of the contention of the management that though all the 21 workers had appeared before the promotion committee and the committee had taken into consideration 7 factors as required in the promotion policy, they were not successful . 7 factors are seniority, qualification , experience required for the job, knowledge of new job , Potential to move up, review of latest appraisal , communication and health attendance . The marks obtained in respect of each factor are together counted for promotion. The contention of the union that seniority is the main criteria and other factors need not be seriously considered is not sound . As per the promotion policy all the 7 factors are to be counted. According to the management none of the 21 workers were successful in the first opportunity availed by them for promotion . But as and when their results were better they were promoted . The statement Ext . M 1 filed by the management shows the date of promotion , the category of posts and the grade . As per that all the 21 workers were given promotion on different dates . Some of them are no mare and some of them have retired. The union has not been able to show that the promotion committee acted in a

(No. L-30012/59/98 - IR (C - D) NEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer 5664

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11 , 2008/ASVINA 19, 19.30

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

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

PRESENT: SHRI . P.L. NORBERT, B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer 1.D.234/2006

ofAccount- Clerk as on 17-05-1996 . Out of the applicants 13 candidates were called for interview. After preliminary screening of the applications 5 candidates were found suitable for promotion and their names were recommended. The workman did not succeed in the interview . However he was subsequently promoted w.e.f. 1-5-1998 and hence the dispute has become infructuous .

( I.D. 32/1999 ofLabour Court, Ernakulam )

4. In the light of the above contentions the only point that arises for consideration is:

Whether thedenial of promotion in 1996 selection is legal and proper?

Union : TheGeneral Secretary , Kochi Refineries Employees Association , Ambalamughal , Ernakulam Distt.

By Adv Sri . C.S. Ajith Parkash .

alone. The evidence consists of documents Exts . Ml to M3 Management : The General Manager ( HRM) , Kochi Refineries Ltd. , Ambalamughal , Ernakulam Distt By Adv . M/s . Menon and Pai

This case coming up for hearingon 13-05-2008, this Tribunal - cum - 1.abour Court on 14-05-2008 passed the following:

AWARD

Thisis a reference made under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) of Industrial Disputes Act . The reference is:

"Whether the denial of promotion of Sh . S. Subramanian from Typist Clerk Gr . V to General Clerk Gr. VI by CR1. Management is justified? If not , what relief the workman is entitled t ?"

2. Facts of the case in brief are as follows:- Shri S. Subramanian , Typist Clerk Grade- Vjoined service ofKochi Refineries Ltd. , Ambalamughal on 1-3-1991 in the Finance & Audit Department . In 1996 five vacancies of Account-Clerks were notified and applications were called for promotion from Typist- Clerks Gr. V. The workman του applied for the post . An interview was conducted on 12-06-1996. However he was not selected . According to the workman he had answered all the questions in the interview. But the management chose to promote 5 uthers junior to him . As per the promotion policy a written test is to be conducted . However this was not done by the management . The management has not properly evaluated seniority and other factors mentioned in the promotion policy. Theworkman had all the qualifications prescribed by the managernent . But the promotion committee failed to properlyappreciate all the factors in a proper manner. He is entitled to be promoted w.e.f. 1996.

3.According to the management there is no allegation of victimization in the matter of selection for promotion There is a promotion policy regarding the procedure for promotion . A Promotion Committee assesses the suitability ofa candidate and recommends his name for promotion. The committee has to look into several factors while considering the suitability of a candidate . The promotion policywas formulated by the management in consultation with unions and hy a settlement . There were 5 vacancies

S. The Point:-It is the case of the union that the workmanjoined the service of the company on 1-3-1991 as Typist-Clerk, It is an admitted fact that in the year 1996 five vacancies of Account - Clerk were notified by the management . These vacancies were to be filled by promotion from among Typist Clerk Gr. V. The workman had applied for the post . He appeared for the interview , but failed. Ext. MI is notice ofjob vacancy dated 17-5-1996 inviting applications from employees for the pust of Account-Clerk . Qualification and experience are mentioned in the notice. Ext. M2 is interview result. The workman had scored 40% marks in the interview . Ext . M3 is the report of promotion committee regarding selection . 13 employees were interviewed by the promotion committee and 5 were found suitable for promotion Their names are mentioned in Ext . M3. The workman was not a successful candidare . From the candidates who scored the highest marks . 5 were selected according to the marks . The scoring of workınan was low, All the factors mentioned in Ext. M2 for selection were assessed by the promotion committee . The factors are seniority , qualification, experience. knowledge of the newjob, potential to move up , review of the latest appraisal form, communication and health /attendance . The highest mark obtained by the workinan was in respect of seniority . He did not fair well concerning other factors . Hence hewas not selected . The union is not able to point out any discrimination shown hs , promotion committee to the workman . No motive is alleged for victimizing the workinan . I am not able to find ans illegality in the selection . The contention ofthe union that as per the promotion policy a written test has to be conducted by the management is not correct .Inthe rejoinder or the union page 3 para ha relevant part of promotion policy is quoted as follows:- " the promotion committee will perforan further screening and those candidates considered suttable shall be tested interviewed" , It means that the management is free to conduct either test or merview and not necessarily both . Thus there is no impropriety or irregularity in selection . If so the workmen was not eligible for promotion in 1996 However the written statetasent of the management shows that he was given promotion subsequently w.e.f. 1-05-1998 After hearing , management produced the order of promotion. That shows that the workman was given [ भाग II - खण्ड 3(ii) ]

promotion as Account- Clerk in Finance & Accounts Department w.e.f. 1-5-1998 . However he is not entitled for promotion w.e.f. 1996.

In the result, an award, is passed finding that the action of the management in denying promotion to the workman Sri.S.Subramanian Typist as Account-Clerk in the 1996 selection is leagal and justified and he is not entitled for any relief.

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

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her , corrected and passed by the on this 141h day ofMay,2008.

P.L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Management :

MI Notice ofJob vacancy dated 17-05-1996.

M2 Interview result,

M3 Report of Promotion Committee regarding selection .

नई दिल्ली, 11 सितम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 2860.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै . सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय धनबाद सं.। के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 193/1990, 194/1990 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-09-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/23/90, 20012/22/90-आई. आर( सी-[ ] ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 11th September, 2008 S.O. 2860. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 193/ 1990, 194/1990) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court Dhandbad No , I now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . C.C.L. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 11-9-2008.

[No. L-20012/23 /90, 20012/ 22/90 - IR (C- I) ]

SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO. 1 AT DHANBAD. PRESENT: Shri H.M. Singh , Presiding Officer In the matter of industrial dispute under section 10 (1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act. , 1947 ,

Reference No.193 of 1990 PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management ofDakra Colliery ofM/ s. C.C.L. and their workmen .

5665

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 11 , 2008/आश्विन 19 , 1930

(Ministry's order No.1-20012 (23 ) 90-1R (Coal -I ) chdl.27-8-1990j

Reference No. 194 of 1990

Employers in relation to themanagement ofK.D.H. Project ofMs. C.C.L.. and their workmen

(Ministry'sorder No.L-20012 (22) 90- IR (Coal -1 ) dtd. 27-8-1990) )

APPEARANCES

On behalfofthe workmen : Mr. S. Bose ,

Vice-President .

RCMS.

On behalf of the employers : Mr. D.K. Verma, Advocate

State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the August, 2008 .

AWARD

TheGovt. of India, Ministry of labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under section 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) of the I.D. Act . , 1947 has referred the above mentioned references before this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order referred to above with the following Schedule .

Schedule in Ref. No. 193/90

"Whether the action of Central Coalfields Lid. management of Dakra Colliery retiring S/ Shri Raghu Swain , Gourhari Sahu and Sudarsan Dusadh on medical ground before their superannuation and not providing employment to their dependents as per para 9.4.3 of NCWA - III is justifed? It not, to what reliefthese workmen are entitled? "

Schedule in Ref.No.194/90

"Whether the action of Central Coalfields Ltd. management ofKDH Project retiring S/ Shri Gobind Nahak No. III , Kirtan Pusty , Rajan Jena , Dandashi Behra , Bishwanath Nahak , Sridhar Reddy, Arto Swain, Wagon Loaders and Krishna Pusti , General Mazdoor on Medical ground before their superannuation and not providing employment to their dependents as per para 9.4.3 of NCWA - III is justified? If not , to what reliefthese workinen are entitled? " .

2.As both the cases were licard analogously and as such this Award will be applicable for both the cases .

3.As per W. $. filed by the workmen in Ref. No. 193/90 it has been alleged that the concerned workmen are permanent employees of the management since 1973 in the capacity of breakers and shale pickers at the siding. Afier implementation of NCWA - III the concerned workmen got medically examined on the basis of para 9.4.3 along with serveral other workmen by the Special Medical Board, CCL、 Ranchi on 22-11-88at Area Transit Camp . North Karanpura .

5606

11.2008 ASVINA 19 :

Dakra. By

the c

and it hus no less the cases sot so - called retired from

dependents of the w commedas Ja Judustri 27-3-89 and in יי

Dispute and to seekin

The Daknutolbery torignally who is permia:.

called as Dakra Bukbuke Cremationalised collience are of perman.

under the Coal Mines

alisadon ) Act, 1973 ...

should ger

1-5-73 and it now the CCI .. The reference concerned .

order , however , retinst4ngeet but since the presem employment :

ease does not relate to DEH Project , the refereerce conducted b

is sitiated and benderandvod the neigt: ch the Medical J ..

has a system of mar ... e of Service Books of is of their dep i

workmenin which on 1st page amsing the other provided enj

particulars of the emp

workmen asc .:

reconnied . These entries

the date of buth is alsu sas originally declared by well as the ..

the workmen themsels .. the same are fidis caplained workman 11:

to the workmen coloretter her sietarres did not issue...

or thhamp impressions .

conducted .

Tel :

This is the usual

after they accept the same tena adopted is the the defees !

Chested by the wes

nanagement . Thus the

individualpl : . : .

concerned by atliking::.

It has been al..

admissions on the past

letter or betis.

the meaning of Section

sermon concerned wedan viderece Act and dies are dependerits .

bound by the same ?

the workets were legals terminated is

estopped from taking

strid inthe case of Raghu 27-3-89 by

Swain, his originaldat twas entered in the Seri that Dy . C.M ::

Sheet Book as 10-30 - ts entry was interpolated authority r

and the tigere 30 was sby some one apparently as such the o

the instance of Shri Rama la the application made the said ofli

army his case before the Speer ! by Shri Raghu Swait les

Ireated as cu ! ..

dependentst

i10 he date of berth was 2010-10-1928 . These Medical Board , the en.. mterpolated and it w

place. As d

wellas unior :

rade canifestly win alteroor 1.ad advantage from the interpolations have been motive and to secur

matter beturei

Neo Raghu swain hansel Management at the in

Peche the

the union to i

Tlegal acts. Similk in the Is he is the beneliciar

who hold cut .

tas relating to his dateng ease of Shri Gourkart ..

ended in fisi

birth which was origin - 5-1932 inius Serve adjudication

Sheet Book , was iced and changed to to pass an Aw...

3-5-1034、 [ this cine the aen in regard to the 9 :

ofDakra Coin.

application of Shriier

i fer examining his case by services S SLE

icephon has been made

the Special Medical B

Dusadh and

masto the

by over writing etc. :: d in the date of urta ol as per pat

Shri Goulbari Sahu same as in the case of Shr dependents:

Raghu Swain Sofits - an Dusada is concertent concerned .

sichtigels two Service N came mmo existence in sis יין וויייי

dependents a

case . In the first Serve Rock the entry relating to should be as

the date of birth was -1-30 but inthe second relieť.

Service Sheet Boviate of birth was shown its 4.This ..

12-6-1936 . The Seconde Sheet Book was prepared that the reter ...

! hs the person personsned with wherior motivesal the sitme is lin :

The instance of Shri Sac . Dahimself so that es submitted B

doth the sa

may secure unfair a Tom the Management ( e does not co Disper ::

question of interpolatiaries tothe service Sheets meaning of Se !.

Books of Shri Raghu Swahan Sakan and open subinitted depodos

of the second Sers set Biva in the case of concerned an

Sari Sudarsan Dusitci rerng nis date of birth t [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

12-6-1934, have been investigated by the Management and necessary action is being taken against the employees concerned.

5. In para 9.4.3 of NCWA III there is a provision for employment of one dependent of a worker who is permanently disabled due to desease or injury resulting in loss of employment subject to the same being certified by the Coal Company concerned . The management had issued a circular that for this benefit the workmen who are in the age group of45 to 55 years wouldby eligible. Keeping in viewthe above circular and to give and underserved benefit to the aforesaid three workers the above manipulations , interpolations etc. and opening of a second service sheet in the case of Shri Sudarsan Dusadh were resorted to by the interested persons.

6.As per procedure laid down by the JBCCI the Management also computerised the data relating inter- alia to the date ofbirth of its workers as entered as in the records of the Management and the computerised data sheets indicate the date of birth of Shri Raghu Swain as 10-10-1930 and of Shri Gourhari Sahu as 3-5-1932. The case of 3 workers referred to above were put upbefore the Special Medical Board and as per the assessment made by the Medical Board, these three workers were found to be until and their employment were accordingly discontinued. They could not, however,be given the benefit of para 9.4.3 of NCWA III as , but for the manipulations , forgery etc. as referred to above , they would not have been eligible for the benefit ofbeing medically examined by the Medical Board and for securing the benefit under para 9.4.3 of NCWA III . It has also been stated that all these cases are vitiated by fraud , dishonesty and other illegal acts commited at the instance ofthe 3 workers referred to above and therefore there is no question of giving them the benefit under para 9.4.3 of NC WA III . In view of the above facts the concerned workmen have been discontinued from work by the management and the action of the management is justified in not providing employment to the dependent of the concerned workmen. Hence it has been prayed that an Award be passed rejecting the claim of the concerned workmen,

7. The workmenside also filed rejoinder stating the same facts which has been stated in their W.S. It has also been said that it is wrong to say that the concemed workmen has deliberately changed their date of birth and it should be proved by the management and that the action of the management is arbitrary , unjustified and benefit be given tothe workmen ,

Ref. No. 194/90

8. In the W.S. the workmen stated that they are permanent employees of the management since 1973 in the capacity of wagon Loaders except the last name Shri Krishna Pusti who is a General Mazdoor. After the

5667

भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 11, 2008/आश्विन 19 , 1930

implementation of NCWA - III the management got the concerned workmen medically examined on the basis of para 9.4.3 of NCWA- 111 along with several other who were all examined by Special Medical Board, CCL, Ranchi on 22-11-88 at Area Transit Camp, North Karanpur Dakra. The concerned workmen and others were retired from their respective services with effect from 27-3-89 vide office order dated26-3-89.

9. In terms ofpara 9.4.3 of NCWA - III a workman who ispermanently disabled due to injury or disease which are of permanent nature resulting into loss of employment should get a dependent absorbed in his place . The concerned workmen submitted their applications before the managment for employment oftheir dependents in place of themselves. Thereafter the management conducted thorough verification and after the examination by the Medical Board on 22-11-88 certified the employment of their dependents . The management by an officer order dated 7-3-89 retired the concerned eight workmen w.e.f. 8-3-89 butdid not provide employment to the dependents of concerned eight workmen violating the provisions of NCWA- III as well as management's own understanding with the workmen.

10. It has been stated further that the management did not issue any report ofthe Special Medical Examination conducted on 22-11-88 indicating the defects detected by theMedical Board about the individual physical and mental conditions . Thereafter the concerned workmen were terminated from their services by the management w.e.f. 8-3-89 by an office order dt 7-3-89 without giving any notice to the workmen as per law .

11. It has been alleged that the Dy. C.M.E. / Project Officer, KDH Project was not the employing authority in respect of the concerned eight workmen and as such the order of termination dated 7-3-89 issued by the said officer is not valid and the workmen should be treated as continuing in employment till such time as their dependents are not provided with employment in their place . Thereafter the union of the workmen raised industrial dispute before theALC ( C) Ranchi which ultimately resulted reference to thisTribunal for adjudication . It has been prayed on behalf ofthe workmen to pass Award directing the management to provide employment to the dependents of the workmen in terms ofpara 9.4.3 and to pay wages to the workmen for the idle period from 8-3-89 till the absorption of their dependents and with further direction to pay the cost of proceding to the concerned workmen.

12. The employers have submitted their W.S. alleging that the reference is bad in law and not maintainable and the same is liable to be rejected. It has specifically been submitted that the issue raised by the sponsoring Union does not constitued an Industrial Dsipute within the meaning of Section 2(K) of the 1.D.Act .

5668

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: ON OBER 11 , 2008 /ASVINA 19, 1930

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

nor their dependants are entitled to any relief whatsoever quite apart from the referecne order itself being vitiated and rendered illegal as per the perliminary and legal objections of the Management as referred to above . The employers accordingly have prayed that this Tribunal may be pleased to give an award rejecting the claim of the workmen.

14. The workmanside also liled rejoinder stating that the contents ofparas 13,14,15,16,17 and 18 ofthe W.S. of the management are not admitted by them being and attempt to bypass the real issue and to create confusion since the workmen concerned had simply applied for emoployment of their respective dependants according to the terms and conditions laiddown in NCWA - III and the management cannot dissolve their responsibility in violation of the provisions of the NC WA- III. The contents of paragraph ( 19 ) of the statement have not been admitted by the workmen to the exter that employes should have been given to the dependants of the concerned workmen who were found medically unfit accordingto paragraph 9.4.3 . of NCWA -II and it is not open for the management to bypass their obligation In luas been submitted that the action of the managennem is arbitrary , unjustified and benefit be given to the workmen .

15. On behalf of the wokrmen WW - 1 has been produced. On behalf of the management MW - 1 Ramnath Singh has been examined who has proved Ext.M -1 and M-1/2 . Management also examined M -2 who has also proved M - 1 and M. 1.2 and also ext .M- 2 to M - 1-4 .

16. Main question which has to be decided by this Triubnal is whether manmen las complied with clause 9.4.3 of NCWA - III by givong one dependent employment 01 permanent disabled eniployee . Clause 9.4 3. of NCWA- III in this respect speaks as follows: -

Clause 9.4.3

Employment to ure dependant of a worker who is permently disables; this place:

(i ) The disablement the worker concerned should arise from injury or disease , be of a permanent nature resulting inte oss of employment and it should be so certified by the Coal Company concerned.

( ii ) The dependent to be considered for employment should be physically fit and suitable for employment and aged below 35 years provided that the age limit all not apply in the case of spouse .

13. It has heen stated by the management that Guhind Nahak and other workers referred to in the reference onder except Shri Arto Swain were previously working, I Kujt Area while Shri Arte Swam was working in Kella Area ol Central Coalfields imited. These areas are different fro North Karanpura area in which KDH Poject talls. Above workers were transferred from 10 aforesaid collieries to North Karanpura Area Del Project . Though the original and genuine service sheets of these workers were bro North Karanpura Area by the Management of the previs collieries where they were working , they were replaced fraudulently by sonte officials of North Karaopura area and fabricated service sheets were prepared and their age was also reduced in those fabricated/ forged service sheets in order to make them eligible for voluntary retirement an medical grounds Such a scheme was introduced bi the management fur workers in the age group of 45 5055 seats keeping in view the Provisions of Para 9.4.3 of NUMA- 1 by constituting a special Medical Board therefore a is crystal clear that sonce the beneficiaries of the tabrivatal and forged service sheets of the worknien concerned themselves they were a partyto the fraud commatted the officials concerned in the present case and it is well settled that no person can be allowed to take advanture of his own fraud as the dishonesty or other illeusi ats committed by hint or at bis instance . It has been hether stated by the management that the investigations were made into the whole atlair and initiated depromena against the office al concerned and uhimately they were punished. So far as the eight workers referred tom the order of reference is concemed, since they were declared medically untir for meir employment was watara. discontinued A Statement showing the correct date of birth as recorded in the original records of the Manag الذاك relating to the eight werkers , the date of birth reflected in the forged doctantezis service sheets and the date firm. which their employment was discontinated is incигрываеd in Annexure ' to has been submitted by the mures that since the endet workers cocerned were found med unfit by the Messa? Boud ofthe Management and the case of the workach themselves thatthey daera subjected to medical cantation because of then bera : medically unfit. de Management was perfectly couple: retire them tom service and there was a L question of allonsinee tisan to contirme in servise tilts age of their suprantia 1.2 . 60 years when the so . unable to work coter render ang servures to Management . It has been Kamber subuntted that the hula of the facts and cutices of the c fraudulent . cdishonest and illegal aers which came notice with regard to the claims of the eight wurzer n connection with etfotus to get theselves mahe. examined and templosmonto their depo daar there is also to desdon of the пaкаgеmеr employment to pendants . In corse jete , th employers suithattel td nesther the workmane

It shows therefore that the concerned workmen must have been permanent employee and cused to be empkiyed on the ground ofdisablement due to injury or disease which is of permanent nature resulting loss of employment. In the present case there is no medical certificate stelt shows [भाग ।।- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

that the concerned workmen have been retired due to injury or disablement on perinanent nature and become disabled because ofthis fact . So far as per clause 9.4.3 ofNCWA - III the concernedworkmen have not been retired on the ground ofdisablement arising from injury or disease of a permanent nature resulting into loss of employment . Moreover, as perdocument filled by the management shows the date of birth has been interpolated and manipulated to derive benefit of clause 9.4.3 of NCWA - III . As per Ext. M- 1 the date of birth of Raghu Swain has been altered from 10-10-30 to 10-10-1938 . Also in the case ofGaur Hari Sahu his date ofbirth has been altered from 3-5-1932 to 3-5-1934 and in the case of Sudarsan Dusadh date of birth has also been manipulated and altered . As per Ext.M-2/ 1 the date of birth of Sudarsan Dusadh 18-9-1928, Krishna Prosti as per ExLM -22 16-1-1943 . Biswanath Nahak as per Ext.M-2/3 3- 2-1948 has been altered and manipulated , Ld . Counsel for theworkman has argued that because of the fact that these documents were in the custody of the management so it is the responsibility of the management to preserve them in tact and in safe custody but the argument ofthe Ld. Counsel for the workman deems to be not fair because without consent and convincing of the workmen their date ofbirth cannot be altered to get the benefit of workmen and also as per. Ext . M- 13 the age of Raghu Sai is recorded as 42 years at the time of employinent . WW- 1 Devendra Kumar Singh has stated in his cross -examination that "I have left the service- out of my own sweet will . He also stated that he does not know if the service records and Form B Register remain under the custody of the staff of personnel department when he has stated that he has retired froni service on his sweetwill it shows that wrong facts have been stated in the W.S. that on the initiative of the managment he got medically examined for employment of his son as per NCWA - III .

17. Management also filed photo copy of the FormB Register which shows that some of the workmen have been transferred to another colliery. The date ofbirth of Gobind Nabk No II has been manipulated and also and date of birth of Rajtu Jana has been mentioned as 53 years . It also shows that he was above 55 years at the time of his medical examined before the Medical Baord. The workman Orato Swain at Sl.No. 1275 shows his age as 54 years. It also shows that he becomes more than 55 years at the time of hisonedical examination before the Medical Board . It shows that the concerned workmen have got medically examined and found medically untit not on the ground of injury or disablement of permanent nature . It has also been put that the concerned workmen were within the range of45 to 55 years of age and on that basis ntanagement may provide employment . to their depandents .

18. It therefore shows that the concerned workmen have failed to fultill the conditions as mentioned in clause 9.4.3 of NCWA - III . The statement made by the concerned workmen in theit W.S. shows that they have manipulated

$669

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 11 , 2008 / आश्विन 19 , 1930

dated of birth to get the benefit of clause 9.4.3 of NCWA- III for getting employment ofdependants. In the result, the followingAward is rendered:-

"The action ofthe managment in both the Reference Casos in retiring the workmen as mentioned in the schedule to the order of refermece on Medical Ground before their superannuation and not providing employment to their dependents as per Para 9.4.3 of NCWA- III is justified. Consequently, they are not entitled to get any relief."

H.M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली , 11 सितम्बर , 2008

का. आ. 2861.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै, सी.सी. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय धनबाद , संख्या के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 107/90 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-9-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/270/89- आईआर ( सो -1 ) ] स्नेह लता जषास , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th September, 2008 S.O. 2861. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the (' entral Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 107/ 90) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Dhanbad No.l now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . C.C. Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 11-9-2008 .

[No. L-20012/270/89 - IR ( C - 11 SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.T, DIIANBAD In the matter ofa reference Under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Reference No. 107 of 1990

PRESENT : Shri H.M. Singh:

Parties :Employers in relation to the management of Jharkhand Colliery of M/s . C.C. Ltd. AND Their Workmen PresidingOfficer Appearances:

Shri D.K.Verma , Advocate For the Employers:

For theWorkmen :

Shri B. B. Pandey, Advocate State : Jharkhand .

Industry:Coal 5670

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11 , 2008 /ASVINA 19, 1930

Dated, the 26th August , 2008

AWARD

regularised as workshop machinist in Category- V w.e.f. 1982 an as workshop machinist in Category- VI w.e.f. 1-2-89 . The concerned workman has been incorrectly desiganted as mazdoor and is being paid Category- wages illegally and arbitrarily. The concerned workman is entitled todifference ofwages between Category- V and Category- I w.e.f. 1-1-82 and between Category-VI and Category- 1 w.e.f. 1-2-89.

By Order No. L-20012/270/89 -L.R . (Coal - 1 ) dated 2-5-1990 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour , has, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal ;

"Whether the action of the management of Jharkhand Colliery ofC.C. Ltd. , P.O. Jharkhand, Dist . Hazaribagh by not regularising and not making payment ofdifference of wages ofS/Shri ( 1 ) Shyam Lal Kurmi , (2 ) Jawahar Singh , (3 ) Ful Mohammad, (4) Panchanand Mahto , ( 5 ) Sadique Ansari and ( 6 ) Ishaque Mian is justified ? If not , to what relief the workman concerned are entitled? "

The concerned workman , Ful Mohammed is working in Excavation cadre being deployed in the Open cast w.e.f. 1-1-1982 . The Excavation workers like operators , fitters and helpers are fixed in Excavation Categories E to A and Special . They are not fixed in Category- I to VI prescribed for time-rated workers . The management's stand before the conciliation office was that the concerned workmen are working as mazdoor with the fitters at different sections of the Excavations. It is submitted that the fitters deployed in the Excavations are in Excavation categories . The mazdoor helpers working with Excavation fitters are entitled to Excavation Category 'E ' which is the minimum prescribed for the Excavation workers . According to the case of the management the concerned workmen are entitled to difference ofwages between Excavation Category 'E ' and time rated Category- I w.e.f. 1-1-1982. It has been submitted that the concerned workman are working as fitters in Excavation sections of opencast working and they are entitled to Excavation Category ' D' or ' C ' w.e.f. 1-1-1982. The concerned workmen are entitled to be regularised as Excavation fitters in Excavation Category ' D ' and difference ofwages between Excavation category ' D ' and Category -1 w.e.f. 1-1-1982 and the action of the management in treating the concerned workmen as Mazdoor and paying them time rated Category -I wages is illegal , arbitrary and amounts to unfair labour practice . It has been prayed by the workmen to pass an award directing the management to regularise Shyam Lal Kurmi as workshop machinist in Category -VI and offers Ex- fitters in Excavation Category ' D ' giving continuity in their respective categories w.e.f. 1-1-1982 and also for making payment of difference of wages w.e.f. 1-1-1982.

3.The management have filed their written stateinent alleging that the preliminary and legal objection that the reference is bad in law and not maintainable . It has been alleged that the reference order suffers from the vice of vagueness and total non - application of mind by the appropriate Government . It has been submitted that Jharkhand Colliery has a Workshop in which machinery and equipment of the management are repaired. It has adequate number of fitters , machanics and other technical and skilled workers and semiskilted workers for the purpose of carrying out all the jobs executed in the said workshop at all relevant times . It has highly skilled, skilled and sami- skilled workers and the concerned workmen have not been employed and called upon to perform any job of higher post than the post held by them. Jharkhand Colliery has 2. The concerned workman have filed written statement and they have stated that Shyam Lal Kurmi has beenworking in the colliery as fitter from 1982. He operates the lathe and drill machines installed in the workshop . The machinists/ fitters deployed in the workshop get Category- V or Category-VI wages . The concerned workman is getting only Category- I wages . The management attempted to make out a case before the conciliation officer that the concerned workman , Shyam Lal Kurmi is working as Mazdoor in the workshop with the fitters. It has been submitted that there is no requirement of engaging fitter mazdoor to accompany the fitter and to carry on tools and materials of the fitters for carrying work at different places. In the workshop . the lathe, drill and shaping machines are permanently fixed and adjustments of the machines are done by the machinists fitters in the course of carrying on differem works . The persons deployed to help the workshop machinists / fitters are helpers and not mazdoors . As per the stand taken by the management, the concerned workman Shyam Lal Kurmi is working as helper in the workshop, though the workmen deployed in the workshop get one category higher than that given to their counter- part working in mines . The mine fitter gets minimum Category- IV, whereas a workshop fitter gets minimum Category-V. A helper deployed with a mine fitter gets minimum Category- It and a helper deployed in workshop with machinists and fitters is entitled to minimum Category- III . Even if the case of the management is accepted as correct, the concerned workman is entitled to difference of wages between Category -III and Category- I w.e.f. 1-1-82. The concerned workman , Shyam Lal Kurmi was sent to the Central Excavation Training Institute at Barkakana . He took training from 16-11-88 to 16-1-89 and learnt complicated job with precision and after completion of training he is performing machining job in the workshop on lathe and drill machines with high efficiency and precision . He is entitled to be regularised in Category- VI w.e.f. 1-2-1989 and entitled to difference of wages between Category- V ] and Category - I from 1-2-1989 . He is also entitled to be भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 11 , 2008 / आश्विन 19 , 1930

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

heavyearth moving machinery working in the quarry such as, shovels, dumpers , dozers etc. Shyam Lal Kurmi was previously a piece rated worker and on his request he was assigned to do the work of a Mazdoor Category- l and later he was placed in the post of discellaneous mazdoor in Category- II w.e.f. 8-9-90 and he has been performing the job ofmiscellaneous mazdoor andhe is attached to Turner. There is only one lathe machine in the Workshop and there are two tumers already working in the Workshop. There is no requirement for any more Turners .The volume ofwork oftumer is also very much limited. Ful Mohammed was alsoapiece rated worker before and on his request he was assigned to do the work of Mazdoor in Category- 1 and later he was placed in the post of Misc . Mazdoor in Category- II w.e.f. 8-9-90 and he is attached with Fitter. The reference order does not state as to in what post the union demandstheseworkers to be regularised and with reference towhat post it claims payment of difference of wages . It does not also indicate the period or dates from which any action was required to be taken by the management. The present dispute has arisen as a result of some mis- representations made by the Union concerned with ulterior motive and malafide intentions . It has been alleged that the concerned workman , Shyam Lal Kurmi is not entitled to Category-VI w.c.f. 1-2-89 as Workshop Machinist and Ful Mohammed is not entitled to Category ' D' w.e.f. 1-1-82. Hence, it is prayed that an award be passed holding that the concemed workman are not entitled to any relief.

Theworks has produced the application moved on behalfof the workman that they are interested for the case oftwo workmen, namely, Shyam Lal Kurmi , appearing at serialNo. 1 ofthe schedule and Ful Mohammad, appearing at serial No. 3 of the said schedule because others have been promoted by the management.

4. The management has produced witness , MW- 1- P.K. Tapadar and he has proved Exts . M- 1 andM-2.

The workmen have produced WW- 1- Shyam Lal Kurmi and he has proved Exts . W- t to W-8.

5.Asperpaper filed by the workmen Ext.W-2 Shyam Lal Kurmi has been given training of Lathe machine from 16-11-88 το 16-1-89 for two months and as per Ext .W-1he hasbeen given order for training of lathe machine , as per Ext. W-3 he is authorisedby the Project Engineer vide OfficeOrder No. Ref: P.E ( XYJHK/Authorisation-3/94/913 dated 26-12-94 to work on lathe machine as and when required and as per Ext. W-4 he as authorised to work as a E.P. Turner for 15 days and as per Ext. W-5 he has been authorised to work as a E.P. Turner . As per Exts . W-6 Ful Mohammed has been given for repair and maintenance of Engine Section , Pay loader and washing of workshop equipment, as per Ext . W - 7 he has been ordered by the ProjectEngineer on 16-3-2000 to make arrangement & Nos. of nut for coupling bolt of shovel and Ext. W7 / ] is for repairing bolt ofshovel with lathe machine d1.6-4-2000.As

5671 per Ext. W-7/3 dated 9-8-2000 he has been ordered for steering hose pipe thread make of shovel 436, as per Ext W-7/4 to repair lathe machine on 26-8-2000 and as perExt. W-7/5 on3-11-2000 for making 8 nos . of pin of Track Pad, as perExt. W-7/6 dated 16-11-2000 addressed to Shyam Lal Kurmi to make 2 nos, new grease adoptor of shovel 436 and as per Ext . W- 7/7 dated 29-11-2000 to make Tic rod of Bolu L. V. Ring. These documents show that the management has taken the work from Shyam Lal Kurmi as Mechanic- cum-Fitter an Turner.

6. The management's witness MW- I admitted that the workmen were working as helper in Excavation Section, and initial appointment is made there on Category- I and Category- II and thereafter grade starts from Category 'D' .

7. As per WW- t , Shyam Lal Kunni , it has been stated in cross-examination that Ful Mohammed has not got training. It shows that Ful Mohammed has been promoted from Category- I to Category - II and in this respect he is not entitled foranypromotion in Grade ' D' or ' E' . But as regards Shyam Lal Kurmi he has been given training and also worked as per Exts . W-3 to W-7 /7. The management has promoted number of persons as per Ext . M- 1 . Shyam Lal Kurmi has been promoted to Grade ' D ' at serial no.42 and Ful Mohammed has been regularised in Category- 11 w.e.f. 8-9-90 as perExt.M- 2 and Shyam Lal Kurmi has been given Misc.Mazdoor Category-I from 8-9-90 and also given the job of turning on lathe machine. But as per documents filed by the workmen issued by the management show that Shyam Lal Kurmi is performing the job of mechanic- cum- fitter and turner work and he has not been promoted and given his Category as per rules.

8. In the facts and circumstances stated above, the award is made.

The action ofthe management ofJharkhand Colliery ofC.C.Ltd. in not regularising and not making payment of difference ofwages of Shyam Kurmi is notjustified. Accordingly, the concerned workswan, Shyam Lal Kurti is entitled to be regularised as Category- VI w.e.f. 1-1-82 and difference ofwages between Category-V and Category-l w.e.f. 1-1-1982 and difference ofwages between Category V and Category - I w.e.f. 1-2-1989. As regards Ful Mohammed he is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly, the management is directed to implement the award within one month from the date of publication of the award.

H.M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer.

नई दिल्ली , ।। सितम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 2862,--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का ।4 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. टिस्को 6 और 7 पिटस कोलिनरी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय ויי.

2 As per writer

Bios been stated than & Pis Collers

asalioved Person

Very sincere , ho nagement touk amber of dus ho van had to wes

As a resolt her .

he become a T.B. Patien

Indusimai U.

:::

...

Governmember

(Re

of the Central - uni .

Coumian

Industmal Dis

cine to T.B. at Tata Cen beland his wife and the vervice with the reme.... name of his elder sen cmployment register

wait !!

the comp.s

de ...

wide Smt . Patriku See the employment :

presented before .

personally visited all employment but with::

lers

an industrial dispu

Mazdoor Union beforet .

re compte

cmployment of Asia.

14-10-93 . A

the n In the m:.

irited their com

Se Indir...

electi

Reference ..

nagement reper

Parties : E :

ployment of ashoi

M. TISCO:-

Furn cormes, but the s because the attitude o ! : ..

r process to avoid e

pendent

on his service

code comp

.::.

For t

State, il ....!

Beag ben

r. depenints

.::

alention of para

sub - sech

nagement

litoise the d

ibar:

for judice

the time of hearing Jasad got is deper ..

stion .

perlat's Kegintu

M'S. JIS

provide rok

Kumar son of ic

Prasad jooted

mmpiosres Dependent

what relief is terdun entides?

5673 भारत का राजपन्न : अक्तूबर ।। , 2008/आश्विन 19 , 1930

[ भाग ।। खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

written statement is false and incorrect . The management has adopted the pick and choose policy in connivance with the recognised union and has neglected the genuine claim ofthe concerned workinan .

that Ashok Kumar may submit his mercy petition and his name may be enrolled if the joint decision can be made by the management and the recognised union , RCMS as a special case and his case may be considered for his employment against future vacancies alongwith other eligible candidates . It is submitted that the conciliation proceeding was initiated and the management representative tried to consider the case of Ashok Kumar for his enrolment in the Employees Depandents Register after puttinghis case before the joint committee . The sponsoring onion did not agree for the advice of the management and demanded for outright employment of Ashok Kumar for which he was not entitled for and ultimately the conciliation failed .

It has been prayed that an award may be passed holding that Ashok Kumar is not entitled to any relict.

5. The management has adduced MW-1- Sudhir Prasad Sinha as management's witness .

The concerned workman has produced WW- Ashok Kumar and he proved Exts . W - 4. W4/ 1 , W- 3 and W-31 ,

6. The main argument on behalf of the management is that the name of Ashok Kumar has not been mentioned by his father in the Employees Dependents Register . In this respect the learned counsel for the workman argued that he had given his application for employment of his son, Ashok Kumar lor registering in the Employees Dependents Register as per Ext .W - 3 which has been proved byAshok Kumar , WW- 1 . The concerned workman's late father faited application for registering the name of his son Ashok Kumar for employment . It is upto the management who registers it or not . The management has not produced its register of Dependent Employment so that it can be gathered that the register has been properly maintained or not . In this respect MW- 1 stated in his cross -examination hat he has not filed any paper to show the number of dependents waiting for employment . It only shows that the management always hide and seek the Employees Dependent Register, so that it can discourage of any merit as per document and admission of the management . Late Ganesh Prasad had completed 15 years of his service and died due to T.B. as per Ext. W- 1.It has been adınitted that Ashok Kumar's father died after putting 15 years of services and died due to T.B. and it was agreed by the management before A.L.C. ( C) on 25-3-96 that employment be given lo Ashok Kumar, but it has not been done so. Moreover , in the written statement it has been admitted by the management in para 12 that the concerned person may submit his mercy petition and his name may be enrolled if the joint decision can be made by the management and the recognised union . RCMS as a special case and his case may be considered for his employment against future vacancies alongwuh other eligible candidates . It shows that the conerned workman's late father gave application 4. The written statement has been submitted on behalf ofthe management and it has been stated that there is no employer employee relationship exists between the management and the concerned person , Ashok Kumar,so no industrial dispute can be raised for employment of Ashok Kumar. The sponsoring union , Jharkhand Colliery Mazdoor Union has not been recognised by the management and the workmen of the colliery have nol become members of the said union . Ganesh Prasad during his service period was a member of the recognised union , Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh and he had informed the management that he was a member of the R.C.M.S. Therefore, the sponsoring union has no locus standi to take up any case of late Ganesh Prasad as he was never a member of the sponsoring union . As Ashok Kumar is not a workman of the company he cannot become the member of any union and no union has any right to raise any industrial dispute on his behalf. The present dispute is not arising out of any industrial dispute and the reference is liable to be rejected on this ground . Ganesh Prasad, the Cather of the concerned person , Ashok Kumar was employed as Fitter - cum - Operator at Jamadoba colliery on 1-11-77 and he was subsequently transferred to 6 & 7 Pits colliery and he died on 23-10-93 and he put a total period of 15 years 11 months and 22 days service under the company . As per the procedure for employment of dependents of the employees of the company a workman is required to get two of his dependants enrolled in the Employees Dependents Register after putting 15 years of service and in case of future vacancies the dependent of the employee is provided employment according to his seniority. It has been submitted that Ganesh Prasad did not get any of his dependents enrolled in the in the Employees Dependents Register after completion of 15 years ofservice and he died on 23-10-93 . As per the strict procedure no dependent of an employee can be provided employment unless his name is registered in the Employees Dependents Register during the tenure of service of a workman . It has been alleged for providing employment to the dependent , the Compaпу employment procedure is followed in preference to NCWAs .It is submitted that employment of dependents is given according to existance of vacancies to fill up vacant post. As the management is required to provide employment to dependents of each and every employee as per its procedure, the demand for employment is ever increasing and several dependents remain on waiting list for their appointment in terms according to seniority . Therefore immediately after completion of 15 years of service the dependent of an employce cannot get his chance for his employment and is to wait on the roll till his vucancy arises for his employment , It has been alleged 5674

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 11,2008/ ASVINA 19,1930

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii )]

नई दिल्ली , 11 सितम्बर , 2008 for registering the name of his son in the Employees Depandent Register and he died due to T.B. after putting 15 years of service and the management had considered and assured for his employment as per para 12 of the written statement and Ext . W -2 conciliation proceeding before A.L.C. (C) , but it has not been by the management best reason known to them.

का.आ. 2863, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैं कमबाटा एविएशन प्रा. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, सं. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या भी जी आई टी-2/31 /2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-9-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं एल-11012/49/2007-आई आर( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी 7. 11 is very surprising and harmful circumstances and callous altitute taken by the management that a workman who had put 15 years of service and as per rules thedependent can get employment and the workman died due to T.B. and the employment is not given to his son on this ground or another ground. That is not wiseable attitude adopted by the management .

New Delhi , the 11th September, 2008

S.O. 2863. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT- 2/31/2007) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, 2 Mumbai- now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . Combata Aviation Pvt. Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 11-9-2008 .

8. The learned cousel of the management argued that the Jharkhand Colliery Mazdoor Union is not existing and it is not working in TISCO. This is no ground of rejection ofemployment of Ashok Kumar that such union is not existing of which his father was a member. Another ground of the management is that there is no provision for employment in case of death , but in para 12 of the written statement of management it has been stated that there is provision for employment ofdependent and they maintain Employees Dependents Register for giving employment to the permanent workmen of the company who has put 15 years of service.

[No. L- 11012/49 /2007 - IR(C- I ) ) SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

9. The management has filed a copy of award in Reference No. 88 of 1984 regarding employment on the ground ofdisabled permanently in terms of para 9.4.3 of NCWA - III which does not apply in the present case and has got no relevancy.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI PRESENT

A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer Reference No , CGIT-2/31 of2007

Employers in Relation to the Management of Combata Aviation Pvt . Ltd.

Combata Aviation Pvt . Ltd. Hangar No. 3 , Juhu Aerodrome Mumbai -400 054.

AND Their Workmen

10. The learned counsel for the workman referred F.L.R. 1922 (64) page 990 in which Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held that the appointment of an incumbent for compassionate reason in the light of recent laws as well Government Orders gets the top priority.At present it has come to the extent of creation of new post . The counsel also referred ajudgement reported in 1999 (83 ) FLR 29 ση which Hon'ble Delhi High Court laid down that Section 2 (k) and 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 Industrial Disputes-Even a dispute between an employer and his workman which is connected with the non -employment of any person can be an industrial dispute Beneficiary of claim need not be a workinan ofthe employer. Entitlement tobe appointed on compassionate grounds An industrial dispute can be referred for adjudication.

Mr. Manoj Anant Tawde 10 , Krishna Bai Chawi Tawri Pada Dr. S. S. Rao Road Mumbai-400012.

APPEARANCES

:Noappearance.

For theEmployer For the Workmen

11.Accordingly, I render the following award The action of the management of M / s . TISCO in denial to provide employment to Ashok Kumar son of late Ganesh Prasad is notjustified. Hence, the management is directed to provide employinent to Ashok Kumar , dependent son of late Ganesh Prasad , within two months from the date of publication of the award,

:No appearance.

Mumbai , dated 25th July, 2008.

H. M. SINGII , PresidingOflicer [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) )

AWARD

TheGovernment of India, Ministry ofLabour by its OrderNo. L- 11012/49/2007 - IR (CM-I) dated 12-7-2007 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute tothis Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of M/ s . CambataAviation Pvt . Ltd. , Mumbai in dismissing the services ofShri Manoj Anant Tawde, Assistant Supervisor w.c.f. 31-1-2007 is justified and legal? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from which date?"

2.Though notices served on both vide Ex-3 & Ex-4, none appeared in the proceeding. So reference is disposed offorwant ofprosecution . Hencethe order:

ORDER Reference isdisposedof forwant ofprosecution.

Date:25-7-2008

A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 11 सितम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 2864, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैं, कमबाटय एविएशन प्रा. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय मुम्बई -2 के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या सी जी आई टी-2/32/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-9-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11012/50/2007 -आईआर ( सी- I ) ] स्नेह लता अवास , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi, the 11th September , 2008 S.O. 2864. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.CGIT- 2/32/2007) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ cum/Labour Court , Mumbai -2 now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Combata Aviation Pvt. Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Govemment on 11-9-2008.

[No. L- 11012/50/2007 - IR (C-4)]

SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

5675

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 11, 2008 / आश्विन 19 , 1930

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO. 2, MUMBAI PRESENT

A.A.LAD, PresidingOfficer ReferenceNo. CGIT-2/32 of2007 Employers in Relation to the Management of Combata Aviation Pvt. Ltd.

CombataAviation Pvt . Ltd. Hangar No. 3 , Juhu Aerodrome Mumbai -400 054.

AND Their Workmen

Mr.Girish Shrikant Kulkarni , I -A/8, G.B.G.J. Co- operative Housing, SaibabaNagar, Boriuli (W), Mumbai-400-092.

APPEARANCES

:No appearance

For theEmployer

For the Workmen

:No appearance

Mumbai ,dated25th July,2008

AWARD

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labourby its Order No. L11012/50/2007 -IR ( CM-I) dated 12-7-2007 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following disputeto this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of M/ s. Cambata Aviation Pvt. Ltd. , Mumbai in dismissing the services of Shri Girish Shrikant Kulkarni , Assistant Supervisor w.e.f. 31-1-2007 isjustified and legal? Ifnot, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from which date? "

2. Though notices served on both vide Ex- 3 & Ex-4, none appeared in the proceeding. So reference is disposed offor want of prosecution . Hence the order:

ORDER Reference is disposed of forwant ofprosecution.

Date:25-7-2008

A. A. LAD , PresidingOfficer $676

? 2.

कः 14 :

एविएश

सरकार

(संदर्भ ग

5.0.0

Industrial

Government hereby publiskies the Awards Rei . - 2/30/2007 of the Central Cisternmem ledustuia. 2 . cum.Labone Can Mabu No -11 now E Annexure intestial Dispute pelweco tie in relation to the management of Mi's Comba Pvt. Ltd. and er auskinen, which was weerwed the Central GoverΟΣ .

[Na L - 1012480 SNELLATAJAWAN De

ANNEXURE

BEFORT CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2. MIMBA !

PRESENT

AAT AD . PresidingOffice: REFERENCE NO. CUTI - 2 :30 201 EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TOO MANAGEMENT OF COMBATA AVLUTION PVI LID

Combat Aviatucal's! Ltd. HangarNo.3 . Jula Acrodrome, Mumbai- 100

Their Workun

Mr. Haresh De

10-377 , Mehran Fisterrazan ( soler;

Causeway Rinad . Mahim ( W )

Munbau

APPEARANCES

: No appearance

For the Empinser For the Worktat

No appearvice

Muntesi, Jared 2

AWARD

TheCluseruments Judia Ministry

Order No 1-01 48 2007- JK ( CM-

exercise of the pessers conferred by clans

section ( 1 )

Industrial Disparks Aveen

dispute tot 1 .

.יוי

1 、

Tere di

the ecced justed andle

2.Hong ...

ime porodard .

का. आ. 2866.-

निक

संख्या 20072007 क प्रकाসির का ।4 ) की धारा 17 संध्तर के संबद्ध में निर्दिष्टांगिक न्यायालय जबलपुर के करती है , जां केन्द्रीयस 12-9-2008 हुत्री थ

20254 2008 आई. अगर बो

राजिन्द्र कुमार, इंस्क New Del

September 3 אנ S.O. 2866.

of Section 17 te Industrial Disput: 14 of 1971, the fol Government hereby es the Mward ( Ret . No. 120 , of the Cent Geyibunal cum [ aka Count Jabalpur as shown in veure in the Industr between the employee relation to the natragerhent Dena Bank and therrer Cich was received by the CentralGovemmert 20

NE -120254.2008-18 113-111

AJENDER KUMAR, Desk Oicer

ANNEAURE

BEFORE TIAFE ENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIR M-OEM - LABOUR COURT. ABAP R

No. CGIT/ LC/ A/ 01-2

PRESIDING OFFICER : SIRICAL SINGH

Shri S.K.Guar

Applicar::

Ves

DenaBank

Non -Applican

WARD

Passed on 店、 Jay of August . 21108

Korhas filed dis compart

disputes 101. 1947 , the wiel under Sec -33 of the

Jeder . That the reference さい。

9 between and 1. Complains facts of the complazat CGIT LCR 247 3 managemem of Dena 15. i.is peinding for adjudication diis i ribunal . Meanwhiwas promoted from awardstall [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

to officer cadre JMG - 1 in 2002 on qualifying the written promotion test. Thereafter he was awarded punishment of dismissal from the Bank Service with immediate effect without notice vide order of Chief Manager/Disciplinary Authority, Dena Bank, Regional Office , Bhopal bearing No. ROB/Per/ 1078/2006 dated 30-8-06. The dismissal order was issued by the Chief Manager who is subordinate to the appointing authority in clear violation ofArticle 311 ( 1 ) ofConstitution of India . He was not allowed by the Enquiry Officer to cross examine the management's witness on the relevant points . That there are discrepancies of facts in the documents submitted by the Hotel Manager and Investigating Officer . That prejudice has been caused to the complainant as sub- rule - 17 of Regulation 6 of Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations , 1976 was not followed. It is prayed to decide the complaint set out above and pass such orders as the court deems fit and proper.

2.The non -applicant/management ofDenaBank has filed reply to the aforesaid complaint. The facts ofreply in brief are as follows: That the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging that the non- applicant is guilty of contravention of provisions of Sec. 33 of the I.D.Act , 1947. That the complainant is not a workman as defined under Sec . 2 (s ) ofthe L.D. Act , 1947. The complainant,was holding the post of " Officer " during the period , the disciplinary action was initiated against him . The service conditions of the complainant was covered by the Dena BankOfficers Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976 , hence the complaint is not maintainable . The complainant is misconceived, frivolous and vexatious. Sec 33 ofthe 1.D.Act , 1947 is not at all applicable in the present case and , hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. That the complainant was initially appointed as cashier -cum- clerk in the year 1978. His probationary services were terminated w.e. f. 26-9-1978 on the ground of several irregularities committed by him . That he was re - appointed on the ground of mercy w.e.f. 29-11-1978. That the complainant was issued a chargesheet on 21-12-1982 . That Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 31-5-1984 holding the complainant guilty of charges . The complainant was , therefore, imposed punishment of warning of stoppage of increment. The aforesaid order was modified by Appellate Authority vide order dated 18-1-1985 . That the complainant was again issued with a chargesheet dated 20-9-1985 . The EnquiryOfficer vide his report held the complainant guilty of charges . The complainant was again issued with a chargesheet dated 11-10-85 . The Enquiry Officer held him guilty vide his Enquiry Report . The complainant was , therefore , awarded punishment of stoppage of two increments with cunulative effect . Apart from the above, the complainant was issued with several warning letters , memo and charge-sheets. As per promotion Rules, the person who has been punished for such gross misconduct is debarred from appearing in promotion process. And therefore , the complainant was debarred for promotion for a periodperiod of3 years. The complainant has challenged the aforesaid order by raising Industrial Dispute which is pending in this Tribunal - cum - Labour Court No.CGIT/LC/ R/247/97 . The schedule of reference is as follows :-

3768G1 /08-6

5677

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 11 , 2008/आश्विन 19, 1930

"SCHEDULE "

"Whether the action of the management of Dens Bank in debarring Shri S.K.Gaur from appearing in promotion test and stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and one increment with non-cumulative effect is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled to?"

Pending the aforsaid reference , the complainantwas issued chargesheet vide Memorandum No. ROB/PER/ 1616/ 05 dated 26-11-2005. Shri S.K.Gaur did not submit any explanation to the said chargesheet . A departmental enquiry was therefore , conducted against the complainant as per rules legally and properly . The Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report holding that the follwong charges have been proved aginst the complainant:-

(i) Falied to maintain utmost devotion , diligence and honesty while discharging his duty to take requisite steps to protect the interest of the Bank.

(ii ) Committed fraud on the Bank by claming HA/TA claim submitting fake and fabricated Hotel Bills .

(iii) Lack ofhonesty and integrity.

(iv) Doing acts unbecoming of an officer employee .

The copy ofEnquiryOfficer's findings dated 26-5-06 had been sent to Shri S.K.Gaur who submitted his submission vide letter dated 2-7-2006. The Disciplinary Authority concurred with the findings ofthe Enquiry Officer that all the articles of charges levelled against Shri S.K.Gaur were proved. Therefore , in exercise of powers conferred upon Disciplinary Authority in terms ofRegulation 7 (3 ) of Dena Bank Officer Employees ' (Disciplinary & Appeal } Regulation , 1976 imposed the following penalty on Shri S.K.Gaur:-

"Dismissal from Bank's service with immediate effect without notice ."

Thefollowing has been pleaded on behalf of the non - applicant/ management . That it is not correct that Chief Manager is incompetent to impose punishment of Dismissal as he is below the rank of Appointing Authority. However , the amendment to Schedule and Regulation 18 of Dena Bank Officer Employees ( Discipline & Appeal ) Regulation 1976 was adopted by the Board as its meeting held on 10-3-04 and the above amendment has been published in Gazette of Government of India No. 23, dated 5-6-04. The complainant Shri S.K.Gaur was provided full opportunity to adduce evidence in enquiry in his defence as well as full opportunity to defend his case. That the grounds for dismissat of services of complainant has no relationship with the dispute vide reference case No. CGIT? LC/R/247 /97 pending before this tribunal . On this ground , the provisions of Sec. 33 are not attracted and , therefore, the application under Sec . 33 of the I.D.Act is not maintainable. It is prayed by Non - applicant/management thatthe complaint be dismissed.

3. Complainant Shri S.K.Gaur in support of his complaint examined himself. The non - applicant in order to defend the complaint examined their witness Shri R.D.Negi . thenworking as Manager ( Personnel ) , Dena Bank. Regional Office, Bhopal, 5678

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 11 , 2008 / ASVINA 19, 1930

[PART 11- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 4. Non - applicants also filed the Photostat copies of memo alleged to be issued to the complainant Shri S.K.Gaur, articles of charges , statement of allegations and amendment of Schedule and Regulation - 18 of Dena Bank Officer's Employees ( Discipline and Appeal ) Regulation 1976- Review. No docuntent has been filed on behalf of the complainant.

5. 1 have heard Sardar Harvinder Singh , Advurate for the complainant and Shri A.K. Shashi , Advocne fot the non -applicant .

6. I have very carefully gone through the entire evidence on record.

aforesaid reference of the complainant against the non- applicant is pending for uljudication in this Tribunal . The learned counsel for non - applicant submitted that the provisions of 1.D. Act are root applicable in this case as the complainant is not a " workman " as defined under Sec . 2( s ) ofthe 1.D. Act and therefore thisTribunal has no jurisdiction to hear this matter . Against the above , the learned counsel for complainant submitted that during the peeiod, the Disciplinary action was initiated , complainant was the "workman" as defined under Sec. 2 ( s ) of the 1.D.Act and thisTribunal -Cum- Lulkur Court has jurisdiction to decide this complaint . He further added placing reliance on 1996( 1 ) All India Banking Law Judgements 137 in the case of Bank of India versus Presidins Officer , Central Government Industrial Tribunal and others of the hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court tim the onus is on the Bank to establish that the complainant was not a workman as he was performing the managerial duties . That mere nomenclature of a post is not enough for the purpose of proving that a particular person tilts within the definition of"workman " . Non - applicant's witness Shri R.D.Negi in his affidavit deposed that complainant Shri S.K.Gaur is not aworkman as defined under Sec . 2 ( 5 ) of the 1.D Act During the course of evidence examination , this witness stated that complains Stra S. K Gaur's work was supervisory in nature, such as to sign DD. Pass cheques . authorize miscellaneous suchers , authorize ledger posting and his job was of administrative capacity . The witness further stated that power of attorney was given to complainant Shri S K.Guer . It is worthwhile to note here that no copy of the alleged power of attorney has been brought on record by the cun- appicant. Against the above, complainant Shri S.K. Gaur deposed in his aflidas it dan he is a workman as defined in Sec . 2 ( s ) of the 1.D.Act as he was performing the work clerical , manual and technical nature . This witness lias te been cross - examined on behalt of non - applicant on the point as to what was his actual nature of work . The complainant was workingas Ollieer , JMG Cadre - 1 . The non -applicant has not adduced any documentary evidence to indicate that the complainant was doing managerial tite i have very carefully gone through the law cited the lemned counsel for the complainant 1996 ( 1 ) A Bank Law Judgments 137 ( supra). The following has been held therein :-

7. In para 4 of the complaint , the complaintant has made avermem that his disinissal order was issued by the Chief Manager who is subordinate to the Appointing Authority in clear violanon of article 311 ( 1 ) of the Constitution of India . The same has been submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant during the course of argument . It has been pleaded in the reply that it is not correct that the ( hiet Manager is incompetent to impose punishment of dismissal as be is below the rank of Appointing Authority. That the amendment to Schelte and Regulation - 18 of Dena Bank Officer's templrases Discipline and Appeal ) Regulation , 1976 was aduerst hy the Board at its meeting held on 10th March -04 and the above amendment has been published in Gazete or India atNo.23 dated 5-6-04 . Thatby virtue of the sail amendont the Chief Manager posted in the Regional Olliee is the Disciplinary Authority to take action against Onicers in pay scale of IMCI Scale - I , MMG Scale - ll & Mas Suthe Competent Authority has imposed punishntent on the complainant. The learned counsel for the mon - app cant has also submitted the same during the course ofargutient . It has been admitted to the complainant that be ada promoted from award stall to Omicer Cadre , JMG - lin 2002 . The non - applicant has filed Photostal copy of circular No 132/19/2004 . Personnel Department dated 16-7-114 , the amendment aforesaid It elearly reveals that the Chief Manager pusted in the Regional Office is Disciplinay Authority to take action against officers in pay clot JMG Scale- 1 , MMCI Stale - ll & 111. It is , therefore.combled that the Chief Manager was competent to impose lite punishment of dismissal on the complainant from the Bank services .

"We have also considered the main argument of Mr. Sibal when he suborined that respondem No.2 Mas 201 a workman as defined in the proviso to Section 2( s ) of the 1947 Act. He was holditer Class -l post in the Bank Hus duty was managerial in rature We are not it agreement with the argument raised Mr. Sibal . The onus was on the Bank to establish that respondent No.2 was perfoming the managerial duties . Mere nomenclature of a post is not enough for the purpose of hakling whether a particular person falls within the definition of workman or not The crus is whattype of duties a particular individual periorms during the course of fus employment under his employer.

8. 'The learned counsel for the complainant subante ! that the complainant's reference No. CGITLCK 24797 against the non - applicant is pending before thes Tribunal, during the pendency whereof the complainant les beeza dismissed with monediate effect without notice veje ovjer dated30-8-06 without obtaining approval of this tribu in contravention of provisions of Sec 33 ( 2 ) bl обве 1.13 . Act , hence the disciplinary action taken against the complainant is unhout jurisdiction and is , therefore . Table tobe set aside. It is adomitted to the non- applican that the 5679 -[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 11 , 2008 /आश्विन 19, 1930

It was held in Shri S.K. Maini v. M/s Carona Sahu Company Ltd. , & Ors . , JT 1994(3 ) S.C.151 , as follows:

that the disciplinary action was initiated against the complainant, who was not covered by the definition of "workman" given in Sec. 2 ofthe I.D.Act . The solitary ofal evidence deposed during the cross examination of non- applicant's witness Shri R.D. Negi is not at all sufficient to prove that the job of the complainant was of supervisory or managerial nature, in the absence of documentary evidence in that regard. Thus the non-applicant has failed to prove that the complainant was not a " workman " as defined under Sec-2 (b ) of the 1. D. Act when the Disciplinary Action was initiated against him, It means that the non - applicant has failed to prove that this court has no jurisdiction to try this case .

10. The learned counsel for the non - applicant submitted that the complainant is a habitual defaulter , he has been served several times with chargesheets , punished and warned by the non -applicant. That the non - applicant's action of not retaining him in Bank's service is not unjustified . The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the past conduct for which the complainant has been punished and warned has no concern with this complaint. The submission made by the learned counsel for the complainant has force . In the complaint at hand, it is to be decided as to whether the non - applicant took the disciplinary action against the complainant in accordance with provisions of I.D. Act. What actions have been taken by the non-applicant against the complainant in the past is not material for deciding this complaint case.

"It appears to us that whether or not an employee is aworkman under Section 2(s ) of the Industrial Disputes Act is required to be determined with reference to his principal nature ofduties and functions . Such question is required to be determined with reference to the facts and circumstances ofthe case and material on record and it is not possible to lay down any strait -jacket formula which can decide the dispute as to the reat nature of duties and functions being performed by an employee in all cases . When an employee is employed to do the types of work enumerated in the definition of workman under Section 2(s) , there is hardly any difficulty in treating him as a workman under the appropriate classification but in the complicity of industrial or commercial organisations quite a large number ofemployees are often required to do more than one kind ofwork. In such cases , it becomes necessary to determine under which classification the employee will fall for the purpose of deciding whether he comes within the definition of workman or goes out of it. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India Ltd. v . Burmah Shell Management Staff Association, ( 1970 ) II LLJ 590 ( SC ) . In All India Reserve Bank Employees ' Association v . Reserve Bank of India, (1965) II LLJ 175 (S.C), it has been held by this Court that the word ' supervise ' and its derivatives are not words of precise import and must often be construed in the light of context, for unless controlled , they cover an easily simple oversight and direction as manual work coupled with the power of inspection and superintendence of the manual work of others. It has been rightly contended by both the learned counsel that the designation of an employee is not of much importance and what is important is the nature of duties being performed by the employee . The deter- minative factor is the main duties ofthe concerned employee and not some works incidentally done . In other words , what is, in substance , the work , which employee does or what in substance he is employed to do. Viewed from this angle, if the employee is mainly doing supervisory work but incidentally or for a fraction of time also does some manual or clerical work , the employee should be held to be doing supervisory works. Conversely, if the main work is ofmanual , clerical or of technical nature , the mere fact that some supervisory or other work is also done by the employee incidentally or only a small fraction ofworking time is devoted to some supervisory works , the employee will come within the purview of ' workman ' as defined in Section 2( s ) ofthe Industial Disputes Act.

If the present case is examined in the ratio quoted above, there is no pale of contradiction in our mind that respondent No. 2 falls within the definition of workman .

11. The learned counsel for non -applicant submitted that assuming for the sake of argument only, but not admitted, even if the provisions of Sec . 33 of the L.D. Act are attracted to a case where the management/non- applicant has taken action in regard to any matter connected with the dispute . That the earlier dispute is in connection with debarring the complainant from taking part in promotional test for getting promotion whereas in the present dispute, the disciplinary action has been initiated against the complainant on ground of gross misconduct of committing fraud and causing financial loss to the Bank while he was working as an Officer of the Bank and , therefore, on this ground alone, the complaint under Sec . 33 of the 1.D. Act is not maintainable . The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the non- applicant has committed breach of provisions of Sec. 33 (2) (b) ofthe I.D. Act. He added that the complainanı hasbeen awarded punishment for dismissal with immediate effect without notice vide order dated 30-8-06 of Chief Manager/Disciplinary Authority , Dena Bank , Regional Office, Bhopal which was modified in appeal to compulsory retirementfrom the Bank with immediate effect without notice and the said order was passed by the non- applicant without getting approval of this Tribunal . He emphasized that under the provisions of Sec . 33 ( 2 ) ( b ) of the [ .D . Act , Themisconduct is not required to be connected with the pending dispute.

9. In the case at hand, the non - applicant could not succeed to prove by the reliable documentary evidence 5680

PARIS M DIFOVETTE OF INDIA [ OBFR1 , 2008 ASVINA 19 .

12.The 4. poeticon of Sec. 3

August 2002 เอ 25-11-25 atthe complainant submitted

no explanation to the and charge - sheet , a Departmental Enquiry was conson the sand chargesheet and the

"ompetent Authority that the inisconduct established

chet te

against the complain oss lack of honesty, integrity any progning beve

*Cosalons of wreed under ti... circumstances pr During the perdren watan

in exercise of powdered upon Disciplinary Tespertadasmal dispute

Employees ' Discip & Appeai Regnaton . 1976 ! ype tothem ita

: ::

Altest Lae praeding

::!

the non-applicant'sses etc. Against the above . n

respect of

accorda

workman.co.... spacersch

such standa

contractaphed bes

workman

ourse that saats

Prosides. Fietscorts edit arsi

ordismiss.aspid

and an appcie has been made by the pi

authority here and the proceeditig is Det

approvalenken by the epige

13.1

Sec. 332 12. Act that fie preis

required!

clear froradiol

approval

managern

compiuitat

as to whether it was ed legaly and properly . The

charges were foun ! iist the complainant The and he has caused to the Bank and therefore , Authority in terms of 31. jofDena Bank Officer imposed the follower; party complainant . "Dismissal trom Bank's Service Ferreciate effect athom nodice . The statement of is on record indicates that the charge levelled against he somplainant was that he had submitted fake adde bulls and deluded the Bank by claiming on the basis thereof It is alleged in the completita rine De was not conducted legally and properly a secordance with rules . Thatthe complainant wastelanarine his witness in dolence and he was not greca per opportunity to cross - e\ MURIC has been pleaded ibn Us men plicant that the enquiry was conducted legal properly according to rules and following the principles atomalJustice. la his allidasit. the complainant Shuar deposed that he vide letter dated 19-12-05 reqsed the Chet Manager for giving hum personal hearing waume was turned down , whole enquiry is an exewind without affording reasonable opportunity of hear : plainant the complan was not allowed to Name the worapplica wilnesses etc. Age bee it has been picaded by the non - applicantern was conducted isgally und properly accordingend following the principles of natural justice . Indesit the complainant Shri S.K. letter dated 19-12-2005 regnested ingin personal hearing but the whole enquiry is om eyewash Gaur deposed that he and without affordable opportunity of caring the ChielManager same was turned door to the complai วง กา cross-examine the bis request to examins: Against the above, to Negi in his evidence. Askotan was not allowed ton incant's witnesses properiş and Ed . Manager was turned down. Aanchaliun deposed that h compplicant's witness Shri R.D. kas no knowledgeing the departamental enquins conducted against not cared to like record the non - applicant inas cable this court to consider wa - applicam's why . Negi deposed that he

Jas no knowledge regare the DI . Under the above Racis non - applic

and circumstances, fois court is lett with no option bulan OG PER Ibaka

sheet witke .

for the acts stad

hold that the Depi Engnirs is vitiated It is .

Officer at F

therefore, held that hepatinental Engitirs is vitiated .

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

5681

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 11 , 2008/आश्विन 19, 1930

अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 51/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-9-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/223/2004- आईआर( सीएम -1 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 18th September, 2008 S.O. 2867. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 51/2005 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the management of Nagpur Area WCL. Kamptee Sub Area , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 18-9-2008 ,

[No. L-22012/223 /2004 - IR( CM - II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI A. N. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No CGIT/ NGP / 51 /05

Date: 2-9-2008

Petitioner/

:TheGeneral Secretary, Koyla Shramik Sabha,

PartyNo. 1

15. The proviso ofSec - 33 (2) (b ) of the I.D. Act is that an employer may for misconduct not connected with the dispute , discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise a workman . The proviso lays down that no such workman shall be discharged, or dismissed unless he has been paid wages for one month and application has been made by the employee to the Authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer. There is no evidence on record to indicate that the complainant was paid wages of one month. Similarly there is no evidence of non -applicants on record that the application was made by the non - applicant to this Tribunal for approval of the action of dismissal or compulsory retirement with immediate effect from the service ofBank was taken against complainant. Now it is well settled that the requirements of proviso have to be satisfied by the employer on the basis that they form part of the same transaction . It is concluded from the above that the non- applicant passed the order of dismissal or compulsory retirement ofcomplainant Shri S.K. Gaur from Bank's service in contravention of the provisions of Sec- 33( 2) (b ) of the I.D. Act Therefore the said order ofdismissal or compulsory retirement of the complainant employee from the Bank services with immediate effect is bad in law and liable tobe set aside and therefore the order dated 30-8-06 of dismissal of Shri S. K. Gaur from Bank's services with immediate effect which was later on modified on 28-2-07 by the Appellate Authority to compulsory retirement of complainant Shri S. K. Gaur from bank's services with immediate effect is liable to be set aside .

16.The complainant has not made any averment in the complaint that after he was deprived of his service of Dena Bank, he has not been gainfully employed . Under the circumstances , I am of the considered opinion that the non -applicant cannot be directed to give the back wages with all benefits.

17. In view of the above , the complainant under Sec. 33 of the I.D. Act is allowed with costs holding that the order dated 30-8-06 of dismissal of complainant Shri S. K. Gaur from Bank's services with immediate etfect without notice modified in appeal to compulsory retirement from Bank's service with immediate effect without notice, is set aside and the non -applicant Bank is directed 10 reinstate Shri S.K. Gaur in Bank services .

18. Let the copies of the award be sent in the Government of India , Ministry of Labour and Employment as per rules.

C.M. SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 18 सितम्बर , 2008

का. आ. 2867.-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

Ingole Layout Laxmi Nagpur, Zingabai Takli , Godhni Layout Nagpur

Versus

Respondent/ PartyNo. 2

: 1. The ChiefGeneral Manager , Nagpur Area of WCL Nagpur: and

2. The Sub Area Manager , WCL , Kamptee Sub Area Kamptee, Nagpur

AWARD

(Dated: 2nd September, 2008)

1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence ofdispute between the General Secretary , Koyla Shramik Sabha, Ingole Layout Laxmi Nagpur, Zingabai Takli , Godhni Layout Nagpur ( Party No. 1 ) and 1 , the Chief General Manager, Nagpur Area of WCL , Nagpur : 2. the Sub Area Manager , WCL , Kamptee Sub Area Kamptee , Nagpur ( Party No. 2) referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its letterNo. L -22012/223/204- IR( CM -II) dated 29-6-2005 under clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub- section ( 2A) of Section 10 Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) with the following schedule ,

2. "Whether the action of the management of Western Coalfields Limited through its Chief General Manager, Nagpur Area , Jaripatka , PO Jariparka, Dist .

5682

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 11,2008 /ASVINA 19, 1930

Nagpur and the Sub Area Manager , Kamptee is noi paying the daily allowances to the workers transferred from: Inder Colliery of Kamptee Sub Area to Silewara Sub Area to Western Coalfield I.imited on temporary basis is legal and justified? If not. to what relief the concerned workers are entitled?

3. The reference came up for hearing on 11-8-2008 on which also the petitioner was absent. He has mus aven filed a statement of claim . I do not think it proper to conbaue it on the same stage from 2-3-2007 .It seems thuat the Petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case la the circumstances , nu purpose will be served in continuing the case , hence it is dismissed for the defauit of the petitioner and I am passing the negative award that he is not entitled for any relief.

Date: 2-9-2008

A. N. YADAV , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 18 सितम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 2868 , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 194 का 14 ) की भाग 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार जगहर नन्यांदय विद्यालय के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकार क बीच अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट अंद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कोटा के पंचार । संदर्भ सं. 15: 2003 ) को प्रकशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18 9 2008 को प्राप्त हुआ। था ।

[ सं. एन्न-42012/200/2002 आई. आर. ( सेवन अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 18th September , 2008 5.0. 2868. In pursuance of Section 17 ot the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947114 of 1947 ) . the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Rel . 152003 ) ofthe Industrial Tribunal. Kota as shown in the Aunestars . in the Industrial dispute between the management of Jawahar Navodaya Vidhyalaya and their workmea received by the Central Government on 18-9-2008

[No L-12012/200202-0 AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desa Gilet

अनुबन्ध

चायाधीश , औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण/ केन्द्रीय/कोथ राज पीठासीन अधिकारी श्री बद्रीनाथ मीना , आर.एच. जं. एस.

निर्देश प्रकरण क्रमांक ओ. न्या. केन्द्रीय/-15-03 दिनांक स्थापि313-03

प्रसंग: भारत सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्नी की आर नं. एल- 7-12012: 2 (H)/2002 ( आईआर दिनांक 11-3-20

निर्देशःविवाद अन्तर्गत भाग ) औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947

[PART 11 --S330 ) ] ==

य

राकेश का पुत्र श्री श्राबूलाल

द्वारा श्री बलदेवसिंह , श्रसलाहकार , डडवाड़ा कोटा जंक्शन

--प्रार्थी श्रमिक प्रिंसिपल , जवाहर नवोदय अनुरू , जिन्ना श्रारा/राज.

-अप्रार्थी नियांजक

अवस्थित

प्रार्थी श्रमिक की ओर से श्री चलदेव सिंह अप्रार्थी नियोजक की ओर में पतिनिधि श्री हत्रा सिंह अधिनिर्णय दिनांक: 4-8-10

अधिनिर्णय

भारत सरकार, श्रन्य गई दिल्ली द्वारा अपने उक्त औद्योगिक आदेश के जनि निम्न निर्देश/ विवाद , औद्यागिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( जिसे नवरन्त " अधिनियम " से संबोधित किया जायेगा ) की धारा 1001 के अन्तर्गत इस न्यायाधिकरण के अधिनिर्णय के लिए सम्प्रेपिन किया गया है :-

"Whether the comgation of workman Slari Rakesh Kumar that he has woencil continuously for more than 240 days in consecutive 12 months during the period from 10-11-1999 15 15-1-2011 is correct and justified " If yes . whether the act of the Principal , fawahar Navodaya Vidhyalya, Atroo in terminating the services of the claimant froon 16-1-200 ) is legal and sutified ? If not to what rehel the concerned workrans entitled to and from which date?"

2. निर्देश/ वित्राद, नमक में पाप्त होने पर पैराबद्ध उपरान्त पश्तकारों को सूचना विधिमेरी को गयी ।

3. प्रार्थी श्रमिक कुमार की ओर से कलम स्टेटमेंट प्रस्तुत कर संक्षिप्तः अभिव्यकिय गया है कि उसे अप्रार्थी जत्रहर नवोदय विद्यालय , अरु से दुपरान्त " अप्रार्थी नियोजक" से सम्बोधित किया जावंगा -७५ से हेल्पर के पड़ गर 700 रु. प्र. माह वेतन मेंजित किया गया था. तब से 16-1-01 से मौखिक आदेशा निरन्तर कार्य करता आ रहा से सेवा से हटा दिया गया । निरन्तर कार्य करते हुए 2400 1:44 कर लिया था , किन्तु हटानांनयम की धारा 25-0 प्रावधानान्तर्गत एक माह का अन्वा नोटिस वेतन गुण नहीं दिया, नियमानुसार अभक ने उक्त नियोजनात्रधि नं अधिक समय तक कार्य पूर्ण मनी का भी प्रकाशन नहीं किस, कमिष्ठ श्रमिकों को कार्यन्दा गया जो नियम विरुद्ध है। 5683 [भाग 1 ] - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 11 , 2008 /आश्विन 19, 1930

पिछले सम्पूर्ण वेतन व समस्त सुविधाओं सहित सेवा में बहाली का अनुरोध प्रदान किया जाए ।

माह मार्च , मई, जून व सितम्बर 2000 में एक भी दिवस कार्य नहीं किया और इस सम्बन्धी कोई दस्तावेज प्रार्थी श्रमिक की ओर से प्रस्तुत नहींकिया गया है कि उसने कोई कार्य किया हो। प्रार्थी श्रमिक का मामला अधिनियमान्तर्गत पाने योग्य नहीं होने से वह किसी अनुतोष का अधिकारी नहीं है ।

4. अप्रार्थी नियोजक की ओर से क्लेम का जबाब प्रस्तुत कर प्रतिवाद किया गया है कि प्रार्थी को उनके द्वारा किसी भी आदेश से मेस हेल्पर के पद पर नियुक्त नहीं किया गया । कार्य आकस्मिक की उपलब्धता होने के कारण पूर्ण रूप से दैनिक वेतन भोगी के रूप में उसे नियुक्त किया गया था जो कार्य समाप्ति के पश्चात् उसकी सेवाएं स्वतः ही समाप्त हो जाती थीं । उसने 10-11-99 से निरन्तर कार्य नहीं किया और ना कभी 240 दिन तक लगातार कार्य किया । प्रार्थी को अवधि विरोध हेतु ही कार्य की उपलब्धता के आधार पर रखा गया था जो अवधि समाप्ति के साथ ही कार्य से अलग हो गया । अधिनियम के प्रावधान प्रार्थी पर लागू नहीं होते हैं और उसका समस्त क्लेम असत्य, आधारहीन , सारहीन व विधि विरुद्ध है । प्रार्थी किसी प्रकार के अनुतोष का अधिकारी नहीं है , क्लेम सव्यय निरस्त किया जाये ।

5. साक्ष्य में प्रार्थी श्रमिक की ओर से स्वयं का तथा अप्रार्थी नियोजक की ओर से अनिमेश पाल , प्राचार्य जवाहर नवोदय विद्यालय, अटरू का शपथ- पत्र प्रस्तुत कर परीक्षित करवाया गया है । पक्षकारों की ओर से प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य भी प्रस्तुत की गयी है ।

6. बहस विद्वान प्रतिनिधिगण पक्षकारान की सुनी गयी , पत्रावली व उपलब्ध साक्ष्य तथा सामग्री का ध्यानपूर्वक परिशीलन किया गया ।

7. प्रार्थी श्रमिक के विद्वान प्रतिनिधि द्वारा तर्क दिया गया है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक ने अप्रार्थी नियोजक के विद्यालय मेस में हेल्पर के पद पर दि. 10-11-99 से नियोजित होकर निरन्तर 16-1-01 से पूर्व 12 कलेण्डर माह में 240 दिन से अधिक समय तक कार्य कर लिया था। प्रार्थी श्रमिक को अप्रार्थी नियोजक के यहां उक्त पद पर कार्य किया जाना उसके शपथ - पत्र से समर्थित है। उसे अप्रार्थी नियोजक द्वारा सेवा से हटाये जाने से पूर्व अधिनियम की पालना नहीं की गयी । प्रार्थी श्रमिक सेवा में निरन्तरता सहित पुर्नस्थापित होने का व समस्त वेतन प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है । यह भी कथन रहा है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक को नियुक्ति-पत्र व भुगतान सम्बन्धी किसी प्रकार का कोई प्रलेख/ अभिलेख उपलब्ध नहीं करवाया गया है जो उचित नहीं है ।

9. पक्षकारों द्वारा प्रस्तुत तर्कों पर मनन किया गया, पत्रावली व उपलब्ध साक्ष्य का ध्यानपूर्वक अवलोकन किया गया । प्रार्थी श्रमिक ने अप्रार्थी नियोजक के अधीन नियुक्ति तिथि 10-11-99 से 15-1-01 के मध्य लगातार 240 दिन कार्यरत होने के तथ्यों के समर्थन में केवल मात्र अपना शपथ-पत्र अभिलेख प्रस्तुत किया है। इसके अतिरिक्त निरन्तर कार्य किये जाने सम्बन्धी कोई ठोस प्रमाण या प्रलेख प्रार्थी श्रमिक की ओर से अभिलेख पर प्रस्तुत नहीं हुआ है. जिससे कि उसके कथनों की पुष्टि हो सके । उसका यह भी मामला नहीं रहा है कि वो किसी स्थायी पद पर कार्यरत रहा हो और उसकी नियुक्तितथा कथित पद पर नियमित रूप में चयन प्रक्रिया अनुसार की गयी हो । उसकी ओर से अभिलेख पर ना तो अप्रार्थी नियोजक द्वारा जारी कोई नियुक्ति- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया गया है और ना ही सेवा से हटाये जाने सम्बन्धी कोई प्रलेख प्रस्तुत किया गया है । इसके विपरीत अप्रार्थी नियोजक की ओर से प्रस्तुत साक्षी अनिमेशपाल , प्राचार्य विद्यालय ने अपने शपथ- पत्र में स्पष्टतः अंकित किया है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक की नियुक्ति स्वयं के कार्य पर आने पर एक आकस्मिक कार्य उपलब्धता तक व कार्य विशेष की समाप्ति तक ही रही थी जिसका समय- समय पर उसे नियमानुसार भुगतान किया जाता रहा है । विशेष कार्य समाप्ति पर प्रार्थी की सेवायें स्वतः ही समाप्त हो जाती थीं , उसे अप्रार्थी द्वारा जानबूझकर कार्य से नहीं हटाया जाता था । साक्षी का प्रतिपरीक्षा में यह स्पष्टतः कथन भी रहा है कि उनके द्वारा समस्त रिकार्ड न्यायालय पत्रावली पर प्रस्तुत किया गया है जो उसे भुगतान किया गया है वो भी सारा पेश किया है । हमारे स्कूल रिकार्ड के अनुसार प्राथी ने मई, जून , 2000 में काम नहीं किया है । आगे यह भी कथन रहा है कि प्रार्थी ने मार्च व सितम्बर में भी काम नहीं किया था इसलिए उसकी पे - शौट पेश नहीं की । उसका स्पष्टतः कथन रहा है कि अस्थाई प्रकृति का कार्य था इसलिए आवश्यकता होने पर जो व्यक्ति उपलब्ध रहा उसे ही बुला लिया गया । अप्रार्थी साक्षी ने अपनी प्रतिपरीक्षा में यह भी स्पष्ट कहा है कि मैंने मेरा शपथ- पत्र स्कूल रिकार्ड के आधार पर लिखा है । अप्रार्थी नियोजक की ओर से प्रार्थी श्रमिक द्वारा उनके यहां कार्य विशेष पर कार्य किये आने सम्बन्धी व भुगतान सम्बन्धी प्रलेख भी प्रदर्श एम . 6 लगा. एम.29 प्रस्तुत्त किये गये हैं, किन्तु इनकी गणना से कहीं पर भी प्रार्थी श्रमिक का अप्रार्थी नियोजक के यहां लगातार 12 माह कलेण्डर या सेवापृथक पूर्ववर्ती वर्ष में 240 दिन तक कार्य किया जाना साबित नहीं होता है बल्कि सम्पूर्ण कार्यावधि में प्रार्थी श्रमिक का आकस्मिक कार्य बतौर कुल 179 दिन ही कार्यरत होना पाया जाता है । ऐसी स्थिति में अप्रार्थी नियोजक द्वारा अधिनियम के आज्ञा पर प्रावधानों की पालना किया जाना आवश्यक नहीं रहा है और प्राथी किसी अनुतोष के अधिकारी होने का पात्र समझे जाने योग्य नहीं है ।

B. अप्रार्थी नियोजक की ओर से विद्वान प्रतिनिधि द्वारा तर्क दिया गया है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक ने निरंतर सेवा पृथक पूर्ववर्ती वर्ष या उससे पूर्व 240 दिन का कार्य नहीं किया है । प्रार्थी स्वयं कार्य की उपलब्धता होने पर आकस्मिक कार्य हेतु विशेष कार्याधि तक ही दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिक के रूप में कार्यरत रहा है और कार्य की उपलब्धता समाप्त होने व कार्यावधि समाप्त होने के साथ की उसकी सेवायें स्वतः समाप्त हो जाती थीं । प्रार्थी श्रमिक ने जो भी कार्य किया, उसका भुगतान उसे नियमानुसार किया गया है । प्रार्थी श्रमिक ने मात्र 170 दिन ही कार्य किया है, इस कारण अधिनियम के प्रावधानान्तर्गत कोई अनुतोष का अधिकारी नहीं है । वह स्वयं ही कार्य समाप्ति पर सेवा से समाप्त हो गया । प्रार्थी को दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिक की देय मजदूरी का नियमानुसार भुगतान किया गया है जिस सम्बन्धी समस्तअभिलेख न्यायालय अभिलेख पर प्रस्तुत कर दिया है । उसने 5684

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA FOCTOBER 11 , 2008 /ASVINA 19, 1930

परिणामतः भारत सरकार . श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ला द्वारा सम्प्रेषित निदेश विवाद का अधिनिर्णीत कर इस प्रकार उनकि किया जाता है कि चूंकि प्राथी अभिक राकेश कु‌मार यह रंगवित करने में पूर्णतया असफल रहा है कि उसके द्वारा अप्रार्थी नियंजक जिमाल, जवाहर नवोदय विद्यालय , अररू जिला बारां के अधीन नियजित रहकर क्लेम में वर्णित नियंजनाधि में या सेवा पृथक होने की शि构ि 16-1-2001 से पूर्ववर्ती वयं में निरन्तर 2411 दिन या उसक कार्य कर लिया गया । अनः बद्ध अधिनियमान्तर्गत कोई संश प्राप्त नहीं होने से अप्रार्थ नियांजक से किसी प्रकार का कोई प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है .

बद्रीलाल मंग नई दिल्ली, 18 सितम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 2869 , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, ५७८ का 14) की धारा 1 : के अनुसरण में कंन्द्रीय सरकार डब्लू. मी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संचद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 83/2003 ) के प्रगत करती है , जो कंन्डोय सरकार को 18 9-2008 प्राप्त हुआ। श्रा [ C -22012/170/1994-आईआर अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क मी New Delhi , the 18th September, 2008 S.O. 2869.in pursuance of Section 17 the Industrial Dispies Act. 1947114 of 1947. lie Keral Government hereby publishes the award (Ret . Na 5 oftheCentral Groseruntant Irulustrial Tribunal - cum-i リルド Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the induranul Dispute between the employers in relatien tu ng management of WOT.. and their worknuar: which received by the Central Lovernment on 18-9

No 122012 17091 AJAY KUMAR GAUR D

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI AN . YADAV, PRESIDING OFFK L.12 . CGIT- CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Date: 4-9-2018 Case No. CGIT- NGP/83/03

Petitioner /Party

The President . Bahujan Employees Federation . Walni Mine , Fapl Sub Area of Wol . Narpa Verses

Respondent Party No 2 : The Sub Area Mmeer ... Siltewara, Nagpur

AWARD

Danesd Bh September , 20OS )

[PART II- SEC . 3(ii )] 1. The Central Gos counent atter satisfying the exist- ence of dispute between the President, Bahujan Employ ces Federation , Walni Mines , l'ipla Sub Area of WCL, Nagpur ( Party No.1) and the Sub Area Manager, WCL , Sillewara, Nagpur (Party No.2 ) referred the same for adjudi- cation to this Tribunal vide ins letter No. - 22012/170/94- IR(C- 11 ) dated 21-9-1994 unier clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1) and sub section (2A ) 01 Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) witit the following Schedule.

2. "Whether the action of the management of Western Coalfields Limited . Sillewara , Sub Arca . Distt. Nagpur in dismissing Shri Mahatan Lenged Looder from 10-2-1992 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief' is the workman entitled to?

3. The reference came up for hearing on 4-7-2008 on which also the Petitiones and his Counsel were absent . They are not attending the case since last one year. He has not even filed a statement est elaun . I do not think it proper to continue it on the san : stage years together . It seems that the Petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case. In the circumstances , e nurpose will be served in con- tinuing the case, hence missed for the default of the Petitioner and pass the negative ward that he is not en titled for any relief.

Date 04-09-2008

N. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दि 21:08

का.आ. 2870, आंधनियम 1947 1947 का ( 4 ) की धारा १ ? य सरकार फंडरल बैंक 'ल, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध और उनके कर्मकारों को बीच अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट अंशांकन्द्रीय सरकर औहांगिक अधिकरण , इरनाकूलम को 6-2006 ) को प्रकशिन करती है , जो केन्द्रीच सरकार 104-2008 को प्राप्त ₹ था ।

प.नं. नचन्दा, अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi . 11.191 : September . 2008 5.0 . 28710, scarce of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1114 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby pulmes the Award ( Ref. No. 67 2006 ) af Central Government badastral Imbul Court, Ernakulam as shesis Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the ancient of Federal Bani. l .innted . and their workmen , recibs the Central Governmen 19-9-2008.

1-12012157 1997.1R ( 13 BINTANCHANDA , Section Oficer भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 11 , 2008/ आश्विन 19 , 1930

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM Present: Shri P.L.Norbert , B.A.LL.B. Presiding Officer

1.D.67/2006

(I.D.35/ 1998 ofLabour Court, Ernakulam) Union ;

TheGeneral Secretary,

Federal Bank Employees Union, Central Office, P.B.No. 10 , Aluva 683101.

By Adv. Shri . C.Anil Kumar.

Management ;

The Chariman , Federal Bank Limited, HeadOffice, Aluva-683101 .

By Adv . M/s . B.S.Krishnan Associates .

This case coming up for hearing on 12-06-2008, this Tribunal - cum- Labour Court on 20-06-2008 passed the following.

AWARD

This is a reference made under Section 10( 1 ) ( d) of Industrial DisputesAct. The reference is :-

"Whether the action of the management of M / S . Federal Bank Ltd. in inflicting the punishments of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect in respect of Sri . Pranabesh Mandal , Clerk and withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect in respect of Sri , Sanjit Dey, sub- staff for certain alleged malpractice are justified? Ifnot , to what relief the workman are entitled? "

2. Facts of the case in brief are as follows:- The union has espoused the cause of two bankmen by name Pranabesh Mandal and Sanjit Dey who were proceeded against by the management for misconduct of unfair practice in the promotion test by copying the answers of Pranabesh Mandal by Sanjit Dey with active connivance of each other . Two charge sheets were issued to both workmen and two enquiries were conducted . The workmen were found guilty of the misconduct and the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect in respect of Pranabesh Mandal and withdrawing of 2 annual increments with cumulative effect in respect of Sanjit Dey.

3. Accordingto the workmen the examination was conducted under strict vigilance and supervision of the management officials. The seating arrangements were made in such a manner so as to rule out any kind of malpractice. None ofthe invigilators in the examination hall had reported 3768G1/08-7

$685 about any malpractice . Though both ofthem had come out successful in the examination their results were withheld and they were charge sheeted without any basis . The management has victimized the workmen . The enquirywas conducted violating principles ofnaturaljustice . No proper opportunity was given to defend . The evidence was not properly assessed by the Enquiry Officer. There is no sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the workmen. The disciplinary authority failed to appreciate the evidence on record and imposed a harsh punishment . It is disproportionate to the charges . Though appeals were filed they were rejected by the appellate authority. The findings and punishments are liable to be set aside .

4. According to the management the workmen were involved in serious misconduct of copying answers ofone by the other. This could be done only with the co- operation of both . The enquiry Officer conducted separate enquiry in respect ofboth delinquents . The enquiry was conducted following the principles of natural justice . The workmen were allowed to be represented by the union General Secretary. Copies of documents were given and list of witnesses were provided to the workmen sufficiently in advance . The workmen had cross- examination all the management witnesses and adduced defence evidence. TheEnquiry Officer entered findings based on the evidence on record . The Disciplinary Authority had called for the representation regarding the findings and the proposed punishment . Considering the gravity of the misconduct the punishments were imposed. The appellate authority after considering the enquiry proceedings , all connected papers and the contentions of the workmen, concurred with the tindings and the punishment and rejected the appeal . There is clear evidence of copying the answers of Pranabesh Mandal by Sanjit Dey . In the circumstances no interference in the findings of Enquiry Officer and the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is called for.

5. In the light ofthe above contentions the following points arise for consideration: -

1. Is the enquiry valid ?

2.Are the findings sustairiable ?

3. Are the punishment proportionate ?

The evidence consists of Exts . MI and M2 enquiry files alone on the side of management .

6. Point No. 1: - Though a contention is raised that the enquiry was conducted without complying with the principles ofnatural justice and without granting sufficient opportunity to defend, they remain in the realm of mere and bare allegations in the claim statement . No attempt is made to substantiate the contentions .It is seen from the enquiry proceedings in Ext . M1 and M2 that the workmen were represented by General Secretary of the union. The workmen and the defence representative had participated 5686

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA

1,2008 ASVINA 12

[ PAR: St. 3 =

documents were mai .. ME- i to it on the side of the

management and on was examined as DWI on

the side of the worstite enquiry agamat Sanit the

same 3 witnesses moned as MWI to MWS 2nd

13 documents were Ess ME -13 on the side of in the enquiries thrghout . They were given carries of documents and list of witnesses on the side ofthe management The defence had cross -estates at the management wibresses. They had also adduced fetence evidence . Therefore the allegation of the unor wishe any basis and meritless.

the managementarness was examined as [DW!

on the side of the del .......

7. Point No. 2: Charges against the bakiren are

that they had appeared for promotion test for banid held

9. MW 1 Sriman whowas the Branch Manager on 27-10-90 at D.G. M's Office at Culcatta . Sri Sams ofAmbalapuzha Band efile bederal Bark was deputed copied the answers of Sri Pranabesh Mandid and Fraubest to Calcutta to conde de promotion test of Cles on Mandal had pernratted Sri . Sanjit Dey to cops the

27-10-1990. Асcurma seating diagram : was from his answer sheet. The matter was reported b . the prepared in advance in die conduct of the test and the examiner who valuen the answer sheet of bek cepayees. diagram is Ext. MME of Sri Sanjit ( CSF ) was 93.12 Three figures in the answer sheets of Sri . Preab S

and Sri . Sanjiiey were the same. They are .

and his seat was in Dress from front . The other S Sri . Pranabesh was a Le No. 4345 and his seatwas

in the 8th row fron There were 3 invigilators to (i ) Ititerest

supervise the examret . The wimess says that he hasd ( ii ) Grant total product

issued Ext. ME- 7 instons to invigilators for proper

6153

( ii ) Debit Credit surmation :

conduct of the testididares were not a'lowed to

bring any books , new kulators etc. into the hull Though Sri . Sanjit Dey had written a wione reme

None of the invigila " reported any jolatior of the 28861153 when the figures were summatele d

instructions or rule . has deposed that Strant wats 755861647.his was the answer at beth sea und

sitting in front of pra distance of 5 feer.

Pranabesh . Flowever in order to arrive at this goвдив : че

first number should have been correct and

10. MW 2. Si Kang Adibikari was an office product was 26861153. Instead of that Sunn

ofDemaport Bandh : sa invigilates for the test . He written 28861153 15 that he so there shouki nerbera says that rene oit! ates on the test including

Sanjit was permitt wn: newspaper Sri Sanat was

sitting in front of prai W2 had issued one answer :

siwet and two workach candidate . At the end of

the examination the wres ad collected all the answer

sheets and work shecus candidate He had not nousee

any malpractice durinammation ,

11. MW3 is Sri Singhal He was the Martager of

Nehru Place Branch 12 vas posted as Deputy Chief

Examiner for the testasiessed the answer papers or

Pranabesh Mandal ans . They are Exts . ME- 2 tin

Ext. M 1 ) and ME- 12 M M21. On perusing the answers

he came to unda Sanjit had copied the

answers of Sri . Pranasi . Tie came to such a conclusion

because the mistakes contaisted by Pranabesh were

repeated by Sunjit in der pepers . He sent Ext. 11-

13 report regarding the practice to the Chief Examiner .

The discrepancy and the maipractice is said to he the

following according 11 : cry Officer.

PAM2 answer sheet of Sanjit (1) . In Ext.MF.

difference in the total figure by 20 Th happen . The cardidates were supplied with two of paper to dough work and calculate inment. Sarethad not done interest calculation in the sought sheet sepelikd to him. However he had arrived at the grond tetii si !the figures including interest. This was not possibie vra using the sheets and making the calculatier the numbers were forge The mistakes in the credit and cobig suminations of Pranabesh Mandal were repeated by Say Sanjit was sitting in front of Pranabesh . Without the connivance et Pranabesh , Sanjit cou'd not have ed the answers of Pranabesh . The explanation of Pr.hech to the charge sheet is that copying wils hat posulte as both were sitting at a distance of 10 to 15 leer ondand the other. No in igilator the examinationhands: regarding any malpractice . The explanation of Sar; he had not cupied my answer from the answer sheet of Pranabesh . According to him while writing the memers and doing the calculations , the rough sheer had al' and he had no 1ngle to recover it for want of surf.cier : the

wrong product against the Dey he had

to answer all questions . Hence a newspaper wind

28861153 but the actoal entry dated 28-1984

used as a pad, was made use to do the yough calebitis

Tiessever when be summated figore was 20 %

and only at the end of the examination , the ragsteet

01755861647which he arrived at...

couldbe recovered from the floor and thai is sks reaso

the correct afw 141 going by the first product why the culculation of Diferest is not sech ir is much

the grantnotalhaseben less by 20.00.00 sheet . These explanations were not satislasterste

In the answer of Pranabesh Ext ME- disciplinary authority and therefore enquities werk m

ExtM 1 ) the ghas755861647 the correct

figure) . Hasset there was no nistake to the 8. In the enquiry against Sri , Pranabesk al 3 witnesses were examined as MWI to M

products wisemmated भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 11 , 2008/आश्विन 19 , 1930

[ भाग - खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

2. The total credit and debit summation in Ext. ME- 12 of Pranabesh was wrong and the figure was 61686726.53 . The actual figure should have been 61648165.47. The worksheet provided to Pranabesh contained the method of calculation and how he had arrived at a wrong figure . Whereas in Ext . ME- 11 answer sheet of Sanjit without making calculation in the worksheet the same mistake in the answer sheet of Pranabesh was repeatedby Sanjit .

3. The amount of interest calculated by Pranabesh was correct. So also the amount of interest arrived at by Sinjit. Nobody else, other than Pranabesh and Sanjit had calculated the interest correctly. But while Pranabesh's worksheet showed rough calculation the worksheet of Sanjit did not contain such rough calculation . But he had arrived at the correct figure.

4. Without using worksheet and doing rough calculation it was not possible to get answers because the numbers were large.

5687 13. Point No. 3: The punishment awardedto Pranabesh is withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect and the punishment imposed on Sanjit is withholding of2 annual increments with cumulative effect. It was argued by the learned counsel for the union that the punishment is disproportionate and excessive. However leamed counsel was not able to convince me as to what manner the penalty is disproportionate or illegal . It is a major misconduct falling within clause 19.5 of First Biparite Settlement for which one ofthe punishments in clause 19.6 has to be imposed . The withholding of increment is in noway a harsh punishment. The punishment being one not within S- 11A of I.D. Act , unless it is against the provisions of law or Bipartite Settlement this court cannot interfere. Hence I find that the punishment is proper and legal.

In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management in imposing the penalty of withdrawal of one annual increment with cumulative effect in respect ofSri . Pranabesh Mandal and withholding of 2annual increments with cumulative effect in respect of Sri SanjitDey is legal and justified and the workmen are not entitled for any relief.

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

Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 20th day June, 2008 . P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Management

12. It is the case of the management that Pranabesh was sitting behind Sanjit at a distance of5 feet. However the defence witness Sri. Sekhar Banerji , one of the candidates who had appeared for the test denied that Pranabesh was sitting behing Sanjit . He also said that he was supplied with only one answer sheet by MW I and he used news paper as pad for answer sheet . Pranabesh in his reply to the charge sheet (Ext . ME- 3 in M1 ) has not challenged the row arrangement or seating arrangement , but only disputed the distance between the rows as 10 to 15 feet . Sanjit in his reply to the charge sheet (Ext. ME-3 in M2 ) stated that his seat being in front of Sri Pranabesh,without mechanical device it was not possible to see the answers in the answer sheet of Pranabesh. This being the reply of workmen , DW1 tries to be more loyal than the king. MWI to MW3 say that Pranabesh was sitting behind Sanjit. The seating diagram Ext . ME-6 in MI support the case ofthe management regarding seating arrangement . It is true that the invigilators did not notice any malpractice in the examination hall . But the fact that same mistakes committedby Pranabesh were repeated by Sanjit and arrived at a total sum and interest figure without rough calculation throw a lot of doubt on the conduct of Sanjit . The case ofmissing of worksheet and use of newspaper as worksheet is a cock and bull story to escape from the clutches of guilt . The invigilators and MWI have deposed that nobody was allowed to being into the hall news papers, books , calculators etc. In the light of the evidence on record and in view of the circumstances discussed above there is no doubt that the Enquiry Officer has rightly found that Sanjit had copied the answers of Pranabesh and the latter had connived in doing so . Hence both are guilty. I find no reason to interfere with that finding.

M1- Enquiry file in respect of Sri Pranabesh Mandal.

M2- Enquiry file in respect of Sri Sanjit Dey. नई दिल्ली , 19 सितम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 2871.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 107/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-09-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/366/1995- आईआर ( बी-II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 19th September, 2008 S.O. 2871.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 107/04) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - Cum-Labour 5688

GAZETTOBER 11,2008 ASVINA 19

Court , Nidents the Annexere in crial Dispute bete ne employers in relation management Bank of Maharasht ... their the workmen .. ! on 18-9-2008 ceived by the General Gent

KARNDERK Beer

ANMENURE

BEFORE SIDE ON YADAY PRESIDING OUTDOOR , ABOURCOURT NAGPUR Case No. C

Petitioner

8 studeh Wankach . N PartyNo.

Manga Karaga 2. Part -Rakhna AraMS )

Respond

No. 2

AWARD

existence of between the Shri Karche Govindrae Sindh Wankhede

Mandal Ka Naar No.2 Post-

Amravalirisal Ne and the Reguita Ma عالي Bank ofManasaya Desh Opposite Karyalaya. falonia Amravations adjudicatoride its letter No.012 366 /95-12-1990 ur clas section ( 11CM Sectron Beli Rid Disputes Acaith's folk walle 2gm of the seagertent ofMaharsha... the services 13-7-1991 workman Shelke. Co by mdet barang isthe on which sind his si

They are not case

has not even of cainel is seems tai . the case. la

3.11 proper to ct ... in continui ::.. the Petitioner be needive card that : ... entitled for arti

Date : 08-09

[PART 11 --SK: 3 ( ii)] नई दिल्ली । सितम्बर , 2008

नं. ] . चण्डीगढ़ के पंचार करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरप का.आ. 2872. अंहांगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार नार्दन रेलवे प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजन और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में कंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण संदर्भ संख्या 107/1994 )को प्रकाशित करे 19-09-08 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एन 11012/145/1992 आईआर(डोयू ) ] बी. के. मनचन्दा, अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi .the 19th September , 2008 S.O. 2872. n pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) . the Central Government hereby palushes the Award (Ret. No. 07/1994) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour, Court -1 , Chandigarh , as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the management ofNorthern Railway, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Govemment on 19-6-2008

N141012-145/ 1992 -IR (DC ) ] B.K. MANCHANDA , Section Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDERA KUMAR SHARMA. PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL - CUM -LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIRARH

Case No. I.D. 7/1994

Shri Tuhi Ram So si SP Sharma , House No. 3-152, Sector 23 -D. Chandig..

App'icant

Versus

1. The General Manager . Noneti Railway , Baroda House, NewDelhi

2.Asstt . Engineer , Northern Railway, Patiala (Ph )

Respondent For the workmen :

APPEARANCES Nune

For the management : Note AWARID Pasodon 9-1-(18

TheGovernment India vide Order No. 1. -41012 145-92 - IR ( DU ) dited -94 , referred this Industrial Dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal on account of failure of reconciliativri peseedings belore the Conciliation Officer. The referene : which was referred by the Central Government forjudicialisation15-

"Whether the actionof Assistant Engineer , Northern Railway Patiala, in terrating the service of Sh . Lubi Rana So Sh .Nut : Kam .Khalasi we.f January 1987 5689 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 11 , 2008/आश्विन 19 , 1930

isjustified? Ifnot what relief the workman is entitled to?"

to 18-10-85 and 15-01-86 to 27-05-86 almost for 5 months Again a break on 31-08-86 for a day . Thus , the workman has not completed 240 days continously to any of the proceeding year of his termination , and not entitled forthe protection of the provisions of Industrail Disputes Act , 1947. It has also been stated that from 18-01-87, the workman himself left the job and never turned up. His claim and reference is also barred by limitation . He is a habitual absentee and has never requested the Department for the work after 17-01-87.

Against thewritten statement, the workman filed the replication stating that he has never abandoned/left the jobbut he was terminated from the service by an oral order .

Bothofthe parties were afforded the opportunity of being heard and for adducing evidence.

The workman filed his affidavit and he was cross- examined by learned counsel for the Management . Likewise for Management Shir Bharam Singh filed the Affidavit and hewas corss-examined by learned counsel for the workman. Opportunity of being heard was given but on the date fixed , none turned- up for the workman as well as for the Management Accordingly, considering the critical old reference pending adjudication in this Tribunal, the file was reserved for Award .

The main question for the consideration before this Tribunal is weather the termination of the services of Sh. Tuhi Ram, w.e.f. January , 1987, is justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ? I have gone through the evidence ofboth the parties oral and documentary.

After receiving the reference, workman and the Managementboth were afforded the opportunity for filing their respective claim petition and written statement . In his staternent for claim, the workman Tuhi Ram stated that he was engaged as Casual Labour on daily wages by Inspector of Works , Nothern Railway, Bhatinda from 15-12-77 to 14-03-78 . Thereafter , the workman was engaged as Casual Labour on daily wages by Inspector Works Northern Railway, Durhi, District Sangrur, from 1-06-85 to 14-12-86 .That below the entry 15-11-86 to 14-12-86, in the Casual Labour card it has been mentioned as (" left on own accord" ) but the deponend remained engaged with the Inspector ofWorks , Nothern Railway , Durhi for the period fron 15-12-86 to 14-1-87 and he was also paid wages for that period . That the Services of Shri Tuhi Ram were terminated of14-01-87 an oral Order . That the termination ofservices ofTuhi Ram is wrong , illegal , arbitrary , malafide and invaid. After completion of 120 days of service on 14-10-85, he was entilled to scale rate of pay and once he was granded temporary status , his services could not be terminated except in due course of law and without giving him adequate and reasonable opportunity to show cause against the termination of service . The remarks on the Casual Labour card of the deponent to the effect " left on own accordare quite wrong illegal and invalid because he remained engaged with the management from 15-12-86 to 14-01-87 . His termination is retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, and as he has completed 240 days of service , the services of the deponent could not be terminated except in due cours under Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The breaks in service from 15-10-85 to 18-10-85, 15-01-86, 27-5-87 and 13-08-86. were illegal unjust and the same are unfair labour practices. The deponent made applications to the higher authorities for employment on 21-04-88, 15-12-89 and 06-09-91. Ол number of occasions, he has orally requested to provide the work but without any result. He also gave letter dated 10-06-92 to DRM Northern Railway which was received by Sh. Auma Singh, Assistant Executive Engineer Railway. Ambala but he was not provided the work.

With the above averments , the workman has prayed the protection of Section 25 - F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 with the prayer for reinstatement in service with full back wages . 24 % per annum interest and other consequential benefits .

The management filed the written statement denying all the allegations of workman by stating that Shri Tuhi Ram worked from 15-12-77 to 14-03-78 and thereafter left thejob without any reason and remained absent for a period of 7 years . It has been admitted by the management that once again from 01-06-85 to 17-01-87 the workman had worked with the management in different Departments with breaks . There were breaks in his service from 15-01-85

It is admitted fact that the workman , Sh. Tuhi Ram , has worked from 15-12-77 to 14-01-87 with certain breaks. The first break which was almost of seven years was from 15-12-77 to 14-03-78 Mainly on the basis of this break, Management, has clained that the workman has been a habitual absentee . In the oral evidence, MW1 ,Bharm Singh forManagement has stated that again under the orders of the SuperiorOfficers , the workman had been recalled in the year 1985 and the workman Tuhi Ram alsojoined. It shows that along with Tuhi Ram , some other workers were disengaged on 14-03-78 and they were recalled in the year 1985. Tuhi Ram was one of them. Thus it can not be said that Tuhi Ram abandoned the job of his own. In his oral evidence MW1 has also stated that as per Instructions , Casual Labour is entitled for grant of temporary status on completion of 120 days of service . This is also the case of Tubi Ram that on completion of 120 days of service, the temporary status was not awarded to him . In the pleadings the Management denied that the workman has completed 120 days of service but in evidence in para No. 3 , P /2. it is specificallymentioned that he has completed 120 days of regular service on 14-10-85 and after that he was entitled for regular pay , but unfortunately, he left the job on 15-10- 85without any reason and thus occurred a break in service. The workman has agitated that this break was illegal as he was not permitted to work by the Management to escape 5690

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA.OCTOBER 11,2008 ASVINA 19.19

[Par

One more content the Matragement is that Ilus reference is time- barred . period in Industrial Disputes Act has been mentioned mit which the reference stwald be inade, but certainly it shouldbe reasonable period which is available to the works for agitating his cause of termination and for starting the proceedings for reference. The letters of the workmon dated 21-04-88 , 15-12-89 , 06-08-90 and October how that he requested number oftimes to the Management to provide him the job . Iahis oral evidence the worktuan hits also stated that hot valy in writing, but he orally requested a number of timesto provide him the job but in vain . The last letter of October 1990 was received by the authority of the Management . The Management had disputed it by stating that it has not been received by competent authority . It is the inter se departmental matter of the Management . Thus atler considering all the facts circumstances of the case I am of the view that workman Fuhi Ram requested the Management regularly to proviske him the job but in vain and his reference is not tume Sarred.

from the liability of giving the temporary status on the calculation given by the Management itself, it is evidem that from 15 - tu - 85 10 18-10-85 for 4 days , the clamant bas shown to left the job and again on 19-10-85 he joined the service. A Circular Letter of the Northern Railway Ne DSC/MISC/C1-82-83 dated 30-11-83 which is regarding the recrutiment of fresh Casual Labour , shows that these are the Instructions of the Railway Ministry that the Laliour should be engaged for a period not more than 90 days. This Circular Letter supports the version of the wort that the Management causes the breaks in service to perem itself from the liability of giving the temporary status 10 the workman . Such types of breaks have been held to be illegal by Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in a rerent judgment published in 2007 LLR 1155 Manoj Kumar Shanna Vs.H. R.T.C. and Another IHon'ble High Court of Himachat Pradesh in para 11 and 18 of the judgment has specitically held that such breaks in service of workman and the communication amounts to unfair labour practice . Accordingly after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the evidence of both the parties. I am of the view that the breaks in service of the workman were not the result of his voluntary absence from the service but he was not allowed to work to prevent the Management from the liability of giving him temporary status On 14-0186 , the workman has completed 120 days of service and as per the Circular Letter of the Railway Ministry , he was entitled for the temporary status which was not given to him . He was not permitted to work from 5-01-86 . As already stated that the intention at the Management is very clear from the letter of the Railway Ministry dated30-11-83 having a scheme for engaging the Casual Labourfor a period of 90 days only . The intention for such a provision is very well clear . Thus the workmin has proved that the breaks in the service were not the result of his fault or absence from the service and the workman cannot to be said to be habitual absentee but there were compelling circumstances for his absence

The workman has mpleted, as admined by the Management 120 days and he was not given a temporary status .Likewise , from 01-06-85 to 17-01-87 , he has also completed more than 240 days and the breaks in between were not the result of his own conduct . He is entitled 10 the protection of he provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act , as he was terminated hom the service without giving the notice or compensation , Ilus termination is as per the provisions of Industrial Disputes Aci . retrenchment and his termination being shout giving the notice or compensation is illegal Moreover, as per the evidence of theManagement , few workmen were junior to the workman Tuhi Ram have been givetesers ice benefit in the Railway Department. According the reference is likely to be answered is negative that he artren of Assist.on Fengineer . Northern Railway . Patiala mirating the service af luki Ram w.e.f. January, 1987hified and the workantis entitled to relief as per the plens of ledustujal Dispute Act. Now . I have to conside what relief should be givento the workman ? li is admitted case is the Management that on completion of 120 temporary status was due to the workman on 14-10-8 the aorkinan has completed 120 days but he was not permuted , as stated earlier , to workfrom 15-10-85 with iteration to prevent him from this temporary status . This sction of the Management was illegal . Accordingly , the workman will be entitled . as per the Circular Letter of the Management for the temporary status from 14-10-85 on which ite completed 120 days of service . To continue the work on 15-10-85 . was uut of his control and the Management is to give the temporary status from the day he has completed 20 days of service.

The workman wattled for the finll wages from 14-10-85 10 17-01-87 and half wages thereatier . The workman will not be entitle hier any interest on the wages So ordered .

The workman has also pleaded that his juniors were given the job by the Management . The Manager.n denied it in pleadings. The Management in oral eviden admitted that Shri Swaran Pat joined on 15-05-78 and junior to Tuhi Ram who joined the service on 15-12-97 . 1: has also been admitted by the Management that Swaran Pal also left the job in 1978, at his own and he was reenga in the year 1980 for 92 days . This statement once ave shows that the seven years absence was not only o workman Tuhi Rum , but his fellow - workers as well . the witness has shown the ignorance about Swaran Pals absence, whether he remained out ofjob at his own ? This the breaks in service are not voluntary act of the workimai . and as per the above mentioned Hon'ble High Cost of Himachal Pradesh judgment , the Management can not permitted to make the breaks just to prevent the woma toget any benefit of his temporary status or other status in the services.

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3( ii) ]

5691

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 11 , 2008/आश्विन 19, 1930

Accordingly, the reference is disposed of. The Central Government be informed. Consign to the record , GK. SHARMA, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली , । अक्तूबर , 2008

का.आ. 2873.- श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय की दिनांक 20 जनवरी , 2007 को भारत के राजपत्र के भाग II , खण्ड-3 , उप- खण्ड( ( ii ) में. का.आ. संख्या 205 द्वारा प्रकाशित अधिसूचना में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टि शामिल की जाएगी , नामतः-

क्रम संख्या

52. पैसर्स गार्डन रीच शिपबिल्डर्स एण्ड इंजिनियर्स लि. , कलकत्ता

(20-08-2004 से 30-09-2008 तक )

[फा. सं. एस-38014/46/2007-सा.सु.-1 ]

एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 1st October, 2008

S.O. 2873. In the Notification of the Ministry of Labour and Employment published in the Gazette of India, Part- 11 , Section 3 , Sub - Section (ii) dated 20th January, 2007 vide S.O. No. 205 , the following entries shall be inserted, namely: -

SI . No.

52. M/ s . Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers Ltd., Calcutta

(W.e.f. 20-08-2004 to 30-09-2008) .

[F. No. S-38014/46/2007-SS.I ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

नईदिल्ली , 8 अक्टूबर , 2008

का.आ. 2874. कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि और प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) की धारा 14 क ग द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंन्द्र सरकार एतदद्वारा पूर्ववर्ती श्रम मंत्रालय , भारत सरकार की दिनांक 17 अक्टूबर, 1973 की अधिसूचना का.आ. सं. 549 ( अ ) में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है, अर्थात:-

उपर्युक्त अधिसूचना में, अनुसूची के स्थान पर, निम्नलिखित अनुसूची प्रतिस्थापित की जाएगी. नामतः-

"अनुसूची

1. राष्ट्रीय राजधानी राज्य क्षेत्र , दिल्ली

2. आन्ध्र प्रदेश राज्य तथा पुदुचेरी संघ शासित क्षेत्र का यनम क्षेत्र 3. असम, अरूणाचल प्रदेश, नागालैंड, मणिपुर , मेघालय , मिजोरम और त्रिपुरा राज्य

4. बिहार राज्य

5. छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य

6. गोवा राज्य

7. गुजरात राज्य , दमन व द्वीव तथा दादरा व नगर हवेली संघ शासित क्षेत्र

8. हरियाणा राज्य

9. हिमाचल प्रदेश राज्य

10. झारखण्ड राज्य

11. कर्नाटक राज्य

12. केरल राज्य, लक्षद्वीप का संघ शासित क्षेत्र तथा पुदुचेरी संघ शासित क्षेत्र का माहे क्षेत्र

13. मध्य प्रदेश राज्य

14. महाराष्ट्र राज्य

15. उड़ीसा राज्य

16. पंजाब राज्य तथा चंडीगढ़ संघ शासित क्षेत्र

17. राजस्थान राज्य

18. तमिलनाडु राज्य तथा संघ शासित क्षेत्र पुदुचेरी जिसमें उक्त संघ शासित क्षेत्र के माहे और यमन क्षेत्र शामिल नहीं है। 19. उत्तराखण्ड राज्य

20. उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य

21. पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य एवं अंडमान एवं निकोबार द्वीप समूह संघ शासित क्षेत्र तथा सिक्किम राज्य

उपर्युक्त अधिसूचना के अनुसार 17-10-1973 के पश्चात् सृजित राज्यों/क्षेत्रों/उप- क्षेत्रों के मामले में, पूर्ववर्ती क्षेत्रों के क्षेत्रीय भविष्य निधि आयुक्तों और/या 17-10-1973 के पश्चात् सृजित्त राज्यों/क्षेत्रों/उप- क्षेत्रों के क्षेत्रीय भविष्य निधि आयुक्तों द्वारा प्रयुक्त की गई शक्तियों को इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत " प्रयुक्त शक्तियाँ" माना जाएगा ।

[फाइल सं. एस. -35012/02 /2008 - एस.एस. II ]

एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 8th October, 2008

S.O. 2874 In exercise of powers conferredby Section 14 AC of the Employees ' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1952 ( 19 of 1952) , the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of Government of India in the erstwhile Ministry of Labour's S.O. No. 549( E ) . dated the 17th October, 1973, namely:

In the said notification , for the Schedule , the following Schedule shall be substituted , namely :-

THE GALLUTE OF INDER 11.2008 ASVINA 19, 1971

5692

"SCHEDULE

1.The National Capeal Feoritory of Dell : i,

2. The State of Ardara Pradesh and the Ye the Union territors of Puducherry.

3. The States of Assam , Arunachal Pradesh . Nagdhei Manipur , Meglskaya. Mizoram and Tripura .

4. The State of Bikas

5. The State of Chaospark.

6. The State l Gua

7. The State of Gujarat, the l . amen territory el Deta Diu and Dadra zid Nagar Haveli .

8. The State of Haryana

9. The State of Hachal Pradesh .

10. The State otkland .

11. The State of Karnataka

12. The State of Kerala, the Union lerntory ot Lakshadweep and the Mahe area of the rion territory of Pudiebers .

13. The State of Madhya Pradesh

14. The State of Malarastra

Phute bị the Man Ring Rool . Manane

PAR : 11 S1 15. The State of Oris

16. The State of Trans 1 nion territory of Chandigarh.

17. The State of Ragist ...

18. The State of Tamil and the Union territory of Pduducherry excente Malie and Yanam areas of the Union territory.

19. The State ofCuar

20 . The State of th

21. The State of West Bengal and Union territory of Andaman and bar Island and the Mate of Sikkim.

In the case of States Regions Sub -Regions created after 17-10-19 e powers exercised by the Regional Provident Fun : Commissioners of the erstulule Regions as per the santrication and or by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner nd the States Regions Sub- Regions created after 17-10-1973 shall be deemed as puwers exercised under this

1. No. 8-35012.02-2008 - SS10 | SO XAVIER . Under Secy .