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. 49 ]
नई दिल्ली , नवम्बर 30 दिसम्बर 6, 2008 , शनिवार/अग्रहायण 9 - अग्रहायण 15 , 1930 No. 49Į NEW DELHI , NOVEMBER 30- DECEMBER 6, 2008, SATURDAY/ AGRAHAYANA AGRAHAYANA 15, 1930 इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II- खण्ड 3 - उप- खण्ड ( Il) PART II-Section 3-Sub- section ( ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों ( रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर ) द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
विधि और न्याय मंत्रालय
(विधि कार्य विभाग ) नई दिल्ली , 21 नवम्बर, 2008
का.आ. 3203 , केन्द्रीय सरकार , दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 (1974का 2 ) की धारा 24 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री एम. एस. भारद्वाज , अधिवक्ता को, मुम्बई उच्च न्यायालय में भारत संघ या केन्द्रीय सरकार के किसी विभाग या कार्यालय द्वारा या उसके विरुद्ध सभी दाडिक मामलों का , जिनके अंतर्गत दांडिक रिट याचिकाएं, दांडिक अपीलें , दांडिक पुनरीक्षण , दांडिक निर्देश और आपराधिक आवेदन भी हैं , संचालन करने के प्रयोजन के लिए इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से एक वर्ष की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेश होने तक , इनमें से जो भी पूर्वतर हो , इस शर्त के अधीन रहते हुए अपर लोक अभियोजक नियुक्त करती है कि श्री एम. एस. भारद्वाज, अधिवक्ता अपनी नियुक्ति की अवधि के दौरान भारत संघ या केन्द्रीय सरकार के किसी विभाग या कार्यालय के विरुद्ध ऊपर निर्दिष्ट किसी आपराधिक मामले में मुम्बई उच्च न्यायालय में उपसंजात नहीं होंगे ।
[सं. एफ 23 ( 2 )/2008-न्यायिक ] एम. ए. खान यूसुफी, संयुक्त सचिव और विधि सलाहकार 4647 Gt/2008
MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE (Department of Legal Affairs)
New Delhi , the 21st November , 2008 S.O. 3203. In exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974 ) , the Central Govemment hereby appoints Shri M. S. Bhardwaj Advocate as Additional PublicProsecutor for the purpose ofconducting all criminal cases including criminal writ petitions, criminal appcals , criminal revisions , criminal references and criminal applications by or against the Union of India or any Department or Office of the Central Goverminent . in the High Court of Judicature at Mumbai , with effect from the date of publication ofthis notification in the Official Gazette, for a period of one year or until further orders, whichever is earlier, subject to the condition that Shri M. S. Bhardwaj . Advocate, shall not appear against the Union of India or any Department or Office ofthe Central Government in any criminal case referred to above, in the High Court of Judicature at Mumbai during the period of his appointment.
F. No. 23 (2 )/2008 - Jul1 . | M. A. KHAN YUSUFI , Jt . Secy , & Legal Adviser
(6347) 6348 .
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . DECEMBER 6 , 2008 /AGRAHAYAΝΑ 15, 1930
कार्मिक, लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय (कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग ) नई दिल्ली . 21 नवम्बर , 2008
का.आ. 3204, कंन्द्रीय सरकार एतदुद्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 1974 का अभिंनयम सं. 1 ) को धारा 24 को उपधारा ( ४ ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिल्लो विशेष पुलिस स्थापना द्वारा विशेष न्यायाधीश , मुम्बई के न्यायालय में औरअपीलः पुनर्विच्चारण न्यायालयों च. महाराष्ट्र राज्य में विधि द्वारा स्थापित न्यायालयों, जिन पर उपरोक्त श्रारा के प्रावधान लागू होते हैं, में संस्थित माम्मला अथवा इनले अद्भूत निम्न मामलों में श्री ए. एस. कुल्ये अधिवक्ता को विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है :-
(२ ) आरभी 2.8/96- बीएसएफसी/मुम्बई
( 2 ) आरसी 3 /ई/96 - एलआईयू( 10 )/नई दिल्ली ( 3 ) आसी 6. - 96 बीएसएफसी/ मुम्बई
14 : भारमी 1.ई/ 47/ बीएसएफसी/मुम्बई
( 5 ) आरसो 10.ई:97/बीएसएफसी/ मुम्बई
[सं. 225 / 38/2008 - एवोडो-[ ] ]
चंद्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training) New Delhi , the 26th November. 2008 $.0.3204.- Im exercise of the powers conterred by sub - section ( 8 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 ( Act No. 2 of 1974 ), the Central Govemment hereby appoints Shri A. S. Kulaye , Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of the following cases institutedby the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the Court ofSpecial Judge , Muonbai and appellate revisional courts or any other matters arising out of the case in the courts established by law in the State of Maharashtra to which provisions of the aforesaid secrion apply
( RC2696 -BSFC/MUM,
( ii ) RC3T/96- SIL ( X )/ ND,
(ii ) RC6T-96- BSFC MUM.
( iv) RC 1197- BSFC/MUM,
( v ) RC 101 : 97 -BSFC/MUM
No. 225 /382008 - AVD - 11 ] CHANDRA PRAKASH, Under Secy.
PART 3 (ii )
वित्त मंत्रालय ( वित्तीय मेवाएं विभाग )
नई दिल्ली. 27 नवम्बर , 2018
पता का.आ. 3205. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक अधिनियम , 1955 ( 1955 का 23 ) की धारा 21 क के साथ पठित , भारा की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ग ) द्वारा प्रदन्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, कंन्द्रीय सरकार. भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक के परामर्श से , एतद्वारा , निम्नलिखित चार व्यक्तियों को, अधिसूचना की तारीख से तीन वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो , भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के बंगलुरू स्थानीय बाहं के रूप में नामित करती है: - क्रम सं. नाम
1. श्रीमती एन. एस. रतना प्रभा सं. 33/डी, जो जो रेलवे क्वार्टर , बंगलुरू -560023 2 श्री एल, चंद्रशेखर
सं. 21-3 . ( पूर्व सं. 36 ) . बनासवाडी , मेन रोड. मारुति सेवा नगर बंगलुरू -560033 3. श्री आर. अशोक कुमा? 9.31, इवा क्राम ५ वः मंन, ब्लाक- कल्याण नगर , चंगलुरू 5600043 4. श्री श्रीनिवास तिवारी
फ्लैट सं. 105. प्रथम तन्न. पॅलंम अपार्टमेंट, पत्लंग क्रसि रोड, बंगलुरू 560020
[फा. नं. ५:3/2008- बोओ ।। 'जी, बो. सिंह . उन सचिव MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services ) New Delhi, the 27th November , 2008 S.No.
$.0.3205 -In exercise of the powers conferred by of clause ( c ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 21. read with Section 21A of the State Bank of India Act , 1955 173 1955), the Central Government , in consultation with Reserve Bank of India , hereby nominates the following four persons, to be a member of the Bangalore Local Board of the State Bank of India for a period of three years , from the date of notification or until further orders , whichever is earlier ; Name Address
3
1 . Smt . N.S. Rathna Prabha N. 33 D. B.G Railway Quarters. Bangalore- 560023
2. Shri L. Chandrashekar No. 21/3 . ( OLJD No. 36 ) , Banaswadi Main Road. Maruthi Seva Nagar , Bangalore-560033 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) )
6349
भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6 , 2008 /अग्रहायण 15, 1930
3
2
3. Shri R. Ashok Kumar 931 , 5th Cross , 9th Main, 1 Block , Kalyan Nagar, Bangalore-560043 4. Shri Srinivas Tiwari
Flat No.103, 1st Floor, Palace Heights Appts. , Palace Cross Road , Bangalore-560020
[F. No. 9/3/2008-BO- I ] G.B. SINGH , Dy. Secy.
नई दिल्ली , 27 नवम्बर , 2008
का. आ. 3206,-भारतीय स्टेट बैंक अधिनियम , 1955 ( 1955 का 23 ) की धारा 21 क के साथ पठित , धारा 21 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ग ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार , भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक के परामर्श से, एतद्वारा , श्री पुरलीधर जेना, निवासी गांव करसाही , डाकघर श्री गंगा , वाया अर्नापल , जिला भद्रक को , अधिसूचना की तारीख से तीन वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के भुवनेश्वर स्थानीय बोर्ड के सदस्य के रूप में नामित करती है।
(फा. सं. 9/4/2008-बीओ -1 ]
जी.बी. सिंह , उप सचिव New Delhi, the 27th November, 2008 S.D. 3206.- In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) ofsub-section ( 1 ) ofSection 21 , read with section 21A of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955 ), the Central Government, in consultation with Reserve Bank of India,hereby nominates Shri Muralidhar Jena, resident of Vill . Katsahi , P.O. Sriganga, Via Arnapal , Dist . Bhadrak,to be a member ofthe Bhubaneshwar Local Board ofthe State Bank of India for a period of three years , from the date of notification or until further orders , whichever is earlier.
[F.No. 9/4/2008 -BO-I] G. B. SINGH, Dy. Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर , 2008
का. आ. 3207.- भारतीय स्टेट बैंक अधिनियम , 1955 (1955 का 23 ) की धारा 21 क के साथ पठित , धारा 21 की उप धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ग ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार , भारतीय रिअर्थ बैंक के परामर्श से, एतद्द्वारा , श्री गुरजीत सिंह लेहल , मकान सं. 1069 , सेक्टर 27- बी , चंडीगढ़ निवासी को, अधिसूचना की तारीख से तीन वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक , जो भी पहले हो, भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के चण्डीगढ़ स्थानीय बोर्ड के सदस्य के रूप में नामित करती है ।
[फा. सं. 9/5/2008-बीओ -1 ] जी. बी. सिंह , उप सचिव New Delhi , the 27th November, 2008 S.O. 3207.-In exercise of the powers conferredby clause (c) ofsub- section ( 1 ) ofSection 21 , read with Section 21A ofthe State Bank of India Act , 1955 ( 23 of 1955 ), the Central Government, in consultation with Reserve Bank of India, hereby nominates Shri Gurjit Singh Lehal , resident ofHouse No. 1069, Sector 27 - B, Chandigarh , to be amember ofthe Chandigarh Local Board of the State Bank of India for a period of three years , from the date of notification or until farther orders , whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 9/5/2008 -BO- [ ] G B. SINGH, Dy. Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2008
का. आ. 3208. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक अधिनियम, 1955 (1955 का 23 ) की धारा 21 क के साथ पठित, धारा 21 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ग ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक के परामर्श से, एतद्वारा , निम्नलिखित दो व्यक्तियों को, अधिसूचना की तारीख से तीन वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के हैदराबाद स्थानीय बोर्ड के सदस्य के रूप में नामित करती है:-
पता क्रम सं नाम
1 . श्री चिन्ता वेंकट कृष्णा प्लॉट सं. 73 , मिथिला नगर कॉलोनी , रोड नं. - 12, बंजारा हिल्स, हैदराबाद -5000341 2. श्री कोटेश्वर राव जलदु 109 , एम ची वी एस्टेट , डी सं. 6-1-1, चायनावाल्टंवर विशाखापट्नम , आंध्रप्रदेश- 5300031
[फा. सं. 9/6/2008- बीओ-11 जी. बी. सिंह , उप सचिव New Delhi , the 27th November, 2008 5,0.3208. In exercise of the powers conferredby clause( c) ofsub -section ( 1 ) of Section 21 , readwith Section 21A of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955 ) , the Central Government, in consultation with Reserve Bank of India, herebynominates the following two persons , to be a member of the Hyderabad Local Board of the State Bank of India for a period ofthree years . from the date ofnotification or until further orders , whichever is earlier:
S. No.
Name
Address 1. Shri Chinta Venkat Krishna Plot No. 73. Mithila Nagar relony, Road No.- 12. lanjara Hills. lyderabad - 500 034.
2 Shri Koteswara Rao Jalan 09 , M.V.V, stares. D No. 6-1-1, Chinawaltar , Visakhapatnam, Andlira Pradesh-530003.
[F No. 9/6/2008-BO- 1 G.B. SINGLEPAS 6350
THE GAZLILE OF INDIA : DREAMBER 6 , 2008 AGRAHAYANA 15.1930
नः दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर , 2008
नवी 27 नवम्बर 2008
का. आ. 3209 भारतीय स्टेट बैंक अधिनियम 1955 (1955 का 25 को पारा के साथ पडित , भागउपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्द दाग अदन शक्तियों का प्रयाग करत हा कन्द्रीय सरकार अपनी बैंक के परामर्श से उतइदरीशंकर को. अभिभवन की कर पाग रोड, घुसुर अगले आदेश हातेजा भी पहले हां भारतीय बैंक के कोलकाता स्थान दस्त के रूप में नामित कमी
का. आ. 3211 . बैंक अधिनियम , 1955 (1955 का 23 ) की परक माथ पोटभारकी धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड कंन्द्रीय सरकार , संयद जावेद पुनीर हाशनिवारी 16 व टीपीएस ।।।. चांद्रा पश्विक उनकी तीन वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अन्यजा अगले आदेश तक जगानी पहले हो, भारतीय स्टेट बैंक स्थानीय चांड के गन्दन्य के में नामित करती है ।
[फा. सं. 97-200005 ज. बी. सिंह चित्र
जॉ. द. सिंह नए मान्चल Ness Deihe 27th November. 2008
New Delhi , the "tinNovember , 2008 $.0 . 3209.--in exercise of the powers conterred by clauseicha utonhof Section 21. read with Section 21A of the Site Bank of India Act. 105523 of 19551, the Central Govern consoltation with Reserve Bank ot India heroes atmates Shri Sankar Kumar Sanyal, resident of 97 3. Naskar Para Road , Ghusuri Howrah- 711 10 , to be smember of the Kolkata Local Bond ofthe State Brokolida for a period of three years , thorn the date of notonisation or until further orders , whichever is earlier.
S.O. 3211. In verese of the powers conter : ed by clause ( c ) of sub- section Section 21 , read with Sechen 21A of the State Bank of india Act. 1955 ( 23 of 19551, he Cenpal Government in consultation with Reserve Bans er India, hereby nominates Shri Syed Javed Murur Ifaslımi . resident of Plot No. 100-3 . Jah Road, 1.P S. 11. Bandra (West ). Mumbai . to be achember of the Mumbai Eveal Board ofthe State Bank of ladia for a period of threewar's from the date of notification or until further orders . whichever is earlier .
[ 1. No.97 2008-1300 [ 1 GB . SINGIDA Seet .
GR SINGH Dy Sees नई दिल्ली 17 नवम्बर , 2005
का. आ. 3210 भरतीय स्टेट बैंक अन्य 1055 ( 1 ) कंदन शक्तियों आ प्रयोग कसं कंन्द्रीच सं . एतदङ्गग श्री पदन बिरहाना रोड, गंगा कानपुर, प्रदेशको सूचना की तारीख से तीन कयां की अधनि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक जो भी पहलं हो. भारतीय स्टन बैंक के लखनऊ स्थानीय बोर्ड केय के रूप में नामित करता है।
का. आ. 3212 का 23 की धारा 21 फकल भाग । कांग के खण्ड ( ग ) द्वारा य क प्रसंग करनए कन्ट्रोव सरकार, भारतीय रिजवनदद्वाराही अन्नाहम कल्लोदगालिलाव एवं महालेख्याकार , द्विल्पो कांची-682011 का. नाका तार्गक्ष से तीन त्रयों की সুৰণি कं लिए अथवा अग्ने स्टंट बैंक के तिरुवनंग बोर्ड के सदस्य क में नाभित करती है ।
1912.2008 बाँ [ का. मं. 9.8.20 [ ] जी. वा. गिलौच
New hi the 27th November . 2018
New Dellm the 27th November , 2008 $.0.3210 , teise of the powers conferred by clause fcio ! sonof Section 21 read sarh Section 21A of the Seat Back of India Act. 1955 123119551 the Central Giovernmeti , in consultation with ReserveBanis of India, hereby zumirates Shri Madan Molad Shukla , resident of 8. Birahana Road . Rotigodam. Kampar . 1litar Pradesh. to be a manner of the Lucknow Local Board of the State Bank of India for a period of three years . Hom the date of noutication or until furtice orders , winchever is earlier.
S.O.3212.11 exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( e ) of sub of Section 21. read with Section 21A of the State Bank of hidia Act 1955 1260 1955), the Central Government , in consultation with Reserve Bank of India . hereby mininates Shri C.A. Babu ,Mradhanm Kallivayatil , residen: of Babu & Kallivayahl & Co. Chartered Accountants . If Floor . Manchu Comples . P.T. Usha Road . Koch- 682011 , 10 be a member of the Thiruvananthapuram Local Board of the State Bank of India for a period at three years , from the date ot notification or until turther orders , whichever is carlier [ 1. No. 9 8 2008-130-13 GB SINGH.Dy Secy.
[F. No. 9 12 2008-1800-1 G. B. SINGILDy Seey .
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) )
वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय
(वाणिज्य विभाग )
नई दिल्ली , 18 नवम्बर , 2008
का. आ. 3213, केन्द्रीय सरकार, निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1964 के नियम 12 के उप-नियम (2 ) और उप-नियम ( 3 ) के साथ पठित , निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम , 1963 (1963 का 22 ) की धारा 7 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स नेशनल एल्यूमिनियम कं. लि. को जिसका रजिस्ट्रीकृत कार्यालय नाल्को भवन , पीः । नयापल्ली, भुवनेश्वर-751013 में स्थित है , केलसींड एल्यूमिना ( एल्यूमिनियम आक्साइड शीर्षक के अधीन ) के उत्पादों का निरीक्षण के लिए जो, मैसर्स नेशनल एल्यूमिनियम कं. लि. ( भारत सरकार का एक उपक्रम ) दामनजोडी-763 008 उड़ीसा में विनिर्मित को, उड़ीसा से निर्यात के लिए भारत सरकार के तत्कालीन वाणिज्य मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 1271 तारीख 25 अप्रैल , 1966 की अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट 24 फरवरी , 2008 से तीन वर्ष की और अवधि के लिए उक्त केलसींड एल्यूमिना ( एल्यूमिनियम आक्साइड शीर्षक के अधीन) को निर्यात से पूर्व निम्नलिखित शतों के अधीन रहते हुए एक अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता देती है , अर्थात्
( 1 ) मैसर्स नेशनल एल्यूमिनियम कं. लि. केलसोंड एल्यूमिना स्वयं के उत्पादों का निरीक्षण मैसर्स नेशनल एल्यूमिनियम कं. लि. दामनजोडी-763 008 उड़ीसा में विनिर्मित है , का निर्यात से पूर्व निरीक्षण निर्यात निरीक्षण अभिकरण कोलकाता के तकनीकी अधिकारी के नियंत्रणाधीन होगा जिसका स्तर संयुक्त निदेशक से कम न हो और इस प्रयोजन के लिए उक्त कंपनी निर्यात निरीक्षण अभिकरण-कोलकाता को 0.1 प्रतिशत रकम की दर से ( एफओबी ) दामनजोडी उड़ीसा की यूनिटों से निर्माण की गई वस्तुओं के मूल्य का भुगतान करेगी जो एक वर्ष में न्यूनतम दो हजार पांच सौ रुपए और अधिकतम एक लाख रुपए के अधीन रहते हुए करेगी । (2 ) मैसर्स नेशनल एल्यूमिनियम कं. लि. इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्त्यों के अनुपालन में निदेशक ( निरीक्षण और क्वालिटी नियंत्रण ) , निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् द्वारा समय - समय पर लिखित में दिए गए निर्देशों से आबद्ध होंगे ।
[फाईल सं. 5/3/2008- ईआई एंड ईपी ]
किरण पुरी , निदेशक MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (Department of Commerce)
New Delhi , the 18th November, 2008 S.O. 3213.-In exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection ) Act , 1963 (22 of 1963), read with sub- rules (2) and (3 ) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection ) Rules , 1964, the Central Government hereby
6351
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6 , 2008/अग्रहायण 15 , 1930
recognises M/ s . National Aluminium Company Limited, having their registered office at NALCO Bhawan , P/ 1 Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar - 751013 , as an agency, for a further period ofthree years, with effect from 24th February, 2008 for inspection own products of Calcined Alumina (under theheading ofAluminium Oxide) , specified in the Schedule to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry ofCommerce vide number S.O. 1271 , dated the 25th April , 1966 , manufactured at M/s . National Aluminium Company Limited (A Government of India Enterprise) , Damanjodi - 763 008 , Orissa , prior to export of the said Calcined Alumina (under the heading ofAluminium Oxide) , subject to the following conditions , namely :-
(i) that M/ s . National Aluminjum Company Limited shall carry out the inspection own products of Calcined Alumina , manufactured at M/ s . National Aluminium Company Limited, Damanjodi -763008, Orissa prior to export, under the technical control ofan officer not below the rank ofa Joint Director ofthe Export Inspection Agency, Kolkata and for this purpose, the said company shall pay to the Export Inspection Agency, Kolkata , an amount at the rate of0.1 per cent ofthe f.o.b. value the items exported from their units at Damanjodi, Orissa subject to a minimum of rupees two thousand five hundred and maximum of rupees onė lakh in a year; and
(ii) that M/s . National Aluminium Company Limited in the performance of its function under this notification , shall be bound by such directions as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control ) , Export Inspection Council may give to it in writing from time to time.
[F. No. 5/3/2008- EI & EP] KIRAN PURI , Director नई दिल्ली , 18 नवम्बर , 2008
का. आ. 3214. केन्द्रीय सरकार, निर्यात ( बवालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1964 के नियम 12 के उप- नियम ( 2 ) के साथ पठित , निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम , 1963 ( 1963 का 22 ) की धारा 7 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स एस्स. जी. एस. इंडिया प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, एसजीएस हाऊस , प्लॉट नं. आर-12 और एल-16 , इंडस्ट्रियल इस्टेट, डाम रोड, होसपेट -583203 को इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए भारत सरकार के बाणिज्य मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. का. आ. 3975 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर , 1965 में उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में यथाविनिर्दिष्ट खनिज और अयस्क, ( समूह -1 ) अर्थात् लौह अयस्क और मैंगनीज अयस्क का निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए , उक्त खनिजों और अयस्कोंका होसपेट में , निर्यात 6352
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6 , 2008/ AGRAHAYANA 15, 1930
[PART -SEC. 3 (ii ) )
नई दिल्ली. 18 नवम्बर , 2008 से पूर्व निरीक्षण करने के लिए एक अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता प्रदान करती है, अर्थात्: -
( i ) मैसर्स एस.जी.एस. इंडिया प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , होसपेट खनिज और अयस्क समूह- का निर्यात ( निरीक्षण ) नियम, 1965 के नियम 4 के अधीन निरीक्षण का प्रमाण पत्र देने के लिए उनके द्वारा अपनाई गई निरीक्षण की पद्धति की जांच करने के लिए , इस निमित्त निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् द्वारा नामनिर्दिष्ट अधिकारियों को पर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगी; और
( ii ) मैसर्स एस.जी.एस. इंडिया प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , होसपेट इंस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के पालन में निदेशक ( निरीक्षण और क्वालिटी नियंत्रण ) , निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् द्वारा समय -समय पर लिखित में दिए गए निदेशों से आबद्ध होंगी ।
[फा. सं. 5/ 10/2008- ईआई एंड इंपी ] किरण पुरी, निदंशक
का, आ. 3215, केन्द्रीय सरकार, निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1964 के नियम 12 के उप- नियम ( 2 ) के साथ पठित, निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम , 1963 ( 1963 का 22 ) की धारा 7 को उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स मित्रा एस. के. प्राइवेट लि. , प्लॉट नं. 784, पी.ओ. खंजनचक , हल्दिया , जिला मिदनापुर , पश्चिमी बंगाल-721602 को इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए भारत सरकार के वाणिज्य मंत्रालय की अधिसूचनाओं सं. का.आ. 3975 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर , 1965 और का. आ. 3978 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर , 1965 के साथ उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में यथाविनिर्दिष्ट खनिज और अयस्क ( समूह - Ⅰ ) अर्थात्लौह अयस्क, मैंगनीज अयस्क ( मैंगनीज डॉयआक्साइड को छोड़कर ) , और ( समूह- II ) अर्थात् क्रोम अयस्क जिसके अंतर्गत क्रोम तत्व भी हैं का निर्यात से पूर्व निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए हल्दिया में उक्त खनिजों और अयस्कों का निरीक्षण करने के लिए एक अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता प्रदान करती है, अर्थात्--
New Delhi , the 18th November , 2008
( i ) मैसर्स मित्रा एस. के. प्राइवेट लि., हल्दिया खनिज और अयस्क समूह- का निर्यात ( निरीक्षण ) नियम, 1965 तथा खनिज और अयस्क समूह -1 ] का निर्यात ( निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1965 के नियम 4 के अधीन निरीक्षण का प्रमाण- पत्र देने के लिए उनके द्वारा अपनाई गई निरीक्षण की पद्धति की जांच करने के लिए, इस निमिन्न निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् द्वारा नामनिर्दिष्ट अधिकारियों को पर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगा; और
( ii ) पैसर्स मित्रा एस . के. प्राइवेट लि. , हल्दिया इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के पालन में निदेशक ( निरीक्षण और क्वालिटी नियंत्रण ) , निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद द्वारा समय- समय पर लिखित में दिए गए निर्देशों से आबद्ध होंगे ।
[फाईल में, 5 / 11 /2008- ईआई एंड ईपो ] S.O. 3214. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Export ( Quality Control and Inspection ) Act , 1963 ( 22 of 1963 ) , read with sub- rules (2) of rule 12 of the Export ( Quality Control and Inspection) Rules , 1964 , the Central Government hereby recognises M/ s . S.G.S. India Private Limited, SGS House, Plot Nos . R- 12 & 1. - 16 . Industrial Estate , Dam Road , Hospet- 583203 as an agency for a period of three years with effect from the date of publication of this notification ,for inspection of Minerals and Ores (Group- 1 ) , namely Iron Ore and Manganese Ore , as specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce number S.O. 3975 dated the 20th December. 1965. prior to the export of the said Minerals and Ores at Hospet, subject to the following conditions , namely :
किरण पुरी , निदेशक
New Delhi , the 18th November, 2008 ( 1) that M/ s . S.G.S. India Private Limited , Hospet shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Councel in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followed by them in granting the certificate of inspection under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores , Group - 1 ( Inspection ) Rules , 1965 ; and
( ii) that M/ s. S.G.S. India Private Limited , Hospet in the performance of their function under this notification shall be bound by such directives as the Director ( Inspection and Quality Control ) , Export inspection Council may give in writing from time to time.
[ F. No. 5/ 10/2008 - EI & F.1 ] KIRAN PURI , Director
S.O. 3215. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Export ( Quality Control and Inspection) Act , 1963 (22 of 1963 ) , read with sub -rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export ( Quality Control and Inspection) Rules , 1964. the Central Government hereby recognises M/ s . Mitra S.K. Private Ltd .. Plot No. 784, P.O. Khanjanchak , Haldia , District Midnapur , West Bengal- 721602, as an agency for a period ofthree years with effect from the date of publication of this notification . for inspection of Minerals and Ores ( Group- 1) , namely , Iron Oreand Manganese Ore (excluding Manganese Dioxide ) . and (Group- II ) , namely, Chrome Ore including Chrome Concentrates , as specified in the Schedules annexed to [भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]
6353 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6, 2008/अग्रहायण 15 , 1930
(ii ) मैसर्स मित्रा एस .के. प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , कटक इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के पालन में निदेशक ( निरीक्षण और क्वालिटी नियंत्रण ) , निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद द्वारा समय- समय पर लिखित में दिए गए निर्देशों से आबद्ध होंगे । the notifications ofthe Government of India in the Ministry ofCommerce numbers S.O. 3975 dated the 20th December, 1965 and S.O. 3978 dated the 20th December, 1965, prior to the export of the said Minerals and Ores at Haldia, subject to the following conditions, namely:--
[फाईल सं. 5/ 14/2008 -ईआई एंड ईपी] किरण पुरी , निदेशक
New Delhi , the 18th November, 2008 (1) that M/ s . Mitra S. K. Private Ltd. , Haldia shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated bythe Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followedby them ingranting the certificate of inspection under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores ,Group- 1 (Inspection) Rules, 1965 and the Export ofMinerals andOres, Group- II (Inspection) Rules, 1965; and
(ii) that M/s . Mitra S. K. Private Ltd. , Haldia in the performance of their function under this notification shall be bound by such directives as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control ) , Export Inspection Council may give in writing from timeto time.
[F. No. 5/ 11 /2008- EI & EP ] KIRAN PURI , Director
नई दिल्ली , 18 नवम्बर, 2008
S.O. 3216.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 1 ) of section 7 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection ) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963 ) , read with sub- rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export ( Quality Control and Inspection) Rules , 1964 , the Central Government hereby recognisesM/ s . Mitra S.K. Private Ltd. , Sisirika Building , Madhusudan Nagar , Tulsipur, Cuttack -753008, Orissa, as anagency for a period of three years with effect from the date ofpublication of this notification , for inspection of Minerals and Ores ( Group- 1), namely Iron Ore, Manganese Ore excluding Manganese Dioxide , Ferromanganese including Ferromanganese slag and ( Group - 11 ) , namely, Manganese Dioxide , Chrome Ore including Chrome Concentrates , as specified in the Schedule annexed to the notifications ofthe Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce numbers S.O. 3975 dated the 20th December, 1965 and S.O. 3978 dated the 20th December , 1965 , prior to the export ofthe said Minerals and Ores at Cuttack, subject to thefollowing conditions , namely :-
(1) that M's. Mitra S. K. Private Limited , Cuttack shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominatedby the Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followed by them in granting the certificate of inspection under rule 4 ofthe Export of Minerals and Ores ,Group- ! ( Inspection) Rules , 1965 and the Export of Minerals and Ores ,Group- II (Inspection) Rules , 1965; and
(ii) that M/ s . Mitra S. K. Private Ltd. , Cuttack in the performance of their function under this notification shall be bound by such directives as the Director ( Inspection and Quality Control ), Export Inspection Council may give in writing from timetotime.
का. आ. 3216, केन्द्रीय सरकार , निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण) नियम, 1964 के नियम 12 के उपनियम ( 2 ) के साथ पठित , निर्यात (क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम , 1963 . (1963का 22 ) की धारा 7 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, पैसर्स मित्रा एस. के. प्राइवेट लि. , सिसिरिका बिल्डिंग , मधुसूदन नगर , तुलसीपुर , कटक-753008 , उड़ीसा को इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए भारत सरकार के वाणिज्य मंत्रालय की अधिसूचनाओं सं. का.आ. 3975 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर , 1965 और का.आ. 3978 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 के साथ उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में यथाविनिर्दिष्ट खनिज और अयस्क ( समूह -1) अर्थात् लौह अयस्क, मैंगनीज अयस्क, मैंगनीज डॉयआक्साइड फैरो मैंगनीज को छोड़कर , एवं फैरो मैंगनीज स्लेग और ( समूह- II ) सहित अर्थात् मैंगनीज डाइआक्साइड , क्रोम अयस्क जिसके अंतर्गत क्रोम तत्व भी हैं, का निर्यात से पूर्व निम्नलिखित शों के अधीन रहते हुए कटक में उक्त खनिजों और अयस्कों का निरीक्षण करने के लिए एक अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता प्रदान करती है, अर्थात्:-
[F. No. 5/ 14/2008 - E & FP |
KIRAN PURI , Director
नई दिल्ली, 18 नवम्बर , 2008
'का, आ. 3217-केन्द्रीय सरकार , निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1964 के नियम 12 के उपनियम ( 2 ) के साथ पठित , निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम , 1963 ( i ) मैसर्स मित्रा एस. के. प्राइवेट लि. , कटक खनिज और अयस्क समूह -1 का निर्यात (निरीक्षण ) नियम, 1965 तथा खनिज और अयस्क समूह -11 का निर्यात ( निरीक्षण ) नियम, 1965 के नियम 4 के अधीन निरीक्षण का प्रमाण- पत्र देने के लिए उनके द्वारा अपनाई गई निरीक्षण की पद्धति की जांच करने के लिए, इस निमित्त निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद द्वारा नामनिर्दिष्ट अधिकारियों को पर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगी; और 6354
[PA21 SEC.S THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 6. 2008/AGRAHAYANA 15.1930
( 1963का 22 ) की धारा 7 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स मित्रा एस. के. खनिज निरीक्षण प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , बारबिल , जिला क्योंझार उड़ोसा-758035 को इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए भारत सरकार कं वाणिज्य मंत्रालय , की अधिसूचनाओं सं. का.आ. 3975 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर , 1965 और का.आ. 3978 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 के साथ उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में यथाविनिर्दिष्ट खनिज और अयस्क ( समूह-1 ) अर्थात् लौह अयस्क, मैंगनीज अयस्क, और ( समूह- II ) अर्थात् मैंगनीज डायआक्साइड का निर्यात से पूर्व निम्नलिखित शतों के अधीन रहते हुए बारबिल में उक्त खनिजों और अयस्कों का निरीक्षण करने के लिए एक अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता प्रदान करती है.
अर्थात्:-
( i ) मैसर्स मित्रा एस. के. खनिज निरीक्षण प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , बारबिल , खनिज और अयस्क समूह का निर्यात (निरीक्षण) नियम, 1965 तथा खनिज और अयस्क समूह- II का निर्यात (निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1965 के नियम 4 के अधीन निरीक्षण का प्रमाण - पत्र देने के लिए उनके द्वारा अपनाई गई निरीक्षण की पद्धति की जांच करने के लिए, इस निमित्त निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् द्वारा नामनिर्दिष्ट अधिकारियों को पर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगा; और
(ii ) मैसर्स मित्रा एस. के. खनिज निरीक्षण प्राइवेट लिमिटेड . बारबिल , इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के पालन में ऐसे निर्देशों से जो, निदेशक ( निरीक्षण और कवालिटी नियंत्रण ) , निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद द्वारा समय- समय पर लिखित में दिए जाएं, आबद्ध होगी ।
[फा. सं. 5/ 15/2008- ईआई एंड इंपी ] किरण पुरी, निदेशक New Delhi , the 18th November , 2008 S.O. 3217. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Export ( Quality Control and Inspection ) Act , 1963 (22 of 1963 ) , read with sub-rule (2 ) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises M/ s . Mitra S. K. Minerals Inspection Private Limited, Barbil , District Keonjhar , Orissa -758035 , as an agency for a period of three years with effect from the date of publication of this notification , for inspection of Minerals andOres (Group - 1) , namely , Iron Ore, Manganese Ore and (Group - 11 ) , namely , Manganese Dioxide , as specified in the Schedule annexed to the notifications of the Government of India in the erstwhile Ministry of Commerce numbers S.O. 3975 dated the 20th December, 1965 and S.O. 3978 dated the 20th December, 1965 , priorto the export of the said Minerals and Ores at Barbil , subject to the following conditions , namely :-
(1 ) that M/ s. Mitra S. K Mineral Inspection Private Limited , Barbil shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this behalt to examine the method of inspection followed by them in granting the certificate of inspection under rule 4 of the 1.spoti ofMinerals and Ores , Group - 1 ( Inspection ) Rules . 1965 and the Export of Minerals and Ores . Group - II (Inspection) Rules , 1965 : and
(ii) that M/s . Mitra S. K. Mineral Inspection Private Limited, Barbil in the performance oftheir function under this notification shall be bound by such directives as the Director ( Inspection and Qualny Control ) , Export Inspection Council may give in writing from time to tune
[F. No. 5:15 2008 - FI & FP| KIRAN PURI , Director नई दिल्ली. 18 नवम्बर , 2008
का, आ. 3218, केन्द्रीय सरकार , निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) नियम, 1964 कं नियम 12 के उपनियम ( 2 ) के साथ पठित , निर्यात ( बवालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम. 1963 ( 1963 का 22 ) की धारा की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स एसन एंड कम्पनी , हरि कृपा, 17 त्री , प्रथम क्रास रोड, गांधी नगर, बेल्लारी -583103 कां 16 अगस्त, 2008 से प्रभावी इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से त्तीन वर्ष की और अवधि के लिए भारत सरकार के तत्कालीन वाणिज्य मंत्रालय , की अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 3975 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर , 1965 के साथ उपावद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट खनिज और अयस्क ( समूह -1 ) अर्थात् लौह अयस्क और मैंगनीज अयस्क, मैंगनीज डॉयक्साइड को छोड़कर वेल्लारी में निर्यात से पूर्व उक्त मैंगनीज और अयस्क के निरीक्षण के लिए निम्नलिखित शर्तों क अधीन निरीक्षण करने के लिए एक अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता देती है , अर्थात्: -
(i ) मैसर्स एसन एंड कम्पनी , बल्लारी , खनिज और अगस्का, समूह -1 का निर्यात ( निरीक्षण ) नियम, 1965 के नियम 4 के अधीन निरीक्षण का प्रमाण पत्र देने के लिए उनके द्वारा अपनाई गई पद्धति की जांच करने के लिए, इस निमित्त में निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद द्वारा नामनिर्देशित अधिकारियों का पर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगी,
( ii ) मैसर्स एलन एंड कम्पनी , बेल्लारी , इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के पालन में निर्देशक ( निरीक्षण और क्वालिटी नियंत्रण ) निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद द्वारा समय समय पर लिखित में दिए गए निर्देशों से आबद्ध होंगी ।
[फाईल में, 5 : 16/2008- ईआई एंड ईपी ]
किरण पुरी. निदेशक 6355
भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6, 2008/अग्रहायण 15 , 1930
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii ) ]
NewDelhi , the 18th November , 2008 S.O. 3218.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Export ( Quality Control and Inspection ) Act , 1963 (22 of 1963 ) , read with sub - rule (2) ofrule 12 ofthe Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules, 1964 , the Central Government hereby recognises M/s . Essen and Company, Hari Krupa , 17B, 1st Cross Road, Gandhi Nagar , Bellary -583103 , as an agency for a further period of three years with effect from lóth August, 2008 through publication of this notification , for inspection of Minerals and Ores (Group- I ) , namely, Iron Ore and Manganese Ore excluding Manganese Dioxide specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government of India in the erstwhile Ministry of Commerce number S.O. 3975 dated the 20th December, 1965, prior to the export, of the said Minerals and Ores at Bellary , subject to the following conditions, namely:-
(1) that M/ s . Essen and Company, Bellary shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followedby them ingranting the certificate of inspection under Rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores- Group- 1 (Inspection) Rules, 1965;
( ii) that M/ s . Essen and Company , Bellary in the performance of their function under this notification shall be bound by such directives as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control) , Export Inspection Council may give in writing from timeto time .
[F. No. 5/ 16/2008- EI & EP] KIRAN PURI , Director नई दिल्ली, 18 नवम्बर , 2008
का. आ. 3219.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1964 के नियम 12 के उप - नियम ( 2 ) के साथ पतित, निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम, 1963 (1963 का 22 ) की धारा 7 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स जनरल इंस्पेक्शन और सेम्पलिंग कम्पनी , प्लॉट नं. आर -11 , इंडस्ट्रियल इस्टेट , डाम रोड , होसपेट-583203 को इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन के माध्यम से 16 अगस्त , 2008 से और तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए भारत सरकार के तत्कालीन वाणिज्य मंत्रालय , की अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 3975 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट खनिज तथा अयस्क ( समूह- I ) अर्थात् लौह अयस्क का होसपेट में निर्यात से पूर्व निरीक्षण हेतु निम्नलिखित शतों के अधीन रहते हुए , निरीक्षण करने के लिए एतद्द्वारा एक अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता देती है , अर्थात्:-
4847 GI/OB-2
( i ) मैसर्स जनरल इंस्पेक्शन और सेम्पलिंग कम्पनी , होसपेट खनिज तथा अयस्क, समूह का निर्यात ( निरीक्षण ) नियम, 1965 के नियम 4 के अधीन निरीक्षण का प्रमाण- पत्र देने के लिए उनके द्वारा अपनाई गई पद्धति की जांच करने के लिए, इस निमित्त निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् द्वारा नामनिर्दिष्ट अधिकारियों को पर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगी;
(ii ) मैसर्स जनरल इंस्पेक्शन और सेपम्पलिंग कम्पनी , होसपेट इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के पालन में निदेशक ( निरीक्षण एवं क्वालिटी नियंत्रण ) निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् द्वारा समय- समय पर लिखित में दिए गए निर्देशों से आबद्ध होगी ।
[फा. सं. 5/17/2008- ईआई एंड ईपी ] किरण पुरी , निदेशक NewDelhi , the 18th November , 2008 S.O. 3219. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Export ( Quality Control and Inspection ) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with sub- rule (2) ofRule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection ) Rules , 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises M/ s . General Inspection and Sampling Company, Plot No. R - 11 , Industrial Estate , Dam Road . Hospet - 583203, as an agency for a further period of three years with effect from 16th August , 2008 through publication ofthis notification , for inspection of Minerals andOres (Group - I ) , namely , Iron Ore as specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the Governinent of India in the erstwhile Ministry of Commerce number S.O. 3975 dated the 20th December , 1965 , prior to the export , ofthe said Minerals and Ores at Hospet , subject to the following conditions , namely :-
(1) that M/s . General Inspection and Sampling Company,Hospet shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followed by them in granting the certificate of inspection under Rule 4 ofhe Export ofMinerals and Ores - Group- I (Inspection ) Rules , 1965;
(ii) that M/ s . General Inspection and Sampling Company, Hospet in the performance of their function under this notification shall be boundby such directives as the Director ( Inspection and Quality Control ), Export Inspection Council may givein writing from time to time.
[F. No. 5/17/2008- ΕΙ & ΓΡΙ
KIRAN PURI , Director 6356
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 6. 2008 /AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1930
नई दिल्ली , 18 नवम्बर , 2008
का. आ. 3220.-केन्द्रीय सरकार , निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1964 के नियम 12 के उप- नियम ( 2 ) के साथ पठित, निर्यात ( ववालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण) अधिनियम, 1963 ( 1963 का 22 ) की धारा 7 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स मित्रा एस. के. प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , "मैरीन आफिस काम्पलेक्स " मोहसिन इस्टेट , ऊपरी मंजिल , डो नं. 23-3-6,75 फीट रोड, विशाखापत्तनम को इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए भारत सरकार के तत्कालीन वाणिज्य मंत्रालय , की अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 3975 नगरीख 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में यथाविनिर्दिष्ट खनिज और अयस्क ( समूह -1 ) अर्थात लौह अयस्क, मैंगनीज अयस्क मैगनीज डॉयआक्साइड को छोड़कर और फैरामैंगनीज का निर्यात से पूर्व निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए, विशाखापत्तनम में उक्त खनिजों और अयस्कों का निरीक्षण करने के लिए एक अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता प्रदान करती है , अर्थात्: -
( 1 ) मैसर्स मित्रा एस . कं. प्राश्वंट लिमिटेड , विशाखापत्तनम , खनिज और अयस्क समूह । का निर्यात ( निरीक्षण) नियम, 1965 के नियम 4 के अधीन निरीक्षण का प्रमाण पत्र देने के लिाए, उनके द्वारा अपनाई गई निरीक्षण पद्धति की जांच करने के लिए, इस निमित्त निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद द्वारा नार्मोनर्देशित अधिकारियों को पर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगी;
( ii ) मैसर्स मित्रा एस. के. प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , विशाखापभनम , इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के पाल्नन में ऐमे निर्देशों सं जा. निदेशक ( निरीक्षण एवं क्वालिटी नियंत्रण , नियांत निरीक्षण परिषद् द्वारा सम्मय- समय पर लिखित में दिए जाएं, आबद्ध होगी ।
[फा. सं. 5/18/2008- ईआई एंड इंपी ।
किरण पुरी. निदेशक New Delhi. the 18th November . 2008 S.O. 3220. In exercise of the powers contenedby sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection ) Act , 1963 (22 of 1963 ), read wath suh- rule (2 ) of Rule 12 of the Export ( Quality Control and Inspection, Rules , 1964 , the Central Government herehs recognises M's Mitra S. K. Pravate Ltd. , " Marme Olice Complex Mohsin Estate , Top Floor , D.No. 23-3-6、75 Feet Road. Visakhapatnam , as an agency for a period of three years with effect from the date of publication of this notification . For inspection of Minerals and Ores (Group - 1 ) , namely, Iron Ore , Manganese Ore excluding Manganese Dioxide and Ferromanganese, as specified me the Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government of India in the erstwhile Ministry of Commerce number S O. 3975 dated the 20th December,
PART II- Sec . 3(ii ) |
=== 1965 prior to the export of the said Minerals and Ores at Visakhapatnam , subject to the following conditions , namely:-
(i) that M/s . Mitra S. K. Private Ltd. , Visakhapatnam shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Expert Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followed by them in granting the certificate of inspection under Rule 4 ofthe Export ofMinerals andOres , Group - 1 ( Inspection ) Rules, 1965 ; and (ii) that Mis , Mitra S. K. Private Ltd. , Visakhapainam in the performance of their function under this notification shall be bound by such directives as the Director ( Inspection and Quality Controlį . Export Inspection Council inay give in writing from time to time
[ 1. No. 5/18 /2008- P & PP ] KIRAN PURI. Director नई दिल्ली, 18 नवम्बर , 2008
का. आ. 3221 , कंन्द्रीय सरकार , निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1964 के नियम 12 के उप- नियम ( 2 ) कं साथ पठित्त, निर्यात क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम , 1963 ( 1963 का 22 ) की धारा ? को उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मेसर्स ईटालैब प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , 122/सी, मुलाकाला रामा कृष्णा काम्पलेक्स, तारा नाथ गवर्नमेंट आयुर्वेदिक मेडिकल कालेज के पीछे, अनन्तपुर रोड, बेल्लारी -5831001 को इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए भारत सरकार के नत्कालीन वाणिन्न मंत्रालय को अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 3975 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 से साथ उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट खनिज और अयम्फ ( समूह-1 ) अर्थात् लौह अयस्क, कं निर्यात से पूर्व निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन , बेल्लारी में उक्त खनिजों और अयस्कों का निरीक्षण करने के लिए एक अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता देती है , अर्थात् :
( i ) मैसर्स ईटालैच प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, बल्लारी खनिज और अपस्क समूह -1 का निर्यात ( निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1965 के नियम 4 के अधीन निरीक्षण का प्रमाण- पत्र देने के लिए उनके दाग अपनाई गई पद्धांत का परीक्षण करने के लिए , इस निगिन्न निर्यात निरीश्वष्ण परिषद द्वारए नामनिर्देशित अधिकारियां कां पयांप्त सुविधाएं दंगोः
( ii ) मैसर्स ईटालैब प्राइचंट लिमिटेड, बेल्लारी , इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के अनुपालन में निदेशक ( निरीक्षण एवं क्वालिटी नियंत्रण निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् द्वारा समय - समय पर लिखित में दिए गए निदेशों में आबद्ध होंगे ।
फा. सं. 5: 20-24008 -ईआई एंड ईपी ।
किरण पुरो, निर्देशक [ भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 (ii) )
New Delhi , the 18th November, 2008 S.O. 3221. In exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) ofSection 7 of the Export ( Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963 ) , read with sub- rules (2) of rule 12 ofthe Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises M/s. Italab Private Limited , 122/ C, Mulakala Rama Krishna Complex, Opp. Taranath Government Ayurvedic Medical College, Anantapur Road , Bellary -583101 , as an agency for a period of three years with effect from the date of publication of this notification , for inspection of Minerals and Ores ( Group - I ) , namely, Iron Ore as specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government of India in the erstwhile Ministry of Commerce number S.O. 3975 dated the 20th December, 1965, prior to the export of the said Minerals and Ores at Bellary, subject to the following conditions , namely
(i) that M/ s . Italab Private Limited , Bellary shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followed by them in granting the certificate of inspection under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores ,Group -I (Inspection) Rules , 1965 , and
( ii) that M/ s . Italab Private Limited, Bellary in the performance of their function under this notification shall be bound by such directives as the Director ( Inspection and Quality Control ) , Export Inspection Council may give in writing from time to time .
(F. No. 5 /20/2008 - El & EP] KIRAN PURI , Director नई दिल्ली , 18 नवम्बर , 2008
का. आ. 3222, केन्द्रीय सरकार , निर्यात (क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) नियम, 1964 के नियम 12 के उप नियम ( 2 ) के साथ पठित , निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम , 1963 ( 1963 का 22 ) की धारा 7 की उप धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स ईटालैब प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, " साई सदन" , 24-3-6, गेन रोड, पुराने पोस्ट आफिस के निकट , विशाखापत्तनम- 530001 को इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन कीतारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए भारत सरकार के तत्कालीन वाणिज्य मंत्रालय , की अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 3975 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर , 1965 के साथ उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट खनिज और अयस्क ( समूह -1 ) अर्थात् लौह अयस्क, अयस्क के निर्यात से पूर्व निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन , विशाखापत्तनम में उक्त खनिजों और अयस्कों का निरीक्षण करने के लिए एक अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता देती है , अर्थात्:-
6357
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6 , 2008 /अग्रहायण 15 , 1930
( i ) कि मैसर्स ईटालैब प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , विशाखापत्तनम खनिज और अयस्क समूह- ] का निर्यात ( निरीक्षण ) नियम, 1965 के नियम 4 के अधीन निरीक्षण का प्रमाण- पत्र देने के लिए उनके द्वारा अपनाई गई पद्धति का परीक्षण करने के लिए, इस निमित्त निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद द्वारा नामनिर्देशित अधिकारियों को पर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगी; और
( ii ) मैसर्स ईटालैब प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , विशाखापत्तनम , इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के पालन में निदेशक (निरीक्षण एवं क्वालिटी नियंत्रण ) निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् द्वारा समय - समय पर लिखित में दिए गए निदेशों से आबद्ध होंगे ।
[फा. सं. 5/21/2008-ईआई एंड ईपी ] किरण पुरी, निदेशक New Delhi, the 18th November, 2008 5.0. 3222. In exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) ofSection 7 of the Export ( Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963 ), read with sub- rules (2) of rule 12 ofthe Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules , 1964 , the Central Government hereby recognises M / s . Italab Private Limited, " Sai Sadhan " , 24-3-6 , Main Road, Near Old Post Office , Visakhapatnam -530001 , Andhra Pradesh as an agency for a period of three years with effect from the date of publication of this notification , for inspection of Minerals and Ores (Group- 1), namely , Iron Ore as specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government of India in the erstwhile Ministry of Commerce number S.O. 3975 dated the 20th December , 1965 , prior to the export of the said Minerals and Ores at Visakhapatnam , subject to the following conditions , namely:---
(1) that M/ s. Italab Private Limited , Visakhapatnam shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this belhalf to examine the method of inspection followed by them in granting the certificate of inspection under rule 4 of the Export ofMinerals and Ores , Group - 1 (Inspection , Rules , 1965; and (ii) that M/s . Italab Private Linite .Visakhapatnam in the performance of their function under thi notification shall be bound by such directivus as the Director ( Inspection and Quality Control ) . Export Inspection Council may give in writing from timeto time.
[F. No. 5/21/2008 - El & ..P ] KIRAN PURI , Director 6358
TEIL GAZETTE OF INDIA : DFO EMBER 6, 2008/ AGRAHAYANA 15. 1930
[ PART II- S. 3 (ji ) |
.:
विद्युत मंत्रालय
नईदिल्ली । नवंबर , 2008
का.अ. 3223 ... विद्युत अधिनियम , 2003 का 36 की धारा 162 की उपधारा द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियां का प्रयोग करते हुए दिनांक को उसके अंतर्गत जारी विद्युतकी अधिसूचना और दिनांक 18-1-2016 के का.आ. 295 में आंशिक संशोधन के अतगत दिल्ली पेट्रोल कारगारेशन लि. के निम्नलिऑिधकारी दिनांक 18-1-2006 की आंधसूचना में विनिर्दिष्टानुसार अधि तक वैद्युत निरीक्षकःसहायक प्रब्यूत नियोक्षक के रूप में कार्य करनेग
चं. पकाने उन
पदनाम
धारित पद
1、 श्री
वैद्युत निराक्षक
कार्यकारी निवैद्युत )
वैद्युत निरीक्षक
3. श्री अशील श
उप मुख्य संयून अभियंता
सहायक वैद्युत निरीक्षक J.
सहायक वैद्युत निर्देशक म तिवारी , उप पुख्य वैद्युत आंभयंता अपनी प्रतिनियुक्ति अवधि की समाप्ति पर ग्नने चार्ड में वापस चले गए हैं और इस अधिसुमना अरोरा की तारीख में वे सहायक वैद्युन निधना के रूप में अपने दायित्वों से मुकन हो जायेंगे ।
आई. स्गे... कंसरी , संयुक्त निव
MINISTRY OF POWER
New Dah,the Cith November , 2008
5.0. 3223, In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 107 of the lifectricity Act 2003 136 af20f6 ) real wah Ministry of Power's Notification led 17-8-2006 issued thereunder and in partial modification of the Vonstry ofPur's Nontication S.O. 295 dated 18-1-006 , the following officers of the Delhi Mertro Rail Corporation Lal . continue to tunction as electrical Inspector Assist Electrical Inspector till such period as indicated in the Notification Jated 18-1-20
Ve
Designano :
Presently funcioning fis Shri Shel Sila
Executive Prector (Fiectrical )
[Electrical Inspector
SariA ... 고
Lleciwwal Inspector
3.
Deputy ( lectrical Engineer
Assistant Electrical Inspector 1 Shri Rupee Kirur
Assistani Electrical Inspect Deputy Electrical Engineer
2. wari , Deputy Chiet Herical Engineer on depmation after completion of his tenure has got repaniateds . Rally Board , & will cease to discharge the duties of Assistant Flectrical inspector w.e.f date of issue of this nou
F.No 42 ) 2001 - R&R
LCP KESHARI , It . Seey .
20 नवम्बर, 20008
कर.आ 32२५, नियम 36 की धारा 162 की उपधारा का प्रयोग करते हुए. केंद्र सरकार 2000 का आंधसूचना के अंतर्गत , केंद्रांगणमोरंग के निर्मान्नूिন अधिकरियों का [ भाग [I- खण्ड 3(it) )
6359
भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6 , 2008/अग्रहायण 15 , 1930
पदनाम
सं. अधिकारी का नाम सर्वश्री
अधीक्षण अभियंता 1. मुरारी लाल
अधीक्षण अभियंता 2. ए. के. बंद्योपाध्याय
3. पी. के. मिश्रा
अधीक्षण अभियंता
अधीक्षण अभियंता 4. ओ. पी . सिंह
अधीक्षण अभियंता 5. एम्. अनिल कुमार पी. सिंह
निदेशक 6. ओ . पी. गुप्ता
उप निदेशक 7. राम चन्द्र
उप निदेशक बी. एस. वर्मा
उप निदेशक 9. एल. बी. मुआनथंग
उप निदेशक 10 डी. पी. सिंह
सहायक निदेशक 11. एम. शिकुमार
सहायक निदेशक 12 आई. के. मेहरा
तैनाती का स्थान
आरआईओ ( एन ) , नई दिल्ली
आरआईओ ( पूर्व ) , कोलकाता
आरआईओ ( एस ) , चेन्नई
आरआईओ ( डब्ल्यू) , मुंबई
आरआईओ ( एनई ) , शिलांग
ई. आई. डिवीजन
ई.आई. डिवीजन
ई.आई. डिवीजन
आरआईओ ( एनई ) , शिलांग
आरआईओ ( डब्ल्यू) , मुंबई
आरआईओ ( एस ) , चेन्नई
आरआईओ ( एन ) , नई दिल्ली
[फा. सं. 42/4/ ( ii )/2001- आर एंड आर आई. सी. पी. केसरी , संयुक्त सचिव
New Delhi , the 20th November , 2008
S.O. 3224 ,-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 162 of the Electricity Act 2003 (36 of2003 ) read with Ministry of Power's Notification dated 17-8-2006 issued thereunder , the Central Government hereby appoints the following officials of Central Electricity Authority ( CEA ) as Electrical Inspectors :-
No. Name ofofficer S / Shri
Designation 1. Murari Lal
Place of Posting
RIO (N) , New Delhi
Superintending Engineer
2. A. K. Bandhyopadhyaya Superintending Engineer 3. P. K. Mishra
Superintending Engineer 4. 9. P. Singh
RIO ( E) , Kolkata
RIO (S), Chennai
RIO (W), Mumbai
Superintending Engineer
5. M. Anil Kr. P. Singh
Superintending Engineer
Director 6. O. P. Gupta
7. Ram Chandra
DeputyDirector 8. B. S. Verma
DeputyDirector 9. L. B. Muanthang
DeputyDirector 10. D. P. Singh
DeputyDirector
Assistant Director 11. M. Shivkumar
Assistant Director 12 . I. K. Mehra
RIO (NE) , Shillong
E.L. Division
E.L. Division
E.1 . Division
RIO (NE) , Shillong
RIO ( W) , Mumbai
RIO ( S) , Chennai
RIO (N) , New Delhi
[F. No. 42/4/ ( ii )/2001 - R &R ] 6360
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6 , 2008 AGRAHAYANA 15.1930
PART II S
नई दिल्ली, 26 नवंबर , 2008
का.आ. 3225.-सार्वजनिक परिसर ( अनधिकृत कन्जाधारियों का निष्कासन ) अधिनियम 1971 ( 1971 का 400 की धारा 3 के द्वाग प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए तथा भारत सरकार, विद्युत मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. एस.ओ. 2456 , दि. 12 नवम्बर , 1998 का अधिक्रमण करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा नीचे दी गई तालिका के कॉलम ( 2 ) में उल्लिखित अधिकारियों , जो केन्द्र सरकार के गजपत्रित अधिकारी श्रेणी के समतुल्य अधिकारी हैं , को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनार्थ सम्पदा अधिकारी के रूप में नियुक्त करती है तथा वे सार्वजनिक परिसर श्रेणियों के संबंध में उक्त अधिनियम के द्वारा या तहत दी गई प्रदत्त शक्तियों का एवं उक्त तालिका के कॉलम ( 3 ) में सामने दी गई प्रविष्टियों में विनिर्दिष्ट क्षेत्राधिकार को स्थानीय सीमाओं के भीतर प्रयोग करेंगे एवं कर्तव्यों का निर्वहन करेंगे ।
सारणी
संपदा अधिकारी
(2)
क्र. सं. ( 1)
सार्वजनिक परिसरों की श्रेणियां एवं क्षेत्राधिकार की स्थानीय सीमाएं (3)
" उप महाप्रबंधक ( टाउनशिप ) "
टिहरी हाइड्रो डेवलपमेंट कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड टिहरी
टिहरी हाइड्रो डेवलपमेंट कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड के कोटी . भागीरथीपुरम तथा नई टिहरी शहर सहित टिहरी के अन्य स्थानां के परिमर वा वहां टीएचडीसी द्वारा ग्रा की ओर से पट्टे पर या किसी विशेष प्रयोजनार्थ लिए गए परिसर । 2 " उप महाप्रबंधक ( टाउनशिप ) "
टिहरी हाइड्रो डेवलपमेंट कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड कोटेश्वर
टिहरी हाइड्रो डेवलपमेंट कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड के कोटेश्वर , के परिसर या बहां टीएचडीसी द्वारा या की ओर से पट्टे पर या किसी विशेष प्रयोजनार्थ लिए गए पग्सिर।
3 " वरि, प्रबंधक ( टाउनशिप) " टिहरी हाइड्रो डेवलपमेंट कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड पीपलकोटी
टिहरी हाइड्रो डेवलपमेंट कारपोरेशन लिमिटड के पीपलकोटी, गांहानाताल , मलेरी झेलम , जोशीमठ , करमाली , जाधगंगा , बोकांग बेलिंग , धारचूला के परिसर या वहां टीएचडीसी द्वारा या की ओर से पट्टे पर या किसी विशेष प्रयोजनार्थ लिए गए परिसर ।
4. " वरि. प्रबंधक ( टाउनशिप ) "
टिहरी हाइड्रो डेवलपमेंट कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड ऋषिकेश
टिहरी हाइड्रो इंवलपमेंट कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड के ऋषिकेश , हरिद्वार , देहरादून . नोएडा के परिसर या वहां टीएचडीसी द्वारा या की ओर से पट्टे पर या किसी विशेष प्रयोजनार्थ लिए गए परिसर या उपरोक्न मंदर्भित क्र. मं.। से 3 के सामने कॉलम ( 3 ) को छोड़कर , टिहरी हाइड्रो डेवलपमेंट कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड के कोई अन्य सार्वजनिक परिसर ।
[ फा. मं. 11 /8/ 2007 - ए.च.आई. 1
गम फल , अवर चित्र
New Delhi , the 26th November, 2008
S.O. 3225 , in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises ( 1: viction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971 ) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of power number S.O. 2456 , dated the 12th November , 1998 , the Central Government hereby appuints the officers mentioned in column (2 ) of the Table below, being officers equivalent to the rank of the gazetted officer ol' the Central Governmem , to be estate officers for the purposes of the said Act , and they shall exercise the powers conferred , and perform the duties imposed on them by or under the said Act in respect of the categories of public premises and within the local limits of jurisdiction , specified in the corresponding entries in column (3 ) of the said Table .
TABLE
Sl . Estate Officers
Categories of public premises and the local limits of jurisdiction No.
(1)
(2)
1. " DY. GENERAL MANAGER (TOWNSHIP)" Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Limited, TEHRI
Premises belonging to , or taken on lease , or requisitioned . by or on behalf of, the Tehri Hydro Development Corporation [ imned al Koti . Bhagirathipuram and other places in Tehri including New Tehri Town .
2. " DY . GENERAL MANAGER (TOWNSHIPY" KOTESHWAR
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease , or requistioned. by or on behalf of the Tehri lydro Devel opnuerit Corporation [ icnit ed atKuleshwar .
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
6361 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6, 2008/ अग्रहायण 15 , 1930
(1)
(2)
(3)
3. " SR. MANAGER (TOWNSHIP) "
Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Limited , PIPALKOTI
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease, or requisitioned, by or on behalf of, the Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Limited at Pipalkoti , Gohanatal , Malari , Jhelum , Joshimath , Karmoli , Jadganga, Bokang-Bailing , Dharchula .
4. " SR. MANAGER (TOWNSHIP) "
Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Limited, RISHIKESH
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease , or requisitioned, by or onbehalfof, the Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Limited at Rishikesh , Haridwar , Dehradun , NOIDA or any other public premises belonging to the Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Limited excluding column 3 against Sl . No. 01 to 03 referred to above.
[F. No. 11 /8/2007- H. [ . ] RAM PHAL, Under Secy.
उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय
( उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )
भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो
नई दिल्ली, 24 नवम्बर , 2008
का.आ. 3226,-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 1 ) के खंड (ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वह स्थापित हो गया है :-
अनुसूची
स्थापित तिथि क्रम संख्या
स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या , वर्ष और शीर्षक
नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हो , की संख्या और वर्ष
(2)
( 1)
(3)
(4)
अगस्त, 2008 1 . आई एस 1885 ( भाग 10 ) : 2008/आईसी 60050(448 ): 1995 विद्युत तकनीकी शब्दावली भाग 10 पॉवर प्रणाली
का संरक्षण
(दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)
इस भारतीय मानक की एक प्रति भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , १ बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली , कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालथों अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद , जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[संदर्भ: इंटी 01 /टी -4 ]
प्रकाश बचानी , निदेशक एवं प्रमुख (विद्युत तकनीकी ) MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs)
BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS
New Delhi , the 24th November , 2008
S.O. 3226. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules . 1987. theBureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the Indian Standardsto the Indian Standards , particulars ofwhich is given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued :
6362
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 6 , 2008 / AGRAHAYANA 15. 1930
No. and Year of the Indian Standards SI . No.
(1)
(2)
1. IS 1885 ( Pun 10) : 2008/IEC 60050 (448 ) : 1995 Electrotechnical Vocabulary Part 119 Power system protection (Second Revision
[ PART 11- SEC . 3 ( ii )|
SCHEDULE
Dateof Establishment No. and year of the Indian Standards, if any, Superseded by the New Indian Standard
(3)
(4)
August . 2008 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 . lyderabad. Jaipur. Kanpur , Nagpur. Patna . Pune , [ hiruvananthapuram
[Ref : ET011-4) PRAKASH BACHANI , Director & Head (Electrotechnical )
नई दिल्ली. 24 नवम्बर , 2008
का,आ. 3227.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अभिमुचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वह स्थापित हो गया है :
क्रम
संख्या
स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या, वर्ष और शीर्षक
(1)
(2)
1 . आई एस 1885 ( भाग 2 ) : 2008/आईसी 60050-101: 1998 विद्युत तकनीकी शब्दावली : भाग 101 गरिगत ( पहला पुनरीक्षण)
अनुसूची
स्थापित तिथि नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अधवा मानकों. यदि कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष
(3)
(4) मई . 200108 इस भारतीय मानक की एक प्रति भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो. मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर नार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कांवम्बत्र. गुवाहटी , हैदराबाद, जयपुर , कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना, पूर्ण तथा तिख्त्रनन्तापुरम में विक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
संदर्भ: ईटी 01.टी-35| प्रकाश बचानी, निदेशक एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी)
New Delhi , the 24th November , 2008
S.O. 3227. In pursuance of clause ( b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureaunf Indian Standards Rules . 1987 . the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the Indian Standards particulars ofwhich is given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued :
SCHEDULE
Sl. No. No. and Year of the Indian Standards (1)
(2)
1 . IS 1885 (Part2 2008 060050-101 : 1998 electrotechnical Vocabulary Part 72 Mathematics
Date of Establishme No. and year of the Indian Standards , if any , Superseded by the New Indian Standard
(3)
( 4)
May, 2008 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
6363
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6, 2008/ अग्रहायण 15 , 1930
Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan . 9. Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg. New Delhi -110002 and Regional 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: ET01 /T-35 ] PRAKASH BHCHANI , Director & Head ( Electrotechnical )
नई दिल्ली, 24 नवम्बर , 2008
का.आ. 3228.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वह स्थापित हो गया है :-
क्रम संख्या
स्थापित भारतीय मानक( कों ) की संख्या , वर्ष और शीर्षक
( 1)
(2)
1. आई एस 1885 ( भाग 15 ) : 2008/ आई ई सी 60050 ( 482 ) : 2004 विद्युत तकनीकी शब्दावली भाग 15 प्राथमिक और द्वितीयक सैल एवं बैटरियां ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)
अनुसूची
स्थापित तिथि नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों , यदि कोई हो , की संख्या और वर्ष
(3)
(4)
अगस्त , 2008 इस भारतीय मानक की एक प्रति भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुरशाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली 110002. क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहटी , हैदराबाद , जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर , पटना , पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं।
[ संदर्भ : ईटो (01.टी -7 | प्रकाश बचानी, निदेशक एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी)
New Delhi, the 24th November , 2008
S.O. 3228. In pursuance of clause ( b) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules. 1987 , theBureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the Indian Standards to the Indian Standards , particulars of which is given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued:
No. and Year of the Indian Standard
SI . No.
(1)
(2)
1 . IS 1885 ( Part 15) : 2008/IEC
60050(482): 2004 Electrotechnical Vocabulary Part 15 Primary and secondary cells and batteries (Second Revision)
SCHEDULE
Date of
Establishment No.and year of the Indian Standards. ifany, Superseded by the New Indian Standard
(3)
(4)
Augıtsı. 2008 Copy ofthis Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards . Manak Bhavan . 9. Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh , Chennai . Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore . Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar . Coimbatore , Guwahati . Hyderabad . Jaipur , Kanpur, Nagpur , Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.
4647 G1/08-3
[Ref : EF011-7 ]
PRAKASH BACHANI . Director and Head ( Flectrotechnical ) 6364
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 6. 2008/AGRAHAYANA 15. 1930
नई दिल्ली , 24 नवम्बर , 2008
का.आ. 3229. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतोस मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वह स्थापित हो गया है : ...
अनुसूची
स्थापित तिधि क्रम संख्या
स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या , वर्ष और शीर्षक
नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अध्चा मारकों. यदि कोई हो, की संख्ण और चर्म
(1)
(2)
13:
(4) 1 .
मई, 2008 आई एस 1885 ( भाग 57 ) : 2008/ आई ई सी 60050-131 : 20002 विद्युत तकनिकी शब्दावली भाग । 31 सर्किट
सिद्धांत ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)
इस भारतीय मानक की एक प्रति भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुरशाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर , कांग्रम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद , जयपुर , कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना , पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[संदर्भ ई टी ११. टी 281
प्रकाश बच्चानी , निदेशक एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी
New Delhi , the 24th November , 2008
S.O. 3229. In pursuance of clause ( b ) of sub- rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987. the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the Indian Standards to the Indian Standards, particulars of which is given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued:
SCHEDULE
No and Year of the Indian Standard
Sl. No.
Date of Establishment
No. and Year of the lodian Standards, ifany, Superseded by the New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4) 1 .
May, 2008 IS 1885 ( Part 57) : 2008/ LEC 60050-131 : 2002 Electrotechnical Vocabulary Part 57 Circuit Theory ( Second Revision)
Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards . Manak Bhavan , 4 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg. New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Olices: New Delhi , Kolkata , Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahinedabad , Bangalore . Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad . Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur . Patna, Pune , Thiruvananthapuram .
[Ref : ET01 T - 28 ]
PRAKASH BACHANI . Director and Head ( Electrotechnical )
नई दिल्ली , 27 नवम्बर , 2008
का.आ. 3230.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ब) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे रद्द कर दिए गए हैं और वापस ले लिए गये हैं :
6365
भारत का राजपन्न : दिसम्बर 6, 2008/अग्रहायण 15 , 1930
[ भागभाग-II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
क्रम रद्द किये गये मानक ( कों ) की संख्या , वर्ष संख्या और शीर्षक
(2)
( 1 )
1 . आई एस 1613 : 1960 दुग्ध बोतल क्रेटस की विशिष्टि
2. आई एस 6387 : 1997 दुग्ध के साथ वनस्पति प्रोटीन शिशु खाद्य की विशिष्ट अनुसूची
टिप्पणी भारत के राजपत्र भाग 2 , खंड 3 ,
उपखंड ( ii ) में का आ संख्या और तिथि प्रकाशित
(4) (3)
का. आ. संख्या 2960
यह उत्पाद और मानक अब उपयोग में नहीं है । तिथि 10-12-1960
आई एस 14433: 2007 का. आ. संख्या 1551
तिथि 02-06-1990
'शिशु दुग्ध के वैकल्पिक आहार- विशिष्टि (पहला पुनरीक्षण )' द्वारा अतिक्रमित ।
[संदर्भ: एफएडी/जी-128 एस. सी. खोसला , वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख (खाद्य एवं कृषि)
New Delhi , the 27th November, 2008
S.O. 3230. In pursuance ofclause (b) ofsub-rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, it is hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are mentioned in the Schedule give hereafter, have been cancelled and stand withdrawn.
SCHEDULE
No, and Year ofthe Indian Standard Cancelled
SI . No.
(2)
(1)
1 . IS1631 : 1960 Specification for milkbottle crates
2. IS6387: 1997 Specification for vegetable protein infant food withmilk
Remarks S.O. No. & Date published in theGazette of India , Part II , Section 3 , Sub- section ( ii )
(4)
(3)
The product and S. O. No 2960 Dated 10-12-1960
therefore the Standard is no longer in use S. O. No 1551 Dated02-06-1990
Superseded by IS 14433: 2007 Infant milk substitutes- Specífication (first version).
[Ref: FAD/G - 128 ] S. C. KHOSLA , Scientist Fand Head ( Food & Agri . )
पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली , 1 दिसम्बर , 2008
का.आ. 3231 ,- भारतय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( क ) के अनुसरण में भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. का. आ. 1777 (अ) तारीख 12-07-2004 द्वारा श्री एम. कन्दासामी स्पेशल तहसीलदार को तमिलनाडू राज्य एवं पुडुचेरी युनियन टैरीटरी में मैसर्भ गेल ( इंडिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिये उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन सक्षम प्राधिकारो के कृत्यों का पालन करने के लिए नियुक्त किया था ।
और उक्त श्री एम. कन्दासामी का स्थानांतरण हो गया है और श्री वी. पुनियाकोटी को उनके पद पर नियुक्त किया गया है । और उक्तं श्री एम. कन्दासामी का मैसर्स गेल ( इंडिया ) लिमिटेड में अतिरिक्त कार्य भार समाप्त कर दिया गया है ।
अतः अब भारत सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 2 के खंड ( क ) के अनुसरण में नीचे दी गई अनुसूची के स्तंभ ( 1 ) में यणित व्यक्ति को श्री एम. कन्दासामी के उत्तराधिकारी के रूप में उक्त मैसर्स गेल ( इंडिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए निम्नलि अनुसूचि के स्तंभ ( 2 ) में वर्णित क्षेत्र में उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृत्यों का पालन करने के लिए नियुक्त करती है । 6366
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECT- MRER 6 , 2008 / AGRAHAYANA 15. 19.30
PART 11- $ 10 . 3 ( i ) ]
अनुसूची
-- व्यक्ति का नाम और पत्ता
अधिकारिता का क्षेत्र
(1 )
(2)
श्री की. पुनियाकाडी .
सम्पूर्ण तमिल नाडू एवं पुडुचेरी वृनिचन टेरिटरी स्पेशल तहसीलदार मैसर्स गेल ( डॉण्डया ) 'लमिटेड में प्रतिनियुक्ति पर 172, कमगजर मला कराइकाल -609602
' सं.एल-40014108.08 जी.ए. ) कं.. के. शर्मा , अचर नचित्र MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi , the Ist December . 2008
5.10. 32.31. Whereas , in pursuance of clause ( ator Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition ) of Right of't set in 1 and ) Act, 1962 ( 50 of 1962 ) , the ( invernment of India vide notification of Government of India in the Ministry ofPetroleumand Natural Gas S O. 1777 dated 12th July , 2008 appointed Shri M. Kandasamy, Special Tehsildarno perfoon the functions of the t'ompetent Authority ander the said Act for laying of the pipeline by M's GAll . ( India ) Limited in the State of Pumi Naka and Union Territory of Puducherry .
And . winereas . Shra M. Kandosamy has been transferred and Shri V. Punnrakori , Special Tehshildar has been posted as his mcumbent .
And , whereas , the deputation of the said Shri M Kandasamy with Mis . GAII . ( India ) Limited has come to an end: Now, therefore , um pursuance of clause ( 4 ) or Section ( 2 ) of the said Act, the Goverment of India hereby authorizes the person mentioned in column ( lol'the scliedule given below to perform the functions of the Competent Authorny under the said Act for Lasing pipelines by the said Ms. G.All . ( India ) Limited in the area mentioned in coluinn ( 2 ) of the said schedule im succession of Shri M Kandasamy.
SCHEDULE
Area of furisdiction
Nime and Adrs ss of the peason
Whole State of Tamil Nad & Union Territory of Puducherry
Special Tehshidan . On deputation basist Ms Gallia Limited . 12. Kamarajarju Sak . Karakal - 600602
F.No . [ .- 140140808-60.P.1 A. K. SHARMA , Under Secy.
दिसंबर , 2008
का. आ. 32.32, 17 रकार ने पेट्रोलियम और पाइपलाई ( भूमि में उपयोग के आंभकर का अजन ) अधिनियम , 962 अभिनय ॐना गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप धारा के अग्धान जारी भारत सरकन कं पटलियम और प्राकृअधिसूचना संख्या -1.. 1380 तारीख 24 अगस्त , 2006 द्वाग . उम अधिसूचना में संलग्न अनुसुची में विनिर्दिष्ट गनिद्वारा महाराष्ट्र गय में दहाज हजोरा - उरान एवं स्पर पाइपन्नाउँन इम्णत इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड उसार सैक्शन परियाजन के माध्यम परिक्षा पाइपलाईन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिः उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने कं अपने अशोक थो:
उक्त भिन्नचना को प्रतियां जनता को ना 20-10-2006 से 20-10-2007 तक पन्च्ध करा दी गई थीं। 6367 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6, 2008/अग्रहायण 15 , 1930
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
अतः , अब , भारत सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइनें बिछानें के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है ;
और , भारत सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए निर्देश देती है कि पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार , इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख की , भारत सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए पाइपलाईनें बिछाने 'का प्रस्ताव करने वाली गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड में निहित होगा और तदुपरि, भूमि में ऐसे उपयोग का अधिकार , इस प्रकार अधिरोपित निबंधनों और शतों के अधीन रहते हुए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त , गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड में निहित होगा।
अनुसूची
तहसील
जिला
गांव सर्वे नं. आर . ओ. यू. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल ( हैक्टेयर में )
तलाशेत 56
अलिबाग
रायगड़
कोलघर34 00-11-25
अलिबाग
रायगड़
[फा. सं. एल-14014/ 10/2007 - जी. पी. )
के. के. शर्मा , अवर सचिव
NewDelhi , the 1st December , 2008
S.O. 3232. Whereas by notification of Government of Inida in Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O.No. 3380(E) dated 24th August, 2006 issued under sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the pertoleum and Minerals pipelines (Acquisition of Right ofUsers in Land ) Act, 1962 ( 50 of 1962) ( herinafter referred to as the said Act), the Government of India declared its intention to acquire the Right of Users in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification ofthe purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of natural gas through Dahej - Hazira- Uran and its spur pipeline ( Ispat Industries Ltd.- Usar Section ) project in the State of Maharashtra by GAIL ( India ) Limited;
And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public from 20-10-2006 to20-10-2007,
And whereas the Competent Authority has , under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act, submitted its report to the Government of India ;
Andwhereas Government of Inida has , after considering the said report, decided to acquire the Right of User in the land specified in the Schedute.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Government of India hereby declares that the Right of Users in the land specified in the Schedule is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And further , in exercise of the povers conferred by sub - section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Government of India hereby directs that the Right of Users in the said land for laying the pipelines shall , instead of vesting in the Government of India, vest, on this date of the publication of the declaration , in GAIL ( India ) Limited, free from all encumbrances .
SCHEDULE
District Tehsil
Area to be acquired for ROU ( In Hectare) Village
SurveyNo.
56
Talashet
Raigad Alibaug
34
00-11-25
Kolghar
Raigad Alibaug
[ F. No , L - 14014/ 10/2007-G.P.
K. K. SHARMA , Under Secv .
6368
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 6.2008 AGRAHAYANA 15. 1930
श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 5 नवम्बर , 2008
का.आ. 3233, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. ची. 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 नं. 1. धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 128/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-11-2008 कां प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[ सं. एल 20012/28 /99-आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास, डंस्क अधिकारी MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOΥΜΕΝΤ New Delhi , the 5th November, 2008 S.O. 3233. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref . No 128 1999) ofthe Central Govemment Indusnial Tribunallaboor Court . No. 1. Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial Dispute between the employers in ratation to the management of M's . BCCL. and their wohmen. which was received by the Central Government on 5-11-2008.
[No.1-2001228-99 - IR -Til SNEH LATA JAWAS . Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO. 1 AT DHANBAD PRESENT : IL M. SINGH , Presiding Officer In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10t jxd ) of the [ .D . Act , 1947
REFERENCE NO. 128 OF 1999
PARTIES : Employers int relation to the management ol Kusunda Area VI ol' M - s . BCL, and their workman APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workmary Mr.N. Ci. Arutu.
Organising Secretary, R.CMS .
Onbehalf of the employers Mr. D. K. Verma , Advocate State : Jharkhand
Industry . Coal .
Dated . Dhanbad, the 29th October , 2008
AWARD
The Government of India . Ministry of Labour , in exercise of the powers contered on them under Section
[ PARTIIS ( ii ) 10( 1 ) ( d ) of the 1. D. Acı . 1947 has refered the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/28/99-1 . R. ( C- 1 ) , dated , the 4th June, 1999
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Management of Kusunda Area of BCCL in not providing employment to the only alive wife ( second wife ) Stnm . Chandrakala Devi in place of Sri Jagat Bahadur Ix - Night Guard of Godhar Colliery under ( lause 9.40 of NCWA -V is justified? If not . to what relief the dependant is entitled?"
2. In the W. S. filed on behalf of the workman it has been stated that Jagat Bahadur had been working at Godhar Colliery of Kusunda Area under Bharat Coking Coal Liented as Night Guard since 17-111-71 He had been declared medically unfit for original job by the Medical Board and as per their advice he was stopped trom duty w.e 1. 23-9-91 vide letter dated 17-9-91 After his stoppage from duty the workman had submitted all relevant papers to the Agent , Chodhar Colliery for providing employment to his wife named Chandrakala Devi the Agent , Godbar Colliers in This turn forwarded all relevant papers to the management of Kusunda Area and they recommended and forwarded the same to the Dy. Chiet Personnel Manager ( MP &R ) Koyala Bhawan wide lener dt 30-12-91 . In this respect various correspondence was held between the angenent of headquarters Koyala Bhawan and the managemem st Kusunda Area from 1991 10 1991 Various querries had heen floated over the matter and all poims had been property replied .
It has been stated that Jagat Bulbadur . A- Night Guard had married Sant . Chandrakala Desi in the year 1981 after the death of his first wite Kamli Devi , The B.D ) M.I..A . , Mukhiya and Guam Sevak also have given certificate in this respeer stating therem that Sint . (Chandrakala Devi is the wile at lagat Bahadu . The local management of Godhar Colliery and the management of Kusunda Area have also themselves established the genuineness and authenticity of St. Cluandrakala Desi as a wife of Jagar Bahadur by reconunending her case for employment. Other than thandrakala Devi none has come forward being claimant tou employment in beu of Lagan Bahadur . Under clause 40 of NOWA - V since t management denied eniplosnient to Sat. Chandrakala Dev wife of Jagat Bahadur . the main of the workman ratsed industrial dispute befare the ALC ( C. Dhanbad sluch ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal tor adjudication . It has been prayed on behalfof the working side that an award be passed in livso of the workma directing the management to preside emplos mem tos Sout Chandrakala Devi in place husband Jagat Bahadur . Ev Night Guard of Godhar Cothers under clause 940m NOWA -V.
[ भाग [ I- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
3. In the W. S. filed by the management it has been stated by them that the present reference is not maintainable both in law and facts of the case . The demand for employment of the relation of the employee in a Public Sector Undertaking is ultravires the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Moreover , the Union has got no locus standi to demand for employment of the relative of any employee . It has further been stated that the provisions ofNCWA does not create any legal right to any relative of the employee to demand employment in BCCL . The provisions ofNCWA relating to the employment of the dependent can only be considered as a compassionate employment in suitable cases.
In their W. S. management have stated that Sri Jagat Bahadur was a permanent employee ofM/ s . Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and was working as Night Guard at Godhar Colliery. In the year 1987 a service excerpt was issued to Sri Jagat Bahadur and he declared the following persons as his relatives / family members in the said service excerpts .
Wife
1. Smt . Kamali Devi
Son
2. Sri Minbahadur
3. Chinta Kumari
6369
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6, 2008/अग्रहायण 15 , 1930
4. Both the parties have filed their respective rejoinder admitting and denying the contents of some of the paras of each others W. S.
5. Management in order to substantiate their case has examined Shri B. P. Singh , as MW- 1 who has proved document marked as Ext. M- 1 . On the side ofthe workman Chandrakala Devi has been examined as WW - I and documents have been marked as Ext. W - 1 , W- 2 and W-3.
6. Main argument on behalf of the management is that Kamali Devi was the first wife of Shri Jagat Bahadur and Kamali Devi died in the year 1975. Present Chandrakala Devi was married in 1980. In the service excerpt which was issued in 1987 Kamali Devi was mentioned as his wife . When Kamali Devi died in 1975 then how he was mentioned as his wife. He also argued that the documeni such as death certificate has got no meaning and cannot be accepted and no employment has been given to Chandra Kala Devi becauseher name was not mentioned in the Service Excerpt .
Daughter
Father
4. Sri Birbahadur
5. Smt . Shari Devi
7.Ld. Counsel for the workman argued that as per clause 9.4.0 of NCWA - V management is bound to give employment to the dependent who was medically unfit by theMedical Board on 22-8-91 and stopped from work w.e.f. 17-9-91 . Para- 11 of the W. S. of the employer speaks as follows:-
Mother
6. Kalibahadur
Brother
7. Teli Devi.
In course ofhis employment Sri Jagat Bahadur was declared medically unfit from his original job w.e.f. 22-8-91 and was latter stopped from work w.e.f. 17-9-91 . Thereafter one Chandrakala Devi submitted an application for employment claiming to be the wife of Jagat Bahadur .Due toglaring difference of the age between Smt . Chandrakala Devi and Jagat Bahadur, the management made an enquiry and in the enquiry of the management Sri Jagat Bahadur replied that Smt . Chandrakala Devi is his second wife, though Sri Jagat Bahadur has not submitted any authentic domument in this respect. Sri Gagat Bahadur also never informed the magagement during his service period regarding his second marriage with Chandrakala Devi. In the Service Excerpt issued in the year 1987 Sri Jagat Bahadur disclosed that Kamli Devi as his wife . He has also submitted a Death-Certificate issued by Dr. B. Валегјее dated 18-10-1975 that Smt . Kamali Devi died on 17-10-1975. In the Service Excerpt which has prepared in the year 1987, Smt. Kamali Devi was shown as the wife of Sri Jagat Bahadur , whereas the Death-Certificate also declares that Smt . Kamali Devi died on 17-10-1975, Chandrakala Devi is not the legally married wife of Jagat Bahadur. Accordingly it has been prayed on behalf ofthe employers to pass an Award rejecting the claim of the concerned workman .
"Due to glaring difference of the age between Smt . Chandrakala Devi and Jagat Bahadur the management made an enquiry and in the enquiry of the management Sri Jagat Bahadur replied that Smt . Chandrakala Devi is his second wife. "
It therefore appears that Jagat Bahadur , ex-employee of the management has stated that present workman is his second wife who is claiming for employment and only verbally saying by the management that present Chandrakala Devi is not dependant and legally married wife of Jagat Bahadur is not convincing because when Jagat Bahadur himself has given application and admitted by the management in his W. S. that Chandrakala Devi is his second wife , management has got no option but to treat her as wife of Jagat Bahadur , ex - employee of the management as per letterdt. 26-9-91 submitted by the said Jagat Bahadur for giving employment to Smt. Chandrakala Devi . Chandrakala Devi who has been examined as WW- 1 has stated in her deposition on oath that she is the wife of Jagat Bahadur after death of Kamli Devi the first wife and the marriage took place in the year 1980. She has also filed a certificate regarding marriage of Jagat Bahadur , There is no ground for the management to treat the certificate filed by Chandrakala Devi as false. Ext. W- 1 shows that Jagat Bahadur stated Chandrakala Devi as his second wife . As per Ext . W-2 employment has to be given if any employee becomes medically unfit as per NCWA - IV . The letter of the management dt . 20-7-92 shows that it has been admitted bythe management the claim of Chandrakala Devi as second 6370
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 6 , 2008/ AGRAHAYANA 15. 1930
wife of Jagat Bahadur and Mukhiya of the Godhar Village Panchayat also issued a certificate of marriage of Chandrakala Devi dt. 21-10-93 . Dr. B. Banerjee issued a death certificate dt. 18-10-75 declaring death of Kamli Devi andMr. S. P. Roy, M.J., A. , Dhanbad ofBihar Vidhan Sabha issued a certificate dt . 3-9-93 regarding marriage of Chandrakala Devi with Jagat Bahadur and there is also a certificate from Prakhand Vikash Padadhikari , Dhanbad which shows Chandrakala Devi as wife of Jagat Bahadur . These are the documents which have to be accepted without if and but. But management has not accepted those to be the documents without any basis and cogent ground .
Accordingly, following Award is rendered:-- "The action of the management of Kusunda Area of BCCL in not providing employment to the only alive wife (second wife) Smt . Chandrakala Devi in place of Shri Jagat Bahadur ex- Night Guard of Godhar Colliery under clause 9.4.0 of NCWA - V is not justified. Consequently, the said Chandrakala Devi is entitled for employment under the management .
FI. M. SINGH . Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 5 नवम्बर, 2008
का.आ. 3234.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार में. बी. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनक कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरणः श्रम न्यायालय संख्या । धनबाद के पंचाट । संदर्भ सं. 98/1991 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो कंन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-20012/75: 91- आई आर ( म्मी-1) स्नेह लता जवास, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 5th November , 2008
S.O. 3234. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 98-1991 ) ofthe Central Goveminent Industrial Tribunal Labour Cuurt , No. 1. Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure . in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in ralation to the management of Ms. BCCL and their workomen , which was receivedby the Central Government 5-11-2008מט .
No 1-20012 /75 /91 -IR ( C -1 )] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desh Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL, TRIBUNAL NO . I AT DHANBAD Present: SHRIHARI MANGAL SINGH, Presiding
Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 1011xdhofane L.D. Act . , 1947
[ PART 11 -SEC. Stin Reference No. 98 of 1991
Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Moonidih Project of Ms. Bharat Coking Coal I id , and their workner
APPEARANCES:
On behalfof the workman : Shri S. Base , Secretary . R.C.M.S. On behalf ofthe employers : Shi i D. K. Verma. Advocate State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal.
Dated, Dhanbad . the 20th October , 2008
AWARD
The Govomment of India . Ministry of Labour, נון exercise of the powers conterned in them under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of the l. D. Act . 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication wide their Order No. L-20012/75 / 91 - L.R ( Coal - D . dared , the 11th October, 1991 .
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Management of Moonideh Project ofM/ s . Bharat toicing Coal Lid . , in dismissinty from service Shri Bchu Singh . Temporary Miner Loader, T. No. 7310 w.e ... 18-19-8-89 as justified ? II not. to what relief is the workman entitled?
2. Case of the workman as disclosed in the Written Statement subinitted by the sponsoring union on behalt ut the workman is that the concerned workman Shri Beb Singh was employed by the management as Miner Leader vide letter dt . 13-2-87 issued by the General Manager. Moonidhih Arca as a dependant of Shri Srishthidbar Singh whose land of agriculture measuring more or less four acres was acquired by the managemem . Accordingly . employment was offered to the dependant of land loser in accordance with the rule practice prevailing with the management . Befoгe арроітьтеru letter was issuedby the management , through enquiry on the genuineness of the concerned workman Shri Bebu Singh as dependant of Slaci srishthindhar Singh was conducted by them and thereafter the concerned workman was allowed on duty . It has been further stated that the management issued a chargesheet dated 5/6-11-87 on some vague allegations by the Superintendent of Mines . Moanidih Project and the concemed workman filed his reply dated 12-11-87 10 12 said chargesheet. Being not satisfied with the reply ofthe concerned workman management held a domestic enty in which the concerned workman participated and the management with a predeternomed attirnle dismissed the concerned workman from service with imenediate effect b order of dismissal dated 18 19-8-89 issued by the Projeet Officer , Moonídih Project It has been stated that the 6371 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6 , 2008/अग्रहायण 15 , 1930
[भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
management did not issue any intimation to Shri Srishthidhar Singh whose land was taken over by the management and the management has appointed Shri Bebu Singh on the recommendation of Shri Srishthindhar Singh that Shri Bebu Singh was his dependant and Shri Srishthidhar Singh had nominated Shri Bebu Singh for appointment as land loser dependant . Thereafter the unίση of the workman represented the matter before the management on various levels but of no avail . The Union then raised industrial dispute before the ALC ( C) , Dhanbad- I forconciliation and ultimately it resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication. It has been prayed that an Award be passed in favour of the workman with direction to the management to reinstate the concerned workman to his jobwith full backwages.
of giving false information regarding his father's name whichhelpedwith in securing the employment ofTemporary Miner/Loader. The concerned workman submitted his reply admitting his guilt to the effect that he declared Shri Sristidhar Singh of Bardubhi as his father all though he was his father- in - law . Thus the misconduct committed by himwas established on his own admission . In that situation he was not entitled for contiuance in the employment as his initial appointment was illegal and void . Thereafter the management appointed Shri S. Jha , Dy . P.M. Moonidih . Project ofMoonidih Area as Enquiry Officer to conduct the departmental enquiry in the presence of the chargesheeted workman and his co - worker . The Enquiry Officer gave full opportunity to the concerned workman and his co -worker to cross - examine the managçınent withnesses, to give his own statement and to produce his defence witnesses . The departmental enquiry was conducted fairly and properly in accordance with the principle of natural justice. After completing the enquiry the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the concerned workman guilty of the charges levelled against him. The management then considering the gravity of the misconduct andthe enquiry proceeding and report and all other relevant papers dismissed him from services w.e.f. 19-8-89. It has been prayed that an Award be passed in favour of the management holding the dismissal of the concerned workman from service as justified and that the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief.
4.In this caseboth the sides have filed their respective rejoinder admitting and denying the contents of some of paras of each other's W.S.
5.Regarding fairness and propriety of the domestic enquiry by hearing both parties my predecessor- in -office vide order No. 25 dated 24-10-94 held that it was fair and proper.Thereafter this case was fixed for hearing argument on merit.
6.Ld . Counsel for the workman argued that appointment of the concerned workman Bebu Singh was done as dependant of Sristidhar Singh whose agricultural land measuring more or less 4 acres was acquired by the management and employment was provided to the dependent ofthe land loser according to the rules / practice prevailing with the management and hefore issuance of apointment letter dt . 13-2-87 the management conducted through enquiry about the genuineness of the concerned workman Bebu Singh as dependant of Sristidhar Singh and only then the concerned workman was allowed to the duties . However , the management issued chargesheet di . 5/6-11-87 on the vague allegation and the concerned workman has filed his reply dated 12-11-87. Order of dismissal was passed on 18 / 19-8-89 by the Project Officer, Moonidih Project . The management did not issue any intimation to Sristidhar Singh , hose land was taken over by the management and the management has appointed 3. In the W.S. filled on behalf of the management it has been stated that the present reference is not legally maintainable. It has also been stated that Shri Bebu Singh declared himself as son of one Shri Sristidhar Singh of village-Bardhubhi , P.O. Karitand , P.S. Putki , Dist . Dhanbad and entered into the services of the management as dependant son of Shri Sristidhar Singh whose land was situated in the village-Bardhubhi . The concerned workman sworn in an affidavit declaring him as son of Shri Sristidhar Singh of Village- Bardhubhi , P.O. Karitand , P.S. Putki , District Dhanbad declared the names of other family members . He declared Shri Sristidhar as his father , Kutu Devi as mother, Ramashankar Singh as brother and Raimuni Devi as sister . He has declared Maina Devi as his wife and also stated that he had one daughter and two sons . On the basis of his declarations and the declaration of Shri Sristidhar Singh the concerned workman was appointed as Temporary Miner/Loader by appointment letter dated 13-12-1987 . The management has further submitted that they provide employment to the descendants of the land ownerwhose land is acquired in order to give certain relief to such persons . It is submitted that no right is conferred on any person to claim for employment against the land aequired by the Govt. for mining purposes and handed over the same to a mining company. Each case is considered on its merit and the management can only provide job to the person whose land is acquired or to his son . There is no provision for giving any appointmeni to a person nominated by a land loser . Taking advantage of the situation the concerned workman approached Shri Sristidhar Singh to show him as his son and to give him employment . Thus the concerned workman adopted dishonest means by declaring him as son of Sri Sristidhar Singh and got himself appointed as son of Shri Sristidhar Singh. However, latter it was discovered that the concerned workman was the son of Shri Kanati Singh of village- Behrakudur and was not the son of Shri Sristidhar Singh of Bardubhi . It was pointed out that he was the son - in -law of Shri sristidhar Singh . Thereafter mangement issued a chargesheet dated 5/6-11-89 for commission of misconduct
4547 G1/08-4 6372
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6 , 2008/AGRAHAYANA 15. 1930
[ PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii ) ) =
Shri Babu Singh on recommendation of Sristidhar Singh as Sristidhar Singh nominated Shri Babu Singh as his dependant . Thus the management absorbed themselves from the liability of providing employment to land loser which is a must for the management according to the prevailing practice of the management administration . As per policy matter BCCI . had acquired agricultural land near about existing coal mines on payment of price for the land and employment of one dependent of the land owner whose land was takn over by BCCL Ile argued that as per NOWA- III a dependent has heen including a son- in - law.
"I have not stated anything wrong and false information , if I have given and found incorrect then I may be terminated from the service ." In this respect the concerned workman has filed certificate issued by Dr. Ayodhya Singh regarding his character treating Babu Singh as son ofSristidhar Singh which has got no value und also a certificate by the Secretary, Diwani Grampanchayat . Dhanbaddt . 20-3-86 in this respect. Ld . Counsel for the workman has argued that Sristidhar Singh has not been examined by the management . There is no need of exarnination of Sristidhar Singh by the management because it is the duty of the concerned workman to prove his case that he was the son of Sristidhar Singh. Ld. Counsel for the workman also argued that no other dependant of Sristicthar Singh was employed so the concerned workman should be in the service as dependent of Sristidhar Singh, I do not find any ground and strength on the argument of the l.d. Counsel for the workman .
7.Ld. Counsel for the management argued that Babu Singh has not applied as son - in - law but applied as sun and after thorough enquiry it was found that he was not the son of Sristidhar Singh , and under land loser scheme his dependent was given employment . The representative of the workman argued that son - in- law and son is same thing and there is acurally no difference between son and son- in -law but workman has applied as son. Therefore. This dismissal cannot be termed in the same way because of the fact that he has given false information to the management and on the basis of false information he was appointed as son of Sristid har Singh .
9. Ld . Counsel for the workman also referred the provision of employment to dependants under efause 9.4.2 of NCWA- III which shows and includes son - in - law. daughter- in -law and widowed daughter . It is correct that as per NCWA - III son- m- law is dependent but it should be with open heart and when applied for employment it should be stated initially as son - in- law. In the present case the concerned workman has stated himself as son of Sristidhar Singh and not as son - in - law and gave false afliavit showing himself as son of Sristidhar Singh but actually he was son of Kanti Singh village Behrakudur. If he was actually dependant of Sristidhar Singh he should have mentioned in the affidavit as son - in - law of Sristidhar Singh and not as son of Sristidhar Singh. It show that he has given false affidavit and false information to the management for getting appointment under the management and later on enquiry it was found that he was son of Kanti Singh and he gave wrong aflidavit and false information . Saving himself as son of Sristidhar Singh and later saying in the enquiry that he was son of Sristidhar Singh shows that he has obtained employment fraudulently which amounts to gross misconduct and the management after thorough enquiry dismissed him from service rightly . I do not find any claim of the concerned workman . Accordingly, the following Award is rendered:
"The action of the management of Mounidih Project of M/ s . Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. , in dismissing from service Shri Babu Singh , Temporary Miner Lader T. No. 7310 wc.f. 18-19-8-89 is justified . Consequently, the concerned workman is not emitled
to get any relief, "
H.M SINGH, Presiding Micer
नई दिल्ली, 5 नवम्बर , 2008 B. L.d. Counsel for the workman also referred Ref. No. 288/1990 between RCCL and Shri Ajit Singh of Mounidih Project and by Award di. 7-3-2003 passed in the above Reference has been implemented by the management of Moonidih Project . In the same way and same footing this casehas to be considered. C'ertified Copy of the Award of Ref. No. 288 90 has been filed by the workman . In the said Awardthere was difference of interpretation between ' Pitaji and Baba' i.e. father and grand father and it shows that there was only dispute whether the Awardee was dependam of his father or grand father but in the present case the concerned workman has given false information and false address for his employment . In this respect the concerned workinan gave alfidavit declaring himselfas son of Shri Sristidhar Singh of village- Bardubhi , P.O. Karitand. P.S. Putki , Distt . Dhanbad and also declared the names of ' other family members. He declared Shri Sristidhar as his father , Kutu Devi as sister. He has declared Maina Devias his wife and also stated that he had one daughter and two sons . On this basis he was appointed as Temporary Miner Loader. But on enquiry it was discovered that he was son of Kantı Singh of Vintage - Behrakudur and was not the son of Shi Sristidhar Singh of Bardubhi . It shows that he gave false affiavit willfully making himself guilty by giving wrong information declaring and claiming as son of Sristidhar Singh ofBardubhi Village .Actually he belonged to another village and he was son of Shri Kanti Singh . As per order and affidavitdt . 28-3-87 given by the concerned workman Babu Singh which was in the enquiry proceeding shows that he has given information declaring himself as son of Sristidhar Singh of Village Bardhubí P.O. Karritand, P.S. Putki, Distt . Dhanbad . He has also stated in his affidavit in para - 5 that
का.आ. 3235 , औद्योगिक विवाल अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा । के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय स्वरकार में . बी. सी. सी. एल. कं प्रबंधतंत्र क संबद्ध नियांजकों और उनकं कर्मकारों [ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
6373 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6 , 2008/अग्रहायण 15 , 1930
के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय संख्या नं. १ , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 83/1992 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-20012/365/91- आई आर ( सी -1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 5th November, 2008
2. In this case both the parties appeared at first through their authorised representative and filed their respective W.S. documents etc. At the stage of oral evidence subsequently they both abstained themselves from appearing before this Tribunal . Thereafter several adjournments were granted but the parties did not turm up even then. Since both the parties failed to turn up before this Tribunal in order to take further steps in this case , a 'No dispute' Award is passed in this reference presuming non -existence ofany industrial dispute between the parties .
H. M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer
नई दिल्ली, 5 नवम्बर , 2008 S.O. 3255-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 83/1992 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court , No. 1, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in ralation to the management of M/s . BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 5-11-2008 .
[No. L-20012/365/91 - IR(C-1 ) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
का.आ. 3236.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मौ सो. 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 नं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 31/1994 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 AT DHANBAD
[सं. एल-20012/3/93- आई. आर. ( सो -1 ) स्नेह लता जवास, डेस्क अधिकारी PRESENT : SHRI H.M. SINGH Presiding Offficer
New Delhi , the 5th November , 2008 In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) ofthe 1.D. Act. , 1947
Reference No. 83 of 1992
PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management of Sudamdih Shaft Mines ofM / s . Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and their workman
APPEARANCES :
S.O. 3236. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref . No. 31 . 1994) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court, No. I, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . CCL and their workmen , which was receivedby the Central Government on 5-11-2008.
On behalf ofthe workman :
None
None
Onbehalf of the employers :
[No. 1-2 (k )12/3 /93 - IR( C - 1 ) | SNEH LATA JAWAS. Desk Oflicer State: Jharkhand
Industry: Coal .
ANNEXU
Dated , Dhanbad, the 29th October, 2008
AWARD
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 AT DHANBAD
PRESENT: SHRI HARI MANGAL SINGII , Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Disnute under Section 10( 1 )( d) ofthe 1.D. Ac... 1947 The Government of India, Ministry of Labour , in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1) ( d) of the 1. D. Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunat for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/365/91-1 . R. (Coat - 1 ) , dated, the 31st August, 1992.
Reference No. 31 0 1994 SCHEDULE
PARTIES: Employers in relation to the managemcal of Central Coal fields id and their workmen
APPEARANCES :
Onbehalf of the employers .
" Whether the Action of the Management of Sudamdih Shaft Mine of M/ s . BCCL , Dhanbad in dismissing Shri Manjurs Bauri , P.R. Miner vide their letter No. SMD : Dy: PM: DISCIP, 1977dt. 23-6-89 is justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled?"
Mr. D. K. Verme Advocate, 6374
GAZETTE OF INDA : DIMBER 6. 2008: AGRAHAYANA ISR
Ps . 11 S S Mr B B Patiley . Adwate
State : Than
Industry: Coo
Dated Damphad the 21st October , 2008
AWARD
The sense or dia . Monistry of tara in esercise of the power conferred on the Ed Sccion 10 bidios Act 1917 has referred line klissing Jispute to das Probu for adindicanot: vai then Grder No.1-2002.Roal ! ) , dated, the 21 1967.
they are entitled to get at wages from the date of their doing the job of Clavariruige Mazdoor. It has been stated further that the encabed workmen made their above referred demand before the management but the same was not considered by the motagement and thereafter an industrial dispute was raised before the ALC ( C ) which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication .It has been prayed on behaltof the workman to pass un Award in favour of the workmen directing the management treat the concerned workmen as the workmen of MCC and to pay Cal . Tagests the concerned workmen from the date of doing their job as Clay Cartridge Mazdoors .
CHEDULE
Whether the demands of the workmen of Sas Colliers.Bhurkamda Colhery, Central Saunda Colher and anders ! Barkakana Aves. いい か sheds Limiteal . Dist . Fla mange should treat 133 Clay Carriges Mazdus detailedin Annexurehas their woman and that mes should be parid Category -1 wages usulied !!! ... sharehet are the said workman entitled art from what date ? "
2 appon the cord that by the corrigendum oleven No. dan 2001 theanies of some knien have been de Lost India, which has been corrected ated and shows in the annexure oude of reference Besides the above as per petition fessa he said of the sponsornnime and order passed thereva se fus Truhunu 31. 3-8 606 few names lave been deered and shown inromevitre hereto arnesed
4. In the Writer Statement management i submitted that there is Ridinghystrial dispute in the present case either in the eye el law or within the mearing of Sec . 2 (hi of the 11 , 12 time emp.ger- employee relationships.stedbetween the persons referred to in the reference oras and this managemein k has been submitted that the present industrial dispute was not raised by any trade urmon before dhe Assit Labour ( ominissioner (Central ) Ranchi but i was caused by one Ramchandra Rem andhehad no locus stands in this matter . It has been alleged thatthe ALC ( C ) Ranchi should not have treated the matter as an Industrial dispate and started conciliatas proceedings. 11 has been stated that the present Central Coalfields Ltd. was prevwasly known as National Coal Development Corporation Ed , and the manie of the feritier came into existence in place of the latter & c.1.1-11-1975 following the re -organsion of the Coal Industry in the Central Public Seever and the establishment of Coal India [.td as a holding Company with several subsidiaries companies like the Central Coalfields Lad.. Bharat Cohms Coal Ltd .. Eastern Coaltields ltd . Western Calfields 1 til . etc The erstwhile Nationalt val Development Corporatton [.Ld . , and the presen! Central Coalfields Ltd .. are whalls financed by the Cant . and me Gost . Corpsames within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act . 11 has been submitted that the Central Coadfields Lad .. is engaged in Coal Mining opendions and its mining activities are confined to the State of Bihar (Presently harkhand in the Districts of Flazaribagh , Ranchi GGiridih, Bokaro and Palamau , having its head ollice at Ranchi For eflective administration and control . the Company established Areas consisting of group ercolliecies located within a specified geographic territory and other connected establishments and each Area is hearded tysta GGeneral Manager. bi the W. S. management have marrated which collieries function under which area and they have mentioned their names in the W. S. It has been submitted that the demand othe concerned persons are totally fake and the same represem adeliberate and fracdulent attempt to induct some outsklers in the employment of this Company .
3. In the W... Pied en ingehall of the comed workmen t has been shated that the concerned work.nen Dave been worang as Clay Cartridge Mazdoor in the colheries mentioned on the scliedule to the veder ol reference under Raza Area ofMs. Centi ( unitiekis Ltd. for these are years . They have stated that ine joh ofClay Cartridge massan is of a permanent nature and itis an esseplica tejels for rumming the coa . industus because of the of the Clay Cartridges arv tred for batering of coal. recetone, his job is directly connected with the productior ofcoal . The concerned workimer: taed to make clar. cortrages within the preraises et their respective cotics and the materials required for the porpose of preang chat cartridges used to be provided by the management . However , the concerned workmen are not getting wag | Mazdoor and they wedget paymeni 1. Prece fale basis and the rate si pasawat is very poor. Installthe Callieries under the to ! India 1.td.. the Clay Warridge Mazdoors have been regniarised and they are gettere sages of Cat. I. The management of Barkakana ing been making this discrimination by aut treating then.ir workman and not paying wages of Cat. L. Thetrend of the concerned werkments init they are entitled as employees of ma
It has been frutiner stated by the management that it is necessary to use class crotridges tusually called in local 6375 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6, 2008/अग्रहायण 15 , 1930
parlance as "Gora Matti " ) for the purpose of blasting in the under ground coal mines (except pick mining ) and also for the safety reasons the clay cartridges are used. It has been stated that in the coal mining area the manufacture ofclay cartridges is a cottage industry in which villagers and their family members get engaged and they maintain their living by manufacturing and selling the same . The Mine owners purchase the clay cartridges from the manufacturers . In factthere is relationship of purchaser and supplier between the management and the concerned persons and the supplier cannot claim to be the workmen of the purchaser.
So for as Bhurkunda Colliery is concerned one Smt. Lal Moni Kamin used to supply the clay cartridges. Earlier one Haricharan Pandit was also supplying this item but he is dead. Considering the underground Mining Operation and the standard of requirement of clay cartridges a maximum of two persons can manufacture and supply the entire requirement of clay cartridges of this colliery. In Saunda 'D' Colliery S / Sri Ram Lal , R. S. Mishra, Chandru Oraon, Indra Deo Ram and Sio Dayal besides Smt . Kushmi Devi used to supply the clay cartridges. With regard to Central Saunda Colliery only Sri Shamsuddin Ansari and Smt . Shanti Devi used to supply the entire requirement of clay cartridges . It has been further stated that previously the persons supplying gola matt used to be paid @ Rs . 15- per 1000 supply of clay cartridges and subsequently the rate was enhanced to Rs . 20 per 1000 clay cartridges . The management in case of requirement used to make recruitment through the employment Exchanges as per the Employment Exchanges Compulsory Notification of Vacant Act and this enactment cannotbe by- passed. It has been prayed on behalf of the employers that an Award may be passed in their favour rejecting the claim of the concerned workmen.
ofrespective collieries named in the order of reference with aview to smooth running of the colliery , provide necessary materials like soil , water , Jhora, Kudal etc. within the colliery premises and supervise the entire process of clay cartridge making effectively and diligently . The claim of the concerned workmen is fully justified and they are entitled to be treated as the workmen of M /s . Central Coalfields Ltd. as Clay Cartridge Mazdoors and they are also entitled to get Cat . I wages . He also submitted that the management has examined MW- 1 and has exhibited Ext . M -7 . M - 1 in the last para ofhis cross - examination has admitted that he has not produced the documents on the basis of which he has prepared Ext . M - 7, and as such Ext . M -7 is without any basis and cannot be considered as genuine document . The management of Saunda ' D ' Colliery has stopped the services of 41 workmen from 16-9-2000. He also agrued that Shri Ram Chandra Ram has raised this dispute and the said Ram Chandra Ram is one of the workmen in the said list of Sunda' D' Colliery and after raising the dispute has been stopped illegally by the management . Ile argued that attendance registers are repaired and maintained by Gang Heads with a view to see that such workmen is properly paid as per his attendance and certain registers have been filed as specimen to show that the concerned workmen are regular in their work and have worked for 240 days or more in a year. Ext . W- I to W- 1 /7 are the attendance registers of Saunda ' D' Colliery , Ext . W-3to W-3 /4 are the attendance registers ofCentral Saunda Colliery Ext. W-6 to W- 6/ 1 аrе the attendance registers of Saunda Colliery , and Ext . W-7/ 1 is the attendance register of Bhurkunda Colliery . From perusal of Ext . W-2, W-4, W- 5, W- 7 and W - 8 it appears that the bill has been prepared /supply order has been made in the name ofGang Heads and on perusal of the evidence of workmen witnesses it is clear that the same has heen distributed among the concerned workmen of respective gangs . Accordingly they have prayed regularisation of their services as Cat . I Mazdoor.
5. Both the sides have filed their respective rejoinders admitting and denying the contents of paras of each other's W. S.
7. Ld . Counsel for the management argued that WW- 1 in course of his evidence in cross- examination admitted that the Attendance Register marked as Ext . W- 1 has been prepared by him . He has also further admitted that Ext .W- Idoes not bear the signature or 1.T.1 . of any of the concerned workmen and that in those attendance registers there is no signature of Asstt . Manager overman who were supervising their works . WW- I has further admitted that the attendance registers marked as Ext . W- 1 has been prepared in 2000 after reference of the present case . Therefore, it is clear that the union has manufactured these documents in order to show that they supplied clay cartridges as per order of the Company and the compay used to make payment to the suppliers of clay cartridges . Therefore, it is clear that there is no relationship of employer and employee rather the witness who has claimed himself to be a workman is actually a supplier of clay cartridge and a supplier cannot be treated as an employee . WW -2 Shanti 6. Ld . Counsel for the workmen argued that the above reference case is relating to the treating of 133 Clay Cartridges Mazdoor as the workmen of respective colliery ofM/s. CCL and paying them Cat . I wages . As per schedule of reference the number of concerned workmen colliery- wise is Saunda ' D' Colliery-41 workmen , Bhurkunda Colliery27 workmen , Central Saunda Colliery-38 workmen and Sunda Colliery- 27 workmen and they are jobless. They were working on permanent nature of job . Thejob ofclay cartridge mazdoor is a vital one and directly connected with production being ajob ofpermanent nature and as such the nomenclature " Clay Cartridge Mazdoor" finds its place in the book relating to job Nomenclature,job description etc. for coal industry and the wages of the respective category has also been provided in various N.C.W. As applicable in the coal industry . The management 6376
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6 , 2008/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1930
Devi in her cross-examination has admitted that she has no receipt to show that she has made payment to the workmen whose name find place in the attendance register . She has also admitted that she is a supplier and that she has a control over their workmen . She has also admitted during cross -examination that whenever any person remained absent they informed here and she used to grant leave. WW-3 Ram Chandra Ram who claimed to be a mate has stated in his cross - examination that the management has not given any paper appointing him as Mate for manufacture of clay cartridge. He has also admitted in his cross - examination that initially his father used to supply clay cartridge and from 1988 he is supplying the clay cartridge. Therefore, it has been clearly established that he adopted the business of his father for manufacturing clay cartridge and supplying the same to the management Rs . 30/- per thousand . The union has not produced a chil of paper to show that they were legally appointed at any point of time by the management for manufacturing of clay cartridge. It has been argued that the claim of the concerned workmen cannot be accepted and they are not emitled to get any relief.
8. Ld . Counsel for the workmen has referred Ref . No. 105/70, Ref . No. 3.8t and also 2/80 regarding reference tim regularisation of clay cartridge makers in different colliermes by the management . In this respect Ed. Counsel for the management argued that whole evidence of the above Reference cases is not before this Tribunal so it cannot be assessed how the Tribunal has passed such Awards in such References. There is weight in the argument of the Ld . Counsel for the management because before this Tribunal there is no evidence on the basis of which above Awards have been passed in favour of the workmen concerned .
9. Ed . Cowsel for the thanagement also referred to a decision repamed in 2006 ( 2 ) JLJR Supreme Court - 282 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the following:
"Service Law Appointments No employment is envisaged outside the constitutional scheme and without following the requirements set down therein- equality of opportuinty is the hall mark - provisions exist for affirmative action to ensure that unequals are not treated equals though the Government is not precluded from making Lemporary appointments . regular appointinents must be the rule - constitutional scheme of public comployment flows from Articles 14, 16, 315 , 320 and 335- in absence of any right to a post or to a particular status , appointment cannot be deemed to be valid -directions for re - engagement ul' such persons in any other work would make judicial process another mode of recruitment de hors the rules.
Service Law Appointment - equality - rule ofequality in public appointonents is a basic constitutional
[PART II SFC. 3 ( 1 ) ] feature-unless appointment is in terms of relevant rules and after a proper completion . same would not confer any right on the appointees - contractual appointments ends with the contract- daily wages or casual appointment ends with discontinuation- temporary appointee cannot claim permanency on expiry of the term by merely working for a long time one does not acquire a right for regularisation -such persons cannot invoke doctrine of legitimate expectation.
Service Law -Pay -equal pay for equal work -white accepting employment . daily wages or casual or temporary, person concerned knows the nature of his employment and wages to be paid-daily wagers form a class by them selves they cannot claim discrimination with regular employees - evenby invoking the principle of equal pay for equal work they cannot be treated at par with regular employees- Articles 14 and 16 not attracted .
Constitution of India -Article 21-Regularisation Regularisation of persons engaged de hors the rules in the guise of upholding rights u / Art . 21 -also daily wagers having accepted the cimployment on their own volition cannot be termed forced labour and in does notbreach Art . 23 -right to life does not include right to employment.'
10.As per evidence produced by the workmen side it shows that they are supplieries of Clay cartridges to the management and suppliers cannot be the employees of the management . No appointment letter has been shown and payment sheet has been produced regarding working with the management and in has also been stated by WW-2 Shanti Devi that they have no receipt to show that they made payment to the workmen whose names find place in theAttendance Register . This has been accepted clearly by WW-3, WW-2 and also WW- 1 and it also shows that Attendance Register has been prepared after the reference has been made as per statement of WW- 1 who has said attendance register has been prepared after reference wals made. It only shows that these attendance Registers have been manufactured to get the benefit for regularisation of the concerned workmen by the management . I find no merit in the claim of the concerned workmen. Accordingly , the following Award is rendered:
"Thedemands of the workmen of Sayat D' Colliers Bhurkunda Colltery. Central Saunda Colliery and Saunda Colliery of Barakakana Area of M's . Cemral Coalfields Ltd .. Distt . Hazaribagh that the management should treat the concerned workmen as Clay Cartridge Mazdoors ( as detailed in Annexure ) as their workmen and that they shouldbe paid Category- I wages is not justified. Consequently , the concumed workmen are not entitled to get any relict. "
H.M. SINGH , Presiding Officer [ भाग ।।-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 5 नवम्बर, 2008
का. आ. 3237.-औझोगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. बी. सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय संख्या 1 , धनचाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 69/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है ,जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-20012/508/98- आई आर ( सी-[ ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 5th November, 2008 S.O. 3237. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 69/ 1999) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. I , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 5-11-2008.
[No. L-20012/508/98 - IR(C-1 ) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO.1 AT DHANBAD Present :Shri H.M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 (1) ( d) ofthe 1.D.Ad , 1947 .
Reference No. 69 of 1999
Parties: Employers in relation to the Management of GovindpurArea ofM /s . BCCL and their workman.
Appearances:
Onbehalfofthe workman : None
On behalf of the employers: None
State: Jharkhand
Industry: Coal Dated, Dhanbad, the 21st October, 2008
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under section 10(1 ) ( d) of the [.D.Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No.L-20012/508/98-1.R. (C- I ) , dated, the 28th April , 1999.
SCHDULE
" Whether the action of the management not to regularise Sri Ram Dhani Bhatia as a Clerical Gr.11 is genuine and justified ? If not , to what relief is the concerned workman is entitled ? "
6377
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6 , 2008/ अग्रहायण 15 , 1930
2. In this case both the parties involved in the dispute have failed to appear before this Tribunal inspite of issuanceof repeated notices to them . It , therefore , appears that they are not interested to proceed with the hearing of the case. This Tribunal also finds no ground to drag on the case suo motu for days together. Under such circumstances , a 'No Dispute Award is passed in this reference presuming non -existence of any industria ! dispute between the parties.
H. M. SINGH , PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली , 5 नवम्बर , 2008
का. आ. 3238.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. बी. सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय संख्या 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 66/1996 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-20012/248/95- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ]
स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 5th November, 2008
S.O. 3238.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 66/ 1996) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No.- 1 , Dhanbad , now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of M/s BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 5-11-2008.
[No. L-20012/248/95- IR(C -1)]
SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO.1 AT DHANBAD Shri H.M. SINGH, Presiding Officer In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 ( 1) (d) ofthe I.D. Act , 1947.
Reference No. 66 of 1996
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of kustoreArea ofM /s . BCCL and their workman .
APPEARANCE
On behalf ofthe workman : None
On behalf ofthe employers : Mr. S.N. Sinha , Advocate. State: Jharkhand
Industry: Coal 6378
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 6, 2008 /AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1930
Dated, Dhanbad, the 21st October , 2008
AWARD
The Government of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1 )(d) of the I.D.Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L - 20012 / ( 248 ) /95 - IR ( Coal - I ) , dated, the 3rd September , 1996 .
SCHEDULE.
"Whether the action of the General Manager. Kustore Area of M / s . BCCL in dismissing the services of Shri Shantimoy Karmakar M / Loader of Ena Colliery w.e.f. 15-4-1989 is justified ? If not , to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ? " 2. In this case neither the concerned workman dar his representative appeared before this Tribunal. Management side however, made appearance through their authorised representative . It appears from the record that repeated notices were issuedto the workman side but inspite of issuance of notice they failed to turn up before this Tribunal . It therefore , appears that the workman side is not interested to proceed with the hearing of this case . Under such circumstances a 'No dispute Award is passed in this case presuming non -existence of any industrial dispute between the parties .
11. M SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 5 नवम्बर , 2008
का. आ. 3239, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा । ? के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मे. बी, सी. सी . एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनक कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में कंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरणः श्रम न्यायालय संख्या नं. 1. धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या ५0/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-11-20008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
| सं. एल-20012/692/97 आई आर ( सां-1 ); स्नेह लता जबास, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 5th November , 2008 S.O. 3239. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) . the Central Govemment hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 90' 1999 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court . No. 1. Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure. in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofM/ s . BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Govermnent on 5-11-2008
[No. 1. -20012-692-97-1K(C- SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desh Officer ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I AT DHANBAD Present : Shri 11. M. Singh , Prestding Officer.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispame under Section Todi of the 1. D. Act . 1947
[PART 11 - SEC. 3 ( ii )] Reference No. 90 of 1998
Parties : Employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workman .
APPEARANCES
Orrbehalfof the workman :
None
On behalf of the employers:
Mr. U. N. Lal , Advocate. State : Jharkhand
Industry: Coal.
Dated, Dhanbad, the 20th October , 2008
AWARD
The Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour , in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) ofthe 1. D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 20012/ 692/ 97-1.R . ( C- [ ) . dated . the 10th September, 1998.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Kusunda Area of BCCL. in dis - allowing Sri Nanka Bhuiya . Gen. Mazdoorto join after his transter from H.0 is legal and justitied ? If not , to what relict the workman is entitled ?"
2. In this case neither the concerned workman nor his representative appeared before this Tribunal . Management side however . made appearance through their authorised representative In appears from the record that Regd . notices were issued to the workman sponsoring union but inspite of issuance of notices they failed to appear before this Tribunal . It therefore appears that they are not interested to proceed with the hearing of this case . Under such circumstances , this Tribunal finds no ground to adjourn the case suo moto for days together . Accordingly a No dispute Award is passed in this reference presuming non - existence of any Industrial dispute between the partic
EL AM SENGH . Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली नवम्बर , 2008
का. आ. 3240. औद्योगिक वित्राद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, कंन्द्रीय सरकार में ची. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधनंत्र के संचद्ध नियोजकों और उनक कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट ओद्योगिकः विवाद में कंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरणः श्रम यालय संख्या नं. 1. धनवाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 73.100 को प्रकाशन करती है , जो इंन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-11-2008 की जान हुआ था ।
[सं. एल 20012 51598 आई आर ( सी [ स्नह लना जवारस, डम्क आंधकागे [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) )
New Delhi , the 5th November , 2008 S.O. 3240.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 73/1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, No. 1 , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure . in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofM/ s . BCCL and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 5-11-2008.
[No. L-20012/515/98 - IR(C- 1 ) ]
SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 AT DHANBAD Present : Shri H. M. Singh , Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1 ) (d) ofthe l . D. Act. , 1947
Reference No. 73 of 1999
Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Kustore Kshetra of M/ s . BCCL and their workman .
APPEARANCES
None
Onbehalf of the workman :
On behalf ofthe employers : Mr. H.Nath , Advocate. State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal .
Dated, Dhanbad, the 20th October , 2008
AWARD
The Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) ofthe L. D. Act . , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/515/98 -L.R. (C- J) , dated , the 29th April, 1999.
SCHEDULE
"Kya B.C.C.L Kustore Kshetra key Prabandhtantra dwara dinank 12-4-96 sey Shri Vojohari Gora in ko Barkhast kiya jana Vidhivat evam naya sangat hain? Yadi nahi to karmkar kis rahat key patra hain ?" 2. In this case neither the concerned workman nor his representative appeared before this Tribunal . None also appeared on behalf of the management. it appears from record that notices were sent to the workman but inspite of issuance of notices they failed to turn upbefore this Tribunal . Therefore , there is reason to believe that the concernedworkman is not interested to proceed with the hearing of this case . Under such circumstances , a "No dispute Award is passed in this case presuming non- existence of any industrial dispute between the parties.
H. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer 4647 G1 /085
6379
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6 , 2008/अग्रहायण 15 , 1930
नई दिल्ली, 5 नवम्बर , 2008
का. आ. 3241 ,- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में. कंन्द्रीय सरकार मैं. बी. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनक कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय संख्या नं. । , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 54/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जां केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-20012/259 /97 - आई आर ( सी ) । स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 5th November . 2008 S.O. 3241. In pursuance of Section 17 of die Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No. 54:20001 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court , No. 1. Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofM /s . BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-11-2008 .
[No. L-20012/259-97 -IR ( C - il
SNELL LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 AT DHANBAD Present: Shri H. M. Singh, Presiding Officer .
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) ofthe 1. D. Act. , 1947
Reference No. 54 of 2000
Parties Employers in relation to the management of Block II Area of Mis . BCCI and their workman .
APPEARANCES
Onbehalf of the workman ;
Mr. S. C. Gaur. Advocate .
Onbehalfofthe employers
Mr. S. N. Sinha , Advocate. State : Jharkhand
Industry: Coal .
Dated, Dhanbad , the 24th October, 2008
AWARD
The Govt, of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) of the J. D. Act , 1947 has referred the following disputeto this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/259 /97-1.R . ( C - I ) , dated, the 21st January , 2000
SCHEDULE
"Kya B.C.C.I. Block Il kshetra Ley Prabandimanьга dwara Sarvochcha Chikitsa Board ko sifarish ko 6380
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . DICEMBER 6 , 2008 AGRAHAYANA 15. 1930
undekha kariey huye Shri Kamal Kam Tiwary Kamkar ko dinank 6,4.97 sey seva nis itta kiya jana vidhivat uchit evam nayasangata hain ? Yudi nahi to Kartukar kis rahat key patra hain!" "
to be superannuated 4.2.1. 6-4-1997 . The concerned workman after exhausting all avenues raised an industrial dispute which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal . It has been further submitted that without considering the report ofApex Medical Board , which assessed the age of the concerned workinan as 55 years in the year 1995 Management blatamiy violated the guidelines of ВСТ Le. 1-1-76 and retired the concerned workman arbinarils which is not only illegal but also against the pros isions of clause 13.3 of NCWA and the workman concerned is entitled to be in empios ment till 27-1-2002 . and prayer has been made on behalt of the workinan to pass an Award in favour of the workman holding the action of the management of Benedih OCP of Ms. BCCI. as improper . illegal and unjustified.
:
3. In the W.S. submitted on behalf of the management it has been stated that the present reference is not legally maintamable . The concerned person Sri Kamal Kant Towary was not a workman as he was performing the supervisory duties drawing wages mure than Rs . 1600 per month and the present reference was made after his superannuation . Therefore, the reference as liable to be summarily rejected on the ground that it is not an industrial dispute . I he date of birth of Sri K. K. Tiwary has been recorded as 11-4-1935 in the Form 3 Register and other documents of the company . Elis date of appointmem had also been indicated as 15-1-73 . In the year 1945 Sri l'ewari represented before the management that his date ofbirth was 6-1-1937 ds per his intriculation certificam and the date of birthe ecorded in the l'orum B register should be corrected as 6-4-37. Dn the basis of lus demand settlement in Form 11 was entered into between th management and Mikk Tiwari , the concerned person on 30-3-95 and as per the terms of settlement his date of birth was corrected as 6-1-37. It has been further stated that copies of the seulement were forwarded to the Government authorities as per the provisions of Rule 58 of the I.D. ( Central ) Rutes , 1957. Thus the date of birth had already been corrected as per the JBCCI Circular No. 76 on thebasis of the inatriculation certificate produced by himm It has been submitted that the sponsoring union misleading the concerned person raised an uadustrial dispute betare the ALC ( Central ) , Dhashad alter his supermaา นะ The Central Government examined the issue and by notification No.L.- 20012 259.97 - IR ( C- 1 ) dated 28-5-98 rejected the demand of the sponsoring for making reference for adjudication. It has been submitted that the settlement was arrived at keeping in view of the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate , the foom 3 Register and the Overman's certificate and Mining. Sizdar's certificate and age assessment made by the Medical Board . As the settlement is binding upon both the pulies. reference can be made afler superannuation of St K.K. Tiwari . Accordingly it has been prayed that an Award be passed in favour of the managensent rejecting the claim of the concerned workman .
2. In the W. S. submitted on behalf of the concerned workman it has been stated that the concerned workman was originally appointed at Phularitand Colliery of the erstwhile owners and his age was recorded in Form B register as 9-4-1946 and C.M.P.F. A.c. No. 222448 showing date of appointment prior to nationalisation us 15-1-1973. The concerned workman passed Mining Sirdarship examination in the year 1959 and date of birth is recorded therein as 14-4-1955 . The concerned workman also passed vermanship examination in the year 1960 and as supplied by the Management to the Directorate General ofMines Safety ( Deptt. of Mines ) date of birth in the Statutory Certificate is recorded as 6-4-1937 The management of BCCI issued 1.D. Card In the concerned workman in the year 1975 giving full service particulars showing date of birth as 2-4-1946 . It has been further stated that the date of birth of the concerned workman was recordedas 2-4-46 in all the statutory records of the company including Form B register and C.M.P.F. records which was carried over upto 1975 at the time of issue of L.D. Card to the concerned workman. The concerned workman was also issued Service 1 :xcerpts or nominee fortn giving service particulars including date of birth as 14-4-1935 10 which the concerned workman protested against the wrong entry of date of birth entered on its body and the concerned workman was under impression that the management rectified the wrong records of date of birth and superannuation willbe on 2-4-1996 . after attaining 60 years of the age of superannuation . Thereatier the concerned workman was transferredto Benedih O.C.P. from Phularitand Colliers and the management of Benedih O.C.P. issued a notice of superannuation on 7-12-1994 informing the concerned workman that he will stand superannuated from 15-1-95. On receipt of the notice of superannuation the concerned workman protested and requested the management to allow him immediately to join duty as his superzin ก และ ยก is on 2-4-2006 and not on 15-4-1995. The employers rectified their own mistake and after withdrawing theletter of superannuation decided to refer the concerned workman to the Apex Medical Board of the Comраnу under 1-1-76 of 1988 of JBCCI . Thereafter on 26-1-95 the management of Benedi OCP Colliery directed the concerned workman to appear before the Apex Medical Board of the company on 27-1-95 at 9.30 A.M. For fresh assessment of age and accordingly the concerned a orkman appeared before the Apex Medical Board of the Company on the appointed date . time and place and Medical examination for fresh age assessment was held as per medical jurisprudence . The Medical Board assessed the age of the concerned workman as 55 years on 27-1-1995 ie to be superannuated on 27-1-2002. It has been stated that the Medical report of the concerned workman was not sent to Benedih Colliery Management and arbitrarily decision was taken to retire him on 6-1-1997 and accordingly a fresh notice of superannuation wils issued on 11 14-3-1997directing the concerned workman
4. Both sides have filed rejonder aduntung und denying the contents of some of the paras of each others written statement .
6381 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6, 2008/अग्रहायण 15, 1930
"6-4-37" has been taken as final though the above medical report has not been given . It does not effect the case of concemed workmen when there is documentary evidence regarding date of birth of the concerned workman the opinion of the Medical Board becomes irrelevant . The settlement marked as Ext . M- 5 has been signed by the concerned workman himself; witnesses and official ofthe management then he cannot ignore it and he cannot deny the same because he is a literate person and the contents ofthe settlement are within his knowledge .
7. Ld. Counsel for the management has referred to a decsion reported in 2008 ( 118 ) FLR 472 in which Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta laid down the following:-
" DateofBirth - Correction of- Sought through Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Petitioner was appointed way back in 1972- and he did not represent, for all these years , regarding error in his date of birth in service records -Held, no reliefcould be granted to the petitioner in theWrit petition-Liberty given to the petitioner to approach regular Civil Court - Writ petition dismissed. "
Ld. Counsel for the management referred to another decision reported in 2008 ( 118 ) FLR 665 in which Hon'ble Delhi High Court laid down the following:
5.Argument advanced on behalf ofthe workman is that in the Form B Register maintained at Phularitand Colliery the date of appointment ofthe concerned workman is shown as 15-1-1973 and the date of birth ofthe concerned workman is recorded therein as 9-4-46 and the same is also reflected in the I.D. Card register and those registers were called for from the management but the management neither produced the said registers before this Tribunal nor has submitted any explanation for non - production of those documents . It has been further argued that report of the Apex Medical Board which was held on 27-1-95 in respect of the concerned workman also was for called for but it has not been filed. It is obligatory on the part of the managementto inform the result of the Medical Boardto the concerned workman and the management has illegally , and arbitrarily retired the concerned workman an 4-4-97 without any basis . This act on the part of the management is unjustified. In this respect the management representative argued that the concerned workman admitted in his examination - in - chief that his dateofbirth in Mining Sirdarship Certificate was recorded as 11-11-1933 and also in Overmanship examinarion certificate as 14-4-35. He also argued that concerned workman admitted in his cross - examination that he passed Matric in the year 1963 and Form B Register was signed by him as per direction of the management . First petition regarding age dispute was filed by him in the year1994 . The workman was employed in 1973. After 21 years of service he raised the dispute about the age and date of birth which is as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that after so long time at the verge of retirement age . dispute for the raising the employment should be discouraged . Moreover the workman is a literate person . As he has stated that he passed Matriculation examination in 1963 and the Form B Register has been signed by him in which date of birth of the concerned workman has been mentioned as 1933 .
"Service-Date of Birth of Government Servant- Alteration in- Fundamental Rule 56 -Proceedure prescribed Has to be followed for affecting change in facts of instant case procedure prescribed under theRule was not followed -Direction issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal was only to effect that the competent authority may decide the respondent ' s representation in this regard -Such an order of the Tribunal cannot be said to be final as Competent Authority was required to decide the matter as per Rules Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in holding that the respondent's date of birth was 8-12-1940 and not 1-4-1940 as recorded- Impunged order of the Tribunal qushed-Writ petition allowed . "
8. One more argument has also been advanced on behalf of the management that the present worker is nut a workman and his case is not covered under the 1.D. Act, 1947. Section 2 (s) defines workman and Section 2 (iv ) states the following:..-
"Who heing employed in a supervisory capacity . draws wages exceeding on thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercises , either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in hir... sunctions mainly of managerial nature . "
6. Ld . Counsel for the manageement argued that WW- 1 stated in his cross -examination that he has done nothing regarding his age from 1973 to 1994. Ext . M - 5 which is a Memorandum of Settlement is signed by him and he has accepted his signature . This paper has also been signed by Manager , N.K. Charkravorty. This witness i.e. the concerned workman has stated in his cross- examination that he is not aware of the contents of the Memorandum of Settlement marked as Ext . M- 5 which shows that he wants to tell the fact that he is illiterate person through the Ext . M -5 has been signed by him and the official of the Manager N.K. Chakravorty and Suraj Singh and Bageswar Singh was the Witnesses and they put their signature on the settlement . On the basis of this settlement Ext . M- 5 he has been retired from his service as he has accepted in his cross -examination in which his date of birth has been mentioned as 6-4-37. As regards the result of Medical Board for communication to the concerned workman is concerned management has produced Ext.M -4 which shows that this has been written by the General Manager to the Personnel Manager regarding age of the concerned workamn which has been held by Apex Medical Board on 27-1-95 and date ofbirth
Persons getting pay Rs . 1600/- is out of the purview ofthe 1.D. Act but whether the concerned workman was gesting pay as Rs . 1600/- per month and he was supervisory capacity has not been proved by cogent evidence. So argument advanced on behalf of management in this regard contains no weight.
6382
DIF. GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6. 2008 / AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1930)
PART IT S14.30 ) ]
Dated. Dhanbad , the 24th October , 2008
AWARD
In vies of the facts , circumstances endence discussed abuse I find no merit in the claim of the concerned workuran Hence , the following Award is rendered:
The Govt. of India , Minisuy of Labour , in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 (1 ) ( d ) ofthe 1. D. Act . , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudicacion vade their Order No. 1.-20012176/99-1R ( C -1), dated, the 18th August . 14999.
SCHEDULE
"BCCT . Bivel it Kabeira key prabandtama ' ncora Sarvachacha : Likitse Board kosifarinko un dekha Kartey boya Su Kemi Kant Tiwary Katitkar ho dmanko-4-9 ey seva nivirta kıya jana vidhival uchit evano ravesangata hain . A kamkarisi rahat Ley pal rahi baمش "
H.M SINGH. Presiding licer
नईदिल्ली 5 नवम्बर , 2008
"Whether the action of the management of Bhatdib Colliery ofMs. B001 . in not providing employment under Sec . 10.1 of NCWA- IV to the younger son Sri Brij Kishore Bivagat alier the death of his Gather (Jate) Parshurant Bhagat is justified ? 11 not , to what relief the said dependent of the said workman is entitled ?"
भाग के अनुसरण में, कंन्द्रीय सरकारने का. आ. 3242 नद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियर 1947 11947 का 14 श्री. मी, भी एन्न कर्मकार्य सरकार संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनक श्रमादालय संग्राके पंचाट ( संदर्भ संत 283 2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है आं अंन्द्रीय सरकार को 11 2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
--20012/ 126.99 आई आ.
लेह लता जत्रास, इंग्क अधिकारी
NewDell the Sth November, 2008
5.0 . 3242. in pursuance of Section of the Industrial Disputes Ag . 1947 11 of 19471, the Central Governmern iureby publishes the Award ( Ret No 282 2000m the Central Governmem [ nckustrial Tribunal laho Court . Nr. Dianbad now is shown in the Annext 15 the Indusnial Dispuit betacen the employers in r To he manaM BOC and their workman, which was received in the Cerral Coveramein on 5-1-2008
No 200176-
ANDHI NAJAWAS , Desk しぶし
ANNENRE.
BEFORE DIFCENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNEJ AT DHANBAD)
Present : Sara !! Singh. Pranding Officer
In the manorandustriai Dispate under Sectina Ghef D. Act , 1947
Melerence No. 283 of 2000
Parties : 1 mphs relation to the nahagshrent of Bhatit Colliery and their
APPEARANCEN
On beloftet ;
Mr. S.C
Advocate.
On behalf other s
Mr R.N Gags.
Advocate.
State Sharkl
2. In the written Statement submitted on behalf ot the workman it has been stated that late Parashu Ran Bhagat was employed by the management of Bhatdih Colliery of Ms. BCCI in permanent capacity and he passed away on 17-3-1988 in course of his employment . The elder son of the deceased employee namely Kamal Kishore Bhagat, in pursuance of the provisions of NWA apphed for self employment on 22-5-1998 giving full particulars to the entire satisfaction of the Management. The prosesion of clause 10-4-02 01 NC WA Provides one employment of the dependant of the deceased employee who dies while in service . The management used in tell the dependant claiming employment . at papers are being processed 1 providing employment . The widow of the deceased employee also used to call every now and then at the office of the employers but the same old story was being repeated that papers inve been sent to Area and H Ors for approval etce . It has been stared by the workman side that when employmert var.not communicated the claiman sent an Advocates Notice to the Management in early 199? but that too wits tot acknowledged and alter exhausting all avenues the dependunt . through แบ raised an I.D. before the C ). Dhanbad which žumaniy resulted reference to this Tribmal for adjudication . It has been further stated that during the course of conciliation proceedings the claumant to employment ander clause 10-4-02 of NCWA Sri Kannal Kishore Bhagat , eller son al the deceased employee net with an accident sustairong multiple injuries which ulted his death. Thereatica de claim for employment was substituted bis 2nd son who is younger brother of Kamal Kishore , namely Beij kishore Bhagat and the ALC ( accepting the name of Bru Kishore Bhagat sent F.O.C. reportto the Ministry . Accordingly Brij Kishore Bhagat son of Late Parsito Ran Bhagst entitled for employment under eluse 10-4-102 of NCWA- IV arter 30 days of filmy employment papers to the management of Bratdih Colliers of MS BOCL.. Accordingly it has been prased to pass on Award directing the management to pros isde employment to Brij Kishore Bhagat to save the family of the deceased employee .
6383 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) )
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6, 2008/अग्रहायण 15 , 1930
Devi both claimed for employment to be the wife and son oflate Parshu Ram Bhagat. Moreover, WW- I Brij Kishore Bhagat in course of his evidence stated to the court that hehad not made any application in the prescribed proforma before the management for his employment . MW- 1 Α.Κ. Chand has stated that no application was filed on behalf ofBrij Kishore Bhagat before the management. It has been stated that Parshu Ram Bhagat's native village was in the district of Siwan whereas the succession Certificate has been obtained from Bokaro . This succession certificate cannot be accepted when Parshuram Bhagat belongs to district Siwan succession certificate cannot be got from Bokaro though Gratuity as per evidence of M - 1 was paid toChampaDevi .
6.As per deposition ofMW- 1 by Ext . M- 1 / 1 Chapala Bala Devi applied for employment. Ext. M- 1 /2 is the verification roll and by Ext . M - 1 /3 Chapala Bala Devi has given identification certificate . Ext. M- 1 /4 is the death certificate of Parshu Ram Bhagat . Ext . M - 1 is the succession certificate issued by the Certifying Judge , Dhanbad. Ext . W- 1 has been filed with a view to show that Champa Devi has been given gratuity amounting to Rs . 24927.00 of late Parshu Ram Bhagat and for this purpose letter has been issued. In the Service Excerpt the name ofChampa Devi as wife, Kamal Kishore Bhagat and Brij Kishore Bhagat as sons have been mentioned. Ext. W-5 is the Certificate issued by B.D.O Siwan wherein it has been stated that Champa Devi is the wife of late Parshuram Bhagat . Ext. W - 3 is the application for employment by elder brother Kamal Kishore Bhagat. Ext . W-3/ 1 is the death Certificate of Parshuram Bhagat . There is also a certificate issued by S.D.M. Siwan wherein Chamap Devi has been shown as wife of Parshu Ram Bhagat and Champa Devi has been given gratuity fund of Late Parshu Ram Bhagat.
3. In the W.S. filed on behalf of the management it has been stated that the aforsesaid reference is not legally maintainable and bad in law. It is illegal and violative of the Constitution of India under which the employment in a public sector undertaking cannot be restricted to dependents employees only and debar other citizens of the Country for entry into the service of public Sector undertaking like BCCL. It has been submitted that the instant reference is erroneous and cancelled for the reason that the original dispute was raised by the union before theALC(C) vide their letter No. VP . NCWC/ ID/Employ- 10-4-02/97/ 135 dated 11/ 20-3-97 wherein employment of one Kamal Kishore Bhagat S / o . Late Parshuram Bhagat was demanded. Hence the reference is liable to be rejected on this ground only. It has been stated that late Parshuram Bhagat was a permanent employee of the management who died while in service on 17-3-88 . After his death oпе Kamal Kishore Bhagat claiming himself to be the son of late Parshuram Bhagat claimed employment under clause 10-4-02 ofNCWA - IV. One lady namely Smt. Chapla Bala Devi claiming herself to be the wife of late Parshuram Bhagat also demanded employment in place of her husband. Since there is provision ofonly one employment to the dependant ofdeceased employee who died while in service in NCWA - IV it was not possible for the employers to provide employment to both the persons. It is well within the knowledge of the management that two ladies namely Chapla Bala Devi and Champa Devi both claiming to be the wife of late Parshuram Bhagat claimed the gratuity amount of the deceased employee. Therefore , there was serious doubt about the genuineness of persons claiming employment and under such circumstances it was not possible for the employers to decide to whom to offer employment . It has been further stated that the persons concemed kept quiet for long nine years and raised and industrial dispute in the year 1997 whereas the workman died on 17-3-88 and that too for one Sri Kamal Kishore Bhagat and not for the person named in the reference. Therefore, the demand is belasted and it has been prayed to pass and Award rejecting the claim of the concerned workman.
4.Both the sides have filed rejoinders admitting and denying some of the paras of each other's W.S.
7.Now there is genuine and justified ground for the management to whom employment he given because after the death of Parshu Ram Bhagat his elder son Kamal Kishore Bhagat applied and he died and after that the name of the concerned workman Brij Kishore Bagat has been substituted. But in the meantime Champa Bala Devi and Champa Devi have claimed employment. In the service excerpt of the deceased workman the name of Champa Devi , Kamal Kishore Bhagat and Brij Kishore Bhagat has been mentioned as wife and son. The Provident fund amount also was given to Smt . Champa Devi . So in the circumstances of the case demand of Brij Kishore Bhagat after the death of his father for employment is notjustified. Accordingly the following Award is rendered:-
5. Management side in order to substantiate their case have examined Mr. A.K. Chand , MW- 1 who have proved documents marked as Exts . M- 1 , M - 1 / 1 , М - 1/2, М- 1 /3 , М- 1 /4 and M- 1 /5 . On behalf of the workman WW- 1 Brij Kishore Bhagat has been examined and he has provded documents marked as Ext . W- 1 to W-6 .
"The action ofthe management of Bhatdih Colliery ofM /s . BCCL in not providing employment under Sec. 10-4-02 of NCWA- IV to the younger son Brij Kishore Bhagat after the death ofhis father ( Late ) Parshu Ram Bhagat is justified . Accordingly Brij Kishore Bhagat is not entitled to get any relief. " 5.It has been argued on behalf of the workman that after the death of his elder Brother Shri Kamal Kishore Bhagat Brij Kishore Bhagat has been substituted for employment due to death ofhis father . But the Ld. Counsel for the management has argued that there are three claimants for appointment on compassionate ground. Shri Brij Kishore Bhagat, Smt . Chapala Bala Devi and Champa
H.M. SINGH , PresidingOfficer 6384
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 6. 2008/ AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1950
शुद्धि पत्र नई दिल्ली, 5 नवम्बर , 2008
का.आ. 3243. इस मंत्रालय के अधिसूचना संख्या एल-20012/364/2000- आई आर ( सी 1 ) जो भारत सरकार नुद्रणालय में दिनांक 04-03-2008 को प्रकाशन हेतु भेजा गया था , कं आलि पैरा के चौथी पंक्ति में "As Security Guard Group 'G ' w.e.1 . 29-12-1980" के बजाय As Security Guard Group "G'wer 29-12-1989 " पढ़ा जाए ।
[सं. एल-20012/364/2000- आईआर ( स मनह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी
CORRIGENDUM New Delhi , the 5th November, 2008 S.O. 3243. In terans of the Award notified vide notification of even mumber dated 04-03-2008 , in the fourth line ofthe concluding of the award ( in the last page ) shouk be read as "As Security Guard Group ' G ' u.e.1 . 29-12-1989 instead of "As Security Ciuard Group ' we.f. 29-12-1980."
[No.1-20012364.2000 - IR ( C -Til SNEH LATA JAWAS . Desk Officer
शुद्धि पत्र नई दिल्ली. नवम्बर , 2008
का.आ. 3244, इस मंत्रालय के अधिसूचना संख्य एल-20012/591/2000- आई आर ( सो-1 ) जो भारत सरकार मुद्रणान्नय में दिनांक 08-07-2008 को प्रकाशन हंतु भेजा गया था. क पंचार शीर्षक के ऊपर "Dated . Dhanbad . the 16th June 2001 के बजाय " Dated, Dhanbad , the 16th June 2008" पढ़ा जाए । [सं. एल-20012/591 / 2000 - आईआर सो स्नंह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी CORRIGENDUM New Delhi. the 7th November , 2008
5.O. 3244-. In terms of the Award notified vide notification of even number dated 08-07-2008 , above the title AWARD should be read as "Dated . Dhanbad, the 16th June 2008" instead of "Dated , Dhanbad, the 16th June 2001."
[No.L-20012591-2000 -IR ( C - 1 ) ) SNUH LATA JAWAS . Desk Officer नई दिल्ली, 10 नवम्बर , 2008
का. आ. 3245, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1943 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा १३ के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डन्लू. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संचद्ध नियांजकों और उनके कर्मकारों क बीच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में कंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्यागिक अधिकरण, नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 198/2002 ) को प्रकाशिর करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था :
[सं. एल 22012/237/2001 आई आर ( स्त्री-1 ] ) अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th November. 2008 S.O. 3245. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1917 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award Ref No. 11982 ( H12 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tilbud - cum- labour Court , NAGPUR as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the managemem of Ballarpur Colliery 3 & 4 pits of WCL . , and their workmen , recened by the Central Government un 10-11-2008
[No 1-220122372001 - IRICM - 1 AJAYKO MAR GAUR . Desk Officer ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI A.N. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER. CGIT- CUM - LABOURCOURT NAGPUR Case No.CGIT/NGP/ 75/ 03
Date: 23-10-2אוחז Petitioner Party No. 1
The General Secretary. UCO Bank Employees Associatнер , Kanchan Prabha . 48. hatya Topenagar . Nagpur- 15
On behalf of Shri Jandish Chandra Shukla
Versus
: The Divisional Manager .
UCO Bank , 08 Sushil Bhawan .
Respondent/ PartyNo.2
Baray Marg . Phantoli Nagpur - 12
AWARD (Dated: 23rd October , 2008
1. The Central Government ather satisfying the existence ofdispute between the Cieneral Secretary . TO Bank Employees' Association , Kanchan Prabha . 48, Tatya Topenagar, Nagpur - 15 on behalf of Shri Jandish Chandra Shukta ( Party No. 1 ) and the Divisional Manager. UCO Bank 、 108 Sushil Bhawan , Balraj Marg, Ohantoli .. Nagpur- 1.2 (Party No.2) referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its letter No. L - 12012 345 98- [ R ( 03-11 ) dated 20-01-1993 under clause ( d ) of sub section ( Li and sub section ( 2A1ol Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) with the following schedule.
2. "Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank , Nagpur for awarding potishment of stopping two increments permanently in respect of Shri Jagdish Chandra Shukla, Clerk- cum - Steno Typist is proper and justitied ? If not, what relief the workman is emitled tw ? " .
3. On the perusal of record. it indicates that mutually the reference was made to the CGTI . Jabalpur where it was registered as a reference Case No. 20-2003 1UCO Bauk Employees Association as a Party No.1 Divisional Manager , UCO Bank, Nagpur is a Respondent . Consequent upon the establishment of Cill at Nagpur, the case came to be transferred to it and here it has been registered as Case No CGIT/ NGP / 75 / 2003 . Here as a routine the notices were issued to both the parties on 30-6-2005. In response to the notices ,both the parties appeared on 14-9-2005. Practically nobody is taking interest in the present case [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
and the record does not show even the active appearance ofthePetitioner. No doubt, the Rojnama dt . 8-5-2006 shows that the Petitioner was present and nobody was appeared for the management. But the earlier proceeding taken place before the CGIT, Jabalpur shows that Adv. Kumbhalkar, representative of the Management was present and workman was also present . Latter on the post of Presiding Officer was vacant and the file was kept undated. On 11-3-1997, an application has been filed by the management to close the case. He has also filed pursis alongwith this application wherein the Petitioner Dy. General Secretary who has filed the case informing that the Petitioner is not interested as he has resigned from the post and he doesn't want to continue the case . He has prayed to dispose ofthe matter. Since the post of Presiding Officer was vacant, the further order was not passed and as a routine , the case was transferred to this Tribunal , Here also at CGIT, Nagpur , the notices were issued as usual on transfer of the case.
Whatever it may be, it seems that the Petitioner has resigned from the Bank , the Union who has represented and filed a case of the Petitioner has submitted a pursis, there are no reasons to proceed further . Hence, no dispute award is passed . The reference stands as dismissed as to no order of the cost .
Date: 23-10-2008
A.N. YADAV, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली , ।। नवम्बर , 2008
का. आ. 3246.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का (4 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ.सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं.। चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 95/1993 97/1993 & 159/1994 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/179/ एफ/1993- आई आर ( सी-11 ) , [सं. एल-22012/176/1993- आई आर ( सी-11 ) , [सं. एल-22012/272/ 1994- आई आर ( सी -1 [ ) ]
अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th November, 2008 Б.О. 3246.-1n pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.95/1993, 97/1993, 159/1994) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court , No. 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 11-11-2008 .
[No. L-22012/ 179/F/ 1993 -IR(C -II ) ,
No. L-22012/ 176/ 1993 - IR( C -II ) ,
No. L-22012 /272/ 1994-IR( C - II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer
6385
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6, 2008/ अग्रहायण 15 , 1930
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT- 1, CHANDIGARH
CaseNo. 1.Ds. 159/1994, 97/1993, 95/1993
I.D. No.95/ 1993 of Sh . Mahesh Chander .
I.D. No.97/ 1993 of Sh . Yash Pal .
I.D.No. 159/1994 of Sh. Ram Pal ,
......Applicants
Versus
1. The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Punjab National Bank Building, Sector 17 , Chandigarh
2. Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India. Sector 31 , Chandigarh.
......Respondents APPEARANCES
For theworkman : None
Forthe management : N.K. Zakhmi .
AWARD
Passed on:-4-11-08
Government of India referred the following industrial disputes namely I.D. No.95/ 1993 Mahesh Chander vs. Food Corporation of India, Reference No.L- 22012/ 179 / F/93- IR(C-II ) dated 2-9-93 , ID No. 97/1993 Yashpal Vs. Food Corporation of India, Reference No. L- 22012 / 176/93 - IR (C- II ) dated 2-9-93 and L.D. No. 159/1994 Sh . Rain Pal Vs. Food Corporation of India Reference No.L-22012/272: 1994- IR (C- 11 ) dated 15-11-1994 for adjudication of the references by this Tribunal .
In all the references , common question of law and facts are involved , and accordingly, all the references are hereby disposed of by a single common award. ID. 95/ 1993, Sh . Mahesh Chander Vs. Food Corporation of India shall be the leading file and a copy of this award shall be placed in ID. No. 97/1993 and ID. No. 159/1994 .
The main question for adjudication in all these references is whether the termination of every workınan by the management is leagal and justified ? If not, to what reliefthe workmen are entitiled ? The controversy between the management and workmen is apparent from the pleadings ofparties in respective files that every workman was appointed by the management on daily waged basis as casual labourer for working in Food Corporation of India. Every workman has completed 240 days proceeding to the date of his termination , but the services of the workmen were terminated by different orders by the management of respondent without applying with the mandatory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 6386
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6 , 2008 /AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1950
regarding issuance of notice and payment of retrenchment compensation .It has also been claimed by every workman that juniors to him have been retained on roll and in spite ofpermanent vacancies lying in the department , they were terminated.
On the other hand , the management of respondent has disputed the above mentioned facts by claiming that in compliance of provisions of Industiral Disputes Act, the services of all the workmen were retrenched and one month salary in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation was ordered to he paid . Every workman refused to recieve the cheque and the same was sent to the workman at his residential address provided by iron 10 the department through Registered Post , but the same was not received by the workmen and the registered letter was received back by the management .
All the parties were afforded the opportunity of being heard . Oral evidence was recorded and relevant documents including the retrenchment compensation order and the cheque in original which is allegedly sand be sent to the workmen were filed .
On perusal of the materials on record. I am mentioning the relevant date in each of the file as follows
In [ .D . No.97 93 , the workman claimed that he worked from 5-8-86 to 13-7-88 . Management admitted it with the claim that his services were retrenched in compliance of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act.
In i.D. No. 95/93 , the workman claimed to work with the department from 19-12-86 to 17-7-88 . This period is admitted by the department with the same plea that his services were retrenched as per the provisions of Industrial DisputesAct.
Likewise, in I.D. 15994 , the workman claimed to work with the department from 7-4-86 to 13-7-88. The managemem also admuted this period with the information that services of the workman were retrenched as per the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act .
The main question to answer this reference hetore this Tribunal is whether the services of workmen were retrenched lassfully !
Industrial Dispute Act protects interest of the workman for lus termination irom the services otherwise Than in compliance of the provisions of the Act. It a workman has completed 240 days . this Act put an embargo on the powers of the managemem to terminate the services of the workman without serving a month notice and retrenchment compensation as prescribed by the Act. It shows that the management has right to terminate the services but subject to the provisions of law . In all these cases, there is no controversy regarding the work done by the workruism and the thumber of working digs 11 is the elaun of the management of respondent that the services of all the wurkanen were rebenched as per the provisions of law but thes refused to receive the payment et une month salary in lieu of one month notice and the retrenchiment compensation .
[PART II- SHC. 3 ( ii On perusal of all the files , it is evident that in I.D. No.97/93 regarding Sh . Yashpal , the management passed an order dated 13-7-88 regarding the retrenchment of the services of the workman as his services were no more required and a cheque amounting to Rs . 1350 on account of one month salary, in lieu of one month nouce and retrenchment compensation was offered to the workman , He refused the same and the same was sent to the workman through Registered Post A.D. The registered letter is on record with the remark ` none such person found" .
In the same way, in 1.D. No. 95/93 regarding Sh . Mahesh Chander . mmagement also passed an order dated 17-7-88 retrenching his services on the ground that his services were no more required and a cheque amamenting to Rs.1350 on account of one month salary, in lieu of one month notice. and retrenchment compensation was offered to the workman which he refused . On his retusal , this order and the cheque No. 061836 dated 13-7-88 was sent at the registered residential address of the worknran which was returned to the management with the endorsement of the postal authority left without address .
Likewise in I. D. No. 159.94. the management passed an order dated 13-7-88 retrenching the services of the workman on the ground that his services were no more required and a cheque of Rs 1687 85 on account of one month salary in lieu of one month notice and retrenchment compensation was offered to the workinan . On his refusal, the same was sent to the workman at his residential address through Registered Post AD which was returned 10 the management with the endorsement of the postal authorities that addressee is not available at his residence .
The circumstances speaks themselves. None of the workman , neither in the statement of claim . replication nor in evidence have mentioned a single sentence about their retrenchment . Even after getting the notice through the written statement not a single sentence was uttered about retrenchment order or retrenchment compensation . The validity and the legality of the retrenchment order and retrenchment compensation has not been challenged by any of the workman in is only memioned that no retrenchiment compensabon was paid , whereas , on perusal ofthe material on record , it is evident that non - payment of retrenchment compensation was due to the act of workman themselves because thes retused to receive the retrenchment order and retrenchment compensation .
I am unable to accept the contention of the workman that vacancies are lasing vacant and instead of that they were retrenched . because Food Corporation of India is Government organization and the appuintuments in the Government organizations against the regular and substantial vacancies can only be made through the roles made by the Government in this regard and a casual labour has no right to post and cannot seek bis regularization against the permanent Ele las only right to appear in the prescribed exams along with other contendents , if is atherwise eligible.
All the workmen only have the casual statement regarding juniors to be relamed in the service Neabern [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
6387
भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6, 2008/ अग्रहायण 15 , 1930
their affidavit nor in cross -examination have they disclosed the name and addresses of the persons who werejunior to them and were retained in the service at the time of the retrenchement of these workmen .
Thus, on the basis ofabove observation, I am ofthe view that the services of workmen were retrenched in compliance of the provisions of law and their termination from the services was perfectly lawful and valid. On the next part ofthe reference to what relief, ifany, the workmen are entitled, it appeals me that retrenchment compensation has yet not been received by any of the workman towhich they are entitled . It is true that non- payment of the retrenchment compensation , as stated earlier, was due to the act of the workman for not receiving the same. But considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am ofthe view that the management of Food Corporation of India should pay the retrenchment compensation calculated earlier along with 8% interest thereon from the date of the workmen were retrenched till the date of this Award.Accordingly , for the second part of the reference , to what releif the workmen are entitled , I am of the view that in spite of the termiantion order being perfectly lawful and valid , the workmen are entitled for the retrenchment compensation calculated by the department along with 8% interest from the date oftheir termination till the passing ofthis award. The managernent is directed to provide every workman retrenchment compensataion as calculated by the management vide order dated 13-7-88 along with 8% interest from 13-8-88 till the dated of this award within a month from the publication ofthis award . These references are accordingly answered . Central Government be moved accordingly for the publication of award thereafter , file be consigned.
G. K. SHARMA , PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली , ।। नवम्बर , 2008
का. आ. 3247, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सी.पी. डब्ल्यू.डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 26/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं एल-42081 / 17/2006 -आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the I Ith November, 2008 S.O. 3247, In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 26/2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court , Lucknow, as shown in the Annexure , in the 4647 G1/08-6
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation.to themanagement ofCPWD and their workman, whichwas received by the Central Government on 11-11-2008.
[No. L-42011 / 17/2006- IR( DU) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW Present: N.K. Purohit
1.D. No. 26/2006
Ref. No. L-42011 / 17 /2006 IR( DU-) d. 20-9-2006
BETWEEN
Sri A.L. Pandey, President (NR)
All IndiaCPWD ( MRM) Karamachari Sangathan, Income TaxBuilding, Near Pump House Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Civil Lines , Allahabad (In the matter of Sh. Kishori Parsad)
AND
TheExecutive Engineer,
Allahabad Elect . Divison , CPWD
Sangam Palace, 4th Floor
Civil Lines , Allahabad
AWARD
Date :04-11-2008
1. By order no. L -42011 / 17/2006 ( IR( DU ) dated 20-9-2006 of the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause(d) ofsub-section ( 1 ) and sub section (2A) ofSection 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) referred thisindustrialdispute between Sri A.L. Pandey, Regional President (NR) , All India CPWD Karmachari Sangathan . Income Tax Building, MG Marg , Allahabad and the Executive Engineer , Allahabad Elect , Division , CPWD, Allahabad for adjudication.
"Whether the demand of All India CPWD ( MRM ) Karamchari Sangathan for seeking in situ promotion for Sri Kishori Prasad in the Pay Scale of Rs. 950-1500 (Rs . 3050-4500) w.e.f. 1-4-191 , under the management of Executive Engineer, Allahabad Electrical Division CPWD , Sangam Palace , Civil Lines, Allahabad is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled to? "
2. The union has filed the statement of claim stating therein that the workman Sh. Kishori Prasad was employed 6388
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6 , 2008/ AGRAHAYANA 15, 1930
as Khalasi under the Executive Engineer, Allahabad Central Electrical Division . CPWD at Varanasi Electrical Sub Division. CPWD , Varanasi w.e.f. 10-12-1973 for day to day maintenance . The workman was granted IN - SITU Promotion w.e.f 1-4-91 in the pay scale of Rs . 800-1150. This pay scale of Rs.800-1150 is for promotion from unskilled to semi - skilled category at the time of grant of IN - SITU promotion . It is further submitted that office of the Director General of Works , CPWD, New Delhi , while implementing the recommendations of the Arbitration Award 1988, has merged all the assistant categories of artisans with full categories and their pay scales were accordingly modified notionally from 1-1-73 . On merging of assistant categories to full categories , the worknan is entitled to skilled category's pay scale i.e. Rs.950-1500 . It is further submitted that worker has completed more than 24 years of service so he is entitled to secund higher pay scale under Assured Carcer Progression Scheme w.e.f. 9-8-99 in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000. It is prayed that the management of CPWDbe directed to revise the pay scales w.e.r. 1-4-91 to Rs.950-1500 w.e.f. 1-1-96 το Rs.3050-4590 and we r . 9-8-99 of the workman to Rs -11000- 6000.
3. in the wrinten statement filed by the Executive Engineer ( E) Allahabad Central Elect. Divn . CPWD, Allahabad it is admitted that the workman Kishori Prasad joined the duties on 10-12-73 and pay scale Rs .750-12- 070- EB-14-940 was given to him 1-1-86 . On 1-4-91 the workman was given [ N -SITU promotion and next pay scale was granted i.e. Rs.800-1150 . but it is denied that on IN- SITU promotion workman was entitled to pay scale Rs 9.50- 1500. It is further stated that post of Khalasi is unskilled and as per rules under CPWD Vol.3 , the workman was granted IN - SI ITU promotion on 1-4-91 in the scale of Rs 800- 1150. To implemem the Arbitration Award dated 31-1-08 Assistant category was to be merged with corresponding main category. Since the workman was working as Khalasi at relevent time and the post of the Khalasi is not semi- skilled post and was not to be merged with corresponding main category. he was not entitled for the claimed seale and there is no anomaly .It is also contended that the workman after completion of 24 years of service was entitled to pay scale Rs.2750-4400 w.e.f. 9-8-99 and the same has been given to him vide order dated 1-12-2006 . He is not entitled for pay scale Rs.4000-6000 under ACP Scheme
4. Inspite of suflicient opportunity given to the workman , he did not turnup for his evidence e support of his claim. Afterliling statement ofclain4-12-06 . neither the workman nor any representative of the union which raised his dispute, remained present of subsequents dates of hearing and ultimately order to proceed ex -parte ag اجانا the union was passed on 3-4-07. The management has examined Sh . S.Kid . Es stive Engineer , Elecumcal in
[ PART 11-Sax . 3 ( ii)| support of the averments made in the written statement . He has not been cross examined by the union side . In support of its case management filed following documents :-
1. Photo copy of CPWD Manual Vol . III (PN.20/ 4 & 20/5)
2. Photo copy of office memorandum no. 22 /9 /93- EC.Xdt.7-5-97 ( PN 20/6)
3. Photo copy of office memorandum no .8 / 1.99- EC.X dt. 12-11-05 ( PN 20/10)
4. Photo copy of office memorandum no. 10 ( 1 )/2006/ EKVM/2088dt.1-12-06 ( IPN 20/11 )
5. Since, none was present on behalf of the union heard the argument advanced by the learned representative of the opposite party Sri G.P. Misra and persused the relevant record.
6. Admittedly , the workman was employed as Khalasi andhe was granted IN - SITU! promotion w.e.l. 1-4-91 in the pay scale of Rs.800-11.50 . It is also undisputed that to implement the Arbitration Award 31-1-88 , assistant category was to be merged with corresponding main category and the scale of Rs.950-1500 was to be given suche merger . The worker claim himself to be in semi skilled category whereas the contention of the management is that the post of Khalasi falls in unshalled category. Therefore , the worker was not entitled for the scale of Rs 950-1500 as he never worked on semi - skilled category post .
7. Now, the question which however , arises for consideration is as whether the post of Khalasi is setui skilled and falls in artisan or assistant category . la lis regard the management witness Sh. S.K. Sidhu , Executive Engineer has stated in his statement that the worknum was appointed on the post of Khalasi and still working as Khalasi which is unskilled post of Group 17 category and as per recruitment rules under ( PW ) inanual 3 , he was to be given next pay scale of Rs.800-1500 w.e.f. 1--4- 91. He has further stated that the workman does not possess any requisite technical qualification so he is not eligible for Asstt. Operation (E& M ) . Since proceeding against the union is ex - parte , there is no cross examination on above statement of the management witness . Though it is pleaded in the statement of claim that the warkinan was working as Khalasi which is semi - skilled post as such on merger of assitant category to corresponding main category, he was entitled to skilled category seale is Rs.950-1500 but in support of above contentions neitlaer any oral nor any docunientary evidence has beenadhieed by the workmen side . It was incumbent for the union representing the warkaan to have appeared at substantiate its aforesaid contention . En absence of evidence in rebuttal , there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the management witness Sh . S K. Sidhushuh [भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
6389
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6, 2008/अग्रहायण 15, 1930
also finds support from the CPWD manual Vol.3 and the documents filed by the management side.
8. In view of the above discussion , the union has miserably failed to prove that the post of Khalasi falls in artisan category . Since as per the Arbitration Award only assistant category was to be merged with corresponding main category of skilled worker, the workman claim for scale Rs.950-1500 is not tenable . The demand ofthe union for seeking IN - SITU promotion for the workman on above scale is neither legal norjustified .
9. Accordingly, the reference is adjudicated against theworkman. He is not entitled for IN - SITU promotion in the pay scale ofRs.950-1500 w.e.f. 1-4-1999.
Award as above .
Lucknow
N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , ।। नवम्बर, 2008
का. आ. 3248 ,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नेहरू साइंस सेन्टर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय नं. II , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. सीजीआईटी-2/6 आफ 2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था
[सं. एल-42011 /50/99- आई आर ( डीयू) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th November , 2008 S.O. 3248.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT- 2/6 of2000 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. 11 , Mumbai , as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Nehru Science Centre and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 11-11-2008.
[No. L-42011/50/99- IR( DU ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II AT MUMBAI PRESENT: A.A. LAD , Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO. CGIT -2/6 of 2000 Employers in relation to the
management of
Nehru Science Centre
TheDirector,
Nehru Science Centre, National Council of Science Museum, Dr.E.Moses Road , Worli , Mumbai 400018.
FirstParty
And
Their Workman ,
(Smt . S.D. Khot and Shri S.K. Rane) The General Secretary, NCSM Employees Union , 17, Dalvi Building, 1st Floor,
Parel, Mumbai 400012 .
Second Party
APPEARANCE
FortheEmployer : Mr. B.G. Goyal , Advocate , For the Workman : Mr. M.B. Anchan , Advocate Date of reserving Award: Ist September, 2008 Date ofPassing ofAward: 30th September , 2008 AWARD-PART 11
The matrix of the facts as culled out from the proceedings are as under:
1. The Government of India . Ministry of Labourby its Order No.L-42011 /50/ 99 /1R ( DU ) dated 16th December , 1999 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub-section 2 ( A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of Nehru Science Centre , Mumbai , by imposing the penalty ofcompulsory retirement to the workmen , Smt . S.D. Khot, UDC and Sh. S.K. Rane, Technician Gr.11 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman are entitled?
2. To substantiate the subject matter made out in the refereene 2nd Party jointly filed Statement of Claim at Exhibit 5 stating that, the workmen involved in the reference i.e. Smt . S.D. Khot and Mr S.K. Rane were working with the 1st Party as Upper Division Clerk and as Technician Grade Ill respectively. The Charge Sheet was served on both . Enquiry Officer was appointed. The enquiry was conducted by Inquiry Officer. The enquiry conducted was not fair and proper and was not conducted by following the principles of natural justice. The documents were not given to chargesheeted employees and copies of the translations were not supplied to the workmen involved in the reference. Even books containing CCS ( CCA) Rules and CCS (Conduct) Rules under which the enquiry was conducted were not made available . The enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer was not competent to 6390
PART II- S THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 6, 2008 /AGRAHAYANA 15. 1930
conduct the enquiry . They were not permitted to take the help ofthe Counsel and were not permitted to defend their case by proper representation. At the time ofthe enquiry . these workmen were asked to sit in the Conference Hall , whereas Enquiry Officer was sitting in the Chamber provided to him and was bringing the material typed for signature of the workmen . The Enquiry Officer was interested in helping the Management. He was taking initiative. There was no evidence before the EnquiryOfficer to hold these workmen guilty of the charges levelled against them . According to them findings were perverse. So they prayed to quash and set aside the enquiry proceedings and findings of the Enquiry Officer with request to direct the Ist Party to reinstate them on their respective posts since decision taken by the 1st Party was taken on the basis of such a bogus enquiry.
3. This prayer is disputed by the 1st Party by filing written statement at Exhibit 8 stating and contending that. full opportunity was given to the workmen involved in the reference . In fact ist Party is not and " Industry " . It is an autonomous body constituted under the Ministry of Culture, Youth Affairs & Sports , Government of India and isnon-profit organization . 1st Party is not engaged in any activity which can be called business , trade of manufacturing to call it as an " Industry " . Since 1st Party isnot an " Industry " the Workmen involved in the reference cannot be called Workmen .
4.It is further stated that, full opportunity was given to these workmen involved in the reference while conducting enquiry . Time and again they were accommodatedby the Enquiry Officer. Still they were determined not to start and participate in the enquiry and after giving long rope , enquiry was proceeded ex - parte and was concluded by the Enquiry Officer . Documents were made available . No question arises to provide documents as pleaded All the requirements of the workmen were met as per the conditions laid down in Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification , Control and Appeal ) Rules . 1965 and it was endorsed by the workmen involved in the reference. The prayer of the workmen to permit them to engage legal assistance was not allowed. since Rule 14 of Central Civil Service Rules does not permit to give such a facility to charge sheeted employees . Shri M.M. Mulani was appointed as a Translator 10 facilitate the workmen to understand the conducting and recording of the enquiry proceedings . The adjournments sought by these workmen were given by the Enquiry Officer on a number of occasions . Since they were demanding adjournments from time and again after giving full warming such an adjournment was rejected and enquiry was proceeded and concluded ex-parte. According to 1st party full opportunity was given to the charge sheeted employees. However , they did not avail it and participate in the enquiry and extended cooperation to complete the job of enquiry and that, being the position it compelled theEnquiry Officer to proceed ex - parte . So in proceeded ex -parte and completed the criquiry holding these workmen guilty of the charges levelled against them. Relying on that , the Disciplinary Authority took decision to terminate these employees since the charges were proved which were of serious nature The charge of giving slogans . abusing Officers and creating hurdles in the working place of the staff were levelled against these workmen. These both charges were related to the functioning of the Ist Party's activities. Those were of scrious nature . As it was giving bad impression in the administration of the 1st Party Since it was a serious thing , decision was taken to voluntarily retire them was the only solution and just and proper. As per that instead of maintaining decision of dismissal it was soften and converted into compulsory retirement . So it is submitted that , the prayer prayed by the workmen in the subject matter of the reference does not deserved to be considered .
5. In view ofthe above pleadings my 1.d. Predecessor framed Issues at Exhibit 1 Out of those, Issues Nos . It다 4were treated as preliminary issues by my 1 d. Predecessor However , when charge of this Tribunal was with CGI -1. the then Presiding Officer of Central Government Industrial Tribunal CourtNo.1 by an order dated 17-2-2006, ordered to decide all the issues at a time. However , both parties the proceedings again requested this tribunal to consider and decide Issue Nos . 10 4 as preliminary Issues Accordingly Issue Nos . I to 4 were taken for decision and were decided by me on 30th August , 2006 holding enqury not fair and proper and findings perverse . I also observed Issue of" Industry " does not survive as it was not seriously challenged in the proceedings and held this Court has jurisdiction . Said was challenged by the 1st Party by tiling Writ Petition No.888 of 2007 and while disposing of the said Writ Petition Hon'ble Bombay High Court remanded this Reference back giving certain directions to this Tribunal including to deende point of " Industry " afresh vis-a-vis point of jurisdiction and give liberty to the parties concerned more precisely to 1st Party to lead evidence and kept open all contentions raised in the Petition in challenging Part Award for the Petitioners to ratse in further proceedings , if the Award disposing of the Part 1 proceedings is adverse to the Petitioners . The Hon'ble High Court also observed like this:
"ThePetitioner is allowed to raise the issue an issue as10 whether the Petitioner is an industry as defined under Section 2013 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 at the stage of Part 11 proceedings of the award and is also allowed to lead evidence in support thereof. The Tribunal shall decide the said issue . if raised, on merits in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations made in paragraph nine of the impugned order ." 6391 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6, 2008/ अग्रहायण 15 , 1930
[भाग १] -खण्ड 3( ii) )
6. By thejudgment/order referred above the Hon'ble High Court has not disturbed the findings given by this Tribunal on the point of enquiry and findings of it and observations of this Tribunal where it was observed that , enquiry is not fair and proper and finding perverse . So I feel that , I need not discuss the issue of enquiry and findings ofita fresh with issue Nos. 5 and 6which I answer asfollows:
ISSUES
FINDINGS
1965 and they will be controlled by the said Rules and cannot be governed by the Model Standing Orders . They have also stated that , they are not doing any commercial activities and earning any profit . So it is not an " industry", They referred appointment orders of both the workmen involved in the reference and number of other correspondence of the Government of India taking contentions that, it is a Government Undertaking . It is also their case that , it is not a part of Government but it is an autonomous body functioning under the Ministry of Culture, Youth Affairs & Sports , Government of India. It is doing research and as such it is not an " industry" .
No
1. Whether the Nehru Science Centre, Mumbai is "not an industry" as defined under section 2 (j ) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, therefore , the reference is not maintainable ?
2. Whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and try the reference?
Yes
No
3. Whether the action of the Management of Nehru Science Centre , Mymbai , by imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement to the workmen , Smt . S.D. Kanat, UDC and Sh. S.K. Rane , Technician Gr. III , is legal and justified?
4. If not , to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?
Concerned Workmen are entitled for reinsta- tement with 50% back- wages and continuity of service.
REASONS :
ISSUE NO. 1 :
7. At this stage we are taking Issue No. I raised by the 1st party contending that , Ist Party is not an " industry" as defined under Section 2 (j ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 whereas case of the 2nd Party, i.e. , of concerned workmen , is that , it is an " industry" and provisions of Central Civil Service Rules are not applicable to them.
9. Though there are pleadings we have to sce whether there is evidence of the witness of the ist Party to the effect in the proceedings ? At the time of hearing Part I Award even on the issue of fairness of the enquiry and perversity of the findings the Management has led evidence of Shri C.K. Das only at Exhibit 29. Said was considered by me while passing Party [ Award . Even in that deposition which is at Exhibit 29 Mr. C.K. Das , he accepts , in para 11 of Exhibit 29 that , he did not say anything about 1st Party as an " Industry " . In the same depositions more precisely in paras, 27 to 30 of Exhibit 29 he states that provisions of Central Civil Service Rules are applicable and employees working in the Ist Party are governed by it . It is also stated by him that , in the Memorandum dated 20-12-1995 1st Party decided to conduct an enquiry against one of its employee according to Rule 14 ofCentral Civil Service Rules (Classification, Control and Appeal ) Rules , 1965 which are adopted by the National Council of Science Museums ( NCSM ) vide clause 62 ( a ) of By- laws of NCSM which is filed at page 464 ofExhibit 12. Even he has referred that , Miss Khot had challenged the decision of the Ist party for holding an enquiry against her under CCS ( CCA ) Rules , 1965 and Central Civil Services (Conduct ) Rules, 1965. Even in para. 30 of the said affidavit he states that , employees ofthe Ist Party are governedby CCS Rules , 1965 which is adopted bythe Ist party. However, he has not explained as to how by virtue of that, ist party is not an " Industry " and how it cannot be answered in favour ofthe Ist Party. Even in the cross, in Exhibit-29 Shri C.K. Das has admitted that , Nehru Science Centre is not a Department ofthe Government. He also admits that , employees of Nehru Science Centre is governed under National Council of Science Museums (NCSM) By -laws . Then evidence of Ist Party was closed and written arguments were submined by the ist Party at Exhibit37 on the preliminary issues where also no specific case was made out by the 1st Party as to how it cannot be called as an " Industry" . The contentions of the 1st Party is that, Central Civil Service ( Conduct ) Rules are adopted by National Council ofScience Museums (NCSM ) and it is notan "industry" . Except that, nothing is stated even in the written arguments. So from that I observed that, the point of " industry" not seriously disputed by the was
8. In that context , if we peruse , the pleadings of both, we find both have pleaded their case to some extent . Workmen in their Claim Statement at Exhibit 5 have stated that, they are governed by the provisions of Model Standing Orders and not by provisons of Central Civil Services (Classification , Control and Appeal ) Rules , 1965, hence Ist party is an " industry " . Whereas Ist party in Written Statement at Exhibit 8 had categorically stated that it is not an " industry " . Accordingto Ist Party appointment orders given to these 2 concerned workmen specifically reveals that , they will be governed by Central Civil Services (Classification , Control and Appeal ) Rules, 6392
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2008 /AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1930 PART 11- SEC . 3( ii ) | Ist Party and I observed that, Ist Party was in agreement that, it is an " industry " and so I observed that I did not need and find it necessary to answer that issue specifically. However, as per directions given by the Hon'ble High Court this issue is now cropped up again even at this stage. Ilowever , while giving directions to this Tribunal one has to note that , Hon'ble High Court has observed . this Court should consider the issue of " Industry " provided, if raised on merits , in accordance with law.
10. So it is we turn again to the evidence led by the Ist Party after said directions . we find , Ist Party has led again evidence of Shri CK . Das at Exhibit 47 who has given details regarding hierarchy of the staff in the Ist Party. Hehas also stated that ist Party is not an " Industry" as it is an autonomous body under the Department of Culture, Union Ministry of Education and Culture, Government of India ( Allocation ofBusiness ) Rules . 1961 as amended by Government Gazette dated 17-9-1979 . The NCSM on its formation took over Birla Industrial & Technological Museum , Kotkata, Visversaraya Industrial &Technological Museum, Bangalore and Nehru Science Centre , Mumbai , under its control . All these 3 Museums were delinked from CSIR vide decision made by Governing Body ofCSIRdated 21-9-1977 and by Society of CSIR at its meeting held on 23-11-1977 . Accordingto him NCSM is an autonomous body under the Ministry of Culture. CGovernment of India According to Shri C.K. Das 1st Party is primarily engaged in research and development of Science & Technology based on educational exhibits and conducting science educational programmes e.g. mobile science. exhibitions for rural areas , science seminars for students and teachers , engaged in teachers training programmes , and also vacation science workshops for students , science quiz etc. to develop scientific creativity and develop scientific temper amongst the students and public in general . He states that , Centre is visited by over six lakhs people every year which includes aboum 25% students and runs mobile programme for tural schools attract about two lakhs rural school children and teachers. It is further stated hy Shri C.K. Das that , it is fully funded institution of the Government of India. The object of the Ist Party is to take over the administration and management of the said 3 museums centres with all their assets of whatsoever nature and all their liabilities from theCouncil of Scientific and Industrial Research . a Socuty registered under the Societies Registration Act , 1860. He admitted that , it administers all these 3 museums - centres and their Regional Centres . It also require to establish and take over and administer new museums or centres of Science and Technology at all levels , to portray the growth of Science and Technology and their application in industry and buman welfare. to design , develop and fabricate science museum exhibit , demonstration equipments and scientific teaching aids for science education and popularization of science , to pupularize
science and technology in cities , urban and rural areas . to supplement science education given in schools and colleges and to organize various out of school educational activities to and likewise activities . He also siates that . Ist Party is not engaged in activities which can not be called as business , trade, manufacturers and it is not carning any profit by doing such activities . However , in the cross this witness states that , he is an Administrative Officer of the Ist Party . He admits that , his affidavit ( Exhibit 48 ) is not concentrating on the point of " Industry " . Here I want to remind that while remanding this matter back for fresh trial , Hon'ble High Court has specifically stated that, this point can be freshly decided by the Tribunal , if raised on merits. But here Shri C.K. Das who is the only winess on this point examined in these proceedings admits second time that . his affidavit is not concentrating on the point of "Industry". He , however, admits that, Nehru Science Centre has no Scientist having Doctorate Degree in any related subject. He admits that , NCSM is a Society registered under the West Bengal Registrar Societies . He admits that. Nehru Science Centre is registered under the Societies Registration Act . He admits that . it is an autononous body. He admits that , employees of the Ist Party are not civil servants of the Government of India . Ile admus that , persons like Turners , Fitters , Carpenters . Welders and Painters are also working in the centre of the Ist Party . Ele states that, these persons are utrilized to fabricate scientific and educational exhibits . He admits that , Nehru Science Centre got grant upto 5-8 crores from the Governinent al ' India in the financial year 2006-07 . He states that , Ist Party receives said funds of Government of India through NCSM, Kolkata. He states that , Nenru Science Centre received Rs . 2,03,68,000- in the financial year 2006-07 for entire centres . Here he admits that , Central Government has given to it I acres of land at Worli to establish said museum . He admits that . Ist Party is charging Rs . 20 - lur visitors per person . He also states that , Rs . 50 /- is charged for Tourist group of 25 and for students Rs. 10 / - per head. He also admits that . BMC students are charged Rs 2 - per head and he also admits that they charge Rs . 20- per head for third Science show . He also states that , for Tara Mandal Show, they charge Rs. 2. per head and for multimedia Rs. 5/- per head. He states that , in the year 2006-07, 6.30,600 visitors visited Nehru Science Centre . Then he admits that . NSC has Auditorium on 300 sq . meters . It has also with facility of sitting 250 persons of 240 sq . meters where 300 visitors can be accommodated and that place is given on contract to run canteen who is charging visitors , rates of things are approved by the Nehru Science Centre He admirs that, it is given on leave and licence basis le admits that, present Contractor is giving Rs. 8 lakh per annum to the Nehru Science Centre as Leave and Licence charges to run the canteen . I le admits that . Nehru Science Centre conducts Cyber school and charges Rs . 5/- per student . He admits that science films festival is arranged by Nehru Science Centre for which Rs . 2/ - per head is 6393 [ भाग [1-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6 , 2008/अग्रहायण 15 , 1930
charged. He admits that , other classes like Computer training is also arranged.
11. Then Ist Party examined Mr. Satyabrata Chakraborty, its Finance and Accounts Officer at Exhibit 50, Prabha Rao at Exhibit 52, Vijay P. Khandare at Exhibit 56, Shri Sudhir Vasant Gaonkar at Exhibit 57. They are not speaking about " Industry " and on the point of " Industry". So we have restricted to the evidence of Shri C.K. Das which is only on the point of " Industry " of the 1st Party and I have narrated the evidence of Shri C.K. Das as above in the light ofthe observations made by the Hon'ble High Court.
In these premises we have to decide whether the Ist Party can be called as an " Industry"?
"employer industry" . From records it reveals that, Advocate Senior Counsel Shri Kama who was the Advocate of 1st Party in Writ Petition No. 888 of 2007 was the same Advocate in Writ Petition No. 1021 of 1997 who challenged the order of State Tribunal in it . Besides proceeding ofAccident Claim was conducted in State Labour Court about the workman of Nehru Science Centre by Number W.C. No. 598/B -107 of 1997 in which 10th Labour Court of State , Bombay awarded compensation to heirs of the deceased workman of Nehru Science Centre of which copy is filed at page 93 of Exhibit 49. In my considered view all these now does not permit to say that it is not an " Industry", Nehru Science Centre and estopped it from challenging its own status as " Industry " . Besides , Hon'ble High Court, Bombay, while deciding Writ Petition No. 1021 of 1997 observed State Tribunal has no jurisdiction that means this Tribunal has jurisdiction . Besidessaidjudgment was referred by both in their written arguments twice i.e. at the stage of arguing the reference while arguing their case at the lime of Part I Award and even now after remand of the matter by Hon'ble High Courtafter allowing Writ Petition No. 888 of2007.
12. It will not be out of place to refer to the proceedings filed by these Workmen in the State Industrial Tribunal under MRTU & PULP Act in which State Industrial Tribunal in Complaint No. 421 of 1996 under MRTU Act observed that, State Tribunal has jurisdiction holding State Government as an " appropriate Government" . Said was challenged by 1st Party, i.e. Nehru Science Centre, by filing Writ Petition No. 1021 of 1997. While deciding said Writ Hon'ble High Court observed Central Government is an appropriate Government and not State Government and as such State Tribunal has no jurisdiction . While giving verdict to that effect Hon'ble High Court observed that, res - integra and the question can be answered on the basis of the principles laid down byApex Court while deciding case ofAir India Statutory Corporation ETC vs United Labour Union and Ors . decision given in National Institute of Science Museum appropriate Government of Nehru Science Centre is the Central Government and not State Government as State Tribunal has no jurisdiction . But it is worth to note that , said Writ was filed by Nehru Science Centre ile. present 1st Party on the decision of the State Industrial Tribunal who ceases jurisdiction over the subject matter. However, Hon'ble High Court while deciding Writ filed by Nehru Science Centre observed that , Central Government is the appropriate Government and not State Government and as such State Tribunal has no jurisdiction . It is worth to note that , that time Nehru Science Centre did not feel it necessary to get its position clear whether it is " Industry" or not by filing Writ against the order of the said State Tribunal . It appears that Nehru Science Centre accepted its position as an " Industry" . Even it did not challenge its own status but challenged the complaint of the workmen involved in the Complaint filed under MRTU & PULP Act . When Ist Party i.e. Nehru Science Centre challenged the jurisdiction of the State Tribunal it did not challenged is own position saying that it is not an " Industry " . Even Hon'ble Bombay High Court while narrating contentions ofthe Nehru Science Centre address to the Nehru Science Centre as a
13. Apart from that 2nd Party referred to the decision of this Tribunal while deciding the case of Nehru Science CentreVs Shri P. G. Kelkar in Reference No. CUIT- 2/53 of 1999 wherein Nehru Science Centre was a party. While deciding that reference this Tribunal i.e. my Predecessor observed Nehru Science Centre is an " Industry" . Said decision was given on 1-1-2002 . It is pertinent to note that , said was not challenged by the Ist Party i.e. Nehru Science Centre. Even in the said reference my Ld. Predecessor observed Nehru Science Centre is an " Industry" by deciding specific issue and by discussing theevidence and case- law on it . Moreover, 2nd Party's Advocate referred to the judgment of Industrial Tribunal , Bangalore, while deciding Industrial Dispute No. 128 of 2000 between Visvasvaraya Industrial & Technical Museura , Bangalore vs Their Workmen wherein it held that, Visvasvaraya Industrial & Technical Museum . Bangalore as an " Industry" and the same was confirmed by the Karnataka High Court , Bangalore while deciding Writ Petition No. 3524 of2007 wherein it was confirmed that Visvasvaraya Industrial & Technical Museum. Bangalore, is an " Industry " . He also referred to the citation ofApex Court while deciding the Appeal filed by Physical ResearchLaboratory vs. K.G Sharima published in ( 1997) 4 SCC page 257 where also Apex Court observed that , "Physical Research Laboratory is not an " Industry " because it is purely a research organization discharging Govemment functions and a domestic enterprise than a commercial enterprise , though it is taking employee's co- operation in achieving its purpose ." He also referred to thedecision ofApex Court of larger Bench i.e. of 7 Judges in decided case of Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Boardetc. vis . A. Rajappu & Ors. published in 1978ILI 6394
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6 , 2008/ AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1930 [PART II S1.3 ( ii ) |
calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes is an industry. "
page349 a Though said issue was referred to a Large Bench still it is not decided otherwise where Apex Court observed as follows :
profit making motive is not sine quo non of Industry . functionally or definitionally . "
It is also observed that .
"......we have a very barvest of rulings on what is an " industry" and we have tobe guided by the varlorum of criteria stated therein , as fair as possible, and not spring a creative surprise on the industrial community by a stroke of freak originality."
Apex Court also observed:
what is an industry in America or the Soviet Union may not be once in India and even in our country what was not an industry decades ago may well be one now . Our judgment here has no pontifical flavour but seeks to serve the future hour till changes inthe law or in industrial culture occur . " "A Judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven , but he can and should iron out the creases."
It is also observed that :
Besides , Apex Court observed that:
"..... it may indubitably be assumed that the key aspects of the public administration like public justice stand out of the circle of the industry
It also observed that :
"Absence of capital does not negative "Industry " . Nay, even charitable services do not necessarily cease to be " industries " definitionally although popularily charity is not industry ." "......Unless there is a quid pro quo for the service . It cannot be an industry . "that the service 11 must be in the nature of trade in a different grab."
" for the purpose of rendering services there may be " no industry but for person who want profit from services rendered it could be an " industry " ,"
It also observed that:
"It is the character of the activity which decides the question as to whether the activity in question attracts the provision of S.2 ( J ); who conducts the activity and whether it is conducted for profit or not do notmake a material difference ."
It is also observed that :
if a private citizen runs a hospital without charging any fees from the patients treated in it , it would nevertheless be an under taking under S. 2(J ) . Thus the character of the activity involved in running a hospital brings the institution of the hospital with 5.2 (J ) . "
It also observed that:
"There is a wisdom in the suggestion that in view of the difficulties in finding the meaning of the terim " industry" as defined in the Act , it is best to say that an industry cannot strictly be defined but can only be described ....... It is not the motive of an activity in making goods or rendering service , but the possibility of making them marketable if one who makes goods or renders services so desires , that should determine whether the activity lies within the domain or circle of industry. But even this may notbe always a satisfactory test . "
"The institution which fulfill the Triple Test i.c. in function ( 1 ) Systematically (2) it function with co- operation of employer -employee and ( 3 ) its production or distribution of goods and services
14. Against that 1st Party's Advocate referred citation where Apex Court while deciding case of Physicaal Research Laboratory vs K G. Sharma, published in 1997 II LL f. page 625 observed that Physical Research Laboratory was not an " Industry " . In that case Physical Research Laboratory claimed as Research Centre doing is activity of research on a systematic manner with the help of its employees . In that case status of the Physical Research Laboratory that it cannot be called as an industry was not challenged . However , in our case status of the Ist Party is challenged . Another ratio referred by the Ist Party of Jharkhand high Court in case of Employees in relation to the Management ofthe Crea Horticultural Experiment Station. Ranchi and Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal va Dhanbad and anr. citation published in 2004 1102) FLR page 3571, in which observed that , the said institute is not an " Industry " . In that case also said Institute was engaged in activities of research , teaching , training, ete . etc. and its status was not challenged. But here status of the Ist Party is very much challenged by the workmen involved in the reference . Besides said lostitute was dischargingGovernmental functions and domestic enterprises than commercial enteprises . So it was treated not an " Industry" . Another case law of Allahabad High Court is also referred by the 1st Party's Advocate where Allahabad High Court while deciding the case of Ramesh Chandra Singh Vs. The Union of India , citation pubhshed in 1981 LAB. I.C. page 781 , observed that Section 2.0 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 states that employees cannot claim as of right unless it was approved as of right . He also referred to decision of the Calcutta High Court while deciding case of Central Agricultural Research Institute and anr. vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors. , the citation published in 1998 LAB LC page 1490, where Central Agricultural Research Institute was considered as not an " Industry " , where 40 workers were 6395 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( i) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6, 2008/ अग्रहायण 15 , 1930
specifically run on commercial basis to gain profit and that no any research is noted against the name of 1st Party. I am of the considered view that Nehru Science Centre is an " industry" . Even at this stage i.e. in the second round ofthis litigation , evidence except ofC.K. Das is leadby the Ist Partyto add weightage in the evidence to conclude that, Ist Party Le. Nehru Science Centre is not an " Industry ". In fact burden is and was on the 1st Partyto show that , Nehru Science Centre is not an " Industry " . Even my predecessor as referred above, while deciding reference No. CGIT-2/53 of 1999 observed that , this Institute/Centre is an "Industry" which was not challenged by the Nehru Science Centre and disturbed by any authority upto this date though said Award was passed on 1-2-2002 and that , Hon'bleHigh Court while deciding Writ Petition No. 1021 of1997did not utter anything about the nature of theNehru Science Centre other than " Industry " and relying on the pleadings Nehru Science Centre and Union involved in that case, Hon'ble High Court observed Central Govemment is an appropriate Government and not State Government reveals that, Ist Party is an " Industry" . So I answer this issue to that effect
ISSUE NO. 2 :
engaged by the Research Centre . Said workers were engaged on daily wages and were continued till the date oftheir termination. Said workers claimed permanency on thebasis of completing 240 days working. However, said benefit was not given to the workmen by the Institute .But in our case, that is not the dispute and as such said ratio is based on different footing and different facts. Besides status of the said Institute was not challenged in that case. But in our case status of the Nehru Science Centre is challenged . He referred to decision of Jharkhand High Courtwhile deciding case of Central Rainfed UplandRice Research Institute, Hazaribagh and Union of India and ors. , citation published in 2002 ( 2) L.L.N. page 655 , where Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court observed that, both the parties in the evidence did not plead that the Central Rainfed Upland Rice Reserach Institute is engaged in as brought on record and so it cannot be said " Undertaking" analogy to be business or trade. It was also observed that, there is nothing on record to suggest that the Central Rainfed Upland Rice Research Institute is engaged in commercial or industrial activity, nor anything on the record to suggest any economic venture on the part of the workmen . Even it has no object to produce and distribute service to satisfy needs ofthe consumer community. So it was observed that, the Institute is merely carrying on the activity of reserach in a systematic manner with the help of its employess as it lacks all element to make it an organization carrying business activity concerning any trade or business to bring it within the purview of indusrty as defined under S.2 (J ) of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 . However, in our case which is on hand workman involved in the present reference have specifically made out the case, even they have given the details how Ist Party is doing its activities. They also stated how Ist Party is charging visitors . They have also given details regarding funds made available by Government and income ofthe Institute. Besides it is also tried to bring on record that Nehru Science Centre has not registered any specific discovery in its name to add against its name to treat as a research Institute as happened in the referred case (Supra).
(16) When Nehru Science Centre is an " Industry" andwhen our Hon'ble High Court while deciding Writ No. 1021 of 1997 of Nehru Science Centre declared State Government is not an appropriate Government and State Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction but it is the Central Government, which is appropriate Government, i conclude that, this Tribunal has jurisdiction . As stated above C.K. Das of the Ist Party had admitted that employees of the Nehru Science Centre are not Civil Servemts ofGovernment of India and it is autonomous body funded by Government of India. Besides, decision given by my predecessor in the earlier Reference i.e. CGIT - 2/53 of 1999 rather lead meto accept the position given while deciding Reference No. CGIT-2/53 of 1999 which is not yet disturbed by any competent authority, I conclude that , this Tribunal has jurisdiction .Accordingly I answer this Issue to that effect and conclude that this Court has jurisdiction .
ISSUE NOS. 5 & 6:
(17) Now, we have to consider whether action taken by the Nehru Science Centre against Miss S.D. Khot and Shri S.K. Rane in convicting them to retire voluntarily is legal andjustified?
(18) We have to see that what charges are leveled against these two ? Nehru Science Centre has Icveled charges against Miss Khot of insulting Shri V.P. Khandare、 Assistant ( F & A) by using abusive and objectionable language white Shri Khandare advised her to perforın her duties properly. The said charge was leveled regarding the incidents dated 27-7-1995 and 24-8-1995 . Another charge of taking part in the demonstrations and shouting abusive and defamatory slogans against the Director. Nehru Science (15) If we consider all these citations , evidence brought on record and more precisely citations referredby the 2nd Party of the Apex Court while deciding case of Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc. vis . A. Rajappa & ors published in 1978 I LLJ page 349 judgment of 7 Judges ofSupreme Court and the fact that , no any employee working with the Nehru Science Centre is having Doctorate/Ph. Degree in any related subject and noting that employees like Fitters, Turners , Welders and Painters are working with it and that , it is chargingto the visitors and having turnover of the year more than Rupees Five Crores inthe finacial year 2006-07 and noting that employees working in the 1st Party i.e. Nehru Science Centre are not civil servants of Government of India , noting the activities of the Ist Party which are systemtic though not
4647 G1/08-7 6396
THI : GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2008 / AGRAHAYANA 15,1930 [ PART II SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] Centre, in taking part in the demonstrations on 14-9-1995, 21-9-1995 and 10-10-1995 is also leveled against her. Besides charge of absentecism, attending office late and lack of 1 devotion towards duties is also leveled against her regarding period span ofOctober, 1993 to September , 1995. So also charge of habitually neglecting work from July, 1988 onwards is also leveled against her. Charge of leaving work place and attending gate meeting during office hours on 17-8-1995 is leveled against her Charge of deterring the security personnet en 5-10-1995 who were on duty is also leveled against her. All these charges were leveled against her by Charge Sheet dated 20th December , 1995. Then details are given in Annexure il to the charge sheet which isof 8 pages describing alleged activities of the concerned workman Miss Khot . There are charges leveled against the other charge sheeted employee viz . S.K. Rane who is another concerned workman . Charges of wiltfully and persistently disobeying the instructions of superiors and misbehaving with them by using derogatory and insulting language and threatening them is leveled against Rane. Another charge of habitually and willfully neglecting the work assigned to him during March , 1995 to October, 1995 is alleged leveled against him . Charge of habitually remaining absent frequently without permission and lack of devotion of duty is also leveled against him . charge of acting with the Management by adopting unfair means which are prejudicial to the interest of the Centre which is treated as subversive of discipline is also leveled against him . Besides that charge of bringing political influence and participating in the demonstration from 17-8-1995 10 24-8- 1995 is leveled against him Charge of taking active part in the demonstration staging in the premises of the Neliru Science during working hours is also leveled against him and lastly charge of' dertering the security personnel who were on duty at the main gate , of Nehru Science Centre , from discharging their official duties is also leveled against Rane.
( 18 ) Now, we have to see whether these charges against them are proved by the Management? For that Management has placed reliance on the affidavit filed in lieu of exam - in - chief of Mr. Satryabrata Chakraborty, its Finance and Accounts Officer who is examined at Exhibit 50 , by filing an affidavit of Prabha Rao at Exhibit 52 , un affidavit of Vijay P. Khandare filed at Exhibit 56 as well as affidavit of Shri Sudhir Vasant ( laonkar filed at Exhibit 57 . MW- 2 Mr. Satryabrata Chakraborty in his affidavit narrated misconduct or misbehaviour of Miss Khot mentioning that the remaine | absent from duty on 4-3-1994 though she was advised not in take leave upto 30-4-1994. Even he states that . he reported about it by his written complaint dated 1-3-199-1 He also referred to the Office Note dated 16-3-1994 where charge of negligence was leveled against her . He also apentions about inordinate delay done by viss Khot about EC craim ofstaff. lie also referred to the note dated 14-105 submitted by Shri Sandesh Imman,
the then Strores & Purchase Officer , memo dated 14-9-1995 given to Khot, regarding her misbehavior with officer by using abusive and objectionable language , where misconduct with Khandare and complaint filed dated 15-9- 1995 and 5-10-1995 filed by Shri Harish Salian were referred . He also referred to the complaint dated 14-9-1995 made by Mr. Phadke and Mr. M. Madhu the then Section officer against Khot and alleged that Khot was having habit of remaining absent without permission of the office . He also referred to the note dated 31-10-1988 given to Miss Khot by K.U.Menon . Ife also referred to leaving work place unauthorisedly by Miss Khot on 5-10-1995 . He referred to the staging ofdemonstrations on 17-08-1995, 14-09-1995, 21-09-1995,27-09-1995, 05-10-1995 and 10-10-1995 which were held at the instigations by the concerned workinen, Miss Khot , who instigated the staff to take part in the demonstration. IHe also referred to the memo dated 21-09- 1995 given to Miss Khot by Mr. R.M Chakraborti , the then Director. However , in the cross this witness says that. he did not know whether any particular action was taken against Miss Khot about the incident dated 27-7-1995 . Пе is also unable to state whether on 27-7-1995 or 28-7-1995 MissKhat insulted Mr. Khandare as narrated in para -9 his affidavit . He states that Mr. Khandare was discussing with him about purchase proposal and at that time Miss Khot entered his cabin . Ile states that Miss Khot had put up the note on purchase proposal which was rotated through channel to him . He states thal, Miss Khot put up purchase note because she was concerned with that assignment . He admits that , said proposal was not favouring anybody . He states that normally 3 quotations were called . He admits that , Director has power to sanctione purchase proposal which should be rotated through proper channel . He admits that, said work was assigned to Miss Khot. He admits that alter obtaining approval from Director 2 quotation can be accepted . He states that , he cannot say about the instructions givento Miss Khot as mentioned by Mr. Khandare in his depositions recorded before the EnquiryOfficer which are produced at page 38 of Exhibit 55. Even he unable to comment on the depositions of Khandare who deposed before Enquiry Officer that , other two quotations whçih were alleged suppressed by Miss Khot were not with her but were actually with Shri S.N. Salian , LDC working for Stores Section of Nehro Serence Centre and he personally collected the missing quotations from Salian tater . He also admits that , he has no evidence to show that, these two quotations were recovered from Miss Khot. He admits that reply given by Miss Khot on the query was the reason behind quarrel and insulling Khandare. He also admits that he was not present when allegedly Khot abused Khandare . Then he admits that. memo was issued to Miss Khot about abusing Director He admits that , he was one of the witness in the departinental inquity ile admits that. he has not stated in the enquiry that he heard Miss Khot abusing Director He admits that , demonstration was held atter office hours . He 6397 [ भाग - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6, 2008/अग्रहायण 15 , 1930
also admits that , said demonstrations were held in front of the office. He admits that office time is between 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.whereas centre time is 11.00 a.m. to 7.00 p.m. This witness is unable to state who others are charge sheeted like Rane and Miss Khot involved in the reference . He admits that , there was no damage to the property ofthe Centre during said demonstrations . He admits that, in the memo dated 14-5-1995 no details of incident of alleged misconduct were given. He states that , he did not know whether Miss Khot traced one case of fraud committedby Mr. Sandesh Loman who was Stores and Purchase Officer . He also states that, he did not know regarding note put up by Miss Khot . He is also unable to say about memos at pages 77 and 78 of Exhibit 55 regarding late coming in office of which charge is leveled against Miss Khot and states that, late coming can be considered as casual leave against it is debited or not. He is also unable to state whether leave availed by Miss Khot from October, 1988 to November , 1995 and was sanctioned the leave.He is unable to explain as to why Miss Khot was charge sheeted for the said alleged act . He is also unable to state whether Miss Khot sought any leave beyond permissible limit. He is also unable to state whether Miss Khot was not paid and was did not paid nor she did not get the wages back whichwere deducted as per page 83 and 84 of Exhibit 53. He is also admits that, there may be delay on the part of the office for want ofbudget purposes from office side . Then question was put that , when page 175 ofExhibit 55 is not concemed with Miss Khot then why it is mentioned in the charge sheet to which this witness unable to explain as to why it is like that. He is also unable to give the number of members who attended the Gate meeting. He also admits that, he has TYO1 seen Miss Khot in the demonstration. He is also unable to mention who is Shinde mentioned in the charge sheet. He also states that , he has not seen whether demonstration was held before the office gate or before the gate of Nehru Science Centre . He is unable to state whether Maharashtra Sthaniya Lokadhikar Samiti is a non- political organization . He also states that, he is not remembering whether Miss Khot replied to Article 6 of the charge sheet. Then Management examined its witness, Prabhal Roy, at Exhibit 52 , who tried to describe the activities of the Ist Party and role played by Rane and Miss Khot. He is specific on the charges of Rane . If we peruse the charges leveled against Rane , about that he states that , Rane refused to cany out the work assigned to him and did not carry out the jobs assigned to him . He states that, he filed another complaint against Rane vide his letter dated 5-4-1995 . He states that , he submitted further complaint dated 16-9-1995 against Rane for non- compliance of instructions given to Rane . He states that, Office Memorandum dated 6-10-1995 was issued to Rane for his refusal to carry out the official Jobs assigned to him on 16-9-1995. He also alleges that, Rane was in the habit of misbehaving with his superiors and take part in Union activities . He further states that , Rane was having habit of
leaving place of work without permission . Rane was also charged of instigating other staff members , of Nehru Science Centre, to participate in staging demonstrations and Rane was habitually remaining absent without permission , overstaying leave and using abusive and threatening language to the staff. In the cross this witness admits that, time prayed by Rane for 10 days , as per page 5 ofExhibit, 54 was not granted to him to reply the charge sheet. He admits that , Rane denied the charges by page 7 ofExhibit 54. He admits that, as per page 7 ofExhibit 54he explained the charges . He admits that, there is no documentary evidence to show that Rane found absent from his work spot. He admits that , C.R. dated 16-9-1995 page 23 ofExhibit 54, was replied by Rane by page 13 of Exhibit 54. Charge of late attendance was also replied by Rane. He states that, he has no idea whether Gate meeting was organized by employees Union . He is also unable to state whether said demonstration was arranged by Staniya Lokadhikar Samiti Mahasangh. When question was put whether he saw Rane taking part in demonstration . On whichhe replied he learnt it though security report . He states that , he do not know whether Rane went to gate to join the meeting. The charge sheet was regarding demonstration in front of office and not in front of gate . Then Management has examined Shri Vijay Pandurand Khandare at Exhibit 56 on the point ofabusive words used by Miss Khot against him on 27th July, 1995. He is also speaking about complaint filed by Harish Salin. He also speaks about written complained filed by D.D. Phadke. In the cross this witness states that , minimum 3 open quotations are required to accept the proposal . He admits that, Committee can decide to open the tenders of 2 quotations and then only Director can order to open the two quotations. He admits that , he do not know whether Director has given any such order to open the two quotations . He admits that, he do not know whether Miss Khot has put up note on 27-5-1995 to the Finance & Accounts Officer . He admits that , his statement was recorded in enquiry at page 38 of Exhibit 55. He admits that, in the said enquiry he has stated that one quotation was lying with Mr. Salian and not with Miss Khot. He admits that,he was supervising the work of Miss Khot . He states that, on 27-7-1995 Miss Khot was in the cabin of Mr. Chakraborthy who was Section Officer Finance & Accounts where he was called. According to him Miss Khot abused him in the cabin of Chakraborthy in his presence. He states that, he complained about that to Chakrabothy. However , Chakrabothy in his depositions has statedthat he did not know whether abuses were given. by Khọt to Khandare . He also admits that, he did not know whether abuses were given to Director. He admits that, page 71 ofExhibit 51 is not addressed to anybody . Ile also admits that page 72 of Phadke is not addressed to any body. He also admits that page 73 is copy of complaint of Madhu and it is not addressed to anybody . He admits that Phadke worked in another side of the building . Then 6398
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6 , 2008/ AGRAHAYANA 15, 1930 [ PART II Sec.3 ( ii) |
Besides no specific case is made out about their leaving place of work or attending office habitually late ? In my considered view , how those 2 can be held responsible for the charges levelled against them . It is worth to note that , enquiry was conducted where G.S. Rautela . Shri A.S. Manekar , Shri Satyabreta Chakraborty , Shri D.D. Phadke . Shri Sandesh P. Luman , Stores & Purchase Officer, Shri V.N. Joshi , Education Officer " B " , P. Rao Shri Vijay P. Khandare , Shri D. Sabapathi , Shri Harish N. Salian , Shri B.J. Rajadhya, Shri Stnarendra Kumar , Shri Kishor R. Sutar, Shri Kiran A. Yele , Shri Arun D. Baravkar and Shri Sharad G. Yadavwere examined ? However , before this Court Mг . Chakraborty, Prabhal Roy, Vijay Khandare and Studhir Gaonkar are examined about the alleged incident .
Management examined its witness Shri Sudhir Vasant Gaonkar at Exhibit 57. This witness is examined on the point of alleged part taken by Khot and Rane in the demonstrations . He states that, he himself has witness demonstration where these two participated in it. He also slates that slogans were given by those 2 referringto Rane οπ 14-9-1995 , 21-9-1995,27-9-1995.7-10-1995, 10-10-1945 andMiss Khot on 14-9-1995, 21-9-1995 , 10-10-1995 . Ης alleged that, Miss Khot and Rane were in the demonstration dated 17th August, 1995. He stares that, he lodged a complaint regarding that on 17th August , 1995. In the cross this witness says that, he cannot say on which date demonstration referred in para IB was held at 1.00 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. He states that , he was at main gate duty on 17th August, 1995. He further states that , even on 14-9-1995 he was on main gate . Ife states that , he has no oflice report regardingdemonstration on 17-8-95 . Ite states that , these persons were trying to hang board which we refused on which quarrel took place . He also admits that , as per page 195 of Exhibit 55 Shinde who is mentioned as participant in the demonstration was actually on tour from 2-8-1995 to 19-8-1995.11c admits that , Shinde was not in demonstration of 17th August . 1995 though security report page 194 ol Exhibit55 reveals like that . He again states that , he was on main gate and not in front of gate.
(20) Now, if we what was recorded by the Enquiry Officer in hisdomestic enquiry where he examined these witnesses referred above reveals it was recorded ex- parte In fact I observed the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper and finding perverse . Said findings are not disturbed by Hon'ble High Court while deciding Writ Petition No. 888 of2007. The evidence recorded by theEnquiry Officer of the witnesses referred above reveals that, there was one sided enquiry . Presenting Officer , was questioning witnesses which were of leading questions and witness have stated just as put up to them e.g. question was put 10 Raoutela is like this:
Q: Do you have any knowledge about " Miss S D. Khot's participation in that Cratemeeting?"
To which witness answered that "As per the report Miss SD. Khol was also
participating in the Gate meeting. " Another question which was put to him was like this:
" In your evidence you on 25-2-1997 you said that you have witnessed somedemonstrations by the stafl'members in the Center . Did you witness Miss SD . Khot taking part in such demonstrations?
To which this witness answered: "Yes"
(21 ) So this was the type of examination of the witnesses taken. It is pertinent to note than these witnesses were not cross-examined by charge - sheeted employees i e . by Miss Khot or Rune or by their representative I cading questions were put by the Presenting Officer to the witness which were answered by witness by answering "yes " or "ลด"
The question was like this
Questionby Presenting Officer to Miss Khot
"Do you have knowledge about Miss S.D. Khot's involvement in argument with Security some time in October , 1995 "
'To which this witness answered .
"Yes . I learnt this trote the office records and reports subinitted by the Security."
It is perment to note that this was recorded in 1997 about the incident of 1995. Besides , this witness Raoutcha (19) So this is the evidence led by the 1st Party about alleged abuses given by Miss Khot , about alleged participation of both in the demonstration . As far as evidence of Mr. Vijay P. Khandare , Mr. Satyabrata Chakraborty and Shri Sudhir V. Gaonkar are concemed , all have contradicted their own story, Mr. Chakraborty admits that , he cannot remember whether on 27th July , 1995 or 28th July, 1995 Miss Khot insulted Khandare Even Chakraborty admits that, one quotation was lying with Salian and unnecessrily Khot was held responsible for that . Even he admits that , missing quotation was collected from Shalian. Even he is not challenging about depositions made by Shulian who had admited that he was denying admitting before the Enquiry Officer that , one of the quotation was lying with him which was recovered later on . Even Chakraborty admits that he was not present when Khot allegedly abused Khandare. Whereas Khandare's case is that, Khot abused him in the presence of Chakraborty . Even it is admitted that demonstrations were held alter office hours . About taking part in the demonstration Gaonkar, who is examined by the Management , who was Security Guard , admits that . Shinde who is mentioned as participant in the demonstration was on tour on 17th August, 1995. When he was shown in the demonstration record prepared by the [ st Party reveals that , Shinde was in demonstration though official record reveals that Shinde was on tour on 17-8-95 . When Chakraborty has not supported case of Khandare that Miss Khot abused hian . When all these admit that demonstrations took place after office hours and no loss was caused to the property. When Chakraborty is able to remember whether Miss Shot insulted Mr. Khandare on 27th July, 1995 or 28th July, 1995 and nobody stated about the abuses given by Miss Khot to the Director? When there in no evidence of demonstration by these 2 workmen during office hours?
6399 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6, 2008/अग्रहायण 15 , 1930
is stating on the basis of the report submitted by Security persons and he was not having any personal knowledge about the involvement of Khot in the demonstration . Another question put to Manekar by the Presenting Officer reveals that , this Manekar has not personally witnessed the gate meeting but he deposed before the EnquiryOfficer saying that, he learnt about the meeting. Same question put to the witness Manekar was that :
Q: "Do you witness Gate meeting?"
To which he answered :
"No. I have not personally witnessed the gate meeting . But I was present inside the office and learnt about the Gate meeting ."
Then if we turn to the evidence of witness S.G. Yadav question put to him was like this :
Q: "Where such demonstrations were held?"
Khot came to his cabin and questioned as to why she was involved in the missing quotations . He alsod states that . Miss Khot was claiming that, she is not responsible for receiving quotations . This witness further states before the Enquiry Officer that, actually missing quotations were laying with H.N. Salian , then working in Stores Section of Nehru Science Centre at that time and Shri Khandare personally collected missing quotations from Salian , In fact charge ofmissing quotations and not doing work properly were levelled against Miss Khot . But here case ofmissing quotations disprove these allegations and it reveals that said quotations were with Salian and not with her and she is not responsible for that . Even said Salian is examined before EnquiryOfficer . However, said witness answer that he did not remember that incident though Khandare deposed to that effect . Then before this Tribunal Management examined C.K. Das , Satyabrata Chakraborty, Prabal Roy, Vijay Khandare and Sudhir Vasant Gaonkar as witnesses of the Management .
To which he answered:
"Outside the card punching machine gate near pond."
Q: "Do you see S.K. Rane in the demonstration?
Against that question Enquiry Officer objected the leading question . However , in the next question whichwas put to him was like this:
Q:"Do you see Miss S.D. Khot taking part in such a demonstration?"
To which this witness replied:
"Yes . I have seen her."
It is pertinent to note that said leading question was not objectedby Enquiry Officer and said question was allowed but question ofRane was disallowed which was of the same type which reveals that entire questions were put byPresenting Officer were leading questions . Even witness Manekar before Enquiry Officer stated that he learnt about the participation of Khot from others . He did not utter that this was according to his personal knowledge regarding participation in the gate meeting . Even witness Chakraborty deposed before the Enquiry Officer that he learnt about gate meeting from Keelkar . About slogans witness Phadke, before Enquiry Officer , states that , he learnt about the slogans from S.P. Luman and Shri B.J. Rajadhyax . However, Luman and Rajadhyax before the Enquiry Officer are silent about slogans given by the charge-sheeted employees. About leaving place of work by Mrs. J.D'souza and employee P.K. Shiposkar, Shri S.M. Deshpande witness Shri P. Roydeposed that , they also left work place without permission of their superiors. However, no action appears 10 have been taken against them but these two charge- sheeted employees were only targeted , involved and charges of leaving work place without permission of the superiors were levelled against them. About purchase proposals Khandare was witness before the Enquiry Officer who stated that purchase proposal was examined by him on 26-7-1995 in which he found that only one quotation was attached. He immediately brought that fact to the notice of the S.O. (F.A. ) . He issued instructions to the charge-sheeted employee Khot to discover and attach the other quotation. He further stated that on 26-7-1995 Miss
(22) As stated above C.K. Das is telling about actual status of the Nehru Science Centre and speaks what is its actual status . Witness Satyabrata Chakraborty status about misconduct and misbehaviour of Miss Khol. He also referred to the deficiencies of Miss Khot in working. He also referred to the office notes and memos given to Miss Khot. However , this witness in the cross states that he did not remember whether on 27-7-1995 or 28-7-1995 Miss Khot insulted Khandare as narrated in para - 9 of his affidavit . He also unable to state whether Miss Khot put up note on 2 purchase tenders . He admits that, if there is objection in purchase proposals Miss Khot used to put up the notes accordingly. He admits that after obtaining approvals of the Director two quotations can be accepted. He further states that, he cannot say about the instructions given to Miss Khot as mentioned by Khandare in his enquiry depositons . He also state that , he did not want to comment on the depositions of Khandare. He admits that , missing quotations were found with S.N. Salian . He is unable to comment on Salian's depositions regarding missing quotationsbefore Enquiry Officer . He admits that , he has no evidence to show that these two quotations were recovered from Khot . He admits that, Khot was person behind said quarrel . He admits that he was not present in the section when said incident of abusing Khandare occured and charge of abuses given to the Director is levelled against her. In fact from the ist Party's story alleged incident took place when Khandare and Chakrabortywere present . But this Chakraborty before this Tribunal states that , he did not remember . He deposes that , he did not hear the abuses given to the Director and he was not present in the Section when alleged incident of alleged abuses given to Khandare by Miss Khot took place. He admits that, he was a witness in the enquiry and that in the enquiry he told Enquiry Officer he heard Miss Khot abusing Director though he had not heard. About paricipation of other employees in the demonstration , question was put to Chakraborty to which he answered that, he cannot state the names of other employees . He admits that , demonstration took place in front of the office. He states that , slogans were given from main gate of office . He admits 6400
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA DECEMBER 6, 2008 /AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1930 PART SIC )
he replied that , " he learnt from security report " . He further states that . he did not know whether Rane actually went out ofGate and collected letter from Maharashtra Sthaniya 1.okadhikar Samiti and handed over it to the office . Ite further achmits that, he did not know whether any memo was issuedto Rane. In the churge sheet it is mentioned that, deinonstration was held in front of the the office and not in front of the gate . Then Management examined Vijay P. Khandare who deposed about Miss Khot and missing of quotations . He also stated about abuses given by Miss Khot to him and to Director In the cross this witness states That one quotation was laying with Salian and not with Miss Khot though charges were levelled against Miss Khot about missing of the quotations . He states that . 111 27-7-1995 Miss Khot was in the cabın of Mr. Chakaboty who was Section Officer ( FA. where he was called . states that . Miss Khot abused him in presence of Mr. Chakraborty. He further states that . he complained about said incident to Mr. Chakraborn . However . Mr Chakraborty has stated that , he has not heard abuses given by Miss Khot to Khandare and to Director also . He admits that page 71 ol'Exhibit 51 is not addressed to any body. Ite admits that page 72 of Exhibit 51 of Phadke is also not addressed to anybody . He futher states that , page 73 is a copy of the complaint which was also not addressed to anybody . He is unable to state how Phadke learnt about abuses when he is in another part of building . He also states that . he did not witness abuses given by Khan 10 Omector .
that , office time was from 1000am to 5.00p.m. and Centre timewas from 11.00 am 10 7.00 pm . He admits that there was no damage to the property of the Centre . He admits thai , he cannot give the list of the work neglected by the (Charged sheeted employees . Ife admits that, in the memo daned 14th September, 1995 no details ofmisconduct were given le states that . he did not know whetter as per page 77 and 78 of Fxhibit 55 late coming is considered and casual lease against it is debited . He further states that . he did cot know whether , leave availed by concerned workman fiom October , 1988 to November . 1995 which were sanctioned by the competent authority . He further states that . be cannot saywhy Miss Khoi alone is charge sheeted for late coming when record reveals that , number of employees have such a late coming report He is also unable to soite whether, Miss Khot sought any leave beyond permissible limits . He further states that he did not know whether he was not paid and she did not get the wages back which war . deducted as per pages 83 and 8-4 of Exhibit 55. Ele liartènt admits that , no reason is given on pages 125 and 12t l exhibit 55 for delay in passing the bill . He achnits that , the delay can be caused because ofthe office for want of budget provisions. He admits that , he did not know how mans members were there in the demonstration . Ile admits that, he has not seenMiss Khot in the said demonstration He states that , he do not know whether demonstration was held belore office gate or gate of Nehru Science Centre . He adinis that. hehas no idea whether Sthaniya lokadhikar Samiti arranged that demonstration and it is a non - political organization. e admits that , salary of one day was deducted of Miss Khet. Regarding charge levelled im Article & of the Charge Sheet He admits that, he did not know contents of para- 1 of nere dated 5-10-1995 submitted by Security Guard filed at page 204 of Exhibit 55. He adituts that , he did not know whether 2nd Party went to the Secretary of the Union on that day not to participate in the demonstration .
23. Witness Prabal Rao is speaking about charges levelled against Rane another charge sheeted employee Charge of not doing work properly , disobeying the orders of superiors , about various acts of misconduct . leaving work place , taking part in the demonstration without permission were levelled against Mr. Rane. This witness has stated all that in the affidavit but in the cross this witness states that 10 days time was not given to Rane to reply to the charge sheet though he prayed . He admits that , Rane denied the charges. He adinits that , there is no documentary evidence to show that. Rane was found absent from his work on particular date and at particular time. He admits that , C. R. , mentioned at page 2.3 of exlubet 54, dated 16-9-1995 was replied by Rane regarding charge of late coming on 4 occasions as mentioned on page 18 of Exibibit 54. 11e admirs that , against that 2 days (..1 .. was debited. He admits that , he did not know whether gate meeting was organized by employees of the Union. He also states that , he did not know whether , demonstrants were arranged by Mahasura Sthaniya Lokadhikar Sam:: i Mahasangh . When question was part what politica: influence was brought by Rane 10 which he replied that. he did not know . Then question was put to him " Whether he had seen Rane participating in the deononstration " 10 wluch
24. Then Management examined its witness Sadher V. Gaunkar on the point of Laking part by both in the demonstration and giving slogans . In the affidavit this fellow has given number of dates and number of slogans mentioned in the name of each officer against whom such alleged slogans were given. He states that . Miss Klun participated in the demonstratimu near Gitte and in the cross this fellow states that, he catonot say the dates of dentonstrations refererred in pama- | of bis atlidavit. fle admits that , he was on main gate on 17h August , 1995 19 well as on 14th September. 1905. Headmits that . he has no oflicial report regarding demonstration on 17-9-95, 116 admits that , as per page 145 of Exhibit 55 Shinde was on tor herween 2nd August. 1995 10 19th August, 1995 where security report at page 194 of ] xhibit 55 reveals that. Shunile was present in the demonstration on 17-8-1995 . He admis that. he was on the main gate and not in front of the office . Besides this , witness examined speaks about complaint tited by Mr. Madhu , Mr. Phuike and Mr. Menon and other report and speaks abom krrowing signatures of those concerend . As per Indian Evidence Act . either Management has to examine the signittories of these documents or have 10 report that, they cannot bring those witnessess and then said can be read as a secondary evidence. But no case of any type is made out regarding non availability of these signatories and reason behind it of whose complants or signature of reports reteried to these witnesses Management appears happs in just referring these sigmatures and the complaints and reports and appears happy that it referted those to witnesses Bui mere adentity jing signature on complaint and report without taking out case about those utid in absence of explanation as to why it is unable to [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
6401 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6, 2008/ अग्रहायण 15 , 1930
examine Madhu and other signatories in my considered view said evidence has not legal value.
25. So this is the evidence led by the Ist Party about charges levelled against these two charge sheeted employees . The evidence discussed above does not lead to the conclusion that, the charge of misconducts , charge ofgiving abuses to Khandekar and Director by Miss Khot, charge of giving slogans are proved against these two charge sheeted employees .
26. One has to consider that , Sthaniya Lokadhikar Samiti , arranged the demonstration . Being member ofthe Sthaniya Lokadhikar Sarniti demonstration was attended byMiss Khot and Rane . It is not that these two only did all that. Union have arranged that dharna and demonstration . Evidence reveals that , both participated in the demonstration after office hours . It is pertinent to note that no action was taken against that dharna neither against the Union which arranged it nor against others who participated in it except these two. It is pertinet to note that if at all arranging dharma was illegal act , it ought to be alleged against Union also . 11 is pertinet to note that it is not shown by 1st Party that, said dharma was illegal and Ist Party has taken any legal action against Union about dharmawhich was jointly attended by Miss Khot and Ranc . When that is the position in my considered view only both these workmen cannot be held responsible for that .
(7)Decision given by our Hon'ble High Court while deciding the case of Usha M. Mahadik Vs. Parle Products Ltd. & Anr . , published in 2006 LLR page 775 , ( 8) Decision given by our Hon'ble High Court white deciding the case of Premier Automobiles Pvt . Ltd. Vs. H. S. T. Hedge & Ors . , published in 2007 LLR page 118, (9) Decision given by Gujarat High Court while deciding the case of Jitendra B. Mehta Vs. The Manager, Reliance Industries Ltd. & Ors . , published in 2007 LLR page 168 , ( 10 ) Decision given by Apex Court while deciding the case of Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. Vs. Uttam Manohar Nakate, published in 2005 LLR page201 , ( 11 ) Decision given by Apex Court while deciding the case of Hombe Gowda Education Trust & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors . , published in 2006 | LCR page 280, ( 12) Decision given by Delhi High Court while deciding the case of Ramkishan Singhal Vs. Presiding Officer. Industrial Tribunal No. III , Delhi & Anr. , published in 2007 LLR page 264 , ( 13 ) Decision given by our Hon'ble High Court Court while deciding the case of AFL Private Ltd , Vs. S. L. Rajappa, published in 2007 LLR page 284、 ( 14 ) Decision given by our Hon'ble High Court Court while deciding the case of Air India Lid . Vs. N.P. Wadkar , published in 2001 LLR page 619 , ( 15 ) Decision given by Calcutta High Court Court while deciding the case of G. Chatterjee & Another Vs. SBI. & Ors. , published in 1983 11 LLJ 200, ( 16 ) Decision given by our Hon'ble High Court while deciding the case of Pefco Foundry Vs. Baban Ananda Dhotre , published in 2000 III LLJ ( Supra ) page 658. ( 17) Decision given by Delhi High Court while deciding the case of R. K. Sharma Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi , published in 1996 LAB I.C. page 1397. When misconduct is proved on charges like these which are of serious nature are proved then in that major punishment is appreciable . One has no dispute on that . But here as stated above charges levelled are not proved against these two . So question to punish deciding does not arise .
27. About leaving work place without permission, reporting late or taking leave without pemission are the other charges levelled against these workers . But it is not show that , both have enjoyed their leave beyond permissible limit . Besides, it is brought on record that , late coming is noted and for that C.L. was deducted against that late coming which means , punishment was given to them there and then only. Even late coming was recorded. So, in my considered view, for that again these persons cannot be Iried punished.
28. Now, let us see the citations referred by the 1st Party's Advocate in support of action taken by the 1st Party against these 2 employees, involved in the reference. Citations referred below are most of the citations where respective Hon'ble Courts observed that, in case of proved misbehaviour and regardig allegation of abusing superiors and assaulting if the punishment of dismissal is given it is observed just and proper . ( 1 ) Decision given by Apex Court whiledeciding case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. N. B. Narawade etc , published in 2005 I CLR page 803 , (2)Decision given by our Hon'ble High Court while deciding the case of Sahil Khan Vs. Hasmat & Co. , published in 2006 (4 ) LLN page 890, ( 3 ) Decision given by Karnataka High Court while deciding the case of S. Madhavan Vs. Management of Sundaram Motors published in 2006 ILLN page 622, (4 ) Decision givenby Madhya Pradesh ligh Court whiledeciding the case of Gwalio Potteroies & Ors Vs. Bhagwan Das and Ors . 2002 1LR page 255 , ( 5 ) Decision given by our Hon'ble High Court while deciding the case of Hawaldar Singh Vs. Taigrania Metal Industries , Nasik, published in 2000 LAB 1.C. page 908 , ( 6 ) Decision given byApex Court while deciding the case of L. K. Verma Vs. H.M.T. Ltd. & Ors . , published in 2006 I CLR page 81.
29. Besides , there cannot be the dispute to give major punishment like removing workmen in the proved misconduct like assaulting superiors or abusing superiors staff at work place or at any other place . The parties against whom such allegations are levelled and proved definitely must be punished by issuing punishment ofdismissal . But, here question arises whether charges levelled against these workmen of abusing superiors , leaving work place are proved? Here charge of abusing superior at work place or at any other place is not levelled against these workinen. Here charge of leaving work place and charge of abusing superior is levelled against these workmen . But as stated above witnesses examined , by the Management are not supporting the case of abuses given by the concerned workmen participated in the demonstration or who were part of it. As stated above , Khandare has changed his statement and made contradictory statement about missing quotations . In fact Salian was responsible for missing of quotations. It is brought on record and it is proved fact that, alleged missing quotations were recovered from Salian and not from Miss Khot . Regarding abuses given te Director, Nehru Science Centre witness Khandare differs. whereas Chakraborty in his evidence is saying that , he did not know and he was not present . Chakraborty is not 6402
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6 , 2008 / AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1930 [PART II -- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
of40 years in 2002 whereas Rane was of 50 when they fited their respective References . Now, Miss Khot maybe of the age of47 and Rane may of age of 57. Still both have long career in their service life . They have large future. They have responsibilities and for their act of like this for which charges are leveled against them were ordered 10 compulsorily retire which ends the service life of employees can be treated as capital punishment in labour jeopardous. by that they have lost their source of livelihood and besides that their families might have suffered lot . But here for the charges which are not provedbeyond reasonable doubt they are ask to undergo said punishment. No doubi record created by Ist Party definitely throw some spots on them which may create some darkness on their service career . But in my considered view definitely for that punishment ofthis type which is under challenged is not just and proper. So in my considered view the punishment under challenge require to be set aside with directions to the management to reinstate them .
32. Now, question arises of back wages or benefit of back service? Proceedings reveals that , there mayhe some incident for which these 2 are involved in the reference. It may be that, they might have attended office late or might not have attended office without prior permission . It may be that , they might have participated in the demonstration but is not proved that . said demonstration was illegal . and these charge sheeted employees have committed any breach of law by participating inthe demonstration . So said punishment is just and proper . Gainful employment is not pleaded by Ist Party nor these two workmen making out specific case. Still one has note that. Nehru Science Centre is Government undertaking autonomous body working for the people at large. It is to be noted that, these two workmen did not work for 1st Party froin Sali November . 1997, So considering all that and the case not made out by both on gainful employment . I conclude that they must benefited by ordering 50% of back wages with benefit of contimily of service. Hence, the order:
ORDER
(a) Reference is partly allowed ;
supporting that Miss Khot abused or threatened Khandare in his Chamber in his presence though the story of the Management is that . Miss Khot abused Khandare and threatened Khandare in Chamber of Section Officer Chakraborty . Besides Sudhir Gaonkar who is examined to show that , both the workmen took part in the demonstration and were in it states that , Mr. Shinde though he was on lour was shown present in the demonstration on 17-8-1995 . That admission of Gaonkar about Shinde's involvement creates doubt about his depositions and raise question as to why he should not be disbelieved regarding his version? Besides in affidavit filed by Gaonkar he has given number of dates and mumber of slogans given by the workmen is drafted date wise and person wise . Question arises whether it is possible for a person to give such details of slogans that too date wise , person wise and time wise of 1995 after 2-3 years? Besides that allegations , allegations leveled against these workmen are of leaving work place without permission or remaining absent unauthorisedly, disobeying the orders of the superiors , abusing them are the allegations which can be leveled by any body and by instrumenting any of the employee of its establishment. In such a case cogent and sufficient evidence is expected which should be believed.Here as stated above, Miss Khot who was the victim of Salian and Khandare and the star witnesses of the Nehru Science Centre like Chakraborty and Gaonkar ere not deposing to that effect than what is expected from them in such a situation . It is to be noted that, these 2 are taking part in the Union activities . They even played role in the Union . They were victimized on number of occasions Even record reveals that , only these two workmen are targeted though number of employees have attended the demonstrations , number of employees were coming late and remaining absent without permission . But the names ofthese two employees who are charge sheeted or targeted but it is not supported by any of the witnesses . Besides disobeying the orders of the superiors is not specifically proved against these two workmen . When this type of evidence is there and when these two charge sheeted employees are challeging the charges leveled aginst them, definitely burden shifts on the institution to prove that, those charge sheeted employees were really involved in it and they did it . lere evidence which is brought on record by Enquiry Officer as well as recorded before this Court does not lead to conclude that any of the charges leveled
against them are proved.
(b) Impugned order of compulsory retirement which is effected from 5th November, 1997 against both these employees Miss S. D. Khot and Mr S. K Rane is set aside directing Ist Party to reinstate then on their respective post and pay them 500 backwages from the date of their actual effect of order of compulsory retirement til they are reinstated:
(c) Management is also directed to give them benetil of continuity of service for the pensioners benefits .
(d) In the circumstances of the case there is no onker as to its costs .
30. No doubt there is some misbehaviour on behalf ofthese two which is be proved for example participating in dharna atter office hours , disputing the written meno, challenging illegal decision of deducting casusal leave about absemeeism , forgetting them only and whan not . But definitely action taken against them reveals that though they were charge sheeted but said charges are not proved and action taken against them reveals that, it was taken just to target them . But in my considered view the achon of removing thiem by giving compulsory retirement is not at all invited as far as these two workmen are concerned .
Bombay,
Dated:30th September . 2008
ALA LAD , Presiding Officer 31. It is to be noted that . these 2 were compulsorily retired on 5th November . 1997 by issuing order with effect form that date. It is to be noted that , Miss Khot was of age [ भाग 11- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली , 12 नवम्बर , 2008
का. आ. 3249,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का (4 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 243/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था
[सं. एल-12014/02/2008- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 12th November, 2008 S.O. 3249.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 243/ 2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the Management of State Bank of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12-11-2008 .
[No. L-12014/02/2008- IR(B- 1 )] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present: Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer Dated the 29th day ofSeptember,2008 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.I.D. No. 14/2005 Between:
Petitioner Shri P. R. Prasad, S/o P. Satyanarayana, R/o3-3-914, Flat No. 103C, Avanthi Apts . , Kudbiguda, Kachiguda, Hyderabad.
And
1. The Chairman , The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. , Administrative Office, Kathaparai, Kanır-639006.
2. The Appellate Authority, (Shri N. Giridharan) The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. , Administrative Office, Kathaparai , Karur-639006 .
3. The Disciplinary Authority, (Sri G. Ragunathan) , The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. , Administrative Office, Kathaparai , Karur-639006.
4847 GLOSB
6403
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6, 2008/अग्रहायण 15 , 1930
4. The Manager ,
Respondents The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. , KotiBranch, Hyderabad,
APPEARANCES :
For the Petitioner : M/s. V. Jogayya Sarma, C.N. Moorthy & J. Madhavi Latha , Advocates
For the Respondent : M/ s. K.V.R. Chowdary& U. S. Lakshmi , Advocates
AWARD
This casewas taken in view of the judgement ofthe Hon'ble High Court of the Andhra Pradesh reported in 1997 (3 ) LLJ Supplement, page 1141 in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Shri Chinmappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others.
2. This petition has been filed by P. R. Prasad against the Respondent management to set aside the order of dismissal passed by Respondent management . It has further been stated that the Petitioner was dismissed from the service of the basis of departmental enquiry to which he said was only an eye wash because the said departmental enquiry was not conducted properly . The principles ofnatural justice were not followed. The charges leveled against the Petitioner were not proved.
3. Brief facts of this petition has been mentioned as follows:that the Petitioner joined as clerk in Respondent bank on 15-7-1980 at Bangalore , He was transferred to Koti branch ofHyderabad in the year 83. The Respondent bank is scheduled commercial bank and the staff are governed byBi partite settlement arrived at between the employees union and the banks association . It has further been submitted that all clerk obey the instructions of the higher ups in the execution of the day to day work . The manager asks the clerks concerned to fill up the vouchers of the remittances/disbursements etc in turn the voucher relating to the remittance or disbursement will be filled up by the clerk concerned. All the staff members follow this procedure. He has further stated that Branch Manager at Hyderabad gave a complaint to the police station , Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad in FIR No. 172/2002 dated 15-7-2002 and simultaneously issued a chargesheet dated 14-9-2002. Departmental enquiry was completed but no action was taken . Then , 2nd chargesheet was issued on 12-2-2004 containing 29 charges which was replied by the workman on4-3,2004 . On reciept ofthis reply to the 2nd chargesheet only a show cause notice on the basis of the ist chargesheet dated 14-9-2002 was issued on 22-3-2004. He has submitted that on careful examination of the chargeshect dated 14-9-2002,12-2-2004 and police complaint dated 15-7-2002 which will reveal that there is no financial loss to bank. There are only procedural irregularities in filling the vouchers : In reply dated 4-3-2004 Petitioner had categorically stated that the 2nd chargesheet dated 12-2-2004 is grounded on the same set of facts as was complaned to the police in FIR no . 172/2002. In the enquiry 6404
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 6 , 2008/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1930
proceedings the Enquiry Officer has submitted his findings
Charge No. I not proved.
Charge No. 2 not established.
Charge No. 3 not established.
Charge No. 4 there is no loss to the bank.
Charge No. 5 neither claim nor loss to the bank .
Charge No. 6 transactions had been authorised.
Charge No. 7 there is no claim of refund.
Charge No. 8 reads , ". however , here the genuineness of D.C.D. could not be proved otherwise.
Though D.C.D.'s could have been genuine the generators for producing Fds , C.Ds through the questionable means. Hence, by acting so he had acted in detrimental to the interest of the bank .
Charge No. 9 : "However, here the genuineness of DCD could not be proved otherwise . Though the DCD's could have been genuine but the sources for generating those DCD's are through questionable means" .
Charge No. 10 : no loss to the bank and
Charge No. 11 : there is no financial loss to the bank.
Charge No. 12 : Charges not established.
Charge No. 13 : There is no loss to the bank .
Based on these findings the Disciplinary Authority made him scape goat and has terminated his services . Then Petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed on 14-9-2004. He prayed to declare the order of the Disciplinary Authority as illegal and thereby to set aside and reinstate him with full back wages .
4. Counter was filed on behalf of the management who has alleged that the Petitioner's claim application is neither true nor correct . It is submitted that Petitioner while working as clerk at Hyderabad main branch has reportedly misappropriated banks' funds and was involved in serious acts of misconducts as per bipartite settlement applicable to him . The Petitioner was initially suspended pending disciplinary action by order dated 20-6-2002 . He was issued with a chargesheet dated 14-9-2002 for alleged serious acts of misconduct from 2-5-1983 to 29-4-2002 . Chargesheet reads as follows :
"Charge Sheet :
It is reported that you have committed various acts of commission and omission while working in our Hyderabad branch from 2-5-1983 to 29-4-2002 . Hence , the following charges are framed against you .
1. That you had misappropriated Rs . 2,25,000 from: out of the cheque No. 011978 dated 1-6-2000 issued by the bokler of the SIs de 37469 favouring ' Yourself and you, as purchaser , hadeffector Mail Transfer No. 75 /2000-2001 00 1-6-2000 payable at "Lennai for the said amour favouring S. Isaluh ribuan & K Padt rajan ,
PART II St. 30 ) Above stated act of yours would, ifproved , amount to an act of prejudicial to the interests of the Bank and gross misconduct under 5(j ) of the Bipartite settlement dated 10-4-2002.
2. That you had prepared following credit vouchers for- crediting the amount of the below mentioned pay orders wherein you willfully filled in S Baic No. as 37469 which is standing in the name of Mahesh despite knowing that the relative pay orders were not in the name of Mahesh and thus caused conversion of Rs . 38,329 which amounts to loss to the Bank.
Amount PayOrderNo.
inRs .
Sl . Date No.
14-10-2000
1,785
001119
002708
2 7-5-2001
22,451
3 18-6-2001
12,493
003 134,002989.
003069
003707
1,600
4 21-8-2001
Total
38,329
Above stated acts ofyours would, if proved , amount to acts prejudicial to the interests of the Bank and Cross misconduct under 5 ( j ) of the Bipartite settlement dated 10-4-2002 .
3. That you had prepared credit voucher for Rs . 7.369 on26-9-2001 for crediting the amount of pay orders bearing No. 003987 & 003989 favouring Sri Mohan Ran , you purposely did not fill up the SB a/ c number and caused it credited into SB a'c 37469 standing in the name of Mahesh whereas the relative Pay orders were not in the name of Mahesh .
Above stated act of yours would, if proved, amount to an act prejudicial to the interests ofthe Bank and Gross misconduct under 5 (j ) of the bipartite settlement dated 10-4-2002.
4. That you had prepared credit voucher fот Rs . 19,269 on 3-10-200 ) for crediting maturity proceeds of deposit receipt No. 20010908 ( CDR No. p312817 ) held in the name ofNilesh Beneficiary Trust wherein you purposely did not fill up the SB a'c number with ulterior motives and caused the amount to be credited into SB a/c 37469 of Mahesh and thus exposing the bank to a eventual claim of Rs. 19,269 which amounts to loss to the Bank .
Above stated act ofyours would , if proved , amount to acts prejudicial to the interests of the Bank and gross misconduct under 5 (j ) of the bipartite settlement dated 10-4-2002.
5. That you had prepared credit voucher for Rs .3,086/-on 22-10-2001 for crediting interest for 79 days on the deposit als held in the nameof Chilakoumma and credit voucher for Rs . 3,905 dated 22-10-2001 for payment nterest from 110311342 of Ravinder Reddy wherem son purposely did not till up the SB ac 17469 of Mahesh . Thereby exposed the Bank to a eventual loss os 6.9 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
6405
भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6 , 2008/अग्रहायण 15 , 1930
Abovestated acts of yours would, if proved, amountto acts prejudicial to the interests of the Bank and gross misconduct under 5 (j ) of the bipartite settlementdated 10-4-2002.
6. That you have prepared credit voucher in respect ofthe following accounts for transferring the amount of interest to the concerned depositor . You with a view to get it credited into the SB a/c 37469 prepared the vouchers accordingly. The amount was credited into SB a/ c 37469 of Mahesh and thus caused conversion ofRs. 12,320 which amounts to loss to the Bank.
FD Name & No SI. Dated No.
Amount in Rs .
1. 3-12-2001 10,247
KC Chordia 20010254 2. 3-12-2001 2,073
KC Chordia 20010255 Total
12,320
Abovestated acts ofyours would, if proved, amount toacts prejudicial to the interests of the Bank and gross misconduct under 5(1 ) of the bipartite settlement dated 10-4-2002.
7. That you on 11-11-1998 closed deposit receipt 88198/115/85 dated 20-12-1985 for Rs . 16,000 standing in the name ofM/s . Yamuna Digital Electronics Pvt . Ltd. due on 16-12-1988 with maturity value ofRs . 21,520 . The deposit receipt is discharged in the capacity of Proprietor and there is no instruction for renewal of deposit . But with out any authority, you prepared credit voucher for Rs . 21,520 for crediting DCD 455/98 in the name of Govind Reddy purported to be renewal for 10 years . The deposit receipt No. 158509 was prepared by you in the name ofGovind Reddy. As it was only renewal of the deposit standing in the name ofM/s. Yamuna Digital Electronics Pvt . Ltd. , the officer had corrected the name in the deposit receipt accordingly and authenticated it under his signature.But you struck the name of M/ s Yamuna Digital Electronics Pvt. Ltd. , and you again inserted the name ofGovindReddy. Accordingly, you have opened the deposit account in the register. You closed the said deposit a/c on 9-1-1999 and prepared voucher for the maturity amount ofRs . 57,783 for issuing payorder favouring Govind Reddy. The payorder No. 002289 so issued was paid through clearing. Thus you have caused conversion of Rs . 21,520 and loss ofRs . 57,783 to the bank.
Abovestated acts ofyours would, if proved, amounttoacts prejudicial to the interests of the Bank and gross misconduct under 5(j ) of the bipartite settlement dated 10-4-2002.
8. That you prepared Debit vouchers on 18-5-1999 for Rs .71,364.70 and Rs. 23,479.05both purported to be the clearing difference claimedby SBH and for Rs . 25,000.20 purported to be the clearing difference claimed by Canara Bank for debiting Sundries A/ c in all amounting to Rs. 1,20,113.95 . For the said amount, you prepared 5 credit vouchers for issuance of pay order 217 to 221/99 favouring the Banks concerned . That on 6-12-1999 , you had deliberately chosen to debit pay order account as cancellation of pay order 217 to 221/99, knowing fully well that the beneficiaries ofthe pay orders are banks and these pay orders were issued towards clearing difference and you prepared debit voucher for Rs . 1,20,113.95 . That you had prepared credit vouchers for opening DCD in the following names and thus caused conversion of Rs . 1,20,113.95 which amounts to loss to the bank, Name
Amount Rs.
DCD No
25,000,20
46424 Shailaja
23,749.05
46425 Sushila
46426 Santosh Kumar
24,500.00
34,992.00
46427 Purushothama
11,872.00
46428 Durga Prasad
1,20,113.95 Above stated acts ofyours would , if proved, amount to acts prejudicial to the interests of the Bank and gross misconduct under 5(j ) ofthe bipartite settlement dated 10-4-2002.
9. That without actually sorting out the clearing difference and without receiving clearing difference receivable and without paying clearing difference payable, you have prepared vouchers to square up the same internally, as given below, which is against the systems and procedure of the bank.
Above stated acts ofyours would, if proved, amount toacts prejudicial to the interests of the Bank and gross misconduct under 5(j ) of the bipartite settlement dated 10-4-2002.
10. That you have debited Rs . 2,087,30 оп 12-7-2000 ostensibly for pay orders 015906/2777 dated 29-3-90.015908/ 2779 dated 29-3-90, 081674/1766 dated 21-3-94 and 081310/ 1404 dated 22-1-94 in the name of different payces , fully knowingwell that the above instruments had become stale . Thatthe above proceeds had been used by you for issuing pay order 000730 favouring Ashok Tiru Tronics and caused conversion of Rs . 2,087.30 which amounts to loss totheBank.
Above stated acts of yours would, if proved, amount toacts prejudicial to the interests of the Bank and gross misconduct under 5(j ) ofthe Bipartite settlement dated 10-4-2002 .
11. That you were instructed to take action on the letter No. AV 22022/ 2/2001 -FG dated 25-10-2001 , received from Director General of Civil Aviation , wherein the Bank was asked to remit the value of FD 016132/72/93-94 of Swathi Sanghi and Director General of Civil Aviation, Delhi along with interest therein. The above deposit matured for payment on 10-12-95 with maturity value Rs. 12,184 /- , That you are aware that no interest is payable after the maturity datewhen payment is demanded . That you closed the arc and debited FD for Rs . 13,322/-on 5-12-2001 and , in contravention of instructions of the depositor, you created 6406
THIE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 6 , 2008/AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1930
DCD a/c 20011427 for 72 months carrying interest from 10-12-95. That consequently, the maturity value was Rs.27,820 . That on 13-12-200 ] closing the DCD a/ c 20011427 you created DCD a/ c 20010627 for days . That on 31-12-2001 , you closed the DCD a/ c 20010267 for Rs. 27,877 and prepared the credit vouchers for issuance ofDD for Rs . 12,164/- favouring the Accounts Officer , Central pay and Accounts Office , Civil Aviation Department , Government of India and for crediting the balance ofRs . 15,693/- favouring Swathi without mentioning SB a/c No. It was caused to be credited to Sundries a/ c . you have prepared voucher for reversing Rs . 15,693.- from Sundries on 9-1-2002 and for crediting SB a/ c of Swathi without mentioning SB a/ c No. and caused it to be siphoned offby crediting it into SB a/ c 35048 ofVijay Kumar Kandhar and thus you have caused loss to the Bank. Similarly you have caused loss of Rs 15693/- to the Bank in respect of DVD016131 which was standing in the name of Liday Pilani and DGCA.
Above stated acts ofyours would , if proved , amount toacts prejudicial to the interests of the Bank and gross misconduct under 5 (j ) of the Bipartite settlement dated 10-4-2002.
12. That you have closed DCD011446 1F 3418 of Ganesh Kumar on 24-8-99 and debited for Rs . 81,233 whereas the maturity amount payable was Rs . 76,721 and youhad caused loss of Rs . 4,512 to the bank.
Above stated acts of yours would, if proved, amount to acis prejudiciat to the interests of the Bank and gross misconduct under 5 ( j ) of the Bipartite settlement dated 10-4-2002.
13. That you had prepared voucher for pay order on 8-10-1999 and pay order 1106 for Rs . 1,314 was issued in favour of Pushpa. You had also prepared voucher for pay order on 23-9-1999 and pay order 976 for Rs. 8366 was issued in Eivour of Sayar Bai. That being so , you had prepared credit voucher on 12-10-1999 for Rs . 9680 with the offset being above 2 pay orders by deliberately filling in SB a/ c No 32012 so as to credit the same into SB alc 32012 held in the name of Santosh Vijay/Davendar Srinivas . That thus you have caused conversion of Rs . 9680 which amounts to loss to the bank .
Above stated acts of yours would, if proved , amount to acts prejudicial to the interests of the Bank and gross misconduct under 5 ( j ) of the Bipartite settlement dated 10-4-2002.
You are , advised to submit your written statement of defence, if any, within 15 days from date of receipt of this charge sheet .
3. The Petitoner has subinitted his version and vaguely denied the charges without any explanation . Stating therein that he did and acted as per the directions of his superiors . The explanation was not found to be sausfactory. However, to give a fair and reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner management decuded to conduct an enquiry into charges levelled against the Petitioner and Sri S. Manoharan , Asst General Manager,
[PART IE-SEC . 3( 11 ) ] DivisionalOffice, Hyderabad has been appointed as Enquiry Officer who conducted the enquiry and submitted his report dated 5-1-2004.
6. The Disciplinary Authority on careful perusal of the procedings ofthe enquiry and the finding ofthe Enquiry Officer found that the Petitioner herein alongwith his Advocate appeared before the Enquiry Officer . He participated in the enquiry to his full satisfaction cross examined the witnesses examined on behalf of the management . He asked to submit his defence if any, before EnquiryOfficer on 15-12-2003 . The Petitioner did not submit any defence submission .
7. The Enquiry Officer conducted fair and proper enquiry gave reasonable opportunity to- Petitioner following principles of natural justice . The findings ofthe Enquiry Officer are based on the material available on record and management accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer in full and considering the gravity and seriousness of the misconduct proved against the Petitioner. Imposed thepunishment of the dismissal under clause 69a of the bi- partite settlement . Accordingly , the Petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 22-3-2004 and he was granted personal hearing on 31-3-2004. No response was given by the Petitioner nor he appeared before the Disciplinary Authority on 31-3-2004 . The Disciplinary Authority concluded that Petitioner committed acts prejudicial to the interests of the bank and dismissed the services of the Petitioner. The action of the management is legal. valid . bonafide and justified and it wants no interference from this Hon'ble Court . The contention of the Petitioner is incorrect and baseless that Manager of Hyderabad branch suddenly lodged a complaint with the police . There is no merit in the contention of the Petitioner and this Petition deserves to be dismissed
8. The Petitioner has filed impugned dismissal order dated 2-4-2004, Charge sheet dated 14-9-2002, proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority dated 22-3-2004、 representation dated 12-2-2003 , appeal dated 15-5-2004. order of rejection of appeal dated 14-9-2004 and copy of FIR No. 172/2002. However , the Respondent has filed letter of suspension dated 20-6-2002 chargesheet dated 14-9-2002 , explanation of the Petitioner dated 20-9-2002, order of appointing Enquiry Officer dated 24-10-2002, proceeding regarding change of Disciplinary Authority dated 25-8-2003 . findings of Enquiry Officer dated 5-1-2004 , Ex . MEx . 1 10 MEX 14. Show cause notice dated regarding proposed punishment on 22-3-2004 order of dismissal dated 2-4-2004 . appeal from the Petitioner dated 15-5-2004, minutes of personal hearing dated 22-6-2004. letter from the Petitioner dated 30-6-2004 . leuerto the Petitioner dated 10-7-2004 , letter from the Petitioner dated 19-7-2004 , minutes of personal hearing dated 24-7-2004 and order ofAppellate Authority dated 19-12-2004 .
9. The Petitioner has not filed lus own aflidavit nor he has examined himself, nor produced any oral evidence .
10. I have heard Respondent's counsel herauise Petitioner or his counsel are not present on the date of arguments . I have gone through the file . Petitioner's main contention through his claim petition is that he was made a 6407 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6, 2008/ अग्रहायण 15 , 1930
[ भाग [ ]- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL Documents marked for the Respondent NIL
नई दिल्ली , 12 नवम्बर , 2008
का. आ. 3250.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार न्यूइंडिया इन्शोरेन्स को. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुवन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण मुम्बई नं. 2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 42/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12/11/2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -17012/26/2004- आई आर ( बी -1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 12th November , 2008
S.O. 3250.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Contral Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 42/ 2005) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum- Labour Court , No. -2 , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the Management of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 12-11-2008.
[No. L-17012/26/2004 - IR( B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2, MUMBAI
Present : A. A. Lad, Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT-2/42 of 2005
Employers in Relation to the Management of New IndiaAssurance Company Ltd.
The Regional Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd. New India Assurance Building 87, M.G. Road, Fort Mumbai -400001 .
And
Their Workmen
scape goat . The charges levelled against him were not found to be proved by the Enquiry Officer, as has been mentioned in para 6 of his claim petition. However, the Petitioner has not taken courage to appear before this court in persons and state those allegations by taking oath before this court . He has not been able to substantiate the allegation made in para 6 of his claim petition . As against this, the management has filed the letter of suspension, chargesheet, explanation ofthe Petitioner and proceedings before the Enquiry Officer and the findings of the Enquiry Officer, holding the Petitioner guilty of charges . The Petitioner has prepared a pay order for Rs. 8366 in favour of one Sayar Bai. Apart from this he has prepared credit vouchers for the credit of SB a/ c 32012 which is highly illogical and unexplainable. Several other charges has also been found to be proved . The Disciplinary Authority has issued a show cause notice to the Petitioner alongwith the copy of enquiry report asking the Petitioner to submit the explanation against the charges proved against him . It has further been informed to the Petitioner that if he wants to place certain facts in person before the Disciplinary Authority he can avail that chance also and a date 3-7-2004 was fixed for personal hearing of the Petitioner vide letter dated 22-6-2004 . Against this letter the Petitioner has replied to the bank by his letter dated 30-6-2004, that he is not in a position to take journey from Hyderabad to Karur and he sought permission to make his submission through his counsel . The record further show that the DisciplinaryAuthority has postponed the date of personal hearingvide their letter dated 10-7-2004 to 24-7-2004 but it appears that the Petitioner workman has not availed 2nd opportunity also but he has written a letter dated 19-7-2004 for further adjournments and requested for his case to be presented through the counsel . However, this request was not allowed and Disciplinary Authority has passed the order ofdismissal . Thus there is ample evidence that the Petitioner has committed serious pecuniary irregularities and misconducts, the charges leveled against the Petitionerwere found proved. There is no irregularity or illegality in domestic enquiry and the report ofenquiry officer was based on cogent reliable evidence; due to which Disciplinary Authority has taken the view that the Petitioner is not fit to be retained in the service ofthe bank and has dismissed his services,which had been confirmed by the Appellate Authority of the department . The Petitioner has not been able to point out any defect or prejudice before this court also. He was not present before this court on the date of arguments, he has not filed any affidavit/order or documentary evidence in support ofhis claim petition . Nor he examined himself. All this goes to show that the Petitioner has got no case. His claim petition is baseless , ambiguous and has not been proved as alleged by the Petitioner . From the above discussion , this Court has come to the conclusion that the Petitioner's claim has no force, it deserves to be dismissed and Petitioner deserves no relief from this court .
Award passed accordingly. Transmit .
Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assitant , transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the day of September,2008.
Mr. Mahesh Shah Matru Ashish Co- op . Housing Society FlatNo. 12 , 3rdfloor V.P. Road, Near Khoja Jamat Khana Andheri (W) Mumbai 400058 .
VED PRAKASH GAUR, PresidingOfficer 6408
[PART 11-SEC.3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6 , 2008/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1930
Appearances:
FortheEmployer
: Mr. C.V. Pavaskar, Advocate
For the Workmen
: No appearance.
Mumbai , dated 6th October , 2008.
AWARD
1. The Government of India, Ministry ofLabour ,by its Order No. L- 17012/26/2004 [ IR ( B- I ) ] dated 03-01-2005 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d ) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2(A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-
"Whether the action of the Management of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai in dismissing the services of Shri Mahesh Shah w.e.f. 16-11-2000 is justified? If not , what relief the workman , Shri Mahesh Shah is entitled to? "
2. Claim statement is filed at Ex - 8 which was replied by first party by filing written statement at Ex- 9. Issues were framed at Ex-22 - and when reference was kept for recording evidence second party started remaining absent . Even fresh notice was sent to second party by Ex-24 and Ex-25 reveals it was served on him still he remained absent . In this premises i conclude that second party is not interested in proceeding with the reference. Hence the order:
ORDER
Reference is disposed of for want of prosecution.
Dated: 06-10-2008
A. A. LAD . PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली , 14 नवम्बर, 2008
का. आ. 3251, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.बी.एम.बी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में कंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. - 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं 33/91 ) को प्रकाशित करती हैं , जो कंन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -42011 /45/90 - आई आर ( डीयू ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Dethi, the 14th November, 2008 ... 3251-10 pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 33/91 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - Cum - Labour Court, No. - i , Chandigarh , as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of B.B.M.B and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 14-11-2008.
[No. L-42011 /45 /90- IR ( DEU ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA , PRESIDINGOFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR-COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH, Case No. 1. D. 33/91
General Secretary, Nangal Bhakra Mazdoor Sangh , Nangal Township, District Ropar (Punjab)-140001 .
Applicant
Versus
ChiefEngineer , Bhakra Dam , Nangal Township, District Ropar (Punjab)-140001 .
Respondent
APPEARANCES
For theworkman:
Sh . R.K. Singh
Sh . Bhagat Singh
For the management:
AWARD
Passed on : 5-11-08
Government of India vide Notification No. L- 42011 / 45/90 IR (DU ) dated 12-3-91 referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
"Whether the action of the Chief Engineer , Bhakra Dam, Nangal Township, Distt. Ropar is justified in not giving the scale ofRs . 810-1440 w.e.f. 1-1-86 to all the 26 helpers ( details are given in the Annexure F) ? If not, to what relief the concemed workmen are entitled ? "
The case of all the 26 workmen in not shall is that all the workmen are regularly serving in B.B.M.B till date . They all are I.T.I. diploma holders . The first revision of pay scalc was made by the B.B.M.B. w.e.f. 1-2-68 at par with Punjab Government pay scates , the second revision of pay scale was made w.e.f 1-1-78 at par with Punjab Government pay scales and third revision of pay scale was made w.e.f. 1-1-86 to this category of workmen including others at par with Punjab Government pay scales . Initially, the designation given to the workman was skilled Mazdoor, thereafter , Beldar . On resisting by the Union and workmen , they were designated as helpers and each one was classified in the respective trade . It was because that the Beldar's work is entirely different than that of helper to a particular trade . The workmen were paid Rs .750-1300 along with the Beldar/ Helper employed in Civil Motors for digging pits and on maintenance of buildings and roads whereas , the workmen are working on the work of skilled nature in big workshops . As per the Punjab Government pay scale . the pay scale of workmen should have been Rs . 810 1440 we.f 1-1-86 but they were given the scale of Rs . 750-1300 . Moreover, the management is not paying any special pay or selection grade to the petitioners on the basis of their technical qualification . On the basis of Punjab ( invernment pay scales on 1-2-68 , the pay scale of workman should have been Rs.80-3-120 whreas, the B.B.M.13 . has given the pay scale of 6409 [ भाग 1 ]- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6, 2008/अग्रहायण 15 , 1930
theseworkmen were entitled for pay scale of Rs . 810-1440 from 1-1-86 instead of Rs. 750-1300 . Fixation ofpay scale. revision of pay scale and granting of pay scale in a particular pay structure depends on the decision making ofthe management of any organization. The Tribunal has to see whether the organization has fixed the pay scale of the workmen in different structure than they were entitled on thebasis oftheir working and as per the policy decision ofthe management of respondent.
Rs . 70-2-80-3-95 . From 1-1-78 , they should have been in the pay scale of Rs . 325-495 as par with Punjab Government scales but they were given the pay scale of Rs .300-10-450/ 14-430 by B.B.M.B. Likewise, from 1-1-86, they should have been given the pay scale of Rs . 810-1440 as per the Punjab Government scales but theB.B.M.B. provided them the scale ofRs . 750-20-1500. On the basis of above averment, all the workmen have claimed that the pay scale ofRs . 810-1440 be providedto all the workmen w.e.f. 1-1-86 along with interest and heavy cost .
The management of respondent appeared and opposed the claim by stating that the B.B.M.B has not adopted the pay scale of Punjab Government as such to the workmen of B.B.M.B. The pay scales of Punjab Government were adopted by B.B.M.B with certain modifications since beginning .
In Union of India vs. P.V. Hariharan , ( 1997 ) 3 SCC-568 , Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed that the Courts or Tribunals ought not to interfere with pay scales without proper reasons and without being conscious of the fact that fixation of pay is not their function . Change of pay scale of a category has a cascading effect, when several other categories similarly constituted, would put forward their claims on the basis of such change, which will lead to serious problems ? Unless it could be clearly brought out that they were carrying on identically work and there is clear case of hostile discrimination , there would be no justification for interfere with the fixation of payscale.
In Union of India vs. Makhan Chandra Roy, ( 1997 ) 11 SSC 182 , it was held by the Supreme Court that the equation of post or pay must be left to the Executive Government and must be determined by expert bodies like PayCommission , The Court should not try to think with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made extraneous .
It has also been stated by the management of B.B.M.B. that in the matter under dispute , the General Secretary, Nangal Bhakra Mazdoor Sangh , Nangal Township preferred demand notice against the non- implementation ofthird Pb. Pay Commission report notified bythe Pt. Deptt of Personnel & Admn . Reforms letter No. 4/ 19/SSO/NGIE/ 16827 dated 26-10-88 , to the categories of Skilled& Semi Skilled staffaccording to which-1440 w.e.f. 1-1-86. TheGeneral Secy. ofthe Union was replied vide S.E. , BDC letter No. 468/PS/40 dt. 30-1-90 (copy enclosed) and Addl . Secy. BBMB No. 5447 /PD/ 1346/89 /R-5 dated 12-2-90 that the Industrial workforce i.e. Skilled Labour/T. Mate/ Helpers/Beldars were allowed the pay scale of Rs.30-35/35-40 which were revised to Rs . 70-95 vide Secy. B.B.M.B Chandigarh letterNo. 20395-400/PS/ 1699/D-B dated 19-11-80 . The same stands revised to Rs. 750-1350 w.e.f. 1-1-86 which were correctly allowed & paid to the Helpers of workshop Divn. because they were initially appointed as Skilled Labour on daily wages & later on brought on workcharge cadre as Beldar in pay scale of Rs . 30-35.
In State of Maharashtra vs. Chandrakant Anant Kulkami, ( 1981 ) 4 SCC 130-1981 (2 ) SLJ 280 ( SC), it was observedby the Supreme Court that the matter of equation of posts is an administrative function and such matter should be left to the concerned Government . Any revision of pay wouldbe exercised which is totally unauthorized and would amount to taking a policy decision which is within the domain of the authorities themselves who arc the authors of the pay scales or revision thereafter .
It has further been stated by the management of B.B.M.B. that w.e.f. 1-1-86, they pay scales ofthe workman were revised under the " Certified Standing Orders " of B.B.M.B. vide letter No. 19311 /86 /PD/ 1307/R 5 dated 2-8-1989, The Punjab Government's letter No. 4/ 19/88-4G1/ 16827 dated 26-10-88 was never adopted by the B.Β.Μ.Β.
Ihave given opportunity for adducing evidence to bothofthe parties. On behalf of the workmen , Surjit Singh was examined as WW1 and Sh . Kuldeep Kumar, was examined as WW2 . On behalf of the management Sh . R.K. Singh filed his affidavit and was cross -examined by learned counsel for the workman . All the relevant documents which have been mentionedbyboth of the parties in their pleadings have been filed which are on the revision ofpay scales.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and persued all the materials on record .
InState ofU.P. vs. J.P. Chaurasia , ( 1989) 1 SCC 121 , the Supreme Court observed that the matter of pay scale does not just depend upon either the nature of work or volume of work done as primarily what is needed to be noticed is violation of dues and responsibilities to the respective posts . More often than not, functions of two posts may appear to be same or similar , but there may be different degrees in the performance , like the responsibilities attached to a particular office. In such a case, itwould not be open to the Court to consider whether the equation of posts made by the Government or the pay scales granted to them is right or wrong, as such malters are exclusively within the provisions of the Government . Perhaps the only question the Court can enquire into is whether appropriate policy has been adopted by the Government which does not result in hostile discrimination which is a very narrow and limited area ofenquiry.
The main question for determination before this Tribunal is whether the B.B.M.B. has adopted the circular letter oftheGovernment of Punjab No. 4 / 19 / 88-4G1/ 16827 dated 26-10-88 in revising the pay scales of its workmen from 1-1-86 ? This Tribunal has also to answer whether all
All the above mentioned case laws have bech referred and relied upon by the Supreme Court in Union India and others vs. Indu Lal and others 2003 AISLJ-X-130.
6410
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6 , 2008 /AGRAHAYANA 15. 1930
PARI -S300
NewDelhi , the 14th November. 2008
S.O. 3252. In prosnance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 3 02) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -labour Court No.1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Military Farm and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 14-11-2008.
No. L -14012: 97-01-18 ( 10 AJAY KUMAR. Desk Officer ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT - 1 , CHANDIGARIT
CASE NO. L.D. 3/92
On careful perusal of all the materials on record including the circular letters regarding revision of pay and fuxation of all the workmen and the entire evidence adduced by the parties , I am of the view that the workman have failed to prove the hostile discrimination of the management of B.B.M.B. in revising and fixing the pay scales . A casual statement is made by the workmen that their scales have been revised as par with unskilled workers. whereas, all the workers who are subject matter in this reference are skilled workers . They have no where mentioned the duties and responsibilities of the post held by them. It is admitted to all the workmen that prior to the revision ofpay in question , the pay scales of the workmen were revised twice in the same manner as the revision of pay in question was affected . Meaning thereby the pay scale given to the workinen in previous two pay revisions was different than that of the Punjab Government pay scales . The management and workmen have only challenged the third pay revision w.e.f. 1-1-86 , they have not challenged the previous revisions dated 1-2-68 and 1-1-78 , Whereas, all the three revisions were affected on the same standard.
Shri Walter C/ o . General Secretary. Military Farm, Civilian Workers and Employees Union , Ferozpur Canut (Punjab )-152001 ,
....Applicar
The Officer- in-Charge . Military Farm , Ferozpur Cantt (Ph.) - 152001
Respondent
APPEARANCES
For the workman:
For the managernent:
STT C. Sh เภทส Sri . K. K. Thakur AWARD Passed on 5-11-2008
Government of Indi notification No. 1. - 1101 ב 97/91 - IR ( DU ) dated 23-1-92 . has referred the following Industrial Dispute for judicial adjudication to this Tribunal:-
As stated by lion'ble the Apex Court in above mentioned case laws that the fixation of pay is the matter ofpolicy decision taken by the department concerned of theGovernment and the Court have very limited powerto interfere in the granting of pay scale and in revision thereafter. It is the policy decision of the management of B.B.M.B. that the pay scales of Punjab Government shall not be given as such to the workmen working in B.B.M.B. Their scales are to be revised on the basis of decision making of B.B.M.B. by separate circular letters of the B.B.M.B. Thus, unless and until some discrimination in giving the pay scale or revision thereafter, is not before this Tribunal , this Tribunal cannot interfere in the matter of granting pay scales and their revision. Accordingly , this reference is positively answered that as per the policy of the management of B.B.M.B. , all the workmen have rightly given the pay scale of 750-1350 from vide letter No. 19311 /86 / PD/1-3-07/R-5 dated 2-8-1989 under "Cerified StandingOrders of B.B.M.B. w.e.f. 1-1-86 . The workmen are not entitled to any relief. Let Central Government be informed. File he consigned.
G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम्बर , 2008
" Whether the action of the Officer Incharge . Military Farm Ferozpur Cantt ., in terminating the services of Sh . Walterdaily rated workman w.e.f. 1-1-89 is justified? Ifnot, what relief the concerned work is entitled to?"
का.आ. 3252.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मिलिट्री फार्म के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्यागिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. । चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 3/92) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो कंन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
The case of the workman nut shell is that the workmanworked with the management of respondent from 1-9-85 1031-12-88 . at the Military Farm on daily cates basis. against the regular and permanent post , but payment was made nionthly . The services of the workman were legally tenninated in violation of rules and provisions of las as no notice or retrenchment compensation was given to him . He has prayed for reinstaternent into the services with tull back wages and other consequential benefits
The management of respondent opposed the Lim of the workman by filing written statement . He rused the [सं. एल -14012 /97/91 - आईओए । डॉ यू) ] अजय कुमार , हेस्क अधिकारी [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
preliminary objection that the management of respondent is not an industry and accordingly, this Tribunal has no jurisdictionto dispose off this reference. On merits , it is stated that theworkman worked with the department for 29 days in September 1985, 211 days in the year 1986 and only 45 days in the month of February and May 1987. The applicant has not worked for 240 days in the preceeding year from the date ofhis termination. In para no . 7 detailed statement ofworking days is given by the management of respondent as follows:-
1985
Sept. 29days only
1986
Apr.86 29days
May.86 31days
July.86 30days
Aug.86 30days
Sep.86 30days
Nov.86 30days
Dec. 86 31 days
Total 211 days
1987
Feb.87 27days
May87 18days
Total
45days
1988 Nil
Nil 1989
Both ofthe parties were afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence. Shri Walter filed his affidavit in the form ofevidence and he was subjected to cross- examination by learned counsel by the management of respondent on 1-12-06, Shri Gurbhacan Singh filed his affidavit for the respondent ofmanagement and he was cross-examined by learned counsel for the workman . All the relevant documents relating to the work of the workman have been filed by the management of respondent . R 1 is the failure of conciliation report written by Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) Chandigarh to the Secretary Government ofIndia, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi . Annexure 2 is the details ofworking days of Shri Walter and M3 to M10 are the copies of attendance register . I have heard leamed counsels for the parties and pursued the entire materials on record . The main issues for adjudication in answering thisreference are :
( 1 ) Whether the management of respondent is an industry?
(2) Whether the workman has completed 240days of workwith the management of respondent ? Ifyes, to what reliefhe is entitled?
I am answering these issues one by one:-
The term ' industry ' has been defined in Section 2 (j ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , to mean any business, trade undertaking, manufacturing or calling upon employers and includes any calling , services , employment , handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen . in 4847 G1108-0
6411
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6, 2008/ अग्रहायण 15 , 1930
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa and others AIR , 1978 Supreme Court 548. , 7Judges Bench ofHon'ble the Apex Court has Defined the word 'Industry' . As per the above mentioned law laid downby the Apex Court, industry has defined in Sub -section 2 ( j ) as awide term and import as :-
(a) Where there is ( i ) systematic activity, ( ii ) organized by co-operation between employer and employee the direct and substantial element is chimerical ) , and ( iii ) for the production and/or distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes (not spiritual or religious but inclusive of material things or services geared to celestial bliss ) , prima facie, there is an industry in the enterprise.
(b)Absence of profit motive or gainful objective is irrelevant, be the venture in the public, joint , private or other sector.
(c)The ture focus is functional and the decisive test is the nature ofthe activity with special emphasis on the employer-employee relations.
(d) If the organization is a trade or business it does not cease to be one because of philanthropy animating the undertaking.
Thus, the test (specially triple test) referred by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply case (supra) are necessary to qualify any institution to be an industry.
Regarding the sovereign functions, Hon'ble the Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply Case ( supra ) has held that sovereign fumetions strictly understood cannot alone qualify the exemptions , nor the welfare activities or economic advantage undertaken by Government or statutory bodies . Even in departments discharging sovereign functions, ifthere are units which qualified to be the industry and they are substantially several then, they can be considered to come within Section 2 (J ) in the definitions of Industry,
Thus , the decision whether the particular organization is industry or not has to be taken by the work done and business carried on by it, which absolutely depends on the facts and circumstances of each case I have gone through the evidence of the management . The functioning ofthe respondent which is clear from the other references regarding the military farm is to supply milk and milk products and Hay of the animals to the armed forces ofunion . Big farms are maintained by military farm , and milk and milk products are produced. Thus , the function of maintaining the farms and producing the milk and milk products and the services rendered for the maintenance of above mentioned work , it cannotbe said that the military farm qualified for the sovereign functions only, Without disputing the fact that most of the functions of the organization , whose unit is military farm , may be the sovereign functions but the unit military farm on the basis ofwork done and services rendered is an industry as held 6412
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6 , 2008 /AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1930
..
by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply case ( supra ) that even in departments discharging sovereign functions , if there are units which are industries and they arc substantially several then they can be considered to come within Section 2 (j ) in the definition of Industry. Thus, on the basis of above mentioned observation , I am of the view that respondent is an industry. I have perused a circular letter of the respondent containing terms and conditions of service of casual industrial and non industrial employees also support the above contention that certain groups which are working with the Military farın are considered as industrial groups and it cannot be said that respondent is not an industry . It is undoubtedly an industry and the dispute in between the workmen and the management of respondent is the industrial dispute .
So far as the working days of the workman are concerned , the workman has failed to file any statement of working days before this Tribunal . He relied certain documents which were filed by the management and the genuineness of these documents were not challenged by him. Thereafter , the workman has challenged the filing of two affidavits by the witness of the management . The reason for filing the two affidavits is very clear that the affidavit cannot be amended and the second affidavit. in supplement to previous affidavit, accordingly, was filed by the management . I have considered both of the affidavits and as per details of working days in none of the affidavit the workman has completed 240 days of work in the year preceding to the date of his termination . The calculation which is given by the management and supportedby authentic documents shows that the workman has not completed 240 days in the preceding year from the date of his termination . He has admitted that he was working as a casual labour as and when the work was required and such a workman has no right to post. The disengagement of such a workman cannot be termed as retrenchment . Accordingly , on failure of the workman to prove that he worked for 240 days with the management in the preceding year from the date of his termination, I am of the view that the workman is not entitled to any relief.
The reference is accodingly answered. Letthe Central Governmembe informed . File be consigned.
G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम्बर , 2008
का.आ. 3253. अश्द्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 19-47 ( 1947 का 14 की धारा । ? के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मिलिट्री फार्म के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में दिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में ऊंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरणः श्रम २. बालय नं. १, चण्डीग पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 29/93 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14 2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
:नं. एल 14012/90/91- आईगर ( डीयू) ]
अजय कुमार . डंस्क अधिकारी
[PARI 11 ---SEC. 3 (ii ) New Delhi , the 14th November. 2008 S.O. 3253.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 29:93 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court No.1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Military Farm and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 14-11-2008 .
No. L - 14012/90/ 91 - IR ( DU ) AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH
Case No. 1. D. 29/93
Shri Raj Kumar C/ o Sh . Ram Singh Democratic Trade Union. 1/6 Central Town, Jallandbar ( Punjab)-144001 .
....Applicant
Versus
Officer-in-Charge , Military Farm , Jallandhar Canu . (Punjab)-144005.
Respondent
APPEARANCES
Sh . Raj Kaushik
Sri . K. K. Thakur
For the workman : For the management:
AWARD
(Passed on: 3-11-08)
Government of India vide notification No 1. - 1f12 90/91 - IR (DU ) dated 29-1-1993 , has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication .
*Whether the action of the management of Military Farm, Jallandhar Canu , im terminating the services of Sh. Raj Kumar MHC - IV CL . IV is legal and justitied? If not, to whar relief the workman concerned is entitled to? "
The reference was referred on account ofthe future ofconciliation proceedings before Reconciliation Officer at Chandigarh. From statement of claim , it is clear that stand ofthe workman in short is that he joined the services of the respondent management on 24-6-74 at MIIC - IV and was appointed at Military Farm, Jallandhar Cantt. In 1981. he was promoted to MIC - III after passing the test . To the month of January , 1982, he applied for the sick leave w.e.l. 11-2-1982 το 24-2-1982. Ол 25-2-82 , he again submitted an application for extension of leave and no order on his application was received from the competent authority which leads the presumption that the leave were extended. Ile has never absented from 25-2-82 and the oral enquiry on his unauthorized absence from 25-2-82 was against the [भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii ) ]
law and rules ofthe department . On the basis of this illegal oral inquiry, a termination order dated 20-11-84 was passed by the management of respondent on false and frivolous allegations . No documents were supplied to him during enquiry. There was no positive against him. On the basis of the above facts , the workman has requested for his reinstatement into the services with full back wages along with cost of litigation .
Management replied the statement ofclaim informing this Tribunal that the workman applied for seven days leave from 25-1-82 to 31-1-82 followed by extension of 10days from 1-2-82 to 10-2-82 and 14 days leave from 11-2-8210 24-2-82 which were sanctioned. Thereafter , he was absenting himself from duty unauthorizedly from 25-2-82 onward . On 24-2-83 , a letter was issued to Sh . Raj Kumar informing him that he was absenting from duty unauthorizedly from 25-2-82 without proper leave application , hence , he was being marked absent and was also advised to rejoin duty forthwith . The said letter was received by the management with the remarks of postal authorities that , " Addressee left India on 7th March 1983. " The father of the workman was very well posted in the Military Farm. When he was asked about the whereabouts ofthe workman he did not replied satisfactorily. Thereafter, civil verification was made through Civil Authorities/ Deputy Commmissioner , Jallandhar. The Deputy Commissioner , Jallandhar vide his letter No. 8733 dated 27-3-84 informed the management that the workman has left India for Muskat as Labour and after stay in Muskat almost of one and a half years , he came back and doing bumper fitting work from door to door . The matter was accordingly reported to the higher authorities and an inquiry was conducted in which he was found guilty for absenting from the duty unauthorizedly and visiting abroad without permission . On the basis ofthe finding of inquiry officer , after affording the opportunity of being heard and ensuring the personal hearing, the disciplinary authority awarded the penalty of removal from service which shalt not be disqualification from future employment under the Government . The workman preferred an appeal which was also rejected after affording the opportunity of being heard.
Parties were afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence both oral and documentary. Complete inquiry file is on record which was marked as Annexure - 1 . Sh . Raj Kumar filed an affidavit in support of his evidence and he was cross -examined by learned legal representative ofthe management on 27-9-02 and 21-9-05 . Sh Gurdev Singh filed the affidavit on behalfofthe management and he was cross- examined by learned counsel for the workman , I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused entire materials on record . The main question for determination before this Tribunal are :
1. Whether the workman unauthorizedly absented from the duty and visited Muskat (a foreign country) without prior permission?
2. Whether the enquiry (so called oral enquiry ) was conducted in a manner prescribed under the rules and principle of natural justice were complied with?
3. Whether the workman is entitled for any relief?
6413
भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6 , 2008/अग्रहायण 15 , 1930
= So far as unauthorized absent from the duty and visiting a foreign nation is concerned , it is admitted by the workman in his letter dated 23-6-84 which is on record . In his cross -examination , he has also admitted that he went to Muskat and remain out of India till 1982 and has not attended hisduty in India during that time . The letter containing this admission is enclosed in the inquiry file as Paper No. 54. In Para band c ofthis letter, he has categorically mentioned that on 9-2-82 , he had to go Muskat to see one of his relatives after submitting proper leave application but due to some unforeseen circumstances, he could not resume duty in time. When he came back , he came to know that his services have been terminated. He was not retrenched from the service and his services were terminated in an ex parte decision and no chance was given to him to defend his case. Report of the Deputy Commissioner, Jallandhar is also on record along with the enquiry file which is Paper No. 40. Nodoubt , the workman stressed it that he moved an application on 25-2-83 for extension of leave but there is no iota of evidence that he had moved such application . It is admitted case that from 8th of February, meaning, thereby during the sanction period , he visited abroad and remained there for one and a half year without permission and without getting the leave sanctioned. The rules relating to leave are very clear. Unless and until the leave arc not sanctioned, no one can presume to avail the leave. In this case, I am unable to find out on the basis of the materials on record whether any application on 25-2-83 was moved and it gave me an opportunity to hold that Sh. Raj Kumar neither has moved any application for extension of leave on 25-2-83 nor has taken the permission to go abroad. Thus , he was absent from duty from 25-2-83 unauthorizedly and visited a foreign nation (Muskat ) without any permission from the management.
The enquiry officer was duly appointed after serving the copy of charge sheet 10 Sh . Raj Kumar and alter affording the opportunity of being heard the enquiry officer gave its finding. Not only the statement of Sh. Raj Kumar was recorded but statement of his father Sh . Jia Lal was also recorded. Proper opportunity of being heard was given and there seems to be no violation of any rules of the principle of natural justice by the enquiry officer while conducting the enquiry.Accordingly , I am of the view that enquiry officer conducting enquiry properly, fairly and in a reasonable manner and full opportunity of hearing was affordedto Sh. Raj Kumar.
The disciplinary authority , after considering all the factsand the enquiry report , dismissed Sh. Raj Kumar from the service with the order that the dismissal will not affect the future prospects of Sh. Raj Kumar to get a service in the Government Department. It is true that enquiry officer has mentioned in his enquiry report that Sh . Raj Kumar was ill throughout and a lenient view may be taken on this veryground.
In his statement of claim , Sh . Raj Kumar has no mentioned a single word that he visited foreign nation without permission. When this fact comes to his notice through written statement that the main contention of management is that he has visited the foreign nation without 6414
PARII SI ( 11 ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 6 , 2008/AGRAHAYANA 15,1930
permission , he did not disclose the reasons compelling him to visit the foreign nation without permission in his application or affidavit. In his application to the department . which is numbered as 54 in the enquiry file , he has informed that he had to go to Muskat to see one of his relatives . In his cross-examination , he has mentioned that he visited Muskat for his treatment . The enquiry was conducted by the civil authorities and it came to the notice of the management vide report dated 27-3-84 , Paper No. 40 that Sh . Raj Kumar lived in Muskat for one and a half year for the labour work. Thus , the act of Sh. Raj Kumar to remain absent from the duty unauthorizedly and visiting a foreign nation without permission for doing some labour work in that country in lust of earning more money shows that he has visited the foreign nation at the cost of his Government job with the management. This is the gross misconduct which should be dealt with very severely , if the discipline in any institution is supposed to be maintained .
Powers of the Tribunal for interfering with the punishment inflicted by disciplinary authority are very limited. it can only be invoked if the punishment awarded is shockingly disproportionate to the committed misconduct, No mitigating circumstances have been proved by the workman to show his visit to Muskat and stay over there without permission . Thus , I am of the view that the punishment awarded to the workman is not shockingly disproportionate with the committed misconduct .
Thus, the disciplinary authority has rightly awarded the penalty for his dismissal from the services with the direction that this dismissal will not debar the workman for applying and having the Government job in the future. After perusing the entire evidence and materials on record and considering the lacts and circumstances of the case. 1 find no reason to interfere in the findings of disciplinary authority awarding the punishment of dismissal from the service. The reference is accordingly answered . Central Government be informed . File be consigned.
G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम्बर , 2008
का.आ. 3254, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मिलिट्री फार्म के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में कंन्द्रीय सरकार धमिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. । चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1/92) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -14012/89/91 - डी-2 ( बो) अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 14th November , 2008 S.O. 3254. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. | '92 ) of CentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Coun No.1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure . in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Military Farm and their workman, หłuch was received by the Central CGovernment on 14-11-2008
No. 1. -14012/ 8991-10-21131 |
AJAY KUMAR , Desk Ollicer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA . PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1, CHANDIGARH
Case No. I.D. 1/92
Shri Shingra Singh Sto Shri Soma Co Shri Madan Cat H.No. 13. Military Farm . Jirozpur Carut .- 152001 ( Putaja ).
....Applican
Versus
TheOfficer Incharge . Mititary Farm Firozpur Cantl . 152001 ( Punjab ) .
Respondent
APPEARANCES
Sri T. C. Sharma
For the workman:
Sri K, K. Thakur
For the management :
AWARD
Passed on: 4-11-08
Goveminentof India vide notification No.1-14012 89/91-10-2 (B ), dated 6-1-92 referred the following industrial dispute for judicial adjudication to this tribunal :
Whether the action of the Officer - in- Charge . Military Farm , Ferozpur Cantt . In terminating the services of Shri Shingara Singh, Sto Sh . Soma w.c.l. 28-4-91 is justified ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from what date ?" It is the case of the workman that he worked at the Military Farm , Ferozepur under the respondent from 1-5-8710 27-4-91 on daily rate wages . The payment was made monthly and he was appointed against the regular and permanent post . His services were terminated illegally on 28-4-91 . He has prayed for an order of reinstatement into the services with all other consequential benefits .
Management of Military Farm filed the written statement and opposed the statement of claim . Preliminary objection was raised that managemem of respondent is not an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act . On merits it was alleged that the workman has not completed 240 days ofwork in the preceding 12 months . His services were not terminated but he abandoned the job of his own оп 28-4-91 .
Bothofthe parties were afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence . Apart from the oral evidence few documents were also filed by the parties . R - 1 is the copy of the attendance sheet for the month of April 1991, R - 2 is the statement given by Shri Tarsem So Shri Kehar Singh dated [भाग 1 ] - खण्ड 3(ii ) )
6-5-91 , R-3 is the statement given by Shri Kartar Singh Sto Shri Kunda Singh , dated 6-5-91 , R-4 is the copy of the statement of Shri Mohinder Singh S/o Shri Sadhu Singh, dated 6-5-91 , R- 5 is the copy of the statement of Inderjeet, dated 6-5-91 , R-6 is the copy of the statement of Shri Joginder Singh , dated 6-5-91 , R-7 is the copy of the comments on the appeal of Shri Shingara, dated 7-5-2001 given to Incharge Cultivation given by Shri Mohan S / o Shri Sahonta Incharge Cult and Section . Ex . M - 3 / 1 to M-3/ 15 are the copies of attendance register regarding the work ofworkman . I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire materials on record . The main question for determination before this Tribunal are: - ( 1 ) Whether the respondent is an industry?, (2) Whether the workman Shri Shingara Singh voluntarily abandoned the work ofthe management or his services were terminated by the management ?, (3) To what relief, if any , the workman is entitled?
I am disposing of these issues one by one .
The term ' industry' has been defined in Section 2 (j ) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to mean any business, trade undertaking, manufacturing or calling upon employers and includes any calling , services , employment, handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen. in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa and others AIR, 1978 Supreme Court 548. , 7 Judges Bench of Hon'ble the Apex Court has defined the word 'Industry' . As per the above mentioned law laid down by theApex Court , " industry' has defined- in Sub- section 2 (1 ) as a wide term and import as:-
(a) Where there is ( i ) systematic activity, ( ii ) organized by co- operation between employer and employee ( the direct and substantial element is chimerical ) , and ( iii ) for the production and/or distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes ( not spiritual or religious but inclusive of material things or services geared to celestial bliss) , prima facie, there is an industry in the enterprise .
(b) Absence of profit motive or gainful objective is irrelevant, be the venture in the public , joint , private orother sector.
(c) The true focus is functional and the decisive test is the nature ofthe activity with special emphasis on the employer-employee relations .
(d) Ifthe organization is a trade or business it does not cease to be one because of philanthropy animating the undertaking.
Thus , the test (specially triple test) referred by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply case (supra) are necessary to qualify any institution to be an industry.
Regarding the sovereign functions, Hon'ble the Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply Case ( supra) has held that sovereign functions strictly understood cannot alone qualify the exemption , nor the welfare activities or economic advantage undertaken by Government or
6415
भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6, 2008/ अग्रहायण 15 , 1930
statutory bodies . Even in departments discharging sovereign functions , ifthere are units which qualified to be the industry and they are substantially sevegral then, they can be considered to come within Section 2 ( J ) in the definitions of Industry.
Thus, thedecision whether the particular organization is industry or not has to be taken by the work done and business carried on by it, which absolutely depends on the facts and circumstances of each case . I have gone through the evidence of the management. The functioning of the respondent which is clear from the other references regarding the military farm is to supply milk and milk products and Hay of the animals to the armed forces of union . Big farms are maintained by military farm , and milk and milk products are produced. Thus , the function of maintaining the farms and producing the milk and milk products and the services rendered for the maintenance of above mentioned work . il cannot be said that the military farm qualified for the sovereign functions only. Without disputing the fact that most of the functions of the organization, whose unit is military farm, may be the sovereign functions but the unit military farm on the basis of work done and services rendered is an industry as held by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply Case (supra ) that even in departinents discharging sovereign functions , ifthere are units which are industries and they are substantially sevegral then they can beconsidered to come within Section 2 (j) in the definition ol Industry . Thus , on the basis of above mentioned observation , I am of the view that respondent is an industry. I have perused a circular letter of the respondent containing terms and conditions ofservice of casual industrial and nom industrial employees also support the above contention the certain groups which are working with the Military farmu are considered as industrial groups and it cannot be said that respondent is not an industry . It is undoubtedly an industry and the dispute in between the workmen and the management of respondent is the industrial dispute.
R-2 10 R-6 shows that some enquiry was held by the management regarding the allegation of the workman for using abusive language . If the workman had abandoned thework under normal circumstances there was no occasion ofrecording the statement which is record as R - 11 10 R -V. It shows that disengagement of this workman was not under the normal circumstances which give rise to record the statement and to give the comments as mentioned in annexure R-7 . Considering the nature of document . I am of the view that disengagement of the workman from the work was not under the normal circumstances and it cannot be said that workman has voluntarily abandoned the services . The management has nothing to say what was the occasion to hold such an enquiry, if the workman has voluntarily abandoned the services under normal circumstances? Accordingly, I am of the view that the services of the workman were terminated.
Now, I have to decide as to what relief the workman isentitled?
A casual labour has no right to any post and his services on session of work can be terminated. But if the workman has completed 240 days ofwork in the preceding PART 11 Suc . 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6. 2008 AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1930
6416
year from the date of the termination , the law ( Industrial Disputes Act ) imposed an embargo on this power of the management and protect the right of the workman for his termination against the provisions of the industrial Disputes Act . The Industrial Disputes Act , does not completely prohibued the termination of the workman who has completed 240 days of work in the preceding year from the date of termination but permits the management 10 terminate the services through the process and procediue laid down in the mallistuia ! Disputes Act . The Industrial Disputes Act permits the management to terminate the services of the workman , il the workman has completed 240 days in the preceding year from the date of his termination . after giving him one month notice and prescribed retrenchment compensation ,
On perusal of the entire materials on record the workman has failed to prove that he has worked 240 days in the preceding year from the date of his terminatiun . Documents available on record shows that the services of the workman were terminated on 28-4-91 and in the preceding year, he has not completed 240 days to protect his interest under the luckustrial Disputes Act .
The workman was supposed to prove that he bas worked 240 days in the preceding year from the date of his terminahon . but he has otterly failed to prove it . In his cross - examination Shri Shungara Singh tas admitted that he has worked for 166 days in 1987, 23 days in 1988. has notworked at all in 1989. had worked 100 days in 1990 and 25 days in 1991. So. as per the documents available on the record and on account of the admission of the workman . 1 am ofthe view that the workman has not worked for 210 days in the preceding year from the date of his termination There are tis o altidavits . on record filed by the same witness ofthe management It has been objected 100 by the workman but on perusal of both of the affidavits it is clear theat workman has not worked 240 days as desired by the legislation . Thus , it will not affect adversely that the management has tied two affidavits of the same witness mentioning different working days .
Accordingly , the reference is positively answered and workman is not entitled to any relief. Cootal Government he informed for publication of the award . Thereafter . tile he consigned
G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्लो, 14 नवम्बर , 2008
का.आ 3255 - गिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 1947 का ( 4 ) की भाग के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार, जवाहर नवोदय विद्यालय के प्रभंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बोच. अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, श्रम यायालय नं.। चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट संदर्भ संख्या 177.9 ? ) कां प्रकाशित करती है, जो कंन्द्रीय सरकार ओ 14-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[ मूं. एल 42012 /167/96- आई आर ( डॉगू) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 14th November, 2008
S.O. 3255. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1917 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 177/97 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court No. 1 , Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14-11-2008,
[No.142012 / 167 / 96 - IR ( DU ) | AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR, PRESIDING: OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT - 1 , CHANDIGARH
Case 1.10 . No. 177/97
Shri Birbal Singh, S/ o Shri Mohan Singh , Vill . Sukhladhi . P.0. Bangi-Rugh via: Raman . Distt Bhatinda - 151301.
.... Applicam
Versus
The Principal , Jawahar Novodya Vidyalaya . Longowal Distt. Sangrur.
Respondent APPEARANCES
Shri0.P. Batra , Advocate .
For the workman :
Shri D.R. Sharma , Advocate.
For the management:
AWARD
Passed on . 24-10-2008
Central Governinent valde notification No. 1 .--12012 167:96 ( IR) DU . dated 30-9-97 has referred the following disputeto this Tribunal for adindication:
"Whether the action of the Principal. Jawahar Novodya Vidyalaya, Longowal Sangrur (Pb ) in terminating the service of Shri Birbal Singh S0 Sh . Mohan Singh, L..D.C. w.e.f. 9-2-95 isjust and legat. If not to what reliet is the workman is from which date?"
2. The present reference was made by the Central Government on the failure of concilation proceedings for adjudication of the matter referred in the schedule referred above and the workman prayed for declaring the action of the management as illegal and invalid.
3. The management turned up and opposes this reference.
4.As per office memorandum dated 5-9-08 , this case was lixed in pre Lok Adalat meeting on 24-10-08 for its disposal by adopting the mediation and conciliation mechanism . Both the rep . of the management Mrs. Harjit Kaur, Principal and the workman have made a joint statement that the partics have agreed that as and when the work will be available on casual/daily wages . the workman will be [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
given first preference . On this assurance of the management the workman withdraw his reference . He has also agreed to forgo his compensation or any other claim if any in this reference . Accordingly , the workman withdraws the reference in Lok Adalat . Accordingly the reference is returned to the Central Government as settled in Lok Adalat. Central Government be informed. File be consigned to record.
Chandigarh
24-10-2008
GK. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 14 नवम्बर, 2008
का.आ 3256, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सीनियर सुपरिन्टेन्डेन्ट ऑफ पोस्ट ऑफिसेस के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 109/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-40012/44/2003-आई आर ( डीयू) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 14th November, 2008 S.O. 3256. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 109/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No. I , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Sr. Supdt . of Post Office and their workmen , which was received by the Central Goverament on 14-11-2008 .
[No. L40012/44/2003 -IR (DU)] AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH
Case No. I.D. 109/2003
Smt. Simla Devi
W/o Shir Jagdish Kumar,
Mehmad Pur Vis Sandhaur, Distt. Sangrur
...Applicant
Versus
Respondent The Superintendent of PostOffices , Sangrur.
6417
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6, 2008/ अग्रहायण 15 , 1930
APPEARANCES
For the workman :
None
Shri K.K. Thakur
For the management :
AWARD
Passed on: 4-11-2008
Central Government vide notification No. L -40012/ 44/2003 - IR (DU), dated 29-5-2003, has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of Senior Supdt. of Post Offices , Sangrur ( Pb. ) in terminating the services of Smt . Simla Devi , EDBPM , Mehmad Pur , BO w.e.f. 19-3-99 without complying with the provisions of I.D. Act was just , fair and legal ? If not, what relief she is entitled to and from which date ?** 2.None is present on behalf ofthe workman . Learned counsel for the management is present . From last many days fixed for the hearing of this case the workman is no ensuring her presence . The reference was referred by the Central Government in the year 2003. Several Opportunities have been given to the workman but she is not availing the opportunity of being heard . It is already 1.15 pm. At this stage, I have no option otherwise then to dismiss the claim ofworkman in reference for non- prosecution and return the reference to the Central Government as such. Accordingly, the reference is returned as such. Let the Central Government be informed. File be consigned.
Chandigarh 4-11-2008
G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम्बर , 2008
का.अ. 3257,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सीनियर सुपरिन्टेन्डेन्ट ऑफ पोस्ट ऑफिस के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. ] , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 13/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-40011 /22/2004- आई आर ( डीयू) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 14th November, 2008 S.O. 3257. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 13/2005) of the Central Govemment Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court No. I , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Sr. Supdt. of Post Office and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 14-11-2008.
[No. L-4001 1 /22/2004 - IR (DU) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 6418
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2008 /AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1936
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA.
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT - 1 , CHANDIGARH
Case LD . No. 13/2005
Shri Tilak Raj Sorting Postman Cio Post Master , Head
...Applicant PostOffice, Batala, Batala .
Versus
TheSenior Superintendent of Post Offices , Gurdaspur Division, Gurdaspur ( Punjab ) , Gurdaspur .
Respondent
APPEARANCES
None
For the workman:
Shri Sudhanshu Srivastva .
For the management:
AWARD
Passed om: 4-11-2008
....... cht vide notification No. L - 40011 C 22/2004 -IR ( D1 ) , dated 24-1-2005 , has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of Postal Department represented through the Senior Supdt. ofPostOffice, Gurdaspur by deducting penal rent in respect of Sh . Titak Raj, sorting Postman w.c.t. 6-3-2000 to 31-5-2002 was just. fair and legal ? If not . what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ?
2.None is present on behalf of the workman . I.carned representative for the management is present . From last many days fixed for the hearing of this case the workman is not ensuring his presence. The reference was referredby the Central Government in the year 2005 Several opportunities have been given to the workman but he is not avaiting the opportunity of being heard . It is already 1.15 pm . At this stage . I have no option otherwise then to dismiss the claim of workman in reference for non prosecution and return the reference to the Central Government as such Accordingly , the reference is retuned as such . Let the Central Governmem be informed. File be consigned.
Chandigarh
4-11-2008
GK SHARMA . Presiding Officer
Posted by the Manager. Cion of Press Ring Road , Mayapuri New Delhi- 116 und Published by the Kontroller of Publications. Delhi - 110051