This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्री सं० डी० एल० ( एन ) 04/ 0007/2003-05

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

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 47 ]

नई दिल्ली, नवम्बर 16 नवम्बर 22 , 2008 , शनिवार कार्तिक 25 अग्रहायण 1 , 1930

NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 16- NOVEMBER 22, 2008 , SATURDAY/KARTIKA 25-AGRAHAYANA 1, 1930 No. 47)

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके

SeparatePaging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग II- खण्ड 3 -उप-खण्ड (ii) PART I-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 oflædia (Other than the Ministry of Defence)

वित्त मंत्रालय

(राजस्व विभाग )

( केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड ) नई दिल्ली, 12 नवंबर , 2008

का.आ. 3078.- सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतद्द‌द्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली , 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम 5ग और 5 ड. के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ दिनांक 1-4-2002 से संगठन नेशनल इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ पब्लिक फाइनेन्स एण्ड पालिसी , नई दिल्ली को निम्नलिखित शतों के अधीन आंशिक रूप से अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों में लगे " अन्य संस्था" की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है , अर्थात्ः-

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

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

(6159)

4333 G1/ 2008

{ iii) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञारिक अनुसंधान के लिए इसके द्वारा प्राप्त राशि के संबंध में अलग खाता बही रखेगा जिसमें अनुसंधान करने के लिए प्रयुक्त राशि दर्शाई गई हो , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 288 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) के स्पष्टीकरण में वथा परिभाषित किसी लेखाकार से अपनी खाता -बही की लेखा परीक्षा कराएगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 139 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अंतर्गद आय विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने की नियत तिथि तक ऐसे लेखाकार द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित एवं हस्ताक्षरित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट मामले में क्षेत्राधिकार रखने वाले आयकर आयुक्त अथवा आयकर निदेशक को प्रस्तुत करेगा;

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

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

(क) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित लेखा यही नहीं रखेगा; अथवा 6160

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 22, 2008/AGRAHAYANA 1 , 1930

(ख ) पैराग्राफ । के नए पैराग्राफ ( iii) में उल्लिस्थित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा

(ग ) पैराग्राफ के उप पैराग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित सामाजिक विज्ञान अथवा सांख्यिकीय अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त एवं प्र ११ दान का अपना विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा

(घ) अपना अनुसंधान कार्य करना बंद कर देगा . इसके अनुसंधान कार्य को जापस नहीं जागा जाएगाः अथवा

( ड. ) उक्त नियमावली के नियम 5 ग और 55. के साथ पठित उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नहीं करेगा। [ अधिसूचना सं. 105 /फा.सं. 2103/21/2008-आ.क.नि. -11 ]

रेनु जौहरी , निदेशक ( आ.क.नि.- ) MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue) (Central Board ofDirect Taxes)

New Delhi , the 12th November , 2008 S.O. 3078. tt is hereby notified for general information that the organization National Institute of Public Finance & Polic , New Delhi has been approvedby the Central Guverture for the purpose of clanse ( ni ) of sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the Income- tax Act. 1961 (said Acı), read with ruins SC and SE of the Inenте тах Rules, 1962 ( said Kuke ) wah effect from 1-4-26 (12 the category of " other Insulation" partly engaged in rech activities subject to the following conditions , nane is.

(i ) The sunys rad to the approved organizm shall be utilized for rescatel , in social sciences;

( ii) The approved organization shall caris out research in sucral wience or statistical rescatch th its faculty pamper, or its enrolled students :

( ii ! e approved organization shall maturain separates of accounts in respect of the sims teemed hy it for ventific research, reflect therein the amounts used for carthy out research. get such books audited by an accountant a: defined in the explanation to subsection (2) of 288 of the said Act and furnish the report of such audit duly sigde end verified by such acenuntant inthe Commissioner having purised tumishing the Section 13 of the Directi the case. te

(iv) The edge : shell :

separate stateur

applied for resem

statement dujy claudine

the report of audit reserred to

2. The Central Coserumeni stall w approval if the appro ed awanizati

(a) tails ains refut drin sub-paerapi 1or

(PART 11-SFC. 3 (ii) (b) fails to finnish its audit report reffered to in sub-para aph ( 1) of paragraph 1 ; or (c) fails to furnish its statement of the dorations recievedu ) ! < ams applied for reserch in social sciences or statistical research referred to in sub -paragraph ( iv ) of paragraph 1 ; ot (d) ceases to cany in its research activities or its research divities are not found to be genuine,

(c) ceases provisions Section 35 and SF of festan to and comply with the clause ( mi ) of sub - section (tot the sand Act , read with Rules St aid Rules .

[Notification No203 /21 /2008-11-11

JAUHRI , Director ( ITA - li ) नईबर 2008

का.आ. 3079.की जानकारी के लिए उतद्भाग यह अधिसूचित किया कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा जानकर नियमावली , 1962 ( के नियम ग तथा ऽथ को साथ पठित आयकर आउक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) चं के प्रयोनार्थ दिनांक 1-4-2000 से संगठन एम. पी. सर्च सेन्टर , कोलकाता को निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधाक अनुसंधान संब" की ये अनुमोदित किया गया है...

( i ) अनुमोदित अनुसंधान संघ का एक मात्र उद्देश्य वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान

( ii ) अनुमोदिशअनुसंधान किया- कलाप को जारी रखेगा:

( iii ) अनुमोदित बही- खाता रखोगा तथा भजन अधिनियम की धारा 288 के स्पष्टीकरण में पथर परिभाषित किसी लेखाकारांनो खाता बड़ी की लेखा परीक्षा कराएगा और उक्त अधिनि 39 की उप धारा 1 अंतर्गत आय विवरणी प्रस्तुतको नियन तिथि तक ऐमे लेखाकार द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित एवं सिंगा परीक्षा रिपार्ट मामले में क्षेत्राधिकार रावने वाले को করে নাইলা ।

के साथ के लिए प्राप्त उपयुक्त लेखा विवरण 2.করি মাখার

(क ) पैराग्राफ । द बंगा; अथवा उल्लिखत लेखा पैराग्राफ उल्लिखित अपнт रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुती 6161

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 22, 2008/अग्रहायण 1, 1930

[भाग- खण्ड (її ) ]

(ग) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iv) में उल्लिखित वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान एवं प्रयुक्त राशि का अपना विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा

(घ) अपना अनुसंधान कार्य कलाप करना बंद कर देगा अथवा इसके अनुसंधान कार्य कलाप को जायज नहीं पाया जाएगा; अथवा

(ड. ) उक्त नियमावली के नियम 5ग और ऽघ के साथ पठित उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii) के उपबंधों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नहीं करेगा । [अधिसूचना सं. 104/2008/फा.सं.203 /78/2004- आ.का.नि.- [1 ] रेनूजौहरी, निदेशक ( आ.का.नि.-II ) New Delhi , the 12th November, 2008 S.O. 3079. It is hereby notified for general information that the organization M.P. Birla Medical Research Centre, Kolkata , has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause (ii) of sub- section ( 1) of Section 35 ofthe Income- tax Act, 1961 (said Act), readwith rules 5C and SD of the Income- tax Rules , 1962(said Rules) with effect from 1-4-2000 in the category of scientific research association' subject to the following conditions , namely:-

(i) The sole objective of the approved ' scientific research association ' shall be to undertake scientific research;

(ii) The approved organization shall carry out the scientific research activity by itself ;

(iii ) The approved organization shall maintain books ofaccounts and 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 the Commissioner of Income- tax or the Director of Income - tax having jurisdiction over the case , by the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub-section ( 1 ) of section 139 of the said Act .

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

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

(a) fails to maintain books of accounts referred to in sub-paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1 ; or (b) fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub-paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1; or (c) failsto furnish its statement of the donations recieved and amounts applied for scientific research referred to in sub -paragraph (iv) of paragraph 1; or

(d) ceases to carry on its research activities or its research activities are not found to be genuine; or

(e) ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions of clause ( ii ) of sub - section ( 1) of section 35 of the said Act, read with rules SC and SD of the said Rules .

[Notification No.104/2008/F, No. 203 /78/2004-ITA -11) RENU JAUHRI , Director (ITA- 11 ) (वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 14 नवम्बर , 2008

का. आ. 3080, राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रवन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम , 1980 के खंड 9 के उपखंड ( 2 ) ( क ) के साथ पलिप्त , बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम , 1980 की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 3 ) के खंह ( ड. ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार , एत‌द्वारा श्री रघुरामन , विशेष सहायक, कॉर्पोरेशन बैंक, इन्द्रा नगर, चेने को उनकी नियुक्ति की तिथि से तीन वर्षों के लिए अथवा उनके कारपोरेशन बैंक के कर्मचारी बने रहने तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो , कॉरपोरेशन बैंक के निदेशक मंडल में कर्मकार कर्मचारी निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा.सं. 15/11/2007- आईआर ] राजेन्द्र सूद , अवर सचिव (Department of Financial Services) New Delhi , the 14th November;2008

S.O. 3080.- In exercise ofthe powers con ferred by clause(e) ofthe Sub- section (3 ) ofSection 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 read with Sub- clause (2 ) (a) of Clause 9 of the Nationalized Banks ( Management and Miscellaneous .. Provisions) Scheme , 1980 , the Central Government hereby appoints Shri V. Raghuraman , Special Assistant , Corporation Bank , Indranagar , Chennai as Workmen Employee Director on the Board ofDirectors ofCorporation Bank for a period of three years from the date of his appointment or until he ceases to be a workmen employee ofthe Corporation Bank or until further orders , whichever isearliest.

[F. No. 15/11 2007 - IR] Rajinder Sood, Under Secy.

6162

THE GAZETE OF INDIA: NOR 22 , 2008 /AGRAHAYANA

स्वास्थ्य और परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय ( स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 10 नवम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 3081.-केन्द्र सरकार भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद अधिनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 11 की उप धाम ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् अर्हता की नाम पद्धति में परिवार्ण किए जाने के कारण उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में एकद्वारा निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्ः-

प्रथम अनुसूची में....

"लखनऊ विश्वविद्यालय छत्रपति शाहूजी महाराज विश्वविद्यालय किंग जार्ज मेडिकल विश्वविद्यालय " के सामने शीर्षक " मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता" ( इसके पश्चात स्तंभ ( 2 ) के रूप में उल्लिटिल) के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि तथा उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद शीर्षक ' पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण ' ( इसके अंतर्गत स्तंभ ( 3 ) के रूप में उल्लिखित) के अंतर्गत निम्नलिखित जोड़ा जाएगा , अधांवः.. (2) (3)

एम. डी. (शरीर रचना विज्ञान ) " डाक्टर आफ मेडिसिन (शरीर रचना विज्ञान ) "

अहंता होगी यदि यह लखनपुर विश्वविद्यालय छत्रपति शाहूजी मशरःज विश्वविद्यालयः किंग जार्ज मेडिकल विश्वविद्यालय द्वारा मुदान की गई हो। ) ( यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त विकित्मश

[सं. यू-12012/880/2008 - एमई (पी

[PART -S3000 (2)

(3)

"Doctorof Medicine (Anatomy ) Anatomy)

his shall be a recognised edical qualification when anted by Lucknow University " natrapani Shabuji Maharaj niversity: King George Medical teraily . 10.11.2012.880 2008 -ME ( P -1

S. BARIK , Under Secy उपभोक्ता मामले , खार्थजनिक वितरण मंत्रालब (उपधांने विभाग ) भारतीक ब्यूरो नई दिल्ल ER 2008

का.आ. 3082, मानक पूरी नियम, 1987 क नियम ? के उपनियम ( ख) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरों एतद्‌द्वारा अधिनियम करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गये मानक( कों ) में संशोधन गया किये गये हैं:

अनुसूची

क्रम संशोधित भारतीय मान सं. को संख्या और वर्ष

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि

संशोधन की संख्या और तिांध

4 1

संशग्धन नं. 2 13 अक्टूबर 2008

मई2008

एन. बारिक , अवर सचित्र

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (Department of Health and Family Welfare) .

New Delhi , the 10th November, 2008 S.O. 3081. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 2 ) of the Section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act , 1956 ( 102 of 1956) , the Central Goveminent . after consulting the Medical Council of India , hereby makes thefollowing further amendments in the First Schedulete the said Act , due to change of nomenclature of the qualification namely: --

In the said Schedule--

(a) against " Lucknow University/ Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj University King George Maharaj Universist " under the heading ' Recognised Medical Qualification (hereinafter referred to as column (2 ) ] , after the last curry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviat for Registration' (hereinafter referred to as column ( 3 ) ]. tire following shall be inserted , namely:-

1. आई एस 1856 :2005 ढुलाई प्रयोजनों क इस्तेमाल के लिए इस्पात की तार रस्सियां -विशिष्टि ( तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

वेल्डित अल्प कार्बन इस्थान

के सिलिंडर भाग । द्रवित पैट्रोलियम गैस ( एल पी जी

2 आई एस 3196 ( माग संधिन नं. 2 15 अक्टूबर :2006 अल्प दाब द्र गैसों के लिए 5 लिटर में अधिक जल क्षमता बाल के लिए सिलिंडर की विि (पाँचवा पुनरीक्षण)

इस संशोधन की प्रतियां धन्तीय मानक ब्यूरों , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई भी 110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद , बंगलार, पाक भूलनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद , जयपुर , कानपुर, नागपुर पन्ना पूणे तथा तिरुअनंतापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

संदर्भः एमईडी जी । सो.के. वेदा , वैज्ञा. प्रमुख यांत्रिक हजोनियरिंग;

6163

भारत का राजपत्र ; नवम्बर 22, 2008/अग्रहायण 1, 1930

[भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOODAND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department ofConsumer Affairs)

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS New Delhi , the 5th November, 2008 S.O. 3082.-In pursuance of clause (b) ofsub- rule (1 ) ofRule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:

SCHEDULE

No. and

Sl. No. and year of No. the Indian Standards year of the amend ment

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

4 2

Amend- 13Oct. 2008 IIS 1856 : 2005 steel

mentNo. 2

May2008

wire ropes for haulage purpose- Specification (Third Revision)

15Oct. 2008 Amend-

2 IS3196 (Part 1): 2006

mentNo. 2

May2008

Welded low carbon steel cylinders exceeding 5 liter water capacity for low press- ure liquefiable gases Part 1 cylinder for Liquefied PetroleumGases (LPG) Specification (Fifth Revision)

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

[Ref : MED/G-2: 1 ] C.K.VEDA, Sc . F & Head (Mechanical Engineering) नई दिल्ली, 7 नवम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 3083,-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गये हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

नये भारतीय स्थापित तिथि क्रम स्थापित भारतीय मानक( कों)

सं की संख्या वर्ष और

मानक द्वारा

शीर्षक

अतिक्रमिल

भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों,

यदिकोई हो, की

संख्या और वर्ष

4 2

1. आई एस 9444:2007

31अक्तूबर , 2007 ईंधन के लिए तेल आपूर्ति के संस्थापन की रीति संहिता - आग्नेय भट्टिया (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

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

[संदर्भः एमटीडी/ 26/टी-21 ] डा. ( श्रीमती ) स्नेह भाटला , वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी) New Delhi , the 7th November, 2008 S.O. 3083. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule (1) ofRule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

No. and Dateof Si . No. and year of

Established

yearof

Indian

No. the Indian Standards Established

Standards

ifany, super-

seded by the

NewIndian, Standard

(3)

(4) (1) (2)

31 Oct. 2007 IS9444: 2007 Code of

practice for installation ofoil supply units for fuel- fired furnaces (FirstRevision)

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

[Ref: MTD /26/T-21 ] Dr. (Mrs.) SNEH BHATLA, Scientist F& Head (Met . Engg.) 6164

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBIR 22 , 2008 / AGRAHAYANA 1,1

[PART II Sex .M( D) ]

नई दिल्ली 10 नवम्बर, 2008

में भारतीय मानक का. आ.. 3084.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम 1988 के नियम 4 के उपनियम ( 5 :

ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण न अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे स्वीकृत

लाइसेंसधारी का

भारतीय मानक का

क्रम

भाग अनुभाग वर्ष संख्या

लाइसेंस संख्या

नाम व पता

स्वीकृत करने को तिथि

शीर्षक

26 & 2008

7867305

स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं , आभूषण/शिल्पकारी- शुद्धता और चिह्नांकन

टेहरे ज्वैलर्स , मैन रोड हुतका जिला न्यू नांदेड , 4313 महाराष्ट्र

2 7867507 27 8 2008

स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी - शुद्धता और चि‌ह्नांकन

दंदर्गावकर सर्राफ झंड की मार्केट, कोल्हार बीके , राहाता, जिला अहमदनगर 413710

3. 7868500

8-2008אב

मन्त्राई निकाला हुआ दूध पाव भाग । मानक श्रेणी

सनफ्रेश एप्रों इंडस्ट्रीज प्रान प्लॉट नं. यू-4 , प्रभाव मंगा फूड पार्क एट निर्मलनगर पोस्ट तिलक नगर , तालका राहाना, जिला अहमदनगर 413720 .

אי-א22

7857407

200

हिदूध पावडर

स्वराज इंडिया इंडस्ट्रीज स. नं. ३06.407 , ए.पी तालुका फलटन, जिला भा 415523 , महाराष्ट्र

29-2008

7869107

2004

अप्लास्टिक पॉलीविनायल

क्लोगइड ( यूपीवीसी ) ड्रेनेज के लिए नालोदार सिंगल बॉल पाइन्न

रेक्स पालीएक्सट्सन लिमि प्लॉट नं. एल -7.8 एवं आयडीसी कुपवाड ग्यः मागंली -4164.36 , महागा

6 . 78695 ||

वाणं और स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं , आभूषण/शिल्पकारी- शुद्धता और निनांकन

नारायणदास वासुदेवकम 190 , सदाशिव पेठ , गती कार्नर, जिला सातारा महाराष्ट्र

59-2008

7869612

ग्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषणःशिल्पकारी- शुद्धता और चिह्नांकन

चित्तरंजन गोरखनाथ अध्यक सर्राफ एंड ज्वैलर्स दुकाने न एवं 4 24: 1 , एरंडत्रणा बिल्डिंग बैंक ऑफ पहागा के पास, कर्वे रोड , जिल्य पुणे -41110014 , महाराष्ट्र

7870189 ১ ジ 2008 एम बी अष्टेकर 828 पेठ, सोन्या पाति चांव

स्वाणं और स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं. आभूषण शिल्पकारी- शुद्धता भीग चिहनांकन

जिल्ला पुणे 411002. *:

9. 7870492

עין

स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषणःशिल्पकारी- शुद्धता

अरुण भास्कर सराफ 14 ! 1 भर संख्या ।।49 , पंभ मंत्र, चावडी संगमनेर के पास और चिह्नांकन 6165 भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 22, 2008/अग्रहायण 1 , 1930

[भाग [I-खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

1417

1999 10-9-2008

10 7870593

स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी - शुद्धता और चिह्नांकन

शंका ज्वैलर्स पिंपरी चिंचवड , 4510/1 , एम्पायर इस्टेट पुणे- मुंबई रोड, चिंचवड, जिला पुणे 411019 ; महाराष्ट्र

1990

694.

10-9-2008

11. 7865301

1100 वोल्ट सहित और इस कार्यकारी वोल्टेज तक के लिए पीवीसी इंसुलीकृत

श्री साई प्लास्टिक मॉल्डिग एंड इलैक्ट्रीकल्स, स. नं. 7/2/3 , साई दत्त नगर धनकवडी, जिला पुणे- 411043, महाराष्ट्र

2004

14543

9-9-2008

12. 7860792

पैकेजनंद पेयजल ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

क्लासिक अनुआ , गट संख्या 926/2, एट पोस्ट अदारकी , तालुका फलटन, जिला सातारा , महाराष्ट्र

1999

1417

12-9-2008

7870997

13.

स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं , आभूषण/शिल्पकारी- शुद्धता और चिह्नांकन

श्री महालक्ष्मी ज्वैलर्स , 19 , मगर अली , हडपसर, जिला पुणे- 411028 , महाराष्ट्र

2004

14543

9-9-2008

14. 7851589

पैकेजबंद पेयजल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

जयलक्ष्मी अकुआ प्रा. लि. , गट संख्या 299 संगमनेर, तालुका भोर, जिला पुणे-412206, महाराष्ट्र

1417

1999 15. 7872597 18-9-2008

स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी - शुद्धता और चिह्नांकन

एस. रतनलाल बोरा , 112/2 बी , कालकाई रोड एट पोस्ट- तालुका, शिरगोंडे , जिला अहमदनगर , महाराष्ट्र

1992

2553

10-9-2008

16. 7873195

सुरक्षा ग्लास- भाग-2 सङ्क परिवहन के लिए

सेंट गोबन सेक्रीट इंडिया लि. , चाकन डिवीजन , गट संख्या 616/617 और 621 नासिक- पुणे हाइवे के पास, गांव कुरुली, तालुका खेड, जिला पुणे- 410501, महाराष्ट्र

1417

1999 22-9-2008

17. 7873401

स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी- शुद्धता और चिह्नांकन

मालप्पा विरप्पा मजाटी, 43 , लक्ष्मी मार्केट , मिरज, तालुका मिरज, जिला सांगली 416410 , महाराष्ट्र

2005

15633

18. 7873603 5-9-2008

स्वचलित वाहन-सवारी वाहनों के लिए वातिल टायर्स- आड़ी और रेडियल प्लाई ।

गुडईयर साउथ एशिया टायर्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, एच-18 , एमआयडीसी इंडस्ट्रीयल एरिया, वालुज, जिला औरंगाबाद -431136

2005

15636

5-9-2008

19. 7873704

स्वचलित वाहन-व्यावसायिक बाहनों के लिए वातिल टायर्स- आड़ी और रेडियल प्लाई ।

गुडईयर साउथ एशिया टायर्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, एच-18 , एमआयडीसी इंडस्ट्रीयल एरिया , बालुज , जिला औरंगाबाद-4311369 महाराष्ट्र 6166

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 22 , 2008/ AGRAHAYANA 1,190

IPARI II SEC 3 ( 11 ) ]

20. 7861996 23-9-2008

2002 कोल्हापुर जिला सहकारी दूध दूध पाउडर

उत्पादक संघ लिमिटेड, बी-1 , एमआइडीसी , गाकुल शिरगांव , तालुका कारवी. जिला कोल्हापुर-416.234

महाराष्ट्र

21.7874807

25 9-2008

117

1999

स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी - शुद्धता और चिह्नांकन

श्रीयश ज्वैलर्स , दुकान नं. ४. प्लॉट नं. 49 , गणेश कान्य सहकारी गरुन रचना संस्था महेश सोसायटी बिबवेवाडी जिला पुणे-411037, महाराष्ट्र

सीएम डी ।।।

पी.नर अप महानिदेशक ( मुहर )

New Delhi . t 10th November, 2008

S.O. 3084. In pursuance of sub- regulation of regulation 4 of the Bureau 01 1. Suundards ( Certification ) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards , bereby notifies the grant of licences plans of which are given in the following schedule:

HEDULE

Gram Date

Title of the Standard

Part Section Year Licence No.

Sl. No.

Name & Address theParty

다

7867305 26-8-2008

Gold and gold alloys . Jewellery/ artefacts- Findness and marking

Tehare Iwellers , Mam Road, Hudco . Distric New Nanded-431603 Maharashtra

2. 7867507 27-8-2008

Gold and gold alloys, Jewellery/ artefacts- Fineness and marking

Dedgaonkar Saraf... Market, Kolhar Bk Taluka Rahata , District Ahmednager , 413710

3. 7868509

1 01 28-8-2008

Skimmed milk.powder Part I standard grade

Sunfresh Agro Industes IPvt . , Ltd. , Plot No. 1.-! Prabhat Mega Food Puck. AtNirmalnagar. Posl Tilaknagar, Taluka Kabata , District Ahemednaga 413720

4 . 7857403

20 22.8-2008

Milk powder

Swaraj India Industries Ltd., S.No. 406/407 A.P Nimbhore l'aluka Phatun, District Satara -415500 Maharashtra

5. 7869107 2-9-2008

Unplasticized Polyvinyl Chloride ( UPVC) single wall corrugated pipes for drainage

Rex Polyextrusion 1 , 1J Plot No. 1. -7 , 889. MIDC KupwadArt.. District Sangli- 416-431-

6. 7869511 -1-9-2008

Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/artefacts- Fineness and marking,

Narayandas Vasudevis Devi , 190 , Sadashiv isti , Moti Chowk Cotier . District Satara-415002 .6167

11930

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 22, 2008/अग्रहायण

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

7 4

1999

1417

7869612 5-9-2008

Gold and gold alloys, jewellery/artefacts- Fineness and marking

Chittaranjan Gorakhnath Ashtekar Saraf& Jewellers Shop No. 3 &4 24/1 , Enaundwane Pancharatna Bldg. Near Bank of Maharashtra, Karve Road, District Pune-411004

1999

1417

7870189 8-9-2008

Gold and gold alloys- jewellery/artefacts- Fineness and marking

MB Ashtekar 828, Budhwar Peth, Sonya , Maruti Chowk District Pune-411002

1417

1999 9-9-2008

7870492

Gold and gold alloys . jewellery/artefacts- Fineness and marking

Arun Bhaskar Saraf 1403/2, HouseNo. 1149, Main Road, Near Charwadi Sangamner, Disrtict Ahemednagar- 422605

1999

1417

10-9-2008

10. 7870593

Gold and gold alloys- jewellery/artefacts- Fineness and marking

Ranka Jewellers Pimpri Chinchwad 4510/1 , Empire Estate Pune, Mumbai Road Chinchwad District Pune-411019

1990

694

10-09-2008

11. 7865301

PVC insulated cables for working voltages upto and including 1100 V

Shri Sai PlasticMoulding &Electricals S.No. 7/2/3 Sai DuttaNagar Dhankawadi Pune-411043

2004

14543

9-9-2008

7860792

12.

Packaged drinking water (Other than packaged natural mineral water)

Classic Aqua GatNo.926/2 AtPostAdarki Taluka Phaltan District Satarа

1999

1417

7870990 12-9-2008

13.

Shree Mahalaxmi Jewellers 19, Magar Ali Hadapsar District Pune-411028

2004

14543

9-9-2008

14. 7851589

Gold and gold alloys- jewellery/artefacts- Fineness and marking Packaged drinking water ( Other than packaged natural mineral water)

Jallaxmi Aqua Pvt . Ltd. Gut No. 299 Sangammer , TalukaBhor District Pune-412206

1999

1417

7872597 18-9-2008

15.

Gold and gold alloys- jewellery/artefacts- Fineness and marking

S.Ratanlal Bora 112/2B, Kalkai Road At Post-Taluka Shrigonde District Ahmednagar

1992

2553

10-9-2008

7873195

16.

Safetyglass-Part 2 For road transport

Saint Gobain Sekurit IndiaLtd. Chakam Division GatNo. 616/617 & 621 NearNashik-Pune HighwayVillage Kurul, Taluka Khed District Pune-410501

1999

1417

22-9-2008

17. 7873401

Gold and gold alloys- jewellery/artefacts- Fineness and marking

MaliappaVirappa Majati 43, Laxmi Market, Miraj TalukaMiraj District Sangli-416410 6168

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 22, 2008 /AGRAHAYANA 1. 19.30

[ PARJ II -SFC. 3 ( ii) ] 1

7 18. 7873603 5-9-2008 Goodyear South Asia

15633

3005

Automotive Vehicles- Pneumatic Tyres for Passenger Car Vehicles- Diagonal and Radial Ply

Tyres Pvt . Ltd. H-18, MIDC Indl . Area Waluj District Aurangabad- 431136

19. 7873704 5-9-2008

15636

2005

Automotive Vehicles- Pneumatic Tyres for Commercial Vehicles- Diagonal and Radial Ply

Goodyear South Asia Tyres Pvt . Ltd. H - 18 , MIDC Indl. Area Waluj District Aurangabad- 431136

20. 7861996 23-9-2008

1165

Milk powder

Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. B- 1 , MIDC Gokul Shirgaon Taluka Karvir District Kolhapur -416234

21. 7874807 25-9-2008

417

6661

Gold and gold alloys- jewellery/ artefacts- Fineness and marking

Shreeyash Jwellers Shop No. 8, Plot No.49 Ganesh Comer Sahakari Gruh Rachana Sanstha Mahesh Sociery. Bibwewadi District Pune-111037

[No.CM] : 13 : 11 ]

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

नई दिल्ली , 10 नवम्बर , 2008

का.आ.. 3085,- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम, 1988 के नियम (5 ) के उप - नियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रह कर दिया गया है :

क्रम संख्या लाइसेंस संख्या लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता भारतीय मानक संख्या एवं शीर्षक

रह करने की तिथि 7062562

28-8-2008

भामा 12818 : 1992 बोरट्यूबवैल के लिए अनप्लास्टिग्याइज्ड पीवीसी स्क्रीन और केसिंग पाहास ।

फिनोलेक्स इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड प्लॉट नं. 10 , ब्लॅक डी- । एमआयडीसी, चिंचवड पुणे-411019 महाराष्ट्र

[सं. सी एम डी / 13 : 13 ]

पी.के. गम्भीर , उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर ) New Delh: the 10th November, 2008

S.O. 3085.--In parsuance of sub -regulation of regulation 5 ofthe Bureaustition Standards ( Certificaton ) Regulations 1988 , of the Eureau of Indian Standes , Lershy matifies that the licences parimalars of which are given below havebeen cancelled with effect from the date indicates panst each

Sr.No. LiceweNo.

Article Process with relev

Name and Address at the Licensee

Indian Standards covere うか、

Date of cancellation 1

7062562

28-8-2008

the licence cancelled 1512818: 1992 Unplasticized PVC screen d casing pipes for bore tulewell

Finojex Industries L Plot No. 10 , Bl MIDC, Chinchwird Pune -411019

[No. CMD 13:13

F.K. GAMBHIR . Dy . Director General ( Marks ?

6169

भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 22 , 2008/अग्रहायण 1 , 1930

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 3086.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के नियम ( 4 ) के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :-

सितम्बर 2008 में स्वीकृत लाइसेंस

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता क्रम संख्या

लाइसेंस संख्या

1. 7869915 मेसर्स कैमरॉक इंडस्ट्रीज तथा एक्सपोर्ट लिमिटेड , एट गाँव आसोज , वडोदरा हलोल एक्सप्रेस वे , ताल्लुका वाधोडिया बडोदय -391510 2 7870290 वैराइटी पम्प इंडस्ट्रीज डी 4 , डायमंड पार्क , एन एच नंबर 8 , रोड, जी आई हीसी नरोडा, अहमदाबाद 3. 7871595 सागा विंग्ल पम्पस प्रा. लिमिटेड 32 , हरिओम एस्टेट , जी डी हाई स्कूल रोड , हीरावाडी , नरोडा रोड , अहमदाबाद-380025 4. 7871797 अमीधारा बीवरेज प्राची एस्टेट नंबर 10 , गोटा गाम के पीछे , देवनगर रोड , अहमदाबाद

7871801

माँ बिवरेज प्लाट नंबर 93 , 93 /ए, शिव शक्ति नगर , भाधेना 3 , सूरत

6. 7871902 पारस इंजीनियरिंग वर्क्स नाना चिलोडा चार रास्ता होटल दासमेश के पास, एन एच नंबर 8 , नरोद्धा , अहमदाबाद 7. 7872395 श्री विनरेज प्लाट नंबर 744 , रोड नंबर 744/जी आई डी सी सचिन सूरत 394230

7873296 सर्वोदय पम्प प्रा. लि. 70-72 , परमेश्वर एस्टेट , ओमकार टैक्सटाईल के सामने , पैभ्को टोल नाका , नरोडा रोड , अहमदावाद

9. 7873502 साई जल धिवरेज , मैगडला डयूमस रोड , पोट कालोनी के सामने , ताल्लूका चोरासी सूरत 10. 7875102 बालाजी ज्वैलर्स , शॉप नंबर 6 , राजमंदिर , राजमंदिर फ्लैट के सामने , इंडिया कालोनी रोड , बापूनगर , अहमदाबाद

अनुसूची

भा मा संख्या एवं शीर्षक लाइसेंस स्वीकृत करने की तारीख

8-9-2008 जी आर पी पाईप जवाएंट तथा फिटिंग फार सिवेज , इंडस्ट्रियल वेसट तथा वाटर आई एस 14402: 1996

9-9-2008 मोटर्स फार सबमर्सिबल पम्पसैट आई एस 9283:1995

12-9-2008 औपनवेल सबमर्सिबल पम्पसैट आई एस 14220: 1994

16-9-2008 पैकेज्जबंद पेयजल

आई एस 14543 :2004

पैकेजमंद पेयजल

16-9-2008 आई एस 14543 :2004

17-9-2008 सबमर्सिबल पम्पसैट आई एस 8034:2002

पैकेजबंद पेयजल

18-9-2008 आई एस 14543:2004

19-9-2008 मोटर्स फार सबमर्सिबल पम्पसैट आई एस 9283 : 1995

23-9-2008 पैकेजबंद पेयजल आई एस 14543 :2004

25-9-2008 स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन 1417:1999 6170

THE GAZETTADIA: NOVEMBER 22, 2008/ AGRAHAYANA 1 , 1930

11 . 7876003 रमणीक लाल तथा सन्स

एफ एफ 22 , परीसीमा काम्पलैक्स , लाल बंगला के पास , चार रास्ता, सी जी रोड , अहमदाबाद 12. 7876104 पी मानेकलाल सोनी तथा कंपनी , शाह टाईलस के पास , गोधरा रोड , छाहोद 12. 7876306 महालक्ष्मी गोल्ड पैलेस , गेविंद चाकिया , चार रास्ता टावर अमडारए विसनगर , डिस्ट्रिक्ट मेहसाना

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ] 4

30-9-2008 स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन 1417:1999

30-9-2008 स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं

मुहरांकन 1417: 1999

[ सं. सीएमडी/ 13:11 ] पी. के. गम्भीर, उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर )

New Delhi. the 14th November , 2008

S.O. 3086. In pursuance ot sub - regulation (5 ) of Regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification ) Regulations 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following Schedule:

SCHEDULE

GRANTED LICENCES FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, 2008

Licence Name of the firm and address S1. No. No.

J 2

1. 7869915 Kemrock Industries and Exports Lid. AT-Village-Asoj , Vadodara Halol Express Way, Taluka Vaghodia Vadodara - 391510 2. 787029) Variety Pump Industries 1-4 Diamond Park , NH 8 Road . GIDC Naroda Ahmedabad

7871595

Saga Windel Pumps Pvt. Ltd. 32 Hariom Estate GD High School Road, Hirawadi Naroda Road, Ahmedabad- 380025

4. 7871797 Amidhara Beverages Prachi Estate No. 10 B / H Gota Gam Devnagar Road, Ahmedabad

5. 7871801 MaaBeverages Plot No. 93-93/A , Shiv Sakati Nagar Bhathena Surat

6. 7871902 Paras Engineering Works Nana Chiloda Char Rasta Near Hotel Dasmesh NH No. 8, Naroda . Alhumedabad

7. 7872395 Shree Beverages Plot No. 744 , Road No. 7/44 GIDC Sachin Sural -394230

Date ofGrant IS Numbeer & Product

8-9-2008 for sewerage, industrial waste GRP pipesjoints and littings and water ( other than potable) IS14402:1996

9-9-2008 Motors for submersible Pumpsets IS9283: 1995

12-9-2008 Openwell submersible pumpsets IS 14229:1994

16-9-2008 PackagedDrinking Water IS14543:2004

16-9-2008 Packaged Drinking Water IS14543 :2004

17-9-2008 Submersible Pumpsers IS 8034:2002

18-9-2008 Packaged Drinking Water IS 14543-2004 6171

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 22, 2008/अग्रहायण 1 , 1930

[भाग ।।- खष्ठ 3 (ii) ]

Sarvoday Pumps Pvt. Ltd.

7873296

70-72, Parmeshwar Estate, Opp. Omkar Textile , Memco Toll Naka, Naroda Road , Ahmedabad

9. 7873502 Sai JalaBeverages Magdalia Dumas Road, Opp. Pote Colony Ta Choryasi, Surat

10. 7875102 Balaji Jewellers

ShopNo. 6, Rajmandir , Opp, Rajnandir Flat, India Colony Road , Bapunagar , Ahmedabad

11 , 7876003 Ramniklala & Sons F.F. -22, Pariseema Complex , NR. Lal Bunglow Char Rasta, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad 12. 7876104 PManekial Soni &Co. Near Shah Tiles, Godhra Road, Dahod 13. 7876306 Mahalaxmi GoldPalace Govind Chakla Char Rasta, Tower Andar, Visnagar, Dist. Mahesana

19-9-2008 Motors for submersible pumpsets IS9283: 19 .

23-9-2008 Packaged Drinking Water IS 14543:2004

25-9-2008 Gold andGoldAlloys , Jewellery / Artefacts- Fineness and Marking IS1417:1999

30-9-2008 GoldandGold Alloys, Jewellery / Artefacts- Fineness and Marking IS1417;1999

Goldand GoldAlloys, Jewellery 30-9-2008 Artefacts-Fineness and Marking IS1417: 1999

30-9-2008 Gold andGold Alloys , Jewellery/ Artefacts- Fineness and Marking IS 1417:1999

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

नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 3087.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 5 के उपविनियम 6 के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को आगे दर्शाई तारीख से लाइसेंस रदद् कर दिया गया है :-

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम एवं पता क्रम लाइसेंस संख्या

संख्या

8889320 मेसर्स क्रीत्ती इंडस्ट्रीज ( आई ) लिमिटेड , प्लाट नं 75 86 , सेक्टर 2 पीथमपुर (मप्र )

रद्द की तिथि लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत प्रक्रम संबंध एवं भारतीय मानक सहित

4-8-2008 आई एस 13387 :92 इरिगेशन इक्वीपमेंटस एमीटर्स

[सं. केन्द्रीय प्रमाणन/ 13 : 11 ] पी. के. गम्भीर , उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर )

New Delhi , the 14th November , 2008

S.O. 3087. In pursuance of sub -regulation (6) ofRegulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification) Regulations 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each :

Licence No. Name and adress of the licencees Sl . No.

8889320 M/sKriti Industries ( 1 ) Limited PlotNo. 75-86, Sector- 11 , Pithampur (MP)

IS No. and title

Cancelled Date

4-8-2008

IS13387:1992

Irrigation Equipments- Emitters

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

नई दिल्ली , 14 नवम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 3088, भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम, 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपविनियम 5 के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्धारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को आगे दर्शाई तारीख से लाइसेंस स्वीकृत कर दिया गया है :-

6172

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 22 , 2008 /AGRAHAYANA 1 , 1930

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम एवं पता क्रम संख्या

लाइसेंस संख्या

1 8958616 मेसर्स नेपचून पैकेजिंग प्रा लिमिटेड, पीडीपीएल फैक्टरी के पास , ग्राम अरमावद , नेम्ावार रोड , इंदौर , (मप्र)

2 8958717 मेसर्स नेपचून पैकेजिंग प्रा लिमिटेड, पोडीपीएल फैक्टरी के पास , ग्राम अरसावद, नेमावबार रोड, इंदौर , ( मप्र)

3 8961908 मेसर्स शक्ति वायर्स, 43 , छत्री चाग , छतरीपुरा , इंदौर , ( मप्र ) 4 8956915

मेसर्स लाजिक पोली प्राडक्टस, 314/3 , एसडीए कंपाउंडस , मयंक तौल काटा के पास , देवास नाका, इंदौर , ( मप्र ) 5 8960195 मेसर्स, विकास ट्यूब , 90-91 इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, मानदसौर , 45800 ] ( मप्र )

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

二

लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत प्रक्रम संबंध एवं भारतीय मानक संहित

स्वीकृत करने को तिथि

11-8-2008 आई एस 3652 : 1995 क्राप प्रोटेक्शन इक्वीपमेंट्स , फुट स्प्रेअर

11-8-2008 आई एस 3062: 1995 क्राप प्रोटेक्शन इक्वीपमेंट्स , राकर स्प्रेअर

11-8-2008 आई एस 694: 1990 पीवीसी इन्सुलेटेड केबल्स फार वर्किंग वाल्टेज अपटू अण्ड इन्कलूडिंग 1100 वी

12-8-2008 आई एस 3906:1995 क्राप प्रोटेक्शन इक्वीपमेंट्स , हॅण्ड आपरेटर नॅपसॅक स्प्रअर पिस्टन टाइप

19-8-2008 आई एस 4985:2000 पीवीसी पाइप फार पोटेचल वाटर सप्लाइज

सं. केन्द्रीय प्रमाणनः 13:11 ] पी. के. गम्भीर, उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर )

New Delhi , the 14th November , 2008

S.O. 3088. In pursuance of sub -regularion ( 5) of Regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certificaton) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences for the Month of August-2008 particulars ofwhich are given in the following schedule :

St. No. Licence No. Name and adress of the licences 1 8958616 MisNeptune Packaging Private Limited Near PDPL Factory, VillageAsravad , Nemawar Road, Indore, ( MP) 2 8958717 MisNeptune Packaging Private Jimited Near PDPL Factory, Village Asravad , Nemawar Road, Indore , (MP) 3 8961908

M's Sakti Wires 452001 (MP) 43-Chhatri Bag, Chhatripura, Indore- 4 8956915 M/ s Logic Poly Products 314/3 , SDA Compound , Near Mayank Tol Kara, Dewas Naka, Indore (MP) S 8960195

M/sVikas Tubes 90-91 Industrial Area , Mandsaur- 458001 (MP)

ISNo. andtitle

Grant Date IS3652:1995

11-8-2008 Crop Protection Equipment Foot Sprayer-Specification IS3062: 1995

11-8-2008 Crop Protection Equipment Rocker Sprayer-Specification

11-8-2008 IS694:1990 PVC Insulated cables for working voltages upto and including 1100 V

12-8-2008 IS3906: 1995 Crop Protection Equipment Hand-operated Knapsack Sprayer , Piston Тури- Specification

19-8-2008 IS4985 :2000 Unplasticized PVC Pipes for Potablewater Supplies- Specification

[No. CMD: 13: 11 ] P. K. GAMBHIR, Dy . Director General ( Marks) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (i) )

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नईदिल्ली, 22 अक्तूबर, 2008

का. आ. 3089.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एयरपोर्ट ऑथोरिटी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , इर्नाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई.डी. 43/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-10-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-11011 /59/2004- आई आर ( एम) ]

6173

भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 22, 2008/ अग्रहायण 1,1930

"Whether the industrial dispute raised by Calicut Airport Employees Union against the management of Airport Authority of India , Calicut over regularisation of service of 12 trolley retrieval workmenjustified ? Ifso, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled ? "

कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT NewDelhi , the 22nd October , 2008 S.O. 3089. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. I.D. 43/ 2006 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court, Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of Airport Authority of India and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on20-10-2008 .

[No. L-11011/59/2004- IR ( KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Shri P. L.Norbert, B.A., LL.B., Presiding Officer (Monday the 4th day ofAugust 2008/ 13th Sravana 1930)

L.D. 43/2006

(1. D. 17/2004 ofLabour Court, Ernakulam) Union

: The Secretary,

Calicut Airport EmployeesUnion (INTUC), CalicutAirport P.O., Kondotti, Calicut.

ByAdv. Shri P. Chandrasekhar Management : TheAirport Director, AirportAuthority of India, Karipur, Calicut,

ByAdv . T. Saji

This case coming up for hearing on 28-7-2008, this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 4-8-2008 passed the following

AWARD

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

2. The cause of 12 Workers are espoused by the union . According to the union out of 12 workers , 11 were trolley retrieving workers and one was a supervisor in Calicut Airport . Some of them were working since 1991 . Though they were taken through contractor, they were actually employed by Airport Authority. They were working continuously. Their work was of permanent nature. Though contractors changed , they continued . They were supervised and controlledby Airport Authority, Payment was made through contractor . However the contract was sham. When demand was made for regularisation the management denied employment. Hence the union prays forre- instatement and regularisation.

3.Accordingto the management the 12 workers were not employedby management. There is no master- servant relationship. The trolly retrieving work was entrustedto a contractor on the basis oftender . The work is not perennial în nature. It is for the contractor to decide who shouldbe the workers and management has no role in that matter. Themanagement is not exercising any contract/ supervision over the workers . Payment is made by the contractor. The successive contractors may or may not employ same workers. In 2004 there was a change in the contract . The workers have no right for regularisation or reinstatement.

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

Are the 12workers the employees ofManagement?

The evidence consists of WWI on Union's side and MWI and Exts. MI to M3 on Management's side.

5. The Point- It is admitted by the union that the 12 workmen involved in the dispute were taken through contractor initially for trolley retrieval work in Calicut Airport. But their contention is that the contract was only a cover between the management and the employees . The workerswere actually employed by the management. They were supervised and controlled by the management . They have been working continuously from 1991 onwards . Though contractors changed the workers remained the same . The payment was arranged by the management . However the management denies all the contentions of the union .

6. On the side of the union WW1 was examined. He is one of the workmen in the case. He claims to be a supervisor in the trolley retrieval work . Remaining 11 workers were trolley retreival workers . WWI admits that initially workers were employed through contractor . He admits that the payment was arranged by the management to be paid through contractor.He further admits that wages was received from the contractors . He also admits that 6174

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 22 , 2008/ AGRAHAYANA 1. 1930 [PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

the workers can claim regularisation under the management . As already mentioned there is not even an averment regarding abolition of contract system let alone evidence of actual engagement by the management . The workers were engagedby contractors alone from the very beginning till theywere disengaged by the contractor in 2003. Hence the workers have no right either for re- instatement or for regularisation or for any relief.

In the result an award is passed finding that the 12 trolley retrieval workers have no right for regularisation of service under the management, the Airport Authority of India or for any other 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 4th day of August, 2008.

P.1..NORBERT, Presiding (Officer APPENDIX

Witnesses for the Workman : WW1-23-8-2007 P. P. Ummer Witnesses forthe Management : MWI - 24-06-2008- Sri G. Reghuvaran . Exhibitfor the Warkman Nil

Exhibit for the Management -

MI Tender for Maintenance . Retrieval and advertisement rights on passenger baggage trolley at Calicut International Airport .

M2 M3 Letter ofacceptance of tender dated 26-12-2006 . LicenceAgreement dated 26-3-2007. नई दिल्ली, 22 अक्तूबर, 2008

का. आ. 3090.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एलआईसी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संग्द्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण, पटना के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 31 ( सी ) / 2007 ) को प्रकाशित करतो है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-17012/ 16/2007- आई आर ( एम ) । कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 22nd October . 2008

S.O. 3090.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 21 ( C ) 2007 ) of the Industrial Tribunal , Patna now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of LIC of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 22-10-2008 .

[No. L-17012/16 /2007 - IR ( M ) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer entry passes were issued to the workers at the request of the contractor. However according to him the workers were working as per the direction of management. Whereas MW1 the witness on the management side denies that the workers were ever employed by the management .He says that the workers were engaged by the contractor . The trolley retrieval work was given on contract initially to one T. P.Aboobacker Haji . He engaged the workers of his choice and the management had no say in the matter . The management had no control or supervision over the employees . The management called for tender and accepted the low quotation of T. P. Aboobacker Haji and gave the contract. It was a revenue contract for advertisement , trolley retrieval and maintenance of trolley . Out of the income received from advertisement the contractor nised to meet the expenses of trolley retrieval and maintenance and pay licence fees Ext . MI is the tender notice . Ext . M2 is a letter of acceptance dated 26-12-2006 and Ext . M3 is an agreement dated 26-3-2007 with a subsequent contractor Sri . P. A. Musthafa. Other than the oral testimony of WWI there is no evidence to show that the actual employment was by the Airport Authority and the contractor was only an intermediatory introduced to deprive the service benefits to the workers. Regarding exercise of control and supervision the union has not been able to establish the same. Payment to the workers was made by the contractor as admitted by WW1 . The passes were issued for the purpose of entry into the Airport premises , that too at the request of contractor ( WWI admits) and need not goto show that all those who were given passes, were employed ofAirport Authority . There is no hint even in the testimony of WWI regarding any disciplinary action taken by management from 1991 till they were terminated from service in 2003. It may be true that the workers were working continuously for many years . But unless they were engaged by the management they acquire no right for employment under the management. Since payment is made by the contractor admittedly ( WW1 ) there cannotbe any record with the management regarding payment of wages . The work may be of perennial nature no long as the trolley retrieval work is continued by the management. But that is also no ground for claiming employment under the management. There is no averment and no case for the union that the contract system is abolished by government in order to claim regularisation of service . In Steel Authority of India Limited- and Others vs. National Union Water Front Workers 2001-11 - LJJ 1087 ( para 119 ) the Hon'ble Supreme Court observes that first of all the contract labour should be abolished under Section 10 of Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act by a notification by the concerned Government. That alone is not sufficient for claiming regularisation of service by contract workers . There is no automatic absorption of contract labour on issuing a notification by appropriate government prohibiting employment of contract labour in an establishment . The workers will have to prove that the arrangement of contract is a camouflage to deny benefits oflabour legislations to the workers . If that is proved then [ भाग 1 ]-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

6175 1930

भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 22, 2008/ अग्रहायण ।

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDNIG OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, SHRAM BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA

Reference Case No. 21 (C) of 2007 Between the Management of L.I.C. of India Patna Division and their workman Shri Pradeep Kumar, representedby B.M.S. Patna .

For the Management: Shri Naveen Kumar,A.O.

For theWorkman: Shri Murari Parsad, representative of B.M.S.

Present : Vasudeo Ram, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna.

AWARD

Patna, dated the 13th October, 2008 By adudication Order No.L- 17012 /16/2007 - IR(M) dated7-9-2007the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, Under clause (d) of sub -section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (hereinafter called ' the Act' for brevity) has referred the following dispute between the Management ofL.I.C. of India, Frazer Road, Patna and their workman Shri Pradeep Kumar representedby B.M.S. , Patna for adjudication to this Tribunal: "Whether the action of the management of L.I.C. of India, Divisional Office , Patna in not regularising the services of daily wage worker Shri Pradeep Kumar , working for a long period and not giving him regular status ofa permanent worker isjustified and legal? If it is an unfair labour practice, what relief the worker is entitled to?"

2. Both the parties appeared on notice and filed statement ofclaim and the written statemem. Subsequently a petition for withdrawal of the Ref. Case has been filed and moved on behalf of the workman . Under the circumstances 1 Presume that now no dispute exists between the parties and hence ' No Dispute Award' is passed.

3.And that is my Award, VASUDEO RAM , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 22 अक्तूबर, 2008

का. आ. 3091. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एलआईसी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण पटना के पंचाट [ संदर्भ संख्या 22 ( सी )/2007 ] को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -17012/ 19/2007-आई आर ( एम) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 22nd October , 2008 S.O. 3091. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award [Ref. No. 22 (C)/ 2007 ] of the Industrial Tribunal , Patna now as shown in 433341 /08-3

the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of LIC of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Govemment on 22-10-2008.

[No. L-17012/ 19/2007 -IR (M) )

KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDNIG OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, SHRAM BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA

Reference Case No. 22(C) of2007 Between the Management of L.I.C. of India Patna and their workman Shri Mukesh Kumar, represented by B.M.S. For the Management: Shri Naveen Kumar , A.Ο.. Representative

For theWorkman: Shri Murari Parsad, representative Present: Vasudeo Ram. Presiding Officer. Industrial Tribunal, Pausa. AWARD

Patna, dated the 13th October, 2008 By adudication order No.L- 17012/19/2007-1R(M) dated7-9-2007 the Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi , Under clause (d) ofsub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called ' the Act ' for brevity) has referred the following dispute between the Management of L.I.C. of India, Frazer Road, Patna and their workman Shri Mukesh Kumar represented by B.M.S. , Patna for adjudication to thisTribunal: -

"Whether the action of the management of L.I.C, of India, Divisional Office , Pama in not regularising the services of daily wage worker Shri Mukesh Kumar, working for a long period and not giving him regular status of a permanent worker is justified and legal? If it is an unfair labour practice, what rebef the worker is entitled to?."

2.Both the parties appeared on notice and filed statement of claim and the written statement. Subsequently a petition for withdrawal ofthe Ref.Case has been filed and moved on behalf of the workman . Under the circurrastances I Presume that now no dispute exists between the parties and hence , 'No Dispute Award' is passed.

3. And this is my Award. VASUDEO RAM , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 22 अक्तूबर , 2008

का. आ. 3092,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एलआईसी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण पटना के पंचाट [संदर्भ संख्या 38 ( सी) /2007 ] को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2008 भने प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-17012/24/2007- आई आर ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी 6176

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 22,2008/AGRAHAYΑΝΑ 1.1930

New Delhi , the 22nd October, 2008 S.O. 3092.--- In pursuance of Section ! of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), theral Goverunent hereby publishes the award [ Ref. N.. 380 2007 ] of the ludustrial Tribunal , Patna now as stin the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of 1.11 odra and their workition , which was receivedby the & chiral Govemment on 1 :1-2008 .

[No. L - 17012/24/2007 - ) : M ) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Dechticer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDNIG OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, SHRAM BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA

Reference: Case No. 38 ( C ) of 2007 Between the Management of 1.1.C. of India , Paona Dien and their workman Sri Sunil Kumar, represented by MS Patna.

For the Managericht : Shri Naveen Kum :.0 Representative

For the Workınan

Shri Murari Pad Representative

Present: Vasudeo Ram. Presd.ng (Officer, Industria! Jural, Patna .

AWARD

Patna, dated the 5th October, 2008 By adudication urder No 1-17012-24: 2007 dated 22-10-2007 the Government of India , Mad Under clause ( d ) of sub - sec Labour, New and sub - sen CA of Section 10 of the Ditrates s 1417 thereinafter called the ial for brevited the following dispute helsthe Manages casa, Prazer Road . Ped tho's workout : V Sunil Kumar represented by is MN Patna for adjudic.on this Tribunal

WOLS

"Whether the action of the management of the shair .. tice Patna in not

2. tatemical subsequently lags been filed between the p passed. :

3.And that is Aw...

[PART II---St . Stin) नई दिल्ली अकबर , 2008

का. आ. 3093.- विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 में बोन्द्रीय सरकार एलआईसो ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतं संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निशिद्यागिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधि करण , पटना के पंचाट गंगा ( सी )/2008 ] को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय गः 1122 2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था? [ 171126/2007- आई आर ( एम ) |

कमल बाखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi : Otober , 2008 S.O. 3093.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes ALE. 1947 114 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 40 ) 2008 ] of the Industrin.el , Patna now as shown in the Annexure in the parsal Dispute between the employers in relation to management of LIC of India and their workmen by the Central Government on22-10-2008.

No11701246 /2007 -IR ( M 1. BAKURU Desk Ollicer BEFORE THE PRENTING OFFKER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, SHRAM BHAWAN , BAILEY ROAD , PATNA

Reference to 4G of 2007

Berween the Manager : 1.It. of India Patna and their workman Sri Raj kanpan , represented by B.M S. Patna.

For the Management Mukherjee . Representative For the Workman . Parsad , representative Present:

Ram Presiding Ofier. bunal . Taina AWARD

Patna, dated October, 2008 By adudication No 1701246 /2007- [ RO dated 4-1-2008 the Gosephent of lndia , Minisur Izbor . New Delh and sub-section : Memementor . Ra Kalijs beseen the The and workmans mentors : paction for willst.. cused on behalf of 1 pewne that Üled Volt enth mees the parties Niepce No Disput . passed.

Athat is FIORAM.Presiding fliser 6177

भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 22, 2008/ अग्रहायण 1 , 1930

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 22 अक्तूबर, 2008

का.आ. 3094. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17. के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एलआईसी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण , पटना के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 5 ( सी)/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-17012/47/2007- आई आर ( एम) ] कमल बाखरू डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 22nd October, 2008

$.O . 3094,-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 5 ( C ) 2008) of the Industrial Tribunal , Patna now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of LIC of india and their workman , which was received By the Central Government on 22-10-2008 .

[No. L- 17012/47/2007-1R(M)] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, SHRAM BHAWAN , BAILEY ROAD, PATNA

ReferenceCase No. 5( C) of2008

Between theManagement of LIC of India, Patna and their workman Sri Upendra Kumar, representedbyB.M.S. Forthe Management : Sri T. T. Mukherjee, Representative For the Workman :Sri Murari Prasad, Representative PRESENT : Vasudeo Ram, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal , Pama

AWARD

Patna, Dated, the 13th October , 2008 By adjudication Order No. L- 17012/47 /2007- IR (M), dated, the 4th January , 2008 , the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi , under clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( hereinafter called 'the Act ' for brevity) has referred the following dispute between the management of LIC of India , Frazer Road, Patna and their workman Shri Upendra Kumar, represented by B.M.S. , Patna for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of LIC of India, Divisional Office, Patna in not regularising the services ofdaily wage worker S/Sh. Upendra Kumar & Sunil Kumar, working for a long period and not giving them regular status of a permanent worker is justifiedand legal? If not, what relief S/Sh. Upendra Kumar & Sunil Kumar are entitled to?

2. Both the parties appeared on notice and filed statement of claim and the written statement . Subsequently a petition for withdrawal of the reference case has been filed and moved on behalf of the workmen . Under the circumstances I presume that now no dispute exists between the parties and hence "No dispute Award " is passed.

3. And that is my Award.

VASUDEO RAM, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 20 अक्तूबर , 2008

का.आ. 3095,- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एलआईसी ऑफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण , पटना के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 6( सी ) /2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-17012/48/2007 - आईआर ( एम) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi, the 22nd October , 2008 S.O. 3095.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 6 ( C) 2008) of the Industrial Tribunal , Paina now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of LIC of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-10-2008.

[No. L- 17012/48/ 2007 - IR( M ) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, SHRAM BHAWAN , BAILEY ROAD, PATNA

Reference Case No. 6 (C ) of 2008

Between the Management of LIC of India Ltd. , Patna and their workman Shri Gopal Ram , represented by B.M.S. For the Management : Shri T. T. Mukherjee , Representative ofLIC

For the Workman : Stj Murari Prasad , Representative of B.M.S.

PRESENT: Vasudeo Ram, Presiding Officer , Industrial Tribunal , Patna

AWARD

Patna, dated the 14th October , 2008 6178

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NEMBER 22, 200R/ AGRAHAYANA 150

By adjudication Order No. L- 17012/48/ 2007 - JR( 11 ) dated 4-1-2008 , the Government of India , Ministry vi Labour, New Delhi , under clause (d ) ofsub- section ( 1 sub -section (2A ) of Section- 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter called ' the Act ' forbrevbity ) has read the following dispute between the management of Li India Ltd. , and their workman Shri Gopal Ram, represented ! by B.M.S. , Patna for adjudication to this Tribunal:

"Whether the action of the management of Lit of India, Divisional Office , Patha in not regularising thς services ofdailywage worker Sh . Gopal Ratn , working: for a long period and not giving him regular status : a permanent worker isjustified and legal ? Ifnot wea relief Shri . Gopal Ram is entitled to?".

2. Both the parties appeared on notice and tiled statement of claim and the written statement . Subsequemly a petition for withdrawal of the reference has been filed and moved on behalf of workman . Under the circumstances I presume that now no dispute exists between the parts and hence ' A No dispute Award , is passed.

3. And th is my Award. VASUDEO RAM, Presiding Officer नईदिल्ली, 22 अक्तूबर , 2008

का.आ. 3096. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एलआईसी ऑफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनक कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण , पटना के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. ? ( सी )/2008 ) को प्रकारंगत करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -17012/49/2007- आईआर ( एमः ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 22nd October, 2008

S.O. 3096.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 7 (C) 2008) of the Industrial Tribunal, Patna now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of LIC of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 22-10-2008.

(No. L - 17012/49/2007 - IR( M ) KAMAL BAKHRUU , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, SHRAM BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA

Reference Case No. 7(C) of 2008

Between the Management of 1.1C of India Ltd , Patna and their workman Sri Lal Mohan Ram, representedby B.M S. For the Management: Sri T. T. Mukherjee , Representative ofLIC.

For the Workman :Sri Murari Prasad , Representative ofBMS.

PRESENT: Vasudeo Ram, Presiding Officer , Industrial Tribunal , Patna

[ PART II Sex S

AWARD

Patna , Dated, the October , 2008 By adjudication Orde: No 1-17012: 49 2007 - IR ( M ) dated 4-1-2008 . the Government of India , Ministry of Labour, NewDelhi under Clause ( d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub -section (2A) of Section 10 ot the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (hereinafter called the Act for brevity ) has referred the following dispute between the management of LIC of India Ltd. , Patna asi teir workman Sri lal Mothan Ram , represented by B.M.S. Patna for adjudication to this Tribunal:

"Whether the actèrn the management of Lil ' of India, Divisional (Uti taina in not regularising the services of daily wage Worker Sh . Lal Mohan Ratu working for a long pend and not giving him regular status of a permanent werker is justified and legal " [ not , what relief Sh . 1 Mohart Ram are entitled 10 ?

2. Both the parties appeared on notice and filed statement of claim and the wrotem statement. Subsequently a petition for withdrawal the reference has been filed andmoved on behalf of worknun Cinder the circumstances 1 presume that now no dispute exists between the parties and hence a "No Dispute Award is passed.

3. And this is my Award

VASUEDEORAM. Presiding Ollicer नई दिल्ली. 22 अक्तूबर , 2008

का.आ. 3097.- औद्यागिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 12 में अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एलआईसी ऑफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण , पटना के पंचाट ( संदर्भ में. 14 ( सी ) :2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार कां 12-10 2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -17012/57/2007 आई आर ( एफ ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 22nd October , 2008 S.O. 3097. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Art. 1947 114 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref No. 14 ( C) 2008) of the Industrial Trshunal , Parma now as shown un the Annexure in the industrial Dispute hetween the employers in relation to the atanagement of LIC of India and their workman, which was receivedby the Cenual Govemment on 22-10-2008 .

No 1-1701257-2007 -JK ( M ) ] ΚΑΜΑΙ . ΒΑΚHRU , Desk Officer ANNFAURE.

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, SHRAM BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA

Reference Case No. 14 ( C ) of2008

Between the Management of 1.16. of India 1.td. , Patna and their workman Sri Rajesh Kumar , represented by B MS 6179

भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 22, 2008/अग्रहायण 1 , 1930

[ भाग 1]-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

For the Management : Sri T. T. Mukherjee, Representative ofLIC.

For the Workman Sri Murari Prasad, Representative ofBMS.

PRESENT: Vasudeo Ram, Presiding Officer , Industrial Tribunal , Patna

AWARD

Patna, Dated, the 14th October, 2008 By adjudication Order No. L- 17012/57-2007 - IR (M) Dated 7-1-2008, the Government of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi , under Clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act ' for brevity) has referred the following dispute between the management of LIC of India Ltd. , Patna and their workman Shri Rajesh Kuman, represented by B.M.S. , Patna for adjudication to this Tribunal:

"Whether the action of the management of LIC of India, Divisional Office, Patna in not regularising the services of daily wage worker Sh . Rajesh Kumar, working for a long period and not giving him regular status ofa permanent worker is justified and legal ? If not , what relief Shri Rajesh Kumar is entitled to? " .

2. Both the parties appeared on notice and filed staternent ofclaim and the writtem statement. Subsequently a petition for withdrawal of the reference has been filed and moved on behalf of the workman . Under the circumstances I presume that now no dispute exists between the parties and hence 'No Dispute Award' is passed.

3. And this is my Award. VASUDEO RAM, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 22 अक्तूबर , 2008

का.आ. 3098.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का ( 4 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एलआईसी ऑफ इंडिया लि. , के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण , पटना के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 15 ( सी) /2008) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-17012/58/2007-आईआर ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 22nd October, 2008 S.O. 3098.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 15 ( C)/ 2008) of the Industrial Tribunal /Patna now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial, Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of LIC of India Ltd. , and theirworkman , which was received by the Central Governmenton 22-10-2008.

[No. L- 17012/58/2007-1R(M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, SHRAM BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD , PATNA

Reference Case No. 15(C) of2008 Between theManagement of LIC of India Ltd. , Paina and theirworkman Sri Birendra Prasad, represented by B.M.S. For theManagement : Sri T. T. Mukherjee , Representative ofLIC.

For the Workman :Sri Murari Prasad, Representative ofBMS.

PRESENT : Vasudeo Ram , Presiding Officer , Industrial Tribunal, Patna AWARD

Patna, Dated, the 14th October , 2008 By adjudication Order No. L- 17012/58 /2007 - IR ( M ) Dated 7-1-2008 , the Government of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi , under Clause (d) ofsub -section (1 ) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called ' the Act' for brevity) has referred the following dispute between the management of LIC of India Ltd. , Patna and their workman Shri Birendra Prasad, represented by B.M.S. , Patna for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of LIC of India Ltd. , Divisional Office , Patna in not regularising the services of daily wage worker Sh . Birendra Prasad, working for a long period and not giving him regular status ofa permanent worker is justified and legal? If not, what relief Shri Birendra Prasad is entitled to?".

2. Both the parties appeared on notice and filed statement ofclaim and the written statement . Subsequently a petition for withdrawal of the reference has been filed and moved on behalf of the workman . Under the circumstances I presume that now no dispute exists between the parties and hence ' No Dispute Award' is passed.

3.And this is my Award. VASUDEO RAM , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 22 अक्तूबर , 2008

का.आ. 3099, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एलआईसी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक 6180

THE GAZEITE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 22, 2008/AGRAHAYΥΛΝΑ

अधिकरण , पटना के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 16 ( सी)/2008 ) को प्रकर्षशश करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22 10 2008 को प्राप्त हुआ १५ :

| सं. एल -17012/59/2007- आई आर .

कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अ New Delhi, the 22nd Detober , 2008

5.0. 3099. Ir pursuance of Section 17 Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) . the on Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref No. en 2008) of the Industrial fribunal , Patna now as show a the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between 6 . employers in relation to the management of LIC of India and their workman , which was received by the Cond Government on 22-10-2008 .

No, L-170125 /2007-10 KAMAL BAKTURU . Desk OP

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRILI TRIBUNAL SHRAM BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD . PATNA

Reference t'ase No. 16( C ) of 2008

Between the Managerment of LIK' of India Ltd. , Pata... their workman Sri Smesh Komar, represented by 18 For the Management : Sri T. I Mukherjee. Representat 1.

For the Workman Sr : Murers Prasad . Represent PRESENT. Vasileo Ram. Presaling Officer Jadustrial Tribunal . Pauria

AWARD

Patna , Dated the 15th October , 2008 By adjudication Urder No. 1-17012592017-( :

Dated 7-1-2008 , the Government of India. Mun Labour , New Delhunder Clause ( d) of sub - sectionfli sub - section ( 24 ) el Section of the Industrial Dis Act, 1947 ( hereinafter called 'tlie Act for brevite referred the following dispute between the managem LIC of India Ltd .. Patna and their workman Shri Su Kumar, represented by R M S. , Patna for adjudicatis thisTribunal:

"Whether the action or the management of [ India Ind . , Decisional antice. Patna in pot regular the services ofdaily wage worker Sh Santosh Ken : working for a long period and not giving him re status of pecuarent worker is justified ? IFroot ....! relief Sh . Santosh Kumar entitled to ?" .

2. Both the parties appeared on notice and si statement of clam and the wruten statement . Subseque a petition for withdrawal of the reference has been thi. I and moved on behalf of the workman . Unde circumstances I presume that now no dispute ..

PPARO SH . 3014 ) between the parties and .... Na Disoute Award 15 passed.

3. And that is my A

VAS Presiding Ollicer नई दिल्ली 2008

का.आ. 3100 , * धिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा केन्द्रीय सरकार एल आई सी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधकों और उनक कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में ि जिद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण , पटना के पंचाट गी ): 2008 ) कां प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्री 2008 को प्राप्न हुआ था ।

[सं. एनआईआरएम

भाग्य , डस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 2008 S.O. 3100. In pf Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act.11.11 1947 ) , the char..l Government hereby publ.rd ( Ref . No 170 2008 ) of the Industrial Themis now as lowri the Annexure in the liste between the

of LIC of freza employers in relation to

by the femras and their workınan , wh

overument on 22-10-20

上: Desk Olliver

HEFORE THE PRESIDERINDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, SHRAMAN.BAILEY ROAD, Reference C 2008 Between the Managermeni . Pamatd theirworkman Sri Dayana BM For theManagement: Si

Representative For the Workıman Sriwed . Representative

of15 :

PRESENT: Va Presiding Officer .

Patna , Dated . 2008 By adjudication Order 12.60-2007-4KR Dated 7-1-2008 , the Goodia , Minsiry Labour, New Delhi , underrot sub - section ( and sub -section ( 2A ) of Section frudustrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( hereinafter called set for brevity a las reterred the following disput.seen the management of [भाग - खण्ड 3( ii) ]

LIC of India Ltd. , Patna and their workman Shri Dayanand Kumar , represented by B.M.S. , Patna for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of LIC of India, Divisional Office , Patna in not regularising the services of daily wage worker Sh. Dayanand Kumar, working for a long period and not giving him regular status of a permanent worker is justified and legal? If not, what relief Shri Dayanand Kumar is entitled to?",

2. Both the parties appeared on notice and filed statement of claim and the written statement, Subsequently a petition for withdrawal ofthe reference has been filed and moved on behalf of the workman . Under the circumstances I presume that now no dispute exists between the parties and hence a "No Dispute Award is passed."

3. And this is my Award. VASUDEO RAM , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 22 अक्टूबर, 2008

का. आ. 3101 , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का. 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार त्रिवेन्द्रम एयरपोर्ट ऑथोरिटी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय इनर्नाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. आई डी-123/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को22-10-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -11011/4/2002- आईआर (एम) ] कमल बाखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 22nd October, 2008 S.O. 3101. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 1. D. 123/2006) ofthe Central Govt . Industrial Tribunal Labour Court , Emakulam now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Trivandrum Airport Authority of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Govemment on 22-10-2008,

[No. L-11011 /4/2002- IR(M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM -LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM Present: Shri P. L. Norbert , B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer (Monday the 25th day ofAugust 2008 3rd Bhadrapadh 1930)

1. D. 123/2006

(L.D. 76/2002 of Industrial Tribunal , Kollam)

6181

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 22, 2008/अग्रहायण 1 , 1930

Sh. M. Mohanan ,

-Workman Athivilakathu Veedu , TC41/1647, Manacaud, Trivandrum. ByAdv. Sri . Anil Narayan,

1.The Airport Director, Trivandrum Airport Authority of India , Kerala, Trivandrum-695008

By Adv. Sri K.L. Narasimhan

-Management 2.TheManager, Ex-servicemens Industrial Security Guards (P) Ltd. , TC 16/321 , Eswaravilasam Road, Jagathy 14, Trivandrum

ByAdv. Lexmana lyer .

This case coming up for hearing on 19-08-2008, this Tribunal -cum - Labour Court on 25-08-2008 passed the following.

AWARD

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

(A) Whether Shri M. Mohanan a security guard engaged through contractor M/ s. Ex- servicemen's Industrial Guards ( P) Ltd. , in the establishment of Airport Authority of India at Trivandrum Airport is entitled to regularisation by the Airport Authority of India?

(B) "Whether the contract between the Airport Authority of India and M/s . Ex - servicemen' Industrial Guards ( P ) Ltd. , was genuine one or a sham contract ? Ifso, to what reliefthe workman concerned is entitled to ? "

2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:- Shri M. Mohanan was working as Security Guard in Airport ofTrivandrum from 10-02-1996to 31-12-1996. Thereafter he was not engaged . According to the worker though he joined service through contractor M /s. Ex-Servicemens' Industrial Guards ( P ) Ltd, the real employer was Airport Authority. The contract between M/ s. Ex- Servicemens' Industrial Guards (P) Ltd. and Airport Authority is sham. The worker was controlled and supervised by Airport Authority the first management . The disciplinary control was also vested with Airport Authority. Along with him 15 other security guards were working. They were absorbed in Airport Authority as per the decision ofHon'ble Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation case . The worker alone was not absorbed. He had worked more than 240 days continuously in an year. However he was retrenched without following the procedure for retrenchment under the L.D. Act . He is entitled to be re- instated and regularised in service.

6182

[ PART 11 - SC . 3 ( 1 )

TETE GAZETTE OF INDIA . NOVEMBER 22 , 2008/ AGRAHAYANA 1. 1930

3. According to the management the worker was 1001 employed by the first management , but was an employee of the 2nd management . There was no master - servin relationshipbetween worker and the first manageriem Airport Authority did not exercise control or supervision over the worker . The first management had ools administrative supervision over the workers. The claunant had filed an O.P. before the ligh Court for the same rehet, But he did not succeed. He had no case before the Hagh Court that the contract is sham . He has not worked 2.10 days as claimed by him . Even if he has worked so long he has no right for absorption or re - instatement . As per the decision of Supreme Court the security guards , who were working during the relevant period as per the list provided by the 2nd management contractor, were regularised . The claimant was not working during the relevant period and his name was not there in the list . Hence the first management could not absorb him . The claimant is not entitled either for reinstatement or for absorption or for anyother relieť.

4. In the light of the above contentions the following points arise for consideration .

1. Is the contract between first and 2nd managentent , genuine?

2. Is the claimant entitled for absorption ?

3. Is he entitled for reinstatement ?

The evidence consists of the oral testimony of WWI and documentary evidence of Ext . W- 1 on the side of the claimant and MWI and Exts . M - 1 to M -4 on the side of th management .

5. Points No. 1 & 2 : Admittedly there was a contractbetween first management ( Airport Authority and 2nd management ( Contractor ) , The claimant admits that he joined service in the Airport Trivandrum as security good through the 2nd management contractor on 10-02-1996. There were 15 other security guards similarly appointed . Buthis case is that the contract was only a camouflage and the real employer was the first management , According 10 him the supervision and control were exercised by the first management. The disciplinary control was also exercised bythe first management. WWI is the worker . He has stated in terms of the contentions in the claim staterem. Accordingto him it was the Assistant Engineer of the Airport who was controlling and supervising the secuгку guards including the claimant. The power to take disciplinary action was vested with the Airport. Weekly off was given by the Assistant Engineer . Once the Assistant Engineer denied two days' work for the reason that he did not give due respect to the Assistant Engineer . TheAssistantEngineer was maintaining attendance register The claimant relies on Ext . WI agreement between first and 2nd management to substantiate the contention that the contract is sham . The relevent terms of the contract are .

"(3)

The paymem of wages shall he made by the security agency to its employees in the presence ol a representative of the authority designated for the purpose by the Airport Director.......

Theauthority will make payment on or hetore the 10th day of the month on the subinasion ofa certificate of anendance and certificate 11 satisfactory performance from the concerned officer -in- charge of the Authority.........

The Authority reserves the rightto reduce or increase the number of security guards and security supervisors ..

(8) "The agency shall provide to their security guards neat and clean uniforms as approved by the International AirportAuthority of India

All the security guards of the Agency shall wear the uniform wherever on duty in the said premises . In the event ofany security guardbeing found without uniform, he will not be allowed tojoin duty and will he marked absent for that day, the security guards as well as the security supervisors who are posted at various places as determined by the Airport Director from une to one will report to the concerned officer authorized in this connection at the time ofjoining and leaving duty every day and the aforesaid officer- in-charge will maintain Muster Roll'Attendance Register of the duties of such security guards and security supervisors.

15. The authority has the right to check. search or examine the person and belongings of the security guards ofthe agencywhile entering leaving the said premises and they will not leave the premises unless authorised by the concerned authority.

16. The security guards of the agency will abide by the rules and regulations of the authority while performing their job in the said premises .

18. The security guard shall engage themselves for the specified purpose for which they are deployed by the Authority. In case any secunty guard is found engaged in doing any other work , his entry permit shall be confiscated and cancelled.

19. the Amhority shall be at liberty lo forbid the employment of any person whom it may consider undesirable. The servants employed by him shall be under the general discipline of the authority in respect of points or routes of entry to and exit from the premises and in respect ofuse oftoilets and wash rowms .

6. The terms referred above make it clear that the wages has to be paid by the security agency Contractor) . but in the presence of a representative of the first 6183 भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 22, 2008/अग्रहायण 1, 1930

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

security area and cannot be treated as an act of exercise of control or supervision,

7. The worker (WWI ) has no case that the payment wasmade by the first management. MW1 the officer ofthe First management has denied that the first management exercises control and supervision over the workers . According to him the supervisor of contractor used to give directions to the security guards. The worker used to report to the contractor and not to the Airport Authority. Ext. M.3 is a statement submitted by the contractor to Assistant Labour Commissioner. It is contended in Ext. M.3 that the contract was for a short period, that normally at the end ofcontract period the workers will be relieved, that ifa fresh contract is signed as far as possible the same workers will be engaged, that the worker in question was engagedbythe contractor as bird scarer w.e.f. 23-04-1997, thathedid not report for duty nor approached the contractor forjob thereafter and that the disciplinary control, grant of weekly off, payment of salary etc. are absolutely the responsibility of the contractor and not of the first management . The Airport Authority had directed the contractor to furnish certain information regarding the workers under the contractor. Accordingly the contractor furnisheddetails of 14workers who were all Ex-servicemen , At that time the claimant was not on the rolls of the contractor. Ext.M4 is licence issued to contractor w/s.12( 1) ofContract Labour (Regulation & Abolition ) Act , 1970. Though theworker says that hewas denied work for two daysby the Assistant Engineer ofAirport as a punishenent for not giving due respect to the Assistant Engineer , the contention is not substantiated and cammot be treated as an instance ofdisciplinary control by ist management. Thecontractor (2nd management ) does not support bim. It is submitted on behalf of the worker that the Assistant Engineer was the officer who was controlling and supervising the worker and if he was examined, the truth would have come out. But it is for the 1st managerment to decide who should be their witness. Ifthe worker wanted, he could have summoned him. So also the 2nd contractor is not examined. But the stand of the 2nd management is disclosed by Ext. M.3 statement submitted to A.L.C. The workerhad approached the Hon'ble High Court in O.P. 9328 of1998 (Ext. M.1 ) praying for the same relief. He did not succeed. O.P. was disposed of with the observation that the rights of the worker and similar workers are regulated by the decision of the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Limited v. National Union Water Front Workers 2001 - II- L.L.J . 1087 [ 2001 (5 ) SCALE 626]. The relevant portionofpara 65 reads:

management. The first management has the right to reduce or increase the number of security guards and supervisors. The strength of guards depends on the needs of Airport and canbe decided only by the Airport Authority and not by a contractor. Therefore on that count it cannot be said that the contract is sham. Clause 8 is in respect of the uniform. As the security guards are working in the airport in security areas the Airport has every right to require the agency that their workman should be in uniform so that theycouldbe identified. It is not an act ofexercise ofcontrol overthe workers. Everyone working in the Airportwhether permanent staff or contract workers have to abide by the general discipline of the Airport. So also the term that the placeswherethe security guards are to be posted will be decided by the Airport Director does not mean that the workers are controlled by the Airport Authority. It is the AirportAuthority which has to determine which areas are to be guarded. That cannotbe left to the decision of the contractor. In the same clause it is mentioned that the securitry guards have to report to the officer- in-charge of theAirport at the time ofjoining and leaving duty everyday and the said officer shall maintain attendance register of thesecurity guards and supervisors. This is for the purpose of ensuring that the workers of contractor is attendingto the duties and sufficient security is ensured in the areas of theAirport which are sensitive and not for the purpose of payingwages or other service benefits to the workers. It is a personal service in a security area and the officers of Airport has aduty to watch whether service is rendered. Clause 15 says that while entering and leaving Airport premises the security guards will be checked and searched bytheofficers of the Airport Authority. Being a security area the first management has to make sure that nothing is brought in or nothing is taken out of the Airport by the security guards . That is not an act ofexercise ofany control or supervision by the Airport Authority. Clause 16 says that the security guards will abide by the rules and regulations of the authority while performing their job in thepremises. It is ageneral rule ofdiscipline to be observed by all the workers in the premises of the Airport whether regular or contractual . Clause 18 refers to the deployment ofsecurity guards by the first management. It is for the AirportAuthority to decide for what purposes the security guards shouldbe deployed each day. This cannot be decided by a contractor . Depending upon the needs of each day the authority will deploy the workers. It cannot be considered as an act ofcontrol over the workers. Clause 19 empowers the Ist management to prevent employment ofany personwhich it considers undesirable and also to determine the routes of entry and exit from Airport premises.Since the guards are deployed in sensitive areas it is the duty of Ist management to see that they are disciplined persons without any criminal background. For the purpose of checking them during entry and exit their routes are restricted and determined by Ist management.

Where a workman is hired in or in connection with the work of an establishment by the principal employer through contractor, be merely acts as an agent so there will be master and servant relationship between the principal employer and the workman .

These are inevitable conditions for working in Airport

4333 G1 /08-4 6184

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 22, 2008 /AGRAHAYANA 1 , 1930

But where a workman is hired in or in connection with the work of an establishment by a contractor , eitherbecause he has undertaken to produce a given result for the establishment or because he supplies workmen for any work of the establishment a question might arise whether the contractor is a mere camouflage as in Hussainbhaí Calicut's case ( supra), and in Indian Petrochemicals Corporation's case ( supra) , etc.; if the answer is in the affirmative . the workman will be in fact an employee of the principal employer; but if the answer is in the negative, the workman will be a contract labour ."

8. In the light of the above decision it is for the worker to establish that he was hired for the work in Airport by the Ist management through contractor , but not by the contractor. There is no such evidence in this case . The worker has not called for records , if any, from either the Airport Authority or the contracior . He cannot expect voluntary production of documents by the managements. Whereas in Lxt M3 the contractor contends that he was maintaining the records and making payments . The disciplinary control was also with him . In O.P. the worker had no case that the contract was sham . But according to thelearned counsel for the worker the claimant was secking absorption on the basis ofthe decision in Air India Statutory Corporation and others Vs. United Labour Union and others 1997-1 - LL ] 1113 ( S. C. ) But this decision was overruled prospectively in Steel Authority of India Limited but declaring that any direction issued by Industriat Adjudicator / any court for absorption of contract labour following the judgment in Air India's case shalt hold good and the same shall not be set aside , altered or modified on the basis of the judgment in Steel Authority of India in cases where such direcion has been given effect to and has become final . But it was held that there is no automatic absorption of contract labour on issuance of a notification by theGovernment under Section 10( 1 ) ofContract [ .abour (Regulation & Abolition ) Act . 1970 prohibiting employ ment of contract labour According to the managements the worker's name was not there in the rolls of2nd management contractor. Therefore , there is no question of ubsothing him on the basis of me decision in Air India Statimory Corporation case. Thereafter when the decisan Steel Authority of Ipodja varjendeord the absorption r labour merci in the strength of a notificatira , der Section 10hofCIRA Act is not pennisable Than نانی also the petitioner armot acceed to claim absur 9.As already mentioned since the worker is the service through contractor initially it is fot kan ta prove that the contract was only a smokescreen betweenthe principal employer and the workers. ite clamuss has miserably failed to prove the same. Therefore , possible to hold that the contract is sham . Hance entitled for absorption.

[PART 11-Sec . 3 ( ii )] 10. Point No.3:- The worker claims that he had been working continuously for more than 240 days from 10-02- 1996 to 31-12-1996. But it is not admitted either by the first management or by the 2nd management ( Ext M3 statement) Assuming that he had worked 240 days or more continuously still it was under the 2nd management and not under the first management . Therefore the question of giving notice or conmpensation by the 1st managerment under Section 25 - F of 10. Act does not arise. Untess he was aworker directly under the first management he is also not entitled for reinstatement under the first management . It is for the 2nd management to consider the employment ofthe worker according to their discretion. The worker has not acquired any right whateverto claim employment under the first management.

11. In the result an award is passed finding that the worker Sri M.Mohanan is not entitled for regularisation or re-instatement or any other relied in Ist managernent and the contractbetween Airport Authority of India and M/ s.Ex - Servicemens ' Industrial Guards (P. ) Ltd. is a genuine contract.

The award will come onto force une month after its publication in the Offical Gazette.

Dictatedto the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 25th day ofAugust , 2008 .

P.I.. NORBERT , Presiding Officer APPENDIX

Witness for workman

WW124-8-2004 Stiri K. Madhavan Nair .

Witness for Management

MWI 25-2-2008 Shrutohre Nellimala Saraj

Exhibit for the workman

WI Agreement between Airport Author- ity & Contractor dated 31-3-1995 (Original ).

Exhibit for the Managerment

Copy ofOP No.9328 / 1998 filed be- fore the Hon'ble High Court of heala

M2 "apy of fudgment in O. P. 9328/1998 .

M3 Copeof letter No ElG/ 1627 :AA1 / TVM dated 16-1-2002 ofEx- serv seren Industrial Guards ( !..

M4 Cup of Licence No.CL.1 /95 / ALC TVM dated 21-2-1995 issued byALC Trivandrum .

6185 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 22, 2008 /अग्रहायण 1 , 1930

[भाग II खण्ड (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 22 अक्तूबर, 2008

" क्या मैसर्स भारत कोकिंग कोल लि. के प्रबंधन द्वारा श्री वासुदेव कुम्हार उर्फ कसुदेव यादव, रात्रि प्रहरी , बुरागढ़ कोलियरी को उसकी सेकयोजन से सेवायच्युत करना विधिसम्मत एवं न्याय की दृष्टि से सही एवं उचित है, यदि नहीं तो कर्मकार किन लाभों को पाने का हकदार है "

का.आ. 3102.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केंद्रीय सरकार मै. बी. सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय संख्या-1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 310/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/202/2000- आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास, डेस्क अधिकारी

2. The workman has filed written statement stating thatBasdeo Kumbar alias Basdeo Yadav had beenworking atBurragarh Colliery since the date ofhis appointment i.e. 17-10-1971 , and his CMPF number and 1.D. Card number was D/541571 and 71616 respectively. He was performing the job of Night Guard to the entrire satisfaction of the higher authoritywith unblemished record, New Delhi, the 22nd October , 2008

S.O. 3102. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 310/ 2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Count, No.1 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 workmen, which was received by the Central Government on22-10-2008.

[No.L-20012/202/2000- IR(C -1 ) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL, TRIBUNAL NO.-1 , DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference U/ s . 10( 1 ) (d) (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

Reference No. 310/2000

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of KustoreArea of M/ s . B.C.C. Ltd.

AND

Their Workman

PRESENT: Shri H.M. Singh, Presiding Officer,

APPEARANCES :

For theEmployers Shri D.K.Verma , Advocate.

For the Workmen : Shri N.G. Arm , Authorised Representative.

State : Jharkhand : Industry: Coal

Dated, the 15th September ,2008

AWARD

During tenure of his service he was nerver charge- sheeted nor punished for any misconduct . When he came to know that his name is wrongly mentioned as Basdeo Kumbar in place of Basdeo Yadav then he rushed to the management and had requested the management to rectify his surname as ' Yadav' in place of 'Kumhar' in ' when he failed to get reliefthen he had represented to the mangement ofBurragarh Colliery on 6-8-87 alongwith an affidavit swom by him before Notary Public that his surname has been wrongly mentioned as "Kumhar ' in place of ' Yadav'. So, it had been requested therein that his surname should be rectified in all statutuory records as Basdeo Yadav S/o Sakhraj Yadav in place of Basdeo Kumhar S'o Sakhraj Kumhar. His surname had not been rectified, rether a charge- sheet had been issued to the concerned workman vide its no . BCCL /BA/ BSH /91 /41 dated 16-1-92 . The concerned workman submitted his explanation to the charge-sheet and the mangement was not satisfied with his explanation and a depatmental enquiry was held. The enquiry was not conducted fairly and impartially. The charges levelled against him were vague and were not specific. During the course of enquiry principle ofnatural justice had not been followed . The concerned workman was not given full opportunity to adduce his evidence in support of his defence , so it was a defective enquiry and on the basis of this enquiry the workman should not had been punished. It has been submitted that during the period of private management ofcoal mines the name ofworkmen wer frequently changed false and concocted Form 'B' used to maintain to avoid the compliance of Industrial Laws . It is also submitted that a large number of cases cropped up due to negligence ofthe dealing clerk who had maintained the Form 'B' Register on the eve of take over of coal mines. It is also submitted that right from the date of appointment of Basdeo Kumhar alias Basdeo Yadav to till his illegal dismissal none has come forward or appeared physically before the management with a complaint that he is the genuine employee and present Basdeo Kumhar alias Basdeo Yadav is a fictitious person. Apart from these the imaginary person should had lodged a complaint between this span of time of 20 years right from joining to illegal dismissal that the genuineness of present Basdeo Kumhar alias Basdeo Yadav should be verified as complainant is a ByOrderNo. L-20012/202/2000 (C- 1 ) dated18-10- 2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d ) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , referred the dispute for adjudication to this tribunal with following schedule:

6186

THEGAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 22, 2008/AGRAHAYANA 1 , 1930

genuine employee. During the course of domestic enquiry neither so called genuine employee has neither appeared and adduced evidence before the Enquiry Officer nor the management as well as the Enquiry Officer made any effort to get him produced to record his evidence. It has been urged that the management has been trying to imaginery person as real employee , but neither submitted his antecedent nor submitted his photograph duly certified by Mukhiya , B.D.O. and other Government agency so that his identity canbe verified by the investigating Authority. He has not been given second opportunity by serving a show cause against the proposed punishment of dismissal So it has also been prayed that the management should have given lesser punishment to the workman either stoppage of annual increment, or put in badli/ causal list or reduction in rank .

It has been prayed that an award be passed setting the order of dismissal and reinstating the concerned wokman with full back wages andother fringe benefits with retrospective effect .

3. Written statment has been filed by the management stating therin that the present dispute is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the present dispute has been raised by the union after lapse of six years and such the pesent dispute is belated one and not maintainable in the eye of law. It has been stated that Basdeo Kumhar , the cocerned workman, working as a Night Guard in Burragarh Collierywas an imposter. His actual name was Ram Janam Yadav.Accordingly Basdeo Kumhar , vide letter No. 991 dated 13-10-91 was asked to submit the certificate of his genuieness issued under signature of Mukhiya/ B.D.O . of his native village. Sri Kumhar did not submit the required certificate of genuineness . Again vide letter No. 7 dated 2-1-92 he was asked to submit the same , but he failed. He was charge- sheeted vide letter No.41 , dated 16-1-92 for wilful in subordination or disobediance or any lawful or reasonable order of higher authority and giving false information regarding his particulars for the purpose of employment, age and other particulars required by the company, under clause 26-1-10 and 16-1-12 ofthe certified standing Orders of the Company .The reply submitted by the concerned workman was not found satisfactory and it was decided to conduct domestic enquiry into the above charge- sheet . Sri K.B. Singh , the then Security Inspector, Bhalgora area was asked by the management to conduct a confidential enquiry in order to ascertain the correctness ofthe identity of Basdeo Kumhar . Sri K.B. Singh wentto the native village of Basdeo Kumhar alias Basdeo Yadav al the village Maklpur, P.O. Parsia, P.S. Rosra, Dist . Balía (U.P.) and met his mother , Smt . Chanari who identified the photograph of one Ram Janam Yadav and confirmed that the photograph was of her son . She also told that he was working in Burragarh Colliery of Dhanbad in the name of some other parson . Other villagers also identified the photograph to be of Ram Janam , Yadav S/o late Sakhraj Yadav. On further investigation , it was revealed that there was only person of the name of Basdeo Yadav in that village, who was Incal pradhan and cousin brother ofRam

[PART11-SEC.3 (ii)) janam Yadav. Basudeo Yadav also identified that the photograph tobe of Ram janam Yadav Sio late Sakhraj Sri K.B. Singh obtained the voter - list of Makalpur village , wherein at Sl . no . 39 ] the father's name of Basdeo Yadav was found asMukhlal . The enquiry was conducted by the EnquiryOfficer duly appointedby the competent authority in which Basdeo Kumhar alias Basdeo Yadav fully participated along with his co -worker. During the enquiry the charge levelled against the concerned workman was established beyond doubr . Keepingt in view the report of the Enquiry Officer and bravity of the charges levelled against Basdeo Kumhar , he was dismissed from the services ofthe Company vide letter No. BCCL/BA/BGH/92 Dismissal/ 1194 dated 18-11-92 issued under the signature ofDy. C.M.E/Agent, Burragarh Colliery . It is evident from the reportof the Enquiry Officer as well as Sri K.B.Singh , Security inspector that the concemed workman was.neither Basdeo Kumhar nor Basdeo Yadav, but he was actually Ram Janam Yadav and got employment by impersonating theactual Basdeo Kumhar . It his submitted that the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is fair proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The concerned workman was given full opportunity to establish his identrity, but he failed to prove.

Ithas been prayed that as award be passed in favour ofthe management.

4.The management has examined MW-1 - Chandraket Narain Singh, who is posted as Personnel Manager at Dobari Colliery ofBastacola Area and in 1992 he was posted in Bhalgora area of BCCL , as Personnel Manager. He has provedExts . M- 1 , M-2 , M-3 , M -4 andM-5.

The workman has examined WW - 1- Basdeo Yadav, concerned workman, who has filed papers - cost Certificate, application dated 5-8-87, certificate granted by the Chhetrya Panchayet , Rajmanpur , Vikash Khandrasra (Balia) ,Voter-list dated 29-7-96 letter dated 24-8-93 letter of Abho Devi , Ex. -M -L- A and union's letter 1-9-1998 .

5. The learned counsel of the management argued that the employee had been impersonating Basudeo Kumhar, he was charge- sheeted and after enquiry he was dismissed from service . The chargesheet which has been filedby the management, Ext. M - 1 dated 16-1-92 shows that only 48 hours time was given to the workman for submission ofhis reply. It shows only giving 48 hours time for submitting reply to the chargesheet is very short period and it violates the principles of natural justice because proper time has to be given . In this respect in the case of Delhi Cloth &General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Tejvir Singh in Civil Appeal No. 985 of 1967 it has been laid down Domestic enquiry- Principle of natural justice- Violation of- very short notice of date of enquiry . Another point which has been raised by the workmen representative that after enquiry report he has not been given so -cause notice to give his reply. The order passed by the management, Ext . M-5 shows that no show- cause notice with enquiry report has been served to the concerned workman and the management's witness , MW -1 has stated in cross- [भाग- खण्ड 3 (ii) )

examination that ' I do not re- collect if the copies were supplied to the concerned workman ' In this respect the workman has referred 1999(2 ) PLJR 370 in which Hon'ble HighCourt laiddown copy ofenquiry report must supplied to the employeebefore the order of punishment- non- supply of report before imposition of penalty by the disciplinary authority would vittate the enquiry . In this respectHon'bleCourt has referred AIR 1987 SC 1605,AIR 1976 SC 1785. The workman has also referred 1 CLR 1991 SC 61 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in disciplinary proceeding it is necessary to supply to delinquent copy ofinquiry officer's report. It is within natural justice that the delinquent should be supplied a copy of enquiry report and entitled to the supply ofa copy thereof. In 1963 (II) LLJ -367 the Hon'ble Supreme Court laiddown that finding against the concerned workman based on report givenby superior officers, such report not made available to the concerned workman and the officers making the report also not made available for cross-examinationby the concerned workman at the domestic enquiry -Held in the circumstances vitiated by violation of principles of naturaljustice.

6. On the side ofthe management (2008) [ SCC(L&S) 890has been referred in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held thatwhere two views are possible on evidence, Industrial Tribunal should be very slow in interfering with the finding arrived at in domestic enquiry. The management has also referred(2008) I SCC (L& S)-1 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that the workinan removed from service had challenged only the conclusion reached by the Enquiry Officer and the quantum of punishment but not the legality or fairness ofthe enquiry proceedings , held Labour Court could not examine the findings of the enquriry officer and held that the charge was not proved.

7.Another ground which has been argued on behalf ofthe workman that Dasrath Singh, who is said to be the complainant, has not been examined during enquiry on which report the workman was dismissed from service. In this respect management's witness , MW- 1 stated that ' I donot knowwho had made complaint was examined at the time ofenquiry claiming himselfas Basdeo Kumher . I shows that the complainant has not been examined in the enquiry, so it cannot be said that a proper enquiry has been held against the concerned workman . The learned counsel for the workman argued that he has given his affidavit for change ofname, but the management has not changed his name inspite of his request. Moreover, the photo copy has been filedwhich shows that Basdeo Yadav S/o Sakhraj Yadav has been mentioned of Village Makhalpur, P.S. Rasura, P.O. Barasia, Distt. Balia (U.P.) and caste certificate dated 13-6-94 of the concerned workman, but this employee has not been examined by the Enquiry Officer.

8. Learned counsel of the workman argued that his name has been entered in Form 'B' Register as Basdeo

6187

भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 22, 2008/ अग्रहायण 1, 1930

Kumhar. The Form 'B'Register is written in English and the concerned workman is not literate person because as perhis reply to the chargesheet which has been given on 17-1-92 that he only fixed his L. T. I. and in other paper also he has given L.T.I. It shows that the proceedings of the enquirywhich have been conducted in English and Hindi have never been explained to the concerned workman and after completion he has given his L.T.I. In the Voter List which has been filed by the workman relating to enquiry shows that L.T.1 . has been taken from the concerned workman, This Voter list cannot be accepted by the Tribunal regarding its contents,

9. As per discussion it shows that the complainant, Dasrath Singh has not been examined as witness and the complaint also not available on which chargesheet was issued to the concerned workman . Moreover, after chargesheet and after enquiry, Ext. M- 1 shows also that the enquiry report has not been served before dismissal to theworkman and as per Ext. M-5 which violates the principle ofnatural justice and against the judgement of Hon'ble SupremeCourt.

10. Therefore, on the basis of materials available on record, I come to the conclusion that the action of the management in dismissing the concerned workman from service with effect from 18-11-1992 is notjustified, hence the concerned workman deserves to be re- instated in service. But since as per records he has already crossed the age of superannuation in the year 2005 , the concerned workman is entitled to 75% back wages from the date of his dismissal, i . e . 18-11-1992 till the date of superannuation .

H.M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer In the above manner the award is rendered, नई दिल्ली, 22 अक्तूबर , 2008

का.आर. 3103, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) कीधारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. अलीटालिया एअरलाइस के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय संख्या-2, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 71/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11012/84/98- आई आर( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 22nd October , 2008 $.O. 3103.-in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 71/1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court No.2, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s Alitalia Airlines and their 6188

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 22, 2008 / AGRAHAYANA 1 , 19.30

workman, which was received by the Central Government on22-10-2008.

[No. L- 11012/ 84/98 - IR(C-1 )]

SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT - IL, RAJENDRA BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI

15th October, 2008 I.D. No. 71/1999

RefNo. L-11012 /84/98- IR -C-1 de 9-3-1999

In the matter ofdispute between:

Workman Sh . ShivajiGuha

Versus

M/sAlitalia Airlines

Management

CORRIGENDUM

1. That on page -1 , in the title of the parties and terms of reference the name of the respondent Company ATLANTIA , be read as ALITALIA .

2. That in page - 1 in the Last para end of the second tine after the words " That the " and before the Word Services , the words TERMINATION OF , is to be inserted .

3. That in the middle of second para at page- 9 , - " it is denied that the Claimant is NOT entitled to reinstatement in Job with full back wages or any other benefits or other Compensation or damages. The word NOT is to be omitted.

4. In the Il para from bottom of page- 10 the Word 'Proceedins' be read as PROCEEDINGS .

5. Wherever the date of Settlement on page 11 & 12 mentioned as 13-5-1993 be read as 31-5-1993 .

C.K. SINHA , Secy. to the Court नई दिल्ली, 31 अक्तूबर , 2008

का. आर. 3104.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 137/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31-10-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -12012/68/1999- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ]

अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

[PART II-SK: 3 ( ii) New Delhi , the 31st October, 2008 S.O. 3104.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Govemment hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 137/19991 of the Central Govemment Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Disputebetweenthe management of State Bank of India , and their workman , received by the Central Government on31-10-2008 .

[No. 1-12012/68/ 1999 - IR ( B -10 ] AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRIR.G. SHUKLA PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM -LABOUR COURT, SHRAM BHAWAN ATI CAMPUS UDYOGNAGAR, KANPUR. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 137 OF 1999

Industrial dispute between

The DeputyGeneral Secretary State Bank of India Staff Association SBI Building Mall Road

Kanpur.

AND

TheAssistant General Manager StateBank of India Zonal Office MGMarg

Kanpur.

AWARD

1.The Central Goveruneni , MOI . , New Delhi , vide notification no. L - 12012/ 68 /99-1R ( B - 1 ) dated 21-6-99 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Kanpur in ordering stoppage of one increment to Sri Sarvesh Kumar Srivastava is legal and justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. It is not necessary to give full facts of the case as the instant case was identified to be decided through Lok Adalat . On 12-9-08, when the case was taken up for discussion in pretrial meeting of LOK ADALAT, tribunal's attention was drawn by the representative for the management towards the application moved by the representative for the union duly supported with an affidavit dated 17-4-08 , and it was argued by the representative for the management that from a bare perusal of the application it is quite obvious that the union does not want to press the present claim and therefore has भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 22, 2008 /अग्रहायण 1 , 1930

[ भाग - खण्ड 3 (ii)]

requested to decide the case as not press . Tribunal has also given its anxious consideration to that application and find force in the arguments addressed upon by the representative for the management . Accordingly, the present dispute is decided as not pressed holding that the workmanconcern is not entitled for any relief as claimed by the union on his behalf.

3. Reference is answered accordingly against the workman and in favour ofthe bank.

R.G. SHUKLA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 31 अक्तूबर , 2008

का.आर. 3105.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इडियां के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 56/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31-10-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-12012/233/ 1997- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 31st October, 2008 S.O. 3105.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Govemment hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 56/1998 ) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Kanpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Inchustrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India, and their workmen , received by the Central Government on31-10-2008.

[No. L- 12012/233 /1997 - IR (B-I))

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI R. G. SHUKLA PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL, TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHRAM BHAWAN ATI CAMPUS UDYOG NAGAR, KANPUR INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 56 OF 1998 In the matter ofdispute between

Sri B.P. Mishra StateBank of India Karamchari Sangh K-46 Devendra Puri Kidwai Nagar Kanpur. AND

The Regional Manager StateBank of India Region - 1 ZonalOffice TheMall Kanpur.

6189

AWARD

1. Central Government , MOL, New Delhi , vide notification No. L -12012/233/97- IR(B- 1) dated 12-4-98 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal .

KYA STATE BANK OF INDIA KE PRABANDHIAK DWARA SRI PADAMPAT ATMAJ SRI PRATAP SINGH DRIVER KO DINANK 9-9-96 SE NAUKARI SE NIKALA JANA UCHIT AVAM VAIDHANIK HAI ? YADI NAHI TO SAMBANDHIT KARMKAR KIS ANUTOSH KE HAQDARHAI?

2. A bare look of the schedule of reference order clearly indicates that the union raising the dispute on behalf ofthe claimant is considering him as Driver and has also assailed his removal from the service of the State Bank of Indiawith effect from 9-9-96 treating him as driver . But the union in paragraph (E ) at page 4 of the statement of claim has clearly admitted that on 12-8-94 , Sri B.N. Agnihotri a regular and permanent driver of the bank was posted at Pukhrayan Branch of the opposite party bank at the post ofdriver and he was asked to perform the job ofpeon cum messenger. The union in its entire statement of claim has not mentioned the made of payment to the claimant . Thus from the statement of claim and from the schedule it is quite clear that the workman on 9-9-96 was performingthe job ofdriver in the opposite party bank and when he had not worked as such question oftermination of the services of the claimant as driver does not arise at all .

3. In the statement of claim it is also pleaded that the claimant was engaged as driver on 22-10-92 and continued as such till 9-9-96, which fact prima - facie appears to be misconceived in the light ofthe statement given in para (D) and (E) of the statement of claim which are selfexplanatory and are not in consonance with the schedule of reference order.

4. It may also be pointed out that in the entire statement of claim the fact that the claimant was ever issued any appointment letter for the post of Driver after regular selection process of the bank has not been mentioned.

5.On the contrary the claim of the claimant has been assailedby the opposite party bank on a variety of grounds alleging that the services of the claimant was utilized on need basis and for the services rendered by the claimant bank paid contractual rates on daily rate basis and that there never existed relationship of master and servant between the contesting parties and that on this ground the claim of the union is liable to be rejected . It has also been claimed by the opposite party that the claimant was in the know ofthe fact from the very beginning that he is an ad- hoc employee of the bank and he has no right to the post .

6. For the reasons discussed above, it is held that the claim ofthe workman is devoid ofmerit and is liable to berejected and is hereby rejected.

6190

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 22 , 2008/AGRAHAYANA 1 , 1930

7. Reference is answered accordingly against the workman.

R.G. SHUKLA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 31 अक्तूबर, 2008

का.आ. 3106.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का (4 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इडियां के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 25/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31-10-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [ सं. एल-12012/101 /2002 - आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 31st October , 2008 S.O. 3106. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 25/2003) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court , Kanpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India, and their workman , received by the Central Government 31-10-2008תסס .

[No. L- 12012/ 101 /2002 - IR (B - 1 ) ) AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRIR.G. SHUKLA PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHRAM BHAWAN ATI CAMPUS , KANPUR

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 25 OF 2003 Industrial dispute between

Sri Narendra Kumar C/ o Sri O.P. Mathur 117/K-36, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur.

AND

The Deputy General Manager , State Bank of India , ZonalOffice, TheMall ,

Kanpur.

AWARD

1. Central Government , MOL , New Delhi , vide Notification No. L-12012/ 101/2002-1R(B - J ) dated 18th , July 2003, has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal:-

[PART II-SEC. 3( i)) 2. Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Sri Narendra Kumar Rathor w.e.f Jan, 1991 and thereafter not considering him for reemployment while reemploying others including the recruitment of fresh hands is justified? If not , to what reliefthe applicant is entitled?

3. The case of the applicant is that he was appointed by the opposite party in subordinate cadre on June 1988, at banks Regional Office Mall Road , Kanpur, and that he was paid by the opposite party his full wages including allowances . He discharged the duties of peon under the opposite party. It is alleged by the applicant that he was appointed by the Regional Manager, after processing the relevant recruitment rules.

4. The applicant as against the above allegation pleads that he was assured by the authorities of the bank that he will be made permanent and regular but the employer in spite ofthe fact that there remained regular and permanent postdid not offer the same to the workman . The opposite party bank dispensed with the services of the workınan with effect from January 1991. It is pertinent to mention here that the date of termination of the workman has not been mentioned in the claim statement filed by him. The opposite partyalso invited applications from amongst open market and the applicant also applied for the same but he was not called for interview which smacks with malafide on the part of the opposite party and attracts the provisions ofunfair labour practice . The workman has also pleaded in his petition that the regional manager at a subsequent stage has assured him that he willbe made regular and permanent and that it will be ensured that he should be paid his wages at par to that of regular and permanent employee . It may be noted here that in view of his previous statement made in the opening paragraph ofhis statement of claim it is quite clear that he was never appointed by the Regional Manager of the Bank as alleged by him .

5. It has further been pleaded by the workman that the opposite party have dispensed with the services of the workman in gross violation of the provisions of Section 25G and H ignoring the vital fact that juniors have been retained in service against the same job and that the opposite party have not provided any opportunity of reemployment at the time of providing fresh engagement to the others for the same job lt has also been pleaded by the workman that the managemem have dispensed with his services with effect from January 1991 , which is highly illegal and unjustified and the workman is entitled tobe reinstated in the services of the opposite party bank with full back wages and all consequential benefits along with consequential benefits .

6. As against the claim of the workman the management has filed their written reply disputing the claim of the workman on a number of grounds inter- alia that the भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 22 , 2008/अग्रहायण 1 , 1930

[ भाग ॥- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

workman has never been subjected for regular selection against any regular and permanent post ; that the workman has never been issued any appointment letter in his favour by the competent authority; that there never existed any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties; that the workman never performed the work ofregular and permanent nature; that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not applicable in the case ofthe workman as he was never the employee of the bank, that no officer or authority of the bank is empowered to appoint in contravention of recruitment rules . On the basis of above it has been prayed that the claim of the workman is devoid of merit and is liable to be rejected.

7. It may be pointed out that the instant case can be decided there is no need to discuss the evidence oral or documentary lead by the parties as the instant case can be decided only on the basis of pleadings of the parties. It is the own case of the workman that he was appointed by the Regional Manager ofthe Bank after interview and also it is the case ofthe workanan that the Regional Manager further assured him that he will be given regular and permanent employment and that it will be ensured that he be paid regular pay including allowances . This admission on the part of the workman in his own pleadings would goto establish the fact that the workman had never been appointed by the Regional Manager of the bank, nor the workman has filed any such appointment order issued by the competent authority of the bank . In the absence ofthe same the Tribunal is of the firm opinion that the workman has palpably failed to establish the fact that he was appointed by the competent authority or the Regional Manager of the bank against the post against which he is laying his claim. It also emerges out from the own pleadings of the workman that there never existed relationship of employer and employee between him and the opposite party bank. Under these circumstances the tribunal has no hesitation in holding the there never existed any relationship of employer and employee between the contesting parties and when it so question of termination of his services by the opposite party or denying reemployment to him by the opposite party does not arise at all. Therefore, the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are not applicable in the case of the workman. Moreover it may be pointed out that the provisions ofthe Act could not be made applicable in any case ipso facto like that ofcase of the workman unless it is pleaded that the provisions of service rules have been violated which are analogous to any of the provisions of the Act. 8. Therefore in view of the foregoing discussion it is heldthat the workman cannot be held entitled for any relief as claimed by him and the reference is liable to be decided against him and in favour of the opposite party.

6191 and servant between him and the opposite party and that the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , are not applicable In his case.

10. Reference is decided accordingly against the workman and in favour ofthe opposite party.

R. G. SHUKLA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 31 अक्तूबर, 2008

का.आ. 307. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार , स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण इरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 165, 138, 141 , 144, 156/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31-10-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12011 /29/2000-आई, आर. ( बी-1 ) , मं. एल-12012/ 191 /2001-आई. आर. ( बी-1 ) , सं. एल-12012/188/2001 आई. आर. ( बी-1 ) , सं. एल -12012/ 190/2001- आई. आर. ( बी-1 ), सं. एल-12012/ 189/2001- आई. आर. ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 31st October , 2008

$.O . 3107-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 165, 138, 141 , 144 ,156/2006) of Central Goverrument Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India, and their workmen , receivedby the Central Government on 31-10-2008.

[No. L-12011/29/2000- IR (B- 1 ),

No. L-12012/ 191 /2001 -IR (B - 1 ),

No. L-12012/ 188/2001 - IR (B- 1 ),

No. L-1:2012/190/2001 - IR (B-1 ). No. L- 12012/ 189/2001 -IR ( B - 1 ) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

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

Shri P.L. Norbert, B.A. , LL.B. , PresidingOfficer Friday, the 18th day of July, 2008

ID-165/06, 10-138/06 , ID- 141 /06, ID-144/06 and JD- 156/06

ID-165/06

9. Accordingly it is held that the workman is not entitled for any relief as there is no relationship ofmaster 433341/08-5

(1.D.100/2000 of Industrial Tribunal, Kollam) 6191

The

State B

i .

L.M.S LO

By Adv. S :

The

State

Tur

Tin A

( 1.1 ) 11

Kin

Chiru

The

State

.D.

BvA...

The

ByAu

ID-156

( 1.0.73.20

P. Sasić

Thunda1 ....:

Back an

Rad

Dist :

Mefredare c

Preng the 84 comp male

shedar APиеве

The service

lis were transistre

High Chanol Kerala the f

The !:

tired by any .

the ci

dud case י !ר by the

pins ingre

overises :

scisporus eni

To settlement lis nent des

in the vacantes11

bin Auinterviews c . The

22 candidates ad suitable

pink was prepared os 22.1002 Ther

decided to be t

TRON of TER

candid mod

. Besides wiri nasdidates up to i

and included in the

outs Thus th

ether 257 Carin 23 wait

stmessengers up 1993 were to h

007, this wh dan taken in

d in the pres ! Labour

denisul on 12-0-5 sever the Masj

pletment the deeston

emporary rese !! Yel ave been work

at . The gave T

ches se krenite te es of temp

..sled in the wai : list

ding die procedure 6193 भारत का राजपत्र भवम्बर 22, 2008/अग्रहायण , 1930

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

5. Accordingto the management due to urgent needs several branches of the bank had to engage temporary messengers in leave vacancies purely on temporary basis. Such temporary employees were numerous and they were demanding permanent employment . Their grievance was taken up by the union by making representation to the management. The management entered into a settlement with the union regarding the vacancies of messengers and the modality of absorbing temporary messengers . There was such a settlement in 1987 , 1991 and 1995. In the last settlemeni it was agreed that the panel of temporary employees slid be kept alive up to March 1997 and the vacancies tiar existed up to 31-12-94 should be filled up. There was another agreement between union and bank on 30-07-1996 As per that settlement also the union agreed to rec vacancies ofmessengers up to 31-12-94 and to fill u vacancies out of wait list by 31-03-97 . The union cannot turn around and say that after 31-03-97 also the candidates in the wait list should be absorbed. The panel lapsed on 31-03-97 in accordance with the settlement . The head office of the bank had sanctioned 214 posts of messengers . As per the direction of Government of India 25 % of the messenger vacancies were to be filled up from among eligible full time general attendance. Out of 214 vacancies after earmarking 25 % , the remaining vacancies were 160 . Out of it 4 vacancies were reserved for Schedule Tribe candidates . Thus the remaining vacancies available for appointment from the select list was only 156. All the 156 vacancies were filled by appointing candidates from the wait list . The bank has implemented the settlement . The bankhas discontinued the service of temporary employees as on 31-03-1997 in terms of the settlement and it is not a retrenchment.

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

1. Are all the candidates in the select list entitled to be absorbed ?

2. Has the managerment violated the terms of various settlements in the matter of absorption of tempoгагу messengers ?

3. Whether the termination of service of temporary employees legal ?

4. Reliefs.

The evidence consists of oral testimony of WW- 1to and documentary evidence of Exts . W- 1 to W- 26 on the side ofthe union and MWI and Ex . M -1 1.1.17 on the side of the management .

demanding absorption . The union took up the matter with the management . The management direnessed the issues with the union and arrivedu settlements at different intervals. The first settlement was on 17-11-87 (1 : x1 . M1 ) . In the said settlement betwe en the union and the management they agreed to e ategorise tempогату employees into 3 groups according to the length of their services . The 2nd settlement was on 16-07-88 (Ext . M2). There was slight modification of the first settlement. The 3rd settlement was on 27-10-188 ( Lix 1. M 3 ). That too contained only slight modification of the carly settlements . The 4th settlement was on 09-01 - '91 ( E x1 M -4 ) . It was decided in Ext .M-4 settlement to prepare separate panels of temporary employees ( scale wagers ) and casual employees ( daily wagers ) . It was also decided to consider temporary employees for absorption in vacan, sies likely t0 arise up to 31-12-94 and casual employees up to 1095-96. Thereafter there was a conciliation in the presence of Regional Labour Commissioner, Hyderabad vnt. 19-06-95 . The minutes of the conciliation proceedings is E.. 11. M- 5. The parties came to an understanding in the said conciliation that strength of messengers will be ass essed as on31-12-94 and all the vacancies till then will be filk dup latest by 31-03-97. It was also agreed that both panel . sof temporary and casual employees will be kept alive will 31-03-97. In pursuance to Ext . M- 5 conciliation there was a 5th settlement on 30-07-96 (Ext. M 6). Ext . W 9 is a panel or 223 temporary messengers . Ext. W - 10 is a supplementary list of temporary messengers for filling vacancies arising due to dropouts. These temporary employees in Ext . W-9 and 16were selected after an interview. Though the panel of temporary employees numbering 223 was approvedby the head office of the bank for the purpose of absorption the suplementary list of 34 employees were not approved as there were enough candidates in Ext . Wy list ( 22310 up the available vacancies. For the same reason the panel of casual employees was also not approved and it was done in consultation with the union . This can be seen from Ext M-9. The local head office of the bank at Chenna: sanctioned 214 posts of messengers by Ext . M - 10 order Ext. M7 is a computer print out prepared at the head office showing the existing number of messengers , permissible number of messengers , surplus or deficit posts up to 31-12-94. As per Ext . M7 as on 31-12-94 the number of messengers in service in the Trivandrum module were233. The permissible number of messengers were 358 and the deficit was 125. This was the position as on 31-12-94 . These 125 vacancies had to be filled up latest by 31-03-97. According to the management out of 125 posts to be filled up4were reserved for 5.1. candidates and 25 % were to be earmarked for general attendance in service of the bank Remuning alone could be filled up from among the select Ust . Ail the 125 vacancies were filledby 31-03-1997.

Thereafter approved list of 223 temporary inessengers 7. Points No. 1 and 2 : ---State Bankof in Da cngaged temporary employees all over its branches in india to meet urgent needs arising out of leave vacancies , workloa In course of time such temporary employees starter! lapsed and none of the remaining candidates in the panel 6194

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 22 , 2008/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1930 [PAR1 [ [ SE ii )] could be considered for absorption after 31-03-1997

having a staff strength of 6. 12 or 18 the strength of messengers should be 2 , 3 or 4. However, according to the learned counsel the Zonal Office. Trivandrum by mistake reckoned the lower end ofthe slab instead of upper end , for determining the strength of messengers . As a result the strength ofmessengers was calculated as 212 up to 31-12- 94 instead of 125. Flowever the correct figure is 125 only as per Ext.M-7 computer printout . MW - 1 the Chief Manager ofthe bank has given endence regarding the discrepancy in the calculation of vancancy (pages 7 and 8 of MW- 1 ) . It is relevant to note that despite the fact that the union was in possession of Exis W - 23 and 24 documents , which according to the union discloses more vacancies than admitted by the management , they did not point out this fact either in the claim statement or in the rejoinder filed in response to the written statement of the management . Fat . M -6 settlement says that modalities ofdrawing names from the panel of temporary eniployees and casual employees wouldbe decided administratively on circle to circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the union by the circle management . Therefore it was the duty of the management to determine the actual vacancyup to 31-12-94 and intimate the same to the union . This was followed by the management . It is to be noted that the management bank has been liberal in relaxing the norms of recruitment to the post of messengers for the purpose ofaccommodating the temporary employees . The management does not stared to gain by excluding a few of the candidates in the panel The union is attempting to take advantage of the discrepancy in letters of the zonal office, Exis . W-23 and 24 and claim more posts of messengers . But the management contends that the number of vancacies mentioned un Ext. W- 24 is a mistake and clarifies how it had happened . I do not think that anything is done by the management purposely to deny employment to any one .

8. However , according to the union the vacancies were not properly asessed by the management . Thes flouted the terms of Settlements There were sullicient vacancies of messengers to accommodate all the temporary messengers in Ext. W-9 and 10 panels ( 223 and 44 ) The actual vacancy as on 31-12-94 was not 125 but 21.1 . The learned counsel for the union points out the admission of management in Ext . W-23 and 24 letters that there were vacancies still tobe filled up as on 31-03-97. Ext . W - 25 is a letter from Zoral Office , Chennai which says that 65 vacancies were still to be filled up even after 31-03-97. The Zonal Office by Ext. W-23 was clarifying the position with regard to vacancies and seeking instruction is to the stand to be taken by the bank in O.P. that was pending before Hon'ble High Court of Kerala . Ext. W- 24 is a similar fetter dated 19-05-97 pointing out the discrepancy regarding vacanciesof messengers reported by Zonal Office and the computer printout of vacancies prepared by local Head Office, Chennai concerning Trivandrum module . While the letter of Zonal Office dated 12-07-1995 referred in Ext. W-24 shows vacancies as 212 , the computer printout ( Ext . M7) shows vacancies as 125 in respect of Trivandrum module . Hence the Zonal office was seeking clarification by Exts . W-23 and 24 regarding discrepancy concerning vacancies and the stand to be taken by the bank in D.P.It isalso contended by the learned counsel for the union that at any rate in view of the contention of the management in the reply statement para 9 , that there were 214 sanctioned posts, out of which 25 % was earmarked for general attendance , 4 vacancies were reserved for S.T. candidates andthe remaining 156 vacancies were filled out of the wait list, the submission now made that there were only 125 vacancies to be filled up to 31-12-94, cannot he countenanced. The union also challenges the contention of the management that 25 % of the vacancies is to he set apart to general attendance. The very letters sent from the Zonal Office to local Head Office Exts , W- 23 and 24 reveal that someone had gone wrong in calculating vacancies which compelled the Zonal Office to write the aboveletters tothe HeadOffice . The O.P. was disposed by the flon'ble High Court of Kerala with a direction to approach the appropriate forum to determine the actual number of vacancies and to settle the issue.

10. Yet another contention of the union is that it is against the terms of Bepartile Settlement that the management had earmarked 25 % of the vacancy to general attendance. But the mangonent relied on Ext . M - tó and 17 memoranda of the Ministry of Finance that 25 % of vacancy ofPeons is to be earmarked for general attendance . But the learned counsel for the union submits that the O.Ms. ofthedepartinent of Personnel and AR is adresseud to Ministries and Departinctus and not to banks . Therefore O. Ms. have no application to banks. Ext . M - 16 and 17 O. Ms. of the Government say that 25 % of the vacancies of Peons have to be earmarked for sweepers . Farashes , Chowkidars etc , who have pot in minimum of 5 years service . In view of the Mas. the bank issued Ext M - 10 circular stating that the Covernment has issued guidelines to public sector banks that 25% of the vacancies of messengers should be rested for sweepers , Farashes. Chowkidars etc. The union has produced Ext. W-26 letter of the Ministry of Finance dated 06-08-90 addressed to 9. The management reiterates that Ext . M7 computer printout showing branch wise strength of messengers in Trivandrum module as on 31-12-94, prepared by local Head Office Chennai , is 125 and it is the correct figure . According to the learned counsel for the management Ext M-8 circular of the bank described the manner in which the strength of messengers in each branch or office has to he calculated. According to Ext . 1.8 circular when strength of messengers is determined strength in each office , the augmeat the upper end of the slab is to the staff to be dove al an office is 6195 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 22, 2008/ अग्रहायण 1 , 1930

[ भाग-खण्ड ( ii) ]

ofIndia. Dayto - day affairs are done by the Central Board which is regulated and controlledby Central Government . Hence the contention of the learned counsel for the union , that Ext. M - 16 and 17 office memoranda of Government of India are not applicable to the management bank, is without merits. The bank had issued Ext . M - 10 circular keeping in view the directions in Ext . M - 16 and 170. Ms. Whether the Bipartite settlements contain any provision with regard to reservation of vacancy to any particular category of candidates or not, the bank is bound to follow the directions ofGovernment . The management bank has no reason to complywith a direction in an O.M. ofGovernment when it is not meant to banks especially when it is guided and directed by a hierarchy of officials and by ReserveBank as well as Central Government . Therefore there is no merit in the contention ofunion that Ext . M- 16 & 17 0. Ms, which require bank to earmark 25 % of vacancies of messengers to general attendance , are not applicable to S.B.1.

ChiefExecutives ofall public sector banks which says that to tackle the problem of temporary employees in public sector banks the Government in consultation with the Ministry of Labour has worked out an approach paper . A copy ofthe approach paper was forwarded along with Ext . W-26 letter to banks and banks were asked to follow the provisions in the approach paper . The learned counsel on the basis ofExt . W- 26 submits that Exts . M- 16 and 17 were not addressed to banks unlike Ext. W- 26 and therefore the bank cannot resort to the direction in the said O. Ms. and reserve 25% of vacancy to general attendance . It is to be noted that Clause 6( i ) of the approach paper attached to Ext. W-26 itself says that the vacancies for absorbing the temporary employees who are finally approved will be identified by the management within the norms prescribed by the Ministry of finance and test/interview will be conducted. Therefore it is not correct to say that Ext. W-26 and the approach paper are the last word regrding absorption of temporary employees.

12. The contention of the union , that all the enlisted persons in the panel should be appointed to the post of messengers , is equally untenable. The fact that some of the candidates are selected and enrolled in the panel will not confer on them any right for employment . Since this proposition is not disputed by the union it is unnecessary to go into the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the management , but suffice to merely mention them .

(1 ) Sankarason Das v . Union of India AIR 1991 SC 1612.

(2) Syndicate Bank v. Sankar Paul ( 1997) 6 SCC 384 .

(3) Sanjay B v. Union of India ( 1977) 1 SCC 283 .

As per the settlement the panel of temporary employees lapsed by 31-3-97 . Thereafter the remaining candidates in the panel cannot have any right to claim absorption or employment in the management bank. The settlements are binding on both parties. There were 125 vacancies ofmessengers till 31-12-94 and they were filled upby31-03-97. The remaining persons in the panel are not entitled for appointment as all the availabie vacancies up to31-12-94 were filled up . The management has not violated any terms of settlements ,

13. Point No. 3 :-The service of 84 workmen were admittedły dispensed with after 31-03-97. This is not disputed . Ext . W- 12, 13 and 16 are some of the termination orders . According to the union all the workers had put in continuous service of more than 240 days in an year. But theywere terminated without notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of I.D. Act . According to the management the workers were engaged purely on temporarybasis . Whenever their periods of service were completed they were relieved. The management denies continuous service of 240 days . The learned counsel for themanagement submits that the burden is on the union to prove continuous service of240 days in order to claim the 11. That apart S.B.I. is a public sector bank owned and controlledby Government of India through a Central Board which is constituted as per the procedure laid down in State Bank of India Act, 1955. Section 17 to 20 relate to management of affairs and business ofSBI through Central Board, discharge of functions of the bank as guided by directions ofCentral Government, composition ofCentral Board, term of office of Chairman , Vice Chairman and Managing Directors . As per the above provisions the Superintendence and direction of the affairs and business of State bank are entrusted to Central Board, The Central Board is guided by the directions of Central Government . The Central Board consists of a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman, one or two management Directors and Directors . All these persons are appointed by Central Government except one Director nominated by Reserve Bank and maximum four Directors from among share holders other than Reserve Bank. As per S. 20 the term ofoffice of Chairman, Více- Chairman and Managing Directors and Directors are decided by the Central Government except in the case of directors eleccted from among share holders other than ReserveBank, Section 24 says that the Central Government is competent to remove Chairman, Vice - Chairman , ManagingDirector or Directors except the Directors elected byshare holders other than Reserve Bank. Section49 says that the Central Government in consultation with Reserve Bank may make rules to provide for all matters for which provision is necessary for the purpose of giving effectto the provisions of the Act and such Rules shall be notified in the official gazette. S. 50 relates to power of Central Board to make regulations after consulting Reserve Bank. and with the previous sanction of Central Government . Matters regarding which regulations are required, are enumerated in sub-clause 2( a) to (u) of Section 50. Thus the provisions of the Act make it clear that State Bank of India is owned and controlled and guided by Government 6196

THEOFINDIA benefits of 1.1) , Act, ippon his contention the leat counsel relied on the decision of Tom'ble Supreme .

in Mohanial v. Bharath Electricals I imited AIR 1981 1261. Exts . W301 sis a certificate issued by the man to Sri . Sasidharan Sarong list had worked for a pey.....

of1217days during 01-04-20-08-2000 . Ext . W contain certificates euced by management to Shre Sunil regarding his serve bank during different inters The last of such certificate is dated 23-10-2000 . It sh.. that he had worked 1151 dass during the period 01-04-4 20-08-2000 . Similarly W 18 series contain serufiea... regarding service of Sri. G. Soman. Among then cerit dated 23-10-2000 mentions thathe had worked . during the period 01-04-1997 № 20-08-2000 No dou per these certificames these knien had wo continuously for a period more than 240 deye in e But it is to be noted that P9092 27 was pending the Hon'ble High Courto : Kerja tiled by these 3 : and 12 others clamang absorption is the pos ! messengers . The OP . was perading till 22-03-2000, Th was a stay order tolerante the service of thes workers . Hence they were continuing as tempoto . employees . This is clear from the terminationthe termination order Fav 12 , 13 and 16. Thus the wuthmen were continuing . employment as temporary employees during the period 19-97-2000 . Hence Heat period of service rendered on t strength of court order cannot be counted for the purp ofcontinuous service detinel 5. 25-8 of 1.D. Act the service during the rest of the periods evidenced by W3 series , 15 series and 18 series were not continuous b intermittent and none had worked continuously for 2... day's during any year mach less preceding terminal The service details of remaining 81 employers are available as they are furnished and the burden is on 18 workman to prove continuous service . It follows theret ... that they are not entitled to the benefits u's . 25 -F I.D. Acı . Hence t find that there is no illegality in 16.. termination of their service

R 22.2008 AGRAHAYANA

PART II- SEC . 3 ( 1)

APO NDIX

Witnesses for the Workmansion

ww1 02-12-2003 Sritharan .

WW2 06-07-2004 Sri Sunil .

WW 3 06-07-2004 Str . มา .

Ww4 07-12-2004 Su .. Sidhartlian .

Witnesses forthe managemeist

MWI 21-02-2007 Sh

Exhibits for the Union/Woran

1 04-11-80 Photos of OM No. 541 issuedhe Management to Sre P.S

08-05-81 Photosis issued Sasidic of service certitical Management 10 Sri . P. 163 ! Nos . Photos of service certificates issued the Management to Sri P. Sasidl

17-11-87 Photocopy of settlement betwe חיי and managemen .

16-07-88 Photos : copy of settlement between on and management .

6 27-10-88 Photoscan copy of settlement between won and Management .

147 09-01-91 Photos! copy of settlement between town and Management .

07-07-89 Photostat tops of O.M. No. 523 issued by managementto Sri . P. Sasiri tall

9 27-02-92 Pholusta . of List comaming names temporary messengers 10 13-05-95 Photost alist containing the namentporary messengers .

W11 30-07-96

14. Point No. 4 : In view of the above tinding follows that none of the workers are entitted either fr absorption or for notice or compensation under Sect ... 25 -F of I.D. Act or any other relict .

In the resull, an award is passed finding than action of the management im terminating the services of 83 empanelled temporary messengers is legal and justiti.l and they are not entitled for ans relief

Photost between cups of settlement and Management .

W12 24-08-00 Photostat copy of communication issued by managenient to Sri P Sasidhatan.

W13 24-08-00 Photosteps of communication issued by nagement to Sri . K.S. Smil ,

W14 06-10-98

The award will come into force one month aftes in publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Persotial Assistaru , transcribed and typed by her , corrected and passed by me on this the 18th dayofJuly. 2008.

PINORBERT. Presidir: Olicer

Photostai cot letter No. Misc. 267 issued manageme [ to Srí. K.S. Sui

W15 series ( 13 Nos.)

issued i Srik S the Photostaty of service certiticates Managerment to भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 22 , 2008/ अग्रहायण 1 , 1930

[ भाग 1 ]- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

W-16 24-8-00 Photostat copy of communication issued by Sri.G. Soman . management to W-17 3-7-89 Photostat copy ofletter No. DGM - 12 issued by the management 10 SriG. Soman.

W-18 Series Photostat copy of service certificates issued by management Sri .G. Soman. 10 W- 19 9-6-95 Photostat copy of minutes of conciliation proceedings before the RLC( C), Hyderabad.

W-20 31-12-72 Photostat copy ofpage No. 174, 175 and 176 of the staff circulars issued by the management .

W-21 24-4-91 Photostat copy of staff circular N66 (91-92) issued by the General Manager (Operations ) State Bank of India.

W-22 24-3-97 Series

Photostat copy of letter No. PER/ SUB/DS/8532 from Local Head Office, State Bank of India and 2 enclosures W-23 14-5-97 Photostat copy of letter No. PER/ 00218/71 issued by General Manager, Zonal Office, SBI , Trivandrum ofthe Local HeadOffice, Chennai .

19-5-97

W-24

Photostat copy of letter No. PER/ 00252/80 issued by the Dy. General Manager , SBI , Zonal Officer , Trivandrum to the Local HeadOffice, Chennai .

W-25 16-11-05 Photostat copy of letter No. PER: SUB: RM 5605 issued by the Local Head Office , SBI , Chennai to the Zonal Office .

W-26 6-8-90 Photostat copy of letter No. F-3/3/ 104/87 . IR of the M/o. Finance , Government of India issued to the Chief Executives ofall Public Sector Banks.

Exhibits for the Management

M1 17-11-87 Photostat copy of settlement between union and management .

Printed by the Manager , Govt. of India Press, Ring Road ,

6197 M2 16-7-88 Photostat copy of settlement between union and management.

M3 27-10-88 Photostat copy of settlement between union and management. 9-1-91

Photostat copy of settlement between union and Management .

MS 9-6-95 Photostat copy of minutes of conciliation before the RLC( C ), Hyderabad.

M6 30-7-96 Photostat copy of settlement between union and management .

M7 31-12-94 Computer print out of branch wise strength ofmessenger in Trivandrum module of SBI issued by the Chennai Circle.

M8 9-11-92 Photostat copy of staff circular No. 28 .

M9 5-6-97 Photostat copy of letter No. PFR: GB: 1697 issuedby the SBI Local Head Office, Chennai to the Zonal Office, Trivandrum .

M-10 27-9-90 Photostat copy of Staff Circular No. 24 .

M-11 21-4-97 Photostat copy of minutes of conciliation before the RLC ( C ), Hyderabad.

M-12 16-2-95 Photostat copy of placement sheet .

M-13 28-2-96 Photostat copy of Letter No. PER: SUB: RM . 8035 issued by the SBI , Local HeadOffice.

M-14 27-1-07 Photostat copy of Letter No. PER: SUB.RM 7156 issued by the SBI Local Head Office .

M-15 19-5-07 Lr . No. PER/00252/80 issued by the CircleDevelopment Officer , SBI . Chennai to the Zonal Office , SBI , Trivandrum .

16-1-76

M-16

O. M. No. 42015/3/75 -Estt( C ) ofthe Department ofpersonnel &AR.

M-17 2-2-77

O. M. No. 42015 / 1 /76 -Estt (C) ofthe Department of Personnel &AR .

Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064

This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 22, 2008/अग्रहायण 1, 1930

एन. बारिक , अवर सचित्र

भारत का राजपत्र ; नवम्बर 22, 2008/अग्रहायण 1, 1930

लाइसेंसधारी का

नाम व पता

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 22 , 2008/ AGRAHAYANA 1,190

New Delhi . t 10th November, 2008

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 22, 2008 /AGRAHAYANA 1. 19.30

नई दिल्ली , 10 नवम्बर , 2008

भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 22 , 2008/अग्रहायण 1 , 1930

नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम्बर , 2008

THE GAZETTADIA: NOVEMBER 22, 2008/ AGRAHAYANA 1 , 1930

New Delhi. the 14th November , 2008

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 22, 2008/अग्रहायण 1 , 1930

नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम्बर , 2008

New Delhi , the 14th November , 2008

नई दिल्ली , 14 नवम्बर , 2008

New Delhi , the 14th November , 2008

कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी

भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 22, 2008/ अग्रहायण ।

भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 22, 2008/ अग्रहायण 1 , 1930

भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 22, 2008/अग्रहायण 1 , 1930

THE GAZEITE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 22, 2008/AGRAHAYΥΛΝΑ

ID-165/06

W11 30-07-96

W14 06-10-98

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi - 110054