This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्री से डी० एल ( एन) 04/0007/2003-05

REGD.NO.D.L. (N) 04/0007 /2003-05 भारत काराजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

नई दिल्ली , नवम्बर १-भवम्बर 15, 2008 , शनिवार /कार्तिक 18- कार्तिक 24, 1930 NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 9- NOVEMBER 15, 2008, SATURDAY/KARTIKA 18-KARTIΚΑ 24, 1930 सं.46] No.46)

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 11 - खण्ड - उपखण्ड ( ii) PART II-Section 3-Sub- section (ii)

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

(Other than the Ministry ofDefence)

कार्षिक , लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय (कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 3 नवम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 3036.- सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 (2005 का 22 ) की धारा 12 की उप- धारा (3 ) के अनुसरण में राष्ट्रपति , श्री एम. एल. शर्मा को दिनांक 8 सितम्बर , 2008 से सूचना आयुक्त के पद पर नियुक्त करते हैं ।

[फा. सं. 6/4/2008- आई आर ]

डॉ. एस. के. सरकार, संयुक्त सचिव MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS (Department of Personnel and Training) New Delhi , the 3rd November, 2008 S.O. 3036.-In pursuance of sub - section (3 ) of Section 12 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005), the President is pleased to appoint Shri M.L. Sharma 4195 G1/08

as the Information Commissioner with effect from the 8thSeptember, 2008.

[F. No. 6/4/2008 - IR | Dr. S.K. SARKAR , Jt Secy.

वित्त मंत्रालय

(राजस्व विद्याग )

( केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड )

नई दिल्ली, 3 नवम्बर, 2008

कर.आ. 3037. सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतद्‌द्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली , 1962 (उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम 50 और 5ड के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ दिनांक 1-4-2008 से संगठन मैसर्स सेंट स्टीफेन्स हॉस्पिटल सोसाइटी, ( एडमिनिस्ट्रेशन ऑफ दि सिनोडिकल बोर्ड ऑफ हेल्थ सर्विसेज सी एन आई तौस हजारी , दिल्ली को निम्नलिखित रातों के अधीन आंशिक रूप से अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों में लगे ' अन्य संस्था' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है , अर्थात्:-

(6089) 6090

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 15 , 2008 /KARTIKA 24, 1930

...

(i) अनुमोदित संगठन को प्रदत्त राशि का उपयोग वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए किया जाएगा;

(ii) अनुमोदित संगठन अपने संकाय सदस्यों अथवा अपने नामांकित छात्रों के माध्यम से वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान करेगा;

(iii) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए इसके द्वारा प्राप्त राशि के संबंध में अलग खाता बहो रखेगा जिसमें अनुसंधान करने के लिए प्रयुक्त राशि दर्शाई गई हा , उक्त अधिनयम की धारा 288 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) के स्पष्टीकरण में यथापरिभाषित किसी लेखाकार से अपनी खाता बही की लेखा परीक्षा कराएगा और उक्त अधिनियम की भाग 139 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अंतर्गत आय विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने की नियत तिथि तक ऐसं लेखाकार द्वारा विधिवत् सत्यापित एवं हस्ताक्षरित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट मामले में क्षेत्राधिकार रखने वान्ने आयकर आयुक्त अथवा आयकर निदेशक को प्रस्तुत करेगा:

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

2. केन्द्र मरकर यह अनुमोदन वापस ले लंगी यदि अनुभःदित संगठन:

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

( ख) पैराग्राफ । उप पैराग्राफ ( i ) में उल्लिखित अपना लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा

(ग) पैराग्राफ । उप-पैराग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित संज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के दिए प्राप्त एवं प्रयुक्त दान का अपन्ग विवरण प्रस्तुत करेगा: अथवा

(ब) आषि अनुसंधान कार्य करना बंद कर देगा अथवा उसके अनुसंधान कार्य को जायज नहीं पाया जाएगा ; अथवा ( ङ) उक्त नियमावली के नियम ऽग और उड़ के साथ पड़िन उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii) के अधि 201 Dermate of Revenue;

New Delhi. hend Nwerber 20

S.O. 3037. It is

informationthatthe organiz

Society. (Admira

[PART II Sec. 3(in ) ] Services- CNI ) Tis Hazari , Delhi has been approved by the Central Govertiment for the purpose of clause ( ii ) of sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the Income- tax Act , 1961 (said Act), read with Rules SC and SF ofthe Income- tax Rules, 1962 (said Rules) , with effect from 1-4-2008 in the category of ' other Institution ' partly engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions , namely: - (f) The sums paid to the approved organization shall be utilized for scientific research:

(ii) The approved organization shall carry out scientific research through its faculty members or its enrolled students;

( ii) The approved organization shall maintain separate books of accounts in respect of the sums received by it for scientific research , reflect therein the amounts used for carrying out research , get such books audited by an accountant as defined in the explanation to sub- section (2 ) of Section 288 of the said Act and furnish the report of such audit duly signed and verified by such accountant to theContnissioner of Income -tax or the Director ofIncome-tax having jurisdiction over the case, by the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub - section 10 ) of Section 139 of the said Acı;

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

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

(a) fails to maintain separate books of accounts referred to in sub - paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1 ;

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

(c) fails to furnish its statement of the donations received adapted for scientific research referred tonerephtiv of paragraph 1 ;

(d) ceases to cary is research activities or its research actrice not found to be genuine:

ceases previsions of and coraply with the of sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of 11. Act road with rules SC and SE ofthe said R

Nelitication No. 106 2008 /F.No . 203/75/2008 -I -TA- II )

RENG JADEIRI , Director ( ITA - 11 ) 6091

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15, 2008/ कार्तिक 24, 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) )

{वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 6 नवम्बर , 2008

का, आ. 3038.- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) योजना, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उपखंड ( 1 ) और खंड 8 के उपखंड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम , 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उपधारा 3 के खंड ( क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात्, एतद्वारा , श्री राजीव कुमार बवशी ( जन्म तिथि 21-10-1952 ) , महाप्रबंधक, बैंक आफ इंडिया , को उनके पदभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से और 31-10-2012 तक , अर्थात् उनको अधिवर्षिता की तारीख , तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो , बैंक आफ बड़ौदा में पूर्णकालिक निदेशक ( कार्यपालक निदेशक के रूप में पदनापित ) के पद पर नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 9/16/2008- बीओ -1 ]

जी. बी. सिंह , उप सचिष (Department of Financial Services) New Delhi , the 6th November, 2008 S.0.3038. In exercise of the powers conferredby clause (a) of sub-section ( 3 ) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980, read with sub - clause (1 ) ofclause 3 , sub- clause ( 1 ) of clause 8 of the Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government , after consultation with the ReserveBank of India hereby appoints Shri Rajiv Kumar Bakshi , (DoB: 21-10-1952 ) General Manager , Bank of India as a whole time director ( designated as Executive Director) Bank ofBaroda with effect from the date of his taking over charge and up to 31-10-2012 i.e. the date ofhis superannuation or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F.No. 9/ 16/2008 -BO -1 ] G B. SINGH , Dy. Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 6 नवम्बर , 2008

का. आ. 3039. राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) योजना, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उपखंड ( 1 ) और खंड है के उपखंड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित, बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम, 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उपधारा 3 के खंड ( क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , भारतीय रिर्जव बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात्, एत‌द्वारा , श्री सतीश चन्द्र गुप्ता ( जन्म तिथि 26-2-1950 ) , वर्तमान में कार्यपालक निदेशक, बैंक आफ बड़ौदा को उनके पद‌भार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से और 28 फरवरी , 2010 तक की अवधि के लिए, अर्थात् उनकी अधिवर्षिता की तारीख तक , अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो, युनाइटेड बैंक आफ इंडिया के अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक के पद पर नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 9/16/2008 -बीओ -1 ]

जी.बी. सिंह, उप सचिव NewDelhi , the 6th November ,2008 S.O. 3039. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( a) of sub - section (3 ) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings ) Act, 1970/1980, read with sub-clause ( 1 ) of clause 3. and sub-clause ( 1 ) of clause 8 of the Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme . 1970/1980 , the Central Government , in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India hereby appoints Shri Satish Chander Gupta (DoB: 26-02-1950 ) presently Executive Director , Bank of Baroda as Chairman & Managing Director, United Bank of India from the date of his lanking charge of the post and for a period up to 28th February . 2010 ie date of his superannuation or umil further orders . whichever is earlier ,

[ F.No. 9/ 16/2008-30-11 GB SINGH . Dy . Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 6 नवम्बर , 2008

का. आ. 3040. राष्ट्रीय बैंक प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) योजना , 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उपखंड ( 1 ) और खंड 8 के उपखंड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित , बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम, 1970/1980 की धारा ५ की उपधारा 3 के खंड ( क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात्, एतद्‌द्वारा , श्री जग मोहन गर्ग ( जन्म तिथि 26-7-1950 ) , वर्तमान में कार्यपालक निदेशक , पंजाब नैशनल बैंक को उनके पदभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से और 31 जुलाई , 2010 तक की अवधि के लिए, अर्थात् उनकी अधिवर्षिता की तारीख तक, अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो , कापरिशन बैंक के अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक के पद पर नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 9/16/20808 बीओ ।। जी. बी. सिंह , उप सचित्र -New Delhi, the 6th November . 2008 S.O.3040.-In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( a) of suo - section ( 3 ) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings ) Act , 1970/1980, read with sub - clause ( 1 ) of clause 3 , and sub -clause ( 1 ) of clause & of the Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme . 1970/1980 , the Central Government in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India , hereby appoints Shri Jag Mohan Garg (DoB: 26-7-1950 ) presently Executive Director , Punjab 6092

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 15,2008/KARTIKA 24, 1930

National Bank as Chairman & Managiing Director, Corporation Bank from the date ofhis taking charge ofthe post and for a period up to 31st July, 2010 i.e. date ofhis superannuation or until further orders , whichever is earlier .

[F.No.9/16/2008-30-1 ] G.B. SINGH, Dy. Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 6 नवम्बर , 2008

का. आ. 3041 राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) योजना , 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उपखंड ( 1 ) और खंड 8 के उपखंड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित , बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण) अधिनियम , 1970/1980 की धारा 9 को उपधारा 3 के खंड ( क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात्, एतद्द्वारा , श्री एम. नरेन्द्र ( जन्म तिथि 12-7-1954 ) , महाप्रबंधक, कार्पोरेशन बैंक , को उनके पदभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से पांच वर्ष की अवधि के लिए , अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो , बैंक आफ इंडिया में पूर्णकालिक निदेशक ( कार्यपालक निदेशक के रूप में पदनामित ) के पद पर नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 9/ 16/2008- बीओ-1 ]

जी. बी. सिंह , उप सचिव New Delhi , the 6th November, 2008 S.O. 3041 .-- In exercise of the powers conferted by clause (a) of sub- section ( 3 ) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings ) Act, 1970/1980, read with sub- clause ( 1 ) ofclause 3 , sub- clause ( 1 ) of clause 8 of the Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Shri M. Narendra, ( DoB : 12-7-1954) General Manager , Corporation Bank as a whole time Director, (designated as Executive Director ) Bank of India for a period of five years from the date of his taking over charge or until further orders , whichever is earlier .

[F. No. 9/ 16/2008 -BO - 1 ] GA SINGH, Dy . Secy.

( सतर्कता अनुभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 7 नवम्बर , 2008

का. आ. 3042. विशेष न्यायालय प्रतिभूति संव्यवहार संबंधी अपराध विचारण ) अधिनियम, 1992 की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्‌द्वारा , श्री सतीश लूम्बा, भा.ले.प. एवं लेखा सेवा , 1992 को विशेष न्यायालय ( प्रतिभूति संव्यवहार संबंधी अपराध विचारण ) अधिनियम , 1992 के अंतर्गत उनके पदभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से तीन वर्षों के लिए या अभिरक्षक के कार्यालय के समापन तक या

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] अगला आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, 39,200-67,000 रुपए ( वेतन बैंड-4 ) 10,000 रुपए ग्रेड वेतन के संशोधित वेतनमान में प्रतिनियुक्ति के आधार पर अभिरक्षक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 22/4/2003- सर्तकता( खंड- [ [ ] ] रवनीत्त कौर , संयुक्त सचिव (Vigilance Section) NewDelhi , the 7th November, 2008 S.O. 3042. In exercise of the powers conferred bysub -section ( i) ofSection 3 of the Special Court ( Trial ofOffences relating to Transactions in Securities ) Act, 1992, the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Satish Loomba, IA & AS , 1982 as Custodian under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relatingto Transactions in Securities ) Act , 1992 on deputation basis in the revised scale ofpay ofRs . 39,200-67,000 ( PB- 4 ) plus Grade Pay of Rs. 10,000/- for a period of three years , w.e.f. the date of assumption of charge of the post or till the Office of Custodian is wound up or until further orders , whichever event is the earliest,

[ F. No. 22/4/2003 - VIG ( Vol.11 ) ] RAVNEET KAUR, J1. Secy.

मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय

( उच्चतर शिक्षा विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 29 अक्तूबर , 2008

का.आ. 3043 , ऑरोविलं प्रतिष्ठान अधिनियम, 1988 ( 1988 का 54 ) की धारा 12 के साथ पठित धारा 11 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एत‌द्वारा निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों को 4 वर्ष की अवधि के लिए ऑरोविले प्रतिष्ठान के शासी बोर्ड का सदस्य नियुक्त करती है:-

...अध्यक्ष 1. डॉ. कर्ण सिह ( संसद सदस्य , राज्य सभा ) , 3. न्याय मार्ग , चाणक्यपुरी , नई दिल्ली ।

सदस्य

2 श्री अजोय बागची ,

सी-103 , पूर्वासा आनन्द लोक सोसाइटी. मयूर विहार ,

नई दिल्ली ।

3. सुश्री अमीता मेहरा ,

द प्रजेंस, सैक्टर-23, गुडगांव -122017.

हरियाणा ।

4. डॉ. मालिनी पार्थसारथी, कार्यकारी सम्पादक, द हिन्दु, 859-60 अन्ना सलाई , चेन्नई । 6093

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15, 2008/कार्तिक 24, 1930

[भाग [ -खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

5. डॉ. एस्टर पटेल, सदस्य, रेजीडेंट ऑफ ऑरोविले ।

6. डॉ. भल्लिका साराभाई,

दर्पण एकेडमी ऑफ परफार्मिंग आर्ट्स, उस्मानपुरा, अहमदावाद ।

1. श्री बालकृष्ण विट्ठलदास दोषी , वास्तुकार, संगत , थाल्टेज रोड, साल अस्पताल के निकट, अहमदाबाद-380 054.

8. श्री एस. के. रे, संयुक्त सचिव तथा वित्त सलाहकार , उच्चतर शिक्षा विभाग , ' भारत सरकार

(पदेन सदस्य)

9. श्री अमित खरे , संयुक्त सचिव ( आई सी सी) , उच्चतर शिक्षा विभाग, भारत सरकार (पदेन सदस्यं)

ऑरोविले प्रतिष्ठान के शासी बोर्ड के अध्यक्ष के रूप में डॉ.कर्ण सिंह का कार्यकाल 6 सितम्बर , 2008 से 4 वर्ष का होगा । क्रम संख्या 2 से 7 में उल्लिखित ऑरोविले प्रतिष्ठान के शासी बोर्ड के शेष सदस्यों का कार्यकाल इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तिथि से प्रारंभ होगा ।

इसके अतिरिक्त डा. कर्ण सिंह अवैतनिक आधार पर बोर्ड के अध्यक्ष के रूप में कार्य करेंगे ।

[सं. एफ. 27-9/2008- यूयू] अमित खरे , संयुक्त सचिव MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

(Department of Higher Education) New Delhi , the 29th October , 2008

S.O. 3043. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 11 read with Section 12 , ofthe Auroville Foundation Act , 1988 (54 of 1988 ), the Central Government hereby nominates the following persons as members of the Governing Board ofthe Auroville Foundation for a period offour years:-

1. Dr. Karan Singh ( MP, Rajya Sabha) Chairman 3, Nyaya Marg, Chanakyapuri , New Delhi .

Members

2. Shri AjoyBagchi ,. C-103, Purvasha Anandlok Society, MayurVihar, NewDelhi.

3. Ms. Ameeta Mehra, ThePresence, Sector23,Gurgaon- 122017 Haryana.

4. Dr. Malini Parthasarathy, Executive Editor, TheHindu, 859-60 Anna Salai , Chennai ..

5. Dr. Aster Patel, Метвет, Resident ofAuroville,

6. Dr. Mallika Sarabhai , Darpana Academy of Performing Arts , Usmanpura, Ahmedabad .

7. Shri Balkrishna Vithaldas Doshi , Architect, Sangath, Thaltej Road, Near Sal Hospital , Ahmedabad- 380054.

8. Shri S.K. Ray, JS & FA, Department ofHigher Education , Goverrunent ofIndia, (Ex-Officio Member)

9. Shri Amit Khare , Joint Secretary ( ICC), Department ofHigher Education , Government of India, (Ex-Officio Member) .

Theterm of office of Dr. Karan Singh as Chairman of the Governing Board ofAuroville Foundation will be four years with effect from the 6th September, 2008. The term of office of the remaining members of the Governing Board of the Auroville Foundation mentioned at S.No. 2 to 7, will commence with effect from the date of this notification.

Further , Dr. Кагаn Singh will function as Chariman ofthe Board in an honorary capacity.

[No. F.27-9/2008 -UU)

AMIT KHARE, Jt, Secy.

6094

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 15,2008 /KARTIKA 24, 1930

[ PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

स्वास्थ्य और परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय

(स्वास्थ्य और परिवार कल्याण विभाग ) नई दिल्ली , 4 नवम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 3044, -केन्द्र सरकार ने भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा ३ को उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ग ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में केरल के पंजीकृत आयुर्विज्ञान स्नातक निर्वाचन क्षेत्र में चुनाव कराया है जहां से डा. वेलायुधन पिल्ले, कुलपति , ' डफोडिल्ज' , चेल्सा गार्डन्ज , एन/ 10 , शास्त्री नगर , करामाना , तिरूवनंतपुरम-695 002 को इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तारीख से भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् के एक सदस्य के रूप में निर्वाचित किया गया है।

अतः , अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में , केन्द्र सरकार एत‌द्वारा भारत सरकार के तत्कालीन स्वास्थ्य मंत्रालय की दिनांक 9 जनवरी, 1960 की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 138 में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है अधतिः- उक्त अधिसूचना में " धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ग ) के अधीन निर्वाचित " शीर्षक के अंतर्गत क्रम संख्या । के बाद निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां जोड़ी जाएंगी अर्थात्: -

"2, डा, बेलायुधन पिल्लै , कुलपति , ' डेफोडिल्ज' , घेल्सा गार्डन्ज,. एन / 10 , शास्त्री नगर , करामाना , तिरूवनंतपुरम -695002"

[ सं. वी.11013 / 16 / 2006 - एम ई ( नीति -1 ) ] के. वी. एस. राव , उप सचिव MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

New Delhi , the 4th November , 2008

S.O. 3044 Whereas the Central Government in pursuance of clause ( c ) of sub - section ( 1 ) ofSection 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act , 1956 ( 102 of 1956 ) has conducted the election from the Registered Medical Graduate Constituency of Kerala wherefrom Dr. Velayudhan Pillai , V.C. , ' Daffodils ' , Chelsa Gardens , N/ 10, Sasthri Nagar . Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 002 has been elected to be a meinber of the Medical Council of India with effect from the date of issue of this notification .

Now, therefore , in pursuance of the provision of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendment in the Notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry of Health number S.O. 138 , dated the 9th January , 1960 , namely:-

In the said notification , under the heading ' Elected under clause ( c ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 , after serial No. 1 . the following entries shall be added namely :-

" 2. Dr. Velayudhan Pillai , V.C. , 'Daffodils ', Chelsa Gardens, N/10 . Sasthri Nagar , Karamana. Thiruvananthapuram - 695 002 "

[No.V. 11013: 16 / 2006 - ME ( P - 1 ) | 6095 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15, 2008/कार्तिक 24, 1930

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

कृषि मंत्रालय

( कृषि एवं सहकारिता विभाग )

नईदिल्ली 27 अक्तूबर , 2008

का.आ. 3045, केन्द्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम (4) के झुनंसरण में कृषि एवं सहकारिता विभाग , कृषि मंत्रालय के नियंत्रणाधीन राष्ट्रीय बागवानी बोर्ड, गुडगाँव के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को जिसके 80 प्रतिशत कर्मचारी वृन्द ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है:-

1. राष्ट्रीय बागवानी बोर्ड ,

मॉडयूल नं. 37 , दूसरा तल , सिडको रेडिमेड गारमेंट कॉम्पलेक्स , इन्डस्ट्रीयल एस्टेट , गुठन्डी, चेन्नई - 600 032 ( तमिलनाडु )

2. राष्ट्रीय बागवानी बोर्ड , 1 तीसरी मंजिल , एम.ई.सी. एल. भवन , सेमिनरी

हिल, नागपुर- 440 006 (महाराष्ट्र)

[सं3-6/2004- हिंदी नोति] उमा गोयल , संयुक्त सचिव

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(Department ofAgriculture and Cooperation)

NewDelhi, the 27th October , 2008

S.O. 3045.-In pursuance of Sub- Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices of the National Horticulture Board, Gurgaon, under the control of the Department ofAgriculture and Cooperation , Ministry ofAgriculture , whereof 80 % staff have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi :-

1. National Horticulture Board,

Module No. 37 , 2nd Floor,

SIDCO Readymade Garment Complex,

Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032 (Tamil Nadu)

2. National Horticulture Board,

3rd Floor , M.E.C.L. Building,

SeminaryHill,

Nagpur -440006 ( Maharashtra)

[No.3-6/2004- Hindi Neeli ] UMA GOEL , Jt. Secy .

नई दिल्ली 27 अक्तूबर, 2008

का.आ. 3046. केन्द्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में कृषि एवं सहकारिता विभाग , कृषि मंत्रालय के संबद्ध कार्यालय वनस्पति संरक्षण , संगरोध एवं संग्रह निदेशालय , फरीदाबाद के निम्नलिखित प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन कार्यालय को जिसके 80 प्रतिशत कर्मचारीवृन्द ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त का लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है:-

केन्द्रीय एकीकृत नाशीजीव प्रबंधन केन्द्र,

आर. जी. बरूआ रोड, गुवाहाटी कॉमर्स कालेज के सामने,

गुवाहाटी ( असम ) - 781 003

[सं 3-6/2004- हिंदी नीति ] उमा गोयल, संयुक्त सचिव 6096

PART 11 Sic. 3 ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVIEMBER 15 , 2008/ KARTIKA24 , 19300

New Delhi , the 27th October , 2008

S.O. 3046. In pursuance of Sub- Rule ( 4 ) of Rule 10 of the Official Language ( Use for Micial Purposes ofthe mont Rules, 1976 , the Central Government hereby notifies the following office which is under the administrative control of the Directorate of Plant Protection , Quarantine & Storage. Faridabad , an attached office of the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation , Ministry of Agriculture , whereof 80 % staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi : - Central Integrated Pest Management Centre ,

R.G. Baruah Road .

Opposite Guwahati Commerce College .

Guwahati ( Assam ) -781003

No.3-6-2004-1 linda Neetu

UMA GOEL.Jt. Secy .

उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

( उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली, 20 अक्तूबर , 2008

का.आ.. 3047 , भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम, 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड को अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का वितरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है से स्थापित हो गया है :

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि स्थापित भारतीय मानक( कों ) की संख्या

क्रम सं वर्ष और शीर्षक

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

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

अगस्त 2008 1. आई एस 1885 ( भाग 27 ) :2008/

आई सी 60050 ( 51 ) : 1995

विद्युत तकनीकी शब्दावली भाग

27 पॉवर इलेक्ट्रानिकी ( तीसरा

पुनरीक्षण)

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

[संदर्भ: इंटो 01 /टी -121

प्रकाश बचानी , वैज्ञा. डं , निदेशक , ( विद्युत तकनीकी विभाग ) MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

BUREAL OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi, the 20th October, 2008

S.O. 3047. In pursuance of clause ( b ) of sab - ruie ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the Indian Standards to the Indian Standards . pnticulars of which is given in the Schedule bereto annexed has been issued:

6097 [ भाग-खण्ड 3 (i) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15, 2008 कार्तिक 24, 1930

SCHEDULE

No.& Year ofthe Indian Standard

Dateof Establishment Sl . No.

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

(4)

(3)

( 1)

(2)

August,2008 IS1885 (Part27) :2008/ IEC 60050 (551): 1998 Electrotechnical Vocabulary Part27 Power Electronics (ThirdRevision)

Copyofthis Standard is available for sale with theBureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkata , Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur, Kanpur , Nagpur , Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: ETOI/T- 12]

PRAKASH BACHANI , Sc- E (Director ) Electro technical Department

नई दिल्ली, 4 नवम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 3048, भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम, 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एक्त‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक (कों) में संशोधन किया गयां किये गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

वर्ष और शीर्षक

क्रम संशोधित भारतीय मानक( कों) की संख्या सं

(4) (2)

(3)

(1)

6, सितम्बर 2008

। दिसम्बर, 2008 1 . आई एस 15111 ( भाग 2 ): 2002 सामान्य प्रकाश व्यवस्थाओं के लिए स्वतः बालास्टकृत लैम्प: भाग 2 कार्यकारिता अपेक्षाओं की संशोधन संख्या 6

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

संदर्भ : ईटी 23/टी -81 ]

प्रकाश बचानी , वैज्ञा. ई ( निदेशक ) , विद्युत तकनीकी विभाग

New Delhi, the 4th November , 2008

$.O. 3048.- 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 amendment to the Indian Standards , particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued:

4195 G1/ 08-2 6098

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 15,2008/KARTIKA 24, 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

SCHEDULE

No.& Year of the Indian Standard

No.& Year of the Amendment

SI No.

Date from which the Amendment shall have effect ( 1)

(3)

(4) 1 IS 15111 (Part 2): 2002 Self

6. September2008

1 December , 2008 Ballasted Lamps for General Lighting Services : Part 2

Performance Requirements

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

[Ref: ET23/1-81 ]

PRAKASH BACHANI , SC - E ( Director) , Electro technical Department

नई दिल्ली , 4 नवम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 3049.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम, 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वह स्थापित हो गया है : -

अनुसूची

क्रम स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या

स्थापित तिधि सं. वर्ष और शीर्षक

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

( 1 )

(2)

(3)

(4)

30 सितम्बर, 2008 1. आई एस/आईईसी 60079-17:2007 विस्फोटी पयांवरण : भाग 17 विद्युत संस्थापन निरीक्षण और रख - रखाव

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

[संदर्भ ईटी 22/टी 53 ]

प्रकाश बचानी, वैजानिक विद्युत तकनीकी विभाग )

New Delhi , the 4th November, 2008

S.O. 3049,-mance of clause ( b ) of snbrele ( 1 of Rule ? of the Bureau or dards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Shords reby notifies that the Inn Standards , particulars of witgaven in the Schedule hereto annexed have heerse

SCHEDULE

Hate of istablished Sl. No.& Year of the diar, Standards No.

Year of the Indian Standards , f . Seperseded by the New n Standard

(1) (2)

30 September, 2008 ISAEC 60079-17:200 Explosive Atmosphere .

6099 भारत का राजपत्र ; नवम्बर 15, 2008/ कार्दिक 24, 1930

[ भाग [[-खण्ड (ii) )

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

Part17Repair, Overhaul and Reclamation

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

[Ref: ET22/T-53]

PRAKASH BACHANI, Sc- E (Director), Electrotechnical Department

गाई दिल्ली , 5 नवम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 3050,-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम, 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड (ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एप्तद्द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए है वे स्थापित हो गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि स्थापित भारतीय मानक्त (कों ) की संख्ख्या

क्रम

वर्ष और शीर्षक

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

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

30 अक्टूबर 2007 1. आई एस 15766 ( भाग 1 ):2007 पालिश हीरों की ग्रेडिंग भाग ।

वर्गीकरण

30 अक्टूबर 2007 2. आई एस 15766 ( भाग 2) :2007 पालिश हीरों की ग्रेडिंग भाग 2

परीक्षण पद्धतियाँ

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

[संदर्भ: एमटीडी 10/टी -72 ]

डा. ( श्रीमति ) स्नेह पाटला , वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी)

New Delhi , the 5th November, 2008

S.O. 3050. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub- rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Date ofEstablished SI. No. & Year of the Indian Standards No Established

No. &Year ofthe Indian Standard, if any, Supersededby the New Indian Standard

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1 )

30thOctober, 2008 1 IS 15766 (Part 1): 2007

Grading ofPolishedDiamonds- Part 1 , Classification 6100

[ PART II-Sec. 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15,2008 /KARTIKA 24 , 1930

(1 )

(2)

(3 )

(4) 2

30 October , 2008 IS 15766 (Part2): 2007 Grading ofPolished Diamonds- Part 2 Test Methods

Copy ofthis Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad , Bangalore, Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur , Patna, Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: MTD [ 0/T-72 ]

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

नई दिल्ली, 5 नवम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 3051.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम, 1988 के विनियम ( S ) के उपविनियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण बाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द कर दिया गया है :-

अनुसूची

रद्द करने की तिथि लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु/प्रक्रम

सम्बद्ध भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

क्रम संख्या

लाइसेंस संख्या सीएम/एल-

( 1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

0066232

19-6-2008

आई एस 692:1994

मै, यूनीवर्सल केबल्स लिमिटेड पी बी सं. 09 , बिरला कालोनी , सतना 485005 ( मप्र )

33 कि वा रेटित वोल्टता के लिए पेपर इल्सुलेटिड सीसा चढे केबल

[सं. सी एम डी/ 13 : 13 ]

पी.के. गम्भीर , उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर )

NewDelhi , the 5th November ,2008

S.O. 3051. In pursuance of sub - regulation (6 ) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification ) Regulations 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particulars ofwhich are givenbelow have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Article/ Process with

Date of Cancellation St. No.

Licences No. CM/ L-

Name& Address of the Licensee

relevant Indian Standards covered by the licence cancelled

1 2

t. 0066232

19-6-2008 MisUniversal Cables Limited, PB No.09 , Birla Colony Satna -485005 (M.P . )

IS 692: 1994 Paper insulated lead- sheathed cables for rated voltage upto and including 33 Kv

[No. CMD/ 13: 13]

P.K. GAMBLIJK , Dy . Director General (Marks ) [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

6101

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15, 2008/कार्तिक 24, 1930

नई दिल्ली, 6 नवम्बर , 2008

का. आ. 3052 भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो प्रमाणन विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपविनियम 5 के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे दिए गए हैं , वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए है 26/06/2008 से 25/07/2008 -

अनुसूची

उत्पाद

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

लाइसेंस संख्या वैधता तिथि

क्रम सं.

20-07-2009

1. 7857908

मैसर्स माँ दुर्गा एन्टरप्राइजेस लि. एल -1 , कनकोलिम इंडस्ट्रियल इस्टेट , उत्तर गोवा, कंनकोलिम , गोवा -403703

06-07-2009

2. 7856502

सुमतिचंद गौती ज्वेलर्स प्रा. लि. 80/82, धानजी स्ट्रिट, चौथा माला, मुंबई-400003

20-07-2009

3. 7858102

ए. दु झेड पॉलिमर्स प्लॉट नं.- 11, सोमनाथ को-ऑ. इंडस्ट्रिज सो, लि. , सोषनाथ रोड, धाबेल गाँव , दमन , दमन और दिव -396210

02-07-2009

4. 7854393

रिसपॉन्सिव इंडस्ट्रिज लिमिटेड बेटेगाँव , महागाँव रोड, गौशाला के नजदिक , बोईसर ( पूर्व) , ठाणे . 401501

20-07-2009

5. 7857605

श्री सोलार सिस्टम के-43 , ताज हॉटेल के पिछे, फ्रेश-अप बेकरी के सामने , एम आय डी सी, अंबाड, नाशिक-422010

06-07-2009

6. 7856704

डिझायर ज्वेलस् प्रा. लि. , 404, मंगल भावना बिल्डिंग , चौथा माला, चौदहवाँ रास्ता, खार (पश्चिम ) , मुंबई400052

06-07-2009

7. 7856603

संस्क्रिती ज्वेलस , चंद्रबन बंगलो, गिता नगर, फेज 7 , फलाय ओवर के निचे, भाईंदर ( पूर्व ) , ठाणे-401105

02-07-2011

8. 7854595

अलमास ज्वेलर्स , 41 बी जे रोड, फिरदौष मंजिल बेसमेंट , बँन्डस्टैंड , बांद्रा, मुंबई-400050

21-07-20009

9. 7858304

गार्डियन कास्टिंग्स्प्रा. लि. , गेट नं. 116/120 , अभितबर गाँव , वाडा-शाहपुर रोड , ता. वाडा, जिला ठाणे-421403

भा. मा. स./भाग अनु/वर्ष

भा. मा.

1786 : 1985 कंक्रीट प्रवलन के लिए उच्च सान्द्रन इस्पात सरिए और तार की विशिष्टि

भा. मा.

1417 :1999 स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणाः शिल्पकारी - शुद्धता व मुहरांकन

मा. मा.

अधातू धृण नलिकाओं की फिटिंग्स

3419 : 1998

भा. मा.

अनबैकड नम्य पी वी सी फलोरिंग विशिष्टि

3462 : 1986

भा. मा.

12933 : 2003 सौर सपाट पटि‌का संग्राहक ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

(भाग 1 )

भा. मा.

1417 :1999 स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषण शिल्पकारी शुद्धता व मुहरांकन

भा. मा.

1417 : 1999 स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता व मुहरांकन

भा. मा.

1417: 1999 स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता व मुहरांकन

था. मा.

2830 : 1992 सामान्य संरचना इस्पात में पुनर्वेल्लन के लिये कार्बन ढलवाँ इस्पात, बिलेट, इंगट, बिलेट, ब्लूम और स्लैबकी विशिष्टि 6102

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15,2008/KARTIKA24 , 1930

4 10 7854902

03-07-2009 किश्को लिमिटेड प्लॉट नं. ३ 19/बी और सी, एम आय डि सी , सिनर इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया , नाशिक, मालेगाँव -422113 11. 7858708

21-07-2009 हितेश ज्वेलर्स 7/9 , डि डि प्लाझा , तीसरी आगियारी लेन , 103/105 , पहला माला, जवेरी बजार, मुंबई -400003

20-07-2009

12. 7858506

बोनिटो इम्पेक्स प्रा. लि. , कार्यालय क्र. 10 , दूसरा माला , घीरज हेरिटेज, एस व्ही रोड, मिलन सबवे जंक्शन , सांताक्रुज-पश्चिम, मुंबई,400054

13. 7858405

21-07-2009 गार्डियन कास्टिंग्स् प्रा. लि. , 109 , महेन्द्रा चेंबर्स, डब्ल्यू, टी. पाटिल मार्ग , चेंबूर, मुंबई -400071 14. 7858001

20-07-2009 गार्डवेल इंडस्ट्रिज प्रा. लि. राजन्स इंडस्ट्रियल कॉम्प्लेक्स , चिंचपाडा, गोखिवारे , वसई ( पूर्व ) , ठाणे-401208

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ) 5

भा. मा.

घरेलू प्रेशर कुकर- विशिष्टि

2342: 2006

भा. मा.

1417 : 1999 स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता व मुहरांकन

भा. मा.

1417 : 1999 स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता व मुहरांकन

भा. मा.

2831 : 2001 निम्न तन्यता के संरचना इस्पात में पुनर्वेलन हेतु कार्बन इस्पात के ढलवाँ बिलेट इन्गट , बिलेट , ब्लूम व स्लेब (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

भा. मा .

5244: 1991 सुरक्षित जमा लाकर केबिनेट ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

[सं. सी एम डी/ 13:11 ] पी. कं. गम्भीर, उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर )

New Delhi , the 6th November, 2008

S.D. 3052 .-In pursuance of sub-regulation ( 6 ) ofregulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certifications Regulation , 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standars , hereby notifies the grant of licences prarticulars ofwhich are given below inthe following schedule :(26-06-2008 to 25-07-2008)

SCHEDULE

Licence No.

SI . No.

Validity Date

Name and Adddress ( factory) oftheParty

4 12

1 7857908 20-07-2009 M/s. MAA Durga Enterprises Ltd. L- 1 , Cuncolim industrial Estate, North Goa Cunçolim Goa-403703 2 7856502 06-07-2009 Sumatichand Gauti Jewellers Pvt . Ltd. 80/82 Dhanji Street , 4thFloor , Greater Rombay Mumbai Maharashtra -400003

3 7858102

20-07-2009 A to Z Polymers Plot No. 11, Somnath Co - op Inds . Society Ltd. , Somnath Road, Village Dhabel Damann Daman Daman & Diu396210 Product

IS No Part Sec . Year 5

IS1786: 1985 Specification for high strength deformed steel bars and wires for concrete reinforcement

JS 1417 : 1999 Gold andGoldAlloys . Jewellery/Artefacts Fineness andMarking Specification

[$3419:1988 Fittings for rigid non - inetallic

conduits 6103

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 15, 2008/कार्तिक 24 , 1930

[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 (ⅲ ) ]

4 2

47854393 02-07-2009 Responsive Industries Limited Village Betegaon, Mahagaon Road,NearGaushalaBoisar-E, Thane,Boisar, Maharashtra-401501 5 7857605 20-07-2009 Shri Solar System , K-43 , Behind Taj Hotal, Opp . Fresh -up Bakery , MIDC Nashik Ambad, Maharashtra -422010

06-07-2009

6 7856704

Desire Jewels Pvt. Ltd., 404,Mangal BhavnaBldg., 4th Floor , 14th Road, Khar (W), GreaterBombay, Mumbai , Maharashtra-400052 7 7856603 06-07-2009 Sanskriti Jewels , Chandraban Bunglow, Geeta Nagar, Phase 7, Under Flyover,Bhayander (E) Thane, Bhayander, Maharashtra -401105

02-07-2011

8 7854595

Almas Jewellers 41 B.J. Road, Firdoush Manzil Basement, Bandstand,Bandra (W), GreaterBombay, Mumbai Maharashtra-400050 9 7858304 21-07-2009 Guardian Castings Pvt . Ltd. , GathNo. 116/120, Village Abhitghar, Wada-Shahpur Road, Tal. Wada, Dist. Thane , Wada Maharashtra -421303 10 7854902 03-07-2009 Kishco Limited , Plot No. E 19/B & CMIDC, Sinnar Industrial Area, NashikMalegaon , Maharashtra -422113

21-07-2009

11 7858708

Hitesh Jewellers, 7/9, DD Plaza, 3rdAgiyari Lane, 103/105, 1st Floor, Zaveri Bazar, GreaterBombay, Maharashtra-400003 12 7858506 20-07-2009 Bonito Impex Pvt. Ltd. , Office No. 10, 2nd Floor, Dheeraj Heritage, S.V. Road, Milan Subway Junction, Greater Bombay, Santacruz (W), Maharashtra-400054 13. 7858405 21-07-2009 Guardian Castings Pvt. Ltd. , 109, Mahendra Chambers, W. T. Patil Marg, Chembur, Mumbai-400071 , GreaterBombay Chembur, Maharashtra400071

IS3462: 1986 Specification for unbacked flexible PVC flooring

IS12933: Part 1:2003 Solar flat plate collector- Specification : Part I Requirements

IS 1417: 1999 GoldandGoldAlloys, Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness andMarking- Specification

IS1417:1999 Jewellery/Artefacts -Fineness Gold andGoldAlloys, andMarking -Specification

IS 1417:1999 GoldandGoldAlloys , Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness andMarking -Specification

182830 : 1992 Carbon steel cast billet ingots , billets, blooms and slabs for rerolling into steel for general structural purposes

IS2347:2006 Domestic Pressure Cookers- Specification

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

IS1417:1999 Gold andGoldAlloys, Jewellery/Artefacts -Fineness andMarking- Specification

IS2831 :2001 Carbon Steel Cast Billet Ignots, Billets, Blooms and Slabs For Re- rolling into Low Tensile Structural Steel-Specification 6104

[PART 11-SEC. 3( її)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15,2008 /KARTIKA 24 , 1930

L 2

14 7858001 20-07-2009

IS5244:1991 Guardwel Industries Pvt . Ltd. , Rajhans Indl . Complex ,

Safe deposit locker cabinets- Specification Chinchpada , Gukhivare, Thane Vasai East , Maharashtra -401208

[No. CMD/13 : 11 ]

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

नई दिल्ली, 7 नवम्बर , 2008

का. आ. 3053 -भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए है :-

अनुसूची

स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या

स्थापित तिथि क्रम सं वर्ष और शीर्षक

नये भारतीय मानक द्वार। अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हों, की संख्या

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

3 नवंबर , 2008 आईएस 15803 : 2008 श्वसन संरक्षी युक्तियां-स्वतः पूर्णबंद परिपथ श्वसन उपकरण, रसायन ऑक्सीजन (KO₂ ) टाइप, स्वतः उत्पादन , स्वतः रेस्कुयर्स-विशिष्टि

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

( संदर्भ: सोएचडी 8/ आई एस 15803 ]

ई, देवेन्दर, वैज्ञानिक एफ ( रसायन )

New Delhi , the 7th November , 2008

S.O. 3053. In pursuance of clause ( b ) of sub- rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl . No. & Year of the

Date of Established

No. & year of Indian

No. Indian Standard Established

Standards, if any, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

( 1 )

(2)

(3)

(4)

1 IS 15803: 2008

3 November, 2008 Respiratory Protective Devices---SelfContained Closed Circuit Breathing Apparatus; Chemical Oxygen ( KO ) Type , SelfGenerating, Self Rescuers-Specification

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

[Ref: CHD 8/1S 15803 ]

E. DEVENDAR , Scientist- F ( Chemical ) भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15, 2008/ कार्तिक 24 , 1930

[भाग-खष्ठ 3 (ii) )

6105

नई दिल्ली , 7 नवम्बर, 2008

का, मा. 3054 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 जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे स्थापित हो गए है:-

क्रम 'स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या

वर्ष और शीर्षक

संख्या

(1)

(2)

1 आई एस 11255 (भाग 3 ) : 2008 स्थिर स्रोतों से उत्सर्जन को मापने की पद्धतियां भाग 3 प्रवाह दर ( पहला पुनरीक्षण)

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा

अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हो, की संख्य्ग और वर्ष

( 3)

(t.

30 अगस्त 200K इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, पुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाही, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में विक्की हेतु उपलब्ध है ।

(संदर्भ : सीएचडी 32/ आई एस 11255 (भाग 3 ) ]

ई. देवेन्द्र, वैज्ञानिक एफ ( रसायन )

NewDelhi , the 7th November , 2008

S.O. 3054.In pursuance ofclause (b) ofsub -rule (1 ) ofRule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987 theBureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , prarticulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established in the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

SL No. & Year of the Indian Standards

Established

No.

(1)

1 IS11255 (Part 3) :2008 Methods for Measurement of Emissions from stationary sources Part 3 Flow Rate (firstrevision)

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

(3)

(4)

30August2008 Copy ofthis Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, aManak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and alsoBranch Offices:Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur , Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref, CHD 32/15 11255 (Part 3)] E. DEVENDAR, Scientist F ( Chemical )

कोयला मंत्रालय

शुद्धिपत्र

नई दिल्ली , 6 नवम्बर, 2008

का. आ. 3055 - केन्द्रीय सराकार , कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 कन 20 ) की घास 7 कहाँ उपक्ष रा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुये , कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का. आ. 2191 जो भारत के राजपत्र भाग , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) तारीख 9 अगस्त , 2008 में प्रकाशित की गई थी का संशोधन करती है, अर्थात्:-

4195G1/08-3 6106

TIII : GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 15 , 2008/KARTIKA 24, 1930

(PART 11-SEL . 3 ( in ) ] 2. उपरोक्त अधिसूचना में : -

तालिका " क " के नीचे ग्राम गुपगराकला में अर्जित किये जाने वाले प्लाट संख्या के उपशीर्षक में :

प्रविष्टि " 769 ( भाग ) से 773 " के स्थान पर " 769 में 773 " प्रविष्टि रखी जायेगी ।

[ फा.नं. 43015 /3 /2006- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-। ]

एम. शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF COAL

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 6th November, 2008

S.O. 3055 -In exercise of the power conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development ) Act , 1957 ( 20 of 1957 ), the Central Government hereby amends the English Version of the notification of the Government of India , Ministry of Coal vide number S.0.2191 published in the Gazette of India, Part - ] [. Section -3, sub - section ( ii) dated 9th August, 2008 namely:-

2. In the said notification...

In serial number I below the schedule " B ", plot numbers to be acquired in village hungarakala ( Part ) :

(i) Figures "46 to 50 ( P ) " shall be substituted by "46 to 49 , 50( P) " .

( ii) Figures "648,830 " shall be substituted by "648/833 ".

File . No. 43015 /3 /2006- PRIW- [ ]

M. SILAHABUDHEN , Under Secy .

आदेश

नई दिल्ल्लो. 10 नवम्बर , 2008

का. आ. 3: 056 , केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला धारका क्षेत्र ( अर्जन एवं विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा की उपभाग के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांका का 14 तारीख 29 मई, 2008 जो भारत के राजपत्र भाग 2 , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) तारीख 31 मई. 2008 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, के प्रकाशन पर उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि और भूमि या ऐसी भूमि ( जिसे इसमें एमकं पश्चात उक्त भूमि कहा गया है ) गे, मह उस पर के अधिकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उपधारा ( 1 ) अधीन , सभी विल्लगमों में मुक्त होकर आत्यानिक रूप से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित हो जाए थे;

और, दोन्द्रीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है कि इंग्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , सेंकटोरिया जिला- वर्तनान, पं. बंगाल , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात केन्द्रीय सरकारधिषित करना अधिन समझे , શ્ર ુછે ? ????? ???

**** *** ****** ********** ****?????? ****?********************** ?? ask ??? મ, jys" – !

अधीन रहने ..

सरकार में इस ग ) द्वारा प्रदत्त 2008 से केन्द्रीय कनी में निहिन हो जाएंगे, 1. उक्त कने

वरिष्ठ प्रतिकर ब्याजबकिए गयं सभी संदायों की केन्द्रीय सरकार ए .

2. सरकारी कंपनी द्वा

अवधारण करम के प्रयोजन के लिए एक अधिकरण का गठन ि

सहायता करने के लिए नियुक्त व्यक्तियों के संबंध में 6107 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15, 2008/ कार्तिक 24, 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) )

उपगत सभी व्यय , सरकारी कंपनी द्वारा वहन किये जाएंगे और इसी प्रकार , निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के उक्त अधिकारों के लिए या उसके संबंध में जैसे अपीलें आदि विधिक कार्यवाहियों की घायत उपगत , सभी व्यय भी, सरकारी कंपनी द्वारा वहन किये जाएंगे ;

3. सरकारी कंपनी , केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों की, ऐसे किसी अन्य व्यय के संबंध में, क्षतिपूर्ति करेंगी जो इस प्रकार , निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के पूर्वोक्त अधिकारों के बारे में , केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों द्वारा या उनके विरूद्ध किन्हीं कार्यवाहियों के संबंध में आवश्यक हो ;

4. सरकारी कंपनी को, केन्द्रीय सरकार के पूर्व अनुमोदन के बिना, भूमि और अधिकार को किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को अंतरित करने की शक्ति नहीं होगी; और

5. सरकारी कंपनीं, ऐसे निदेशों और शर्तों को, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा , जब कभी आवश्यक हो , उक्त भूमि के विशिष्ट क्षेत्रों के लिए दिए जाएं या अधिरोपित किये जाएं, पालन करेगी ।

[सं. 43015/1/2006- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू- ] ( वाल्यूम- II ]

एम. शहाबुददीन , अवर सचिव

ORDER

NewDelhi , the 10th November, 2008

S.O. 3056 -Whereas , on the publication of the notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry ofCoal, vide number S.0.1214 dated 29th May , 2008 published in the Gazette of India , Part II , section 3 , sub- section ( ii ) , dated the 31stMay, 2008, issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 9 ofthe Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the land and all rights in or over such land described in the Schedule appended to the said notification ( hereinafter referred to as the said lands ) vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub - section( 1) of Section 10 of the said Act;

And, whereas , the Central Government is satisfied that the Eastern Coalfields Limited , Sanctoria, District Burdwan , West Bengal , (hereinafter referred to as the Government Company ) is willing to comply with such terms and conditions as theCentral Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 11 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development ) Act , 1957, the Central Government hereby direct, that the said lands and rights so vested shall with effect from 31st May, 2008, instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government , shall vest in the said Company, subject to the following terms and conditions, namely:-

1. The Govemment Company shall reimburse to the Central Government all payments made in respect of compensation, interest, damages and the like , as determined under the provisions of the said Act;

2. A Tribunal shall be constituted for the purpose of determining the amounts payable to the Central Government by the Government Company under conditions ( 1 ) and all expenditure incurred in connection with any such Tribunal and persons appointed to assist the Tribunal shall be borne by the Government Company and similarly , all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals , etc. , for or in connection with the said rights, in or over the said lands , so vesting , shall also be borne by the Government Company;

3. TheGovernment Company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government or its officials. regarding the rights in or over the said lands so vesting;

4. The Government Company shall have no power to transfer the said lands and rights to any other person without the previous approval of the Central Government; and .

5. The Govemment Company shall abide by such direction and conditions as may be given or imposed by the Central Government for particular areas of the said lands , as and when necessary.

[No.43015/1 /2006-PRIW- 1 ( Vol.ll) ]

M. SHAHABUDEEN, Under Secy.

6108

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 15 , 2008/ KARTIKA 24 , 1930

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 15 अक्तूबर , 2008

का. आ. 3057. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैं. बी.सी.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. । , धनबाद के पंचाट संदर्भ सं. 97/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-10-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल-20012 /461/ 1998- आईआर( सी ) ]

स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 15th October , 2008 S.O. 3057. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the C'entral Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 97/1999 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court , No. L, Dhanbad , now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s BCCL, and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15-10-2008.

[ No. L- 20012/461 / 1998 - IR( C - 1) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAI , TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT , NO .

1 AT DHANBAD

Present : Shri H.M. Singh , Presiding Officer

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

Reference No. 97 of 1999

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Benidih Colliery of Block - II Area of M/ s . BCCL

AND Their Workman

Appearances : On behalfof the employers : Mir. R. N. Ganguly, Advocate .

Mr. K.

Onbehalf of the workmen : Chakravorty.

Advocate .

State : Jharkhand

Indusrty: Coal Dated, Dhanbad, the September. 2008. AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under Section 10 (1 ) (d ) of the 1.D. Act , 1947 has referred the following

[PART II--SEC. 3 ( ii) ] dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order No. L-20012/461 / 98-1R ( C- 1 ) , dated, the 4th June , 1999,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management in not referring the concerned workman Sh . Biswanath Gour to the Apex Medical Board of the company for the assessment of his apporímate age on the ground of different recording of age in different record of the company and objection raised in the service excerpt is proper and verified ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled? "

2. The case of the workman as disclosed in the W.S. filed by the sponsoring union on behalf of the workman is that the concerned wurkman Biswanath Gaur had been working as a permanent workman at Benidih Colliery since long with unblemished record of service and at the time of his appointment on 12-1-1974 his age was recorded as 22 years in the statutory Form "B ' Register. The management issued the 1.D. Card to the workman concerned showing his age as 22 year as on 12-1-1974. The age ofthe concerned workman was also recorded as 22 years on 12-1-1974 in the provident fund record. The date of birth recorded as 31-1-1936 in the service excerpt was strongly objected by the concerned workman heing illegal and he had specifically stated his age as 22 years as on 12-1-1974 . The workman also further stated that as per settled law and policy decision of the management it is mandatory on the part of the management either to accept his age as stated by the concerned workman in the service excerpt or to refer him to the Medical Board for determination of his age as per Medical Jurisprudence. However , the management referred the concerned workman to the Apex Medical Board for determination his age but unfortunately the Apex Medical Board refused to determine the age of the concerned workman on the ground that he has since been retired from service . It has been stated on behalf of the workman that the management illegally and arbitrarılly superannuated the concerned workman on 31-1-1996. Thereafter the union of the concerned workman represented before the management against illegal and arbitrary superannuation but without any effect . The union on behalf of the concerned workman raised an industrial dispute before the ALC ( C) Dhanbad which ultimately resulted reference to thisTribunal for adjudication . It has been prayed on behalt of the workman that an Awardbe passed directing the management to refer the concerned workman for determination of age and to reinstate the concerned workman with full back wages .

the 3. In the W.S. filed by the management it has been submitted that the present reference is not legally maintainable . It has been stated that the Form B Register is maintained under Section 48 of the Mines Act and Form B Register of Benidih Open Cast project at serial No. 1654 the date of birth of the concerned workman is mentioned as 31-1-1936 and the concerned workman has भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2008 /कार्तिक 24 , 1930

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

put his signature in token of acceptance of the correctness ofrecording ofall the particular made in the Form B Register. In terms of clause 37 of the Certified Standing Order applicable to the industry the date of birth recorded in the Form B Register is the conclusive evidence to decide the time of his supperannuation , Accordingly the concerned workman was superannuated w.e.f. 31-1-96 as he completed 60 years of age on that date . The management has further stated that the concerned workman did not raise any objection in the year 1987. Consequently in the service excerpt his date of birth was recorded as 31-1-1936 . Не raised dispute demanding the correction ofhis date ofbirth at the fag end of his retirement. Thereafter the local management referred the matter to the higher management for taking decision: But by the time the matter received attention ofthe higher authorities, he had already crossed the age of superannuation and he has already superannuated w.e.f. 31-1-1996 . Therefore , the demand for correction of his date of birth on the basis of medical examination by the Apex Medical Board after his superannuation did not and cannot arise . It has been stated that the demand of the concerned workman after his superannuation is illegal and unjustified,

4. The management has further submitted that the JBCI circular No. 76 has been issued for taking into consideration different aspects for correction of date of birth in case any demand is made within the reasonble time from the date of his appointment . Accordingly they have prayed to pass an Award rejecting the claim of the concerned workman .

5. Both the sides have filed rejoinder admitting and denying each other claim mentioning the paras in this respect,

6. Ld. Counsel for the workman argued that date of birth of the concerned workman has been mentioned as 12-1-74 in the I.D. Card which has been issued by the management. The same has been marked as Ext. W - 1 . On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the management argued that the original 1.D. Card has not been filed instead its photo copy has been filed with change of date ofbirth. There is force in the arugment of the Ld. Counsel for the management why the concerned workman has not filed the original I.D. Card for the reasons best known to the concerned workman . Regarding this photo copy the cocerned workman stated in his cross- examination in chief that this photo copy ofthe I.D. Card marked as Ext. W- 1 is subject to the prooduction of original of the same at the earliest but the original has not been filed by the concerned workman.Management has filed photo copy ofthe Service Excerpt of the concerned workman which shows date of birthof the concerned workman as 31-1-36 copy ofwhich has been given to the concerned workman as per Ext .W-2. The concerned workman is a literate person because he has signed in the above Ext. W- 2. The concerned workman stated that he has moved application for change of his

6109 date of birth but his application shows that this has been moved on 11-2-99 after his superannuation because the concernedworkman has been superannuated on 14-1-96. Ld. Counsel for the workman has argued thathe has not been medically examined regarding his age and when dispute has arisen he should have been referred to the MedicalBoard. The management has referred him to the Medical Board but the Medical Board has not conducted the medical examination on the ground that the concemed workman has already superannuated. When there is documentarty evidence an application has been movedby the concerned workman after superannuation shows that hewants to take benefit of the Company's S.O.by getting medically examined and there is no use when he has already superannuated.

7. Management has filed Form B Register which is maintained at the time ofappointment of the workman . Ld . Counsel fortheworkman argued that in the Form B Register the name of MW- I does not find place which he has admitted in his cross -examination . But by going through cross-examination of M - 1 it shows that there are two more formB Register in that Colliery and Ext . M- 1 is Book No. 3 andwhich has come after those two registers. So his name is not there , I do not find force in the argument advanced on behalf ofthe concerned workman .

8. Ld. Advocate for the workman has referred to a decision reported in AIR 1982 Allahabad 385 in which Hon'ble Allahabad High Court laiddown the following: - "The averments contained in the written statement cannot take the place of proof unless evidence is produced by the interested party."

He has also referred to a decision reported in 2005 (105) FLR 1067 in which Hon'ble Superme Court laid down pleadings are no substitute for proof. Ld. Counsel for the workman also referred to another decision reported in A.1.R. 1940 Patna 683 in which Hon'ble High Court of Patna laid down that the witness which has not been cross -examined his evidence must beaccepted. In this context Ld. Counsel for the workman argued that as his witness has not been cross-examined the evidence of his witness should be accepted. I find no force in the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the workman because date of birth has to be proved by cogent evidence and when there is documentary evidence verbal evidene has got no value .

9. In this connection Ld . Counsel for the management has referred to a decision reported in 2005 Lab 1.C. 3613 (A) inwhich Hon'ble Superme Court laid down the following:-

"(A) Constitution of India, Art. 16- Date ofbirth- Public employment-correction of Application for- must be made strictly in accordance with rules prescribed - In absence of rules , application to be made at earliest - employee must show irrefutable proofrelating to his date of birth- Employees challenging order of retirement based on wrong dated of birth -Service 6110

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 15 , 2008/ KARTIKA 24. 1030

Book signed by employee -Date of birth entered therein not challenged by employee at any time- Employce producing document issued after his reitrement in support- High court holding date clainud by employee to be proper on erroneous view that service record was not produced- Order liable to be set aside .

2003 All LJ 2379 reversed.

Secy. & Commer. Home Dept. v Kirubakaran . 1993 AIR SCW 3333. AIR 1993 SC 2647 State v . Ramanath Patnaik, 1997 AIR SCW 2370 AIR 1997 2452 : State of T.N. v. Venugopalan , 1994 AIR SCW 3947: 1994 Lab IC 2498 State of IJP v . Gulaichi , 2003 AIR SCW 3775 AIR 2003 SC 4209 : 2003 Lab IC 2641 and State v . S.C. Chadha . (2004) 3 SCC 394. Foll 9A. I.d. Counsel for the management has also referred to another decision reported in Lab I.C. Vol.2 , 2008 page 1666 in which Hon ble Superme Court held the following:-

"A person retired automatically on the date when he completes the age of superannuation - Need not be given opportunity of hearing ."

10.In view of the facts , circumstances and citations discussed above I find no merit of the case ofthe workman. Accordingly the following Award is rendered: - "The action of the management in not referring the concerned workman Sh . Biswanath Gour to the Apex Medical Board of the company for the assesment of his approximate age on the ground of differen recording of age in different record of the company and objection raised in the service exerpt is proper and justified . Consequently , the cocerned workman is not entitled to get any relief. "

H. M. SINGH , PresidingOfficer .

नई दिल्ली, 21 अक्तूबर , 2008

का. आ. 3058. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार केनरा बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय इरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 322/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-10-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल 12012/163/2000 - आई. आर. ( बी -1 ] ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 21st October , 2008

S.O. 3058 ...-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 322/ 2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-

PARIS Stiil Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their workman. received by the Central Government on 21-10-2008

Na . L- 12012/ 163 /2000- IR( B - 11 ) | RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

(Friday the 1st day of August , 2008-10th Sravana 19.310 ) I. D. 322/2006

(1. D. 3/2001 of labour Court, Ernakulam ) Workman : T.D.Baby . Thekkethala House , K. Kunnu P.O. , Melur , Chalakkudy - 680311. By Adv . K V Bhadra Kumarı .

Management : The Deputy General Manager, Canara Bank. Circle Office . Trivandrum - 695 0.39. By Adv.Raju Abraham Pulpara .

This case coming up for hearing on 25-07-2008 , this Tribunal cum -Labour Court on 1-8-2008 passed the following.

AWARD

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

"Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank in inflicting the punishment of making the workman , Shri T.D.Baby , Peon Canara Bank Chalakkudy to compulsory retire with effect from 20-6-1999 isjustified ? 11'not , what relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. Facts of the case in brief are as follows : Sri. F.D.Baby , the workman was a Peon of Canara Hank. Chalakkudy branch . He joined service on 26-3-1988. While so a charge sheet was issued to him on 21-08-1998 alleging that he had withdrawn an amount of Rs . 40,000/ - from NRE accounts of 2 NRE S.B account holders by using their cheque leaves which were stealthily removed by him from their cheque books while forwarding the cheque books to them and using those cheque leaves he withdrew Rs . 40,000/-by forging the signatures . An enquiry proceeding was initiated . Fle was found guilty of the charges and hewas punished with compulsory retèrement . It is under challenge.

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15, 2008 /कार्तिक 24 , 1930

[ भाग 11-खण्ड 3 ( ⅲ) ]

3. According to the workman though he was not involved in the alleged misappropriation of money, due to the harassment and coercion of the management he remitted Rs.30,000/- and gave a statement of admission ofguilt. The enquiry was conducted without complying with the principles of natural justice . The Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the workman is guilty without valid proof The Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of dismissalwhich was converted into compulsory retirement by the Appellate Authority. The workman sometimes had helped illiterate customers to draw cheques . The Enquiry Officer was carried away by the identification of handwriting in the cheques by some of the management wimesses. But theEnquiryOfficer is not a handwriting expert to compare the handwriting. There is no evidence to show that the workman had received payments under the cheques. The persons who had complained to the bank were not examined. The management witnesses have stated that the drawees of the cheques were present on respective dates ofencashment of cheques . The punishment of compulsory retirement is illegal, disproportionate and is an act of victimisation.

4.According to the management the workman who was a Peon was entrusted with cheque books for sending them to account holders by post . The workman took away three cheque leaves and made use of two cheque leaves for fraudulently withdrawing money from the accounts of two customers . When the workman was questioned on detection of the fraud he remitted Rs . 30,000/- and the balance amount of Rs . 10,000/ - was remitted by the accomplice. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by an officer ofthe bank. Thereafter a charge sheet was issued to the workman and a domestic enquiry was conducted. The workman had given a statement of admission of guilt to the Manager. 13 witnesses were examined and 42 documents were marked on the side of the management. The workman was defended by a defence representative . The management witnesses were cross -examined . Lists of witnesses and copies of documents were given to the workman on time . The Enquiry Officer had compliedwith the principles of natural justice . It is on the basis of the evidence that was adduced before the Enquiry Officer a finding of guilt was recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The copy of the report was given to the workman and Disciplinary Authority heard him regarding punishment. Though the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of dismissal without notice, the Appellate Authority converted it into compulsory retirement on Tamanitarian grounds. The punishment is in proportion to the gravity of the charges . There is no reason to interfere either with the findings or punishment.

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

1. Are the findings sustainable?

6111 2. Is the punishment proportionate?

The evidence consists of oral testimony of MWI and Ext . M1 Enquiry File on the side of the management and WWI and WW2 on the side of the workman.

6. Point No. 1:-The workman Sri .T.D.Baby was a Peon ofCanaraBank, Chalakudy branch from 1988 to 1999, Ext. ME - 1 is the charge sheet. The allegations are that he had stealthily removed three cheque leaves from two cheque books handed over to him by the Tapal Section Clerk for despatch . He utilised two cheques for drawing amounts ofRs.25,000 and Rs . 15,000 respectively by forging the signatures of two account holders who were then working abroad. To the charge sheet the workman did not reply.But he had given a statement of admission ofguilt to the Manager (Ext. ME- 21 ) . No doubt later during domestic enquiry he put forward a contention that Ext.ME - 21 statement was obtained by the management by coercion and threat . However, he has not complained to senior officers of the bank regarding Ext . ME- 21 . That apart when charge sheet was read out and asked about the allegations therein by the Enquiry Officer the workman had admitted the guilt. The case ofthe workman that the statement is not voluntary is only a subsequent thought . Despite the admission management proceeded to prove the charges through an enquiry. 13 witnesses were examined and 42 documents were marked on the side of the management . Though the workman was offered opportunity to adduce defence evidence he did not want to examine any witness or tender any document .

7. MW- 2 Smt. E. M. Sumathy was the clerk at Chalakkudybranch working in the Tapal Section . According to her she had handed over two cheque books for sending them to account holders . MW- 3 Smt . K. S. Girijabhai was supervisor of Tapal Section . According to her she had checked theTapal sent to Sri.C.C.Sebi . She identified the handwriting in Ext. ME-7 cheque as that of the workman. Ext.ME-5 is the cheque book issue register folio 186. Ext . ME- 6 is Tapal Register folio 25 ofthe date 06-10-1997 . 11 shows that the cheque book was issued to Sri.C.C.Sebi and sent to him in the Overseas address . Ext , ME-33 is Tapal Register relevant page of the date 23-08-1997. 11. shows that a cheque book was sent to Sri.P.K. Baby in his foreign address . Later Sri . C. C. Sebi sent Ext .ME- 13 letter and Ext.ME- 12 lawyer notice to the bank stating that Rs.25,000 was withdrawn from his NRE account fraudulently by using cheque No. 9547222 by someone . Similarly Sri .P. K. Baby sent Ext.ME- 27 letter to the bank informing the bank that when he received the cheque book two cheque leaves bearing cheque numbers 080342 and 080343 were missing and he called for details ofhis NRE account . Out of the two cheques to Sri . P. K. Baby, taken out of the cheque book issued, cheque No. 080342 is one of the disputed cheques used for fraudulent transaction and withdrawal of Rs.15,000 6112

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2008/ KARTIKA 24, 1930

8. MW -2 the Sr. Manager of the branch had met the NRE account holders when they returned to India and confirmed that they had not authorised withdrawal of moneyfrom their accounts .

9. MW-10 Sri . T.V. Prabhakaran a Peon of the same branch deposed that cheque No. 9547222 was handed over to him by the workman for encashment . MW -10 wrote token No. in the cheque and received Rs.25,000/- from the cashier . The amount was given to the workman who returned Rs.5,000/-to MW- 10 . Similarly choque No.080342 was handed over to him by the workman for the purpose of enchashment. He wrote token No. 61 and presented the cheque and obtained payment of Rs . 15,000/- . This amount was also given to the workman , but Rs. 5,000/- was returned to him. The witness has identified the handwriting m both cheques as resembling the handwriting of the workitian . Headmitted having remitted Rs .10,000/-by Ext.ME -42 eredit slip to make good the loss on account of the fraudulent transaction , being the money received by him from the workman . This is the admission in chief examination of MW- 10. He also admitted that he had given Exts . MF -22, 25 and38 statements to the Investigating Officer. But in the cross- examination he turned round and said that he had given Exts . MF- 22, 25 and 30 statements to the Investigating Officer due to the threat of the Manager that failureto give a statement would ensue in police complaint and loss of job. He also denied in the cross -examination that the cheques were encashed or amounts were given to the workman . In fact during cross -examination he was asked about the circumstances under which he happened to pay Rs. 10,000 /- to the bank and issue Exts . ME -22 , 25 and 30 statements to the Investigating Officer . Thus the fact remains that MW- 10 had encashed 2 cheques cmrusted by the workman and paid the cheque amounts to the workman.

10. MW1 Sri M.C.Retnakaran was working in cash department at the relevant time . Ile made payment of Ext . ME-7 cheque amount of Rs . 25,000/-. He identifies the handwriting in the cheque as resembling the handwriting ofthe workman . MW- I had given a statement , Ext . ME. 20 10 the Investigating Officer .

11. MW -4 Smt.M.R.Malathy was clerk in the NRE S.B. Account Section . She had given Ext , ME- 16 statement to the Investigating Officer. She identifies the handwriting in Ext . ME- 7 cheque as resembling to that of the workman. She denied that she had issued token No.46 concerming Ex. ME-7 cheque .

12. MW- 6 is the Clerk in cash department. He had given Ext.MLE 37 statement to the Investigating Officer . According to him Ext . ME - 31 NRE cheque for Rs . 15,000- was presented to him tor payment and the amount was paid by him . He identifies the handwriting in Ext . ME - 31 cheque as resembling the handwriting of the workman. However, in the cross -cxamination he stated that the last

[ PART 11-Sec. 3 ( i )] sentence in Ext. ME- 37 statement given to the Investigating Officerwas written up alter it was signed by him . Whatever be the correctness of Ext . ME -37 statement given to Investigating Officer he had admitted before the Enquiry Officer that cheque for Rs . 15,000 /- was presented to him for payment and amount was paid by him and he has also identified the handwriting in Ext . ME- 31 cheque .

13. MW -7 is clerk working in deposit section . (' heque No.080342 for Rs . 15,000 was passed by him . He says that he had not issued token No.61 in respect of the cheque. He also says that other than Saving Bank Supervisor Smt. Vijayalakshuni and himself. nobody else could have issued the token. He also says that the handwriting in Ext . ΜΕ -31 cheque resembles the handwriting of the workman. He had givenExt. ME-35 statement to the Investigating Officer .

14. MW-8 is Smt . F..Vijayalakshmi , an officer ofthe bank. She admits that she had given Exts . ME - 18 and 36 statements to the Investigating Officer. According to her Ext.ME- 7 cheque was passed by the Sr. Manager as the cheque was taken by her to the Sr. Manager due to certain doubt about the signature in the cheque. She denies that she had issued token in respect of lixt . ME- 7 cheque . She admits that Ext . ME - 31 cheque was passed by her. She says that the signature in the cheque had a shaky appearance. She had enquired with the bearer of the cheque and he was asked to sign the cheque on its reverse side . Thereafter the cheque was passed. She also says that the payee of two cheques had been to bank for encashing the two cheques and she had enquired about the dissimilarity in signatures. But she is not able to identify the beater of the cheque . She was then declared hostile at the request of the Presenting Officer. However , the witness was not willing to give any further answers with regard to the incident. The learned counsel for the workman heavily relied on the testimony of this witness on the ground that the witness had seen the payees in the counter and she had verified the signatures in the two cheques . One of the payees admittedly I.L. George was examined as MW9 . He stated that he had not been to bank on 04-11-1997 (0 withdraw any amount from the account of Sri . C. C. Sebi . who is his brother- in - law . He also stated that his brother- in- law had not drawn Ext . ME - 7 cheque . The witness also stated that he had not signed on the reverse side of Ext ME-7 cheque . This cuts at the very root of the statement of MW-8 that Ext.MF- 7 cheque was signed by the bearer of the cheque on its reverse side and the payce had been t the bank for encashment . Except MW - 8 other witnesses identified the handwriting of the workman in Ext . MF -7 and 31 cheques .

15. MWs. - 11 and 12 are Branch Managers and Sr. Manager of Chalakudy branch. They say that the handwriting in Exts . Ml : -7 and 31 is that of the workman . MW-13 is the Investigating Officer who had conducted the preliminary enquiry and submitted Ext . ME- 3 report to the management .

6113

भारत का राजपत्र: मवम्बर 15, 2008/कार्तिक 24 , 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

-16 . The oral and documentary evidence are overwhelming to show the fraudulent transaction by the workman. The oral testimony of MWs-2 and 3 as well as Exts.ME-5 , 6 and 33 records go to show that the cheque leaves could have been taken away only by the workman and none else. The account holders had not complained that the postal covers in which the cheque books were sentwere tampered by the pestal officials during transit. Thus the circumstances point the finger to the workman . Addedto that the very admission of the workman before the management as well as before the Enquiry Officer pin him down to the charges . Therefore, I find that the workman isguilty ofthe charges and the Enquiry Officer has rightly found him so on the strength of the materials on record.

17. Point No.2:- The punishment imposed is compulsory retirement . He was given retiral benefits. The nature of the misconduct is grave. Employees of such character cannot be retained in a banking institution where public money is handled. The bank has to maintain its reputation and command the confidence of customers . This would be geopardised by mischievous acts of the kind in question . I don't think the management could be askedto show more leniency than compulsory retirement ordered by the appellate authority . No doubt the family circumstances of the workman is poor . He has many dependants at home. These mitigating circumstances were taken into account by the appellate authority which persuaded it to convert dismissal to compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits. There is no reason to show any further leniency in the matter.

In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management of Canara Bank in inflicting the punishment ofcompulsory retirement w.e.f. 02-06-1999 is legal and justified and the workman 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 me on this the 1st day ofAugust , 2008.

P. L. NORBERT, PresidingOfficer.

APPENDIX

Witness for the Management

16-06-2003

MWI

Sri.M.C.Retnakaran. Witnesses for the workman

WWI 16-09-2003

T.D.Baby

WW2 16-09-2003

S. Ramakrishnan .

Nil

Exhibit for theworkman

Enquiry File.

Exhibit for the Management

MI Enquiry File and Casual labour Service Card.

4195.GI/08-4

नई दिल्ली, 22 अक्तूबर, 2008

का. आ. 3059.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सैन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , इरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 166/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को22-10-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/324/1995 - आई.आर. ( बी -11 ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 22nd October, 2008

S.O. 3059. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 166/ 2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 22-10-2008 .

[No. L- 12012/324/ 1995- IR( B -11 ) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM Present: Shri P. L. Norbert, B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer

(Wednesday the 6th day of August , 2008/ 15th Sravana 1930) 1. D. No, 166/2006 (J. D. No. 09/1997 of Labour Court , Eruskulam) Union

: TheGeneral Secretary, Central Bank of India Staff Union (Kerala), 41/1757, Paramara Shopping Centre, Ernakulam, Cochin -682018. ByAdv.Sri.H.B.Shenoy .

Management

The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India , Regional Office, 2nd Floor , Geo Towers, Cochin-682016. ByAdv . M/ s.Menon & Pai .

This case coming up for hearing on 28-07-2008, this Tribunal-cum -Labour Court on 06-08-2008 passed the following:-

AWARD

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

"Whether the action of the Management of Central Bank of India in imposing the punishment of 6114

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2008/KARTIKA 24, 1930

[PART 11-Sec . 3 (ii )] withholding six annual increments with cumulative effect and compulsory transfer to Kunnicode branch against the workman Shri M.B. Muralidhara Meлоп on certain alleged charges is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled?"

2. Facts of the case in brief are as follows: The workman Sri . M. P. Muralidhara Menon joined the service ofCentral Bank of India as a Clerk . While he was working at Mattancherry branch he was served with a memo on 24-12-1993 alleging that he had disobeyed the instructions ofhis superior officer and behaved in a derogatory manner to the officer. On the same day in the evening the same officer was assaulted by the workman . An enquiry was conducted and he was found guilty and was dismissed from service. The workman filed an appeal and the appellate authority taking into consideration the mitigating circumstances modified the punishment into stoppage of6 increments with cumulative effect and ordered to transfer him from Mattancherry branch to Kunnicode branch in Trivandrum region . Aggrieved by the said action of the management the workman has raised the dispute through union.

authorityto direct the workman . It is a gross misconduct on the part of the workinan and hence he was proceeded against . He was placed under suspension in the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles ofnatural justice . The employee was allowed to be represented by a urien office bearer . List of documents and witnesses were given to the workman . He was also given copies ofdocuments . He was allowed to compare copies ofdocuments with the originals . The employee was given opportunity to cross - examine witnesses on management side . The workman examined one witness and got marked 25 documents on his side . Both sides submitted argument notes . Thus the enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner . He was found guilty by the Enquiry Officer . Thedisciplinary authority concurred with the findings and proposed punishment of dismissal . The workman was heard by the disciplinary authority regarding the proposed punishment . Thereafter the disciplinary authority ordered dismissal of the employee. In appeal the punishment was modified to stoppage of six increments with cumulative effect considering the pathetic condition ofemployee's family , the number of years of service , his age etc. No wages other than subsistence allowance was permitted by the disciplinary authority till re - instatement. However the period of suspension was treated as continuous service . A very lenient view was taken by the appellant authority. The workman was transferred to Kunnicode branch in the interest of discipline in the establishment . It is not correct to say that the charges were vague. When the charges were read out to the workman and asked whether he had understood the same he answered in the affirmauve. The request for appointment of a lawyer on defence sule was rejected by the Enquiry Officer on the ground that the presenting officer was not a legally trained person and the allegations against the workman was very simple and not complicated and representation by the union secretary was sufficient . No objection was raised by the workman while marking documents on the side of the management. The findings are based on evidence on record. The punishment awarded is proportionate and does not call for any interferenсе . 11 is the rightof the management to suspend an employee before a charge sheet is issued to him. No interlerence either in the findings or punishments are warranted,

5. In the light of the above contentions the following points arise for consideration is :

1. Are the findings sustainable?

3.According to the union the enquiry is vitiated due Lo various reasons . The charge sheet issued to the workman was vague and the allegations were frivolous . A reasonable opportunity of defence was denied to the workman . He was not allowed to be assisted by a lawyer . The request of the workman for engagement of a lawyer was not referred to the Disciplinary Authority for decision . But the Enquiry Officer himself rejected the request . The Presenting Officer was a legally trained person . The documents on the side of the management were not properly proved before marking Several questions put by the defence were not recorded bythe Enquiry Officer. The findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and not hased on materials on record . The punishment of stoppage of 6 increments with cumulative effect is illegal and unjust and against the provisions of first Bipartite Settlement . At any rate the punishment is shockingly disproportionate and excessive . So also the order of transfer to another branch in Trivandrum region is illegal and unjust . The Bipartite Settlement does not empower the management to impose such a purushunent , Denial of wages and other benefits to the workman during the period of suspension amounts to punishment . An employee can be suspended only when an enquiry is pending or ordered. The workman was suspended even before issuing a charge sheet and hence the order or suspension is illegal .

2. Is the punishurent proportionate?

The evidence consists ol' the oral testimony of MW I and documentary evidence of Ext MI on the side of the management and Ext. Wl on the side of the union .

4. According to the inanagement the workman was issued with a memo of charges for disobeying the direction of an officer of the bank to send cheques and 10.Ds for clearance. The workman instead of obeying the duection ofthe officer behaved in a highly derogatory manner . The officer was assaulted by the workman questioning his

6. Point Na, l ;-The workman Sri M.B. Muralidhara Menon was a clerk working in the Clearing Department on 6115 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2008/कार्तिक 24 , 1930

[ भाग -खण्ड 3( ii) ]

the relevant date of 24-12-1993 when the misconduct is said tohave been committed. Sri P. S. Appukuttan Pillai was an officer ofthe Clearing Department . On 24-12-1993 he asked the workman to send cheques and D.Ds. for collection. The workman is said to have questioned the authority ofSri .Appukuttan Pillai to direct him . As per the charge sheet the workman deliberately delayed cheques andD.Ds, for clearance until 28-12-1993 . When the matter was reported to the higher authority by Appukuttan Pillai amemowas issued to the workman on 24-12-1993 . In the afternoon at about 5 p.m. the workman approached Sri Appukuttan, Pillai when most of the staffhad left the bank after the office hours , and assaulted him . Ext.M3 is the memo calling for explanation of the workman for disobeying the direction of a superior officer and misbehaving to a superior officer . The workman sent a reply which is ExtM4 . In the reply the workman denied the allegations and stated that when he received a memo he approached Sri . Appukuttan Pillai and enquired why he had complained against him .Thereupon Sri . Appukuttan Pillai manhandled the workman . This explanation of the workman was not satisfactory to the management . On 04-01-1994 he was suspended from service. Thereafter on 20-01-1994 a charge sheet was issued to him which is Ext.M8 . The charges are:

(1) The workman questioned the authority ofhis superior officer (Sri .Appukuttan Pillai) to direct him for sending cheques and . D.Ds. for clearance and thus misbehaved.

(2) The cheques and D.Ds , which were to be sent for clearance on 24-12-1993 were deliberately delayed by the workman and were sent for collection only 28-12-1993 . This affected the interest ofthe customer .

(3) Annoyed by the complaint of Sri Appukuttan Pillai and consequent to the memo issued, the workman manhandled Sri Appukuttan Piilai .

These acts ofthe workman is said to be misconduct falling under Clause 19.5(e)(g) and (j ) of First Bipartite Settlement. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty ofall the charges.This was confirmed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority.

7. The findings are challenged by the union on the ground that the Enquiry Officer has not properly considered the evidence in reaching the conclusions and that the workman was denied assistance of a lawyer which deprived him ofan opportunity to effectively defend the charges.The Enquiry Officer instead of forwarding his request for assistance ofa lawyer to the disciplinary authority, decided the issue by himselfrejecting the request . This is illegalas per Clause 19.12 (a)( iii) of First Bipartite Settlement . The relevant portion ofthe provision reads : with the bank's permission , by a lawyer " . Ext.M 1 is the Enquiry file. Page 2 of Enquiry proceedings shows that the

workman had made a request for appointing a lawyer on the first day of sitting , but was rejected by the Enquiry Officer on the ground that the Presenting Officer was not a practising lawyer and he was only a junior management scale- 1 officer . He was therefore asked to take the assistance of someone else. Thus he was defended by the General Secretary of the Union . The workman had no case at the time ofrequest for a lawyer that the presenting officer was either a lawyer or a law graduate or a legally trained mind . He merely requested for the assistance of a lawyer . As per Clause 19.12 ( a ) ( iii) of the settlement referred supra a decision on the request has to be taken by the disciplinary authority.However the Enquiry Officer did not forward the request to the disciplinary authority as it was made only on the first day ofenquiry. Had it been sent to management early naturally the enquiry would have been adjourned until request was consideredby the management . The EnquiryOfficer was not informed either by the workman or by the management that the presenting officer was a law graduate . However before this court the union has produced Ext . W 1 leave record ofthe Presenting Officer. It shows that the presenting officerjoined the service ofbank on09-05-1972 as clerk and his qualification is B.Com, LL.B.. CAIIB . This document was not produced before the Enquiry Officer nor did anyone bring to the notice of the Enquiry Officer that the Presenting Officer was a law graduate. When the Enquiry Officer was examined before this court as MWI he said that he was not aware at the time of enquiry that the Presenting Officer was a law graduate . That apart it is not known whether the Presenting Officer at the time ofjoining service in 1972 had all the academic qualifications mentioned in Ext. WI or whether one or moгe were acquired while in service and before the enquiry commenced. Unless these factors were brought to the notice ofEnquiry Officer or the attention of management was drawn the request for assistance of a lawyer could not havebeen favourably considered either by Enquiry Officer or by management . Therefore the Enquiry Officer is not at fault. On the other hand the General Secretary of the Union participated in the enquiry , cross examined management witnesses and adduced defence evidence . Nine witnesses were examined and 23 documents were marked on management side and one witness was examined and 25 documents were marked on the side of the workman , Both sides had submitted argument notes at the end of evidence. At the commencement of enquiry lists of documents and witnesses were provided to the defence . Copies of documents were also furnished to the workman . He was given opportunity to compare copies of documents with their originals . Thus full opportunity was given to the workman to defend and adduce defence evidence. Though charges are for gross misconduct no complicated issues are involved requiring legal expertise . In the above circumstances denial of assistance ofa lawyer has caused no prejudice to the workman . Therefore for that reason the enquiry is not vitiated.

6116

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 15,2008/ KARTIKA 24,

[PART I -- Si- 3 ( ) }

delay caused annoyance and inconvenience to the customers. It is a misconduct within Clause 19.5 (g ) of the settlement . There is the infirmity in the finding of Enquiry Officer regarding Charge No.2 .

8. Charge No. ( 1 ) is that the workman had disobeyed the instructions of his superior officer Sri P.S.Appиконая Pillai to forward cheques and D.Ds. for collection MW- 1 is ' Sri Appukuttan Pillai and he has narrated the incideat of 24-12-1993, MW- 2 is the Accountant Sri M. Narayanan- kutty. MW -3 is K.M.Koshi , Assistant Branch Manager . Both of them heard the workinan shouting at MW - I questioning his authority to direct the workman. DWI was an officer of clearing department. He was on leave on 24-12-93 . Ext.ME - 4 is the reply of workman to the memo calling for explanation . The workman denied the incident DW- 1 is a sub Accountant , examined on the side of the workman. He was in charge of clearing department . But he was on leave on 24-12-93 . Naturally no question was put to him about the incident , but only about the arrears of work in the section . Nobody else was cxamined on defence sude. Therefore as against the evidence on management side there is no defence evidence to challenge the charge that he had disobeyed the instructions of a superior officer and behaved in a derogatory matiner As a result the lenquiry Officer found the workman guilty of charge No ( 1 ) and the finding is based on materials on record.

10. Charge No. 1 is that on 24-12-1993 about 5 p.m. the workman assaulted MWI Hearing the cry of MW - 1 , MW-2 and 4 came to the rescue of MWI and prevented the worker . MW2 was an accountant and MW-1 . a sub- staff of the bank. They were not at the spot at the time of assault, but they were in the bank. When they reached the scene they found furniture and books lying scattered on the floor and the workman standing near MW - I . From the circumstances and appearance of MW- I and workman they suspected that some toward incident must have taken place at the instance of workman MW- I then narrated the incidentto MW -2 and MW -4. They took away the workman from the room . MW cave Ext . M- 3 complaint to the Regional Manager . He also gave Ext .M - 5 staternear to tite bank about the incidean , MW- 4 also gave Ext .M -10 statement to the bank. The case of workmanin Ext. M-4 reply to the memo dated 24-12-1993 is that he had not misbehaved to MW - 1 . According to him it was MW-i who had assaulted the workman when he approached MW- 1 enquiring about the complaint given against han . Other than Ext . M- 4 reply no evidence was adduced by the workman before the Enquiry Officer to substantiate his case that it was the officer who had assaulted him and not vice versa It is important 10 note that the workman had not given a reply to the charge sheet dated 20-01-1994 (Ex.181. The evidence on management side go to show that the allegation regarding physical attack on MW- l is true .

11. There is suflicient evidence on record to conclude that the workman did commit the misconduct alleged against him . No evidence worth mentiomng was adduced on the defence side, to challenge the charge Hence there is no reason todiffer from the findings of Finquiry Officer 9. The 2nd charge is that the workınan was late to send the cheques and D.Ds. for clearance . He was entrusted with cheques and D Ds on 24-12-1993 for clearance. But he sent them only on 28-12-1993 .Accordingto MW - Ion 24-12-93 134 cheques were given to the workınan for clearance . But the workman did not forward them as instructedby MW - 1. Exts.M- 12 to 21 are vouchers relating to 134 cheques . MW-2 the Accountant stated before the Enquiry Officer that he bad handed over these cheques to the Clearing Department on the dates of vouchers i e , on 21-12-1993,22-12-1993 and 23-12-1993 . DW- 1 was actually in charge of the clearing section. On 24-12-1993 he was on leave. According to DW - 1 ( cross examination) en 24-12-1993 231 choques were received in the clearing section . He says . that on an average every day 230 choques were being received in the bank . He also admits that as per Exts.M - 12 to 21 vouchers the cheques referred in the vouchers were lodged in clearing department . He admits that as per the register on 24-12-1993 231 cheques were received for clearance . The next working day was 27-12-1993 . DW-I had resumed daty on that day . Only 73 cheques were received on that day for clearance. But according to him wiher cheques might have reached clearingdepartment in the A. N. of 23-12-1993 . But MW- I and 2 do not admit that. According to them all the 134 cheques in question were handed over to the clearing department on 24-12-1993 itself. It is relevant to note that in Ext.M -4 reply of the workman he does not say that cheques in question were not received in the clearing departmem either on 24-12-1993 or on the F.N. of 27-12- 1993. He merely dentes the allegations No reply to the charge sheet was submitted. Thus 134 cheques and D.Ds. were sent for collection only on 28-12-1993 . Naturally the

12. Point No.2 : [ he punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority was disrussal from service. On appeal this was converted to stoppage of 6 increments with cumulative effect. According to the learned counsel for the union the punishmetu is harsh and excessive . It is seen from the appellate order page o that the appellate authority was moved by the pathetis condition of appellate's family , number of years of service in the bank, the age of the workman and his regret for the misconduct and so reduced the punishment from dismissal 10 stoppage of 6 increments with cumulative effect and also ordered to transfer him from Mattancherry branch to Kannicode branch of Trivandrum region. Thus, the Appellate Authority has taken into considerarion the mitigating circumstances . What more is tobe considered by this court is not pointed out by the union. Moreover , it is not a punishment falling within S.11 -A of Industrial Disputes Act in order to interfere with the punishment . Clause 19.64d ) of first Bipartite Settlement provides for stoppage of increments Of course the भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15, 2008 /कार्तिक 24 , 1930

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

provision does not specify that it is with or without cumulative effect . But in the absence of any qualification to the punishment of stoppage of increment it is the discretion of the management to decide whether the stoppage of increment should be with or without cumulative effect . $ .3 (27 ) of General Clauses Act defines * imprisonment " ; " imprisonment shall mean imprisonment ofeither description as defined in the Indian Panal Code". Adopting the same meaning Clause 19.6( d ) ofthe settlement could mean stoppage of increment with or without cumulative effect . Therefore the penalty imposed is not violative ofany terms ofBipartite Settlement . The order to transfer the workman to Kunnicode branch ofTrivandrum region is said to be a punishment according to the union . But it is only an administrative order considering the exigencies in the bank . It is not a punishment and the court cannot interfere with it.

13.Itwas then contended by the learned counsel for the union that during the period of suspension he was given only subsistence allowance . Since the appellate authority has ordered reinstatement (with the penalty of stoppage of six increments with cumulative effect) he is entitled to get full wages for the suspension period. Clause 19.12(b) relevant portion reads : " and if some punishment other than dismissal is inflicted, the whole or a part ofthe period of suspension , may , at the discretion of the management,be treated as on duty with the right to a corresponding portion of the wages , allowances , etc" . Therefore it is the discretion of the managerment to decide inwhat manner the period of suspension should be treated. Hence the court cannot interfere with the administrative decision ofthe management . Thus none ofthe contentions of the union is sustainable .

Inthe result an award is passed finding that the action ofthe management of Central Bank ofIndia in imposing the punishment of withholding six annual increments with cumulative effect against Sri M. B. Muralidhara Menon is legal anjustified and the order of transfer is not an order of punishment and there is no illegality in the order of transfer. The workman 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 me on this the 6th day of August , 2008 .

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer

Appendix

Nil .

Witness for the workman

Witness for theManagement

MWI 30-01-2002 -M.Sethu Madhavan Exhibit for the workman

6117 WI 09-07-2002

Leave record ofSri . K. P. Unnikrishnan . Exhibit for the Management 30-01-2002 MI Enquiry File. नई दिल्ली, 22 अनंतूबर , 2008

का.आर. 3060,--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सैन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक धिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. -1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 94/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/ 18/1998- आई.आर. ( बी ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the22nd October , 2008 S.O. 3060.-- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 94/1998) of Central Government Industrial Tribunaleum - Labour Court No 1 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Bank of India and their workman, received by the Central Government on 22-10-2008 .

[No. L- 12012/18/ 1998- IR ( B - II ) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.L, DHANBAD In the matter of a referance u/ s 10 ( 1 ) (d)( 2A ) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Reference No. 94 of 1998

Employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India

And Their Wokmen

Present: Shri H. M. Singh , Presiding Officer . APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : Shrì H. Nath , Advocate .

For the Workman Shri C. Prasad, Advocate .

State:Bihar Industry: Bank 6118

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15, 2008 / KARTIKA 24 , 1930

[PART II- Suc . 3 ( ii) ] Dated , the 12thAugust, 2008

AWARD

ByOrder No. 1-12012 / 18/ 98 /IR( B - 11 ) dated 8/9-10- 1998 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 2 (A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. raferred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India , Gaya in dismissing Shri Raj Kishore Prasad, clerk from service w.e.f. 3-11-1992 is legal and justitied? If not, what relief the said workman is entitled to?"

2. The workman has filed written statement stating that he has been performing his duties with unblenished record of service and he was appointed as sub - staff in the Bank in the year 1969 at patna Main Branch and continued as such till 22-9-79 . Later on he was promoted as Clerk and posted at Nawada Branch and was transferred to Manpur Branch in the year 1980. He was prmoted to the post of clerk in accordance with para 9.2 of the Bank's Promotion policy agreement being placed in First Divsion from Hindi Vidyapeeth . As he passed Praveshika Examination of'l tindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar in the first Division in the year 1979 and on the basis of the said certificate issued by Hinda Vidyapeeth , Deoghar, the concerned workman appeared in the 1. A. Examination from Maghadh University in the year 1990 and passed with second Division and he worked as Clerk in the Bank for 13 years with all satisfaction to his superiors . The managerment issued him a Memo No GRO DAW/88/346 dated 9-12-88 alleging therein amongst other asfollows:

" It has now come to the Bank's notice that Sri Raj Kishore Prasad has made a false declaration regarding his passing parveshika Examination in the First divistion and theCertificate/ Marksheet submitted by him to the bank are bogus"

but one paragraph of the report , the Enguiry Officer. has said that the misconduct charged'alleged in the chargesheet hasbeen proved. It is reported , under the pressure of the management but in the last paragraph of his finding his concluded finding is clearly in favour of disproving the charge levelled against the concerned workman which clearly indicates by the averinent of the Enquiry Officer that the enguiry officer himself came to the conclusion that the examination under the name of Praveshika Examination 1977 of Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar was conducted at Centre other than the one authaised by the Hindi Vidyapeethe , Deoghar and lastly he says , it appears that the CSE fell to the design of such centre , probably negligently , as against intentional malafide , " The Disciplinary Authority should have passed hisorder of punishment taking into consideration of "against intentional malalide " , but he ignored this imponant finding of the Enquiry Officer . The concerned workman appealed against his order of dismissal to the Appellate Authority but the Appellate Authority rejected his appeal and upheld the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority. The management has inflicted punishment to the concerned workman disproportionately . The dismissal of the concerned workman is colourable excrcise of the power of the management and it is outcome ofunion revalry which the management favoured another union and crushed the concerned workman due to trade union activities. The management has adopted discreminatory attitude and this proves the malatide intention of the management towards the concerned workman to the effect that the same nature of offences committed by Sarbadanand Singh, Sub- staff, Fraser Road, Patna, U.P. Singh, clerk of Kalambey Road Branch , Muzaffarpur Region and Surajdeo Singh ofGaya Branch and Laxmi Say of Dumka Branch were settled by intlicting minor punishments whereas the case of the concerned workınan was n considered by the management at their level or before the Conciliation Officer , Patna. It is gross violation of natural justice and enquiry . The action of the management is vindictive , coercive , arbitrary , motivated and colourable exercise of power and against the principles of natural justice. Thedismissal of the concerned workman is illegal and invalid and is a case of victimisation. The management has adopted unfair labour practice and violated the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. The management of the Bank is guided by bipartite settlement , The Union craves leave to add , amend or modify the written statement as and when necessary with the permission of this Hon'ble Tribunal and to tile rejoinder to the written statement to be filed by the management .

The concerned workman submitted his explanation denying the charges levelled against him. The Disciplinary Authority of the management did not find explanation satisfactory and issued a chargesheet No.GRO /DA/89/ 112 Dated 13/24-5-89 and appointed an Enguiry Officer . The concerned wrkman denied the charges levelled against him in the chargesheet . The management constiuted a fake enquiry and Enquury Officer was appoimed to conduct the enguiry proceeding against the concerned workman hut could not afford full opportunity to the concerned workman. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted false and perverse report prepared under the pressure of the management and rival Union . In the last

Ithas been prayed that the action of the managerment ofCentral Bank of India, Craya, in dismissing the concerned 6119 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2008 /कार्तिक 24 , 1930

[ भाग [ I- खण्ड 3 (ⅱ) ]

workman , Raj Kishore Prasad, Clerk, from sevice w.e.f. 3-11-1992 is not legal and justified and the managemnt of theBank may kindly be directed to re- instate the concered workman w.e.f. 3-11-1992 with full backwages.

3. Rejoinder has been filed by the workman stating therein that he was appointed in the year 1969 and he was not transferredto Gaya Branch in the year 1978 , rather the Divisional office was shifted to Gaya from Patna, and the concerned workman was posted as Daftary and he had to shift alongwith other authorities of the Divisional Office. The written statement of the management has been admitted in para 4 save and except the date mentioned as 5-2-1978 which is correctly dated 3-2-78 in the marksheet . It has been denied that the concerned workman had submitted a false and fabricated Praveshika Certificate because the management is required to strict proof thereof becasue the concerned workman submitted his reply on 30-12-88 ascertaining the genuineness of the certificate . It is submitted that Sri D. Ram was not appointed as defence representative at all at any time during the fake enquiry and no full opportunity was given to the concerned workman to defend his case. The enquiry was held against all canons ofnaturaljustice . It has been mentioned that the management has adopted a discreminatory attitude by exonerating one employee from the same allegation and punishing other even to major punishment of dismissal . In this respect as award passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal , Patna in Reference No. 6 (c ) of 1997 in which it is clearly mentioned that there has been Trade Union rivalry and there was unfortunate dispute in the name of backward and forward classes in the Bank.The saidAward corroborate the reality of discriminatory attitude ofthe management in the name of forward caste , they are exonerated from the charges and others are punished. It is submitted that due to bias and vindictive attitude, the AppellateAuthority dismissed the appeal of the concerned workman and the management adopted partition atitude by harassing the concemed workman .

The workman has prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to hold that the action of the management in dismissing the concerned workman is not justified and the concerned workman is entitled for re- instatement with full back wages ,

Hindi Vidyapith , Deoghar, in the First Division held in the year 1977. He demanded his promotion from the post of sub- staffto the post of a clerk in pursuance of para 9.2 of theBanks Promotion Policy Agreement for award staff. On the basis ofhis aforesaid representation , the management promoted him as clerk by order dated 22-9-79 and he continued as such from that date . In the year 1988 the concernedworkman played a fraud upon the management in submitting a false and fabricated Praveshika Certificate and obtained the promotion from the post of sub-staff to the post of a clerk taking advantage ofthe Bank Promotion Agreement . The matter was enquired and a memo dated 9-12-88 was issued to the concerned workman calling explanation from him with regard to the allegation that he produced false and fabricated documents to get advantage of promotion from the Bank . The concerned workman submitted his reply dated 30-12-88 ascerting that the certificates submitted by him were genuine and he passed his praveshika certificate from the Deoghar Vidyapith in the year 1977. The explanation ofthe Concerned workman was not found satisfactory and the chargesheet dated 24-5-89 was issued to him framing the charges against him and putting him on departmemal enquiry, Sri K.K. Sharma, Deputy Chief Officer, Gaya Branch, was appointed as Enquiry Officer by order dated 5-6-89 and appointed Shri P.K. Roy , Sub Accountant of the same branch as the management representative relating to the enquiry to be conducted against the workman on the charges levelled against him , Departmental enquiry was held by Sri K.K. Sharma after issuing necessary notices on number of dates. The first sitting was held on 14-9-90 . The concerned workman appointed Sri B.R. Pandey and Sri D. Ram as defence representative on different dates . The departmental enquiry was held in presence of the chargesheeted workman and his defence representatives on all dates , and they were given full opportunity to cross -examine the management's witnesses , to give their own statements and to produce their defence witnesses . The departmental enquiry was held fairly and properly in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report dated 1-5-91 holding the concerned workman guilty of the charges levelled against him. The disciplinary authority issued the second show cause dated 29-8-92 enclosing therewith a copy of the enquiry report and the releveant papers , permitting him to submit his representation . The concerned workman submitted his represenation and the disciplinary authority heard the case on 28-10-92 and gave full opportunity to the concerned workman to submit his representation and explanation relating to the findings ofthe Enquiry Officer. After being fully satisfied with the charges levelled against the concerned workman , by order dated 3-11-92 the 4. The management has filled written statement stating that the concemed workman, Raj Kishore Prasad was appointed as sub - staff in the year 1969 and was posted at Patna Main Branch and later on he was transferred to Gaya Branch . He submitted an application dated 6-1-79 alongwith an attested copy of the marksheet dated 5-2-78 and Provisional Praveshika Certificate dated 3-2-78 asserting that he had passed Praveshika Examination of 6120

HE GAZETE OF INDIA 15,2008/ KARTIKA 24, 19

managerment dismistedium Hora service with imme effect . The concerned workman flied an appeal 30-12-92 to the Appeliate Authority which we demise having ne merit is the grounds of his appeal it las submitted that the action of the manager dismissing the corowed workman from his

legal, bonatiće and justified and se is not call to anyrelief.

In rejonder, it has semented at the wor concerned has not maintained unblemished service during nis service care it has niso been that the concerned workman has noi passed pra Examination from Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar da th 1979. He submitted deeranen's perported to be mars start and examination certificare indicating there that he a in the examination in the year 1977 and puste te examination in first Division The aforesaid docus submitted by the wuncemed workman were bu false and fabricated amalfi assertions of the song workman are baseless and imagery. It is bemark that the manage consulted fase en

Enquiry officerpented my the management and full appertuntyd so santo be defr ..

It is also denied petherosby Oficer geh under the pressure

suggest that the busy came to wrong relating to the charge lesribed against the

workman. All these slices are false. hag imaginery and the waz ang denia! The

passed his order os penisin aller скачат

record and evidence of the preserved the punishment impased upon the corgernetu v was disproportinate to the conduct com

It is incorrect that besapacentented

altitude towards difierent worl.menhaving

same nature ofof the maлад пачин ручье according te grave the encenda ..

circumstances catgodde

wrong to suggerit acte, mai imposing defincat perds ditfront worke been prayed the an were passed that the workman is not extiles su

5. The contuar pasuesh

" WW- 1 and the soslanec have lieu xerr

of India dated 20-1-19

Reference Noe sy flasi

matrer of disciplicata.S and also Bi -partire seront dated 0-3-1092

6. The moment es seduced MW... Kumar Roy and le rooved Ext M - 1 , M -3. AM-3.MM .

PART 11 ---Stc. 3 ( u )] 7. The representatives of the learned perties have been heard regarding lasemess of domestic inquiry . It has been found by this Trinetai - 7-2002 that the domestic enquiry was held to be fairand proper

S. The learned count the workmen argued that theworkman was awardement dis - proportionately .

It has been relèmed by the presetative of the workman a decision ofHon'ble supum.court reported in 1983 superme court caves ( L& S ) 2ti , in whom hic Superne Court laid down that punishment st he proportionate to the misconduct-facts and crucistances of the case must justify dismissal - dismissalise of indiscreet , indecend or threating language tector only once in the course of long unblemished vice . held . disproportinately excessive . In the presenti not the case of indecent or thresting language wor, but this case is of irand on the part of the concerns . In the case of bank

s . Mandhvikur and others India and another vs

the flon'ble superine count reported in 2005 Lab.

Dispates Act , Sch.2 , Item Luid down Section 19 -ind

employee - Appointstent 6- Ferrnmation of servis

shsained by producing fate certificate obtained ten years after appointincak layed reference to caste scrutiny committee same is fraud does not invalidate reteren.noftermination of service held proper In ilns respostase of 2004 AIK SUW 119 and AIR 2004 SC ble supreme court faid down that a person we obtained the p עתהרוק illegitimate means west omringe to enjoy it not awitin standing the clear in dinge des not even have a shadow of right even suered for appointines .

So, as per law laid do . ila hie Supreme Court, by producing faise certificate the person has got no right ter bein service.

9. Another argoed by the workan is but in the case of c cu preducing false certificate a lenientvwebsi. by the manageme On wrong footing cans

Parity of another person whe has done wrong wrong has not been considered by the inanagrand because paper filed by the workman regardekelerence Nodicial : 997 proving that there is Thaucis in the management.

Rival union does not restin case of any person and a persa cannot takedge of that , though the management regarding git case Quly sis increments have been stopped per The record of UP. Singh is tail there , so it canu . what circumstances seemg the background angerment has adopted Lenient attiude by stoppentements permanents .

10. The certificate been produced by the 6121 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15, 2008/कार्तिक 24, 1930

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

the time of handing over the original certificate and marksheet issued by Hindi Vidyapeet, Deoghar, I was not given any receipt by the management in that regard. The management is an institution . It is necessary, he has glyen original certificate and marksheet issued byHindi Vidyapeel, Deoghar for which no receipt has been issued because of the fact that the above witness has stated when I was not granted the receipt I had made the complaint before the higher authority. I had not made any written complaint, rather verbalty 1 had made complaint before the Higher authority. The concerned workman is an office bearer of the union . It is not believable that he will make only oral complaint regarding his original certificate of Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar , for giving to the management and the management has not issued any receipt . It only shows that only tries to fool the management on his part .

12.The management after enquiry has given the copy of enquiry report and sufficient opportunity to the concerned workman for his representation dt. 29-8-92.for proposed punishment and after submission of his representation Ext.M - 1 dated 30-12-92 against order of imposing penalty. Final order has been passed byAppellate Authority by Ext.M-6 dated 26-6-93 . In the enquiry the workman produced witnesses , of Harish Chandra Prasad Satyajit Kumar Verma , K.D.P. Singh , Parmod Kumar Verma and Ashok Kr . Azad as D.W.I to D.W.5 and the management adduced evidence ofG.K. Jha and B.P. Singh as M. W. 1 and M.W.2 . ME- 7 in the enquiry report which is letter issued by Kul Sachiv , Hindi Vidyapeeth , Deoghar addressed to Satarkata Adhikari , Central Bank of India Patna Zonal Office, containing therein that the persðil whose name is not enrolled the question of passing in the examination does not arise,

13. In the circumstances , in the present case frabd has been committed by the concerned workman by giving false certificate got promotion in the Bank. As per lawla ال down by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2004 Alk SCW 419 and AIR 2004 SC 1469, by filling such certificate theworkmen is liable to be terminated. I find that in Bank's service which is custodian of public money, such a person should not be allowed to remain in the service of the bank,

14. As per discussion made above I render following award:-

Examination 1977 of Hindi Vidyapith , Deoghar. Ex .DE- 10 in the enquiry paper shows that it was issued by the Indu Sinha , Kendra Vidyapith , Sunderpur, Gaya and by MW -2 in enquiry report, who is Senior Office Assistant ofHindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar, working there since September, 1966. Hehastestified in respect ofME-7 which is letter originated from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar , the examination conducting body and addressed to Satarkata Adhikari, Central Bank of India, Patna, Zonal Office, which states that Raj Kishore Prasad was not even registered for PraveshikaExamination, 1977 ofHindi Vidyapeeth , Deoghar. It also states that their passing of examination or obtaining certificate is out of question . It has also been stated by MW-2 that the examination Centre for Gaya, of the said examination was Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia College, Sunderpur , Pandri , Gaya, where the concerned workman did not appear. The concerned workman has cross- examined that Sanskrit High School , Sunderpur, Gaya, was the centre for the said examination . The name of Sanskrit High Schooldoes not figure in any of the documents to prove their contentions i.e. Sanskrit High School , Sunderpur, Gaya, has been projected as the centre of the said examination . The concerned workman has produced DW-5 to prove that Sanskrit High School , Sunderpur, Gaya was a centre for the said Praveshika Examination , 1977 of Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar, where DW- S is the office clerk of Sanskrit High School , Sunderpur working since 1976. The EnquiryOfficer has found that the authorized centre to conduct the siad examination for Gaya by the Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar, was Dr. Ram Manohr Lohia College, Sunderpur, Pandri , Gaya and the concerned workman has not claimed to have appeared at that centre and the concerned workman has not presented any document from Hindi Vidyapeeth , Deoghar , authorising Sanskrit High School , Sunderpur , Gaya , to conduct Praveshika Examination , 1977. On the basis of said documents which did not originate shows that the concerned workman by producing false certificate got his promotion though he has submitted attested copy of marksheet and provisional Praveshika Certificate 1977 dated 3-2-78 for proving his passing the Praveshika Examination held by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar, in First Division . When he is not even enrolled for 1977 Examination how he could pass above examinationbyHindi Vidyapeeth , Deoghar and there are two schools--one is Primary School and other is Sanskrit High School , Gaya. The original certificate has not been filed by the concerned workman , only attested copy has been filed only to get his promotion . As per enquiry report page 4, para 2 it has been found that the original certificate bewith Raj Kishore Prasad, the concerned workman.

The action of the management of Central Bank of. India, Gaya, in dismissing Shri Raj Kishore Prased, Clerk from service w.e.f. 3-11-1992 is legal andjustified and the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

H.M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer 11. The concerned workman , Raj Kishore Prasad (MW- 1 ) has stated in cross - examination at page 2 that at

4195 G1/08-5 6122

PH CRAZEGLE OF INDIA NOVOER 15.2008 /KARTTA 21, 10

नई दिल्ली , 22 अबट्या, 200%

का, आ. 3061, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियः (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में कंन्द्रीय जे . एम. बी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबंद्ध नियोजकों और नर्क चीच, अनुत्रन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में कन्द्रीय सरकार शांतिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , नण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 2721 को प्रकाशित करती है . जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2008 कर हुआ था ।

[सं. एन-23012/24/2002 आई आरर सोम अजय कुमार गौड़ , हेस्क ऑधकारी New Delhi , the 22nd October , 2008

S.O. 3061. In pursuance of Section the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947( 14 of 1947 ) , the Conrta! Government hereby publishes the award [ Ref. No 217 2K5) of the Central Gow. Industrial Tribunal -cum- זול Court No. 2. Chandigarh as shown in the Ammexic the Industrial Dispute between the management of BGMB, and their worknen , received by the Central Gos critiment оп 22-10-2008.

[No. L-2301224 /2002-IR/ CV -11 AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Oker

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1:, CHANDIGARH

Presiding Offcier:

Shri Kuldip Singh Case No. ID 217 /2K5

Registered on : 3-8-2005

Date of Decision 5 9-2008

Shree Mohan Se St. Bal Rana Co Sh . R. K. Sagn Pannar , 211-1 Brari , P.O. Pantap Nagar , Nangal Dam . Dat Ropar,Ropar.

PARTS 30

AWARD

The following reference was received from Ministry of Labour, Govermament Indis in the adjudication ofthis Tribunal ; Vide Their onder No. 1-23012-24/2002 - IR ( CM - II ) Dated 4-11-2003 ,

"Whether the action of the management of BBMB, Nangai Peru, Nangai in terminating the services of Sh . Shure Mohan Szo Lal Ram we f . 30-9-96 is legal ana justitied ? If not to what retief the workman is emit .

The notice ofthe ref was given to the parties who appeared through the tepresentative: - atad filed their pleadings such as statements of claum , written statement . affidavit witness of the snagement The matter was fixed for the evidence of the ikman when a talk about the settlement of the dispus the Lok Adalat was intiated The earlier efforts failed izdi today similar cases were fixed before CGIT- 1, Chandigarh in which the parties settled the matter in the Lok Adalat . Prompted by that the representative of the wkman submitted before this Tribunal that he is ready : settle the matter on the terms agreed to by the Maragement in similar cases today. Although the case was fixed for consideration on 15th of October, 2008, yet at the ed of representatives of the parties the file was sunt form the records and taken up for consideration .

Both the representatives of the workman and Shri V.K. Sharma, fixecutive Engineer, BBMB, the concerned officer , have made joint latentent that the Managemenm shall consider the case of the workman wathin reasonable time in the liglu of the citester No. 3624-43 / R & R/ 466/99 Vol. 111/R-5 dated 21 stor Marsh. 2001 and the policy of the BBM . In view of this the workman withdraws his claim made in the reference .

Since the parties have compromised in the Lok Adalau therefore, there remains do dispute between them which can be adjudicated upon by the this Tribunal. The reter- ence is, therefore , answered in these terms and the award is passed.

Petitioner

Versus

The Chief Engineer, BBMB. Nangal Township . Distret Ropar,Ropar .

KUIDIP SINGI . Presiding Orizce नई तिम्यों 22 अक्टूबर, 2008

...Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the workınan : Mr. R. R. Singh Parmar . Ak For the management Mr. Bhagat Singh . LawOfficer . AR

का. आ.3062, औगक विवाद अधिनियम, 147 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुयगण में केन्द्रीय सरकार श्री. ची. एम. वी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के श्रोत्र, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , चण्डीगढ़ वं गचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 282.2K5 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22 10-2003 कां प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल- 23012018/2002 आईआरसीएम || ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डैस्क अधिकारी [ भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6123 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15, 2008/कार्तिक 24 , 1930

New Delhi , the 22nd October, 2008

S.O. 3062. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947( 14 of 1947), the Central Govemment hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 282/ 2K5) of the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , No. 2 Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of BBMB, and their workmen, received by the Central Governinent on 22-10-2008.

[No. L-23012/ 18/2002 -IR(CM- II )] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

management . The matter was fixed for the evidence ofthe workman when a talk about the settlement ofthe dispute in the LokAdalat was initiated . The earlier efforts failed but today similar cases were fixed before CGIT -1 , Chandigarh in which the parties settled the matter in the Lok Adalat . Prompted by that the representative of the workman submitted before this Tribuna ! that he is ready to settle the matter on the terms agreed to by the Management in similar cases today. Although the case was fixed for consideration on 15th of Oct, 2008 , yet at the request of representatives ofthe parties the file was summoned from the records and taken up for considerazion .

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT- IL, SCTOR18A, CHANDIGARH

Presiding Officer:

Shri Kuldip Singh

Case No. ID 282/2K5

Both the representatives of the workinan and Shri V.K.Sharma, Executive Engineer, BBMB, the concerned officer, have made joint statement that the Management shall consider the case of the workman within reasonable time in the light of the Circular No. 3624-43 /R& R/466/99/ Vol. III/R- S dated 21st of March , 2001 and the policy ofthe BBMB. In view of this the workman withdraws his clainı made in the reference .

Registered on: 15-10-2005

Date ofDecision : 5-9-2008

Since the parties have compromised in the Lok Adalat, therefore, there remains no dispute between them which can be adjudicated upon by the this Tribunal . The refer- ence is, therefore , answered in these terms and the award is passed.

Sh. Makhtiar Singh S/ o Sh . Dalip Singh Rio Chowgath , P. O. Proian, Tehsil Una , Distt . Una C/o Sh . R. K. Singh Parmar, 211 - L Brari , P.O.Partap Nagar , Nangal Dam , Distt.Ropar, Ropar.

KULDIP SINGH , Presiding Officer

...Petitioner

नई दिल्ली, 22 अक्तूबर, 2008 Versus

The Chief Engineer , BBMB, Nangal Township, District Ropar,Ropar.

...Respondent

APPEARANCE

For theworkman : Mr. R. K. Singh Parmar , AR.

का. आ. 3063.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केंन्द्रीय सरकार बी. बी. एम. वी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 2 : 6/ 2K5 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

For the management : Mr. Bhagat Singh , LawOfficer, AR

[सं. एल -23012/ 26/2002- आई. आर. (सीएम-11 ) ] AWARD

अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the22nd October , 2008 Thefollowing reference was received from Ministry ofLabour, Government of India for the adjudication of this Tribunal ; Vide Their order No. L- 23012/ 18/2002 -IR( CM - II ) Dated4-11-2003.

*Whether the action of the management ofBBMB , Nangal Dam, Nangal in terminating the services of Sh . Mukhtiar Singh Sto Sh. Dalip Singh w.e.f. 30-9-96 is legal and justified ? Ifnot to what reliefthe workman is entitled? "

S.D. 3063.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 216/ 2K5) ofthe Central Govt . Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute herween the management of BBME . and their workmen, received by the Central Govemment on22-10-2008.

[No. L -23012/26/ 2002 - IR(CM - II ) ] The notice ofthe reference was given to the parties who appeared through their representatives and filed their pleadings such as statements of claim , written statement , affidavits of workman and that of witness of the

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15, 2008/KARTIKA 24 , 1930

6124

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II , SCTOR 18A, CHANDIGARH

PresidingOffcier:

Shri Kuldip Singh Case No. ID 216/2K5

Registered on : 8-9-2005

Date ofDecision: 5-9-2008

Pawan Kamar S/ p Sh . Kishori Lal Ro Village Neilla, P, O. Olinda, Tehsil Nainadevi , District Bilaspur (H.P) ::

[PART 11--SEC.3 (il)] shall consider the case of the workman within reasonable time in the light of the Circular No 3624-43 /R & R/466/99/Vot III/R- 5 dated 21st of March. 2001 and the policy of the BBMB. In view of this the workman withdraws his claim made in the reference

KULDIP SINGH. Presiding Officer नईदिल्ली, 22 अक्तूबर, 2008

...Petitioner

Versus

The Chief Engineer . BBMB . Nangal Township , District Ropar, Ropar.

Respondent

APPEARANCE

For the workman : Mr. R. K. Singh Parmar, AR.

For the management : Mr. Bhagat Singh, LawOfficer , AR

AWARD

The following reference was received from Ministry ofLabour ,Government of India for the adjudication of this Tribunal; Vide their order No. L -23012/ 26/ 2002- IRILM - II ) Dated 4-11-2003.

" Whether the action of the manageinent of BBMB , Nangal Dam , Nangal in terminating the services of Sh . Pawan Kumar Sio Sh. Kishori Lal w.e.f. 30-9-96 is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled?"

The notice of the reference was given to the parties whp appeared through their representatives and filed their pleadings such as statements of claim , written statement , effidavits of workman and witness of the management . The matter was fixed for the evidence of the workman when a talk about the settlement of the dispute in the Lok Adalat was initiated . The earlier efforts failed but today similar cases were fixed before CGIT - 1, Chandigarh in which the parties settled the matter in the Lok Adalat . Prompted by that the representative of the workman submitted before this Tribunal that he is ready to settle the matter on the torms agreed to by the Management in similar cases today. Although the case was fixed for consideration on 15th of Opt , 2008, yet at the request ofrepresentatives ofthe parties the file was suminoned from the records and taken up far consideration.

Both the representatives of the workman and Shri V.K.Sharma, Executive Engineer, BBMB , the concerned officer, have made joint statement that the Management का. आ.3064.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारः । के अनुसरण में कंन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय खाद्य निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबंद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औइंगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 66/2004 ) की प्रकाशित करती है , जो कंन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/318: 20003-आई.आर. ( सीएम ][ ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 22nd October, 2008 S.O. 3064. pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947/14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Rel . No. 66/2001 ) ofthe Central Govt . Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industriat Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India, and their workman , received by the Central Government on 22-10-2008 .

No. 1-22012318/ 2003 - IR ( CM- II) | AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer .

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - COM - LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW Present: N. K. Parobit . Presiding Officer- I. D. No. 66/2004 Ref. No.1-22012/ 318 2003 IR ( CM - 11 ) di . 30-6-2004 BETWEEN

The State Secretary ,

Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Kararnchari Sangh, 5-6, Habibullah Estate, Hazratganj Lucknow - 226001

( In the matter of Sri P.D. Sawant ) {भाग 11- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15, 2008/कार्तिक 24, 1930

AND

The Sr. Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India 5-6Habibullah Estate , Hazratganj Lucknow

AWARD

1. By order No. L- 22012 /318/2003 - JR(CM- II ) dated 30-6-2004: he Central Govemment in the Ministry ofLabour, New Delhi in exercise ofpowers conferred by clause (d) of sub section ( 1 ) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between the State Secretary , Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karamchari Sangh, Lucknow and the Sr. Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Lucknow for adjudication.

क्या प्रबंधन , भारतीय खाद्य निगम , लखनऊ द्वारा कर्मकार श्री पी. डी. सावन्त , ए. जी. । ( डी ) का दण्डादेश संख्या सतर्कता 4( 1211 ) आर ओ. , लखनऊ 199 दिनाक 28-4-2003 के द्वारा दण्ड दिया जाना उचित तथा न्यायसंगत है। यदि नहीं तो सम्बंधित कर्मकार किस अनुतोष का हकदार है?

2.Background facts in nutshell are as follows: -- Sri P.D. Sawant , Asstt . Gr.1 (Depot) was charge- sheeted by the opposite party vide memo dated 1-1-2002 alleging following charges against him .

ARTICLE - I

ThatSri P.D. Sawam , AG - I (D ) did not maintain proper records about supervision of wagons , security arrangement enroute between Godown and Rail Head and records complaints received from destination and consignment claims.

ARTICLE - 11

He did not attend the destinations for settlement of complaint andjoint inspection/weighment ofstocks under complaint.

ARTICLE-111

He being Depot Incharge found responsible abnormal transit loss , of 188.98.27 Qrls . Of wheat and rice in rakes dispatched Ex . Unnao during Feb. to May, 1996.

ARTICLE- IV

That he recorded a shortage of702.11.000 Qtls . In an inward rake ofwheat received Ex . Kotikalan Distt . Kolhapura but failed to lodge consignor claim to consignee.

ARTICLE-V

That he did not conduct test weighment of stocks through beam scale at Depot during despatches and receipt of stocks.

6125 3. Sri R.N. Sharma was appointed as enquiry officer to enquire into the charges who submitted his enquiry report on 2-12-2002 in which out offive charges only one charge for maintaining the correspondence file in haphazard manner was found proved. The copy of the enquiry report was served upon the workman vide memo dated 7-2-2003 (C4-10) . Against the proved charge a detailed reply dated 21-3-2003 was submitted by the workman. After considering the reply the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of reduction of one stage in present time scale of pay for one year upon the workman vide order dated 28-4-2003 .Against the said order Bharatiya Khadya Nigam Karamchari Sangh (hereinafter referred to as BKNK Sangh ) has raised this industrial dispute .

3 -A. The BKNK Sangh has filed the statement of claim & rejoinder on 6-8-04 & 3-11-04 respectfully. In support of its claim the BKNK Sangh examined the workman Sri P.D. Sawant & filed following documents;

1. Chargesheet vide memo dated 1-1-02 (C-4/2) 2. Corrigendum dated 19-9-2002 (C -4/9)

3. Memo dated 2-1-03/7-1-03 (C -4/ 11 )

4. Enquiry Report (C-4/11-25)

5. Representation ofworkman against enquiry report (C-4/26-28)

6. Order of Disciplinary Authority dated 28-4-03 (C-4/29-30)

7. Letter dated 27-2-98 regarding recovery oftransil loss

8. Report ofthe committee dated 20-1-98 In rebuttal the opposite party has filed written statement on 8-10-04 & examined Sri Sukhbeer Singh Asstt. Grade I( Karmik)

4. It is alleged in the statement of claim that the charge- sheet served on the workman is illegal. The opposite partyhas neither considered his reply dated 21-2-2003 пог given any reason for disagreement with the reply as such impugned order is arbitrary and illegal . The opposite pany has imposed the penalty on the charge which was not in the chargesheet . It is further alleged that findings of the enquiry officer regarding proved charge is without any evidence. The impugned order shows that the opposite partyhas disagreed with the findings ofthe enquiry officer while passing the impugned order for which no show cause notice has been served. Hence , impugned order be set aside.

5. The opposite party has contended in the written staternent that the workinan committed various irregularities at Food Storage Depot. Unnao during 1988-1996 as mentioned in the chargesheet but the Enquiry Officer has found only charge under Article I of the chargesheet as 6126

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 15, 2008/ KARTIKA 24, 1930

...

proved against workman without considering all ri evidence on record . The workman was given oppurturty ofhearing, & was allowed to represent on the findings of the Enquiry Officer & on being found the said representation unsatisfactory , penalty was imposed . Since the Enquiry officer has found the charge moder Article -I of the enarge sheet as proved , there is n question of disagreement to the findings & violation Reg. 59 (2) of FCI Staff Regulation 1971. It is contended that worker is having alternare remedy for filing appeal under Reg. 67 & 74 of the Reg . 1971 against the order of disciplinary authority. Thus present case is not maintainable

6. The learned representative of the workmans argued that memo ( 1'10 ) reveals that the disciphwary authority was agreed with the findings of me enquity there was no note of disagreeinem with the findings site Enquiry Officer whereas inepugned order sinas Disciplinary Authority has disagreed with the lingangs the enquiry report but did not give any show cause ior disagreement witit the findings of the enquiry repor. The memo dated 27-2-2003 is not a valid show disciplinary authonty also did not give any reason disagreement with the tindings of the Enquiry Offion mus the impugned order is violative of natural justice and is n legally sustainable as such is able to be set aside . It is further contended that findings of the enquiry officer that workman maintained the correspondence lile ia haphazard manner, is based on no evidence . Moreover , the ad corresponding file has not been produced and the said file was to be maintained by A. M ( D ) . It was not the d the workman to maintain the said tile It is also urged submissions made by the workman in his representing have not been considered. The impugned ander is ou of non application of mind . Neither the Enquiry Officer tior the disciplinary authority has seen the so called correspondence file. It is also contended than alternate remedy of departmental appeal is no bar for vai thự industrial dispute . la support of his contentions learned representative of the workman has reliedon 1984 SCC ( 1.& s ) 21 Jai Bhagwan vs Ambala Central Co - operative Bank Ltd and another , 1998 SCC ( L & S ) 1783 Punjab National 15ank A others vs. Kunj Behari Misra and 1998 SCC ( L & S ) 1795 Director General . Indian Council of Medical Research and others vs. Dr. Anil Kumar Ghosh and another .

7. The learned representative of the management has argued that penalty has been imposed on the delinquert workman atier following due procedure and a show cause notice was given to the workinan after considering ail the material on record and the reply filed by the workroan . There is no illegality in the order. It is further argued that the employee was hasing remedy to file appeal against the impagned order but he failed to do so. It shows han was satisfied with the impugned order.

PART 11-- S 3 (10 )

-- 7A. I have given ing thoughttul consideration on the arguments advanced by the learned representatives of both the side and pertused the relevant record .

8. So far as the contention of the learned representative of the opote party that availability ofthe alternative remedy ofthe appeal against the impugned order bars the workman to raise industrial dispute is concernied, it seems to be devoid of my force in the light of principle laiddown in 1984 SCC ( L & S12 : Jai Bhagwan vs. Ambala Central Co- operative Bond: 1.t4 . , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that availability of the alternative remedy of departmental appeal is no bar in raising industrial dispute .

9. Now in the light of the contentions of both the sides it is to be considered whether impugned order is against the principle of nattural justice & inspite of ne evidence penalty has been imposal & whether penalty imposed is just & prop !?

10. In this regard the rising para of the Encaurs Report is very relevant which is as ander:-

" Taking into Cideration the entire fhets & circumstances and the evidence discussed above the only thing townd against Sri . P.D. Sawant is that be maintained the correspondence file in haphazard manner . The other charges against the C.O. Sri P.D.SawP.D. Sawant are not proved . Article I is found to be above extent only and not beyond that and the fault of Sri P.D. Sawant is of very minor nature. " 11. It is evident mon the aforesaid concluding para of the Enquiry Report that escept charge under Article I ol the chargesheet remainwere faund not proved . 11 is also pertinent to per chat while sending the copy of the aforesaid Enquiry Report to the workman it is not stated in the memo that the Disciplinary Authority difters from the findings of the Enquiry Otticer as regard remaining four charges under Articic 11 to Article V of the charge sheet . In the said metno the Disciplinary Authority has only mentioned that a suitable decision will be taken after considering the report The workman has given his representation against the findings of the finquiry Officer regarding charge under Aruele I presuming that submissions were not to be made regarding those charges which were found not proved by the Enquiry Report . The witness of the opposite party Sri Sukhbeer Singh has also admitted in the cross -еханикатon that only charge of maintaining correspondencetite in haphazard manner was proved . The contents of the memo dated 1-1-2002 issued to the workman giving opportunity to represent against the findings of the Enquiry Report also reveal that the workman was required to submit bis reply regarding proved charge only whereas in the impugned order .It is mentioned tha :-

"Whereas the undersigned, being the Disciplinary Authority after careful examination of the charge [ भाग ] [- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

sheet , documents , Enquiry Report, representation ofSri P.D.Sawant, A.G.I ( D), other related records/ documents, has come to the conclusion that he could not submit proper justification against the charges levelled against him . Thus the charges framed against Sri .D. Sawant, AG.I( D ) are established to the extent specifiedand Sri P.D. Sawant, AG.I (D) has been found guilty of charges framed against ."

12. It appears from the memo dated 1-1-02 & impugned order that though the disciplinary authority was having different view from the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer that except charge under Article I other charges levelled against the workman are not proved, did not afford opportunity to the delinquent workman to represent against the contrary finding in the impugned order.

13. In 1998 SCC (L & S) 1783 Punjab National Bankvs. Kunj Behari Misra the question under consideration was when the Enquiry Officer des to a conclusion that alt or some of charges alleging misconduct against an official are not proved then can the disciplinary authority differ from that and give a contrary finding without affording any opportunity to the Delinquent Officer while considering the said question . The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:

6127

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15, 2008/कार्तिक 24, 1930

workman for considering charges under Articles II to IV which were found not proved in the Enquiry Report , as proved. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid principle laiddownby the Apex Court the impugned order is against the principle ofnaturaljustice .

15. Even if it is presumed that penalty was imposed on the basis of only proved charge under Article I of the charge sheet, the impugned order is not sustainable on the ground of no evidence. The witness of the opposite party Sri Sukhbeer Singh has admitted in his cross examination that the file alleged to be maintained in haphazard manmer was neither produced before the Enquiry Officer nor before the disciplinary authority . Moreover , particulars of corresponding file are not mentioned in the charge under Article I ofthe charge sheet . It is evident from the perusal ofthe impugned order that disciplinary authority had not considered the submissions made by the delinquent workman in his representation against the enquiry report . It appears that the disciplinary authority has not applied hismind while passing the impugned order.

16. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion the impugned order is not just and proper and the same is liable to be set aside .

17. Hence, the reference is adjudicated in favour of the workman Sri P.D. Sawant. The impugned order dated 28-4-2003 imposing penalty of reduction of one stage in present time scale ofpay for one year upoir the workman is set aside . The workman is entitled to get consequential benefits accordingly.

Award as above.

Lucknow,

14-10-2008

"Principles of natural justice will have therefore to be read into Regulation 7 (2 ) . Whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiring authority on any article of charge then before it records its findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give tothe delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings . The report of the Enquiry Officer containing its findings will haveto be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the Enquiry Officer. The principles ofnatural justice require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged ofmisconduct to file a representation before thedisciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer . ""

14. In the present case the Enquiry Officer has found onlyone charge under Article I of the charge sheet to be proved whereas by impugned order the disciplinary authority has imposed penalty considering all the charges levelled against the workman as proved . This legal position is not disputed that disciplinary authority can differfrom the findings of the Enquiry Officer but in that case it is imperative to give show cause notice to the delinquent workman and reason for disagreement with his report . In impugned order the disciplinary authority has neither given any reason for disagreement of the report of the Enquiry Officer nor any show cause notice has been given to the

N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 22 अक्तूबर , 2008

का. आ. 3065.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बी. बी. एम, बी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 283/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-23012/16/2002- आई.आर. ( सीएम -11 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 22nd October , 2008

S.O. 3065.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947( 14 of 1947) , the Central Govemment hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 283 / 2005) ofthe Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour 6128

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . NOVEMBER 15 , 2008 / KARTIKA 24.1910

"..

Court, No. 2 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure . in the Industrial Dispute between the management of BBMB . and their workman , received by the Central Government on 22-10-2008.

[No. 1-23012/16/ 2002- IR (CAM - 1 AJAY KUMAR GAUR . Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT- 11 , 18- A, CHANDIGARIL Presiding Officer :

Shri Kuldip Singh Case No. ID 283/2005

Registered on : 10-8-2005

Date of Decision : 5-9-2008

Sh . Ram Asra Sto St. Rangiwan Co Sh . R. K. Singh Fan , 211 -L, Brari , P. ) . Partap Nagar, Nangal Dain , Distt.Ropa , Ropar. (now dead through LRs ) .

[PART1 ] SH.3 ( ii ) ] parties the file was summoned from the records and taken up for consideration.

Both the representatives of the workman and Shri V. K. Sharma, Executive Engineer , BBMB, the concerned officer , have made joint statement that the Management shal ! consider the case of the workman within reasonable time in the light of the circular No. 3624-43 / R & R466 : 99 / Vol III/ R- 5 dated 21st of March, 2001 and the policy of the BBMB . In view of this the workman withdraws his claim made in the reference.

Since the parties have compromised in the Lok Adalat , therefore,thereremains ra dispute hetween them which can he adjudicated uponby tins Tribunal . The reference is , therefore, answered in these terms and the award is passed.

KULDIP SINGH . PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 22 अक्तूबर, 2008

...Petirioner

Versus

The Chief Engineer , BBMB , Nangal Township , Distint Ropar,Ropar.

Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the work

Mr. R. R Singh Pannar.AR For the management : M. Bhagat Singh . Law | licer , AR

AWARD

The following reference was received from Mastry of Labour, Government of India for the adjudication at this Tribunal; vick their order No 1-23012-16/2002 - IR ( ("M - 12 ) dated: 4-11-2003:

"Whether the action of the management of BBMB , Nangal Dam , Nangal in terminating the services of Sh Ran Asta Sr Sh Rarajiwanef 30-9-96 is ical and justified ? If not , to what enci the workman is entitled ? "

The netice of the reference was given to the parties who appeared through their representatives and filed itcir pleadings sucli as statements of claim, written stolemer . and affidavit of witness of the inanagement . The matter was fixed for the evidence of the workman when a wik about the settlement of the dispute in the Lok Adalat was initiated. The earlier efforms lailed hut today similares were lixed before CGIT - 1 . Chandigarh in which the parties settled the matter in the sok Adalat . Prompted by the f representative of the workman submmed before thes Tribunal that the is ready to settle the matter on the leons agreed to by the Management in similar cases tod..y . Although the case was fixed for consideration on Sth of October , 2008 , you at the request of representatives of the का. आ. 3066. औांगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बी. बी. एम. बी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सचद्ध नियांजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के चीन, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्यागिक विवाद में कंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2. चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 284/2K5 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो बन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -2702: 21 2002 आईआर माग्म ।।।। अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi . the 22nd October , 2008 S.O. 3066. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 194714 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby pubishes the Award ( Ref. No. 284 2K5) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour C'ourt No. 2 , Chandigarh as shaown in the Aнтехиге , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of BBMB . and their worknean , which was received by the CentralGovermunent on 22-10-2008.

12301221-2000.IR( CM - J AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Oflicer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT- II , SECTOR 18 - A. CHANDIGARH

Presiding Officer: Shri Kaldip Singh

Case No. ID 284/2K5

Registered on : 10-8-2005

Date ofDecision : 5-9-2008

Sh . Rakesh Kumar So Sh Lachharan Singh Co Sh . K. K. Singh Parmar. 211 - L, Brari , O. Portap Nagar. Nangal Dana. Distt. Repar, Ropar.

..Petitioner 6129

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 15, 2008 /कार्तिक 24 , 1930

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3(i ) ]

Versus

The Chief Engineer , BBMB , Nangal Township, District Ropar,Ropar.

Respondent APPEARANCES :

For the workman : Mr. R. K. Singh Parmar,AR For the management : Mr. Bhagat Singh ,

LawOfficer,AR AWARD

Thefollowing reference was received from Ministry ofLabour, Government of India for the adjudication ofthis Tribunal vide their order No. L-23012/21/2002 - IR(CM - II ) dated: 4-11-2002:

"Whether the action of the management of BBMB, Nangal Dam , Nangal in terminating the services of Sh Shree Mohan S/o Sh . Lal Ram w.e.f. 30-9-96 is legal and justified? Ifnot, towhat reliefthe workman is entitled? "

The notice ofthe reference was given to the parties who appeared through their representatives and filed their pleadings such as statements of claim , written statement and affidavit of witness of the management . The matter was fixed for the evidence of the workman when a talk about the settlement of the dispute in the Lok Adalat was initiated. The earlier efforts failed but today similar cases were fixed before CGIT- I, Chandigarh in which the parties settled the matter in the Lok Adalat . Prompted by that the representative of the workman submitted before this Tribunal that he is ready to settle the matter on the terms agreed to by the Management in similar cases today. Although the case was fixed for consideration on 15th of October, 2008, yet at the request of representatives of the parties the file was summoned from the records and taken up for consideration.

Both the representatives of the workman and Shri V. K. Sharma , Executive Engineer , BBMB , the concerned officer, have made joint statement that the Management shall consider the case of the workman within reasonable time in the light ofthe circular No 3624-43 /R & R/466/99/ Vol III/R-5 dated 21st of March , 2001 and the policy of the BBMB . In view of this the workman withdraws his claim made in the reference.

Sincethe parties have compromised in the Lok Adalat, therefore, there remains no dispute between them which can be adjudicated upon by the this Tribunal . The refer- ence is, therefore , answered in these terms and the award is passed.

KULDIP SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 22 अक्तूबर , 2008

का. आ. 3067, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार 4195 G1/08-6

बी. बी. एम. बी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबंद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 281/2K5 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-23012/20/2002- आईआर ( सीएम-II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 22nd October, 2008

S.O. 3067. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 281 / 2K5) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of BBMB, and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 22-10-2008 .

[No. L-23012/20/2002-1R (CM - 11 )] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Presiding Offcier: Shri Kuldip Singh

Case No. ID 281/2K5

Registered on : 10-8-2005

Date ofDecision: 5-9-2008

Sh . Rajinder Singh S/o Sh . Charan Dass R/o VPO Handola Tehsil and Distt . UNA (HP) C/ o Sh . R. K. Singh Parmar, 211 - L, Brari , P.O. Partap Nagar, Nangal Dam, Distt . Ropar, Ropar.

...Petitioner

Versus

The Chief Engineer , BBMB , Nangal Township, District Ropar, Ropar.

...Respondent APPEARANCES :

For the workman : Mr. R. K. Singh Parmar, AR .

For the management :Mr. Bhagat Singh , LawOfficer, AR

AWARD

The following reference was received from Ministry ofLabour, Government of India for the adjudication ofthis Tribunal VideTheir order No. L- 23012/ 20/2002-1R ( CM - II ) Dated: 4-11-2003 :-

61.30

Pre -Sc

35,2008 ARTIΚΑΣΙ

**Whether the asuch of the mar

BRMB.Nanga ! Dem. Nagel

services of St. Eaunder Sing! S'a Sh

w.e.f. 30-9-96 is legal and justifact if w rebefthe workman is extitle "

The notice of fir relerence was given

who appeared through the is representatives bad pleadings such as sterrenia of Jain , writer and aftidavits of weness of the surgence...

was fixed for the evidence of the workn

about the sertleaner the dispute in the Lok Ac initiated, The ears efforts failed but may s

were fixed before 1. Chandigarh in which il settled the matter in de Adsiat Prompted leskl representative of the workman submitted hon this Tribunal that he is to as to sentle the meter

agreed to by the Mag

Although the case was lixed fes capsideration

October, 2008 , yer of the seques , of represents

parties the tile was sunntired from the records up for consideration

Both the represents wana V.K.Shanna , Execoltec pgseer . DBA

officer , have madent statement that the Mas shall consider the event the worsman Ath

Can-Labour Court, Nhown in the Annexare , in

the industnai Dispate been the employers in relation

to the management on mal Engmeer . Telegraph .

and their workusan, wastened by the Central

Government on 22-10

No.1-40012 /988-0-111311 ALAY KUMAR, Desk Officer ANSURE

BEEORE THESAADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGI- CUA -LABOUR COURT. NAGPUR

Case No. CGITINGHA

Date: 17-10-2808

Petitioner/Party No.1 : 1 Vac President.

All India Telegraph Engineering Porrices Uncen Class -All, C. Lachenge. Amraven

or : Kashinath Di. Bacal - Respondent Party Ne... seDesisemal Engins er . telegraph . Akola M.S.J Daicamer, Jus

1. The Cenunder satisfying the exit berei

ince ofdispute

tine in the light of the cular No 532-15 2

HI /R-5 dated 21st of March , 2001 and the

BBMB . In view of this day workman withdrm...

made in the referen

Since the postave comprome

therefore, there remedispute between t

can be adjudicated upon by this Tribunal . listene is, therefore, answered in these terms and the awes passed.

KUR DIP SINGL

नई दिल्ली 22 अक्तूबर 2008

का, आ. ३०6 % সমিতি (1947 का ( 4 ) की भाग 17 के अनुभ

डिवीजनल इंजीनिगर टेलीग्राक के प्रय

उनके कर्मकारों के बीच

केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरन्यायालय (संदर्भ सं. सीजीआईटी एनजीओ/43-03 ) कर प्रकाशित हो केन्द्रीय सरकार का 2210 2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एन्न-400 /20/88-2- अजय कुमार, डेन অসিদাই New Delhi , the 22nd October, 2003

S.O. 3068.-- n pursuance of Section

th Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No fill NGP/43/03 ) of the Central Government Industrial Trai

grapin Engineering ka , lass- k

Exchange . Amravati cell of Shri Kashirenthe 11 Raut

( Furry No.land The Dis al Engineer , Felegrapi .Ahola

(MS. ) (Party No.21 relened the same for adjudication t

this Tribunat videns - 404012988 ( -1 ) anted

19-05-1989 under clan ei sub section (1) and sub-

section ( 2A) of Sectio Industri Dispute Act , 1947

114 of 1947) with the ing Schedule:

2 Whether then of the Divisional Engineer ,

Telegraph , Dist . Alor svoid the regular service for

Group D 19 Shri Kashinch Brihhau Raul Casual Labour is

legal and justified? what relief the Petitioneris

entitled to?

3. The reference came up for hewing on 6-10-2008.

On perusal of Kojnam that the reference is received

initially to the CGIT. maar in the year 1989. After the

transfer to this Tribunal . De nonces were issued to noth

the parties as per the Roiriame di . 23-6-2005. The manage-

meist representative isding the Cheart . However , on

behalf of the l'etitioner nobody appeared right from

23.6.2005 till today, also the representative of the

management is present , the workman Petitioneris alisem

No reason for adjourning dhe reference for the presence

Petitioner only. It appear that he is not interest and

hence it is dismissed for the defauit . Hence this negative award.

Date: 17-10-2008

A.N.YADAV , Presiding Officer 6131

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15, 2008/कातिक 24, 1930

[ भाग 1]-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 22 अक्तूबर , 2008

का.आ. 3069. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनिध्म, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार संन्ट्रल सोईल सेलिनिटी रिसर्च इंस्टिट्यूट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में कंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. १, चण्डालद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 87 , 85, 105 , 107, 111 , 125 , 147 , 149, 151/94 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जां केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं एल-42012/38, 39, 94, 95, 92/93 - आई आर. (डी.बू ) सं. एल-42012/ 115,87,113,84/93 - आई. आर. (डी.गू) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 22nd October, 2003

S.O. 3069.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. Nos . 87 , 85, 105 , 107 , 111 , 125 , 147 , 149 , 151/94 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court No. 1 , Chandigarh , as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Soil Salinity Research Institute and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 22-10-2008.

[No. L. -42012/38 , 39, 94 , 95 , 92.93 - IR (DU) No. L-42012/ 115, 87, 113 , 84 /93-1R( DU ) ] AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

CaseNos. J.D. 87 of 1994, 85 of 1994, 105 of 1994, 107 of 1994, 111 of 1994, 125 of 1994, 147 of 1994, 149 of 1994, 151 of 1994

1.D. No. 87 of 1994 , Sh . Megh Raj

I.D. No. 85 of 1994, Sh . Resham Singh

I.D. No. 105 of 1994, Sh . Ram Narain

1.D. No. 107 of 1994, Sh . Rajendra

1.D. No. 111 of 1994 , Sh . Raj Kumar

1.D. No. 125 of 1994 , Sh. Chander Pal

1.D.No. 147 of 1994, Sh. Jasmer Singh

1.D. No. 149 of 1994, Sh . Ram Avtar

1.D. No. 151 of 1994, Sh. Udaibir

Versus

Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Kamal - 13:2001

Respondent APPEARANCES :

For theworkenan : Sin. Manjit Dhiman with Sh . R.P. Rana For the managerment Se Ami Shamma with Shri R. K. Sharma

AWARD

Passed on 3-10-2008

Central Government referred the nine industrial disputes of different workmen for judiciai odjudication having sintilar issues to adjudicate . I have gone through ail the references and the pleadings of parties . It is clear that the questions of fact and law are similar to adjudicate and accordingly, all the references are answered in one award with the condition that whenever there will be difference of point of facts, those lacts will be dealt with separately in this reference . The nine references which have been referred bythe Central Government are as follows :-

1. 1.D. No. 87 of 1994 , Sh . Megh Raj vs. Central Soil Salinity Research Inshtute, L- 42012/38/ 93 - IR ( DU ). dated 12-8-94.

2. 1.D. No. 85 of 1994, Sh . Resham Singh vs. Central Soil Salinity Research Institute , 1-4201209/43- IR(DU), dated 12-8-94.

3. L.D. No. 105 of 1944, Sh. Ram Narain vs. Central Sod Salinity Research Institute , L -42012/94/93-1R ( DU ), dated 24-8-94,

4. L.D. No. 107 of 1994 , Sh. Rajendra vs. Centrai Soil Salinity Research Institute, L- 42012/ 95 / 93 - IR ( DU ) , dated24-8-94.

5. I.D. No. 111 of 1994 , Sh . Raj Kumar vs. Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, L- 42012/ 92 /93 - IR ( DU ), dated24-8-94,

6. L.D. No. 125 of 1994 , Sh. Chander Pal vs. Central Soil SalinityResearch Institute, E- 42012/ 115 / 93 - IR (DUI ). dated29-9-94.

7. L.D. No. 147 of 1994, Sh. Jasner Singli vs. C'entral Soil Salinity Research Institute, L -42012/87/ 93 - JR( DU ) . dated 31-10-94 .

8. I.D. No. 149 of 1994 , Sh . Ram Avtar vs. Central Soil Salinity Research Institute , L -42012/ 113/93- IR ( DU ), dated 4-11-94 .

9 I.D. No. 151 of 1994 , Sh . Udaibir vs. Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, L- 42012/84/93-1R( DU ) . dated4-11-94.

.....Applicants

6132

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15, 2008/ KARTIKA 24 , 14,0

L.D. No. 87/84, Sh. Megh Raj shall be the leading file . whereas copies of award shall be placed in each reference separately.

The industrial dispute which was referred in which it is clear from all the 8 cases except reference No. 149 of 1994 Sh. Ram Avatar vs. Central Soil Salinity Research Institute are as follows :-

"Whether the action of the management ofCentral Soil Salinity Research Institute , Kamal in terminating the services of the workmen , casual workers w.e.f. 1-4-88 is legal and justified? Ifnot , to what reliet the workmen concerned are entitled? "

In I.D. No. 149/94 , Sh . Ram Avtar vs. Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, the reference referred to this Tribunal is as follows :-

"Whether the action of the management of C'entral Soil Salinity Research Institute, Karnal in terminatomy the services ofSh . Ram Avtar Ex -daily paid labourer w.e.f. 31-12-87.is just , fair and legal? If not, what reliefhe is entitled and from what date?" On perusal of the pleadings of parties , it is evident that the all the workmen have alleged that they jontis d services in the office of management on different dates in different areas as daily waged workers and continuously worked until 31st of December , 1990. From 1-1-9 ] the workmen were refused employment without any reason , notice or retrenchment compensation. All of them have completed 240 days ofworking in the preceding year before the date of their termination by the management ot respondent . The workmen have also challenged their working through contractor from 1-4-88 to December ,1990, It is the case of the workmen that upto December, 1990 they directly worked with the department and there was Do contractor in between them and department . The contract , if any claimed by the management of respondent is illegal and sharı ,

On the basis of the above facts , all the workmen have requested for the suitable order for their reinstatement into the services with full back wages along with continuity in service.

The management appeared and raised certain objections on the maintainability of the reference . to the written statement filed by the management , it is stated that the respondent is not an industry as defined under Industral Disputes Act, and accordingly , this Tribunal has no jurisdiction for answering these references . It has also been alleged by the management of respondent that all these workmen were employed on daily wages on different dates but they have not worked with the management atter 1-4-88 , i.e. the date from which the work has been ordered to be taken through different contractors on contractual basis. None of the workinen has completed 240 days of working in the preceding year from 1-4-88 .

[ PART 11 - Sec. 3 ( The parties were afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence. Ail the workinen filed their affidavits in their respective references and were subjected to cross- examination by learned counsel for the management of respondents. Likewise , R.C. Meena. Semor Administrative Officer filed his affidavit in all the references on behalf of the management of respotident and he was subjected to cross-examination by learned counsel for the workmen in every reference . Following documents were also refred upon by the parties

Annexure R - 1 is the letter dated 26-12-90 of Government of India, Ministry ot labour permitting the Director Central Soil Salinity Research Instunte to engage not mure than 200 contract fabourers through contraciors for the work mentioned is the letter. The certificate of registration for engaging contract labouris also enclosed . Annexure R-2 is the office order regarding destruction of the old aquittance rolls and muster rolls for the period ot 1-1-80 te 31-12-86 . This office orier also contains a list of old acquittance rolls and muster rolls which were destroyed through this order . Rules celting to the destruction of office records connected una accounts are tiled on record as Annexure R- 3 . Atumesure R- 5 is the letter written by Senior Administrative Officer of Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Karnal acidressed to Sh . Ramesh Kumar regarding the acceptance of his quotation for providing labour for certain work . Is W- 1 is the statemem of working days of all the workmen provided by the management of respondent. Certain dearments were provided by the management at the kaller setge , at the time of hearing arguments which were manked un admission as M12 to M1 :8 . M1.8 is the statcincint of working days filed by the management regarding every workman M1.2 to M1-7 are the copies of vouchers-payment bilis for different periods .

Thaveheard learned cinsels for the parties. Learned counsels for the workmen have argued that all the workmen have worked with the department directis upto December. 1990. The management was permitted by the Central Governmentto carry out the works through contracker on 26th December , 1990 und a certificate regarding this was issuedto him on 24-12-40 There was no occasion for the department to get the work done through contractors before 26-12-1990 . It has also been argued that contention of the management regarding getting the work done through contractor is not acceptabl busause the comract . if any, is sham, illegal and against the pros isiems of law .

Learned counsels for the management of respondent have argued as follows.

1. That the respondent is not an industry . Hon'ble theApex Court to Physical Research Laboratory vs. K.G. Sharm 149713 ) RSJ 2150 held the Physical Research Laboratory not to be ari industry. The functions and work carried on by the Central Soil Salenity Research Institute is भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15, 2008/कार्तिक 24, 1930

[भाग ।।- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

similar and almost same as of the Physical Research Laboratory and accordingly , the respondent is not an industry and this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the reference.

2. From 1-4-88 , alt the workmen worked through contractors and the vouchers relating to the payment ofwages through contractors have been enclosed as M1 /2 to M1 /7 . This shows that there was no direct relationship between the workman and the management of respondent from 1-4-88 onwards. It has also been argued by learned counsel that sometimes , one workman used to work as contractor along with his working as a labour and he was responsible for his payment and for the payment of other workmen.

No doubt this argument was slightly modifiedby learned counsel after some time by stating that he made this argument without any material on record.

3. That no workman has completed 240 days in the proceeding year to the date of his termination, hence, not entitled for any relief.

After hearing the arguments and perusing the materials on record , I am of the view that following are the main issues for adjudication before this Tribunal in all these references.

1. Whether the respondent is an industry ? And whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to dispose of these references?

2. Whether the workmen worked with the management directly up to December, 1990 or up to 1-4-88?

3. Whether the contract as claimed by the workmen from 1-4-88 till December, 1990 is sham, illegal and against the provision of law?

4. Whether the workmen are entitled to the relief prayed for?

I anı taking issue No. I for adjudication that whether the respondent is an industry ? The term industry has been defined in Section 2 ( J ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to mean any business , trade , undertaking, and manufacture ofcalling ofemployers and includes any calling , services, employment , handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation ofworkmen.

InBangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. Rajappa and others AiR 1978, Supreme Court 548, 7 Judges Bench ofHon'ble the Supreme Court has defined the term industry and extended its implication in various departments . As per the above mentioned verdict of Hon'ble the Apex Court , the term industry which has been defined in sub -section 2( J ) of the Industrial Disputes Act has a vide import as:-

6133 (A) Whether there is ( i ) systematic activity; (ii) organized by cooperation between employer and employee (the direct and substantial element is chimerical) and ( iii ) for the production and/ or distribution ofgoods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes (not spiritual or religious but inclusive of material needs or services geared celestial bliss ) , prima facie here is an industry for the enterprise.

(B) Absence of profit motive or gainful objective is irrelevant, be the founder in public, joint, private ofother sector.

(C) The true focus is functional and the test is the nature of the activity with special emphasis on the employer- employee relations .

(D) If the organization is a trade of business it does not cease to be one because of philanthrophy animating the undertaking.

It isspecially the tripartite test as referred byHon'ble the Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply case (supra) which are necessary to qualify any institution to be an industry. Is depends basically on the facts and circumstances of the case and can be decided after evaluating the functioning of any organisation. In Bangalore Water Supply Case ( supra ) Hon'ble the Apex Court has also held that all the research institutions cannot seek exemption to be an industry . There are certain research institutions which carried the research for Government of India on issues which can be termed as sovereign functions canonly claim exemption. It is also made clear by Hon'ble theApex Court in Water Supply Case (supra ) that within the institutions which are carrying and exercising sovereign functions if there are units which are industries and they are substantially severagal from other units , there units may qualify for the term industry.

Learned counsel for the management has relied upon the contention in Physical Research Laboratory case (supra) that the functioning of Physical Research Laboratory is the same as that of the respondent. I have gone through the evidence of Sh . R.C. Meena, Senior Adminstrative Officer in which he has stated that management has big farm of 90 acres . There are 2 tractors . Office timings are from 9.30 am to 5.00 pm with one hour lunch.It is admitted by Sh. R.C. Meena that the management used to auction trees of Safedaas , Ber , Guava and fish farms with production . It is also admitted by MWI , Sh . R.C. Meena that the management is selling the production of the farm without making any profit. Thus, the functions which the Central Soil Salinity Research Institute is carrying on along with the research work cannot be strictly said to be the sovereign functions . The functions mentioned above are the welfare activities and economic adventures and these functions put the management within 6134

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 15 , 2008/ KARTIKA2

the definition of industries as the fumetions

above are sithianually servery ai . Thus , tam nadiri the contention of leasted counsel for the manage function of the respondent is same as the Physical دا Laboratory As per the function and the work carteles The management of respondent1 am of tise vios S light of the law laid far to flachle the Apes Lor Bangalore Water Supply Case ( sopa) the repor an industry as detint to Sertion of t

Disputes Act , sed ide disputa in bewon the ard the managemera of respondent is an indus

and this Tribunal has arisdiction to dispare f یون reterences

The next Riportant question fa: adjudicationPrice respondent that front 2-4-58 . all the wor

the manugerahtseadnt . Un the elke to ins workmed the fated that they worked dinh management respondent ap December 1

contract , if any leged to be made by the non geref respondent is shain, wid and illegal ins this Tribunal is whether the workmen worked direct the management of reader: up to Dece 10 1-4-88 11 is the contention of the a hegh the cont and the were no op contention. 1 : narger tot las tiled correio d regarding engaging in contract inbocon work. Annexure Re : ts the copy of the letter w Government of india. Mustry of Lebomto the Bier of Central Sol Saints Research Institute permining int engage contraet latout less than 200 in number forver out their work A cemificate on this regard witsled by the prescribed authority concerned, live repovation permitting the management of respondent for cang out their work through contact labour was singed un the respondent ca 24-12-00 . Likewise, Annexure alse bears the date which is clearly seen as 26-12-90, etts that the department was permitted to carry out the wink through contractors fions 26-12-90 onwards not incat Hence, it does not provide for total abolition of entract The question betore this Tribunal is what will be the effectof the work done by the workmen through comrachn before the permission for sach working from the department unace the Contract farour ( Reguitherand Abolition ) Act, 1970. Hon'ble the High Court et Panjab and Haryana in Food Corposactos of India and whis ... PresidingOfficer Central Ciovernment Industrial anal cum -Labour Court- 1. Chandigarh and other has held that the ciam off ontract labour ( Regsirios and Abolition) Aci . 1976 reveals that in regulare , the employment of contract labour in certain establishments and provides for its abolition in certain circumstances . labour. It has also been hekl by Hon'ble the High Court in the aben e mentioned judgment that if a principle couples or does employ the persons through the contractor al is having no liceure under Section 12 ofthe Contraci Laisour

PART 1 Sec (Regulation and Aboard Act, then caly panel provisinr :

ofSections 23 and 2 sald fact anrecied , herke.. it is nowhere provided that craplovers employed through the contractor wonidenplesees of the pri rapieyer. Even where corporandid seek registration uni .:

(Regulation and Ab .:

7 of the Corarator en the date when the workmen were engagerata be deemed to be the i

the managcount corporation.

Hon'ble the list on the above mentioned judgment has furtiefen when it is loand not engaging of contrac was not bona fide and it was amere camouflage use cases, the contract las by the principte emper tas to be treated is employees ofthe principis emplo scan be directed to regul..r.x :

the services of the contract izneor in the renetme establishmem but if worden did not so plead, they wili not be entitled the tion'ble the Supren , Cout in G.M., ONGittar Vs. ONG Comrachal Worker Umen, 2018hile rolong thelaw iad down by Hon'ble de

Coat in Steel Auttons of India Limired and wir National Chion Water Front Worker's and others held as andet .

( Where contraer a engaged in or connection while work of an establishment and employmetus faut haber is prohibued either because the trial argodication.court ordered abolition of caraci labour or because the appropriate merament issued notification under Section 1011 ; the CIRA Acl . no aptomate absorption of tis, sestract labour working m the establishment was ordered:

(ii) Where the act was found to be shain and nomial , ratherit cammoniage , 111 which case the contract labour working in the establishment of the principal erkeer were held in fact and in reality .

the employees the principal employer himself.

Indeed, such cases do not relate to abolition of contract labou: present omstances wherein the Court piercer. the veil and declared the correct position as a fint ofthe stage after employement of contract labour ad prohibited

(iii) Where in discharge of a statutory obligato maintaining a canteen ist an establishment the principle empierer availed the services of a contractor the Lovers have held that the contract labour would indeed be the employees of the principle empi

After carefulading of all the above mentioued judgments in which law relating to the contractual labour has been propounded by Man'ble Punjab and Haryana I figh Court and Hon'ble the Apex Court , I am of the view that the 6135 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2008/ कार्तिक 24, 1930

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

will have to take the adverse inference for deliberately not fiing the relevant documents before this Tribunal . The documents which have been filed clearly shows that one of the workmen out of a group was engaged as contractor and he used to received the amount of vouchers for the work done. The Court has no hesitation to say that this is not the intention of legislation to permit such type of contract labour and it cannot be said that the work was done through contractor. It is a camouflage and the so called contract is sham . Hon'ble the Apex Court in G.M .. ONGC Case ( supra) has held that following conditions should fulfilled while holding a contract to be camouflage orsham:

1. That there existed a relationship of master and servant.

2. That there was no contractor appointed by the management of respondent.

3. That the workmen were under the disciplinary action of the management .

4. The wages were paid directly to the workmen by the management and the acquittance roll was prepared by the management to make payment to the workmen.

management was entitled for getting the work done through the contract labour supplied by a valid contractor . Ifthere was violation of any Section of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition ) Act , 1970, the authorities of the management of respondent could have been liable for thepenal actions but on account of violation of any section ofthe said Act, it cannot be said that the workmen became the direct employees of the management of respondent. Only in one case, there may be a direct employer -employee relationship if there is a camouflage on the contract and the contract is sham and illegal . In the present case, it is alleged by the workmen that the contract , if any made by the management of respondent is void, and illegal . This contentionof the workmen provides and opportunity to this Tribunal to go deep into the matter about the nature of contract. At the time of arguments , management was asked to file certain decuments regarding the execution of the contract . The managernent filed the documents which are on record asM1 /2 M1 /7 . These are vouchers for the payment ofthe work said to be done through the contractors .One of the contentions of learned counsel for the management of respondent was that sometimes , the contract was even given to one of the workman and he was working as a contractor as well as a worker . Later on, when the files were reserved for award, learned counsel , once appeared before this Tribunal and stated to withdraw this argument on the ground that there in no such material on record. I am unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel that there is no material on record to justify the arguments of learned counselthat sometimes, one of the workmen used to work as contractor as well . These vouchers filed by the management bears the signatures of Raj Kumar , Rakesh, Inder Singh, Rajender Pal and Ashok Kumar who are the workmen in this case and it is not the contention of the management that rest ofthe contractors named above have never worked with the management of respondent as workers and labourers . Thus , there is substantive material before the Tribunal to justify that sometimes , one of the workmen used to work as a contractor in addition to work as labour.

If the above criterions as laid down by the Apex Court in G.M. , ONGC case (supra) , are applied in the instant case, it is clear that no contractor was appointed by the management of respondent. The work was done by the workmen and one of the workmen in a group was shown as a contractor and payment was accordingly made by the department to all the workmen showing on the paper through workmen contractor. In my opinion, there can be no better case to declare the contract as camouflage and sham than this and accordingly, there is a direct relationship of employer and employee between the management of respondent and it is hereby held that at all the workmen worked directly under the management of respondent and there was a relationship of employer and employee up to December , 1990. In such a case there was no occasion to any person other than the management to have administrative control over the workmen .

Apart from these documents , no other document in spite of affording opportunity was placed before this Tribunal . Hon'ble the Apex Court in Sita Ram and another V's .Moti Lal Nehru Farmers' Training Institute 2008 ( 117)FLR 1191 has held that when the documents are lying in the custody of the management and the management is not providing and filing the copies ofthe document beforethe Tribunal , adverse inference should be drawn against the management . All the documents relating to the working of workmen through contractor are lying in the custody of the management and the management has just filed few copies at its choice . Management has concealed the rest ofthe documents and has not filed even after the direction of this Tribunal . Accordingly , as per the laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sita Ram's Case (supra ) this Tribunal

Now the question left for adjudication before this Tribunal is whether all the workmen have completed 240 days in the proceeding year from the date of their termination. The termination period now will be counted not as 1-4-88 but December , 1990 while calculating the working days. All the workmen have stated that they have worked up to December, 1990 and there working days are more than 240 days . In all the cases, the workmen have filed a list of working days which was , no doubt, contradicted by the management by filing its own statement. ofworkingdays . The management filed the list ofworking days twice to show that the work done by the workinen was less than 240 days in the preceding year. Management has filed the statement up to 1-1-88 only . The management 6136

LGVETTE OF INDIA. NOVEMBER 15.2008 KARTIΚΑΣ

PART

was asked to see the repies of souther

counsel because all sitten were legally appointed as per the policy o huernment and there was no violation of any insper appointments .

compensation. In all its am of tin ; view that al

the workinen have them to work . As for the long time.

they have notworker the department they will not be

having any right to avi,wages, Accordingly , the reference

of all the workmend negative that the action

of the management cral Soil Salinity Resetuch

The case buitenen are exitled the relief as praya, wipes of cases the right 1 work should primaridered by the Tribunal and in appropriate caseseral must think for a reasonable Institute . Karnal in tertuting the services of all the workmen are not legal on pustitied. Ail the workmen on thebasis of the averes mede in the body of this award are entitled Forrestated into the services on the same terms and conditie were working with the managerment at the tiene ofthe teammation from services However, they willnot . cnetied for any hack wages The management is directed instate all the workmen nie the services as stated cortes sathin one month frein he

date of publicationed. All the references we other doctutuent regarding the payment to the wate The management did not file a single document M2 to ML . ? whereas , documents were lying the managemem. It is one of the contentions of learned , w for the management of respondent that doconico destroyed . He has filed the or fers of prescrtani regarding destructing allosuments as Annexure careful reading of Atmesure MC shows the sil thu documents regarding asquittance rofindiaw for the period from 1-1-8010112-86 were destroyisen no documents from 1-1-8 tull December 1990 were deci to this Tripunal , whereas , from the ducamients hie : bs the management 41-2.11 is established before this Hi those documents neither have bean destroyed te lost Accordingly, those ali the documents pertaining payment of work done by the workaten trom - December , 1996 are lying still in the curio management and the management for the w mentioned in the body of this judgment to s any lawful Jabilit did not produce the same fare this Tribunal . Accordinely , adverse inference as pe laiddown by Honnie the Supreme Court in Site RE (supra ) shall be drawn by this Tribunal the

accordingly answered ruiied copy of this awind be

1.50 Now the questions arise what stroukloe

pisced in the files art094.ID . No. 105 of 1991 ,

ID .No. 107 of 1904. [ 1 of 1994 , No. 1250 1004 .

ID.No. 147 of 1994.11 19of 1994, ID \ o , 1514 1994 .

be accepted as such? For adverse inference.rooble Central Government fried . bike be consigned

SHARMA , Pressding Micer ઃઃ *__** *** R * R ???

का.आ. 3070 - गवान धनियम ।०६।।५३ का 14 ) को धारा 17 कन्द्रीय सरकार गो.वी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संत्रीउनक कर्मकारों के पीन अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट अधिकरणःश्रम न्यायालय 65/94) को प्रकाशित कन्ट्री को प्राप्त हुआ था । केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक ख्धर को 22-10-2008

201244- आई. आर. डॉ. यू.)] अजय कुमार, देस्क अधिकारी

New Dell the 20dctober, 2008

S.O. 3070. 1. petsuance of Secuon 17 of the drawing the adverse inference Whether the work written by the workmen auf proved moral evidence should criterion has to be adopted by this tribunaithe working day's cafculated by the workmen aknew whe evidence of the mаnаgеmе are to be considered . Min his evidence hes adoned that the workmen have obited 240 days before the dare of his termination All tur armoita ofthe departinical wons to prevent the workmen can a lawful benelt under the law for the time beung- Thus , under such circumstances , where the work is stating that he has worked more than 240 dashe calendar year preceding to the date of his termmanand the witness of the management of respondent is sling it and the management of respondent in spite of ha the relevant decuments regarding the paymear bes wited to file the documents beliore thus Tribunal , this Tibunal has no option otherwise than to accept the cont the workmen that they all have completed 240 days of work in the preceding year thom the date of theu temama As stated carlier that days will be counted in direct relationship with the management up to December. Thus, on the basis of the above observation, Int of the view that ail the workmen have completed 240 days is the preceding year from the date sitheirteiste

Industrial Disputes At 1947 ) the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 65 9101 the Central Government bustrial Tribunal - cum - 1 abour CourtNo. 1. Chandigion in the Annexure . in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of B.B.Ad their workaran, wirich was receivedby the Central fievermΩ 22-10-2008 Admitedly, no patise or retrenchment corppa atio was given to them before their termination . Learne for the management has also contended that the appointment of the workmen was not legal but there is po material on record to accept this contention of the learned

Ne. L-420112: 94- IR ( 10 ) ] MAY KUMAR Desk Oitiver 6137

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15, 2008/कार्तिक 24 , 1930

[ भाग-खण्ड ( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

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

Case No.I.D.65/94

1.Gen. Secretary, BBMB Karamchari Sangh , Sundernagar, Distt. (H.P.).

2.Gen. Secretary , BSL/ BBMB , Transport Works Union , Sundernagar Township Distt. Mandi. (H.P.).

3. President, BBMMB Workers Union, SL-3 / 11 , Siapper ,Distt. Mandi.

4. Gen. Secretary, ESL Project Mazdoor Ekta Union , S-2/ 733.

5. Sundemagar Township Distt . Mandi . (H.P.).

...Applicants

Versus

1. The Chairman , BRMB , Sector 19 /Bm Madhya Marg, Chandigarl..

then to which relief, these regular employees (i.e. those converted into regular from work charged category) are entitled to and from which date ?" 2. The present reference was made by the Central Government on the failure of conciliation proceedings for adjudication ofthe matter referred in the schedule referred above and the workman prayed for declaring the action of the management as illegal and invaild.

3. The management turned up and opposes this reference.

4.As per office memorandum dated 5-9-08, this case was fixed in pre lok adalat meeting on 26-9-08 for its disposal by adopting the mediation and conciilation mechanism. The representative of the Unions Shri R.K. Singh made a statement that after examining the record of the various workmen , I am satisfied that the claim of the workmen in this reference has already been settled and paid by the management and accordingly , the union withdraws the reference in Lok Adalat . Accordingly the reference is returned to the Central Government as settled in Lek Adalat . Central Govemment be informed. File be consigned to record.

Chandigarh

2. The Financial Advisor , BBMB . Sector 19/B Madhya Marg, Chandigarn .

3. Addl . Secretary , BBMB . Sector 19-8 Madhya Marg, Chandigarh .

4.Chief Engineer , BBMB/BSI . Complex , Sundernagar Township Distt. Mandi . (H.P.) .

Respondents APPEARANCES

For the Workman:

Sh . Ram Kishan .

Sh . R.S. Rana

For the management :

AWARD

Passed on 26-9-08

Central Government vide notification No.L -42011 2/94 - IR ( DV), dated 24-6-94 has referred the following disputeto this Tribunal tor adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management ofBBMB in not granting the time bound promotional / devised promotional pay scales based on P.S.E.B. pattern, w.e.f. J - J - 1986 adopted by BBMR, admissible after 9/16 years service , to those regular employees ( i.e. converted into regular employees from work charged category) of BBME ( Irrigation Wing ) who have rendered 9/16 years of service , from the date oftheir initial appointments, is legally just and valid? Ifnot, 4195 G1/08-7

26-9-08

G.K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 22 अक्तूबर , 2008

का.आ. 3071, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार गैरीसन इंजीनियर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं.- चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 17/96 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-14012/1/95- आई.आर. ( डी. यू. ) ]

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 22nd October, 2008

S.O. 3071.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 17/96 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-curn- Labour Court No. I Chandigarh , as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Garrison Engineer and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 22-10-2008 .

[No. L -14012 / 1 /95 - IR (DU) j AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 6138

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 15,2008 /KARTIKA 24 , 1930

ANNEXURE

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

Case No.1.D. 17/96

Shri Daljit Singh C/ o Shri D.R. Sharma 104, Sector-20-A Chandigarh - 160001

[PART II-SEC 3 ( ii ) ] on dailywages on 14-9-67. It is alleged by the workman that he was considered for promotion in the year 1971 and while considering him for promotion, his entire service period inchiding the period rendered by him on casual basis was considered. In spite of repeated request , the services hereunder as a casual employee was not considered in the services as regular employee. He raised an industrial dispute and on failure of conciliation proceedings this referencewas referred by the Central Government .

...Applicant

Versus

(1) Garrison Engineer (Air Force) . Chandigarh - 160001 (2) The Chief Engineer , Air Force ( W E.C. ) Jalandhar 144001

Respondents

APPFARANCES

For the Workman:

Sh . D.R. Sharma

Sh . K.K Thakur For the Management

AWARD

Passed on8-10-08

Government of India vide notification No.L- 14012/ 1'95 -IR (DPF ) , dated 26-2-96 referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:-

"Whether the action of the management of Mess Represented by the Garrison Engineer (Air Force) , Chandigarh in not counting the service period of Shri Daljit Singh , Refrigera Mechanic from 14-9-6710 38-4-70 for the purpose of seniority, pay fixation and other benefits is just and legal ifnot , to what relief the workinan is entitled to and from what date"

The oference was consequent to the failure of conciliation proceedings before the ALC Chandigarh On musal of the statement of claim . W.S , replication and cher materials on record. it is evident that the main disple inbetween the workman and the management of respondent whether the period on which the workman , has worked on Sarty wage , should be counted and credited to the services rendered by the workman as a permanent employee? The werniar was appointed on casual basis with the respondent management on 14-9-67 and worked in this capacity upto 2-4-70 Thereafter , he was employed on regular basis. The continuity in service was taken by the management w.e. f. 3-4-70 instead of his initial appointment Management of respondent appeared and opposed the claim ofworkman by filing W. S. It is stated in the W.S. that this tribunal has no jurisdiction to dispose of this reference because the respondent is not an industry as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act , and there is no relation between the workman and the management of respondent which can be termed as employer and employee relationship. It has also stated that the claim is barred as filed in the year 1996 after the gap of 26 years. It is further stated by the management of respondent that as per rules of the department only one break preceding to the regular appointment can be considered with the permanent services and entire period which the workman served as the casual worker with breaks cannot be considered for seniority purposes.

Both of the parties adduced there re pective evidence documentary and oral .

AnnexureAl is the service verification of Shri Daljit Singh, Annexure A2 is the promotion list containing the name of the workman. Apart from it , the affidavits of the parties and their cross - examination are on record. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the entire materials on record . Learned counsel for the management of respondent has also filed written arguments along with the photocopies of some relevant provisions of Central Administrative Tribunal Act .

The main question for the determination of this Tribunal for adjudicating this referace are: ----

(1) Whether the respondent is an industry?

(2) Whether this Tribunal has got the junsdiction to dispose off this reference?

(3) Whether the relief for continuity of Service as prayed by the workman can be granted by this Tribunal as per the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis ofthe law laid down by Hon'ble theApex Court in this regard?

Theterm' industry has been defined in section 2 (j ) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 to mean any business , trade, undertaking , manufacture or calling or employers भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15, 2008/कार्तिक 24, 1930

[ भाग 1]-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

and includes any calling, services , employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation ofworkmen.

In Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. Rajappa and others AJR, 1978, S.C.548. , 7 Judges Bench ofHon'ble the Apex Court has defined the word industry. As per the above mentioned law laid down by theApex Court, industry has defined in Sub-section 2 as avide import as--

(a) Where there is ( i) systematic activity, ( ii ) organized by co-operation between employer and employee (the direct and substantial element is chimerical ), and ( iii ) for the production and for distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes (not spiritual or religious but inclusive of material things or services geared to celestial bliss), prima facie, there is an industry in the enterprise.

(b) Absence ofprofit motive or gainful objective is istelevant, be the venture in the public, joint, private orother sector .

(c) The true focus is functional and the decisive test is the nature ofthe activity with special emphasis on the employer-employee relations .

(d) If the organization is a trade or business it does not cease to be one because of philanthropy animating the undertaking.

Thus, the test (especially triple test) referredby the Hon'ble theApex Court in Bangalore Water Supply case (supra) is necessary to qualify any institution to be an industry.

Regarding the sovereign functions , Hon'ble theApex Court in Bangalore Water Supply case (supra) held that sovereign functions strictly understood alone does not qualify exemption, nor the welfare activities or economic adventures undertaking by Government or statutory bodies . Even in departments discharging sovereign functions, ifthere are units which are industries and they are substantially sevegral then they can be consider to come within section 2 (j ) of the Act, in the definition of industry.

Thus , the decision whether the particular organization is an industry or not is to be taken by the work done and business carried on by it , which absolutely depends on the facts and circumstances of each case . Admittedly the main work ofthe management of ME.S. are the provision for buildings, dock, airfields, etc. together with accessory services , such as road, electric and water supply, drainage, furniture etc , and internal fixture generally

6139 maintenance services, i.e. repairs, renewal and upkeep of works as maintenance and operation of certain installations such as electric power stations , pumping stations , sewerage disposal works , hiring and payment oftent, rates and taxes in respect of lands and buildings , railways and the payment ofbills for electronic energy. The M.E.S. is also supposed to do the furnishing ofnecessary particulars to enable them to collect rent for quarters and charges for fiumiture, electricity and water etc. The all above mentioned functions cannot be termed strictly as the sovereign functions carried on by the department . Some ofthe abvoe mentioned functions are welfare activities and economic adventures undertaken by the M.E.S. , on behalf of the Government of India . Without commenting on the sovereign identity of few functions of the M.E.S. , I am of the view, that other major functions , as stared earlier , are related to the welfare activities and economic adventure which can notbe termed strictly as the sovereign functions. As per the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply case ( supra) even in departments discharging sovereign functions, if there are units which are industries and they are substantially sevegral , it may qualify for industry. As stated earlier , major functions of the respondent M.E.S. are the welfare activities and economic adventures which are certainly substantiallly sevegral then the other functions which can be said to be the soveregien functions. On the bases of the above mentioned observations , I am of the view that M.E.S. , the respondent, is an industry for the purpose of adjudication of this reference.

In this regard learned counsel for the management ofrespondent has also argued that the decision of Hon'ble theApex Court in Bangalore Water Supply case (supra) had lost its relevance in view of the subsequent decisions oftheHon'ble Supreme Court in 2005 SCC ( L & S) 642 and 2006 SupremeCourt cases (L & C) 1503, wherein it has beenheld that the decision in the case ofBangalore Water supply etc.(supra) needs to be referred to a larger bench. On the basis of the above observation leamed counsel has argued that the decision ofthe Hon'ble Court in Bangalore Water Supplycase (supra) is per- inquirium and cannot be applied in the present case . I am unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the opposite party because this Court is not competent and even should not dareto thinkwhether anyjudgmeat of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is per- inquirium . This Court is bound , as per the doctrine of precedent, to apply the ratio of every of the judgment ofSupreme Court unless and until not set aside by the subsequent larger bench of the Supreme Court . The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply case (supra) has yet not been set aside 6140

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 15,2008 /KARTIKA24, J

PART 11 SEC. ( iil

52, Hon'ble the Apes down the law regarding

the breaks in serviceese breaks , h

'Tribunal is bound to diratin of both of these subsequently by arger bench of the Hun ok A so, I am legaliy bound toapply tir; ratiu elias pige the present case as well .

judgments as such and the mio of the judgements is Leamed Counsel for the management has also al

the rule of the departement han permit the managensen

to count the notional brewhide salculating the lengt that the remedy tie in the administrative Tribenil A 1. and thia Tribunal has got no pensdiction to dispose of tikis

service, instead of that sandy of the contract reference . As stated earlier that respetunt is an ind

the parties should not be grena galey It is also the ratio as defined under the industrial Disputes Act. By way of

in the judgments that the breaks, entire periow!

the nature of work of the applicant , he ap ; licam is

should be counted while sting the service rendered undoubtedly a workman as defined in the Industrial

by a workman . It is true in the case before Saprene Disputes Act . There is a relationship of empioss ! and

Court, there was only one sin service and in the present employee berween the workman tu the managem

case there are several bratred earlier that the as such it cannot be said that the remedy lies bellars the

breaks are notional and with intencion to pavem Central Administrative Trimal Gustituid node: tie

theworkman for getting bruselit at his continuous asth Administrative Tribunal Act , 1985. So, I an: unabic to accept

under the hudustrial Disa te any other law in the the contention of the learned counsel for the managartent

time being in force. So the brais wa the unlawful labour that this Tribunal has got ne jurisdiction to dispose thus

practices and while apping dis mio of the judgment of

the Hon'ble the Apex Cour , the workman is entitled for reference . Under the Industrial Disputes Act, this Tal is competent to answer the reference referred by Central

calculating the entire ser ice be rendered in any of the Government.

capacity. It is not th 10 the management that

whenever the work washable workman was provided

the work but the documenten record shows that the work

was continous and the breas are giver with intention as

stated earlier .

So, on the basise observation , I am of

the view that the wer is enrided for counting his calculating his length of service only one break precedang scrvices from 14-9-671340 which he has rendered da

casual basis with the rent of tespondent tir to his appointment on regular basis was calculated. The workman as is evident from inis affidavit, represented ber purpose of seniority , pa ination and other benefits as

well. Rules of the department are always to be interrupted oftimes to the management but in vain . The corresponerse between the parties are on record and the ampliar in the light of the provi , fore , of the Act and the Judicial

Pronouncement therewingly , this referente is

answered in negative that the action of the managerment of

MES represented by thosan Tingineer , Air Force .

Chandigarh , in not counts le services period of Shri The question lelt for determination is whed er the workman is entitled for the relief as sought in his Cann petition which is based on the relerence . There is to dispute on the appointspent of workman and duration of service that from 14-9-6710 2-4-70 he worked on casual bast and thereafter, he was appointed on regular basis aie (prayer) of the workman was dismissed by the management on the ground inct the rules of the department prints only to count the last break and not all the breaks cannot be said that reference is barred by lim36ווייזו allegedly raised atter 26 years .

Daljit Singh, Retrigerator Vic working hot 14-9-67

to 30-4-70 for the purpose of seniority, pay fixation and I have gone through the breaks frain AnnexureA -l

other benefits is not justined . The workman is entitled for

all the benefits of saderney, ray nation and other benetits

from the date ofhis moment which was made on which shows that there are notional breaks of ou days while he was serving on casual basis. Tas that the work was available with the department of the

14-9-67 . The mana accordingly darecied to

calculate the peacd - 4-70 Alach the breaks were see to avoid the legal cons account of regular working of the workman wear the

workinan served as kei while sakenlating the Industrial Disputes Autor any other taw for the time

total service rendered burkamun and 10 arford the in force. These breaks are certainly unlawt

benefits like, seniority pisten and other benefits practices and should be considered and coumed h . the

withing the period of oond real the date ofpablic Tribunal while caiculating the length of service. Ilerde

theApex Court in so judginents has laid down the ite

of this award . Central Cuscreen be infernca . File consigned.

principle. In Sushil Kumar Yadaynath Tha Vs. Un

E. SHARMA, Presiding Officer India and another 1986 LIC 1105 and in Shri Ravi Narayan

Mohapatra Vs. State of Orissa and others JT 19410 भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 15, 2008 /कार्तिक 24, 1930

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (10) ]

नई दिल्ली, 22 अक्तूबर, 2008

का. आ. 3077. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियण , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार गैरीसन इंजीनियर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबंद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बोच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं.- ] , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 78/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -14012/ 11/92- आई आर ( डी यू) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 22nd October, 2008 S.O. 3072 In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 78/2007) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court, No. 1 Chandigarh , as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Garrison Engineer and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on22-10-2008,

6141 16-1-87 is legal and Justified? If not, what reliefthe concerned workman is entitled to and from what date?"

This Tribunal after afforded the opportunity ofbeing heard to both of the parties awarding the claim of the workman vide award dated 25-8-2003 directed the management to reinstate the workman within one month from the date of the publication ofthe award.

The management of Garrison Engineer (Utility ) M.E.S. Bhatinda preferred a writ petition challenging the award dated25-8-03 ofthis Tribunal. Hon'ble High Court dismisses the writ petition and uphold the award dated 25-8-03 . Thereafter , the management of the respondent filed the civil appeal No.6144 of 2005 in Hon'ble the Supreme Court challenging the award passed by this Tribunal and against the order of the Hon'ble High Court upholding the award. Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 27-5-07 set aside the award and remit the matter to this Tribunal Labour Court to decide the objections raised by the management about the maintainability of the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, founded on the claim that it is not anindustry.

[No. L- 14012/ 11 /92 - IR (DU) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. Old 1. D. No. -91/93

New L. D. No. 78/2007

Shri.Narinder Singh, C/ o Shri D.K. Sharma , H. No. 551 , Sector -41 -A, Chandigarh .

After receiving the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court. I have afforded the opportunity afresh to both of the parties for adducing evidence both oral and documentary . Heard learned counsels for the parties . Perused the entire materials on record . Learned counsel for the management of respondent also filed the written arguments which are on record.

Heard, learned counsel for the parties . Learned counsel for the workman has argued that M.E. S. Bhatinda is an industry as per the definitions of industry given by theApex court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. Rajappa and others AIR, 1978 Supreme Court 548, as M.E.S Bhatinda is not exercising sole sovereign functions.

...Applicant

Versus

TheGarrison Engineer (Utility), M. E. S., Bhatinda (Pb.) .

Respondent

APPEARANCES

For theworkman : Srl . D. R. Sharma

For the management : Sri . K. K. Thakur

AWARD

Passed on: 8-10-2008

Government of India vide gazette notification No. L- 14012/11/92/ TR ( DU) dated 26-8-1993 referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for judicial adjudication:-

"Whether the action of Garrison Engineer (Utility) M.E.S. Bhatinda in terminating the services of Shri Narinder Singh Sto Shri Mehar Singh, Mazdoor w.e.f. Learned counsel for the management of respondent has argued that this Tribunal has got no jurisdiction to entertain the reference and the claim of the workman because the applicant Narinder Singh is not a workman and he has an equal efficacy remedy available before the Central Administrative Tribunal , constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985. It is also stated by learned counsel for the management of respondent that the respondent is part and parcel of the defence forces and its work falls within the tern sovereign functions and as such the respondent is not an industry. Regarding the law laid down by the Hon'ble the Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply case (supra ) learned counsel for the workman has argued that in view of the subsequent decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court published in 2005 Supreme Court cases (L& S) 142 and 2006 Supreme Court cases L& S 4503 the law laid down in Bangalore Water Supply case (supra) has lost its relevance because in the above mentioned two 6142.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2008/KARTIKA 24. 1930

judgments it has been held by Hon'ble and Apex Count that the decision in Bangalore Water Supply case tsupra ) needs to be referred to a larger bench and accordingly the said decision is per - inquirium and cannot applied in the instant case ,

I am unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel because this [ rabuna ! has no jurisdiction or even authority to say that any judgment of Hon ble the Supreme Court is per- inquiriam This Tribunal is bound to scept and apply the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Cost sal any of the case till it has not been ret aside by the subsequent large beach of the Hon'ble the Apex art . As the law laid down in Bargalore Water Supply (supra) is still a good lary and has not been set and as admitted by learned counsel for the management, by the subsequent larger bench of the Supreme Court , this Triturel isbound to apply the law as such as laid down by the Hon'ble the Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply ase (supra) .

After hearing the parties and on perusing all tine materials on record . I am of the view that main questions for the determination of the Tribunal in this reference at this stage are:

( 1) Whether M. S. thatinda , the respondenta industry and this Friberal has got jurisdiction to adnadicate thus reference as per the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act"

(2) Whether the workman has rightly approa.tard this Tribunal for seeking the remedy instead of moving to administrative Tribunal Act as disputed by the managemem?

(3) Whether the workman is entitled to any telef It is true thai Hur'ble the Supreme Court has tent the matter to this Tribunal Count to decide the ohjes.cons founded on the claim that the respondent is not ar industry. Hon'ble the Apex Court has set aside the entire award and apart from the above mentioned issue regarding the maintainability of the proceedings founded on the claim that that not the industry , this Tribunal has to adjudicate the rest part of the referente as well .

The main contention of the learned counsel of the management is that the respondent M.E.S. Bhatinda 15 exercising the sovereign prowers and as such is not an industry . The tern industry has been defined in Section 2)j ) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 , to 20 %ההאמת business, trade. undertaking , manufacture or calling or employers and Fncludes any cailing , services , employment , Handicrafi . or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen. "

In Bangalore Water Supply case ( supra ), ? Judges Bench of Hon'ble the Apex Court has defined the werd industry. As per the above mentioned verdict of the Apex

[ PART II---SEC. 3( ii)] Court, term ' industry has been defined in sub - section2(j ) ina vide import as:--

(a) Where there is ( 1) systematic activity, ( ii ) organized by co - operation between employer and employee ( the direct and substantial element is chimerical ) and ( iii ) for the production and/or distribution al goods and services calculated to satisfy human war and wishes (not spiritual or religious tu ! inclusive of materials things or services geared to celestial bliss ) , prima facie , there is an industry in the enterprise;

(b) Absence of proti, motive or gainful objective is irrelevant , be the venture in the public, joint, private or other sector ,

(c) The true foces is functional and the decisive test is the nature of the activity with special emphasis on the employer-employee relations;

(d) If the organization is a trade or business it does not cease to be one because of philanthropy animating the undertaking .

Thus, the test ( especially triple test ) referred by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply case (supra) are necessary to qualify any institution to be and industry.

Regarding the sovereign functions , Hon'ble the Apex Court in Bangalor Water Supply case ( supra ) held that sovereign function strictly understood alone qualified exemption, not the welfare activities or economic adventures undertaking by Government or statutory bodies . Even in department discharging sovereign functions , if there are units which are industrics and they are substantially sevegral thenthey can be consider to come within section 2(1).

Thus , the decision whether the particular organization is and industry or not is to be taken by the work done and business carried on by it which absolutely depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Admittedly, the original work of the management ofM.F.S. Are the provision for buildings docks , airfields , etc. together with accessory services, such as roads , electric and water supply, drainage , fumiture etc. and intemal fixture generally maintenance services , i.e. repairs renewal and upkeep of work as maintenance and operation of certain installations such as electric power stations pumping stations, sewerage disposal works , hiring and payinent of rent, rates and taxes in respect of lands and buildings , railways and the paymem of bills for electronic energy .

The M.E.S. is also supposed to do the furnishing of necessary particulars to enable them to collect rent for quarters and charges for furniture electricity and water etc. All the above mentioned functions cannot be termed strictly as the sovereign tunctions carried on by the department. Some of the above mentioned functions are भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2008/ कार्तिक 24, 1930

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

welfare activities and economic adventurers undertaken by the M.E.S. on behalf of the Government of India. Without commenting on the sovereign identity on the bases of few functions of the M.E.S. , I am of the view, that few functions , as stated earlier are related to the welfare activities and economic adventure which cannot be termed strictly as the sovereign functions . As per the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex. Court in Bangalore Water Supply case (supra) even in departments discharging sovereign functions, if there are units which are industries and they are substantially several, they may qualify for industry. As stated earlier few functions of the respondent M.E.S, are the welfare activities and economic adventures which are certainly substantially sevegral with the other functions which can strictly be termed as the sovereign functions . On the basis of the above observations , I am ofthe view that M.E.S. the respondent is an industry for the purpose of adjudication of this reference.

The next question before this Tribunal is whether this Tribunal has got the jurisdiction to adjudicate this reference. Learned counsel for the management has contended that the workman should have opted the forum established under the Industrial Disputes Act and this reference is barred . As observed above by this Tribunal that M. E. S. , the respondent, is an industry and Shri Narinder Singh who is admittedly a daily wage worker is a workman as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act. There is a employer-employee relationship between the workman and the management , and accordingly, the dispute in between the workman and the management become an industrial dispute for whose redressal an Industrial Tribunal- com - Labour Court established under the Provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act 1982 is competent . Accordingly, without discussing the powers ofCentral Administrative Tribunal , constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act , and as referred again and again by learned cousel for the management, I am ofthe view that there is a direct employee employer relationship between the workman and the management of MES , respondent is an industry and the dispute between the two is an industrial dispute and accordingly , this Tribunal has got the jurisdiction to redress and adjudicate the Present reference .

The last question before this Tribunal for judicial adjudication is to what relief the workman is entitled? This Tribunal has good exercise on this point on earlier occasion as well . I have gone through the evidence adduced by the parties . It is the contention of the workman that he has worked from 1-1-85 to 2-2-87 with the management of MES and had completed more than 240 days of service within one calendar year immediately preceding to the date of his termination. Adding to the contention of workman , the witness of mangement M. W. 1 Narinder Singh has admitted in his affidavit that the applicant worked for 237 days within a calendar year

6143 preceding to the date of his termination . Ex. MW 2 is admitted to both of the parties which shows that the workman has worked from 11-7-85 to 15-1-87 . The careful perusal of this document in light of the oral evidence adduced by the parties , it is also evident that Sunday and holidays have not been included while calculating the working days of the workman . Hon'ble the Supreme Court in American Express Vs. Management of American Express , AIR 1996 Supreme Court 458 as held that Sundays and other paid holidays should be taken into account for the purpose of completion of240 days . If Sundays and holidays are counted into the admitted 237 daysby the management the working days of the workman comes much more than the 240. The calculation which is given by the management itself shows that after ignoring sundays and other holidays , when the workman was about to completed 240 days , he was disengaged from the services which certainly amounts to an unfair trade practice. As stated earlier that sundays and holidays are to be counted while calculating the working days as per the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in American Express case (supra ) . Thus, on the basis of the above observation , I am of the view that the workman has worked more than 240 days in the preceding calendar year from the date of his termination . It is not the case of the management of respondent that his services were retrenched after given a legal notice and retrenchment compensation as required by Industrial Disputes Act . At the time ofthe termination of services of the workman no notice and retrenchment compensation was given .

Learned counsel for the workman has also put this fact to the notice ofthe Tribunal that few persons amongs , the similar situated persons had approached Hon'ble the Apex Court and Hon'ble the Apex Court in Harmesh Lal Vs. Union of Indja directed the management to reinstate theworkmen concerned on the posts held by them before the retrenchment without payment of back wages within one inonth. The copy of the order of Hon'ble the Apex Court is on record . Hon'ble the Apex Court has already ordered the reinstatement of few workman in the Hannesh Lal's case (supra) without back- wages and the case of those workman was similar to the present workman . Accordingly, I am not hesitating to protect the right of theworkman to be reinstate in the services of management ofrespondent on the post held by him at the time of his termination , without any back -wages.

On the bases of the above observation , I am of the view that workman is entitled for reinstatement into the services on the post he was holding at the time of his termination on both of the counts namely that he has proved before this Tribunal that he worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding to the date of his termination and he was illegally terminated and secondly in the similar circumstances Hon'ble the Apex Court in Harmesh Lal case (supra) has ordered the reinstatement into the services 6!44

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOMER 15.2008/ KARTIKA 21

regarding the co -workers . Accordingly, the matragend of respondent is directed to reinstate the workman on dev work he was buting doing at the time of histermination within one month from the date of the notification of it's award . However , the workman will not be enutied ey back -wages The reference is accordingly answered Cittad Government benfonned . File be consigned.

GK . SHARMA, Presiding नई दिल्ली , 22 अक्तूबर , 2008

का, आ. 3073.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम ( 1947 का 14 ) को धारा 17 के अनुप्ररण में केन्द्रीय सरकार इंजीनियर के प्रबंधतंत्र के मंबंद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्म बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्देशन औद्योगिक विवाद में संद्रीय सरकार अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय नं. । चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( नंद 69: 2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो कंन्द्रीय म 22-10-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था । 1:

. एल 1,3012-3.७४ - आईभ अजय कुमार , दंश्क अधि New Delhi the 22nd October, 2008

5.0.3073. n pursuance of Section 17 Industrial Dispones Act. 1947114 of 1947) , the Ces Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. ofthe Central tiovernment ledustial Tribunal - c Court No. 1, Chandigaris as shown in the Anpesure Industrial Dispute between the employers in relehen in the management of Garrison Engineer , and their works . which was received by the Central Govere t on 22-10-2008 b

[No. 1.-13012: 3:98

AJAY KUMAR , Desk

ANNEXURF,

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHAR344, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COU

CHANDIGARH

CaseNo. Old L. D. No. - 178 /98

New 1. D. No.62000

Shri ' Triyogi Pandit . Su Shri Hukam Chand . Cord Arora 11. No. 3075, Sector 38 - D. Chandigarh- 15000 :

App

Versus

The Garrison Engineer M.F.S.. Bhatinda - 15100

Rep APPEARANCES

For the worknian : Sri Gurbinder Singh

For the management : Sri K. K. Thakur

PAR ! 11 -S Passedan.2008

Governmen ! :: notification No. L- 13012/3 /98 / IR dated 1-8-1998 reterned the following industrial dispenser alacial adjudication to this Tribunal.....

"Whether the act naagement e: CGarrison Engineer M.E.S . Cantt. in termination !

the services of Sing Fandi ! So Shri Hukum Chand a daily aber we.t. 3-1-87 injust and legal ? Ifnot , to vreler the workman is entitled10 and from what

On perusal of the tezard , is evident that prior to raising in industrial dispute before the

Sed a pestion before conciliation officers,

tigach for socking hos the Admmistrative 1

reinstatement into th or seisant et his illegal termination . The t Atrative Tribuna!.

Chandigarh Bench vilder Hoted 20-9-45 disnussed the petition being norirable as the workman had

ailable to fint under the not exhausted the rere

vever, the Adromistrative Industrial Disputes 4.

order will not prevent the Tribunal make it clear the

applicant from availinepriate remedy under the previsions of Industrial Act, in accordance with law

Aggrieved wr del 20-9-93 . the workman preferrerlas appeal keture Hon'ble the Supreme Coun secided by the Supreme

li was ordered by the Court vide order dat

here is an anordic.ue delas of Hon'ble Supreme Cour

1479 days in one case .... in two cases the delay of 1077 and 1066 has nor paindu the saidintion ot the Court . Thereafter . t. ed an industrial dispute and on ac sure el constr proceedings , the Cent fer the above maintioned referen . adjudication to this Tribunal

This Tribunal ali.espoonuaity elbeng heard decided this reten.. ic assard dobet 23-9-104 , rejecting the claim of ti ... Como delay and letches. The workman !: pettomuuder Anicle 226 of the constitution in this eirt Punjab and Haryana and the Hon'ble Iligh table considering the point of delay set aside the aw that there was no deby in approaching the a ker de Ludustrial Disputes Acr , and its Tribunal to decide the reference afresh taly alter alfording the appropriate o קp ויט . :: . The parties . The above mentioned circumstances ar ietatis Tribunal once again to adjudicate this referen

Thefirst prolithus action which is raised by the management is that she remods and reltet has been (भाग 11-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

rejected by Central Administrative Tribunat , Chandigarh Bench vide order dated 20-9-93 and the SLP filed against the said order has been dismissed by the Hon'ble the Apex Court. Thus, the order ofthe Tribunal become final and the worman is estopped to raised the same issue again before thisTribunal .

On perusat ofthe materials on record, I am unableto accept the contention of the learned counsel for the management because Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Rench dismissed the petition of the workman on the ground of maintainbiltiy. However, the wrokman was put at liberty for availing the opportunity and appropriate remedy under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in accordance with law. Against this order that Central Administrative Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the workman , the workman filed a SLP before Hon'ble the Sustthe Court, which was dismissed on account of delay and letclics . The effect ofthe dismissal of SLP by Hon'ble the Apex Court willbe that the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 20-9-93 become final in respect of non- maintainability of the petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal and affording the opportunity for availing the appropriate remedy wider the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. Thus , in compliance of the order dated 20-9-93 which was final on account of the dismissal of SLP by the Supreme Court, the workman raised an industrial dispute under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, and on account of failure of conciliation proceedings the same was referred to this Tribunal for judicial adjudication.

As stated earlier this Tribunal rejected the claim of the workman on ground of letches and delay but the award passed by this Tribunal dated 23-9-04 was set aside by Hon'ble High Court of punjab and Haryana directing this Tribunal for adjudicating the reference afresh.

As per the statement ofclaim of the workthuat, he was appointed as workman on 17-2-83 and was drawn 1200/- per month plus allowances at the time of termination ofhis services on 3-1-87. He worked continuously and his services were terminated illegally againt the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act . No notice was given and retrenchment compensation paid to hun while terminating his services .

On the other hand, the management by filing the written statement raised objections regarding the maintainability of the claim petition before this tribunal for the reason that M.E.S. Pathankot Cantt . is not an industry and there is no relation between the workman and the respondentwhich can be termed as employer-employee relationship . As the dispute between the two is not an industrial dispute, it cannol be adjudicated by this Tribunal Apart from it , it has also been mentioned that the workman has not worked for a period of 240 days in the preceding 4195G1/08-8

6145

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15, 2008/कार्तिक 24 , 1930

year from the date of his termination and no other junior workmen kept in service . Both of the parties were afforded opportunity for adducing evidence . They did so. I have heard tearned counsel for the parties and pursued the entire materials on record . The main question for determination before this Tribunal in the present reference are:-

( 1 ) Whether the Garrison Engineer, MES is an industry and the dispute between the workman and the management of respondent is an industrial dispute?

(2) Whether the workman is entitled for the relief sought in his statement of claim?

The term ' industry has been defined in Section 2(j ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to mean any business , trade , undertaking, manufacture or calling or employers and includes any calling , services , employment , handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen..

InBangalore Water Supply and Sewerage BoardVs. Rajappa and others Al R. 1978 Supreme Court 548. , 7 Judges Bench ofHon'ble the Apex Court has defined the word industry. As per the above mentioned law laid down by theApex Court , industry has defined in Sub -section 2 as a vide import as:-

(a) Where there is ( i ) systematie activity, ( ii ) organized by co- operation between employer and employee (the direct and substantial element is chimerical ), and (iii ) for the production and/or distribution of goods. and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes (not spiritual or religious but inclusive of material things or services geared to celestial bliss ) . prima acie, there is an . industry in the enterprise.

(b) Absence ofprofit motive or gainful objective is irrelevant, be the venture in the public, joint, private or other sector.

(c) The true focus is functional and the decisive test is the nature of the activity with special emphasis on the employer - employee relations.

(d) Ifthe organization is a trade or business it does not cease to be one because of philenthropy animating the undertaking

Thus, the test especially triple test ) refered by the Hon'ble the Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply case(Supra) are necessary to qualify any institution to be an industry.

Regarding the sovereign functions, Hon'ble the Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply case (supra ) held that sovereign functions strictly understood alone does not qualify exemption, nor the welfare activities or economic adventures undertaking by Government or statutory bodies. Even in departments discharging sovereign functions, if there are units which are industries and they 6146

are substantmily veprat ther the, cen come within Section 201

Thus , the decim wher

pott organization is an edustry

work done ал ! Бизпуска carrican

depends on the lack and wiresimsta

Admittedly the pain wok at the gener

the provisions tor bridings docks , arhei

with accessory ser

supply , drainageete and

generally mamices.le. lepas

upkeep ofworked arenance and opera

installations such as electric power stations .

slations , sewerage dispersal works hand " :

rent, rates and taxes espect of lands an

railways and the payseat of bulls for elevers

The M.E.S.seco de theat

necessary particulareole thens to ..!!

quarters and charges or furniture ciclista :

All the above mentioned linctions cannot

as the sovereign metired on by the

..:

Some of the above mptioned functions arewel

and economic advers undermabret

behalf of the Gowinment al india . Wa

on the sovereign intity of swfureusins

am ofthe view.jer functions ass

are related to the Weltare activities and compos

which cannotbe termed stricly as the vei

As per the law lai ! diven be the Hon'ble t

Bangalore Water Supply cas . suprateenind discharging sovereign functions, if there its n are industries and bay we substantly

qualify for in haste. As stated cartier , mato.

the respondent MS . are the welfare a

economic adventares which are certaraly

sevegral then the other functions which can

the sovereign tenons the

mentioned cherson of the cas

respondent , is an endastry for the purpose of ofthis reference .

לוי The nest question for detet

this, Tribunal es whether thus fribunal

adjudicate the rafciem . La his writteir arge

no . 9 onwards leamed counsel for the

respondent has emphased thatthe proper

to the workman, has been to file the p

Central Adminissative Tribunal , i andre .

contention of the warned counsel for their two grounds

(1) The Central Administrative :

he Chandigarh Bench has in a petition

workman held that the proper remus!!

Industrial Disputes Act and the ore !

Tribunal was final on account of do SLP ba Hoa 'ble the Supreme Court he

FLER 15.2008 KARTIKA ?

3.7son direction of the Con .. stralive ribunal the Womadustualdustual dispute and tom accolta trubliation proceedings

this Tribunal kes judicial adjudi

panch it is in industr (2) As viate !

the Stivities carried on in Thene

of the applicant aiser shows prkman as defined Indust walte dispute betseva The work dispute the respondent is an industual hone : has jurisdiction to adadie... warkuar wil dispute between the management as per the mavisi Disputes Act, anzi it memedy lies before the Central

Tans, on b of the view thn thes to adjudicate thi re emerianed grounds I am empowered and cotepeten

wit the workman issuegelaat which ared as the Cemt !

Now the entitied for themelit is on the basis of Govecument.

It is contendi Pontmusously for 21 wman that he has worked r.alendar year prior in the daic of his tem specifically been denied by the managerneti on been stated that far Jhas not worked ter a ce . The requirement of ' aw is

previous calcinin cominuous working

sis termination and not a year preceding to

materials op record and complete year . Or ..

ou the casusi view by the management and proved by the workman band documentars evidence Ex Mark A. lah

w that the workman lis

in the preceding year her completed 240

Mark A is the certifiede the date of his tem

vakman regarding jus provided by the du

work and condit

is mentioned that:-

It is certified Tag pandit Sia Sritakan Chand inad ms workman from 1-2-83

Muster roll. Dota MES . I found him honest .

13-1-27 in : the period his hand worker",

This certific

by Colonel Horan 2-1-1-83 and it was couver

Virander Kumar lajor Garrison Engineer .

esseri the managemcza Mager

shown his ignorance about the Grish Kumar M.W.

authority to issue tiate and couver signed it. Bul his doubt cannot me issuance of this certificate which proved thes Triyogi Pandit worked in the department contin 17-2-83 to 3-1-87. Thus, it is भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2008 /कार्तिक 24 , 1930

[ भाग - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

proved that the workman was initially lawfully appointed. He has completed 240 days of work in the preceding calendar year from the date of his termination . He was not given any notice or retrenchunent compensation before his termination which makes his termination illegal being against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act .

It has also brought to the notice of this Tribunal that in the similar circumstances regarding the Co- workers . Hon'ble the Apex Court has directed the deparonent 10 reinstate their services within one month from the date of theorder. I have gone through the judgment of the Hon'ble ApexCourtwhich is on record. The matter before the Hon'ble Apex Court was same as that of the present workman.

Accordingly, on both of the grounds namely that the workman has proved that he has completed 240 days of work in the preceding calendar year from the date of hus termination and his termination is void being in the violation of Industrial Disputes Act and secondly that Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the similar circumstances has directed the managementto reinstate the workman in the service on the same post he was holding at the time of his termination, I am of the view that the services of the workman should be reinstated within one month from the date of publication of the award without any benetit of back wages , Accordingly, the management is directed to reinstate the workman within one month from the date of the publication of the award. However, it is made clear that the workman will not be entitled for any backwages.The reference is answered accordingly . CentralGovernment be informed. Filebe consigned.

GK . SHARMA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 23 अक्तूबर, 2008

का.आ. 3074.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार फेडरल बैंक लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , इरनाकूलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 179/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-10-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/197/1998 - आई आर ( बी -1 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 23rd October , 2008 S.O. 3074. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 179/ 2006, ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Ernakulam , as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Federal Bank Ltd. , and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on23-10-2008.

[No. L- 12012/ 197/1998- IR (B - I) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

6147

ANNEXURE

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

Present: Shri P.L. Norbert , B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer (Friday the 22nd day of August, 2008 /31st Sravana, 1930) (1. D.Nc 22/1999 of Labour Court . Emakulam) I. D. No. 179/2006

Union

: The General Secretary, Federat Bank Employees ' Union , Aluvu.

By Adv. Sri C.Anil Kumar

Management : The Chairman , Federal Bank Limited, Head Office, Aluva . By Adv . Mis . B.S. Krishnan Associates

This case coming up for hearing on 18-08-2008 , this Tribunal - cum - Labour Court on 22-08-2008 passed the following:

AWARD

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

"Whether the action of the management of Federal Bank Ltd. in dismissing the service of the workman SriAntony Varghese w.e.f. 14-07-1997 isjustified? LE not, what relief to the workman is entitled to ?" 2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:.... Shri Antony Varghese. Clerk of Rajkot branch of Federal Bark was charge sheeted for habita ! absence without complying with leave rules , riotous and disorderly behav- lour in the bank, causing willful damage to the properties of the bank, insubordination and disobedience of the law- ful orders of superiors and doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank . A domestic enquiry was conducted and he was found guilty of the charges . The disciplinary authority imposed punishment of dismissal from service on 14-07 -'97, Aggrieved by the decision the present indus- trial dispute is raised through the union .

3.According to the union the enquiry was conducted without following the principles of natural justice.'The workman was not given taic opportunity to prove his innocence. Regarding the charge ofriotous and disorderly behaviour there was a criminal case, Bat the workman was discharged by the criminal court . Hence the finding inen- quiry regarding that charge is unsustainable . The work- man had submitted 15 leave applications and they were accepted by the managerment. Still the Enquiry Officer found him guilty of unauthorised abschee . The workman had 6148

THE GAZETTE OF INDIAMBER 15 , 2008 KARTIKA

was availed Leave Fare Concession after submitung cation and obtaining sanction . However the work not able to perform the journey due to compelling stances . This was known to the Manager and her , he did not insist for 1.4. bill waen the workman resum.ddy The disciplinary authority did not take into con -iderition the mitigating circarestiances of the workmas and the punishment of dismissal Though the warsund in appeal it was dismissed . The workman was victamnised by the management , 1 he punishment is excussive at Sand Thewerkman is having no means to subsist . He is cerinted to be reinstated .

(2) lic avai ve Tone Concussion ( 1 during ...... Septa be 1995 гм те chel advare MR . 20 flim var he did perform rensiti.. cure and also fatico either to (3) 024-11

upand abron a letter which accen to bird the bad and whic was add . The ofic able to such other the workan Ar pol satis

banis201

and rrethore and sou properi

The misconderoga on. i.e. absence wi

the riotous and de 20 considered inore s

7. On 29-401

he rang up and ones the office had truelves a fetter addressed to an liceret the franc had attended the col

MWI replied the such a letter ...ad lag would check up with

sometime the work

enquired about the let

. to the alle as the Manager lia

worker went to th

violent and in

4.Accordingto the management to the charge hon the workman did not reply Considering the natre de misconduct he was kep : under suspension from 150 The enquiry was conducted in folt compliance plane principles of natural justice . The workınan was detended by a union office bearer. All the management we were cross - examined. Though opportunity was the workman did not examine any one or pasty document . Copy of the findings of Enquiry O furnished to the workman . He was giver oppulity make submissions to the disciplinary authicuity . punishment was proposed and alter incaring the Skil the punishment of dismissal was imposed . Thaweede authority concurred with the findings of Frequire and confirmed the pristinent . A criminala registered by the Executive Magistrate , Rajkat cider Section 107 of . P. C. He was discharged mier cer 118Cr.P.C subsequently . That waunot attect the findings in the enquiry. The tact that leave application re submitted does not mean that they were surticle workman had not complied with leave rules. Alter silang a LFC the workman did not undertake the journey 4 per rules he has to remit the advance drawn immediate alter resuming duty . He has to submit TA bill vi the fourty undertaken within 7 days of resuming duty Hous workman failed to do so. After a very long tame the bark. had to recover the amount . The punishroen! is in propertie to the gravity of the misconduct . There is ne reduce the punishment.

5. In the light of the alove contentions the fokalg points arise for consideration

1. Are the findings sustainable ?

2. Is thx: panichment propostionale

The evidence consists of Ext . MI Enquiry in 6. Point No.1: - Sri.Antony Varghese , the workin was a Clerk in Rajkot branchof Federal Bank Whites far serious misconduct diserplinary action was initiatess x1 Et is the charge sheet . The charges are:

(1) He remained absent without complying with office with dite ...

typewriter , papers themale et

toppled the table Mail of the heart si Dihpytook him ou

rushud back to let glass pares, damaged plywood ne sabiti, poiled zov Manager's telephon Loppic Mangebie but did not succeed

took him out of the 1-;. ng with a

went to the police si Poi lodged a coupla The police registered a

workman. MAT

MW2 another office:

the incideor . lie toe de tune w the then Branch M around

he had gone out c

However , on the water : tw

salve. On the Koulovits office On the next da

day when he restme We wtstaid by MW'l about the inciched the office on 01-02-1994 he sa wget the priore and properties including

taken and forward PIR department ATW.

lodged another cones police. Allthe be 6149 [भाग ।।- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15, 2008 /कार्तिक 24, 1930

8. Ext . ME-33 is bill dated 12-02-1994 for replacing 2 glass paner Ext.ME- 34 is cash debit voucher dated 12-02-1994 evidencing payment for replacing glass panes. Ext.ME-32 is photograph. Ext.ME- 35 is a letter of Manager sent to DGM reporting about the damage done to the properties ofthe bank by the workman and requesting for sanction to replace the typewriter.

August 1993. At last the management had to recover the advance amount in 4 instalments in 1995 from 28-04-95 . The explanation of the worker in the claim statement that theManager had not insisted for T.A. bill when he resumed duty is no excuse to keep the advance amount with him for 2 years without undertaking the journey. Ext.ME- 31 is account receivable A/ c . ledger folios . It shows that an amount of Rs. 1,520 was recovered from the workman in 4 instalments in 1995. Thus the worker had disobeyed the lawful orders of his superior and thus committed the misconduct,

9. As against this evidence of the Management absolutely no evidence was rendered by the workmал . То Ext. El charge sheet the workman did not reply. But when theEnquiryOfficer read out the charges he denied them. It ison the basis ofthe evidence adduced by the management that the enquiry officer found the workman guilty ofriotors and disorderly behaviour . I find no lapse in the appreciation ofevidence by the Enquiry Officer.

12. Thus the Enquiry Officer had found the workman guilty of all the charges based on evidence on record. Absolutely no evidence was adduced by the worker. Therefore I hold that the findings regarding guilt of the worker suffer from no infirmities .

13. Point No. 2 :- The disciplinary authority after analysing and assessing the evidence discussed by the Enquiry Officer concurred with his findings and proposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for 3 months each for absence without leave and for disobedience of reasonable and lawful orders of superior and dismissal from service without notice for riotous , disorderly and indecent behaviour . These punishments were to run concurrently. The mitigating circumstances that the workman is out of employment since the date of suspension and he is the sole bread winner of his family consisting ofwife and a daughter was considered by the disciplinary authority. The same extenuating circumstances are put forward before this court seeking lesser punishment. But considering the nature of the misconduct especially the incident of 29-10-1994 when the officer of the bank were threatened, properties of the bank were damaged and even the cabin of the Manager was not spared I don't think that the workman deserves any lenient treatment in the matter of punishment .

In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management of Federal Bank Limited in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service is legat andjustified and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

10. The next allegation against the workman is that be remained unauthorisedly absent on 17 occasions between 22-05-1993 and 15-12-1993 , inspite of repeated instructions he did not submit leave applications. AccordingtoMW3 the Branch Manager the workman gave several leave applications together in a bunch for the absence on 17 occasions on a subsequent date. Exts.ME- 3 and 4 are letters sent to the workman from the branch requiring him to regularise his absence by submitting leave applications . Yet the workman did not apply for leave . Ext.ME-4A is acknowledgement card of Ext .ME-4 letter. Ext . MF-5 is another sunilar letter addressed to the workman . But it returned unserved . Ext.h1E - 9 to 23 are leave applications. Though the leave applications bear different dates, according to the Manager they were submitted in a bunch on the same day. Ext . ME-24 is bulletin ofthe bank which contains leave rules. As per rule ( 1 ) an employee has to submit leave application one month before secking leave except in urgent cases or unforeseen circumstances including illness . Leave ofall kinds cannot be claimed as of right . It is the discretion of the management to sanction or refuse leave according to the exigencies in the bank. The workman was not able to convince the Enquiry Officer that these applications were submitted on time . He had not complied with the leave rules and hence was found guilty ofabsence without leave. There is no infirmity in the finding.

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 22ndday ofAugust, 2008.

P. L. NORBERT, PresidingOfficer

Appendix Witness for the Union-Nil . Witness for the Management -Nil . Exhibits for the Union -NiL . Exhibit for theManaegemen M1-13-03-2002 Enquiry fire .

11. The next allegation is that the workman had availed leave fare concession and bad availed leave for 15 days from 28-08-1993 to 11-09-1993 . He availed advance of Rs. 760 / -on 05-08-1993 and another sum of Rs . 760 00 06-08-1993 for booking ticket . After the journey and after resuming duty he has to submit T.A. bill within 7 days Admittedly the workman did not undertake the journey . Naturally he should have remitted back the advance money immediately on resuming duty. He neither remitted money nor submitted T.A. Bill . Ext. ME-26 is L.F.C. application of theworkman , Ext, ME- 27 and 28 are request letters ofworker for advance of Rs . 760 each . MW- 3 had instructed the worker by Ext ME- 3 , 4 and 5 to remit A. advance. Ile did not complywith the direction . The advance was availed in 6150

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NFR 15.2008 KARTIKA 24.!

नई दिल्ली, 23 अक्तूबर, 2008

reliefthe concerned worken is entitled to and from what date?"

का.आ. 3075. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 14" "

sistement of claim and As per the avera

was charge -sheeted an written statement , then

4-7-85 for permitting M Xy interprises of Khana for

temoving the stocks fra den consisting of six tractors

which were pledged to the bank as security in the cash

credit amounted to Rsting the bark's interest to

jeopardy. The workman Sh. Hajader Kumar was also का 14 ) को धारः 17 के अनुशरण में, कंन्द्रीय सरकारबैंक ऑफ पटियाला को प्रबंधतंत्र संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनक के बीच, अनुबंध में विदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में कंन्द्रीय औद्योगिक अधिकाण चण्डीगढ़ नं. 1 के पंचाट ( सदर्भ 115/1991 ) को प्रकशिट करती है जो कंद्रीय 23-10-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ थी ।

charged for not report bank gradually about tise

placing of the tracto , dng the full particulars ot [सं. एल 2012-211 / 101- आईआर .

the tractors pledged with the back and fer not maintamine अजय कुमार, देका

the concerned registerdy Sh. Rajender Kumar the New Delhi the 23rd October , 200 %

workman informed the vide letter No , nil dated

17-9-84 about the rems which were pledged S.O. 3075. in pursuance of Secttem

by the borrower to the bock Lonut any authority dea Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 114 of 19471, the unmet

permission from the bois liranch Manager reported the Government hereby publisties the award Ref. No

of Central Government industrial Tribunai -vien - Ledr matter to higher authentics and higher antisorities

accordingly, directed aquire the watter . The charge Court No 1. Chandigarh as shown in the Ang

sheet was given to the aen The workman replied to

the charge sheet. Dissating with the reply an inquiry Industrial Dispute between the management of Sia of Patiala, and their workman , received by the Central

Goverrunent on 23-10-2008

was ordered to be condd and an enquiry silice ! was

appointed . After inquinquiry officer gave ' s report 101-12012201991-

with regard the proving charges exeeptone which AJAY KUMAR, ikar

he held to be partially As per the enquiry терот , ANNEXURE.

the charge regarding the removal of stocks ( 6 tracto

with the knowledge of die werkman was proved It was

also held to be proved that the workman failed to record

the proper particulars of the tractor and also failed to

maintain the relevant register Charge No. F which is BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARSE A PRESIDIN GOFFICER, CENTRAL GOVRENMFATT INDUSTRIAL. TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COOL, CHANDIGARH

regarding the key register was held to be partially proved.

Case No. 1. D. 115/91

The disciplinary author , after giving the opportunity of

being heard and hearing workman in person passed General Secretary,

StateBank of Patiala

sentence directing the soppage of 3 annual increments

we.f. 1-8-87, 1-8-88 and The workman filed an appeal Staff Union , 3135. Sector 22-10.

which was also dismissed Lecce this reference .

Chandigarh- 160022

Versus

Both of the parties fiorded the opportunity for

adducing evidence and on being heard . The workman General Manager ,

Sh. Rajender Kumar wasamined as WWI whereas K D.

Trivedi , the enquiry orli er was examined as MWI . I have StateBank of Patiala , The Mall, Patiala- 147001

...Respument

heard the parties and their legai representatives and APPEARANCES :

perused all the annexuresquiry reports and proceedings For the Workman

: None

ofenquir .

Sh. N. K. Zakhmi

The main questions for determination before this For the Management

AWARD

Passed on 1-10-08

of stocks of 6 tractors pledged with the bank and whether

he has committed the misconduct for non - maintaining the

security ? If I divide it into sub - heads the questions to be Govemment 1 India vide Notification No 1-12012 211 / 91 - IR ( B - 111 ) dated 18-9-91 referred the folowing industrial dispute for judicial adjudication: ---

Tribunal are whether the workmann has knowledge , prior his information to the bani , dated 17-9-84 . about the removal relevant registers pertaining to the pledged valuable answered by the Tribwat in this reference are:-

"Whether the action of the General Manager, Slate Bank of Patiala in stopping three increments w.e.f. 1-8-87, 1-8-88 and 1-8-89 in respect of Sh . Rajinder Sharma, Cashier- cum- Godown Keeper is legal and justified ? If not , tan what

1. Whether the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry in a fair proper and reasonable manner and there has eeen no violation of any rules of 6151 भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 15, 2008/कार्तिक 24 , 1930

[भाग ॥- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

principle of natural justice while conducting the enquiry ?

2. Whether on the basis of the evidence oral and documentary adduced before enquiry officer, enquiry officer has rightly come to the conclusion on the charges as proved againsı theworkman?

3. Whether the disciplinary authority and appellate authority while awarding punishment for stoppage of3 increments have applied their minds and the punishment given was in proportionateto the misconduct?

So far as the procedural fairness of enquiry is concemed, on perusal of the materials on record , it is evident that after framing of the charge, copy ofthe charge sheet was provided to the workman and enquiry officer while conducting the enquiry adopted the procedure mentioned in the bipartite settlement. On every date of hearing, opportunity of being heard was given to the workman . Thus, on the basis of the materials on record, I am of the view that the enquiry officer and thereafter, the disciplinary authority, adopted a fair and reasonable procedure while conducting the enquiry and awarding punishment. Their seems to be no violation of any ofthe rules ofprinciple of naturaljustice .

the workman for removing the stocks but one thing is established that the tractors which were pledged with the bank as the security were chained with locks and keys of locks were always lying with the workman . It is not the case that the partner of the concerned firm broke over the lock to dispose of the tractors against the violation ofterms and conditions of the contract executed with the bankwhile going for advances . It clearly proved that keys were provided to the partner and the same after opening the locks and chains disposed of the tractors. Undoubtedly. these keys were in the custody ofthe workman . Thus , act of the workman shows that he has reason to belief that the partner of the firm is not to be provided in any case, the keys ofthe locks without prior permission of the Manager . But the keys were transferred to the partner that resulting in the removal of the tractors pledged to the bank. In my opinion , this gives the cause to the enquiry officer to hold . that the charge No. A is proved against the workman . The enquiry officer was right in holding it as the departmental proceedings and the proceedings before this Tribunal are ofdifferent nature than the proceedings before the Civil Courts . In the proceedings before the Tribunal and in departmental proceedings , the presiding officer or enquiry officer, as the case may be have to see whether there is a reasonable nexus between the act committed and misconduct proved . In the present case , all the keys were lying with the workman and the tractors which were pledged with the bank as security were removed from the custody of the bank. In that case, it will not be surmises and conjectures that the workman has a reason to know unauthorised the removal of stocks . As per the evidence on record , the stocks were removed much earlier and the workman informed the bank quite later without any explanation. Whereas, he was supposed to have up- date information about the custody. Thus , there is a nexus between the facts that the workman was responsible for the custody ofkeys and for updating himself regarding the proper stock of tractors which were pledged with the bank with the fact that the stocks were removed unauthorizedly without the permission of the Manager of the bank. Thus, enquiry officer has rightly hold the charge No. A proved against the workman .

Likewise the copies of all the registers were in- complete. The chassis engine number and other relevant particulars were not registered in the relevant register and once again, it was the responsibility of the workman to get them registered. The register relating to the keys was alsu incomplete.

Accordingly, in my opinion, the enquiry officer has rightly held as all the charges proved against the workman except charge No.F which was held to be proved partially .

This Tribunal has also to decide the matter whether the enquiry officer has rightly held all the charges well proved except charge No.F ,which he held to be partially proved? Charge No.A is regarding the removal of stocks which were pledged to the bank unauthorizedly with the knowledge of the workman . I have gone through the evidence of all the witnesses which were adduced before the enquiry officer. PW3 , who was the Branch Manager at the relevant time in the branch concerned, had deposed that the branch came to know through the bills received under L/C and that too after 10 to 15 days from the date of bill . It has also been stated by PW3 that it was not possible for the branch to have complete control over the movement/ sale of tractors because no such clause was stipulated in the terms of the letter of credit sanctioned by controlling office. PW3 further stated that the procedure adoptedby the branch in this behalf, was such that it could not ascertain whether the particular tractor pledged with the branch was also stored? PW3 , in his entire evidence has not stated that the stocks of tractors which were pledged to the bank were removed with the knowledge of the workman. A general description of facts how the tractors were plodged and how the custody was changed , where they were kept placed are stated in entire evidence . Moreover, he has certain reservations about the procedure whichwas adopted for placing ofthe tractors. This is the case with PW4 as well .

Now, this Tribunal has to decide whether the disciplinary authority has pronounced the punishment in proportionate to the misconduct ofthe workman. Certainly it was a gross negligence on the part of the workman and It is true that PW3 , PW4 and the other witnesses of the bank have failed to establish the direct knowledge or 6152

tis ricera considering

habit of nai

responsibi

themcov pledged to

permission

unauthoriz.ir

increment

miscondice

called for. Accede

Goverment

का ( 4 ) को मात्र

लि. के प्रबंधन

૩ઃછ????????

??*************

अधिकरण

करती है,

SO. 10

Industrisi D

ofCentral

Cut, na

Industrial Da

End ,and the

on 2310200A

IN THE CENTRA

TRIBUNACTM AMORCOURT .

Present : Slu

(Thursday the

D.No

Union

Managemen

Py Ah M

KARIKAJ .

Whether

Niederai

is the phen

Branch o Pan Cakitad

...ted for babitual vaincrisci cegu

be sac-pupe

wed the than had s was condu SA inst the wor evesettie the due to the theatte

sed Th امج ייי compelli

coche sedis Bitwalabe

:..

Sum 15-6-2000

ispe: letter other .

2000 that h the stud response. O mauthorised

100بة

stoppage of ineretes .

6153 [ भाग -खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2008/कार्तिक 24, 1930

(once) were imposed. Still there is no improvement. The workman had not submitted a reply to the charge sheet . The enquiry was conducted in compliance with the principles of natural justice. The workman was defended byVice President ofthe Union . The management witnesses were cross examined . List of witnesses and copies of documents were given to the workman on time . Two witnesses were examined and documents were marked on the side of the workman . It is on the basis of the evidence on record that the Enquiry Officer found the workman guilty ofthe charges . The disciplinary authority after hearing him imposed the punishment of dismissal from service . The appellate authority concurred with the findings of Enquiry Officer and the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority . The workman had failed to submit leave applications and had not complied with the leave rules . He was irregular in service . In spite of repeated advice the workman continued to remain absent un -authorisedly. There are no mitigating circumstances to reduce the punishment. Therefore there is no reason to interfere with the findings or the punishment ,

5. In the light of the above contentions the points that arise for consideration are :-

1. Whether the findings are sustainable?

2. Whether the punishment is excessive?

The evidence consists ofExt . M1 Enquiry File alone.

6. Point No. 1 : The workman Sri . Dilip Paul was a bankman of Overseas Branch of Federal Bank , Calcutta , As per the charge sheet the allegation against him is that he was in the habit of absenting from duty without applying for leave . He remained absent from 05-06-2000 to 07-06-2000 without applying for leave and again from 13-06-2000 onwards continuously. His leave records were unsatisfactory. For similar misconduct of unauthorised absence 3 times minor punishments were imposed . The misconduct of the workman fall under Clause 19.5 (f) of FirstBipartite Settlement and Clause 21 ( ⅱ)(P) of6th Bipartite Settlement . To the charge sheet the workman did not submit any explanation . However he attended the domestic enquiry. He was defended by Vice President of the union. He was furnished with copies of documents and list of witnesses on the management side . The management witness(MW1 ) was cross examined . On workman's side two witnesses were examined including the workman and 15documents were marked. The preliminary objection of the union that the Enquiry Officer had not complied with the principles of natural justice is withoutany basis .

application he produced ME2 and ME3 medical certificates and fitness certificate which are dated 05-06-2000 and 08-06-2000 respectively. However in the leave application he has not specified the nature of the leave he required: Hence he was asked by the Chief Manager by Ext.MES to specify the nature of leave he had applied for . Thereafter the workman submitted another leave application Ext.ME6 along with ME7 medical certificate and MES fitness certificate .The 2nd application Ext.ME6 was submitted on 26-12-2000 . Even the first leave application Ext.MEl was submitted to the bank only after the period ofleave . As per the leave rules he should have submitted the leave application within the shortest possible time in case of urgent needs or sickness or else leave applications should be submitted in advance . Hence the Enquiry Officer has found that the workman has not complied with the leave rules in respect of the period of absence from 05-06-200010 07-06-2000 . So far as the absence from 13-06-2000 onwards is concerned the workman did not apply at all for leave. Bul according to the workman he had informed the bank about his illnessby forwarding medical certificates Ext.DES under certificate ofposting (Ext . DE6) . Ext . DES medical certificate is dated 30-06-2000 and DE6 postal receipt is dated 01-07-2000 . However the bank denies having received it. On the basis of Ext .DE6 perhaps it could be presumedthat the medical certificate was forwarded to the bank. But admittedly no leave application was sent . The production of a medical certificate can at the mostbe taken as an intimation to the bank. But the employee has to apply for leave and specify the nature of leave he wants . There was no such application for the continuous absence from 13-06-2000 onwards . This was the position even when the enquiry commenced . It is submitted by the learned counsel for the union that the management could have substantiated their case that Ext DES medical certificate was not received by the management by producing the inward register. It is true that the inward register is not produced by the bank. But even if it is produced at the most it may be seen that Ext.DES medical certificate was sent to the bank and nothing more. Without leave application the management cannot consider or grant leave on the basis of a mere medical certificate . The rules are contained in Ext . ME 16 bulletin of the bank dated 26-03-1997 which prescribes that application for leave should be submitted well in advance except in emergent circumstances . Even in such urgent cases leave application should be submitted at the earliest opportunity . There is no satisfactory explanation for the worker as to why he did not submit leave application for the period from 13-06-2000 onwards . It is a gross misconduct within Clause 21 (ii)(P) of6th Bipartite Settlement dated 14-02-1995.

8. The union has a case that the workman never renained absent purposely. He was an asthmatic patient . He suffered asthma due to pollution on account of operation ofbig generators in the bank especially during 2000 when there was electric failure often. This affected 7. Regarding the allegations MW I the ChiefManager of the Branch was examined . He has given evidence in tune with the allegations raised against the workman . The workman remained absent from 05-06-2000 το 07-06-2000. His leave application is Ext. ME 1 , dated 08-06-2000 for the said period 05-06-2000 to 07-06-2000 . Along with the leave

4195 G5/08-9 6154

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2008 /KARTIKA 24. 1930

[ PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

ME-20 to20H are copies ut attendance register for different periods from 2000 to February 2001. Thus the workman remained absent without applying for leave from 05-06-2000 to 07-06-2000 and thereatier from 13-06-2000 onwards continuously. The Enquiry Officer has rightly found the workman guilty ofunauthorised absence without intirmation continuously for a period exceeding 30 days as per Clause 21 ( ii) ( P) 01'6th Bipartite Settlement . The lindings are based on records .There is no reason to interfere with the findings .

are the health of the worker and hence he had to take leave . PW I is a clerk ofthe same branch . He deposed before the Enquiry Officer that there was pollution due to the working ofgenerators in the bank for about 6 months in 2000 The workman was examined as DW2 He too had deposed so. It is not denied by the ananagement that during the period of 2000 for about six months there was some electric failure in the bank and generators were used for power suppl . Bun the evidence reveal that even prior to 2000 the workinan was sulfering from asthina . Ext . MF- 17. 18 and punishment orders of 1990, 1994 and 1997 imposing int punishments for unauthorised absence. Thus the workman was in the habit of remaining absent on and off on sick grounds soinctianes applying for leave and sometimes without applying tor leave and without complying with leave roles . This conduct of the workinan occasioned disciplinary action thrice . Therefore there is no substance in the contention of the union feat the workman selfred ill bealth due to polisten in the bank . Again there is li justification in not applying for leave even if poilution izad aggravated the sickness of the workman . The bank is not supposed to grant leave suo - motu taking nouce of the illness of an comploses. Ex1 ME-16 Leave Rules Clawn il (same as 13.2 First Bipartite Settlement ) reads :

10. Point No. 2 The punishment inmposed is dismissal fruin service , Considering the habitual absence of the workman withoun complying with leave rules and without intimation to the bank, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment ol dismissal . The mitigating circumstances stated by the workinan is that he is having family consisting of wite and 2 children and he is without job .But these circumstances never deterred the workman from remaining absert. Despite disciplinary action taken thrice and advice of themanagement to be regular in service . he did not improve . The Bank cannot tolerate an employee who turns up for work aniy as and when he wishes. No office can function snorthly of employees fhout the discipline of an office asi do not follow the directions and rules of the office . In the cumstances i find no compelling reason to reduce the penishment .

In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management m imposing the punishment of dismissal of the worknun in proportion to the misconduct . He is not entitled for any ichel.

The award will come into force one month after s publication in the Olicia Gazett

Dictated to the Persoul Assistant, transcribed and typed by her , corrected and passed by me on this the 21 st day of August , 20fis

P. I..NORBERT. Presiding Officer "An employee who desires to obtain leeve of absence , other thun casual leave , shall spris in writing to the Manager or any other officer appoin for the purpose. Such application for leave shot be made not less than one menth before the date to which the leave is to commence , except in argent cases unforeseen circumstances including thess when it is not possible to do so. The Manager te officer empowered by him in this behall shall issar orders con such application as soon as prackable and in eases of an urgent nature immediatch the leave asked for is granted, an order showing the date of commencement of the leave and date on which the employee wall have to resume duty shall he issu to him"

APPENDIX

Nil.

Witness for the Union

Witness for the Management Nil

Exhibits for the Union Nil

Exhibit for the Mangegement M 28-11-0

Fuquiry file.

नई दिल्ली २७ अञ्तवर , 2008

का.आ. 3077, भद्यागिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में. कंन्द्रीय सरकार गजेन्द्र मेमोरियल रिसर्च इंस्टिच्यूट अफ मेडिकल साईस के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. । 9. The worbitan has not complied with the least Pales and hence the absence could be treated only as mauthorisss!, Exis. DI to D - 15 are medical certificates , fitness cert .licates 。 postal receiprs and X- ray reports regarding the ilitress ot the workman . It is seen that regarding certain inter periods ofabsence ne medical certificates were produced. Thatis. for the absence on 31-07-2000,01-08-2000 the period troть 03-09-2000 10 05-09-2000 and on 07-11-2000.08-11-3000 and 10-01-2001 . The union has no explanation regarding the absence of the workinan during these periods which are not covered by medical certificates. The Chief Generat Manager of the bank had Ext . MF-1 ] notice by registered post regarding the unauthorised absence from 13-06-2000 onwards . There was no response from the workman, Ext . ME - 12 is the postal receipt for having sent Ext . ME - 11by registered post. Fri.

6155 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15, 2008/ कार्तिक 24 , 1930

[ भाग 1- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 27/96 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-10-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/112/95 - आई.आर ( डी.यू. ) ।

अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 2.41b October , 2008

S.O. 3077. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the C'entral Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 27:96) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court. No. 1 , Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Rajendra Memorial Research Institute of Medical Science and their workman, witich was received by the Central Government on 24-10-2008.

[No. 1.-42012/112/95 - IR( DU ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

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

Reference No. 27/96

Parties : Employers in relation to the manage ment of Rajendra Memorial Research Institute of Medical Science Pama and their workman.

APPEARANCES

On behalf ofthe workman

2. The case of the workman is that he was workingat the time ofhis termination as Sweeper with the manageinent and he is very poor and is hardly in a position to even meet hisbread and butter . It has been stated that he has joined the service in Rajendra Memorial Research Institute of Medical Science, Patna in subordinate category as Sweeper in the year 1984 and continued to work upto 30-1-94 when his services were abruptly dispensed with by the Managerment of the Institute without assigning any reason therefor and without paying any retrenchment compensation and without issuing any notice and making payment in lieu of notice. It has been stated that the concerned workinan had put in a continuous service from 1988 onwards and completed more than 240 days of continuous service in a calendar year within the meaning of Section 25F of the 1.D. Act. , 1947. The institute has also issued certificate to the concerned workman for working for more than one and half year on 8-1-90 . He has performed his duties in statisfactory manner cleaning the campus, drains . Lavotory, sweeping the compound, rooms and varandah of the offices institute etc. He was employed for the whole day and he was even required to work on Sundays and Holidays . But the concerned workman was never paid wages for working on those days . The concerned workman used to be paid wages on daily wages basis through petty cash vouchers and also through bankers cheques on banker's account bearing No. C & A- 25 operating in the SBI Branch, It has also been stated that he has worked with satisfaction of the officers of the Institute and the institute is notpaying him even the minimum wages and he was working with hope that he will be absorbed pennantly in future and in this respect he has made representation in the year 1993 to the Director of Indian Council of Medical Research, Delhi who has called for comments in that matter from the Director of the Institute Patna on 21-12-93 and 23-5-94.

: Mr. D. K. Jha .

Advocate

On behalf ofthe employers

: Mr. A. K. Trivedi ,

Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Medical Research

Industry :

Dated , Dhanbad, the 17th August , 2008

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act. , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. 1.42012/112/ 95 - IR (DU ), dated the 27th June , 1996.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Rajendra Memorial Research Institute of Medical Science in terminating the services of Shri Munnа Ram is justified ? If not, to what reliefthe workman is entitled to ?"

3. It has been further stated that the institute instead of absorbing the concerned workman terminated his services w.e.f. 30-1-94 though two posts of Sweepers are still vacant . The management , however, after terminating the services of the concerned workman on 30-1-94 appointed fresh hands like Babloo Prasad without considering the case of the workman for re -employment in terms of Section 25H of the L.D. Central Rules , 1947. It has also been stated that the management retreched the services ofthe concerned workman and retaining thejuniors ignoring the claim of the workman concerned . He has made representation in this regard to the management in writing on 1-9-94 but of no used and thereafter raised an industrial dispute before the Asstt . Labour Commissioner ( Central ) Patna on 28-12-94 for his intervention and amicable settlement of the matter . The ALC( C) patna issued notice to the management on 24-7-95 when it ended in failure. The ALC( C) Patna after recording failure of conciliation submitted his report to the Govt . of India, Ministry of 4195 GI/08-10 [PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15, 2008 /KARTIKA 24, 1930

6156

Labour, New Delhi on 1-8-95 under Section 12 (4) of the Act . Thereafter the Govt. of India , Ministry of Labout . NewDelhi has referred the dispute before this Tribunal for adjudication under Section 10 ( 1 )( d ) o ( the 110. Act ,1947.

producing any goods to be sold in market, it is not an industry. The persons are not engaged for putting their labour in poduction of goods on manufacture of articles for Public consumption. It is not an Industry. As a result. no industrial dispute can be raised under the 1. D. Act, on the grievances of any workman engaged in the Institute .

4. It has also been alleged that the management did not follow Rule 78 of the 1.D ( Central ) Rules, 1957 in the matter of re -employment of retrenched workman as the management after termination of services of the concerned workman employed Ram Pravesh Verma in his place Managerment also violated the provision of Section 2511 of theAct for re -employment while considering employment of fresh hands after termination of services of the concerned workman. It has further teen alieged that the management has violand Sestur 25G at the [ .D . Act because services oft have been retained and they have adopted unfairlabour practice. It has been prayed on behalf of the workman that an Award he passed in favour of the concerned workman directing the management to reinstate kim in hi original job with payment of back wagen

7. It has been aileged that the concerned workman was engaged from time to time and he never worked more than 240 days in any calendar year and he was nevet appointed on regular basis . No appoinment letter was issued to him. This is totally false to say that his services were abruptly dispensed with by the management of the Institute and there is no question of paying any reternchment compensator and issuing any notice etc. Hewas only working as dely wages for a short period as and when needed by office . He has never completed 240 days since 1988 in a year. It lias been denied that the certificato issuedby B.K. P. Thakur, Administrative Officer was wague . It was issued on the request of the concerned workman with a view to get employment anywhere . Accordingly they have prayed to pass an Award rejecting the claim of the concerned Aurkman.

8. A rejoinder has been filert by the tranagement stating the facts as stated in their W.S.

9. Management in order to substartiate their case have examined MW- 1 Satyendra Kumar who has proved Ext . M - 1 and M- 1 : 1 and Ext . M- 2 . M- 3 and M-4, Management also examined MW Makesh Narain Sinha.

10. The concerned workınan produced himself as WW- I and proved documents which are marked as Ext . W- 1, W-2 , W-3 , W-4 , M- 1 / 1 , W-5, W-6.

11. HeardLd. course ! for the managerment as well as workman.

5. In the reirander it has beeti stated on bebat of the workman that he Research Institute is an industrial dispute can be raised and reference can be made for adjaJirarien under 1. D. Act , 1947. In this case the Institer is getting clearing work done through Sulach international at a cost ofRs . 2000 per enthhich argage lat purers. Isnert to Sulaba Enricual was made vide cheque tu 97 Ct. 36 - d cheque No 992449 Jl. 3-8 R1400 for July. 1007 and August 190 , The workinan wanis re- employment and it's izamatonal whether appointmem was made or not, whether appointment was made legally er illegally and it the obligation on the part of the mariagem 'nt to ace the cor emed workman walle he as completed 240 days of entire and accordingly he reqsizes perm, rency as a poliev of the I.D. Act .

12. The first question to be decided is whether Rajendra Memorial Research lostitule is en industry or not . In this respect ! d. coensel for the workman argued that this is an industry and industrial dispute can be raised under 1. D. Act. Le . Counsel fons the managerment argued that this is not an industry because it dres hot carry out any production for public purposes but does only research work of Kakajar and provides free medicines and carry out labouratory test to the patients. In this respect Ld. Counsel for the management stated relying on a decision reported in 1997 SCC 257 it when Hon'ble Supreme Court under Section 2 (j ) of the I.D. Act . 1947 defines Industry- Research Institutes run by Government Frysical Research Laboratory- not an industry because it is purely a research organisation discharging governmental functions and a domestic enterprise than commercial enterprise, though it is taking employees ' cooperation in achieving its purpose . It has been argued thar Rajendra Memorial Research Institute is paidby I.C.M.R. as the Physical Researchi Laboratory is also paid by 1.C.M.K. So it is not an industry 6. Manarennent has filed W. Stating that Rajendra Medical Ris: archstitute'etraun ne lical research work work ofמבוהל Pamyonnte fundar itis fully financed by de Central Gen: tours of son reswich with ratients are follented and they gree roman lation and free diet . he management rears all expeve of the patients relaring to his treatment in ourherance ot carrying on researen work on such didease . ashmand that for 15 yars research work is ing medicine and treatment fur preven er, foot on and of Kalazar of Kals which were widder pread throughout the State of Bihar and bis duty ont - sied by JCMR New Dellu For this purpose rand is allotted hy the Govt . of India The Institute for all intent ani all purposes in a permanent unit of 1.C.M.Ran cutuzomens body directly under the Central Management and direction of the Central Govt. fully financed by the Central Govt . and it is not an industry having any kind of business Interest . Since it has no business interest and out भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2008/कार्तिक 24 , 1930

[ भाग !!- खण्ड ( ii ) ]

as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court also laid down that workman- Physical Research Laboratory (PRL) employees- are not workmen because PRL is not an ' Industry ' . Hence further held on facts , respondent who was an employee ofPRL could not claim retirement at the age of 60 instead of 58. Ld. Counsel for the management also filed M-2 an Award in Misc.CaseNo.43 of 1998 (C) ofCGITBhubaneswar, Orissa inwhich Regional Medical Research Centre Bhubaneswar has been declared as not industry and also M -3 Ref. 66/ 1996 of CGIT No.2 , Dhanbad regarding the present management R.M.R.I , Patna in which it has been held that it is not an Industry . Management also referred another decision reported in 1997 4 SCC page 391 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has held every department ofGovernment cannot be treated as industry- Dispensing with services of persons engaged on daily wages in a Government department therefore is not a retrenchment.

13. It shows, therefore , that as per law present management is not an industry and no industrial dispute canbe raised because there is no relationship of employees and employer , because the present workman is a casual labour engaged on daily wages basis.

14. It has been considered whether present workman hasworked for more than 240 days continuously for getting regularisation under Section 25F and B of I.D.Act . , 1947. Paper filed by the management marked as Ext. M - 1 shows that he has not performed 240 days continuouly prior to termination ofhis service , on 30-1-94. In this respect W- 1 Munna Ram has stated in his cross-examination at page 3 that " I have not been issued any letter of appointment. I Used to work on daily wages basis . I have already been paid for work done by me and nothing is due to be paid. It shows that he has not worked continuously more than 240 days precedingthe year of his termination of service on 30-1-94.

15. In this respect management has referred to a decision reported in 1997-4 SCC page 88 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down Service Law Daily wage employees - Right to post, if available - held not-Casual Labour. Daily wage employees - Disengagement of, on completion ofwork- validity- Held on facts , valid because daily-wagers were not appointed according to rules against any post, theywere appointed according to need of the work and they had no right to post - Termination- Casual Labour. Ld. counsel for the management has also referred another decision reported in 2006 4 SCC page-3 Uma Devis case in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has held down the following:-

A. Constitution of India-Arts 32, 136 , 141 , 142 and 226 and 16, 14 and 309 and 38 and39(a) - Public employment-Absorption , regularisation or permanent continuance of temporary , contractual casual , daily wage or adhoc

6157 employees appointed/recruited and continued for long in public employment dehors the constitutional scheme of public employment issuance of directions , for and for stay of regular recruitment process for the posts concerned Impermissibility of- Needfor addressing concerns of equity for all , and not ofjust the fewbefore the court, by upholding ofconstitutional scheme ofpublic employment, whose hallmark is equality of opportunity- Held, Supreme Court and High Courts should not issue such directions unless the recruitment itselfwas made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme-Reasons for , discussed extensively-Financial economic impact of such directions , as a factor-The wide powers under Art . 226 are not intended to the used for issuance of such directions , certain to defeat the concept ofsocial justice , equal opportunity for all and the constitutional scheme ofpublic employment -Supreme Court is bound to insist on the State making regular recruitments and appointments and not to encourage or shut its eyes to the persistent transgression of the rule of regular recruitment-It is erroneous for Supreme Court to merely consider equity for the handful ofpeople who have approached the Court with a claim whilst ignoring equity for the teeming millions seeking employment and a fair opportunity for competing for employment. Further, courts must be carefut in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic/ financial arrangement ofthe affairs of the State or its instrumentalities ." G Service Law- Casual Labour/ Temporary Employee-Status and rights of -Unequal bargaining power -effect Held such employees do not have any right to regular or permanent public employment - Further , temporary contractual casual, adhoc or daily wage public employment must be deemed to be accepted by the employee concerned fully knowing the natureof it and the consequences flowing from it-Reasons for discussed in detail- Labour Law,

J. Service Law -Appointment-Modes of appointment -permissible modes -Absorption, regularisation , or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual , casual , daily wage or adhoc employees appointed/ recruited, dehors the constitutional scheme of public employment on issuance of directions by Court -therefor- Held issuance of such directions amount to creating another mode of public appointment, which is not permissible.

6158

THE GAZE ITE OF INDIA, NOT MEER 15.2008 KARTIKA 24 , 1

16, 1d Crane ! for the workman has referred

and other Joculce- Draving et

adverse intin and thereafter decision reported in 1978 SCC 2 in which Hon'ble Sig

on facts ofeach

Court has defined industry 1 d . Counsel fee the work

has also referred to a decision reported in PLUR 1976

of muster rolls p

by clamant we . will not be a ground for 478 in which I lon 'ble Supreme Court detined Retre

Tribunal to drew

under section 2SF of the 1.0 . Act . , 14:47 . Ld . Co

Evidence Act.187 :

workman has reterred to a decision reposted i

SCC page 396 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court

17. Ld. Counse

down that Section 25t and 25B of the LD. As ., 194 1."

another decision report.. 1. Spurt Cas

L & S 961 in which ::

only when termination of even a daily rated wordднен has continuously served for the requisite

"Continuous Service

minimum period in a vear fe. minisura period of 2

Industrial Dispuis if Ld. Counsel for the workman has also referred to do Chor

lindustrial Diples A

decision reported in SCC J & S ) page 4

reached with any

the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the followin

inimediately preced

Industrial Disputes Act , 1947.2SF-Com

the records of earlier

Service Completion Respondents having

comployers wo

appointed against casual labour posts for s seid earlier years a fore the d however, continuing in employment for four

Laving discharged ms by producine de theitreappointment being made within a few dr

documents in he

tercuratior en completion of the sy days of ark

Industrial [Dispires wwwking S Hed , this shows thui sufficiat work was s

days in any calendar s sortive period with the employer and had there been no serati

satisfies the requirem ..

on completion of 89 days , respondents would eve

Thereof. But in relation .

completed 240 daysof continuous enmplus .

210 days contin

Hence employer had violated S. 258 15 .

termination of service

direction n'High Court for payment of entire s

and allowances for period respondents

ared on Certi

service not justified under the circunst

... akur A Kegading this I canination took place from 11-1-1905 andy

WW- t has soted in!:

long period ( about nine years ) had passe

then in mean Ume respondents must have been thus certificate has be the purpose

etusing the sanje beker abishevetni ter gethhag engaged in employment in any other work lim

himself engage.l is agatement back wages educed to 50 %- Reinstatemen ト

concernca establishmen shows that it ma wages Arrears -Back wages Factors to be considered inAward ot.

leer issued for the sur Sociting emξος , τις

to another place by the..

In the present case the concerned workman

last line it has been Ik ver hand Marker and

hurestind i wilih

worked tor 89 days continuously with break of spell , .... Counsel for the workemma has referred to another 4.21.01

19. hithe circumsth the ma ויוהח reported in 2006 SCCL & S - 1 in which Hon'ble Su

Court laiddown the following: ..

sts the How sie is not an Industry

Supreme Court od icted weknen has 6.4 A.Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 S5.25-1.25

completed 2.10 day service preceding betere and 10 -Requrentent of 240 days cONINUOUS SWIS

isis termination , le 11 in the following Award is Onusto prove Evidence to be led Appl

indered:

Evidence Act , 1872 Held burden of prost

workmat it is for workman to adduce

The acties ols ent BayendraMengenal evidence , both oral and documentary Mereat

Researen ! not Notence in e or sell serving statements made by work

the servic Sinta a je rited .

suffice- Evidence Act not applicable to pr

Consequentis C..

under S. 101 , D. Act- In cases involving datiy witть

to get any relict

workman can only call upon emplaser to pr

at SINGIL Presiding Cicer before court nominal tuuster roll for the given period

Printed by the Manager Contessing Read. Mayaporn Se -174