This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

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

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

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 51 ]

नई दिल्ली, दिसम्बर 14 दिसम्बर 20 , 2008 , शनिवार/अग्रहायण 23 - अग्रहायण 29, 1930 No. 51 ] NEW DELHI , DECEMBER 14- DECEMBER 20 , 2008 , SATURDAY/AGRAHAYANA 23- AGRAHAYANA 29, 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 (ii ) PART IT 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)

कार्मिक , लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय

(कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 10 दिसम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 3333. केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दहेज निषेध अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का अधिनियम सं. 28 ) के अधीन निम्नलिखित अपराधों को दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना द्वारा अन्वेषित किए जाने वाले अपराधों के रूप में विनिर्दिष्ट करती है:- (क ) दहेज निषेध अधिनियम, 1961 ( 1961 का अधिनियम सं. 28 ) की धारा 3 और 4 के अधीन दंडनीय अपराध; और (ख) उपर्युक्त अपराध से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त प्रयत्नों, दुष्प्रेरणों और षडयंत्रों तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्ही तथ्यों से उद्भूत किसी अन्य अपराध अथवा अपराधों को ।

[फा. सं. 228/56/2008- ए.वी.डी. 11 ]

मनीषा सक्सैना , उप सचिव MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi , the 10th December,2008

S.O. 3333. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 ofthe Delhi Special police Establishment Act , 1946 [Act No. 25 of 1946 ] , the Central Government hereby specifies the following offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act , 1961 (Act No. 28 of 1961 ) as the offences which are to be investigated by the Delhi Sepecial Establishment namely:-

(a) Offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (Act No. 28 of 1961 ) ; and (b) attempts , abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the offences mentioned above and any other offence or offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .

[F.No. 228 /56/2008 -AVD- II } MANISHA SAXENA , Dy . Sccy .

4833 GI/2008

(6515) 6516

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2008/AGRAHAYANA 29, 1930

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii ) ]

वित्त मंत्रालय

(वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 5 दिसंबर, 2008

का. आ. 3334.- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंधं) स्कीम , 1970/1980 के खण्ड 3 के उप खण्ड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित , बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम , 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उपधारा 3 ( ज ) और ( 3 - क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा , श्री विनोद कुमार मिश्र को उनकी नियुक्ति की अधिसूचना की तारीख से तीन वर्षों के लिए अथवा अगला आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो , पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के निदेशक मंडल में अंशकालिक गैर - सरकारी निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।

[फा. सं. 9/22/2006- बीओ -1 ]

जी. बी. सिंह , उप सचिव

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi , the 5th December , 2008

S.O. 3334. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sction 3 (h) and (3 -A) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act , 1970/1980 read with sub - clause ( 1 ) of clause 3 of the Nationalised Banks (Management & Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme, 1970/1980 , the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Vinod Kumar Mishra as part -time non- official Director on the Board of Directors of Punjab Natinal Bank, for a period of three years from the date of notification of his appointment or until further orders , whichever is earlier .

[F. No. 9/22/2006 -BO- I ] G.. B. SINGH , Dy. Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 5 दिसम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 3335.- भारतीय स्टेट बैंक अधिनियम , 1955 ( 1955 का 23 ) की धारा 19 के खण्ड ( ख ) और धारा 20 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करके, एतद्द्वारा , श्री आर. श्रीधरन ( जन्म तिथि: 01-07-1951 ) , प्रबंध निदेशक एवं मुख्य कार्यपालक अधिकारी , स्टेट बैंक केपिटल मार्केट्स लिमिटेड , को पदभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से और 30 जून 2011 तक , यथा जिस महीने में वह अधिवर्षिता की आयु प्राप्त करेंगे उस महीने के अंतिम दिन तक, अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , 24050-600-26000 रुपए के वेतनमान में, भारतीय स्टेट बैंक में प्रबंध निदेशक के पद पर नियुक्त करती है : -

[फा. सं. 8/1/2007- बीओ -1 ]

जी. बी. सिंह , उप सचिव

New Delhi , the 5th December , 2008

S.O. 3335. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b ) of Section 19 and sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 20 of the State Bank of India Act , 1955 ( 23 of 1955 ) , the Central Government , after consultation with Reserve Bank of India , hereby appoints Shri R. Sridharan (DOB : 01-07-1951 ), MD & CEO, State Bank Capital Markets Ltd. , as Managing Director , State Bank of India in the pay scale ofRs. 24050-600-26000 , with effect from the date of taking over charge ofthe post and up to 30th June , 2011 i.e. till the last day of the month in which he would attain the age of superannuation or until further orders , whichever is earlier .

[ F. No. 8/1 /2007 -BO- I ] G. B. SINGH ,Dy . Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 12 दिसम्बर , 2008

ऋण सूचना कंपनी ( विनियमन )

(कठिनाईयों का निवारण ) आदेश , 2008 ( 2008 का द्वितीय )

का. आ. 3336.-जबकि ऋण सूचना कंपनी ( विनियमन ) , अधिनियम , 2005 ( 2005 का 30 ) ( इसके बाद " अधिनियम " कहा जाएगा ) 14 दिसम्बर , 2006 को प्रभाव में आया;

और जबकि इस अधिनियम की धारा 15 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के प्रावधान के अनुसार इस अधिनियम के प्रारंभ के समय अस्तित्व में रहने वाली एक ऋण संस्था को ऐसे प्रारंभ के तीन महीने के अंदर कम से कम एक ऋण सूचना कंपनी का सदस्य बनना अपेक्षित है ;

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6517 भारत का राजपत्र:दिसम्बर 20, 2008/अग्रहायण 29 , 1930

और जबकि इस अधिनियम की धारा 35. द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा , ऋण संस्था द्वारा कम से कम एक ऋण सूचना कंपनी की सदस्यता लेने की अंतिम तिथि को बढ़ाकर 31 दिसम्बर , 2008 कर दिया गया था , जो दिनांक 24 जनवरी , 2008 के ऋण सूचना कंपनी ( विनियम ) ( कठिनाईयों का निवारण ) आदेश , 2008 के अनुसार उपर्युक्त तिथि को समाप्त हो जाएगी ;

और जबकि अब तक किसी भी कंपनी को इस अधिनियम की धारा 5 के अंतर्गत ऋण सूचना कारोबार आरंभ करने अथवा जारी रखने के लिए पंजीकरण प्रमाण पत्र नहीं दिया गया है;

और जबकि ऋण संस्थाओं को ऋण सूचना कंपनियों में से अपनी इच्छानुसार कम से कम एक का सदस्य बनने के लिए, उपर्युक्त समय सीमा को 1 जनवरी , 2009 से 31 दिसम्बर , 2009 तक बढ़ाना इस अधिनियम के प्रावधानों को लागू करने के लिए आवश्यक हो गया है ;

अब, इसलिए , ऋण सूचना कंपनी ( विनियमन ) अधिनियम, 2005 (2005 का 30 ) की धारा 35 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार निम्नलिखित आदेश देती है; नामतः

संक्षिप्त नाम और प्रारंभ

2. ( 1 ) इस आदेश को ऋण सूचना कंपनी ( विनियमन ) ( कठिनाईयों का निवारण ) आदेश , 2008 ( 2008 का द्वितीय ) कहा जाएगा । ( 2 ) यह 1 जनवरी , 2009 से प्रवृत्त होगा ।

किसी ऋण सूचना कंपनी का सदस्य बनने के लिए समय सीमा

इस अधिनियम की धारा 15 की उप धारा ( 1 ) के अंतर्गत इस अधिनियम के प्रभाव में आने की तिथि से अस्तित्व में होने वाली प्रत्येक ऋण संस्थादिनांक 31-12-2009 तक कम से कम एक ऋण सूचना कंपनी का सदस्य बनेगी।

[फा. सं. 7/67/2005- बीओए ]

डी.डी. माहेश्वरी , अबर सचिव

New Delhi , the 12th December, 2008

CREDIT INFORMATION COMPANIES (REGULATION)

(REMOVAL OF DIFFICULTIES) ORDER, 2008 (SECOND OF 2008)

S.O. 3336. Whereas the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 (30 of2005) (hereinafter referred to as " the Act" ) came into force on 14th December, 2006 .

And Whereas the provisions contained in sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 15 of the Act require every credit institution in existence on the commencement of the Act to become member of at least one credit information company before the expiry of three months from such commencement ;

And whereas the last date for taking membership of at least one credit information company by credit institutions extendedby the Central Government in exercise of powers.conferredby Section 35 ofthe Act, to December 31 , 2008, in terms ofCredit Information Companies ( Regulation) (Removal of Difficulties ) Order , 2008 dated January 24, 2008 , would expire on the above date;

And whereas no company has so far been granted a certificate of registration under Section 5 of the Act to commence or carry on the business of credit information;

And whereas it has become necessary for giving effect to the provisions of the Act to extend the aforesaid time limitfrom 1st January, 2009 to 31st December , 2009 in order to facilitate the credit institutions to exercise their choice amongst the credit information companies in at least one of which they may become a member ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 35 ofthe Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act , 2005 ( 30 of 2005) , the Central Government hereby makes the following Order ; namely: - Short title and commencement

1. ( 1 ) This Order may be called the Credit Information Companies (Regulation ) (Removal ofDifficulties ) Order , 2008 (Second of2008) .

(2) It shall come into force with effect from January 1, 2009.

Time limit for being member of a credit information company.

A credit institution in existence on the commencement of the Act , shall become member of at least one credit information company by 31-12-2009 under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 15 ofthe Act .

[ F. No. 7/67/2005 - BOA]

D.D. MAHESHWARI , Under Secy.

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20 , 2008 /AGRAHAYANA 29, 1930

6518

संचार और सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय

(दूरसंचार विभाग )

(राजभाषा अनुभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 3 दिसम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 3337.-केन्द्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम 1976 ( यथा संशोधित 1987 ) के नियम 10 ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में संचार और सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय , दूरसंचार विभाग के प्रशानिक नियंत्रणाधीन निम्नलिखित कार्यालय को, जिसमें 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधाक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है ।

मुख्य महाप्रबंधक दूरसंचार , महाराष्ट्र परिमंडल , भा.सं.नि.लि. , मुंबई-54 महाप्रबंधक दूरसंचार, भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड , तार घर परिसर, अहमदनगर-414001 महाराष्ट्र

[सं. ई. 11016/1/2007- रा. भा. ( पार्ट-1 ] सुधा श्रोत्रिय , संयुक्त सचिव ( प्रशासन ) MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

(Department ofTelecommunications )

(Rajbhasha Department)

New Delhi , the 3rd December , 2008

S.O. 3337. In pursuance ofrule 10 (4) of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the Union) , rules , 1976 ( as amended- 1987 ) , the Central Government hereby notifies the following Office under the administrative control of Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Department of Telecommunications where of more than 80 % of staff have acquired working knowledge ofHindi .

ChiefGeneral Manager Telecom . , Maharashtra Circle , B.S.N.L. , Mumbai - 54

General Manager Telecom, BSNL. , Telegraph Office Complex, Ahmednagar-414001 Maharashtra.

[No. E. 11016/1/2007-O.L. (Part - 1 ) ] SUDHA SHROTRIA, Jt. Secy . (Admn . ) उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

( उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली , 3 दिसम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 3338.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं;

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या

संशोधन लागू होने कीतिथि

क्र. सं. वर्ष और शीर्षक

27-11-2008

संशोधन संख्या 3 मई 2008

1 आईएस 1239 ( पार्ट 1 ) : 2004 इस्पात की नलियां , नलिकाकार सामठितया तथा इस्पात कीअन्य फिटिंगें- विशिष्टि भाग 1 इस्पात की नलियां ( छटा पुनरीक्षण )

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

[संदर्भ : एमटीडी 19/T - 1 ]

श्रीमति मधुलिका प्रकाश , उप - महानिदेशक ( तकनीकी) 6519

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 20 , 2008/अग्रहायण 29, 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS , FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

NewDelhi, the 3rd December , 2008

S.O. 3338. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub -rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :-

No. & year of the Indian Standard (s ) amendment(s)

Sl . No.

1 IS 1239 (Part 1 ) : 2004 Steel tubes , tubulars and other wrought steel fittings-Specification Part 1 Steel tubes (sixth revision)

SCHEDULE

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

No.& year ofthe amendment

27-11-2008 Amendment no . 3 May, 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 .

[Ref: MTD 19 /T - 1 ]

SMT . MADHULIKA PRAKASH, Dy . Director General (Technical )

नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 3339.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक (कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं:-

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

क्र. सं.

1 आई एस 2556 ( भाग 1 ) : 1994

आई एस 2556 ( भाग 2 ): 2004

आई.एस 2556 ( भाग 4): 2004

4 आई एस 12070 : 1987

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि संशोधन लागू होने कीतिथि

2 दिसम्बर 2008 5 , अक्तूबर 2008

2 दिसम्बर 2008 1 , अक्तूबर 2008

2दिसम्बर 2008 1, अक्तूबर 2008

30 नवम्बर 2008 1, नवम्बर 2008

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

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

New Delhi , the 8th December , 2008

S.O. 3339. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub -rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987 , theBureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :-

Sl . No.

1 No. & year of the Indian Standard(s)

IS 2556 (Part 1) : 1994

IS2556 (Part 2): 2004

IS 2556 (Part 4) : 2004

IS 12070 : 1987

SCHEDULE

No. & year of the amendment

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

5, October 2008

2nd December , 2008

1, October 2008

2nd December , 2008

2nd December, 2008

1, October 2008

30thNovember , 2008

1, November 2008 6520

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20 , 2008 /AGRAHAYANA 29, 1930

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 , Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata , Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad , Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur , Patna, Pune , Thiruvananthapuram .

[Ref: CED/Gazette ]

A. K. SAINI , Sc . ' F ' & Head ( Civil Engg .)

नई दिल्ली , 8 दिसम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 3340.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम 1988 के नियम ( 5 ) के उप- नियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेन्सों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द ( Cancelled ) कर दिया गया है: -

अनुसूची

लाइसेन्सधारी का नाम व पता

रद्द करने की लाइसेंस नं.

तिथि

लाइसेन्सके अंतर्गत वस्तु/प्रक्रम से संबंधित भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक व संबंधित भा. मा.

क्रम सं.

अगस्त 2008

26-7-2008 1 8440169

मैसर्स चेतानी इलैक्ट्रिकल इक्विपमेंन्ट्स ई-227, रोड नं. 9 - ई विश्वकर्मा औद्योगिक क्षेत्र , जयपुर-302 013 (राजस्थान)

7809 (भाग 3 /सैक्शन -1 ) : 1986 प्रेशर सेन्सिटिव एडहेसिव इन्सूलेटिंग टेप्स फॉर इलैक्ट्रिकल परपज-भाग-3- रिक्वायरमेंट फॉर इन्डिविजुअल मैटेरियल्स-सैक्शन 1 प्लास्टिसाइज्ड पोलीविना- इलक्लोराइड टेप्स विद नॉन - थर्मोसैटिंग एडहेसिव

[संख्या सीएमडी/55 ]

पी. के. गम्भीर, उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर)

New Delhi , the 8th December , 2008

S.O. 3340.- In pursuance of sub - regulation ( 6 ) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification) Regulation , 1988 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the licence ( s) particulars of which is / are given below has/have been Cancelled with effect from the date indicated .

SCHEDULE

Date of Cancellation Name and Address of the Licensee

Licence No. ( CM/L-)

Sl . No.

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

AUGUST 2008

26-07-2008 1 8440169

Chetani Electrical Equipments E - 227, Road No. 9 - E , Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur , Rajasthan - 302013

7809 (Part 3/Sec . 1 ) : 1986 Pressure Sensitive Adhesive Insulating Tapes forElectrical Purpose - Part 3 - require- ments for Individual Materials- Section 1 - Plasticized Polyvinylchloride Tapes with Non - Thermosetting Adhesive .

[No. CMD/55 ]

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

नई दिल्ली , 8 दिसम्बर , 2008 ,

का.आ. 334.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम 1988 के नियम ( 4 ) के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेन्सों का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये है , वे स्वीकृत कर दिये गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

चालू तिथि

लाइसेंस सं.

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक व संबंधित भारतीय मानक

क्रम सं.

1 2

अगस्त 2008

398 ( भाग 2 ) : 1996

28-07-2008

1. 8952806

ए.सी.एस.आर.

मैसर्स सूर्यांश इलैक्ट्रिकल इण्डस्ट्रीज एफ-255 ए, रोड नं. 13 , विश्वकर्मा औद्योगिक क्षेत्र , जयपुर-302013 ( राजस्थान ) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6521

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 20, 2008/अग्रहायण 29 , 1930

4 12

2. 8953505 28-07-2008 मैसर्स कमल स्पन पाईप डी-54 , माधोसिंह रोड, बनीपार्क, जयपुर ( राजस्थान) 3. 8955913 13-08-2008 मैसर्स पाल इण्डस्ट्रीज 34 , औद्योगिक क्षेत्र , रोड नं. 5 , रानी बाजार , बीकानेर-334001 ( राजस्थान )

4. 8956006 13-08-2008 मैसर्स राजस्थान पाईप इण्डस्ट्री एफ-74 एवं 75 , बीचवाल औद्योगिक क्षेत्र, बीकानेर-334006 ( राजस्थान )

5. 8956107 13-08-2008 मैसर्स बसन्त इण्डस्ट्रीज एफ-140-141-154, बीचवाल औद्योगिक क्षेत्र , बीकानेर-334006 (राजस्थान )

6. 8959214 14-08-2008 मैसर्स एम . बी. सन्स (जे ) बैराठी भवन , एम. आई. रोड, जयपुर-302001 ( राजस्थान ) 7. 8959315 14-08-2008 मैसर्स माया ज्वैल पैलेस 28-29 डी, पब्लिक पार्क , अम्बेडकर चौक के पास , श्रीगंगानगर -335001 ( राजस्थान )

8. 8959618 22-08-2008 मैसर्स बिनानी सीमेन्ट लि. (सीजीयू) गाँव सिरोही , तहसील नौम का थाना , जिला सीकर-332 714 ( राजस्थान )

9. 8957210 14-08-2008 मैसर्स एम. बी. सन्स (जे) बैराठी भवन , एम. आई. रोड, जयपुर-302 001 ( राजस्थान)

10. 8955004 06-08-2008 मैसर्स निखिल इण्टरनेशनल बी-70 , बाईस गोदाम , जयपुर-302 006 ( राजस्थान) 11. 8954002 01-08-2008 मैसर्स कोर्ट्स केबल्स इण्डस्ट्रीज प्रा. लि. ए-525 एवं ई -519 , चौपान्की , रीको औद्योगिक क्षेत्र , भिवाड़ी, जिला-अलवर ( राजस्थान) 12. 8959517 18-08-2008 मैसर्स बिनानी सीमेन्ट लि. (सीजीयू) गॉव सिरोही, तहसील नीम का थाना , जिला सीकर-332714 ( राजस्थान)

13. 8961302 25-08-2008 मैसर्स श्री कृष्णा इण्डस्ट्रीज ई-351 , रोड नं. 14 , विश्वकर्मा औद्योगिक क्षेत्र , जयपुर-302 013 ( राजस्थान) 14. 8959414 18-08-2008 मैसर्स बिनानी सीमेन्ट लि. ( सीजीयू) गॉव सिरोही , तहसील नीम का थाना , जिला सीकर-332714 ( राजस्थान)

15. 8953404 28-07-2008 मैसर्स दिनेश इरीगेशन प्रा. लि. 86 बी II , झोटवाड़ा औद्योगिक क्षेत्र , जयपुर-302 012 ( राजस्थान) 16. 8953909 01-08-2008 मैसर्स ऋचा केबल्स प्रा. लि. एफ-172/ 173 , बिन्दायका औद्योगिक क्षेत्र, रोड नं. 9 , फेज II , बिन्दायका, जयपुर-302 012 ( राजस्थान) 5

458:2003

प्रीकास्टकांक्रीट पाईप्स ( विद एवं विदआउट रिइन्फोर्समेंट)

651:2007 साल्ट ग्लेज्ड स्टोनवेयर पाईप एण्ड फिटिंग्स

651:2007

साल्ट ग्लेज्ड स्टोनवेयर पाईप एण्ड फिटिंग्स

651:2007

साल्ट ग्लेज्ड स्टोनवेयर पाईप एण्ड फिटिंग्स

1417:1999 स्वर्णाभूषणों की हॉलमार्किंग

1417:1999

स्वर्णाभूषणों की हॉलमार्किंग

1489 ( भाग 1 ) : 1991

पोर्टलैण्ड पोजोलाना सीमेन्ट- भाग 1 फलाई ऐश बेस्ड

2112:2003

रजत आभूषणों की हॉलमार्किंग

4266:1967

लॉकर्स, बैडसाईज फॉर हॉस्पिटल यूज 7098 ( भाग 1 ) : 1988

एक्सएलपीई इन्सूलेटेड पीवीसी शीथेड केबल्स

8112:1989

43 ग्रेड ऑर्डिनरी पोर्टलैण्ड सीमेन्ट 9523:2000

डक्टाईल आयरन फिटिंग्स फॉर प्रेशर पाईप्स फॉर वॉटर, गैस एण्ड सीवेज 12269: 1987

53 ग्रेड ऑर्डिनरी पोर्टलैण्ड सीमेन्ट 14151 ( भाग 1 ) : 1999

इरीगेशन इक्विपमेंट- स्प्रिंकलर पाईप्स- भाग । - पोलीथिलीन पाईप्स

14927 ( भाग 2) :2001

केबल ट्रॅकिंग एण्ड डक्टाईल सिस्टम्स, इन्टेन्डेड फॉर माउण्टिंग ऑन वॉल्स ऑर सीलिंग 6522

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20 , 2008 /AGRAHAYANA29, 1930

1 2

25-08-2008

17. 8960094

मैसर्स विनय पम्प्स ( इण्डिया ) प्रा. लि. एफ-796, रोड नं. 14 , विश्वकर्मा औद्योगिक क्षेत्र, जयपुर -302 013 ( राजस्थान)

22-08-2008

18. 8960397

मैसर्स निखिल इण्टरनेशनल बी-70 , बाईस गोदाम , जयपुर-302 006 (राजस्थान) 5

15500 ( भाग 4) :2004 डीपवैल हैण्डपम्प्स, कम्पोनेन्ट्स एण्ड स्पेशल टूल्स-स्टील कम्पोनेन्ट्स

4787:1968 टेबल , एक्जामिनेशन

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

New Delhi , the 8th December , 2008

S.O. 3341. In pursuance of sub - regulation (5 ) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification ) Regulation , 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the following schedules .

SCHEDULE

Name and Address ofthe Licensee

Operative Date

Licence No. (CM/L)

Sl . No.

August 2008

28-07-2008

1. 8952806

M/s. Suryansh Electrical Industries F- 255A , Road No. 13 , VKI Area, Jaipur- 302013 ( Rajasthan )

28-07-2008

2. 8953505

M/s . Kamal Spun Pipe D-54, Madho Singh Road, Bani Park , Jaipur (Rajasthan)

13-08-2008

3. 8955913

M/s . Pal Industries 34, Industrial Area , Road No. 5 , Rani Bazar , Bikaner - 334001 ( Rajasthan )

13-08-2008

4. 8956006

M/ s. Rajasthan Pipe Industries F-74 & 75 , Bichhwal Indl . Area , Bikaner - 334 006 ( Rajasthan )

13-08-2008

5. 8956107

M/s. Basant Industries F-140-141-154 , Bichhwal Industrial Area, Bikaner - 334006 (Rajasthan )

14-08-2008

6. 8959214

M/ s . M. B. Sons ( J ) Bairathi Bhawan, M. I. Road, Jaipur - 302 001 ( Rajasthan)

14-08-2008

7. 8959315

M/s . Maya Jewel Palace 28-29 D, Public Park , Near Ambedkar Chowk, Sri Ganganagar - 335001 ( Rajasthan )

22-08-2008

8. 8959618

M/s. Binani Cement Ltd. (CGU) Vill.: Sirohi , Teh .: Neem Ka Thana, Sikar-332 714 ( Rajasthan)

14-08-2008

9. 8957210

M/ s . M. B. Sons ( J) Bairathi Bhawan , M. I. Road , Jaipur- 302 001 ( Rajasthan )

06-08-2008

10. 8955004

M/s . Nikhil International B- 70 , Bais Godam , Jaipur - 302 006 ( Rajasthan)

01-08-2008

11. 8954002

M/ s. Cords Cables Industries Pvt . Ltd. A-525 & E - 519 , Chopanki , RIICO Industrial Area , Bhiwadi , Distt . Alwar, Rajasthan

Article/Process covered by the licences and the relevant IS: Designation

398 (Part 2): 1996 ACSR

458:2003 Precast Concrete Pipes (with and without reinforcement ) 651:2007 Salt Glazed Stoneware Pipe & Fittings

651:2007 SaltGlazed Stoneware Pipe & Fittings

651:2007

Salt Glazed Stoneware Pipe & Fittings

1417:1999 Hallmarking ofGold Jewellery 1417:1999 Hallmarking ofGold Jewellery 1489 (Part 1 ) : 1991 Portland Pozzolana Cement Part 1 - Fly Ash Based

2112:2003 Hallmarking of Silver Jewellery 4266:1967 Lockers, Bedside for Hospital use

7098 ( Part 1 ): 1988 XLPE Industrial PVC Sheathed Cables भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 20 , 2008/ अग्रहायण 29 , 1930

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

8959517 18-08-2008

12.

M/s . Binani Cemem Ltd. ( CGU ) Vill.: Sirohi , Teh .: Neem Ka Thana Sikar-332 714 (Rajasthan) 25-08-2008

13. 8961302

M/s.Shri Krishna Industries E-351 , Road No :34 , V.KI. Area Jaipur - 302013 (Rajasthan) 8959416 18-08-2008

14.

M/s.Binani Cement Ltd. (CGU) Vill.: Sirohi , Teh.: Neem Ka Thaia Sikar-332 714 (Rajasthan) 15. 8953404 28-07-2008 M/s.Dinesh Irrigation Pvt . Ltd. 86 B II, Jhotwara Industrial Area Jaipur-302 012 (Rajasthan) 16. 8953909 01-08-2008 M/s. Richa Cables Private Limited F -172/ 173 , Bindayaka Indı .Area, Road No. 09, Phase - II , Bindayaka, Jaipur- 302012 (Rajasthan 17. 8960094 25-08-2008

M/s . Vinay Pump ( India) Pvt . Ltd. F-796 , Road No. 14, V.K.I. Area, Jaipur -302013 (Rajasthan) 22-08-2008

18. 8960397.

M/s. Nikhil International B-70, Bais Godam Jaipur -302 006 (Rajasthan )

कोयला मंत्रालय नईदिल्ली, 18 दिसम्बर , 2008.

6523

8112:-1989

43 Grade Ordinary Portland Cement 9523: 2000

DpetileIron Fittings for Pressure Pipes for Water , Gas and Sewage 12269 : 1987

59GradeOrdinary Portland Cement

14151 (Part 1 ): 1 1 ): 1999

Irrigation Equipment - Sprinkler Pipes-Part 1-Polyethylene Pipes 14927 ( Part2): 2001

Cable Trunking and Ducting Systems , Intended for Mounting onWalls or Ceiling 15500 (Part4): 2004

Deepwell Handpumps, Components amd Special Tools- Steel Componenets

4787:1968 Table, Examination

[No. CMD/13 : 11 ] P. K. GAMBHIR, Dy. Director General (Marks) का. आ. 3342.-कोयलाधारी क्षेत्र ( अधिग्रहण और विकास ) अधिनियम 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) की धारा 7 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार , 05 जून, 2008 को भारत के राजपत्र के भाग II , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) में प्रकाशित 5 जून , 2008 के का.आ. 1385 के अनुसार भारत सरकार , कोयला मंत्रलय की अधिसूचना को पंतद्वारा संशोधित करती है , अर्थात् उक्तअधिसूचना में:-

1. पगार गांव के संबंध में प्लाटों की सूची में :

( i) प्लाट सं. " 346 " के स्थान पर प्लाट संख्या " 346( भाग ) " प्रतिस्थापित किया जाएगा । (ii ) प्लाट सं. " 3884 ( भाग ) के स्थान पर प्लॉट संख्या 2884(भाग ) " प्रतिस्थामित किया जाएगा।

2. गांव लोचर के संबंध में प्लाटों की सूची में : प्लाट सं. " 330/38 " के स्थान पर प्लॉट संख्या " 330/282 " प्रतिस्थापित किया जाएगा ।

[फा. सं. 43015/8/2006 - पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-1 ( खण्ड- II ) ] एम. शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 18th December, 2008

S.O. 3342.-In exercise of powers conferred by sub -section ( 1 )of Section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development ) Act , 1957 (20 of 1957 ), the Central Government hereby amends the notification of the Government of India, Ministry ofCoal vide number S. O. 1385 dated 5th June, 2008 published in the Gazette of India , Part - II , Section -3 , sub- section( ii) dated June 14, 2008 namely :-

Inthe said notification :-

1. In the list of plots in respect of village Pandu 2. In the list ofplots in respect of villate Pagar: Plot number " 680/1559 " shall be substituted by plot number " 682/ 1.559 "

(i) Plot number " 3884 (Part)" shall be substituted by plot number "2884 (Part) " . (ii) Plot number "2227 to 2294 " shall be substituted by plot numbers " "2227to 2694"

4833 G1/08-2

[F. No. 43015 /8 /2006 -PRIW - 1 ( Vol . II ) ] M. SHAHABUDEEN , Under Secy.

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 6524

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2008/AGRAHAYANA 29, 1930

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर,, 2008

का. आ. 3343.- केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि मे उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उप धारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियो का प्रयोग करते हुए, भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की भारत के राजपत्र में प्रकाशित अधिसूचनाओ से निम्नलिखित संशोधन करने का निर्देश देती हैं का. आ. 2362, दिनांक 23 अगस्त 2008 , भारत के राजपत्र खण्ड ३ उपखण्ड (ii ) दिनांक अगस्त 17 अगस्त 23 , 2008 , के पृष्ठ 4810 में प्रकाशित अनुसूची को इस तरह पढ़ा जावें ।

अनुसूची

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा संख्या

तहसील

राज्य

गाँव

क्रमांक

जिला

एयर वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर

राजस्थान पाली बाली भीटवाड़ा

86/1458

674

0 .

670

131

[फा. सं. आर-25011/8/2006- ओ.आर. - 1 ]

एस. के. चिटकारा, अवर सचिव Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas.

NewDelhi , the 3rd December , 2008

S. O. 3343. Ir exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section ( i ) of Section 3 and Subsection ( 1 ) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act , 1962 ( 50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the notifications of Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as under namely: -

In SO no . 2362 dated 23rd August 2008 published in Gazette of India Part II section 3 , Sub section ( ii ) dated August 17- August 23 , 2008 at page 4810 , the schedule should be read as follows:

SCHEDULE

AREA

SL.no.

State

Tehsil

District

Khasara no .

Village

Hect . Ara Sq.mtr .

Pali

Bali

Rajasthan

Bheetwara

86/1458

0 11

674

0 21

670

131

0 12

(F. No. R-25011 /8/2006-0.Ř. -1 ) S. K. CHITKARA, Under Secy.

6525 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 20, 2008/अग्रहायण 29, 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 10 दिसम्बर,, 2008

शुद्धिपत्र

का. भा. 3344.- भारत के राजपत्र के भाग II , खंड 3, उपखंड (ii) तारीख 25 जून, 2006 से तारीख 1 जुलाई, 2006 में, सं० का० आ० 2506 तारीख 27 जून, 2006 प्रकाशित अधिसूचना में निम्नलिखित शब्दों और अंको के स्थान पर संशोधित करती है:-

स्तम्भ 1 में " आर 2/18, राज नगर, गाज़ियाबाद (उत्तर प्रदेश)" शब्दों और अंको के स्थान पर

"मकान नं० एस, ए-4 शास्त्री नगर, गाज़ियाबाद (उत्तर प्रदेश) " शब्दं और अंक रखे जायें ।

[फा. सं. एल -14014/19/2006-जी.पी. ] के.के. शर्मा, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 10th December, 2008

Gorrigendum

S. O. 3344.-In the Notification published in part II Section 3, Sub-section (ii) of the Gazette of India for the period from 25.06.2006 to 01.07.2006 vide S.O 2506 dated 27.06.2006, for the words and numbers

" R-2/ 18 Raj Nagar Gaziabad ( Uttar Pradesh )'

following words and numbers may be substituted

'House No. SA-4 Shastri Nagar Gaziabad ( Uttar Pradesh )

[F. No. L-14014/19/2006-G.P.] K.K. SHARMA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम्बर,, 2008

A का. आं . 3345.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी , भारत के राजपत्र, तारीख 10-05-2008. में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना आ. संख्या 1037 तारीख 06-05-2008 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्द्व अनुसूची तालुका- मुलबागल , जिल्ला - कोलार, राज्य कर्नाटक में चेन्नै पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मनाली की रिफैनेरी से देवनगुट्टि टॉर्मिनल, बैंगलुर तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी. द्वारा और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां ता. 13-07-2008 , और 15-10-2008 जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को रिर्पोट देदीहै;

6526

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2008/AGRAHAYANA 29, 1930

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उक्त रिर्पोट पर विचार करने के पश्चात यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्व अनुसूचि में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित किया जाए;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्द्व अनुसूचि मे विनिर्दष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाय इंडियन ऑयल कोर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में सभी विल्लगमों से मुक्त होकर प्रकाशन की इस तारीख से निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

जिला: कोलार तालुका :मुलबागल

सर्वेक्षणसं- गाँव कानाम

खण्ड सं . / उप-खण्ड सं .

1 चिक्कागुट्टाहल्लि

82 संगोडाहल्लि

116/10 चुन्नापुरा

348 उरकुंटेमिटदुर

36/4 मिणिजेनहल्लि

82/6

31/4

102 येडाहल्लि

राज्य:कर्नाटक

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मिटर हेक्टर

एयर

91 00

20 00

10 00

79 00

[फा. सं. आर-25011/8/2008- ओ.आर. - 1 ]

एस. के. चिटकारा, अवर सचिव 6527 भारत का राजपत्र दिसम्बर 20, 2006 /अग्रहायण 29,1930

[ भाग II- अण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 12th December, 2008

S. O. 3345.- Whereas by the notification of the Government of India Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas . S.O. 1037 dated 06-05-2008 under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the schedule relating to Taluka: Mulbagal , District : Kolar , State : Karnataka annexed to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Product from Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited, Manali to Devanguthi Terminal , Bengaluru , by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas, the copies of the said Gazette Notification were made available to the general public on 13-07-2008 and 15-10-2008.

And whereas , the Competent Authority has under, sub -section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , submitted report to the Central Government;

And whereas , the Gentral Government after considering the said report is satisfied that right of user in the land specified in the schedule appended to this notification should be acquired ,

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

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4 ) of section 6 of the said Act . the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said lands shall instead of vesting in the Central Government , vests from the date of publication of this declaration in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances. ::

ए पर देने से होत

SCHEDULES

District: Kolar

State : Karnataka Taluka : Mulbagal

Area

Survey No./Sub-Division No.

Name of the Village

Hectare Are

Sq.Mtr .

0785 Chikkaguttahalli

91 Sangodahalli

116/10

Channapura

348

Urakuntemitturu 6528

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2008/AGRAHAYANA 29, 1930

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

36/4

Minijenahalli

82/6

31/4

102

Yedahalli

[F. No. R- 25011 /8/2008- O.R. - I ] S. K. CHITKARA , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम्बर,, 2008

का. आ. 3346. - केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी, भारत के राजपत्र, तारीख 10-05-2008 और 07-06-2008. में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना का आ. संख्या 1038 और 1278 तारीख 06-05-2008 और 23-05-2008. द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची तालुका- बंगारपेट, जिल्ला कोलारं, राज्य कर्नाटक में .पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मनाली की रिफैनेरी से देवनगुट्टि टॉर्मिनल , बैंगलुर तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, चेन्नै द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी.

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां ता. 13-07-2008, और 15-10-2008 जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी गईथी ;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को रिर्पोट दे दीहै;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाय इंडियन ऑयल कोर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में सभी विल्लगमों से मुक्त होकर प्रकाशन की इस तारीख से निहित होगा । 6529

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 20, 2008/अग्रहायण 29, 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

अनुसूची

जिला:कोलार तालुका :बंगारपेट

गाँव कानाम

सर्वेक्षण सं- खण्ड सं . उप-खण्ड सं .

130/P1 जयमंगला

64 कंगानल्लुर

73 कामण्डहल्लि

57/2 मावहल्लि

98/P7 सिड़डानहल्लि

10 अक्षंत्रगल्लाहल्लि

17 मुगालाबैले

21/1P सूलकुंटे

19 निलकण्ठपूरा

36 मीठमल्लहल्ली

قیم

15 राज्य:कर्नाटक

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टर

वर्ग मिटर

एयर

28 00

33 00

84 00

44 00

26 00

15 00

08 6530

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2008/AGRAHAYANA 29 , 1930

5 1

मीठमल्लहल्ली

12.

[फा. सं. आर-25011/8/2008- ओ.आर. - 1 ] एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 12th December, 2008

S. O. 3346.-Whereas by the notification of the Government of India . Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas . S.O. 1038 & 1278 dated 06-05-2008 & 23-05-2008 under sub section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 ( 50 of 1962 ) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the schedule relating to Taluka : Bangarpet, District: Kolar , State: Karnataka annexed to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Product from Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited, Manali to Devanguthi Terminal , Bengaluru , by the Indian OilCorporation Limited.

And whereas , the copies of the said Gazette Notification were made available to the general public on 13-07-2008 and 15-10-2008.

6531

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 20, 2008/अग्रहायण 29, 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Andwhereas, the Competent Authority has under sub-section ( 1 ) of section 6 ofthe said Act , submitted report to the Central Government;

And whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report is satisfied that right of user in the land specified in the schedule appended to this notification should be acquired.

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

And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (4) of section 6 . of the said Act. the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said lands shall instead of vesting in the Central Government, vests from the date of publication of this declaration in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

State: Karnataka

District: Kolar

Taluka : Bangarpet

Area

Survey No/Sub-Division No

Nameof the Village

130/P1 Jayamangala

64 Kanganallur

73 Kamandahalli

57/2 Mavahalli

98/P7.

Siddanhalli

10 Akshantragollahalli

17 Mugalabele

21/1P Sulakunte

19 Neelakanthapura

Are

Sq .Mtr.

Hectare

00 6532

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20 , 2008/AGRAHAYANA 29, 1930 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]

44 Mittmalahalli

[F. No. R-25011/8/2008- O.R. -I ] S. K. CHITKARA , Under Secy.

6533 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 20 , 2008/अग्रहायण 29, 1930

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम्बर,, 2008

का. आ. 3347. केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धार 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी, भारत के राजपत्र, तारीख 10-05-2008 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना का आ. संख्या 1039 तारीख 06-05-2008. द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्व अनुसूची तालुका मालुर, जिल्ला- कोलार, राज्य -कर्नाटक में चेन्नै पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मनाली की रिफैनेगरी से देवनगुडिट टॉर्मिनल, बैंगलुर तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी.

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां ता. 13-07-2008 , और 15-10-2008 जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उक्त रिर्पोट पर विचार करने के पश्चात यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूचि में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित किया जाए; 3

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शुक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्व अनुसूचि मे विनिर्दष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है. 1

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाय इंडियन ऑयल कोपर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में सभी विल्लगमों से मुक्त होकर प्रकाशन की इस तारीख से निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

राज्य:कर्नाटक

जिला: कोलार

तालुका :मालुर

क्षेत्रफल

सर्वेक्षण सं

गाँवकानाम

वर्ग मिटर खण्ड सं. उप-खण्ड सं.

एयर

हेक्टर

निधरमंगला

कडसनहल्लि

73/3

वडगनहल्लि

170/3

माडिभला

[फा. सं. आर-25011/8/2008 - ओ.आर. - 1 ]

एस. के. चिटकारा , अंबर सचिव [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20 , 2008/AGRAHAYANA 29 , 1930

6534

New Delhi , the 12th December, 2008

S. O. 3347. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India . Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas . S.O. 1039 dated 06-05-2008 under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the schedule relating to Taluka : Malur , District : Kolar, State : Karnataka annexed to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Product from Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited , Manali to Devanguthi Terminal , Bengaluru , by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas , the copies of the said Gazette Notification were made available to the general public on 13-07-2008 and 15-10-2008.

And whereas , the Competent Authority has under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 ofthe said Act, submitted report to the Central Government ;

And whereas , the Central Government after considering the said report is satisfied that right of user in the land specified in the schedule appended to this notification should be acquired.

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

And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (4 ) of section 6 of the said Act . the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said lands shall instead of vesting in the Central Government , vests from the date of publication of this declaration in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

State: Karnataka

District : Kolar

Taluka : Malur

Area

Survey No/Sub-Division No.

Name of the Village

Hectare Are

Sq . Mtr .

Nidharmangala

Kadasannahalli

73/3

Vadaganahalli

170/3

Madivala

[F. No. R-25011/8/2008-0.R . - I ]

S. K. CHITKARA , Under Secy.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

6535

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 20, 2008/अग्रहायण 29, 1930

नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम्बर,, 2008

का. आ. 3348.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी , भारत के राजपत्र, तारीख 10-05-2008 और 7-06-2008 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय कीअधिसूचना का आ. संख्मा 1040 और 1279 तारीख 06-05-2008 और 23-05-2008 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची तालुका- होसकोटे, जिल्ला बेंगलुरु रुरल, राज्य -कर्नाटक में पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मनाली की रिफमेरी से देवनगुद्धि टॉर्मिनल, बैंगलुर तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , चेन्नै द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी.

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां ता. 13-07-2008 और 15-10-2008 जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाय इंडियन ऑयल कोपर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में सभी विल्लगमों से मुक्त होकर प्रकाशन की इस तारीख से निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची :होसकोटे

तालुका

जिला: बेंगलुरु रुरल

सर्वेक्षण सं- गाँवकानाम

खण्ड सं ./उप-खण्ड सं .

36/A टिडंलु

तरवहल्लि

देवरगोल्लहल्ली

राज्य: कर्नाटक

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टर

वर्गमिटर

एयर

[फा. सं. आर-25011/8/2008- ओ.आर. - 1 ]

एस. के. चिटकारा, अवर सचिव 6536

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2008 /AGRAHAYANA 29, 1930.

New Delhi , the 12th December, 2008

S. O. 3348.- Whereas by the notification of the Government of India . Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas . S.O. 1040 & 1279 dated 06-05-2008 & 23-05-2008 under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the schedule relating to Taluka Hoskote , District : Bengaluru rural , State : Karnataka annexed to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Product from Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited , Manali to Devanguthi Terminal , Bengaluru ,by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas , the copies of the said Gazette Notification were made available to the general public on 13-07-2008 and 15-10-2008.

And whereas , the Competent Authority has under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 ofthe said Act , submitted report to the Central Government ;

And whereas , the Central Government after considering the said report is satisfied that right of user in the land specified in the schedule appended to this notification should be acquired .

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

And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 4 ) of section 6 of the said Act. the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said lands shall instead of vesting in the Central Government , vests from the date of publication of this declaration in the Indian Oil Corporation Limitedfree from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

State: Karnataka Taluka : Hoskote

District : Bengaluru Rural

Area

Survey No/Sub-Division No.

Name of the Village

Sq. Mtr .

Are

Hectare

36/A

Tindlu

Tarabhalli 6537 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 20, 2008/अग्रहायण 29, 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

Devragollahally

15 .

[F. No. R-25011/8/2008- O.R. -1 ] S. K. CHITKARA , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम्बर,, 2008

का. आ. 3349. केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी, भारत के राजपत्र, तारीख 26 अप्रैल, 2008 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना का. आ. संख्या 894 तारीख 24 अप्रैल, 2008 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में, गुजरात राज्य में स्थापित कोयली - दहेज पाइपलाइन की शाखा आमोद से हजीरा तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 1 मई, 2008 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को. रिपोर्ट दे दी है;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार का उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार अर्जित किया जाए;

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में सभी विल्लगमों से मुक्त घोषणा के प्रकाशन की इस तारीख को निहित होगा । 6538

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 20 , 2008/AGRAHAYANA 29, 1930 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

अनुसूची

क्षेत्रफल

राज्य जिला

गाँव

सर्वेक्षण सं. उप - खण्ड सं.

तालुका

वर्गमीटर

खण्ड सं.

हेक्टेयर एयर

9 3

ऊमराछी

ओलपाड

29 सुरत

गुजरात

234

243

242

244

245

247

248

249

250

251

305

297

295

294

289

290

286

285

284

283

वडोली

644

645

648

651

655

656

562

563

564

624

573

574

575

576

584

583

589

582

580

593

170

33 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

6539

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 20, 2008/अग्रहायण 29, 1930

199

पारडीभादोल

190

198

203

204

211

214

215

217

219

220

222

223

240

241

239

237

238

236

231

232

255

256

257

कणभी

149

148

207

199

200

195

192

193

189

188

186

184

वीहारा

109

110

104

105

102

142

141

144

143

153

154

145

162

152

151

4833G1/08-4

9 7

09 00

07 00

90 00

52 00

23 00

81 00

89 00

37 00

66 00

03 00

38 00

80 00

75 00

24 00

06 00

43 00

18 00

02 00

52 00

10 00

33 00

30 00

13 00

15.

20 00

33 00

40 00

93 00

74:

72 00

32 00

89 00

11 00

59 00

50 6540

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2008/AGRAHAYANA 29 , 1930

149

वीहारा

179

(जारी)

180

183

184

185

188

189

191

196

192

193

202

मोरथाण

206

205

204

203

213

201

200

199

196

191

187

188

189

303

अछारण

314

223

235

234

237

238

248

249

250

274

275

273

252

268

265

235

सांढीयेर

233

234

230

251

A머

251

252

253

249

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

9 7

72 00

95 00

52 00

42 00

97 00

06 00

05 00

61 00

81 00

78 00

62 00

44 00

10 00

12 00

76 00

00 00

.66 00

71 00

85 00

95 00

63 00

86 00

08 6541

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 20, 2008/अग्रहायण 29 , 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

256

सांढीयेर

256

(जारी)

267 BAB

267

269

325

324

323

314

319

317

318

352

391

390

389

386

385

384

383

382

373

381

374

380

378

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

करमला

296

कोसम

313

314

9 7

86 00

01 00

55 00

86 00

78 00

45 00

31. 00

37 00

99 :

83 00

59 00

43 00

65 00

97 00

12 00

62 00

-89 00

79 00

95 00

24 00

81 00

76 00

72 00

66 00

89 00

69 00

84 00

28 00

38 00

05 00

39 00

09 00

97 00

03 6542

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20 , 2008/ AGRAHAYANA 29, 1930

312

कोसम

311

(जारी)

299

300

289

259

263

260

261

230

219

218

217

223

127

128

129

130

124

123

122

116

228

वडोद

225

235

238

237

236

239

159

कनाद

156

155

154

180

181

182

183

153

145

144

132

133

134

135

130

128

A/P/3

101

125

123

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 7

25 00

04 00

36 00

08 00

05 00

46 00

91 00

59 00

48 00

31 00

63 00

79 00

64 00

35 00

19 00

24 00

28 00

31 00

66 00

04 00

39 00

19 00

14 00

39 00

17 00

19 00

69 00

23.

45 00

10 00

61 00

63 00

90 00

14 00

13 00

92 00

56 00

45 00

41 00

23 00

65 00

32 00

95 00

08 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

6543

भारत का एकपत्र: दिसम्बर 20, 2008 /अग्रहायण 29, 1930

सरोली

110

198

197-

165

196

168

169

1.71

चोर्यासी

वीहल

3466127568

110

वणकला

151

150

149

152

156

157

155

07 200

65 00 88888 00

97 00

30 00

48 00

86 00

27 00

01 00

45 00

87 00

09 00

99 00

29 00

14 00

07 00

57 00

82 00

05 00

37 00

51 00

79 00

05 00

19 00

47 00

82 00

22 00

92 00

42 00

63 00

84 00

05 00

83 00

15 00

42 00

98 00

48 00

19 00

05 00

65 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2008/AGRAHAYANA 29, 1930

6544

वणकला

(जारी)

ओखा

108

107

106

105

104

405

सेगवाछामा

ओलपाड

406

401

400

AAB

418

385

399

383

384

363

316

301

302

303

304

305

307

317

318

299

284

285

289

290

294

298

264

265

263

266

248

249

253

256

472

चोर्यासी भेसाण

9 7

76 00

27 00

45 00

95 00

62 00

28 00

49 00

26 00

41 00

13 00

01 00

50 00

16 00

05 00

15 00

45 00

40 00

85 00

80 00

73 00

63 00

10 00

74 00

77 00

34 00

91 00

46 00

39 00

25 6545

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 20, 2008/अग्रहायणः 29 , 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

471

भेसाण (जारी)

105

मलगामा

106

108

115

109

114

116

00'

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

219

222

221

223

आसरमा

इच्छापोर

877

878

927

879

926

923

P.1

924

918/P1+773 /P2

892+919/P1

893+913/1+914

893

894

781

780

783

784

779

538

.00

542

541

P1-1

554

P1-2

554

P1-3

554

P2-1

554

P2-2

622

58 6546

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20 , 2008/AGRAHAYANA 29 , 1930 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]

620+621

इच्छापोर

619

07 (जारी)

[फा. सं. आर-25011/1/2008- ओ.आर. - 1 ]

एस. के. चिटकारा, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 12th December, 2008

S. O. 3349.- Whereas by a notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Number S.O. 894 dated 26-04-2008 under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962 ), the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the schedule annexed to that notification for the purpose of laying a branch pipeline from existing Koyali - Dahej pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Product from Amod to Hazira in the State of Gujarat by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas , the copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the general public on the 1st May, 2008 ;

And whereas , the Competent Authority has submitted report to the Central Government;

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

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

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

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

6547

भारत का सजपत्र: दिसम्भार 20 2008/अग्रहायण 29 , 1930

SCHEDULE State District Taluka Village Survey/ Block No.

5 Surat

Umrachhi

Olpad

Gujarat

234

243

242

244

245

247

248

249

250

251

305

297

295

294

289

290

286

285

284

283

Vadoli

644

645

648

651

655

656

562

563

کار 564

624

573

574

575

576

584

583

589

582

580

593

170 4833 G1/08-5

Area

Sub- DivisionNo.

Hect. Are Sq.mtr.

00 00 29

00 09 82.

00 20 89

30 2

00 16 06

14 60

00 06 82

00 09 45

00 21

00 17 58

00 04 52

00 12 37

00 39 44

00 00 20 A

00 06 87

00 25 01

00 22 46 B

00 28

00 01 27.

00 04 05

11 35

00- 24

00 10 59

00 18 31 P

00 13 76

00 00 29

00 24 62

00 13

31 91

00 01

00 23 65

17 10

00 11 23

00 06 19

33.

00 11 82

67 P

0.0

722

79 P1

15130 15.

00 01

33 6548

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2008/AGRAHAYANA 29, 1930 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] 2

9 Pardibhadol

199

190

00 07 09

198

00 32 07

203

204

00 40 90

211

214

00 05. 52

215

217

219

220

00 00 05

222

223

00 26 89

240

241

00 00

239

00 13

237

00 25

238

00 00

236

00 02

231

232

255

00 40

256

257

00 06 06

149

148

207

199

200

195

192

193

189

188

186

184-

Vihara

109

110

104

105

102

00 19

142

00 13

141

00 01

144

143

153

154

00. 24

145

162

79 [भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

6549

भारत का राजपत्र दर 20/ 2008 / मालपण 29 1930 19

Vihara

a152

00 11 59

SAS151

(Contd.)

149

00 04

$179

00 16 06

180

00 14 95

183

00 03 52

2184

00-

185

00 11 42

188

00 01 27

2189

00 22

191

00 06 97

196

00 00 78

192

00 18 69

193

05 59 Morthan

202

00 03 06

206

205

00 11

204

00 23

203

00 02 66.

203

B B A

213

00 14

4201

1.8.200

00 15 61

199

00 17

1196

00 11

12491

A:187

188

00 26 69.

8.189

00 32 62 Achharan

303

00 22 79

S314

35 44

223

00: 06 10

235

234

00 08 61

237

238

00 08 99.

248

00 26 76

249

:250

00 01 06

274

00 19

275

273

00 17

252

00. 20 89

268

00. 32

265

00 01

१०.

Sandhiar

235

37 27

233

00 23. 85

234

00 12 38

230

00 12 95

251

00 08 19 6550

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2008/AGRAHAYANA 29 , 1930

-6

9 2

251

252

63 Sandhiar (Contd.)

253

249

08 86

00 19 83

256

13 86

267

ABAR B

00 21

269

325

00 19 86

324

323

314

08 45

319

317

00 02 31

318

00 08

352

391

00 48 83

390

00 05 59

09 43

389

386

00 10 94

385

384

383

382

373

381

374

380

00 10 95

378

420

00 11

421

422

423

424

35 67

425

19 18

426

00 11 Karmala

00 01

03 69

00 26

00 05

00 02

05 79

00 18

00 16

00 12

55 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (日)

6551

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 20, 2008/अग्रहायण 29, 1930

296

Kosam

00 09 09.

313

00 29 57

314

00 03- 97

312-

00 11 25

311

00 06 04

299

00 23

300

00.

289

12 08

289

29 05

259

00 00 46

263

00 16 91

260

! 00 25 59

$261

00 04 48

230

00 10 31

219

00 16 63

218

00 02 79

217

00 26 64

223

00 00 17

31127

00 03

128

00 04 19

129

00- 04 24

130

124

123

00 21

122

00 39 66

116

00 05 04

Vadod

228

00 24

225

235

00 06

238

00 25

237

236

239

Kanad

159

03 69

156

00 23 45

155

00 06 10

154

00 13 61

180

00 02 63

181

13 90

182

00 15 14

183

00 05 90

153

00 00 13

145

00 13 41'

144

00 25 13

132.

00 31 92

133

134.

11 56

135

00 26 45

130

00 35

A/P/3

128

101

00 09 42

125

00 21 65

125

0025

125

00 19 95.

123

Saroli

00 20 00

07 [PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2008/ AGRAHAYAΝΑ 29, 1930

6552

00 31

97 Sarols (Contd.)

00 26

00 13

00 18

110

198

197

165

196

02 14

168

32 07

169

171

00 09

Vihal

05 Choryasi

10 79

00 18

00 00

13 19

06 47

110

Vankala

151

00 23 28

150

00 12

149

152

156

157

155

00 25 15

15 98

00 05

00 01 89

Okha

00 16

00 27 90

Okha (Contd.)

108

107

106

105 00

104 Olpad Segwachhamas 405

406

401

400

418

385 08

399

383

384

363

316

301

218

302

303

304

ASE

305

317

TUTR + 998

299

CER

284

285

289

197

290

294

298

264 265

263

۲۵۰

266

248

249

253

256

472

Bheshan

Choryasi

471

105

Malgama

106

108

115

109

114

116

117

6553

00 22

15 28

00 35 49

16 ..81

00 07 26

13 41

00 25

00 06 16

00 19 01

00 22 42

00 19 50 AAB

01 20

00 25

00 00 05

00 00

00 02 85

00 03 85

00 04 39

00 05 56

00 00 73

25 63

00 00 10 A

00 63

00 03 78

00 07

00 07 77

00 04 34

8888

00 91

00 00 46

00 16 38

00 25 39

00 06

00 20

00 05

00 23

00 26

09 6554

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2008 /AGRAHAYANA 29, 1930 [PART II SBC. 3 (ii)] 3

118 118

ام

10 29

119

00 17 99

4 Malgama Contd.)

120

07 06

121

00 05 68

122

00 05 44

123

13 80

219

00 83 67

222

00 25 87

221

00 08 27

223

01 Asarma

02211830

877

16 Ichhapor

878

37 10

927

00 00. 32

879

00 13 72

926

00 24 40

923

00 14 40

924

17 .

924

918/ P1 + 773 /P2

892+919/P1

10 00

893+913/1+914

893

894

781

00 17

780

00 10 19

783

784

00 01

779

00 09

538

542

541

00 01

554

P1-1

P1-2

554

00 08 02

554

P1-3

554

P2-1

554

P2-2

622

00 08

620+621

619

[F. No. R-25011/1/2008- O.R. -I ]

S. K. CHITKARA , Under Secy.

11 6555 भारत का राजपत्र: दिलबर 20, 2006/ 29, 1980

[পাল -3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 16 दिसम्बर , 2008

का. आ. 3350.- भारत सरकार ने पेट्रोशिया और जिनमें अधिकार का अर्जन), अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50 ) (जिसे इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियन कहा गया है) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार को पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 1994(अ) तारीख 10जुलाई, 2008 द्वारा उस अभिसून अनुसूची में निर्विष्ट भूमि में, मैसर्स रिलायंस इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड , की आन्ध्रपवेश में संरचनाओं से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में

उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए गैनैसर्स रिलायंस गैस ट्रान्सपोर्टेशन इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजस के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के सपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और, उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना गरि प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 27 अगस्त, 2008 को अथवा उससे पूर्व, उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं,

और, पाइपलाइन विछाने के संबंध में जनता की ओर से प्राप्त असक्षेपों पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया है और अननुज्नात कर दिया गया है ;

और , सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी और,भारत सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उपर भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है , उसमें उपभोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का मिनिश्चय किया है;

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

और, भारत सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख सेभारत सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए , सभी विस्लंगमों से मुक्त, मैसर्स रिलायंस गैस ट्रान्सपोर्टशन स्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

जिला: सोलापूर

मंडल/ तहसील/ तालुका: बार्शी

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

गांव का नाग

लिए क्षेत्रफल

78/पे

204

00 1)अरणगांव

83/4

05 2) भोयरे

83/1

83/2

83/3

126

00.

00 3) शेळगाव(व्हळे)

279

4) देवगांव

जिला: उस्मानाबाद

मंडल/ तहसील/ तालुकाः परांडा

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

126/1

20 1) राजुरी

40/12

00 2) पांचपिंपळे

4833GI/08-6 6556

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2008 /AGRAHAYANA 29, 1930

2 3) कंदारी

612 4) डोंजा

551

276

484/2

229

231

275

588

589

596

599

602

606

635

655

708

435 5) आलेश्वर

272

279 मंडल/ तहसील/ तालुकाः करमाळा जिला : सोलापूर 1) करंजे

199

33/5

37/2

2/1

219

201/4

202/1/अ

202/6

198/4/अ

198/4/व

220

30/4

37/4 2) खांवेवाडी

8/2/2 3) धायखिंडी

104

103

85/1

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

5 00

65 00

00 00

80 00

00 00

24 00

70 00

50 00

10 00

30 00

80 00

90 00

24 00

00 00

60 00

00 00

80 00

00 राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

00 00

60 00

00 00

80 00

00 00

20 00

00 00

80 00

00 00

30 00

50 00

00 00

50 00

30 00

50 00

70 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर, 20, 2008/ अग्रहायण 29, 1930

2 4)पोथरे

198

136

56/2 5) करमाळा

71 6)मांगी

75/1/3

96/7

80/4,

32 7) वडगाव (खुर्द)

38/2

69/4 8) रावगांव

436/2

436/3

436/4

430/5

435

432/ 1 / At

345/

356/ :

6557 3

5 00

70 00

00 00

20,

074

72 00

4806 00

00 000070 00

10 00

30 00

902

06 100000

06 00

06 000

00 00

35-001

30 00

1084 むか

61/1

345/1/अ

95 00

50 00

80 00

50 00

20 00

50 00

[फा. सं. एल-14014/43/2006-जी.पी. ]

के.के. शर्मा, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 16th December, 2008

S. O. 3350.-Whereas by a notification of Government of India in the Ministry. of Petroleum and Natural Gas , number S.O. 1694 (E) dated 10th July 2008 , issued under sub- section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Aet, 1962. (50 of 1962 ) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ), Government of Irictia declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the land, speciried in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation of natural gas from structures in Andhra Pradesh of M/ S Reliance Industries Limited, by M/ s Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited to the consumers in various parts of the country;

And , whereas , the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on cr before 27th August 2008;

6558

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2008/ AGRAHAYANA 29, 1930 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] And , whereas, the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the Competent Authority ;

And ,whereas, the Competent Authority has under sub- section ( 1) of Section 6 of said Act, submitted report to Government of India;

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

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

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, Government of India hereby directs that the Right of User in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in Government of India, vest on the date of publication of the declaration, in M/ s Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited, free from all encumbrances .

Schedule

Mandal/Tehsil /Taluka: Barsi

State: Maharashtra

Ditsrict: Solapur

Survey/ Sub-division No.

Village

2 1

78/ P 1)Arangaon

83/4 2)Bhoire

83/1

83/2

83/3

126 3) Shelgaon ( Vhale)

279 4) Devgaon

Mandal/Tehsil /Taluka : Paranda

Area to be acquired for ROU

Are

C-Are Hectare

00 00

05 00

35 00

00 00

70 State: Maharashtra

Ditsrict: Osmanabad

126/1 1) Rajuri

49/12 2) Panchpimple

612 3) Kandari

551 4) Donja

276

484/2

229

231

275

588 00

00 00

65 00

00 00

10 00 दिसम्बर 20, 2008/अग्रहायण 29 1930

596

635

655

708

435

272 5)Aleshwarx

279-

Diterict: Solapur

26 1) Karanje

199

33/5

37/2

2/1

219

201/4

202/1 /A

202/6

198/4/A

198/4/B

220

30/4

37/4

37 2)Khambewadi

8/2/2 3)Dhaykhindi

104

103

85/1

198 4)Pothare

136

56/2 5)Karmela

71 6)Mangi

75/1/3

96/7

6559

5 3

00 00

80 00

90 00

00 00

27.

00 00

State : Maharashtra

60 00

00 00

80 00

00 00

30 00

50 00

00 00

50 00

70 00

20 00

60 00

72 00

48-

06 00

00%

00 6560

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20 , 2008 /AGRAHAYANA 29 , 1930 [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 1

70 7) Wadgaon( Khurd)

38/2

69/4

436/2

06 8) Ravgaon

436/3

436/4

436/5

00 .

435

432/1 /A

345/3

356/1

130/1

61/1

000

345/1/A

[F. No. L-14014/43/2006-G.P. ]

K.K. SHARMA , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 18 दिसम्बर,, 2008

का. आ. 3351.- भारत सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 (1962 का 50 ) (जिसे इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का . आ .3566 तारीख 19 दिसम्बर 2007 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में मैसर्स रिलायन्स गैस ट्रान्सपोर्टेशन इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा देश के विभिन्न हिस्सोंमें उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए काकीनाडा-हैदरावाद-उरान- अहमदावाद गैस पाइपलाइन विछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोपणा की थी;

और, उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 03 नवम्बर , 2008 को अथवा उससे पहले उपलव्ध करा दी गई थी;

और पाइपलाइन विछाने के संबंध में जनता की ओर से कोई आक्षेप प्राप्त नही हुआ है ;

और, सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन भारत सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;

और भारत सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन विछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय क्रियाहै;

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ] :

6561

भारत की राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 20, 2008 /अग्रहायण 29 1930

अतः अव, भारत सरकार , उक्स अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोपणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन विछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है ;

और, भारत सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उफ्योग का अधिक्रार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से भारत सरकार में निहित होने के वजाए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, मैसर्स रिलायन्स गैस, ट्रान्सपोर्टेशन इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड, में निहित होगा

अनुसूची तहसील: नवसारी

जिला नवसारी गांव कानाम

सर्वे नम्वर/व्लॉक नं 1

2 1.ओनची

85*

84*

77 * 2. मोलधस

346*

342*

360*

361

362

359

363*

450*

457*

460*

565* तहसील गणदेवी

जिला: नवसारी गांव का नाम

सर्वे नम्वर/ब्लॉक नं 1

2 1.उदाच

1594*

New Delhi , the 18th December, 2008.

राज्य: गुजरात

आर.ओ.यु. अर्जित करने के लिये क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर

एयर

चौ.मी.

5 00

41 00

50 00

17 00

01 00

36 00

00 00

5.00

50 00

73 00

04 00

28 00

01 00

60 00

राज्य: गुजरात

आर.ओ.यु. अर्जित करने के लिये क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर

एयर

चौ.मी.

5 00

67 [फा. सं. एल-10014/39/2004- वी.पी . ]

के.के. शर्मा, अवर सचिव S. O. 3951. Whereas , by notification of Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, number S.O.3566 dated 19th December , 2008 , issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), Government of India declared its intention to acquire the Right of Users in the land, specifed in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying Kakinada - Hydrabad - Uran - Ahmedabad gas pipeline for transportation of natural gas by M/s Reliance Gas Transporation Infrastructure Limited to the consumers in various parts of the country;

6562

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20 , 2008/AGRAHAYANA 29, 1930 [PART II SBC. 3 (ii )] And, whereas , the copies ofthe said Gazette Notification were made available to the public on or before 3-1-1-2008;

And, whereas , no objections were received from the public to the laying of the pipeline ;

And, whereas , the Competent Authority has under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act, submitted report to the Government of India;

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

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

And, further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, Government of India hereby directs that the Right of Users in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in Government of India, vest on this date ofpublication of the declaration , in M/s Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited, frec from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

District : Navsari Tehsil : Navsari

Survey No./Block No. Name of the Village

85*

1.Onachi

84*

77*

346* 2.Moldhara

342*

360*

361*

362

359

363*

450*

451*

460*

565*

District : Navsari Tehsil : Gandevi

Survey No./Block No. Name of the Village

1594* 1.Undach

State :Gujarat

Area to be acquired for ROU

Hectare

Sq.m

Are

5 3

$50

73 00

04 00

State: Gujarat

Area to be acquired for ROU

Are

Sq.m Hectare

5 3

[F. No..L-14014/39/2004-G.P. ]

K.K. SHARMA, Under Secy.

6563 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 20, 2008/अग्रहायण 29, 1930

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

AWARD

अम एवं रोजग्गार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 21 नवम्बर , 2008

TheGovernment of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi referredthe following matter for the adjudication of this Tribunal by this Tribunal vide their Order No. L-42012/ - 166/2005- IR(CM - II) dated 30th ofOct, 2006.

"Whether the action of the management of Doordarshan, Kendra, Shimla, in terminating the services ofSh . Neelam Kumar w.e.f. January, 2003 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?

का. आ. 3352, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं प्रसार भारती के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 1293/2K6) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को20-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -42012/166/2005-आई आर (सीएम- II ) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRYOF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi , the 21st November , 2008

S.O. 3352.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1293/ 2K6) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, No. 2 Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Prasar Bharati Broadcasting Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20-11-2008.

[No. L-42012/166/2005- IR(CM- II) ]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Presiding Officer : Shri Kuldip Singh

Case I. D. No. 1293 /2K6

Registered on : 30-11-2006

The notice of the reference was given to the parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their pleadings in the shape of statement of claim , written statement, replication and Supported the same with their affidavits. They also placed on record copies of some documents and the judgement of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh. The case was being listed for the evidence of the workman when proposal for settlement of thedispute amicably was mooted. The workman submitted that in case he is provided work and is engaged on contract for any assignment for the category he had worked earlier or for work equivalent to that, he would withdraw his claim against the management . The respondent Director accepted the proposal and undertook to consider the engagement ofthe workman on contract for any assignment keeping in view his past experience of working with the marragement on an equivalent status or similar category provided he withdrew his case . Statement of counsel for the workman and that of respondent Director were recorded . In view of the statement made by the respondent , the workman has withdrawn fromthe contest of the case and does not want to produce any evidence in support ofthe claim . There is therefore , no evidence on record to show that the management had terminated the services of the workman Neelam Kumar w.e..f. January, 2003 and their action was not legal and justified. For want of evidence the reference is answered against the workman and the award is passed holding that the workman is not entitled to any, relief. Let the copy of the award be sent to the Appropriate Government for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion

Date ofDecision : 7-11-2008

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 21 नवम्बर , 2008

...Petitioner

Neelam Kumar S/ o Shri Brahma Nand r/o Village Sheel, P.O. Halog Dhami , Solan.

Versus

The Director, Prasar Bharati,

Broadcasting Corporation of India,

...Respondent

Doordarshan Kendra , Shimla

APPEARANCE

का. आ. 3353. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एफ.सी. आई. के, प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 56/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Mr. S.R, Sharma, Advocate ,

For the Workman :

[सं. एल-22012/507/1999- आई आर ( सीएम-11 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी For the Management : Mr. K.K. Thakur , Advocate

4833 G1/08-7 6564

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20 , 2008 /AGRAHAYANA 29 , 1930 [PART II-SEC . 3(ii ) ] New Delhi , the 21st November , 2008

S.O. 3353. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 56/2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Lucknow as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 20-11-2008 .

[No. L- 22012/507/ 1999 - IR(CM - II ) ]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

CUM - LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

P2RESENT : N.K. PUROHIT

I D No. 56/2000

T.A.II in the year 1971. His co- workers S /Sri Adrash Kumar Sharma, Akhlesh Kumar , Rati Pal Singh and Radhey Shyam Sharma were promoted as T.A.I. in the year 1976 ignoring the rightful claim of the workman . He was promoted as T.A.I. in the year 1977. The post of T.A.I. is non selection post as per regulation 10( 1 ) of the staff Regulation , 1971. It is contended that at time of considering promotion on the post of T.A.I in the year 1976, the ACRs of three preceeding years were considered by the Zonal Promotion Committee &ACRs ofthe workman for aforesaid period were excellent. He was never communicated any adverse remark for the said period . The workman made several representations butthe management rejected his claim . It is also contended that the workman could know about rejection of his claim in the year 1998 & subsequent to this he raised dispute before the Astt. Labour Commissioner ( Central) Lucknow. The union has prayed that the opposite party be directed to promote the workman from the dated when his juniors were promoted in the year 1976 as T.A.I with all consequential benefits .

Ref. No.L-22012/507/99 - IR( CM- II)dt . 27-7-2000

Between

The State Secretary

Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karamchari Sangh , 5-6 , Habibullah Estate , Hazaratganj Lucknow - 226001

(Inthe matter of Sri Onkar Singh)

And

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

6-11-2008

AWARD

3. In written statement filed by the Reginonal Manager , Regional Office , FCI , Lucknow , it is contended that the worker has raised the present industrial dispute after a gap of 24 years . The workman represented for his seniority only in the year 1989 after a lapse of 12 years . Whereas final decision regarding his representations was conveyed to him timely in the year 1995. Therefore, dispute raised by the union is time barred . It is further contended that the Zonal Promotion Committee did not find workman fit for promotion to the post of T.A.I in the year 1976 on the basis of his service record and merit. The name of the workman was again considered by the Zonal Promotion Committee inthe year 1977 and on being found fit, he was promoted as T.A.I. It is also contended that non- communication of adverse remark does not give right to the workman to be considered for promotion . The workman claim is liable to be rejected.

4. Inrejoinder filed by the union besides reiterating the earlier averment, in the statement of claim , it is also stated that the decision regarding rejection of the representation was never communicated to the workman . There is no limitation provided under I.D. Act . Therefore , claim ofthe workman is not time barred . It is also contended that uncommunicated ACRs cannot be considered for promotion.

1. By order No. L - 22012/ 507 / 99-1R ( CM - II ) dated 27-7-2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and -sub section (2A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) referred this industrial dispute between the State Secretary, Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karamchari 'Sangh , Lucknow and the Sr. Regional Manager , Food Corporation of India , Lucknow foradjudication.

"Whether the action of the Management of food corporation of India in not promoting Sh . Onkar Singh in the year 1976 as T.A. - I is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

2. In brief, the case of the Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karamchari Sangh ( hereinafter referred as union) in its statement of claim is that Sh . Onkar Singh workman was appointed as T.A.III in the year 1970 and promoted as

5. The workman filed his affidavit as a witness in support of the claim but inspite of several opportunities given to him , did not produced himself for cross examination & ultimately vide order dated 6-2-2002 it is ordered that the evidence of the workman on affidavit is not to be considered . In rebuttal the affidavit of Sh . R.K. Chaturvedi , Regional Manager as a witness was filed but he has not been cross examined by the union side inspite opportunity granted to it .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ] -

6565 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 20, 2008/अग्रहायण 29, 1930

6. Heard the argument advanced by the learned representatives and considered the written arguments submittedby both sides and perused the relevant records .

7. Learned representative of the management Sh . A.P. Singh has argued that claim of the workman is time barred. Whereas learned representative ofthe union Sh. T.B.Singh has urged that as soon as the workman came to know about the denial of his promotion , he made several representations to the concerned authority. The workman was everytime assured to get justice . He could know about the decision of rejection of his representation in the year 1998 hence , the case is within limitation . It is further argued that even if claim is considered to be belated, it can not be rejected merely on the ground of delay. In support ofhis contentions learned representative of the management has relied on 1999 SCC ( L& S) 1054 Ajaib Singh vs Sirhind Co- operative Marketing & another .

workman in the year 1976 as T.A.I is legal & justified. It is contended by the learned representative of the union that theworkmanwas never communicated any adverse remark for the period 1973 to 1975 as such workman was fit for promotion. The workman was promoted against the penal year 1977which was also on the basis ofACRs of 1974-10 1976 and as such ACRs for 1974 to 1975 were common in both the cases . In such circumstances the workman could be considered for promotion on the post of T.A.I in the year 1976 alongwith his juniors . In reply the learned..... representative of the management contended that promoitons on the post of T.A.I. were to be made on the ..... basis of seniority subject to fitness of the candidature on past performance based on ACRs . The workman was not considered fit by the Zonal Promotion Committee for the post ofT.A.I. in the year 1976 because ofthis service record &past performance . The finding ofthe selection committee can not be put to judicial review. It is further contended thatallkind ofentries in ACRs were not to be communicated to the workman . If nothing adverse is communicated, it does not give right to the workman to be considered for .... promotion. Theclaim ofthe workman needs tobe rejected. In support of his contentions he has relied on 1995 SCC (L&S) 1123 S.L. Soni vs State of M..P . and 1995 SCC ( L& S ) 768 Chabungbam bohal Singh vs Umon of India.s 8.Admittedly, the matter is pertaining to denial of promotion to the workman in the year 1976 & the workman had represented against the same in the year 1988 after lapse of 12 years & the present dispute has been raised in the year 2000 after gap of 24 years . The management witness Sh . R. K. Chaturvedi has stated in his statement on affidavit that representation made by the workman was duly considered & decided by the competent authority videletter dated 30-5-90 & the decision stood communicated to the workman . There is no cross examination on above statement. Moreover, it was for the workman to prove when he came to know about the denial of promotion & rejection of his representation by the management . In absence of hisevidence on above facts there is no reason to disbelieve the aforesaid statement of the management witness . The union has failed to explain the inordinate delay in raising the present dispute . But merely on the ground ofdelay, the claim of the workman. can not be rejected in light of the principle laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in 1999 SCC (L& S) 1054 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has observed;

11. have given my careful consideration on the respective submission made on behalf of the parties , Admittedly the name of the workman was considered for promotion to the post of T.A.I , in the year 1976 but he was..... not promoted on the above post alongwith his co -workers ... Itisalso admitted fact that the Zonal Promotion Committee subsequently considered his name again in the year 1977 &the workman was promoted as T.A.I. It is also not disputed that promotion of the post of T.A.I were to made on thebasis of seniority subject to fitness as per regulation 10( 1 ) of the Staff Regulation 1971 & the Zonal Promotion Committee has considered the ACRs of the werkman for the year 1973 to 1975 for promotion on the post ofT.A.I. in the year 1976. Neither the management witness has stated nor there is any averment in the written statement that any adverse entries for the aforesaid period was ever communicated to the workman . Rather contrary to this it is pleaded and argued that if nothing adverse is communicated, it does not give right to the workman for promotion.

".............. the provisions of Article 137 ofthe Schedule to the Limitation Act . 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the Act and that the relief under it carinot bedenied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea ofdelay if raised by the employer is required to be. proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence ........ "

9. Inpresent case, the union has failed to explain the inordinate delay in raising the dispute but the management has also not proved what real prejudice will be caused by such delay. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the preliminary objection raised by the learned representative ofthe management that claim be rejected on the ground of time barred , is not sustainable .

10. Now the question which however, arises for consideration is as whether denial of promotion to the

Rd2. The ACRs of the workman for the period 1973 , 1974& 1975 which were said to be considered by the Zonal Promotion Committee , are on the record and from the..... perusal of the same it reveals that certain adverse entries are there in the ACR's ofthe above period. Though all kind ofentries in the ACRs are not required to be communicated butit is settled position of law that abverse entries are to be communicated & uncommunicated ACRs can not be considered for denial ofpromotion . In present case it is admitted by the management that the workman was not [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2008 /AGRAHAYANA 29, 1930

6566

found fit by the Zonal Promotion Committee on the basis ofACRs for the year 1973 to 1975 & on the basis of it he was denied promotion to the post of T.A.I. in the year 1976 & in averment in the written statement it is also impliedly admitted that any adverse entry for the said period was never communicated to the workman. It is against principle of natural justice to consider the uncommunicated ACRS of the workman without giving him any opportunity to represent against such adverse remark on the basis ofwhich promotion has been denied. It was imperative for the management to communicate such adverse remark on the basis of which the workman was found unfit.

13. The learned representative of the management has relied on 1995 SCC ( L& S ) 1123 & 1995 SSC (L& S )771 in support of his argument but the facts of both the cases are altogether different from the facts ofpresent case . In none of the above cases un- communicated ACR were considered by the concerned selection committee . In 1995 SCC ( L & S) 1123 the promotion was to be made on merit- cum- seniority & the selection committee considered the ACRs of certain Period excluding uncommunicated adverse remarks . In such cicumstances Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the court could not itself evaluate the comparative merit of the candidates. In 1995 SCC (L& S ) 768 after considering the minutes of the concerned committee, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that it was not enough for the committed to have merely stated unfit without stating reason for such assessment . However, on thebasis ofcomparative remark in the ACRs , Hon'ble Court refused to interfere with the supersession .

14. In present case the Zonal Promotion Committee has erred in taking into cosideration , the uncommunicated adverse remark while considering the workman fitness for pormotion to the post of T.A.I. Therefore , the denial of promotion to the workman on the post of T.A.I. in the year 1976 is not legal and justified. Accordingly it is directed that a fresh ZPC be constituted for evaluating the workman's claim for promotion with restospective effect . The ZPC shall not take into consideration any uncommunicated adverse remark in the ACRs , Otherwise it may follow the same criteria for adjudging the workman's suitability for promotion as has been followed by the ZPC held in 1976. The workman , if found fit , will be entitled retrospective notinal promotion & seniority from the date ofhis juniors were promoted . For the reason of inordinate delay in raising the present industrial dispute , the workman will not be , however , entitled to any consequential cash benefits.

15. The reference is answered in favour of the workman accordingly .

Award as above .

Lucknow

N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 21 नवम्बर , 2008

का. आ. 3354. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एफ.सी.आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 65/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/322/2002 - आई आर ( सीएम-11 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 21st November 2008

S.O. 3354. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 65/2003 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of Indiam and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 20-11-2008 .

[No. L- 22012/322/2002 - IR( CM - II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW PRESENT: SHRIN.K. PUROHIT

PresidingOfficer I D No. 65/2003

Ref. No.L- 22012/ 322/2002 - IR (CM - II ) dt . 19-5-2003

Between

The State Secretary Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karamchari Sangh, 5-6, Habibullah Estate , Hazratganj Lucknow.

(Espousing case of Shri Hari Ram Meena )

And

The Sr. Regional Manager Food Corporation of India 5-6 Habibullah Estate , Hazratganj Lucknow -226001 .

AWARD

By order No. L - 22012/ 322 /2002 - IR( CM - II ) dated 19-05-2003 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) of Section 10 of 6567 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 20, 2008/अग्रहायण 29 , 1930..

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

FCI Staff Regulation read with O.M. No. 18011/9 ( S )/89- Estt; (B) dated 4th July, 1989 and workman need not be given any relief claimed by him .

"5: The workman in his rejoinder has only reiterated his earlier averments made by him in the statement ofclaim .

the Industrial Disputes Act: 1947. ( 14 of 1947 ) referred following industrial dispute between the State Secretary, Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karamchari Sangh , 5-6 Habibullah Estate, Hazratganj , Lucknow (Espousing case ofShriHari Ram Meena) and the Sr. Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, 5-6 Habibullah Estate , Hazratganj Lucknow for adjudication:

The reference under adjudication is as tinder:

6. The parties have filed documents in support of.. their respective contentions in the case . The workman examined himself as witness whereas the management did not prefer to adduce its evidence inspite of various opportunities granted, which led to the presumption that the management does not wish to adduce its evidence and the case was listed for arguments .

" क्या भारतीय खाद्य निगम प्रबंधन द्वारा श्री हरिराम मीणा पुत्र मूलचन्द मीणा चपरासी को आदेश दिनांक 18 / 19-03-1998 के द्वारा नौकरी से निकाला जाना न्यायोचित तथा न्यायसंगत है ? यदि नहीं ती कर्मकार किस अनुतोष का अधिकारी है ? "

7. Heard the arguments of the parties and perused evidence on record. Learned representative of the union has argued that services of the workman have been terminated on the basis of alleged misconduct of suppressation of fact regarding pendency of criminal case by means of order simpliciter without giving any show cause notice and inquiry. Therefore, the impugried order is punitive and bad in law and is liable to set aside . In support ofhis contention he has relied on :

2. It is admitted case of the parties that the workman , Hari Ram Meena was appointed as Peon, vide appointment letter No. Estt./1(Spl . Rectt . Drive)/SC- ST dated 31-3-1996 and he joined his duty on 17-04-1997 in the office of Sr. Regional Manager, Food Corporation ofIndia, Lucknow. The services of the workman were discharged vide order dated 18-03-1998 on account ofhis involvement in a criminal case No. 1375/92 U/s . 147, 148 , 149, 323 , 452 and 308 IPC .

(1) 2004 SCC (L & S) 1109 State ofPunjab Vs , Jagbir Singh.

(ii) 2000 SCC ( L & S) 613 Chandra Prakash Shahi Vs. State of U. P. & others ......

( ⅲ) 2001 LAB . I. C. 1777 (SC) Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Smt . Lakshmidevamma & another.

(iv) (2001) 1 SCC (L & S) 49 Jaswant Singh Pratap Singh Jadega Vs. Rajkot Municipal Corporation & another.

(v) 2002 SCC (L & S) 732 A. P. I. State Federation of Coop. Spinning Mills Ltd. & another .

(vi ) 1984 SCC (L & S ) 256 Anoop Jaiswal Vs. Government of India & another .

3. The union in its statement of claim has stated that impugned order dated 18-03-1998 was passed without assigning any valid reason , against which the workman made a representation but no decision was ever . communicated to him by the management of Food Corporation of India. It is further stated that the management should have served show cause notice upon the workman . and held a regular inquiry before discharging his services . It is also contended that the clause 15 ( iii ) of the Staff Regulation confers absolute & arbitrary power upon the Corporation and it also violates the principle of natural Justice . The clause ( ii ) ofthe Offer of appointment dated . 31-3-97 attracts action only if an employee is found. unsuitable. The impugned order under clause 15 (iii ) ofthe said regulation is illegal . The workman has , therefore, prayed..... to set aside the impugned order dated 18-03-1998 and to reinstate with all consequential benefits .

8. In rebuttal the learned representative of the management has urged that the workman has secured job by fraud and suppresstion of facts regarding criminal case against him and his appointment is void - ab- initio. In view ofthis there was no need to hold inquiry, or give show cause notice before passing the impugned order . There is no illegality in this impugned order . In support of his contentions he has relied on :

(1) 1995 Supp (4 ) SCC 100 Union of India & Others Vs. M. Bhaskaran and Civil Appeal No. 9637 of 1995.

(ii) ( 1992 ) 2 SCC 247 Regional Manager , Bank of Baroda Vs. Presiding Officer , Central Govt . Indüstrial Tribunal & Another.

4. The management in its written statement has submitted that the workman was appointed on probation and specifically denied that the services of the workman were discharged arbitrarily and has submitted that the termination of services of the workman was outcome of the act of the workman himself by which he furnished false information in the attestation form , an annuexure to the application form and concealment of material fact i.e. pendency of criminal case against him , which could have made him disqualified for initial appointment itself. Since the workman had obtained appointment by committing fraud and concealing the truth , 'no " opportunity of hearing was required . Therefore , there is no illegality in its action of terminating the services of the workman under provision of Regulation 15 (iii ) of 6568

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20 , 2008/ AGRAHAYANA 29 , 1930 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

31-3-97 discharges the said Sri Hari Ram Meena from the services of the corporation with immediate effect .

He, however, will be paid 30 days pay and allowances thereof in lieu of notice period required in this case ." 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration on the rival submissions made by the representatives and case law cited by both the sides . The workman has stated in his statement that no charge sheet was issued to him before termination of his service but in cross -examination he has admitted that at the time of his appointment a criminal case was pending against him . He has also admitted his signature on the attestation form. The appointment was given to the workman in the light of his attestation form submitted by him along with application for appointment . It reveals from the perusal of the above attestation form a query was mentioned to be answered by the workman as to whether the workman had ever been prosecuted at any time & whether any criminal case was pending at the time of filing the attestation form . The workman replied to the said query in negative . The certified copy of the judgement of the Court of CJM , Alwar in Cr . Case No. 418/93 is on the record which reveals that a criminal case was pending in the year 1993 U/ s . 147, 148, 452 , 275 , 233 , 325/149 IPC against the workman along with other co - accused & he was acquitted in the said case on 11-9-98 . Therefore , it isevident from the statement of the workman & aforesaid record that workman deliberately suppressed the fact of pending criminal case against him at the time of his appointment as Peon .

10. Inpara( ii) of offer of appointmentdt. 31-3-97, it is mentioned that during the period of probation , the workman shall be liable to be discharged from the service without assigning any reason by giving notice of 30 days or pay and allowances in lien thereof. The rule 15 ( iii ) of the FCI Staff Regulation empower the management to pass such order. In backdrop of the above facts , it is to be seen whether the impugned order is legal & justified. In this regard para 3 &4 of the impugned order are very relevant which are as under:

11. It is explicit from the impugned order itself that foundation of the termination was involvement of the workman in a criminal case said to be of grave nature . Now it is to be considered whether in present case it was imperative on the part of the management to give show cause notice or hold inquiry prior to passing above impugned order . In this regard I have gone through the case law submitted by both the sides. Though in the cases cited by the learned representative of the union , the facts of each case are different but the question under consideration were similar whether termination of the concerned employee for alleged misconduct during probation period is simpliciter or punitive in nature and whether misconduct on the part of an employee was the motive or foundation for terminating his service . In above cases and other recent judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court the law concerning termination of an employee during probation period is now well settled. This legal position is not disputed that probationer has no right to post on which he isplaced on probation . His services can be terminated during or at the end of probation on account of his unsuitability , but such termination has to be brought in a manner prescribed in the relevant rules . If termination is on ground of suitability based on work assessment it would be termination simpliciter and if termination. is for any alleged misconduct during probation period then it would be stigmatic or punitive and in later case prior to passing termination order principles of natural justice is to be followedby holding inquiry and giving show cause notice to the concerned employee . It is also settled law that to ascertain the character of termination court can lift the veil and see whether misconduct on the part of employee was the ' motive ' or ' foundation' for terminating his service.

" 3. Whereas on verification of his character & antecedents , Superintendent of Police, District Alwar vide his report dated 24-1-98 has informed that the said Sri Hari Ram Meena is involved in a Case No. 1375/92 under Sections 147 , 148 , 149, 323, 452 and 308 IPC .

4.Thus it is established that the charges against him are of serious nature and the matter is still pending before the Court as reported by the Superintendent ofPolice , District Alwar .

12. In present case , it is evident from the impugned order itself that termination of the workman was not on the ground of his unsuitability so it is not termination simpliciter . The foundation or motive of the termination was involvement ofthe workman in a criminal case therefore , the termination is stigmatic and punitive in nature . Admittedly, before passing the said impugned order the management neither held any inquiry nor show cause notice was given to the workman .

Now, therefore, the undersigned in exercise of the powers conferred under Regulation 15 sub- clause (iii) of FCI Staff Regulation read with the office Memorandum No. 18011/9 (S)/89 - Estt. ( B) dated 4th July 1989 of Govt . of India , Ministry of Personnel P. G. and Pensions ( Department of Personnel and Training) and clause ( ii) in the officer of appointment letter No. Estt . 1 (Spl . Rectt . Drive )/SC - ST/96 dated

13. The learned representative of the management has vehemently agrued that in present case the workman had secured job by fraud & suppression of facts therefore , there was no need of inquiry or show cause notice . He has relied on (1999) 2 SCC 247 & 1995 Suppl . (4) SCC 100. In 1995 Suppl . (4) SCC 100 employment was obtained on the basis of bogus and forged casual labourer service card. Hon'ble Apex Court observed that employment secured 6569 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 20, 2008/अग्रहायण 29 , 1930

औद्योगिक अधिकरण भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 6/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -22012/ 133/2002 - आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 21st November 2008 by fraud renders it voidable at the option of the employer and employee cannot plead estoppel . In above case termination order was passed after domestic inquiry and show cause notice was given to the concerned employee . In ( 1999) 2 SCC 247 appointment.on a clerical post inBank wasprocured concealing pendency of criminal prosecution u/s : 307 IPC. Subsequently the concerned employee was acquitted. Hon'ble Apex Court observed that in view of the facts ofthe case the misconduct was not grave enough to attract the extreme punishment of termination and directed to reinstate the employee . In this case also show cause notice was given to the concerned employee before passing order of termination.

S.O. 3355. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 6/2003 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India and their workmen , received by the CentralGovernment on 20-11-2008 .

[No. L-22012/ 133/2002- IR(CM- II ) ]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR-COURT, BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT : N.K. R. Mohapatra , Presiding Officer, C.G.LT-cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar . Industrial dispute case No. 6/2003

Date ofpassing Award-20th October. 2008

Between

The Management of ( 1 ) The Depot Manager, Food Corporation of India, P.O. Barbil , Dist . Keonjhar , Orissa-758035.

14. Since in present case before passing impungned order no show cause notice was given to the workman though, termination order was stigmatic and punitive in nature , it is against principles of natural justice ,Moreover, the workman had not snatched appointment, on the basis ofany forged or false document . The offence for which he was prosecuted were neither grave in nature nor of moral turpitude. It appears from the impugned order itself that factor which impelled the management to pass order was. pendency ofcriminal case at the time ofpassing impugned order in which, subsequently the workman got acquittal by the concerned court . Had the court acquitted the workman prior to passing of impugned order, it can be safely presumed from the language of the impugned order, that the management would not have decided to take drastic action of terminating the services of the workman . A false statement or concealment of facts by the workman in the present case should not be deemed to be so grave misconduct, which may visit him with extreme punishment oftermination . Therefore , in view ofthe above discussion the impugned order is not just and legal .

2. The District Manager , Food Corporation of India, P.O. & Dist. Balasore -756001 , Orissa.

.... 1st Party-Managements .

And

15. In view of the facts of this case interest ofjustice would be served ifthe workman' is deprived of all the back wages' till the date of reinstatement . Therefore , the management is directed to reinstate the workinan within one month from the date of publication of the award: He shall be entitled for wages from the date of his reinstatement.

16. Reference is decided in favour of the workman accordingly.

Their Workmen represented through the TheGeneral Secretary, Keonjhar Mines & Forest Workers Union , At/Po-Barbil, Dist. Keonjhar, Orissa-758035 .

17, Award as above ..

..2nd Party Union Lucknow.

APPEARANCES

N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer Baidyanath Singh For the 1st Party- Management

No.1

नई दिल्ली , 21 नवम्बर, 2008

Shri S.K. Satpathy .... For the 1st Party- ChiefLabour Inspector Management No.2..

For the 2nd Party- Union .

Maheswar Rout General Secretary

का. आ. 3355.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एफ.सी.आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्यौगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार 6570

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20 , 2008/AGRAHAYANA 29 , 1930

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

TheGovernment of India in the Ministry of Labour , in exercise of Powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub- section (1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) have referred the following disputes for adjudication vide their Order No. L - 22012/133/ 2002( IR( CM - II ) , dated 11-03-2003 .

"Whether the action of the Management of FCI , FSD Barbil , Distt . Keonjhar in terminating 54 contract labourers instead of regularizing them is legal and justified ? If not, to what releif they are entitled ?"

3. The Management No. 1 , the Depot Manager of F.C.I. did not file any written statement and more so he has been set exparte for non-participation. The 1st Party- Management No.2 , the District Manager of Food Corporation of India simply files his written statement contending that , since the Management was dealing with the food stocks meant for general public it could not stop abruptly an ongoing system of engaging contractors soon after receipt of the notification of the Government of India prohibiting the engagment of contract labourers . But however after making some alternative arrangements it stopped the contract system subsequently and as per the settlement dated 23-3-1992 between the F.C.I workers Union (other than the Union in question) the F.C.I. regularized 84 contract labourers . But in so far as the 54 disputants in question it is contended by the said Management that these disputants were never the members ofthe Union formed by the F.C.I employees under the banner F.C.I. Workers Union nor it was known about their affiliation to the espousing Union nor is was known about their engagement in loading and unloading of food materials atany point oftime nor about their retrenchment by any contractor by name Uttam Kumar Sahu in the year 1991 . It is further contended by the self same Management that it had never assured at any point of time by way of settlement or otherwise to regularize these 54 disputants . It is only when these disputants prevented unloading ofrakes on 1-4-1993 some attempts were taken through the Government machinery for unloading of the food materials as the union in question in order to achieve his goal of regularizing these 54 workers had prevented unloading of the rakes to generate pressure on the Management and that , to avoid recourse of the same theDist. Manager F.C.I. Balasore had simply once given an assurance to convey the grievances of the disputants to his higher authorities . Thus while pleading in the above manner , it is contended by the Management No.2 that , the disputants are not entitled for their regularization .

4.On the pleadings of the parties the following three issues were framed

ISSUES

1. Whether the 54 labourers were directly working under the Management of FCI, FSD , Barbil as contract labourers ?

2. Whether the Management of FCI , FSD , Barbil is justified in not regularizing the services of these contract labourers ?

3. Ifnot, to what relief the labourers are entitled?

5. During trial both the Management No.1 , (Depot Manager ) and the Union were set exparte for their default.

2. The case of the Union is that even though the engagement of contract labourers in loading and unloading offoodmaterials of F.C.I. was prohibited by the Government of India in its notification No. S.O. 833 (E) , dated 1-11-90 the Management of F.C.I. still used to engage different contract labourers including 54 disputants in question for loading and unloading of food materials of its Barbil depot . During inspection of the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) the aforesaid facts ofengaging about 124 contract labourers came to light in the month of February , 1991 . After this was pointed out by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central ) the contract labourers including the 54 disputants engaged through contractors were retrenched, but subsequently the Management departmentalized only 84workers excluding the dsputants in question . As a result these disputants made several representations through their Union and on 1-4-1993 prevented unloading ofwheat rakes resulting in law and order problem . To sort out the problem a minutes of discussion was recorded under the mediation of the local Tahasildar , Sub - Divisonal Police Officer and some representatives of the F.C.I and according to it the Dist . Manager of the F.C.I. Balasore assured to refer the grievances of the disputants to his higher authorities for consideration and subsequently another discussion was held on 20-6-1993 in presence of the District Collector, Keonjhar , the Supdt of Police , Keonjhar , District Manager of F.C.I. Balasore , Asst . Depot Manager and other representatives of the F.C.I. and according to the said discussions a minutes was recorded to the effect that the problem of these 54 disputants will be finalized on 30-6-1993 by the Senior Manager of the F.C.I. , Bhubaneswar . This discussion was followed by another discussion on 30-6-1993 between the Regional Manager , F.C.I. , Bhubaneswar and the Union representatives in which the Management again agreed to finalize the matter ofrecruitment of the disputants within one month and this was recorded in the presencesence of the Dist. Collector , Keonjhar , S.P. , Keonjhar etc. But as despite such assurance the Management did not pay necessary interest to regularize the disputants , the Union as a last resort raised an Industrial Disputes before the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central ) culminating the same in the present reference .

6571 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 20, 2008/अंग्रहायण 29 , 1930

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

that prohibition was not in respect of engagement of contract labourers in go - downs or depots but also the prohibition was extended to other fields .

TheManagement No.2, District Manager, F.C.I. Balasore simply adduced exparte evidence by examining his Cheif Labour Inspector and produced some documents marked as Ext. -A to Ext.-F.

The relevant portion of the notification is extracted hereunder: -

FINDINGS

ISSUE No. I

..... the Central Government after consultation with the Central Board , hereby prohibits the employment of contract labour in the go - downs and depots ofthe Food Corporation of India specified in the schedule annexed hereto and in which the process, operation or work of handling of food- grains , including their loading and unloading from any means of transport, storing and stacking , as carried on.

8. Thus from the above notification it is clear that the contract labourers engaged for loading and unloading from any means oftransport at the go- down and depot level are also covered under the notification . In other words as per the notification the engagement of contract labourers for loading and unloading and handling of food grains at the go- down and depot has been prohibited. It is admitted by the Management in its written statement that even after the issuance of such notification the Management used to manage with the existing practice of engaging contract labourers for some times and thereafter in the year 1992, 84 from out of 124 workers were regularized as per the settlement dated 23-6-1992 with the F.C.I. workers Union (other than the present Union ) . In the case between Steel Authority of India and others -versus- National Union Water Front Workers and others reported in AIR2001 -SC- 3527 it has been held by their Lordship at sub para - 5 of para 122:

6. Contrary to the pleadings, the Management Witness has admitted in his evidence that one contractor named Uttam Kumar Sahoo was given a contract for loading and unloading at the railway sliding as also at the depot and go-down points . He was given the contract of transporting the goods from railway sliding to the Depot too. When the attention of the witness was drawn to the, register of wage of August 1989 , the Xerox copy ofwhich was filed by the Union , he agreed that wages to workers named therein was paid in presence of the Management of Food Corporation of India . The said wage list contains the name of all the 54 disputants , establishing the fact that theywere engaged by the Contractor , Uttam Kumar Sahoo for the purpose mentioned above . Therefore , in these circumstances there can be no other go but to hold that these 54 disputants were working as contract labourers being engaged by the contractor , Uttam Kumar Sahoo. It be mentioned here that , in its pleadings the Management has categorically admitted that in the year 1988 these disputants underthe leadership of their Union in question had prevented loading and unloading of food materials from the railway rakes and that, on the intervention of the local administration unloading was carried out only when the District Manager , F.C.I. , Balasore agreed through a settlement, to refer the grievances of the workmen to his higher authority. This itself indicates that , these disputants were engaged immediate prior to the said incident through contractor Uttam Kumar Sahoo in violation of the prohibitory notification of the Government ofIndia.Hence this issue is answered in favour of the Union holding that these 54 disputants were working as contract labourers under the establishment of the F.C.I.

ISSUE NO. II

....whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any givenresult for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder. If the contract is found to be genuine but a mere camouflage , the so-called contract labour will have to be treated as employees ofthe principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract labour in the concerned establishment subject to conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose in the light of para - 6 hereunder .

Ifthe contract is found to be genuine and prohibition notification under Section 10( 1 ) of the CLRA Act in respect ofthe concerned establishment has been issued by the appropriate Government , prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process , operation or other work of any establishment and where in such process , operation or other work of the establishment the principal employer intends to employ regular workman he shall give preference 7. In his evidence the Management Witness has deposed that the prohibitory notification' issued by the Government of India being in respect of the contract labourers working at the depot and go- down level , a settlement was reached between the F.C.I. workers union and the Management to regularize certain of the contract labourers working at go down and depot level and accordingly 84 out of 124 workers engaged in depot and go-downs were regularized . In so far as the 54 disputants are concerned it is deposed by the witness that since under theGovernment Notification marked Ext. -Cengagementof contract labourers at railway sliding was not prohibited the disputants were not considered for their regularization . But on perusal of the concerned notification it appears

4833 GI/08-8 6572

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20 , 2008 /AGRAHAYANA 29, 1930 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND PARTY- UNION

The 2nd Party-Union has not examined a Single Witness .

to the erstwhile contract labour , if otherwise found suitable and, ifnecessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately taking into consideration the age of the workers at the time of their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications other than technical qualifications .

LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND PARTY-WORKMAN

The 2nd Party -Union has not exhibited a single document .

LIST OF WITNESSES EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST PARTY- MANAGEMENTNO.2

M. W. - 1 - Shri Shyam Kumar Satapathy .

LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXIHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST PARTY MANAGEMENT NO.2

Ext. -A-Agreement dated 23-6-1992.

Ext. -B- List of contract labourers .

Ext. -C-Copy of notification of Central Government about contract labourer in Depots. Ext. -C/ 1 -English copy ofExt.-C. Ext. -D-Order of the Zonal Office , dated 21-10-1992. Ext. -E-Copy ofMuster Roll Ext. -F-Copy ofoffice circular dated 11-6-1991

नई दिल्ली, 21 नवम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 3356.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं आई.टी.डी.सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकारम नं. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 2/62 ऑफ 2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/248/2001- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 21st November , 2008 9. It is on record , as discussed earlier , that these disputants were engaged by the Management through a contractor named Uttam Kumar Sahoo even after a notification under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Abolition and Regulation ) Act was passed by the Government of India vide Ext.-C. It is also on record as also in the evidence of the Management Witness that after the enforcement of the above notification about 84 workers belonging to another Union called F.C.I. Workers Union have been regularized out of 124 as per the settlement dated 23-6-1992 (Ext . - A) between the said Union and the Management . When the witness was questioned as to why the disputants were not given equal treatment the Management Witness deposed that as because these disputant/workers were not the members of the F.C.I. workers Union their case was not considered as the Union (the espousing Union) of which they claims to be the members was not recognized by the Management . It be mentioned that when the Management has taken the decision to regularise the contract labourers engaged after the prohibitory notification it should have extended the, said benefit to all those who were engaged through contractors irrespective of the Union to which they belonged. In his evidence the Management Witness has deposed categorically that these disputants were engaged through contractor Uttam Kumar Sahoo for loading and unloading of food materials at railway sliding as also at the depot and go -down level . This line of evidence the Management Witness thus brings the entire claim of the disputants within the fold of prohibitory notification (Ext.- C) as they were equally engaged both at Railway sliding and go - down to load and unload the food grains like those 84 workers who have already been regularized. Therefore , treating these disputants to be the member of another Union , the Management should not have taken a partition attitude in not regularizing them along with those 84 workers of F.C.I. Workers Union by resorting to a circumvent interpretation ofthe notification marked Ext.-C. Accordingly ⚫this issue is answered in favour of the disputants.

ISSUE NO . III

10. In view of the above , the Managements are directed to regularize these disputants taking into consideration the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as extracted earlier and the Wage Register (Ext . - E) wherein the names of all these disputants find place .

S.O. 3356. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. CGIT-2/ 62 of2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20-11-2008 .

11. Accordingly the reference is answered.

[No. L-42012/248 /2001 - IR( CM - II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer N. K. R. MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI PRESENT: A. A. Lad PresidingOfficer Reference No. CGIT - 2/62 of2002 Employers in Relation to the Management of India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. TheRegional Manager,

India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. , D-25, Lavika Palace, Plot Nos . 225 to 258 & 263 to 267 , Sector21 ,Nerul , Navi Mumbai-400 706.

6573

भारत काराजपत्र: दिसम्बर 20, 2008/अग्रहायण 29 , 1930

3. 2ndParty states that, in April , 1992 Management ofthe ITDC introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) in which employees were given option to apply for opting scheme on or before 31st May, 1992. The scheme further gave an option to withdraw the application opting the schemebefore 30th June, 1992. The concerned workman applied for VRS but on 15th June , 1992 decided to withdrawn it. But, however, though 2nd Party withdrew it, the VRS before 30-6-1992 he was not permitted by the Managementto withdraw it . On that 2nd Party wrote 3 letters requesting the Management to consider his request and permit him to withdraw the VRS. However, no reply was given by the Management and he was not allowed to resume his duties .

1stParty

And

Their Workmen

[The Vice President, All India ITDC Employees Union) , Nirmal Bldg; Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ] (S. N. Khatri)

4. He states that, during that period he applied to Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur , and got employment there with effect from 18th August , 1992 . Thereafter , the Management of ITDC informed the concerned workman that , the liberty sought by the concernedworkman to withdraw his VRS with effect from 30-11-1992 was accepted and he was permitted to withdraw hisVRS and also permitted him to report on duty.

2nd Party

APPEARANCE :

For the Employer : M/ s . Consulta Juris , Advocates For the Workmen : Mr. B. K. Hegde,Advocate .

Date ofReserving Award: 28-03-2008, Date ofPassing ofAward: 24-10-2008.

AWARD

The matrix of the facts as culled out from the proceedings are as under:

2. TheGovernment of India, Ministry ofLabour, New Delhi, by its Order No. L-42012/248/2001 - IR(CM- II) dated 25th July, 2002 in exercise ofpowers conferred by Clause(d) ofsub - section ( 1) and sub- section 2( A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the Management of India TourismDevelopment Corporation Limited, Mumbai in withholding eight increments with cumulative effect and recovery of all financial benefits drawn by Shri S. N. Khatri , Senior Accountant from 30-11- 1992 to 23-6-1993 is legal and justified ? If not, to what reliefhe is entitled to' ?"

2. Claim Statement is filed by the concerned workman atExhibit 7 making out the case that, he joined services with India Tourism Development Corporation ( ITDC) on 4th December , 1975 as an Accountant and was promoted as Senior Accountant with effect from 4th December , 1988 . Accordingto 2nd Party his service record was clean and meritorious.

5. According to 2nd Party Workman charge sheet was issued to him on 19th July, 1995 by levelling various charges of theft, dishonesty and charge of habitual breach of Standing Orders , etc. were levelled. Charge of commissioning act of subversive to discipline or good behaviour at the premises of the establishment was also levelled against the concerned workman . Shri Ghai was appointed as Enquiry Officer . According to 2nd Party no proper opportunity was given to him by the concerned Enquiry Officer. Enquiry was not conducted as per the Standing Orders . No opportunity was given . Enquiry was not fair and proper . Finding given by the Enquiry Officer was perverse . 2nd Party stated that, the punishment imposed on the alleged charges is illegal and have no substance .He states that, the finding given by the Enquiry Officer is perverse . So the punishment given on such an enquiry of stoppage of eight yearly increments is not just and proper. So he pray that, the punishment of stoppage of 8 yearly increments be quashed and set aside with directions to ITDC to release those with interest .

6. This is disputed by the 1st Party, ITDC, by filing written statement, at Exhibit 8 , contending that , the concerned workman does not fall within the definition of the "Workman" as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. According to 1st Party said employée was employed mainly in managerial and administrative capacity as well as was doing work in supervisory capacity. The designation and post of the concerned workman does not permit him to call him as a "Workman" as defined u/ section 2( s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, It is further stated by the 1st Party, Management, that, the concerned workonan was initially 6574

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2008 /AGRAHAYANA 29 , 1930

appointed as Accountant when he joined 1st party on 4th December , 1975. Then he was promoted as Senior Accountant with effect from 9th December , 1988. Since that time, he was performing the duties of Senior Accountant . Since he was appointed in supervisory capacity and exercising functions mainly of managerial nature, he cannot come under Section 2( s) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 .

7. It is further contended by the 1st Party that , VRS wasintroduced . 2nd Party applied for VRS . It was accepted by the 1st Party. All benefits of VRS were given to him . Even he accepted all those . Then he applied for withdrawal of VRS . His request was accepted and he joined again on 1st Party w.e.f. 30th November , 1992. That time he was asked to deposit the amount of VRS benefit and he was supposed to withdraw the case filed by him against the Management and he was not supposed to claim the back wages as a duty period . On that condition he was permitted to resume on duty after allowing him to withdraw the VRS request . On acceptance of those conditions he reported onduty w.e.f. 30th November , 1992 .

8. It is further contended by the 1st Party that, thereafter it came to know that , during that period 2nd Party applied for jobs with several public sector undertakings and institute without routing his applications through proper channel and unauthorisedly used office stationary for the said purpose . Even he submitted false caste certificates and accepted employment with Indian Institute of Technology , Kanpur. He joined I.I.T. , Kanpur on 18th August , 1992. He was placed on probation by the I.I.T. , Kanpur and his services were terminated by it w.e.f. 23rd June, 1993.According to 1st Party during 30-11-1992 to 22-6-1993 concerned workman was getting double benefit of those employments i.e. from I.I.T. , Kanpur and of the employment of the 1st Party. Even he was claiming H.R.A. , medical reimbursement , tuition fees for his children etc. fromboth . Even office of the Additional District Magistrate , Nagpur by its letter dated 1-8-1994 informed that, the Caste Certificate produced by the concerned workman was not issued by the Tahsildar of Nagpur city . Enquiry was ordered to examine the Caste Certificate issued at Ulhasnagar and the Executive Magistrate , Ulhasnagar , by his letter dated 9-2-1994 informed that, the concerned workman was issued the Caste Certificate for his 3 children on the basis of the Caste Certificate issued by the Additional Executive Magistrate , Nagpur . Accordingly charge sheet was served on the concerned workman mentioning double employment , forged Caste Certificate , misusing office stationary, taking benefit of 2 employment etc. Full opportunity was given to the concerned workman to participate in the enquiry. Enquiry was conducted as per Standing Orders . He was allowed to be represented through hisdefence representative . After considering the findings given by the Enquiry Officer punishment of stoppage of

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] , eight annual increments was given to the concerned workman, instead of taking any drastic action which is just, proper and does not require interference . So. it is submitted that , since 2nd Party is not a " Workman " as defined under Section 2 (s ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 and charges levelled against him were proved , the punishment awarded of stoppage of 8 annual increments doesnot require to interfere .

9. 2nd Party filed rejoinder at Exhibit 9 denying the allegations of the 1st Party and states that , the enquiry was not fair and proper and punishment awarded on him of stoppage of eight annual increments is disproportionate .

10. In view of the above pleadings my Ld . Predecessor framed Issues at Exhibit 10. Out of them Issue Nos . 1 to 4 are treated as preliminary issues which cover main Issue of Workman, fairness of the enquiry, finding of theEnquiry Officer and maintainability of the proceedings which I answer as follows :

ISSUES

FINDINGS .

No 1. Whether S. N. Khatri is a workman under the definition ofSection 2( s) of the Industrial Disputes Act ?

No 2. Whether the reference is maintainable under Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act ?

Yes 3. Whether the domestic inquiry cond- ucted against the workman was as per the principles of natural Justice?

4. Whether the findings of the Inquiry Officer are preverse? No. 5. Whether the action of the Manage- ment of India Tourism Development Cor- portion Limited Mumbai in with- holding eight increments with cumulative effect and recovery ofall financial benefits drawn by Shri S. N. Khatri , Senior Accountant from 30-11-1992 to 23-6-1993 is legal andjustified ?

Does not

survive 6. What relief he entitled to ?

As per order

below.

ISSUE NOS . 1 &2 :

11. The concerned 2nd Party who will be called hereinafter by name Khatri involved in the reference made out the case that he joind 1st party 6575 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 20, 2008/ अग्रहायण 29, 1930

as accountant and was then promoted as Senior Accountant. According to him he was discharging duties ofworkman and falls under the definition of the workman: Whereas case of the 1st Party is that hisdesignation as Accountant and them as Senior Accountant does not permit him to call him as a "Workman " According to 1st party he was doing managerial duties . He was discharging duties of Administrative and since nature of his duties were of. supervisory capacity he cannot be called as a "Workman " . It further contends that, since he is not a "Workman" . The dispute filed by Khatri does not fallu/section2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

If we go through the definition of Section 2 (s) of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 which is pertaining to "Workman" It reveals that , a person employed in the industry to do any manual or skilled, unskilled, technical , operational , clerical or surpervisory work for hire or reward come within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Here to call particular person as a 'workman' , he should do manual, skilled or technical , operation work which is clerical and if it is done supervisory or hire then he can not be called as a " Workman " . Here, case ofthe Management is that since he was appointed as an "Accountant" , and then he was appointed as a Senior Accountant does not fall within section 2 ( s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Now, let us see what is the evidence led by both.

12. Definition of " Workman " is, given under Section 2(s) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which reads asunder:

"(Section 2 (s ) : " Workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical , operational , clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward , whether the terms of employement be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute , includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with , or as a consequence of, that dispute , or whose dismissal , discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person:

(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act , 1950 (45of 1950) or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) ; or

(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison, or

(iii) who is employed mainly in a mangerial or administrative capacity, or

13. No doubt burden lies on both to prove their case Mr. Khatri examined himself at Exhibit 18 by filing an . affidavit in lieu of the examination - in- chief where he states thathe is the'workman' and he falls within Section 2( s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He says that no one is working under him . He states that he has no supervisory powers .He states that, he has to report to his superiors . In the cross he states that he is M. Com . from Pune University. He states that, he joined 1st party as Accountant . He states that, he was promoted and worked as a Senior Accountant . He states that,he was, writing petty account and petty cash book as well as general ledger . He states that , from January, 1990 he was appointed as a Senior Accountant . He states that he was doing duties of the same type though he was appointed as a Senior Accountant . Though he states that , he was not having power of signing cheques , he sign.the cheques under the authority of the Manager and was, not having sole authority to sign the cheques independently. He admits that, he retired on completion of 58 years which was superannuation age in the establishment of the 1st Party. So this is the deposition of Khatri about his qualifications and about his job which he was doing with the 1stParty.

(iv) who being employed in a supervisory capacity , draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mansem or exercises , eitherbythe nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him , functions mainly of a managerial nature. ( גדי

The definition of Industral dispute under Section

2(k) reveals that:

(Section 2 ( k) , " Industrial dispute"means any dispute or difference between employers & employers , or between emloyers and workman, oг between, workmen and workmen , which is connected with , the employment or non employment or the terms ofemploment or with the conditions of labour, of any person ."

14. If we consider the status of Khatri who is empowered and who was signing the cheques , though under the authority of the Manager whether he cannotbe called as a Workman ? According to his qualification and power of signing the cheques though under the authority oftheManager whether does not permit Khatri to claim as a'workman'? Generally, picture of' workman' comes before us who were in blue uniform and work as per the directions ofhis superior. But now here Khatri was doing work under the control of the Manager but nature of work done by Kharti is quite different than what is projected by the person who is wearing blue uniform who is called as a ' workman' . Here this fellow who is M. Com . and who initially, joined as an "Accountant " and then promoted as "Senior Account " can claim as a workman' ? Besides writing petty Bank account which is of much important and 6576

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20 , 2008 /AGRAHAYANA 29, 1930 [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii )]

ISSUE NO . 3 ΤΟ 6 :

responsible job , which he admits require to give separate considertion. He admits that , he was promoted as " Senior Accountant" in 1990 and got power of signing cheques in 1996. When he was having authority of signing cheques how person like this can be called as a workman ?

18. These Issues are regarding enquiry and perver- sity of the findings and on rest prayer . About enquiry concerned workman - Khatri has stated that , fair opportu- nity was not given to him and enquiry was not fair and proper . He also claims that, finding of the enquiry was perverse . Against that Ist Party has stated that , enquiry was fair and proper finding was not perverse .

15. Both have submitted written arguments , more precisely by concerned workman submitted written Synopsis at Exhibit 27 and Magagement at Exhibit 29. It is pertinent to note that, in the written submissions filed by Management at Exhibit 29 it makes out rather different story and case then what is projected in the Written Statement . In this written arguments Management raised the disupute about point of ' apporpriate Government ' which isnot at all issue taken by the Management in the written statement . So I feel now at the time of arguments Management cannot raise the point of ' appropriate Government' and expect this Tribunal to decide when no opportunity was given to the concerned workman on that point.

16. Besides case -laws pointed out by the Advocate of the 2nd Party are about illegality of enquiry and about action taken by it . But at this stage we are on the point of " workman " . Even issue of ' workman ' with issue of maintainability of the proceeding is taken along with the Issue of fairness of enquiry and perversity of the finding .

19. In fact I need not require to discuss these Issue and give finding on it. I conclude , that, Khatri is not the 'workman' and reference is not maintainable . However, if we go through the evidence which is available on record it appears that , apparently it shows that , charge of theft and misconduct was levelled against the concerned workman. Even charge of double employement was levelled against the concerned workman, Khatri . Even record and proceed- ings reveal that, Khatri applied without the knowledge of the 1st Party to various public undertakings of which letter isgivento the concerned workman by the 1st Party which is not denied by Khatri . Charge sheet served on him is also . not denied . Evidence brought on record reveals that , he applied to Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur , without sending application through ist Party when he was in the employement of the 1st Party. Even it is alleged that , he did double duties between 30-11-1992 to 22-6-1993 i.e. with the 1st Party and I.I.T. , Kanpur and that fact is also not denied bythe concerned workman - Khatri . Even letter of Union dated 11th September, 2002 speaks much about the moral and char- acter of the concerned Khatri . In the said letter Union informed him that , it learnt about Khatri that, he is not hon- est and has misused employement as well as misused the caste certificate and has declared that, it does not want to help Khatri . In fact there is a letter of the Union at whose instance reference was made and said Union leader declared that, he does not want to help Khatri and then Khatri choose to contest this reference and engaged professional Advo- cate . All this reveals that opporturnity was given to Khatri to participate in the enquiry . Finding was recorded . Finding given by the enquiry officer was on the evidence holding concerned Khatri guilty of the charges levelled and punish- ment of stoppage of 8 annual increments was awarded . In fact, as stated by the Union , in its letter dated 11th Septem- ber, 2002 that, instead of terminating the services of Khatri lenient view was taken by the Management of stoppage of 8 annual increments ought not to have been challenged by Khatri . This letter itself proves that, Khatri has misused the process of law . It reveals that , Khatri tried to take disadvan- tage at all levels . Even there was allegation of forged caste certificate . There was allegation of double employment with the public undertakings at a time. There was allegation of misusing office stationary . There was also an allegation of applying to various public undertakings without the knowl- edge of the 1st Party and most of the charges are proved against the concerned workman .

17. As we are on the point of' workman' and maintainability of the proceeding which goes to the root of the case I conclude Mr. Khatri , the concerned workman, is not the ' workman' and does not fall within section 2( s) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. I am of the view that dispute raised by him cannot fall within definition of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 since Khatri is not a ' workman' and dispute raised by him cannot be called as dispute in between ' workman ' and' employer' as expected by Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Besides , nothing is stated by the concerned Khatri about his status as a 'workman ' than denying his administrative capacity claimed by the 1st Party. Besides he has not shown what actual job was done by him to call him as a ' workman ' . In fact burden was on him to show that he was a ' workman ' and then burden shifts on the Ist Party to show that Khatri was not a 'workman' . When initially burden was on the 2nd party to show that , he is ' workman' and prove it then burden may shift to 1st Party to show that , he is not a 'workman' . Here Khatri failed to prove that , he is a 'workman' . In that premises one has to conclude that dispute raised by him cannot be a dispute as an industrial dispute as expected under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. So I conclude that, the concerned workman -Khatri is not a 'workman' and dispute raised by him is not an industrial dispute. Accordingly I answer this Issue to that effect .

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6577 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 20 , 2008/अग्रहायण 29, 1930

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT- II, SECTOR 18-A, CHANDIGARH

Presiding Officer: Shri KULDIP SINGH

Case I.D. No: 1292/2k6

Registered on: 30-11-2006

20. All this reveals that, charges leveled agaist the concerned Khatir were proved and finding given by the enquiry officer appears just, proper and not perverse . So I conclude that finding of the Enquiry officer was fair and proper. Besides nothing is stated by Khatri that, how en- quirywas not fair and proper and what documents he asked for but were not supplied by the 1st Party or any other point to show that, proper opportunity was not given and finding of the enquiry committee was perverse.

Date of Decision : 7-11-2008

Chandu Ram s/ q, Shri Kapooru Ram r/o Type - II , Set No. 20, CPWD Colony, Bemloe, Shimla.

Petitioner

Versus

21. Ifwe consider all this coupled with case made out by both, I conclude that, enquiry was fair, proper and fining not perverse . Even I conclude that, punishment awarded if stoppage of 8 annual increments is just as it was a lenient view taken than taking decision ofDismissal from theemployment.

The Director, Prasar Bharati , Broadcasting Corporation of India, Doordarshan Kendra , Shimla

Respondent

APPEARANCE

22. In view of the discussions made above I con- clude that, reference of Khatri is notmaintainable. When I answer above Issues to that effect in result I does not require tokeep alive all other issues as well as a reference alive and observe it is not maintainable. Hence, the order:

: For the Workman

Mr. S. R. Sharma , Advocate, ORDER

For theManagement:

Reference is rejected with no order as to its costs .

Mr.K.K. Tharkur, Advocate ,

Bombay, 24th October, 2008

AWARD

A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer

नईदिल्ली, 21 नवम्बर , 2008

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi referred the following matter for the adjudication of this Tribunal by this Tribunal vide their order No. L-42012/ 167/2005- IR(CM-II))dated30th of Oct. , 2006:

"Whether the action of the management of Doordarshan Kendra, Shimla, in terminating the services ofSh. Chandu Ram wie.f. January , 2003 is legal andjustified ? Ifnot, to what reliefisthe workinan entitled?"

का.आ. 3357. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं प्रसार भारती के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीचं, अनुबन्धमें निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 1292/2K6 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -42012/ 167/2005 - आई आर (सीएम- II ) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 21st November , 2008

S.O. 3357.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 1292/2k6) oftheCentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in theIndustrial Dispute between the management of Prasar Bharati , Broadcasting Corporation of India, and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 20-11- 2008.

[No. L-42012/167/2005- IR(CM- II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20 , 2008 /AGRAHAYANA 29 , 1930

Versus

TheDirector, Prasar Bharati ,

Broadcasting Corporation of India ,

Doordarshan Kendra, Shimla

...Respondent

APPEARANCE

Forthe Workman :

Mr. S. R. Sharma , Advocate ,

For the Management : Mr. K.K. Tharkur, Advocate ,

AWARD

the statement made by the respondent , the workman has withdrawn from the contest of the case and does not want to produce any evidence in support of the claim. There is therefore , no evidence on record to show that the management had terminated the services of the workman Chandu Ram w.e.f. January, 2003 and their action was not legal and justified. For want of evidence the reference is answered against the workman and the award is passed holding that the workman is not entitled to any relief. Let the copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for necessary action and the file be consigned to recrods after due completion.

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 21 नवम्बर , 2008

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi referred the following matter for the adjudication of thisTribunal by this Tribunal vide their order No. L-42012 / 172/2005 - IR( CM - II)) dated 30th of Oct, 2006.:

"Whether the action of the management of Doordarshan Kendra , Shimla , in terminating the services ofSh. Ashok Kumar w.e.f. January, 2003 is legalandjustified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ? "

का.आ. 3358.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं प्रसार भारती के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 1290/2K6 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/172/2005- आई आर ( सी एम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 21st November , 2008

S.O. 3358. In pursuance of Section 17 of the **Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 1290 /2k6 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. 2 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Prasar Bharati , Broadcasting Corporation of India , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 20-11-2008 .

[No. L-42012/172/2005 - IR (CM - II )]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Presiding Officer : Shri KULDIP SINGH

Case I. D. No : 1290 /2k6

Registered on : 30-11-2006

Date of Decision : 7-11-2008

Ashok Kumar S / o Shri Sahi Ram ,

The notice of the reference was given to the parties who appeared though their counsel and filed their pleadings in the shape of statement of claim , written statement, replication and supported the same with their affidavits . They also placed on record copies of some documents and thejudgement of the Central Administrative Tribunal , Chandigarh . The case was being listed for the evidence of the workman when proposal for settlement of the dispute amicably was mooted. The workman submitted that in case he is provided work and is engaged on contract for any assignment for the category he had worked earlier or for work equivalent to that , he would withdraw his calim against the management . The respondent Director accepted the proposal and undertook to consider the engagement ofthe workman on contract for any assignment keeping in view his past experience of working with the management on an equivalent status or similar category provided he withdrew his case . Statement of counsel for the workman and that of respondent Director were recorded . In view of the statement made by the respondent, the workman has withdrawn from the contest of the case and does not want. to produce any evidence in support of the claim . There is therefore , no evidence on record to show that the management had terminated the services of the workman Ashok Kumar w.e.f. January , 2003 and their action was not legal and justified. For want of evidence the reference is answered against the workman and the award is passed holding that the workman is not entitled to any relief. Let the copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion.

r/o village Kanda , P.O. Panesh ,

KULDIP SINGH , Presiding Officer

... Petitioner

Tehsil and district Shimla , Shimla .

6579

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 20, 2008/अंग्रहायण 29 , 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

* नई दिल्ली , 21 नवम्बर , 2008

का. आ. 3359.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओरियन्टल इंश्योरेन्स कं. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. आई डी सं. - 19/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।। [सं. एल-17012/21/2006- आईआर ( एम. ) ]

कमल बाखरू , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 21st November , 2008 S.O. 3359. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. I.D. No.- 19/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , No. 1 Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 21-11-2008 .

[No. L- 17012/21 /2006 - IR(M) ]

KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case I. D. No. 19/2007

Shri Dinesh Chand ,

C/o Shri S.S. Meelu , Labour Law Advisor, H. No. 364, Sector-32 -A,. Chandigarh.

...Applicant

Versus

..Respondent The Regional Manager , OICL . , Regional Office , the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., SurinderaBuilding, SCO No. 110-111, Sec- 17-D, Chandigarh- 160017

APPEARANCES

: None .

Forthe workman

For the management : Shri Charanjiv Singh Pasricha 4833 GI/08-9

AWARD

Passed on: 5-11-2008

Central Government vide notification no. L- 17012/ 21/2006 - IR (M) dated 14-2-2007 , has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management ofOriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , Chandigarh in terminating the services of Shri Dinesh Chand, Ex -Caretaker w.e.f. 29-2-2006 without complying with the provisions of Section 25 - F of the ID Act, 1947 is unjustified and illegal ? If so, to what reliefthe workman 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 not ensuring his presence . The reference was referred by the CentralGovernment in the year 2007. Several opportunities have been given to the workman but he is not availing the opportunity ofbeing 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 returned as such . Let the Central Government be informed. File be consigned.

Chandigarh 5-11-08

G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 21 नवम्बर , 2008

का. आ. 3360, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का. 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आई ओसी एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. आई डी सं. - 71 /92 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42011/3/91- आई आर (एम. ) ]

कमल बाखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 21st November, 2008 S.O. 3360.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. I.D. No.- 71/92) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, No. 1 Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of IOCL and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 21-11-2008.

[No. L-42011/3/96- IR(M) ]

KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer 6580

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20 , 2008/AGRAHAYANA29, 1930

ANNEXURE

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

Case I. D. No. 71/92

Shri Om Parkash S/ o Shri Vasudev, Talukee Gate , Mohalli Molviyan , House No. 144 , Hissar - 125001 .

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] the eligibility norms and pass the relevant trade test. the workman has not been worked as permanent employee . He has not worked 240 days in the preceding year from the date of his termination . It is alleged by the management of respondent that in the year 1983 total working days were 124, in 1984 working days were 132 and in 1985 he worked only for 10 days , thus , in neither of the years of working he hasworked 240 days . He was working as and when work was available and his disengagment cannot be termed as retrenchment.

...Applicant

Versus

The General Manager , Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , Northern Region , World Trade Centre , Babar Road , New Delhi - 110001 .

...Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Sri Amit Sharma

None

For the management

AWARD

Passed on : 5-11-2008

Government of India vide notification no . L-42011/3/ 91 - IR (Misc) , dated 30-6-1992 has referred the following industrial dispute for judicial adjudication to this tribunal:-

"Whether the action of the management of Indian OilCorporation Ltd. , in terminating the services of Shri Om Parkash in the month of Feb. 1987 is just , fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to and from which date" ?

2. The case of the workman in nut shell is that he entered into the employment of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. attheir Hissar depot as Tank Truck Driver on daily watges w.e.f. the year 1982. He worked with the management of respondent till February 1987 ; when his services were illegally and wrongfully terminated by the opposite party. the intermittent breaks in the services of the workman were not due to the fault of the workman . He was terminated against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act . No notice or retrenchment compensation was given to him . He was retrenched whereas more than hundred other workers were recruited by the management of respondent . On this very ground the workman has prayed for his reinstatement into the service with full back wages .

The management of respondent opposes the claim ofthe workman by filing written statement . It was alleged by the respondent that he was engaged as a tank truck driveron daily wages for some period during 1983-1985 . The total period of his engagement was 366 days in three years . After 1985 the workman has been in the employment ofother companies . The respondent has a valid recruitment procedure for variousjobs . The tank truck drivers , whch is grade V post, are only selected from the existing employees 'Khalasi , etc. , working in grade I - III , provided they fulfil Replication was also filed by the workman with the averments that he worked from 1978 till 1987 with the respondent . He has also mentioned some vehicles of respondent and stated that he was assigned duties on those vehicles . in his replication he has mentioned that his termination was in the month of May 1987.

Bothof the parties were afforded the opportunity of being heard. Shri Om Parkash , workman filed his affidavit and was cross - examined by learned counsel of the Management . Shri R. K. Kafh filed his affidavit on behalfof the management of respondent and was cross - examined by learned counsel for the workman .

I have heard learned counsels for the parties and pursued the entire materials on record.

The reference which is referred by the Central Government to this Tribunal states the date of termination ofthe service of workman in the month of February 1987 . InparaNo. 2 ofthe statement of claim the workman stated that he worked from 1982 till February 1987 , when his services were terminated . Whereas , in replication para no . b (reply to preliminary objection) , he has stated that he was employed by the opposite party in the year 1978 and in para no. I of the replication (on merits ) , it has been stated that his services were terminated in the month of May, 1997.

In his evidence ( cross- examination) dated 3-11-93 the workman has admitted that his job was of casual nature . For the days he used to work, he was getting the wages . He has admitted that he has worked with M/ s . Chopra Service Station on Vehicle No. HRM 6011 in the year 1985 , 1986 , 1987. He has also deposed voluntarily that he has worked with M/s . Chopra Service Station in the year 1985 , 1986 , 1987 interminately . Later on , he has further admitted that he has been working continuously with M/ s . Chopra Service Station . He has further stated that presently he is also working with M/s . Chopra Service Station .

No statement of working days has been given by the workman , whereas , it is the duty of the workman to prove that he has worked with the department for 240 days in the preceding year from the date of his termination. Different date of termination has been mentioned by him in his statement of claim and replication . The years for which he has mentioned to work with the department , admittedly, he

44 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

6581-

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 20 , 2008/ अग्रहायण 29, 1930

hadworked with M/ s Chopra Service Station and he is also working with it presently. He has failed to prove that he worked with the management of respondent for 240 days in the preceding year from the date of its termination and as he is still working gainfully with M/s Chopra Service Station. He is not entitled to any relief. The reference is accordinlgy answered. Central Government be informed. File be consigned .

G.K. SHARMA, PresidingOfficer नईदिल्ली , 21 नवम्बर , 2008

का. आ.. 3361. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल वेयरहाऊसिंग कॉरपर्पोरेशन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. सीजीआईटी-2/87/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42011/ 1/2002- आई आर ( एम. ) ]

कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 21st November, 2008 S.O. 3361. 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/ 87/2002) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, No. 2 Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Warehousing Corporation and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-11-2008 .

[No. L-42011 / 1 /2002 -IR(M) ]

KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFPRE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI PRESENT : A.A. LAD , Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT-2/87 of2002 Employers in relation to the management of:

1. Central Warehousing Corporation

2. Union of India

3. Directorate General , Resettlement

4. M/ s . Bombay Security Services Pvt. Ltd.

5. M/ s . Guard Well Safe Services Pvt . Ltd.

6. M/ s . Rhino Securities India Pvt. Ltd.

7. M/s . Sam Industrial SecurityAgencies

8. M/ s Amarjyoti Security Agency

1. The Regional Manager,

Central Warehousing Corporation, CSF - JNP, Navi Mumbai -400709.

2. Union of India through Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi .

3. Directorate General , Resettlement (Ministry of Defence) through its DirectorGeneral, West Block- IV, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-68.

4. M/s . Bombay Security Services Pvt . Ltd. , A type, P/ c , Sector 15, Vashi Navi Mumbai .

5. M/ s . Guard Well Safe Services Pvt . Ltd. , 448, Clover Centre, B -2 Wing, MoledineRoad, Pune 411001 .

6. M/ s. Rhine Securities India Pvt . Ltd. , E-5. Kumar Classics, Aundh , Pune 411007.

7. M/s Sam Industrial Security Agencies , Shop No. 14, Shivam Complex,

Vivekanand Road, Pungaon , Surat - 394210 .

IstParty 8. M/ s Amarjyoti Security Agency Shop No: 25 , Punit Tower- 1 , Sector 11 , CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai

And

TheirWorkmen

TheGeneral Secretary,

Nhava Sheva Port and General Workers ' Union , PortTrust Kamgar Sadan , 2nd floor, Nawab Tank Road,Mazgaon, Mumbai -400010.

2nd Party APPEARANCES

Forthe employer : M/s . S.I. Shah & Co. , Advocates .

For the workmen : Mr.Alok Singh , Advocate,

Date ofreserving Award : 27-3-2008 .

Date ofpassing ofAward: 16-10-2008 .

AWARD

The matrix of the facts as culled out from the proceedings as under:

1. The Central Government of India , Ministry of Labourby its Order No. L -4201-1 / 1 /2002 - IR (M) dated 27th November, 2002 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) ofsub - section ( 1 ) and sub -seciton 2(A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the demand made by Nhava Sheva Port andGeneral Workers ' Union, Mumbai for absorption/ regularization of service of Watch and Ward (Security) Staff employed at CFC - CWC , Drongiri Node by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation is justified and legal ? If so , what relief the disputants concerned entitled to and from what date"?

2. By filing the Statement ofClaim at Exhibit 4 , 2nd PartyUnion, through its Secretary, made out the case that , 6582

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2008 / AGRAHAYANA 29, 1930 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

further submits that , the reconciliation proceedings failed hence , the. Conciliation Officer and Assistant Labour Commissioner , Central - II , Mumbai forwarded his Failure of Conciliation Report to the Central Government . Union further contended that , it by its letter dated 16-4-2002 requested the Central Government to refer the dispute for adjudication so that the relief can be granted to the concerned workmen in time . Union further submitted that, it vide its letter dated 16th April , 2002 requested the Ist Paty to continue the services of the concerned workmen during the period of proceedings commenced under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Union also, vide its letter dated 16-7-2001 , requested the Central Government to issue Notification under Section 10 of the Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 prohibiting employment of contract labour in the establishment ofthe Management at Dronagiri Node in the watch and ward work being attended to by the workmen concerning the present dispute as all the ingredients engrafted under Section 10 of the Act are satisfied.

3. Union further submitted that, as the Central Government ought to have issued Notificaiton under Section 10 of the Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 in order to grant necessary reliefto the workmen , 2nd Party-Union- submitted that , as the Central Government failed to and ignored to refer the industrial dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, the Union filed Writ Petition being No. 1238 of2002 in the Hon'ble High Court Bombay, 2nd Party further submitted that , the Central Government vide its order dated 18-7-2002 informed the 2nd Party /Union that , prima-facie , the Ministry of Labour doesnot consider the dispute for adjudication since the concerned workmen were not appointed by the Management of CWC . 2nd Party further submitted that, aggrieved by the said order of the Central Government , it filed a Writ Petition no . 5056 of 2002 before the Hon'ble BombayHigh Court on 22-8-2002 praying for directions to the Central Government to refer the dispute for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 .

it represents the concerned workmen of the 1st Party. Union submitted that , the Central Government has referred the present dispute to this Hon'ble Tribunal for adjudication as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition no . 5056 of 2002. Union further submitted that , it served a strike notice dated 25-9-2001 on 1st Party under sub - section (1) of Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , to press for the immediate settlement of the demand that , services of all watch and ward (security) staff employed by the 1st Party for its Container Freight Station work at Drongiri , District Raigad , New Mumbai , be regularized and the status and privileges of permanent workmen to given to these workmen from the date of their joining the services ofthe 1st Party . Union further submitted that , in the said notice Union contended that , the concerned workmen have been attending to the permanent nature of work and they have been paid the wages at a very low rate by the 1st Party through the sham and bogus contractor M/s . Guard Well Safe Service . Union submitted that, the contract arrangement between the 1st Party and the said contractor was a mere a paper made arrangement done by the 1st Party in order to deprive the concerned workmen of their rights and benefits . Union further submitted that, the concerned workmen have been exploited a lot and there is direct master servant relationship between the 1st Party and these workmen and therefore they are entitled to be made permanent . Union submitted that , their said demands were placed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner , Central - II , Mumbai for which the conciliation proceeding were held from time to time . Union further contended that, it vide its letter dated 30th October, 2001 addressed to the Assistant Labour Commissioner , Central - II , Mumbai justified the demand stating that , the workmen concerning the present dispute have been working in the capacity of security guard and security supervisor and they have been attending the permanent nature of work of the 1st Party in its Container Freight Station (CFS ) at Drongiri Node, Raigad , in the premises of the 1st Party and under the direct control and supervision of the 1st Party . It is contended that , 1st Party has employed the workmen directly to attend to the same and similar nature of work at its other work places and those workmen are on the roll of permanent workmen of the 1st Party . It is stated that , there is disparity in wages and other service conditions of the concerned workmen . Since they have been exploited a lot and given discriminatory treatment by the Ist Party . Union further submitted that , M/ s . Guard Well Safe Services Pvt . Ltd. , the so called agency has merely supplied the labour for the work of the 1st Party and the real employer is the 1st Party and no other agency or contractor . It is contended that, there is a direct relationship of master - servant between the 1st Party and these workmen and the 1st Party must accept the demand of the concerned workmen in the interest ofjustice. Union submitted that , it sent a list of concerned workmen to the Assistant Labour Commissioner , Central- II,Mumbai vide its letter dated 24-12-2001 . 2nd Party Union

4. Union further submitted that, on 30-8-2002 the Hon'ble High Court passed ad - interim order directing 1st Party not to terminate the services of the workmen listed in Exhibit " A " , if not already terminated and the Advocate of the 2nd Party by his letter dated 30-8-2002 , communicated the said orders to the 1st Party by fax and a fax letter was personally handed over by one of the workmen to the Manager of the 1st Party. The Regional Manager of the Ist Party merely ignored the letter and called hte Police officers in the premises and directred the Police Officers attached to the Uran Police Station to remove the workmen from their work place who were on duty on 30-8-2002 for day shift commencing from 7.00 a.m. and ending at 7.00 p.m.

6583 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 20, 2008/अग्रहायण 29 , 1930

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

2nd Party submitted that, 57 workmen performed their duty upto the end of the shift on 30-8-2008 and about 24 other workmenreported for their duty at 7.00 p.m. for night shift commencing from 7.00 p.m. to 30-8-2002 . 2nd Party submitted that, though the orders of the Hon'ble High Courtweremade known to the 1st Party, 1st Party used the Police force and removed the workmen from the work place and did not allow the workmen to join their duty on and from7.30 p.m. on 30-8-2002 . 2nd Party submitted that, the fact of the attendance and performance of duty by the workmen is evident from Daily Attendance sheets dated... 19th and 30th August, 2002 and Gate passes regarding in and out movement of containers from the work place ofthe 1st Party which are signed by the workmen on duty on 30th August, 2002 upto 6.50 p.m. on 30-8-2002 . 2nd Party submitted that 104 workmen were in services of the 1st Party through its dubious contractor upto 7.30 p.m. on 30-8-2002 whereas the Hon'ble Bombay Hihg Court had passed the orders on 30-8-2002 at about 4.00 p.m. These 104 workmen have been removed from services w.e.f. 7.30 p.m. on 30-8-2002, whereas 24 workmen concerning the WritPetition and the present dispute were in services on 30-8-2002 and Shri S.V. Bhalerao , one of the workmen filed the affidavit before the Hon'ble High Court on 4-9-2002.

Union submitted that, 128 workmen listed in the Exhibit " A " were working for security work of the 1st Party through M/s . Guard Well Safe services Pvt . Ltd. an agency sponsoredby the Directorate General ofthe 1st Party from 1998 and earlier they were employed through other agencies.

w.e.f. 1-5-2002 , 2nd Party submitted that, at the time of hearing the Writ Petition on 30-8-2002 1st Party misinformed the Hon'ble High Court that the contract of the third Respondent had expired on the same day and the workers in question were discontinued and 1st Party had then engaged services of the 4th Respondent as per the guidelines ofthe Central Government. The Hon'ble High Court by order dated 18-9-2002 declined to accept the prayer ofthe 2nd Party for grant of interim relief because of the said misinformation given by the 1st Partyby directed the 2nd Party tomake the application for grant of interim relief before this Hon'ble Tribunal . 2nd Party submitted that, majority ofthe workmen deployed in place of 104 workmen by new coming contractor w.e.f. 30-8-2002 are not ex- servicemen as contended by the 1st party. 2nd Party submitted that , the 1st Party continued to circumvent the provision of law, frustrated the interest of workmen and further terminated the services of remaining 24 workmen w.e.f. 20-5-2002 at 11.00 a.m. in utter disregard to the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court 2nd Party submitted that, the 1st Party by its letter dated 18-9-2002 i.e. the date ofpassing the orders by the Hon'ble High Court, directed the contractor to terminate the services of the remaining 24 workmen w.e.f. 20-9-2002 , 2nd Party submitted that , as the facts are now made amply clear , it would be in the interest of justice that, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant interim relief to the extent of directing the 1st Party to maintain status quo ante and from 17-8-2002 so that all 128 workmen remain in services ofthe 1st Party till final disposal ofthe Reference , 2nd Party submitted that , the demand made by it is fully legal and justified since all the workmen concerning the dispute were attending to the permanent nature ofwork of the 1st Party, in the premises of the Ist Party , under the control of the 1st Party ; all the intermediaries/contractors were merely supplying these workmen for the work of the Ist Party; 1st Party was taking direct disciplinary action against the concerned workmen and also appointing the workmen from time to time. It is stated that , the contracts between the 1st Party and the contrctors are mere paper made arrangements and those are sham bogus and mere a camouflage to deprive the workmen ofthebenefits which were available to the regular workmen of the 1st Party: that , the concerned workmen were fully covered under the Notification dated 9-12-1976 issued by the Central Government under the contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and they were entitled to be absorbed in direct services of the 1st Party if ithad followedthe law; all the engredients engrafted under Section 10 of the Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition) Act , 1970 were satisfied in case of the work of the 1st Party that was being attended to by the workmen i.e. the concerned work is necessary to industry and that is carriedon in the establishment , it is done ordinarily through regular workmen in the similar establishments , the work is ofperennial nature, and the 1st Party is required to employ

considerable number of whole time workmen for the said 5. Union further submitted that, when an industrial dispute was raised by the 2nd Party, all those 128 workmen were working for the 1st Party through M/s . Guard Well Safe Services Pvt. Ltd. The Failure of Conciliation Report was forwarded to the Government on 21-1-2002 . Thereafter 1st Party changed the contractor and a group of 104 workmen out of 128 workmen was working for the 1st Party through M/ s . Rhino Securities ( India ) Pvt . Ltd. and remaining 24 workmen were working for the 1st Party through M/s . Amarjyoti Security Services w.e.f. 1-5-2002, 2ndPartysubmitted that, 104 workmen out of 128 workmen listed in Exhibit " A " top the Petition were refused employment on and from 7.30 p.m. on 30-8-2002, M/s . Rhino Security ( India) Pvt . Ltd. handed over the charge to the new coming contractor at 6.00 p.m. on 30-8-2002, copies of whichwere tendered before the Hon'ble High Court when the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to pass an order on 18-9-2002 . 2nd Party submitted that, the whole conduct and action ofthe 1st Party was to circumvent the provisions oflaw and disobey the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 30-8-2002 and the orders those were likely to be passed in the course of the proceedings by the Hon'ble High Court . 2nd Party submitted that on 30-8-2002, 104 workmen out of 128 workmen were working for the 1st Party through M/s . Rhino Securities (India) Pvt . Ltd. and remaining 24 workmen were working for the 1st Party through another contractor who was engaged for 2 years 6584

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2008/AGRAHAYANA 29 , 1930 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] work . It is stated that , all the workmen were working under the control of the 1st Party without any objection till 30-8-2002 and to the full satisfaction of the 1st Party. Oyo's stated that, 1st Party /CWC has been indulging in unlabour practices . It is stated that, 1st Party/ CWC has designed conspiracy resultant of termination of the services of the workmen; contracts between the contractors and the 1st Party /CWC are illegal , voidable and without jurisdiction. It is stated that , there were direct relatonship of the master and servant between the 1st Party/CWC and the workmen and there were only show made by the 1st Party/CWC of the contractors , 2nd Party further submitted that , no appointment had been made by the contractors , rather it had been done by the 1st Party/CWC and due to ulterior motive and avoid the clutches of the Labour Law , no appointment letter had been furnished to the workmen and only the show had been made by the 1st Party/CWC of the contractors .

7. 2nd Party further submitted that , the workmen have caught the thieves and have reported such cases to the 1st Party/ CWC directly for further action . 2nd Party further submitted that, the workmen were working for the 1st Party in total absence of the contract as can be observed from the documents at Serial No. 130 of the list of documents filed separately. The payment of wages were made by the 1st Party/ CWC though the contractor as can be seen from the documents at Sr. No. 130 2nd Party , therefore , submitted that, it has proved that , only show was made by the 1st Party/CWC of the contractors . 2nd Party further submitted that , the concerned workmen were deployed for overtime work on the request ofthe Ist Party/ CWC . 2nd Party submitted that , the attendance of the concerned workmen was supervised by the 1st Party/CWC and its officers used to sign on the attendance registers in token of their supervision and control. 2nd Party further submitted that , the security staff working at CWC Drongiri Node for the 1st time unionized became eye sore to CWC authorities . 2nd Party submitted that , as per the clause 26 of the D.G.R. guidelines , it is open for agency relaxation upto 49% civilians in place of E.S.M. and it is not mandatory rather it is advisory and suggestive as speaks the clause 15 and others and there has been mentioned the work " will be" whereas the authority of the 1st Party/CWC has mentioned the word " shall be" in clause 5 giving award to contractors which is not permissible in law as well as on fact and the direction given by the Ministry of Defence on 4-12-2001 is not also mandatory and it is for only applicable in new appointments .

8. 2nd Party submitted that , the termination of the conceredworkmen have been done without the compliance ofthe laws of clause 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, and in utter disregard of the High Court Order passed on 30-8-2002 is illegal and bad in law and hence the contract between 1st Party/CWC and the contrtactors is illegal and without jurisdiction and ther contract got no value in the eye of law . 2nd Party submitted that, the workmen in the civilian category have been employed right from 1995 and some of them from 1998 , without any objection of the 1st Party/CWC and there are 29 E.S.M. out of 128 workmen . It is submitted by the 2nd Party that , the contrct of M/ s . Guard Well Safe Security Services Pvt . Ltd. was renewed on two occasions i.e. on 1-2-98 and on 1-2-2000 . On both the occasions there was no objection of the 1st Party .

6. Union further submitted that, as per directions of the 1st Party/CWC the workmen are /were entrusted the work ofsecurity arrangement of the containers till the movement of containers to the Port of outside of the CFS, to check the Form No. 13 to ensure that the unloading is being done at the earmarked yard/ shifting point , to put signatures on Form No. 13 , thorough checking in and out entries of vehicles at the gates , checking of gate passes checking of the persons visiting the CFS and checking the cargo on the vehicles , to open and close the shutters ofthe shed, to catch the thieves , produce them before the 1st Party/CWC and before the Police as per the directions of the 1st Party /CWC , to do proper arrangement of vehicles in and out of the premises of the 1st Party/ CWC and watching the sheds , buildings etc. in the premises of the 1stParty/ CWC making entries in the registers about the vehicles entering in and going out of the CFS , obey all the orders and direcitons of the 1st Party/ CWC is done by these workers . 2nd Party in support of their contentions stated that, the concerned workmen were attending to their work under direct control ofthe 1st Party/CWC relied upon the documents shown at Sr. Nos . 12 to 22 of the list of documents and that, the 1st Party / CWC was taking disciplinary action against the workmen is revealedfrom the documents shown at Serial Nos . 23 to 29 of the list of documents . 2nd Party further submitted that , there was direct control of the 1st Party/CWC and the workmen were attending to the work as per direction of the 1st Party/ CWC , 2nd Party further submitted that , the documents shown at Serial Nos . 28 to 48 establish the fact of such control of the 1st Party/ CWC over the concerned workmen . 2nd Party submitted that , the concerned workmen sign on the documents passed on to them by the 1st Party in respect of the work to be attended to by these concerned workmen in support of this 2nd Party produced documents at Serial Nos . 49 to 92 of the listofdocuments filed separately.

9. Union prayed to hold and declare that , the demand made by the 2nd Party for absorption/regularization of services of watch and ward staff employed at CSF - CWC , Drongiri node by the 1st Party/CWC is justified and legal, the concerned workmen are entitled to be treated as permanent workmen of the 1st Party/ CWC from the dates oftheir joining the services of the 1st Party/CWC and are entitled to all the service benefits retrospectively and 2nd Party also requested for grant of interim reliefs directing 6585 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपंत्र: दिसम्बर 20, 2008/अग्रहायण 29 , 1930

the 1st party to maintain status quo ante on and from 17-8-2002 in respect of the employment of the concerned workmentill final disposal of the dispute.

Ltd. at CFS, D. Node w.e.f. 1-2-1998 to 31-1-2000 initially for aperiod of two years and extended as per DGR Guidelines upto 31-1-2002 and subsequently for another period of 3 months upto 30-4-2002. 1st Party/CWC further contended that, on expiry of the contract of M/ s . Guard Well Safe Services Pvt. Ltd. , the DGR vide letter dated 10th October , 2001 sponsored the names of 3 Agences for undertaking the work at CFS, D. Node . The said work thereafter was awarded to Colonel N.K Kalia , M/s . Rhino Services Pvt . Ltd. for a period of two years vide letter dated 11-4-2002 who started executing the contract on 1-5-2002 at CFS , D. Node.

10. This prayer is disputed by the 1st Party/CWC, by filing reply at Exhibit 12, denying the allegations of the 2nd Party and case made out by the concerned workmen, though Union , contending that, the Reference is not maintainable under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 1st Party/CWC submitted that , there is no relationship of Employer - Employee between the concerned workmen and. the 1st Party/CWC . 1st Party contended that, in fact on the said ground the Central Government and Ministry of Labour vide their order dated 18-7-2002 refused to make the Reference in respect ofthe dispute raised by the concerned workmen. 1st Party/CWC contended that , however, the Hon'ble high Court was of the opinion that, Central Government is not empowered to take the decision on the relationship between the concerned workmen and the 1st Party/CWC.and, accordingly, the direction was given by the Hon'ble High Court inWritPetition No. 5056 of 2002 by an order dated 18-9-2002, thereby the dispute was referred to this Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court by the said order also refused to grant interim relief in favour of the concerned workmen . 1st Party, therefore , contended that, in any event on the merits of the matter , Reference is not maintainable and requested this Tribunal to look into the Reference on merits and not on the sympathetic ground as alleged. 1st Party /CWC contended that , it is a Public Sector Undertaking established under an Act of Parliament called Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962, under the Ministry ofFood, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs . 1st Party/ CWC further contended that it engages the Security Guards for some of the Units all over the country as per. requirement for watch and ward purposes . 1st Party/CWC further contended that, as per the instructions issued vide Office Memorandum No. 6/22/ 93 - DPE ( SC/ST) , Ministry of Industrial Department of Public Enterprises dated 11th November , 1994 , all the PSUs can obtain the contract security services from the Director General of Resettlement , Ministry of Defence only. It further contended that, the Director General of Resettlement vide their letter No. 2112/ SA/ Policy/Emp-2 dated 9-2-1996 advised the PSUs to place their demand for security work through DGR sponsored Agencies only as per the directions issued by the DPE vide their letter dated 11-11-1994.

11A. 1st Party/CWC further contended that, at the time ofhandling over/taking over , the guards of M/s . Guard Well Safe Services alongwith some other persons assembled at CFS , D. Node and resisted the change of guards brought by M/s . Rhino Securities Pvt . Ltd. It was claimedby the employees of M/s . Guard Well Safe Services that, they all are Ex- servicemen but their documents were not available with them . In order to avoid any untoward incident, the Police were called at the relevant time and it was decided that the earlier guards will provide the documentary evidence oftheir being Ex - servicemen within aperiod of one month , 1st Party/CWC further contended that, the report was given by M/s.. Rhino Securities Pvt . Ltd. alongwith handing over/taking over certificate as well asroll ofsecurity guards of M/s . Guard Well Safe Services . 1st Party/CWC further contended that , after constant persuasions by M/s . Rhino Securities Pvt . Ltd. and Ist Party/CWC, none of the guards of M/s . Guard Well Safe Services, listed at Exhibit A to the Writ Petition No. 5056 of 2002, provided their documents of their being Ex- servicemen. 1st Party contended that, M/s . Rhino Securities Pvt . Ltd. in such situation expressed their inability to continue with the contract and requested CWC vide letter dated 15-7-2002 informing them to relief them from the contract at the earliest . 1st Party contended that, the said facts were pointed out by the 1st Pasrty/CWC before Conciliation Officer and Assistant Labour Commissioner Central ( I ) , Mumbai , and accordingly failure report was forwarded to the Central Government . 1st Pasrty/ CWC contended that , the Central Government also prima facie on the merits of the matter was convinced and refused to make the Reference . However , on technical ground , the Hon'ble High Court set aside the order dated 18-7-2002 passed by the Central Government and passed an order directing the Central Government to make the Reference for adjudication on merits . Ist Party contended that , in any event it is open for the Respondents to take up the defense before this Hon'ble Tribunal in respect of maintainability ofthe Reference and jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute . 1st Pasrty/CWC contended that the present reference is not maintainable before this Tribunal .Moreover , it is stated that, this Hon'ble Tribunal 11. 1st Party/CWC further contended that, the Agencies sponsored by DGR are required to engage Ex- Sericemen ofdifferent ranks and also getting the PF exemption in case they provide 100% Ex - servicemen as clarified by the DGR vide their letter dated 4-12-2001 , 1st Party/CWC contended that , it awarded the contract ofthe security services to M/s . Guard Well Safe Services Pvt . has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between the > 6586

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2008/AGRAHAYANA 29 , 1930 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

1st Party/ CWC submitted that, the contentions of the 2nd Party that they were on duty on 30-8-2002 till 7.30 p.m. is false and baseless. In further submitted that inspite of the intervention of Police force , the said guards refused to leave the campus and contended that the documents enclosed to their affidavit dated 4-9-2002 filed by the 2nd Party in the Hon'ble High Court are wrong and misleading. 1st Party/ CWC contended that the said guards took the said papers from the truck drivers outside the campus of the 1st Party illegally and signed to show their presence on duty. 1st Party/ CWC further contended that , the said guards , at Exhibit A to the petition , have failed to produce any proof regarding Ex - servicemen and moreover the said guards were the contract labour of M / s. Rhino Securities Pvt . Ltd. who have already expressed their inability to continue with the contract .

the parties under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 on the ground that , there is no relationship of Employer-Employee between the parties . 1st Party further contended that , in fact the Writ Petition No. 1238 of 2002 filed by the 2nd Party was also disposed off by an order dated 5-10-2002 passedby Their Lordhips . 1st Party contended that in any event in the said petition no iterim relief was granted by the Hon'ble Court in the month of April , 2002. 1st Party/ CWC denied that , any ad - interim order dated 30th August , 2002 restraining 1st Party/CWC from terminating the services of the concerned workmen , listed in Exhibit A to the said petition was passed. Ist Party/ CWC contended that, while disposing off the said WritPetition in order dated 18-9-2002 it is recorded that Hon'ble Court is not inclined to accept the Petitioner's (2nd Party herein) application for grant of interim relief. 1st Party/ CWC contended that , since M/ s . Rhino Securities Pvt . Ltd. vide letter dated 15-7-2002 requested to the Ist Party to relieve them from contract , in order to arrange the security CFS , D. Node awarded the work to other Agency sponsored M/ s . Sam Industrial Security Agency vide letter No. CWC/E- 150( 2)/ 02-03 /2710 dated 5th August, 2002. Ist Party contended that , it vide its letter dated 29th August, 2002 requested M/ s . Rhino Securities Pvt . Ltd. to handover the charge of security work at CFS , D. Node to M/ s . Sam Industiral Security Agency at 12.00 hrs on 30-8-2002 .

12. 1st Party/CWC further contended that, in order to avoid any untoward incidence and to over come that resist of the existing guard as happened on 1-5-2002 as a precautionary measure a letter, dated 29-8-2002 , was sent to the Police Station , Uran to provide the police protection for smooth change over security agency.

13. 1st Party/CWC further contended that, M/ s . Sam Industrial Security Agency has joined on 30-8-2002 at 12.00 hrs at CFS , D. Node and engaged Ex - servicemen as their security guards . Ist Party/ CWC contended that , on joining ofM/ s . Sam Industrial Security Agency , the contract of M/ s. Rhino Securities Pvt . Ltd. stands terminated as stated in its letter dated 30-8-2002 with immediate effect . It further contended that, inspite of joning of M/ s . Sam Industrial Security Agency, the guards of M/ s . Rhino Securities Pvt. Ltd. refused to leave the campus and assembled at the gate illegally and without permission. The said guards were removed from the campus by the Police force in the evening after much persuasion etc. on 30-8-2002 . 1st Party/CWC further contended that , even the Counsel appearing on behalfofthe 1st Party/ CWC , at the time of hearing of Writ Petition No. 5056 of 2002 made statement in court on 30-8-2002 that the services of M/ s . Rhino Securities Pvt . Ltd. were terminated by it on 30-8-2002 at 12 noon . 1st Party/ CWC contended that , accordingly the order dated 30-8-2002 was passed by the Hon'ble High Court when the matter reached for admission at about 5 p.m. on 30-8-2002 .

14. 1st Party/ CWC further contended that , under these circumstances it had already awarded the work of providing security guards to M/ s . Sam Industrial Security Agency vide its letter dated 5-8-2002 . 1st Party/CWC says that, the labourers , at Exhibit A to the said petition , are not its employees and that there is no Notification issued against the 1st Party/CWC under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Abolition & Regulation) Act , 1970 prohibiting contract labour with it . 1st Party/CWC contended that the said M /s . Sam Industrial Security Agency have engaged services of Ex - servicemen as per the office memorandum of Government of India . Ist Pasrty contended that, as on 30-9-2002 after 12 noon the services of members of the 2nd Party stands terminated in view of the contract with M/s . Rhino Securities Pvt . Ltd. coming to an end and denied the allegations made by the 2nd Party in paras 8, 9 and 10 of its Statement ofClaim. 1st Pasrty/CWC contended that, it being a Public Sector Undertkaing , it is bound by the orders passed by the Central Government and in that event the above reference cannot be heard without joining Union of India as Party . 1st Party/CWC further contended that , the concerned workmen have failed to submit any documentary evidence in support of their claim that the said workmen are the Ex - servicemen and no documentary evidence to that effect was produced within a period of one month as per the Guidelines laid down by DGR vide letter dated 4-12-2001 and in the absence thereof merely because M/s . Guard Well Safe Services have engaged their services contraryto the criteria laid down by the Central Government , 1st Party / CWC cannot be held responsible for their appointments by the said M/s . Guard Well Safe Services Ltd. , moreover the said concerned workmen are not employees of Central Warehousing Corporation . No salary of the said workmen ia paid by Central Warehousing Corporation . It is denied that , the concerned workmen are entitled to any relief from this Tribunal as prayed for . 1st Party/CWC also denied that, M/s . Sam Industrial Security Agency have not engaged Ex- servicemen as alleged. It is stated that, in any event, it is pertinent to note that , the Hon'ble High Court has 6587 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 20, 2008/अग्रहायण 29 , 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

wages are paid by it and that it is responsible to pay overtime work payment as alleged. 1st Party/CWC contended that in view of the Office Memorandum dated 11-11-1994 issued by the Industrial Department , Government of India, the provisions ofthe Contract Labour (Abolition & Regulation) Act cannot be made applicable in this matter.

16. 1st Party/CWC further contended that , it is not true that due to Union activities , the concerned workman became eye-sore to 1st Party/CWC and that, the 1st Party/ CWC started harassing to the security staff or that the concerned workmen are entitled to the various benefits as prayed for. 1st Party/CWC further contended that, the DGR Guidelines cannot be interpreted in favour of the concerned workmen with the 1st Party . Ist Party contended that, the directions given bythe Ministry ofDefence are mandatory and applicable in view of appointment . 1st Party/CWC denied that, the provisions of Section 25 F of Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 are attracted to the facts ofthis case as alleged. Ist Parrty denied that , it has acted in utter disregard of the Hon'ble High Court's order dated 30-8-2002 and denied that it has never raised any objection in respect of appointment of the Civilian category by the saidContractor.

refused to grant interim relief in favour of the concerned workmen. 1st Party/CWC denied that it has terminated the services of24 workmen w.e.f. 20-5-2002 in utter disregard to the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court, andthe Hon'ble High Court has not granted any interim relief in favour ofthe 2nd Party in Writ Petition No. 5056 of2002. 1st Party/CWC further contended that the 2nd Party has failedto disclose tothe correct facts and have deliberately failed to place on record the various orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 5056 of 2002 which speaks for itself. 1st Party/CWC, therefore , contended that the 2nd Party has failed to make out any casefor interim relief as prayed for to maintain status quo ante on and from 17-8-2002 as alleged. 1st Party/CWC denied that the demand of the 2nd Party is fully legal and justified and that it had engaged the services of the concerned workmen as alleged. It is contended by the 1st Party/CWC that, even before the Conciliation Officer 2nd Party failed to produce the documentary evidence in support ofEmployer- Employee relationship and even on that ground the 2nd Party is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for . 1st Party/CWC contended that the Notification dated 9-12-1976 issued by the Central Government under the provisions of the Central Labour ( Abolition & Regulation ) Act, 1970 is not applicable to the facts ofthe present case and denied that all the concerned workmen were working in the control of the 1st Pasrty without any objection till 30-8-2002. 1st Party/CWC denied that the contract between Contractors and Central Warehousing Corporation are illegal , voidable and without jurisdiction , and have designed conspiracy with the third party as alleged.

17. It is further contended by the 1st Party that, it is for the concerned workmen to produce the documentary evidence in support of their claim that , they are Ex- servicemen ofDefence . 1st Party/CWC contended that the grievance of the concerned workmen/Union cannot be adjudicated upon without joining their employers i.e. Contractors appointed by the 1st Party/CWC as the said Contractors are the necessary parties for adjudication of the above Reference . 1st Party/CWC further contended that, the said subject- matter of the interpretation of the said contract between Central Warehousing Corporation andContractor cannot be adjudicated upon by this Hon'ble Tribunal and 1st Party/ CWC denied that , the concerned workmen were the employees of the Ist Party/Central Warehousing Corporation . 1st Party/CWC further contended that, in view of the Jurisdiction of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the concerned workmen are not entitled for the reliefs as prayed for regulation oftheir services with the 1st Party/CWC and it contended that, the 2nd Party has not made out any case as prayed for in the Statement of Claim and denied that, the concerned workmen are entitled to be treated as permanent workmen of the Ist Party, 1st Party/CWC , therefore, submitted that the 2nd Party has failed to make out any case against the 1st Party / CWC and contended that , the claim is liable to be dismissed with costs .

18.Union filed rejoinder through Secretary at Exhibit 21 repeating most of the contentions taken in Claim Statement.

15, 1st Party/CWC also denied that , there was any direct relationship of Master and Servant between the Respondents andthe workmen as alleged or that various letters of the Respondents referred to at Serial Nos . 12 to 22 of the list of documents establish the relationship of Master and Servant between the 2nd Party to the Ist Party. Ist Party contended that , the said letters cannot be interpreted in favour of the claimants to establish their employment directly with the 1st Pasrty, the said letters are the general instructions given to the Contractors and are issued by the 1st Party/CWC in their administrative exigencies . 1st Party/CWC further contended that the letters at Sr. Nos . 23 to 26 to the Statement of Claim are the instructions of the Respondents to their Contractors which are issued as per the Terms and Conditions of the contract executed between Central Warehousing Corporation and M/ s . Guard Well Safe Services Pvt . Ltd. and the same does not establish that there is any Master and Servant relationship between the 1st Party and the concerned persons and denied that there was any direct control of the 1st Party over the concerned workmen as alleged. Ist Party contended that, it cannot be, interpreted that the concerned workmen are employees of the 1st Party as alleged. 1st Party/CWC also denied that the

4833 G1/08-10 6588

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . DECEMBER 20 , 2008 /AGRAHAYANA 29 , 1930 [FART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

Issues.e

19. In view of the above pleadings the framed at Exhibit 57 which I answer as follows :-

ISSUES

FINDING

contend that, some group is engaged by different Contractors and some by other contractors viz . M/ s . Amar Jyoti Security Services , M/s . Rhino Securities (India) Pvt . Ltd. etc. In the cross this witness states that , he was (i ) There exists employer - employee. relationship?

(ii) Whether services of the concerned Workmen were taken from camouflage , bogus and sham contractor which deserve to regularize by Central Warehousing Corporation? No

(iii) Whether action of the Regional Manager of the Management dated 30-8-2002 in removing 57 workmen who were on duty was just and proper?

Yes

(iv) Whether work to 104 out of 128 work- menwere refused on 30-8-2002 from 7.30 p.m. and M/ s . Rhino Securities (India) Pvt. Ltd. handed over charge to new coming contractor which is against law? No

(v) Whether 104 workmen were working for management work through M/s. Rhino Securities (India) Pvt . Ltd. and 24 through other contractor ? No

Yes

(vi) Whether workmen were attending permanent nature of work of Management under the control of the Management?

appointed by Khan to work for CWC- 1st Party and was paid by him . He was doing work of checking the vehicles on Gate. He admits that , he has no written documents to show that , other workmen have permitted him to depose in the proceedings on their behalf. He states that, said Khan wasSecurityOfficer working with CWC- 1st Party. He states that, Khan was also paying salary to other 104 security persons involved in the reference . He states that, salary of other remaining workmen was paid by Amar Jyoti Security Agency.He admits that, he has no written termination order issued by CWC- 1st Party . Then other witness examined by Union viz . Mahendra Singh , workman , whose affidavit in lieu of examination in chief is filed at Exhibit 52, who narrates the procedure followed in engaging security persons and through whom they were paid and through whom they worked with CWC- 1st Party. In the cross he states that, the same story referring the name of Khan who islooking after their work and paying salary. He also admits that , he was taken through contractor and he has no direct relationship with CWC- 1st Party . Third witness examined byUnion, by name Akshbar Singh , whose affidavit in lieu ofexamination in chief is filed at Exhibit 67. He narrates the story of the employees involved in the reference. He also referred to the names of certain agencies through whom they were shown working with 1st Party. In the cross he admits that, Khan appointed him as admitted by other two witnesses and states that, he is paying their salary . The question was put to him as to how he is claiming relationship with CWC- 1st Partyto which he answered that, since he is working for CWC - 1st Party in its premises since beginning, he is claiming employment with it.

(vii) Whether workmen involved in the reference are entitled for absorption in the employment of First Party?

(viii) What order?

Asper Order below.

ISSUE NOS . 1 AND 2 :

20. The employees involved in the reference claim that , they are directly employees of the Central Warehousing Corporation . It is their case that, they were engaged by CWC- 1st Party. It is their case that , CWC paid them directly, bogus Contractors are shown on recordjust to deprive the legal rights and benefits to the concerned employees , who are members of the Union . Whereas case of the CWC- 1st Party is that, they are engaged through Contractors . It is their case that, they are not their direct employees . It is their case that, they were paid through Contractors . To prove that , Union placed reliance on the evidence lead by filing affidavit of Nagendra Kumar Singh, atExhibit 61 , in lieu ofexamination in chief, who gave names oftheemployees more precisely, their Serial numbers and

21. Against that, CWC- 1st Party filed affidavit of Abhay Singh, at Exhibit 67 , in lieu of the examination - in- chief, who gave the procedure in what way contractors are engaged and contracts are accepted and he also states that, all the workers involved in the reference were engaged through Contractors. They were supposed to engage ex- servicemen . They had awarded the contract to the Security Services , M/ s . Guard Well Safe Services Pvt . Ltd. and to M/sRhino Security ( 1 ) Pvt . Ltd. to engage the persons.He also referred to Writ Petition filed by the Union and the decision given by the Hon'ble High Court to show in what way reference was made . In the cross this witness states that, he do not know whether any appointment orders were issuedby Security Agencies . He admits that , Management of the Security Agencies were not supervising work of these workers at present . However , they were taking periodical visits and checking the work from the record maintained . He admits that , the Management of Security Agencies was not physically present to carry out the business but their field officers and other personnel officers [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

6589 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 20, 2008/अग्रहायण 29 , 1930

cotractor or through, some camouflage Contractor then such employee must be treated as employee of the employer. But here pleading of the Union is that, they were working are require to carry out the business . He admits that, workers were under the control of the Management. He admits that , workmen were working under the Security Agencies appointed by them. He admits that, Gate Incharge haspower to checkGate passes and Form No. 13. He admits that , security agencies have supplied the workmen. He denies that , contract system is shown only on paper which is bogus and camouflage .

22. This is the evidence lead by both to show the relationship of the employees involved in reference with CWC- 1st Party. In fact affidavit filed by these witness révéal that, they were working through contrators . Even record which is placed on record by way of evidence shows that, they have made out the case that, employees involved in the reference are engaged through different contractors. Even names of these contractors are not challenged and even their status is not challenged . Simply it is stated that, they are bogus and camouflage contractors . However, witnesses examined by Union admit that, some employees were engaged through Khan and were paid by Khan. Even they admits that , they have no written orders of appointments given by CWC- 1st Party or termination order issuedby CWC- 1st Party.

forCWC- 1st Party through contractors and even they claim that , contractors shown are camouflage and not genuine. But here no specific evidence is made to that effect bythe Union to show that , contractors through whom these workers were working wore name lenders or not at all in existence as happened in the above referred (Supra) case . In fact witnesses examined in this case they are admitting that, they were doing work through contractors and they have named contractors e.g. M/s.Rhino Securities (1) Pvt. Ltd.and others. Even they admit that, some were engaged by Khan and he was paying the wages . It may be that CWC-1st Party may be paying to Khan for the work get done through him , it does not mean that , payment made by CWC- 1st Party through Khan is the payment of the CWC to the employees. At the most it can be said that , CWC- 1st Party is paying for the work get done with the help of some employees through Khan . So according to me the evidence led does not lead us to conclude that, there is employee -employer relationship of the employees involved in the reference with CWC- 1st Party and they can be called direct employees of the CWC- 1st Party and also observe they cannot be regularised in the CWC- 1st Party. So I answer these issues in the negative.

ISSUE NOS. 3 to5:

Simply they say that, contractors are bogus , camouflage and as such they are really employees of the CWC- 1st Party. No evidence lead on that point . No whisper about claim of remaining employees . Union filed written arguments issue-wise which is abnormal . For this Issue they have submitted written agruments at Exhibit 68 with some citations. Decision ofApex Court while deciding the case of Workmen of Food Corporation of India ws . Food Corporation of India published in 1985 (2) 8C page 136, where it is observed that, ifpayment is made directly ofthe i employee of the contractors then, they became employees of the said employer. But here witnesses are admitting that, some were working through Khan and Khan was paying to them. There is no direct relationship of employee-employer aswas in the case of Workmen ofthe Food Corporation of India, referred above , decided by Apex Court. Besides Union, referred to decision of Jharkhand High Court while deciding the case of Employees , in relation to the Management of Angarpathra Colliery of Bhart Cooking Coal Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer , Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. (2) published in 2003 II CLR page 418, where it was observed that, workmen when working with employers for years together they are employees of the said employer. But here it is not the case that these employees involved in the reference are directly working with1st Party as happened in the case referred above supra. Decision ofApex Court while deciding the case ofPanda R. K. vs. Steel Authority of India published in 1977 ( SC)HI LLJ where Apex Court observed that, to prevent exploitation of contract labourers by contractor or by establishment if such employee is engaged through

23. It is the case of the Union that, action taken by General Manager dated 30th August , 2002 in refusing employment to these workmen in CWC- 1st Party is against law. It istobe noted that, on 30-8-2002 the contract which was in existence of M/s . Rhino Security (India) Pvt . Ltd. comes to an end. Even before that, the employees working through M/ s . Rhino Security ( India) Pvt . Ltd. were terminated by the said Security services . Even there was a Writ and interim relief was prayed. In that proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court no interim, relief though sought was secured . That means at that time status of the employees involved in the reference was status , of non- employment with Rhino Security ( India) Pvt. Ltd. When employers involved in the reference lost their right to work as aresult of contract which comes to an end with M/s . Rhino Securities (India) Pvt. Ltd. and as a result ofthat , they lost the work of CWC- 1st Party, in my considered view, the decision taken by saidCWC- 1st Party in not permitting them to report on work cannot be called as illegal. On 30-8-2002 there was no relationship ofthese employees involved in reference with CWC- 1st Party. As stated above Argument is submitted by Union issue wise, Besides this, evidence discussed above is not reflecting anything to show as to how it can be observed that, the decision taken by CWC- 1st party in not permitting the employees involved in the reference to report on duty is illegal . Even steps taken by Union in approaching Hon'ble High Court by filing Writ Petition or 6590

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20 , 2008/AGRAHAYANA 29 , 1930-

approaching Labour Commissioner to draw attention towards their problems and relief sought from Hon'bleHigh Court by Union and records reveals that, they were not having any relationship on 30-8-2002 with M/ s . Rhino Secrutites ( I ) Pvt . Ltd. When they were not having relationship with Contractor on 30-8-2002 , they are not entitled to seek any relief and cannot be said that , decision takenby CWC - 1st Party in preventing these employees to report on duty is illegal . So I answer these issues to that effect and observe that , decision taken by the General Manager , CWC in not permitting the employees involved in the reference , to report on duty w.e.f. 30-8-2002 is just and proper and observe that, it was not against law.

ISSUE NO . 6 :

24. When these workmen were doing work of 1st Party through contractors definitely it was the work of the 1stParty . Definitely it was work ofpermanent nature . There contract labour system was allowed by the Government of India and in the said field there is no abolition of labour contract system. Even no relief was sought by Union against such contract labour system introduced in the establishment of CWC- 1st Party . Merely because workers are working for CWC - 1st Party it does not mean that, they are its employees and they can take benefit of that . Since there contract labour system allowed by the Government ofIndia it has right to take benefit of it . Before us it is not the question whether , contract system introduced there was illegal or otherwise and it is not even within the purview of this Court and even it is not covered in the subject- matter of the reference . So I conclude that, the workers involved in the reference were doing work for CWC - ist Party . So I answer this issue accordingly .

ISSUE NO . 7 :

25. Only because they were doing work 1st Party- CWC whether they can claim permanency? As stated above the contract labour system was allowed there. As stated above number of agencies were working on the filed of the CWC - 1st Party and the concerned workmen were working through these agencies in the area of the CWC - 1st Party and doing work of the 1st Part . Only because they doing workof 1st Party it does not mean that, they were employees of the 1st Party . Unless and until there is a ban on the 'contract labour system' it is ban by the Government of India, it cannot be observed that, contract labour system is illegally and 1st Party is misusing workers . When there is contract labour system introduced and legalized by the Government of India, when there is no ban on it in my considered view, employees working through contractors cannot be made permanent with CWC- 1st Party and cannot claim permanency and create obstruction in the work of the 1stParty. Besides CWC- 1st Party was supposed to engage permanent employees who were retired military ex- servicemen . Here no evidence is lead to show that , some of the group of these workment is of that qualification and still

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] they are egnored . Even it is not their case that , they are ex- service still they are not taken but others are taken who are civilians . Even it is not proved that bogus Contractors are introduced . In these circumstances I conclude that , employees involved in the reference cannot claim permanency and absorption in the establishment of the CWC- 1st Party only because they were doing work for the CWC- 1st Party. So I answer this Issue in the negative.

26. In view ofthe discussions made above I conclude that the reference require to be rejected. Hence, the order:

ORDER

Reference is rejected. Bombay, 16th October, 2008

A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 25 नवम्बर , 2008

का. आ. 3362.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं डब्लू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. CGIT/NGP/ 125/03 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/160/2002- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 25th November, 2008 S.O. 3362.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. CGIT/ NGP/ 125/03 ) ofthe Central Govt . Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Damua Colliery of WCL, Kanhan Area , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 25-11-2008 .

[No. L-22012/ 160/2002- IR(CM- II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRIA . N. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM- LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

Date 18-11-2008 Case No. CGIT/NGP/ 125/03

Petitioner/ : The Office Secretary,

PartyNo.1 Rashtriya Koyala Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC) Regional Office, PO. Chandametta, Distt . Chhindwara (M.P. ) onbehalf of Shri Hemraj

Versus

Respondent/: The Manager ,

PartyNo.2 Damua Colliery ofWCL, Kanhan Area , PO: Damua, Distt. Chhindwara (М.Р.) [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6591 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 20, 2008/ अग्रहायण 29 , 1930

AWARD (Dated: 18th November , 2008)

Industrial Dispute between the management of Federal Bank Ltd. , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 25-11-2008 )

[No. L- 12012 /193/2000-IR(B- 1 ) ] AJAYKUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

401

1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence ofdispute between the Office Secretary , Rashtriya Koyala KhadanMazdoor Sangh (INTUC) Regional Office, PO. Chandametta, Distt . Chhindwara (M.P. ) on behalf of Shri Hemraj (Party No. 1) and the Manager, Dannua Colliery ofWCL, kanhan Area, PO: Damua, Dist. Chhindwara (M.P. ) (party No.2) referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its letter No. k- 22012/160/2002- IR(OM - II) dated8-5-2003 under clause (d) of sub Section (1 ) and sub Section (2A) ofSection 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 [14 of 1947] with the following schedule.

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUMLABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM Present: ent : Shri P. L, Norbert, B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer (Tuesday the 30th day ofSeptember 2008/8th Aswina 1930) I. D. 236/2006

(I. D. 11/2000 ofLabour Court , Ernakulam)

Union

2."Whether the demand ofthe Rashtriya koyala khan mazdoor Sangh from the management ofDamua Colliery of W.C.Ltd, Kanhan Area, PO: Damua, Dist . Chhindwara (M.P.) for regularizing Shri Hemraj S/o Shri Nanhulal as Pump Operator in Cat . V is justified? If so, to what relief is the workman entitled and from what date?

:The General Secretary, Federal Bank Employees Union , Central Office, P.B. No. 10, Amage-683 101 By Adv. Sri C.Anilkumar.

The Chairman , Management

1. M/s . Federal Bank Limited, Head Office, Alwaye-683-101 .

ByAdv . M/ s B.S. Krishnan Associates

This case coming up for hearing on 30-9-2008 , this Tribunal -cum- Labour Court on the same day passed the following

3. The reference came up for hearing on 14-11-2008 on which the Petitioner and his Counsel were absent. The Counsel for Respondent was present . The Petitioner is not attending the case since last three year. He has also not even filed a statement of claim. I do not think it proper to ... continue it on the same stage years together. It seems that the Petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case. In the circumstances, no purpose will be served in continuing the case, hence it dismissed for the default of the Petitioner and pass the negative award that he is not entilted for any relief.

AWARD

Date: 18-11-2008

This is a reference made under Section 10 ( 1 )(d).of Industrial Disputes Act. The reference, is A.N. YADAV, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली , 25 नवम्बर, 2008

"Whether the action of the management of Federal Bank Ltd. în dismissing the services of Sri Shajan P. Varghese , Bankman vide order dated 2-11-98 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?" का. आ. 3363, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार फेडरल बैंक लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , इरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 236/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/ 193/2000- आई आर ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 35th November, 2008

2. Facts ofthe case in brief are as follows: - Sri Shajan P. Varghese was a sub-staff of Federal Bank, Kolenchery Branch. While working in the branch on 31-5-1996 a charge sheet was served on him. The allegation in the charge sheet is that he had misappropriated an amount of Rs. 12,850/- handed over to him by a customer ofthe bank Sri E.P. Shaji for remittance to his S.B.Account . Sri E.P.Shaji being a businessman, used to issue cheques to merchants supplying electrical goods to his shop. He had thus issued 5 cheques amounting to Rs . 12,848 ps 95 to M/ s . Sharaf Electric Company and M/s . Home Appliances . When the cheques were received in Kolenchery Branch for collection theworkman Sri Shajan P. Varghese took away the cheques S.O. 3363. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 236/2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure , in the 6592

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20 , 2008/AGRAHAYANA 29, 1930 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]

ofthe workman . His family consists of his father who is an asthma patient , his wife who is suffering from arthritis and two daughters aged 3 and 5 ( in 1998) . The workman is the sole bread winner of the family. He regrets for lapses and assures not to repeat such instances in future .

before enteringthem in the books of accounts of the branch. The workman then informed the customer Sri E.P. Shaji that 5 cheques of the suppliers had reached the bank. Then the customer entrusted Rs . 12,850/- for remittances to his S.B. Account for the purpose of honouring 5 cheques . But the workman did not remit the amount in the account of the customer M/s . Sharaf Electric Company approached Sri E. P. Shaji and inforemed him that the cheques were not yet encashed. Then Sri Shaji went to the bank and enquired and came to understand that the cheques issued by him to the suppliers were not debited in his S.B. Account and the money entrusted by him to the workman was not credited in his account .He learnt from the Branch Manager that the cheques were not available with the branch. He then approached the workman and demanded money. Subsequently amounts were givenby the workman to the customer . In the same manner money due to M/ s. Home Appliances was also not paid and later it was settled with the customer .

3. The workman has questioned the enquiry and the punishment contending that the enquiry was held in violation ofprinciples of natural justice and workman was not given fair opportunity to prove his innocence . The findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and the punishment is excessive . There is no allegation of misappropriation , theft , fraud or dishonesty . The allegation is that the workman acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the bank. The workman has a unblemished service records . He is entitled to be reinstated.

8. It is in evidence that the defacto complainant Sri Shaji and the workman Shajan are friends . The workman used to visit the shop of Sri . E. P. Shaji and inform him that the cheques issued to suppliers had reached the bank . The complainant used to entrust money to the workman for remittance to his account for the purpose ofhonouring cheques issued by him and presented by different creditors . While so , in 1996 the complainant had issued five cheques to two suppliers of goods amountingto Rs . 12,848 ps . 95. When the cheques were sent to Kolenchery Branch for collection the workmanwithout recording them in bank's records removed the cheques . At the same time he inforemed the complainant that the suppliers had presented cheques and then received Rs . 12,850 from the complainant for remittance to his S.B. account for the purpose of honouring the cheques . However the workman did not remit it . This was the only instance of indiscipline and malpractice on the part of the workaman. No doubt it is an act prejudicial to the interest ofthe bank because it affects the reputation of the bank . The removal of cheques from the bank is no doubt a serious act which tells upon the honesty of an employee of the bank. But this is the sole. instance of misconduct on the side of the workman . He had paid all the amount and settled the matter. However that will not absolve him from culpability. However the punishment imposed is the maximum i.e. dismissal from service. According to the learned counsel for the union it is too harsh a punishment. He is thrown out of service bare handed without anykind ofbenefits . The punishment was imposed on 02-11- 1998 by the disciplinary authority and the appeal was disposed ofon 28-12-1998 confirming the punishment .

4.The management has refuted the contentions ofthe union . According to the management the enquiry was conducted adhering to the rules and procedure of enquiry and complying with the principles of natural justice . The findings are based on evidence on record. A copy of the report was furnished to the workman . The Disciplinary Authority after proper application of mind perusing the evidence and hearing the workman concurred with the findings ofEnquiry Officer. The workman was heard regarding punishment . Considering the gravity ofthe misconduct the punishment of dismissal from service was ordered. No interference either in findings or in punishment is called for .

9. At that time the 6th Bipartite Settlement dated 14-02-1995 was in force . Clause 19.6 of the First Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-66 is substituted by Clause 21 ( iv) of 6th Bipartite Settlement. The punishments for gross misconduct as per Clause 21 ( iv) are :

5. The evidence consists of Ext. M1 enquiry file alone .

a. be dismissed without notice ; or

b. be compulsorily retired/ removed from service / discharged with superannuation benefits as wouldbe due otherwise at that stage and without disqualification from future employment; or 6. At the time of argument the learned counsel for the union confined his submission to the quantum of punishment alone. Therefore it is unneccessary to go into the merits of the findings of Enquiry Officer . Hence the only point that requires consideration is:-

Is the puishment proportionate ?

c. be brought down to lower stage in the scale of pay up to a maximum of two stages ; or

d. have his increment stopped; or

e. have his special allowance withdrawn ; or

f. be warned or censured , or have an adverse remark against him; or

7. The Point : -The workman Sri Shajan P. Varghese was a sub - staff of the bank . At the time of dismissal from service he had put in 12 years of service . It is not disputed that there is no previous disciplinary action against him. The appellate order reveals the mitigating circumstances

g. be fined;

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र दिसम्बर 20, 2008/ अग्रहायण 29, 1930

6593

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typedbyher, corrected and passed by me on this the 30th dayofSeptember, 2008,

негі-зрадостір: L / NORBERT, PresidingOfficer

Appendix

Witness for the Union

Nil

Nil Witness for the Management

Nil

Exhibit for the Union

Exhibit forthe Management

M126-06-2007

Enquiry file .

नई दिल्ली, 25 नवम्बर , 2008

का.आ.3364. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का'14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में कैन्द्रीय सरकार बोम्बे मरकनटाईल को. ओ. बैंक लि. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण , मुम्बई न. - 1 के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 11/2007) करें प्रकाशित करती है,है.. जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12014/03/2008-आई आर ( बी-1 ) ]

... अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 25th November , 2008 10. Anyone of the penalties mentioned above can be imposed for gross misconduct . No doubt it is the discretion ofthe management to decide which ofthem shall be imposed. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the management relying on the decision in State Bank of India vs. Bela Bagchi (2005 ) 7 SCC 435 that a bank employee is required to exercise high standard of honesty and integrity dealing with the money of depositors and customers. He has to protect the interest of the bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty , devotion and deligance and shall not do anything which is unbecoming of a bank officer/employee. In the reported decision the employee had recieved money from account holder fordepositing in his S. B. Account . But the employee did not deposit the amount. A fictitious credit entry was made in the pass book of the account holder . Again on another occasion money was handed over, by another accountholder to the employee which was also notdeposited andsimilar fraudulent entry was made in the pass book. He prepared four withdrawal slips and money was withdrawn from customer's account , This was repeated in respect of another customer also . Cheques issued by the employee to creditors when presented were dishonoured. This had happened on five occasions. Therefore he was charge sheeted and proceeded against. In the facts and circumstances ofthat case Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the misconduct was not casual but serious in nature and the order ofdismissal from service is valid.

S.O. 3364 -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/2007) ofthe Central Govt . Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court, No. 1 , Mumbai , as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bombay Mercantile Co-op. Bank Ltd. , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 25-11-2008.

No. L- 12014/03/2008 - IR(B- 1) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 MUMBAI JUSTICE C. P. MISRA , Presiding Officer Misc.Application No. 11 of2007 (Arising out of Ref. CGIT- 34 of 2004)

Parties:

11. But so far as the instant case is concerned the facts are different. There is just one instance of sinning. He expressed his regrets and paid of an amount of Rs. 12,850 misappropriated by him and settled the matter with the account holder . The workman and the account holder were friends and the former used to recieve money from the latter for remittance into the S. B. account ofthe latter. The customer has no complaint that any fraud was committed by the workman on any other occasion . As far as the bank is concerned, this was the first instance in which the workman had committed misconduct. He was a sub -staff ofthe bank and hails from a poor family. He is the sele bread winner of the family. Since 1998 he has been out of employment. He was not given any terminal benefits. Considering these mitigating circumstances, I feel that the ends of justice will be served by discharging him from service with superannuation benefits and without disquilification from future employment .

Mr. S. M. H. Rizvi : Applicant V/s

BombayMercantile Co -op . Bank Ltd. Mumbai : Opponent

APPEARANCES :

For the Applicant : Mr. A. S. Peerzada,Adv.

In the result an award is passed confirming the findings ofthe Enquiry Officer but altering the punishment fromdismissal to discharge with superannuation benefits andwithout disquilification from future employment.

For the Oppohent Mr. B. D. Birajdar, Adv.

Mr. P. V. Patil , Officer, The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official gazette.

Maharashtra

State 6594

[PART II SEC . 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20 , 2008/AGRAHAYANA 29 , 1930

ANNEXURE

Mumabi , dated the 12th day of November ' 2008

ORDER

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 MUMBAI

JUSTICE C. P. MISRA, Presiding Officer

Misc. Application No. 11of 2007

(Arising out of Ref. CGIT- 50 of 2006)

Parties: Mr. Mukhul Hussain Vakil : Applicant V/s

BombayMercantile Co- op . Bank Ltd. , Mumbai Opponent

APPEARANCES

Forthe Applicant : Mr. A. S. Peerzada, Adv .

Forthe Opponent : Mr. B. D. Birajdar , Adv. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant . Shri A. S. Peerzada has moved this application dated 9-7-2008 praying that he had moved an application seeking review of the order passed by this Tribunal on 8-6-2007 . The applicant is out of employment and facing serious financial crisis and the matter is pending before this Tribunal since very long. The applicant wants to seek remedy from the Court concerned in this connection and as such prays that the present application without prejudice to his rights seeking withdrawal of the above application may be allowed so that he can file the case before the concerned Court and seek remedy accordingly. The learned counsel for the Management Shri . B. D. Birajdar , has no objection to this prayer .

Mr. P. V. Patil, Officer .

State

: Maharashtra

Mumabi, clated the 12th day ofNovember 2008

ORDER

2. Considering the above said facts and the submissions made on behalf ofthe applicant since he does not want to press the application itselfthere is no prejudice to the rights of the other side in this regard. The application as such is allowed for withdrawal as prayed without prejudice to the rights of other side and the applicant is premitted to withdraw this application accordingly.

JUSTICE C. P. MISHRA , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 नवम्बर, 2008

का. आ. 3365.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बोम्बे मरकनटाईल को. ओ. बैंक लि. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , मुम्बई न. - 1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 12/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Heardl the learned counsel for the applicant . Shri A. S. Peerzada has moved this application dated 9-7-2008 praying that he had moved an application seeking review of the order passed by this Tribunal on 8-6-2007 . The applicant is out of employment and facing serious financial crisis and the matter is pending before this Tribunal since very long . The applicant wants to seek remedy from the Court concerned in this connection and as such prays thatthe present application without prejudice to his rights seeking withdrawal of the above application may be allowed so that he can file the case before the concerned Court and seek remedy accordingly . The learned counsel for the Management Shri . B. D. Birajdar, has no objection to this prayer.

[सं. एल-12014/04/2008- आई आर ( बी- I ) ]

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 25th November , 2008

2. Considering the above said facts and the submissions made on behalf of the applicant since he does not want to press the application , itself here is no prejudice to the rights ofthe other side in this regard. The application as such is allowed for withdrawal as prayed without prejudice to the rights of other side and the applicant is premitted towithdraw this application accordingly.

JUSTICE.C . P. MISHRA , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 नवम्बर , 2008

S.O. 3365. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2007) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, No. - 1 , Mumbai , as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bombay Mercantile Co - op . Bank Ltd. , and their workmen , received bythe Central Government on 25-11-2008 .

[No. L- 12014/04/2008 - IR(B- 1 ) ]

का. आ. 3366. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकारं एवं डब्लू. सी . एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. CGIT/NGP/ 106/04 ) AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 6595

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 20, 2008/अग्रहायण 29, 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

days/ period and what directions are necessary in this matter?"

को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -22012/437/1995- आई आर ( सी- II ) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 25th November, 2008

S.O. 3366.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/ NGP/ 106/04 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL, and their workman , which was receivedbythe Central Government on 25-11-2008 .

3.The reference came up for hearing on 8-9--2008 . On perusal of the Rojnama, it shows that the reference is réceived initially to the CGIT, Jabalpur till the year 2002 . Afterthe transfer to this Tribunal, the Notices were issued toboththe parties on 28-7-2006.As per the Rojnamadt. 13- 10-2006, the both the parties are absent in the Court . However, nobody appeared right from 28-7-2006 till today. Todayalso the representative ofManagement and counsel for Petitioner are also absent . It seems that the Petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case. In the circumstances , no purpose will be served in continuing the case , hence it dismissed for the default of the Petitioner and pass the negative award that he is not entilted for any relief.

[No. L-22012/437/1995- IR(C- II) ]

Date: 17-11-2008

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

A. N. YADAV, Presiding Officer ANNEXURE

नई दिल्ली , 25 नवम्बर , 2008 BEFORE SHRI A. N. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM -LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Date 17-11-2008

Case No. CGIT/NGP/106/04

Petitioner/ : General Secretary,

PartyNo. 1 Coal Mines Bahujan Employees Union ,

Near Ambedkar Statue, Maskasath,

Itwari ,Nagpur,

का. आ.. 3367. औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं डब्लू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. CGIT/NGP/ 107/03 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

onbehalfofShri HiramanHagru

[सं. एल -22012/202/2002- आई आर ( सीएम -11 ) ] Versus

अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी Respondent: The Sub-Area Manager,

New Delhi , the 25th November , 2008 PartyNo. 2 Pipla Group of WCL, Patansawangi Mines , Post-Pipala Tal . Saoner, Distt. Nagpur.

AWARD

(Dated: 17th November , 2008)

S.O. 3367. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/ NGP/107/03 ) ofthe Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, NAGPUR as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Damua Colliery of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25-11-2008.

[No. L-22012/202/2002 - IR(CM- II )]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRIA. N. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM- LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR 1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence ofdispute between General Secretary, Coal Mines Bahujan Employees Union, Near Ambedkar Statue , Maskasath, Itwari, Nagpur on behalf ofShri Heraman Hagru (Party No.1 ) and the Sub -Area Manager , Pipla Group of WCL, Patansawangi Mines , Post -Pipala Tal . Saoner, Distt. Nagpur. (party No.2) referred the same for adjudication to thisTribunal vide its letter No. L-22012/437/95 - IR(C- II)dated 7-6-1996 under clause (d) of sub Section (1 ) and sub Section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 [ 14of 1947 ] with the follwoing schedule .

Date18-11-2008

Case No. CGIT/NGP/10/03

Petitioner : The President,

Party No. 1 Pench Kanhan Koyala Khadan Karmachari Sangh, PO. Damua, Distt. Chindwara (M.P. ) on behalf of Shri Ramesh Chandra 2."Whether the action of the management ofMines Manager, Patansaongi Mines , WCL Nagpur deploying 'Drillers' and 'R. B. Drillers interchangeable is justified and proper? If not, to what relief the workman Sh . Hiraman Hagru , R. B. Driller is entitled and from which date for which

4833 GI/08-11 6596

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20 , 2008 /AGRAHAYANA 29, 1930

Versus

Respondent : The Manager ,

Party No.2 Damua Colliery of WCL, Kanhan Area , PO: Damua, Distt . Chhindwara ( M.P. )

AWARD

(Dated: 18th November, 2008)

1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence ofdispute between the President, Pench Kanhan Koyala Khadan Karmachari Sangh , PO . Damua , Distt . Chindwara (M.P. ) on behalf of Shri Ramesh Chandra (Party No.1 ) and the Manager, Damua Colliery of WCL , kanhan Area, PO: Damua, Dist . Chhindwara ( M.P.) (party No.2) referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its letterNo. L-22012/202 /2002 - IR(CM - II) dated 13-3-2003 under clause(d) ofsub Section ( 1 ) and sub Section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 [ 14of 1947 ] with the follwoing schedule .

2. "Whether the action of the management of Damua Colliery ofWCL, Kanhan Area in changing the designation and service condition and paying less wages to Sh . Ramesh Chandra S/ o Sh . Sahdeo Trammer with effect from 11-10-2001 is legal and justified? If not, to what reliefhe is entitled to?"

3. The reference came up for hearing on 14-11-2008 on which the Petitioner and his Counsel were absent . The Counsel for Respondent was present . The Petitioner is not attending the case since last three year . He has also not even filed a statement of claim. I do not think it proper to continue it on the same stage years together . It seems that the Petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case . In the circumstances , no purpose will be served in continuing the case, hence it dismissed for the default of the Petitioner and pass the negative award that he is not entilted for any relief.

Date: 18-11-2008

A. N. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 25 नवम्बर , 2008

का. आ. 3368.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं केन्द्रीय भण्डार के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 26/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -42012/155/2004- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] New Delhi , the 25th November , 2008 S.O. 3368. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.26/ 2005 ) Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Cour. Nagpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute totween the management of Kendriya Bhandar , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on25-11-2008 .

[No. L-42012/155/2004- IR(CM- II )] AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT N.K. PUROHIT I. D. NO . 26/2005

Ref. No. L-42012/ 155/2004- IR( CM- II) dt . 24-6-2005

Between Sri Avinash Nigam S/ o Sri Suresh Chandra R/ o566/28 G Jaiprakash Nagar Luknow And

1. Chairman , Kendriya Bhandar Pushpa Bhawan, Madangir Road New Delhi 2. General Manager Kendriya Bhandar Pushpa Bhawan , New Delhi

3. The Regional Manager , Kendreya Bhandar , HAL Shopping Complex Luchnow AWARD

1. By order No. L-42012/ 155 /2004 IR ( CM - II ) dated 24-6-2005 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour , New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d ) of sub section ( 1 ) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) referred this industrial dispute between the Sri Avinash Nigam , S/ o Sri Suresh Chandra R/ o 566/28 G , Jaiprakash Nagar, Lucknow and the General Manager , Kendriya Bhandar , Pushpa Bhawan , New Delhi and The Regional Manager, Kendriya Bhandar , HAL Shopping Complex , Lucknow for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

क्याप्रबंधक , केन्द्रीय भण्डार , लखनऊ द्वारा श्री अविनाश निगम पुत्र श्री सुरेश चंद्र , दैनिक वेतन में कार्यरत कर्लाक कम टाईपिस्ट को दिनांक 12-6-2002 से नौकरी से निकाला जाना न्यायौचित तथा न्याय संगत है । यदि नहीं तो संबन्धित कर्मकार किस अनुतोष का हकदार है ?

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6597 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 20 , 2008/ अग्रहायण 29 , 1930

vide orderdt . 13-5-08 . The representative ofthe workman filed an application for recalling the said order but subsequently authority was withdrawn by him . The management has filed affidavit of Sh . Manoj Kumar Gupta, Regional Manager as witness in support of its case but since none was present on behalf of the workman, he has not been cross examined by the worker's side.

3. The case of the workman Avinash Nigam is that he was appointed as daily wage Clerk- cum -Typist on 15-6-97 by the opposite party No. 3 Regional Manager , Kendriya Bhandar, Lucknow. His name was recommended with seven other daily wager for regularization to the opposite party No. 2 General Manager , Kendriya Bhandar New Delhi vide letter dated 15-6-97 ( Annexure. I) In the aforesaid letter his name was on serial No. 8 but the opposite party No.2 General Manager, Kendriya Bhawan , New Delhi issued order for regularization of service ofthe workmen at serial No. 1 to 6 only. The opposite partyNo. 3 again recommended the name of remaining two daily wagers including the workman for regularization of their services vide letter dated 28-8-2002 (Ann . II) but înstead of regularizing his services , the opposite party No. 3 verbally terminated his services on 12-6-02 . The workman has submitted that there was no complaint against him and he had worked in the opposite party's organization for more than 3 years . Therefore , his services cannot be retrenched without following mandatory provision of law. It is prayed thatworkman be reinstated with back wages along with all consequential benefits .

4. In thewritten statement , management has admitted that the name of the workman was recommended for consideration of regularization in services but it is alleged that subsequently the work and conduct of the workman was not found satisfactory. He started loosing interest in his duties and creating nuisance and indiscipline in the office. When the workman was transferred to Mankapur hemisbehaved with the authorities . It is further stated that the workman was junior most amongst daily wages employees whose name were recommended for regularization of services . No appointment letter was ever given to the workman . He was engaged on daily wage on availability of work so there was no requirement of any termination letter . The mangement has committed no illegality. It is also alleged that the workman is gainfully employed in some establishment . It is further alleged that the workman had totally lost his good senses , physical health & mental balance due to some internal family wears. He is not entitled to get any relief& his claim is liable tobe rejected.

7. In the present case , the reference under adjudicating is whether the termination of workman is just and legal . It was incumbent for the workman to have appeared and substantiate his allegations that his services were to be regularized and his alleged verbal termiation of services on 12-6-02 is illegal but the workman has failed to produce all relevant facts and evidence in support of his contentions . He has not subjected himself for evidence on oath in spite of opportunity provided to him . Whereas the management has submitted affidavit of Sh. Manoj Kumar : Gupta, Regional Manager in support of the averments in its written statement. He has stated in his statement that the name of the workman alongwith other daily wagers was recommended for regularization of services . The workman was junior most person amongst the candidates whose name were recommended but subsequent to this , he started misusing department's money and started taking money in the form ofloan from the suppliers for his personal use which brought disrepute to the department. He has further stated that workman created nuisance and indiscipline in the office . The workman handed over several blank signed bills to the suppliers which cost the Kendriya Bhandar to lose more than 2 lakhs . He has also stated that to prevent further deteriorating of working atmosphere & indiscipline the services of the workman were not regularized & being piquant with the decision of the management he left the job & stopped coming to the office . He has further stated that workman was not given any appointment letter and there was no requirement to provide termination letter. On above points there is no cross examination from the worker's side. In absence of any evidence in rebuttal there is no reason to disbelieve the above statement of the management witness . Therefore , there is no material on the record to establish that alleged verbal termination ofthe workman was unjustified or illegal . In FLR 1981 ( 29 ) page 195 between VK Raj Industries vs Labour Court white dealing with the matter pertaining to termination ofthe workman concerned Hon'ble Allahabad Hingh Court has observed that:

5. In rejoinder besides reiterating earlier averments inhis claim , the workman has stated that his appointment was made on clear vacancy and not on the basis of availability of work. He has also denied the fact that he himself left the job .

6. The parties have filed documents in support of respective contention in the case . The workman has not adduced any oral evidence in support ofhis case in spite of opportunity given to him on several dates which led to the presumption that he does not want to adduce his evidence and case was listed for management evidence

"It was thus incumbent for the workman to have appeared and substantiated his allegation that the termination was not valid or legal . The proceedings before the Industrial Court are judicial in nature even though the Indian evidence Act does not apply to the proceedings before the principle underlying the said Act is applicable 6598

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 20, 2008 /AGRAHAYANA29, 1930

tothe proceedings before the Industrial Court . In a Judicial proceeding if no evidence is produced the party challenging the validity of the order must fail . It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality ofthe order and ifno evidence isproduced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail . Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validityof the termination of service it is impreative for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case . If the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or produce evidence , the dispute referred by the State Government cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief."

9. In the instant case the burden was on the workman to set out the grounds challenging the validity of the termination order & to prove that termination order was illegal & unjustified. Since after filing statement of claim the workman did not appear nor adduce any evidence in support of his case and in rebuttal of the management witness's evidence , he has failed to establish that his termination was illegal & unjustified. Therefore, the reference under adjudication cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he is not entitled for the relief claimed . The reference answered accordingly.

10. Award as above . Lucknow

N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 25 नवम्बर , 2008

का. आ. 3369. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. CGIT /NGP/01 / 03 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -22012/75/2002- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 25th November , 2008 S.O. 3369.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. CGIT/ NGP/01 /03 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of New Sub Area WCL, and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 25-11-2008 .

[No. L- 22012/ 75/2002 - IR( CM - II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRIA. N. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM- LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

Date 18-11-2008 Case No. CGIT/NGP/01 /03

Petitioner/ The General Secretary,

PartyNo.1 Bhartiya Koyala Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (BNS) Union Vishwakarama Bhavan , PO: Parasia , Distt. Chhindwara ( M. Ρ . ) 480044 . OnbehalfofShri R. P. Singh

Versus

Respondent: The Sub- Area Manager ,

PartyNo.2 New Sub -Area , WCL of Pench Area , PO: Parasia , Distt. Chhindwara (M.P. )

AWARD

(Dated: 18thNovember , 2008 )

1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence of dispute between the General Secretary , Bhartiya Koyala Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (BNS ) Union Vishwakarama Bhavan , PO : Parasia, Distt . Chhindwara (M. P.) 48044. On behalf of Shri R. P. Singh (Party No.1) and the Sub -Area Manager , New Sub- Area , WCL of Pench Area , PO: Parasia, Distt . Chhindwara (M.P. ) (party No.2) referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its letter No. L-22012/ 75/2002 - IR( CM - II ) dated 21-10-2002 under clause (d) ofsub section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14of 1947 ) with the follwoing schedule.

2. " Whether the action of the Sub - Area Manager , Newton Sub Area, WCL Pench Area, Distt . Chhindwara (MP) in supersession of Sh . R. P. Singh, P. F. Clerk of EDC Colliery by Sh . Subhash Dubey, Clerk Chandametta Colliery in promotion to next higher grade is justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled to ?"

3.The reference came up for hearing on 12-10-2004 on which the Petitioner and his Counsel were absent . The Petitioner and his counsel were not attending the case since last two years . He has also not even filed workman affidavit. I do not think it proper to continue it on the same stage years together . It seems that the Petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case . In the circumstances , no purpose will be served in continuing the case , hence it dismissed for the default of the Petitioner and pass the negative award that he is not entilted for any relief.

Date: 18-11-2008

A. N. YADAV, Presiding Officer 6599 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 20, 2008/अग्रहायण 29, 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 3370.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एस.ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों केबीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या68/1995) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-11-27-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -22012/459/1994- आई. आर. ( सी- H ) ]

स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27th November, 2008

2. The case of workmen Shri Mahavir Kurrey and Shri Dilbahadur/Union is as follows : That sub Area Manager/Dy. G.M. ofOCM of Burhar Area of SECL served a letter to two Security Guards named above stating that 12V x 25 plates batteries and 2 engines were stolen away from excavation workshop during their duty hours . The estimated cost of Rs . 9000 of the stolen property was deductedby the management. The said Sub- AreaManager/ Dy. G. M. ordered to deduct Rs . 4500 from the wages of each of the Security Guards named above . The authority concerned did not care to provide opportunity to the Security Guards named above to submit any statement of defence which is against principles of natural justice. The management also conducted enquiry to find out the facts but the same was conducted neither properly nor legally . The action ofdeducting Rs . 4500 from the wages of each SecurityGuard is bad in law and is liable to be set aside .

S.O. 3370.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 68/1995) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 27-11-2008 .

[No. L-22012/ 459/1994- IR (C- II)] SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/LC/R/68/95 Presiding Officer : Shri C.M. Singh

The President,

S.K.M.S. ( AITUC), BisrampurArea,

Workmen/Union

PostBisrampur Colliery, Distt. Surguja (MP)

3. The case of the management in brief is as follows: Workman Sarva Shri Mahavir Kurrey and Shri Dilbahadur were appointed on 6-11-1980 and 10-2-1984 respectively andwere working as Security Guards. On 9-8-92 , they were allotted duty from 6.00 PM to 6.00 AM at Excavation Workshop at Bisrampur. During their duty period , 12V × 25 plate battery- 2 nos . and Engine Stand PC- 300-2 nos . were stolenfrom the Excavation Workshop by unknown thieves . The management received the complaint in this respect. Consequently Chargesheet No. 3972 dated 18/ 12-8-92 were issued to both the workmen . The explanation submitted by the workmen were found unsatisfactory . Therefore , a departmental enquiry was conducted against the workmen . During the course of enquiry, both the workmen were granted full opportunity to defend their case. That the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the workmen stands proved. That the punishment of recovery of cost of stolen property was passed in the light of charges proved against them. The workmen are not entitled to any relief what - so - ever .

Versus

4. As the case proceeded exparte against the workman/Union , there is no evidence on record on behalf ofworkmen/Union.

The Sub Area Manager , BisrampurOpencast Mine, SECL, Post Bisrampur Colliery,

....Management

Distt. Surguja (MP)

AWARD

5. The management in order to prove their case filed affidavit of their witness Shri A. Dhar , then working as Dy.General Manager in Bisrampur OCM.

Passed on this 24th day of October, 2008

6. I have heard Shri K. N. Nair, Advocate for the management and perused the evidence on record.

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L -22012/459/94- IR (C-II) dated 2-5-95 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal :-

7. The case of the management is fully established and proved from the uncontroverted and unchallenged affidavit of their witness Shri A. Dhar . The referenće, therefore , deserves to be decided in favour of the management and against the workmen/Union without any orders as to costs .

8. In view of the above , the reference is decided in favour ofthe management and against the workmen/ Union without any orders as to costs holding that the action of "Whether the action of Sub Area Manager, Bisram- purOpencast Mine of Bisrampur Area of SECL in deducting Rs.4500 each from the wages of Shri Mahavir Kurrey & Shri Dilbahadur, Security Guards is legal and justified? If not , to what reljef these workmen are entitled to?

6600

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2008 /AGRAHAYANA 29, 1930 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )]

AWARD

Passed on this 12th day ofNovember , 2008 Sub AreaManager , Bisrampur Opencast Mine ofBisrampur Area of SECL in deducting Rs . 4500 each from the wages of Shri Mahavir Kurrey & Shri Dilbahadur , Security Guards is legal and justified and consequently the workmen are not entitled to any relief.

1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L -22012/ 104/2001 - IR (CM - II ) dated 11-9-02 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal :-

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

C.M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2008

"Whether the demand of the MP Koyala Shramik Sangh from the management of SECL, Rajendra Navgaon Sub Area for payment of " Average Earning Wage" to Sh . Hardeo , Loader is justified? If so , to whatrelief is the workman entitled and from what date?"

2.Vide order dated 3-1-07 passed on the ordersheet ofthis reference proceeding , the reference proceeded ex parte against the workman/Union . No statement of claim hasbeen filed on behalf of workman/Union .

का.आ. 3371.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एस.ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 133/02 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/104/2001- आई.आर. ( सी एम- II ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27th November, 2008

S.O. 3371.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 133/02) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Rajendra Navgaon Sub-Area ofSECL and their workmen, which was received bythe Central Government on 27-11-2008 .

3.The case of the management in brief is as follows: That the Workman has claimed ' Average Earning Wages ' byraising the present dispute . He was initially appointed as General Mazdoor w.e.f 16-12-72 . He was in the habit of committing misconduct . The disciplinary actions were taken against him and several time punishment of warning were awarded to him for misconducts committed by him. The workman joined at Rejendra Nagar Underground Mine on transfer fromRungta Colliery in the year 1994. Whenever he was engaged on the job oftime-rated category, he was paid wages ofGroup- V- A as per provisions of NCWA . Payment ofEarning Wages is applicable only when employee ofpiece rated category is on leave , sick of IOD. The workman was not entitled for any earning wages and , therefore , he was not paid. The case of workman has no merit.

[No. L- 22012/ 104/2001 - IR (CM - II )]

SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

4.As the case proceeded ex parte against workman/ Union, there is no evidence on reord on behalf of workman/ Union . The management in order to prove their case filed affidavit of Shri B.N. Prasad , then working as Dy . C.Р.М. (R-N) at Rejendra-Navagaon .

5. I have heard Shri A.K. Shashi , Advocate for the management .

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

No. CGIT/LC/R/ 133/02

6. I have very carefully gone through the evidence onrecord .

Presiding Officer: Shri C.M. Singh

The Secretary,

7. The case ofthe management is fully established and proved from the uncontroverted and unchallenged affidavit oftheir witness Shri B.N. Prasad . Therefore the reference deserves to be decided in favour of management and against the workman/Union without any orders as to costs .

M.P. Koyala Shramik Sangh , Sohagpur Area Branch , PO Dhanpuri , Distt . Shahdol , Shahdol .

Workman/Union

Versus

The Sub Area Manager ,

RajendraNavgaon Sub -Area of SECL, PO Kherha , Distt . Shahdol , Shahdol .

Management

8. In view of the above , the reference is decided in favour of the management and against the workman/Union without any orders as to costs holding that the demand of the MP Koyala Shramik Sangh from the management of SECL, Rajendra Navgoan Sub Area for payment of " Average Earning Wage" to Sh . Hardeo , Loader is not justified . Consequently the workman is not entitled to any relief.

6601 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 20, 2008/अग्रहायण 29 , 1930

Matharu S/ o Sh . Harcharan Singh Matharu as Laboratory Technician is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled? " 9. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment asperrules.

C.M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली , 27 नवम्बर , 2008

2.Vide orderdated 8-5-07 passed on the ordersheet of this reference proceeding , the reference proceeded exparte against the workman/Union. No statement of claim has been filed on behalf of workman/Union .

का.आ. 3372, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एस.ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , अबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 62/2000) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/362/1999- आई. आर. ( सीएम- II ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी .

New Delhi , the 27th November, 2008

S.O. 3372.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 62/2000) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relationto the management of SECL and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 27-11-2008 .

[No. L- 22012/362/ 1999- IR (CM- II)] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/LC/R/62/2000

PresidingOfficer: Shri C.M. Singh

ThePresident,

3. The management has filed their Written Statement. Their case in brief is as follows : Through this reference, the Union has raised the present dispute regarding regularization of workman Shri Rajveer Singh Matharu , Ward Boy, Burhar Central Hospital , Sohagpur Area of SECL claiming promotion as Lab Technician w.e.f. August 1994 on the ground that he is Higher Secondary passed and also passed the Diploma course of Laboratory Technician from Academic Board, All India Laboratory Technologists Association , New Delhi . The management has taken the plea that the dispute is highly belated and, therefore, it is not maintainable . That the management of SECL is a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. , a Government of Indiaundertaking . The terms and conditions of employees werking in Coal India are governed by the settlement generally known as NCWA. Cadre schemes have been formulated for each category of employees under NCWA . Promotion/ Regularisation is given as per procedure laid down in the aforesaid cadre scheme. The workman has claimed promotion/ regularisation tothe post of Laboratory Technician . The Cadre Scheme för Para Medical Staff Technicians is given vide I.I.No. 33 dated 22-6-1980 of the Cadre Scheme .On perusal of the said I.I.No. 33 , it is crystal clear that there is no such post "LaboratoryTechnician " in the Cadre Scheme. No promotion canbemade to a post which is not in the Cadre Scheme. No promotion/regularisation can be given contrary to the Cadre Scheme/NCWA. The workman was never permitted to work asLaboratory Technician as no post is available under the Cadre Scheme. The workman has no case . Therefore he is not entitled to any relief.

......Workman/Union

M.P. KoyalaMazdoor Sabha (HMS) NaveenNagar, Amlai Colliery, Distt. Shahdol (MP)

4. As the case proceeded ex parte against the workman/Union, no evidence is on record on behalf of workman/Union .

Versus

5. The management has not adduced any evidence .

TheGeneral Manager,

6. I have heard Shri K.N. Nair, Advocate for the management and perused the record.

Sohagpur Area of SECL, PODhanpuri,

Distt. Shahdol (MP)

.....Management

AWARD

7. As there is no evidence on record, the reference is liable to be decided in favour of the management and against theworkman/Union without any orders as to costs .

Passed on this 22nd day of October, 2008

1. The Government of India, Ministry ofLabour vide its Notification No. L -22012/362/99- IR (CM - II ) dated 29-2-2000/7-3-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal:-

8. In view of the above , the reference is decided in favour ofthe management and against the workman/Union without any orders as to costs holding that the action of General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL , PO Dhanpuri , Distt. Shahdol ( MP) in not regularising Sh . Rajveer Singh Matharu S/o Sh. Harcharan Singh Matharu as Laboratory Technician is legal and justified and consequently the workman is not entitled to any relief.

"Whether the action of the General Manager , Sohagpur Area of SECL, PO Dhanpuri, Distt . Shahdol (MP) in not regularising Sh. Rajveer Singh 6602

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20, 2008 /AGRAHAYANA 29, 1930

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

C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 27 नवम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 3373.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एन.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या111/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -22012/ 127/1997- आई.आर. ( सी एम- II ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th November , 2008 S.O. 3373.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 111/1998 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of NCL and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 27-11-2008 .

[No. L- 22012/ 127/ 1997 - IR ( CM - II)] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/LC/R/ 111/98

Presiding Officer : Shri C. M. Singh

..Workmen/Union General Secretary , KoylaShramik Sabha (HMS) , Gorai Mansion,G.T. Road , Asansol (W.B. )

Versus

General Manager , Amlohari Project of NCL, PO: Amlohari Colliery, Distt. Sidhi ( MP)

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] on his appointment to the post of Electrician Cat.IV on 8-1-86 and continuing this amount to be paid for two years instead of paying him regular pay scales wages of Electrician Cat . IV is legal andjustified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?

2. Vide order dated 13-9-07 passed on the ordersheet of this reference proceeding , the reference proceeded exparte against workman Shri Ashok Malhotra/Union . No statement of claim has been filed on behalf of workman / Union .

3.The case ofthe management in brief is as follows . That he was appointed as a Trainee Electrical Fitter on a consolidated pay of Rs.24.10 per day for a period of two years vide appointment letter No.765 dated 31-12-85. There is a clause in para - II of the said appointment letter that absorption of the workman as a regular Electrical Fitter Cat- IV in the Daily Rated pay scale under NCWA - III shall depend on his satisfactory performance which will be assessed by the management through interview/written test to be conducted on expiry of training period . The offer of appointment is valid subject to the condition that he must obtain Eletrical Permit within the training period . That the workman was not having Eletrical Permit which is the statutory requirement for the said post . The selection Committee recommended to put him as Trainee Electrical Fitter on a consolidated wages of Cat - IV for 2 years and during this period he was required to obtain the requisite permit besides his job knowledge as stipulated in the last para of the said appointment letter. That the qualification for appointment to the post of Electrical Fitter Cat- IV as per the Cadre scheme Annexed VII - 15 (Revised) . The said cadre scheme is applicable to the Electrical Cadre. That the workman cannot compare himself with his other counter parts namely Sarva Shri Sabhapati Singh , Gobind Deo and Satish Kumar because there was no need for Electrical permit or other Licence in their cases . The claimant has no case and he is not entitled to any relief.

4. As the case proceeded exparte against the workman, there is no evidence of the workman on record . The management in order to prove their case filed affidavit oftheir witness Shri M.L. Das , then working as Area Personnel Manager/S.O . (Pers .) in Amlohari Project of NCL.

....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 6th day of November, 2008 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L -22012/ 127/97- IR( CM - II ) dated 24-4/ 20-5-1998 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal:-

"Whether the action of the General Manager , Amlohari Project of NCL in making consolidated payment of Rs.400 per month to Sh . Ashok Malhotra 5. I have heard Shri A.K. Shashi , Advocate for the management .

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

7. The case of the management is fully established and proved from the uncontroverted and unchallenged affidavit of their witness Shri M.L. Das . Therefore , the reference , deserves to be decided in favour of the management and against the workmen /Union without any orders as to costs .

6603

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 20, 2008/अग्रहायण 29, 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

AWARD

Passed on this 6th day of November, 2008

1.The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L -22012/477/94- IR(C- II) dated 2-5-95 hasreferred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:-

8. In view of the above, the reference is decided in favour ofthe management and against the workman/Union`. without any orders as to costs holding that the action of General Manager , Amlohari Project of NCL in making consolidated payment of Rs.400 per month to Sh . Ashok Malhotra on his appointment to the post ofElectrician Cat . IV on 8-1-86 and continuing this amount to be paid for two years instead of paying him regular pay scales wages of Electrician Cat . IV is legal and justified and therefore the workman is not entitled to any relief.

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

C.M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer

"Whether the action of Sub Area Manager , Amlai Sub Area of SECL Sohagpur Area in extracting work of ClerkGr . - III from Shri Samarjeet S/o Gopal , PitStore Mazdoor since 1982 without paying him difference ofwages ofhigher job & not regularising him on the post of Pit Store ClerkGr. - III is legal and justified? To what relief, the workmen is entitled to?

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर , 2008

2.Vide order dated 22-6-06 passed on the ordersheet of this reference proceeding , the reference proceeded. exparte against workman Shri Samarjeet/Union . No statement of claim has been filed on behalf of workman/ Union.

का.आ. 3374.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एस.ई.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 71/1995 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/477/1994-आई.आर. ( सी- II ) ]

स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 27th November , 2008

S.O. 3374. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 71/1995) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-11-2008 .

[No. L- 22012/477/ 1994- IR (C-II)]

SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRALGOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT , JABALPUR

NO . CGIT/LC/R/ 71/95

3. The case ofthe management in brief is as follows . Thatworkman Samarjeet was initially appointed as General Mazdoor. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of clipman and posted at Amlai Colliery. As the workman was not fit for the job of clipman due to ill health , he requestedthe management to provide him light job. His request was sympathetically considered by the management and a lenient view was taken and he was placed in Pit store section and was allowed the miscellaneous jobs of mazdoor. Since then, he was working as mazdoor in Pit Store Section . The workman approached the management toprovide him the job of clerk, which was rejected by the management . The management cannot provide the job of clerk ignoring and violating the provisions of Cadre Scheme as that will create industrial unrest in the industry. Even otherwise if the workman is granted the job of clerk, the eligible other workers waiting for a chance for promotion will agitate and the management will be dragged into unnecessary litigation . The workman has never been appointed or deployed as clerk during his entire tenure . The workman has attained the age of superannuation on 1-1-2000 and therefore he was given retirement notice . As perthe said notice, workman stood retired w.e.f. 1-1-2000. The claim of the workman is baseless and has no merit .

PresidingOfficer : SHRI C.M. SINGH

The President, M.P. Koyla Mazdoor Sabha ( H.M.S ) , NavinNagar,

PostAmlai Colliery,

Workmen/Union

Distt. Shahdol (MP)

Versus

4: As the reference proceeded ex parte against the workman /Union there is no evidence on record on behalf ofthe workman/Union. The management in order to prove their case filed affidavit of their witness Shri Subodh Prasad , then working as Sub Area Manager , Amlai and Bangwar SubArea.

The Sub Area Manager,

Amlai Sub Area SECL, Post Amlai Colliery,

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

.Management

Distt. Shahdol (MP)

4833 G1/08-12 6604

THE GAZETTE OF INDEMBER 26 , 2008 /AGRAHAYANA 29 , 1930 [PART 11 -SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT - II, SECTOR 18- A, CHANDIGARH

6. The case of the management is fully establis.c and proved from the uncontroverted and unchallenged affidavit of their witness Shri Subodh Prasad. Therefore the reference deserves to be decided in favour of the management and against the workman / Union without any orders as to costs .

Presing Officer : Shri Kuldip Singh

CASE I.D. NO : 860 / 2KS

Registered on: 9-9-2005

Date of Decision: 14-11-2008

Khajan Singh S/o Lakshaman Singh C/ o President . Distt . Agriculture Workers Union , Gali No.5 , H. No. 123 , Jawahar Nagar,Hissar.

. Petitioner

Versus

The Commandant, Equine Breeding Stud, Hissar

......Respondent 7. In view of the above , the reference is decided in favour of the management and against the workman /Union without any orders as to costs holding the action of Sub AreaManager, Amlai sub Area of SECL Sohagpur Area in extracting work of Clerk Gr - III from Shri Samarjeet S/o Gopal , Pit Store Mazdoor since 1982 without paying him difference ofwages of higher job & not regularising him on the post of PitStore ClerkGr - III is legal and justified though according to uncontroverted and unchallenged affidavit of the management's witness , the workman was never employed or deployed as clerk Grade - III . Consequently theworkman is not entitled to any relief.

APPEARANCE

For the Workman For the Management

Mr. Raj Kaushik , Advocate Mr. K.K. Thakur , Advocate 3. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India , Ministry of Labour & Employment asner role.

AWARD

CM . SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 28 नवम्बर , 2008

This case was fixed for the evidence of the workman atHissar on 21st of November , 2008. On the request of counsel for the parties the file was recalled from the records since the parties claimed to have settled their dispute amicably . The workman and the respondent- Commandant have made a joint statement which has been placed on record . The parties have agreed that the workman will be provided with the job as and when required basis . If the workman is covered under the scheme of regularization he will be provided the benefit accordingly . The workman will be paid the wages as per the wages given to similarly situated workman . On this assurance the workman has withdrawn from the reference .

का.आ. 3375.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार अश्व प्रजनन फार्म के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. II ,चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 860/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

The reference in hand was received from the Ministry ofLabour , Government of India vide their No. L - 42012/ 242 / 90-IR(DU) dated 30-12-1996. The reference reads as under :

[सं. एल -42012/242/90- आई.आर. ( डी.यू. ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 28th November, 2008

"Whether the activities of the Enquine Breeding Stud , Hissar , constituted to be an Industry under the I.D. Act , and if so whether the action of the management of Equine Breeding Stud , Hissar in terminating the services of Shri Khajan Singh S/ o Shri Lakshman Singh daily rated workers is just , fair and legal and whether the action of the management of Equnie Breeding Stud , Hissar in denying equal wages for equal work to the workman is just and fair? Ifnot, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"

S.O. 3375.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 860/2005) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, No.II Chandigarh , as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Equine Breeding Stud and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 28-11-2008 .

[No. L-42012/242/90 - IR (DU) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

of the case. So far the parties have not led any evidence in support of their respective claims projected by them through their pleadings . On record there is no evidence to show that the management is not an industry . There is also no evidence to show that the action of the management in disengaging the workman or for not paying him equal wages for equal work, was unjust and illegal . Both the parties have failed to prove their respective claims , probably in view ofthe assurance given by the management to provide work to the workman and to pay him wages as per the wages given to similarly situated workmen . The reference is answered in these terms and the award is passed. Let the copy of it be sent to the Appropriate Government for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion.

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 28 नवम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 3376. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार अश्व प्रजनन फार्म के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नं. II ,चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 865/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/212/90- आई आर (डी यू) ] अंजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 28th November , 2008 S.O. 3376.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 865/2005) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court-No. II Chandigarh , as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Equine Breeding Stud and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-11-2008.

[No. L-42012/212/90- IR (DU )]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Presiding Officer : Shri Kuldip Singh

CASE I.D. NO : 865/2KS

Registered on: 9-9-2005

Date ofDecision: 14-11-2008

Vir Singh S/ o Ranjha Singh

C/o President, Distt. Agriculture

Workers Union , Gali No. 5,

6605

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 20 , 2008/ अग्रहायण 29 , 1930

Versus

The Commandant ,

...Respondent Equine Breeding Stud, Hissar

APPEARANCE

For the Workman

:Mr. Raj Kaushik, Advocate For the Management :Mr. K.K. Thakur , Advocate

AWARD

This case was fixed for the evidence of the workman at Hissar on 21st of November, 2008. On the request of counsel for the parties the file was recalled from the records since the parties claimed to have settled their dispute amicably. The workman and the respondent -Commandant have made a joint statement which has been placed on record. The parties have agreed that the workman will be provided with the job as and when required basis. If the workman is covered under the scheme of regularization he will be provided the benefit accordingly. The workman will be paid the wages as per the wages given to similarly situated workman . On this assurance the workman has withdrawn from the reference .

The reference in hand was received from the Ministry ofLabour, Government of India vide their No. L-42012/ 212/ 90- IR(DU) dated 30-12-1996 , The reference reads as under:

As per the statement of the workman and the respondent - Commandant , the parties have settled the matter amicably under the give and take formula . After feeling satisfied with the assurance given by the management, the workman has withdrawn from the contest ofthe case . So far the parties have not led any evidence in support of their respective claims projected by them through their pleadings . On record there is no evidence to show that the management is not an industry. There is also no evidence to show that the action of the management in disengaging the workman or for not paying him equal wages for equal work, was unjust and illegal . Both the parties have failed to prove their respective claims , probably in view ofthe assurance given by the management to provide work to the workman and to pay him wages as per the wages given to similarly situated workmen . The reference is answered in these terms and the award is passed . Let the copy of it be sent to the Appropriate Government for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after duecompletion.

Petitioner

H. No. 125 , Jawahar Nagar, Hissar.

KULDIP SINGH , Presiding Officer 6606

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20 , 2008/AGRAHAYANA 29 , 1930

नई दिल्ली, 28 नवम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 3377-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. II चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 783/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-11-2008 को आप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012 /92/2003- आईआर (डीयू) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 28th November, 2008 S.O. 3377 .--In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.783/2005) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. Il Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on28-11-2008.

[No. L -40012/92/2003 - IR (DU) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT - II , CHANDIGARH

Presiding Officer : Shri Kuldip Singh

CASE L.D. NO : 783/ 2K5

Registered on. 9-6-2005

Date ofDecision: 19-11-2008

St. Akshay Kumar

son of Shri Bakshi Ram Resident ofVillage Chowki , P.O. Bara Gram, Tehsil , Bdsax, Hamirpur. ...Petitioner

Versus

TheGeneral Manager , BSNL , Shimla (HP)

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]

AWARD

The reference receivedfrom Ministry of Labour, Government of India vide their No. L-40012/92/2003 - IR (DU) dated 29-1-2004 which relates to two fold claim of the workman reads as under : -

"Whether the action of the management of General Manager , BSNL , Hamirpur interminating the services ofAkshay Kumar , ex - mazdoor/ labour, w.e.f. 9-8-96 without any notice and without any payment of retrenchment compensation & engaging 34 fresh labourers after the termination of the services of the workman concerned in violation of statutory provisions of ID Act is just and legal ? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date ? "

The notice of the reference was given to the parties to appear through their counsel . The workman filed his statement of claim and after the Management filed reply thereto he filed rejoinder . The workman filed his Affidavit in support of his claim and the Management supported their pleadings with the Affidavit of Shri D.R. Daroch, their Divisional Engineer. The workman also came in the witness whereas the Management did not produce any evidence .

Stated in brief the claim of the workman is that he was engaged as Mazdoor on daily wages on16-10-1995 and he worked for the Hamirpur Division of the Management up to 9-8-1996 when suddenly his services were terminated without giving him any notice or compensation . He filed a Civil Writ Petition in the High CourtofHimachal Pradesh , which was dismissed and then he approched the Central Administrative Tribunal , Chandigarh . There too he failed and ultimately he decided to seek the reliefthrough this Tribunal . His further claim is that he had put in more than 240 days service as per Annexure- A- 1 in the 12 calendar months preceding the date of termination of his services , but the Management while terminating his services violated the provisions of Section 25- F of the Industrial Dispute Act, " hereinafter to be referred to as " Act" . His further claim is that the Management engaged 34 fresh casual labours without providing the workman an opprotunity to serve them thereby they further violated the provisions of Section 25-H ofAct . His claim is that his termination be declared as bad in law and he be given relief of reinstatement and continuity of service with full back wages along with interest thereon .

...Respondent

For the Workman

Sh . R.P.Rana , Advocate .

Sh . H.C.Arora/ Shaveta For the Management

Arora & J. S. Rana , Advocates

The Management has filed the reply to the claim of the workman whereby they have: raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the claim of the workman . It is stated by them that the workmah has concealed the true facts and has not approached this Tribunal with clean hands . Thus , he is not entitled to any relief. Their further claim is that the workman, before his disengagement, was called for interview on 16-5-1996, but he could not fair well in the interview, therefore , he was 6607 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 20, 2008/अब्रह्मयण 29, 1930

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

not selected . In view of that the reference is not maintainable . It is also claimed by them that the workman is not entitled to any relief for the reason that his initial engagement was not made by following a transparent process of recruitment . He was engaged as a daily wage Mazdoor without notice , application or through Employment Exchange or otherwise . Since he could not succeed in the interview , therefore, he was relieved of the services . In view of that he cannot claim reinstatement in service . Denying that the workman had served the Management for 240 days before the date oftermination of service, it is stated by them that the workman had served only for 190 days . Thus he was not entiled to retrenchment compensation as his claim was not in violation of Section 25 -F ofthe Act .

With regard to the claim of the workman that the Management had engaged 34 fresh casual labours after the termination of the services , it is their reply that in fact the workman had been engaged on daily wages whereas 34 part time casual labours were already working with the Management and the Management had only converted their engagement from part - time casual labours to full-time casual labours . Secondly the workman did not fall in their category as he was not a part-timer and thus , the Management did not violate the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act . On merits they have submitted that, in view of the facts stated in the preliminary objections , the workman is not entitled to any relief as he has served the Management only for 190days , so he was not entitled to retrenchment compensation or other benefits . Admitting the claim of appointment of 34 persons , it is further stated by them that their engagement was not in violation of Section 25 -H of the Act, therefore, the workman' is not entitled any relief.

admitted that the workman was engaged as a Mazdoor on daily wages with effect from 16-10-1995. In reply to para number 5 of the statement of claim they claimed that the workmanhas not stated correct facts . They omitted to show anything about the claim of the workman that he had worked as Mazdoor/Casual labour with the Management from 16-10-1995 to 9-8-1996 . In other paras ofthe statement of claim he made the same statement but the Management kept mum in this regard . They only submitted that the workman had served them only for 190 days without showing as to how many days he worked of and in which of the month and during which year. The workman has placed on record a photo copy of certificate marked "A " which is signed by S.D.O/ Phones , Hamirpur and as per the statement of the workman , the same was issued by the Junior Telecom Officer . He named the S.D.O. who had engaged him as K.P. Singh and stated that the experience certificate marked " A" was issued to him by Shri Amerjeet Singh JTO and the same was attested by Shri Hans Raj Thakur SDO of the time . The Management has failed to produce any evidence to counter this claim . They could verywell produce the record to show that the worman had worked for them only for 190 days as during the period in question he was paid the wages only for these days and for none else . They could also produce their Officers -S/ Shri Amarjeet Singh , Hans Raj Thakur and K.P.Singh SDO whose names were mentioned by the workman as the persons who had witnessed the working of the workman andwho had certified the same in the shape of experience certificate Mark " A" . The Management was given a number ofopportunities to produce the evidence but they failed to produce any. They were given opportunity to produce evidence even on payment of costs after their having exhausted all the opportunities, but they neither paid the costs nor produce any evidence . Thus the claim of the workman that he had continuously worked for the Management from 16-10-1995 to 9-8-1996 has no rebuttal and has to be accepted as true . Counted from 16-10-1995 the workman admittedly served the Management for 270 days as there has come nothing on record to show that he had not worked for the Management on any particular day. It is, therefore, proved that the workman had served the Management for 240 days before the date of termination of hisservices .

The workman filed rejoinder , after the written statement ofManagement and submitted that the workman was not appointed after the interview for extraneous circumstances although they had engaged even fresh hands whereas the workman had the experience of working the Management . He reiterated that he had served the Management for more than 240 days . He denied the other contentions of the Management and stated that the Management had engaged 34 persons as full time casual labours in the category in which the workman had served them . Therefore , the work was available with the Management but he was not given the option to do that and thus the Management violated the provisions of Section 25 -H of the Act. He has disputed the claim of the Management that the workman belonged to the category different to that in which the 34 workers were engaged . He denied the other assertions made by the Management and stated that the claim made by the Management is not justified, therefore , the same is required to be rejected.

In reply to the claim of the workman that the management before the termination of his services had not given him notice nor paid him the wages for the notice period, they also had not paid him the retrenchment compensation and thereby violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, the Management has only stated that the claim so made is denied . It is further stated by them that the workman had served the Management only for 190 days and therefore , the Management did not violated the provisions of Section 25 - F nor the same was attracted. They did not say even a word even about the The perusal of the record shows that the Management in para number 2 of their written statement 6608

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20 , 2008 / AGRAHAYANA 29, 1930 [PART II -SEC . 3 (ii) ] issuance of notice , payment of wages for the notice period and payment of retrenchment compensation . As stated earlier they have also not produced any evidence in this regard to rebut the claim of the workman . It is , therefore , proved that the Management had not given notice to the workman nor paid him the wages for notice period. They also did not pay any retrenchment compensation to the workman before disengaging him from service . The claim of the workman that he was not given retranciment compensation nor wages for the notice period although he hadput in more than 240 days service before the termination of service is thus proved . The disengagement of the workman therefore , was in violation of Section 25 -F of the Act and the same is quashed.

for himself and the family but definitely he would not have earned as much as he would have while in the service of the Management unless proved otherwise that he was engaged in a better situation after his disengagement . The Management has not proved this fact Therefore , even after taking a moderate approach I hoid that the workman is entitled to 50% ofback wages . Considering at these heads I award a compensation of Rs.50,000 ( Rupees fifty thousands only) to the workman as lumps sum compensation and direct the Management to pay the said amount to him within three months from the date this award becomes enforceable . In case of failure on their part they will pay interest on the amount to the workman @ 9 per cent per annum from the date ofaward till the amount of compensation is paid to hin) . The reference is answered in these terms . Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Government for necessary action and the file be consigned to the record after due compilation.

KULDIP SINGH , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 28 नवम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 3378.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947- का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर दर्शन केन्द्र 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 30/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/8 /2007- आईआर ( डीयू) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी As regards the second part of the reference that the termination of the worlanan was also bad for the reasons that the Management had engaged 34 fresh labourers after the termination of the services of the workman and by doing that they further violated the provisions of the Act . I am of the opinion on this score the workman is not successful . In his statement he admitted that the 34 persons engaged by the Management were already working as part- timers before the year 1995 and they were only regularized by the Management . Thus there was no fresh recruitment made by the Management after the termination of the services of the workman and those who were working as part-timers beforethe year 1995 were regularized. Moreover, since the workman had joined the service of the Management in late 1995, therefore , those 34 workers were definitely senior to the workman , although they were part- timers , but yet they were the workmen and it cannot be said thay they were juniors to the workman and their regularization was a violation of the Act .

New Delhi , the 28th November, 2008

S.O. 3378. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.30/2007 ) 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 Doordarshan Kendra and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 28-11-2008 .

[No. L-40012/8 /2007 - IR ( DU) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

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

CASE NO . I.D. 30/2007

Nowthe question comes as to what relief the workman is entitled to. Admittedly the engagement ofthe workman as per his own admission was made without notifying the post in any Newspaper of advertising the same otherwise. The workman admitted that he was engaged by Mr. K.P. Singh , Divisional Engineer after an interview. He , however , has admitted that it was not an engagement after following the judicious procedure of putting the post for open competition and recruiting the workman after proper test and by following procedure. His engagement, therefore , definitely was a back- door entry. It was been held above that the disengagement ofthe workman was in violation of the provisions of theAct, Therefore , he is entitled for compensation , if not , for regularization on the post . Treating the workman to be in service till the date of this Award I hold that he is entitled to back wages besides the retrenchment compensation , wages for the notice period and the interest on the amount which was due to the workman on the day his services were disengaged. A fact to be taken note of is that there has come no evidence to show that the workman remained without work all through these periods . It can also not be accepted that he could have survived without working and earning

Shri Kuldeep Chand . H.No.269, 1st Floor, Sector -6 , Panchkula (Haryana) .

...Applicant 6609

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 20, 2008/अग्रहायण 29,-1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

Versus

TheDirector, Doordarshan Kendra, Sector-37-B. Chandigarh .

..Respondent

APPEARANCES

None

For the workman :

None

For the management :

AWARD

Passed on : 6-11-08

CentralGovernmenť vide notification no . L-42012/8/ 2007 -IR(DU) dated 18-5-2007 , has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal of adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Doordarshan Kendra, Chandigarh in terminating the service ofShri Kuldeep Chand, w.e.f. 21-4-05 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and to what extent. "

2.None is present on behalf of the workman . Learned counsel for the management is also not present . From last manay days fixed for the hearing of this case the workman is not ensuring his presence . The reference was referred by the Central Government in the year 2007. Several opportunities have been given to the workman but he 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 of workman in reference for non- prosecution and return the reference to the Central Govt . as such. Accordingly, the reference is returned as such . Let the Central Government be informed. File be consigned .

Chandigarh

6-11-08

G. K. SHARMA. Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 28 नवम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 3379. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सीनियर सुपरिन्टेन्डेन्ट ऑफ पोस्टल स्टोर डिपार्टमेंट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. II चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 401/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-40012/88/96- आई.आर. (डी.यू. ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 28th November , 2008 S.O. 3379.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes theAward (Ref. No.401/2005 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Sr. Suptd. of Postal Store Department and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 28-11-2008 .

[No. L-40012/88/96- IR (DU)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT- II, CHANDIGARH

PresidingOfficer !!

ShriKuldip Singh

Case I.D. No: 401/2k5 Registered on: 19-8-2005

Date ofDecision:-19-11-2008

...Petitioner Shri Sham Kumar H.No. 9802/5 , AmbalaCity, NayaBaus- 134003

Versus

Superintendent of Postal Store Deptt. ,

Haryana Circle, AmbalaCantt- 133001 ...Respondent Fortheworkman Shri Surinder Gandhi , Advocate For the Management Sh . I. S. Sidhu , Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour, vide their letter No. L-40012/ 88/ 96- IR(DU) Dated 13-5-1998 has desired this Tribunal to adjudicate upon the following reference:-

"Whether the action of the management of Sr. Superintendentof Postal Store Department ,Ambala. interminating the services ofShri Sham Kumar, night Chowkidar w.e.f. 1-6-89 is legal andjustified? Ifnot to what relief the workman is entitled to?" On the receipt of the reference notices were issued tothe parties who appeared through their counsels. The reference remained on the file of CGIT- 1 , Chandigarh from 22-6-1988 till 6-6-2005 when, on the creation ofthis Tribunal the same was transferred to this Tribunal and it was registered on the file ofthis Tribunal on 19-8-2005 .Before that the parties had filed their pleadings in the shape of statement of claim of the workman , the claim of the Management in the shape of written statement. The Management placed on record documents marked as M- 1 to MW- 5 . They also tendered the affidavit of Sh. H.P.Sharma , their Superintendent Postal Store Department, Ambala, whereas the workman filed his own affidavit supported by documents W- 1 and W- 2 . The Management also filed the affidavit of Shri P.C.Kashyap , 6610

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20 , 2008/AGRAHAYANA 29 , 1930

Superintendent Postal Store Department, Ambala Cantt and also examined him as witness whereas the workman appeared as a witness and the parties had the chance to cross- examine the witness produced.

Office was bifurcated and the major portion of work and staffwas transferred to Punjab Circle , therefore , there was no necessity of part time night Chowkidar , hence, the post held by the workman was abolished with effect from 9-6-1989 . Their further submission is that since there is delay of6 years in raising the demand and the workman is serving on a regular pay scale with the Civil Surgeon , Ambala w.e.f. 16-8-1993 , therefore, he is not entitled to any relief.

The claim ofthe workman stated, in brief, is that he was appointed as part -time waterman on 1-4-1983 , in the Railway Mail Service Ambala on fixed monthly wages and he served them till February 1986. Thereafter , he worked as part time night Chowkidar in Bag Circle Office Ambala till 1-4-1989 when his services were terminated without complying the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 , hereafter referred to as the " Act" . The Management though was taking services for him from 8 to 10 hours , but in the record they showed the working hours only 6 hours and they, in an arbitrary manner abolished the post without applying their mind and with malafide intentions . They did not pay him the retrenchment compensation. He further claims that he had filed original application before the CAT, Chandigarh in the year 1989 which was rejected on17-11- 1995. Thereafter the workman raised the demand, but his case was rejected. However , the same was referred for adjudication on the intervention ofthe Hon'ble High Court . The workman has prayed that the order of termination of his services be set aside ; he may be reinstated with full back wages and other service benefits besides the interest on the amount due to him .

The Management has opposed the claim of the workman by filing preliminary objections and also challenging the case on merits . Their plea is that the workman has failed to implead Suerintendent Railway Mail Service , Ambala , as party, therefore , the reference isnot maintainable for want of non -joinder of necessary parties . They have further claimed that , after his disengagement the workman is working in the Office of Civil Surgeon , Ambala since 16-8-1993 and this fact , he has concealed , therefore , he has not come to the court with clean hands . Hence, he is not entitled to any relief. Otherwise also the case of the workman is belated since his services were terminated in the year 1989 , whereas the demand notice was raised in the year 1996. Moreover , the workman, being a part - time night Chowkidar , did not fall in the category of workman , therefore , he is not entitled to any relief.

From the pleadings of the parties it is clear that the workman had served the Management from 4-4-1988 to 31-5-1989 . Document M - 3 gives the detail of the months forwhich the workman was paid @ Rs . 468 per month and the date on which the payment was made . There is , therefore , no dispute that the workman had served the Management for more than 240 days till 31-5-1989 . Thus , he earned the right of protection as available under Section 25 - F of the Act . It is also not disputed that the postheld by the workman was abolished with effect from 1-6-1989 . Even ifwe accept the claim of the Management thatthe workman had not served them beyond 31-5-1989, yet he was entitled to the protection under Section 25 - F of the Act . The Management in reply to part 2 of the statement of the claim only stated that the said para like para number 3 , does not need any reply, being the matter of record . Thus they have admitted that before the termination of the services of the workman may be on the abolition of the post held by him , the workman was not given one month's notice nor he was paid the wages for the notice period . He was also not the retrenchment compensation and other dues . Mr. P.C. Kashyap did appear as a witness for the Management , and proved his affidavit exhibit MW - 1 . In cross - examination he stated that the workman was not paid any compensation at the time of his termination . He denied that the workman used to work till his substitute reported for duty thereby he used to perform duty from 9.00 PM to 9.00 AM everyday . The workman in his statement claimed that he had served the Management from 1-4-1986 in the Office of Superintendent , Postal Store Department , Ambala City . From their own admission the Management has proved that the workman had served them from 4-4-1986 to 31-5-1989 ; and that before the termination his services , the Management had not issued notice to the workman nor was he paid the wages of notice period . He was also not paid retrenchment compensation . Thus , the disengagement of the workman was bad in law . The Management has also failed to prove that the workman had served under the two distinct different departments havings no connection .

It is now to be seen as to what relief the workman is entitled to. It has been held that the disengagement of the workman without issuing him notice or paying him the wages for the notice period and the retrenchment On merits it is submitted by the Management that the claim of the workman mainly concerns to the period when the workman was not serviing under the Management . The workman had served under two Superintendent one heading the Railway Mail Service and the other Postal Store Department . Both the authorities were distinct and separate and were appointing authorities in their own right . Admitting that the workman had served the Management from 4-4-1988 to 31-5-1988 , it is stated by them that since with effect from 1-1-1989 , the Circle Bag 6611 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 20, 2008/अग्रहायण 29, 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

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

Presiding Officer : Shri Kuldip Singh

Case I.D. No. 854/2ks

Registered on :8-9-2005

Date ofDecision : 14-11-2008

Gulzar Singh S/o Joginder Singh

R/o Piran Wali, P.O. Nyoli Kalan ,

...Petitioner

Hissar.

Versus

The Commandant ,

..Respondent

Equine Breeding Stud, Hissar

Appearance

Forthe Workman

Mr.Raj Kaushik, Advocate

Mr.K.K. Thakur , Advocate

Forthe Management

AWARD

compensation was bad in law. The workman , therefore , is treated to be in service till he joined the service in the office of Civil Surgeon , Ambala on 16-8-1993 . Since the engagement ofthe workman is not claimed to be by a regular process, therefore, in the light ofthe decision ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Secretary , State of Karnataka and others Versus Uma Devi and others reported as (2006) 4 SCC1 , he is not entitled to regularization and not even for reinstatement on the post he held. Also for the reason that he had already joined a Government service inthe Office of the Civil Surgeon , Ambala . However, he is entitled to back wages , the retrenchment compensation and the wages for the notice period, besides the interest onthe said amount . I calculate this claim ofthe workman as composite package in the amount of Rs . 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousands only) i.e. full back wages from June 1989 to 15-8-1993 , the interest thereon , the retrenchment compensation and wages for the notice period . The Management is drected to pay this amount to the workman within three months from the date the Award becomes enforceable, failing which the workman shall be entitled to interest on the said amount @ 9 per cent annum . The reference is answered in these terms and the award is passed. Let a copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for necessary action and the file be sent to the record after due compilation.

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 28 नवम्बर, 2008

This case was fixed for the evidence of the workman atHissar on 21st ofNovember , 2008. On the request ofthe counsel for the parties the file was recalled from the records since the parties claimed to have settled their dispute amicably. The workman and the respondent-Commandant have made a joint statement which has been placed on record. The parties have agreed that the workman will be provided with the job as and when required basis . If the workman is covered under the scheme of regularization he will be provided the benefit accordingly. The workman will be paid the wages as per the wages given to similarly situated workman . On this assurance the workman has withdrawn from the reference .

का.आ. 3380. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार अश्व प्रजनन फार्म के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. II ,चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 854/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/211/90- आई.आर. (डी.यू. ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

The reference in hand was received from the Ministry ofLabour, Government of India vide their No. L-42012/211 / 90- IR(DU) dated 30-12-1996. The reference reads as under:

New Delhi , the 28th November, 2008

"Whether the activities of the Equine Breeding Stud , Hissar, constituted to be an Industry under the I.D. Act , and if so whether the action of the management of Equine Breeding Stud , Hissar in terminating the services of Shri Gulzar Singh s / o Shri Joginder Singh daily rated worker is just, fair and legal and whether the action ofthe management ofEquine Breeding Stud, Hissar in denying equal wages for equal work to the workman is just and fair ? If not to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ? " S.O. 3380. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.854/2005 ) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No.II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Equine Breeding Stud and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on28-11-2008 .

[No. L-42012/211 /90- IR (DU)]

48334708-13 6612

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 20 , 2008 /AGRAHAYANA 29 , 1930 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

Versus

The General Manager

GunCarriage Factory, Jabalpur.

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 6th day of November , 2008

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide itsNotification No. L- 14012/43/99-IR(DU) dated 25-8-99 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-

management, the worman has withdrawn from the contest ofthe case . So far the parties have not led any evidence in support of their respective claims projected by them through their pleadings . On record there is no evidence to show that the management is not an industry . There is also no evidence to show that the action of the management in disengaging the workman or for not paying him equal wages for equal work, was unjust and illegal. Both the parties have failed to prove their respective claims , probably in view of the assurance given by the management to provide work to the workman and to pay him wages as per the wages given to similarly situated workmen . The reference is answered in these terms and the award is passed . Let the copy of it be sent to the Appropriate Government for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion.

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer

"Whether the action of the management of Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur in terminating the services of Sh . Sabir Ali, labour, T. No. 4599 (Vidyut Vibhag) islegal and justified? If not , to what reliefthe concern workman is entitled ?"

नई दिल्ली, 28 नवम्बर , 2008

2.Vide order dated 3-7-07 passed on the ordersheet of this reference proceeding , the reference proceeded exparte against workman Shri Sabir Ali . No statement of claim has been filed on behalf of workman Shri Sabir Ali .

का.आ. 3381.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार गन कैरिज फैक्ट्री के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एल सी/आर/288/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -14012/43/99- आई.आर. (डी.यू. ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 28th November , 2008

S.O. 3381. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/ LC/ R/288 /99 ) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Jabalpur , as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Gun Carriage Factory and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-11-2008 .

3. The case of the management in brief is as follows . Workman Shir Sabir Ali , T. No. 4599 / IE was working as labour " A" EM Section. That on 2-9-96 at about 12.25 hours , he was apprehended at West Gate IEs Barrier while attempting to take out 220 grams of Copper wire by the Durwan on duty. The item was concealed in his pant pocket . ThatOrderlyOfficer was informed. In the presence ofOrderly Officer and other witnesses , the stolen property was recovered from the possession of the workman Shri Sabir Ali. The workman was chargesheeted accordingly and a Departmental Enquiry into his conduct was conducted. The workman during the enquiry conducted the charges levelled against him and asked for pardon . Having examined the Enquiry Report and other relevant documents , the Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings of the Enquriy Officer . Accordingly a showcause notice was issued to the workman . He did not submit any satisfactory reply . Therefore the competent authority passed the punishment order dated 30-8-97 removing him from services . The workman is not entitled to any relief.

[No. L- 14012/43/99 - IR (DU) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR

4. As the case proceeded exparte against the workman, there is no evidence on behalf of the workman on record . The management in order to prove their case filed affidavit of their witness Shri Prem Prakash , then working asManager , GCF .

COURT , JABALPUR

NO . CGIT/LC/R/288/99

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

PresidingOfficer : Shri C.M.Singh

Shri Sabir Ali , C/ o Sh. Manoj Sahu ,

Advocate House , Sahu Villa,

Workman/Union

6. The case of the management is fully established and proved from the uncontroverted and unchallenged affidavit of management's witness Shri Prem Prakash .

Kanchgarh Chowk , Jabalpur [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

6613

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 20, 2008/अग्रहायण 29, 1930

Therefore, the reference deserves to be decided in favour of the management and against the workman without any orders as to costs .

7. In view of the above , the reference is decided in favour ofthe management and against the workman without any orders as to costs holding that the action of the management of Gun Carriage Factory , Jabalpur in terminating the services of Sh. Sabir Ali , Labourer, T. No. 4599 (Vidyut Vibhag) is legal and justified and consequently the workman is not entitled to any relief.

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

C. M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer नईदिल्ली, 28 नवम्बर, 2008

का.आ. 3382.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार व्हिकल फैक्ट्री के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजी आईटी/एलसी/ आर/ 70 /05 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-14011 /2 /2005-आईआर (डी.यू. ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 28th November, 2008 S.O. 3382. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.CGIT/ LC/R/70/05) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure , inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Vehicle Factory and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-11-2008.

[No. L- 14011 /2/2005 -IR(DU) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

NO . CGIT/LC/R/70/05

PresidingOfficer : Shri C.M. Singh

Shri B. Guha Thakurta,

General Secretary,

Vehicle Factory Mazdoor Union ,

Plot No. 75, Jawahar Nagar ,

...Workman/Union Adhartal, Jabalpur

4833 GI/08-14

Versus

The General Manager,

Vehicle Factory,

Management Jabalpur(MP)

AWARD

Passed on this 22nd day of October,2008 1.TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L- 14011 /2/2005 - IR ( DU) dated 30-6-2005 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:-

"Whether the action of the management of Vehicle factory, Jabalpur in introducing electronic punching system isjustified? Ifnot, to what reliefthe workmen are entitled?"

2.Vide orer dated 5-11-07 passed on the ordersheet ofthis reference proceeding, the reference proceeded ex parte against the workmen/Union . No statement of claim has been filed on behalfof workmen/Union .

3.The management was given opportunity to file ex parte WS but it failed to file the same till today the date fixed for filing the WS. The ordersheet dated 22-10-08 reveals that on this date , no body appeared for any of the parties . Under the circumstances , this Tribunal was left with no option but to close the reference for award .

4. There is no evidence on record of any party. The reference , therefore , deserves to be decided in favour of the management and against the workman without any orders as to costs.

5. Inview of the above, the reference is decided in favour of the management and against the workmen/Union without any orders as to costs holding that the action of the management of Vehicle Factory , Jabalpur in introducing electronic punching system is justified . Consequently the workmen are not entitled to any relief.

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

C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 28. नवम्बर, 2008

का.आ. 3383. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार टेलीकॉम फैक्ट्री के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एलसी/आर/ 173 /96 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40011 /21/94- आई आर. (डी.यू. ) ]

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी 6614

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 20 , 2008/ AGRAHAYANA 29 , 1930

New Delhi , the 28th November , 2008 S.O. 3383. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.CGIT/ LC/R/ 173 / 96 ) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Jabalpur , as shown in the Annexure , inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothemanagement of Telecom Factory and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-11-2008 .

[No. L-40011 /21 /94- IR (DU) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/LC/ R/ 173/96 Presiding Officer : Shri C.M. Singh

The Secretary,

Akhil Bhartiya Dak & Taar Industrial

Workers' Union ,

Telecom Factory,

Workman/Union Branch Richai , Jabalpur

Versus

The Chief General Manager, Telecom Factory, Jabalpur.

Managements The Manager, Telecom Factory, Richai Branch , Jabalpur

AWARD

Passed on this 12th day of November, 2008 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L- 40011 /21 /94 - IR (DU) dated 30-8-96 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal : -

" क्या प्रबंधतंत्र टेलिकाम फेक्ट्री , जबलपुर , म.प्र. एवं टेलीकाम फेक्ट्री, रिछाई ब्रांच जबलपुर में औद्योगिक कर्मकारों के कार्यघंटों में समानता न होकर टेलीकाम फेक्ट्री, जबलपुर में श्रमिकों के प्रतिदिन 8 घंटे एवं शनिवार 5 घंटे होना , जबकि रिछाई ब्रांच, जबलपुर में श्रमिक के प्रतिदिन 7-1/2 घंटे कार्य किये जाने में नियोजकों की भेदभावपूर्ण नीति है । यदि नहीं तो संबंधित रिछाई फेक्ट्री, जबलपुर में कार्यरत औद्योगिक श्रमिक किस अनुतोष के हकदार हैं । " 2.Vide orderdated 21-7-05 passed on the ordersheet of this reference proceeding, the reference proceeded ex parte against the workman /Union . No statement of claim has been filed on behalf of workman /Union .

3. Inspite of several opportunity given to the management , the management failed to file Written Statement . Under the circumstances , this Tribunal is left with no option but to close the reference for award and in this mannar , the reference was closed for award .

4. It is a no evidence case . Therefore, the reference deserves to be decided in favour of the management and against the workman/Union without any orders as to costs .

5. In view of the above, the reference is decided in favour ofthe management and against the workman/Union without any orders as to costs holding the following- " प्रबंधतंत्र टेलिकाम फेक्ट्री , जबलपुर, म.प्र. टेलीकाम फेक्ट्री रिछाई ब्रांच , जबलपुर में औद्योगिक कर्मकारों के कार्यघंटों में समानता न होकर टेलीकाम फेक्ट्री, जबलपुर में श्रमिकों के प्रतिदिन 8 घंटे एवं शनिवार 5 घंटे होना , जबकि रिछाई ब्रांच , जबलपुर में श्रमिक के प्रतिदिन 7-1/2 घंटे कार्य किये जाने में नियोजकों की भेदभावपूर्ण नीति नहीं है । अतः संबंधित रिछाई फेक्ट्री, जबलपुर में कार्यरत औद्योगिक श्रमिक किसी अनुतोष के हकदार नहीं हैं । "

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

C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 28 नवम्बर, 2008

का.आ. 3384.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार अश्व प्रजनन फार्म के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय न. II , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 863/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/202/ 90- आई.आर. ( डी.यू. ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 28th November , 2008

S.O. 3384.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 863/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , No. II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Equine Breeding Stud : and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 28-11-2008 .

[No. L-42012/202/ 90- IR (DU) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer [भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

6615 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 20, 2008/अग्रहायण 29, 1930

ANNEXURE

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

PresidingOfficer : Shri Kuldip Singh

Case I.D. No: 863/2005

Registered on : 9-9-2005

Date ofDecision : 14-11-2008

Balbir Singh S/o Jagar Singh R/ o Piran Wali, P.O.Nyoli

Kalan, Hissar .

...Petitioner

Versus

satisfied with the assurance given by the management, the workman has withdrawn from the contest of the case . So far the parties have not led any evidence in support of their respective claims projected by them through their pleadings. On record there is no evidence to show that the management is not an industry. There is also no evidence to show that the action of the management in disengaging the workman or for not paying him equal wages for equal work, was unjust and illegal . Both the parties have failed to prove their respective claims , probably in view of the assurance given by the management to provide work to the workman and to pay him wages as per the wages given to similarly situated workmen. The reference is answered in these terms and the award, is passed . Let the copy of it be sent to the Appropriate Government for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion .

The Commandant, Equine Breeding Stud , Hissar

KULDIP SINGH , Presiding Officer

...Respondent

नईदिल्ली, 28 नवम्बर , 2008 APPEARANCE

For the Workman : Mr. Raj Kaushik, Advocate

For the Management : Mr. K.K. Thakur , Advocate

AWARD

का.आ. 3385.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार अश्व प्रजनन फार्म के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं.- II, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 850/2005.) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-11-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

.[सं. एल-142012/238/90- आई.आर. (डी.यू. ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 28th November, 2008 This case was fixed for the evidence of the workman at Hissar on 21st of November, 2008. On the request of counsel for theparties the file was recalled from the records since the parties claimed to have settled their dispute amicably. The workman and the respondent- Commandant have made a joint statement which has been placed on record. The parties have agreed that the workman will be provided with the job as and when required basis . If the workman is covered under the scheme of regularization he. will be provided the benefit accordingly. The workman will be paid the wages as per the wages given to similarly situated workman . On this assurance the workman has withdrawn from the reference .

S.O. 3385.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 850/2005 ) ofCentral Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court , No. - II Chandigarh , as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Equine Breeding Stud and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on28-11-2008 .

The reference in hand was received from the Ministry of Labour, Government of India vide their No. L-42012/202 /90 - IR (DU) dated 30-12-1996. The reference reads as under :-

[No. L-42012/238/90- IR (DU)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Presiding Officer : Shri Kuldip Singh

Case I.D. No : 850/2005

Registered on: 8-9-2005

Date ofDecision : 14-11-2008

Jangir Singh S/ o Bhagwan Singh

... Petitioner

R/o Piran Wali, P.O.Nyoli Kalan, Hissar.

As per the statement of the workman and the respondent-commandant, the parties have settled the matter amicably under the give and take formula . After feeling 6616

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 20, 2008 / AGRAHAYANA 29 , 1930- [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] Versus

The Commandant,

Equine Breeding Stud , Hissar

..Respondent

APPEARANCE

Mr. Raj Kaushik , Advocate

For the Workman For the Management Mr. K.K.Thakur , Advocate

the I.D. Act , and if so whether the action of the management of Equine Breeding Stud, Hissar in terminating the services of Shri Jangir Singh S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh daily rated worker is just , fair and legal and whether the action of the management of Equine Breeding Stud , Hissar in denying equal wages for equal work to the workman is just and fair ? Ifnot to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"

AWARD

This case was fixed for the evidence of the workman atHissar on 21st of November , 2008. On the request of counsel for the parties the file was recalled from the records since the parties claimed to have settled their dispute amicably. The workman and the respondent- Commandant have made a joint statement which has been placed on record . The parties have agreed that the workman will be provided with the job as and when required basis . If the workman is covered under the scheme of regularization he will be provided the benefit accordingly. The workman will be paid the wages as per the wages given to similarly situated workman . On this assurance the workman has withdrawn from the reference .

The reference in hand was received from the Ministry of Labour , Government of India vide their No. L-42012/238 /90 - IR ( DU) dated 30-12-1996 . The reference reads as under :-

As per the statement of the workman and the respondent-commandant , the parties have settled the matter amicably under the give and take formula. After feeling satisfied with the assurance given by the management , the workman has withdrawn from the contest of the case . So far the parties have not led any evidence in support of their respective claims projected by them through their pleadings . Onrecord there is no evidence to show that the management is not an industry . There is also no evidence to show that the action of the management in disengaging the workman or for not paying him equal wages for equal work , was unjust and illegal . Both the parties have failed to prove their respective claims , probably in view of the assurance given by the management to provide work to the workman and to pay him wages as per the wages given to similarly situated workmen . The reference is answered in these terms and the award is passed . Let the copy of it be sent to the Appropriate Government for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion .

"Whether the activities of the Equine Breeding Stud , Hissar , constituted to be an Industry under

KULDIP SINGH , Presiding Officer Printed by the Manager, Govt . of India Press , Ring Road , Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054 .