This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

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

भारत की राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राथिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

WEEKLY

सं. 1 ]

नई दिल्ली , दिसम्बर 28 , 2008 जनवरी 3 , 2009, हानिकार/पौष7- पौष 13, 1930

No. 1]

NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 28 , 2008 JANUARY 3 , 2009, SATURDAY/PAUSA 7-PAUSA 13, 1930 इस भाग में भिन् पृका दी जाती है जिसे कियह क संकलन के रूप में रखा का सीए

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

भागे II-खण्ड 3 -उप-खण्ड (ii)

PART II-Section 3 Sub- section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों ( रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कार द्वास जारी किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और अभिसूचनाएं StatutoryOrders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of ladin

(Other than the Ministry ofDefenes)

वित्त मंत्रालय

(वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2008

का. आ. 1.- सरकारी स्थान (अप्राधिकृत अधिभोगियों की बेदखली ) अधिनियम , 1971 ( 197) का 40 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदस्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और दिनांक 30 अक्टूबर, 2001 के भारत सरकार, विश्च मंत्रालय , आर्थिक कार्य विभाग की अधिसूचना सं. 13/10/2001-बीओए चरःअधिक्रमण करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार , एतदार, सरकार के सहपत्रित अधिकारी के स्तर के समकक्ष अधिकारी होने पर निम्नलिखित सारणी के कालम ( 2 ) में उल्लिखित अधिकारियों को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजन के लिए सम्पदा अधिकारियों को नियुक्त करती है, जो सारणी के कालम ( 3 ) में उल्लिखित सरकारी स्थानों के संबंध में उक्त अधिनियम द्वारा या उसके अधीन सम्पदा अधिकारियों को प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करेंगे और उन्हें सौंपे गए कर्त्तव्यों को पूस करेंगे

करजी

सरकारी स्थानों की श्रेणियां तथा क्षेत्राधिकार की स्थानीय सीमाएं

क्रम सं. अधिकारी का पद नाम

(3)

(1)

(2)

इंडियन बैंक के अपने अधवा उसके द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए तथा गुजरात एवं राजस्थान राज्य में स्थित जिले ।

1. सर्किल प्रधान , इंडियन बैंक , सर्किल कार्यालय , अहमदाबाद

इंडियन बैंक के अपने अथवा उसके द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से फ्टूटे पर लिए गए तथा गोवा और कर्नाटक राज्य में स्थित जिले ।

2. सर्किल प्रधान , इंडियन बैंक, सर्किल कार्यालय, बेंगलूर

इंडियन बैंक के अपने अथवा उसके द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए तथा छत्तीसगढ़ और उड़ीसा राज्य में स्थित जिले ।

3. सर्किल प्रधान, इंडियन बैंक, सर्किल कार्यालम , भुवनेश्वर

4972 G1/2008

(1)

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3 , 2009/PAUSA 13 , 1930

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

(2)

(3)

4. सर्किल प्रधान , इंडियन बैंक, सर्किल कार्यालय, चण्डीगढ़

इंडियन बैंक के अपने अथवा उसके द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए तथा चण्डीगढ़, हिमाचल प्रदेश , जम्मू एवं काश्मीर और पंजाब राज्य में स्थित जिले ।

इंडियन बैंक के अपने अथवा उसके द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए तथा हरियाणा राज्य में स्थित अम्बाला, भिवानी , हिसार , झज्जर, करनाल , पंचकुला, पानीपत , रोहतक, सिरसा, सोनीपत और यमुनानगर जिले

5. सर्किल प्रधान , इंडियन बैंक , सर्किल कार्यालय, चेन्नै

इंडियन बैंक के अपने अथवा उसके द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए तथा अंडमान व निकोबार राज्य में स्थित जिले ।

इंडियन बैंक के अपने अथवा उसके द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए तथा तमिलनाडु राज्य में स्थित जिले ।

इंडियन बैंक के अपने अथवा उसके द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए तथा निम्नलिखित जिलों में स्थित स्थान :

6. सर्किल प्रधान, इंडियन बैंक, अंचल कार्यालय , चित्तूर

आंध्र प्रदेश राज्य में अंनतपुर, चित्तौड़ , कडापा और नेल्लोर ।

7. सर्किल प्रधान , इंडियन बैंक , अंचल कार्यालय , कोयम्बतूर

तमिलनाडु राज्य में कोयम्बतूर, इरोड और नीलगिरी ।

8. सर्किल प्रधान , इंडियन बैंक, अंचल कार्यालय , कड्‌डालूर

इंडियन बैंक के अपने अथवा उसके द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए तथा तमिलनाडु राज्य के कड्‌डालुर जिला में स्थित स्थान ।

9. सर्किल प्रधान , इंडियन बैंक , अंचल कार्यालय , धर्मापुरी

तमिलनाडु राज्य में धर्मापुरी और कृष्णागिरी ।

इंडियन बैंक के अपने अथवा उसके द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए तथा केरल राज्य के जिलों में स्थित स्थान ।

10. सर्किल प्रधान , इंडियन बैंक, अंचल कार्यालय , एर्णाकुलम

इंडियन बैंक के अपने अथवा उसके द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए तथा निम्नलिखित जिलों में स्थित स्थान : पांडिचेरी राज्य का माहे ।

11. सर्किल प्रधान , इंडियन बैंक , अंचल कार्यालय, गुवाहाटी

इंडियन बैंक के अपने अथवा उसके द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए तथा अरूणाचल प्रदेश , असम , मेघालय , नागालैंड , त्रिपुरा राज्य के जिलों में स्थित स्थान ।

इंडियन बैंक के अपने अथवा उसके द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से मट्टे पर लिए गए तथा निम्नलिखित जिलों में स्थित स्थान :

12. सर्किल प्रधान , इंडियन बैंक, अंचल कार्यालय , हैदराबाद

आध्र प्रदेश राज्य के हैदराबाद, करीम नगर , खम्माम, कूरनूल , महबूबनगर, मेंडक , नालगोंडा, निजामाबाद, रंगा रेडडी और वारंगल ।

इंडियन बैंक के अपने अथवा उसके द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए तथा 13. सर्किल प्रधान , इंडियन बैंक , अंचल कार्यालय , कांचीपुरम

निम्नलिखित जिलों में स्थित स्थान : तमिलनाडु राज्य में कांचीपुरम और तिरुवल्लूर ।

इंडियन बैंक के अपने अथवा उसके द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए सिक्किमऔर पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य में स्थित स्थान ।

14. सर्किल प्रधान , इंडियन बैंक , अंचल अंचल कार्यालय , कोलकाता

15. सर्किल प्रधान , इंडियन बैंक , अंचल कार्यालय , कुंभकोणम

तमिलनाडु राज्य में नागापत्तीनम , तंजावुर , थिरुवरुर ।

16. सर्किल प्रधान , इंडियन बैंक , अंचल कार्यालय , लखनऊ

इंडियन बैंक के अपने अथवा उसके द्वारा अथवा उसकी और से पट्टे पर लिए गए तथा निम्नलिखित जिलों में स्थित स्थान :

उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में आगरा , अलीगढ़ , इलाहाबाद, बहराइच , बलरामपुर , बाराबंकी, बरेली , बिजनौर , बुलन्दशहर , गोरखपुर, हरदोई , हरिद्वार, हाथरस , कानपुर नगर , लखनऊ, 3

भारत का राजपत्रः जनवरी 3 , 2009/फोन 13, 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(3)

(2)

(1)

मथुरा मेरठ, मिर्जापुर, कुराबाभाद , मुजफ्फर नगर, पीलीभीत , रायबरेली , रामपुर, संहारनपुर और वाराणसी ws

इंष्टियन बैंक के अपने अथवा उसके द्वारा अथवा उसकी और से पट्टे पर लिए गए तथा उत्तराचल राज्य के जिलों में स्थित स्थान :

इंडियन बैंक के अपने अथवा उसके द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए य्पु तथा तमिलनाडु राज्य में स्थित हिंदुगल , मदुरई , रामनाथपुरम, शिवपंगा और कोनी बिलेः । 17. सर्किल प्रधान , इंडियन बैंक, सर्किल कार्यालंथ , मदुरई

इंडियन बैंक बैंक के अपने अथवा उसके द्वारा अथवा उसकी और से पट्टे पर लिए गए तथा महाराष्ट्र राज्य में स्थित ग्रेटर मुम्बई , मुम्बई , मुम्बई उप नगरीय तथा ठाणे जिले । 18. सर्किल प्रधान , इंडियन बैंक , सर्किल कार्यालय , मुम्बई

झंडियन बैंक के अपने अथवा उसके द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए तथा दिल्ली और दिल्ली राज्य मेंस्थित जिले ।

19. सर्किल प्रधान , इंडियन बैंक, सर्किल कार्यालय , नई दिल्ली

इंडियन बैंक के अपने अथवा उसके द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए तथा हरियाणा में स्थित फरीदाबाद और गुड़गांव जिला ।

इंडियन बैंक को अपने अथवा उसके द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए तथा मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में स्थित बिले

इंडियन बैंक के अपने अथवा उसके द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए तथा उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में स्थित गाजियाबाद, गौतमबुद्धनगर और नौयडा जिले ।

इंडियन बैंक के अपने अथवा उसके द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से पटे पुर लिए गए तथा बिहार और झारखण्ड राज्य में स्थित जिले ।

20. सर्किल प्रधान , इंडियन बैंक , सर्किल कार्यालय , पटना

इंडियन बैंक के अपने अथवा उसके द्वारा अथवा उपकी और से पट्टे पर लिए गए तथा कराईकल और पुदुच्चेरी राज्य में स्थित जिले ।

21. सर्किल प्रधान , इंडियन बैंक , सर्किल कार्यालय, पुदुच्चेरी

इंडियन बैंक के अपने अथवा उसके द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए तथा तमिलत्ताडु राज्य में स्थित विल्लुपुरम जिला ।

22. सर्किल प्रधान , इंडियन बैंक , सर्किल कार्यालय, पुणे

इंडियन बैंकों को अपने अथवा उसके द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए तथा महाराष्ट्र राज्य में स्थित अहमदनगर , अकोला , अमरावती , औरंगाबाद , चन्द्रपुर, कोल्हापुर, नागपुर, नासिक, पुणे, सांगली, सतारा , सोलापुर और यवतमाल जिले ।

इंडियन बैंक के अपने अथवा उसके द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से पट्ट पर लिए गए तथा तमिलनाडु राज्य में स्थित नमक्कल और सेलम जिले ।

T 23. सर्किल प्रधान , इंडियन बैंक, सर्किल कार्यालय , सेलम

पट्टे पर लिए गए तथा इंडियन बैंक के अपने अथवा उसके द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से पट्टे तमिलनाडु राज्य मेंय. में स्थित कन्याकुमारी तिरुनेल्वेली, टूथुकुड़ी और विरूद्धनगर जिले । 24. सर्किल प्रधान , इंडियन बैंक, सर्किल कार्यालय , तिरुनेल्वेली

इंडियन बैंक के अपने अथवा उसके द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए तथा तमिलनाडु राज्य में स्थित अरियालुर, करुर, पेरम्बलूर , पुटुकोई और त्रिरुचापल्ली जिले । 25. सर्किल प्रधान , इंडियन बैंक , सर्किल कार्यालय , त्रिची

इंडियन बैंक के अपने अथवा उसके द्वारा अथवा काकी ओर से म‌द्धे पर लिए गए तथा तमिलनाडु राज्य में स्थित तिरुवन्नामलाई और वेल्लूर जिले

26. सर्किल प्रधान , इंडियन बैंक, सर्किल कार्यालय , वेल्लूर

इंडियन बैंक के अपने अथवा उसके द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए तथा आंध्र प्रदेश राज्य में स्थित गुंटूर , कृष्णा और प्रकाशम जिले

27. सर्किल प्रधान , इंडियन बैंक , सर्किल कार्यालय , विजयवाडा

زه

इंडियन बैंक के अपने अथवा उसके द्वारा अथवा उसकी और से पट्ट पर लिए गए तथा आंध्र प्रदेश राज्य में स्थित ईस्ट गोदावरी , श्रीकाकुल्लम, विशाखापट्टनम , विजयनगरम 28. सर्किल प्रधान , इंडियन बैंक , सर्किल कार्यालय , विशाखापट्टनम,

इंडियन बैंकर के अपने अथवा उसके द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से और वेस्ट गोदावरी जिले । ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए तथा पुदुच्चेरी सता में स्थित यातुम जिला

[फा. . 65/1 )/2008- बीओ- II ]

एस. गोपाल कृष्ण, अवर सचिव [PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3 , 2009 /PAUSA 13 , 1930

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi , the 19th December , 2008

S.O. 1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of Public Premises ( Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971 ) and in supersession of the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs , No. 13/10/2001 dated the 30th October, 2001 , the Central Government hereby appoints the officers mentioned in column (2) of the Table below , being officer equivalent to the rank of a Gazetted Officer ofGovernment to be Estate Officer for the purpose of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred and performthe dutiesimposed on the Estate Officers by or under the said Act , in respect of the public premises specified in column (3 ) of the said table .

TABLE

Designation ofthe Officer

Categories ofPublic Premises and Local Limits of Jurisdiction S.No.

(2)

(1)

(3)

1. Circle Head, Indian Bank, Circle Office, Ahmedabad

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by , or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated in the districts in the States of Gujarat and Rajasthan

2. Circle Head, Indian Bank, Circle Office, Bangalore

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated in the districts in the States of Goa and Karnataka

3. Circle Head, Indian Bank, Circle Office , Bhubaneswar

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated in the districts in the States of Chhattisgarh and Orissa

4. Circle Head, Indian Bank, Circle Office, Chandigarh

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated in the districts in the States of Chandigarh, Himachal Pradesh , Jammu and Kashmir and Punjab .

Premisesbelonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated in the districts of Ambala, Bhiwani, Hisar , Jhajjar , Karnal , Panchkula, Panipat, Rohtak , Sirsa, Sonipat and Yamunanagar in the State of Haryana

5. Circle Head, Indian Bank, Circle Office , Chennai

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated in the districts in the State of Andaman & Nicobar. Premisesbelonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated in the districts of Chennai in the State of TamilNadu.

6. Circle Head, Indian Bank, Circle Office , Chittoor

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated in the districts of: Anantapur, Chittoor, Cuddapah and Nellore in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

7. Circle Head, Indian Bank, Circle Office , Coimbatore

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated in the districts of: Coimbatore, Erode and Nilgiris inthe State ofTamil Nadu .

8. Circle Head, Indian Bank, Circle Office, Cuddalore

Prent.ses belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated in the districts of Cuddalore in the State of Tamil Nadu .

9. Circle Head , Indian Bank, Circle Office, Dharmapuri

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated in the districts of : Dharmapuri and Krishnagiri in the State ofTamil Nadu .

10. Circle Head , Indian Bank, Circle Office , Ernakulam

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated in the districts in the State of Kerala .

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated in the districts of: Mahe in the State ofPondicherry .

ΤΡΕΛΟ Π

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2009/ोप 13 , 1930

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(1)

11. Circle Head, Indian Bank, Circle Office , Guwahati

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by , or on behalf of Indian Bankandsituated in the districts in the States of: Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Nagaland and Tripura.

12. Circle Head, Indian Bank, CircleOffice, Hyderabad こ

Premises belonging to or naken on lease by, or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated in the districts of Hyderabad, Karimnagar, Khammam , Kurnool, Mahbubnagar, Medak, Nalgonda, Nizamabad, Kariga Reddy and Warangal in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

13. Circle Head, IndianBank, Circle Office, Kancheepuram

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated in the districts of : Kancheepuram and Tiruvallur in the State of Tamilnadu.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated in the States of : Sikkim and West Bengal.

3. 14. Circle Head, Indian Bank, Circle Office, Kolkata

15. Circle Head, Indian Bank, Circle Office, Kumbakonam

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated inthe districts of: Nagapattinam, Thanjavur and Thiruvarur in the State ofTamilnadu.

16. CireleHead, Indian Bank, Circle Office, Lucknow

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated in the districts of : Agra, Aligarh, Allahabad, Bahraich , Balrampur, Bara Bunki , Bareilly , Bijnor , Bulandshahr , Gorakhpur, Hardoi , Haridwar, Hathras , Kanpur Nagar , Lucknow, Mathura, Meerut, Mirzapur, Moradabad, Muzaffarnagar, Pilibhit, Rai Bareli, Rampur, Saharanpur , Shahjahanpur and Varanasi in the State of Uttar Pradesh .

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated in the districts in the State ofUttaranchal .

17. Circle Head, Indian Bank, Circle Office; Madurai.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated in the districts of : Dindugal , Madurai , Ramanathapuram, Sivaganga and Theni in the State of Tamilnadu .

18. CircleHead, Indian Bank, Circle Office,.. Mumbai

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated in the districts of : Greater Mumbai , Mumbai , Mumbai Sub Urban and Thane in the State of Maharashtra.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated in the districts of: Delhi in the State ofDelhi .

19. Circle Head, Indian Bank, Circle Office, yet NewDelhi

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by , or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated in the districts of: Faridabad and Gurgaon in the State ofHaryane

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf ofIndian Bank and situated in the districts in the State of Madhya Pradesh .

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated in the districts of: Ghaziabad, Gautam Budh Nagar and Noida in the State ofUttar Pradesh .

Promises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated in the districts in the States ofBihar and Jarkhand.

Patna 20. CircleHead, Indian Bank, Circle Office,

21. Circle Head, Indian Bank, Circle Office, Pondicherry

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated in the districts of: Karaikal and Pondicherry in the State of Pondicherry.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2009/PAUSA 13 , 1930

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

Premisesbelonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated in the districts of : Villupuram in the State of Tamilnadu.

22. Circle Head , Indian Bank, Circle Office, Pune

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated in the districts of: Ahmednagar , Akola, Amravati , Aurangabad, Chandrapur , Kolhapur, Nagpur, Nasik, Pune, Sangli, Satara, Solapur and Yavatmal in the State of Maharashtra.

23. Circle Head, Indian Bank, Circle Office, Salem

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated in the districts of : Namakkal and Salem in the State of Tamilnadu .

24. Circle Head, Indian Bank, Circle Office , Tirunelveli

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated in the districts of : Kanyakumari , Tirunelveli , Toothukudi and Virudhunagar in the State of Tamilnadu.

25. Circle Head, Indian Bank, Circle Office , Trichy

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated in the districts of: Ariyalur, Karur, Perambalur, Pudukottai andTiruchirapalli in the State of Tamilnadu.

26. Circle Head , Indian Bank, Circle Office, Vellore

Premisesbelonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated in the districts of: Tiruvannamalai and Vellore in the State of Tamilnadu .

27. Circle Head , Indian Bank, Circle Office , Vijayawada

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by , or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated in the districts of: Guntur , Krishna and Prakasam inthe State of Andhra Pradesh .

28. Circle Head, Indian Bank, Circle Office , Visakhapatnam

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated in the districts of: East Godavari , Srikakulam , Visakhapatnam, Vizianagaram and West Godavari in the State of Andhra Pradesh .

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Indian Bank and situated in the districts of Yanam in the State of Pondicherry.

[F. No. 65/ 1/2008 -BO- II ]

S. GOPAL KRISHNA, Under Secy.

विदेश मंत्रालय

(सी.पी.वी. प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 22 दिसम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 2.-राजनयिक कौंसली अधिकारी ( शपथ एवं शुल्क ) अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 41 वां ) का 2 के अंक ( क ) के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा भारत का राजदूतावास , अलमाती , कजाकिस्तान में श्री परमेश्वरन वी. , पी.ए. को 22-12-2008 से सहायक कौंसली अधिकारी का कार्य करने हेतु प्राधिकृत करती है ।

[स. टी. 4330/1/2006]

आर. के. पेरिंदिया, अवर सचिव (काँसूलर )

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(C.P.V Division)

New Delhi , the 22nd December, 2008

S.O. 2. In pursuance of the clause ( ii ) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers ( Oaths and Fees ) Act, 1948, the Central Government hereby authorize Shri Parameswaran V. , PA to perform the duties ofAssistant Consular Officer in the Representative Office of India , Almaty (Kazakhstan) with effect from 22nd December, 2008

[No. T. 4330/1/2006]

R. K. PERINDIA, Under Secy. (Consular) 7 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 3, 2009/पौष 13, 1930

उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 3.-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 :

अनुसूची

क्र.

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

संशोधन लागू होने कीतिथि

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

31-10-08

संशोधन सं. 1 , अक्टूबर, 2008

आईएस 9297: 1979 बांधों के अन्दर प्रकाश संवातन और अन्य सुविधाओं कीअनुशंसाएं

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 तथातथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद , जयपुर, कानपुर, नामपुर , पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[ संदर्भ : डब्ल्यू आर डी 9/टी -11 ]

ए. एम. डेविड, वैज्ञा. ई , निदेशक ( जल संसाधन विभाग) MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department ofConsumer Affairs)

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi, the 19thDecember, 2008

S.O. 3. 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 amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

No. , Title and year of the Indian Standards

Date from wirich the amendment shall have effect

Sl. No.

No. and Year of the amendment

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

31-10-08 পরি 1 IS 9297: 1979

Amendment No. 1 October,2008

Recommendations for Lighting, Ventilation and other Facilities inside Dams

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

[Ref:WRDT- 11 ]

A. M. DAVID, Sc . E, Director(Water Resources Deptt.) 8

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3 , 2009/PAUSA 13 , 1930

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2008

का.आ. 4.-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 :

अनुसूची

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

और वर्ष

संशोधन लागू होने कीतिथि

क्र. सं

(1)

(3)

(2)

(4)

31-10-08

संशोधन सं. 1 अक्टूबर, 2008

आईएस 10137 : 1982 स्पिलवेज एवं ऊर्जा डेसीपेटर्स के चयन के दिशा-निर्देश

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 : डब्ल्यूआर डी 9/टी -14 ]

ए. एम. डेविड, वैज्ञा. ई , निदेशक ( जल संसाधन विभाग )

New Delhi , the 19th December, 2008

S.O. 4. 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 amendments to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

Sl . No. , Title and Year of the Indian Standards

No. and Year of the amendment

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

No.

(4)

(3)

(1) (2)

31-10-08

Amendment No. 1 , October, 2008

1 IS 10137 : 1982 Guidelines for Selection of Spillways and Energy Dissipators

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

[Ref: WRD 9 /T- 14]

A. M. DAVID, Sc . E, Director (Water Resources Deptt .)

नई दिल्ली , 19 दिसम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 5.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/ किये गये हैं : के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या

संशोधन लागू होने कीतिथि

क्र. सं और वर्ष

(3)

(4)

(2)

(1)

31-10-08

आईएस 8605 : 1977

संशोधन सं. 1 , अक्टूबर , 2008

चिनाई बांधों के निर्माण की रीति संहिता

नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों , नई इन संशोधनों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , 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 : डब्ल्यूआर डी 9/टी-8 ]

ए. एम. डेविड, वैज्ञा. ई, निदेशक ( जल संसाधन विभाग ) 9

भारत का प्रथमत: जनक्ररी 3, 2009 पौस 13 , 1930TTANAPET

[ भाग -खण्ड 3(ii) ]

NewDelhi, the 19th December,2008

S.O. 5.-In pursuance ofclause (b) ofsub- rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that ampsdsonts to the Indian Standards, ponticulars ofwhich are given in the Schedulehereto annexed have been issued* ri iss jare pan SCHEDULE

No. , Title and Year ofthe Indian Standardy

No and Year ofthe amendment

Date from whith the amendment shallhave effect

Sl. No.

(4)

(3)

(1)

(2) ,

31-10-08

Amendment no. 1

IS8605: 1977

October, 2008

Code of practice for construction of Missionry Dams

Copyofthis Sandard is available for sale with the Buresstof Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg, NewDelhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigach, Chennai , Mumbai and alsoBranch Offices:Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: WRD 9/T-8 ]

SAM. DAVID , & c .E, Director (Water Resources Deptt .)

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम् 2008

के नियमनियम 77 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो का.आ. 6.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( कों) में संशोधन किया गया किये गये हैं:

( )

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि संधिन लागू होने कीतिथि

सं

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

(4)

(3 )

(2)

(1)

31-10-08 1

संशोधन सं. 1 अक्टूबर , 2008

आईएस 12169:1987

छोटे तटबंध बांधों के डिजाइन के भ

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, चमलौर, भोपाल, सुधनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुहावटी, हैदराबाद , जयपुर , कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवमन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं।

[संदर्भ : कब्ल्यू आर डी 9/टी -22]

एम् डेविड, वैज्ञा. ई, निदेशक (जल संसाधन विभाग )

NewDelhi , the 19th December 2008

S.O. 6. 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 amendments to the Indian Standards, particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have beenissued:

SCHEDULE

No. , Title and Year ofthe Indian Standards

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

No. and Year ofthe amendment

Sl. No.

(4)

(2)

(1)

31-10-06

11812169: 1987

October, 2008

Criteria forDesign of Small Embankunont

Dams

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

[Ref: WRD 9/T-22]

A. M. DAVID, Sc . E, Director (Water Resources Deptt. ) 4972G1 /2008-2 10

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 3 , 2009/PAUSA 13 , 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]

नई दिल्ली , 22 दिसम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 7.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम, 1988 के विनियम, 4 के उप विनियम 5 के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को आगे दर्शाई तारीख से स्वीकृत कर दिया गया है :

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम एवं पता क्रम संख्या

लाइसेंस संख्या

(1)

(2)

(3)

8964813

मेसर्स प्रेम इंडस्ट्रीज प्लाट नं. 221 , उरला इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, रायपुर-492007 (छ. ग.)

8966514

मेसर्स यूपी पम्प्स प्रा. लिमिटेड 26-बी, महाराजपुरा इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, मोरार , ग्वालियर-474005 (म. प्र.)

8968821

मेसर्स , गोदावरी पावर एण्ड इस्पात लिमिटेड 428/2 , फेज 1 , इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया , सिलतारा , रायपुर -493111 8968518 मेसर्स, महावीर लैमिनेट्स 660,661 उरला इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया पोलीस स्टेशन के पीछे रायपुर

8968417

मेसर्स महावीर लैमिनेटस 660,661 , उरला इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया , पोलीस स्टेशन के पीछे , रायपुर

8968619

मेसर्स सिद्धार्थ टयूब्स लिमिटेड (सीआरएम विभाग) सर्वे नं. 171 , 172 , 173 एण्ड 174 ग्राम लोण्ढीया , शाजापुर-452007 , ( मध्य प्रदेश ) 7.

8967415 मेसर्स रिलाएबल बेवरेजेस प्रा. लि. , 71- श्री नगर , खजराना मेन रोड, इन्दौर-452018 ( मध्य प्रदेश ) 8.

8969318

मेसर्स श्री बालाजी प्युरीफाइड ड्रिंकिंग वाटर , ग्राम साकारेली कालान , शक्ती , जांजगिर , चाम्पा, रायपुर (म. प्र. )

लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत प्रक्रम सम्बन्ध एवं भारतीय मानक सहित

स्वीकृत करने कीतिथि (4)

(5)

02-09-2008 आईएस 14151 भाग 2 : 1999 एरिगेशन इक्वीपमेंट-स्प्रीक्लर पाइप

05-09-2008 आईएस 15500 भाग 3 : 1995 डीपवेल हेण्डपम्प

08-09-2008 आईएस 2830; 1992 कार्बन स्टील कास्ट बीलेट इन्गोट

आईएस 2202 भाग 1 : 1999

09-09-2008

09-09-2008 आईएस 1659:2004 ब्लाक बोर्ड

11-09-2008 आई एस 277: 2003 गाल्हवानाइज्ड स्टील शीट्स

11-09-2008 आई एस 14543 : 2004 पैकेज्ड ड्रिकिंग वाटर

11-09-2008 आई एस 14543 : 2004 [ भाग -खण्ड 3( )

भारत काजापानी 3, 2009 /पौष 13 , 1930

(5) (2)

(4)

(1)

(3)

22-09-2008 9.

आई एस 2062:2006

8968720 मेसर्स बाक्षात्री स्ट्राइट्स

स्टील फार जनरल स्ट्रक्चरल्स

रिंग रोड नं. 2 , शादीगंध , रायपुर ( छ. ग. )

10.

30009-2008 8969823 मेसर्स उषा स्पय पाइप्स

458220032 प्रीकास्ट कांक्रीट बाइक ЯО)

प्लाटे ४७, इंडस्ट्रियल, एरिया ,

जबलपुर (मध्य प्रदेश )

[सं. के प्र/13 : 11 ]

shorts andsealt pe पी. के. गम्भीर , उप महानिदेशक (मुहर )

New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2008

S.O. 7.-In pursuance of sub regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulation 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences for the Month ofSeptember, 2008 particulars ofwhich are given in the following schedule:

atto)

GrantDate Sl. No.

ISNo and title

LicenceNo. Nante arid adchloss of the Meensées

(5) (1)

(3)

(4)

(2)

02-09-2008 8964813

IS14151 (P2): 1999

Ms. Prem Industries PlotNo. 221, Urt Industrial Area, Raipur 492007 (CIG.)

IrrigationEquipment- Sprinkler Pipes Specification -Part 2: Quick Coupled Polysthylene Pipes

05-09-2008 2.

8966514

M/s . UP Pumps Pyt. Limited (Unit II ) 26-B (Part) Maharajpura IndustrialArea, Morar, Gwalior-474005(Μ. Ρ .)

IS15500 (P-3) : 2004 Deepwell handpumps , Components and Special Tools- Handpump sub- εργά: Assemblies

08-09-2008 8968821

M/s . Godawari Power and Ispat Limited 428/2, Phase1, Industrial Area, Siltara, Raipur -4931H(C.G.)

IS2830: 1992 Carbon steel cast Бле Ingots, bilets , blooms andslabs for re-rolling- into steer for general structural purposes

09-09-2008 8968518

IS2202 (PI) : 1999 Specificationfor

M/s . Mahavir Laminates 660,661 Urla Industrial Area, behind Police Station, Raipur

wooden flush door shutters (solid core type): Part Plywood face panels THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3 , 2009 /PAUSA 13 , 1930

(3)

(2)

(1)

8968417

M/s. Mahavir Laminates 660,661 Urla Industrial Area, Behind Police Station, Raipur

8968619

M/s. Siddharth Tubes Limited (CRM Division) Survey No. 171,172,173 and 174, Village Londhiya, Shajapur-452007 (Μ . Ρ .) 7.

8967415

M/s. Reliable Beverages Pvt . Limited, 71-Sri Nagar, Khajrana Main Road Indore-452018 (Μ. Ρ .) 8969318

M/s. Shri Balaji Purified Drinking Water, Village Sakareli Kalan, Shakti , Jangir Champa, Raipur (C. G. ) 9.

8968720

M/s. Balaji Structural (India) Limited, Ring Road No. 2, Tatibandh, Raipur(C.G.)

8969823

10.

M/s . Usha Spun Pipes PlotNo. 89, Industrial Area, Richhai , Jabalpur (M. P.)

[PART II-SBC. 3 ( ii) ]

(5) (4)

09-09-2008 IS1659:2004 Specification for block boards

11-09-2008 IS277:2003

Galvanized Steel Sheets(Plain and Corrugated)- Specification

11-09-2008 IS14543:2004

PackagedDrinking Water (other than PackagedNatural MineralWater)- Specification

11-09-2008 IS14543:2004

PackagedDrinking Water (other than PackagedNatural Mineral Water)- Specification

22-09-2008 IS2062:2006 Steel forGeneral Structural Purposes- Specification

30-09-2008 IS458: 2003

Specification for Precast Concrete Pipes (with and without Reinforcement)

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

नई दिल्ली, 22 दिसम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 8.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम 5 के उप विनियम 6 के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसो को आगे दर्शाई तारीख से निरस्त कर दिया गया है :

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम एवं पता लाइसेंस संख्या

क्रम संख्या

(3)

(1)

(2)

8434376

मेसर्सगोरानी इंडस्ट्रीज 32-33 , सेक्टर - एफ , सॉवेर रोड, इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया , इन्दौर (म. प्र. )

सम्बन्ध एवं निरस्त करने कीतिथि लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत प्रक्रम भारतीय मानक सहित

(5) (4)

04-09-2008 आईएस 4246: 2002 डोमेस्टिक गैस स्टोव्ह फार यूज विथ् एलपीजी 13 भारत का पत्र जगवरी 3,000 /पौष 1/3 (1930 )

[भाল II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

(5)

(3)

(2)

(1)

11-09-2008

आई एस 4323 : 1980

8123763 मेसर्स यूनाएटेड पोटीसाइडस न्यूइंडस्ट्रियल एरिया , रावाभाटा, रामपुर (

कान्सेन्ट्रेट्स

25-09-2008

आई एस 7142:1995

8484997 मेसर्स सूर्या गॅसेस प्रा. लिमिटेड प्लाट नं. 180, सेक्टर -ए इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया मन्डीदीप (म. प्र. )

वेल्डेड लो क कार्बन स्टील सिलेंडरफार लो प्रेसर लीक्वीएबल गॅसेस नॉर्ट एक्सिडिंग 5लीटर कॅपेसिटी

26-09-2008 8621577-

लिमिटेडआईए 11722:1986

मेसर्स सिद्धार्थ ट्यूब्स एबी रोड, सारंगपुर , रायगड -452007 (म. प्र. )

[सं. केप्र/13:13]

के. गम्भीर, उप महानिदेशक (मुहर )

New Delhi , the 22nd December,2008

S.O. 8.-In pursuance of Sub regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulation 1988, of theBureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of beenExpired with effect from the date indicated against each: ofwhich are given have

ISNo. and title

ExpiredDate Sl . No.

Name and address ofthe

LicenceNo. licensees

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

04-09-2008 8434376

IS4246:2002 Domesticgas (stover for use with FLIG

M/sGorani Industrie 32-33 Sector F Sanwer RoadIndustrial Area pee Indore (MP ) ,

11-09-2008

IS4323:1980

M/sUnited Pesticides

8123763

Endosulfan emulsifiable concentrates

NewIndustrialArea, Rawabhata, Raipur -493221

25-09-2008

IS7142:1995

8484997

M/sSuryaGages Pvt . Limited PlotNo. 180, SectorA, IndustrialArea, Mandideep . (M.P. )

Welded low carbon steel cylinders for low pressure liquiable gages not exceeding 5 litre water capacity

26-09-2008 8621577

flexible-quick

IS11722:1986 Thinwalled coupling pipes

M/sSiddharth Tubes Limited Taraganj Industrial Area, ABRoad Sarangpür, Raigarh-452007 (MP)

[No. CMD/13: 13 ]

P. K. GAMBHIR, Dy. Director General (Marks) 14

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3 , 2009/PAUSA 13 , 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 9.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम 5 के उप विनियम 6 के अनुसार में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाईसेंसों को आगे दर्शाई तारीख से लाईसेंस निरस्त कर दिया गया है :

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम एवं पता क्रम संख्या

लाइसेंस संख्या

(1)

(3)

(2)

8680593

मैसर्स एम. पी. टेलिलिंक्स लिमिटेड, जे4 ( ए ) , जे 5 , जे6 , घिरोंगी इण्डस्ट्रियल एरिया , भिण्ड, (म. प्र. ) लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत प्रक्रम सम्बन्ध एवं भारतीय मानक सहित

निरस्त करने कीतिथि (4)

(5)

15-10-2008 आईएस 14255 : 1995 एरियल बन्चड केबल्स फार वर्किंग वोल्टेज अपटू एण्ड इनकलूडिंग 11000 वोल्टस

[सं. के. प्र/13 : 13 ]

पी. के. गम्भीर , उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर )

New Delhi , the23rd December , 2008

S.O. 9. In pursuance of sub regulation (6) of Regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulation 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given have beenexpired with effect from the date indicated against each :-

Sl . No. LicenceNo. Name and address of the licensees

(1)

(2)

(3)

8680593

M/s. M. P. Telelinks Limited, J4(A), J5, J6, Ghirongi Indl . , Area, Bhind (M. P.) IS No. and title

ExpiredDate

(5) (4)

15-10-2008 IS 14255: 1995

AerialBunched Cablesforworking voltages upto and including 1100 Volts-specification

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

नई दिल्ली, 23 दिस्मबर , 2008

का.आ. 10.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के नियम (4 ) के उप नियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाईसेन्सों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए है , वे स्वीकृत कर दिये गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

चालू तिथि

क्रम संख्या

लाइसेंस संख्या अक्तूबर 2008

(3)

(4) (2)

(1)

29-09-2008

8968215

लाईसेंसधारी का नाम व पता भारतीय मानक काशीर्षक व संबंधित भारतीय मानक

(5)

मैसर्स जे. पी. ज्वैलर्स ,

1417 : 1999 स्वर्णाभूषणों की हॉलमार्किंग

मेन चौपाटी , भीलवाडा रोड ,

कांकरोली, जिला- राजसमंद

(राजस्थान)

29-09-2008

8968316

4985 : 2000

अनप्लास्टिसाइज्ड पीवीसी पाइप्स फॉर पोटेबल वॉटर सप्लाईज

मैसर्स राठी पोलीप्लास्ट प्रा. लि. , एफ-49 , कालाडेरा औद्योगिक क्षेत्र , कालाडेरा , राजस्थान जिला- जयपुर-303801 15

भारत का सबपत्र जनवरी 3, 2009 मौर्ष 13 , 1930

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(1)

(3)

(2)

(4) 3.

30-09-2008

8968015

केबल्स प्रा. लि,, 173 , बिन्दायका औ. क्षेत्र, फेज -2 , बिन्दायका, जिला-जयपुर-302012

8969520 30-09-2008

मैसर्स कुमार इलैक्टकोन प्रा. लि. , ३, मय आरकेड , स्टेशन रोड अलपर (राजस्थान)

8969722

03-10-2008

(5)

7098( भाग 1) : 1988 क्रॉसलिंक्ड पोलीथिलीन इन्सुलेटेड पीवीसी शीथेड केबल्स

398( भाग 2) : 1996

एसीएसआर

1417: 1999 स्वर्णाभूषणों की हॉलमार्किंग

मैसर्स प्रियदर्शीज्वैलर्स,

टैम्पल रोड, नयागांव , तहसील -खेरवाडा,

मिला उदयपुर-राजस्थानः

8971608180710-2008to porsual 417 : 1999

स्वणभूिषणों की हॉलमार्किंग प्र

जयपुर-302001 ( राजस्थान )

8971709. 07-10-2008

*मैसर्स राजेश टैक्नो प्लास्ट, -109 लाई औप्रेोगिक क्षेत्र चौमूं, कालाडेरा , जिला-जयपुर (राजस्थान) 8

8971810

08-10-2008

मैसर्सः गोल्ड सील , बैराठी भवन, एम. आई ट्रोड, 302001, ( समान )

8973006

08-10-2008

14151 ( भाग 2) : 1999 इरीगेशन इक्विपमेंट -स्प्रिंकलर पाइप्स-विवरू कमलक पोलिथिलीन पाइप्स

2112 : 2003

रजत आभूषणों की हॉलमार्किंग 1417 : 1999

स्वर्णाभूषणों की खेलमार्किंग

मेसर्स मनभावनध्वलम

fer र-313803 ( राजस्थान )

10.

8973107 13-10-2008

1417 : 1999 स्वर्णाभूषणों की हॉलमार्किंग

काजार,

उदयपुर 313001, ( अास्थान )

11:

13-10-2008

8973208

12.

8974816 16-10-2008 по मैसर्स सठी पोलीप्रा . लि. , एर्फ 49 , कोलार्डरा औधीगिक क्षेत्र, कालाडेरा, जिला -जयपुर -303801

13.

17-10-2008

8975212

ستان

14.

22-10-2008

8975313

मैसर्स जे.पी. एण्ड सन्स ज्वैलर्स, न्या शहर, शहर, मैटाबर के पास ,

1417: 1999

स्वर्णाभूषणों कीकीहॉलमार्किंग

मैसर्स काहीनूर ज्वैलर्स , कोटियो की गवाडीकी गवाडी न्यू सर्राफा बाजार , 15/49 ,19, तेलीवाडा ( 108 मामाशाह मार्ग ) उदयपुर-313001 ( राजस्थान)

8005-01-20

13592 : 1992

यूपीवीसी पाइप्स फॉर सॉइल एण्ड रेंट डिस्चार्ज फिस्टक्स

814151 (भाग 1 ) : 1999 इरीगेशन इक्विपमेंट- स्प्रिंकलर पाइप्स पोलीथिलीग पाइप्स

वैसर्स कोठारी फलालैक्स लिमिटेड, 206, रोड नं. 10 विश्वकर्मा औद्योगिक शेष आयपुर-302013 (राजस्थान )

1417:1999

2005-0

स्वर्णाभूषणों कीकी हॉलमार्किंग

सीकर-332001 (राजस्थान)

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3 , 2009/PAUSA 13, 1930

(2)

(3)

(1)

(4)

24-10-2008

15.

8975515

मैसर्स अनुष्ठान प्लास्टिक प्रा. लि. , गंगोत्री के सामने , बाडी- थुर रोड , फेणियों का गुढा, उदयपुर ( राजस्थान )

16.

8975717

24-10-2008

मैसर्स ऐ,, के. इंजीनियरिंग वर्क्स, जी-1 , 145 , फेज-1 , रीको औद्योगिक क्षेत्र , बहरोड, जिला-अलवर ( राजस्थान )

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

4984: 1995 हाई डेन्सिटी पोलीथिलीन पाइप्स फॉर पोटेबल वॉटर सप्लाईज 8112 : 1989 43ग्रेड ओपीसी

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

New Delhi , the 23rd December , 2008

S.O. 10. In pursuance of sub regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulation 1988 , the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars ofwhich are given in the following schedule .

SCHEDULE Sl . No.

Operative Date Name and address of the licensees

Licence No. (CM/L-)

(1)

(2)

(4)

(3)

8968215

29-09-2008

M/ s. J.P. Jewellers Main Choupati , Bhilwara Road, Kankroli , Distt. Rajsamand , Rajasthan 2

8968316

29-09-2008 M/s. Rathi Polyplast Pvt . Ltd. F-49 , Kaladera Industrial Area, Kaladera Distt. Jaipur-303 801 Rajasthan

8969015

30-09-2008

M/s. Richa Cables Private Limited F - 172-173 , Bindayaka Indl . Area Road No. 09 , Phase 2, Bindayaka, Distt. Jaipur -302012 Rajasthan 4.

8969520- 30-09-2008

M/s. Kumar Electron Private Limited B-3 Data Arcade, Station Road , Alwar, Rajasthan

03-10-2008

89689722

M/s. Priyadarshi Jewellers Temple Road , Naya Gaon, Tehsil : Kherwara, Distt . Udaipur , Rajasthan 6.

8971608

07-10-2008

M/s. Gold Seal Bairathi Bhawan, M.I. Road, Jaipur-302 001 , Rajasthan 7.

8971709

07-10-2008 M/ s. Rajesh Techno Plast G-109, Kaladera Industrial Area Chomu, KaladeraDistt. Jaipur, Rajasthan

08-10-2008

8971810

M/s. Gold Seal Bairathi Bhawan , M.I. Road , Jaipur, Rajasthan Article/Process covered by the licences and the relevant IS:Designation

(5)

1417:1999 Hallmarking ofGold Jewellery 4985:2000 Unplasticized PVC Pipes for Potable Water Supplies Cross linked Polyethylene 7098 (Part 1) : 1988 Insulated PVC Sheathed Cables

398(Part 2): 1996 ACSR

1417:1999 Hallmarking ofGold Jewellery 1417:1999 Hallmarking ofGold Jewellery 14151 (Part2) : 1999 Irrigation Equipment -Sprinkler Pipes-Quick Coupled Polyethylene Pipes

2112:2003 Hallmarking of Silver Jewellery 17 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3 , 2009/पौच 13 , 1930

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(5)

(3)

(4)

(1) (2)

1417:1999

8973006 08-10-2008

Hallmarking ofGold Jewellery

M/s. Manbhawan Jewellers

Sadar Baan Kherwarn , Udaipur-313 803,

Rajasthan

1417:1999

13-10-2008

10. 8973107

Hallmarking ofGold Jewellery

M/s. Gehna

58,BadaBazar,Udaipur-313001

Rajasthan

1417:1999

13-10-2008

11. 8973208

Hallmarking ofGold Jewellery

M/s . Kohinoor Jewellers KotiyoKi Gawadi, New Sarafa Bazar , 15/49Teliwara(108 Bhamashah Marg), Udaipur313 001 Rajasthan

12. 8974816

16-10-2008

13592:1992 UPVCPipes for Soil and WasteDischarge Systems

M/s. Rathi Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. F-49, Kaladera Industrial Area, Kaladera Distt. Jaipur-303801 , Rajasthan

13.

17-10-2008

8975212

14151 (Part 2): 1999

M/s . Kothari Finalex Limited B-206, Road No. 10 , Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur-302-013 , Rajasthan

IrrigationEquipment-Sprinkler Pipes-Polyethylene Pipes

1417: 1999

14. 8975313 22-10-2008

Hallmarking ofGold Jewellery

M/s. J.P.& Sons Jewellers Naya Shahar , Near Ghantaghar Sikar-332 001 , Rajasthan

15.

24-10-2008

8975515

M/s..Anusthan Plastics Pvt . Ltd. Oppi Gangotri,Bari-ThurRoad, Feniyon Ka Guda, Udaipur , Rajasthan

High Density Polyethylene Pipes for PotableWater 4984:1995 Supplies

16. 8975717

24-10-2008

8112:1989 43GradeOPC

M/ s. A.K. Engineering Works G-1 , 145 , Phase- I RIICO Industrial Area Behror Distt. Alwar Rajasthan

[No. CMD/13 : 11 ]

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

नई दिल्ली , 23 दिसम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 11.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम, 1988 के विनियम 4 के उप विनियम 5 के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को आगे दर्शाई तारीख से लाइसेंस स्वीकृत कर दिया गया है :

लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत प्रक्रम सम्बन्ध एवं

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम एवं पता

स्वीकृत करनेकी तिथि लाइसेंस संख्या

भारतीय मानक सहित

क्रम संख्या

(5)

(4)

(1) ( 2)

(3)

01-10-2008 1 .

8973309

3589 : 2001

मेसर्समान इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेडआईएस

स्टील पाइप फार वाटर एण्ड सीवेज

प्लाट में. 257, बी-258 सेक्टर 1 , पथिमपुर, जिला- धार (म.प्र. )

01-10-2008 2.

8978218

आईएस 2830 : 1992

मेसर्स श्री बजरंग पावर एण्ड इस्पात लिमिटेडकार्बन स्टील कास्ट बिलेट इन्गौट, बिलेटस , बलूम एण्ड स्लॅबस फार रि- रोलिंग इनटूस्टील 'फार जनरल स्ट्रक्चरल्स परपज

प्लाट नं. 173 से 178 , ग्राम बोरझारा , उरला गुमा रोड , रायपुर (छ.ग. )

4972 G1 /2000-3 18

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3 , 2009 /PAUSA 13 , 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] (2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

(5) 3.

8975818

16-10-2008

आईएस 2062: 2006 स्टिल फार जनरल स्ट्रक्चरल्स परपज

मेसर्स सन्मार्ग इस्पात प्रा. लिमिटेड खसरा नं. 6/1 ,6/2 ,6/3 , 7/1 , 7/2 , 7/3 , एण्ड 7/4 ग्राम गांडवारा, ब्लाक धरसिवा, रायपुर

8977115

16-10-2008 मेसर्स सौरभ रोलिंग मिल्स प्रा. लिमिटेड ग्राम आचोली, कन्हेरा रोड, उरला , रायपुर

आईएस 2830 : 1992 कार्बन स्टील कास्ट चिलेट इन्गौट , बिलेट्स, बलूम एण्ड स्लॅबस फार रि-रोलिंग इनटूस्टील फार जनरल स्ट्रक्चरल्स परपज

8977216

16-10-2008

आईएस 6595 भाग 1 : 2006 होरिजेंटल सेन्ट्रीफ्युगल पम्प

मेसर्स इंद्र मार्शल ऑइल इंजिन, 13-बी, इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, सेक्टर-ए, सावेर रोड, इन्दौर

8979725

16-10-2008 मेसर्स कॉन्टिनेन्टल स्टील कार्पोरेशन , जी.ई. रोड , कुम्हारी , दूर्ग , (मध्य प्रदेश)

आईएस 2830 : 1992 कार्बन स्टील कास्ट बिलेट इन्गौट , बिलेट्स, बलूम एण्ड स्लॅबस फार रि- रोलिंग इनटू स्टील फार जनरल स्ट्रक्चरल्स परपज

8975616

17-10-2008

आईएस 1065 : 1989

ब्लीचिंग पावडर

मेसर्स प्रगति केमिकल्स, 177 - आई आई डी सी न्यू इण्डस्ट्रियल एरिया , नयागाँव , बीना , जिला विदीशा ( मध्य प्रदेश )

8976416

17-10-2008

आईएस 398 ( भाग 2 ) : 1996 अल्युमिनियम कंडक्टर्स

मेसर्स टाटा स्टील लिमिटेड, ( इन्दौर वायर प्लान्ट) , किला मैदान के पास, इन्दौर

8975919

21-10-2008

आईएस 2202 (भाग 2 ) : 1999 वुडन फलस डोअर शटर्स

मेसर्स अग्रवाल सुपर टिम्बर स्टोर, प्लाट नं. 1 - ए , बाराघाटा ,, इण्डस्ट्रियल एरिया , ग्वालियर (मध्य प्रदेश)

10. 8976012

21-10-2008

आईएस 303 : 1989 प्लायवुड फार जनरल परपज

मेसर्स अग्रवाल सुपर टिम्बर स्टोर, प्लाट नं. 1 - ए, बाराघाटा , इण्डस्ट्रियल एरिया , ग्वालियर (मध्य प्रदेश)

8978117

11.

22-10-2008

आईएस 814 : 2004

वेल्डींग इलेक्ट्रोड्स

मेसर्स ए आर एफ इलेक्ट्रोड्स प्रा. लिमिटेड , सी एस आई डी सी इण्डस्ट्रियल एरिया , अमासिवनी, रायपुर ( छतीसगढ़ )

12.

8979826

22-10-2008

आईएस 2830 : 1992 कार्बन स्टील कास्ट बिलेट इन्गौट, बिलेट्स, बलूम एण्ड स्लॅबस फार रि-रोलिंग इनटूस्टिल फार जनरल स्ट्रक्चरल्स परपज

मेसर्स अग्रवाल स्ट्रक्चर मिल्स प्रा.लि. , प्लाट नं. 193/3 , 4, 6 , 7 , 194/2 , 195/5 , 162 ए, उर्ला इण्डस्ट्रियल ग्रोथ सेन्टर , पी.ओ. बिरगांव , रायपुर

13. 8976719

23-10-2008 मेसर्स एस के सरावागी एण्ड कं. प्रा.लि. , प्लाट नं. 8 से 41 एण्ड 48 से 52 , इण्डस्ट्रियल एरिया , सिलतारा फेस-2 , रायपुर

आईएस 2830 : 1992 कार्बन स्टील कास्ट बिलेट इन्गौट , बिलेट्स , बलूम एण्ड स्लॅबस फार रि-रोलिंग इनटू स्टिल फार जनरल स्ट्रक्चरल्स परपज 19

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 3, 2009/पोष 13, 1930

[भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

(3)

(1) (2)

8976820

14.

मेसर्स विरान इस्पात लिमिटेड, प्लाट नं. 60-63 , इण्डस्ट्रियल एरिया , रिछाई प्रलपुर dio

15. 8978824 मेसर्स मां मोहामाया रोलिंग मिल्स प्रा. लिमिटेड , 6/2 , ग्राम देलारी , जरमानी के पास, सयगढ़ छत्तीसगढ़ ) 16. 8979927 मेसर्स नन्दन स्टील्स एण्डपावर लि. , सिलताय इण्डस्ट्रियल एरिया, ग्राम सोन्द्रा , फेस-2 साम्रग्र नं. 55/155/2, 57/6, 57/357/4,57/580 /206/2, 57/7 , रायपुर ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) Ma

(5) (4)

27-10-2008

आईएस 2062 2006

स्टील फार जनरल स्ट्रक्चरल्स, परपज

30-10-2008

आईएस 1786 : 1985

हाई स्ट्रॉथ डीफार्मड भा

abit voir 20

आईएस 2830 : 1992

31-10-2008

कार्बन स्टील कास्ट बिलेट इन्गौट, बिलेटस , जूम एण्ड स्लॅबस फार विन्डोलिंग इनटूस्टिल फार जनरल स्ट्रक्चरल्स परपज

[सं. के प्र/13 : 11 ] पी. के. गम्भीर, उपमहानिदेशक ( मुहर )

New Delhi , the 23rd December, 2008

S.O. 11. In pursuance of sub regulation ( 5 ) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification ) Regulations 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of ficences for the month of October , 2008 particulars ofwhich are given in the following Schedule:

SCHEDULE

Sl. No. LicenceNo. Name and address ofthe licensées

(2)

(1)

WOR

8973309

M/s Man Industries ( 1 ) Limited Plot No. 257 -B, 258 -B, Sector - 1 , Pithampur , Dhar (MP) 2.

8978218

M/sShri Bajrangajrang Power and Ispat Limited, Plot Nos . 173 to 178, VillageBorjhara, Urla-Guma Road, Dats Raipur.

8975818

M/s Sunmarg Ispat (P) Limited KhasraNos. 6/1 , 6/2, 6/3 , 7/1 , 7/2 and 7/4, Village Gondwara, Block Dharsiva, Raipur(CG) 4.

8977115

Mis Saurabh Rolling Mills Pvt Limited, VillageAchholi, Kanhera Road, Urla, Raipur (CG) one

delatsilid

GrantDate ISNo. andtit

(5)

01-10-2008 18 35892001 Steel Pipes for Water and Sewage ( 168.3 to 254.0 mm OutsideDiameter) Specification

01-10-2008 28301992 Carbon steel cast billet ingots, billets , blooms wid slabs for re-rolling into steel for general structuralpurposes

16-10-2008 IS 2062 2006 IS 2062200610 Steel for General Structural Purposes Spécification

16-10-2008 IS 28301992

Carbon steel cast billet ingots , billets, biboms and slabs form Theme ton tadare- tolling inte steeel for general structural purposes

8977216

M/s Indra Marshall Oil Engines In13 -B, Industrial Area, Sector -A, Sanver Road, Indore (MP)

16-10-2008 IS6595 (Part 1): 2006

Horizontal Centrifugal Pumps for Clear, Cold Water - Specification -Part 1: Agricultural and Rural Water Supply Purposes 20

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3 , 2009/PAUSA 13 ,1930

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

(4)

(2)

(3)

(5) 6.

8979725

16-10-2008 M/sKontinental Steel Corporation, G.E. Road, Kumhari , District: Durg( CG)

IS2830 : 1992 Carbon steel cast billet ingots , billets, blooms and slabs for re-rolling into steel for general structural purposes

8975616

17-10-2008

IS 1065 : 1989 Bleaching Powder, Stable

M/sPragati Chemicals 177- ITDC New IndustrialArea, Naugaon, District : Vidisha (MP)

8976416

17-10-2008 M/sTata Steel Limited (Indore Wire Plant) , Near Kila Maidan, Indore (MP)

IS398 (Part 2) : 1996 Aluminium conductors for overhead transmission purposes : Part 2, Aluminium conductors , galvanized steel reinforced

8975919

21-10-2008 M/sAgrawal Super Timber Stores , Plot No. 1-A ( Part of Plot No. 1) , Baraghata Industrial Area , Gwalior(MP)

Specification for wooden flush IS2202(Part 2): 1999 door shutters (solid core type): Part1Plywoodface panels

8976012

10.

21-10-2008

IS303 : 1989 Specification for plywood- for general purposes

M/sAgrawal Super Timber Stores , Plot No. 1-A (Part of Plot No. 1) , Baraghata Industrial Area , Gwalior(MP)

22-10-2008 8978117

11.

M/sARF Electrodes Pvt . Limited , CSIDC Industrial Area , Amaseoni , Raipur(CG)

IS814:2004 Covered electrodes for manual metal arc welding of carbon and carbon manganese steel

12.

8979826

22-10-2008 M/sAgrawal Structure Mills ( P) Ltd. KhasraNos . 193/3,4,6,7 , 194/2, 195/5 , 162A, Urla Industrial Growth Centre , P.O. -Birgaon, Raipur(CG)

IS2830 : 1992 Carbon steel cast billet ingots , billets , blooms and slabs for re-rolling into steel for general structural purposes

8976719

13.

23-10-2008 M/s. S. K. Sarawagi and Co. (P) Ltd. , Plot Nos . 8 to 41 and 48 to 52, Industrial Area, Siltara, Phase 2, Raipur(CG)

IS2830: 1992 Carbon steel cast billet ingots , billets, blooms and slabs for re-rolling into steel for general structural purposes

14.

8976820

27-10-2008 M/sVinar Ispat Limited , Plot Nos . 60-63 , Industrial Area, Richhai, Jabalpur (MP)

IS2062:2006 Steeel for General Structural Purposes- Specification

8978824

30-10-2008 15.

M/sMaaMahamaya Rolling Mills Pvt.Limited, Raigarh, 6/2, Village Delari , Near Germani (CG)

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

8979927

31-10-2008 16.

M/sNandan Steels and Power Ltd. Siltara Industrial Area, Village Sondra, Phase II , Khasra Nos . 55/1 , 55/2 , 57/6 , 57/3, 57/4, 57/5, 57/2 , 56/2, 57/7 , Raipur(CG)

IS2830: 1992 Carbon steel cast billet ingots , billets , blooms and slabs for re-rolling into steeel for general structural purposes

[No. CMD/13: 11 ]

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

भासा का राजपत्र: जनवरी 3, 2009/पौष, 13, 1930

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

500s son ईल्ली, 2 दिसम्बर 2008

का. आ. 12. केन्द्रीय सरचना को पह प्रतीत होता है कि 'लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि तामिलनाडु राज्य मेंमें सिपिर्सि एल ( ममोलि रिफैनेरी ) से मीनाम्म्वेक्कम ऍयारपोर्टएयारपोर्ट तकतक पेटपेट्रोलियम उत्पादनों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिलाई जानी चाहिए

और ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए इस अधिसून अनुसूची में वर्णितः भूमी में उपयोग के अधिकार की अर्जन औवश्यक अधिसूाना से उपाबद्ध अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोगउपयोग केके अधिकारअधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 कक 50 की धासु की उपभाषा (१ ) द्वारा प्रदत्तं शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उनमें उपयोग के अधिकार को अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती

उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमी में हितबद्ध कोई व्यक्ति उस तारीख से, जिसको भीरत के राजपत्र में यक्षा प्रकासित इस अधिसूचना की प्रत्क्तियाँ साधारन जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाति है, इकवीस दिन के भौतर, भूमि मेंमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन या भूमी के निचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रति लिखित रुप में आक्षेप श्री जि. जयराज, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंडियन आयल कोपेरिशक लिमिटेडाए.टी.एफ्. और चेन्नई- बान्गालौर पाइपलाइन परियोजना, से 10 , तिरु - भि- का स्टिंट , राजाजिपुरम, तिरुभालुर, तामिलनाडु -602 001 को Mes andao कर सकेगा ।

अतसूची तालुका बीपसमुद्रा

गाँव का नाम

सर्वेक्षण से -खण्ड से उप-खण्डसं.

348

2बी 2 79, कोलाप्पक्कम

349

3 ए

349

1 बी

370

2बी

-370

1डी

370

1सी

370

1बी

370

1ए

3705.सी.

राज्यसामिलनाडु

एयर

वर्ग मिटर 4

[फा. सं. आर-25011/ 11/2006- ओ.आर. - 1 ] एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव 22

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3 , 2009/PAUSA 13 , 1930

[Part II--Sec . 3 ( ii) ]

Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas

NewDelhi , the 23rd December, 2008

S. O. 12.- Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum product from CPCL (Manali Refinery) to Meenambakkam Airport in the State of Tamil Nadu a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, for implementing the Chennai -ATF Pipeline Project .

And whereas , it appears that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in the Land described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the Right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty-one days from the date on which the copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein , or laying of pipeline under the land to Shri.B. Baskaran , Competent Authority , Indian Oil Corporation Limited, ATF & Chennai -Bangalore Pipeline Project , No.10, Thiru -Vi -Ka Street, Rajajipuram , Tiruvallur, Tamilnadu -602 001 .

Schedule

State: Tamilnadu

District : Kanchipuram

Taluk: Sriperumbudur

Subdivision No.

Survey No.

Nameof the Village

2B2

348

79, Kolapppakkam

349

1B 2B

349 370

370

Are

Hectare

Square Meter.

69 0

91 0

62 0

40 00

[FNo. R-25011 / 11 /2006- O.R. -I ] $. K. CHITKARA , Under Secy.

23 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2009/पौत्र 13, 19301930

नईदिल्ली, 23

ली, 23 दिसम्बर, 2008

का. आ. 13.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने अधिकार का अर्जम ) अधिनियम 1062 ( 1962: का 50 की भारत के सबपत्र, तारीख 24-03-2007 144 27-09-2008 में प्रति भारत सर 7 एवम 27-09-2008 में प्रकटनामा पकार के पेट्रोलियम प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूपी का. आ. ०७८७ तारीख 23-03-2007 एवम का. आ. संख्या 2710 तारीख 26-09-2008 द्वारा उस अधिजन्य से संतुसूची शहरी राज्य De कर्नाटक में बैंकसी लिएरपोर्ट देवमाही तक सवएशन टर्बाइन ईन्यम के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल मान लिपीत द्वारा पा प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार कर अर्जक के अपील की ह

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता की तारीख 14-06-2007 एवम 30-09-2008 उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

और सथाम प्राधिकारी ने, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा डे की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के को रिर्पोट दे दी है। के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार

to s संलम्म अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का दिन θηστίδος της

शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपचोन के अधिकार का अर्जत किए जाए

और केबीच सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की बारा ४ को उपधारा (4) मरा प्रयोग करतेकरते हुए, यह निर्देश देती है कि गति से जमीन काका अनिडर इक क प्रकाशन की तारीक से केन्द्रीय सरकार में विहित के बजाए , सभी विल्लंगनों से मुक्त होकर इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा।

राज्य : कनाटक

जिल्ला बंगलौर अर्बन

: यलहका

क्षेत्रफल

हिस्सा नंबर

सबै नंबर

गाँव का नाम

वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टर आर

होली: जाला

दुम्मनहल्ली

[फा. सं. आर-25011/3/2007- ओ.आर. - 1 ]

एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव 24

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3 , 2009 /PAUSA 13 , 1930

[Part II Sec. 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 23rd December, 2008

S. O. 13.-Whereas by the notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry ofPetroleum and Natural Gas S.O. number 849 dated 23rd March 2007 and 2710 dated 26th September 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), published in the Gazette of India dated 24th March 2007 and 27th September 2008 respectively, the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land in Taluk: Yalahanka , District : Bangalore Urban in the State of Karnataka specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Aviation Turbine Fuel in the State of Karnataka from Devanagondhi to Bangalore New International Airport , Devanahalli by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

Andwhereas, the copies of the said Gazette Notification were made available to the public on the 14th May 2007 and 30th September 2008;

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

And whereas , the Central Government after considering the said report is satisfied that the 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 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, the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said lands shall instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest from the date of the publication of this declaration in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

Taluk : Yalahanka

District: Bangalore Urban

State: Karnataka

Area

Name of the Village Survey no.

Sub-Division no.

Hectare Are

Sq.mtr. 1

6 Hobli : Jala

DHUMMANAHALLI

[ F. No. R-25011/3/2007- O.R. -I ]

S. K. CHITKARA , Under Secy .

मी सकार को ऐसा प्रतीफ होती है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र दिल्ली में बिश्वासन से हरियाणा राज्य में पानीपत तक पैट्रोलियम उत्पादक परिव SA S लिए इंडियन ऑयल कर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ; 10 00 A के

ες

A8 28

80. 00

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में,8 जिसके भीतर उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न 00 अनुसूची में वर्णित है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

00 00

SA 88

64 00 AS 00 a aa अतः, अब, म्द्रीय समक्कार, पैट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 500) की धाउत 3 की सपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , [I- TE, FRE- 80052 ] उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है,

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से, जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में New rated ye saathi dormitor प्रतिया साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के otiriled to TOU et niit toubora musiorię to noitshoqesit et not editasietni भीतर, भूमि केके भीतर पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने केके लिएलिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के लिए, श्री आजाद betimi noitaliansibal eltyd bisi ed bluorde enileqiq is ,επεγιστsteenieqins सिंह , भूमि अर्जन अधिकारी व सक्षम प्राधिकारी (दिल्ली) , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, उत्तरी क्षेत्र आइमान्सहेकटरा से हिलाताई डिली को निविक्रपा में

aqiq bise erit doinw nebnu briel ent ni 19อม to trigin erit eriupos of visaren aitienileqiq noitsoititon airit of bexenns elüberdo ent ni bedinpasb ai doidw bus bisi ed of beгодола ant to & noitose to ( 1) noitea- dua yd benet wet to saiorere ni net won ( Sat ) set to ( bus . ni 19 to trigi tо поітігіироа) гепілдігілетіM bns muslonteя.

กเอาอก ทรอม to trigin erit etiupos of noiînetni ati aanslae yderen nemmevo เธา ร ทอง eit 4972G1 /20094 26

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3 , 2009/PAUSA 13 , 1930

अनुसूची

राज्य जिला तहसील गाँव

क्षेत्रफल

हदवस्त सं०

खसरा / किला सं० हेक्टेयर एयर वर्गमीटर

मुस्तील सं०

दिल्ली पश्चिमी दिल्ली पटेल नगर नवादा

00 07

00 08

दिल्ली पश्चिमी दिल्ली पटेल नगर रजापूर खुर्द

दिल्ली पश्चिमी दिल्ली पंजाबी बाग बापरोला

00 08

00 05

00 13

00 08

ड्रेन

00 15

[फा. सं. आर-25011/4/2008- ओ.आर. - 1 ]

एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 30th December, 2008

S. O. 14. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Petroleum products , from Bijwasan in the NCT of Delhi to Panipat in the State of Haryana, a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And, whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed tobe laid , and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein ;

27 38

ATTIKAD J

3030

भारत को राजपत्र अनवरी 3 , 2009/वाब13 , 1430

[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twentyone days from the date on which the copies of the notification, lesued under sub-section (1) ofreection 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general pulpublic, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user themin for laying of the pipeline under the land, to Shri Azad Singh , Land Acquisition officer & Competent Authority (Delhi) Indian Oil Corporation Limited , Northern Region, Pipelines , Kapashera - Najatgarh Road , Bijwasan, New heir adploit isde tu ton it boiliteni

Delhi -110061.hd 201

Marbonum bobasmeb

District

Tehell

Khang

Hadiant No. Mushtil Nord

doused me

Wagon

Stato

8q.mtr.

6 ετωνομαι รามา

ποδείσι οι

Delhi West Dethi Patel negerNamda

00-800-8 43

00 01 26

00.00 84 Delhi West Delhi Patel nager RajapurKhurd

00 08 85

42 AUXBM

Panjabibaug

Delhi West Delhi

PY WORE and wood d

19000 13 91

( sbo84

(BoatA mi2005 jad030000 € 200

0000118180OF5000

00 08 85 To 3DS 06 20

00 04 19.

00 15 59

[ F. No. R - 25011 /4 /2008- OR -1 ]

S.K. CHITKARA, UnderSecy.

σκο , dhinish botimi.j

istrosMMA 8

2200025 no ganase bol qu grintos sem, d

sl benzaq 2005-01-30 под зебад -- Isnudia I 30

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 3 , 2009/PAUSA 13 , 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] and 2 support management's case . Of course they are victims of the incident . Exts . Ml to M7 are log book and work permits . They also reveal that the work got delayed. Asper standing order No. 29-12 stoppage of work against company rules is a misconduct. The evidence shows that the workman had instigated others to agitate .

and sat on a bench. This version together with the pleading inpara-3 ofthe claim statement belie the case ofthe worker inExts.DE1 and M-9. The circumtances and evidence on management side prove that the allegations are true. The Enquiry Officer has held the workman guilty based on sufficent materials on record . There is no reason to interfere with the findings .

9. The next allegation against the workman is that MW1 and 2 were surrounded, blocked , detained and abused . MWI and 2 alone were examined on the management side. They say that when they reached the work assignment spot they were surrounded and blocked by workers at the leadership of the workman. They demanded immediate explanation regarding show- cause notices issued to four employees on the previous day . MWs1 and 2 invited two of the employees to the room for discussion. But the workman refused and they wanted an explanation then and there. When MWI attemped to explain the workman shouted at MWs1 and 2 and abused them in filthy words . The witnesses have narrated the abusive words which are recorded at page 39 and 59 of enquiry proceedings . DWs . 1 to 3 denied having abused the officers . But it is revelant to note the averments in para 3 of the claim statement that the workers had questioned the officers regarding show cause notice and due to that thejob allocation work had got delayed by 1/2 an hour and that there was exchange of words between officers and workers.

11. Point No. 2 : The punishment awarded is withholding ofthree increments with camulative effect . Ex . M8 isstanding orders of Cochine Refineries Limited. The acts of misconduct are contained in orders 29-1 - to 29-53 and punishments are continued in order No. 30-1 . Order No. 29-12 is regarding stoppage of work in violation of Company'sRules and Regulations . Order No. 29-14 is regarding surrounding blocking or detaining the company officers . Order No. 29-16 is regarding use of impolite or insulting language against a supervisor or any other employee . The punishment for misconduct are enumerated inorder 30-1 (a) to (e) . The relevant provision is (e) which reads: " any other punishment the company deems as just and necessary " . This provision is invoked for imposing the penalty of withholding three annual increments with cumulative effect . The punishment imposed being not a dismissal or discharge falling within Section 11 -A of Industrial Disputes Act , this court cannot interfere with the punishment except for violation of any ofthe provisions ofstanding orders of the company or any other provision of law. Whatever be the past record of service of the workmanthis court has no power to alter the punishment other than falling within Section 11 -A of I.D. Act .

In the result, an award is passed finding that the action of the management in imposing the the penalty of withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect is legal and justified and the workman is not entitled foranyrelief.

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

Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 3rd day ofOctober, 2008 .

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer

Appendix

Witness for the Union

Nil

Witness for the Management

Nil

Exhibits for the Union

Exhibit for the management 10-10-1995 M1-

10. It is in the background of this admission in the claim statement that the incident has to be viewed. The workers were in an agitated mood. There were 27 workers . All of them together at the leadership of the workman had questioned the two officers . The statement of DWs . 1 to 3 before the Enquiry Officer in inconsistent with the averments in the claim statement . The union has not been able to show that MWs. 1 and 2 had any motive to bring the workman to book . The incident as alleged by the management had happened in the morning on 23-09-1995 . Except the use of abusive language and detention of officers, the rest of the incident is admitted in para- 3 of the claim statement . Considering the entire circumstances , the agitated mood ofthe workers and the admission that there was some exchange of words , the version of MW1 and 2 that they were abused , cannot be brushed aside . Ext . DEI is reply to the show- cause notice issued to the workman and Ext. M9 is a letter sent to MW2 by the workman. In both he has denied the allegations in toto. It is stated that hehad not even gone to the spot where job allocation was being done by MW1 and 2. But his testimony in the enquiry (DW1) isdifferent. He says that on 23-9-1995 while he was waiting for vehicle for going to the workspot , he heard a noisy talk among the workers at the work allocation spot . Anxious to know what was the talk about , he went there

Enquiry File.

31 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपुत्र : सनकी 3, 2009/प्रौष 13 , 1930

AWARDlat नई दिल्ली, 5 दिसम्बर, 2008 .

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour by its 15-7-2007 2011211 Order No. L- 22012/284/2006 - IR( CM - II) dated 3-7- referredthe following dispute under Section 10( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of Singareni Collieries Company Limited and their workman . The reference is :-

SCHEDULE

का. आ. 16. औद्योगिक विवादः अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 को 14 ) की बारी 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकारे एवं एस.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनक कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केंन्द्रीय" सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ से 33/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 05-12-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/284/2006- आई आर ( सीएम-11) ] "

अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 5th December , 2008

Whether the action of the mariagement ofSingareni CollieriesCompany Limited, in imposing the penalty of reversion to lower grade i.e. from the post of SeniorMining Sirdar Grade ' A' ( SLU) to the post of Shot Firer Grade ' C ' w.e.f. 1-9-2005 in respect of Sri Beesakonda Ramulu is'is legal and justified ? Ifnot, towhat reHof the workanan is entitle

Thereference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 33/2007 and notices were issued to the parties.

S.O. 16. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 33/2007) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/sSingareni Collieries Co. Ltd. and theirworkinen,which was receivedbythe Central Government on 5-12-2008000

2.Bothparties filed vakalat. Adjournment given for filing claim statement and documents . On 14-10-2008 no proceeding from Petitioner's side. As nothing is on record toproceed in this casejusNil Award is passed, Transmit .

[No.22012/284/2006- IR (CM - II) ]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Dictated to Smt . P. Phant Gowrt , Personal Assistant transcriberd by her , corrected by me on this the 14th day of October , 2008.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENTS INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Nil Witnesses examined for the

PRESENT: Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer

Petitioner

(Dated the 14th day of October, 2008)

Witnesses examined for the Nil

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 33/2007 , d Respondent

BETWEEN

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Mil

TheGeneral Secretary

Documents marked for the Respondent

Nil

नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम्बर , 2008

Petitioner

(Sri RiyazAhmed), Singareni Mines & Engg. Workers Union (HMS) , Qtr. No. C-34, Sector- 1 , Godavarikhani Karimnagar (Andhra Pradesh) 505209

And

The General Manager

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company. Limited, Chennur 1 & 1A Inclines , de

...Respondent

Sreerampur Area, Sreerampuri

APPEARANCES

का. आ. 17.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. भारत संचार निगम लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , एर्नाकुलम (कोचीन ) के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं . 154/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-12-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

For the Petitioner : M/s . A. Sarojana & K.

संगल -40012/21/2005-आई आर (डी.यू. ) ] Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent Sri S.M. Subhani , Advocate

'अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी 32

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3 , 2009/PAUSA 13 , 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] New Delhi , the 8th December , 2008

2. The parties entered appearance and filed their pleadings. There after the union has been taking time to adduce evidence . Today the case was posted for the evidence ofthe union with a direction that no further time will be allowed. But the union as well as the counsel are absent . There is no representation also for the union. The management is present . The reference was made in 2005 . Union does not appear to be interested in the matter . Therefore, it has to be presumed that there is no exsiting dispute for adjudication

S.O. 17. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 154/ 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Ernakulam ( Cochin) , as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 8-12-2008 .

[No. L-40012/21 /2005 - IR (DU) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

In the result , an award is passed finding that the contract for sweeping , cleaning and scavenging work is a genuine contract and the 11 contract workers in the list appended to the reference are not entitled for regularisation in B.S.N.L. and they are also not entitled for any other.. relief. YEN IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

Present : Shri P. L. Norbert, B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 28th day of November,2008 .

(Fridaythe 28th day ofNovember 2008/7th Agrahayana, 1930)

Appendix: Nil

I. D. No. 154 of 2006

PL. NORBERT, Presiding Officer (I. D. No. 25/2005 of Industrial Tribunal, Kollam)

Union

:The General Secretary,

नई दिल्ली 12 दिसम्बर , 2008

Thiruvananthapuram Jilla General Mazdoor Sangham, Fort , Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala-695023

: By Adv. SriAnil Narayanan .

Management : The Chief General Manager , BSNL Kerala Circle, PMG Junction, Trivandrum -695033

का.आ. 18. 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 लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 119/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-12-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था 1 .

: ByAdv. Sri . C.S. Ramanathan .

[सं. एल-40012/74/2004- आई आर (डी यू) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी 2. Sri . A. Suuresh Contractor , TC 14/403 , Extra Police Road, Palayam , Trivandrum .

New Delhi , the 12th December , 2008

3.Ms. Aleyamma,

Self Employed Women's Association , 'Murali ' , KRAD/51 , Kunnumpuram,Trivandrum- 695001 .

: By Adv . R.Ram Mohan.

This case coming up for hearing on 28-11-2008 , this Tribunal- cum- Labour Court on the same day passed thefollowing:

AWARD

S.O. 18 -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 119/2004 ) of the 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 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 12-12-2008.

This is a reference under Section10 ( 1 ) (d) of Industrial Disputes Act claiming regularisation of 11 contract labourers in B.S.N.L.

[No. L-40012/74/2004- IR(DU) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2009/पौष 13 , 1930

ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

Shri.N. K. Purohit, Presiding Officer

I. D. No. 119/2004

Ref. No, L-40012/74/2004- IR ( DU ) dated: 29-10-2004

BETWEEN

Shri Laxmi Prasad S/ Sh. Pardeshi Sahani Bo Kharbujiah, Post : Rampur Beah Koni Bazar Distt. Sant Kabir Nagar (UP ) darker

AND

1.The Telecom DistrictManager, Telecom Deptt . BSNL, Bahraich.

ofFregular appointments , the Telecom department has been engaging daily wages casual labourers from the to time to meet the exigency of the work. The workman alleges that he has hot been given temporary status even after being recommended for the same , whereas the Department has granted temporary status and consequential benefits to simlerfy situated daily rated casual labour w.r.t. MemoNo. F17/ChTI/ TDM BRH/Casual Labour/ 11 dated18-7-2000 of Department of Telecommunications , Office oftheTelecom District Manager, Bahraich. The Workman has also alleged that the management of BSNL has violated various provisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 19471. e. Section 25N for non-conduction of any inquiry against him or service of any charge sheet, as well as for non -paythent of any notice pay or retrenchment compensation ; Section 25G for retaining and continuing juniors in service, and Section 25 H for engaging new persons without affording any opportunity to the workman for employment. Thus, theworkman has prayed that the management ofBSNL be directed to consider the case of the workman, toto take him back in servicewith back wages, to provide the workman temporary status with consequential benefits and to ponvide bonus .

2.TheChiefGeneral Manager , Telecommunication, East, Lucknow/The Principal GeneralManager, Pee Kay Bhawari, Lucknow- 226001 .

AWARD

5-12-2008

1. By Order No. L-40012/74/2004- IR (DU) dated, 29-10-2004 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, NewDelhi in exercise ofpowers.conferred by clause (d) of sub section ( 1 ) and sub section. (24) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) referred following industrial dispute between Shri Laxmi Prasad S/o,Sh. Pardeshi Sahani , Ro Kharbujiah , Post RampurBrah- KoniBazar, Distt.- Sant Kabir Nagar (U.P. ) and the Telecom DistrictManager, Telecom Deptt, BSNL, Bahraich and the Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, East, Lucknow/The Prinicipal General Manager, Pee Kay Bhawan, Lucknow for adjudication :

The reference under adjudication is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of BSNL , Behraich in terminating Sh. Laxmi Prasad, Daily Wager.w.e.f. 31-7-2001 is legal andjustified? Ifnot, to what releifthe workman is entitled ?"

3. The managementnt of the BSNL , in its written statement, has disputed thethe claim ofof the workman and has submitted that it never engaged the workman inin any capacity in the year August 1998 or subsequently, hence, there arise nono ququestion of having completed 240 days of service or allegedoral fermination or of violation of any of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 at all . The management has mentioned that it has Service Rules and, Recruitment Rules and all appointments are made strictly in accordance with those Rules and the workman is liable to put strict proof in support ofsupport of his claim i. e. to submit his appointment letter, details ofpayments and other management has mention elevant documents in support ofhis claim. InIn this regard the management has pointed out that there was a complete ban on engagement ofof fresh Casual Labourers/ Dally Wagers in the Department w.e.f 12-6-1998 .The management ofBSNL has submitted that earlier the Casual Labourers were engaged on muster roll , but consequent to ban on engagement ofCasual Labourers/ Daily Wagers w.e.f June, 1998 no fresh labourers has been engaged on muster roll andalso, the labourers who were earlier working on muster roll and were covered under grant of temporary status.and regularization scheme have been granted temporary status . The case ofthe workman does not fall within that category because he was never engaged by the management in any capacity altogether . Thus , the management has prayed that the claim ofthe workman be rejected being incorrect and misconceived since he was never engaged or appointed in the management of BSNL in any capactiy.

in 4. The workman tras filed rejoinder which is unsigned, whereby it has only reiterated her averments in the statement of claim and has not introduced any newfact.

2. The Case of the workman is short is that the workman was engaged by the management of BSNL , in August, 1998 as a daily wages casual labotfrer (Class IV post) in serious exigency of departmental work and since then he was working on the said post and has worked for more than 241240 days in the precedingding year. The workman has alleged that the management of the BSNL has orally terminated its services w.e.f. 31-7-2001 without any valid reason is absolutely illegal , arbitrary, malafied and discriminatory manner without affording any opportunity ofhearing. The workman has further stated that in absence 12 34

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3 , 2009 /PAUSA 13 , 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

preceding his alleged termination. In ( 2002) 3 SCC 25 Range Forest Officer vs S. T. Hadimani the Hon'ble Apex court has observed as under;

"Itwas the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellent . It was then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that can not be regarded as sufficient evidence for any court ortribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for that period was produced by the workman. On this ground alone , the award is liable to be set aside ."

5. The worker has filed photocopies of certain documents , less any appointment order, with his statement of claim, in support of his case whereas the management has not filed any documents with its written statement, although it has disputed the authenticity ofthe photo copy ofthe documents filed by the workman . The workman did not adduced any evidence in support ofhis case inspite of several opportunities , consequently , the case was proceeded ex -party against him and the management was directed to file its evidence . the management in compliance filed affidavit ofShri Ram Charan, Divisional Engineer (HQ) insupport of their case . Since the workman did not turn up to cross-examine the management's witness, the case was fixed for arguments . The management filed its written arguments whereas the workman once again did not turn upeither for oral arguments or for filing written arguments , hence after allowing ample opportunity to the workman for arguments the case was reserved for award .

9. Analyzing its earlier decisions on the aforesaid point Hon'ble Apex court has observed in 2006 ( 108 ) FLR 213 R. M. Yellatti and Asstt . Executive Engineer as follow;

6.Heard the arguments of the representative of the management and perused evidence on record.

7. The workman Shri Laxmi Prasad neither examined himself as witness nor produced any documentary and oral evidence in support of his claim . Whereas , the management has submitted affidavit of Sri Ram Charan , Divisional Engineer , Office of Telecom District Manager , Bahraich as witness in support of its contentions in the written statement . Sri Ram Charan has stated that no post orvacancy of class IV was available in the department . No such vacancywas notified either in the newspaper or notice board and nó appointment procedure was ever held. The workman was neither appointed on class IV post nor was engaged asdaily wager in 1998 as claimed by him and no order was passed for appointment of the workman by the competent authority of the department . No employer employee relationship existed between the employer and the workman. He has also stated that Sub Divisional Officer was not competent to engage any daily wager . He has alleged that the entire claim of the workman is fabricated and concocted . Inspite of opportunity provided , the workman, did not availed the opportunity to cross - examine the above witness .

"It is clear that the provisions of the Evidence Act in terms do not apply to the proceedings under Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act . However , applying general principles and on reading the aforestated judgements we find that this Court has repatedly taken the view that the burden of proof is onthe claimant to show that he had worked 240 days in a given year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman stepping in the witness box . This burden is discharged upon the workman adducing cogent evidence , both oral and documentary. In casesoftermination ofservies ofdaily wages earner , there will be no letter of appointment or temination . There will also be no receipt or proof of payment . Thus most cases , the workman (claimant) can ony callupon the employer to produce before the Court the nominal muster roll for the given period, the letter of appointment or termination , if any, the wage register , the attendance register etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter on facts of each case . The above decisions however make it clear that mere affidavits or self serving statements made by the claimant/ workman will not suffice inthe matter ofdischarge ofthe burden placed bylaw on the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. The above judgements further laydownthat mere non production of muster rolls per se without any plea of suppression by the claimant workman will not be the ground for the Tribunal to draw an adverse inference against the management .

10. In the present case the workman has even not stated on oath that he had worked for 240 days . No. documents in support of the said plea has been produced. Merely pleading in her statement of claim are no proof. Initial burden of establishing the fact of continuous work 8. Itiswell settled that if a party challenges the legality oforder the burden lies upon him to prove illegality ofthe order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the court must fail . In the present case burden was on the workman to set out the grounds to challenge the validity of the termination order and to prove the termination orer was illegal ; but the workman did not appear for evidence nor produced any other documentary evidence with the result that there is no material in rebuttal ofthemanagement evidence . It was the case of the workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim has been denied by the management therefore , it was for the workman to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked upto 240 days in the year 35 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2009/पौष 13, 1930

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

12 The Chief Genertil Manngerol aanme Telecommunication, East, Lucknow/ The Principal

General Manager, Pee KayBhawan Lucknow-226001

AWARD butto

33190 2023-12-2008

for 240 days in a year was on the workman but he has failed to discharge the above burden, therefore , 'th'view of the aforesaid legal position there is no material for recording findings that the workman had worked more than 240 days in the preceding year of his termination and the alleged unjust or illegal order of termination was passed by the management.

11.Accordingly, the dispute referred by the Govt, of India cannotbe answered in favour of the workman Shri Laxmi Prasad and he would not be entitled to any relief.,

12. Award as above

Lucknow N. K. PUROHIT, PresidingOffiger

नई दिल्ली , 12 दिसम्बर, 2008

1. By Order No. L- 40012/44 /2004- IR (DU) dated 5-10-2004 the Central Government in the Ministry ofLabour , New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d ) of sub section ( 1 ) and sub section (2A) of 3(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred following industrial dispute between Smt. Premlata w/o Sh. Ram Murti , R/o Vill, andand Post Gyaghat, Tehsil Nanpara ,Behraich and the Telecomlecom District Manager, Telcom Deptt., Telcom Deptt. BSNL , Bebraich & The Chief General Manager,eneral Manager, Telecommu- nication, East, Lucknow/The Principal General Manager, Pee KayBhawan,hawan, Lucknow for adjudication:-

The reference under adjudication is as under:

का. आ. 19. 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 लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 108/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-12-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

d's"Whether, the action of the management of Bharat 120 Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Behmich in terminating Sunt . Premlate W/ Shri Ram Murti Daily Labour w.e.f. 31-7-2001 is legal and justified ? If not, so what releif ad an the workman is entitled to say [सं. एल -40012/44/2004-आईआर( की थू) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 12th December , 2008

S.O. 19. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 108/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-LabourCourt, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement ofBharat Sanchar Nigam Limited andtheir workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 12-12-2008.

[No. L-40012 /44/2004- IR (DU) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer brow mre!

ANNEXORE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

Shri N. K. Purohit, Presiding Officer

L.D. No. 108/2004

Ref. No. L-40012/44 /2004- IR (DU ) dated: 05-10-2004

BETWEEN

Smt. Premlata W/o Sh. Ram Murti , Rio Vill, andPost, Gyaghat , Tehsil Nanpara, Behraich - 271865

ANDA 5065 ME

2. The CaseCase of the workman in brief is that the workman was engaged by the management of BSNL , in August, 1998 as a daily wages casual labourer (Class IV post) inin serious exigency of departinental work and since then she was working on the said postpost andand hashas worked for more thanthan 240 days in the preceding year . The workman has alleged that the management ofof the BSNL has orally terminated its services a 301712001 without any valid reason is absolutely illegal , arbitrary , malafied and discriminatory manner without affording any opportunity ofhearing. The workman has further stated that in absence ofregular appointments, tie telecom Geparatient has been engaging daily wages castili tabourers to the time to time to meet the exigenicy of the work. this alleged by the workimin that she has not been given temporary status even after being recommetided for the same , whereas the Department has granted temporary status and consequential benefits to shnilarly situated daily rated casual labour w.rt. MemoNo. 1 17/Ch 11/ TDM BRH/Casual Labour/Al dated 18-7-2000 of Department of Telecommu- Hications, Office ofthe Telecom District Manager , Behraich . The Workinan has also alleged that the management of BSNL has violated various provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 i. d. Section 25 Fortion-condtetionof any inquiry against hin' or service of any charge shout,las Well as for non-payment of any notice pay or retrenchanvent Compensation; Section 25G for retaining and continuing patiors In service, and Section 25 II for angaging new persons without affording any opportunity to the Workman for employment.

1. TheTelecomDistrict Manager , Telecom Deptt, BSNL

Behraich-271865

Thus, the workman has prayed that the management ofBSNL be directed to consider the case of the workma take him back in service with back wage , to provice the to 36

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3 , 2009/PAUSA 13 , 1930

workmantemporary status with consequential benefits and toprovidebonus.

3. The management of the BSNL , in its written statement, has disputed the claim ofthe workman and has submitted that it never engaged the workman in any capacity in the year August 1998 or subsequently, hence, there arise no question of having completed 240 days of service or alleged oral termination or of violation of any ofthe provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 at all . The management has mentioned that it has Service Rules and Recruitment Rules and all appointments are made strictly in accordance with those Rules and the workman is liable to put strict proof in support of his claim i . e . to submit his appointment letter, details of payments and other relevant documents in support ofhis claim. Inthis regard the management has pointed out that there,was a complete ban on engagement of fresh Casual Labourers/ Daily Wagers in the Department w.e.f 12-6-1998 . The management of BSNL has submittedthat earlier the Casual Labours were engaged on muster roll , butconsequent to ban on engagement ofCasual Labours/ Daily Wagers w.e.f June , 1998 no fresh labour has been engaged on muster roll and also , the labourers who were earlier working on muster roll and were covered under grantoftemporary status and regularization scheme have been granted temporary status . The case of the workman does not fall within that category because she was never engaged by the management in any capacity altogether . Thus, the management has prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being incorrect and misconceived since he was never engaged or appointed in the management of BSNL in any capacity .

4. The workman has filed rejoined whereby it has only reiterated her averments in the statement of claim and has not introduced any new fact.

5. The worker has filed photocopies of certain documents, less any appointment order, with his statement of claim, in support of his case whereas the management has not filed any documents with its written statement, although it has disputed the authenticity of the photo copy ofthe documents filed by the workman . The workman did not adduced any evidence in support of his case inspite of several opportunities , consequently, the case was proceeded ex-party against him and the management was directedto file its evidence . The management in compliance filed affidavit ofShri Ram Charan , Divisional Engineer (HQ) insupport oftheir case. Since the workman did not turn up to cross-examine the management's witness , the case was fixed for arguinents . The management filed its written arguments whereas the workman once again did not turn up either for oral arguments or for filing written arguments, hence after allowing ample opportunity to the workman for arguments the case was reserved for award.

6. Heard the arguments of the management and perused evidence on record.

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] 7. The workman Smt . Prem Lata neither examined herself as witness nor produced and documentary and orai evidence in support of his claim . Whereas , the management has submitted affidavit of Sri Ram Charan, Divisional Engineer, Office ofTelecom District Manager, Bahraich as witness in support of its contentions in the written statement. Sri Ram Charan has stated that no post or vacancy of class IV was available in the department. No such vacancy was notified either in the newspaper or notice board and no appointment procedure was ever held. The workman was neither appointed on class IV post nor was she engaged as daily wager in 1998 as claimed by him and no order was passed for appointment of the workman by the competent authority of the department . No employer employee relationship existed between the employer and theworkman . He has also stated that Sub Divisional Officer was not competent to engage any daily wager . He has alleged that the entire claim of the workman is fabricated and concocted . Inspite of opportunity provided , the workman, did not availed the opportunity to cross - examine the above witness .

8. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of order the burden lies upon him to prove illegality ofthe order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the court must fail. In the present caseburdenwas on the workman to set out the grounds to challenge the validity of the termination order and to prove the termination order was illegal ; but the workman did not appear for evidence nor produced any other documentary evidence with the result that there is no material in rebuttal ofthe management evidence. It was the case ofthe workman that the had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned .This claim has been denied by the management therefore , it was for the workman to lead evidence to show that she had in fact worked upto 240 days in the year preccedinghis alleged termination. In (2002) 3 SCC 25 Range Forest Officer vs. S. T. Hadimani the Hon'ble Apex court has observed as under;

"It was the case ofthe claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellent . It was then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination . Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that can not be regarded as sufficient evidence for any court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for that period was produced by the workman . On this ground alone , the award is liable to be set aside . "

9. Analyzing its earlier decisions on the aforesaid pointHon'bleApex court has observed in 2006 ( 108 ) FLR 213 R. M. Yellatti and Asstt . Executive Engineer as follow;

" It is clear that the provisions of the Evidence Act in terms do not apply to the proceedings under section 37

भारत का रामपत्र जनवरी 3 , 2009 /पौष 13 , 1930 THAAD THE

[ भास II खपड 3(ii)]

को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-12-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

(से. एल-420127317/2003 - आई आर( सी एम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , हेरगौर , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 12th December, 2008

S.O. 20m pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 143/2004 ) of the Castral Govermanent Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court No. 2 , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Public Works Department, and their workman, received by the Central Government on 12-12-2008. IS THE

[No.4(2012/317/2003 -IR (CM-1 )] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEN

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURTCOURTNO.NO. ILIL, RAJENDRA BHAWAN,

RAJENDRA PLACE, NEWDLEHI

D. No. 143/04

Dated: 2-12-08

In the matter ofof dispute between:

10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act. However, applying general principles and on reading the aforestated judgements we find that this Court has repeatedly taken the view that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that he had worked 240 days in a given year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman stepping in the witness box. This burden is discharged upon the workman adducing cogent evidence, both oral and documentary. In cases of termination of services of dally wages earner, there will be no letter ofappointment or temination. There will also be nono receipt or proof of payment . Thus most cases , the workman (claimant) can only call upon the employer to produce before the Court the nominał muster roll for the given period, the letter of appointment or termination, if any, thewage register, the attendance register etc. Drawing of adverse inferenceultimately would dependthereafter on facts ofeach case. The above decisions however make it clear that mere affidavits or self serving statements madeby the claimant/ workkanan will not suffice inthe matter ofdischarge of the burden placed by law on the workman to prove that be had worked for 240 days in a given year. The above judgements further lay down that mere non production of muster nolls per se without any plea of suppression by the claimant workman will not be the ground for the Tribunal to draw an adverse inference against the management."

Sh. Dhiraj Pal Singh, λο το σπασμοί s/o Sh, Bikram Pal Singh , tailoredar Through The All India CPWD (MRM ),Karamchari Sangathan, worde 4827 Balbir Nagar, Extension, GaliNo. 13 , Shahadara... Delhi- 110032

Workman

Versus

LAD RAMUXYALA The Executive Engineer,

Central Public Works Departme ,

10. In the present case the workman has even not stated on oath that she had worked for 240 days . No documents in support of the said plea has been produced. Merely pleading in her statement of claim are no proof. Initial burden of establishing the fact of continuous work for 240 days in a year was on the workman but she has failedto discharge the above burden, therefore , in view of theaforesaid legal position there is no material for recording findings that the workman had worked more than 240 days in the preceding year and the alleged unjust or illegal order oftermination was passed by the management.

Air conditioning Division- VOD ЈАНТИКО VidyutDhawan, lowDathi

TAWAHR

Management 11. Accordingly, the dispute referred by theGovt. of India cannot be answered in favour of the workman Smt. Premlata and he would not be entitled to any relief. 20

AWARD

12.Award as above

Lucknow N. K. PUROHIT, PresidingOfficer

TheCentral Government Ministry of Labour vide OrderNo. L-40012/317/2003 - IR. (CM- II) dated 19-8-2004 has referredthe following industrial dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication:

नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 20. मौद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं सी. पी. डब्ल्यू. डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीथ , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नं. 2. नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 143/2004 )

"Whether the contract between the insdagenterit of CPWD and their contractor is sham and whether the demand of All India CPWD (MRM) Karamchars Songathan for regularization of the services of Shri Dhiraj Pal Singh s/o ShriBikram Pal Singh, Electrician in the organization of CPWD is legal and justified? Ifyes, to what reliefhe is entitled?" 38

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3 , 2009/PAUSA 13 , 1930

Versus

TheExecutive Engineer,

Central Public Works Department,

Air-conditioning Division -2,

Vidyut Bhawan, New Delhi .

Management

AWARD

Todaywas last opportunity granted to the workman for filing his affidavit for filing rejoinder and affidavit . However, the workman is not attending the court for the last so many dates of hearing. It appears that the workman isnot interested in the outcome of this reference anymore . Underthese circumstances there is no option but to pass a no dispute award in this case . I order accordingly and no dispute award is passed in this case. File be consigned to record room.

SATNAM SINGH, Presiding Officer

Dated: 2-12-08

The Central Government Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-42012/316 /2003 - IR (CM - II) dated 20-8-2004 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication:

नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम्बर , 2008

"Whether the contract between the management of CPWD and their contractor is sham and whether the demand of All India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan for regularization of the services of Shri Kashi Ram S/o Shri Prem Chand, A.C. Operator in the organization of CPWD is legal and justified ? If yes, to what relief he is entitled?"

का.आ. 21.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं सी. पी. डब्ल्यू. डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के. बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नं. 2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 146/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-12-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/316/2003- आई आर ( सी एम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 12th December, 2008

Todaywas last opportunity granted to the workman for filing his affidavit for filing rejoinder and affidavit. However, the workman is not attending the court for the last so many dates of hearing . It appears that the workman isnot interested in the outcome of this reference anymore . Under these circumstances there is no option but to pass a no dispute award in this case . I order accordingly and no dispute award is passed in this case . File be consigned to record room.

SATNAM SINGH , Presiding Officer

Dated: 2-12-2008

नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम्बर , 2008

S.O. 21. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 146/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No. 2 , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Public Works Department, and their workman, received by the Central Government on 12-12-2008.

[No. L-42012/316/2003 -IR (CM - II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

का.आ. 22. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं सी. पी. डब्लयू. डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, नं. 2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 144/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-12-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT NO . II,

RAJENDRA BHAWAN , RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DLEHI

[सं. एल-42012/315/2003- आई आर ( सी एम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी Dated: 2-12-2008

I. D. No. 146/04

New Delhi , the 12th December, 2008 In the matter of dispute between:

Sh. Kashi Ram, S/o Sh . Prem Chand , Through the All India CPWD (MRM ) Karamchari Sangathan,

S.O. 22. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Govemment hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 144/2004 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court No. 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the *Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Public Works Department, and their workman , receivedby the Central Government on 12-12-2008 .

4827 Balbir Nagar Extension, Gali No. 13 , Shahadara, Delhi- 110032

Workman

[No. L-42012/315/2003 - IR (CM - II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer 39.

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3 , 2009 /पौण 13/1930

[ भाम II-खण्ड़ 3 (ii) ]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT NO. II,

RAJENDRA BHAWAN, RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DLEHI

नवोधय स्कूल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और व्रतके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सस्कार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , पोर्टब्लेयर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 22/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-12-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Dated: 2-12-2008

I. D. No. 144/04

120 [ सं एल -42012/197/2002 आईआरसी एम II ) ] सावकार गौड़ डेस्क अधिकारी Inthe matter ofdispute between:

Sh . S. N. Sharma,

New Delhi, the , 12th December,2008 S/o Sh. Ram Chander Sharma,

Through the All India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari

Sangathan,

4827Balbir Nagar Extension, Gali No. 13, Shahadara, Delhi-110032.

Vorkman

S.O. 23. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby publishes, the Award (Ref. No. 22/2003 ) of the Industrial Tribunal , Port, Blair as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, and their workman, received by the Central Government on 12-12-2008 .

Versus

TheExecutiveEngineer ,

Central Public Works Department,

[No.L-42042/197/2002-IR (OM- II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer VidyutBhawan, NewDelhi. Air-conditioning Division-2,

ANNEXURE

Management

AWARD

IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDING OFFICE LABOUR COURTY ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS

Present:Mir Dara Shoko, Presiding Officer Labour sau Court , PortBir

The Central Government Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-42012/315/2003- IR (CM -II) dated 19-8-2004 has refested the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication:

I.D. Case No. 22 of2003

...Finst Party

Shari Pandeep Lakra, Workomen

ThePrincipal ,

"Whether the contract between the management of CPWD and their contractor is sham and whether the demand ofAll India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan for regularization of the services of Shri S.N. Sharma S/o Shri Ram Chander Sharma,Electrician in the organization ofCPWD is legal andjustified? If yes, towhat reliefhe is entitled?"

JawaharNavodaya Vidyalaya, Panchawati, Rangat ,

Second Party

MiddleAndaman

Date ofDelivery of Judgement:

Monday, the 18th day ofofAugust, 2008

JUDGEMENT

Todaywas last opportunity granted to the workman for filing his affidavit for filing rejoinder and affidavit. However , the workman is not attending the court for the last somanydates of hearing . It appears that the workman is not interested in the outcome ofthis reference anymore . Under these circumstances there is no option but to pass a nodispute award in this case. I order accordingly and no dispute award is passed in this case. File be consigned to recordroom.

SATNAMSINGH, Presiding Officer

Dated: 2-12-2008 .

नई दिल्ली , 12 दिसम्बर, 2008

The instant case is a reference under Section 1 of Section 10 r.w. (5) of Section 12 and sub-section (2 -A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 made to this Industrial Tribunalby the order ofDesk Officer, Government ofIndia, Ministry of Labour by his order dated 11-3-2003 for its adjudication presumably due to the reason of existence of Industrial Dispute between the parties and so का.आ. 23. औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसारम्भ में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं जवाहर 40

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2009/PAUSA 13 , 1930

the reference is to be adjudicated on the following point:-

1. Whether the action of the Management of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya , Panchawati , Middle Andaman in refusing employment of First Party, Pradeep Lakra is legal and justify? If not, to what other relief he is entitled too?

DECISION WITH REASONS

The representative of the First Party in the tune of hissubmission of demand submitted that the First Party Pradeep Lakra was engaged in the employment under Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya as a labour on 10-10-97 and worked there till 31-3-2000 in lieu of the salary paid by the Second Party, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya .

It iscontended that the First party was disengaged w.e.f. 1-4-2000 , which is illegal since the first party has completed 240 days work and even without notice under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , the First Party wasterminated .

It ispertinent to mention that although the Second Party i.e. Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya had the opportunity to contest the case , but save and except tendering one statement on their behalf under signature of the Principal of that institution, there is no more participation till final hearing ofthe case .

However , on the face of the materials on record and due tomaking reference by the Desk Officer of the Ministry ofLabour it can be presumed that for determination ofthe point at issue by the competent authority the said reference was held.

Now, from the muster roll ofthe mazdoor maintained by the Second Party, Jawahar Navodaya Vidalaya, I find that the First Party had put and continued his attendance since October , 1997 till November, 1998 and necessary payment of the remuneration/salary was also paid month by month during that period to the First Party like other mazdoor.

Therefore taking into consideration that the Second Party had allowed the case to be heard and disposed of ex-parte and considering, appearance of the Second Party in the proceeding and its disappearance thereafter and specifically considering the copies of the muster roll, which has been produced by the First Party (which obviously would not have been controverted by any concerned staff of the Second Party), I have no hesitation to hold that the First Party had completed 240 days work

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] under the Second Party institution and for that reason he is supposed to be protracted under the Industrial DisputeAct .

The rule is as such that in such a case or even in otherwise situation no workman, employed in any industry, remaining in continuous service for not less than one year under the employer , shall be retrenched until service of one month notice in writing indicating the reasons thereof and so on and so forth . But I find from the record that there is no such proof of compliance under section 25F of the Industrial DisputeAct.

Therefore, I hold and conclude that the action of the Management of Jawahar Navodaya Vidalaya, Panchwati , Rangat , Middle Andaman in refusing employment to the FirstParty Pradeep Lakra is illegal and unjustified , specially for non compliance of the provision of rule and so there must be order of reinstatement in the form of award to be passed in this case .

The point at issue is thus disposed of.

Hence, it is ,

AWARDED

That the action of the Management of Jawahar Navodaya Vidalaya, Panchwati , Rangat, Middle Andaman in refusing employment of Shri Pradeep Lakra from his service in liue of daily wage is neither legal nor justified, and, the First Party is hereby entitled to be reinstated into service on daily wage basis like before under Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya till his termination only as per the rule of law, and subject to further benefit of emoluments/ payments as to be fixed time to time by the Administration of the Vidayalaya and this award shall take immediate effect, however, by making it clear that the period of disengagement of the First Party be taken notionally as the period of his employment for continuity in service, however without any back wages or monetary benefits , since the dispute was pending for adjudicationby this Labour Court .

Let this award be forwarded to the Desk Officer, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi , since the dispute has been disposed of by his reference dated 11-3-2003 vide No. L- 42012/ 197/2002- IR( CM - II ) by supplying also a copy of this award to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, (Central Port Blair) for their information and due publication in the official gazette and for necessary other further action .

MIR DARA SHEKO , Presiding Officer 41 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3 , 2009/पौष 13, 1930

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 12 दिसम्बर , 2008

dependent of the deceased workman namely Smt . Chhabutai Bhokre initially on training for a period oftwo years on a fixed stipend is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is she entitled?"

का.आ. 24. 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 , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 34/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-12-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -22012/ 150/2005-आई:आर ( सीएम- II ) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 12th December ,2008

3.The reference came up or hearing on 24-11-2008 on which the Petitioner and his Counsel were absent . The counsel for Respondent was present. The Petitioner is not attending the case since last one year . She 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 entitled for any relief.

Date: 2-12-2008

A. N. YADAV, PresidingOfficer .

नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम्बर, 2008

S.O. 24. In pursuance ofSection 17 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure , in, the Industrial Dispute between the the management of M/s..Western Coalfields Limited , and their workman, received by the Central Government on 12-12-2008 .

[No. L-22012/ 150/2005- IR (CM- II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

का.आ. 25.-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, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 32/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-12-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था । BEFORE SHRI A. N. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

date: 2-12-2008

[सं. एल-22012/151/2005- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी Case No. CGIT/NGP/34/07

New Delhi , the 12th December ,2008 Petitioner/Party No.1 :

TheGeneral Secretary, Lalzanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union, Coal Estate,

CivilLines, Nagpur-440001. onbehalf of Smt . Chhabutai Bhokre ...

Verses

Respondent/PartyNo. 2:

S.O. 25. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s . Western Coalfields Limited, andtheir workman , received bythe Central Government on 12-12-2008.

[No. L-22012/151 /2005 - IR (CM-II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer The Chairman and Managing Director, M/s . WCL, Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur-440001.

AWARD

(Dated: 2nd December, 2008)

ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI A. N. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Date: 2-12-2008

Case No. CGIT/ NGP/32/07 Petitioner/Party No. 1 :

TheGeneral Secretary,

Lalzanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union , Coal Estate, CivilLines, Nagpur-440001. onbehalf of Shri Shakil Ahmed Sheik

Versus

Respondent/Party No. 2:

4972G1/2009-6

1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence of dispute between the General Secretary, Lalzanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union , Coal Estate , Civil Lines, Nagpur on behalf of Smt. Chhabutai Bhokre (Party No. 1) and the Chairman and Managing Director, M/s . WCL, Coal Estate, Civil Lines , Nagpur (Party No. 2) referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its letter No. L-22012/ 150/2005 - IR(CM- II) dated 29-5-2007 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 .

The Chairman and Managing Director, M/s.Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur-440001 .

2."Whether the action of the management of M/s Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur Area in placing the 42

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3 , 2009/PAUSA 13, 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]

which was received by the Central Government on 10-12-2008.

AWARD (Dated: 2nd December, 2008 )

[No. L-29012/23/2003 - IR (M)] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer अनुबंध

1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence of dispute between the General Secretary , Lalzanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union , Coal Estate, Civil Lines , Nagpur on behalf ofShri Shakil Ahmed Sheikh (Party No. 1) and the Chairman and Managing Director , M/s. Western Coalfield Limited, Coal Estate, Civil Lines , Nagpur (Party No. 2) referred the same for adjudicationto thisTribunal vide its letter No. L-22012/ 151 /2005 - IR(CM- II) dated 29-5-2007 under clause (d) ofsub -section ( 1 ) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) with the following schedule .

औद्यौगिक विवाद् अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , जोधपुर पीठासीन अधिकारी:- श्री पुष्पेन्द्रसिंह हाड़ा, आर.एच.जे.एस. औद्यौगिक विवाद् ( केन्द्रीय ) संख्या:- 1/2004 श्री भीमाराव पुत्र श्री हापूराम मार्फत श्री गोपीकिशन एवं ब्रजकिशोर राज. ट्रेड यूनियन सेन्टर, राज. ( सी.आई.टी.यू. ) सुरतसिंह की कोठी , सोजतीगेट के बाहर , जोधपुर। प्रार्थी

बनाम

1. प्रबन्धक मीना लाईम जाक मुरकासनी तहसील बिलाड़ा जिला जोधपुर।

अप्रार्थी 2. "Whether the action of the management of M/sWestern coalfields Limited, Nagpur Area in placing the dependent ofthe deceased workman namely Shri Shakil Ahmed Sheikh initially on training for a period of two years on a fixed stipend is legal and justified ? If not, to whatrelief is the entitled?

रेफरेन्स अन्तर्गत धारा 10 औद्यौगिक विवाद् अधिनियम , 1947

उपस्थित:-

( 1 ) प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधी श्री बृजकिशोर उप.।

(2) अप्रार्थी की ओर से श्री डी. आर. लूँकड़ एडवोकेट उप.। अवार्ड

दिनांक 23-09-2008 3. The reference came up for hearing on 24-11-2008 onwhich the Petitioner and his Counsel were absent. The counsel for Respondent was present . The Petitioner is not attending the case since last one year . except on one hearing 6-5-2008 . 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 entitled for any relief.

Date: 2-12-2008

1. भारत सरकार ने अपनी अधिसूचना क्रमांक एल. 29012/23/2003 [ आई. आर ( एम ) ] दिनांक 4-9-2003 के तहत निम्न विवाद् अर्न्तगत धारा 10 औद्यौगिक विवाद् अधिनियम , 1947 इस न्यायालय को रेफर किया है ।: -

A. N. YADAV, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2008

" क्याप्रबन्धक मीना लाईम जाक मुरकासनी तह. बिलाड़ा जोधपुर ( राज. ) के द्वारा अपने कर्मकार श्री भीयाराम पुत्र हापूराम ट्रेक्टर ड्राईवर को दिनांक 19-4-1998 से सेवा से बर्खास्त करना उचित एवं वैध है यदि नही तो कर्मकार क्या राहत पाने का अधिकारी है ? "

का.आ. 26.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मीना लाईम स्टोन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय जोधपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-29012/23/2003- आई आर ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 15th December , 2008

S.O. 26. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 1/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Jodhpur now as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of Meena Lime Stone and their workman ,

2. प्रार्थी ने अपना माँग- पत्र इस आशय का प्रस्तुत किया है कि प्रार्थी अप्रार्थी के अधीन ट्रैक्टर ड्राईवर के पद पर दिनांक 5-7-1988 को नियुक्त होकर 19-4-1998 तक लगातार कार्यरत रहा , अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रार्थी को बिना किसी कारण के सेवामुक्त कर दिया , प्रार्थी ने अप्रार्थी के अधीन लंगातार 240 दिनों से अधिक समय तक कार्य किया , सेवामुक्ति से पूर्व प्रार्थी को नोटिस , नोटिस वेतन व मुआवजा नहीं दिया गया न ही घरेलू जाँच की गई तथा सेवामुक्ति से पूर्व कोई वरिष्ठता सूची जारी नहीं की गई जब कि प्रार्थी से जूनियर श्रमिक आज भी अप्रार्थी संस्थान में कार्यरत हैं। अप्रार्थी द्वारा सेवामुक्ति से पूर्व धारा 25 एफ एवं एच औद्यौगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 के प्रावधानों की पालना नहीं की गई , प्रार्थी सेवामुक्ति से आज तक बेरोजगार है । अतः सेवामुक्ति दिनांक 19-4-98 को अनुचित एवं अवैध घोषित किया जाकर प्रार्थी को सेवा की निरन्तरता में सम्पूर्ण वेतन सहित सेवा में पुर्नस्थापित किये जाने का अवार्ड पारित किया जावे। 43 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3 , 2009/पौष 13 , 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3. अप्रार्थी की ओर से जवाबदावा प्रस्तुत कर यह कहा गया है कि प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति कभी भी ड्राईवर के पद पर अप्रार्थी संस्थान में नहीं हुई। अप्रार्थी के यहाँ लाईम का कार्य होता है, उसे सर्वेप्रथम खनन का पट्‌ट्टा आदेश दिनांक 9-10-1991 को खनिज लाईमस्टोन के लिए दिया गया जिसकी संविदा पंजीयन दिनांक 22-4-92 को हुआ अतः उसके पूर्व तो फैक्ट्री चालू ही महीं हो सकती थी । जब प्रार्थी ने अप्रार्थी संस्थान में कार्य ही नहीं किया तो उसके द्वारा 240 दिन लगातार कार्य करने का कथन गलत है , तथा प्रार्थी को नोटिस , नोटिस वेतन व मुआवजा देने का प्रश्न ही उत्पन्न नहीं होता तथा वरिष्ठता सूची का भी प्रश्न उत्पन्न नहीं होता । अतः अप्रार्थी के लिए धारा 25 - एफ एवं एच औद्यौगिक विवाद अधिनियम के प्रावधानों की पालना की आवश्यकता ही नहीं थी । प्रार्थी किसी अनुतोष को प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है । प्रार्थी का मॉग - पत्र सव्यय खारिज किया जावे।

माँग- पत्र के समर्थन में प्रार्थी ने स्वंय का शपथ-पत्र प्रस्तुत किया जिस पर अप्रार्थी प्रतिनिधी द्वारा जिरह की गई। अप्रार्थी की ओर से ओमप्रकाश बोहरा का शपथ - पत्र प्रस्तुत किया गया जिसपर प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधी द्वारा जिरह की गई।

5. दोनों पक्षों के प्रतिनिधीगण की बहस सुनी गई । पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया गया।

(19-4-97 से 19-4-98 ) में प्रार्थी ने 240 दिन अप्रार्थी के अधीन कार्य किया ( 2006( 3 ) एल.एल.जे. 320 )। लेकिम प्रार्थी ने उक्त तथ्य को सिद्ध करने के लिए अपने शपथ- पत्र के अलावा अन्य कोई दस्तावेज साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं की है न ही अप्रार्थी से कोई दस्तावेजात तलब करवाये हैं । इसके विपरित अप्रार्थी की ओर से भुगतान रजिस्टर जनवरी , 1994 से फरवरी, 1999 तक की फोटो प्रतियाँ तथा खनिज अभियन्ता, जोधपुर द्वारा खनन पट्टा स्वीकृति का कार्यालय आदेश दिनांक6-11-04 व 9-2-99, माईनिग लीज आदि की फोटो प्रतियाँ पेश की गई । अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत भुगतान रजिस्टर के अवलोकन से प्रार्थी के कार्य दिवसों की गणना रेफरेन्स में बताई सेवामुक्ति की दिनांक 19-4-1998 से पूर्व के एक वर्ष में किये जाने पर भुगतान रजिस्टर 19-4-1997 से 19-4-1998 में प्रार्थी का नाम दर्ज नहीं है जब किप्रार्थी ने अंगनी साक्ष्य में यह कहा है कि वह भुगतान अंगुष्ठ -लगाकर प्राप्त करता था लेकिम भुगतान रजिस्टर प्रदर्श ए-61 अप्रैल , 1997से अप्रैल , 1998. प्रदर्श ए-73 में प्रार्थी का कहीं पर नाम अंकित नहीं है। प्रार्थी की मौखिक साक्ष्य इस संबंध में पर्याप्त नही मानी जा सकती है जैसा कि माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा 2004 एस.सी.सी. (एल. एण्ड एस. ) 1062 व 2006( 1 ) एल.एल.जे.एस.सी. 442 में निर्णित किया गया है कि इस प्रकार के कार्य को सिद्ध किये जाने के लिए प्रार्थी का स्वंय का शपथ पत्र पर्याप्त नहीं माना जा सकता व दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य से पुष्टि ही इस तथ्य को सिद्ध करने का आधार माना जा सकता है । प्रार्थी ने अपनी मौखिक साक्ष्य के समर्थन में किसी प्रकार की दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं की है ऐसी स्थिति में प्रार्थी यह सिद्ध नही कर पाया है कि उसने रेफरेन्स में बताई सेवामुक्ति की तिथि 19-4-1998 से पूर्व के एक वर्ष में लगातार 240 दिन अप्रार्थी संस्थान में कार्य किया। इसके अतिरिक्त अप्रार्थी की ओर से प्रस्तुत दस्तावेज से यह स्पष्ट है कि अप्रार्थी को सर्वप्रथम खनन का पट्टा दिनांक 9-10-1991 को खनिज लाईम स्टोन के लिए दिया गया जिसका संविदा पंजियन दिनांक 22-4-92 को हुआ जिससे भी स्पष्ट हैकि5-7-1988 को अप्रार्थी संस्थान चालू ही नहीं हुआ था। जब अप्रार्थी संस्थान 5-7-1988 को अस्तित्व में ही नहीं था तो प्रार्थी का 5-7-1988 को अप्रार्थी संस्थान में ड्राईवर के पद पर नियुक्त होने का कथन असत्य प्रतीत होता है स्वयं प्रार्थी ने जिरह में स्वीकार किया है किमीना लाईम कारखाना मीना लाईम के नाम से 1988 के बाद चालू हुआ था। प्रार्थी द्वारा अप्रार्थी संस्थान, में 240 दिन का कार्य सिद्ध नहीं होने की विश्वद्धि में प्रार्थी को स्ट्रेिन्च किये जाने से पूर्व कोई नोटिस , नोटिस वेतन या सुधादेव महीं भाव यह नहीं माना जा सकता कि प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्त के केस में चारा 25 -एफ औद्यौगिक विवादः अधिनियम के का उल्लंधन क्षार्थी द्वारा किया गयाहो।

6. प्रार्थी ने अपनी साक्ष्य में कहा है कि उसकी नियुक्ति अप्रार्थी संस्थान में ड्राईवर के पद पर 5-7-1988 को हुई तथा उसने 19-4-98 तक लगातार कार्य किया, उसने लगातार 240 दिन से अधिक समय तक कार्य किया तथा उसे बिना नोटिस , नोटिस वेतन व मुआवजा दिये सेवामुक्त कर दिया तथा सेवामुक्ति से पूर्व कोई वरिष्ठता सूची जारी नहीं की गई । जिरह में प्रार्थी ने कहा है कि मैने नियुक्तिबाबत कोई दस्तावेज पेश नहीं किया है, मीना लाईम में पत्थर का खनन का काम होता था, मैं ट्रैक्टर चलाता था। यह सही है। कि मीना लाईम कारखाना मीना लाईम के नाम से 1988 के बाद चालु हुआ उसके बाद हाईकेम लाईम के नाम से कारखाना था, मीना लाईम को खान का लाईसेन्स 1991 में मिला या नहीं इसका मुझे पता नहीं, पट्टा 1992 में मिला होगा , प्रदर्श ए-1 सेः प्रदर्श ए-86 भुगतान रजिस्टर में मेरा नाम क्यों नहीं है यह मैं नहीं कह सकता, पैमेन्टशीट पर अंगुष्ठ लगाकर भुगतान प्राप्त करता था। इसके विपरित अप्रार्थी की ओर से ओमप्रकाश बोहरा ने अपनी सांध्य में यह कहा है कि प्रार्थी, अप्रार्थी संस्थान में कभी भी किसी पद पर नियुक्त नहीं हुआ ट्रैक्टर संख्या आर.आर.एन. 3734 एवं आर.जे. 19 आर. 6015 हमारे संस्थान के नहीं हैं, अप्रार्थी संस्थाम में लाईम स्टोन के खानन का कार्य होता है तथा खनिज विभाग का पट्टा 9-10-91 को जारी हुआ सध्या सर्वप्रथम खनन कार्य 23-4-92 से प्रारम्भ हुआ , 5-7-88 को संस्थान में किसी प्रकार का कार्य नहीं होता था प्रार्थी जब अप्रार्थी संस्थान में कार्य ही नहीं करता था तो उसकी 19-4-98 को सेवामुक्ति का प्रश्न ही उत्पन्न नहीं होता। जिरह में गवाह नेने कहा है कि जो कर्मचारी नौकरी करते हैं उनकी हाजरी रजिस्टर में होती है , फैक्ट्री में ट्रैक्टर का काम नहीं होता है, माल कां लोडिंग ट्रक द्वारा होता था; 1988 में फार्म नहीं थी, 21-4-92 को एलोट हुई थी।

8. सध्धपि प्राची ने धारा 25 एच औद्यौगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 के उस्तन का तर्क भी लिक है परन्तु इस संबंध में प्रार्थी की कोई विशिष्ठ सारण प्रस्तुत नहीं हुई है व प्रार्थी चूंकि अप्रार्थी के अधीन सेनानुतिक रेम्स में बताई गई दिनांक 19-4-98 से पूर्व केएक वर्ष में अप्रार्थी के अधीन कार्य करना सिद्ध नहीं कर पाया है अतः वरिष्ठता सूचि उसके केस में रखा जाना आवश्यक नहीं था । 'अप्रार्थी ने अपने शपथ- पत्र में यह बताया है कि प्रार्थी हमारे संस्थान में कभी भी किसी पद परनियुक्कनहीं था, प्रार्थी ने इसके रिबटल में 7. यह सिद्ध करने का भारः प्रार्थी पर था कि रेफरेन्स में प्रार्थी की सेवामुक्ति की बताई गई दिनांक 19-4-1998 से पूर्व के एक वर्ष 44

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3 , 2009 /PAUSA 13 , 1930

कोई दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं की है । अतः अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत दस्तावेजात के आधार पर यह तथ्य भी सिद्ध होना पाया जाता कि प्रार्थी व अप्रार्थी के मध्य कर्मकार व नियोक्ता का सम्बन्ध नहीं था।

9. उक्त विवेचन के आधार पर यह सिद्ध होना नहीं पाया जाता कि प्रार्थी ने सेवा समाप्ति की रेफरेन्स में बताई गई तिथि 19-4-98 से पूर्व के एक वर्ष में अप्रार्थी के अधीन 240 दिन लगातार कार्य किया हो । यह तथ्य सिद्ध न होने की स्थिति में प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्ति को अवैध माने जाने का कोई आधार नहीं है व प्रार्थी औद्यौगिक विवाद अधिनियम के तहत किसी अनुतोष का अधिकारी नहींहै ।

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )]

ANNEXURE

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

I.D. 82 of 2006 ( I.D. 10/2000 of Labour Court , Ernakulam) Union

The General Secretary, Cochin Refineries Employees Association, Ambalamughal .

Management

10. उक्त विवेचना के अनुसार इस रेफरेन्स का उत्तर इस अवार्ड की terms में निम्नप्रकार दिया जाता है ।

प्रार्थी अप्रार्थी के अधीन नियोजित होना सिद्ध नहीं कर पाया है अतः दिनांक 19-4-1998 से उसे अनुचित या अवैध रूप से सेवामुक्त किया जाना नहीं माना जा सकता । प्रार्थी किसी अनुतोष का अधिकारी नहीं होगा।

जावे। 11. इस अवार्ड को प्रकाशनार्थ भारत सरकार को प्रेषित किया 12. यह अवार्ड आज दिनांक 23-09-2008 को खुले न्यायालय में सुनाया गया।

पुष्पेन्द्र सिंह हाडा, न्यायाधीश नई दिल्ली , 15 दिसम्बर, 2008

का.आ. 27.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मै . कोचीन रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय ईर्नाकुलम के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या आई. डी.- 82/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30012/9/2000- आई आर( एम) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 15th December , 2008 S.O. 27. 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. 82/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court , Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Cochin Refineries Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-12-2008 .

[No. L- 30012/ 9/2000 - IR (M)]

KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

By Adv. Sri C.S. Ajith Prakash . TheGeneral Manager (HRM) , Cochin Refineries Limited, Ambalamughal . By Adv. M/ s . Menon & Pai .

Thiscase coming up for final hearing on 23-09-2008 , thisTribunal on 25-09-2008 passed the following. AWARD

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

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Cochin Refineries Limited in imposing the punishment of withholding one increment with cumulative effect against Shri P. N. Surendran Nair for certain alleged misconduct is legal and justified? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled?" 2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: - Sri . P. N. Surendran Nair was the General Secretary of Kochi Refineries Employees Association . On the allegation that he was a habitual absentee and a late attender a show- cause notice was issued to him which was followed by a charge sheet. An enquiry was ordered and he was found guilty of the charges . A penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect was imposed.

3.According to the workman the enquiry is vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice . The charge sheet does not contain statement of allegations and the charges are vague . Since the workman is a union office bearer he is victimised by the management . On the days of absence alleged by the management he was attending conciliation and domestic enquiries as defence representative . At any rate the punishment imposed is disproportionate.

4.According to the management the enquiry was conducted fullycomplying with principles ofnatural justice and fairplay. The workman was absent on several occasions and it cannot be viewed lightly by the management. It is incorrect to say that the workman was attending conciliationmeetings on the days of absence mentioned in the charge sheet . The office bearers of the union cannot conduct union activities at the cost of the management . It is on the basis of the materials on record that the enquiry 45 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3 , 2009/पौष 13, 1930

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (й ) ]

examined . But the workman did not cross examine him. He wanted a co-worker to represent him..

officer found the workman guilty . The punishment is commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct.

5. The workman had raised a preliminary objection regarding validity of enquiry and by order däted 08-09-2008 it was found that the enquiry is valid . Therefore the remaining points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the findings are sustainable?

2. Is the punishment proportionate?

The evidence consists ofthe oral testimony ofMWI and Ext. M1 document on the side of the management and no evidence on the side of the union.

8. The enquiry was adjourned to 25-07-96 and then to 31-07-96. Thereafter there were several adjournments . Meanwhile the workman filed a Writ O.P. before the Hon'ble High Court. On that ground he sought adjournment . The enquiry was posted finally to 10-09-96 . Still he remained absent. Therefore the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry exparte and examined MW2 . Again the enquiry was adjourned to 12-09-96. But the worker was'absent . ThenMW3 was examined . The enquiry was adjourned to 17-09-96 on which day the workman was again absent . The enquiry was adjourned to 20-09-96. That day also he remained absent. MW4 was examined in chief and the enquirywas adjourned to 22-11-96 . The worker remained absent and the enquiry was completed on that day. This was the habit ofthe workman even in the domestic enquiry. The enquiry itself was conducted on the allegation of absenteeism . I have found in the preliminary onder that the workman was given suficient opportunity to cross examine management witnesses and adduce defence evidence . But he was indifferent and callous in defending the charges against him. The evidence on the side of the management both oral and documentary remain unchallenged . The EnquiryOfficer therefore found the workman guilty ofthe charges. In the absence of any contra evidence no other conclusion could have been drawn by the Enquiry Officer. I find no reason to interfere with the findings ......

6. Point No. 1: - Ext. M3 is a show- cause notice dated 27-03-96 issued to the workman alleging absenteeism and late reporting. The show-cause notice contains datails of absence . Within a period of 4 months from 01-12-95 to 19-03-96 he had remained absent 25 times . Out ofthat for 7 days' absence leave was granted . Absence on 17 occasions were unauthorised . Besides he used to attend thework late. To the show -cause notice the workman had sent Ext .M5 reply denying the allegations and contending that he was not absent unauthorisedly but was attending conciliation meetings and domestic enquiries as defence representative . Thereafter orf07-05-96 Ext . M4 charge sheet was issued to him . Reference is made to the show- cause notice in the charge sheet. One of the contentions of the workman is that the charge sheet does not contain a statement of allegations, that it is only a reproduction of the standing orders and the allegations are not specific. Asmentioned above- Ext . M5 charge sheet refers to the show-cause notice which contain details of absence and late attendance . Hence there was no reason for the workman to get confused regarding the allegations .

9. Point No. 2: The punishment imposed is withholding of one increment with cumulative effect . According to the union the punishment is excessive and disproportionate on a charge of unauthorised absence . A lesser punishment is warranted in this case . Since the penalty. imposed is not one falling within S. 11 -A of I.D. Act the hands of this court are tied except in case of violation of any provision of law, settlement or regulations . The standing orders ofCochin Refineries Limited (Ext . M-XVII ) binds all workman of Cochin Refineries Limited, Clause29 of the standing orders, deals with misconduct and 30 punishment for misconduct . The workman is found guilty ofClause 29-11 for habitual or excessive absenteeism or late atendance, Clause 29-36 for absence from job during working hourswithout permission of supervisor and Clause 29-53 for acts violative of Company's Rules and Regulations. The punishment provided for misconduct are enumerated in Clause 30-1 (a) to (e ) . The disciplinary authority has resorted to, clause 30-1 (e) to impose the punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect . That provision says that the company may impose any punishment deems just and npeessary . Apparently there is no infraction of any provision of standing orders or any other provision of law in imposing the punishment. That a part the penalty ofwithholding of one increment with cumalative effect cari never be said to be disproportionate in pease of habitual absence on so many occasions within a short span of 4 months and not properly attending to duty. Therefore I am refraining from interfering with the punishment as well .

7. Ext. M1 is copy of log book concerning the period in question. It reveals that the workman remained absent on 17 occasions during the period between 01-12-95 to 19-03-96 . It also reveals that during working Hours he üsed to skip work and was missing from the work spot; MWs.1 to 4 examined on the side of the management have supported the case of the management. The testimony of MWs : 1 to 4 is unchallenged because the workman remained absent on most of the days of enquiry . The enquirywas first posted on 20-05-96 after giving him notice by the Enquiry officer . But it was again postponed with notice to the delinquent to the next day on 21-05-96 . That day the workman remained absent . It was adjourned to 28- 05-96, 03-06-96, 06-06-96 and then to 11-06-96. AH except on 11-06-96 the worker was absent . On 11-06-96 list of documents and withnesses were given to the workman . He was asked by the enquiry Officer regarding the charges and he denied the charges . The enquiry was adjourned to 19-06-96 on which date he remained absent .After 2 postings on04-07-96 the workman apeared. On that day copies of documents were given to him by the management . Again the enquiry was adjourned. But he remained absent . On 18-07-96 he attended the enquiry . On that day MW1 was 46

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3 , 2009/PAUSA 13 , 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

For the Workman : Shri Murari Prasad , Representative ofBMS .

Present

Vasudeo Ram, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal , Patna .

In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management in imposing the punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect against theworkman is legal and justified and he is not entitled for any relief.

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

AWARD Patna, Dated the 21st October, 2008 Dectated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typedbyher , corrected and passed by me on this the 25th day of September, 2008.

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer APPENDIX

Nil

Witness for the Union

Witness for the Management

By adjudication order No. L- 17012/10/2008 - IR (M) dated 19-5-2008 , the Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi , under Clause(d) of sub-section( 1) and sub- section(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter called ' the Act ' for brevity) has referred the following dispute between the management of LIC of India Ltd. , Patna and their workman , Shri Ranjeet Kumar, represented by B.M.S. , Patna , for adjudication to this Tribunal:

MW1

12-11-2007 Shri Neelakanton M.N.

Nil

Exhibit for the Union

Exhibit for the Management

Enquiryfile.

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर , 2008

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

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

का.आ. 28.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एल आई सी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में अधिकरण पटना के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 49 ( सी)/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

3. And that is my Award.

[सं. एल-17012/10/2008- आई आर( एम) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी

VASUDEO RAM, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 15 दिसम्बर , 2008

New Delhi, the 15th December , 2008

का.आ. 29. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एल आई सी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण पटना के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 48 ( सी )/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था। S.O. 28. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 49(c)/2008 ) of the Industrial Tribunal Patna now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of LIC of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-12-2008 .

[सं एल-17012/11/2008- आई आर( एम) ] कमले बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी [No. L- 17012/ 10/2008 - IR (M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

New Delhi , the 15th December , 2008 ANNEXURE

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

Reference Case No. 49( C) of 2008

S.O. 29. In pursuance of Section. 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 48(C)/2008 ) of the Industrial Tribunal - Patna now as shown in the Annexure in the Industriál Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of LIC of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-12-2008 .

Between the Management of LIC of India Ltd. , Patna and their workman Shri Ranjeet Kumar , represented by B.M.S. , Patna .

For the Management : ' Shri Anil Kr . Verma, Representative of LIC .

[No. L- 17012/ 11 /2008 - IR (M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer 47 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत को राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2009/पौष 13 , 1930

ANNEXURE

NewDelhi, the 15th December, 2008 BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, SHRAM BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATANA

ReferenceCase No. 48(C) of2008

S.O. 30. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government here by publishes the Award (Ref. No. 47(C)/2008) of the Industrial Triburtal , Patna now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of LIC of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-12-2008 .

BetweentheManagement of LIC of India Ltd.,Patna and their workman Shri Surendra Kumar, represented by B.M.Si, Patna ..

[No. L- 17012/ 12/2008- IR(M) ] For the Management : Shri Anil Kumar Verma, Representative ofLIC.

KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer For the Workman

ANNEXURE

: Shri Murari Prasad, Representative ofBMS .

Present

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

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

Reference Case No. 47(C) of 2008 AWARD

Patna, Dated the 21st October , 2008

Between the Management of LIC of India Ltd. , Patna and their workman Shri Raju Kumar Rajak, represented by B.M.S. , Patna.

For the Management : Shri Anil Kr. Verma, Representative of LIC .

For the Workman

Shri Murari Prasad, ; Representative of BMS.

Present

:Vagudeo Ram, Presiding Officer , Industrial Tribunal,Patna.

Byadjudication order No. L- 17012/ 11 /2008 - IR (M) dated 19-5-2008, the Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour,. New Delhi, under Clause(d) of sub- section(1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter called ' the Act ' for brevity ) has referred the following dispute between the management of LIC of India Ltd. , Patna and their workman , Shri Surendra Kumar, represented by B.M.S. , Patna, for adjudication to this Tribunal:

AWARD

Patna, Dated the 21st October, 2008 "Whether the action of the management of LIC of India, Divisional Office, Patna in not regularising the services ofDaily Wage Worker Shri Surendra Kumar working for a long period and not giving him regular status ofa permanent worker isjustified and legal ? If not, to what relief the worker is entitled to?"

By adjudication order No. L- 17012/ 12/2008 - IR(M) dated 19-5-2008 , the Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi , under Clause (D) of sub- section ( 1) and sub- section(2A) of Section- 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter called ' the Act' for brevity) has referred the following dispute between the management of LIC of India Ltd. , Patna and their workman, Shri Raju Kumar Rajak, represented by B.M.S. , Patna, for adjudication to this Tribunal:

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

3. And that is my Award.

"Whether the action of the management of LIC of India, Divisional Office , Patna in not regularising the services of Daily Wage Worker Shri Raju Kumar Rajak, working for a long period and not giving him. regular status of a permanent worker is justified and legal? Ifnot , to what relief the worker is entitled to ?" VASUDEO RAM, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 15 दिसम्बर, 2008

2. Both the parties appeared on notice and filed ' statement ofclaim and the written statement . Subsequently apetition for withdrawal of the reference case has been filed on behalf of workman and moved. Under the circumstances I presume that now no dispute exist between the parties, hence I hereby pass a "No dispute Award" .

3. And that is my Award.

का.आ. 30. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एल आई सी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण पटना के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 47 ( सी )/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

Dictated and corrected by me.

VASUDEO RAM, Presiding Officer [सं..एल -17012/ 12 /2008- आई आर( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी 48

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3 , 2009/PAUSA 13 , 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर , 2008

services ofdaily wage Worker Shri Pravesh Kumar working for a long period and not giving him regular status of a permanent worker is justified and legal ? If not, to what relief the worker is entitled to ?" .

का.आ. 31.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एल आई सी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण , पटना के पंचाट [ संदर्भ संख्या 46( सी )/2008 ] को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-17012/13/2008 - आई आर( एम) ]

2. Both the parties appeared on notice and filed statement of claim and the written statement . Subsequently a petition for withdrawal of the reference case has been filed on behalf of workman and moved . Under the circumstances I presume that now no dispute exists betweentheparties , and hence I hereby pass a ' No dispute Award' .

कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी

3. And this is my award.

New Delhi , the 15th December , 2008

VASUDEO RAM, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 15 दिसम्बर , 2008

S.O. 31. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award [ Ref. No. 46(C)/2008 ] of the Industrial Tribunal , Patna now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of LIC of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-12-2008 .

का.आ. 32.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एल आई सी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतांत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण , पटना के पंचाद ( संदर्भ संख्या 45 ( सी )/2008 ] को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [No. L - 17012/ 13/2008 - IR (M)] KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer

[सं. एल-17012/14/2008- आई आर ( एम) ] ANNEXURE

कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 15th December , 2008 BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, SHRAM BHAWAN , BAILEY ROAD , PATNA

Reference Case No. 46(C) of 2008

Between the Management of LIC of India Ltd. , Patna and their workman Sri Pravesh Kumar, represented by B.M.S. , Patna.

S.O. 32. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref. No. 45(C)/2008] of the Industrial Tribunal , Patna now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of LIC of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-12-2008 .

For the Management : Shri Anil Kumar Verma , Representative of LIC .

[No. L- 17012/14/2008 - IR (M)] For the Workman : Shri Murari Prasad , Representative of MBS .

KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AWARD

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

Patna, dated the 21st October , 2008

Reference Case No. 45(C) of2008

Between the Management of LIC of India Ltd. , Patna and their workman Sri Prem Nath Ram , represented by B.M.S. , Patna.

FortheManagement : Shri Naveen Kumar , Representative ofLIC.

For the Workman: Shri Murari Prasad , Representative of BMS.

By adjudication order No. L - 17012/ 13 / 2008 - IR(M ) dated 19-5-2008 , to the Government of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi under Clause (d) of Sub- Section ( 1 ) and Sub- Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( hereinafter called ' the Act ' for brevity) has referred the following dispute between the management of LIC of India Ltd. , Patna and their workman Shri Pravesh Kumar, represented By B. M. S. , Patna to this Tribunal for adjudication :

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

"Whether the action of the management of LIC of India, Divisional Office , Patna in t regularising the [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का रामपत्र: जमवरी 3 , 2009/पौष 13 , 1930

AWARD

Patna, dated the 20th, October, 2008 By adjudication order No. L- 17012/ 14/2008- IR(M ) dated 19-5-2008, to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi under Clause(d) of Sub- Section(1 ) and Sub- Section(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called ' the Act' for brevity) has referred the following dispute between the management of LIC of India Ltd. , Patna and their workman Shri Prem Nath Ram , represented By B. M. S. , Patna to this Tribunal for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of LIC of India, Divisiorial Office, Patna in not regularising the services ofdaily wage Worker Shri Prem Nath Ram working for a long period and not giving him regular status ofa permanent worker is justified and legal ? Ifnot, towirat relief the worker is entitled to ? " 2. Both the parties appeared on notice and filed statement of claim and the written statement . Subsequently apetition for withdrawal of the reference case has been filed on behalf of workman and moved. Under the circumstances I presume that now no dispute exists betweenthe parties , and hence I hereby pass a ' No dispute Award'.

3. And this is my award.

VASUDEO RAM, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 15 दिसम्बर, 2008

का.आ. 33. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरुण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एल आई सी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण, पटना के पंचाट [ संदर्भ संख्या 44( सी ) /2008 ] को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल-17012/15/2008- आई आर( एम) ]

कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 15th December, 2008

S.O.33 .In pursuance of Section 17 ofthe Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref. No. 44 (C )/2008 ] of the Industrial Tribunal , Patna now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of LIC of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-12-2008 .

[No. L- 17012/15/2008- IR(M)]

KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer-

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, SHRAM BHAWAN, BAILEYROAD, PATNA 07

Reference Case No. 44 (C) of 2008 Betweenthe Management of LIC of India Ltd. , Patna and their workman Sri Arbind Kumar, represented by B.M.S. , Patna.

For the Management: Shri Naveen Kumar, Representative

ofLIC. For the Workman: Shri Murari Prasad, Representative of BMB

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

AWARD

Patna, dated the 20th October, 2008

By adjudication order No. L - 17012/ 15 /2008 - IR (M ) dated 19-5-2008, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi under Clause (d) ofSub - Section ( 1 ) and Sub-Section(2A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called ' the Act ' for brevity) has referredthe following dispute between the management of LIC of India Ltd. , Patna and their workman Shri Arbind Kumar, represented By B. M. S. , Patna to this Tribunal for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of LIC of India, DivisionalOffice, Patna in not regularising the services ofdaily wage Worker Shri,Arbind Kumar working for a long period and not giving him regular status of a permanent worker is jüstified and legal ? Ifnot, to what relief the worker is entitled to ?" .

120

2. Both the parties appeared on, notice and filed statement of claim and the written statement . Subsequently a petition for withdrawal of the reference case has been filed on behalf of workman and moved. Under the circumstances, Impresume that now no dispute exists between the parties, and hence I hereby pass a 'No dispute Award'.

3. And this is my award...

VASUDEO RAM, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 34. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय संरकार एल आई सी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण , पटना के पंचाट [ संदर्भ संख्या: 32 ( सी )/ 2008 ] को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल -17012 /74/2007 - आई आर( एम. ) ]

कमल बाखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 3 , 2009/PAUSA 13 , 1930

नई दिल्ली , 15 दिसम्बर , 2008

NewDelhi , the 15th December, 2008

S.O. 34. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref. No. 32(C)/2008 ) of the Industrial Tribunal , Patna now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of LIC of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-12-2008.

का.आ. 35.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एयरपोर्ट ऑथेरिटी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , ईर्नाकुलम के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या आई.डी.- $1/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -11012/6/2005- आई. आर (एम. ) ] [No. L- 17012/74/2007- IR (M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer

कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी ANNEXURE

New Delhi , the 15th December , 2008 BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, SHRAM BHAWAN , BAILEY ROAD , PATNA

Reference Case No. 32(C) of 2008

Between the Management of LIC of India Ltd. , Patna and their workman Sri Vijay Kumar , represented by B.M.S. , Patna.

S.O. 35. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government here by publishes the Award (Ref . I.D. No. 51/2006) of the Central Government. Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Airports Authority of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-12-2008 .

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

For the Workman : Shri Murari Prasad , Representative of BMS .

[No. L- 11012/6/2005- IR (M)] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

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

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

Present : Shri P. L. Norbert, B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer Patna , dated the 17th October , 2008

(Thursday , the 28th day of August, 2008/6th Bhadrapadh , 1930)

I.D. No. 51/2006

(I.D.17/2006 of Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha)

Workman

By the adjudication order No. L- 17012/ 74/ 2007 - IR(M) dated 17-3-2008 , the Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi under Clause (d) of Sub-Section ( 1 ) and Sub- Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( hereinafter called ' the Act ' for brevity) has referred the following dispute between the management of LIC of India Ltd. , Patna and their workman Shri Vijay Kumar , represented By B.M.S. , Patnato this Tribunal for adjudication to this Tribunal :

Smt.Margaret Fernandez, Kankalil , Nangiarkulangara P.O. , Alleppy. By Adv. Sri . Thomas Abraham .

Management

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

1. The Airport Director, Trivandrum Airport Authority of of India (NAD), Trivandrum International Airport , Trivandrum-695 008 .

2. Both the parties appeared on notice and filed statement ofclaim and the written statement . Subsequently apetition for withdrawal of the reference has been filed and moved on behalf of workman through his representative . Under the circumstances I presume that now no dispute exists between the parties , and hence I hereby pass a 'No Dispute Award ' " .

3. And this is my award .

2. The Administrator , M/ s. Ex - servicemens ' Welfare Cooperative Society Ltd. , No. 780, Office ofthe Registrar of Co- operative Societies (General) , Vanchiyoor Trivandrum. By Adv. Sri . K. L. Narasimhan .

VASUDEO RAM, Presiding Officer 51 भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 3,2009/पौत्र 13, 1930.

[भाग -खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

This case comingup for hearing on 25-08-2008, this Tribunal -cum- Labour Court on 28-08-2008 passed the following:

AWARD

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

"Whether the action of the Director , Airports Authority of India, Trivandrum in non -absorbing/ terminatingthe services of Smt . Margaret Fernandez, Contract Labour (Cleaner) is just and fair ? If not, what reliefthe concerned workman is entitled to ?"

is not working as a contract labourer under the management or under 2nd management. There is no master-servant relationship betweenthe claimant and the first management. The claimant is not a workman as defined in the 1.D. Act, There was a contract sometime back with the 2nd management for providing labourer for sweeping, cleaning and gardening. First management is not aware whether the worker was engaged by the 2nd management for cleaning purpose. The worker had not approached the first management in 1993 seeking re- instatement. The first management is not aware ofthe alleged illness ofthe worker in1991. The first management is not aware ofengagement ofworker or her attempt to resume duty after medical treatment. Some of the contract workers had approached the Hon'ble High Court in O. P. for regularisation in service, Alistof8686 workers prepared by contractor was an annexure tothe O. ,P.However the name of claimant was not there in the list. While writ was pending the Hon'ble Supreme Court inAir India Statutory Corporation case directed absorption of contract labour . Thereafter the first management regularised contract, labour who were on the rolls of the contractor on the date of judgment on 06-12-1997. The representation of the worker, was considered and disposed ofbythe 1st management. The decision of 1st management was again challenged in O. P. It was disposed of by High Court in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SteelAuthority of India. " The worker had no case inO.Ps. that the contract between first and 2nd management is a sham, contract, The worker is not entitleder for reinstatement or regularisation,

4. In the light ofthe above contentionsthe following points arise for consideratfon :

1. Is the claimant entitled for absorption in the light of the judgment in Air India Statutory Corporation Case ?

2. Is the contract sham ?

3. Is the claimant entitled for reinstatement and regularisation ?

The evidence consists ofthe oraltestimony ofWWI and documeritary evidence ofExts. Witto 10 on theside of the worker and MWI and Exts: Land M2 on the side of the first management pou 2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows :- According to the worker, Smt . Margret Fernandez, shewas engaged as Contract Labour (Cleaner) in International Airport, Trivandrum . The 2nd management M/s . Ex- servicemens' Welfare Cooperative Society, Trivandrum " was the labour supply contractor . There was an agreement between first management Airport Authority and 2nd management Contractor for deployment of labour for sweeping, cleaning and 'dusting of the buildings of the first management. The claimant worked as @leaner from 30-09-1986 to 31-08-1991 . While she was on duty on 31-08-1991 she fainted and was hospitalised. The contractor granted leave for treatment . She underwent a long treatment and became fit for joining duty only by 08-12-1993 . But she was denied employment by the first management. She made representation to the first management. There was no response. Similar contract workers had approached the Hon'bleHighCourt ofKerala and obtained an interim order against termination.Meanwhile the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation case directed regularisation of contract labour (cleaners and security guards) by the principal employer as per judgment dated 06-12-1997. All contract workers on duty on the date of judgment were regularised in service by the Airport Authority . Since the worker was in treatment and when she recovered and reported for duty she was denied work andwas not considered for regularisation . The worker filed O. P. before the Hon'ble High court claiming regularisation . That O. P. was disposed of with a direction to the Ist management to consider the representation of the worker and to dispose of the representation. However the first management disposed of the representation denying employment. This was challenged in O.P. 29084 of 1999 . Pending O. P. the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority ofIndia case overruled the decision in Air India Statutory Corporation case, but held that contract labourer engaged through sham contract are entitled for regularisation. However, the claimant was not considered for absorption . The denial of employment, when the worker returned for dutywhen she was medically fit, is illegal . The worker has everyright for absorption like her counterparts .

5. Point No. 1: It is not disputed the there was a contract between first managementAjmongement Ajmort Authority and 2nd management M /s . Ex - Servicemens Welfare Co- operative Society for providing labour for cleaning, sweeping and gardening. According to the claimant she was engaged through 2nd management contractor as Cleaner in the Airport from 30-09-1989 to 31-08-1991 . On 31-08-1991 she suddenly took ill and was hospitalized. She took long time to recover and could report foreport for dutyonly on 08-12- 12-1993 . The claimant says that she had reported to the first management. But the first management,denies that she had reported to the first management . It is also denied that the worker was atat any time engaged by the first 3. According to the first management there is no existing contract with the 2nd management for providing labourer for sweeping, cleaning and gardening. The claimant 52

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3 , 2009/PAUSA 13 , 1930

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

granted by the society. There is no record to show whether she was actually granted leave and for how long? If she was given long leave for more than 2 years by the 2nd management society she would have been on the rolls of the 2nd management . However there is no evidence to show that but for the treatment she would have been working under 2nd Management and would have been in service. It is for the 2nd management to show records , if any, ofthe employment ofthe claimant at the relevant time . Admittedly after 31-8-1991 she had not worked. She says that she had approached the 1st management on 8-12-1993 . But she was not allowed to work. Naturally after 4 years when judgment in Air India Statutory Corporation case came out on 6-12-1997 her name could not have been there onthe rolls of2nd management . Since the first management is not the direct employer of contract labour they would depend upon the contractor to know the names of contract workers . As per the list provided by the 2nd management and which was also produced in O.P. 4190/99(Ext . M1 ) the first management could consider only those in the list for absorption . The direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in O.P. 4190/99 (Ext . W6) was to dispose ofthe representation ofthe worker pending before the first management . By Ext . W7 order dated 19-7-1999 the representation was disposed of but denying employment . That was challenged by the worker in O.P. 29084/99 (Ext . M2) . Pending that case the decision in Air India Statutory Corporation case was overruled in Steel Authority of India case and hence the Hon'ble High Court of Ext.M2 O.P. stating that the parties will be governed by the decision in Steel Authority ofIndia case. In Steel Autority of India Ltd. and Ors . v. National Union Water Front Workers and Ors . 2001 - II - LLJ - 1087 it is held that there is no automatic absorption of contract labour on issuance of a notification under Section 10( 1 ) ofCLRA Act but would depend upon the nature of the contract, whether it is sham or genuine . However the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that whatever absorption that was made in the light ofthejudgment in Air India Statutory Corporation Case or by High Court or Industrial Tribunal shall not be disturbed . But the decision in Air India Industrial Tribunal shall not be disturbed . But the decision in Air India Statutory Corporation case is prospectively overruled . It means that after the judgment was rendered in Steel Authority of India case it was not possible for any employer to absorb contract labour merely on the ground that there was a notification under Section 10 (1 ) of CLRA Act . The judgment in Steel Authority of India case was rendered in 2001. Thereafter on the basis of the decision in Air India StatutoryCorporation case the first management could not haveabsorbed contract labour . Her name was not there in the list of86 workers provided by the 2nd management and which list was annexed to O.P. 8645/93 filed by some ofthe contractworkers before the Hon'ble High Court ofKerala . Unless the claimant was a worker either on 6-12-1997 (date ofjudgment in Air India Statutory Corporation case) or thereafter until the judgment in Steel Authority of India case was rendered the first management could not have

considered her for absorption . Thus on the basis of the management . It is their contention that they are not aware whether the worker was engaged by the contractor. There were several employees working in the cleaning section of the Airport . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation & Ors . Vs. United Labour Union and Ors . 1997-1 - LLJ - 1113 held that the contract labour engaged on the basis of a sham' contract are to be absorbed in service ofprincipal employer . The decision was rendered on6-12-1997 . In the light ofthe decision of first management absorbed the contract workers on the rolls of the contractor as on 6-12-1997 . However the claimant was left out . According to the 1st management she was not in the rolls of 2nd management . Therefore the pertinent question is whether the claimant was a contract worker when the judgment was pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court . According to the worker she had worked from 1986 to 31-8-1991 continuously in the Airport and thereafter due to illness she was under treatment . When she recovered she reported for duty . Hence according to her she was never out of employment and so she had every right to get absorption on strength of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court . But the first management does not admit the employment of the claimant either directly under first management or through the 2nd management . According to the first management when they considered the names of contract worker for the purpose of absorption in the light of the Supreme Court judgment, the name of the worker was not there on the rolls of 2nd management nor was she adirect employee of the first management . The worker has no case that she was taken directly by the first management . Butshe was a contract labour . For a period of more than 2 years she says that she was under treatment . There is no evidence to prove that she had reported to the first management for resuming duty on 8-12-1993 . Ext . W2 is relied on by the worker to contend that she had reported for duty to the first management and submitted medical documents to prove her illness . Ext .W2 is a letter dated 31-8-1994 written by supervisor , Airport to the 2nd management Society stating that the worker was a society member and she had worked from 1986 to 31-8-1991 and thereafter she fell sick . After recovery she had approached the officers of Airport several times and on 30-8-1994 she had met Airport Manager and Manager had asked her to bring letter from the society. This letter accordintg to the worker was written by the supervisor of the first management to the Society Administrator . But it is challenged by the first management on the ground that it is a letter written by the supervisor of the contractor to the society administrator and not written by an officer of first management. The letter is written not in the letter pad of firstmanagement . It is a handwritten letter . Usually official letters are written in letter pads . Whether the officer who has signed Ext . W2 had the competence to write such a letter is yet another matter for scrutiny . It is relevant to note that the worker had admitted in the claim statement, para 3 that the contractor society had granted her leave for treatment . It is clear from her own statement that it was the society which had engaged her and that is why leave was 53

भारत का समपंत्र : जनवरी 3, 2009/पौष 13, 19303

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

decision in Air India Statutbey Corporation Case the worker cannot claim absorption .

1008. She has a case that the first management has conducted fresh recruitment and taken employees as cleaners on permanent basis . According to the worker this is illegal . I have found that she was not a worker directly under the first management and therefore she does not get any right for preference in employment as against fresh recruitées through employment exchange or otherwise . Therefore she is not entitled for any remedy,

In the result an award is passed, finding that the action ofthe management Airport Authority of India in not absorbing or reinstating the worker and in terminating the service of the worker, is legal and justified and she is not entitled for any relief.

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

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typedby her, corrected and passed by meme on this the 28th dayofAugust,2008.

P.L. NORBERT, PresidingOfficer

Appendix

Witness for the workman:

וע WW1 5-3-2008 Smt. Margaret Fernandez

Witnessfor theManagement:

MW1 99-2008 Sr. M. Ravindranathan.

Exhibits for the workinan

WI 26-6-1

26-6-1991 Daily permit card of Smt . Margaret Femandez

W231-8-1994 Copy ofletter from Supervisor, airport Didio tor to the Administrator, Ex-service タングル Mens Welfare Co-ops Society

W3 26-5-1994 Letter from the workman to Ex-service Mons' Welfare Co-op . Society Ltd. , Thiruvananthapuram.

6. Point No. 2 : There is an averment in para 5 (page 3 ) of the claim statement that the contract is sham . Accordingtotheworker though she was engaged through 2nd management contractor for all practical purposes she was an employee of first management. The worker was examined as WW1 . She deposed that she was paidwages byAirport Authority and she was asked to sign in a book. She was supervised and controlled by the first management . She had been working continuously from 1986to 1991.Whereas the officer of first managernetit, MW1 denies payment of wages to the worker by the fist management. According to MW1- the contract workerswere paid by the contractor and not by the first management. MW1 denies that the worker was appointed by the first management . But it is admitted that Ext. W1 daily permit was issuedby the first management . No doubt it is issued to the worker. It shows that the worker was a cleaning staff. The permit was valid up to 15-8-1991 (see reverse side).However the daily permit is for the purpose of allowing entry into the Airport premises . That will not mean that the claimant was an employee ofthe first management. Any contract workor requires such permitto enter Airport premises. It is not enough to plead that the contract is sham . The burden is on the worker to prove that she was, supervised and controlled by the officers of the Airport Authority, that she was given remuneration by the first management, that disciplinary control was with the first management etc. None of these factors are proved by the worker. Onthe other hand as already mentioned above in para 3 of the claim statement it is admitted that she was granted leave for treatment by the 2nd management contractor. There is absolutely no evidence to substantiate the case oftheworker that the contract is sham. It is relevant tonote that the worker had no such case in O.Ps (Exts . M1 &M2) filed by her. It is the burden ofworker to prove that the contract is sham and the real employer is the paincipal employer. The worker has failed to prove the same and so I find that the contract is genuines

W4 1-6-1994 Letter from the workman to the Director, International Airport JATTERER : Authority; Miruvananthapuran ,

ws 1-7-1994 Letter from the workman to the Director, International Airport Authority, Thiruvananthapuram.

W615-3-1999 Copy ofjudgment in O.P. No. 4190 of To 1999 ofHon'ble High Court ofKerala,

W719-7-1999 Copy of Memorandum No. AAT/ LAW/MF/ 99 / 110/5130 of Airport Authority of India, Thiruvananthapuram

W8 27-4-2004 Copy ofjudgment in O.P. No. 29084 of 1999 (K) of Hon'ble High Court of 7. Point No. 3 : The claimant was working from 30-9-86 to 31-8-1991 but under the 2nd management , contractor. Theclaim is for reinstatement and regularisation bythe first management: Unless shewas employed by the first management or unless the contract is found to be sham the first management cannot be asked to regularise the worker. She herself has the case that she waswas engaged through the contractor . I have found that there is no evidence to prove that the contract is sham. If so, she couldhave worked only as a contract labour under the 2nd management and cannot claim regularisation in Management . She cannot also claim re- instatement in the first management. Even if she had worked forfor about 5 years she was only a contráet werker and none of the benefits under Section 25F of the I.D. Act can be claimed fromthe first management. in Ist 54

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3 , 2009/ PAUSA 13 , 1930

W9 4-6-2004 Letter from workman to the Chairman , Airport Authority of India , Thiruvananthapuram.

W10 10-12-2004 Copy of letter No. AAT/PERS/ 1001 / 33/2002/4968 of Airports Authority of India, Thiruvananthapuram .

Exhibits for the Management

M1 -Copy of O.P. No. 4190/1999 of Hon'ble High Court ofKerala, Ernakulam .

M2 -Copy of O.P. No. 29084 of 1999 of Hon'ble High Court ofKerala, Ernakulam .

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 36. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एल आई सी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण पटना के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 31 ( सी)/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल-17012/73/2007- आई आर( एम ) ]

कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 15th December , 2008 S.O. 36. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31 (C)/2008 ) of the Industrial Tribunal , Patna now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of LIC of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-12-2008 .

[No. L- 17012/ 73/2007 - IR (M) ]

KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Reference Case No. 31 (C) of2008 Between the Management of LIC of India Ltd. , Patna and their workman Shri Mukesh Kumar , represented by B.M.S. FortheManagement : Shri T. T. Mukherjee , Representative ofLIC .

For the Workman : Shri Murari Prasad, Representative of BMS.

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

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii)]

AWARD

Patna, dated the 17th October, 2008

By adjudication order No. L- 17012/ 73 /2007 - IR (M) dated 17-3-2008 , the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi under Clause(d) ofSub - Section( 1 ) and Sub- Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called ' the Act ' for brevity) has referred the following dispute between the management of LIC of India Ltd. , Patna and their workman Shri Mukesh Kumar, represented By B.M.S. , Patna for adjudication to thisTribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of LIC of India, Divisional Office , Patna in not regularising the service ofDaily wage worker Shri Mukesh Kumar, working for a long period and not giving him regular status of a permanent worker is justified and legal ? Ifnot, towhat relief Sh . Mukesh Kumar is entitled to ?".

3. And this is my award .

VASUDEO RAM, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर , 2008

का.आ. 37. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एल आई सी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण पटना के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 30 ( सी )/ 2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-08 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-17012/72/2007- आईआर( एम ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 15th December , 2008

S.O. 37. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.30 ( c) 2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal , Patna now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of LIC of India , and their workmen, which was received by the CentralGovernment on 10-12-08 .

[No. L- 17012/72/2007 - IR (M ) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer 55

भारत का राम्रपत्र: जनवरी 3, 2009/पौष 13, 1930

[भाग II. खण्डः 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

Reference Case No. 30(C)of2008.

Between the management of LIC of India Ltd. , Patna and their workman Shri Ajay Kumar , represented by H.M.S. , Patna.

Forthe management : Shri T.T.Mukherjee , Representative ofLIC.

For the workman: Shri Murari Prasad , Representative of BMS.

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

AWARD

Patna, dated the 17th October, 2008 .

ByadjudicationOrder No. L- 17012/72/2007 -IR(M) dated 17-3-2008, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour,NewDelhi under clause (d) of Sub- Section ( 1 ) and Sub-Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute, Act, 1947 (hereinafter called ' the Act' for brevity) has referred the following dispute between the management of LIC of India Ltd. , Patna and their workman , represented by B.M.S. Patna for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of LIC of India, Divisional Officer, Patna in not regularising the service ofdaily wage worker Shri Ajay Kumar , working for a long period and not giving him regular status ofa permanent worker is justified and legal ? Ifnot, what relief Sh. Ajay Kumar is entitled to ?" 2. Both the parties appeared on notice and filed statement ofclaim and the written statement. Subsequently apetition for withdrawal of the reference case has been filed on behalf of workman and moved. Under the circumstances I presume that now no dispute exists between the parties , hence I hereby passed a "No dispute award."

3. And this is my award.

VASUDEO RAM, ProsidingOfficer नई दिल्ली , 15 दिसम्बर, 2008

का.आ. 38. औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एल आई सी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण पटना के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संक्रया 29( सी)(2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को10-12-08 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-17012/74/2007-आई आर(एम) ] तारू, डेस्क अधिकारी NowDelhi , the 15th December, 2008 S.O. 38. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.29 (c) / 2008) of the Industrial Tribunal , Patna now as shown in the Annexure, in the IndustrialDispute between the employers in relation to the management of LIC of India and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 10-12-08 .

No.L- 17012/71 /2007 -IR (M )]

KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer ANNEXURIE

BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALSHRAM BHAWAN , BATLEYROAD, PATNA

ReferenceCase No. 29 (C) of 2008 Between the Managerhent of LIC of India Ltd. , Patria and theirWorkman Shri Bhim Giri , representedbyB.M.ScPatna For the Management : Shri T.T. Mukherjee, Representative , LIC:

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

Present : Vasudeo Ram, Presiding Officer, y Industrial Tribunal Patras

AWARD Patna, dated the 17th October, 2008 By adjudication Order No L- 17012/71 /2007 - IR(M) dated 17-3-2008, the Government of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi under clause (d) ofSub- Section (1 ) and Sub-Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called "the Act for brevity) has referredthe following dispute between the management of LIC of India Ltd. , Patna and their workman Shri Bhim Giri , represented by B.M.S. Patna for adjudication to this Tribunal:

"Whether the action of the management of LIC of India,. Divisional Officer , Patria in not regularising the service of daily wage worker Shri Bhim Girl , working for a long period and not givinghim regular status ofa permanent worker is justified and legal? Ifnot, what relief Shi Bhim Giri is entitled to. ? " 2. Both the parties appeared on notice and filed statement ofclaim and the written statement. Subsequently apetitin for withdrawal of the reference case has been filed onbehalfofworkman and moved . Under the circumstance Ipresume that now no dispute exists between the parties , hence I hereby passed a "No disputeAward" ...

3. And this is my Award .

VASUDEO RAM , Presiding Officer 56

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3 , 2009/PAUSA 13 , 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर , 2008

legal? If not what relief Sh . Narendra Verma is entitled to ? ."

का.आ 39.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरणे में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एल आई सीऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण पटना के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 28 ( सी ) /2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-08 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

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

3. And this is my Award .

[सं. एल-17012/70/2007- आई. आर. ( एम. ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी

VASUDEO RAM , Presiding Officer New Delhi , the 1.5th December, 2008

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर , 2008

S.O. 39. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No.28 ( C)/ 2008 ) of the Industrial Tribunal Patna now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of LIC of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-12-08 .

का.आ 40. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एल आई सीऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिका विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण पटना के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 27 ( सी ) /2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-08 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[No. L- 17012/ 70/2007 - IR (M ) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

[ सं. एल -17012/69/2007- आईआर ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी ANNEXURE

New Delhi , the 15th December , 2008 BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL SHRAM BHAWAN , BAILEY ROAD , PATNA

Reference Case No. 28 (C) of 2008 .

Between the Management of LIC of India Ltd. , Patna and their Workman Shri Narendra Verma, represented by B.M.S. Forthe Management : Shri T.T. Mukherjee , Representative

S.O. 40. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.27 (C)/ 2008) of the Industrial Tribunal Patna now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of LIC of India and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 10-12-08 .

, ofLIC.

For the Workman: Shri Murari Prasad, Representative of BMS .

[No. L- 17012/69/2007 - IR(M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AWARD

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALSHRAM BHAWAN , BAILEY ROAD, PATNA

Reference Case No. 27 (C) of 2008

Between the Management of LIC of India Ltd. , Patna and their Workman Shri Ranjeet Pandey , Represented by B.M.S. Patna.

For theManagement : Shri T.T. Mukherjee , Representative of LIC .

By adjudication Order No. L - 17012/ 70/2007 - IR(M) dated 17-3-2008 , the Government of India, Ministry of Labour New Delhi under clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( hereinafter called ' the Act' for brevity ) has referred the following dispute between the management ofLIC of India Ltd. , Patna and their workman Sri Narendra Verma, represented by B.M.S. , Patna for adjudication to thisTribunal:

For the Workman : Shri Murari Prasad , Representative of BMS.

PRESENT : Vasudeo Ram, Presiding Officer, "Whether the action of the management of LIC of India, Divisional Office , Patna in not regularising the services of dailywage worker Shri Narendra Verma, working for a long period and not giving him regular status of permanent worker is justified and

Industrial Tribunal , Patna .

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3 , 2009/पौष 13 , 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

ANNEXURE

AWARD

Patna, dated the 17th October, 2008

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL SHRAM BHAWAN, BAILEYROAD, PATNA

Reference Case No. 26(C) of2008

Between theManagement of LIC of India Ltd. , Patna and their Workman Shri Ram Avtar Prasad, Represented by B.M.S. , Patna .

FortheManagement: Shri T.T. Mukherjee , Representative ofLIC .

By adjudication Order No. L- 17012/69/ 2007- IR(M) dated 17-3-2008 , the Government of India, Ministry of Labour New Delhi under clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called ' the Act ' for brevity) has referred the following dispute between the management ofLIC of India Ltd. , Patna and their workman Sri Ranjeet Pandey, Represented by B.M.S. , Patna for adjudication to thisTribunal :

For the Workman : Shri Murari Prasad , Representative of BMS.

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

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

Patna, dated the 17th October, 2008 2. Both the parties appeared on notice and filed statement of claim and the written statement . Subsequently a petition for withdrawal of reference has been filed on behalf of workman. Under the circumstances , I presume that now no dispute between the parties hence a "No Dispute Award " is hereby passed .

3. And this is myAward.

VASUDEO RAM, Presiding Officer

By adjudication Order No. L- 17012/68 /2007 - IR(M) dated 17-3-2008 , the Government of India, Ministry of Labour New Delhi under clause (d) ofsub- section ( 1) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called ' the Act' for brevity ) has referred the following dispute between the management of LIC of India Ltd. , Patna and their workman Shri Ram Avtar Prasad , represented by B.M.S. , Patna for adjudication to this Tribunal :

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2008

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

का.आ 41.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एल आई सीऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों केबीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण पटना के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 26 ( सी )/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को10-12-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -17012/68/2007- आईआर( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 15th December, 2008

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

S.O. 41. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.26 (C)/ 2008) of the Industrial Tribunal Patna now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of LIC of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-12-2008 .

3.And this is my Award. VASUDEO RAM, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली , 15 दिसम्बर , 2008 का.आ 42.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एल आई सी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण पटना के [No. L- 17012/68/2007-IR (M ) ] KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer

4972 G1/ 08-8 58

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3 , 2009/PAUSA 13 , 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 17( सी)/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-08 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

filed on behalf of workman and moved . Under the circumstances I presume that now no dispute exists between the parties and hence I hereby passed a "No Dispute Award " .

[सं. एल-17012/ 21 /2007- आईआर( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी

3.And that is my Award .

New Delhi , the 15th December , 2008

VASUDEO RAM, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 15 दिसम्बर , 2008 S.O. 42. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.17 (C)/ 2007) of the Industrial Tribunal Patna now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of LIC of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-12-08 .

का.आ 43. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एल आई सी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण पटना के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 18 ( सी ) /2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-08 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [No. L- 17012/21 /2007- IR (M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

[सं. एल -17012/20/2007- आईआर (एम ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 15the December, 2008 BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL SHRAM BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD , PATNA

Reference Case No. 17 (C) of 2007

Between theManagement of LIC of India Ltd. , Patna and their Workman Shri Beda Nand Mishra, represented by B.M.S. , Patna .

S.O. 43. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.18 (C)/ 2007) of the Industrial Tribunal Patna now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofLIC of India and their workman , whichwas received by the Central Government on 10-12-08 .

FortheManagement : Shri Navin Kumar, Representative , ofLIC .

For the Workman: Shri Murari Prasad , Representative of BMS.

[No. L- 17012/20/2007 - IR(M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

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

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALSHRAM BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD , PATNA.

AWARD

Reference Case No. 18(C) of 2007 Patna . dated the 20th October , 2008

Between the Management of LIC of India Ltd. , Patna and theirWorkman Shri Prahalad Ram , represented by B.M.S. , Patna.

For the Management : Shri Navin Kumar , Representative, ofLIC .

For the Workman : Shri Murari Prasad, Representative of BMS.

By adjudication Order No. L- 17012/21 / 2007 - IR (M) dated 7-9-2008 , the Government of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi under clause (d) of sub - Section ( 1) and sub- Section ( 2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called ' the Act ' for brevity) has referred the following dispute between the management ofLIC of India Ltd. , Patna and their workman , represented by B.M.S. , Patna for adjudication to this Tribunal :

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

Patna. dated the 20th October , 2008 "Whether the action of the management of LIC of India, Divisional Office , Patna in not regularising the services of daily wage worker Shir Beda Nand Mishra , working for a long period and not giving him regular status ofa permanent worker is justified and legal? If it is an unfair labour practice , what relief the worker is entitled to ? ."

By adjudicationOrder No. L- 17012/20/2007 - IR(M) dated7-9-2007, the Government of India, Ministry ofLabour New Delhi under clause (d) of sub-Section ( 1) and sub- Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called ' the Act ' for brevity) has referred 2. Both the parties appeared on notice and filed statement of claim and the written statement. Subsequently a petition for withdrawal of the reference case has been 59 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2009/पौष 13 , 1930

[ भाग - खण्ड 3 (il) ]

For the Workman : Shri Murari Prasad, Representative of BMS.

the following dispute between the management of LIC of India Ltd. , Patna and their workman , Shri Prahaled Rain , represented by B.M.S. , Patna for adjudication to this Tribunal:

Present: Vasudeo Ram, PresidingOfficer, Industrial Tribunal, Patua.

AWARD

Patna, dated the 17th October , 2008 "Whether the action of the management of LIC of India, Divisiorial Office, Patna in not regularising the services of daily wage worker Shir PrahaladRam, working for a long period and not giving him regular status ofa permanent worker is justified andlegal ? If is an unfair labour practice, what reliefthe worker is entitled to ?. "

By adjudication Order No. L - 17012/ 17/2007- IR(M) dated7-9-2007, theGovernment of India, Ministry ofLabour New Delhi under clause (d) of sub-Section ( 1 ) and sub- Section(2A) ofSection 10 of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act' for brevity) has referred the following dispute between the management of LIC of IndieLad, Patna and their workman represented by B.M.S. , Petua for adjudication to this Tribunal

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

3.And that is my Award.

VASUDEO RAM, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2008

"Whether the action of the management of LIC of India, Divisional Office , Patna in not regularising the services of daily wage worker Shri Chotelal , working for a long period and not giving him regular status ofa permanent worker is justified and legal?If it is an unfair labour practice, what relief theworker isentitled to ?"

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

का.आ 44. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) को भारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एन आई सी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण पटना के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 20( सी) /2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-08 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

3.And this is my Award.

[सं. एल -17012/17/2007- आईआर( एम) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी

VASUDEO RAM, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली , 17 दिसम्बर, 2008

New Delhi, the 15th December , 2008

S.O. 44. In pursuance of Section 17 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.20 (C) 2007) of the Industrial Tribunal, Patna now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of LIC of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-12-08.

[No. L- 17012/ 17/2007 - IR (M) ]

कार 45. कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 कर 34 ) की धारा-1 की उपधाद्ध ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतयद्वारा 01 जनवरी, 2009 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय -4 ( 44 व 45 धारा को शिक्षम को पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है) अध्याय -5 और 6 ( भारा -76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धारा -77, 78, 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी हैं ) के उपवन्ध आन्ध्र प्रदेश के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे, अर्थात:-

KAMAL BAKHRU , DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

(1 ) आम्भ प्रदेश सत्य के श्रीकाबुलम जिले के राजम मण्डल में स्थित पोगिरी सारखी और गुरुवम रामस्व गाँव के अधीन आने वाले संपूर्ण क्षेत्र में प्रवृत होगी । BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALSHRAM BHAWAN, BAILEYROAD, PATNA

Reference Case No. 20(C) of2007

(2) आन्ध्र प्रदेश राज्य के श्रीकाकुलम जिले के मण्डल के पोतुगुदी वाला वाले सभी क्षेत्रों पर लागू हौंपे ।

[सं. एस-38013/46/200 Between theManagement of LIC of India Ltd. , Patna and thelt Workman Shri Chotelal, representedbyB.M.S.

FortheManagement : Shri Navin Kumar, Representative , ofLIC.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2009/PAUSA 13 , 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] New Delhi , the 17th December, 2008

81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ] के उपबन्ध त्रिपुरा के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:-

अगरतला के अन्तर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र के साथ राजस्व गांव- अगरतला , जोगेन्द्र नगर , खैरपुर मधुवनगांव , लंकामुरा , बरजाला , कुंजावन, बधरघाट राजस्व वाले गाँव ।

[सं. एस -38013 /47/2008- एस. एस. - 1 ] एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 17th December, 2008 S.O. 45. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State InsuranceAct, 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st January, 2009 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and VI [ except sub- section ( 1) of Section 76 and Sections 77 , 78 ,79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh namely:-

"All the areas falling within the limits of Revenue Villages of Pogiri , Saradhi & Guruvam in Rajam Mandal in Srikakulam District & all the areas falling within the limits of Revenue Village of Ponuguti Valasa of Santhakaviti Mandal in Srikakulam District, Andhra Pradesh. "

[F. No. S- 38013/46/2008 -S . S.I ] S.D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 17 दिसम्बर , 2008

S.O. 46. In exercise of the powers conferredby sub - section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act , 1948 ( 34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st January, 2009 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and VI [ except sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Tripura namely :-

"Areas under Agartala falls within Agartala in the Revenue Village :-

Agartala Jogandranagar , Khayrpur Madhuban Village, Lankamura, Barjala, Kunjaban , Badharghat Revenue Village in Agartala ." $ का.आ 46.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 34 ) की धारा 1 की उपधारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 1 जनवरी , 2009 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय 4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय 5 और 6 ( धारा -76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77 , 78 , 79 और

[F. No. S- 38013/47/2008 - S.S. -I ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

ॐ

नई दिल्ली , 22 दिसम्बर , 2008

उपधारा ( 5 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते को इस अधिसूचना की तारीख से छह महीने ( 2 ) में यथा विनिर्दिष्ट इलाकों में स्थित उक्त का.आ 47.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 34 ) की धारा 1 की हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा निगम के परामर्श से , एतद्द्वारा इस अधिनियम के उपबन्धों के बाद इसके साथ अनुबद्ध अनुसूची के कालम ( 1 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट स्थापनों की श्रेणी और कालम अधिसूचना के कालम ( 3 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट कर्मचारियों के वर्ग पर विस्तारित करने के आशय का नोटिस देती है , अर्थात्:-

अनुसूची

स्थापनों का विवरण

क्षेत्र जिनमें स्थापन स्थित हैं

कर्मचारियों का वर्ग जिन पर अधिनियम लागू होता है

(2)

(3) (1)

सभी अनियत और ठेका कर्मचारी

केन्द्र सरकार से संबंधित या नियंत्रणाधीन निम्नलिखित स्थापनों जिनमें पिछले बारह महीनों में किसी दिन मजदूरी पर बीस या अधिक व्यक्ति नियोजित किए गए हैं या किए गए थे , अर्थात्:-

वे सभी क्षेत्र जहां अधिनियम की धारा 1 ( 3 ) के अधीन कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 के उप- बंध पहले ही लागू किए जा चुके हैं ।

(i) दुकाने;

(ii) होटल;

(iii ) रेस्तरां;

( iv) सड़क परिवहन स्थापन;

( v ) पूर्व- दर्शन थियेटर सहित सिनेमा;

भारत काराजपत्र : जनवरी 3 , 2009/पौष 13 , 1930

[ भाग II-सखण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(1)

(vi ) श्रमजीवी पत्रकार और अन्य समाचार पत्र कर्मचारी ( सेवा की शर्तें ) और प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम, 1955 ( 1955 का 45 ) की भारा 2 (भ ) में यथा परिभाषित समाचार स्थापन;

( vii ) बीमा व्यवसाय से जुड़े स्थापन , गैर- बैंकिंग वित्तीय कम्पनियां (एम.बी.एफ.सी. ) , पत्तन न्यास , विमान पत्तन प्राधिकरण तथा भंडारण ।

[सं. एस. - 38025/5/2008-सा.सु. - 1 ] एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 22nd December , 2008

S.O. 47. In exercise of the powers conferredby sub- section (5) of Section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948 ), the Central Government in consultation with the Employees' State Insurance Corporation hereby gives notice of its intention to extend the provisions of the Act to the classes of establishments specified in column ( 1 ) and situate within the area as specified in column (2) of the schedule annexed hereto the category of employees specified in column(3 ) ofthe said schedule after six months from the date of this notification , namely:--

SCHEDULE

Description of establishments

Areas in which the establishments are situated

Category of employees to whom the Act applies

(3)

(2)

(1)

All casual and contract employees..

The following establishments belonging to or under the control ofthe Central Government wherein twenty or more persons are employed, or were employed for wages on any day of the preceding twelve months namely:-

All areas where the provision of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 have already been brought into force under Section 1(3) oftheAct.

(1) Shops;

(u) Hotels;

(ii) Restaurants ;

(iv) Road Transport establishments;

(v) Cinema including previewtheatres;

(vi) Newspaper establishments as defined in Section 2(d) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees(Conditions of Service ) and Mellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (45 of1955);

(vii) Establishments engaged in insurance business, other than Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFC), Port Trusts , Airport Authorities and Warehousing.

[F.No. S- 38025/5/2008 -S.S. - I ]

S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy:

Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064

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

and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054.