This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGD. NO.D.L. (N) 04/0007/200305 रजिस्ट्री सं० डी० एल० ( एन ) 04/0007/2003-05

भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 15 ]

नई दिल्ली , अप्रैल 5 अप्रैल 11 , 2009 , शनिवार/चैत्र15 - चैत्र 21 , 1931 NEW DELHI, APRIL 5- APRIL 11, 2009, SATURDAY /CHAITRA 15 CHAITRA 21 , 1931 No. 15]

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग II-खण्ड 3- उप- खण्ड (ii) PART II-Section 3-Sub- section ( ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों ( रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर ) द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और ,अधिसूचनाएं Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India (Other than the Ministry of Defence)

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department ofRevenue) वित्त मंत्रालय (राजस्व विभाग)

(OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE)

( आयुक्त का कार्यालय , केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क )

No. 01/2009-CUS . ( N. T. ) Kolkata, the 19th March, 2009 सं. 01 /2009- कस. ( एन. टी. ) कोलकाता , 19 मार्च , 2009

S.O. 841. In exercise of the powers conferred upon me under Section (9) of Customs Act, 1962 read with notificationNo. 33/ 1994- Customs (NT) dated 1st July, 1994 byGovernment of India, Ministry ofFinance , Department ofRevenue, New Delhi under clause (a ) of Section 152 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) , I hereby declare the Mauza: - Brahmanpara at Village- Brahmanpara , P.O. Brahmanpara , P.S. Haripal , District- Hoogly, Pin -712405 in the State of West Bengal as a Warehousing Station for the limitedpurpose of setting up of 100 % Export Oriented Unit.

का. आ. 841.- भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय , राजस्वविभाग , नई दिल्ली, के सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 52 ) के खंड (क ) के अंतर्गत सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम , 62 जिसे अधिसूचना सं. 33/ 1994- सीमा शुल्क ( गैर - तकनीकी ) दिनांक 1 जुलाई , 1994 के साथ पढ़ा जाए , की धारा ( 9 ) के अधीन प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैं मौजा- ब्राह्मणपाड़ा, ग्राम- ब्राह्मणपाड़ा, पोस्ट- ब्राह्मणपाड़ा, थाना- हरिपाल , जिला-हुगली, पिन-712405 जो कि पश्चिम बंगाल राज्यमें है, को एक सीमित अवधि के लिए 100 प्रतिशत निर्यातोन्मुख भण्डारण इकाई के रूप में घोषित करता हूँ ।

[C. No. IV( 14) /5/CE/PRO/Kol.-IV/06/1598-1788 ] DR. P. BABU, Commissioner [सी. सं. IV( 14) /5/सीई/पी. आर. ओ./कोल.-IV/06/ 1598-1788 ] डॉ. पी. बाबू, आयुक्त

(1595)

1234 G1/2009 1596

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2000/ CHAITRA 21 , 1931

[PART II SBC . 3 (ii) )

सं. 2/2009-सीमाशुल्क ( एम.टी. )

(OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE)

कोयम्बतूर , 27 मार्च , 2009

ORDERNo.02/2009-SERVICE TAX

CORRIGENDUM

Bangalore, the 26th March, 2009

S.O. 842. In the Notification No. 01/2009-Service Tax dated 27th February, 2009 issued by this office under File C. No. IV/ 16/294/2008 CC CEx (BZ) , the word "NOTIFICATION No : 01/2009 SERVICE TAX" shallbe corrected to read as " ORDER No. 01 /2009-SERVICE TAX" .

[C. No. IV/ 16/294/2008 CC CEX (BZ) ] LALITHA JOHN , Chief Commissioner

का.आ. 844.-सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम , 1962 की धारा 152 , खंड ( ए ) के अंतर्गत जारी भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय , राजस्व विभान , नई दिल्ली की अधिसूचना सं. 14/2002 - कस (एनटी ) दिनांक 7मार्च, 2002 के साथ कि क्या संशोधित अधिसूचना सं. 33/1994- कस ( एमटी ) दिनांक 1 जुलाई , 1994 द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैं , टी . प्रेमकुमार, मुख्य आयुक्त, सीमा शुल्क एवं केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क , कोचाम्बतूर एतद्‌द्वारा तमिल नाडु राज्य के कोयंबतूर बिला के पल्लरूम तालुक के " कणियूर " गांव को सीमाशुल्क अधिनियम, 1962 की धास 9 के अंतर्गत भंडागारण स्टेशन घोषित करता हूँ ।

( सीमा शुल्क एवं केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क मुख्य आयुक्त का कार्यालय)

[सी सं. VIII/40/01 /2009- कस. ( सी.सी.ओ. ) ] टी. प्रेमकुमार , मुख्य आयुक्त

No. 2/2009-CUSTOMS (N.T. )

सं. 01/2009-सीमा शुल्क ( एन. टी. ) कोयम्बतूर , 24 मार्च , 2009

Coimbatore, the 27th March, 2009

का.आ. 843.- सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम , 1962 की धारा 152 , खंड (ए ) के अंतर्गतं जारी भारत सरकार , वित्त मंत्रालय , राजस्व विभाग , नई दिल्ली की अधिसूचना सं. 14/2002-कस ( एनटी ) दिनांक 7 मार्च, 2002 के साथ पठित यथा संशोधित अधिसूचना सं. 33/1994- कस ( एनटी) दिनांक 1 जुलाई , 1994 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैं , टी . प्रेमकुमार , मुख्य आयुक्त, सीमा शुल्क एवं केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क , कोयम्बतूर एत‌द्वारा तमिलनाडु राज्य के तिरुपुर जिला के तिरुपुर तालुक के वीरपांडी गांव के " कुप्पान्डमपालयम " को सीमाशुल्क अधिनियम , 1962 की धारा 9 के अंतर्गत भंडागारण स्टेशन घोषित करता हूँ ।.

$.O. 844. In exercise ofthe powers conferred vide Notification No. 33 /94- Customs (NT) dated 1st July, 1994 of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance , Department ofRevenue , New Delhi issued under clause (a) of Section 152 of the Customs Act, 1962, read with NotificationNo. 14/2002-Cus- (NT) dated 7th March, 2002, as amended, I, T. Premkumar , Chief Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Coimbatore , hereby declare "KANIYUR " Village of Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore District in the State of Tamil Nadu, to be a Warehousing Station under Section 9 of the Customs Act, 1962 .

[सी सं. VIII/40/2/2009- कस. ( सी.सी.ओ. ) ] टी. प्रेमकुमार, मुख्य आयुक्त

[C. No. VIII/40/01/2009-CUS (CCO) ] T. PREMKUMAR, Chief Commissioner (OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE)

(मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त का कार्यालय ) No. 1/2009-CUSTOMS (N.T. )

सं. 20/2008-09

Coimbatore , the 24th March, 2009

जयपुर, 31 मार्च, 2009

का.आ. 845.- आयकर नियम , 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 वां ) की धारा 10 के खांड (23 सी ) की उप- धारा ( vi ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त , जयपुर एतद्वारा निर्धारण वर्ष 2008-2009 एवं आगे के लिए कथित धारा के उद्देश्य से " स्टेप बाई स्टेप शिक्षा समिति, जयपुर " को स्वीकृति देते हैं ।

बरातें कि समिति आयकर नियम , 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 10 के उप-खंड (23सी) की उप - धारा ( vi ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप कार्य करें । S.O. 843. In exercise of the powers conferred vide Notification No. 33/94- Customs (NT) dated 1st July, 1994 of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue , New Delhi issued under clause (a) of Section 152 of the Customs Act, 1962 , read with Notification No. 14/2002 -Cus (NT) dated 7th March, 2002, as amended, I , T. Premkumar , Chief Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise , Coimbatore, herebydeclare "KUPPANDAMPALAYAM " of Veerapandi Village of Tirupur Taluk, Tirupur District in the State ofTamil Nadu , to be a Warehousing Station under Section 9 of the Customs Act, 1962.

[सं. मुआआआआआ ( मु. )/जय./ 10( 23 सी ) ( vi )/08-09/4538) ]

बी. एस. ढिल्लों, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त [C. No. VIII/40/2/2009-CUS (CCO) ] T. PŘEMKUMAR, Chief Commissioner 1597 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11, 2000 चैत्र 21 , 1931

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2. केन्द्र सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापिस ले लेगी यदि अनुमोदित संगठन

(OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX)

(क) पैराग्राफ के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अलग लेखा बही नहीं रखेगा; अथवा

No. 20/2008-09 Jaipur, the 31st March, 2009-

(ख ) पैराग्राफ । के उप-पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा

(ग) पैराग्राफ 1. के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान एवं प्रयुक्त राशिका अपना विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा S.O. 845.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- clause (vi ) ofclause (23C) ofSection 10 of the Income- taxAct, 1961 (43 of 1961 ) read with rule 2CA ofthe Income- tax Rules , 1962 the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur hereby approves " Step by Step Shiksha Samiti , Jaipur" for the purpose of said Section for the A. Y. 2008- 2009 & onwards:

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

Provided that the society conforms to and complies withthe provisions of sub - clause (vi ) of clause ( 23C ) of Section 10 of the Income -tax Act, 1961 read with rule 2CA ofthe Income-tax Rules , 1962.

[No: CCIT/JPR/Addl . CIT (Hqrs. )/ 10( 23C) ( vi )/2008-09/4538 ] B. S. DHILLON, Chief Commissioner

(ङ) उक्त नियमावली के नियम 5ग और 5ङ के साथ पठित उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के उपबंधों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नहीं करेगा ।

( केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड ) नई दिल्ली, 31 मार्च , 2009

[अधिसूचना सं. 34/2009/फा. सं. 203/101 /2008 /आ.क.नि.- II ] पदम सिंह , अवर सचिव (Central Board of Direct Taxes ) New Delhi , the 31st March, 2009 का.आ. 846. सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतद्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली , 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम 5ग और 5ङ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की धारा 35 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ दिनांक 1-4-2007 से संगठन लेप्रा सोसायटी सिकन्द्राबाद को निम्नलिखित शतों के अधीन आंशिक रूप से अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों में संलग्न ' अन्य संस्था' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है, नामतः :-

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

S.O. 846. It is hereby notified for general informa- tion that the organization LEPRA Society, Secunderabad has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose ofclause ( ii ) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ( said Act ) , read with Rules SC and SE of the Income - tax Rules, 1962 (said Rules ) with effect from 1-4-2007 in the category of other Institution partly engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions , namely :-

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

(1) The sums paid to the approved organization shall be utilized for scientific research:

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

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

( iii) The approved organization shall maintain separate books of accounts in respect of the sums received by it for scientific research . reflect therein the amounts used for carrying out research , get such books audited by an accountant as defined in the explanation to sub - section ( 2 ) of Section 288 of the said Act and furnish the report of such audit duly signed and verified by such accountant to the Commissioner of Income- tax or the Director of Income- tax having jurisdiction over the case , by the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 139 of the said Act;

( iv ) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान * तथा प्रयुक्त राशिका अलग विवरण रखेगा और उपर्युक्त लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट के साथ लेखा परीक्षक द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित विवरण की प्रति प्रस्तुत करेगा । 1598

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAITRA 21 , 1931

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

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

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

(b) fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub-paragraph ( iii ) ofparagraph 1; or (c) fails to furnish its statement ofthe donations received and sums applied for scientific research referred to in sub -paragraph (iv) of paragraph 1; or

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

(e) ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions ofclause ( ii) of sub-section( 1 ) of Section 35 of the said Act, read with Rules SC and 5E of the said Rules .

[Notification No. 34/2009/ F.No. 203/101/2008/TTA-II] PADAM SINGH, Under Secy.

मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त का कार्यालय त्रिची, 17 मार्च, 2009

आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 10 ( 23 सी ( vi ) के अधीन अनुमोदन

का.आ. 847.-आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43) की धारा 10 के खण्ड (23सी ) के उप-खंड ( vi ) के सत्य पठित आयकर नियम 1962 के नियम 2सी ए द्वारा प्रदश शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उपरोक्त उप- खंड में बताए गए प्रयोजनों के लिए निर्धारण वर्ष 2009-10 से द सी एम. एस. एजुकेशन ट्रस्ट, एस. एफ. सं. 231 , मरप्पानैकनपट्टी ग्राम , एरनापौरम पोस्ट, नामक्कल तालुका, नार्मक्कल जिला को निम्नलिखित शताँ के अनुसार अनुमोदन दिया जाता है:-

(i ) निर्धारिती आयकर अधिनियम की धारा 1961 की धारा 10 के खंड ( 23 सी ) के उप- खखंड ( vi ) के साथ पठित आयकर नियम, 1962 के 2सी ए के प्रावधानों के अनुसार अनुपालन करेंगी;

(ii ) अधिनियम 10 ( 23 सी ) के तीसरे परन्तुक के खखंड ( अ ) से अपेक्षित यह निर्धारिती अपनी आय का उन उद्देश्यों के लिए, जो दिनांक2-2-2009 के अनुपूरक न्यास बिलेख द्वारा संसोधित किया गया है और पूर्णतः और अनन्यतः

[PART II Sec. 3 )] उपयोग करती है या उपयोग करने के लिए संचयन करती है और यदि उसकी आय का बंद्रह प्रतिशत या उससे अधिक का संचथम हो जाता है वहां उसकी आय का संचयन की अवधि किसी भी दशा में पांच वर्ष से अधिक नहींहोगी;

(iii) अधिनियम 10 ( 23 सी ) के' तीसरे परन्तुक के खंड ( ब ) के उप-खंड ( 5 ) से अपेक्षित तथा धारा 11 की उप- धारा ( 5 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट एक या अधिक रूपों या पद्धतियों में किसी भी अवधि के लिए यह निर्धारिती अफ्नी निधि से अन्यथा निवेशों और निक्षेपों ( आभूषण एवं फर्नीचर या ऐसी वस्तु के रूप में प्राप्त और रखे गए स्वैच्छिक अभिदान के अलावा ) में नहीं करेगी;

( iv ) यह अनुमोदन किसी ऐसी आय के लिए लागू नहीं होगा जो निर्धारिती द्वारा कारोबार , व्यापार से प्राप्त होती है या कारोबार या व्यापार से अर्जित आय का प्रयोग या प्रतिधारण ऐसे कार्यों की सेक में प्रदान किया गया है;

( v ) अधिनियम की धारा 10 ( 23 सी ) के दसवें परन्तुक के अनुसार यह निर्धारिती अपनी बहियां लेखा परीक्षित कराएगी और अधिनियम की धारा 139 ( 4सी ) के अनुसरण में नियमित तौर पर लेखा परीक्षा की रिपोर्ट के साथ विवरणी फाइल करेगी;

(vi ) न्यास के भंग होने पर उसके अधिशेष एवं आस्तियां ऐसे संगठन को दी जाएंगी जो पूर्णतः सार्वजनिक, धार्मिक और पूर्त प्रयोजनों के लिए है और लाभ के प्रयोजनार्थ नहीं हैं और अधिनियम की धारा 13 ( 3 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट अनुसार उसका कोई भी भाग प्रत्यक्ष या अप्रत्यक्ष रूप से निर्धारिती के हिताधिकारी या अन्य किसी को नहीं जाएगा;

(vii ) अधिनियम 10 ( 23सी ) के पंद्रहवें परन्तुक तथा धारा 115 बीबीसी के साथ पठित यह अनुमोदन अनाम संदानों के लिए लागू नहीं होगा ।

3. उपरोक्त अनुमोदन अधोहस्ताक्षरी द्वारा वापस ले लिया माना जाएगा यदि अधिनियम की धारा 10 ( 23 सी ) के पंद्रहवें परन्तुक के अनुसरण में नहीं है तथा अनुच्छेद 2 ( ii ) के अनुसार तत्पश्चात् यह पाया जाता है कि निर्धारिती की आय उपयोग नहीं की गई है या अनुच्छेद 2 ( iii ) के अनुसार उसकी निधि निक्षेप जमा नहीं की गई है या उसकी गतिविधियां असली या प्रमाणिक नहीं है या गतिविधियां स्वीकृत अनुमोदन में उल्लिखित सभी या किन्ही शतों के अनुसार नहीं कीजा रही हैं ।

[सी सं. 935( 12 ) /मु.आ./त्रिची/2008-09 ] कमल कांत त्रिपाठी, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त 1599 भारत काराजपत्र: अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX

Trichy, the 17th March, 2009

educational purposes and not for the purposes ofprofit and no part of the same shall go directly or indirectly to any ofthe beneficiaries of the assessee or anybody specified in section 13 (3) oftheAct.

APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 10 (23C)(W) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961

(vii) The approval shall not apply in relation to anonymousdonations in terms of the fifteenthproviso to section 10(23C) r.w.s. 115BBC oftheAct .

S.O. 847. In exercise of the powers conferredby sub-clause (vi ) ofclause (23C) ofSection 10 of the Income- taxAct, 1961 (43 of1961) read with rule 2CA ofthe Income- taxRules, 1962, the C.M.S. Educational Trust, S. F. No. 231,Marappansikanpatty Village , Eranapauram Post, Namakkal Taluk, Namakkal- District is hereby approved for the purposes of the said sub-clause, from the assessment year 2009-2010 onwards , subject to the following conditions :

3. The above approval is liable to be withdrawn by theundersigned in accordance with the thirteenth proviso to section 10(23C) of the Act, if it is subsequently found that the income of the assessee trust is not applied in accordance with para 2(ii ) supra, or its funds are not invested or deposited in accordance with para 2( iii ) supra, or its activities are not genuine , or if they are not being carried out in accordance with all or any of the conditions subject to which the approval is granted.

[C. No. 935 ( 12)/ССІT/TRY/2008-09] K.K. TRIPATHI , ChiefCommissioner 2. (i) The assessee shall conform to and comply with the provisions of sub-clause (vi) of clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with rule 2CA of the Income- taxRules, 1962.

केन्द्रीय उत्पाद एवं सीमा शुल्क मुख्य आयुक्त का कार्यालय अधिसूचना सं. 01/2009 ( सी. शु. ) विशाखापट्टणम , 31 मार्च , 2009- (ii) The assessee shall apply its income or accumulate the same for application wholly and exclusively towards its objects as amended w.e.f. 2-2-2009 by the supplementary trust deed and, in case more than fifteen per cent of its income is accumulated, the period of accumulation of the same shall in no case exceed five years , asrequired in clause (a) ofthe third proviso to section 10(23C) oftheAct.

का.आ. 848.-भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय, राजस्व विभाग, नई दिल्ली की अधिसूचना संख्या 33 /94- सी.शु. ( गै.टे. ) दिनांक 1 जुलाई , 1994 यथा संशोधित अधिसूचना संख्या 122/2004- सी.शु. (गै.टे. ) दिनांक 25-10-2004 के अंतर्गत प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैं , आंध्र प्रदेश राज्य के कडपा जिले के जाम्मलमाडुगु मंडल में स्थित सुन्नपुरल्लापल्ली ग्राम पंचायत के तुगुट्लपल्ली ग्राम को सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 52 ) के खंड 9 के अंतर्गत भाण्डागार केंद्र घोषित करता हूँ ।

[फा. सं. VIII/40/05/2008-मु.आ. (वि.क्षे. ) ] पी. एन. विट्टल दास , मुख्य आयुक्त (iii) The assessee shall not invest or deposit its funds (other than voluntary contributions received and maintained in the form of jewellery or furniture) for any period otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub- section (5) ofsection 11 ofthe Act, as required in clause (b) ofthe third provisio to section 10(230) ofthe Act.

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE Notification No. 1/2009 Cus Visakhapatnam , the 31st March, 2009 (iv) The approval shall not apply in relation to any income from any activity in the nature oftrade, commerce or business or rendering ofanyservice in relation to trade, commerce orbusiness irrespective of the nature ofuse orapplication or retention of income from such activity.

S.O. 848.-In exercise of the powers conferred on mebyNotification No. 33/94- Cus (NT) , Dated: 1-7-1994 as amended by Notification No. 122/2004-Cus (NT) , Dated: 25-10-2004 ofthe Government of India, Ministry ofFinance , Department of Revenue , New Delhi , I hereby declare ThugutlapalliVillage ofSunnapurallapalli Grama Panchayat, Jammalamadugu Mandal, Kadapa District, in the state of Andhra Pradesh to be a Warehousing Station, under Section 9 ofthe Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) .

(v) The assessee shall gets its accounts audited inaccordance with the tenth proviso to section 10(23C) ofthe Act and regularly file its return along with the audit report in accordance with section 139(4C) of theAct.

[F. No.VIII/40/05/2008 -CC(VZ) ] P. N. VITTAL DASS, ChiefCommissioner (vi) In the event of dissolution of the assessee trust, its surplus and assests shall be given to an organization which exists solely for 1600

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAITRA 21 , 1931

स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय (स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 2 मार्च , 2009

[PART II-SBC. 3(五) ] अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

एमडीएस (कंज. दंत चिकित्सा) , पुणेविश्वविद्यालय , पुणे (viii) कन्जरवेटिव दन्त चिकित्सा ( यदि यह 10-6-2008 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

(ix) ओरल सर्जरी

का. आ. 649. केंद्र सरकार दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16) की धास 10 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग क्ररते हुए भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद से परामर्श करने के बाद एतद्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है अर्थात्:-

2. क्रम सं. 45 के सामने स्तंभ 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में पुणे विश्वविद्यालय , पुणे द्वारा प्रदत्त डिग्री की मान्यता के संबंध में दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16) की अनुसूची के भाग-1 में निम्नलिखित डेंटल कालेजों के संबंध में उसके नीचे निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां अन्तःस्थापित की जाएंगी:-

" IV. डॉ. डी. वाई. पाटील डेंटल कालेज एवं अस्पताल , पिम्परी , पुणे

मास्टर ऑफ डेन्टल सर्जरी

(i ) पेडोडोंटिक्स

एमडीएस (पेडो. ) , पुणे विश्वविद्यालय , पुणे

(यदि यह 21-5-2008 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

(ii) ओरल पैथोलोजी

एमडीएस ( ओरल पैथो. ) , पुणे विश्वविद्यालय, पुणे

(यदि यह 14-5-2008 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

(iii) ओरल मेडिसिन

एमडीएस ( ओरल मेड. ) , पुणे विश्वविद्यालय , पुणे

(यदि यह 20-5-2008 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

एमडीएस (ओरल सर्जरी ) , पुणे विश्वविद्यालय , पुणे " ( यदि यह 3-6-2008 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

[फा.सं. वी. 12017/3/2005-डीई ]

राज सिंह , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (Department of Health and Family Welfare) NewDelhi, the 2nd March, 2009

S.O. 849. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (2) of Section 10 ofthe Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of1948), the Central Government, after consultation with Dental Council of India , hereby , makes the following amendments in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act , namely:-

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 45, in part - I ofthe Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of 1948 ) pertaining to recongnition of Degree awarded by Pune University, Pune , the following entries in respect of following dental college shall be inserted thereunder:-

"TV. Dr. D.Y. Patil Dental College & Hospital, Pimpri , Pune Master of Dental Surgery

(i) Pedodontics

(iv) पेरियोडोंटिक्स

एमडीएस ( पेरियोडोंटिक्स ) , पुणे विश्वविद्यालय, पुणे (यदि यह 22-5-2008 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

(v) प्रास्थोडोंटिक्स

एमडीएस ( प्रोस्थों. ) , पुणे विश्वविद्यालय, पुणे

(यदि यह 16-5-2008 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो.)

एमडीएस ( सामुदायिक दन्त चिकित्सा) , पुणे विश्वविद्यालय , पुणे

(vi ) सामुदायिक दन्त चिकित्सा (यदि यह 27-5-2008 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

(vii) आथोडोंटिक्स

( यदि यह 31-5-2008 को

एमडीएस ( आथा. ) , पुणे विश्वविद्यालय , पुणे

MDS (Pedo .), Pune University, Pune

(When granted on or after 21-5-2008)

MDS (Oral Path. ) , Pune University, Pune

(ii) Oral Pathology (When granted on or after 14-5-2008)

MDS(Oral Med.) , Pune University, Pune

(iii) Oral Medicine (Whengranted on or after 20-5-2008)

MDS( Periodontics) , Pune University , Pune

(iv) Periodontics (When granted on or after 22-5-2008)

MDS (Prostho . ), Pune University, Pune

(v) Prosthodontics (When granted on or after 16-5-2008)

MDS(Comm . Dentistry) , Pune University, Pune

(vi) Community Dentistry (When granted on or after 27-5-2008) 1601 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 2 मार्च , 2009

MDS (Ortho .), Pune University, Pune

(vii) Orthodontics (Whengranted on or after 31-5-2008)

MDS (Con. Dentistry) , Pune University, Pune

(viii) Conservative Dentistry (Whengranted on or after 10-6-2008)

का. आ. 851.-केंद्र सरकार दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद से परामर्श करने के बाद एत‌द्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है अर्थात्:-

MDS (Oral Surgery), Pune University, Pune"

(ix)Oral Surgery (When granted on or after 3-6-2008)

[F.No. V- 12017/3/2005-DE] RAJ SINGH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 2 मार्च, 2009

2. क्रम सं. 30 के सामने स्तंभ 2 और 3 की मौजुदा प्रविष्टियों में कालीकट विश्वविद्यालय , केरल द्वारा प्रदत्त डिग्री की मान्यता के संबंध में दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में गवर्नमेंट डेंटल कालेज , कोजीकोड के संबंध में उसके नीचे निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां अन्तःस्थापित की जाएंगी:-

" ओरल मेडिसिन एवं रेडियोलाजी एमडीएस ( ओरल मेडिसन ) ,

कालीकट विश्वविद्यालय

(यदियह 15-5-2008 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

का. आ. 850.-केंद्र सरकार दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , : 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियोंका प्रयोग करते हुए भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद से परामर्श करने के बाद एतद्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग-1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है अर्थात्:-

(iv) पेडोडोंटिक्स

एमडीएस ( पेडो. ) , कालीकट विश्वविद्यालय " 2. दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में क्रम सं. 74 के बाद निम्नलिखित क्रम संख्या और प्रविष्टियां अन्तःस्थापित की जाएंगी:-

(यदि यह 15-5-2008 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

" 75. डॉ एम.जी.आर.

[फा.सं. वी.- 12017/28/2003 -डीई]

बीडीएस, डॉ. एम. जी.आर. शैक्षिक एवं अनुसंधान संस्थान , चेन्ई"

राज सिंह , अवर सचिव शैक्षिक एवं अनुसंधान संस्थान , चेन्नई (यूजीसी अधिनियम , 1956 की धारा-3 के अधीन स्थापित)

New Delhi , the 2ndMarch, 2009 1. थाई मूगाम्बीगई डेंटल कालेज एवं अस्पताल , चेन्नई ( i ) दंत शल्य चिकित्सा स्नातक (यदियह 7-11-07 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

[फा.सं. वी. - 12017/35/96-डीई ]

राज सिंह, अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 2nd March, 2009

S.O. 851. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (2 ) of Section 10 ofthe Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of1948), the Central Goveernment, after consultation with Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:--

S.O. 850.-In exercise of the powers conferredby sub-section (2) of Section 10 ofthe Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of1948), the Central Government, after consultation with Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments in Part - I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

2.Inthe existingentries of column 2& 3 against Serial No.30, in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of1948) pertaining to recongnition ofDegree awarded by University of Calicut, Kerala the following entries in respect ofGovernment Dental College , Kozhikode shall be inserted thereunder:-

2.InPart- I ofthe Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 after serial No. 74, the following serial number and entries shall be inserted namely:--

MDS (Oral Med. ), University of Calicut

"OralMedicine & Radiology (Whengranted on or after 15-5-2008)

Pedodontics

BDS , Dr. M.G.R. Educational and Research Institute, Chennai."

MDS(Pedo .), Pune University ofCalicut" "75. Dr. M.G.R. Educa- tional and Research Institute, Chennai (established w/ s 3 of the UGC Act, 1956. )

(Whengranted on or after 15-5-2008)

1. Thai Moogambigai Dental College & Hospital, Chennai (i) Bachelor of Dental Surgery (When granted on or after 7-11-2007)

[F. No. V- 12017/28/2003 -DE] RAJ SINGH, Under Secy.

[F.No. V-12017 /35/96-DE] RAJ SINGH, Under Secy.

1602

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAITRA21 , 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3(i) ] नई दिल्ली , 2 मार्च, 2009

III . KLE Society's Insitute of Dental Sciences ,

MDS(Ortho.),

"(ii)MMDB (Orthodontics) ( if granted on or after 19-3-1993 but before 12-10-1998)

Karnataka University, Dharwad" का.आ. 852. केन्द्रीय सरकार दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए भास्वीय दंत चिकित्सक परिषद् से परामर्श करने के बाद एत‌द्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूजी के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्:-

3. Similary, in the existing astries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 49, inpart- I ofthe Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of1948 ) pertainingto, Rajiv Gandhi University ofHealth Sciences, Bangalore, the following ontries shall be insceted therunder:-

VE KLE'sSoulsty's Insitute of Dental Sciences , 2. कर्नाटक विश्वविद्यालय , भारवाड़ के संबंध में दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में क्रम संख्या 35 के सामने स्तंभ 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में उसके नीचे निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां अन्तःस्थापित की जाएंगी:-

"(iv)MDG (Ouhodontics) (if granted on orafter 12-10-1998)

बेलगाम III. केएलई सोसायटी का दन्त चिकिरन संस्थान ,

MDS(Ortho.), RGUGHS, Bangalore." एमडीएस (आर्थो) ,

[No.V- 12017/7/97-DE(Vol-II)(DE) ] RAJ SINGH , Under Secy.

कर्नाटक विअभिधालय ,

नई दिल्ली , 30 मार्च , 2009

धारवाद

( ii ) एमडीएस ( आर्थोडॉटिक्स) ( यदि यह 19-3-1993 को अथवा उसके बाद लेकिन 12-10-1998 से पहले प्रदान की गई हो )

का.आ. 853. कोन्द्रीय सरकार दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उप- भारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए भारतीय दंत चिकित्सक परिषद् से परामर्श करने के बाद स्त‌द्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्:-

3. उसी प्रकार, राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , बंगलौर से संबंधित दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग-1 में क्रम संख्या 49 के सामने स्तंभ 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में उसके नीचे निम्नपिखित प्रथितियां अन्तःस्थापित कीजाएंगी :-

2. दंत चित्तिक अधिनियम , 1948 के अनुसूची के भाग -1 76 क्रम संख्या और प्रविष्टियां बेलगाम VI. केएसई सोसायटी का दन्त निधन ,

एमडीएस ( आर्थो ),

आरबीचूओरएस ,

1. मीनाक्षी अम्मल डेंटल कॉलेज एंड हॉस्पिटल , चैत्रई

"77. मीनाक्षी मिलिय (सम विधालय ) चैन्नई

बंगलौर"

" ( iv ) एमडीएस ( आर्थोडोंटिक्स) (यदि यह 12-10-1998 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

'बी.डी.एस. मीनाक्षी

( i ) दंत शल्य चिकित्सा स्नातक (नदि यह 26-08-2008 को विश्वविद्यालय (सम विश्वविद्यालय ) , चैन्नई "

इसके उपरान्त प्रदान की गई हो )

[फा. सं. वी. -12017/7 /97- डी ई( खण्ड- II ) ( डीई ) ] राज सिंह , अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 2ndMarch,2009

[ प्रा. सं. वी. - 12017/29/1998 - डी ई ( बॉल- III ) ] राज सिंह , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 30th March, 2009

S.O. 852. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(2) of Section 10 ofthe Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of1948), the Central Govesament, after consultation with Dental Council of India, hereby makes the following amendments in Part- I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

S.O. 863.- In exereise of the powers conferredby sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948(16 of1948) , the Contral Government, after consultation with Dental Council of India, hereby makes the following amcndments in Part- I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:--

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 35 , in part - I ofthe Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948 ) pertaining to, Karnsaka University, Dharwad, the following entries shall be inserted thereunder:--

2.Inpast Iofthe Schoduleto the Dentists Act, 1948, after serial No. 76, the following serial number and entries 1603 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

अनुसूची

shall be insertednamely:-

संसोधन की संख्या

संशोधित भारतीय

क्र. सं

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि

और तिथि

मानक की संख्या

:

और वर्ष

1. Meenakshi Ammał Dental College ' & Hospital Chennai

"77. Meenakshi University (DeemedUniversity), Chennai.......

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

30सितम्बर

आईएस 8401 : 1994

BDS,Meenakshi University (Deemed University) , Chennai".

(i)Bachelor ofDental Surgery (Whengranted on or after 26-08-2008)

2008

संशोधन संख्या 1, सितम्बर , 2008

ऐल्किलबेन्जीन

[No.V.-12017/29/1998-DE (Vol- III)] RAJ SINGH, Under Secy.

सल्फोनिक अम्ल (आलीय घोल) -विशिष्टि

(पहला पुनरीक्षण )

सूक्ष्म , लघु और मध्यम उद्यम मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 27 , मार्च, 2009

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

का.आ. 854. केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा नियम , 1976 के (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम 10 के उप -नियम 4 के अनुसरण में सूक्ष्म , लघु और मध्यम उद्यम मंत्रालय के नियंत्रणाधीन खादी और ग्रामोद्योग आयोग के निम्नलिखित कार्यालय में हिन्दीका कार्यसाथधक ज्ञान रखने वाले कर्मचारियों की संख्या 80 % से अधिक हो जाने के फलस्वरूप उन्हें एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करती है

[ संदर्भ: सीएचडी 25/टी-8401] ई. देवेन्द्र , वैज्ञानिक एफ ( रसायन)

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

उप कार्यालय , खादी और ग्रामाधोग आयोस , पो. बा. नं. 27 मेडिकल कालेज परिसर , रामपुर रोड, हल्द्वानी , जिला नैनीताल (उत्तराखंड)-2631391

(Deptartment of Consumer Affairs) BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS फ़र. सं. ई-12016/01/2005-हिन्दी] प्रवीर कुमार , संयुक्त सचिव

New Delhi, the 19th March, 2009 MINISTRYOF MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES

NewDelhi, the 27th March, 2009

S.O. 855. In pursuarice of clause (b ) of sub- rule (1) ofRule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indidau Standards, particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued: SCHEDULE:

Sl . No. and title ofthe

No. Indian Standard

Datefromwhich the amendment shall have effect

No. & year of the amendment

S.O. 854. In pursuance of sub rule (4) ofRule 10 oftheOfficial Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following office of the Khadi & Village Industires Commission under control of the Ministry of Micro, Small &Medium Enterprises, where the percentage of Hindi knowing staff has gone above 80%.

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

IS 8401: 1994.

Sub Office Khadi & Village Industires Commission , P.B. No. 27 , Medical College Campus , Rampur Road, Haldwani , Distt. Nainital (Uttarakhand)-263139.

30th September, 2008

Amendment No. 1 , September ,

[No.E- 12016/01/2005-Hindi]

2008

Alkylbenzene sulphonic acid

PARVIR KUMAR, Jt. Secy.

उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

(Acids lurry)- Specification

( उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

(First Revision)

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नई दिल्ली , 19 मार्च , 2009

Copy ofthese standards are available for sale with the Bureen of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 , Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , का.आ. 855.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक (कों) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :

1234G1 /09-2 1604

THE GAZETTE OF

A21, 1931

[PARTB- ) ] Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur,Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

गुठी, सवार, जनपुर , कानपुर, नागपुर , पटना, पूणे तथा [Ref: CHD ZVT-8401 ]

[संदर्भ : सी एच डी 1042-1997 ] E. DEVENDAR, Scientist F (Chemical )

एक ( रसायन )

NewDelhi, the 2009 matter called the sa said 10)(b) ofof sub-rule

Rale, 1987, Retifies that the of which we given in the on the date का.आ. 856.-भारतीय मानक बयूरो निम , 1987 7 के उप - नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख) के ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में किये गये

क्र. सं. स्थापित भारतीय

No.

dard ofIndian Established

51.

मानक (कों) की संख्या, वर्ष और

Standard, if any, super- seded by the now Indian Standard

(1)

मानकों, यदि कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष

(2)

(3)

(4)

(1 )

31stMarch2009 (2)

(3)

(8)

LaboratoryGlass-

1. आईपण 1997-0008

31मार्च , 2009

आईएसओ 388:

2005 प्रयोगा

Copy ofthis Bonded is available for aole with the Shok Zafar Mary, w Bali- 110002 and Regional Offlines: Mom Chathi , Kellsie , Chentligarh, Chennai , Meghai and biso Basach Offices : Ahmedabad, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, bed, higher, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna,

[Ref: CHD 10/T-1997] भवन , 9 , मठापुर साहवफर नई दिल्ली 140002, कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोशी चेनई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों: अहमदाबाद और पार कर

RIDEVENDAR, Scinttint F (Chornical)

नई दिल्ली, 30 मार्च, 2009

का.आ. 857.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) नियम, 1908 ( 5 ) के उप ( 6 ) के अनुकरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो यतद्वारा अधिकृभित कराकर दिया गया है:-

क्रम लाइसेंस संख्यारीगर

सीएम/एल

कम रदद करने की जिम्मि कोई नहीं

5 क्रम

लाइभारी का नाम पता

सं

लाइसेंस संख्फ सीएम/एल

सम्ाप्त करने की तिथि 1

1. 7453981 यू फलाटो नैनिकः क्र. लि.,

22-10-2006 एतदचनांस 14 , मोरोल

माई एक 4005 :2000

डिस्ट्रिक्ट 1605 भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 11, 2000/चैत्र 21, 1931

[भाग -सखण्ड 3(ii) ]

22-10-2008

7048366 रेनबो केबल इंडस्ट्रीज

2..

पी वी सी इंसुलेटिड केबल आई एस 694:1993:

ब्लावर संकर 733, रकन्पुर गाँव, सोला सांतेज रोड़ , ता कलोल रकनपुर , गांधीनगर

[संख्या सी एम डी 13:13 ]

श्रीरपरिक (मुहर ) गया

NewDelhi , the 30thMarch, 2009

S.O. 857.-Inpursuance of sub- regulation (60) ofthe regulation 5 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the licences particulars ofwhich are given below have been cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Name & Address of the licensee

Sl. Licence No.

Dateof Cancellation CM/L

No.

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

DateofExpiry Name & Address ofthe licensee

Licence No.

CM/L

SL. No.

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

22-10-2008 1 7453981

DukePlasto Technique P. Ltd.

UPVC Pipes for Potable Water Supplies

IS4985:2000

NHNo. 14, POSTKUSKAL Opposite Hotel GreenWood Badarpura, Distt Banaskantha

22-10-2008 Rainbow Cable Inds .

2 7048366

PVC Insulated Cables IS694:1990

Block No. 733, Vill Rakanpur, Sola Santej Road, Tal Kalol , City Rakanpur , Gandhinagar

[No. CMD/13: 13]

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

नई दिल्ली, 30 मार्च, 2009

का. आ. 858.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम, 1988 के विनियम ( 5 ) के उपविनियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनकै आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द/स्थापित कर दिया गया है:-

अनुसूची

रद्द करने की तिथि लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

लाइसेंस संख्या

सलाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु/प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय मानवाका सीमिता २

सीएम/एल

क्रम सं

04-11-2008 जय ज्वैलर्स

1. 7518074

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकने

:

आई एस 1417: 1999

12/13 सुपर माल , सी जी रोड लाल बंगला के पास, अहमदाबाद-380 006

11-11-2008 7796712

2.1

पीवी सी इंसूलेटिड केबल आईएस 694:1990

यूनिफलैक्स केबल लि. 158-163 , जी आई डी सी, अंबरेगाम -396171 , वलसाद

[संख्या सी एम डी 13:13 ]

पी. के. गम्भीर , उपमहानिदेशक ( मुहर ) 1606

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 11 , 200MCHAITRA 21 , 1931

[PART I-SBc. 3( ii)]

New Delhi, the 30thMarch, 2009

S.O. 858 -Inpanmance of sub- regulation ( of the regulation 5 ofthe Burement Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, ofthe B have been cancelledsuspendedwith alat binilig d by no But the Bronous partibulars ofwhich are givenbelow Ske Licences No. Name & Address ofthe licensee

No. CML

Dateof Cancellation

NetoliGreater with zelevent Indian Standards covered by the licence

17518074

JayJewellers

04-11-2008 "

Gold andGoldAlloys, Jewellery and Marking

12/13, Bupor NearLalBunglow,

第1417:1999

2. 7796712

Mangalo

PVC blodCables

1-11-2008

IS694:1990

158-163 ,GIDCwnd ( Umbergson-396171 , Valsad

stural

thveu No. CMD/13 : 13]

Bonus F.K. GAMBHIR, Dy. Director General (Marks)

नई दिल्ली , 30 मार्च , 2009

का.आ. 859. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( अमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 में मिनियम 5 के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है फिनिसहरए हैं :

10 .

लाइसेंसधारी कान नाम व भता भारतीय नलक का शीर्षक भामा भाग

वर्ष

अनु क्रम सं.

लाइसेंस संख्या

स्वीकृत करने की तिथि वर्कमाह

9 1. 7879514 13-10-2008

यून

1996 एस्टेट, ओढव , अ

2. 7876407 01-10-2008 डीजी ज्वैलर्स ,

स्वर्ण कथत स्वर्ण मिश्र

1417

1999 जी एफ 3 -स, पिलेनिनंद प्लाजा, स्वामीनारायण

मंदिर के सामने , ज

दुओं के सानूनों शिल्पकारी सुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मंत्र रोड, कानपुर , ह শয়ার

3. 7876508 01-10-2008 विशरूत ज्वैलर्स,

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र

1417

1999 313 , इसफान आतडे , परीसीभा काम्पल के

सामने, सी भी के

पशुओं के जानूषणों एवं सुरांकन

अहमदाबाद

4. 7876609 01-10-2008 कंगन ज्वैलर्स ,

1417

1999 9, तुलसीकुण सोसायटी , मंगलतीर्थ अस्पताल के सामने , इंडिया कालोनी रोड,

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र एवं मुहरांकन

बापूनगर , अहमदाबाद

Unde 1607 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1999

1417

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र

जावेर हाऊस ,

01-10-2008

7876710

धातुओं के आभूषणीयामा

सिल्पकारी शुद्धता

एवं मुहरांकन

बी 7 , नवरंग अपार्टमेंट , स्वास्तिक चार रास्म के पास, नवरंगपुरा

अहमदाबीद

6321999

आ

का०

रुपमा

स्वतथास्वर्ण मित्र वना

अलंकार ज्वैलरी

08-10-2008

1877813

6..

शिल्पकारी शुद्धता

4/5/6, शांतिव्रन अपार्टमेंट, लाम्बे हनुमान रोड, वराचा

संकन

1999

विवार

1407

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र

अभिषेक ज्वैलर्स

7879914-06-10-2008

धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता

36, नगरपालिका शॉपिंग सैंटर , पोस्ट वापी-396191

एवं संहरांकन

1999

1417

स्वर्ण वथा स्वर्ण मिश्र

2, श्री रंग सोसाइटी, धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धताल के अन्स बात के क्योंकि, पेट्रालिय रेडर रोड, रैंडर , सूरत

और,

निजयवाड़ा -नेल्लोर चेन्नई,

से1999

नाम

(रिलॉग),

लिमे ?

रिलासितिर्थ तर शिर

10-10-2008लिस ज्वैलर्स

9. 7879110

धातुओं के आभूषणों

बाजार चौक , प्रांतिज ,

श्रीराम

भुतन्त्र चित्रकूट,

शिल्पकारी शुद्धता

साबरकांय डिस्ट्रिक्ट

एवं मुहसंक

अहमदाबाद

मिल्स गरिसर, ग

1999

1417

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र

एस बीज्वैलर्स

10. 7879211 11-10-2008

धातुओं के आभूषणों

है आज में, त

शिल्पकारी शुद्धता

2, सोराथिया चैम्बर्स, भीडभंजन रोड , आपूनगर,

करते

आंधित सोच

एवं मुहरांकन में

अहमदाबाद-380024

1999

1417

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र

सोनी पुखराजभाइ

11-10-2008

7879312

11.

धातुओं के आभूषणों

शिल्पकारी शुद्धता सेक

खेासू-384325

मेसर्स पिलोद के

एवं मुहरांकन

ताराचंदजी सोनी बाजार, मेहसाना

1999 लियं नियुक्त करती है ।

1417

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र

ओमज्वैलर्स

16-10-2008

7880701

12.

धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता

एवं भुहरांकन

जी-6, प्रमुख पैराडाईस , सैक्टर-23 , गांधीनगर , गुजरात

1999

स्वर्ण तथातथा स्वर्ण मित्र 1417

21-10-2008 मत तथा संस ज्वैलर्स,

7881194

13.

धातुओं के आभूषणों

17 , 18 कन्या छात्रालय बिल्डिग, महिला कालेन शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहर्रोकन

केसामने, उंझा-384170

1999

1417

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र

आशापुरी ज्वैलर्स

21-10-2008

7881295

14.

धातुओं के आभूषणों

4.1

17, शास्त्रीनगर ,

शिल्पकारी शुद्धता

नारायणपुरा,

एवं मुहरांकन

अहमदाबाद 1608

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APREL 11,2 1

15. 7881396 21-10-2008

4/392,

16 1961 20- azet

17. 7878007

338, पोस्ट भुरपुर , गाँ pharet fortune

18. 7881501 21-10-2008

Gaiji

Promises ,

Man

लिमिटेड ( जी ) , सर्व नं 338, प्रोस्ट तुरपुर, गौन तथा तरतुमन हसोल , पंचमहल डिष्ट्रिक्ट 19. 7877304 08-10-2008

नंबर 66/1 से 75/2, जी नाई डी सी एस्टेट , 20 7879413 13-10-2008 एक लाईक कर रातानगर के बास , वस्याल अमराईली, अहम

21. 7877005 01-10-2008 मंगुबा विक्ररेष,

dindd

स्कूल के सामने , भाकालगर, एईसी नारायनपुरा के पास, 22. 7878209 07-10-2008 श्रीजी डेल्फ केयर इंस , सर्वे नंबर 282 पैकी-2 , कालेज रोड , पंचमहल , गुजरात

23. 7882503 24-10-2006

1931

[PART I Sec. 30 5

1999

Or in

1999 Pollector Retired ) ,

Authority r

2006 has allowed

2006

१० पार्ट-

Chitrakoot , Suran

Worli , Mumbai- 100

14158

1994

14220

1994

14543

2004 14543

2004 4985

2000

यूपी की बम फार

पोटेपल नाकर सभाईस

वातानी अशिपर्स, एट भडका, इडार सेड, हिम्मतवनर , साबरकांटा-383001 1609

भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[भाग 1Ⅱ- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

24. 7882604 24-10-2008 रंगोली एकया केयर , प्लाट नंबर 27/28 , पटेल नगर , लाईएस अस्पताल के सामने, वाव रोड, :

बनसकांव

टेरा केबल इंडिया प्रा लि.

25.

24-10-2008

7882402

एच ओ 508 , पाचवी मंजिल , हरेकृष्णा काम्पलैक्स , आश्रम रोड, पालडी, अहमदाबाद 24-10-2008

7882095

26.

साईकार्पोरेट्स, ग्राम स्वराज्य आश्रम जेल रोड, सुभाष ब्रिणि

अहमदाबाद

9 5

6 7 8

2004

14543

पैकेजबंद पेयजल

1988 कासलिका पालिथियत्लिन

पार्ट 1

7028

इंसूलेटिड पी वी सी

2004

14543

पैकेजबंद पेयजल

છ???છદ્ર છે છે?

[संख्या सी एम डी/ 13 : 11 ]

पौ. के. गम्भौर, उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर )

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2009

S.O. 859. In pursuance of sub- regulation (5) ofthe regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988 , ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies thegrant oflicences particulars ofwhich are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Licence GrantDate A

Sl. No. No.

Name& Address of the party

13-10-2008

7879514

UK Industries L-46, GIDC Estate, Odhav, Ahmedabad 2

01-10-2008

7876407

DG Jewels GF/3/C, Millennium Plaza, Opp . Swaminarayan Temple , Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad 01-10-2008

7876508

Vishrut Jewels 313, Iscon Rcade , Opp. Pariseema Complex, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad 01-10-2008

4 7876609

KanganJewellers

9, Tulsikung Society,Opp. Mangaltirth Hospital , India Colony Road, Bapunagar, Ahmedabad

IS.No. Part o

Title of the Standard

9 5

1996

325

Three phase induction motors

1999

1417

Gold andGold Attoys , Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness & Marking

1999 Alloys , 1417

GoldandGold Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness & Marking

1999

1417

GoldandGoldAlloys , Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness &Marking 1610

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009 CHARRA.21 , 1931

[PART II Sac. 3(ii) ] 2

7 8

9 01-10-2008

5 7876710

1999

1417

Gold andGold Alloys, Finonese &Making

ZaverHayne B/7, Naviang Apartment ) Near, Swastik Char Rasta, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad

-6 7877813 06-10-2008

1999

1417

Gold and GoldAlloys, Jewellery/Artefacts-

tation or t

Alanikar Joweliers 4/5/6 ShantivanApestenent, Verachha, Surat

ndustries Limited

7 7877914 06-10-2008

1999

1417

Gold and Gold Alloys , Jewellery /Artefacts-

Finment &Marking

Abhishek Jeweliers 36,Nagarpalika Shopping Centre,Post Vapi-396191, Dist. Valsad

8 7879009 10-10-2008 J.B. Jewellers

1999

1417-

GoldandGoldAlloys , Jewellery/Artefacts- Fintunes &Morking

2, Shri Rang Society, Rander Road, Rander, Surat

10-10-2008

9 7879110

1999

1417

of Section o

Gold and GoldAlloys , Jewellery/Artefacts- Phoness &Marking

ChiragJewellers BazarChowk, Prantij, Dist. Sabarkantha, Ahmedabad

10 7879211 11-10-2008

1999

1417

GoldandGoldAlloys , Jeveallery /Artefacts

das

pipeline

SB Jewellers 2, Sorathig Chambers , BhidkberganRoad, Bapunagar, Ahmedabad-380024

1999

1417

11 7879912 11-10-2008

Gold and GoldAlloys,

Soni PulchraJoli Tarachandfi Kherale-384325 Mehsana Finenes &Macking

12-A

the saist 21-10-2008

13 7881194

1999

Jewelry/Astofacts- Fineness &Marking

Bhemat & Soda Jejeellem 17,18 KanyaChhatala Building, Opp Mithila College,Unibe-384170

14. 78870

1999 21-10-2008

Jound Colloys

Jeweln /Ar

17 , Shraddhadeep Complex , Shashtrianger, Narampura Almedabad

1999 15 7881396 21-10-2006

1417

Gin Madonna James 4/392, ChaasteBazar, Alwar-395001

Gold andGold Alays , Finone & Marking

21-10-2008

167801497

1999

1417-

GoldandGoldAlloys , Jewellery/Artefacto Fineness &Marking

PritiGold Palace Varundavan Shopping Centre, Nr. Surelia Ind. Estate, Vastral Road, P.О. Amraiwadi , Ahmedabad 1611 भारत का राजपत्र अप्रैल 11, 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[भाग पद 3 ( ii) ]

7 8

2006

Pt. 1

3196

06-10-2008

17 7878007

Welded Low Carbon Steel Cylinders

Confidence Petroleum IndiaLtd(G) Survey No/ 338, Post- Neorpur, Village &Taluk: Halol, Dist Panchmahal

2006

Pt. 1

3196

21-10-2008

1878781501

WeldedLow Carbon Steel Cylinders

Confidence Petroleum IndiaLtd(G) Survey No. 338, Post Noorpur, Village &Taluka Halol, Dist: Panchmahal

1994

14158

CyfluthrinWP

08-10-2008

19 7877207

Bayercrop Science Ltd. Plat No. 66/1 to 75/2 , GIDC Estate, Himatnagar

1994

14220

787941313-10-2008

Openwell Submersible Pumpsets

Add-Life Engineers B/6, Prakash Estate, Nr.Atanagar, Vastral Road, Amraiwadi, Ahmedabad

2004

14543

01-10-2008

7877005

Packaged Drinking Water

Manguba Beverages Opp. Terf Swaminarayan School , Chamundanagar, Nr. Acc Naranpura, Ahmedabad

2004.

14543

07-10-2008

227878209

PackagedDrinking . Water

Shriji Healthcare Inc SurvayNo. 282, Paikee-2, Collage Road, Panchmahal

2000

4985

24-10-2008

237882503

Unplasticized PVC Pipesfor Potable :Water Supplies

Vasani Polymers At Dhandha IdarRoad, Himatnagar, Sabarkantha 383001

2004

14543

24788260424-10-2008

PackagedDrinking Water

Rangoli Aqua Care Plot No. 27/28 , Patel Nagar, Opp.Lience Hospital, Wav Road, Banaskantha

1988

Pt. 1

7098

7882402 24-10-2008

Crosslinked polyethylene insulatedPVC sheathed cables: Part1

Tera Cables India P Ltd. H.O. 508 , 5th Floor, Hare krishna Complex Ashram Road Paldi Ahmedabad

2004

14543

24-10-2008

7882095

Packaged Drinking Water

Sai Corporates Gram Swarjya Ashram Jail Road, Subhash Bridge, Ahmedabad

[No. CMD/13: 11 ]

P. K.GAMBHIR,Dy. Director General (Marks) 1234G1/09-3 .

1612

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2008/ CHAITRA 21, 1931

[PART Sac. 3 )]

नई दिल्ली , 30 मार्च, 2000

का.आ 860.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो प्रमाण )

( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण भीचे अनुसूची में नगर में स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :-

इलेका पत

अनु वर्ष

भाभा क्रम लाइसेंस संख्या संख्या

स्वीकृत करने की तिथि, वर्ष/माह

संख्या

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

($)

(6) (7) (8) (9) 1. 7884406 06-11-2008

1417

स्वर्गओं के

1999

मेन रोड , पी. के भीम्माभाई ज्वैलर्स कोसाम्बा, सूरत

2 7884810 06-11-2008

7620 पार्ट

एक्सरे

1986

मैडिको इमेजिन बाध्वनी मिलाड लघु मंडल लिमिटेड , प्लाट नं. 5, सारीगामा रोड , टाईरस अस्पकाल को फस , फिलাত , ता. अम्बरणाम , वरसाद

3. 7885610 06-11-2008

7231

1994 अलटा प्लास्ट 23 , जगदीश एस्टेट , अंपूजा हाई स्कूल के सामने , स्वेट बैंक कारमर , कापूनगर ,

4. 7885711 11-11-2008 、

1489 पार्ट

1991

र पार्ट 1

आदिसिमेंट प्रा. लि. , ए/ 11 , प‌द्मावती काम्पलैक्स , नारेला टाटय साबरकांटा

5. 7890401 28-11-2008

पार्ट

1994

कोवर ओवरहेड 398 नाक-आर्ट 4

कैलाश मांडक्टर तथा प्रा.लि. , सर्वे नम्बर 509 , दबहन रोड, एशियन फूड इंडस्ट्रिय के सामने , पी. ओ. दबहन, ता. नजिकाक, गुजरास-387320

6. 7886612 17-11-2008

1417

1999

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्णः शिशुओं के आभूम्री शुद्धता एवं

गुजरात गोल्ड पैलेस, 3544, 45/ए, शारे मार्केट के सामने मानेक बौक, अहमदाबाद

7. 7887614 18-11-2008

1417

1999

स्वर्ग कथा पर्न नि धातुओं के शुद्धता एवं

भारत ज्वैलर्स ए/4 , कमला पार्क एपार्टमेंट नेशनल पलाश के सामने, अलकापुरी, बडोदरा

8. 7888212 20-11-2008

1417

1999

वर्णतुओं के आपूनों मिनरी शुद्धता एवं मुहर्तकन

श्री चामुंडाज्वैलर्स, 26, 27 , पंचम माल , जीवनवाडी के पास निकोल गाम रोड , अहमदशकद 1613 भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 11, 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

(7) (8 ) ( 9 )

(6)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

1999

1417

27-11-2008

9. 7890296

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

श्रीनाथजी ज्वैलर्स सी.वी. मार्केट , स्टेशन रोड, सचिन-394230 सूरत

1999

1417

27-11-2008

10. 7890397

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

श्री हरि ज्वैलर्स बी-1 , पुनित एपार्टमेंट बालाजी गर्ल्स हाई स्कूल के सामने , बालाजी रोड, सूरत-395003

4984

1995 20-11-2008

11. 7887513

हाई डेनसिटी फलिथिलिन पाईप फार पोटेबल वाटरसपलाईस

इरोकैम पाईपिंग प्रा. लि. , प्लाट नम्बर 258 , रोड नम्बर 1 बी, फेस 1 , काठपाडा मी. आई.डी. सी. अहमदाबाद

1985

7098 पार्ट

19-11-2008

12. 7887311

क्रासलिंकड पालिथलिन इंसूलेटिड पी वी सी शीथड केबल

डायमंड पावर इनफ्रास्टकचर लिमिटेड एसन हाउस 5/12 , बी आईडीसी , गोरवा बडोदा

2004

14543

पैकेजबंद पेयजल

13. 788600612-11-2008 साई गोगा बिवरेज के-2/1 , जे/ 1-28 , 29 , भगवतीनगर इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, उधना नवसारी रोड, बैराटन सूरत

2004

14543

पैकेजबंद पेयजल

12-11-2008

14. 7886107

जीरो बैंक बिवरेज आई प्रा. लि. , 3, शुभलक्ष्मी इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट , सरखेज बावला हाइवे, मारईया , ता. सानंद अहमदाबाद

2004 ::

14543

पैकेजबंद पेयजल

सैमन चाटर

24-11-2008

15. 7888717

प्लाट नम्बर 1 , केवल एस्टेट, एशियन पेंट के सामने , सारोली सूरत

2004

14543

पैकेजबंद पेयजल

28-11-2008

16. 7890094

हिलेरीः हेल्भकैंसर इनस जी.ई.बी. के पास, पोस्ट अटक पारडी, वलसाद

2003

15335

इमिडाक्लाप्रीड एस एल

19-11-2008

7887917

17.

सारथी एग्रो कौमः , 1306/ॐ फेस 4, मरोडा अहमदाबाद

[सं. सी एम डी/ 13 : 11 ]

पी. के. गम्भीर , उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर ) জিয়াজাহ W Delhi , the 30thMarch, 2009

S.O.860. In pursuance of sub- regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)Regulations , 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following Schedule :-

1614

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA APRIL 1, 200МСТИВАЛЕВА.31 , 1931

[PART SEC 3

SCRE

Licences GrantDate

Title

Name and Addus office

IS No Pitt Sec . Your.

Sl. No. No.

Party

(3)

(1) (2)

(4)

(6) (7) (8) (9) 1. 7884406 06-11-2008

1417

1999 Road,P.O:: Komm

Suent

2.7884810 06-11-2008

7620 (Pt1 ) , 1986

Dingaathic Medioul X-ray

Medico ImagingCompany PlotNo. 5, Sarigama Road, NearTitalwnia Hospital, Bhilad, Tal-Uasg , Distt.Valand

3. 7885610 10-11-2008 AltaPlast

1994-

7231

Plastit Gughing sisterns for noinals

23, Jagdish EstateOpp. Ambuja High School, StateBandyOnm Bepinagar, Alumedabad

4. 7885711 11-11-2008

Coment

1991

1489 (Pt 1) - AndiCatientsPvt. Lat A/11, Padmavati Commer BarelaTattv Sabark

5. 789401 28-11-2008

998

1994-

G Kallite and Cables Py No.509,Durd Deb RoadOppAsian Food Ind P. O. Dabhan TA TaNadind, Gaja -387300

17-11-2008

67886612

1417

Gold andGoldAlleys,

1999 Gujant Of 45 /A,Opp: hure Math Manokcheme , A

7. 7887614 18-11-2008

1417

1999

Gold andGoldAlless,

Bharat Jewellers, 4/4, KamlaPark Apartments, Behind Alku

8. 7888212 20-11-2008

1417

1999 ShapeCheemade Jewellers , 26,27, Panelion Mall Near Jivanwadi ,Nicol Gam Road, Ah

9. 7890296 27-11-2008

1417

1999

Gold andGift Alleye ,سرسایه Making

Shree Nathjes Jewellers; C.V. Market, StationRoad, Sachin-394930, Surat

10. 7890397 27-11-2008

1417

GoldaláAlloys, Ja

ShreeHari Jemelles, B- 1, Pamit Opp. Schook and Surat-305000 1615

24,1931

भारत काराजपत्र अप्रैल , 2000

[भाग खण्ड 3(ii) ]

(8) (9)

(7)

(6)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

1995

4984

20-11-2008

11. 7887513

High densitypolyethylene... pipes for potable water : supplies

Acrochem Piping Pvt. Ltd. , PlotNo. 258, Road No. 1 /B; Phase- 1, Kathwada GIDC, Ahmedabad

1985

Pt.2

7096

19-11-2008

7887311

12.

Crosslinked Polythylane Insulated PVC Sheathed Cables, IS 7098: Part 2

Diamond Power Infrastructure Ltd. , Essen House; 5/12 , B.L.D.Ci , Gorwa, Vadodara

2004

14543

7886006. 12-11-2008.

13.

PackagedDrinking Water (Other than Packaged NaturalMineral Water)

SaiGogaBeverages, K-2/1 , J/1-28, 29, BhagwatiNagar, Industrial Estate, UdhanaNavsari Road, Bhestan , Surat

2004

14543

12-11-2008 .

14. 7886107

PackagedDrinkingWater (Other than Packaged NaturalMineral Water) IS14543: 2004

Zero Bac Beverages (1) Pvt. Ltd. , 3, Shubhlaxmi Ind. Estate, Sarkhaj -Bavia Highway, Moraiya; TaSanand, Ahemdabad

2004

14943

24-11-2008

15. 7886717

PackagedDrinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water) IS14543 :2004

LemonWater, Plot No. 1 , Keval Estate , Opp.Asian Paint, Saroli, Surat

2004

14543

16. 789009428-11-2008

के अजन के लिए, श्री सुरन्द्र

PackagedDrinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral IS14543:2004

Hileri Healthcare Inc., Near GEB At PostAtak PardiTal Fendi, Distt. Valsad

19-11-2008

7887917

17.

Specification

SarithrAgro Chem , 1306/5,Phase4, GIDC Phase4, Naroda, Ahmedabad

[No. CMD/ 13: 11 ]

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

नई दिल्ली, 30 मार्च, 2000

का. आ. 861.-11.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो मियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के कपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( या ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुपधी में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं

अनुसूची

क्रम

05 संथापित भारतीय मानक(कों) की संख्या, वर्ष और शीर्षक

संख्या

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

(4)

(3)

(2)

( 1 )

जनवरी 2009

कुछ नहीं

IS/ISO 16929 : 2002

प्लास्टिक - पायलट- मापन परीक्षण में परिभाषित संघटक स्थितियों में विघटन का स्तर ज्ञात करना 1616

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 11 , 2009 CHAITRA21 , 1931

[PART I-SBC. 3(ii) ] (2)

(1);

(3)

(4) 2. IS/ ISO 14855-1 : 2007

जनवरी , 2009 नियंत्रिक संघटक स्थितियों में प्लास्टिक सामग्री की अंतिम ( अल्टोमेट ) माक्सी जैथ विघटनीयता ज्ञात करना उत्पन्न कार्बन डाइआक्साइड के विश्लेषण द्वारा 1 सामान्य पद्धति

3. IS/ISO 14855-2 : 2007

जनवरी , 2009 मिमंत्रिक- संपटक स्निपिनों में सामग्री की अंतिम ( अरजेमेट विघटनीषता ज्ञात करमा उत्पन्न कार्बन डाइआक्साइड के विश्लेषण द्वारा पद्धति भाग 2 प्रयोगशाला- स्केल परीक्षण में उत्पन्न कार्बन बाद का

4 IS/ISO 14853 : 2005

जनवरी , 2009 प्लास्टिक जलीय तंत्र में प्लास्टिक सप की अंतिम अल्टोमेट आक्सी मैच मिनटणीयता ज्ञात करना - बायोगैस उत्पादन द्वारा पद्धति

जनवरी , 2009 IS/ISO 14851 : 1999 जलीय माधाम में एक की अल्टोमेट बंद रेसपीरोमीटर में मापन द्वारा पद्धति

6 IS/ISO14852: 1999

.जनवरी , 2009 जलीय माध्यम में प्लास्टिक सामग्री की अंतिम अल्टोमेट आक्सी मैच बिचटनीपत सत करना उत्पन्न कार्बन आइसाइड के विश्लेषण द्वारा पद्धति

कुछ नहीं

मार्च , 2009 IS/ISO 15985 : 2004 प्लास्टिक - उच्च कोशिक डाईजेशन स्थितिभी में आन ( नेट ) आपसी (एनीषिक ) टिटिनাবণ্য निकली बायोगैस की विश्लेषण पद्धति

(पहला पुनरीक्षण ) मार्च

8. IS/ISO17556 : 2003

जनवरी, 2009 प्लास्टिक- रेसपीरोनीटमें अथवा उत्पन्न कार्बन डाइनाइड के प्रतद्वारा मृदा में अंतिम ( अल्टोनेट आपली जैन विघटनीयता ज्ञात करत

9. IS/ISO 20200 : 2004,

कुछ नहीं

जनवरी,2009

प्लास्टिक - प्रयोगशाला-स्केल परीक्षण में अनुकारित संघटन स्थितियों में प्लास्टिक सामग्री के विघटन का स्तर ज्ञात करमा 1617 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

जनवरी , 2009

कुछ नहीं

IS361 :2009

10.

नार्मल ब्यूटाईल एलकोहल , तकनीकी - विशिष्टि (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

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

[संदर्भ: पीसीडी/जी-7 ( गजट ) ]

डॉ. (श्रीमती ) विजय मलिक , निदेशक एवं प्रमुख ( पीसीडी)

New Delhi , the 30th March, 2009

S.O. 861.- In pursuance ofclause (b) of sub- rule ( 1 ) ofRule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Date of Established No. & Year and title of the Indian Standards

Established

SL No.

No. & Year of Indian Standards , ifany, superseded by the New Indian Standard

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

None

January, 2009 1. IS/ISO 16929: 2002

Plastics-Determination ofthe Degree of DisintegrationPlastic Materials under Defined Composting Conditions in a Pilot Scale Test

None

January, 2009 2 IS/ISO 14855-1 : 2007

Determination ofthe UltimateAerobic- Biodegradability ofPlastic Materials under controlled Composting Conditions-Method byAnalysis ofEvolved Carbon Dioxide Part 1 General Method

January, 2009

None

IS/ISO 14855-2: 2007 Determination ofthe Ultimate Aerobic Biodegradability ofPlastic Materials under controlled Composting Conditions-Method byAnalysis ofEvolved Carbon Dioxide Part 2 Gravimetric Measurement of Carbon Dioxide Evolved in A Laboratory-Scale Test

None

January,2009 4. IS/ISO 14853:2005

Plastics Determination ofthe Ultimate Anaerobic Biodegradation of Plastic Materials in an Aqueous System Methodby Measurement of Biogas Production

None

January, 2009 IS/ISO 14851 : 1999

Determination ofthe Ultimate Aerobic Biodegradability ofPlastic Materials in an Aqueous Medium Method by Measuring the OxygenDemand in a closed Respirometer 1618

THE GAZETTE OF

MARA- 21 1931

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4) 6. IS/ASO-14852: 1999

Nenc

January, 2009 Determination of the Ultimate Aerobic Biodegradability ofPlastic Materiels in an Aqueous Medium Mashed by analysis ofEvolved Carbon Triotide

2009 IS/ISO 19985:2004

Plastics Det moderHigh Conditione Biogas(First Revision)

8. 1848017556: 2003 ,

Зелнику, 2009 PinsticDetemiyadionofthekingan Arabic Biodegradability in Soil by Manguring the Oxygen Demand in a respirometar or the Amount of CarbonDianide Evolved

9. ISASO 20200: 2004

Тавщику, 2009 Plastics DeterminationoftheDegree of Disintegration ofPlastic Materialαπολης Simulated Coremosting Conditions in a Laboratory ScaleTest

10. , 18:360-2009

Temury, 2009 Normal Butyl Alcohol, Technical Specification (Thindaevision)

Shah

Ranch

Nagpur , Copy ofthisStandard incamilable for m Zafar Marg,NewDelhi-110002-anagno Offices :Ahmedabad, Bangsioon , Riig Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuran.

7 (Gazetic)]

(PCD)

Ateas

एतद्द्वारा अधिसूचित करता हैि

क्रम स्थापित भारतीय मात्र और

संख्या

(2)

"(3)

(1)

(4) 1.

आईएस/माई एसओ 9001 : 2008

विशन्दर , 2008 गुणता प्रबंध पद्धविमेधाई कान)

19001 : 2000

कसे 15 नवम्बर , 2010तक वैध रहेगा । 1619

भारत का राजपत्र: उत्प्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[भाम II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

इस संशोधन की प्रतियां 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, बंगलुरू , भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर , नागपुर, पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ : एमएसडी/जी -8 ] अक्षय कुमार शर्मा , वैज्ञानिक ' ई' एवं प्रमुख ( प्रबन्ध एवं तंत्र)

New Delhi , the 31st March, 2009

5.O. 862. In pursuance of clause (b) ofsub-rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the Indian Standard, particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been established on the date indicated against each:

No. &Year ofthe Indian Standard Established SL No.

(2)

(1)

IS/ISO 9001 : 2008 QualityManagement Systems- Requirements (Third Revision)

SCHEDULE

Date of Established No. & year of Indian Standard, if any , Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(4) (3)

December, 2008 *Theexisting standard IS/ ISO 9001: 2000 Quality Management Systems-Requirements (Second Revision ) would concurrently remain vaild till 15th November 2010.

Copyofabove Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, ManakBhavan , 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and its Regional Offices at New Delhi, Kolkata Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices at Ahmedabad, Bangaluru , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur , Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune and Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: MSD/G- 8 ] .

A. K. SHARMA, Scientist ' E ' & Head ( Management and Systems )

नई दिल्ली, 31 मार्च , 2009

का.अ. 863. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख) के अनुसरण में भारतीय भावपूरो विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं: -

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

क्रम संख्या

(2)

(1)

1. आईएस 15833 :2009 , जंगरोधी इस्पात की चटखनियाँ विशिष्टि

2. आईएस 15834 :2008 , पेडलॉक के साथ उपयोग के लिए जंगरोधी इस्पात के सरकवतं दरवाजों के काबले विशिष्टि

1234 09-4

अनुसूची

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

(4) (3)

31-1-2009

31-12-2008 1620

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAITRA 21 , 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3(i) ) इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 ; बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 और इसके क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शासन कार्यालयों आहमदाबाद , बंगलुरू , भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद , जयपुर , कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

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

New Delhi , the 31st March, 2009

S.O..863 .-In pursuance of clause (b ) ofsub- rule ( 1 ) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, theBureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifier than the Indian Standards particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SL No.

No. & Year ofthe Indian Standards Established (1)

(2)

IS 15833 : 2009 Stainless steel towerbolts Specification 2.

IS 15834: 2008 Stainless steel sliding doorbolts for use with padlock- Specification

SCHEDULE

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

(3)

(4)

31-1-2009

31-12-2008 Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and alsoBranch Offices: Ahmedabad , Bangaluru , Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hydombad, Jaipur, Kanpur , Nagpur , Patna, Pune and Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: CED/Gazette] A. K. SAINI , Scientist ' F ' & Head ( Civil Engineering)

नई दिल्ली, 31 मार्च , 2009

का.आ. 864.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानकों में संशोधन विभा गया है :

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या

क्रम संख्या और वर्ष

( 1)

(2)

1. आईएस 3513 ( भाग 1 ) : 1989

* अनुपूर्वी

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि (3)

(4)

3फरवरी , 2009

28फरवरी , 2009 इन संशोधनों की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 और : क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद , बंगलुरू, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ: सीईडी/राजपत्र ] ए. के. सैनी, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( सिविल इंजीनियरी ) 1621 भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

New Delhi , the 31st March , 2009

S.O. 864. 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 the amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

No. and Year ofthe Indian Standards

SL No.

No. and Year of the amendment

Date from which the amendment shall have effect (1)

(4) (2)

(3)

28February,2009 IS 3513 (Part 1 ) : 1989

3 February, 2009

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

[Ref: CED/Gazette]

A. K. SAINI , Scientist ' F ' & Head (Civil Engineering)

कोयला मंत्रालय

आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 31 मार्च , 2009

का. आ. 865. कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधित्रियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) कौ धारा 9 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत के राजपत्र, भाग II , खंड 3 , उप- खंड (ii ) , तारीख 28 जून , 2008 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का. आ. 1522 तारीख 24 जून , 2008 के प्रकाशन पर उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि और ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकार ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त भूमि कहा गया है ) उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर आत्यांतिक रूप से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित हो गए थे

2. और , केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है कि एनटीपीसी लिमिटेड जौ ऊर्जा मंत्रालय के अधीन एक पब्लिक सेक्टर उपक्रम है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् सरकारी कंपनी कहा गया है ) , ऐसे निबंधनों और शुएँ, का, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार इस निमित्त अधिरोपित करना उचित समझे, अनुपालन करने के लिए तैयार है; 1

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, कोथला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 की धारा 11 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि और अधिकार , तारीख 28 जून , 2008 से केन्द्रीय सरकार में इस प्रकार निहित बने रहने के बकाए, निम्नलिखित निबंधनों और शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए , सरकारी कंपनी में निहित हो जाएंगे , अर्थात्:-

1. सरकारी कंपनी , उक्त अधिनियम के उपबंधों के अधीन यथा अवधारित प्रतिकर, ब्याज , नुकसानी और वैसी ही मदों की बाबत केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा किए गए सभी संदायों की ऊर्जा मंत्रालय के माध्यम से केन्द्रीय सरकार को प्रतिपूर्ति करेगी;

2. सरकारी कंपनी द्वारा शर्त ( 1 ) के अधीन , केन्द्रीय सरकार को संदेय रकमों का अवधारण करने के प्रयोजन के लिए एक अधिकरण का गठन किया जाएगा तथा ऐसे किसी अधिकरण और ऐसे अधिकरण की सहायता के लिए नियुक्त व्यक्तियों के संबंध में उपगत सभी व्यय , सरकारी कंपनी द्वारा वहन किए जाएंगे और इसी प्रकार , इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के लिए या उनके संबंध में सभी विधिक कार्यवाहियों , जैसे अपील आदि की बाबत उपगत सभी व्यय भी , सरकारी कंपनी द्वारा वहन किए जाएंगे ;

1622

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 11 , 20MMNTRA 21, 1931

3. सरकारी कंपनी , केन्द्रीय सरकार या उनके या उस पर के अधिकारों के संबंध में आवश्यक हों, क्षतिपूर्ति करेली; के से, जो इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में के संबंध में 4. सरकारी कंपनी को, केन्द्रीय सरकार के पूर्व अनु अधिको अन्य व्यक्ति को अंतरित करने की शक्ति नहीं होगी; और

5. सरकारी कंपनीं, ऐसे निदेशों और दिए जाएं या अधिरोपित किए जाएं, नकारेची ।

[ -43015/5/2006 पराईजिलर- II ) ]

एम. शाहबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव

NewDelhi, the 31st March, 2009

S.O. 865. Whereas, on publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry ofCoal, number S.O. 1522 dated the 24th June, 2008 published in the Gazette ofIndia, Part II, Section 3, Sub- section(ii), dated the 28thJune , 2008 , issued under sub- section ( 1) of Section 9 ofthe Coal Bearing Ares (Aconitition and Development) Act , 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the land and all rights in or over such lands described in the Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said lande ) vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section ( 1 ) ofSection 10 ofthe said Act;

And, whereas the Central Government is satisfied that the NTPC Ltd. , a Public Sector Undertaking under the Ministry ofPower (hereinafter referred to as the Government Company) is willing to comply with terms and conditions as the CentralGovernment thinks fit to impose in this behalf;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers confared by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 11 of the Coal Bearing Area (Adquisition and Developinant) Act, 1957, the Central Government hereby directs that the said lands and rights so vested shall with effect from the 28th June, 2008 instead of continuing to so vest in the Contral Government, shall vest in the Government company , subject to the following tamme and conditions,

1. TheGovernment Company shall reimburse to the Contral Government all payments made by the Central Government through Ministry of Power in respect of compensation, interest , damages and the like , as determined under the provisions of Act;

2 ATribuant sl be constitutt fiske pumpoon of satentieing the samounts pazyatele to the ContralGovern ment by the Government Company under bonditiolus ( 1 ) and all attenditure incurred in connection with any. such tribunal and persona appointed to assist the triumph shall be borne by the Government Company and similarly, all expendituse ipourend in respect of all inpakpannendinga lien appeals , etc., for or in connection with the rights, inor over the saidI lands,lands, no semed, shall also be bome by the Government Company;

3. TheGovernment Company shallindmmify the ConantGeesent or its officials against any other expe diture that maybe necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government or its officials regarding the riglits in of over the said bands so vestéd

4. TheGovernment Company shall have no power to transfer the said lands and the rights to any other person without the prior approval of the Central Government, and

The Government Company shall abide by such dinmotions and conditions as may be given or imposed by the Central Government for partionlar areas ofthe said Imda , as and when necesabry.

( F. No. 43013/ 3/ 2006 -POW- 1 (Vol. II )]

M. SHAHABUDEEN, Under Secy.

1623

भारत का राजपत्रः मैच 2021 , 1931.

पैट्रोलियम खौर प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नईदिल्ली, 1 अप्रैल , 2009

का. आ. 866. भारत सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य के दादरी से हस्यिाणा राज्य में पानीपत को आर.एल.एन.जी. के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए,

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

अतः अब भारत सरकार, पैट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , 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 यथा प्रकाशित इस अधूिचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस (21 ) दिन के भीतर, भूमि के भीतर पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के लिए , श्री सुरेन्द्र मलिक, सक्षम प्राधिकारी (हरियाणा), इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, उत्तरी क्षेत्र पाइपलाइन, पी औ पानीपत रिफाइनरी , बोहली, पानीपत (हरियाणा) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा। अनुसूची संलग्न है ।

अनुसूची

राज्य- हरियाणा

तहसील समालखा

जिला पानीपत

गाँव कामाम

मुस्तील संख्या

हृदयस्त संख्या

हैक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एथर

खसरा किमा संख्या

7 2

जोशचीतर्फ खात

1/2

[फा.नं. एल-14014/10/2006 जी.पी.

के.के शर्मा, असमिय [Part II Soc .3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/ CHAITRA 21 , 1931

1624

Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

New Delhi , the 1st April , 2009

S. O. 866.-Whereas it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in the public interest that for transportation of R- LNG, from Dadri in the State of Uttar Pradesh to Panipat in the State of Haryana , a pipeline shouldbe laidby Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And, whereas , it appears to the Government of India that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire theRight ofUeer in the land under which the said pipeline is proposedtobe 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 of1962), the Government of India hereby declaree its intention to acquire thelight of User therein ;

Any person interested in the lund described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the angise of the notification issued under sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 3 ofthe said Act , as published in the Site of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the light of Umar tharatis of keying of the pipeline under the land , to Shri Sorunder at yang men Oft Corporation Ltd. Northern Region Pipelines, POPPP.Pali , Panipat (Haryana ) ,

State:Haryana

District. Panipat

Tehsil -Samalkka

Area

Are

Hectare

Khasra / Killa No.

Name of the Village

Mushti Ne .

Hadbast No.

Square Metre

Jaurasi Surf Khas

8/1

1/2

02.

( F. NosL-14014/10/2006-G( P. )

K.K.SHARMA , Under Secy.

1625 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 11, 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931 .

नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2009

का. आ. 867. क्योंकि भारत सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 2 के खण्ड (क) के अनुसरण में, भारत के राजपत्र में 15.09.2007 को प्रकाशित , भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का ० आ० 2597 दिनांक 10.09.2007 , (जिसे इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिसूचना कहा गया है) के द्वारा (पश्चिम बगांल राज्य की पश्चिम बगांल प्रशासनिक सेवाओं से सेवानिवृत्त श्री बरिद बरन गुहा, विशेष. भू-अर्जन अधिकारी और श्री इन्द्रजीत मजूमदार, संयुक्त निदेशक को पश्चिम बगांल राज्य के सभी जिलों में मैसर्स रिलायंस गैस ट्रांसपोर्टेशन इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड (आर.जी.टी.आई.एल. ) द्वारा काकीनाडा- बासुदेवपुर- हावड़ा गैस पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृत्यों का पालन करने के लिए नियुक्त किया था;

और , क्योंकि, पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय ने आर.जी.टी.आई.एल को अन्य बातों के साथ साथ काकीनाडा- बासुदेवपुर- हावड़ा पाइपलाइन प्रोजेक्ट को उनकी मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड (रिलॉग), नाम से स्पेशल परपज वैहिकल (एस ० पी०वी०), जिसका रजिस्ट्रीकृत कार्यालय भूतल, 'चित्रकूट' , श्रीराम मिल्स परिसर, गणपत राव कदम मार्ग, वोर्ली, मुम्बई-400013 (महाराष्ट्र) में है, के द्वारा परिचालित करने के लिए स्वीकृति दे दी है

अतः , अब , भारत सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 2 के खण्ड (क ) के अनुसरण में, भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की उक्त अधिसूचना में आंशिक संशोधन करत हुए , संलग्न सारिणी के स्तम्भ (1 ) में वर्णित व्यक्तियों को, उक्त सारिणी के स्तम्भ (2) में वर्णित क्षेत्र में मैसर्स रिलॉग के द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृत्यों का पालन करने के लिये नियुक्त करती है ।

सारिणी

व्यक्तियों के नाम

अधिकारिता के क्षेत्र

(1)

(2)

1. श्री बरिद बरन गुहा,

पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य के सभी जिले

विशेष भू- अर्जन अधिकारी (सवानिवृत्त)

पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य के सभी जिले

2. श्री इन्द्रजीत मजूमदार, संयुक्त निदेशक (सेवानिवृत्त)

[फा.सं . एल-14014/23/2008 जी.पी.।

के.के. शर्मा, अवर सचिव AAIL- 11 , 00M / 21 , 1931

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA

1626

New Delldy theOth April , 2000

in pratunace of clans (a) of Bustion 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of her in head) Act, 1962 (30 of 1962) (hereinafterialink the wand Act), Gunk abbatia vide Notification in the Ministry of Petroleum and dista On 3.0 la 1997 And 10.09.2007, ontled the paid published in the Gazette of balison Notification) authorised Puri Dauid Drama foden, Aparनिषेक, sial Land Acquisition Officer (Retired), Government of West Bengal and Bhai Sanjit Majutudar, Joint Director (Rostised), Gommanent of list Dangal to perform the functions of Competent Authority for all the disinterit the Binte of West Bengal under the said Act for laying Kakinadyatomik the pipoline by M /s Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Em (BOTIL) ;

And, whereas, Ministry of Petrolan and Natural One has allowed RGTIL to implement inter alia Kakinada Basudebpramen gas pipeline project through its Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), Manaby,manly , BabaMa PalangisticsTh Infrastructure Limited ( 'Relog' ), hyving its Registand Gitarat Qubund Floor , Chritvekoot ' , Sriram Mills Premises, Gumput Rao Kalan King, Worli, Mumbai 400. 013 (Maharashtra);

Now, therefore , in puraance of clause (1 ) of funtion 2 of the said Act and in partial modifioituotteemid Ustikolinmind the Ministryy of Petroleum and Natural Gas , Governant of India heroliy atharines the persons mentioned in column ( 1 ) of the Table metal to pradinions of the Competent Authority under the said Act for buyingthe old pipelines by M/s 'Relog in respect of the stationed in column (2) ofthe unid Tabic.

Table

Arees of jurisdiction Name andand address ofpersons

(2)

(1)

Shri Barid:Baran Guha,

Special Land Acquisition Officer ( Retired)

All districts of West Bengal

2. Shri Indrajit Majumdar, Joint Dimeter (Retired) All districts of West Bengal

[F. No. L-14014/23/2008-G.P.J K.K: SHARMA, Under Secy.

1627 भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2009

का. आ. 868.- क्योंकि, भारत सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 2 के खण्ड (क) के अनुसरण में, भारत के राजपत्र में 15.092007 को प्रकाशित, भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का० आ०' 2596 दिनांक 10.09.2007, ( जिसे इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिसूचना कहा गया है) के द्वारा उड़ीसा राज्य की उड़ीसा प्रशासनिक सेवाओं से सेवानिवृत्त श्री गोविन्द च. पटेल, संयुक्त सचिव , उड़ीसा सरकार, श्री भास्कर च. त्रिपाठी, ए.डी.एम. और श्री ब्रज सुंदर पांडा, ए.डी.एम. , को उड़ीसा राज्य के सभी जिलों में मैसर्स रिलायंस गैस ट्रांसपोर्टेशन इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड (आर.जी.टी.आई.एल. ) द्वारा काकीनाडा- बासुदेवपुर- हावड़ा गैस पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृत्यों का पालन करने के लिए नियुक्त किया था;

और , क्योंकि, पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय ने आर.जी.टी.आई.एल को अन्य बातों के 'साथ साथ काकीनाडा- बासुदेवपुर-हावड़ा पाइपलाइन प्रोजेक्ट को उनकी मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड (रिलॉग) , नाम से स्पेशल परपज वैहिकल (एस० पी० वी०), जिसका रजिस्ट्रीकृत कार्यालय भूतल, 'चित्रकूट' , श्रीराम मिल्स परिसर, गणपत राव कदम मार्ग , वोर्ली, मुम्बई-400013 (महाराष्ट्र) में है, के द्वारा परिचालित करने के लिए स्वीकृति दे दी है;

अतः, अब, भारत सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 2 के खण्ड (क) के अनुसरण में, भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की उक्त अधिसूचना में आंशिक संशोधन करते हुए , संलग्न सारिणी के स्तम्भ (1 ) में वर्णित व्यक्तियों को, उक्त सारिणी के स्तम्भ (2 ) में वर्णित क्षेत्र में मैसर्स रिलॉग के द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृत्यों का पालन करने के लिये नियुक्त करती है ।

सारिणी

अधिकारिता के क्षेत्र

व्यक्तियों के नाम

(2)

(1)

उड़ीसा राज्य के सभी जिले

1. श्री गोविन्द च. पटेल , संयुक्त सचिव (सेवानिवृत्त)

उड़ीसा राज्य के सभी जिले

2. श्री भास्कर च. त्रिपाठी, ए.डी.एम. (सेवानिवृत्त)

उड़ीसा राज्य के सभी जिले

3. श्री ब्रज सुंदर पांडा, ए.डी.एम. (सेवानिवृत्त )

[फ्त्र. सं . एल-14014/24/2008 जी.पी. ।

के. के. शर्मा , अवर सचिव 1234 G1/095 1628

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAITRA 21 , 1931

[Part II- Scc . 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 6th April , 2009

S. O. 868, Whereas in pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter called the said Act) , Government of India vide Notification in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O.No.2596 dated 10.09.2007, published in the Gazette of India on 15.09.2007 (hereinafter called the said Notification) authorized Shri Govind Ch . Patel, Joint Secretary to the Government of Orissa (Retired), Shri Bhaskar Ch . Tripathy, ADM (Retired) Government of Orissa and Shri Braja Sunder Panda, ADM (Retired) Government of Orissa to perform the functions of Competent Authority for all the districts in the State of Orissa under the said Act for laying Kakinada- Basudebpur -Howrah gas pipeline by M/s Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited (RGTIL);

And, whereas , Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas has allowed RGTIL to implement inter alia Kakinada- Basudebpur - Howrah gas pipeline project through its Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) , namely , M/s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited ( ' Relog ' ) , having its Registered Office at Ground Floor, ' Chitrakoot ' , Sriram Mills Premises , Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Worli , Mumbai -400 013 (Maharashtra);

Now , therefore, in pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the said Act and in partial modification of the said Notification of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas , Government of India hereby authorizes the persons mentioned in column (1 ) of the Table annexed to perform the functions of the Competent Authority under the said Act for laying the said pipelines by M/s ' Relog ' in respect of the areas mentioned in column (2) of the said Table.

Table

Name and address of persons

Areas of jurisdiction

(1)

(2)

1. Shri Govind Ch. Patel ,

All districts of Orissa Joint Secretary to the Government of Orissa ( Retired)

All districts of Orissa 2. Shri . Bhaskar Ch . Tripathy , ADM ( Retired)

All districts of Orissa 3. Shri Braja Sunder Panda , ADM( Retired)

[F. No. L-14014/24/2008-G.P.] K.K.SHARMA , Under Secy.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1629 भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2009

का. आ. 869.- क्योंकि, भारत सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( क) के अनुसरण में , भारत के राजपत्र में 22.03.2008 को प्रकाशित, भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का० आ ० 603 दिनांक 20.03.2008 , (जिसे इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिसूचना कहा गया है) के द्वारा कर्नाटक राज्य की कर्नाटक प्रशासनिक सेवाओं से सेवानिवृत्त श्री के ० एच ० नान्जेगौड़ा, श्री के ० मल्लीनाथ और श्री / एच ० एम ० नागप्पा को कर्नाटक राज्य के सभी जिलों में मैसर्स रिलायंस गैस ट्रांसपोर्टेशन इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड (आर.जी.टी.आई.एल.) द्वारा चैन्नई- बंगलौर मंगलौर गैस पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृत्यों का पालन करने के लिए नियुक्त किया था;

और क्योंकि, पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय ने आर.जी.टी.आई.एल. को अन्य बातों के साथ-साथ चैन्नई- बंगलौर- मंगलौर पाइपलाइन प्रोजेक्ट को उनकी मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड (रिलॉग) , नाम से स्पेशल परपज वैहिकल (एस ०पी०वी०), जिसका रजिस्ट्रीकृत कार्यालय भूतल, 'चित्रकूट' , श्रीराम मिल्स परिसर, गणपत राव कदम मार्ग , वोर्ली , मुम्बई-400013 (महाराष्ट्र) में है , के द्वारा परिचालित करने के लिए स्वीकृति दे दी है ;

अतः, अब , भारत सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 2 के खण्ड (क) के अनुसरण में, भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की उक्त अधिसूचना में आंशिक संशोधन करते हुए , संलग्न सारिणी के स्तम्भ (1 ) में वर्णित व्यक्तियों को, उक्त सारिणी के स्तम्भ (2) में वर्णित क्षेत्र में मैसर्स रिलॉग के द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृत्यों का पालन करने के लिये नियुक्त करती है ।

सारिणी

व्यक्तियों के नाम

अधिकारिता के क्षेत्र

(1 )

(2)

कर्नाटक राज्य के सभी जिले

1. श्री के० एच० नान्जेगौड़ा

कर्नाटक प्रशासनिक सेवा ( सेवानिवृत्त)

2. श्री के ० मल्लीनाथ,

कर्नाटक राज्य के सभी जिले

कर्नाटक प्रशासनिक सेवा (सेवानिवृत्त)

कर्नाटक राज्य के सभी जिले

3. श्री एच ० एम० नागप्पा,

कर्नाटक प्रशासनिक सेवा (सेवानिवृत्त)

[फा. सं. एल 14014/21/2008 जी.पी

के.के. शर्मा , अवर सचिव 1630

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAITRA 21 , 1931

[Part 11 Scc. 3pi )

New Delhi, the 8th April , 2000

$. O. 869.-Whereas in pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of Users in Land) Act , 1962. (50 of 1962) (hereinafter called the said Act ) , Government of India vide Notification in the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas S.O. No. 603 dated 20.3.2008 , published in the Gazette of India on 22.03.2008 ( hereinafter called the said Notification) authorized Shri K.H. Nanjegowda, Shri K. Mallinath and Shri H.M. Nagappar each retired from Karnataka Administrative Services to perform the functions of Competent Authority for all the districts of State of Kamataka under the said Act for laying Chennai-Bangalore-Mangalore gas pipeline by "M/s Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited (RCTIL);

And whereas , Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas has allowed RGTIL to implement inter alia Chennai -Bangalore-Mangalore project through its Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) , namely M/s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited (' Relog' ) , having its Registered Office at Ground Floor, 'Chitrakoot , Srinam Mills Premises, GanpatRao Kadam Marg, Worli , Mumbai-400 013 (Maharashtra).

Now, therefore , in pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the said Act and in partial modification of the said Notification of the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Government of India hereby authorises the persone mentioned in column (1) of the Table annexed to perform the functions of the Competent Authority under the- said Act for laying the said pipelinesby M/s 'Relag' in respect of the are mentioned in column (2) of the said Table.

Table

Name and address of persons

Areas ofjurisdiction

(1)

(2)

Alldistricts of Karnataka 1. Shri K.H.Nanjegowda , Karnataka Administrative Services, ( Selection Scale Cadre ) ( Retired)

Alldistricts of Karnataka 2. Shri K.Mallinath , Karnataka Administrative Services , (Senior Scale Cadre ) ( Retired)

All districts of Karnataka 3. Shri H.M. Nagappa , Karnataka Administrative Services , (Junior Scale Cadre) (Retired)

[F. No. L-14014/21/2008-G.P.] K.K.SHARMA , Under Secy.

1631

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2009

का. आ . 870.-क्योंकि, भारत संस्कार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम'कहा गया है) की धारा 2 के खण्ड (क) के अनुसरण में, भारत के राजपत्र में 28.04.2007 को प्रकाशित, भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का० आ० 682 (ई) दिनांक 25.04.2007 , (जिसे इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिसूचना कहा गया है) के द्वारा तमिलनाडु राज्य की तमिलनाडु प्रशासनिक सेवाओं से सेवानिवृत्त श्री एस० वैलयप्चन, स्पेशल डिप्टी कलेक्टर को तमिलनाडु राज्य के सभी जिलों में मैसर्स रिलायंस गैस ट्रांसपोर्टेशन इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड (आर.जी. टी.आई.एल. ) द्वारा काकीनाडा- हैदराबाद - उरान-अहमदाबाद गैस ट्रंक पाइपलाइन के आन्ध्र प्रदेश में विजयवाड़ा स्थित टैप ऑफ प्वाइन्ट से पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृत्यों का पालन करने के लिए नियुक्त किया था;

और, क्योंकि, पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय ने आर.जी.टी.आई.एल. को अन्य बातों के साथ - साथ विजयवाड़ा नेल्लौर- चेन्नई, चेन्नई- टूटीकोरिन तथा चेन्नई-बैंगलोर- मैंगलोर गैस पाइपलाइन प्रोजेक्ट को उनकी मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड (रिलॉग) , नाम से स्पेशल परपज वैहिकल (एस ०पी०वी ०) , जिसका रजिस्ट्रीकृत कार्यालय भूतल, 'चित्रकूट' , श्रीराम मिल्स परिसर, गणपत राव कदम मार्ग , वोर्ली, मुम्बई-400013 (महाराष्ट्र) में है, के द्वारा परिचालित करने के लिए स्वीकृति दे दी है;

अत्तः, अब, भास्त सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 2 के 'खण्ड (क) के अनुसरण में, भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की उक्त अधिसूचना में आंशिक संशोधन करते हुए , संलग्न सारिणी के स्तम्भ (1 ) में वर्णित व्यक्तियों को, उक्त सारिणी के स्तम्भ (2) में वर्णित क्षेत्र में मैसर्स रिलॉग के द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृत्यों का पालन करने के लिये नियुक्त करती है ।

सारिणी

अधिकारिता के क्षेत्र

व्यक्तियों के नाम

(2)

(1)

तमिलनाडु राज्य के सभी जिले

1. श्री एस ० वैलयप्पन, स्पेशल डिप्टी कलेक्टर (सेवानिवृत्त)

[फा. सं. एल-14014/22/2008 जी.पी.]

के.के. शर्मा, अवर सचिव 1632

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAITRA 21 , 1931

[Part II--Scc. 3 ( ii ) | New Delhi , the 8th April , 2009

S. O. 870.-Whereas in pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter called the said Act) , Government of India vide Notification in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O.No.682 (E) dated 25.04.2007, published in the Gazette of India on 28.04.2007 ( hereinafter called the said Notification) authorized Shri S. Vellaiappan, Special Deputy Collector (Retired), Government of Tamilnadu to perform the functions of Competent Authority for all the districts in the State of Tamilnadu under the said Act for laying gas pipeline from the Tap Off Point at Vijayawada in Andhra Pradesh of the Kakinada- Hyderabad - Uran -Ahmedabad Trunk Gas Pipeline of M/s Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited (RGTIL) ;

And, whereas , Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas has allowed RGTIL to implement inter alia Vijaywada- Nellore-Chennai , Chennai -Tuticorin and Chennai - Banglore - Mangalore gas pipelines projects through its Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) , namely, M/s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited (' Relog' ) , having its Registered Office at Ground Floor , ' Chitrakoot' , Sriram Mills Premises , Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Worli, Mumbai -400 013 (Maharashtra);

Now, therefore , in pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the said Act and in partial modification of the said Notification of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas , Government of India hereby authorizes the person mentioned in column ( 1 ) of the Table annexed to perform the functions of the Competent Authority under the said Act for laying the said pipelines by M/s ' Relog' in respect of the areas mentioned in colum (2) of the said Table.

Table

Areas ofjurisdiction

Name and address of persons

(1)

(2)

All districts of Tamil Nadu

1. Shri S. Vellaiappan , Special Deputy Collector ( Retired)

[F. No. L-14014/22/2008 -G.P. ]

K.K.SHARMA , Under Secy.

1633

भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2009

का. आ. 871. - भारत सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) , अधिनियम,1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) (जिसे इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ.. 1693(अ) तारीख १०जुलाई , 2008 , द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में , मैसर्स रिलायंस इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड , की आन्ध्रपदेश में संरचनाओं से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए मैसर्स रिलायंस गैस ट्रान्सपोर्टेशन इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और, उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 31 अगस्त , 2008 को अथवा उससे पूर्व उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं;

और ,पाइपलाइन विछाने के संबंध में जनता की ओर से कोई आक्षेप प्राप्त नहीं हुआहै;

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

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

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

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

अनुसूची

जिला : उस्मानाबाद

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

मंडल/ तहसील/ तालुकाः उमरगा

गांव का नाम

सर्वे / हिस्सा नंबर

आर.ओ.यु. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

एपर सि-एयर 1

82/2

1) चाकुर

जिला : उस्मानाबाद

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

मंडल/ तहसील/ तालुकाः उस्मानाबाद

231/3

00.

80. 1) कौडगाव

255

230

231/2

234

[फा. सं. एल-14014/4/2006 जी.पी. ]

के.के. शर्मा, अवर सचिव APRIL 11 , 2009 OMAKERA 21. 1931

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA

1634

Part II Sec . 3 (ii ) | New Delhi , the 8th April . 2009

S. O. 871.-Whereas by a notification of Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas mumber S.O. 1690(E) dated 20th July 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 1162) (haminafter referred to as the said Act) , (novernment of India dankende intention to acquire theRight of user in the land, specified in the Schedule appetited to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation of matund agus from structures in Andhra Pradesh of M/s Reliance Industries Limited, by M/ s Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited to the consumers in various parts of the country;

And,whereas ,the copies of the said Gasstie notifiontion were made available to the public on or before 31st August, 2006; St

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

And,whereas, the Competent Authority has under rubriction (1) of Section 6 of said Act, submitted report to Government of Indian ;

And, whereas, Gnovernment of Jeudienduar sanaidning thedinate samining the and report and on being satisfied that the onid land in soyuland dan daging than pipating has decided to acquiretheßight of Meer therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers confomed by nabreaction (1 ) of Section 6 of the saidAct, GROvernment of India banky dodamas that the Right of Weer in the land, specified in the Schedule, appended to this notification, in bomby noquined for laying the pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powers conformed by sub-anotion (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, Government of India, horoby dicucts that the Right of Uber in the said land for laying the pipoline shall, instead ofvasting in Government ofInplid,vest on the date of publication of the declarations , in M/ s Butinnee Gas Trammportation Infrastructure Limited, fose from all ongeleana-

Mandal/Tehell/ Taluka: Umarga

Village

82/2

1)Chakur

shtra

Mandal /Tehell /Taluka: Osmanabad

281/3

1) Kaudgaon

District : Comatched

255

230

231/2

-24

234

[F. No. L- 14014/4/2006-G.P. ] .

K.K.SHARMA , Under Secy.

1635 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल , 2009

का. आ. 872.- भारत सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) , अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) (जिसे इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 563 तारीख 17 फरवरी 2005 द्वारा उसःअधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में, मैसर्स रिलायंस इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड की आन्ध्रप्रदेश में संरचनाओं से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में स्थित उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए मैसर्स रिलायंस गैस ट्रान्सपोर्टेशन इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के लिए अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियों जनता को तारीख11-12-2006 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं;

और पाइपलाइन बिछाने के सम्बन्ध में जनता की ओर से कोई आक्षेप प्राप्त नही हुआ है ;

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

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

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

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

अनुसूची

राज्य: महाराष्ट्र

जिल्ला: पुणे

मंडल /तहसिल /तालुक : शिरूर

आर ओ यु अर्जित करने के लिये क्षेत्रफल

सर्वे नंबर / गट नंबर

सीएमर

एचर

हेक्टेयर

गांव का नाम

796/1

1) न्हावरा

[फा. सं. एल-14014/48/2004 जी.पी. )

के. के.शर्मा , अवर सचिव 1234 GI/09-6 1636

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAITRA 21, 1931

[Part II- Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 8th April , 2009

S. O. 872.-Whereas by notification of Petroleum and Natural Gas, number 8(0. 563 datit the 17 Dobruary, 2005, issued under Government of India in Ministry of sub-section( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum & Minamo Dipolinse (Anquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (horninades amfund te qe the said Act ), Government ofIndia, declared its intention to acquire thelight ofiseer in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification, for the pupape of buying pipeline kor melaportation of natural gas from structures in Anders P Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited to parts of the country;

Andwhereas, the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on or before 11 December, 2006;

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

Andwhereas, the Competent Authority has under sub-section ( 1) of Section 6 of the saidAct, submitted report to Government of Indle;

Andwhereas,Government of India, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline, bine duulikod therein; line doubled to acquire the Right ofUber Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers confused by sphanation ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the saidAct, Government of Indiahereby declares that thelight of Meer in the land, specified inthe Schedule appended to this notification, is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powersthe powers confernod by sub-sention (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, Government of Sutting branity directs that the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in composer af Totiprout in the date of publication in the mid land for laying of the declaration, in M/s Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited, free from all encumbrances .

Schaikile

Mandal /Tabak/Taluk: Shirur

Village

1) Nhavare

[F. No. L -14014/48/2004-G.P. ] K.K.SHARMA , Under Secy .

1637 [ भाग II- खण्ड3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2009

का. आ. 873.- 'भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रत्ीत चेतर है कि, मैसर्स रिलाएंस इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड की आन्ध्रप्रदेश में संरचनाओं से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में स्थित उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए मैसर्स रिलायन्स गैस ट्रांन्सपोर्टेशन इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

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

अतः अब, भारत सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उनमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने को अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;

कोई व्यक्ति जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा (3) की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियों साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्रीएल. आर . गोतारणे , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , रिलायन्स गैस ट्रांन्सपोर्टेशन इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड, विशाल आर्केड दूसरी मंजिल, चिचवंड स्टेशनरोड चिचवंडयांवर पुणे 411033, महाराष्ट्र राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

जिल्ला: पुणे

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र मंडल/तहसिल/तालुक: शिरूर

आर ओ यु अर्जित करने के लिये क्षेत्रफल गांव का नाम

सर्वे नंबर / गट नंबर

एपर

हेक्टेयर

सीएयर 1

796/1*

35 1)न्हावरा

* का . आ. 563 दिनांक: 17/02/2005 व्दारा पी.एम.पी. ऐक्ट, 1962 की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत सूचित किये गये सर्वे नंबर इस प्रतिपादन नया विस्तीर्ण, के लिए ।

[फा. सं. एल-14014/48/2004-जी.पी. ।

के.के. शर्मा , अवर सचिव [Part II---Sec., 3 ( ii ) } , 1638

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009 /CHAITRA 21 , 1931

New Delhi , the 6th April , 2009

S. O. 873.-Whereas it appears to the Gevernment of India that it is necessary in public interest that for transportation of natural gas from structures in Andhra Pradesh ofM/s Reliance Industries Limited to consumers in various parts of the country a pipeline should be laidby Mis RelianceGas Transportation Infrastructure Ltd;

And whereas , it appears to Government of India that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire theflight of Meer in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers cenferedby sub- section (1 ) of Section 3of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962 ) , Government of India hereby decieres its intention to acquire theRight ofUser therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty- one days from the date on which the coples of the netillatien as published in the Gazette of India under subsection ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition ofRight of User therein for laying the pipeline under the land to Shri . L. R. Gotarne, Competent Authority, Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited, Vishal Arcade , 2nd Floor Chinchwad Station Road, Chinchwadgaon , Pune 411 033, Maharashtra State.

Schedule

Mandal/Theel/Taluk: Shirur

Village

C-Are

Are

796/1*

1) Nhavare

*Survey Nos . notified vide S.O. 563, Dated 17/02/2005 u/s 3(1 ) ofP&MP Act 1962. Present proposal is for additional extent.

[F. No. L-14014/48/2004-G.P. ]

K.K.SHARMA , Under Secy..

1639

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2009

का. आ. 874.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है की लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि चेन्नै पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मनाली की रिफैनेरी से देवनगुष्टि टर्मिनल , बैंगलुर तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादनों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " चेन्नै- बैंगलुर पाइपलाइन " बिछाई जानीचाहिए ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताब है और जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का जयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में 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 उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधिन भारत के राजपत्र से यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रत्तियों साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्किस दिन के भीतर उस भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबध में श्री, ऐल . भेंकटा सुब्बय्या , सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड चेन्नै - बैंगलुर पाइपलाइन परियोजना, अर्पाटमेंट सं 104 , वटसला टार्वस, नाएडु बिलडिंगस, चित्तूर - 517 001 , आन्ध्रप्रदेश को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

राज्य : आन्ध्रप्रदेश

जिला : चित्तूर

डल : पालसमुद्रम

क्षेत्रफल

सर्वेक्षण स-

उप-खण्ड सं.

वर्ग मिटर

एयर

हेक्टर

गोंगवा न.म

खण्ड सं.

46 म्मापर

50 50

14 31

156 156

[फा. सं. आर-25011/5/2007 ओ.आर. ।।

बी. के. दत्ता, अवर सचिव 1640

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/ CHAITRA 21, 1931

[Part II Scc . 3( ii ) |

New Delhi , the 8th April , 2009

S. O. 874.- Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum product from Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited, Manali to Devanguthi Terminal , Bangalore a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

Andwhereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose oflaying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the light of User in the land described in the Schedule annexed to this netification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferredby sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right ofUser 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 issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act, 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 the pipeline under the land to Sri.L. Venkata Subbaiah ,Competent Authority , Indian Oil Corporation Limited , Chennai-Bangalore Pipeline Project , Apartment No. 104, Vatsala Towers, Naidu Buildings , Chittoor - 517 001 , Andhra Pradesh .

Mandal : Palasamudram

District : Chitteer

State: Andhra Pradesh

Ares

Hectare

Name of the Village

Ares

Survey No. Sub -Division No.

Sq.Mtr. 1

156

50 46, Krishnajammapuram

156

[F: No. R-25011/5/2007- O.R. - I ]

B. K. DATTA , Under Secy.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

1641. श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 16 मार्च , 2009

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) referred the following industrial disputes between Sh..A L' Pandey, Regional President (NR) All India CPWD( MRM) Karmachari Sangathan, Income Tax Building, Near Pump House, Mahatma Gandhi Margh, Civil Lines , Allahabad th e Superintending Engineer , CPWD, Allahabad Central Circle , 841 , Wishwa Vidayala Marg , Allahabad adjudicatrion.

का. आ. 875.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सी.पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय लखनऊ के पंचाट ( सदर्भ सं. 32/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

2. The referencer under adjudication is as under' :

[सं. एल-42011 /49/2006- आई आर ( डीयू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi , the 16th March , 2009

"Whether the demand ofthe All India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan for grant of Post and scale of Rs. 3050-4590 for Sh . Mahesh Prasad from 6-6-97 to 25-7-2003 is legal and justified ? Ifyes , to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

S.O. 875. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central overnment hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.32/2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial . Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CPWD and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 16-3-2009.

[No. L -42011 /49/2006- IR(DU) ]' SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

N. K. PUROHIT Presiding Officer

3. The union has contended in his statement of claim that vide order dt . 23-7-97 issued by SE , Allahabad Central Circle , the workman is working as MLD but he is getting salary of a peon i.e. Rs . 2550-3200 . It has further contended that vide letter of SE , Allahabad Central Circle dt. 24-7-97 , name of the workman was also recommended to the Chief Engineer for appionted as MLD on adhoc basis in the proper pay scale of MLD . The union has also contended that at the time of initial appointment of the workman as peon on compassionate ground , he was possessing all the requisite qualifications for the post of MLD & the vacancy for the said post was available despite this the management did not consider him for the post of MLD at the initial stage itself. The union has alleged that in similar matter Shyam Sunder peon has been appointed asMLD therefore , non payment of proper wages to the workman is discriminatory, illegal & unjustified . The union has prayed for appointment of the workman as MLD in properpay scale i.e. Rs. 3050-4590.

I. D. NO . 32/2006

Ref. No. L- 42011 /49/2006 - IR (DU) dated 15-11-2006

BETWEEN

Sh . A.L. Pandey, Regional President (NR) All India CPWD ( MRM) Karmchari Sangathan, Income Tax Building, Near Pump House, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Civil Lines , Allahabad

-And

The Superintending Engineer CPWD, Allahabad Crilcile, 841, Wishwa Vidyalaya Marg, Allahabad ( U.P. )

AWARD

Dated, the 5th March, 2009

4. The management has denied the claim ofthe union and contended that the work of MLD was assigned to the workman on his own request on adhoc basis. He had worked asMLD only for the period from 6-6-97 to25-7-03. Since 26-7-03 , he is working on his original post as Peon . It is further contended that order dt . 23-7-97 was issued on the request ofthe workman himself and it is categorically mentioned therein that the said order would not confirm any legal right for the post of MLD. It is also conteded that vide letterdt. 24-7-97 addressed to the Chief Engineer workman's name was recommended for appointment as MLD on adhoc basis but the same was returned on original . It is also contended that the work charge staff can not be transferred to regular establishment as per manual Vol . II ofCPWD . Sh . Shyam Sunder peon has been appointed on the post ofMLD on adhoc basis on his undertaking that he would not claim his seniority in the cadre of Peon.

1.ByOrder No. L-42011 /49 /2006- IR (DU) dated 15-11-2006 the Central Government in the Ministry of

5. In the rejoinder filed by the workman , he has reiterated his earlier averments made in the statement ofclaim .

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAITRA21 , 1931

1642

6. The parties have filed documentary evidence in support oftheir respective claim. The union has examined the workman in support of its case whereas the management has examined Sh . Ram Prakash, AEN in support of their case.

7. Heard arguments of the both the sides and perused the record.

12. It is also not disputed that vide letter dt. 24-7-97 address to Chief Engineer (NZ ) II , CPWD , Aliganj , Lucknow the Supdt. Engineer, Allahabad proposed that since there was ban on direct recruitment of driver the workman may be appointed as driver on ad hoc basis till some regular driver is posted and request was made to the central office for necessary permission for the same . It . appears from the endorsement on the above letter that the same was returned to the Supdt . Engineer with the observation that suitable action be taken at his level.

13. From the admitted documents on record and averments of both the parties and from the statement on oath of the workman & the management witness Sh. Ram Prakash, AEN, it is evident that the workman was directed. to perform the duties of the MLD vide order dt . 23-7-97 & he had worked as MLD for the period from 6-6-97 to 25-7-02 on ad hoc basis but he had not been paid salary in the scale ofdriver i.e. Rs . 3050-4590 for the said period.

8. The workman has urged that since he had worked as MLD , he is entitled for the pay scale of the MLD. He has further urged that in similar matter Sh. Shyam Sunder whowas also peon has been appointed as MLD on adhoc basis and he is getting the salary of MLD . He has also urged that in his undertaking Annexure (C-39) , two lines have been inserted subsequently wherein it is mentioned that till promotion order he was agreed to work on the same salary , which he was getting & only TA and OTA of Driver may be given. He has further urged that non- payment ofthe pay scale ofDriver is against the principle " equal pay for equal work."

14. Thus , question arises for consideration is whether the workman is entitled for grant of post & pay scale ofRs . 3050-4590 for the aforesaid period.

9. The learned representative on behalf of the management has argued that as per para 11.04 Manual III of CPWD work charge staff can not be transferred to regular establishment and vice versa without prior approval ofthe Govt . of India. The workman was directed to perform duty ofDriver purely on adhoc basis and it is mentioned inthe order itself that it would not confirm any legal right for the post of MLD except that he would enjoy the ancillary benefits . Mere, proposal ofSupdt. Engineer for appointment of the workman as Driver on adhoc basis does not create any legal right to the workman.

15. The workman was appointed as peon on compassionate ground . The contention of the workman that since he was possessing requisite qualification & the post of driver was available at the time of his initial appointment as peon, he was to be appointed as MLD is devoid ofany force in view of the question formulated in reference under adjudication and relief claimed by the workman for grant of appointment as MLD in the proper payscale ofRs .3050-4590 from 6-6-1997 to 25-7-2003. It is not to be considered whether on the basis of his qualification & availability of vacancy he was to be appointed as driver at the time of initial appointment on compassionate ground.

10. He has also argued that the case of the Sh . Shyam Sunder is different from the case of the workman, because he had given undertaking that he would not claim any seniority in the original cadre ofPeon . Moreover, he has been appointed on the adhoc basis only.

16. The workman has admitted in his cross- examination that the undertaking C-39 was given by him but he has alleged that the following lines are not in his writing & the same have been subsequently inserted in hisundertaking ;

11. It is not disputed that the workman was initially appointed as peon on the compassionate ground and vide office order dt . 23-7-97 the workman was directed to perform the duty ofMLD w.e.f. 6-6-97 which is reproduced below:

प्रमोशन आर्डर अब तक नहीं निकलता है तब तक जो वेत्तन हमें मिल रहा है वही दिया जाए और टी. ए. एवं ओ. टी. ए. ड्राईवर रेट से दिया आए ।

17. But in his cross -examination he has admitted his signature A to B, in left side of the disputed aforesaid lines . From the perusal of his undertaking , it is evident that workman agreed voluntarily to work as MLD on the same pay scale which he was drawing as peon . Thus, his claim for grant of proper pay scale ofMLD is not tenable, as the same is against his own undertaking to work as MLD on the scale , he was drawing as peon. Moreover, in the orderdt . 23-7-97, whereby he was directed to work as MLD on adhoc basis , it is mentioned therein that he would be entitled for only the ancillary benefit which otherwise "In absence of regular Motor Lorry Driver, Sh . Mahesh Prasad presently working in Allahabad Central Circle is hereby directedto perform theduties ofMotor-Lorry-Driverw.e.f. 6th June, 1997 till further orders . These orders are purely on ad hoc basis and would not confer any legal right on Sh . Mahesh Prasad forthe said post ofMotor Lorry Driver except that he would enjoy the ancillary benefits which otherwise would accure to him as Motor LorryDriver, for the period he works as Motor LorryDriver." 1643

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11, 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1 ,

CHANDIGARH

would accrue to him as MLD and it would not confer any right to be posted as MLD . Futhermore, as per para 11.04 oftheManual III , no member ofthe workcharged staff can betransferred to the regular establishment & vice except with the prior approval of the Central Government.

Case No. I.D. 19/2000 and 21/2000

(1) Shri Ram Ashra Sto Shri Khushi Ram , Bharat Nagar, Ward No. 11 , Nr . Fateh Chand's Shop , Hissar 125001 .

(2) Smt.Sukhma Davi W/ o Shri Ram Asr, Bharat Nagar , Ward No. 11 , Nr . Fateh Chand's Shop , Hissar 125001 .

Applicants .

Versus

The Director, Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes, Hissar 125001 .

.Respondent 18. The contention of the workman that since Sh. Syam Sunder peon has been appointed as MLD in the pay scale available for the cadre of MLD , he is also entitled for the same pay scale on the principle of equal pay for equal work, is also not sustainable. Sh . Syam Sunder peon has been appointed on ad hoc basis against the vacant post till regular appointment takes place against the said post. Moreover, the workman cannot claim as a matter of right for his appointment on the post of MLD on ad hoc basis particularly, in view of his own undertaking wherein he had agreed to work as MLD on the pay scale of peon till his regular appointment & the orderdt . 23-7-97 (C-9) directing him to work as MLD till further order on ad hoc basis in the pay scale of peon without conferring any legal right on the workman for the said post ofMLD.

APPEARANCES

For the workman :

Shri Jitender Sharma Shri R. K. Sharma

For the management:

AWARD

19. In view of above discussion , the claim of workman for grant ofpost & scale of Rs . 3050-4590.from 6-6-97 to 25-7-2003 is not justified . The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

Passed on: -24-2-2009

20. Award as above . LUCKNOW

N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 16 मार्च , 2009

These two industrial disputes are related to each other . Common question of law and facts are involved in the both of the industrial disputes . For ends of justice , bothofthe references are disposed offby this single award. L.D. No.19/2000, Ref. No. L-42012/219/99 /IR( DU), dated 27-1-2000 will be the leading file , whereas , copy ofaward willbe placed in another file (I.D. No. 21/2000, Ref. No. L-42012/214/99 /IR (DU) , dated 27-1-2000) .

का. आ. 876.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल इंस्टिट्यूट्फॉर रिसर्च ऑफ बुफ्फेलो के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. -1 चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( सदर्भ सं. 19 एण्ड 21/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Inboth of the references , the main question for determination before this Tribunal is whether the action of the management in terminating the services of the workmen in the year 1994, is legal or justified , ifnot, what reliefthe workmen are entitled ? "

[सं. एल-42012/219/99- आईआर (डीयू) /

एल-42012/214/99-आईआर (डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 16th March, 2009

Onperusal ofthe pleadings ofthe parties , it is evident that case ofthe workmen is that they were engaged by the department as daily waged worker and worked as such from 1987 to 1994. From January 1994, they were not permitted to work without assigning any reasons : They haveworked for more than 240 days in the preceding year from the date of their termination . No notice or terminal dueson their retrenchment were given to them Juniors to the workmen were retained in services , whereas , their services were terminated against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act .

S.O. 876. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.19 & 21 / 2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. 1 Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Institute for Research of Buffaloes and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 16-03-2009.

[No. L-42012/219/99 - IR(DU)/L -42012/214/99 IR(DU) ]

The respondent Central Institute for Research on Buffalos appeared and opposed the references by filing written statement. It was contended by the management that Central Institute for Research on Buffalos is not an SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

1234 G1/097 1644

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009 /CHAITRA21 , 1931

[PART IISEC. 3(ii)] industry. The claim of the workman is time barred. Both of the workmen have abandoned their services , they have not been terminated by the management of respondent. As they have abandoned their services, the plea of retaining the juniors has no legs to stand. The management of respondent had to carried on its work as research institute, so on account ofthe abandonment of the services by the workmen, other persons were engaged by the management.

Both ofthe parties were afforded the opportunity of beingheard and adducing evidence .Opportunitywas also given for oral arguments . Both of the parties also preferred to file the writtenbriefs.

Respondent has admitted it in its written statement : The respondent bas simply made an averment in the written statement and in the affidavit without assisgning the circumstances which lead to prove its contention that the workmen have voluntarily abandoned their services . Surprisingly, learned counsel/representative of the management failed to raise the issue of voluntarily abandonment of the services to the workmen at the time of cross - examination . No question on voluntarily abandonment ofservices was asked from the workmen . In theiraffidavits , the workmen have clearly mentioned that they have not abandoned their services but their services were terminated by the management.

Themainissues for adjudication before this Tribunal inboth of the references are:-

(1) Whether the management of respondent is an industry ?

(2) Whether both of the workmen have abandoned their services ?

One of the circumstance which is pleaded by the management is regarding the delay in raising the industrial dispute. It is stated by the management that under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the prayer of the workmen is time barred . It is further stated that their services are said to be terminated in the year 1994, whereas , statement ofclaim was filed in the year2000.

(3) Whether the services of the workmen were terminated illegally against the provisions of Industrial DisputesAct.

(4) To what relief/reliefs , if any, the workmen are entitledto?

I am disposing off all these issues one by one on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties.

I am enable to accept the contention of the managementbecause the proceedings in question are not the proceedings under Section 33 C(2) but initiated on the reference referred by the competent government under Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act . The claim petition was filed in 2000, whereas , the industrial dispute was raised much earlier . There is no time limit prescribed in industrial disputefor raising the industrial dispute . However , there are certain judicial pronouncement that the abnormal delay in raising the industrial dispute should be explained by the workmen. Even on the point of delay, the facts and circumstances of the case are to be considered by this Tribunal . Facts and circumstances also include the socio- economic condition ofthe workman and its nexus in failure of raising the industrial dispute in time. As contended by the management the industrial dispute was not raised in 2000 but much earlier .

So far as the issue of industry is concerned, this Tribunal in so many other references has held the management of respondent to be an industry. On the basis ofactivities carried on by the management of romppadont and in compliance ofthe principle laid down by the Hon'ble theApex Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Severage Board and others Vs. A. Rajappa, AIR 1978, SC548 case, this court, as stated earlier , has held the respondent to be an industry. All the case laws as referred and relied upon by the management in these references on the point of industry have been discussed previously by this Tribunal . In I. D. No. 153/93 , Shri Nandu Ram and others Vs. Director, Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes the management ofrespondent has been held to be Industry by this Tribunal.

Time taken in conciliation proceedings and reference making process by the Central Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot be said to be delays by the workmen . Thus , the delay if any, has no nexus with the abandonment of the services by the workmen. There is no iota ofevidence on record toprove, even prima facie , that workmen have abandoned their services.

Asadmitted by the management from 1987 till the end of 1993 workmen have worked with the management on daily waged basis . The workmen asked the management, through this Tribunal to file all the original vouchers and proof of presence . But the management couldonly file the vouchers for the year 1987 to 1989 .

Issue No. 2 and 3 are related to each other . It is the contention of the workmen that thier services were terminated by the management of respondent in the month of January 1994. They were not permitted to work thereafter, without assisgning any reasons . On the other hand, the management of respondent has contended that workmen have abandoned their services . There is no dispute on the fact that workmen worked with the management as daily waged worker from 1987 till the end of1993. It is also not disputed that few more persons were engaged by the respondent to carried on its activities after the termination of the services of the workmen .

On perusal of the evidence adduce by the management, it is evident that on 10-1-07 , the witness of the management adduced before the Tribunal that the 1645 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

policy for recruitment of daily waged worker, but this plea or contention is not valid in this case because at the time whenthe workmen were retrenched without terminal dues and notice , the policy for appointment on daily wages was very well in force . The management has employed certain workmen afresh without protecting the right of both of these workmen regarding the priority of engagement as protected under Section 25H of Industrial Disputes Act . On this count as well the termination of the workmen is illegal .

Onthe basis of the above observation , I am of the view that termination of both of the workmen by the management is illegal and is hereby set aside.

On issue no. 4 , I am of the view that there are two possible remedies available to the workmen . The tribunal may direct the reinstatement of workmen into the services , alternatively the management may be directed to pay a reasonable compensation . It is also a well settled principle. ofservice jurisprudence that whenever the termination of anyworkmen is declared illegal by the Court ofcompetent jurisdiction , the priority should be given for the reinstatement of the workmen into the services . Considering the facts and circumstances of this case . I am of the view that workmen should be reinstated into the service without any benefit of back wages . Accordingly,, the management of respondent is directed to reinstate the service of the workinen on the same terms and conditions they were working prior to their termination , within one month from the date of publication of this award. The reference is answered accordingly . Let the Central Government be appoached for publication of award and , thereafter, file be consigned .

workmen abandoned their work in March 1989 and not in December 1993 and vouchers upto 1989 were provided by the management . In its written statement the management has not taken this plea that the workmen abandoned their work in December 1989 but in para 2 (b) it has been mentioned by the management that the claimant left the job way back in 1994 and they returned in 2000 to claim that some persons have been employed . The management has not stand on its own feet. In the pleadings, it was contended that the workmen abandoned the work in 1994, whereas, in evidence it was stated that they abandoned the job in the year 1989. This new turn was taken by the management tojustify its conduct for filing the vouchers only upto 1989. Thus , the management has utterly failed to file the original document upto December 1993 , whereas , the workman have proved that they have worked with the management upto December 1993. Previously, it was admitted by the management , but thereafter , ' U ' turn was taken when the management was directed to file all the original records . All the records were lying in the custody and possession of the management and on its failure to file original records adverse inference shall be taken by thisTribunal . Certainly adverse interference is to be drawn that workmen has completed 240 days of work with the management in the preceding year from the date of their termination . Moreover, if the vouchers filed by the management are taken into consideration , the workmen have completed 240 days in that particular year which is claimed by the management as the preceding year of their termination. On the same way the workmen have worked with the management and there is no doubt , to reach the conclusion that both of the workmen have completed 240 days with the management in the preceding year from the date of their termination .

G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 16 मार्च , 2009

का.आ. 877.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार संलाल हाइड्रो इलैक्ट्रिक प्रोजेक्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में मिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट सदर्भ सं. 97/97 को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/64/82-की-11 (बी) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी Undoubtedly , no notice or terminal dues were paid to the workmen before their termination . Industrial Disputes Act, protects the interest of certain workmen who have worked with the management for 240 days or more in the preceding year from the date of their termination . Under such circumstances , the termination oftheworkmen is regulated by the provisions of Industrial DisputesAct . Meaning thereby , for the termination of the workmen under such circumstances , one month notice and retrenchment compensation is the condition precedent . No notice , 30 days wages in lieu of the notice or terminal dues were paid by the management of respondent to the workmen which made their termination illegal .

NewDelhi , the 16th March, 2009 Moreover , the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that none of the workmen has abandoned the services but management has disengaged them without notice and terminal dues . It is admitted by the managementment that few workers were engaged after the termination of the services ofthe workmen . No doubt, MW 1 when cross -examined in the year 2007 has stated that government has banned the

S.O. 877. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No.97/97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Count No. I , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to 1646

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAITRA 21 , 1931

the management of Salal Hydro Electric Project and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on16-3-2009.

[No. L-42012/64/82-D- II(B) ]

SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM -LABOUR COURT- L, CHANDIGARH

Case No. 97/97

Shri Shyam Lal , C/o The General Secretary, Salal Project Work charge Employees Union, 659, Talwara colony, Reasi , J&K

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 3. Whether the disciplinary authority has rightly awarded the punishment of termination of workman from service?

Issues No. 1&2 are co- related . Therefore , for ends of justice, both of the issues are disposed of simultaneously.

......Applicant

Versus

The General Manager, Salal Hydro-Electric Project , Jyotipuram , Reasi , J&K

......Respondent

APPEARANCES

Forthe workman:

Workman in person.

Shri V. K.Gupta For the management!

AWARD

Passed on 13-2-09

Central Govt . Vide notification No. L -42012/64/82- D-II (B )( IRDU), dated 7-2-1997 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Salal Hydro - electric Project , Jyotipuram , Reasi ( J &K) in terminating the services of Shri Sham Lal, Beldar is legal andjustified? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

The workman has challenged his termination from the service on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice by enquiry officer while conducting the enquiry. The management has denied any such violation . Both of the parties were afforded opportunity of being heard . Evidence of both of the parties was recorded by this Tribunal . All relevant documents regarding enquiry proceedings and enquiry report are on record.

The main issues for determination before this Tribunal are:-

1 Whether the management of respondent has conducted the enquiry in a fair and reasonable manner ?

2.Whether there has been any infringement or violation of any rule ofthe principle of natural justice?

The workman was charged for riotous and indecent behavior with his seniors ( JCO ) and threatening him for consequences, ifhis attendance was not marked. Charge sheet was given to the workman . Reply was also filed by the workman. On going through the reply, filed by the workman, I am of the view that in charge sheet all the facts which were base for the conduction of enquiry were mentioned . Dis - satisfying with the reply, an enquiry was conducted. The concerned rules contained in Modified Certified Standing Orders are ori record. Rule 36 is relating tothe disciplinary authority . I have gone through the entire rules and the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer while conducting the departmental enquiry. Sub Rule 3 of Rule 34 authorizes the management to appoint an enquiry officer, whereas the management has appointed an board of enquiry. The board of three persons has conducted enquiry and submitted its report . This issue has not been challenged by the workman . Moreover , after going through the entire materials on the record , I am of the view that no prejudice has been caused by appointing of three members enquiry board by the management . Full opportunity of beingheard was given to both parties as per the procedure mentioned in rule 34 ofModified Certified Standing Orders . Evidence of both of the parties was recorded . Workman was given full opportunity for cross -examination of the witnesses of the management . He participated in entire enquiry proceedings . He was also given the opportunity to adduce evidence in defence , if any. He refused to adduce anyevidence in defence .

Thus, the enquiry officer (board ) has conducted the enquiry in a fair and reasonable manner as prescribed under rule34 ofthe Modified Certified Standing Order and in my viewthere seems to be no violation of any rule of principle ofnatural justice.Accordingly, issue no . 1 &2 are disposed of.

Theworkman Shri Shyam Lal was charged for riotous and indecent behavior with JCO and for threatening him. The statement of the workman , recorded by the enquiry board, shows that he was directed by JCO to mark his attendance by ensuring his personal presence . The workman Shir Shyam Lal sent someone to mark his attendance . On refusal by the JCO for marking his attendance in his absence by someone else , the incident took place . The workman while answering the question no. 6.to the board of enquiry has admitted that he has threatened the JCO because of hot altercation with someone at his house . He has also admitted some hot and coldwith JCO who refused to mark his presence by any other person. The statements of other witnesses are also 1647 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11, 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

on record. It is evident from the evidence that while threatening the JCO the workman uttered the following words:-

"This JCO did not know howto serve . I will teach him a lesson how to serve in any department . He has to face the consequences what he has done by marking my absence" (translation from Hindi )

persons at a public place and threatened him with dire consequences , the workman , deserve for major penalty. The disciplinary authority has rightly terminated him from services and his termination from service in my view is in proportionate to the misconduct committed . No interference, accordingly, is called for . The workman has been rightly terminated from the service after proper , reasonable and fair enquiry and he is not entitled for any relief. The reference is answered accordingly. The Central Government be approached for publication of the award and thereafter , consigned the file.

GK . SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 16 मार्च , 2009

का.आ. 878.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं भारतीय खाद्य निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. - 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( सदर्भ सं. 99/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/235/2001- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 16th March, 2009 The misconduct has been defined in rule 28 of the Modified Certified Standing Order . Rule 28 is relating to acts and omissions for which penalty may be imposed. Sub- Rule 28.1 speaks about the breach of rules/ administrative instructions . Rule 28.16 contains the provisions relating to drunkenness , riotous , disorderly or indecent behaviour of a workman . Rule 13 is relating to attendance and late coming. Rule 13.1 contains that all workmen shall register their attendance at the specified time in the manner prescribed for the purpose by the management. It is personal responsibility of the workman to mark his attendance in a manner prescribed by the management for that purpose . In violation of this rule, the workman tried to mark his presence through some other workman. This is the violation of the rule mentioned in 28.1. Moreover , speak loudly in public place in presence of number of persons with his senior and threatening him to dire consequences is an act which is prohibited in Certified Standing Orders and covered under rule 28.16. The indecent behaviour has been admitted by the workman, whereas, the rest part of the incident including theworduttered by the workman has been proved by the witnesses during the departmental proceeding before the board ofenquiry.

S.O. 878.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 99/2002) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court No. I, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 16-03-2009 .

[No. L-22012/235/2001 - IR(C- II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 AT DHANBAD

PRESENT Shri H. M. Singh , Presiding Officer

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

Reference No. 99 of 2002

Parties: Employers in relation to the management ofFood Corporation of India and their workman.

Thus , after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and relevant rules , I am of the view that board of enquiry has rightly held the charges proved, against the workman. The disciplinary authority on the basis of the enquiry report and after affording the opportunity ofbeing heard, awarded the punishment under rule 32 ofthe Modified Certified Standing Order . Rule 32 speaks about two types of penalties namely minor penalties and major penalties . Removal from service , reduction to a lower grade and dismissal are amongst the major penalties . I have gone through the entire Certified StandingOrder and I am of the view that these rules does not contain any classification of misconduct, on which major penalty can be imposed . Rule 32 only contain that disciplinary authority may impose the penalty specified under the Standing Orders . It shows that Modified Certified Standing Orders have left it at the discretion of the disciplinary authority to award the punishment. But these discretionary powers of the disciplinary authority are subject to the well known principle of service jurisprudence that the punishment awarded should be in proportionate to the misconduct . Considering the misconduct of the workman in this case that he has misbehaved to his senior in the presence of number of 1648

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAITRA21 , 1931

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

Onbehalfofthe workman : Mr. R. N. Ganguly, Advocate .

Onbehalf ofthe employers : Mr. S.N. Goswami , Advocate.

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Food

Dated, Dhanbad, the 25th February, 2009

AWARD

TheGovt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1 )( d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to thisTribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 22012/ 235/2001 - IR ( CM - II ), dated the 6th September, 2002.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of FCI, Darbhanga in terminating the services of Sri Manoj Kumar Singh who was engaged from 3-12-1999 to 11-8-2000 is legal and justified?"

2. In the Written Statement filed on behalf of the workman it has been stated that consequent upon a vacancyof Car Driver due to disablement of the permanent CarDriver namely Subash Jha, the concerned workman was engaged in the aforesaid vacancy of the driver on and from 3-12-99, by the then District Manager F.C.I. Darbhanga as a Driver of Vehicle No. BRP 1018 of the Officer of the District Manager, F.C.I. Darbhanga. The concerned workman was appointed verbally by the then District Manager of F.C.I. Darbhanga. He was working continuously and uninterruptedly and drawing his salary from the then District Mariager directly. As a proof ofhis appointment the then District Manager, F.C.I. Darbhanga used to put his signature on the diary of the concerned workman. The concerned workman also used to put his signature on the Log Book of the aforesaid vehilce regularly from 3-1-2000 . It has been further stated that the concerned workman by virtue of his continuous and uninterrupted service acquired the status of a permanent workman of F.C.I. Darbhanga . All of a sudden he has terminated by the employers from his service w.e.f. 12-8-2000 without any notice and appointed one Sri Mahendra Jha in place of the concerned workman. The stoppage/termination of service of the concerned workman by the employers is with the ulterior motive in order to deprive him from the length of service and consequential benefits and it shows a clear case of unfair labour practice. It has been further stated that the above act on the part of the management is illegal and accordingly it has been prayed on behalf of the workman concerned to pass an Award directing the employers to reinstate him in service with full backwages.

3. Management side also has filed their Written Statement stating therein that the present reference is incompetent and on the contrary to the provisions of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Rules framed thereunder inasmuch as there is no employer-employee relationship at all between the management and the alleged workman . It has been stated that the concerned alleged workman is not and has never been an employee as construed under Section 2 (S) of the I.D. Act. The Present reference is also vitiated for being inconsistent with the provisions of Section 10 of the said Act under which it has been purportedly made. It has been stated further that present reference is also incompetent and illegal for being based on a patently incorrect presumption of the basicmaterial required for such reference and on the other hand for being based on a misrepresentation and/ or suppression of the fact that the concerned alleged workman was , during the period in question from 3-12-1999 to 11-8-2000, and employee of an establishment of Travel Agency by the name of M/ s . R. K. Travel Agency by the name of M/s . R. K. Travels Agency at Nagar Nigam Market , Tower Chowk, Laheriasarai , Darbhanga which had entered into an agreement with the management of the F.C.I. on a principal to principal basis formaking available arrangement for aDriver. The presence reference is also too belated on and therefore, not fit tobe sustained in law. It has been stated that the appropriate government has not applied its mind to the essential and basic material on record before it in forming an Opinion about the existence ofany industrial dispute before making the reference . It has been stated that there has never been an employment of the alleged workman under the management in the first place, the question of alleged termination of his service become hypothetical and impossible but for not having taken this into consideration atthetime ofreference, the Central Government committed an error of law and ofjurisdiction rendering its reference bad in law. In the part-B of the Written Statement management have submitted that the Food Corporation of India has been established under Section 3 of the Food CorporationAct of 1964 and is fully owned, controlled and carried on by the Central Government. Under its recruitment policy, the process of recruitment can only be set in motion on occurrence of a vacancy, which is duly sanctioned by the authorised persons . Further more, in the event of occurrence of any vacancy for any staff, the local Employment Exchange Office has to be informed and the candidates are required to route their applications through such Employment Exchange. Upon receipt of such applications, the condidates have to undergo the prescribed tests .Any candidate emerging successful after all prescribed tests to be held and conducted by a Committee of authorised persons for the said purpose, he has to be given an employment letter in writing containing his terms and conditions of service after as office order to thiseffect having been made by competent authorities in the F.C.I. In the present case, in so far as the alleged workman Monoj Kumar Singh and his allegation ofbeing employed as driver in the F.C.I. is concerned, it has been 1649

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

: [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

4. In this case both the parties have filed their respective rejoinders admitting and denying the contents ofsome of the paras of their Written Statement.

5. The concerned workman has produced WW- 1 Manoj Kumar Singh and filed documents which have been marked as Ext. W- 1 and W- 2 . Management also produced and examined Sital Thakur , as MW- 1 , Κ.Κ. Choudhury , MW - 2, and Surendra Lal Das as MW - 3 and proved documents which have been marked as Ext . M- 1 , M/2 , M-2/ 2 , M -2/3 , M-2/4 , M-2/5 , M-2/6 and M-3 .

6. Main argument on behalf of the workman.is that he has maintained Log Book and doing the job of driving of vehicle No. BRP- 1018 continuously for long time i.e. from 3.12.1999 to 11.8.2000 . He has worked for more than 240 days entitling him for regularisation . He also argued that as per Ext . W.1 he maintained Log Book and as per Ext. W-2 which is a letter of District Manager, F.C.I. the concerned workman was a driver of departmental car bearing No. BRP - 1018 and he has worked regularly . He canbe appointed in the department permanently. His case has been recommended on 12-8-2000 . This letter has been manipulated by the concerned workman when he was not required for service on 11-8-2000 and after that he got this letter. So this has got no meaning and value and no weight can be given . As per statement of WW- 1 who has stated in cross- examination " I have got no appointment letter from the F.C.I. F.C.I. is a Govt . company. I have not given any application for employment as Driver in the Food Corporation of India ." He has stated that through Cash voucher he was given Rs . 2000 but it has not been filed. He has also further stated that Mahendra Jha is the permanent driver who has joined on transfer from other place. This statement shows that he has not moved any application for appointment so that it may be considered by the management . In this respect. Ld. Counsel for the management referred a decision reported in 2006 ( 109) FLR 826, Secretary, State of Karnataka and other versus Uma Devi and others which is as follows :-

stated by the management that there has never been any notified vacancy for the said post nor sanction of any vacancy for such post nor any invitation of applications for filling up any vacancy for the post of driver nor did Manoj Kumar Singh ever underwent any ofthe prescribed tests or interviews nor has nay comittee eve taken any test or interviews for recruitment of Manoj Kumar Singh nor has any office order ever been issued/passed for employment of Manoj Kumar Singh as driver or as nay other employee at any point of time . Without such prerequisites the question of employment of the said Manoj Kumar Singh is completely ruled out and his allegations to the contrary are distorted, misrepresented and in supression of the fact that he was at all material times an employee of another establishment by the name ofM/ s . R.K. Travels Agency situated at Nagar Nigam Market, Tower Chowk, Laheriasarai , Darbhanga. It has . beeen submitted by the management that during the period in question i.e. from 3-12-1999 to 11-8-2000 in the office of the F.C.I. at Laheriasarai , a regular driver by the name of Subesh Jha was already in employment . Owing to the said Subesh Jha being temporarily unfit to drive a vehicle , the aforesaid Travels Agency by name M/ s . R.K. Travels Agency was contacted. The said M/ s . R.K. Travels Agency at Laheriasarai runs its own independent business ofproviding conveyance and vehicles as also the services of drivers on principal-to- principal basis to tis various customers. In view of the aforementioned contingency of the said deriver of the F.C.I. Subesh Jha being temporarily unfit and in view of the conveyance facility being indispensable even for a short duration , the said M/ s . R.K. Travels Agency was contacted by the FCI to provide the services ofdriving the vehicle ofthe FCI . Accordingly in the usual course of its business the said Travel Agency started to depute its employee namely Manoj Kumar Singh for driving the vehicle of the F.C.I. The said Travel Agency used to raise upon the F.C.I. its bills for providing the aforesaid arrangement and facility . The said bills of the Travel Agency used to be paid by the management of F.C.I. Manoj Kumar Singh used to drive the vehilce of the F.C.I. at the instruction of his employer M/s . R.K. Travels Agency which paid to him his wages and salary and also regulated his all other working conditions . Under the arrangement and in the course of such transactions as between the said Travel Agency and the F.C.I. not only Manoj Kumar Singh but also any other person in his place could be deputed at any time and/ or such deputation could be changed at any time by the Travels Agency . therefore , the claim of the concerned workman Manoj Kumar Singh that he is an employees of the F.C.I. is totally false, fabricated and not justified , as no relationship of employer and employee between the concerned workman and the management ever existed . Under the above circumstances, it has been prayed to pass an Award rejecting the claim of the concerned workman .

" Public employment Constitution of India, 1950 Articles 32, 226, 12, 14, 16, 309, 315 and 335-Scheme ofPublic Employment Broadly Governedby the Constitutional mandate contained in these provisions Constitution does not contemplate any employment outside Constitutional Scheme and without following requirements laid down therein- butthe States and the Union have a right to employ persons on posts which are temporary-on daily wages-as additional hands-By taking them in without following the required procedure- To discharge duties in respect of poste which are sanctioned-and are required to be filled in terms of relevant Constitutional procedure-Nothing in constitution prohibit such engaging of persons temporarily or on daily wages to meet the needs of situation-But such temporary employment cannot be resorted to defeat the very basic constitutional 1650

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11,2009/ CHAITRA 21 , 1931

be resorted to defeat the very basic constitutional Scheme ofPublic employment-Thus not ordinarily proper for Courts-Whether acting under Article 32 or under Article 226 of Constitution-To direct absorption in permanent employment of those who have been engaged without following due Constitutional process.

Nor can a court say that , the Union or the State Government do not have the right to engage persons in various capacities for a duration or until the work in a particular project is comleted . Once this right of the Government is recognised and the mandate of the Constitutional requirement for public employment is respected, there cannot be much difficulty in coming to the conclusion that it is ordinarily not proper for courts whether acting unde Article 226 ofthe Constitution or under Article 32 of the Constitution to direct absorption in permanent employment of those who have been engaged without following a due process of selection as envisaged by the Constitutional Scheme.

Stateas anEmployer-Constitution of India, 1950- Article 309- Power ofState as an employer is more limited than that of a private employer-In so far as it is subject to Constitutional limitations-And cannot be exercised arbitrarily-Article 309 contemplates drawing up of procedures and rules to regulate recruitment-As also service conditions . When relevant rules have been made under Article 309 Government can make appointments only in. accordance with rules .

Service jurisprudence-Regularisation and conferment ofpermanence-Distinction between- Words"regular " or "regularisation" do not connote permanence. And cannot be construed to convey tenure of appointment.

Regularisation in service-Decision by Apex Court in case of Dharwad District Public Works Department- v -State of Karnataka Cannot be said to have laid down any law to effect that all those engaged on daily wages, casually, temporarily Or when no sanctioned post or vacancy existed . And without following rules of Selection-Should be absorbed or made permanent gradually-And if ratio of the judgement aforesaid is taken as such- Said judgement disapproved.

Public Employment-Regularisation or Absorption- Review of earlier decisions of Apex Court- Judgements of Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh and others, 1992(3) SCR 826-Does not lay down a law that all adhoc , temporary or casual

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ) employees engaged without following regular procedure should be made permanent.

Constitution of India , 1950-Articles 142 and226 High Court has no power like power available to Supreme Court under Article 142-Merely because Supreme Court in a certain case granted certain relief in exercise of powers under Article 142-Similar orders could not be issued by the High Courts Reference made toApex Court decision in State of Punjab and others-v. Surinder Kumar and others.

Regularisation-Constitution of India, 1950- Article 162 State could not invoke its power under Article 162-to regularise appointments made in contravention of mandatory provisions Regularisation cannot be made a mode of recruitment .

Public Employment Constitution of India, 1950- Article 14 and 16-Adherence to these Articles-A must for public employment-Reference made to earlier binding decisions ofApex Court-Including decisions in cases of Kesavanand Bharti and India Sawhney.

PublicEmployment Rule of Law Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14 and 16-Rule ofequality in public employment. Is abasic feature ofConstitution-- Since Rule of law is a case of the Constitution-- Court wouldbe disabled from passing an order upholding violation of Article 14. On ordering overlooking need to comply with requirement of Article 14 read with Article 16.

Servicejurisprudence Contractual appointment- Daily wages or casual appointment-Temporary appointment-When such appointments come to an end . No right of permanence to such appointees Merely on basis of continuance of such appointment . If original appointment was not made by following due process of selection .-As envisaged by Rules Courts to be careful in passing interim orders in such matters . So as not to interfere withthe economic arrangement ofthe affairs of the State Or its instrumentalities .

Servicejurisprudence-Equal pay for equal work- Different from concept of conferring permanency.

Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 226 , 32 , 142- Service matters Orders directing the regularization etc. Court should not grant a relief which would amount to perpetuating an illegality.

Public Employment-Doctrine of legitimate expectation-Not available to sustain claim of employees appointed on daily wages , casual or भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

temporary basis without complying with Constitutional procedural requirement---Nor do such employees have a right to be treated at par with regularly recruited employees . In terms of salary and allowances-Impugned order of the High Court modifiedby directing that the daily wage earner be paid wages equal to the salary of the lowest grade ofemployees of their cadre in Government service in the department in question ( Commercial Tax Department )-No other allowances would be payable to such daily wagers-Part of the order of High Court directing the Government to consider their cases for regularisation-Set aside-Further directed that if sanctioned posts are vacant . State will take immediate steps for filling up those posts by a regular process of selection . But some age relaxation may be given to such employees (daily wagers etc. ) who have been engaged for work in Department for a significant period . And some extra weightage may be given to them. Consequently C.A. Nos.3595-3612/1999 , C.A. No. 3849/2001 , C.A. No. 3520-3524/2002 and C.A. arising out of S.L. P(C) Nos . 9130-9105/2001 allowed subject to directions above as issued under Article 142 in para 46 and 44. C.A. Nos . 1861-2003/2001 dismissed." So in public employment such type of persons cannot be employed. Moreover as per document filed on behalf of the management shows that the concerned workman was working on the roll of R.K. Travels Agency and as per MW - 1 . R. K. Travels Agency has written letter to the management for providing driver @ Rs . 80 per day and as per Ext . M - 2 payment of Rs . 1790.00 was made to R.K. Travels Agency for providing driver in respect of Car No. BR IP- 1018 from 1-2-2000 to 29-2-2000 . As per Ext . M-2/ 1 basic another payment of Rs . 1680 was made for supply ofdriver for the month of March, 2000@ Rs . 65 per day. As Ext. M- 2/2 payment ofRs . 1790 was made to R.K. Travels Agency for supply of driver in the month of April , 2000. As per Ext. M-2/3 payment of Rs . 1770.00 was made to R.K. Travels Agency for supply of driver in the month of May, 2000. As per Ext . M-2 /4 payment of Rs . 1730 was made for supply of driver in the month of June, 2000 to R.K. Travel Agency . Similarly payment of Rs. 1860.00 was made to R.K. Travels Agency for supply of driver in the month of July , 2000 as per Ext . M- 2 /5 . As per Ext.M-2/6 it appears that R.K. Travels Agency was paid a sum ofRs . 650 for supply of driver for the period from 1- 8-2000 to 11-8-2000 and one day haultage @ Rs . 20. From the discussion of the above documents it transpires that all the payments were made by the management to R.K. Travels Agency where the concerned workman was employed, R.K. Travels Agency has provided driver to the management on daily wages basis. It is therefore clear that the concerned workman has got no relationship of employer and employee with the management .

1234 GI/098

1651 Since there was no relationship of employer and employee between the concerned workman and the management of FCI and as the concerned workman was not appointed by the management of FCI , the question of termination of services of the concerned workman does not arise.

An Award is passed accordingly.. H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 16 मार्च , 2009

का.आ. 879.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार गैरीसन इंजीनियर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नं. -1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 3/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-14012/31/2005- आई आर ( डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 16th March , 2009 S.O. 879. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 3/2008 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No. 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Garrison Engineer and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 16-03-2009 .

[No. L- 14012/31 /2005 - IR(DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH Case No. I.D. 3/2008

Shri Surinder Singh S/o Shri Ramesh Chand , H. No. 61 -A , Near Basic Public School, Dashmesh Nagar, VPO Naya Gaon, Dist. Ropar, Punjab.

.Applicants

Versus

TheGarrison Engineer - I , R& D, Garrison Engineer , Plot No. 2, Sector-37-A, Chandigarh .

.Respondent 1652

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009 /CHAITRA21 , 1931

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

For the Workman

Workman in person

None

For the management :

AWARD

(Passed on: 19-2-2009)

termination . The identity card filed by the workman has been signed bythe officer ofthe management which proved the direct master - servant relationship between the management and the workman . It has falsified the contention of the management that the services of the workman were provided through contractor on outsourcing.

Government of India vide Notification No. L- 14012/ 31/2005 - IR( DU) , dated 14-6-2006 referred the following industiral disputeto this Tribunal for adjudication :-

"Whether the action ofthe management ofGarrison Engineer (R&D ) , Chandigarh in terminating the services oftheir workman Shri Surinder Singh w.e.f. 26-5-2005 is legal andjustified? If not, towhat relief the said workman is entitled to?"

Itwas the contention raised by the management that the service were provided through contractor without filing anydocument regarding the agreement entered into between the management ofrespondent and the contractor who provided the service of the workman te the management. No iota of evidence is on the record which proved that service of the workman were provided to the management through contractor. Thus , in failure of filing adducing any evidence by the management on the issue ofproviding the service of the workman through contractor andproviding certain document by the workman , as stated earlier, I am ofthe view that workman was directly engaged bythe management on daily wage basis.

The workman has also claimed his regularization into the services on the ground that he was selected and appointed as a lift operator by the management of respondent and was kept on probation. But he failed to file any document related to his recruitment/appointment and joining the department on probation .

The workman in his statement of claim has stated that he had worked with the management of respondent for more than 240 days in the preceding year from thedate ofhis termination and his services were illegally terminated against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. No notice , one month wages in lieu of the notice or retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman before his termination which make it illegal and void. In statement of claim , it is also alleged by the workman that juniors to him were retained , whereas , his services were terminated without assigning any reasons . The management of respondent contended that the services ofthe workman were provided by a Contractor (middle- man) on outsourcing and there was no master-servant relationship between the management and the workman.

Both of the parties were afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence . Parties were also heard in length .

The workman has contended that he was directly recruited/engaged by the management and his services were terminated without assigning any reasons against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, whereas , the management has challenged the contention of the workman on the ground of master-servant relationship between management and the workman.

The Tribunal will reach any conclusion after considering all the facts and circumstances of this case. The facts and circumstances of this case proved that the workman was engaged by the management on dailywages and his services were not provided by a contractor. But as stated earlier, the workman had also failed to prove thathe had worked 240 days or more with the management in the preceding year from the date of his termination. In his cross -examination the workman has stated that he cannot name any juniors who were retained in the service while hisserviceswere terminated. Thus , the workman has also failedtoprove that hisjuniors were retained in the services, whereas, his services were terminated.

At the cost of repetition the workman has failed to prove both of the contentions that he had worked 240 days or more with the management of respondent in preceding year from the date of his termination and any junior was retained in the service , whereas , his services were terminated. Thus , no notice or terminal dues were required under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and his termination/disengagement cannot be termed as illegal . The workman is not entitled to any relief. This reference is accordingly answered. Let the appropriate government be approached for publication of the award, and thereafter, file be consigned.

It is settled principle of service jurisprudence that the workman has to prove before this Tribunal that he was directly engaged by the management and had worked for 240 days or more in the preceding year from the date ofhis termination . To discharge his legal responsibility , the workman has just filed an affidavit stated that he has worked 240 days or more with the management of respondent in the preceding year from the date of his termination. No proofwhich can be termed as valid in law, has been filed and provided by the workman . Certain receipts and identity card have been filed . But they are not sufficient to prove before this Tribunal that the workman had worked for 240 days or more with the management in the preceding year from the date of his

G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer 1653

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 16 मार्च , 2009

"Whether the action of the management ofNorthern RegionFarmsMachinery & Training Institute , Hissar innot giving the preference to Shri Prem Bihari at the time of re-employment is fair, legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ? " का.आ. 880.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार नार्दर्न रीजन् फार्म मशीनरी एण्ड ट्रेनिंग इंस्टीट्यूट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. - 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट संदर्भ संख्या 35/96 को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/13 /95- आईआर (डीयू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 16th March, 2009

The nature ofreference itself shows that the workman has only challenged his termination on the violation of provisions of Section 25H of Industrial Disputes Act , denying the re-employment of retrenched workman on priority. In his cross-examination the workman has admitted that he had worked with the management only for, 108 days . Thus, this Tribunal has to answer the reference in respect ofthe illegality of the termination of the workman on his right to re -employment protected under Section 25H of Industrial Disputes Act .

S.O. 880.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 35/96) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Northern Region Farm Machinery and Training Institute and their workman, which was received bythe Central Government on 16-03-2009.

[No. L -42012/ 13 /95 - IR (DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. L.D. 35/96

Shri Prem Bihari , C/ o President, The Agriculture Workers Union, 123/5 , Jawahar Nagar, Hissar- 124001 .

-Applicant

Versus

The Director , Northern Region Farm Machinery and Training Institute, Hissar- 124001 .

-Respondent

APPEARANCES

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all the materials on record. One of the contention ofthe workman has been that no honour was given to the settlement executed between the workman and the representative ofthe management on 26-3-92 . I have gone through the settlement dated 26-3-92 which is on record as Annexure W 2. In this instrument, it is clearly written that workman had only worked with the management for 108 days and no junior to the workman has retained in service or provided the job after the termination of the service ofthe workman. However , the management agreed that his right to reemployment shall be protected . It was nothing but the repetition of legal provisions enumerated under Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act . This burden lies on the workman to prove that juniors to him were providedwith the job . The workman failed to provide the name, addresses and other particulars of the persons who are working with the management and had been juniors to him. Onperusal of the entire materials on record , there is no iota of evidence available to prove that some juniors to the workman are still working with the management . The workman has casually mentioned the name of few persons without providing the details of employment of those persons with the management . Thus , on the basis of the above observation, I am of the view that the workman has failedto prove that any junior to him was re -employed and he was not given any chance by the management of respondent .Accordingly, the reference is answered. Central Government be approached for publication of the award, and thereafter , file be consigned.

Sri D.R. Sharma

Forthe workman :

G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer For the management : SriDineshNagar

नई दिल्ली, 16 मार्च , 2009

AWARD

Passed on:24-2-2009

Government of India vide notification no . L-420 12/ 13/ 95 - IR ( DU) , dated 27-3-1996 referred the following industrial dispute for judicial adjudication to this Tribunal:-

का.आ. 881.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल सांइटिफिक इंस्ट्रूमेन्ट ऑर्गेनाईजेशन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विद्याद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. - 1 , चण्डीगढ़ 1654

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAITRA21 , 1931

[PART II Sec. 3 (ii) ) के पंचाट संदर्भ संख्या 51/96 को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/83/95- आईआर (डीयू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

16-8-91 . His juniors were retained in service, whereas , his services were terminated without any notice or retranchment compensation. He has prayed for declaring his termination illegal being against the provisions of Section 25 H and G of Industrial Disputes Act, and has sought reinstatement into the services with full back wages.

New Delhi , the 16th March, 2009

S.O. 881.-in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 51/96) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court No. I Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofCentral Scientific Instruments Organisation and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-03-2009 .

The management has contended that the respondent is not an industry and the relationship between workman andthe respondent cannot be said to be industrial relations . Ithas also been contended by the management that initially theworkman, Shri Surinder Kumar was appointed through a contractor Shri Raghubir Singh, and thereafter, the work was carried onby the workman on contract basis for a fixed term and period. It was further contended by the management that the workman has not completed 240 days ofwork in the preceding year from the date of his termination.

[No. L-42012/83/95 - IR(DU)]

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Parties were afforded the opportunity of being heard and adducing evidence before this Tribunal . I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused all the materials on record including the evidence adduced by the parties oral and documentary.

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

CHANDIGARH

Case No. L.D. 51/96

Shri Surinder R/o H.No. D-61 , C.S.I.O. Colony, Chandigarh .

-Applicant

Versus

The Director , Central Scientific Instruments Organisation , Sector-30, Chandigarh-160023.

-Respondent

APPEARANCES

Sri J.S. Sathi

For the workman

For the management : SriSunderSingh

AWARD

Passed on: 23-2-2009

Government of India vide notification no . L -42012/ 83/95 - IR(DU) , dated 30-5-96 referred the following industrial dispute for judicial adjudication to this Tribunal :

The management filed certain documents regarding the nature of work carried on by the workman . A copy of the contract entered into between the management and contractor Shri Raghubir Singh is on record as Annexure R-2. This was the contract for the limited period , and thereafter, the work was taken from the workman , as alleged bythe management, on contract for a fixed term. All the documents are on record . These documents shows that a particularworkwas entrusted to the workman for a particular period naming the worlanan as contractor as well as executor of the work . The workman was under the direct administrative control ofthe management while he executed the said work . So , on considering the nature of the documents, filedby the management, I am of the view that it was a paper arrangement made for the payment of the wages good to the workman with intend to avoid from any liability under Industrial Disputes Act. While the workman was working with the management, may be for a definite period, he was under the administrative control of the management . Payment was made good by the management and documents , as stated earlier , are well managed peace ofpaper for making the payment to the workman . Thus , the workman shall be considered to work directly with the management for all purposes .

"Whether the action of the Director Central Scientific Instruments Organisation, Chandigarh in terminating the services ofShri Surinder Pal is legal andjustified? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ?"

The main contention of the workman in this reference is that he worked with the managerment for more than 240 daysprecedingto the date ofhis termination from 1-4-86to

It is the duty of the workman to prove before this Tribunal that he had worked for 240 days or more in the preceding year from the date of his termination . It is also the duty of the workman to prove that his juniors were retained in the service , whereas , his service were terminated without the compliance of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. On perusal of the material on record, it is evidently clear that workman has failed on both of the भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

counts. He has not proved that he has worked for 240 days in the preceding year before the date of his termination and anyjunior was retained in the service , whereas , his services were terminated . This burden cannot be shifted on the management . Moreover, management had filed certain documents and on perusal of these documents , the workman has not completed the work for 240 days or more in the preceding year from the date ofhis termination.

The management has also raised the objection regarding the relationship between the workman and the management. It has been stated by the management that respondent is not an industry . The management has supplied the copy of the order of Hon'ble Apex Court in which the 3 Judges Bench ofthe Court in a case relating to the management has referred the matter to larger bench for reviewing the definition of industry as laid down in Bangalore Water Supply and Severage Board and others Vs. A. Rajappa, AIR 1978 , SC 548 case . It itselfshows that the status of manangement has been declared by the court of competent jurisdiction to be an industry . It is true that matter has been referred to the larger bench of Hon'ble the Apex Court, but this Tribunal is bound by the existing law declared by Hon'ble the Apex Court. Existing law declared by the Apex Court is in Bangalore Water Supply case (supra) . Thus , I am of the view that respondent is an industry. On perusal of entire materials on record, I am not smelling any illegality in terminating the services of the workman and he is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly, this reference is answered . Central Governemnt be apporoached for publication of award, and thereafter, file be consigned .

G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 16 मार्च, 2009

का.आ. 882.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार कस्टमस् एण्ड सेन्ट्रल एक्साइस के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट संदर्भ संख्या 53/2006 को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42025/2/2009- आईआर ( डीयू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 16th March, 2009

S.O. 882. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 53/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour CourtHyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of Customs and Central Exsice and their

1655 workman, which was received by the Central Government on16-03-2009.

[No. L-42025/2/2009- IR(DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present: Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer Between:

Smt. Y.M. Yadamma,

H.No. 5-5-274, Patel Nagar ,

Gandhi Bhawan ,

... Petitioner Hyderabad.

1.The Director (Canteen) ,

Government of India ,

Ministry ofPersonnel , Public Grievance & Pensions , D/o Personnel & Training ,

Customs and Central Excise ,

Room No. 361 , Lok Nayak Bhawan, KhanMarket, New Delhi . 2. The Commissioner, Hyderabad- I Commissionerate,

Dated the 26th day of February, 2009 Industrial Dispute L.C. 53/2006 And Hyderabad.

...Respondents APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner : Sri G. Pavana Murthy, Advocate For the Respondent: Sri G. Jayaprakash Babu, Advocate

AWARD

Smt . Y.M. Yadamma, Petitioner of this has filed this petitioner under Sec . 2 A(2 ) ofthe I.D. Act , 1947 in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others , challenging the order of dismissal and for reinstatement in the service with full back wages .

2. Ithas been submitted by the Petitioner that she is the wife of deceased employee who was wash boy in the departmental canteen ofthe Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise from 18-3-1985 to 10-4-1999 on which date 1656

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009 /CHAITRA 21 , 1931

[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii) ]

question ofreviewing the cases did not arise in the light of above position . They have further stated that the Petitioner approached Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal , Hyderabad Bench for redressal of her grievances and filed O.A. No. 133/2002 for considering her case for compassionate appointment . The Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal , Hyderabad disposed off the O.A. with observation that the Respondent may consider the representation of the Petitioner for compassionate appointment as claimed by the Petitioner .

the Petitioner's husband expired leaving behind applicant Petitioner and a minor son . After the death of her husband, Petitioner made a representation to the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise in the month of May, 1999 for appointment on compassionate grounds . The Petitioner joined the office of Respondent No. 2 on the daily wages from the date of death of her husband and she worked without any break requesting the Respondent to appoint the Petitioner in compassionate quota. She completed more than3 years of service as daily wage worker . Her case was considered for regularization along with Smt . K. Surekha by All India Central Government canteen employees Workers. Association and S.M. Sahariar Director of Canteen recomended to the Respondent No. 2 to regularize the services ofthe Petitioner , a copy of the letter is enclosed with this petition . The Respondent did not regularize the services of the Petitioner and refused to appoint the Petitioner on compassionate grounds . The Petitioner approached the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal , Hyderabad for redressal of her grievances and filed O.A. 133/2002 . The Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal , Hyderabad disposed off the O.A. with observation that the Respondent may consider the representation of the Petitioner for compassionate appointment. Within the 5% vacancies subject to obtaining relaxation of educational qualifications . However , the services of the Petitioner was retrenched from April , 2002. The Respondent with a mala- fide intention and bias terminated the services of the Petitioner without giving any notice or without paying the retrenchment allowance . Thus , the action taken by the Respondent is bad in law , illegal , arbitrary and disproportionate , against the service rules and principles ofnatural justice . Thus , the Petitioner has represented this Petition before this court for setting aside the order of retrenchment and to order reinstatement with full back wages.

4. The Respondent further stated that in view ofthe large number of representations for compassionate appointments the then Chief Commissioner , Customs and Central Excise , Hyderabad Zone addressed a letter to the Chairman , Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi requesting to grant one time regularzation to make appointments beyond the 5 % of approved quota . In response to that letter, No. A- 12012/63/99 -Ad.III ( B ) dated 25-8-99 informed that one time relaxation to make appointments beyond the 5% quota cannot be acceded to . In view of this letter the respondent's office could not consider the pending applications for compassionate appointments .; however , the vacancy for the years 2003- 2004 and 2004-2005 were identified in Group ' D' cadre or appointment on compassionate grounds and in terms of the O.M. dated 9-10-1998 , a screening committee was constituted and all pending applications were submitted to the commmittee for a scrutiny and consideration as per the parameters enunciated in the above O.M. On 1-3-2005 about 38 applications were pending for considering of Group D posts. Due to non -availability of the required number of vacancies under compassionate quota the applications could not be considered for years. It has further been submitted by the respondent that in terms of the Ministry of Personnel , Public Grievances and Pensions , Department of Personnel & Training , New Delhi , letter No. 14014/19/2002 -Est. (D) dated 5-5-2003 forwarded along with Board letter F. No. A- 12012/ 67/AD.III (B ) dated 15-7-2004 . The maximum time for a person's name can be kept under consideration for offering compassionate appointment will be three years . After three years if compassionate appointment is not possible to be offered to the applicant, his/her case willbe finally closed and will notbe considered again . It has further been stated that the time limit of three years for compassionate appointment may be decided with reference to the date of death or retirement on medical ground of a government servant . In compliance of Ministry of Personnel , Public Grievances letter dated 9-10-1998 a committee has been constituted to consider all the pending applications for appointments on compassionate grounds .

3. The Respondents have filed their counter statement. The Respondent has denied the contentions raised by the Petitioner in her claim stateinent and they have stated that Smt . Y.M. Yadamma have submitted an application on 20-3-2000 requesting to consider her candidature for the post of Sepoy on compassionate grounds . They have further stated that as per para 7 of the OM No. 14014/6/94-Estt . (D) dated 9-10-98 , appointments on compassionate grounds are to be made upto a maximum of the 5% of vacancies falling under Direct Recruitment Quota in Group C and D post . For this purpose , the appointing authority has to hold back upto 5% vancies in the aforesaid categories to be filled by direct recruitment , so , as to fill such vacancies on compassionate grounds . For this purpose the vacancies in the cadre of Sepoy were carried out on yearly basis and the number of vacancies in Sepoy cadre was not adequate for reserving the post of appointment on compassionate grounds and hence , the

5. The husband of petitioner Sri Y. Pentaiah was working in the canteen which comes under the Department of Canteen, Ministry of Home Affairs . Department of 1657

भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

affidavit in evidence and appeared for cross examination asWW1 .

7. The Respondent filed letter No.A- 12012/87/98- AD.III(B) dated 9-12-1998 Ex.Ml , enclosing OM No.14014/ 19/2002-Estt. (D) dated 5-5-2003 . Ex.M2 letter No.A - 12012/ 63/99-Ad.III (B) dated 25-8-1999. Ex.M3 Ο.Μ. Νο . 14014/ 19/ 2002-Estt.(D) dated 5-5-2003 . Ex.M4 is the order of the Hon'bleHigh Court ofA.P. dated 3-8-2006 in WP No.14715 and batch . Ex.M5 letter dated 10-3-2004 regarding engagement of casual labourers . Ex.M6 letter dated 4-10-2004 regarding house - keeping services in headquarters . Ex.M7 letter dated 26-10-2007 letter of the office of Commissioner , Customs and central Excise . Sri M.V.Ramakrishna , Administrative Officer ofthe office ofCustoms and Central Excise filed affidavit as MW I and hehas been produced for cross examination .

8. I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and has gone through the pleadings and evidence ofthe parties .

Canteendoes not comes under the purview of the Customs and Excise. In tune of the instructions contained in para (7)(e) ofO.M. dated 9-10-1998 i.e. , "employment under the scheme is not confined to the Ministry/ Department /Office inwhich deceased / medically retired Government Servant had been working such an appointment can be given anywhere under the Government of India depending upon availability of a suitable vacancy meant for the purpose of compassionate appointment" , the case of the petitioner was also considered along with pending cases of the Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Department . The committee met in March , 2005 , which recommended one candidate for the post of Tax Assistant and two candidates for the post of Sepoy for the available vacancies . The committee has disposed off 15 applications in the group 'D' cadre as the applications are time barred in the light of the D.O.P & T instructions dated 5-5-2003 .The petitioner Smt. Y. M. Yadamma is one of them. The committee disposed offapplications prior to the year 2000 as ineligible since they were more than 3years owing to the fact that the vacancies reserved for compassionate ground appointment pertains to the years 2003-04 and 2004-2005. It is further submitted that O.M. dated 9-10-1998 , it was affirmed that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a reasonable period lapsed and it is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future as was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court basing on which O.M. dated 9-10-2009 was issued. Thus, the petition is not maintainable deserves to be dismissed.

9. Ithas been argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has filed this case for declaration ofthe termination or retrenchment order illegal, invalid without basis , malafide and arbitrary without following the principles of natural justice and for the reinstatement of the Petitioner in her position and also for regular appointment. The Respondent has not denied nor they have given any reply regarding the appointment of the Petitioner or dismissal or retrenchment ofthe Petitioner from the post of casual labour .

10.I have gone through the counter statement filed bythe Respondent management and find that Respondent's side had not challenged the contention of the Petitioner that she was appointed as daily wage worker soon after death ofher husband . She worked for about 3 years in that capacity under the control of Respondent management andher services were terminated without any notice or by any written order in the month ofApril , 2002. Whatever statement has been put forward by the Respondent is about the appointment of the Petitioner on compassionate grounds, nothing has been stated about the Petitioner's daily rate employment, which is the subject matter of this petition. However , in his statement, the Respondent's witness Mr. M.V. Ramakrishna has admitted that Petitioner was appointed as daily wage worker soon after death of her husband and she was disengaged in the year 2001 . Thus , the contention of the Petitioner that she was a daily rate worker appointed after death of her husband to save her from the vagaries , is supported with the statement of theRespondent's witness and this statement of witness is verymaterial to decide that Petitioner was engaged as daily rate worker and she was disengaged without any notice or without payment of any compensation as alleged by her .

11. Ithas further been argued by petitioner counsel that in absence of any denial or challenge regarding the 6. Parties were directed to file their respective evidences . Petitioner has filed copy of her affidavit dated 26-4-1999 wherein she has shown herself and one Mr. Υ.Μ. Devender, her son as the family member of the deceased Y.M. Pentaiah, Ex. WI certificate of the office ofCustoms andCentral Excise certifying that Y.M. Pentaiah wash boy (Canteen) was employed in his department on 18-3-1985 till the date ofhis death . Ex. W2 copy of the representation of Y.M. Yadamma dated 17-4-2000 for compassionate appointment . The succession certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer showing Petitioner and her son Y.M. Devender to be the heirs of deceased Y.M. Pentaiah isEx .W4 . Letter ofDirector (Canteens) dated 14-3-2002 for regularization ofthe services of Y.M. Yadamma is Ex .W5 , Copyofthejudgement of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal , Hyderabad passed in OA No.133/2002 dated 12-8-2002 directing the Respondent that the Petitioner can be accommodated within the 5% vacancies available in the compassionate quota after the lifting of the ban by regularization of the educational qualifications is Ex. W6. Ex.W7 is the representation of Y.M. Yadamma for appointment of post of Sepoy or Group ' D ' posts on compassionate grounds dated 26-8-2002 is Ex.W7 . EX .W8 is another representation dated 16-4-2003 . Application for reengagement dated 7-1-2006 is Ex .W9 . Own affidavit of Y.M. Yadamma is Ex . W10 . Y.M. Yadamma presentedher 1658

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/ CHAITRA21 , 1931

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii)]

Shehas worked for about3 years as claimed by her which has not been denied by the Respondent , thereafter her services were terminated.

appointment of the Petitioner as causal labour having worked for more than3 years in that position in departmental canteen is evident of the fact that the contention of the Petitioner is acceptable that she has worked for more than 3 years as a casual worker in Respondent's canteen and she has been sacked by the Respondent management without serving any notice or without payment of any compensation as required U/ s 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and thus, the order of termination/ retrenchment from the post of casual labour is illegal, arbitrary and violation ofprinciples ofnaturaljustice.

13. Thus , the termination of the services of the Petitioner as casual rate worker or the retrenchment of the Petitioner from the post of casual rate worker without giving her any notice or without making any payment of retrenchment compensation is violative of the principles of retrenchment of the services and thus , the claim of the Petitioner is justified. Her retrenchment/ disengagement/ termination ofthe services is illegal because no notice was given to the Petitioner nor any retrenchment compensa- tion has been paid to her. Thus , the action of Respondent in terminating casual rate services of the Petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice and the oral termination order ofApril, 2002 or action of the management in terminating the services of themanagement w.e.f. April , 2002 is illegal , arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and deserves to be set aside. Petition is allowed , the order of termination of services ofthePetitioner as daily rated worker is set aside. Respondent is directed to reinstate the Petitioner in the post ofdaily rate worker within three months from the date ofreceipt of this order, the Petitioner shall not be entitled for the back wages. However, she will be entitled for the wages from the date she joins the department of the Respondent.

Accordingly, Award is passed. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 26th day of February,2009.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix ofevidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

WWI: Smt. Y.M. Yadamma

MWI : Sri M.V. Ramakrishna

Decants marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1:

Copyofaffidavit dt. 26-4-99

Ex.W2:

Copyofservice certificate dt.26-4-99

Ex.W3 :

Copy of representation of WW 1 dt.17-4-2000

Ex.W4:

Copyofcaste certificate dt. 1-5-99

Ex.W5:.

Copyofletter from Director( Canteens ) to R2dt . 14-3-2002

Ex.W6:

Copy of order in OA No. 133/2002 dt.12-8-2002

12. Ihave considered this argument of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and in the light of this argument , I have gone through the evidence of the Respondent's witness Mr. M.V. Ramakrishna, the Administrative Officer ofthe office ofRespondent who has admitted in his cross examination that Petitioner was engaged for the first time in May, 1999 as daily rate worker after the death of her husband. She worked in that capacity upto December, 1999. ThePetitioner's appointment was made as daily rate worker soon after death of her husband in order to save her from financial hardships . He has stated that she discontinued herjob on her own accord in December, 1999. He has further admitted that in December, 2000 Petitioner was again engaged as casual worker and in that capacity she worked uptoDecember, 2001. This admission of the Respondent's witness fully prove the contention of the Petitioner that she was engaged as daily rate worker and she worked as daily rate worker in the Respondent's canteen after death of her husband. The Respondent's witness has categori- cally stated that a casual rate employment was given to the Petitioner soon after the death ofher husband in order to save her from financial hardships . Thus , the contention of the Petitioner that she was given compassionate appoint- ment appears to be true . No doubt, the Petitioner was not given regular appointment but she was appointed as daily rate worker to save her from financial hardships .How, the services of the Petitioner were disengaged or terminated has not been explained by the Respondent , whereas the Petitioner in her own affidavit and statement stated that her husband was a permanent worker . Though no appointment order was given to her , she has worked as casual rate worker for three years . The Respondent has notpaid wages for five months toher . She has stated inher claim statement that when she asked for regularization of her services , her services were terminated. No reply has been given by the Respondent to this allegation of the Petitioner. Nor the Respondent has anyway stated in their counter statement that the Petitioner has worked in their canteen as daily rate worker or the Petitioner's services were disengaged. Thus , in the absence of any denial or challenge form the Respondent's side the Petitioner's con- tention stands proved and this court is of the opinion that the Petitioner was appointed as daily rate worker on the compassionate grounds soon after death of her husband.

1659 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11, 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Ex.W7:

their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 16-03-2009.

Copy of representation of WWI dt. 26-8-2002

Ex.W8:

[No. L-42012/52/2006- IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer Copy of representation of WW 1 dt.16-4-2003

ANNEXURE

Ex.W9:

Copy of representation of WWI dt. 7-1-2006

Ex.W10:

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

Copy of receipt of registered post acknowledgement.

SHRI VED PRAKASH GAUR,

PRESENT:

Documents marked for the Respondent

PresidingOfficer

Ex.M1:

Dated the 10th day of February, 2009

Copy of lr . Dt.9-1-98 regarding scheme ofcompassionate appointment

Industrial Dispute No. 28/2007

Ex.M2:

BETWEEN

Copy of lr. Dt. 25-8-99 regarding com- passionate appointment.

Ex.M3:

Copyofoffice memorandum No.140 14/ 19/2002 Estt (D)dt . 5-5-2003

Petitioner Ex.M4:

Sri Bikkina Koteswara Rao , S/o Late Veerraju , H. No.1-20, Kotheru (PO) Rajahmundry Rural , E.G. Dist.

AND

Copyoforder ofHon'ble High Court of A.P. dt.3-8-2006 in WP No.14715 & batch

Ex.M5:

Copy of Ir . No. F. No. C- 18013/75 /2003- AD . III . B dt. 10-3-2004

.Respondent

TheDirector , Central Tobacco Research Institute, Rajahmundry.

Ex.M6:

APPEARANCES

Nil

For the Petitioner :

Copy of Ir . No.C. No. 1/ 22/ 57 /2004- Admn. dt . 4-10-2004 regarding House- keeping services in HQRs .

Forthe Respondent :

Ex.M7:

Copy ofIr . No. C. No. 1 /22/43/06-Admn . Dt. 26-10-2007 .

M/s. Ch . Dhananjaya , G. Mallikarjun Rao and P. Narsing Rao, Advocates नई दिल्ली, 16 मार्च , 2009

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-40012/52 / 2006- IR ( DU) dated 16-4-2007 referred the following dispute under Section 10( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of Central Tobacco Research Institute and their workmen . The reference is ,

SCHEDULE

का.आ. 883.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सेंट्रल टोबेको रिसर्च इंस्टिट्यूट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 28/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/52/2006- आईआर (डीयू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 16th March, 2009

"Whether the action of the Management of Central Tobacco Research Institute , Rajahmundry in termi- nating the services of their workmen Shri Bikkina Koteswara Rao w.e.f. 11-2-2006 is legal and justified? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 28/2007 and notices issued to

2. The Petitioner has filed his claim statement stating that he has studied X class with proficiency in cleaning of glassware etc. He was given appointment on 15-7-95 with certain terms and conditions that the contract was temporary S.O. 883. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 28/2007) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour CourtHyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Tobacco Research Institute and

1234 G1/09-9 1660

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAITRA 21 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 (i)]

industrialdispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on16-03-2009.

and a consolidated amount ofRs. 1200/-p.m. is fixed etc .. It is further submitted that he worked continuously and requested for regularization , his request was not considered andhe prayed to direct the Respondent for his reinstatement and continuity of service.

[No. L-40011/52/2007 - IR (DU)]

SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 3. Acounter was filed denying the averments made in the claim statement . It is submitted that the Petitioner has filed OA No.392/ 2005 in the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal , Hyderabad which was rejected . It is further submitted that the Petitioner worked as lab attendar on contract basis . Hence , the petition be dismissed.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURTAT HYDERABAD

PRESENT: SHRI VED PRAKASH GAUR , PresidingOfficer

Dated the 24th day of February, 2009

Industrial Dispute No. 7/2008 4. On 10-2-2009 , case called out for Petitioner's evidence . Petitioner called absent while Respondent's counsel present . No adjournment application was moved for filing Petitioner's evidence on affidavit as such , the evidence was closed. In absence of any evidence , Nil Award is passed.

Between:

Transmit.

Sri T.V. RamanaMurthy,

District Secretary, National

Federation of Telecom Employees ,

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 10th day of February , 2009 .

24-25-40, Durgapuram,

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Vijayawada- 520003.

Petitioner Appendix of evidence

AND

TheGeneral Manager,

Witnesses examined for thePetitioner

Witnesses examined for theRespondent

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. ,

NIL

BSNL Bhawan, Chuttugunta,

Vijayawada- 520 002.

Respondent Documents marked for the Petitioner

APPEARANCES :

NIL

Forthe Petitioner:

Documents marked for the Respondent

For the Respondent: M/ s . M.C. Jacob & K. Ajay NIL

Kumar , Advocates

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 16 मार्च , 2009

TheGovernment of India , Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-40011 / 52/2007 - IR(DU) dated 15-2-2008 referred the followingdispute under Section 10( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , and their workman. The reference is ,

SCHEDULE

का.आ. 884.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 , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 7/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-3-09 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40011 /52/2007-आईआर ( डीयू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi the 16th March, 2009

"Whether the demand of National Federation of Telecom Employees for grant of temporary status and regularization of services ofShri R. Ala Raju islegal and justified? If yes , to what relief the workman is entitled and from what date ?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 7/2008 and notices issued to the parties.

2. On 24-2-2009 , Petitioner is absent while Respondent's counsel present . Petitioner has not filed claim S.O. 884. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 7/2008 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the 1661

भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Industrial Dispute No. 8/2008

Between:

statement . As such; this case is closed. Hence , a Nil Award is passed in absence of claim statement. Transmit .

Sri T.V. Ramana Murthy,

District Secretary, National

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 24th day of February, 2009.

Federation ofTelecom Employees ,

24-25-40, Durgapuram,

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Petitioner

Vijayawada -520003.

Appendix of evidence

AND

The General Manager ,

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for theRespondent

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. ,

NIL

BSNL Bhawan, Chuttugunta ,

Respondent

Vijayawada - 520 002.

Documents marked for the Petitioner

APPEARANCES

NIL

NIIL

For the Petitioner:

Documents marked for the Respondent

For the Respondent:

NIL

M/s. M.C. Jacob & K. Ajay Kumar, Advocates

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 16 मार्च , 2009

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its orderNo. L-40011 /53 /2007- IR (DU) dated 15-2-2008 referred the following dispute under Section 10( 1 )(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , and their workman. The reference is ,

SCHEDULE

का. आ. 885.-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 हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 8/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-3-09 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40011 /53/2007- आईआर ( डीयू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

"Whether the demand of National Federation of Telecom Employees for grant of temporary status and regularization ofservices of Shri T. Solmon Raju is legal andjustified? Ifyes, to what reliefthe workman is entitled to and from which date?"

New Delhi the 16th March, 2009

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 8/2008 and notices issued to the parties .

2. On 24-2-2009 , Petitioner is absent while Respondent's counsel present. Petitioner has not filed claim statement . As such, this case is closed . Hence , a Nil Award ispassed in absence of claim statement . Transmit .

S.O. 885.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 8/2008) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court Hyderabad 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 16-03-2009 .

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 24th day of February, 2009.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer [No. L-40011/53/2007 - IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

Appendix ofevidence ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined for

the Petitioner

the Respondent

NIL

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL

PRESENT : Shri VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Dated the 24thday of February, 2009

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL 1664

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAITRA 21 , 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3( i)] 49days in 1995, and one day in 1996, nil days in 1997 only for 13 days in 1998 does not entitles the Petitioner to be regularized in Respondent's service.

entitled for any relief. He has already filed a claim for the similarreliefbeforeHon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hydensted which has not been granted him relief of regularization in the services , as such he is not entitled for the samesrelief from this court as well .

TheAward is passed accordingly. Transmit .

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 20th day of February,2009.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, PresidingOfficer

Appendix ofevidence

Witnesses examined for

thePetitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

WW 1 : Sri N. Gopal

MW1 : Sri B. Jayapala Sarma

WW 2 : Sri B. Abdul Khader

WW3: Sri K. Ravindra .

Documents marked for the Petitioner

EX.WI : Copy of the enhanced amount in view of judgment.

EX.W2 : Copy of order of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal , Hyderabad in OA No.533/96.

EX.W3 : Copy ofPayment particulars for about 107 days betweenApril, 1994 to May, 1998 maintained by Respondent.

Documents marked for the Respondent 8. I have gone through the claim statement and documentaryevidence Ex. W3 and its enclosures along with the order of the Hon'ble Contral Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabadwhich is Ex. W2 and oral testimony ofN. Gopal, WW2- Sri B. Abdul Khader andWW3 Sri K. Ravinder.The oral evidence of Sri B. Khader and Sri K. Ravinder proves the same fact which is mentioned as in Ex . W3 . Thus , the evidence available on the record does not prove that the Petitioner was appointed on 1-2-1999 or he worked up to March , 1995 on a continuous post . But the own documentary evidence of the Petitioner proves that the Petitioner worked for 6 days inApril , 1994, 7 days in May, 1994, one day in July, 16 days in November, and 5 days in December . Thus , he cannot be said to have worked continuously in the Respondents ' organization from February to March, 1995. The own statement of the Petitioner does not prove that the Petitioner has worked for a single day in the month of February , 1994 or January to March, 1995. However, the Petitioner has worked 26 days in April , 1995 , two days in March , and 21 days in September, 1995, one day in entire 1996 and 13 days in the entire year of 1998. This proves that the Petitioner was neither appointed on temporary or regular basis nor he has worked in any of the temporary or regular services of the respondents. Though the documentary evidence produced by the Petitioner proves that his services were taken by the Respondent, intermittently as and when required by theRespondent for certain days in a year which does not entitle the Petitioner, to claim for the regularization .

EX.MI : Copy oforder in OA No.533/ 1996 dt. 26-4-96

EX.M2 : Copy of order in OA No. 118/2001 dt. 13-3-2001 .

EX.M3 : Copy ofLr. No. GMTD - ATP /Genl/Legal/2001- 02 dt.5-2-2002 reg. Payment of difference of wages.

EXM4: Copy of DG T, New Delhi Lr.No.269-10/89 - STN dt.7-11-89.

EX.M5: Copy ofDOT New Delhi Lr.No.270-6/84- STN dt.22-6-88.

EX.M6 : Copy of O.M.No.269-4 /93 - STN - II (Pt . , ) dt. 12-2-99.

EX.M7 : Copy ofO.M.No.269-4/93- STN- II (Pt. ,) dt. 15-6-99 .

EX.M8 : Copy ofCircular Ir. No.269-94/98 -STN - II/Pers.IV dt. 19-4-2001 reg . Regularization of casual labourers, left out cases .

EX.M9 : Copy of retention Schedule.

9. The Petitioner's allegations are that he was retrenched on 13-3-2002 . However, the Petitioner has not been able to prove that he has worked for a single day in Respondent's concern after the year 1998. Thus , the contention of retrenchment and date of retrenchment/ termination of the services of the Petitioner appears tobe hypothetical based on no evidence . In my opinion Petitioner's claim is based on misleading and wrong facts and the Petitioner cannot take advantage ofhis own wrong. The Petitioner has not been retrenched as claimed by him in the year 2002, as such, no relief can be granted to him. Petitioner has not been able to prove that he has worked for240days in the year preceding the date ofhis termination from the services but from his own evidence it is proved that Petitionerhas not worked for more than 49 days in any ofthe years 1994, 1995 to 1998. There is no evidence to prove that he has worked for a single day beyond the year 1998 in the Respondent's concern, as such, the claim of the Petitioner is based on wrong and misleading facts . On the basis of this wrong and misleading facts, Petitioner is not 1665 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

AWARD

नई दिल्ली , 16 मार्च, 2009

This is a case taken under Sec . 2 A (2) ofthe 1.D. Act, 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Hign Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W. P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s . Cotton Corportion of India and two others.

का.आ. 887. 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 , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 90/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40025/9/2009- आईआर( डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 16th March , 2009

2. Petitioner filed this petition against his illegal retrenchment by the Respondent . That he has joined the Respondent organization as casual mazdoor in Railway Electrification Project of Warangal Telecom District, and worked from 20-7-1985 to 30-4-1991 . It is further submitted that later he was deputed to Re -Project at Raigiri. There he was paid on ACG - 17 vouchers . During August, 1990 he was sick and availed weekly offs , but he was terminated from 1-8-1991 . He prayed todirect the Respondents for reinstate- ment and such other benefits as this court deems fit .

S.O. 887. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 90/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad 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 on16-3-2009 .

[No. L-40025/9/2009 - IR (DU)] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

3. A counter was filed by the Respondents denying all the allegations made by the Petitioner therein . It is submitted that there are some directions for engagement and disengagement ofcasual labour . In view ofO.M. dated 12-2-1999 and the provisons of para 193 of of P & T Manual Vol. X engaging casual labour are withdrawn . Hence , engagement of casual labour is closed establishment. There is no scope for reinstatement in any manner and it is prayed that the petition be dismissed.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, AT. HYDERABAD

4. Petitioner was examined in chief and marked Ex. WI to W13 documents . He was cross - examined. Sri P. Srinu, Phone Mechanic filed affidavit as WW2 and Sri V. Govindaiah filed affidavit as WW3 . Both WW2 and WW3 are not present for cross -examination till date.

Present: Shri Ved Pradash Gaur , Presiding Officer Dated, the 30th day of January , 2009 Industrial Dispute L.C.I.D. No. 90/2002

Between:

5. Both parties called absent on 30-1-2009 , the date for cross - examination of Petitioner witness . Order sheet transpired that parties to this case were not attending to the case for last three years , as such , no justification was found to adjourn the case . The case is dismissed in absence ofparties .Accordingly , a Nil Award is passed. Transmit.

Petitioner

Shri P.V. V. Prabhakara Rao , S/o Lakshminarayana , C/ o Sri C Suryanarayana, Advocate , Hyderabad

and

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 30th day of January, 2009 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

1. The ChiefGeneral Manager , Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , AP Telecom, Hyderabad - 500001

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner:

Witnesses examined for the Respondent:

NIL

2. The General Manager , Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , Telecom , Warangal- 506050 3.

WW1 : Sri P.V.V. Prabhakar Rao

WW2: Sri P.. Srinu

Respondents

The General Manager , Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , Telecom, Khammam

WW3 : Sri V. Govindaiah

APPEARANCES

Documents marked for the Petitioner For the Petitioner : M/sC. Suryanarayana & P. Venkateswara Rao ,

Ex . W1 : Original working days book copy Advocates

Ex. W2: Copy of Ir . No. A-7 /DERE/SD/91-92 dt . 1-5-91 For the Respondent: Sri R. S. Murthy, Advocate 1666

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAITRA 21 , 1931

Ex. W3: Certificate from DET, Kazipet that WWI is engaged to work w.e.f. 1-8-1985

Ex. W4 : Detailed Scanning report dated 3-8-1990 of WW1

Ex. W5: Original Scanning report ofWW1 pertaining to Ex.W4

Ex. W6: Copy of representation of WW1 to TDM, Warangaldt. 6-11-95

Ex. W7: Registered post acknowledgment ofEx . W6 Ex. W8 : Registered post acknowledgment of Ex. W6 Ex. W9 : Registered post acknowledgment ofEx. W6 Ex. W10: Copy of representation of WW1 to Respondents dt. 9-6-99

Ex. W11: Medical fitness certificate ofWW1 from Vivek Nursing Homedt . 29-6-99

Ex. W12: Copy of Ultra Sound Scan of WW1 dt . 8-6-99 Ex. W12A: Original ofEx. W 12

Ex.W13: Copy of representation of WW1 to Respondents dt. 29-6-99

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली,16 मार्च, 2009

का.आ. 888.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार नाजिम दरगाह ख्वाजा साहेब के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अजमेर के पंचाट को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/ 164/99- आईआर(डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 16th March , 2009

S.O. 888. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ajmer as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relationto the management of Najim Dargah Khwaja Saheb and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on16-3-2009.

[No. L-42012/164/99- IR (DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

अनुबन्ध

न्यायालय श्रम एवं औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण , अजमेर (राज. ) पीठासीन अधिकारी: श्री मिथिलेश कुमार शर्मा, आरएचजेएस

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] प्रकरण संख्या- सी.आई.टी.आर. 09/01

[प्रेफरेंस नं. एल -42012/ 164/ 1999- आई.आर. (डीयू) दि. 22-5-01 ]

भंवरलाल पुत्र श्री गंभीर जी निवासी लाडपुरा तह. डेगाना, जिला नागौर

प्रार्थी

बनाम

नाजिम , ऑफीस ऑफ दी नाजिम ख्वाजा साहेब दरगाह , अजमेर

अप्रार्थी उपस्थित: श्री नागेश शर्मा , अधिवक्ता, प्रार्थी । : श्री वी.डी. भार्गव , अधिवक्ता , अप्रार्थी । दिनांक : 5-2-09

अवार्ड

1. केंद्र सरकार द्वारा प्रेषित विवाद निम्न प्रकार है :-

"Whether the management of Najim Dargah Khwaja Saheb is an Industry under Section 2( i) ofI.D. Act, 1947 ? If so , whether the action ofthe management ofNajim Dargah Khawaja Saheb, Ajmer in terminating the services of Sh. Bhaneswar Lal S/ o Sh . Sarmbhirji , Ex- Safaiwala w.e.f. 12-10-1998 is legal and justified. Ifnot , to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

2. नोटिस के उपरान्त उभयपक्ष उपस्थित थे । प्रार्थी पक्ष ने अपने कलेम के विवरण में अंकित किया है कि उसकी सेवामुक्ति दि. 12-10-98 को अवैध व शून्य घोषित किया जाकर उसी दिनांक से सेवा में निरंतर मानते हुए पुनः पूर्व वेतन के सेवा में बहाल किया जावे , सेवामुक्ति की दिनांक से संपूर्ण बकाया वेतन मय ब्याज , लाभ , परिलाभ , वरिष्ठता , मुकदमे खर्चे के पांच हजार रुपये व अन्य अनुरोध को प्रकरण की परिस्थितियों में न्यायोचित हो , भी प्रार्थी को अप्रार्थी पक्ष से दिलवाया जावे क्योंकि प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति ( प्रारंभिक) अप्रार्थी के यहां सफाई कर्मचारी के पद पर दैनिक वेतन भोगी कर्मचारी के रूप में जुलाई सन् 1975 में हुई थी और तब से ही यह अपने कर्तव्य का निर्वहन पूरी ईमानदारी , निष्ठा के साथ बिना शिकायत का मौका दिये करना वर्णित किया है । आगे अंकित किया है कि उसके कार्य में गेस्ट हाऊस की सफाई, झाडू, पोंछा , शौचालय स्नानघर आदि की सफाई का कार्य आता था और उसका कार्य देखकर ही कुछ वर्षों बाद उसे स्थायी नियुक्ति देकर समय - समय पर वेतन वृद्धियां, महंगाई भत्ते में वृद्धि कर पी . एफ. में कटौती की जाती रही व कामगार सेवा के नियमों के अधीन संपूर्ण लाभ , देय भत्ते , बोनस आदि प्राप्त होना भी वर्णित किया है । आगे विस्तार से अप्रार्थी संस्थान को औद्योगिक संस्थान व आय के स्त्रोत व्यवसायिक होने के कारण अप्रार्थी संस्थान पर आई. डी. एक्ट के प्रावधान लागू होना भी वर्णित किया है । आगे प्रार्थी ने दि. 12-11-97 से अवकाश पर स्वयं की बीमारी के कारण जाने व दि. 17-9-1998 को शपथ पत्र सहित 1667

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

प्रदर्श एम -1 लगायत 8 दस्तावेजों की प्रतियां प्रदर्शित करवाकर प्रस्तुत की है ।

5. उपरोक्त तथ्यों पर दोनों पक्षों को सुना गया, पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया । विद्वान अभिभावक प्रार्थी की दलील है कि प्रार्थी ने जुलाई 1975 से नियमित अपनी सेवायें दी थी, उसका कार्य संतोषजनक था लेकिन उसकी सेवायें अवैधानिक रूप से समाप्त कर दी गयी और सेवा पृथक्करण विधि- विरूद्ध होने की दलील देते हुए , पुनः सेवा में पुर्नस्थापित करने की दलील दी ।

कार्य पर लौटने का प्रार्थना पत्र देना वर्णित किया इस पर अप्रार्थी ने प्रार्थी को दरगाह कमेटी सेवा नियमों की अवहेलना का उत्तरदायी मानते हुए मनमाने ढंग से उसकी सेवायें समाप्त करना बताया है । इस प्रकार प्रार्थी ने बताया है कि उसे सुनवायी का कोई मौका नहीं दिया , जिसे प्राकृतिक न्याय के सिद्धांतों के प्रतिकूल बताते हुए अनुपस्थित अवधि का वेतन काट लिया व सेवा पृथक कर दो दंड नाफिस की श्रेणी में आना बताया है जबकि प्रार्थी ने स्वयं का पच्चीस वर्षों से भी अधिक समय तक सेवा करना व हरिजन होना भी वर्णित किया है । आगे पार्थी ने क्लेम में वर्णित किया है कि उसे कोई आरोप पत्र नहीं दिया व न ही घरेलू जांच की गयी , जो अनफेयर लेबर प्रैक्टिस में आना बताते हुए उसकी सेवामुक्ति के बाद अन्य व्यक्तियों को सफाई कर्मचारी के रूप में रखना बताया है । अंत में प्रार्थी ने क्लेम में संशोधन का अधिकार सुरक्षित रखते हुए , स्वयं का बेरोजगार होना एवं कहीं भी लाभप्रद नियोजन में कार्यरत न होना वर्णित किया है ।

6. विद्वान् अभिभावक प्रार्थी की यह भी दलील है कि अप्रार्थी कीओर से जो 27-11-92 के पत्र का हवाला दिया गया है उसका पत्रावली पर पेश नहीं किया गया है । प्रार्थी का अवकाश जान- बूझकर स्वीकृत नहीं किया गया । नाजिम दरगाह को पेश नहीं कर संबंधित दस्तावेजात् का प्रमाणीकरण नहीं कराया गया है । कोई आरोप पत्र प्रार्थी को नहीं दिया गया । प्रार्थी के सेवा पृथक्करण के बाद नये - नये कर्मचारी काम पर रखे गये और बांगलादेशी व्यक्तियों को सस्ती दरों पर नियोजित किया गया । इस प्रकार अप्रार्थी संस्थान ने विधि- विरूद्ध कार्य कर प्रार्थी को उसके वैधानिक अधिकारों से वंचित करने की दलील देते हुए, सेवा पृथक्करण आदेश अवैधानिक होने की दलील दी।

7. विद्वान् अभिभावक प्रार्थी की यह भी दलील है कि अप्रार्थी संस्थान एक उद्योग है , जिसके द्वारा 150-200 कमरों वाले गेस्ट हाऊस होटल बना रखे हैं जो व्यावसायिक रूप से संचालित किये जाते हैं । उक्त गैस्ट हाऊस व होटलों के रख - रखाव के लिए 100-125 व्यक्तियों का स्टाफ है जो दरगाह कमेटी के नियमों से शासित होते हैं । अप्रार्थी संस्थान द्वारा गरीब नवाज रेस्टोरेंट संचालित कर रखा है जिसमें महंगी दरों पर खाना दिया जाता है । अप्रार्थी संस्थान ने दरगाह अपार्टमेंट व अन्य व्यावसायिक प्रतिष्ठान भी चला रखे हैं जो कि उद्योग की श्रेणी में आते हैं और इस संबंध में संबंधित साक्ष्य का हवाला देते हुए अप्रार्थी संस्थान को उद्योग माने- जाने की दलील दी है ।

8. विद्वान् अभिभावक प्रांर्थी की यह भी दलील है कि अप्रार्थी ने जो तथ्य अपने जवाब में वर्णित नहीं किये हैं उन पर साक्ष्य पेश करने का प्रयास किया है जो तथ्य क्लेम के जवाब में नहीं है, उन पर साक्ष्य नहीं पढ़ी जावे । प्रार्थी के द्वारा जो साक्ष्य पेश की गयी है उस पर विश्वास करने व प्रार्थी के पक्ष में अवार्ड पारित करने की दलील दी तथा अपनी दलीलों के समर्थन निम्नलिखित नजीरें भी पेश की हैं : -

1. एआईआर 1978 एस.सी. पेज 548 गुजरात स्टेट कॉप. यूनियम/वर्कमैन , गुजरात स्टेट कॉप. यूनियन

3. अप्रार्थी पक्ष ने प्रार्थी पक्ष द्वारा क्लेम में उल्लिखित तथ्यों का खंडन करते हुए अपने जवाब में अंकित किया है कि प्रार्थी का क्लेम खारिज किया जाकर , अवार्ड प्रार्थी के विरूद्ध पारित किया जावे क्योंकि प्रार्थी दि. 12-11-97 से बिना अवकाश स्वीकृत कराये , अनुपस्थित हो गया , प्रार्थी के पुत्र ने कभी अप्रार्थी को प्रार्थी की बीमारी बाबत मौखिक सूचना नहीं देना भी वर्णित किया है । आगे जवाब में अंकित किया है कि प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति का तथ्य स्वीकार है लेकिन प्रार्थी द्वारा अपने कर्तव्य निर्वहन को पूरी ईमानदारी से करने का व शिकायत का मौका नहीं देने का कथन अस्वीकार होना वर्णित किया है । आगे अप्रार्थी संस्थान से जवाब के पैरा नं. 5 में दरगाह ख्वाजा साहिब धार्मिक चैरिटेबल एनडाउमेंट होने से उद्योग नहीं होने से आई. डी. एक्ट के प्रावधान लागू नहीं होना वर्णित किया है । आगे पैरा नं. 8 में जवाब में यह भी वर्णित किया है कि अप्रार्थी संस्थान का कोई भी कर्मचारी बिना अवकाश स्वीकृत कराये अवकाश पर नहीं जा सकता , अवकाश के उपभोग के बाद यदि प्रार्थी आवेदन पत्र प्रस्तुत करता है तो , उसे अवैध व शून्य होना बताते हुए, प्रार्थी को विधिवत् प्रक्रिया अपनाकर आदेश दि. 26-11-98 से समस्त देय वेतन के प्रार्थी द्वारा प्राप्त करने से अब प्रार्थी इस सेवामुक्ति को चुनौती, नहीं देना भी अंकित किया है । आगे प्रार्थी के लाडपुरा पते पर सेवामुक्ति से पूर्व अनेक बार सूचना भिजवाना , व पूरी सुनवाई का मौका देना भी बताया है । प्रार्थी को अनुपस्थिति बाबत दि. 22-11-92 व 20-1-98 स्पष्टीकरण मांगा किंतु प्रार्थी ने कोई जवाब व स्पष्टीकरण नहीं दिया, आगे अंकित किया है कि प्रार्थी लगभग ग्यारह माह बिना अवकाश स्वीकृत कराये व सूचना के अनुपस्थित रहा , इस कारण पूरा मौका देने के बाद ही प्रार्थी की सेवायें समाप्त करने का आदेश विधिवत् पारित करना वर्णित किया है । अंत में प्रार्थी को किसी भी प्रकार का अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं होना वर्णित किया है ।

2. एआईआर 1981 एस.सी. पेज 2235 पांडुरंग जीवाजी/रामचंद गंगाधर ।

3. 2005 (4) आरएलडब्ल्यू पेज 3090 स्टेट ऑफ राज/ छगनलाल जोशी,

4. 2006 डब. एल. सी. राज. पेज 734 रमेशचंद्र/रेंट ट्रिब्यूनल, अलवर ,

4. प्रार्थी पक्ष ने अपनी मौखिक साक्ष्य में प्रार्थी भंवरलाल का शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत कर प्रतिपंरीक्षण करवाया । प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य में प्रदर्श डब. I लगायत II दस्तावेजों की फोटो प्रतियां प्रदर्शित करवाकर प्रस्तुत की है । अप्रार्थी पक्ष ने अपनी मौखिक साक्ष्य में सैयद नजर हुसैन का शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत कर प्रतिपरीक्षण करवाया है । प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य में

1234 Gl/09-10 1668

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009 / CHAITRA 21 , 1931

5. एआईआर 2005 एनओसी 471 सुधीर/नेशनल इंश्योरेंस कं. , 6. 2002 ( 2) आर एल डब्ल्यू 1289 स्टेट ऑफ राज. कन्हैयालाल व अन्य,

7. 1994 ( 1 ) आर एल आर पेज 465 एक्जी. इंजी./जज , लेबर कोर्ट जयपुर ।

9. विद्वान अभिभावक अप्रार्थी की दलील है कि अप्रार्थी संस्थान द्वारा कोई होटल व गैस्ट हाऊस संचालित नहीं किया जाता है , जो गेस्ट हाऊस आदि अप्रार्थी संस्थान के है , वह बहुत ही सस्ती दरों पर धार्मिक आस्था के अंतर्गत दिये जाते हैं , कोई व्यापारिक कार्य अप्रार्थी संस्थान नहीं कर रहा है । प्रार्थी अपने कार्य से स्वेच्छ्या अनुपस्थित हो चुका था और उसके अनुपस्थित हो जाने के आधार पर उसको सेवा से पृथक किया गया था । उन्होंने इस संबंध में प्रस्तुत साक्ष्य के विभिन्न अंशों का हवाला देते हुए तथा प्रस्तुत दस्तावेजात् का हवाला देते हुए प्रार्थी का सेवा पृथक्करण विधि अनुसार होना कहा और प्रार्थी का क्लेम खारिज करने की दलील दी तथा अपनी दलीलों के समर्थन में निम्नलिखित नजीरें भी पेश की हैं :-

1. एआईआर 2005 एस.सी. 1843 हरियाणा लेंड डव. बैंक/नीलम , 2. एआईआर 2008 एस.सी. 839 रीजनल मैनेजर/ राकेश कुमार, 3. एआईआर 2005 एस. सी. 1252 महेंद्र जैन इंदौर डब.

ऑथर्टी ।

10. उपरोक्त दलीलों के संदर्भ में मैंने पत्रावली का अध्ययन किया तो पाया कि सर्वप्रथम तय किये जाने वाला बिंदु यह है कि क्या मैनेजमेंट ऑफ नाजिम दरगाह ख्वाजा साहिब , अजमेर 2 ( जं) आई.डी. के अंतर्गत एक उद्योग है ?

11. इस संदर्भ में प्रार्थी की ओर से जो क्लेम में तथ्य वर्णित किये गये हैं और उसके समर्थन में जो साक्ष्य पेश की गयी है उसमें ए. डब. 1 भंवरलाल ने अपने शपथ पत्र के चरण सं.3 व 4 में यह वर्णित किया है कि विपक्षी दरगाह कमेटी के प्रबंधक के अधीन दरगाह शरीफ की आय के लिए लगभग 150-200 कमरों के गेस्ट हाऊस बने हुए हैं जिनमें विभिन्न होटलों व गेस्ट हाऊसों की रेट पर ही परिसर किराये पर दिया जाता है जिससे लाखों रुपयों की वार्षिक आय होती है । दरगाह कमेटी के अधीन 100-125 कर्मचारियों का स्टाफ है, जिसकी सेवायें दरगाह कमेटी कर्मचारी नियमों से शासित होती है । विपक्षी नियोजक का संस्थान दरगाह कमेटी एक औद्योगिक संस्थान है जिसमें आय के स्त्रोत व्यावसायिक तौर पर उसके अधीन संचालित गेस्ट हाऊस के अलावा गरीब नवाज रेस्टारेंट किराये पर चला रखा है जो शहर के महंने होटल व रेस्टोरेंट से भी महंगा खाना देता है । इसके अतिरिक्त सिविल लाईस में दरगाह अपार्टमेंट निर्मित कर रखा है जिसमें बहुत अधिक किराये की दर से कमरे व दुकानें किराये पर दे रखी हैं एवं चल व अचल संपत्तियों से लाखों रुपये की वार्षिक आय होती है ।

12. इस तथ्य पर जिरह की गयी है. तो जिरह में ऐसा कोई तथ्य नहीं कहलवाया जा सका है , जिसे शपथ पत्र में वर्णित तथ्यों को असत्य माना जा सके । इसके विपरीत एन. ए.डब. 1 सैयद नजर हुसैन

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] ने जो शपथ पत्र पेश किया है और उस पर जो जिरह की गयी है तो उस जिरह में उसने कहा है कि अजमेर शहर में दरगाह कमेटी की प्रॉपर्टी है , मदार गेट पर , फल सब्जी मंडी वाली प्रॉपर्टी दरगाह कमेटी की है उसमें करीब 150 दुकानें हैं, उसका किराया वसूल करता हूं । ईदगाह की समस्त संपत्ति दरगाह कमेटी की है । दरगाह कमेटी की कुल 400-450 किरायेदार है । मूल शपथ पत्र में भी ऐसा कोई तथ्य वर्णित नहीं किया गया है जिससे दरगाह कमेटी के द्वारा संचालित गेस्ट हाऊस होटल व रेस्टोरेंट आदि से कोई आय अप्रार्थी को नहीं होती हो । जहां तक अप्रार्थी के धार्मिक एवं चेरिटेबल एडावमेंट होने का प्रश्न है इस संबंध में ऐसा कोई दस्तावेज अप्रार्थी ने पेश नहीं किया है, जिससे यह तथ्य प्रमाणित होता हो ।

13. वैधानिक स्थिति के लिए मैंने प्रार्थी की ओर से प्रस्तुत ए. आई.आर. 1978 एस.सी. पेज 548 की नजीर का अध्ययन किया तो पाया कि उक्त नजीर में यह अवधारित किया है कि :-

"Whether the management of Nijam Dargah Kuwaja Sahib is an Industry under Section 2( i) of I.D. Act 1947? If so, whether the action ofthe management of Nijam Dargah Khawaja Sohab , Ajmer . In terminating the services of Sh. Bhaneswer lal S/ o Sh . Sarmbhirji Ex- Safiwala w.e.f. 12-10-1998 is legal andjustified, Ifnot, towhat relief the workman is entitled ?

14. उपरोक्त बिंदु को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने जिन- जिन तथ्यों को अथवा व्यापार को उद्योग की श्रेणी में माना है , वह तथ्य प्रार्थी की ओर से अपने शपथ पत्र व क्लेम में दर्शाये गये व्यवसाय के अनुसार होने से अप्रार्थी संस्थान को उद्योग की श्रेणी में माना जाना उचित है और तदनुसार इसका उत्तर दिया जाना भी उचित है ।

15. दूसरा तथ्य देखे जाने वाला यह है कि क्या श्री भंवरलाल पूर्व सफाई वाला का दि. 12-10-98 से सेवामुक्त किया जाना वैध है ?

16. इस बिंदु के संबंध में जो तथ्य अभिवचनों में आये हैं और उनके संबंध में जो साक्ष्य आयी हैं उसमें ए.डब. । भंवरलाल ने अपने शपथ पत्र में कहा है कि उसकी सफाई कर्मचारी के पद पर नियुक्ति दैनिक वेतन भोगी कर्मचारी के रूप में जुलाई 1975 में हुई थी । उसे विभिन्न स्थानों पर काम पर लगाया गया, उसे समय समय पर वेतन वृद्धियां दी गयी , उसे भत्ते व बोनस आदि भी दिये गये जब इस तथ्य के संबंध में गवाह से जिरह की गयी है तो जिरह में उसने यह कहा है कि उसने दरगाह कमेटी , मार्डन स्कूल आदि में काम किया । बाईस -तेईस साल पहले उसे कच्चों में लगाया गया था , उसे एक साल बाद ही स्थाई कर दिया गया । प्रदर्श डब. 2 स्थाई कर्मचारी के रूप में प्रमाण पत्र मिला है । वह प्रातः पांच बजे से लेकर प्रातः दस बजे तक सफाई का काम करता था फिर दोपहर दो बजे से शाम पांच बजे तक सफाई का काम करता था । एक गेस्ट हाऊस में करीब बीस- पच्चीस शौचालय होते हैं । उन सब की सफाई अकेला मैं ही करता था । दरगाह कमेटी में 100-125 कर्मचारियों का स्टाफ है । 1669 भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

बाबू ऑफिस में काम करते हैं । दरगाह कमेटी धार्मिक संस्थान नहीं है । किराया वसूल करते हैं । छुट्टी की मंजूरी कोई देता ही नहीं है । उसको चक्कर व दौरे की बीमारी थी तथा वह मीरांदातार गया था वहां इलाज करवाया था । दि. 17-9-89 को मैं नौकरी में नहीं गया हूं ।

21. प्रदर्श एम -7 भंवरलाल की सेवा पुस्तिका भी प्रस्तुत की गयी है जिसमें उसकी सेवा व वेतन वृद्धि के बारे में इंद्राजात किये गये हैं, एवं नियमानुसार वेतन वृद्धि आदि दिये जाने का भी इंद्राज है अप्रार्थी की ओर से प्रदर्श एम-8 प्रार्थी का एक बयान पेश किया गया हैजिसमें प्रार्थी का दि. 12-11-97 से अनुपस्थित रहने बाबत् स्पष्टीकरण चाहा गया है लेकिन यह बयान किस कार्यवाही में लिया गया , किस अधिकारी ने लिया , इस बाबत् कोई विवेचन नहीं है ।

अप्रार्थी की ओर से जो शपथ पत्र पेश हुआ है उसमें यह वर्णित है कि प्रार्थी दि. 12-11-97 से बिना अवकाश स्वीकृत कराये तथा बिना किसी सूचना के ड्यूटी से अनुपस्थित हो गया । अनुपस्थिति बाबत एक पत्र दि. 22-11-97 को लिखा जो प्रदर्श एम 1 है । नाजिम दरगाह कमेटी , अजमेर के आदेश से पत्र दि. 12-10-98 प्रेषित किया जो प्रदर्श एम-4 है । प्रार्थी को जो आदेश दि. 26-11-98 को भेजा वह प्रदर्श एम -5 है । आदेश की प्रति प्रदर्श एम -6 उसके गांव के पते पर भिजवायी थी जब इस गवाह से जिरह की गयी है तो जिरह में यह कहा है कि:-

22. समग्र रूप से अध्ययन करने पर यह प्रकट होता है कि प्रार्थी की अनुपस्थिति होने के संबंध में जो उसे नोटिस जारी किया वह प्रार्थी को मिला , इसका कोई प्रमाणीकरण अप्रार्थी की ओर से नहीं किया गया है । स्थिति यहां तक है कि नोटिस साधारण डाक से भेजा अथवा रजिस्टर्ड डाक से भेजा , इस बाबत् कोई साक्ष्य पेश नहीं की गयी है । यदि नोटिस के उपरांत प्रार्थी उपस्थित नहीं आया तो उसे कोई आरोप पत्र दिया गया हो, ऐसा कोई आरोप पत्र अप्रार्थी की ओर से पेश नहीं किया गया है । स्थिति यहां तक है कि प्रार्थी के कार्य पर उपस्थितनहीं आने पर तथा नोटिस आदि जारी करने की तामील प्रार्थी पर नहीं होने के बाद किसी अखबार आदि के माध्यम से सूचना प्रकाशित की गयी हो, ऐसा भी कोई तथ्य अप्रार्थी की ओर से नहीं दर्शाया गया है ।

" यह सही है कि प्रदर्श एम -1 मेरे द्वारा प्रार्थी भंवरलाल को डिलीवर नहीं किया गया । प्रदर्श एम-1 क्रमांक नंबर लिखा हुआ है । स्पीड पोस्ट करने की ड्यूटी डिस्पेच क्लर्क की होती है । भंवरलाल को कहां भेजा मुझे पता नहीं । दरगाह कमेटी के कर्मचारियों ने ट्रेड यूनियन रजिस्टर्ड अपनी समस्याओं को हल करने के लिए पंजीकृत करवायी थी । इस यूनियन का मैं सेक्रेट्री था । प्रदर्श एम -4 मेरे द्वारा डिलीवरी नहीं किया ऑफिस द्वारा डिलीवर किया गया । प्रदर्श एम-4 भंवरलाल को कहां भेजा मुझे पता नहीं । भंवरलाल बिल्कुल पढ़ा लिखा नहीं है । गेस्ट हाऊस से किराया मिलता है । मुझे यह जानकारी नहीं है कि दरगाह कमेटी को गेस्ट हाऊसों से, मकानों से, जमीनों से और दूसरी संपत्तियों से करोड़ों रुपये की आमदनी होती हो । "

18. गवाह ने जिरह में यह भी कहा है कि:-

" प्रदर्श एम -8 मेरे द्वारा तैयार किया गया नहीं है । मेरी जानकारी में नहीं है कि भंवरलाल को नौकरी से हटाने से पहले कोई जांच की गयी या नहीं स्वतः कहा मात्र पत्र दिये गये थे । मेरे द्वारा भंवरलाल को कोई पत्र नहीं दिया । "

19. उपरोक्त साक्ष्य के संदर्भ में पत्रावली के अध्ययन से यह भी प्रकट होता है कि प्रार्थी की दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य में प्रदर्श डब. 1 प्रार्थी का परिचय पत्र, प्रदर्श डब . 2 प्रमाण पत्र दिनांकित 20-7-94 जिसमें प्रार्थी को स्थाई कर्मचारी के रूप में कार्य करना वर्णित हैं, प्रदर्श डब. 3 लगायत 8 1991-92 लगायत 96-97 प्रार्थी के पी.एफ. काटने बाबत दस्तावेजात्, प्रदर्श डब. 9 वेतन पर्ची , प्रदर्श डब. 10 दि. 5-12-97 को प्रेषित प्रार्थना पत्र जिसमें अस्वस्थ होने बाबत सूचित किया गया है । प्रदर्श डब . वार्ता प्रतिवेदन है ।

23. जो नोटिस प्रार्थी को अप्रार्थी की ओर से जारी किया गया, वह प्रार्थी को मिला यह अप्रार्थी ने प्रमाणित नहीं किया है । नोटिस रजिस्टर्ड डाक से भेजा गया हो , ऐसा कोई तथ्य अप्रार्थी लेकर नहीं आया है, जो आदेश प्रदर्श एम -4 जिससे प्रार्थी को सेवा पृथक किया गया उससे पूर्व कोई आरोप पत्र जारी करना अथवा जांच करना और जांच में प्रार्थी को सुनवाई का अवसर देना अप्रार्थी ने प्रमाणित नहीं किया है जो बयान प्रदर्श एम-8 अप्रार्थी की ओर से लिया गया है , वह किस अधिकारी ने लिया , इस बाबत् बयान पर कोई पृष्ठांकन नहीं है , कोई आरोप पत्र जारी किया गया हो, बाबत कोई कार्यवाही पेश नहीं की गयी है, ऐसी सूरत में जो सेवा पृथक्करण आदेश प्रदर्श एम -4 है , वह प्रार्थी को सुनवाई का अवसर दिये जाने के पश्चात् जारी किया गया हो, यह अप्रार्थी प्रमाणित नहीं कर सका है और सेवा पृथक्करण आदेश बिना कोई आरोप पत्र जारी किये बिना प्रार्थी को सुनवाई का अवसर दिये , जारी किया गया है , प्रकट होता है । इस संबंध में प्रस्तुत नजीरों का अध्ययन किया तो पाया कि प्रार्थी ने जो नजीरें पेश की हैं उनमें आर एल आर 1994 पेज 465 की नजीर में रजिस्टर्ड डाक से पत्र भेजने पर उसकी रसीद अथवा प्राप्ति रसीद पेश करना आवश्यक माना गया है और यह जिम्मेदारी साबित करने का भार अप्रार्थी को सौंपा गया है । ए. आई. आर. 2005 एन.ओ.सी. पेज 471 की नजीर के अनुसार जिस व्यक्ति ने बयान प्रदर्श एम 8 दर्ज किया तथा जिसने आदेश प्रदर्श एम-4 पारित किया , वह जांच के बाद पारित किया गया ऐसा कोई गवाह अप्रार्थी की ओर से पेश नहीं किया गया है तथा अप्रार्थी ने जो नजीरें पेश की हैं, उसमें रेफरेंस धारा 25 जी के संदर्भ में प्राप्त नहीं होने से इस बिंदु पर अभिमत देने की आवश्यकता नहीं है और ए.आई.आर. 2006 एस.सी. पेज 839 की नजीरं में यह अवधारित किया गया है कि: --

"Reference was not made regarding validity of

retrenchment under S. 25 But for not 20. अप्रार्थी दस्तावेजात् में प्रदर्श एम- नोटिस जिसमें 12-11-97 से अनुपस्थित होने का तथ्य वर्णित है । प्रदर्श एम-2 प्रार्थी की ओर से अप्रार्थी को भेजा गया नोटिस , प्रदर्श एम -3 , अप्रार्थी की ओर से प्रार्थी को भेजे गये नोटिस का जवाब प्रदर्श एम-4 आदेश सेवा पृथक्करण , प्रदर्श एम -5 पी.ए. व अन्य लाभों के भुगतान बाबत दस्तावेजात् पैश किये गये हैं । 1670

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009 /CHAITRA 21 , 1931

considering respondent for re -employment under S. 5 H. order of reference did not refer to S.25 -H But only to S.25 H. Thus finding by Tribunal that under terminating services of respondent was in violation of S.25 H Illegal . " 24. अतः उपरोक्त तथ्यात्मक तथा विधिक विवेचन के आधार पर यह स्पष्ट होता है कि प्रार्थी को सेवापृथक करने से पूर्व उसे कोई नोटिस जारी नहीं किया गया , उसे आरोप पत्र नहीं दिया गया , कोई सुनवाई का अवसर नहीं दिया गया, जो बयान दर्ज किये गये हैं, वह किस कार्यवाही में , किस अधिकारी ने दर्ज किये , यह प्रमाणित नहीं किया गया । अतः सेवा पृथक्करण आदेश प्राकृतिक न्याय के सिद्धांतों के विपरीत होने से अवैधानिक पाया जाता है और प्रार्थी का सेवा पृथक्करण आदेश अवैध घोषित किया जाना उचित है । 25. जहां तक बैंक वेजेज का प्रश्न है , प्रार्थी ने अपनी लंबी अनुपस्थिति के बारे में कोई संतोषजनक कारण नहीं दर्शाया है । स्थिति यहां तक है कि उसका सेवा पृथक्करण दि. 12-10-98 को हुआ और यह रेफरेंस इस न्यायालय में दि. 10-7-01 को प्राप्त हुआ है , अतः प्रार्थी को रेफरेंस प्राप्त होने की दिनांक 10-7-01 से पच्चीस प्रतिशत बैंक वेजेज दिलाया जाना भी उचित है ।

आदेश

26. फलतः प्रस्तुत विवाद का उत्तर इस प्रकार से दिया जाता है कि प्रबंधन , नाजिम दरगाह ख्वाजा साहिब औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 की धारा 2 ( जे ) के तहत एक उद्योग है । प्रबंधन नाजिम दरगाह ख्वाजा साहिब , अजमेर द्वारा श्री भंवरलाल पुत्र श्री गंभीर जी, पूर्व- सफाईवाला को दि. 12-10-98 से सेवापृथक करना अनुचित एवं अवैध है ।

प्रार्थी भंवरलाल के पूर्वानुसार पूर्व पद पर पुर्नस्थापित किये जाने का आदेश दिया जाता है । प्रार्थी रेफरेंस की दिनांक 10-7-01 से बैंक वेजेज के रूप में कुल बकाया वेतन- भत्तों का पच्चीस प्रतिशत अप्रार्थी से प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी होगा । अप्रार्थी उक्त आदेश की पालना अवार्ड के प्रकाशन के एक माह में करें ।

मिथिलेश कुमार शर्मा, न्यायाधीश नई दिल्ली , 16 मार्च , 2009

का.आ. 889. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सीनियर सुपरिन्टेन्डेन्ट ऑफ पोस्ट ऑफिसेस के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अजमेर के पंचाट को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -40012/261/99- आईआर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 16th March , 2009

S.O. 889. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] Tribunal/Labour Court , Ajmer as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 16-03-2009.

[No. L-40012/261 / 99 - IR (DU ) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

अनुबन्ध

श्रम न्यायालय एवं औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण , अजमेर ( राज. ) पीठासीन अधिकारी : मिथिलेश कुमार शर्मा , आरएचजेएस प्रकरण संख्या-सीआईटीआर-18/99

(रेफरेंस नं. एल-40012/261 /99/ आईआर ( डीयू) दिनांक 18-11-99

श्री मल्लासिंह रावत पुत्र श्री शिवसिंह रावत निवासी नेडलिया पी. ओ. कांस वाया पुष्कर जिला अजमेर

प्रार्थी

बनाम

दीसीनियर सुपरिंटेंडेंट पोस्ट ऑफिस अजमेर डिवीजन

अप्रार्थी उपस्थित: श्री शमशेरसिंह , अधिवक्ता, प्रार्थी । श्री विनोद माथुर, अधिवक्ता , अप्रार्थी

दिनांक : 12-2-09

अवार्ड

1. केंद्र सरकार द्वारा प्रेषित विवाद निम्नप्रकार है :-- "Whether the action of the senior Superintendent of Post Office Ajmer for imposing punishment as " Removal from Service " under C D Agents (Conduct and Service Rules ) 1964 on Sh. Mall Singh Ex . Ld Branch Post Master w.e.f. 16-7-98 as legal and justified. If not , to what relief the concerned is entitled?"

प्रार्थी पक्ष ने क्लेम के विवरण में अंकित किया है कि प्रार्थी अ. वि. शाखा डाकपाल कानस के पद पर दि. 8-4-81 से निरंतर कार्यरत था । दि. 6-2-98 को अप्रार्थी सं. 2 द्वारा प्रार्थी को चार्जशीट दी गयी व प्रार्थी द्वारा उसके विरूद्ध लगाये गये आरोपों को स्वीकार नहीं किये जाने पर विभागीय जांच की गयी । अप्रार्थी सं. 2 के आदेश द्वारा श्री ओ.पी. शर्मा को जांच अधिकारी व श्री बी.एस. मीणा को जांच अधिकारी के समक्ष विभाग की ओर से केस प्रस्तुत करने हेतु प्रसेंटिंग ऑफिसर बनाया गया । चार्जशीट में प्रार्थी पर निम्नांकित आरोप लगाये गये : -- ( 1 ) प्रार्थी ने दि. 16-1-98 को मुआयने के समय बजरिये अधीक्षक डाकघर अजमेर द्वारा रु. 391/ - सरकारी नगदी कम पाये गये तथा बहुकम श्रीमान् अधीक्षक यह रकम 16-1-98 को जमा कराकर दि. 17-1-98 को पुष्कर डाकघर में जमा करायी । 1671

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

बिना किसी शहादत के व बेबुनियाद व साबित माना जाना गैर कानूनी है । न तो जांच अधिकारी ने श्री आर.जे. वर्मा प्रवर अधीक्षक डाकघर अजमेर के बयान लिये न ही श्री वर्मा का गहवान् लिस्ट में नाम है जबकि श्री वर्मा के द्वारा निरीक्षण किये जाने पर उक्त रकम 391 रु. कम पाया जाना बताया गया है । यह भी आरोप लगाया गया है कि रकम कम पाया जाने के बाद अधीक्षक श्री वर्मा के आदेश के बावजूद प्रार्थी ने रकम जमा नहीं करायी । ऐसे में श्री वर्मा इस जांच में सबसे अहम गवाह था जिन्होंने स्वंय ने निरीक्षण किया था और उनके बयान व शहादत रिकार्ड किये बिना जांच अधिकारी के द्वारा प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध आरोप साबित माना जाना गैर कानूनी है । जांच में श्री पी.आर. राठौर के भी बयान रिकार्ड किये गये थे जो उक्त मुआयना अधीक्षक महोदय के साथ वहां मौजूद था ने भी अपने बयान में यह कहीं नहीं कहा कि रकम 391 रु. वक्त मुआयने कम पाया गया था अधीक्षक महोदय ने प्रार्थी को उक्त रकम जमा कराने के आदेश दिये हों और प्रार्थी ने रकम जमा नहीं करायी हो । अतः जांच अधिकारी द्वारा उपरोक्त आरोप बिना किसी शहादत के सिद्ध माना जाना मनमाना व बिना अधिकार के होने से गैर कानूनी है जबकि जांच में आए दस्तावेज एक्जी. पी . 5 व 2 के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट होगा कि प्रार्थी ने उक्त रकम 16-1-98 को ही जमा करा दी थी । इसलिए उक्त कारण से भी आदेश निरस्त होने योग्य है । ( इ ) आरोप सं. 2 की भी जांच अधिकारी द्वारा बिना शहादत के सेल्फ साबित माना जाना गैर कानूनी व मनमाना है न तो इंसपैक्टिंग ऑफिसर श्री आर.जे. वर्मा अधीक्षक डाकघर अजमेर ने इंसपैक्टिंग मीमो अथवा डाकघर लेखा में कोई इंद्राज 7-1-98 से 15-1-98 तक कि प्रविष्टियां नहीं होना अंकित किया है , अगर ऐसा होता तो वह जरूर अंकित करते , और न ही इस बारे में श्री आर.जे. वर्मा अधीक्षक या पी. आर. राठौर की कोई शहादत ही जांच में जांच अधिकारी द्वारा पायी गयी मगर रेकार्ड के विपरीत उक्त आरोप भी प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध सिद्ध मानकर जांच अधिकारी ने भूल कीव मनमानी रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत की है । अतः उक्त कारणों से आदेशित आदेश निरस्त होने योग्य है । ( एफ ) आरोप 3 भी प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध मानकर धारा 17 का अ. वि. एजेंट ( आचरण व सेवा नियमावली) 1964 का उल्लंघन माना जाना कानूनी मंशा के विपरीत है । जांच अधिकारी के समक्ष यह तथ्य बिल्कुल स्पष्ट आया कि प्रार्थी को जैसे ही मालूम हुआ कि 400 रु. जमा नहीं हो सके हैं तो प्रार्थी ने तुरंत ही दि. 10-12-97 को उक्त रकम जमा करा दी थी व तदुपरांत प्रार्थी को निरंतर सेवा में बने रहने दिया गया और न ही कोई जांच प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध आरंभ की गयी न ही कोई स्पष्टीकरण मांगा गया । अप्रार्थीगण का उक्त कंडक्ट अपने आप में स्पष्ट करता है कि प्रार्थी की उक्त भूल को अप्रार्थीगण द्वारा कंडोन कर सेवा में बनाये रखा और अब उक्त घटना के एक साल बाद उसी आधार पर प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्त किया जाना कानून की मंशा के विपरीत है । जबकि उक्त तथ्य प्रार्थी की जानकारी में आते ही उसने अपना सत्यनिष्ठा का परिचय देते हुए व इंटेग्रिटी का ध्यान रखते हुए 400 रु. 10-12-97 को जमा करा दिये थे व उक्त बोनाफाईड मिस्टेक तुरंत प्रभाव से दुरूस्त किया जो प्रांर्थी को सत्यनिष्ठा का परिचायक एवं किसी भी प्रकार से नियम 17ई ए एक्ट 1964 का उल्लंघन नहीं है और न ही ऐसा कृत्य है कि इसके लिए प्रार्थी को इतना हार्ड पनिशमेंट दिया जाकर सेवा से हटाया जाये। (2 ) प्रार्थी ने अपने डाकघर के बी.ओ. खेली अकाउंट 7-1-98 से 15-1-98 तक डाकघर लेखा प्रतिवेदन नहीं भरा जिसे अधीक्षक डाकघर अजमेर द्वारा वक्त मुआयना स्वयं भरवाया गया । ( 3 ) प्रार्थी ने दि. 14-9-96 को बचत खाता सं. 101301067 में जमा कराने हेतु 400/- रु. खाता धारक से प्राप्त कर लिये परंतु उक्त रकम को सरकारी हिसाब में नहीं लिया तथा प्रकरण प्रकाश में आने पर दि. 10-12-97 को उक्त 400 रु. यूसीआर में जमा कर सत्यनिष्ठा का उल्लंघन किया है । आगे क्लेम में अंकित किया है कि दि. 16-9-98 को जांच अधिकारी द्वारा प्रस्तुत जांच रिपोर्ट के आधार पर अप्रार्थी सं. 2 श्री आर. के. वर्मा द्वारा प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्त कर सेवा से हटाये जाने के आदेश पारित किये गये । इसके बाद प्रार्थी ने सेवा समाप्ति आदेश निरस्त होने बाबत् निम्नांकित आधार वर्णित किये हैं: - ( ए) श्री ओ. पी. शर्मा द्वारा प्रस्तुत जांच रिपोर्ट जिसके आधार पर आदेशित आदेश पारित किया गया वह वाइड अबीनिसियो व प्रभाव शून्य है क्योंकि अप्रार्थी सं. 2 द्वारा पारित जांच अधिकारी नियुक्ति आदेश दि. 27-2-98 अ.वि. एजेंट ( आचरण एवं सेवा नियमावली ) 1964 के तहत पारित किया गया जबकि उक्त नियमावली में कहीं भी प्रवर अधीक्षक को जांच अधिकारी को नियुक्त करने का कोई अधिकार नहीं दिये गये हैं। अप्रार्थी सं. 2 को श्री ओ.पी. शर्मा को जांच अधिकारी नियुक्त करने का कोई अधिकार नहीं था और न ही अप्रार्थी सं. 2 ऐसा कर सकते थे । अतः श्री ओ.पी. शर्मा को जांच अधिकारी के रूप में नियुक्ति गैर कानूनी व अवैध है तथा इस कारण से श्री ओ.पी. शर्मा द्वारा की गयी संपूर्ण जांच कार्यवाही वाइड अबीनिसियो इनओपरेटिव है। जिसके आधार पर कोई आदेश प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध पारित नहीं किया जा सकता है अतः उक्त क्रारण से आदेशित आदेश गैर कानूनी व अवैध होने से निरस्तनीय है । ( बी ) यह कि श्री बी. एल. मीणा को प्रजेंटिंग ऑफिसर लगाना भी गैर कानूनी है क्योंकि अ.वि. एक्ट रूल्स 1964 में ऐसा कोई प्रावधान नहीं है कि अप्रार्थी सं. 2 प्रजेंटिंग आफिसर को नोमिनेट कर सकता है । जबकि अप्रार्थी सं. 2 ने बी.एल. मीणा को नोमिनेट उक्त नियमावली 1964 के तहत किया जाना बताया है । अप्रार्थी सं. 2 द्वारा श्री बी.एल. मीणा को प्रजेंटिंग आफिसर लगाने का आदेश बिना अधिकार के व नियमों के विपरीत होने से गैर कानूनी व अवैध है इस कारण से भी उक्त जांच रिपोर्ट वोइड व प्रभावशून्य है अतः ऐसी अवैध व वोइड जांच रिपोर्ट के आधार पर पारित आक्षेपित आदेश निरस्तनीय है । ( सी ) प्रजेंटिंग आफिसर की नियुक्ति न कर प्रार्थी सं. 2 द्वारा श्री बी.एल. मीणा को नोमिनेट किया गया जो कतई कानूनन नहीं है । एक्जीक्युटिव आदेश के जरिये केवल नियुक्ति की जा सकती न कि नोमिनेशन किया जा सकता है । समस्त अधिकारी व अधीनस्थ कर्मचारी केवल जरिये एक्जीक्यूटिव आदेश के जरिये नियुक्त हो सकते अन्यथा नहीं और न ही केवल नोमिनेशन की जरिये । अतः श्री बी.एस. मीणा केवल नोमिनेशन के आधार पर प्रजेंटिंग आफिसर के रूप में कार्य नहीं कर सकते थे क्योंकि वह अवैध व गैर कानूनी है अतः इस कारण से भी आक्षेपित आदेश के पारित किये जाने का आधार स्वयं जांच रिपोर्ट अवैध होने से आक्षेपित आदेश गैर कानूनी है व निरस्तनीय है । ( डी. ) प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध जो प्रथम चार्ज लगाया है कि वक्त मुआयना 391 रु. सरकारी नगदी कम पायी गयी है और बहुकम अधीक्षक डाकघर अजमेर प्रार्थी द्वारा 16-1-98 को जमा नहीं कराकर 17-1-98 को जमा कराई, का 1672

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAITRA 21 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

दि. 16-9-98 के जरिये सेवा से पृथक किया गया है विभाग ऐसे किसी एजेंट को कार्य आगे नहीं दे सकती जो कि विभाग के पैसे को हिसाब में नहीं लेवे तथा जिसके पास सरकारी नगदी जांच दौरान कम पाई जावें जैसे गंभीर आरोप हों और जो भली भांति सिद्ध हो रहे हों । क्लेम के चरण सं. 6/7 अस्वीकार है , प्रार्थी की सेवायें विभाग के अध ीन अच्छी नहीं रही उसे सेवा नियमों के तहत ही दंड स्वरूप हटाया गया है । प्रार्थना पत्र का अंतिम चरण प्रार्थना है जिसे प्रार्थी पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।

अतः इस कारण भी आक्षेपित आदेश निरस्त होने योग्य है । ( जी ) अप्रार्थी सं. 2 श्री आर. जे. वर्मा स्वयं हितबद्ध व्यक्ति है क्योंकि प्रार्थी पर यही आरोप लगाया है कि श्री वर्मा द्वारा दि. 16-1-98 को शाखा डाकघर कानस का निरीक्षण किया गया तथा डाकघर लेखा का अवलोकन करने पर 391 रु. सरकारी नगदी कम पाये व 7-1-98 से 15-1-98 तक की प्रविष्टियां नहीं पायी गयी । अतः श्री वर्मा प्रकरण में प्रमुख चश्मदीद गवाह है व हितबद्ध व्यक्ति है शिकायतकर्ता है । यह नैसर्गिक न्याय व कानून के स्थापित सिद्धांत के विपरीत है कि जो व्यक्ति प्रकरण स्वयं हितबद्ध है गवाह या शिकायतकर्ता है । वह उस प्रकरण का फैसला या निस्तारण स्वयं करे । अतः श्री आर.जे. वर्मा प्रवर अधीक्षक डाकघर अजमेर द्वारा पारित आक्षेपित आदेश उक्त कारण से भी निरस्त होने योग्य है ।

3. इस प्रकार अंत में प्रार्थी ने लगभग 18 साल तक कर्तव्य निष्ठा व ईमानदारी से अपने पद पर कार्य किया परंतु बड़े साजिशपूर्ण व मनमाने तरीके से जो आज वर्मा तत्कालीन अधीक्षक द्वारा प्रार्थी को नौकरी से हटाये जाने हेतु अपने पद का दुरूपयोग करते हुए प्रार्थी को नौकरी से हटाये जाने हेतु मेलाफाईडली जांच को प्रभावित करते हुए उक्त आक्षेपित आदेश पारित किया गया , जो निरस्त होने योग्य है । उपरोक्त क्लेम में परिवर्तन व संशोधन करने के अधिकार को सुरक्षित रखा है और प्रार्थी के पक्ष में व अप्रार्थीगण के विरुद्ध निम्न आदेश पारित करने की प्रार्थना की है :-

1. आक्षेपित आदेश दि. 16-1-98 को अविधिक घोषित कर निरस्तकिया जाने का आदेश दिया जावे ।

2. प्रार्थी को पुनः नौकरी पर बहाल किया जावे ।

3. दि. 16-1-98 से प्रकरण के निस्तारण तक बैंक वेजेज का भुगतान किया जावे ।

5. अतिरिक्त कथन में अंकित किया है कि प्रार्थी की सेवा को नियमानुसार विभागीय कार्यवाही कर समाप्त की गयी है तथा उसे दंड स्वरूप सेवा से हटाया गया है । अतः धारा 11 ए आई.डी. एक्ट के तहत दंड के संबंध में सुनवाई करने का क्षेत्राधिकार माननीय न्यायालय को नहीं है । दंड जो दिया गया है वो प्रार्थी द्वारा जो सरकारी पैसे की गड़बड़ी से संबंधित है अतः जो दंड दिया गया है वो प्रार्थी के किये गये कृत्य के लिए जरूरी व नियमानुसार है । प्रार्थी अविभागीय एजेंट के रूप में शाखा डाकपाल कानस पुष्कर पर कार्यरत रहा है तथा अविभागीय एजेंट उत्तरदाता अप्रार्थीगण के स्थायी कर्मचारी नहीं रहा है तथा वह अपनी सेवायें विभाग को बतौर एजेंट ही देता था । अतः आई.डी. एक्ट के तहत वर्कमैन नहीं माना जा सकता । अतः आई.डी. एक्ट में कोई लाभ पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है । इसके अलावा भी क्योंकि प्रार्थी अ . वि. शाखा डाकपाल डाक विभाग के पद पर कार्यरत था । अतः केंद्रीय प्रशासनिक ट्रिब्यूनल एक्ट 1985 की धारा 14 के अंतर्गत उसकी नौकरी के संबंध में सुनवाई का क्षेत्राधिकार कैट को है अतः इस आधार पर प्रार्थी का केस खारिज होने योग्य है । आई.डी. एक्टके प्रावधान अविभागीय एजेंट के ऊपर लागू नहीं होते हैं । अतः क्लेम खारिज होने योग्य है । अंत में अप्रार्थी ने प्रार्थना की है कि प्रार्थी का क्लेम मय हर्ज खर्चे के खारिज करने के आदेश न्यायहित में प्रदान करने की कृपा करें ।

6. प्रार्थी पक्ष ने अपनी मौखिक साक्ष्य में स्वयं प्रार्थी का शपथ पर प्रस्तुत कर प्रतिपरीक्षण करवाया है । प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य में प्रदर्श डब 1 लगायत 13 दस्तावेजों की प्रतियां प्रदर्शित करवाकर प्रस्तुत की है । अप्रार्थी की ओर से वी. पी . शर्मा सहा. अधीक्षक का शपथपत्र प्रस्तुत हुआ लेकिन उसे जिरह हेतु प्रस्तुत नहीं किया ।

7. उपरोक्त तथ्यों पर दोनों पक्षों को सुना गया , पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया । विद्वान अभिभाषक प्रार्थी की दलील है कि प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध जो जांच की गयी है , वह अवैध है । जिस अधिकारी ने जांच की उसको बतौर साक्षी न्यायालय में पेश नहीं किया गया है । नियमों के अनुसार नियुक्ति अधिकारी से वरिष्ठ अधिकारी द्वारा प्रार्थी के खिलाफ जांच अधिकारी नियुक्त करना चाहिए था और वही प्रजेंटिंग ऑफिस नियुक्त कर सकते थे लेकिन ऐसा नहीं कर अधीक्षक डाकघर द्वारा ही समस्त कार्यवाही की गयी है , जो नियम विरुद्ध है और उन्होंने क्लेम में वर्णित तथ्यों के हवाले से प्रार्थी का क्लेम स्वीकार करने की दलील दी और प्रार्थी के पक्ष में प्रेक्षित विवाद का उत्तर दिये जाने की भी दलील दी है ।

8. विद्वान अभिभाषक प्रार्थी की यह भी दलील है कि ई.डी. कंडक्ट एंड सर्विस रूल्स के प्रावधानों के अनुसार नियम 3 ( 1 ) ( ए) में नियुक्त अधिकारी श्री वर्मा ने जो कार्यवाही की है, वह अवैधानिक है उनसे वरिष्ठ अधिकारी द्वारा कोई कार्यवाही नहीं की गयी है । इसी संदर्भ में उन्होंने अप्रार्थी एक उद्योग होना और प्रार्थी को श्रमिक होने की दलील देते हुए अपनी दलीलों के समर्थन में ई.डी. कं. रूल्स तथा निम्नलिखित नजीरें भी पेश की हैं:-

4. जवाब में अप्रार्थी पक्ष ने अंकित किया है कि क्लेम के चरण सं . 1 में वर्णित कथन रेफरेंस से संबंधित है इसलिए जवाब की आवश्यकता नहीं है । क्लेम के पैरा नं. 2 के कथन प्रार्थी द्वारा कार्य करने के संबंध में है जो रिकार्ड का विषय है लेकिन यहां यह अभिकथन करना उचित होगा कि प्रार्थी को नियमानुसार दंड स्वरूप सेवा से पृथक किया गया है । क्लेम के चरण सं. 3 व 4 के कथन में उत्तरदाता का कथन है कि प्रार्थी द्वारा अप्रार्थीगण के नियोजन में रहते हुए गंभीर अनियमितताएं बरती गयी हैं तथा उसके द्वारा सरकारी नकदी का हिसाब सही तौर पर नहीं रखने तथा उसको विभाग के नियमानुसार सही तरीके से हिसाब में नहीं लेने के कारण चार्जशीट देकर नियगानुसार एंक्वायरी करके सेवा से पृथक किया गया है । प्रार्थी को अप्रार्थी सं. 2 के आदेश दि. 16-9-98 के जरिये अविभागीय शाखा डाकपाल कानस पुष्कर के पद से सेवामुक्त किया गया है जिस आदेश के विरुद्ध प्रार्थी द्वार अपील भी की गयी थी जो अपील भी अपलेट ऑथार्टी द्वारा अपने आदेश दि. 6-1-99 के जरिये निस्तारित की गयी तथा प्रार्थी की अपील खारिज की गयी । चरण सं. 5 के कथन में प्रार्थी को सही तौर से सेवा से पृथक किया गया है । चरण सं. 6 के संबंध में प्रार्थी द्वारा अपने सेवापृथक के आदेश के विरुद्ध जो आधार 6 ( अ ) से 6 ( जी) तक जो बताये गये हैं वे नितांत गलत होने से अस्वीकार है । प्रार्थी को सेवा पृथक अविभागीय एजेंट ( सेवा एवं आचरण ) नियमावली 1964 के तहत विभागीय जांच कर हटाया गया है तथा प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध सरकारी पैसे को सही तरीके से नियमानुसार नहीं रखने का आरोप लगाया गया जो आरोप उसके विरुद्ध पूर्णतः सिद्ध हुआ है तथा उसे दंड स्वरूप ही अप्रार्थी द्वारा आदेश [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1673

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

1. ई.डी. कंडक्ट एंड सर्विस रूल्स,

2. 1998 एल. एल.आर. 8 ( एस.सी. ) जी. एम. टेलेकॉम/एस. श्रीनिवासराव ,

3. 2000 (4 ) एस.सी. 604 आशाराम/डी.ई. टेलेकॉम व अन्य ।

लेकिन इस संदर्भ में विद्वान अभिभाषक प्रार्थी ने जो 1998 एल. एल. आर. पेज नं. 8 की नजीर पेश की है , उससे उपरोक्त अप्रार्थी द्वारा पेश की गयी नजीर ए.आई.आर. 1996 एस.सी. पेज 1221 से ओवर रूल होना कहा है । दोनों ही नजीर में जो अप्रार्थी संस्थान को उद्योग होने के संबंध में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय का निष्कर्ष है, उसके संबंध में ए.आई.आर. 1996 एस.सी. पेज 1271 के बिंदु ए में जिसमें अप्रार्थी संस्थान को उद्योग नहीं माना गया था, का निष्कर्ष 1998 एल.एल.आर. पेज 8 में पलट दिया गया है और इस बिंदु पर ए. आई.आर. 1996 एस.सी. पेज 1271 की नजीर प्रभाव नहीं रखती है लेकिन बिंदु बी के बारे में जहां तक प्रार्थी के श्रमिक होने का प्रश्न है , 1998 एल.एल.आर. पेज 8 में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय की कोई अभिव्यक्ति नहीं है और प्रार्थी श्रमिक है , इस बाबत प्रार्थी की नजीर 1998 एल.एल.आर. पेज 8 से प्रमाणीकरण नहीं होता है । 9. विद्वान अभिभाषक अप्रार्थीगण की दलील है कि प्रार्थी के विरूद्ध विधिवत् जांच कर उसे सेवा पृथक किया गया है । प्रार्थी के द्वारा जो नजीरें पेश की गयी हैं , उनमें 1998 एल.एल. आर. पेज 8 जी. एम. टेलेकॉम/एस.श्री. निवासराव के प्रकरण में टेलीकम्युनिकेशन डिपार्टमेंट को उद्योग अवश्य माना गया है लेकिन प्रार्थी को श्रमिक माना जाए , ऐसा कोई विवेचन नहीं है । उन्होंने प्रार्थी को श्रमिक नहीं माने जाने और उसके ऊपर ई.डी. कंडक्ट एंड सर्विस रूल्स लागू होने के आधार पर प्रार्थी श्रमिक नहीं होने के कारण इस न्यायालय को सुनवाई का क्षेत्राधिकार नहीं होने की दलील दी ।

13. प्रार्थी श्रमिक है अथवा नहीं ? यह बिंद इस न्यायालय के समक्ष रेफरेंस के माध्यम से तय भी नहीं करवाया गया है क्योंकि जो रेफरेंस भेजा है उसमें इस प्रकार का कोई प्रश्न नहीं है जिसका उत्तर प्रार्थी श्रमिक है अथवा नहीं , दिया जाना अपेक्षित हो और यह न्यायालय रेफरेंस के बाहर अपनी अभिव्यक्ति देना उचित नहीं मानता है तथा रेफरेंस में प्रार्थी की सेवायें अवैधानिक रूप से समाप्त की गयी है अथवा गलत समाप्त की गयी है , पर ही अपना अभिमत प्रकट करना उचित मानता है ।

10. विद्वान अभिभाषक अप्रार्थी की यह भी दलील है कि प्रार्थी की सेवायें जांच के दौरान संतोषजनक नहीं पायी गयी । प्रार्थी ने जो राशिप्राप्त करते हुए जमा नहीं करायी जिस राशि का गबन किया गया और लेखा संबंधी कागजात पूर्ण नहीं किये , के हवाले से विधिवत् जांच कर प्रार्थी को सेवा से पृथक करना उचित होना कहा और सेवा पृथक करण आदेश को " कैट " में ही चुनौती देने का अधिकार प्रार्थी को होने की दलील दी तथा इस न्यायालय द्वारा भी सेवा पृथककरण वैध होने का आदेश पारित करने की दलील दी और अपनी दलीलों के समर्थन में बहस के दौरान जांच पत्रावली की फोटो प्रति पेश की , जिसकी नकल भी प्रार्थी के अभिभाषक को प्रदान की गयी तथा ए. आई.आर. 1996 एस.सी. पेज 1271 की नजीर भी पेश की है ।

14. अब देखना यह है कि क्या रेफरेंस के अनुसार प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध जो सेवा पुथक्करण आदेश पारित कर दिनांक 16-9-98 से सेवायें पृथक की गयी है , वह उचित एवं वैध है?

11. उपरोक्त दलीलों के संदर्भ में मैंने पत्रावली का अध्ययन किया तो पाया कि सर्वप्रथम हमें यह देखना है कि क्या अप्रार्थी प्रतिष्ठान एक उद्योग है ? इस तथ्य के संबंध में मेरे समक्ष जो उभयपक्षों की ओर से नजीरें पेश की गयी हैं उनमें 1998 एल.एल. आर. पेज. 8 ( एस.सी. ) , 2000 ( 4 ) एल.एल.एन. 607 एस.सी. तथा 1998 डी एनजे ( एस.सी. ) ( पेज 41 की नजीर में आई.डी. एक्ट 1947 की धारा 2 (जे ) के अनुसार टेलीकॉम विभाग को उद्योग माना गया है । अतः अप्रार्थी संस्थान एक उद्योग है । यह उपरोक्त वर्णित न्यायिक दृष्टांतों के संदर्भ में माना जाता है ।

12. अब देखना यह है कि क्या प्रार्थी श्रमिक है , इस संदर्भ में मेरे समक्ष विद्वान अभिभाषक अप्रार्थी ने आई. डी. एक्ट की धारा 11 ए के अनुसार प्रार्थी को लाभ श्रमिक नहीं होने के आधार पर नहीं देने की दलील दी है । मेरे समक्ष जो ए.आई.आर. 1996 एस.सी. पेज 1221 की नजीर पेश की गयी है उसमें बिंदु ए में तो पोस्टल एवं टेलीकम्युनिकेशन विभाग को उद्योग नहीं माना गया है लेकिन भाग बी में यह अवधारित किया है कि: -

( 13) I.D. Act ( 14 of 1947) S 2( 5) workman-Entra

departmental employees in postal Department

15. इस बिंदु के संबंध में सर्वप्रथम तो अप्रार्थी के द्वारा जो कार्यवाही सेवा प्रथक्करण के संबंध में की गयी थी , उसकी पत्रावली अप्रार्थी को प्रस्तुत करनी चाहिए थी । प्रार्थी को आरंभ में दिनांक 10-5-01 को व उसके बाद की अनेकों पेशियों पर दस्तावेजात पेश करने का अवसर दिया गया लेकिन प्रार्थी की ओर से दस्तावेजात पेश नहीं किये गये । यह पत्रावली दिनांक 16-3-07 को डॉमैस्टिक इंक्वायरी की मूल पत्रावली व बहस अंतिम के लिए नियत की गयी थी उसके बाद दिनांक 4-4-07 से लगभग बीस पेशियों तक घरेलू जांच में नियत रही और उसके बाद बहस अंतिम में नियत कर दी गयी । इस कारण विभागीय जांच पत्रावली जिसमें प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध जांच की गयी है, का प्रस्तुत करने का न्यायालय का पूर्व आदेश था और वह पत्रावली न्यायालय के आदेशानुसार प्रस्तुत कर दी गयी है तथा प्रार्थी ने साक्ष्य भी पूर्व में पेश कर दी है , इस कारण साक्ष्य व जांच पत्रावली का समग्र रूप से विवेचन किया जाना उचित है । बहस अंतिम के समय जो जांच पत्रावली पेश की गयी है , जिनकी प्रति भी प्रार्थी के अभिभाषक को दिलायी जा चुकी है , पर विद्वान अभिभाषक प्रार्थी की दलील है कि इस जांच पत्रावली को अब नहीं देखा जा सकता क्योंकि यह विलंब से पेश की गयी है और अप्रार्थी ने अपनी कोई साक्ष्य भी पेश नहीं की है , इस कारण प्रार्थी की साक्ष्य पर ही विश्वास किया जावे ।

Services conditions governed by rules in Section III ofcompilation of Swamy's Service Rules for entra Departmental staff in postal Depatment . Such employees are civil servants and not workman under Act.

16. अप्रार्थी के अभिभाषक ने इस संबंध में जांच पत्रावली के तथ्य क्लेम के जवाब में वर्णित करने का आधार लेते हुए जांच 1674

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAITRA21 , 1931

दूसरा तर्क कर्मचारी ने यह दिया है कि यह एक त्रुटिमात्र थी और विशेष अपराध की परिभाषा में नहीं आता है अब यह भूल क्षमाशील होनी चाहिये । मैं इस तर्क को भी नहीं मानता । कर्मचारी ने सरकारी राशि का दुरुपयोग किया है जिससे विभाग की छवि धूमिल हुई है ।

जिससे यह प्रकट होता है कि प्रार्थी ने सुनवाई के दौरान अपना पक्ष रखा ।

18. जो अपील प्रार्थी ने सेवा पथक्करण आदेश की है । जिस अपील पर प्रार्थी के हस्ताक्षर है , के पृष्ठ सं. 2 में यह वर्णित है कि:-

The appellant had apologised repeatedly for slip of mind, as an incident of its kind in service span of the years , which warranty a deep thought and weightage as held by theHon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil appeal .

और जांच पत्रावली में जो दस्तावेजात पेश किये है , वह विधि- वत् विस्तृत जांच को दर्शाते है , जिसमें प्रार्थी को सुनवाई का अवसर दिया गया है तथा प्रार्थी ने अपना पक्ष रखा है । जांच कार्यवाही के दौरान उपास्थित होकर प्रार्थी ने जांच के दौरान अपने हस्ताक्षर किये हैं ।

पत्रावली की कार्यवाही प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध महत्वपूर्ण होने के आधार पर और प्रार्थी द्वारा जिरह में जांच का अवसर स्वीकार कर लेने के कारण महत्वपूर्ण होने की जो दलील दी है, के संदर्भ में पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया तो पाया कि प्रार्थी की और से जो शपथ पत्र अपने क्लेम के समर्थन में पेश किया है उसमें उसने ऐसा कोई तथ्य वर्णित नहीं किया है कि जांच में उसे सुनवाई का अवसर नहीं दिया गया हो और इस आधार पर जांच प्राकृतिक न्याय के सिद्धांतों के विपरीत हो अथवा जांच दूषित हो बल्कि मुख्य आधार यह लिया गया है कि जो विभागीय जांच की गयी उसमें प्रवरं अधीक्षक को जांच अधिकारी नियुक्त करने का अधिकार नहीं था । अप्रार्थी सं. 2 को जांच अधिकारी नियुक्त करने का अधिकार नहीं होते हुए जो अधिकारी नियुक्तकिया , वह अवैधानिक था इसलिए जांच अधिकारी श्री ओ.पी. शर्मा व प्रजेंटिंग ऑफिसर बी. एस. मीणा की नियुक्ति अवैधानिक होने से जांच आरंभ से ही प्रभाव शून्य थी । इस संबंध में प्रार्थी पर जो आरोप लगाये गये थे , वह जांच के दौरान दिनांक 16-1-98 को 391 रु. की नकदी कम पाये जाने से ब्रांच ऑफिस का डेली अकाउंट दिनांक 7-1-98 से 15-1-98 तक खाली छोड़ देने ( नहीं भरने ) तथा मुआयने के समय भरवाया जाना दिनांक 14-9-96 को बचत खाता धारक से 400 रु. प्राप्त कर लेने व उसे 10-12-97 को जमा करवाने आदि का आरोप अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रमाणित पाये जाने पर सेवा पृथक्करण आदेश जारी करना प्रकट हुआ है ।

17. इसी संदर्भ में जब प्रार्थी से जिरह की गयी है तो जिरह में उसने यह स्वीकार किया है कि मुआयना करते समय मेरे पास पोस्टेज व नकदी के रु. 391 कम मिले थे । 391 रु. को दिनांक 16-1-98 को ही जमा करवा दिया था । यह कहना सही है कि मुझे प्रदर्श डब. 1 दिया गया था जो सेवा से पृथक करने के बाद दिया था । मैनें इस आदेश के खिलाफ अपील की थी जो प्रदर्श डब. 2 है, वह अपील विभाग ने खारिज कर दी थी । यह कहना सही है कि मेरी अनियमितताओं के बारे में विभाग ने जांच की थी । इस संदर्भ में प्रार्थी की ओर से प्रस्तुत दस्तावेजात प्रदर्श डब. 1 जो कि सेवा पृथक्करण आदेश है के पृष्ठ सं. 2 में यह वर्णित है कि: -

19. यदि प्रार्थी की इस दलील को भी स्वीकार कर लिया जाता है कि अप्रार्थी ने अपनी कोई साक्ष्य पेश नहीं की है तो जो आधार प्रार्थी ने लिये है , वह जांच अधिकारी व प्रजेंटिंग ऑफिसर सक्षम अधिकारी द्वारा नियुक्त नहीं करने बाबत है , वह सक्षम अधिकारी ने नियुक्त नहीं किये इस आधार पर प्रार्थी को सुनवाई का उचित अवसर नहीं मिला, ऐसा कोई तथ्य मेरे समक्ष प्रकट नहीं हुआ है और मात्र अप्रार्थी सं. 2 द्वारा जांच अधिकारी नियुक्त किये जाने से प्रार्थी के किसी संवैधानिक अधिकार का उल्लंघन होना अथवा प्राकृतिक न्याय के सिद्धांतों का उल्लंघन होना नहीं माना जा सकता और इस तकनीकी आधार का कोई लाभ प्रार्थी प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है और प्रार्थी का सेवा पृथक्करण आदेश प्रार्थी को सुनवाई का पूर्ण अवसर दिये जाने के बाद जारी किया जाना उचित प्रकट होता है और तदनुसार विवाद का उत्तर प्रेषित किया जाना उचित है ।

आदेश

2. फलतः प्रस्तुत विवाद का उत्तर इस प्रकार से दिया जाता है कि सीनियर सुपरिटेंडेंट ऑफ पोस्ट ऑफिस , अजमेर द्वारा प्रार्थी मल्लासिंह पूर्व शाखा डाकपाल को आदेश दिनांक 16-9-98 के द्वारा सेवा पृथक्करण उचित एवं वैध है । प्रार्थी कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।

अवार्ड आज दिनांक 12-2-2009 को खुले न्यायालयमें लिखाया जाकर सुनाया गया ।

मिथिलेश कुमार शर्मा, न्यायाधीश इस प्रकरण में जांच श्री ओ.पी. शर्मा , तत्कालीन सहायक अधीक्षक डाकघर , दक्षिण क्षेत्र , अजमेर खण्ड को दी गयी उन्होंने मामले की जांच कर अपनी रिपोर्ट दिनांक 26-8-98 को प्रस्तुत की । जांच अधिकारी ने अपनी रिपोर्ट में उपरोक्त वर्णित सभी आरोपों को बिना किसी संदेह के सिद्ध होना बतलाया । मैं श्री ओ.पी. शर्मा की इस जांच रिपोर्ट को स्वीकार करता हूं । जांच रिपोर्ट पर पुनः श्री मल्लासिंह को इस कार्यालय की इसी पत्र संख्या दिनांक 26-8-98 द्वारा भी भेजी गई थी जिस पर उन्होंने अपनी टिप्पणी दिनांक 7-9-98 को प्रस्तुत की । इस टिप्पणी में श्री मल्लासिंह ने कोई विशेष परिस्थितियां नहीं दर्शायी जिस पर कोई गहन विचार किया जा सके । टिप्पणी में मात्र यह लिखा गया है कि वह अकेला ही दोषी नहीं है इसमें श्री जेतूसिंह , अनुडाकपाल , पुष्कर भी सहभागी है । कर्मचारी के इस तर्क से मैं सहमत नहीं हूं । भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 17 मार्च, 2009

1675 APPEARANCES

NIL

Forthe Petitioner

NIL

For the Respondent

का.आ. 890, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एस.सी.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 55/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/ 191/2007- आईआर ( सी- II ) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 17th March, 2009

890.in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 55/2007) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of. SCCL and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 17-3-2009 .

[No. L-22012/ 191 /2007-IR(C-II )]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present:

Shri Ved Prakash Gaur ,

PresidingOfficer

Dated the 16th day of February, 2009 Industrial Dispute No. 55/2007 Between:

The General Secretary,

(Sri Bhandari Lingaiah)

Singareni Collieries Employees |

Union (CITU ) , Qtr . No. T- 39, SMG X Road,

Somagudem (Via Bellampalli P.O.)

Petitioner Adilabad-504251 .

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. ,

;

Mandamarri Division,

...Respondent Mandamarri -504231.

1234 G1/09-11

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. 1-22012 / 191 /2007 - IR (CM II ) dated 24-9-2007 referred the following dispute under Section 10 ( 1 )(d) ofthe 1.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , and their workman . The reference is ,-

SCHEDULE

"Wheather the action of the management of M/s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , in imposing the panelty of reduction of two annual increments with cumulative effect on 1-10-2002 and 1-10-2003 vide order dated 17-3-2003 in respect of Shri K.H.N.B. Chary is legal and justified? Ifnot, to what relief is the workman entitled ? "

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 55/2007 and notices issued to the parties.

2. On 16-2-2009 , case called out for filing of claim statement by Petitioner, Petitioner has not filed claim statement even after more than a year while Respondent is present. As such , case is closed for want of claim statement. Hence, a Nil Award is passed in absence ofclaim statement. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt, P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronouncedby me on this the 16th day of February, 2009

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix of Evidence

Witness examined for the Respondent NIL

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL

नई दिल्ली , 17 मार्च, 2009

का.आ. 891.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एस.सी.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 52/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -22012/ 186/2007- आईआर (सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी 1676

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAITRA21 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] New Delhi , the 17th March, 2009

SCHEDULE

S.O. 891.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 52/2007) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 17-3-2009.

"Wheather the action of the management of M/ s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , in imposing the panelty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect on 1-4- 2003 and 1-4-2004 vide order dated 17-3-2003 in respect of Shri V. B. Satya Raju is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

[No. L-22012/186/2007-IR(C-II)]

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 52/2007 and notices issued to the parties.

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

2. On 16-2-2009 , case called out for filing of claim statementby Petitioner, Petitioner has not filed claim statement even after more than a year . As such , case is closed for want of claim statement . Hence , a Nil Award is passed in absence of claim statement. Transmit .

Present:

Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , PresidingOfficer

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 16th day of February , 2009.

Dated the 16th day of February, 2009

Industrial Dispute No. 52/2007

VED PRAKASH GAUR, PresidingOfficer Between:

Appendix ofEvidence

TheGeneral Secretary,

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for

Petitioner

(Sri Bandari Lingaish),

the Respondent

NIL

Singareni Collieries Employees

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Union (CITU) , Qtr . No. T-39, SMG X Road, Somagudem (ViaBellampalli P.O. )

Adilabad-504251 .

Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL

AND

नई दिल्ली, 17 मार्च , 2009

TheGeneral Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Mandamarri Division,

Mandamarri -504231 .

Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner

NIL

For the Respondent

का.आ. 892.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एस.सी.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 56/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/192/2007- आईआर ( सी-11 ) AWARD

अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 17th March, 2009 The Government of India, Ministry ofLabour by its order No. L-22012/ 186/2007- IR ( CM II ) dated 24-9-2007 referred the following dispute under Section 10( 1 )(d) ofthe I.D. Act , 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , and their workman . The reference is,--

S.O. 892.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 56/2007) of the Central Government: Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the 1677 भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 11, 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 17-3-2009.

[No. L-22012/ 192/2007- IR(C- II)]

the penalty of reversion of lower stage by two increments with effect from 1-1-2000 vide Order dated 17-12-1999 in respect of Shri Peddapalli Satyanarayana is legal and justified? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled? "

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as 1.D. No. 56/2007 and notices issued to the parties ..

ANNEXURE

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

2. On 16-2-2009 , case called out for filing of claim statement by Petitioner , Petitioner has not filed claim statement even after more than a year while Respondent is present. As such, case is closed for want of claim statement. Hence, aNil Award is passed in absence ofclaim statement . Transmit.

Present: SHRI VED PRAKASH GAUR,

PresidingOfficer

Dated the 16th day of February, 2009

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronouncedby me on this the 16th day of February , 2009 .

Industrial Dispute No. 56/2007

Between:

VED PRAKASH GAUR, PresidingOfficer TheGeneral Secretary,

(SriBandari Lingaiah) ,

Appendix of Evidence

Singareni Collieries Employees

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for

the Respondent

Petitioner NIL

NIL

Union (CITU), Qtr . No. T-39 , SMG X Road, Somagudem (Via Bellampalli P.O.)

Documents marked for the Petitioner

...Petitioner

Adilabad-504251 .

NIL

AND

Documents marked for the Respondent The General Manager,

NIL

M/s. Singereni Collieries Company Ltd. ,

Mandamarri Division,

नई दिल्ली , 17 मार्च , 2009

Mandamarri-504231 .

Respondent

APPEARANCES

NIL

Forthe Petitioner

NIL

For the Respondent

का.आ. 893.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एस.सी.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 39/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था । AWARD

[सं. एल-22012/156/2004- आईआर ( सी -11 )

अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 17th March, 2009

The Government of India, Ministry ofLabour by its order No. L-22012/ 192/2007 - IR (CM II ) dated24-9-2007 referredthe following dispute under Section 10( 1 )( d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , and their workman . The reference is,--

SCHEDULE

S.O. 893.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 39/2005 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour "Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , in imposing [PART I-Вас. 3 ( 1) ] 1678

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAITRA 21 , 1931

Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 17-3-2009.

[No. L-22012/156/2004- IR(C- II) ]

benefits ofmedical unfit due to short period of left over service of 8 months in respect of Sri Jupaka Rajaiah, Peon of 18 M.W. Power House of Ramagundanı- I Division, Godavarikhani is legal and Justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, DeskOfficer

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 39/2005 and notices issued to the parties.

ANNEXURE

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

Present:

SHRIVED PRAKASH GAUR,

2. On 17-2-2009, case called out for filing of claim statement by Petitioner, Petitioner is absent while Respondent's counsel is present. Petitioner has not filed claim statement even after more than a year . As such, this case is closed for want of claim statement. Hence , a Nil Award is passed in absence of claim statement . Transmit.

PresidingOfficer

Dated the 17th day of February, 2009

Dictatedto Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 17th day of February, 2009.

Industrial Dispute No. 39/2005

Between:

VED PRAKASH GAUR, PresidingOfficer

Appendix of Evidence

The General Secretary,

Witnesses examined for the

(Sri R. Keshava Reddy) ,

Petitioner

Singareni Collieries Labour

Witness examined for the Respondent NIL

NIL

Union ( INTUC) , P.O. Godavarikhani,

Petitioner

Godavarikhani , -505209.

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL

AND

Documents marked for the Respondent The ChiefGeneral Manager ,

NIL

M/s. Singereni Collieries Company Ltd. ,

नई दिल्ली, 17 मार्च , 2009

Ramagundam - I Division,

Godavarikhani -505209 .

Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner :

का.आ. 894. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं केन्द्रीय एरिड जोन रिसर्च इन्स्टीट्यूट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विबाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जोधपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 22/2002 ) कोप्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

M/ s. A. K. Jayaprakash Rao , K. Srinivas Rao, P. Sudha, T. Bal Reddy , M. Govind , K. Ajay Kumar & Venkatesh Dixit , Advocates.

[ सं. एल-42012/291/2001 - आई आर ( सी- II ) Sri P. A. V.V.S. Sarma, Advocates

For the Respondent

अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी AWARD

New Delhi, the 17th March, 2009 TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 22012 / 156 / 2004 - IR (CM II ) dated 9-3-2005 referred the following dispute under Section 10( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , and their workman . The reference is ,--

SCHEDULE

S.O. 894. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.22/2002) of the Industrial Tribunal , Jodhpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers inrelation to the management of Central Arid Zone Research Institute and their workman , which was received by the CentralGovernment on 17-3-2009.

"Whether the action of the Chief General

[No. L-42012/291/2001 - IR(C- II) ] Manager ofM/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Ramagundam - I Division, Godavarikhani in not giving

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer 1679

भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

अनुबन्ध

औद्योगिक विवाद अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जोधपुर

पीठासीन अधिकारी:- श्री पुष्पेंद्र सिंह हांडा, आर . एच. जे एस. औद्योगिक विवाद ( केन्द्रीय ) संख्या: 22/2002

द्वारा न तो प्रार्थी को स्थायी किया गया न ही अन्य लाभ दिये गये, प्रार्थी अप्राथर्थी के अधीन 25 वर्ष से अधिक की सेवा अवधि पूर्ण कर चुका है इसके उपरान्त भी उसे नियोजन में स्थायी नहीं किया गया है अतः प्रार्थी से कनिष्ठ कर्मचारियों को स्थायी किये जाने की दिनांक से ही स्थायी किया जाकर देय वेतन , भत्ते एवं एरियर राशि ब्याज सहित दिलाये जाने का अवार्ड पारित किया जावे व स्थायी कर्मचारियों के समान अन्य सुविधाएं दिलाई जावें ।

श्री गनीखां पुत्र श्री पूसे खां मार्फत श्री ललित शर्मा मंत्री भारतीय मजदूर संघ एस.बी. बी. जे. सुराणा मार्केट ब्रांच , पाली (मारवाड़ ) , राज. जोधपुर ।

.... प्रार्थी

बनाम

निदेशक , केन्द्रीय एरिड जोन रिसर्च इन्स्टीटयूट इण्डियन काउन्सिल ऑफ एग्रीकल्चर रिसर्च , काजरी , जोधपुर ।

..... अप्रार्थी

रेफरेन्स अन्र्तगत धारा 10 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 उपस्थित:-

( 1 ) प्रार्थी की ओर से श्री अनिल मेहता , एडवोकेट उप. ।

(2 ) अप्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि श्री गीतमसिंह उप. ।

अवार्ड

दिनांक: 12-11-2008

1. भारत सरकार ने अपनी अधिसूचना क्रमांक एल 42012/291/2001 ( आई.आर. सी.एम.- II ) दिनांक 08 अगस्त, 2002 के तहत निम्न विवाद के अन्र्तगत धारा 10 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 इस न्यायालय को रेफर किया है:-

2. अप्रार्थी की ओर से माँग - पत्र का जवाबदावा प्रस्तुत करते हुए कहा गया है कि प्रार्थी को अप्रार्थी संस्थान में 1979 में दैनिक श्रमिक के रूप में अस्थाई तौर पर नियुक्त किया गया था । प्रार्थी ने नियोजन कार्यालय , पाली में अपनी जन्मतिथि वर्ष 1952 दर्ज कराई थी, ऐसी स्थिति में यह 1958 में अप्रार्थी संस्थान में कैसे कार्यरत हो सकता है तथा जब प्रार्थी की जन्मतिथि 1952 थी व उसे 1979 में अप्रार्थी संस्थान में नियुक्ति प्रदान की गई तब उसकी आयु लगभग 27 वर्ष की थी तथा वह सरकारी सेवा के स्थायी पदों में आयु योग्यता 18 से 25 को पार कर ओवर ऐज हो चुका था । जब अप्रार्थी संस्थान द्वारा प्रार्थी से जन्मतिथि प्रमाण- पत्र माँगा तब प्रार्थी ने 1985 में जन्म-प्रमाण-पत्र पेश किया जिसमें प्रार्थी की जन्म तिथि1-10-1958 अंकित है अतः यदि प्रार्थी की जन्मतिथि 1958 है तो वह जन्म से ही सरकारी सेवा में कैसे आ सकता है । प्रार्थी ने मात्र 1979 से 30-8-1993 तक ही अस्थाई दैनिक श्रमिक के रूप में संस्थान में कार्य किया जिसकी नियमानुसार मजदूरी उसे दी जा चुकी है । अप्रार्थी संस्थान द्वारा 1-9-93 को डी.ओ.पी.टी. स्कीम के तहत संस्थान में कार्यरत् समस्त 155 अस्थाई दैनिक श्रमिकों को दिनांक 1-9-93 से अस्थाई दैनिक श्रमिक से हटाकर टेम्पोरेरी स्टेटस के पदों पर नियुक्तियाँ दी जिसमें प्रार्थी का नाम भी 155 दैनिक श्रमिकों की सूचि में शामिल था तथा प्रार्थी को भी न्यून्तम वेतन , मंहगाई भत्ता, मकान किराया , वेतन वृद्धि अवकाश , एडहोक बोनस , त्यौहारिक अग्रिम व टी.आर.ए. आदि सुविधाएँ दी गईं । प्रार्थी अन्य श्रमिकों के समान नियमानुसार ही वह सभी लाभ- परिलाभ प्राप्त कर रहा है जिसका वह अधिकारी है । अतः प्रार्थी किसी अनुतोष का अधिकारी नहीं है ।

3. माँग- पत्र के समर्थन में प्रार्थी ने स्वयं का शपथ- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया जिस पर अप्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि द्वारा जिरह की गई तथा अप्राथी की ओर से श्री गीतमसिंह का शपथ- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया जिस पर प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि द्वारा जिरह की गई ।

" क्या निदेशक, भारतीय कृषि अनुसंधान परिषद् केन्द्रीय रुक्ष क्षेत्र अनुसंधान संस्थान , काजरी , जोधपुर द्वारा कर्मकार श्री गनीखां पुत्र श्री पूसे खों को उनके वर्ष 1958 से 2000 तक 25 वर्ष से अधिक सेवा नियोजक के अधीन पूर्ण कर लेने के पश्चात्भी स्थायी नहीं किया जाना एवं अन्य समस्तलाभ नहीं दिया जाना उचित एवं वैध है । यदि नहीं तो कर्मकार अपने नियोजक से किस तारीख से एवं क्या लाभ पाने का अधिकारी है? "

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

5. यह रेफरेन्स प्रार्थी के वर्ष 1958 से 2000 तक 25 वर्ष से अधिक की सेवा पूर्ण कर लेने के पश्चात् भी स्थाई न किये जाने से संबंधित है । अप्रार्थी की ओर से जो जवाब प्रस्तुत किया गया है उसमें मुख्य बिन्दु यह है कि प्रार्थी 1958 से उनके यहां कार्यरत् नहीं था बल्किउसकी प्रथम नियुक्ति 1979 में अप्रार्थी संस्थान में हुई । यह सिद्ध करने का भार प्रार्थी पर था कि उसने अप्रार्थी संस्थान में 1958 से 2000 तक कार्य किया । प्रार्थी ने जो माँग- पत्र प्रस्तुतः किया है उसमें कहीं भी यह उल्लेख नहीं किया है कि उसने अप्रार्थी संस्थान में 2. प्रार्थी की ओर से माँग- पत्र इस आशय का प्रस्तुत किया गया कि प्रार्थी की प्रारम्भिक नियुक्ति अप्रार्थी संस्थान के पाली केन्द्र में हुई अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रार्थी से उसकी नियुक्ति दिनांक से लगातार अस्थाई श्रमिक के रूप में कार्य लिया जब कि प्रार्थी वरिष्ठता सूचि में सदैव शीर्ष स्थान पर रहा है फिर भी प्रार्थी को स्थायी नहीं किया । अप्रार्थी ने प्रार्थी से कनिष्ठ कई कर्मचारियों को नियोजन में स्थायी कर वेतन एवं अन्य सुविधाएं देना प्रारम्भ कर दिया किन्तु प्रार्थी को ऐसा लाभ नहीं दिया गया , प्रार्थी ने माँग- पत्र में उन श्रमिकों के नाम भी अंकित किये हैं जिन्हें अप्रार्थी ने स्थाई कर वेतन एवं अन्य लाभ दिये हैं किन्तु प्रार्थी के बार - बार निवेदन किये जाने के बावजूद भी अप्रार्थी 1680

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/ CHAITRA21 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

गये हैं व प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति की प्रभावी तिथि जनवरी 1979 इसमें बताई गई है । चूंकि प्रार्थी ऐसा कोई दस्तावेज प्रस्तुत नहीं कर पाया है जिससे अप्रार्थी के द्वारा प्रस्तुत दस्तावेजो को गलत होना माना जा सके ऐसी स्थिति में अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत रिकार्ड के आधार पर यह सिद्ध होना पाया जाता है कि प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति अप्रार्थी संस्थान में जनवरी , 1979 से हुई । प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति जनवरी 1979 में होने से प्रार्थी द्वारा यह क्लेम किया जाना कि 1958 में उसे नियोजित किया जाकर उससे कनिष्ठ कर्मचारियों को स्थायी कर दिया गया व उसे स्थायी नहीं किया गया भी अपने आपमें असत्य सिद्ध होता है । अप्रार्थी संस्थान की ओर से साक्ष्य में सभी कर्मचारियों के पूर्ण विवरण दिये जाकर यह बताया गया है कि प्रार्थी ने जिन कर्मचारियों को स्थायी कर दिया जाना बताया है उनकी नियुक्ति तिथि क्या थी व वे किस प्रकार प्रार्थी से पूर्व नियुक्त हुए। प्रार्थी ने इस तथ्यों का कोई रिबटल प्रस्तुत नहीं किया है । ऐसी स्थिति में अप्रार्थी संस्थान द्वारा प्रस्तुत रिकार्ड जो कार्यालय के सामान्य काम-काज के संचालन में रखा गया है को असत्य माने जाने का कोई कारण नहीं है। इसके आधार पर यह माने जाने का कोई कारण नहीं है कि प्रार्थी के बाद नियुक्त हुए कर्मचारियों का पदोन्नत कर दिया गया हो व प्रार्थी को न किया गया हो । अप्रार्थी की ओर से यह भी बताया गया है कि केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा विभिन्न अस्थाई कर्मचारियों के नियमितिकरण के संबंध में जो नीति बनाई गई उस नीति की पालना में दैनिक वेतन भोगी कर्मचारियों को सर्वप्रथम अस्थायी स्टेटस दिया गया व प्रार्थी का नाम भी वरीयता सूची में इसी प्रकार दर्शाया गया। इस प्रकार की वरीयता सूचि अप्रार्थी संस्थान द्वारा प्रस्तुत की गई है जिसमें प्रार्थी का भी नाम है। प्रार्थी नियमितिकरण या स्थायी किये जाने का अधिकार उस पर लागू नियमों के अधीन ही क्लेम कर सकता है। प्रार्थी यह सिद्ध नहीं कर पाया है कि उसके केस में अप्रार्थी संस्थान में लागू नियमों का उल्लंघन कर उसे नियमित नहीं किया हो । बल्कि अप्रार्थी संस्थान द्वारा प्रस्तुत रिकार्ड से यह तथ्य सिद्ध होता है कि प्रार्थी के केस में लागू नियमों के अनुसार ही विभिन्न कर्मचारियों को उनकी नियुक्तितिथि के अनुसार पदोन्नति दी गई या उनका स्टेटस बदला गया ।

किस वर्ष से काम करना आरम्भ किया । अप्रार्थी का जवाब आने के पश्चात्भी उसने जो साक्ष्य दी है उसमें भी अपने शपथ- पत्र में इस तथ्य का कहीं उल्लेख नहीं किया है कि उसकी प्रथम नियुक्ति अप्रार्थी संस्थान में 1958 से हुई हो बल्कि अपने पूरे शपथ- पत्र में उसने नियुक्ति तिथि व नियुक्ति वर्ष तक का उल्लेख नहीं किया है । इस संबंध में अपनी साक्ष्य में उसने सिर्फ यह बताया है कि श्रमिक की प्रारम्भिक नियुक्तिअप्रार्थी के पाली केन्द्र में हुई व अप्रार्थी ने उसकी प्रारम्भिक नियुक्तिकी दिनांक से आज तक अस्थाई श्रमिक के रूप में कार्य लिया । जिरह में प्रार्थी ने यह कहा कि मैं काजरी में कब काम पर लगा मुझे जबानी याद नहीं । अजमेर श्रम आयुक्त के यहां सन् 1958 से काजरी में काम करना लिखा था या नहीं मैं नहीं कह सकता । प्रदर्श ए-1 देखकर यह कहा कि मैं नहीं कह सकता कि यह प्रार्थना- पत्र मैंने दिया या नहीं व इस पर मैने दस्तखत किये या नहीं । इसी प्रकार जन्मतिथि के बारे में उसने यह कहा है कि जन्मतिथि के बारे में मैंने काजरी दफ्तर में प्रमाण पत्र दिया था उसमें मेरी उम्र 1-10-58 लिखी हो तो पता नहीं व प्रदर्श ए-2 उसकी प्रति हो तो भी मैं नहीं कह सकता । एम्पलोयमेन्ट एक्सचेंज में मैंने क्या उम्र दर्ज कराई मुझे मालुम नहीं, मैं अनपढ़ हूँ, जमाल खाँ जालमसिंह मेरे बाद नौकरी में आये, किस पोस्ट पर रखे गये मुझे मालूम नहीं । प्रार्थी द्वारा जिरह में दिये गये उक्त जवाब से यह स्पष्ट है कि प्रार्थी ने उसके द्वारा अप्रार्थी विभाग में जो भी जन्मतिथि बताई उसके संबंध में सभी जवाब evasively दिये व स्वयं द्वारा दिये गये प्रार्थना- पत्र जिसमें उसके द्वारा कभी 1958 व कभी 1952 जन्मतिथि होना बताया गया है , के संबध में भी यह कहा है कि यह उसने दिये या नहीं पता नहीं । यह सिद्ध करने का भार प्रारम्भिक तौर पर प्रार्थी पर था कि उसने कब से अप्रार्थी के यहाँ कार्य आरम्भ किया व किस प्रकार उसके संबंध में अप्रार्थी विभाग द्वारा unfair labour practice अपनाई गई। प्रार्थी इस संबंध में न तो कोई दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत कर पाया है न ही उसने ऐसी कोई दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य तलब करवा कर सिद्ध की है जिससे यह माना जा सके कि उसकी नियुक्ति 1958 से ही अप्रार्थी विभाग में हुई हो । इसके विपरित रिबटल में अप्रार्थी विभाग ने साक्ष्य इस आशय की प्रस्तुत की है कि प्रार्थी ने उनके कार्यालय में सेवा के दौरान स्वयं का जन्म प्रमाण-पत्र प्रदर्श ए-2 प्रस्तुत किया था जो जन्म एवं मृत्यु पंजीकरण अधिकारी द्वारा दिया गया एवं इसमें उसकी जन्मतिथि 1-10-58 दर्ज थी इसमें 1-10-58 जन्मतिथि दर्ज होने से व प्रार्थी स्वयं द्वारा ही यह प्रार्थना- पत्र देने से प्रार्थी का यह कथन अपने आपमें ही झूठा सिद्ध होता है कि वह 1958 से ही अप्रार्थी संस्थान में कार्यरत् था चूँकि यह असम्भव है कि प्रार्थी जन्म से ही अप्रार्थी संस्थान में कार्यरत हो । इससे पूर्व प्रार्थी ने एक बार अपनी जन्मतिथि 1952 भी होना बताया था परन्तु 1952 की जन्मतिथि माने जाने पर यह सम्भव नहीं है कि छः वर्ष की आयु में ही प्रार्थी ने अप्रार्थी संस्थान में कार्य आरम्भ कर दिया हो । प्रार्थी का 1958 से कार्य किये जाने का कथन उक्त दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य को देखते हुए असत्य सिद्ध होता है व कतई माने जाने योग्य नहींहै ।

7. यह रेफरेन्स 1958 से 2000 तक प्रार्थी द्वारा की गई सेबा के संबंध में है जो अवधि करीब 42 वर्षों की सेवा की होती है। जैसा ऊपर विवेचन किया गया है 1979 से पहले आार्थी द्वारा अप्रार्थी संस्थान में सेवा की गई हो , यह माने जाने का कोई आधार नहीं है। इस प्रकार प्रार्थी स्वयं द्वारा ही 20 वर्ष की अतिरिक्त सेवा अवधि ऐसी बताई गई हैकिसे भागे जाने का कोई आधार नहीं है । इतनी लम्बी सेवा अवधि असत्य सिद्ध होने की स्थिति में प्रार्थी द्वारा अन्य व्यक्तियों को स्थायी किये जाने या पदोन्नति दिये जाने के जो कारण बताये गये हैं वे सिद्ध होने नहीं माने जा सकते । ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि प्रार्थी ने अपने माँग-पत्र व अपने शपथ-पत्र में deliberately अपनी सेवा अवधि का कहीं भी उल्लेख नहीं किया है जबकि रेफरेन्स उसके द्वारा बताई गई सेवा अवधि के आधार पर हुआ है । इससे यह प्रतीत होता है कि प्रार्थी स्वयं ही न्यायालय के समक्ष clean hands से नहीं आया है । 6. अप्रार्थी ने रिबटल में जो साक्ष्य दी है उसमें विभिन्न कर्मचारियों की नियुक्ति तिथियों के आवश्यक दस्तावेज प्रस्तुत किये

8. प्रार्थी ने इस रेफरेन्स को अत्यधिक देरी से किये जाने का भी कोई कारण नहीं बताया है। प्रार्थी की रेफरेन्स में बताई गई सेवा भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

अवधि42 वर्ष की है व अन्तिम वरीयता सूची भी 1999 में जारी की गई जो रिकार्ड पर प्रस्तुत की गई है। इससे पूर्व की वरीयता सूची भी रिकार्ड पर है । प्रार्थी द्वारा रेफरेन्स हेतु आवेदन 2001 में किया गया है, प्रार्थी द्वारा इस देरी का कोई कारण स्पष्ट नहीं किया गया है । Inordinate देरी के आधार पर भी प्रार्थी अब इस रेफरेन्स में किसी अनुतोष का अधिकारी नहीं माना जा सकता ।

9. उक्त विवेचन के अनुसार प्रार्थी यह सिद्ध नहीं कर पाया है कि अप्रार्थी संस्थान द्वारा उसे स्थायी न कर उसके संबंध में unfair labour practice अपनाई गई हो ।

10. उक्त विवेचन के अनुसार इस रेफरेन्स का उत्तर इस अवार्ड की terms में निम्न प्रकार दिया जाता है ।

" अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रार्थी को स्थायी न किया जाना व अन्य लाभ नहीं दिया जाना उचित एवं वैध था । प्रार्थी किसी अनुतोष का अधिकारी नहीं होगा । "

11. यह अवार्ड आज दिनांक12-11-2008 को खुले न्यायालय में सुनाया गया ।

पुष्पेन्द्र सिंह हाड़ा, न्यायाधीश नई दिल्ली , 18 मार्च , 2009

का.आ. 895. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. गैस ऑधारिटी ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 50/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -30012/ 17/2007- आई आर( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 18th March, 2009

S.O. 895. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 50/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofM/ s . Gas Authority of India Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-3-2009.

[No. L-30012/ 17/2007- IR (M)] KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer

1681

ANNEXURE

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

Present : SHRI VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Dated the 13th day of February, 2009 Industrial Dispute No. 50/2007

Between:

Sri K. Veera Raghavulu (Ex. Army)

D.No. 2-10-9 , II Ward,

Shanthi Nagar, Nidadavolu ,

West Godavari .... Petitioner AND

1. The Dy. General Manager,

M/s . GAIL India Ltd.

Jetty Avenue, Danavaipet,

Rajahmundry.

2.M/ s . Durga Bhavani Security Services ,

B-43 , Godavari Garden, Yapra Point,

Secunderabad- 87 .

Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner

: NIL : NIL

For the Respondent

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-30012/ 17/2007- IR (M) dated 25-9-2007 referred the following dispute under Section 10( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s . Gas Authority of India Limited and their workman. The reference is ,-

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Gas Authority of India Limited, Rajahmundry and its contractor M/ s . Durga Bhavani Security Agency in terminating the services of Shri K. Veera Raghavulu arbitrarily without following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act as alleged by Shri K. Veera Raghavulu, Nidadavolu is legal and/or justified? Ifnot, to what reliefthe concerned workman is entitled?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as L.D. No. 50/2007 and notices issued to the parties .

1682

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAITRA 21 , 1931

2. On 13-2-2009, Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 are absent while Respondent No. I is present. Petitioner has not filed claim statement even after one and half year . As such, this case is closed for want of claim statement. Hence, a Nil Award is passed in absence of claim statement. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her , corrected and pronounced by me on this the 13th day of February, 2009.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer AppendixofEvidence

Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

the Respondent NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii ) ] Dated the 13th day of February , 2009 Industrial Dispute No. 49/2007

Between:

Sri Uppala Rama Rao, D.No. 4-164-9E , Ist Ward,

Ganesh Nagar ,

Thadepalligudem. Petitioner

AND

1. The Dy. General Manager , M/ s . GAIL India Ltd.

Jetty Avenue, Danavaipet,

Rajahmundry.

2.M/s . DurgaBhavani Security Services,

B-43 , Godavari Garden, Yapra Point ,

Secunderabad-87.

Respondents APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 18 मार्च, 2009

का.आ. 896. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैं. गैस ऑथारिटी ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 49/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-30012/16/2007- आई.आर( एम ) ]

कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 18th March, 2009

S.O. 896. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 49/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . Gas Authority of India Ltd. and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 16-3-2009 .

[No. L-30012/ 16/2007-IR(M)

KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURTAT

HYDERABAD

Present:

SHRI VED PRAKASHGAUR

PresidingOfficer

NIL

For the Respondent :

AWARD

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour by its orderNo. L- 30012/ 16/2007 -IR ( M) dated 25-9-2007 referred the following dispute under Section 10( 1) (d ) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/ s. Gas Authority of India Limited and their workman . The reference is, --

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/ s . GasAuthority of India Limited, Rajahmundry and its contractor M/s . Durga Bhavani Security Agency interminating the services of Shri Uppala Rama Rao arbitrarily without following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act as alleged by Shri Uppala Rama Rao , Thadepalligudem is legal and/orjustified? Ifnot, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.49/2007 and notices issued to the parties .

2.On 13-2-2009 , Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 are absent while Respondent No. 1 is present. Petitioner has not filed claim statement even after one and half year . As such, this case is closed for want of claim statement . Hence , a Nil Award is passed in absence of claim statement . Transmit.

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 13th day of February, 2009 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix ofEvidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

NIL 1683 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

APPEARANCES

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

...For the Ist Party- Management

Shri R. C. Tripathy, Manager, Law

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

........For the 2nd Party- Union

Shri A. K. Choudhury : Vice-President .

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 18 मार्च , 2009

The Government of India, in the Ministry of Labour , in exercise ofpowers conferred by Clause (d) ofsub-section (1) and sub -section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-26012/10/98/IR(M), dated 5-5-1999 .

का.आ. 897. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बरसुआन आयरन माईन्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 53/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-26012/10/ 1998- आईआर ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 18th March, 2009

"Whether the action of the Management of Barsuan Iron Mines ofRaw Materials Division , SAIL for not allowing Shri Balendra Singh , Field Machinery Operator (Shovel) P.L. No. 34052 of Barsuan Iron Mines , one additional increment from 1-1-1988 or lumpsum amount as per the provisions of anomalies Committee in the pre - revised period is justified? If not, towhat relief the workman is entitled?" S.O. 897. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 53/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Barsuan Iron Mines and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-3-2009.

[No. 1-26012/10/1998- IR(M) KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT BHUBANESWAR

Present:-

2. From the pleadings of the parties and the documents produced by them it is gathered that the disputant Balendra Singh and one Bidyadhara Penthoi were working, besides others , as Field Machinery Operators in Bursuan Iron Mines of the Management. The disputant was Shovel Operator in Grade N-7 while Shri Penthoi was a Drill Operator of the same grade and by July, 1987 they were getting equal amount of salary. It is alleged by the disputant-workman that on his promotion to N-8 grade he used to get higher pay than Shri Penthoi uptill July 1988 . After the Pay revision was enforced he also got higher pay than Shri Penthoi uptill May 1989. But on the promotion of Shri Penthoi to N-8 grade on 30-6-1989, himself and Shri Penthoi used to get equal amount of Rs . 2521 till June 1989. Since from July 1989 Shri Penthoi got Rs . 2601 per month which was higher than the pay of the disputant, the latter made some representations and then raised an Industrial Dispute resulting in the present reference . Hence the case.

Shri N.K.R. Mohapatra, PresidingOfficer, C.G.I.T. -cum-

Labour Court , Bhubaneswar .

Tr. Industrial Dispute Case No. 53/2001 Date ofPassing Award -5th January, 2009

Between:

The Management of the General

Manager, P.O. Tensa, Sundargarh .

... Ist Party-Management

AND

Their Workman, Shri Balendra Singh,

Represented through the Secretary, United

MinesMazdoor Union , Anil Smruti Sadan ,

3. It is alleged by the Management on the other hand that, the claim of the disputant is not only absurd but also contrary to the Pay Fixation Rules . According to the Management on the promotion ofShri Penthoi both himself and the disputant were placed in N-8 grade and on the introduction ofrevised pay scale, their pay was , accordingly, re- fixed. Since under the Rules governing the pay fixation , Shri Penthoi was to get his next increment in July 1989, was paidaccordingly. It is further contendedby the Management that since the service conditions ofthe disputant was guided differently as per the settlement with the Union, his case was not comparable with that of Shri Penthoi and as such his date of increment cannot be antedated with that of Shri Penthoi and hence he deserves no relief.

........ 2nd Party-Union

P.O. Barsuan , Sundargarh .

1234GI/09-12 1684

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAITRA21 , 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] 4. On the basis of above pleadings ofthe parties the following issues were framed.

ISSUES

1. Whether the reference is maintainable?

that Shovel Operators are not directly recruited nor they aredirectlypromoted. But they are appointed after atrade test. The agreement dated 16-10-1992 (Ext . -D) shows that the Shovel Operators of Grade N- 8 have got different channel ofpromotion than the Drill Operators ofthe same grade. Therefore , when the disputant belonging to a different trade than Shri Penthoi and their promotional avenues not being same, the disputant cannot claini parity with Shri Penthoi.

2. Whether the action of the Management for not allowing Shri Balendra Singh , Field Machinery Operator (Shovel) P.L. No. 34052 of Barsuan Iron Mines , one additional increment from 1-1-1988 ог lumpsum amount as per the provisions of anomalies committee in the pre-revised period is justified?

3. Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled?

8. Thus, in any view of the matter the discussions made at the very outset, the disputant is held not entitled for an additional increment with effect from 1-9-1988 andas such the reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated& Correctedby me.

N.K.R. MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer 5. Besides producing some documents marked as Exts. 1 to 4 the Union examined the disputant in support of its case. TheManagement also examined one ofhis officers besides producing some other documents marked as Exts. -A toH.

List ofWitnesses Examined on behalf of the 2nd Party

Union

FINDINGS

ISSUES No. 1

W.W.- 1 -Shri Balendra Singh

List ofdocuments Exhibited on behalfof the 2nd Party Union

6. This issue is answered in affirmative as no evidence worth the name has been produced by the Management challenging the maintainability of the case.

ISSUE Nos . 2 & 3

Ext. - 1 Copy of letter dated 24-4-1997 ofBalendra Singh to the Dy . Manager ( P & A) RMD, Barsuan Iron Mines , Tensa.

7. These issues are taken up together for joint disposal.

Ext. -2-Copy of letter dated 10-2-1992 ofBalendra Singh to the Senior Manager (PL) RMD, Rourkela Zone of Mines, Rourkela.

Ext.-3 copyofoffice order No. Iron/PNL /4( 1 )/2362 datted 2-4-1990.

Ext.-4 Copy of office order No. PL- MP/90017 , dated 24-1-1990 .

List ofWitnesses Exhibited on Behalf ofthe 1st Party- Management.

M.W. - 1 -Bhubaneswar Mishra .

List ofDocuments exhibited on behalfof the 1st Party--

Management.

Ext. -A Copy of personnel policy circular No. 589 , dated 25-5-90 issued by Rourkela Steel Plant .

Ext.-B-Memorandum of Settlement dated 13-1-1991 between the Management of BIM and employees of BIM through Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha .

Ext. -C -Copy ofLop dated 25-1-1973.

Ext. -D Copy of circular on Field Machinery Operation .

Ext. -E -Minutes of discussion held on 28-10-1991.

Ext. -F -Copy ofPersonnel Policy Circular, No. 570 , dated 11-12-1989 .

Ext. -G-Xerox copy of Fitment Chart

As per the terms of reference , the question whether the workman is entitled for an additional increment with effect from 1-9-1988 has been sought to be determined . But no evidence has been adduced nor pleaded by the workman as to how he is entitled for such a relief. On the other hand it is deposed by him that his salary is to be equalized with that ofShri Penthoi from July 1989, as the latter beingjunior to him in the same cadre used to get higher salary due to increase of his incremental pay. According to him both himself and Shri Penthoi were Field Machinery Operators drawing same pay until he was promoted to N- 8 grade on 31-12-1987 . After his above promotion and on fixation of his pay under revised scale he used to enjoy more pay than Shri Penthoi . Shri Penthoi got his promotion from N- 7 toN-8 gradewith effect from 30-6-1989 ( vide order marked as Ext. -4) and on fixation of his pay he got Rs . 2521 per month from that date and from next month onwards he got Rs . 2601 due to incremental benefits as again his pay of Rs . 2521 by that date . These facts as deposed by the workman has not been denied by the Management . But according to the Management the above disparity is due to promotion of Shri Penthoi under new scale of pay . It is further deposed by the Management that the workman and Shri Penthoi though were in same cadre N- 8 by July 1989 they were guided by separate service conditions as ner the settlement with the Uni The promotion orde . marked as Ext. -4 in fact discloses that the workman was working as a Shovei Operator while Shri Penthoi was a Dr Operator. During cross examir Lion theorkman admitted Ext.-H-Revised Wage Chart .

1685

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 19 मार्च , 2009

& Mn. Mines , At./P.O . Inganijharan , Via Joda , Dist. Keonjhar in terminating the services of Smt. Labai Munda and Sri Bamiya Munda, Ex-Miner, ofM/s . Bhanja Minerals (P) Ltd. from 21-1-2000 without serving proper notice and also without complying the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

का.आ. 898. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. भान्जा मिनरल्स ( प्रा. ) लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 24/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-2701.1/1/2003 आईआर ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 19th March, 2009

Todaythe Management and the Union filed a joint Memorandum of Settlement before the Lok Adalat contending to have settled their disputes amicably on conditions that the disputant- workmen would be taken back to service with 30% back wages calculated from the date of their termination till resumption of duty. Accordingly, the settlement is made part of this Award. The Management is, accordingly, directed to reinstate the workman in their former post with 30 % back wages without there being any change in their service conditions as agreed by the parrties . The Management is , accordingly, directed to reinstate the workman within a period of30 days hence . The agreed back wages be paid within one month of reinstatement .

Dictated S.O 898. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 24/2003 ) of the CentralGovernment industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court,Bhubneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relationto the management of M/s . Bhanja Minerals (P) Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17-3-2009.

(Sd/-) [No. L-27011 /1 /2003 -IR (M)] KAMAL BAKHRU , DeskOfficer

PresidingOfficer ANNEXURE

नई दिल्ली , 19 मार्च, 2009

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

1. D. Case No. 24/2003

The Managing Director, Ms. Bhanja Minerals (P) Ltd.

का.आ. 899, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. भान्जा मिनरल्स (प्रा. ) लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 111/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Inganijharan Iron & Mn . Mines ,

[सं. एल-26012/ 15/2002- आईआर( एम) ] .... 1st Party (Management)

Dist.Keonjhar.

कमल बाखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी Vrs.

New Delhi , the 19th March , 2009 The General Secretary,

North Orissa Workers ' Union Barbel

.....2nd Party (Workman )

AWARD

S.O. 899. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 111 / 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofM/s . Bhanja Minerals (P) Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on17-3-2009 .

This reference made by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in their letter No. L- 27011 / 1 /2003 - IR (M), dated 19-06-2003 was for adjudication ofthe following disputes:--

[No. L-26012/15/2002 -IR(M)]

KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer "Whether the action of the Management of M/s . Bhanja Minerals ( P) Ltd. , Inganijharan Iron 1686

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAITRA 21 , 1931

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

reinstate the workmen within a period of 30 days hence . The agreed back wages be paid within one month of reinstatement .

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

Dictated I. D. Case No. 111/2002

(Sd/-) TheManagingDirector,

PresidingOfficer M/s.BhanjaMinerals (P) Ltd.

नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च , 2009

Inganijharan Iron & Mn. Mines,

At-ParkStreet,

P.O./Dist. Keonjhar, Orissa.

Vrs.

Shri Raghav Parida,

At/P.O.-Daduan

का. आ. 900, औद्योगिक विचार अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 चल 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. भान्जा मिनरल्स ( प्रा. ) लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औणिका अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , मुबनेश्वर के पंचकट ( संदर्भ संख्या 22/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Via- Joda,

[सं. शशुम-26012/2/2003- आईमार ( एम ) ] कमल पारू , डेस्क अधिकारी Dist-Keonjhar,

NewDelhi , the 19th March, 2009

Orissa.

AWARD

This reference made by the Government of India, Ministry ofLabour in their letter No. L -26012/ 15/2002-IR (M), dated 17-10-2002 was for adjudication ofthe following dispute :

8.0. 900.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Gentral Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.22/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Bhanja Minerals ( P) Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on17-3-2009.

[No. L-26012/2/2003 -IR(M) ]

KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

L.D. Case No. 22 of2003

TheManagingDirector,

"Whether the action of the Management ofM/ s . Bhanja Minerals (P) Ltd. Inganijharan Iron &Mn, Mines,At Park Street, P.O. & Dist. Keonjher by terminating the services of Shri Raghav Paride, S/o DuryodhanParide, Stat. Lalita Patra, W/o. Nily Patra, Smt. Nandi Munda, W/o. Biragi Munda, Smt. Radhi Samal , W/o. Lalmohen Samai , Smt. Chandri Mahakud, W/ o . Nab Mahakud, semi skilled workers from 1-1-2000 and Shri Sukhram Munda, S/ o. Turi Munda, semi -skilled from 1-11-2000 without serving proper notice and in violation of provisions of I.D. Act, 1947, who were working since 1-3-1994 continuously, is jutified? Ifnot, what relief the workmen are entitled to?"

Shri Santosh Kumar Mohakud,

M/s .DhanjaMinerals (P) Ltd. Inganijharan Iron & Min. Mines, At-Park Street, PO/Dist. Keonjhar, Orissa, Vrs. S/o Shyambandhu Mobakud, At/PO- Dhovam- Kuchuda Via-Champur, Dist-Keonjhar, Orissa

Today theManagement and the Union filed a joint Memorandum of Settlement before the Lok Adalat contending to have settled their disputes amicably on conditions that the disputant -workman would be taken back to service with 30% back wages calculated from the date of their termination till resumption of duty. Accordingly, the settlement is made part of this Award. The Management is accordingly, directed to reinstate the workman in their former posts with 30% back wages without there being any change in their service conditions as agreed by the parrties . The Management is , accordingly , directed to [ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

1687

भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

AWARD

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Bhanja Minerals ( P) Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on17-3-2009.

This reference made by the Government of India, Ministry ofLabour in their letter No. L-26012/2 /2003 -IR (M), dated 19-6-2003 was for adjudication ofthe following disputes.

[No. L-26011 /6/2002- IR(M)]

KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWER

I. D. Case No.72/2002

"Whether the action of the Management of M/s.BhanjaMinerals (P) Ltd. Inganijharan Iron &Mn. Mines, At./PO Inganijharan, Via. Joda, Dist . Keonjhar in terminating the services of Shri Santosh Kumar Mohakud, S/o . Shyamghan Mohakud, At. Po.Dhobakuchuda, Via. Champua, Dist. Keonjhar from1-6-2000 without serving proper notice and also without complying the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947 is justified? Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

At- Park Street,

PO/Dist. -Keonjhar , Vrs.

TheGeneral Secretary,

NorthOrissa Workers union ,

TheManaging Director, M/s. Bhanja Minerals (P) Ltd. , Inganijharan Iron & Mn . Mines , PO-Bargil,

Dist- Keonjhar,

Today the Management and the Union filed a joint Memorandum of Settlement before the Lok Adalat contending to have settled their disputes amicably on conditions that the disputant - workman would be taken back to service with 30 % back wages calculated from the date ofhistermination tili resumption ofduty . Accordingly the settlement is made part of this Award . The Management is accordingly directed to reinstate the workman in his former post with 30% back wages without there being any change in his service conditions as agreed by the parties . The Management is accordingly directed to reinstae the workman within a period of 30 days hence. The agreed back wages be paid within one month of re- instatement.

AWARD

48. 28-12-08 (Lok Adalat)

Dictated (Sd/-) PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली , 19 मार्च , 2009

This reference made by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in their letter No. L-26011 /6/2002 - IR (M), dated 21-08-2002 was for adjudication ofthe following disputes.

"Whether the action of the Management of M/ s .Bhanja Minerals (P) Ltd. Inganijharan Iron & Mn . Mines , At . Po . Inganijharan , Dist . Keonjhar denying work to Shri Sadhu Naik and Shri Narendra Patra , Mazdoors from 22-9-1999 is justified? If not, what relief the workmen' are entitled to?" :

का.आ. 901 , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. भान्जा मिनरलस (प्रा. ) लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबंद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 72/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-26011 /6/2002-आईआर(एम) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 19th March, 2009

S.O. 901.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 72/2002 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the

Today the Management and the Union filed a joint Memorandum of Settlement before the Lok Adalat contending to have settled their disputes amicably on conditions that the disputant - workmen would be taken back to service with 30% back wages calculated from the date of their termination till resumption of duty . Accordingly the settlement is made part of this Award . The Management is accordingly directed to reinstate the workmen in their former posts with 30 % back wages without there being any change in their service conditions as agreed by the [PART II-SEC. 3( ⅱ)) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAITRA21, 1931

1688

....2nd Party-Workman.

Vis-Champua, Orissa, Keonjhar

APPEARANCES:

parties . The Management is accordingly directed to reinstate the workmen within a period of30 days hence. The agreed back wages be paid within one month ofre- instatement.

...For the ist Party Management.

Shri R. N. Rath, Authithuyd Representative.

Dictated

(Sd/-) Shri Jagannath Munda

...For Himselfthe 2ndParty-Workman.

PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली , 19 मार्च , 2009

AWARD

TheGovernment of India, in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise ofpowers conferredby Clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. 1-26012/22/2002-IR (M), dated 09-10-2002.

का.आ. 902, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैतरनी आयरन माईन्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधि करण/ श्रम न्यायालय , भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 97/2002) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-26012/22/2002- आईमार ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 19th March, 2009

"Whether the action of the Management of Baitarani Iron Mines of Dr. S. Pradhan, At/PO. Barbil, Dist. Keonjhar in terminating the services of Sh. Jagannath Munda . S/o Jena Munda, At/ PO. Dhobaluchóda, Via. Champua, Dist. Keonjhar , PRW w.e.f. 30-1-1999 without serving any notice and without following the provisions of I. D. Act , 1947 is justified? Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitledto?"

S.O. 902. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 97/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Baitarani Iron Mines and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 19-3-2009.

[No. 1-26012/22/2002-IR (M)] KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer

2. In his Chains Statement it is allegrid by the workmen that in January 1992 he was engaged as a Miner in the Baitarani Iron Mines of the Management and that, while be was working as such continuously from year to year he was also all ofa sudden terminated from service with effect from 30-1-1999 without any notice or notice pay or y compensation as stipulated under Section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWER

PRESENT:

SHRIN . K. R. MOHAPATRA,

Presiding Officer , C.G.I.T. -Cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar .

Industrial Dispute Case No. 97/2002

Date ofPassing Awarsh 24th Feb

BETWEEN:

The Management of the Agent, Baitarani Iron Mines ofDr. Sarojini Pradhan, P.O. Barbil,

... 1st Party Management

Keonjhar-758035

3. In replyto the above contentions of the workman theManagement filed his written statement denying all the allegations ofthe workman. It is alleged that the workman was simply ongaged as piece rated worker as and when necessary, and that his said engagement was never continuous . It is further alleged by the Management that, dueto someunavoidable circumstances the mines remained closed during the time ofraising the dispute and therefore, the workman and few others could not be provided with any work. But they were paid their dues before such duwigament. It is fusther contended bytheManagement that, since the workman had never worked continuously for a period of240 days in any year he was not entitled to get any notice or notice pay or any compensation as prescribedunder Section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

AND

4.On the above pleadings ofthe parties the following issues were framed.

Their Workman Shri Jagannath Munda, S/o . Jena Munda, At/PO . Dhubakuchida, [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

ISSUES

1. Whether the action of the Management of Baitaraini lion Mines of Dr. S. Pradhan, in terminating the services of Sh. Jagannath Munda. PRW with effect from 30-01-1999 is justified?

2. Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitled to ?

5.Be it noted here that when the workman after filing his claim statement did not take any sincere step and remained absent continuously he was set exparte ultimately. The Management as a result adduced his exparte evidence. Hence the Award .

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO.12

6. Both issues are taken up together. Be it notedat the very ötifset that along with the claim statement no documents of whatsoever nature evidencing continuous engagement of the workman was filed nor there is any evidence on record to establish such engagement . On the other hand the Management Witness has deposed that he engagement ofthe workman was intermittent in nature and that his said engagement was on piece rated basis. The further evidence of the Management shows that during the period when the dispute was raised the mine was closed due to some unavoidable cireurastances and therefore, he waspaid his arrear wages before he could be disengaged. Since there is nothing to controvert the aforesaid evidence of the Management. I hold that the action of the Management in terminating the Werkman not amounting to retrenchment is just and proper warranting no reliefto theworkman.

7. The reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me .

N. K. R. MÖHAPATRA, Presiding Officer LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND PARTY- WORKMAN.

No Witnesses have been examined on behalf of theworkman.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALE OF THE 2ND PARTY- WORKMAN.

No Documents have been exhibited on behalf of theworkman .

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

M.W. - 1 - Shri Sabyasachi Pradhan .

1689 LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON. BEHALF OF THE 1ST PARTY-MANAGEMENT No documents exhibited or behalf ofthe Management.

नई दिल्ली , 19 मार्च , 2009

का.आ. 903.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947

का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आई.ओ.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय-1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 12/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल-30012/41 /2006- आईआर ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 19th March, 2009

S.O. 903. In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 12/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court- I , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of IOCL and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 19-3-2009.

[No. -30012/41 /2006-IR(M)] KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

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

(Case No. 11/2007)

Shri Jagbir C/ o Shri M.L. Chandna, 38 -A, Pritam Nagar, Karnal

....Applicant Versus

The Deputy General Manager ,

IndianOil Corporation , (Marketing Division) ,

IndianOil Bhawan Yusuf Sarai ,

New Delhi - 110016.

Respondent APPEARANCES

For the workman : None

Forthe Management : Shri Vivek Kaushal

AWARD

Passed on 20-2-2009 [PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAITRA21 , 1931

1690

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHIRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, Central Government vide notification No. L.-30012/ 41/2006 IR(M), dated 15-1-2007 has referred the following disputeto this Tribunal for adjudication:

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH

(Case No. 13/2007)

"Whether the action ofthe Management of IOCL , Panipat in terminating the services of Shri Jagbir Singh S/o . Shri Ram Sarup, Clerk-cum-Courier 29-10-2003 is just and legal ? Ifnot, what reliefthe workman is entitled to?

....Applicant

Shri Raj Kumar C/ o Shri M.L. Chandna, 38-A, Pritam Nagar, Karnal

Versus

The DeputyGeneral Manager,

IndianOil Corporation ,

(Marketing Division),

Indian Oil Bhawan Yusuf Sarai ,

..Respondent

New Delhi- 110016.

APPEARANCES

None

For the Workman:

For theManagement : Shri Vivek Kaushal

AWARD

Case taken up at Camp Court, Panipat today. None ispresent onbehalf ofthe workman. Learned representative ofthe management is present. From last many dates fixed forthe hearing ofthis case the workman is not ensuring his presence despite Court notice. The reference was referred by the Central Government in the year 2007. Several opportunities have been given to the workman but he is not availing the opportunity of being heard. It is already 4.15 pm . At this stage , I have no option otherwise then to dismiss the claim of workman in reference for non- prosecution and return the reference to the Central Govt. as such. Accordingly, the reference is returned as such. Letthe Central Government be informed. File be consigned.

Passed on 20-2-2009

Chandigarh.

20-2-2009

Camp Court, Panipat

G.K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer

Central Government vide notification No. L. -30012/ 43/2006 IR(M) , dated 15-1-2007 has referred the following disputeto this Tribunal for adjudication :

नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2009

"Whether the action of the Management of IOCL,

Panipat in terminating the services of Raj Kumar S/o Shri Ram Sarup; Maintenance Fitter 1-11-2003 isjust and legal ? Ifnot, what reliefthe workman isentitled to? "

का.आ. 904. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आई.ओ.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विधाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय-1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 13/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30012/43/2006- आईआर (एम ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 19th March, 2009

Case taken up at Camp Court, Panipat today. None ispresent on behalfofthe workman. Learned representative ofthe management is present . From last many dates fixed forthe hearing ofthis case the workman is not ensuring his presence despite Court notice. The reference was referred by the Central Government in the year 2007. Several opportunities have been given to the workman but he is not availing the opportunity of being heard . It is already 4.15 pm. At this stage I have no option otherwise than to dismiss the claim of workman in reference for non- prosecution and return the reference to the Central Governement as such. Accordingly, the reference is returned as such . Let the Central Government be infornted. File be consigned. :

Chandigarh.

20-2-2009

S.O. 904. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 13/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court- I, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of IOCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government 19-3-2009. on

Camp Court, Panipat

[No. L-30012/43/2006- IR(M))

G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer 1691 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2009

"Whether the action of the Management of IOCL , Panipat in terminating the services of Shri Hari Dass S/o Shri Charan Singh , Electrical Helper 7/11/205 is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to? "

का.आ. १०४, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आई.ओ.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालयें-1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 8/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -30012/42/2006-आईआर (एम) ]

कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 19th March , 2009

Casetaken up at Camp Court, Panipat today, None is present on behalf of the workman. Learned representative ofthe management is present. From last many dates fixed for the hearing ofthis case the workman is not ensuring his presence despite Court notice . The reference was referred by the Central Government in the year 2007. Several opportunities have been given to the workman but he is not availing the opportunity of being heard . It is already 4.15 pm . At this stage . I have no option otherwise then to dismiss the claim of workman in reference for non- prosecution and return the reference to the Central Govt. as such. Accordingly, the reference is returned as such . Let the Central Government be informed. File be consigned.

Chandigarh.

20-2-2009

8.0. 905. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 8/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of IOCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government 19-3-2009. on

Camp Court, Panipat

[No. 20012/42/2006- IR (M)]

G.K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Ofticer

नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2009

ANNEXURE

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

(Case No. 8/2007)

Applicant

का.आ. 906. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै भान्जा मिनरल्स ( प्रा. ) लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकोंऔर उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केंद्रीय भरकार औद्योगिक ऑधकरुप्म/ श्रम न्यायालय भुवनेश्वर , के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 23/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

Shri Hari Dass C/o Shri M.L. Chandna, 38-A, Pritam Nagar , Karnal

Versus

[सं. एल-26011/5/2003- आईआर ( एम ) ]

कमल बाखरु , डेस्क अधिकारी The Deputy General Manager,

NewDelhi, the 19th March, 2009

Respondent

Indian Oil Corporation, (Marketing Division) , IndianOil Bhawan Yusuf Sarid, New Delhi - 110016 .

APPEARANCES

None

For the workman:

For the Management : Shri Vivek Kaushal

AWARD

S.O. 906. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 23/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute betweeri the employers in relation to the management of M/ s. Bhanja Minerals (P) Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 17-3-2009.

Passed on 20-2-2009

[No. L-26011/5/2003 - IR (M ) ]

KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer Central Govt. vide notification No. L. -30012/42/2006 IR(M), dated 15-1-2007 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

1234 GI/09-13 1692

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009 /CHAITRA 21 , 1931

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

I. D. Case No. 23/2003

TheManagingDirector.

M/s. BhanjaMinerals (P) Ltd. Inganijharan Iron &Mn. Mines, At Park Street, PO/Distt. -Keonjhar, Orissa

Versus

TheGeneral Secretary; North Orissa Workers Union PO.-Barbil, Distt. -Keonjhar , Orissa

AWARD

This reference made by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in their letter No. L-26011/5/2003 -IR (M), dated 20-06-2003 was for adjudication of the following disputes.

"Whether the action of the Management of M/s . Bhanja Minerals ( P) Ltd. Inganijbara Iron & Mn . Mines, At./P.O. Inganijharan, Via. Joda, Distt. Keonjhar in terminating the services of Smt. Dukhini Giri , Ex-Miner, Bhanja Minerals (P) Ltd. from 5-5-2001 without serving proper notice and also without complying the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is jutified? if not, what relief the workman is entitled to?

Todaythe Management and the Union filed a joint Memorandum of Settlement before the Lok Adalat contending to have settled their disputes amicably on conditions that the disputant-workman would be taken back to service with 30% back wages calculated from the date of her termination till resumption of duty. Accordingly the settlement ismade part ofthis Award. The Management is accordinglydirected to reinstate the workman in her former post with 30% back wages without there being any change in her service conditions as agreed by the parties . The Management is accordingly directed to reinstate the workman within a period of 30 days hence . The agreed back wages be paid within one month of re - instatement.

(Sd/-)

PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली , 19:09

का.आ. 907. यौद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण पं , केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. भान्जा

[PART II Sec. 3(ii) ] मिनरल्स ( प्रा. ) लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय भुवनेश्वर, के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 27/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-27012/2/2003- नाई. आर. ( एम ) ]

कमल बाखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 19th March, 2009

S.O. 907. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 27/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court, Bhubneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Bhanja Minerals (P) Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on17-3-2009.

[No. L- 27012/2/2003 - IR (M) ]

KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

ID Case No. 27/2003

The Managing Director. M/s .BhanjaMinerals (P) Ltd. Inganijharan Iron & Mn. Mines , At./Park Street, PO./Distt.-Keonjhar, Orissa

Versus

Smt . Rajbari Munda, and Smt . Niraso Munda . D/ o Sira Munda & Smt . Nirosa Munda , Ex- Mines , At/ Po . Daduan , via . Joda . Distt. - Keonjhar , Orissa

AWARD

This reference made by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in their letter No. L-27012/2/2003 - IR (M), dated 19-06-2003 was for adjudication of the following disputes.

1693 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21.1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT- 1,

CHANDIGARH Case No. 53/2006

"Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Bhanja Minerals (P) Ltd. Inganijharan Iron & Mn . Mines , At./P.O . Inganijharan, Via Joda, Dist. Keonjhar in terminating the services of Smt . Raibari Munda, D/ o. Sira Munda and Smt. Niraso Munda . D/o . Silai Munda. AT/Po . Daduan , Via . Joda, Dist . Keonjhar from 11-1-2002 without serving proper notice and also without complying the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 is jutified? Ifnot , what relief the workmen are entitled to?

Shri Rampal S/ o Sh . Mukhtyar Singh Vill . Rasina, The. Pundri , Distt. Kaithat (Haryana), Kaithal . .....Applicant

Versus

The Executive Director, IndianOil Corporation Ltd. Panipat Refinery Project, Baholi Panipat-132140. ..Respondent APPEARANCES For the workman: None

Today the Management and the Union filed a joint Memorandum of Settlement before the Lok Addlat contending to have settled their disputes amicably on conditions that the disputant - workman would be taken back to service with30% back wages calculated from the date of their termination till resumption of duty. Accordingly the settlement is made part of this Award. The Management is accordingly directed to reinstate the workman in their former posts with 30% back wages without there being any change in their service conditions as agreed by the parties . The Management is accordingly directed to reinstae the workmen within a period of 30 days hence. The agreed backwages be paid within one month of re - instatement .

For the Management : Shri Vivek Kaushal AWARD Passed on 20-2-2009

Dictated (Sd/-) PresidingOfficer

Central Govt. vide notification No. L. -30012/76/2001- IR(M), dated 8-8-2006 has referred the following dispute to thisTribunal for adjudiaction:

नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च , 2009

"Whether the action of the Management of IOCL . KBPL, Panipat in terminating the services of Shri Rampal S/ o Shri Mukhtyar Singh w.e.f. 1-3-1999 isjust and legal ? If not, to what reliefthe workman isentitled to?

का.आ. 908.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार आई.ओ.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय-1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 3/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30012/76/2001- आईआर( एम) ] कमल शखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 19th March, 2009

Case taken up at Camp Court , panipat today, None is present on behalf of the workman . Learned representative ofthemanagement is present . From last many dates fixed forthe hearing ofthis case the workman is not ensuring his presence despite Court notice . The reference was referred by the Central Government in the year 2006. Several opportunities have been given to the workman but he is not availing the opportunity of being heard . It is already 4.15 pm. At this stage . I have no option otherwise then to dismiss the claim of workman in reference for non- prosecution and return the reference to the Central Govt as such. Accordingly , the reference is returned as such . Let the Central Government be informed . File be consigned .

S.O. 908. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 53/2006 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court- I , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of IOCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19-3-2009 .

Chandigarh. 20-2-2009 Camp Court, Panipat .

[No. L -30012/76/2001 - IR (M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

G.K. SHARMA, Preskang Offics 1694

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAITRA 21 , 1931

[PART II-Вас.3( i)) नई दिल्ली , 19 मार्च , 2009

the parties and the settlement is recorded. As per the settlement the Management has agreed to pay 50% of the wages for the period from 24-7-2003 to 5-11-2003 to 157 workers covered under this refeence . In view of the above in terms ofsettlement the Management is directed to make such payment to all 157 workers as per list filed by the union at the above agreed rate within a period of one month from the date of the publication of this Award,

Dictated का.आ. 909 ,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैं. के. डी. शर्मा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 20/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

(Sd/-) PresidingOfficer [सं. एल -29011 / 19/2005- आईआर ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी

नई दिल्ली , 19 मार्च , 2009

New Delhi , the 19th March, 2009

का.आ. 910.-औद्योगिक विकार अनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की भात 17 के अनुसरण में , केमद्रीय सरकार वैतरणी अवरण माईन्स के प्रबंधांत्र के संबद्ध नियोषकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधौगिक अधिकरण/ क्रम न्यायालय भुवनेस्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 99/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

S.O. 909. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.20/2005 )of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . K.D. Sharma and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government . on 17-3-2009.

[सं. एल-26012/24/2002- आईआर ( एम ) ]

क्रमश बाखक , हेस्क अधिकारी [No. L-29011 /19/2005 -IR(M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

New Delhi, the 19th March, 2009 ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR IRC/20/2005

S.O. 910.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Aet, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.99/2002 )ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Baitarani Iron Mines and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19-3-2009.

M/ s . K.D. Sharma, Contractor, At./PO.-Bonaikela, via- Joda, Distt- Keonjhar , Orissa .

[No. L-26012/24/2002 -IR (M) ] Versus

KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR 1. The General Secretary, North Orissa Workers Union, At./PO.-Barbil Distt- Keonjhar, Orissa. Dt. 28-12-08 (LokAdalat)

Present:

AWARD

Shri N.K.R. Mohapatra, Presiding Officer , C.G.I.T. -cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.

This reference made by the Government of India , Ministry ofLabour in its letter No. L-29011/ 19/2005- IR(M), dated 12-7-2005 was for the adjudication of the following disputes.

Industrial Dispute Case No. 99/2002 DateofPassingAward - 25th February, 2009

Between:

TheManagement of the Agent, Baitarani Iron, Mines ofDr. Sarojini Pradhan, P.O. Barbil,

Keonjhar -758 035

..... 1st Party-Management.

AND

"Whether the action of the Management of M/ s . K.D. Sharma , Contractor , S.G.B.K. Mines of M/ s . Orissa Mining Corporation Limited, At./PO. Guruda, Dist . Keonjhar by not paying the wages to the 157 workers for the period from 24-7-2003 to 5-11- 2003 is justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to? "

Their Workman Shri Sunaram Munda ,

S/o . Soma Munda, Vill. Kalho Hundul. Via-Joda, (Orissa) , Keonjhar. 2nd Party-Workman.

Today before the Lok Adalat both the parties appeared and filed a Memorandum of Settlement. Heard 1695

भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

Appearances:

For the Ist Party . Management.

Shri R.N. Rath, AuthorizedRepresentative

Shri Sunaram Munda

5.Be it noted here that when the workman after filing his claim statement did not take any sincere step and remained absent continuously he was set exparte ultimately. TheManagement as a result adduced his exparte , evidence. Hence the Award.

.... For Himselfthe 2nd Party-Workman.

FINDINGS

AWARD

ISSUE NO . 1 & 2

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise ofPowers conferred by Clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 26012/24/ 2002- IR(M), dated21-10-2002.

"Whether the action ofthe Management of Baitarani Iron Mines of Dr. S. Pradhan , At. Po . Barbil, Dist . Keonjhar, interminating the services ofSh . Sunaram Munda, S/o. Soma Munda , Vill. Kalho Hundul, Via- Joda, Dist. Keonjhar , PRW with effect from 5-1-2000 without serving any notice and without following the provisions of L.D. Act , 1947 is justified ? Ifnot , what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

6. Both issues are taken up together . Be it noted at the very outset that along with the claim statement no documents of whatsoever nature evidencing continuous engagement of the workman was filed nor there is any evidence on record to establish such engagement. On the other hand the Management witness has deposed that the engagement of the workman was intermittent in nature and that his said engagement was on piece rated basis . The further evidence of the Management shows that during theperiodwhen the dispute was raised the mine was closed due to some unavoidable circumstances and therefore, he was paid his arrear wages before he could be disengaged. Since there is nothing to controvert the aforesaid evidence of the Management. I hold that the action of the Management in terminating the workman not amounting to retrenchment is just and proper warranting no relief to the workman.

The reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated& Corrected by me.

2. In his Claim Statement it is alleged by the workman that in January 1992 he was engaged as a Miner in the Baitarani Iron Mines of the Management and that, while he was working as such continuously from year to year he was also all of a sudden terminated from service with effect from 5-1-2000 without any notice or notice pay or any compensation as stipulated under section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act .

N.K.R. MOHAPATRA , Presiding Officer

LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE 2nd PARTY-WORKMAN.

No Witnesses have been examined on behalf of the Workman.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE 2nd PARTY-WORKMAN .

No documents have been exhibited on behalf of the Workman.

LIST OF WITNESSES EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE 1st PARTY-MANAGEMENT.

M.W. -1- Shri Sabyasachi Pradhan.

3. In replyto the above contentions of the workman the Management filed his written statement denying all the allegations of the workman. It is alleged that the workman was simply engaged as piece rated worker as and when necessary, and that his said engagement was never continuous . It is further alleged by the Management that, dueto some unavoidable circumstances the mines remained closed during the time ofraising the dispute and therefore, the workman and few others could not be provided with any work: But they were paid their dues before such disengagement. It is further contended by the management that, since the workman had never worked continuously foraperiod of240 days in any year he was not entitled to get any notice or notice pay or any compensation as prescribed under Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE 1st PARTY-MANAGEMENT.

No documents exhibited on behalf of the Management.

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

नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च , 2009 ISSUES

1. Whether the action of the Management of Baitarini IronMines ofDr. S. Pradhan in terminating the services of Shri Sunaram Munda, PRW with effect from 5-1-2000 is justified?

का.आ. 911.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आई.ओ.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2.Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitled to?

1696

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAITRA 21 , 1931

[PART II SEC. 3(ii ) ] 46/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं.एल-30012/75/2001-आई आर ( एम) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 19thMarch, 2009

4.15 pm. At this stage. I have no option otherwise thento dismiss the claim of workman in reference for non- prosecution and return the reference to the Central Government as such . Accordingly, the reference is returned as such . Let the Central Government be informed. Filebe consigned.

Chandigarh.

20-2-2009

Camp Court, Panipat

G.K. SHARMA, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च , 2009

का.आ. 912, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 S.O. 911. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governinent hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.46/2005 )ofthe CentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court I , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of I.O.C.L. and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 19-3-2009.

[No. L-30012/75/2001 -IR(M)]

KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैतरनी आयरन माईन्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 116/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-3-2009 कोप्राप्त हुआ था।

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

CHANDIGARH

[सं. एल-26012/28/2002-आइआर ( एम ) ] Case No.46/2005

कमल बाखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 19th March, 2009

Shri Ranbir Singh S / o . Shri Sadhu Ram, Vill Jani . P.O. Naru Kheri Teh. & Distt . Karnal ( Haryana) Karnal- 132001.

Applicant

VERSUS

TheOperation Manager, Kandla Bhatinda Pipeline, IOCL. Panipat Refinary Project, Baholi, Panipat- 132140.

Respondent

APPEARANCES

S.O. 912. In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.116/2002 )of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Baitarani Iron Mines and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on19-3-2009.

For the Workman:

None

[No. L- 26012/28/2002-IR(M) ] Shri Vivek Kaushal

For the Management:

KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer AWARD

ANNEXURE

Passed on: 20-2-2009

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Central Government vide notification No.L-- 30012/ 75/2001 - IR(M) , dated 17-10-2005 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

Present: Shri N.K.R. Mohapatra, Presiding Officer,

INDUSTRIAL Dispure Case NO . 116/2002 "Whether the action of the Management of Indian OilCorporation Ltd. KBPL Panipat in terminating the services of Shri Ranbir Singh S/ o Shri Sudha Ram w.e.f. 1-3-99 is just and legal ? If not, to what relief theworkman is entitled to? "

Date ofPassing Award - 27th February2009

Between:

TheManagement of the Agent, Baitarani Iron

Minos ofDr. Sarojini Pradhan, P.O. Barbil,

Keonjher - 758 035

.....1st Party- Management

AND

Their Workman Shri Saber Singh Munda,

S/o. Gardi Munda, At./Po . Kacha Hundula,

Case taken up at Camp Court, Panipattoday.None is present on behalf ofthe workman. Learned representative ofthe management is pressat. From last many detes fixed forthe hearingofthis case the workman is not ensuring his presencedespite Court notice. The reference was referred by the Central Government in the year 2005. Several opportunities have been given to the workman but he is not availing the opportunity of being heard. It is already

..... 2nd Party-Workman

Via-Joda, Keonjhar

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

APPEARANCES

..... For the 1st Party- Management.

Shri R.N. Rath, Authorized Representative

Shri Saber Singh Munda

.....For Himselfthe 2nd Party-Workman.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise, of Powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub- section (1 ) and sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 26012/28/2002- IR(M), dated 16-12-2002.

"Whether the action ofthe Management ofBaitarani IronMines ofDr. S. Pradhan, At/Po, Barbil , Dist. Keonjhar , in terminating the services of Sh. Saber Singh Munda, S /o . Gardi Munda, At . Po . Mundula, Via- Joda, Dist . Keonjhar , PRW with effect from 4-12-1999 without serving any notice and without following the provisions ofI.D. Act , 1947 is justified? Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitled to? " 2. In his Claim Statement it is alleged by the workman that in Januray, 1992 he was engaged as a Miner in the Baitarani Iron Mines of the Management and that, while hewas working as such continuously from year to year he was also all ofa sudden terminated from service with effect from 4-12-1999 without any notice or notice pay or any compensation as stipulated under section 25- F of the Industrial Disputes Act .

3.Inreplyto the above contentions of the workman theManagement filed his written statement denying allthe allegations ofthe workman. It is alleged that the workman was simply engaged as piece rated worker as and when necessary, and that his said engagement was never continuous. It is further alleged by the Management that, due to some unavoidable circumstances the mines remained closedduring the time of raising the dispute and therefore , the workman and few others could not be provided with any work. But they were paid their dues before such disengagement. It is further contended by the management that, since the workman had never worked continuously fora period of240 days in any year he was not entitled to get any notice or notice pay or any compensation as prescribed under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

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

ISSUES

1.Whether the action ofthe Management of Baitarini Iron Mines of Dr. S. Pradhan in terminating the services of Shri Saber Singh Munda, PRW with effect from 4-12-1999 is justified.

1697

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

2. Ifnot, what reliefthe workman is entitled to ?

5.Be it noted here that when the workman after filing his claim statement did not take any sincere step and remained absent continuously he was set exparte ultimately. TheManagement as a result adduced his exparte , evidence . Hence the Award.

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO . 1 & 2

6.Both issues are taken up together. Be it noted at the very outset that along with the claim statement no documents of whatsoever nature evidencing continuous engagement of the workman was filed nor there is any evidence on record to establish such engagement. On the other hand the Management Witness has deposed that the engagement of the workman was intermittent in nature and that his said engagement was on piece rated basis. The further evidence of the Management shows that during the period when the dispute was raised the mine was closed due to some unavoidable circumstances and therefore, he was paid his arrear wages before he couldbe disengaged. Since there is nothing to controvert the aforesaid evidence of the Management I hold that the action ofthe Management in terminating the workman not amounting to retrenchment is just and proper warranting no reliefto the workman .

The reference is answered accordingly .

Dictated& Corrected by me .

N.K.R. MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE 2nd PARTY-WORKMAN.

No Witnesses have been examined on behalf of the Workman.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE 2nd PARTY-WORKMAN.

No documents have been exhibited on behalf of the Workman.

LIST OF WITNESSES EXHIBITEDED ON BEHALF OF THE 1st PARTY-MANAGEMENT.

M.W. -1- Shri Sabyasachi Pradhan.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE 1st PARTY-MANAGEMENT.

No documents exhibited on behalf of the Management .

नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च , 2009

का.आ. 913.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एच.पी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक 1698

[PART II-Sac. 3(ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAITRA 21 , 1931

अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय -1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 33/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

dismisse claim of workman in reference for non- prosecution and return the reference to the Central Government as such . Accordingly, the reference is returned as such. Let the Central Governmentbe informed. Filebe consigned.

[सं. एल -30012/13/2005 - आईआर ( एम ) ] कमल बोखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी

Chandigarh.

20-2-2009

New Delhi , the 19th March, 2009

CampCourt, Panipat

G.K. SHARMA, Protiding Offloor

नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च , 2009

S.O. 913.-In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 33/2005 )of theCentral Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court- I , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofH.P.C.L. and their workmen,which was received by the Central Government on 19-3-2009.

[No. L-30012/ 13/2005- IR (M)]

KAMALBAKHRU, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

का.आ. 914.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार आई.ओ.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 30/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30012/40/2003- आईआर( एम ) ] BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT- I

कमल बाखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी CHANDIGARH

New Delhi, the 19th March , 2009

CaseNo. 33/2005

Shri Brijesh Sharma, 17, Ashok Nagar, Panipat.

......Applicant

VERSUS

TheGeneral Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corpn . Ltd. , Baholi,Panipat.

.....Respondent

S.O. 914.-In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 30/2005 )of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court- I , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of I.O.C.L. and their workmen , which was receivedby the Central Government on 19-3-2009.

APPEARANCES

For the Workman:

None

[No. L-30012/40/2003 - IR (M)] Shri Vivek Kaushal

For theManagement:

KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer AWARD

ANNEXURE

Passed on:20-2-2009

Central Government vide notification No. L- 30012/ 13/2005 - IR(M) , dated 7-7-2005 has referred the following disputeto this Tribunal for adjudication.

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

Case No. 30/2005

Shri Rajesh Kumar S/ o Shri Charan Singh C/o Karan Singh, Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh. Lal Bati Chowk, G.T. Road, Panipat.

"Whether the industrial dispute raised by Shri Brijesh Sharma, workman engagedbyM/ s . Uttam Singh, Contractor against the management ofHPCL over termination of his service justified? If so ,to what reliefthe workman is entitled ? "

....Applicant

VERSUS

TheExecutiveDirector , I.O.C.L. Panipat Refinery Project,

Baholi, Panipat - 132140.

....Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the Workman:

None

Shri Vivek Kaushal

FortheManagement:

Case taken up at Camp Court, Panipat today. None is present onbehalf of the workman. Learned representative ofthe management is present. From last many dates fixed for the hearing of this case the workman is not ensuring his presence despite Court notice . The reference was referred by the Central Government in the year 2005. Several opportunities have been given to the workman but he is not availing the opportunity of being heard. It is already 4.15 pm . At this stage. I have no option otherwise thento 1699 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

AWARD

Passed on: 20-2-2009

CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present: Shri N.K.R. Mohapatra ,Presiding Officer, Central Government vide notification No. L- 30012/ 40/2003- IR(M) , dated 15-6-2005 has referred the following disputeto this Tribunal for adjudication.

Industrial DisputeCase No. 115/2002

Date ofPassing Award - 27th February 2009

Between:

TheManagement ofthe Agent, Baitarani Iron, Mines ofDr. Sarojini Pradhan, P.O. Barbil,

"Whether the action of the management of IOCL, KBPL. Panipat Refinary, Panipat in terminating the services of Shri Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Charan Singh HelperGrade- I , w.e.f. 2-7-2000 is just and legal? If not,to what reliefthe workman is entitledto?"

.....Ist Party-Management.

Keonjhar - 758035

AND

Their Workman Shri Sonu Mohakud, At /PO . Kolho Hundula, Via- Joda, Orissa, Dist. Keonjhar.

.....2nd Party-Worktown

APPEARANCES

.....For the 1st Party-

Shri R.N. Rath,

Management.

Authorized Representative

.....For Himselfthe

Shri Sonu Mohakud.

2nd Party-Workman Case taken up at Camp Court, Panipat today. None ispresent on behalfofthe workman. Learned representative ofthe management is present. From last many dates fixed for the hearing ofthis case the workman is not enstiring his presencedespite Court notice. The reference was referred by the Central Government in the year 2005. Several opportunities have been given to the workman but he is not availing the opporttinity of being heard. It is already 4.15 pm. At this stage, I have no optión otherwise thento dismiss the claim of workman in reference for non- prosecution and return the reference to the Central Government as such. Accordingly, the reference is returned as such. Let the Central Government be informed. Filebeconsigned.

AWARD

Chandigarh.

20-2-2009 Camp Court, Panipat

G.K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 19 मार्च , 2009

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) have referred the followingdispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L-26012/27/2002- IR(M), dated 20-11-2002.

का.आ. 915.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैतरनी आयरन माईन्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 115/2002) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

"Whether the action of the Management of Baitarani IronMines of Dr. S. Pradhan, At/PO . Barbil, Dist. Keonjhar , in terminating the services of Sh. Sonu Mobakud, S/o Mohan Mohakud, At/PO . Kalho Hundula, Via- Joda, Dist. Keonjhar, PRWwith effect from 5-1-2000 without serving any notice and without followingthe provisions ofI.D. Act, 1947 is justified? Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

[सं. एल-26012/27/2002-आईआर ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 19thMarch, 2009

2.Inhis Claim Statement it is allegedby theworkman that in Januray 1992 he was engaged as a Miner in the Baitarani IronMines of the Management and that, while he was working as such continuously from year to year he was also all ofa sudden terminated from service with effect from 5-1-2000 without any notice or notice pay or any compensation as stipulated under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

S.O. 915. In pursuancemance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.115/2002 )ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Baitarani Iron Mines and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on19-3-2009.

[No. L-26012/27/2002 - IR (M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU, DeskOfficer

3. In reply to the above contentions ofthe workasain the Management filed his written statement denying all the allegations of the workman. It is alleged that the workmanwas simply engaged as piece rated worker as and whennecessary, and that his said engagement was never 1234 GI/09-14 1700

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAITRA 21 , 1931

[PART II-SBC. 3(ii) ]

No Witnesses have been examined on behalf of the Workman.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE 2nd PARTY-WORKMAN.

No documents have been exhibited on behalf of the Workman.

LIST OF WITNESSES EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE 1st PARTY-MANAGEMENT.

continuous . It is further alleged by the Management that, due to some unavoidable circumstances the mines remained closed during the time of raising the dispute and therefore, the workman and few others could not be provided with any work. But they were paid their dues before such disengagement. It is further contended by the management that, since the workman had never worked continuously for aperiod of240 days in any year he was not entitled to get any notice or notice pay or any compensation as prescribed under section 25-F of the Industrial DisputesAct.

M.W. - 1- Shri Sabyasachi Pradhan .

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

LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE 1st PARTY-MANAGEMENT.

ISSUES

Nodocuments exhibited on behalf ofthe Management.

नईदिल्ली , 19 मार्च, 2009

1. Whether the action of the Management of Baitarini IronMines ofDr. S. Pradhan in terminating the services of Shri Sonu Mohakud, PRW with effect from 5-1-2000 isjustified?

2. Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitled to?

का.आ. 916.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैतरनी आयरन माईन्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 114/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

5.Be it notedhere that when the workman after filing his claim statement did not take any sincere step and remained absent continuously he was set exparte ultimately. TheManagement as a result adduced his exparte , evidence. Hence the Award.

FINDINGS

[सं. एल -26012/26/2002- आईआर ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी ISSUE NO . 1 & 2

NewDelhi , the 19th March, 2009

S.O. 916. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 114/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in. the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Baitarani Iron Mines and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on19-3-2009.

[No. 1-26012/26/2002 - IR (M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR 6.Both issues are taken up together. Be it noted at the very outset that along with the claim statement no documents of whatsoever nature evidencing continuous engagement of the workman was filed nor there is any evidence on record to establish such engagement. On the otherhand theManagement witness deposed that the engagement of the workman was intermittent in nature and that his said engagement was on piece rated basis . The further evidence of the Manent shows that during the period when the dispute was raised the mine was closed due to some unavoidable circumstances and therefore, he was paid his arrear wages before he couldbe disengaged. Since there is nothing to controvert the aforesaid evidence of the Management I hold that the action oftheManagement in terminating the workman not amounting to retrenchment is just and proper warranting no reliefto the workman.

Present: Shri N.K.R. Mohapatra, Presiding Officer,

Industrial Dispute Case No. 114/2002

The reference is answered accordingly.

DateofPassingAward - 26th February2009 Dictated & Corrected by me.

Between:

N. K. R. MOHAPATRA, Preci

IST OF WITNESSES EXAM.NED ON BEHALF OF THE 2nd PARTY-WORKMAN .

TheManagement of the Agent, Baitarani Iron, Mines ofDr. Sarojini Pradhan, P.O. Barbil , Keonjhar - 758 035

..... 1st Party- Management.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

AND

Their Workman Shri Jangal Munda, S/o. Shir Manahar Munda, At./PO . Dhobakuchida, Via. Champua, Dist Keonjhar , Orissa

.....2nd Party-Workman.

APPEARANCES

Shri R.N. Rath,

Authorized Representative

..... For the 1st Party- Management.

Shri Jangal Munda

..... For Himselfthe 2nd Party-Workman.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour inexercise , of Powers conferred b , Clause (d) of sub- section ( 1) and sub- sectio : 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 14 of 1947) have referred the followingdispute for adjud ion vide their Order No. L-26012/26/2002- IRE „ da1 12-2007

"Whether ti nagement of Baitarani Iron Mines . Pradhan, At/PO . Barbil,Dist. Keonjhar, in terminating the services of Sh. Jangal Munda, S/ o . Manahar Munda , At/PO . Dhobakuchida, Via. Champua, Dist. Keonjhar , PRW with effect from 12-3-1999 without serving any notice and without following the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947 isjustified? Ifnot, what relief the workman isentitledto?"

2. Inhis Claim Statement it is allegedby the workman that in Januray 1992 he was engaged as a Miner in the Baitarani Iron Mines ofthe Management and that , while he was working as such continuously from year to year he was also all ofa sudden terminated from service with effect from 12-3-1999 without any notice or notice pay or any compensation as stipulated under, Section 25-F of the Industrial DisputesAct.

3. In reply to the above contentions ofthe workman the Management filed his written statement denying all the allegations of the workman. It is alleged that the workmanwas simply engaged as piece rated worker as and when necessary, and that his said engagement was never continuous. It is further alleged by the Management that, due to some unavoidable circumstances the mines remained closed during the time of raising the dispute and therefore, the workman and few others could not be provided with any work. But they were paid their dues before suchdisengagement. It is further contended by the management that, since the workman had never worked continuously for a period of 240 days in any year he was not entitled to get any notice or notice pay or any compensation as prescribed under Section 25 -F of the IndustrialDisputesAct.

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

1701

ISSUES

1. Whether the action of the Management of Baitarini Iron Mines of Dr. S. Pradhan in terminating the services of Shri Jangal Munda, PRWwith effect from 12-3-1999 isjustified?

2. Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitledto?

5.Be it notedhere that...

after filing his claim statement did .. take y step and remained absent contime was set es imately.

TheManagement as a re duced Lisc eevidence .

Hence the Award.

ISSUE NO . 1 & 2

6.Both issues are taken up together. Be it noted at the very outset that along with the claim statement no documents of whatsoever nature evidencing continuous engagement ofthe workinan was filed nor there is any evidence on record to establish such engagement. On the other hand the Management witness has deposed that the engagement of the workman was intermittent in nature and that his said engagement was on piece rated basis . The further evidence of the Management shows that during the period when the dispute was raised the mine was closed due to some unavoidable circumstances and therefore, he was paid his arrear wages before he couldbe disengaged. Since there is nothing to controvert the aforesaid evidence of the Management I hold that the action of the Management in terminating the workman not amounting to retrenchment is just and proper warranting no relief to the workman.

7. The reference is answered accordingly. Dictated& Corrected by me.

N. K. R. MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE 2nd PARTY-WORKMAN.

No Witnesses have been examined on behalf of the Workman.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE 2nd PARTY-WORKMAN.

No documents have been exhibited on behalf of the Workman.

LIST OF WITNESSES EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE 1st PARTY- MANAGEMENT.

M.W. -1- Shri Sabyasachi Pradhan.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE 1st PARTY- MANAGEMENT.

Nodocuments exhibited on behalf of the Management.

1702

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAITRA 21 , 1931

[PART II-Sac. 3(ii)) नई दिल्ली , 19 मार्च , 2009

(1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L-26012/25/ 2002- IR(M),dated 27-11-2002.

का 14) की को 17. औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 17 के अनु में केन्द्रीय सरकार बैतरणी आयरन और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक मन पुचादर्भमा 113/2002) है भी सरकार को 19-03-09 को प्राप्त

[में एल-26012/25/2002- आई आर (एम) ] कमल कखक , डेस्क अधिकारी

"Whether the action of the Management ofBaitarani IronMines ofDr. S. Pradhan, At/Po . Barbil , Dist. Keonjhar in teminating the services of Shri Shyam Munda, S/o. Berga Munda, At. Gobindpur,P.O. Birkela, Via, Joda, Dist. Keonjhar , Supervisor with effect from 19-12-1999 without serving any notice and without following the provisions of Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 is justified? Ifnot, what reliefthe workman is entitled to ?"

NewDelhi , the 19th March, 2009

2. In his Claim Statement it is allegedbythe workman that in Jempery 1992 he was engaged as a Miner in the Baitarapó ren ligas ofthe Management and that, while he was working as such erstinuously from year to year he was also all of muddra tuumipated from service with effect from 19-12-1999 without any notice or notice pay or any compensation as stipulated under Section 25-F of the Industrial DisputesAct.

S.O. 917.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government baroby publishes the award (Ref. No.113/ 2002) oftheCentral Gevomment Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure , in the Inckoutsial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe on fines andtheir workman, whichwat mensed by the Contral Government on 19-03-09.

[No. L-26012/25/2002-IR(M)] KAMAL BAKHR ), Desk Officer

CENTRAL GOVERMENT NOUWTRIAL

-LABOUR COURT

Shri N.K.R. Malupaten, Presiding Officer, Hal disputeCaseNo. 143/2002

2009

Betw

The Magnet of the Agent, Baituani Iron Panda , P.O. Berbil,

Keonihas-758055

3. In replytothe above contentions ofthe workman theManagement filed his written statement denying all the allegations ofthe workman. It is alleged that the workman was simply engaged as piece rated worker as and when necessary , and that his said engagement was never continuous . It is farther allegedby the Management that, due to some wavoidable circumstances the mines remained closed during the time ofraising the dispute and therefore , theworkman and few others could not be provided with any work. But they were paid their dues before such disengagement. It is further contendedby theManagement that, since the workman had never worked continuously fora period of240 days in any year he was not entitled to get any notice or notice pay or any compensation as pecscribedunder Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Ist Party- Management.

4. On the above pleadings of the parties the following innaos wore framed.

ISSUES

TheirWorkman Shri Shyam Munda, S/o. Shir Berga Manda, At Gobindpur, P.O.Birhola, Distt. Koonihar.

...2nd Party-Wordcasan.

APPEARANCES

1.Whether the action of the Management of Baitarini Iron Mines of Dr. S. Pradhan in terminating the services of Shri Shyam Munda, PRWwith effect from 19-12-1999 is justified?

Shri R.N. Rath,

...For the lat Party-

Management

2. If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?

Authorized Representative.

...ForHimselfthe 2nd Party-Workman.

Shri Shyen Munda

AWARD

5.Be it noted here that when the workman after filinghis claim statement did not take any sincore step and remained absent continuously he was set experte ultimately. TheManagement as a result adduced his exparte evidence. Hence the Award.

1.TheGovernment of India, Ministry ofLabour, in exercise ofPowers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section 1703 [भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO . 1 & 2

ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Baitarani Iron Mines and their workman, whichwas received by the Central Government on 19-03-09.

[No. L- 26012/21 /2002- IR (M) ]

KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present : Shri N.K.R. Mohapatra , Presiding Officer ,

Industrial dispute Case No. 96/2002 Date ofPassing Award-24th February2009

Between:

6.Both issues are taken up together. Be it noted at the very outset that along with the claim statement no documents ofwhatsoever nature evidencing continuous engagement of the workman was filed nor there is any evidence onrecord to establish such engegement. Onthe other hand the Management Witness has deposed that the engagement of the workman was intermittent in nature and that his said engagement was on piece rated basis . The further evidence of the Management shows thatduring the periodwhenthe dispute was raised the mine was closed due to some unavoidable circumstances and therefore, he was paidhis arrear wages before he could be disengaged. Since there is nothing to controvert the aforesaid evidence of the Management. I hold that the action of the Management interminating the workman not amouting to retrenchment isjust and proper warranting no reliefto the workman.

The Management of the Agent, Baitarani Iron Mines of Dr. Sarojini Pradhan, P.O.Barbil , Keonjhar- 758035.

7. The referenc is answered accordingly. Dictated& Corrected by me .

1stParty-Management.

N.K.R. MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

AND

LIST OF WIINESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND PARTY-WORKMAN.

Their Workman Shri Kalicharan Munda, S/o . Shir Gulia Munda, At. Po.Dhobakuchida, Via-Champua, Dist . Keonjhar .

No Witnesses have been examined on behalf of theWorkman.

.2nd Party-Workman.

APPEARANCES

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

Shri R.N. Rath,

No documents have been exhibited on behalf of theWorkman.

Authorized Representative.

...For the 1st Party- Management

Shri Kalicharan Munda

...ForHimselfthe 2ndParty-Workman.

LIST OF WITNESSES EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST PARTY- MANAGEMENT M-W.- 1 -Shri Sabyasachi Pradhan.

AWARD

LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST PARTY-MANAGEMENT No documents exhibited onbehalf ofthe Management.

नई दिल्ली , 19 मार्च , 2009

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour , in exercise ofPowers conferred by Clause (d) of sub - section (1) and sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No: L- 26012/21 / 2002- IR(M) , dated 10-10-2002.

का.आ. 918. औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैतरनी आयरन माईन्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनकै कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 96/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-03-09 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

"Whetherthe action of the Management ofBaitarani IronMines ofDr. S. Pradhan, At./Po . Barbil , Dist. Keonjhar in terminating the services of Shri Kalicharan Munda, S/o . Gulia Munda, AL/P.O. Dhobakuchida, Vis, Champua, Dist. Keonjhar, PRW with effect from12-3-1999 without serving any notice and without following the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

[ सं. पुल-26012/21/2002- आई आर ( एम ) ] कमल बासखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 19th March, 2009

S.O. 918. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No.96/2002)

2. Inhis Claim Statement it is allegedby the workman that in January 1992 he was engaged as a Miner in the Baitarani Iron Mines of the Management and that, whilehe was working as such continuously from year to year he wasalso all of a sudden terminated from service with effect THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009 /CHAITRA 21 , 1931

1704

from 12-3-1999 without any notice or notice pay or any compensation as stipulated under Section 25-F of the Industrial DisputesAct.

3. In reply to the above contentions of the workman theManagement filed his written statement denying all the allegations of the workman. It is alleged that the workman was simply engaged as piece rated worker as and when necessary, and that his said engagement was never continuous. It is further alleged by the Management that, dueto some unavoidable circumstances the mines remained closed during the time of raising the dispute and therefore, the workman and few others could not be provided with any work. But they were paid their dues before such disengagement. It is further contended by the Management that, since the workman had never worked continuously for aperiod of240 days in any year he was not entitledto get anynotice or notice pay or any compensation as prescribed under Section 25-F of the Industrial DisputesAct .

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

ISSUES

1. Whether the action of the Management of Baitarini Iron Mines of Dr. S. Pradhan in terminatingthe services of Shri Kalicham Munda, PRW with effect from 12-3-1999 is justified?

2. Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitled to ?

5.Be it noted here that when the workman after filinghis claim statement did not take any sincere step and remained absent continuously he was set exparte ultimately. TheManagement as a result adduced his exparte evidence . Hence the Award.

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO . 1 & 2

6.Both issues are taken up together . Be it noted at the very outset that along with the claim statement no documents of whatsoever nature evidencing continuous engagement of the workman was filed nor there is any evidence on record to establish such engegement. On the other hand the Management Witness has deposed that theengagement ofthe workman was intermittent in nature and that his said engagement was on piece rated basis. The further evidence ofthe Management shows that during theperiodwhen the dispute was raised the minewas closed dueto some unavoidable circunetancos and therefore , be was paid his atvoer wages before he could be disengaged. Since there isnothing to ontrentet the aforcased evidence of the Management . I hold that the action of the Management in terminating the workman not amouting to retrenchment is just and proper warenting no reliefto the workman.

7.The referenc is answered accordingly.

Dictated& Correctedby me.

N.K.R. MOHAPTRA, Presiding Officer

[PART II-Sec . 3( ii) ) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND PARTY- WORKMAN . No Witnesses have been examined on behalf of the Workman.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND PARTY-WORKMAN . No documents have been exhibited on behalf of the Workman.

LIST OF WITNESSES EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OFTHE 1ST PARTY- MANAGEMENT. M-W. - 1 - Shri Sabyasachi Pradhan. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON MEHALF OF THE 1STPARTY-MANAGEMENT. No documents exhibited on behalf ofthe Management.

नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च , 2009

का.आ. 919.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. भान्जा मिनरल्स (प्रा. ) लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( सः भं संख्या 25/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-03-09 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-27011 /2/2003- आई आर ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi, the 19th March, 2009

S.O. 919.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No25/2003) of the Central Goverment Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Bhanja Minerals (P) Ltd. and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on17-03-09.

[No. L-27011/2/2003-IR(M)] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR LD. Case No. 25/2003 .

TheManagingDirector, M's. BhanjaMinerals (P) Ltd. , Ingarijharan Iron & Mn. Mines , At-ParkStreet, PO/Dist. Keonjhar Orissa. Vrs

TheGeneral Secretarry North Orissa Workers Union Po-Barbil Distt. Keonjhar.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11, 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

AWARD

This reference made by the Government of India, Ministry ofLabour in their letter No. L- 27011/2/2003 - IR(M) , dated 19-06-2003 was for adjudication of the following disputes.

"Whether the action of the Management of M/s . BhanjaMinerals (P) Ltd. Inganijharan Iron &Mn. Mines,At/Po. Inganijharan Via. Joda, Dist. Keonjhar interminating the services ofShri Ganga Munda and Shri PurnaMaharana, Ex-Piece Rated Miners ofM/s . Bhanja Minerals (P) Ltd. from 9-11-2001 without serving proper notice and also without complying the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 is justified? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to?"

To the Management and the Union filed a joint Memorandum of Settlement before the Lok Adalat contending to have settled their disputes amicably on conditions that the disputant -workman would be taken back to service with 30% back wages calculated from the date of their termination till resumption ofduty.Accordingly the settlement is made part of this Award. The Management isaccordingly directed to reinstate the workman in their former posts with 30% back wages without there being any change in their service conditions as agreed by the parties. The Management is accordingly directed to reinstate the workman within a period of30 days hence. The agreed back wages be paid within one month of re- instatement.

Dictated

Sd/-

PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली , 19 मार्च , 2009

का.आ. 920. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. भान्जा मिनरल्स ( प्रा. ) लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 26/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-03-09 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-27011 /3/2003- आई आर ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 19th March, 2009

S.O. 920.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref No.26/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

1705 management of M/ s . Bhanja Minerals (P) Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on17-03-09.

[No. L-27011/3 /2003- IR(M)] KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

L.D. Case No. 26/2003

TheManaging Director, M/s . BhanjaMinerals (P) Ltd. , . Inganijharan Iron and Mn . Mines, At-Park Street, PO/Dist. Keonjhar Orrisa.

Vrs

TheGeneral Secretarry NorthOrissa workers Union Po-Barbil Distt. Keonjhar.

AWARD

This reference made by the Government of India, MinistryofLabour in their letter No. L-27011/3 /2003 - IR (M), dated 19-06-2003 was for adjudication of the following disputes.

"Whether the action of the Management ofM/ s . Bhanja Minerals (P) Ltd. Inganijharan Iron & Mn. Mines,At. Po. Inganijharan Via, Joda, Dist . Keonjhar interminating the services of Shri Kirtan Behera and Shri PrafullaBehera , Ex-Piece Rated Miners ofM/ s . Bhanja Minerals (P) Ltd. from 5-1-2001 without serving proper notice and also without complying the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 is justified? Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

Today the Management and the Union filed a joint memorandum of Settlement before the Lok Adalat contending to have settled their disputes amicably on conditions that the disputant- workman would be taken back to service with 30% back wages calculated from the date of their termination till resumption ofduty. Accordingly the settlement is made part of this Award. The Management is accordingly directed to reinstate the workman in there former posts with 30% back wages without there being any change in their service condicions as agreed by the parties . The Management is accordingly directed to reinstate the workman within a period of30 days hence. The agreed back wages be paid within one month of re- instatement.

Dictated Sd/-

PresidingOfficer THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL, 11 , 2008 CHAITRA21 , 1931

1706

नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च , 2009

का.आ. 921. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार वैधरनी जाकरन माईन्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 98/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-26012/23/2002-आईमार ( एम ) ] कमल करू, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 19th March, 2009

S.O. 921. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.98/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Baitarani Iron Mines and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19-3-2009.

[No. L-26012/23/2002-IR(M)] KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present : Shri N.K.R. Mohapatra, Presiding Officer, Industrial Dispute Case No. 96/2002 Date ofPassingAward - 25th February, 2009 Between:

TheManagement of the Agent, Baitarani Iron Mines of Dr. Sarojini Pradhan, P.O. Barbil, Keonjhar- 758035

1st Party-Management .

AND

Their workman Shri Pahilman Munda, S/o . TobuaMunda, At/Po . Balabhadrapur,

Via-Champua, Orissa, Keonjhar .

...2nd Party-Workman.

APPEARANCES

...For the 1st Party Shri R. N.Rath,

Management.

Authorized Representative.

... ForHimselfthe Shri Pahilman Munda.

2ndParty-Workman.

AWARD

TheGovernment of India in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of Powers conferredbyClause ( d) ofsub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial

[PART II-Sac. 3(ii)]

DisputesAct, 1947(14 of1947) have referredthe following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No.L- 26012/23/ 2002/18( 4), dated21-10-2002.

"Whether the action ofthe Management ofBaitarani IronMines ofDr. S. Pradhan, At. Po. Barbil, Dist. Keonjher, in temninating the services of Sh. Pahilman Munda, 5/0 . Tobus Munda, At./Po . Balabhadrapur, Vie-Champus, Dist. Keonjhar , PRW with effect from 1-10-1999 without serving any notice and without Ellowing the provisions of LD. Act, 1947 isjustified? Ifnot, what reliefthe workanan is entitledto?" 2. In his Claim Statermant it is alleged by the workman that in January 1992 he was engaged as a Miner in the Baiterané Sven Minus ofthe Management and that , while he was working as such continuously from year to year he was also all ofa sudden torminted from service with effect from 1-10-1999 without any notice or notice pay or any compensation as stipulated under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

3. In reply to the above contentions of the workman theManagement filed hiswritton statement denying all the allegations ofthewedsan. It is alleged that the workman was simply engaged as piece rated worker as and when necessary, and that his said engagement was never continuous . It is further alleged by the Management that, due to some unavoidable circumstances the mines remained closedduring the time ofraising the dispute and therefore, the workman and few others could not be provided with any work. But they were paid their dues before such disengagement. It is further contended by the Management that, since the workman had never worked continuously foraperiodof240 days in any year he was not entitledto get any notice or notice pay or any compensation as prescribed under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

4.On the abovepleadings ofthe parties the following issues were framed:

ISSUES

1. Whether the action of the Management of Baitarani Irion Mines of Dr. S. Pradhan in terminatingthe services ofShri Pahilman Munda, PRWwitheffect from 1-10-1999 is justified?

2. Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitledto?

5.Be it noted here that when the workman after filing his claim statement did not take any sincere step and remained absent continuously he was set ex parte ultimately. TheManagement as a result adduced his exparte evidence. Hence the Award.

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. 1 & 2

6.Both issues are taken up together. Be it noted at the very outset that along with the claim statement no 1707

भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Bank ofIndia, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19-3-2009 .

[No. L-41011/09/2006- IR (B- 1 ) ]

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM -LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 21/2007

documents of whatsoever nature evidencing continuous engagement of the workman was filed nor there is any evidence on record to establish such engagement. On the other hand the Management Witness has deposed that the engagement of the workman was intermittent in nature and that his said engagement was on piece rated basis . The further evidence ofthe Management shows that during theperiod whenthe dispute was raised the mine was closed due to some unavoidable circumstances and therefore , he was paidhis arrear wages before he could be disengaged. Since there is nothing to controvert the aforesaid evidence of the Management I hold that the action of the Management in terminating the workman not amounting to retrenchment is just and proper warranting no reliefto theworkman.

The General Secretary, Pir Panchal USB Rail Project Workers Union, Banihal Distt . Doda ( J &K) , Doda.

7.The reference is answered accordingly.

...Applicant Dictated & corrected by me .

VERSUS

N.K.R. MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE 2nd PARTY-WORKMAN.

TheProject Manager, Hindustan Co: action Company, Banihal Railway Project, AT & Banihal, Distt . Dopda( J& K), Doda.

No Witnesses have been examined on behalf of the Workman.

...Respondent

APPEARANCES

LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE 2nd PARTY-WORKMAN .

For the Workman:

None

No documents have been exhibited on behalf of the Workman.

Shri Manoj Joshi .

For theManagement

AWARD

LIST OF WITNESSES EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE IST PARTY-MANAGEMENT.

Passed on: 4-9-2008

M. W. -1 -Shri Sabyasachi Pradhan .

LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST PARTY- MANAGEMENT.

Central Government vide notification No. L-41011 /9/ 2006 IR-( B- 1 ) , dated 12-3-2007, has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication .

No documents exhibited on behalf of the Management .

नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2009

"Whether the action of the management ofHindustan Construction Company , Railway Contractor-engaged inconstruction of USB Rail Project BanilhalATaad PO Banihal , District Doda ( J&K) in terrainssingthe services of 324 workmen without adopting the provisions of I.D. Act , 1947 was justified? Ifnot, what relief the workmen is entitled to and from which date?

का.आ. 922.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चण्डीगढ नं-1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 21/2007 ). को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-41011/09/2006- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 19th March, 2009

2.No one is present, on behlaf ofworkman, Lesened representative of the management is also present Since morning this reference has been called number oftitres .At 10.45 am, it was ordered to be placed before this Tribunal once again at 2 pm. It is 2.30 now and on repeated callsno one is present, in spite of having of full knowledge ofthe proceedings of this reference . The reference is as olkias referredto this Tribunal in the year 2007. On repeated.calls sincemorning no one is present. Accordingly, the refereное isdismissed in default for non -prosecution: Central Government be informed accordingy, File to be consigandi S.O. 922. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21 / 2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, No. 1 , Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State

Chandigarh: 4-9-08 GK. SHARMA , Presiding Officer 1234 G1/09-15 1708

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/ CHAITRA 21 , 1931

नई दिल्ली , 19 मार्च , 2009

का.आ. 923. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एच.पी.सी.एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. - 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी -2/48/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-03-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30015 /6/2002- आई आर ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 19th March , 2009

S.O. 923. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes theAward (Ref. No.CGIT- 2/48/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , No. -2 , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of HPCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17-03-2009.

[No.L- 30015/6/2002- IR (M) ) KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAL Present : A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT -2/48 of 2002

Employers in relation to the Management of Hindustan Petrolium Corporation Ltd.

TheGeneral Manager (P& A) , HPCL , PetroleumHouse, 17, Jamshedji Tata Road , Churchgate , Mumbai 400 020 .

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 3. Prakash H. Mhatre;

4. Anil N. Salve;

5. Suresh B. Patil ;

6. Shambu Prasad;

7. D.J. Mane;

8. L.J. Mane;

9. M. Arun Kumar ;

10. Anand Karupayya Kannan ;

11. N. Shekar;

12. Bhayyaram Patel ;

13. C. Manokar;

14. Gopal Swamy;

15. V. Thangaraj ;

16. S. Arumugam .

APPEARANCE

For the Employers: S/ Shri M.M. Varma , B.D Birajdar and P.Κ. Ravendranathan , Advocates .

Fot the Workman : S/Shri Jaiprakash Sawant , Jamshed Mistry , Advocates .

Foradded Workman: Mr.G.S. Baj , Advocate

Date ofreserving the Award : 21-1-2009. Date ofpassing the Award : 06-2-2009

AWARD

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

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No.L-30015/ 6/2002 - IR(M) dated 16th May , 2002 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub -section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

FirstParty

V/s.

THEIR WORKMEN

1.The General Secretary , General Employees Association; Tel-Rasayan Bhawan,

Tilak Road, Dadar , Mumbai 400 014. .SecondParty 2. List ofWorkmen represented through Bharitya Kamgar Karamchari Mahasangh: 5, Navalkar Lane , Prathana Samaji ,Girgaon, Mumbai400004.

1. Anil C. Patil;

2. Kishor D. Kamble ;

(i)Whether the contract between Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , (HPCL) and the existing contractor's is a sham and bogus one and is a cam- ouflage to deprive the concerned employees repre- sentedby the petitioner herein of benefits available to permanent workmen of HPCL ?

( ii ) Whether the workmen represented by the petitioner employed by HPCL through the Contractors should be - declared as permanent workmen ofHPCL?

(iii) What are the wages and consequential benefits to be paid to the concerned employees?

(2) . Claim Statement is filed by the 2nd Party ( I) Union under the signature of the Secretary of the General 1709 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

ment or the 1st Party through dubious contractors. Some of concerned employees are engaged in the work of sweeping , cleaning and dusting of the buildings and plant in the Refinery which is owned and occupied by the Ist Party and some of them have been working there as valve operators andhelpers for more than 10 years .

Employees Association at Exhibit 4 stating and contend- ing that, it is a trade Union registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926. ( hereinafter referred to as the " Union" . Said Union submitted that , it filed Writ Petition No.767 of 2001 inthe Bombay High Court praying for among others , a declaration that , the workmen, whose list was annexed to theWrit Petition at Exhibit " A " are , regular workmen ofthe 1st Party . Union further submitted that , the said Writ Petition came up for admission on 31st March, 2001 and the Management was directed to maintain "status quo " and not to terminate the services of the contract workmen mentioned in the Exhibit 'A' of the said Writ Petition and on 5thApril , 2002 the said Writ Petition was finally heard.and disposed offby the following order:

"(1 ) The appropriate Government, i.e. the Central Government (as agreed by both the learned Senior Counsels) is directed to make a Reference of the following demand to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication within two months from today:

(4) 2nd Party (1) Union submitted that 1st Party re- quired large number ofpermanent workers at its Refinery atMahul . It is submitted by the 2nd Party ( 1 ) Union that, the work carried out at said Refinery is of permanent and perennial nature. It submitted that , the Workmen involved in the Reference in are engaged in the work of sweeping , cleaning and dusting of the building premises which are owned and occupied by the Management and some of them are working as helpers and valve operators . The nature ofjob of the workmen is cleaning the Plant and building area, toilets , flooring , furniture etc. The valve operators are working in Combination Unit and in FRE of Operation Departments in 3 shifts and helpers are working in F.E.D. , LEUandOmes Departments . These workmen are employed on contract basis by the 1st Party through various contractors and they have been working there for about.8 years continuously.

(i) Whether the contract between Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and the contractors is sham and bogus one and is a camouflage to deprive the concerned employees of the benefits available to permanerit workmen of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;

(5) 2nd Party (I ) Union contends that 1st Party is- sues gate passes and identity cards to the employees to work in the said Refinery . It is also submitted by the 2nd Party (I ) Union that, the work of sweeping , cleaning , dust- ing, valve operatorstors and helpers is a permanent and peren- nial in nature and also is incidental to the main activities of the Corporation and is available through out the year...:

(ii) Whether the workmen represented by the Petitioners employed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through the Contractors should be declared as permanent workmen ofHindustan Petro- leum Corporation Limited.

(iii) What are the wages and consequential benefits to be paid to the concerned employees?

2. The Industrial Tribunal shall decide the Reference as expeditiously as possible and in any event not later, than 30th June, 2003 .

3. Interim orderpassed by this Court on 31-3-2001 shall remain operative for a period of three months;

4. The Petitioner shall be at liberty to apply for further interim reliefs before the concerned Industrial Tribunal .

(6) 2nd Party (I ) Union submitted that, the Govern- ment of India considered these aspects and issued a noti- ficationdated 9th December, 1976 under Section 10 ofthe Control Labour (A & R) Act, 1970 , thereby prohibiting the employment ofContract system in the process of cleaning, sweeping, dusting etc. of the building owned and occu- pied by the establishment of which the appropriate Government is the Central Government . It is not in dispute that, the present workmen are working in the premises owned and occupied by the 1st Party and the appropriates Government in respect of the 1st Party is the Central Government , hence the Notification dated 9-12-1976 was applicable to the 1st Party and it ought to have not employed contract labour for attending the job of sweeping, cleaning and dusting.

(7) 2nd Party (I) Union further submitted that, in the year 1993 , the Central Government in pursuant to the order dated 22nd July , 1993 passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition Nos . 1369 of 1993 , 1370 of93, 1372 of93 and 1373 of 1993 constituted a com- mittee consisting of 3 members to study the working of the contract labour system in the jobs / works performed by the employees in various categories in the concerned establishment of the 1st Party. The Committee after conducting detailed study made some re ommendations 3. Union further contended that, the 1st Party is engaged in Refining activities of crude oil and marketing of the Petroleum Products and runs its own Refinery various and own Plants/Terminals including administrative offices at various places . 1st Party has one such Refinery at "Mahul " where presently more than, 2000 permanent workers are employed in various process and jobs at the said Refinery. The said Refinery is spread over more than 100 acres . Union submitted that , besides these permanent employees 1st Party, has also employed contract workers in various process , jobs and works including the job of housekeeping . 2nd Party (1) Union submitted that, the present Reference concerns the workmen who are working as sweepers , valve operators and helpers in the establish- 1710

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAFFRA 21 , 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ]

saidNotice ofMetion was also disposed off vide order dated. 6th July, 1999. 2nd Party (1) Union states that, the said two orders viz . dated 24th June , 1998 and 6th July, 1996were challenged by the 1st Party in the Supreme Court underCivil Appeal No.3587-89 of 1999 and the same is pending before the Supreme Court.

(11) 2nd Party(1) Union submits that, inadvertently the names of the workers involved in the Reference re- mained to be included in the Exhibit " A" to the said Writ PetitionNo. 367 of 1996 and the present workmen are iden- tically placed and similarly situated as to the workers in the WritPetitionNo.367 of 1996 and they have been working continuously with the 1st Party for about last 10 years without anybreak.

to the Central Advisory Board and the said recommende tions proposed by the said Committee was accepted by the Central Government and in exercise of the powers vested in it under Sub-section ( 1 ) ofSection 10 oftheCon- tract Labour Application and Regulation Act, 1970 and after consultation with Central Advisory Board, ismiod a Notification dated 30th January, -1996 thereby advisedto prohibit the employment of Contract Labour in the works mentioned in Schedule annexed thereto with effect from 1st March, 1996. 2nd Party (1) Union submitted that, the employment ofcontract labour for the job of housekeep- ing, valve operators and helpers is prohibited under the saidNotification dated 30th January, 1996 andthat, both theNotifications dated 9th December, 1976 and 30th Janu- ary, 1996 are applicable to 1st Party.

(12)2nd Party(1) Union further submits that, 1st Party has its owndirect and regular employees who do the same and similar nature of work as being done by the present workers in their other establishments . However, the workers involved in the Reference are paid less wages than thewages, paidto the direct workers doing similar nature ofwork. As per Rule 25 (v) (a) these workmen are entitled to get same and similar wages and service conditions as paidto direct workers . 2nd Party (1) Union submits that, dueto very lowwages , these workers are having very hard life and though 1st Party is aware of their plight, they have not taken any steps in that direction.

(8) 2nd Party (1 ) Union submitted that, by virtue of theaforesaid notifications, Ist Party was not supposed to employcontract labour in process/job as set out thereunder. Itis contended by the Union that, the jobs which these workmen perform and attend to is squarely covered under the said notifications and therefore the 1st Party is not supposed to employ the contract labour in their establishment forthe work of sweeping , cleaning,mainte- nance who have been working there for last 8 years . Serv- ices ofthe concerned workmen are very much required by the 1st Party to run their Refinery therefore the workers involved in the reference be regularised.

(9) 2nd Party(1) Union submitted that, by virtue of the said Notifications workmen involved in the Reference became the regular and direct employees of the 1st party andthey are entitled to get the status ofthe regular workers with all consequential benefits and privileges.

(13) 2nd Party ( I) Union further submits that, 1st Party is in the habit of changing the contractors periodi- callywithout disturbing the workers . The said procedure was adopted bythe 1st Party in order to ensure that these workers should not claim regularisation . 2nd Party ( I) Un- ion submits that, the work ofthese workmen is supervised, controlled and administered by the 1st Party and therefore in all respects the workmen involved in the reference are the employees of the 1st party. The contractors used by the 1st Party are the dummy and sham Contractors . These contractors have no role to play at all . They come once or twice in amonth for preparation ofpaper work and to collect cheques and execpt this they have no role to play.

(14) 2nd Party (1) Union further submits that, the only object of employing these workers on contract basis is to deny them their legitimate salary and other benefits as are being paid to regular employees of the 1st party though the concerned workmen are serving with the 1st Party for number of years . 2nd Party ( 1) Union submit that, the services of concerned workmen are very much necessary and the 1st Party could have absorbed them and made them permanent as their regular workers , there istherefore, no impediment in absorbing them as regular employees .

(10) 2nd Party(1) Union further submitted that, pur- suant to the Notification dated 30th January, 1996 issued by the Union Government under Section 10 (1 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 it filed Writ Petition No.367 of1996 in the Hon'ble High Court at Bombay on behalfof 370 contract workers coveredby the said Notification dated 30th January, 1996 for a declaration that, the said workmen werethe regular employees of the 1st Party and the Learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide its order dated 10th July, 1996 directed 1st Party to abolish the contract labour system in respect of the jobs coveredby the said Notification dated 9th December, 1976 and 30th January, 1996 and absorb the said workers in their employment. 2nd PartyUnion submits that, being aggrieved by the said Order ist Party filed Appeal being No.33 of 1998 which was admitted on 24th June , 1998 inter aliadi- recting 1st Party to absorb 112 workmen as there was no disputein respect of their work and in respect of remaining 263 workmen the Regional Labour Commissioner was di- rected to investigate the nature ofwork performed by the said 263 workmen and submit his report . 2nd Party (1) Union submits that, thereafter Ist Party took out Notice of Motionbeing N.Mbio. 1940 of 1998-in their Appeal and the

(15) 2nd Party (1) Union submits that, 1st Party instead offollowing fair and proper personnel policy has introduced system of engaging and employing these workmen under such devices that the statutory responsibility of the 1st Party regarding terms and 1711 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

(17) 1st Party further submitted that, the General Employees Union which is espousing the cause of the employees referred in the Reference does not represent asingle workman directly employed by the employer i.e. by 1st Party and in the absence of substantial number of directly employed workmen supporting this Reference, Reference is bad in law and is liable to be rejected . Ist Party further submitted that, the employees whose cause General Employees Association espouses in this Reference, are not workmen under the provisions of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as such the Reference is liable to be rejected in limini. It is contended by the 1st Party that, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain a dispute which is not an industrial dispute as defined under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as such the Reference is liable tobe rejected for want ofjurisdiction. 1st Party further contended that, the matter item which is referred to this Tribunal does not come in the purview of any of the matters set out in the third schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is contended that, under sub- section 4 of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the Tribunal is required to adjudicate the matter which are referred to it and has to confine its jurisdiction to adjudicate on matters which are referred to it and has to confine its jurisdiction to the Reference made to it and decide upon the matters which are incidental thereto . 1st Party further contended that, the demand of the 2nd Party to regularize the Contractor's employees as direct employees is not within the purview of any of the subject contained in Schedule Second and Schedule Third ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 nor come within the purview of an Industrial Dispute to be adjudicated upon . As such the reference itself is bad and is liable to be rejected.

(18) It is further contended by the 1st Party that, the workmen involved in this Reference are not regular workmen as set out by the 2nd Party and 1st Party has no relationship of master and servant between the employees represented by the 2nd Party Union which is espousing the cause of the workmen involved in the Reference. It is also contended by the 1st Party that, the employees whose names are shown in Exhibit A to the Writ Petition No. 767 of 2002 have not been employees ofthe employer herein/ 1st Party and they have not been engaged for hire or award by the employer herein/ 1st Party and as such the 1st Party does not admit the correctness of several issues contained in the Writ Petition No. 767 of 2001 .

conditions of employment of these concerned workmen may be avoided and the concerned workmen may be subjected to exploitation by giving them service conditions which are inferior to the service conditions to the direct workmen of the 1st Party. The concerned workmen have been deprived of the basic human dignity and their rights and benefits to which they are entitled under various social and labour welfare legislation. 1st party has taken undue advantage of socially and economicallybackwardness of the workmen by engaging them through intermediate contractors or by other devices and that, on lifting the veil and looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment, we discern the naked truth , though draped in different perfect paper arrangements , that the real employer of the workmen concerning the present dispute is 1st Party. 2nd Party (1) Union submits that, as the livelihood of these workmen solely and substantially depends upon the labour rendered by them to produce goods and services for the benefit and satisfaction of the 1st Party the absence of direct relationship or the present of dubious intermediates or the make-believe trapping of detachment cannot snap the real lifebond and the liability of the 1st Party cannot be shaken off. 2nd Party ( I) Union submitted that, the contract between the 1st Party and the so called contractors are sham and bogus and those are a mere camouflage to deprive the concerned employees of the benefits available to permanent workmen in the skilled category of 1st Party. 2nd Party ( I) Union submits that, the workmen involved in the reference are entitled to be declared as permanent workmen in the skilled category of the 1st Party right from the dates of their joining the services and they are entitled to the wages and consequential benefits attached to the posts of permanent workmen employed in the skilled category of the 1st Party and the 2nd Party (I) Union therefore prayed to declaration that, the contracts between the 1st Party and the contractors is sham and bogus one and is a camouflage to deprive the workmen involved in the reference the benefits and service conditions which are available to permanent workmen of the 1st Party and that , the workmen involved in the reference are permanent/workmen in the skilled category of the 1st Party right from the date of their joining the service and fordirections to 1st Party to pay the concemed workmen their wages , allowances etc. and grant other service conditions on the basis that these workmen are permanent workmen in the skilled category of the 1st Party with effect from the date ofjoining their services with interest thereon@ 18% per annum.

(19) It is further contended by the 1st Party that, on5th April , 2002 , the Writ Petition No. 767 of 2001 was finally disposed off by the Hon'ble High Court with the order stated in para-4 of the Statement of Claim, however it is submitted by the 1st Party that these employees were not engaged by the 1st Party for any wages or otherwise but they were engaged by the respective (16) This is disputed by the 1st Party by filing Written Statement at Exhibit 9 , contending that, the Reference is invalid and not maintainable at law as in as such as there is no dispute existing or apprehended between the employer and workmen employed by the employer.

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ) 1712

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 11 , 2009 /CHAITRA 21 , 1931

Refinery is about 350 acres of land it becomes necessary to engage contractors for performance of jobs not connected with the regular and continuous work in the refinery, Apart from the above ist Party cannot recruit as direct employees beyond the sanctioned strength . 1st Party contended that, the contractors engagedby it are not dubious contractors nor are they engaged for the work of sweeping, cleaning and dusting etc. and if ever sweeping and cleaning work is carried out by any person, itwas incidental work .

contractors who are licenced contractors under the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and the choice of persons recruited is at the discretion and the decision of the contractors and the employer hereinhad no say or any supervision or control on the employees employed by the contractors . Contractors have been engaged for specific jobs and the Ist Party has no say in the choice of persons engaged by the contractor . 1st Party submitted that , in so far as the employment of any regular employee is concerned, the employer is governed by its own rules and regulations and the 1st Party being a public sector undertaking is a ' state' under Article 112 of the Constitution of India and as such is bound to recruit people having due regard to the rules and regulations and the directions of the Central Government in this regard.

(21) 1st Party further contended that, the Industry ofRefinery which is carrying on at Mahul is an essential service besides it is a high risk zone and at present it is declared as Red Alert area. It is submitted that , looking into the nature of industry, the ingress and egress of people coming to the Refinery are regulated, controlled and supervised. As the Contactors are authorised to perform the jobs entrusted to them by the 1st Party the employees engaged by them for the purpose of identity they are provided with the identity card and they were given passes for entry. Ist Party states that, it has its own recruited workmen for the purpose of sweeping and cleaning and the contractor has not been given the entire exclusive right of cleaning and sweeping and dusting the property of the 1st Party and that, the work carried on by the labourers engaged by the contractors are independent jobs not connected with the manufacturing activities of the 1st party .

(22) 1st Party further contended that , the Notification of the Government of India, referred by the 2nd Party have been struck down and are not applicable to the ist Party hence Ist Party does want to comment upon the same .

(23) 1st Party submitted that , since the matters are pending in the Supreme Court of India , it does want to comment upon the same . However, it is submitted by the 1st Party that, in so far as the direct labour is concerned, it is now governed by the decision of Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court of India in the matter of SAIL and as such all proceedings will have to be dealt with only in accordance with the directions laid down in the saidjudgment . However , in the event 2nd Party having taken up the issue of direct labour without there being any backing of any member of workmen directly employed by the employer, the Reference cannot be dealt by this Hon'ble Tribunal on the basis , as if it is a dispute between the workmen and the employer .

(20) It is further contended by the 1st Party that, it is a Government of India undertaking coming within the purview and administrative control of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas . It is engaged in refining of crude oil in its refineries at Mumbai and Vizag and in marketing of petroleum products throughout India. It is stated that, the refinery sources crude from Bombay High Fields of ONGC and gulf countries . The present refining capacity of Mumbai Refinery is around 5.5 mmt ofcrude oil p . m. It is contended that, in the performance of its functions , the refinery has to engage apart from regular workmen , a number of contractors for specific jobs and accordingly certain number of contractors are always engaged for certain projects and other jobs which are not performed by the regular workmen . 1st Party further stated that, the refinery has about 540 officers and about 1230 regular workmen to carry out regular operations , maintenance, technical projects , engineering, financial and administration activities including canteen. The Security is provided by Central Industrial Security Force. It is contended by the 1st Party that, all regular jobs are carried out by its regular workmen and in fact upto 10 mmt capacity the required manpower is around 550 workmen only as per national and international standards . It is stated that, against such norm , Mumbai Refinery engages around 1770 employees with surpluses of manpower. One of the causative factor of surplus manpower in any public sector undertaking are the number of project affected persons and the undertaking givenby the Government while acquiring the property for the purpose of putting up its industry. It is stated that, 1st Party obliged to award certain job contracts to the contractors through tender system for execution of

(24) 1st Party reiterated that , employees whose names were included in Exhibit "A" to the Writ Petition No.767 of 2001 were not the workmen of the 1st Party . 1st Party has not engaged the services of any of these workmen and they are employed by the Contractor and they have not been engaged by the Contractor through theadvice or direction of the 1st Party. In fact 1st Party entrusted the job contracts to the Contractors and the project jobs such as horticulture , grass cutting , tree pruning, repair and cleaning of drainage and repair and cleaning of roads , maintenance of flower plants , loading and transportation of crude from refinery, breakdown maintenance job , construction of building, repairing of compound walls , roads , pavements etc. It is submitted by the 1st Party that, since the area occupied by the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1713

भारत काराजपत्र: अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

the job entrusted to the Contractor is fulfilled by the Contractor any time as required by the principal Employer . Ist Party also denied that, the Contractor engaged by the Employer has been sham or dummy Contractor as alleged or at all .

said contract is entrusted to the respective Contractors under the provisions of Contract Regulation and Abolition Act , 1970 and the 1st Party has no say in the selection and recruitment of the persons employed by the Contractor . In fact it is left to the discretion and judgment of the Contractor to chose the person whom he wants to recruit. 1st Party is disabled from recruiting any employee whoever applies for a job. 1st Party has to follow recruitment rules , reservation policy in selection ofany employee. Ist Party states that , it is possible that, these workmen have been working continuously with the respective Contractors but they have never been advised or directed by the 1st Party to absorb them by successive contractor .

(27) It is also denied by the 1st Party that, the contract given to the various Contractors is to deny the concerned workmen engaged by them the benefits of the regular employees . It is contended by the 1st Party that, it has been engaging Contract Labour for years right from the inception of the predecessor Company and 1st Party has not engaged the Contract Labour in order to take undue advantage of social and economical backwardness of workers as alleged. It is further submitted by the 1st Party that , in fact as aforesaid the Contract Labour is need as the activities of the 1st Party is so spread out and enormous and it becomes necessary to entrust certain jobs which has no nexus with the manufacturing activities to give those jobs on contract so that 1st Party is only concerned about the end achievement of the jobs entrusted to the Contractors and do not have to monitor jobs thus diverting their attention from the manufacturing activities.

(25) It is further contended by the 1st Party that, it has its own direct and regular employees who are designated to carry out the work entrusted to them and the work performed by the regular employees are in no way connected with the work performed by the Contractors' employees nor the Contractors ' employees were engaged to supplement the work of the direct employees nor the work performed by the Contractors' employees overlap with the work of the regular employees . The regular employees and the Contractors' employees do not perform the work together complementing each other. It is submitted that the Contractors has to pay the workers engaged by him directly and the Contractor is not obliged to pay the same wages and the benefits payable to the direct workers but being the principal employer , the employer monitors the contractors to see that, the workmen engaged by the Contractor were not paid less than prescribed minimum wages and other statutory benefits .

(28) 1st Party further contended that, it has not engaged the Contract Labour through the device of Contractors in order to treat them as under- privileged vis-a-vis the direct employees . It has engaged the Contractors for the performance of certain jobs and it is immaterial for 1st Party, the number of persons whom the Contractor engaged for the completion of the job entrusted to him. It is contended that, the workmen who are involved in the present reference being not the direct employees nor belong to temporary, casual or badli categories and they are not entitled for permanency and regularization of their employment with the 1st Party. It is submitted that , the Reference is not in relation to dispute between the regular employees of 1st Party and the Employer/ 1st Party and as such these employees involved in the reference are not entitled for any benefits as prayed for and the reference is liable to be rejected.

(29) 2nd Party (1) Union filed Rejoinder at Exhibit 17 submitting that, the workmen involved in the reference are workmen of the 1st Party within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the contract arrangement between the Management and the contractor is sham and bogus and the concerned workmen are entitled to the reliefs as prayed.

(26) 1st Party submits that, it is true that , upon the expiry of the tenure of the Contractual Agreement, the Contractors are changed. 1st Party does not interfere in recruitment of workers by the succeeding Contractor but it leant from the incoming Contractor that, at the time he continues to employ the same workers on terms and conditions not less favourable than what it was while they were in the services with the outgoing Contractor. It is contended that perhaps the continuity of services is given by the new Contractor with the understanding reached with the outgoing Contractor who does not have to pay compensation to the workmen employed by him ifhe has been engaged by the succeeding Contractor. It is contended that, it is totally incorrect to allege that 1st Party is in the habit of changing the Contractor withoutdisturbing the workers as alleged or at all. In fact 1stParty is concerned with the performance of the job entrusted to the Contractor but not the workmen engaged byhim. It is submitted by the 1st Party that , it is incorrect to allege that, 1st Party at any time supervise or controls the services of the employees engaged by the Contractor as employer/ 1st Party is only interested in seeing that

(30) Bharatiya Kamgar Karamchari Mahasangh made an application at Exhibit 44 for impleading it as a Party in the Reference, stating and contending that, as many as 18 concerned workmen with this reference have become the members of its Union by resigning from the membership of the General Employees Association. It is contended by the Applicant- Union that , these 18 concerned workmen do not desire that henceforth they 1714

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 11 , 2009 /CHAITRA 21 , 1931

(33) Second Party Union who is involved in this reference by filing reply at Exhibit 45 has also opposed this application stating that, reason given by Applicant- Union to implead it as a necessary party is baseless and without any ground. It denied that, workers in the Reference are the members of the Applicant- Union. It is also contended by the 2nd Party that, even at present this Union-2nd Party represents numbers of workers and 2nd Party-Union has authority to proceed with the Reference.

should be repesented by the 2nd party (I) Union or by any other Union except the Applicant- Union. It is contended by the Applicant- Union that as these concerned workmen are directly and distinctly related to the subject matter involved in the reference and as they have become its members the Applicant- Union, has become a necessary party to the present refernce for effectively representing the concerned workmen in this reference. It is submitted by the Applicant- Union that, these concerned workmen apprehends bonafiedly that, will not be properly represented by erstwhile Union i.e. General-Employess Association and their interest is likely to be jeopardized by the 2nd party because they have resigned from the membership of the said Union and have become the members of the Applicant- Union.

(34) After hearing the concerned parties by order dated 21-2-2007 application was disposed of with observations that , Applicant-Union (BKKM) cannot be necessary party but only it can represent its workers involved in the reference and may file Statement of Claim on behalf of workers and attend on the date given for further stage.

(31) It is contended by the Applicant -Union that , any order or decision that may be passed in this proceeding will affect the interest of these concened 18 workmen as they have become the members of the Applicant-Union it is necessary that the said representative Union i.e. BKKM be given an opportunity of being heard in this proceeding and unless otherwise the Applicant-Union is impleaded as necessary party to represent the concerned 18 workmen and unless otherwise the copies of all necessary papers are supplied to it, it will not be possible for this Union to protect the interest of its members who are already concerned with this reference. Therefore , it is necessary that Applicant- Union be impleaded as nesssary party and if the application is not allowed and the Applicant- Union is not impleaded as necessary party then , the concerned 18 workmenwill suffer irreparable loss and demages . Their service willbe at stake . On the contrary the General Employees Association and the management of HPCL will not suffer in any manner by impleading the Applicant- Union as necessary party. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the Applicant- Union. Therefore , Applicant-Union prayed that , it be impleaded as necessary party and for directions to supply it copies of all papers.

(35) As per the order passed on the above Application ofthe Applicant- Union i.e. Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh (which shall be called hereinafter as "BKKM" ), filed Statement of Claim , at Exhibit 18 , in respect of the workers , as per Annexure " A " annexed to it, involved in the Reference contending and stating that, the concerned workmen in this reference were the members of erstwhile Union viz . General Employees Association. However, they have resigned from the membership of the said 2nd Party (1 ) Union sometime in the month of January , 2005 and became the members of this Union i.e. BKKM and necessary intimation in this regard has been given to the 1st Party and to the erstwhile Union from time to time. It is contended by BKKM that, the concerned workmen are in the employment ofHPCL since last about 20 years and that , they have been assigned permanent and perennial nature of work in HPCL Refinery by the managerial personnel of the 1st Party. It is stated that, they are obeying all their directions and performing their work, accordingly , as assigned to them from time to time by officers of the 1st Party . Their work is supervised and controlled by the officers of the 1stParty. They are answerable for their work to the 1st Party directly and distinctly for all purposes in the eye oflaw. There is a relationship in between these workmen and the 1st Party that of 'employer' and 'employee' . It is submittedby the BKKS that, however , some bogus , sham and concocted arrangements have been made in between the 1st Party and the alleged contractor to show that, the workmen involved in the Reference are that ofcontractor's . It is further submitted by the BKKM that, many alleged contractors have been changed in last 20 years but the set of concerned workmen have been continued in service .

(36) It is further submitted by the Union that, though all these concerned workmen are performing permanent and perennial nature of work alongwith the permanent employees of the 1st Party there are vast (32) This prayer was objected by 1st Party by filing Say at Exhibit 46 stating that, this Tribunal has no power to allow stranger Union as necessary party. It is also contended by the 1st Party that, this Reference came at the instance of 2nd Party (I) Union who is already impleaded as a party in the reference and the workers were represented by the said Union. It is further contended by the 1st Party that , the Appropriate Government has made reference by considering all this situation. The Applicant -Union (BKKM) is not competent to espouse the cause of the concerned workmen and was not in existence at the time of the dispute which was decided to send by the Central Government to the said authority. Since Applicant- Union (BKKM ) has no locus standi, it cannot be made necessary party and application filedby it be rejected.

1715 भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 11, 2009/चैत्र 21, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

BKKM Union submitted that , the Charter of demands was in respect of the fixation of pay scales . Dearness Allowance , Conveyance , Travel and washing allowance, leave, sick leave , Uniform, bonus , coverage under PF Act and ESI Act,

differences in the terms and conditions of service vis- a-vis in salary of these concerned workmen and that of the permanent. These concerned workmen are not given any kind of statutory benefits such as CL PL, SL and even there is vast difference in the salary structure and allowances in between the two . It is submitted by the BKKM Union that , total salary payable to these concerned workman is hardly Rs . 3500 to Rs . 4000 per month whereas for the same and similar kind of work the permanent employees of the 1st Party are paid near about Rs . 20,000 and above .

(39) It is submitted by the BKKM Union that, it is not new for the labour judiciary to deal with such issues and inmany matters the demands of the contract labours have been accepted and the Management has been directed not to make discrimination in two sets of workmen regardless of merits .

(40) So it is prayed by the BKKM Union that, Award be passed revising the terms and conditions of service of the workmen as prayed in COD.

(37) BKKM Union further submitted that; it entered into a protracted correspondence with the 1st Party since 2005 and requested it to enhance or atleast to minimize this disparity in monthly wages and other terms and conditions of service in between the permanent employees on the one hand and these alleged contract labourers but 1st Party avoided to take appropriate steps inthematter and it also submitted its Charter of demands for and on behalf of its members to the 1st Party vide its letter dated 5-10-2005 with a request for amicable settlement after discussions and negotiations but no meetings have been arranged by the 1st Party.

(38) BKKM Union further submitted that, the erstwhile Union also submitted its Charter of demands and the Government of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi by its order No. L-30011/54/2001 - IR( M ) referred the dispute of Charter of demands for adjudication to .this Tribunal for adjudication:

(41) It is submitted by the BKKM Union that , the existing concerned workmen , who are its members , are in the employment of 1st Party since last more than 20 years continuously , uninterruptedly and peacefully , however they have been branded as a manpower supply or contract labour by the 1st Party . It is submitted by the BKKM Union that, allegedly some documents have been executed in between the alleged contractor and the 1st Party but it has not seen the same so far and the same have been filed in the Court . It is submitted by the BKKM Union that, the said documents must be bogus , sham, concocted , fraudulent and inadmissible in evidence. It is submitted by the BKKM Union that , the same must have been prepared to avoid the statutory liability to give permanency benefits to these workmen and to deprive them of their legitimate rights of equal work equal pay at par with the permanent employees of the 1st Party.

"Whether the Charter of demands raised by the General Employees Association vide their letter dated 22-01-2001 against the Management ofHPCL justified. If so, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled ? "

and it gave rise to Reference No. CGIT - 2 / 128 of 2002. It is also submitted by the BKKM Union that, the present Reference has arisen by virtue of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 5-4-2002 in Writ Petition No.767 of 2001 filed by the 2nd Party Union and the Appropriate Government was directed to make a reference of the following demands to the Tribunal for adjudication:

(i)Whether the contract between Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , (HPCL) and the existing contractor/s is a sham and bogus one and is a camouflage to deprive the concerned employees represented by the petitioner herein of benefits available to permanent workmen of HPCL?

( ii ) Whether the workmen represented by the petitioner employed by HPCL through the Contractors should be declared as permanent workmen ofHPCL ?

(iii) What are the wages and consequential benefits to be paid to the concerned employees ?

(42) It is submitted by the BKKM Union that, many alleged contractors have come and gone in last 20 years but the concerned workmen involved in the Reference have been continued in service . Had these concerned workmen been the employees of somebody else , their services would have been terminated at the time of changing the contractor and or terminating the earlier alleged contracts with the contractors . It is submitted by the BKKM Union that, the 1st Party is well aware that , these concerned workmen have been employed for permanent and perennial nature of work e.g. Valve operation , machine operations , maintenance of machines , helpers , welding , building maintenance, garden maintenance of FR and LR, Sweeper, House Keeping of the plant and mechanical shop . It is submitted by the Applicant- Union that, the Director General , Labour Welfare, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, has issued Notification dated 30-1-1996 and prohibited the employment of contract labour in the work specified in the schedule annexed thereto in some establishments of 1st Party w.e.f. 1-3-1996. It is submitted by the BKKM Union that, accordingly the jobs of cleaning , sweeping and dusting , valve operators , welders , fitters , turners , 1234 GI/09-16 1716

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/ CHAITRA 21 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ⅱ) ] helpers etc. etc. have been included in the schedule where the 1st Party has been prohibited to employ contract labour .

manner on its role because in last 20 years these workmen are associated though as alleged contract labour , it means ithas to employ considerable number of regular workmen on its own role.

(46) It is further submitted by the BKKM Union that, it is necessary to declare these workmen as permanent workmen of HPCL because otherwise it will amount to giving a premium for the dishonesty of the Ist Partyto employ and continue alleged contract labour for doing permanent and regular nature ofwork and to deprive these workmen ofpermanency benefits , such implied permission cannot be granted by the Court because justice has to be done and it must appear to have been done to the poor workmen and exploitation of poor workmen has to be checkedand controlled and that is possible only by passing appropriate orders by this Court .

(43) It is submitted by the BKKM Union that, the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 767 of2001 vide its order dated 9-11-2001 has clarified that, the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner to investigate the claim of the concerned workmen involved therein and the nature of work carried out by them and whether they are covered by the above said notification issued by the Central Government under the Act of 1970 , dated 9-12-1976 and 30-1-1996. It is submitted by the BKKM Union that , these concerned workmen are working under the supervision and control of the personnel of the 1st Party and the alleged contractors never gives any directions about the work to be carried on by the workmen neither the contractor nor his representative ever remain present to give any instructions when these workmen are actually working at various locations .

(44) It is submitted by the BKKM Union that, taking into consideration that the process, operation and other work carried on by these workmen is incidental to , or necessary for the industry , trade , business , manufacture or occupation i.e. carried on by the HPCL it is clear that the alleged contract is bogus , sham and fraudulent one and the work carried out by these concerned workmen is of a permanent nature . It is submitted by the BKKM Union that, it is sufficient duration till the 1st Party is involved in the same kind of business, the same work is done by the regular permanent employees in the establishment or any other establishment similar thereto . It is submitted by the BKKM Union that, it is very much essential to employ considerable number of whole time regular workmen . The appropriate Government has taken decision about various kinds of work which the alleged contract labour use to perform and have come to final conclusion that it is of a permanent nature . It is submitted by the BKKM that, therefore, the notification about abolishing the contract labour in some such areas have been issued, contract labours are prohibited there.

(47) It is further submitted by the BKKM Union that, it cannot be justified in any manner whatsoever that, the workmen working for 20 years should be deprived of permanency benefits , he should not be given a statutory leave and or he should be paid a megre amount of Rs .3000 to4000 per month after20 years ofhis service and that too for the same nature of which is performed by the regular workamen by receiving Rs . 20,000 to 30,000 per month with all other facilitiese.g. leave, traveling allowance , medical allowance, medical facilities , revision ofwage scales every after three years , huge salary, canteen facilities , short loans, long loans, housing loan etc. It is further submitted by the BKKM Union that, why the children of these alleged contract workmen and his family members shall suffer measurable life when the next door adjacent regular employee of the same company, same department is living in a very luxurious life in the huge salary received by him from the company only because he is regular employee . Whythe two set of workmen performing same kind ofwork shall not be treated at par with each other . One can understand this distinction is made by the Company for the first one or two years but it should not be tolerated and continued thereafter. It is further submitted by the BKKM Union that, here the big corporate office of number one status in the nation is exploiting the workmen since last 20 years continuously . It is therefore , prayed by the BKKM Union that, it should be declared that , the workmen representedby this it through the alleged contractor/s as permanent workmen of 1st Party and they shall be paid all consequential benefits of permanency with retrospective effect i.e. since the date they have completed continuous , uninterrupted and peaceful of 240 days. It is prayed by the BKKM Union that, in the alternative all consequential benefits at par with the permanent employees be granted atleast w.e.f. the date when the High Court passed on order, on 5-4-2002 in Writ Petition No. 767 of2001.

(45) It is submitted by the BKKM Union that, taking into consideration the various attending circumstances such as ( i) These workmen are in service of the 1st Party since last more than 20 years (ii) they are performing permanent, perennial nature of work , ( iii) the work is continuously available and without performing the same one, the manufacturing activities or the process work of the 1st Party cannot be competed (iv) the work which these workmen are doing since last many years is necessary for the industry , (v) the same kind of work is also performed by the regular workmen in the establishment, (vi) this kind ofwork is also performed by other establishments similar to that ofHPCL through regular and permanent workmen (vii) the HPCL is in need ofadditional man force in a regular

(48)This is disputed by the 1st Party by filing written statement at Exhibit 49 stating and contending that , it is a 1717

भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

does not admit the correctness ofseveral issues contained in the Statement of Claim of BKKM. 1st Party further denied that, the concerned workmen were engaged since last 20 years and are engaged in perennial nature ofjobs under the supervision and control of 1st Party. It is contended by the 1st Party that, the concerned workmen are contract workers and there is no ' employer ' and 'employee' or ' master ' and ' servant ' relationship existed with 1st Party. It is contended by the 1st Party that, it awarded contracts to the different successful contractors over a period of 20 years depending upon the lowest bid of the contractor to carry out different jobs of Ist Party as per Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970 and the contractors have beenengaging the contract workmen with an understanding among the outgoing and incoming contractors and Ist Party does not have any control or supervision over contract workmen and the statement of claim is fabricated, motivated, false, perversed, erred and not maintainable in the eyes of law.

Government of India Undertaking under the Administrative Jurisdiction ofMinistry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and it is in the business ofRefining and Distribution ofPetroleum products. It is contended that, it has got 2 Refineries at Mumbai and Visakhapatnam , 4 Zonal Offices , Terminals , Regional Offices, LPG Plants , Depot's and TOP's spread all over India. It is submitted by the 1st Party that, the Reference is not maintainable at law in as much as there is no dispute existing or apprehended between the 1st Party andthe concerned workmen and that, the Bharatiya Kamgar Karamchari Mahasangh Union is espousing the cause of the contract workers referred to in the Reference and not espoused and supported by workmen directly employed by the 1st Party and thus the Reference pending before this Tribunal is bad in law and is Hable to be rejected. It is contended by the 1st Party that, the Bharatiya Kamgar Karamchari Mahasangh which is espousing the cause of the contract workmen in this reference has no representative character to pursue the Reference in as much as they have hardly few directly employed persons as their members in the Refinery, hence for want of substantive support of the workmen employed in the refinery the said Union has no capacity to pursue the Reference.

(49) It is further contended by the 1st Party that,the reference made by the Central Government in respect of the concerned workmen engaged by the Contractors to this Tribunal is opposed in law in as much as in the matter of Steel Authority of India Ltd. , the Constitution Bench has declared and laid down the law regarding the absorption and regularization of contract labour. In the said matter Apex Court has held that , unless the Appropriate Government abolishes the contract labour under Section 10 ofContract Labour (Regulation & Abolition ) Act, the workman engaged by contractor cannot seek referenceto the Tribunal for adjudication. It is submitted by the 1st Party that, in the instant case the contract labour has not been abolished under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, and direct reference made by the Central Government to this Tribunal is wholly erroneous and is opposed to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2001 3 CLR page 349) hence the Reference is liable to be rejected.

(50) It is contended by the 1st Party that, the concerned workmen are not regular workmen as set outby the BKKM-Union and 1st Party has no relationship of master and servant between the ' workmen' represented by the BKKM which is espousing the cause in the present Reference.

(52) It is further contended by the 1st Party that, the concerned workmen were not employed by it directly for wages or otherwise but they were engaged by their respective Contractors who are licenced contractors under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. 1st Party invites public tenders to carry out its certain time bound project jobs as per its contracts and purchase procedure . The eligible licenced contractors apply as per terms and conditions specified in the job schedule and submit their applications for open bidding and as per Contract Committee's recommendations thejob is awarded to the lowest bidding party to carry out the specifiedjobs. The choice of the workmen to be engaged is at the discretion and decision of the contractors . 1st Party has no say in the matter. It is contended by the 1st Party that , the supervision or control on the contract workmen employed by the contractor is totally that of the contractor. The concerned workmen have been engaged bythe contractor who is awarded the job ofHouse keeping , gardening and other jobs at the Refinery. It is contended by the 1st Party that, the contractors have been engaged for specific jobs and 1st Party has no master and servant relationship with the workmen engaged by the contractor. Ist Party neither control nor supervise the contractor's workmen. It is contended by the 1st Party that , in so far as theemployment of any regular employee is concerned, is governed by its own recruitment rules and regulations . It is contended by the 1st Party that , it being a public sector undertaking is state under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such is bound to recruit people having fulfilled the rules , regulations and the directions of the Central Government in this regard . It engages its own workmen as per its recruitment policy and as per statutory compliance i.e. through Compulsory Notification to Employment Exchange Act . The persons with Disabilities ( Equal Opportunities , Protection of Rights and Full Participation) (51) It is contended by the 1st Party that , the concerned workmen might have changed their Union and joined BKKM but the workmen whose names are shown in Annexure "A" to the statement of claim have not been workmen of the 1st Party and they have not been engaged for hire or award by the 1st Party and as such 1st Party 1718

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/ CHAITRA 21 , 1931

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

concerned workmen and the job is not perennial in nature .

Act, 1995 and Public Notification as per Art. 18 & 16 of Constitution of India offering equal opportunity to the People of India who are fulfilling the qualifications , age , reservation and experience etc. as per Presidential Directives. All vacancies are compulsorily notified to the Employment Exchange and open public advertisement for compliance of reservation policy for various categories like SC/ ST/OBC etc. Thus the claim of the workers under reference, claiming salary and leave benefits along with permanent workers is to look out by their employer (Contractor) but not by the 1st Party. It is contended by the Ist Party that, claiming employment from back door entry with the Ist Party is against the policy , rules , procedure, reservation and directions of the Government ofIndia. Ist Party being the Public Sector Corporation is bound to follow Government directions in its recruitment and any entry through back door recruitment is violation of recruitment policy and will greatly prejudice the rights ofpublic.

(55) It is contended by the 1st Party that, the concerned workmen involved in the Reference are not working with it since last 20 years and that, these workmen were not engaged by it for any wages or otherwise but they were engaged by their respective Contractors who are licenced contractors under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act , 1970. It is contended by the 1st Party that , it invites public tenders to carry out its certain time bound jobs as per the Purchase Procedure. It is contended by the 1st Party that, the eligible contractors apply as per terms and conditions specified in the job schedule and submit their applications for bidding and as per contract committee recommen- dations, the job is awarded to the lowest bidding partyto carry out the special job . The choice of the workmen engaged is at the discretion and the decision of the contractors and it has no say in the matter . It is contended by the 1st Party that , the supervision or control on the contract workmen employed by the contractor is totally thatofthe contractor. The concerned workmen are engaged by the Contractor who is awarded the job . It is submitted by the 1st Party that, the contractors have been engaged for specific jobs and it has no master and servant relationship with the workmen engaged by the contractor. Itiscontended by the 1st Party that , it neither control nor supervise the contractor's workmen . The work has been entrusted to contractors as per Purchase Order terms and conditions . 1st Party, therefore , denied the manipulation ofpapers for continuous of work as alleged by BKKM .

(53) It is contended by the 1st Party that , the service conditions , fixation of pay scales, dearness allowance, HRA, conveyance , traveling, washing allowance, leave , uniform , charter of demands etc. are the terms and conditions of employment between the contractors and their workmen. 1st Party is neither an ' employer ' nor a 'master' to the contract workmen and no jurisdiction to look into the terms and conditions of contract workmen employed by the contractor . It is contended by the Ist Party that, it ensures applicable statutory compliances, payment ofbonus , PF, ESI , Minimum wages etc. to the contract workmen as a principal employer. It is contended bythe 1st Partythat, thus the statement of claim submitted by BKKM is false , malicious , biased; to mislead this Tribunal, it therefore , prayed that , the same be rejected.

(56) It is contended by the 1st Party that, the workers are continuing merely because of status quo order dated 12-8-2002 passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court . Ist Partydenied the allegations made by BKKM and the matter in Writ Petition No.767 of2001 was referred to the CGIT by Hon'bleBombay High Court vide its order dated 5-4-2002 considering the Steel Authority of India case declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is contended by the 1st Partythat, the jobs are not perennial in nature. These jobs are carried out by Contractors based on 1st Party's purchase order placed on contractors and Contractor is supervising the job . 1st Party doesn't intervene with the contract workmen in any supervisory capacity and the concerned workers are not directly reporting to the 1st Party nor engaged by it .

(54) 1st Party denied that , the contracts between HPCL and contractors is sham, bogus and camouflageto deprive the benefits of contract workmen. It is contended by the Ist Party that, the Contractors are authorized through Annual Purchase Orders to carry out the jobs entrusted to them who are having valid Labour Licence as per Contract Labour (R & A) Act, 1970. It further denied that, the concerned contract workmen are working with HPCL since last 20 years , they may be working with different contractors under different terms and conditions best suited to each others as there is a mutual understanding between the outgoing and incoming contractors to continue the same workmen employed by them for their own administrative and other reasons best known to each other contractors . 1st Party also denied that, the purchase orders are sham and bogus , concocted, fraudulent and fabricated etc. 1st Party placed contracts on contractors as per its purchase procedure . The Contractors had engaged their own workers and 1st Party has nothing to do with the workers employed by the Contractors as it does not have any control over them nor any ' master' and ' servant' relationship exist between the

(57) It is contended by the Ist Party that, the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of SAIL case proceedings will have to be dealt with only in accordance with the directions laid down in the said judgment . It is contendedbythe 1st Party that, the workers whose names were included in Exhibit A to the said Writ Petition No.767 of2001 were not the workmen of the 1st Party . In fact Ist Partyhas not engaged the services ofany of these workmen and they are employed by the Contractor and they have not been engaged by the contractor through the advice or direction ofthe 1st Party. In fact 1st Party entrusted the job 1719

भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

tothe contractor as per the provisions of Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970 and 1st Party has no say in the selection and recruitment ofthe workers engaged bythe Contractor and the Contractor is free to choose the workers whom he wants to engage . 1st Party is disabled from engaging any worker whosoever applies for a job. Ist Party has to follow Recruitment Rules , Reservation Policy in selection of any employee . 1st Party states that, it is possible that these workers have been working continuously with respective Contractors but have never been advised or directed by 1st Party to absorb them by successive Contractor .

vis-a -vis the direct workers . 1st Party has engaged the Contractor for the performance of certain jobs and it is immaterial for 1st party , the persons whom the contractor engages for the completion ofthejob entrusted to him . It is contended by the 1st Party that , the workers who are concerned in the reference being not the direct employees nor belong to Temporary , casual or badli category and theyare not entitled for permanency and regularization of their employment with the 1st party. It is contended by the 1st Party that, the Reference is not in relation to dispute between the regular employees and the 1st Party and as such these employees are not entitled for any benefits as prayed for andthe reference be rejected.

(61) BKKK filed rejoinder at Exhibit 50 reiterating the same thing what it has stated in its Statement of claim filed atExhibit 48 and contending that, the Industrial Dispute exists there as defined under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 since 1st Party is the principal employer in respect of the concerned workmen and a duty is cast upon Ist Party to ensure that all statutory provisions in regard to the employment of the workmen working with it are compliedwith .

(62) In view ofthe above pleadings my Ld . Predeces- sor framed Issues at Exhibit 16 which I answer as under:

FINDINGS

ISSUES

Yes

1. Whether the workers under Reference are workmen under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act?

2. Whether the reference is not Maintainable under section 2(k) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act as averred in Written Statement para 4 ? No (58) It is contended by the 1st Party that, upon the expiry of the tenure of the Contractual Agreement, the Contractors are changed. 1st Party doesn't interfere in en- gagementnent of workers by the succeeding Contractor but the 1st Party has learnt from the incoming Contractor that at the time he continues to engage the same workers on terms and conditions not less favourable than what it was while they were in the services with the outgoing contractor. Perhaps the continuity of services is given by the new Contractor with the understanding reached with the outgoing Contractor who does not have to pay Compensation to the workmen engaged by him if he has been engaged by the succeeding Contractor. It is submit- ted that, it is totally incorrect to allege that , 1st Party is in the habit of changing the Contractor without disturbing the workers as alleged or at all . In fact, 1st Party is con- cernedwith the performance of the job entrusted to the Contractor but not to the workmen engaged by him . It is submitted that, in the present case the concerned work- men are continuing in view of the status quo order dated 12-8-2002 . It is contended by the 1st Party that , it doesn't supervise or control the services of the workers engaged by the Contractor. 1st Party is only interested in seeing that, the job entrusted to the Contractor is fulfilled by the Contractor as per the scope and specifications of the job. 1stpartydenied that, the Contractor engaged by it is sham and bogus as alleged.

Yes

3. Whether employer employee relationship exists between Management-company and the workers under reference ?

Yes

4. Whether the contract between Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., and the contractor/s is a sham and bogus one and is a camouflage todeprive the concerned workers frombenefit available to permanent workmen of Company?

(59) It is contended by the 1st Party that, it has not beenengaging Contract Labour for last 20 years. It is con- tended by the 1st Party that, it has not engaged the Con- tract labour in order to take undue advantage of Social and Economical and Backwardness ofworkers as alleged. The aforesaid contract labour is needed as the activities ofthe 1stParty is so spread out and enormous and it becomes necessary to entrust certain jobs which has no nexus with the manufacturing/ core activities to give those jobs on contract so that, the 1st Party is only concerned about the end achievement of the jobs entrusted to the Contractors and do not have to monitor jobs thus diverging their attention from the manufacturing activities .

Yes

5. Whether the concerned workers employed by HPCL through the contractors are entitled to be declared as permanent workmen ofthe company?

(60) It is contended by the 1st Party that; it has not engaged the Contract Labour through device of Contrac- tors in order to treat them as under privileged 1720

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAITRA 21 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ) 6. What reliefthe concerned Workers in respect ofwages and monetary benefits are entitled to?

ture etc. Theywere also attending work of valve operators . Most of them work for more than 10 years and some are working for more than 20 years . The work of sweeping, cleaning and dusting , valve operators and helpers is of permanent and perennial nature.

Atpar with permanent Employees 1stPartyon the same post. workingwith

Does not arise .

7. Whether charter of demand dated 22-1-2001 raised byBharatiya Kamgar , Karamchari Mahasangh is justified?

REASONS:

ISSUES NOS . 1 & 3 :

(65) Both the 2nd Parties state that, Government of India considered the position and issued the Notification dated 9-12-1976 under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (A& R) Act, 1970 and thereby prohibited the employment of contract system in the process of cleaning , sweeping, dusting etc. in the premises of the 1st Party . The decision was taken by the appropriate Government i.e. by Central Government . Since these workers are working in the premises of the 1st party and attending work of permanent and perennial nature without which 1st Party cannot function it require to treat them as permanent employees .

(66) The permanent employees who are doing work of similar type are getting good salary which is above Rs.20,000 per month . Against that workers of both 2nd Parties are getting salary ofabout Rs . 3000 to 4000 without other benefits which are extended to its permanent employees . These are not getting over time , medical benefits and other facilities as extended by the 1st Partyto the permanent employees working in the same post .

(67) The workers involved in the Reference were not listed in Writ Petition No. 367 of 1996 where Hon'ble Bombay High Court directed 1st Party to abolish the contract labour system in respect of jobs covered under the saidNotification and treat them as permanent employ- ees. Since these workers were not in the enlisted in that list whichwas considered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court whiledisposing off the Writ Petition No.367 of 1996, these workers involved in the Reference were deprived of the said order. So by these pleadings both 2nd Party i.e. 2nd Party No.1 i.e. General Employees Association and employees of Kamagar Karamchari Sangh pray that , they be regularised as permanent employees of the 1st Party whose names are given by them i.e. by Association at Exhibit ' A' and by BKKM at Annexure " A" .

(63) The case of the 2nd Party (1 ) i.e. of General Secretary, of General Employees ,Association (which will be hereinafter as " Association" ) and the case of the new added employees represented by General Secretary, Bharatiya Kamgar Karamchari Mahasangh (which will be hereinafter referred to as " BKKM" ) i.e. 2nd Party is that, employees involved in the reference are working with the 1stParty in different capacities for last 10 to 20 years. They are working continuously and doing the work of sweep- ing, cleaning the Plant and dusting ofbuilding area, toilets , flooring , furniture etc. which they have been assigned. The said work is ofpermanent and perennial nature ofthe 1stparty. It is stated that contract workers and permanent workers are employed by the Management in various proc- ess at various jobs and including the house keeping , sweeping, cleaning and dusting in the said Refinery. 1st Party is the Refinery engaged in the activities of refining the crude oil and marketing of petroleum products and distributing the petroleum products . It runs its own Refin- ery and various Plants and Terminals at various places and one of such Refinery is at Mahul . Said Plant is spread over more than 100 acres of land. Besides 2000 permanent employees , 1 st Party Hindustan Petroleum Corporation i.e. HPCL (which will be hereinafter referred to as "HPCL" ) has also.employed contract workers on the various proc- ess jobs and works including job of house keeping. The stand of both these 2nd Parties is that, these employees work on the post of Sweepers , Valve Operators and on the postofLabours in the establishment of the HPCL through various dubious contractors . Some of them are engaged in work of sweeping , cleaning and dusting of the building and Plant in the Refinery which is owned and occupiedby the the 1st Party.

(68) This is disputed by the 1st Party by filing writ- ten statement initially at Exhibit 9 and then at Exhibit 49 making out the case that, subject matter of the Reference is not maintainable . Employees involved in the reference are not employees of the 1st Party. Since they are not employ- ees of the 1st party they cannot fall under the definition of Section 2( s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and can- not be called employees unless and until they are employ- ees of the 1st Party they cannot raise the dispute . Besides they have made out the case that , there is no ' employee' and' employer ' relationship between the 1st Party and the members of the 2nd Party i.e. General Employees Association and BKKM.

(64) According to these both the Unions Manage- ment require large number of permanent workers at its Refinery at Mahul . The work carried out at Mahul Refinery is of permanent and perennial nature . The work- ers whose names are enlisted at Exhibit ' A' to the Petition were engaged in the work of sweeping, cleaning and dust- ing of the building premises which are owned and occu- pied by the 1st Party. The nature ofjob of the workmen is cleaning the plant and building are , toilets , flooring , furni-

(69) We are considering the dispute raised by the both 2nd Party, the case of these workers involved in the 1721 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[भाग- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

Reference and their relationship with the 1st Party.

time. When question was put to him, what he has to say about the permanency ofthe workers involved in the refer- ence to make them permanent is just and reasonable to which he answered that, " it depends on Government policy" . He admits that, number ofcontractors are changed from time to time . He admits that, these contractors are changed but the same group of workers are working with the different contractors continuously on their work. He admits that, he cannot name any of the supervisor of the contractor who supervise the work . He also states that , he didnot remember the name of supervisor of the contrac- tor . He also admits that , he has no evidence to show that Contractors are frequently visiting the work place and en- tering the Company's premises for the contract work to supervise the work of the workers who are working under them. He admits that , he did not know whether the work of the Valve Operator is skilled job . He states that, he cannot give the skill possessed by any of the contractors engaged by the Company. He admits that Management has to decide the location of the work of the contractor. He ad- mits that, after completion of the work by the contract work- ers, certificate to that effect is issued by the managerial person ofthe 1st Party. He admits that, he has no knowl- edge ofthe procedure followed in processing the contract and accepting it . He admits that, it is duty of the Manage- ment to see that, the payment is made to the workers , for that a person is deputed by the Management . He states that, he has not seen the contractor visiting the site . He named one V. Kumar, Contractor who visited the site.

(71) So this is the evidence led by both on the point ofrelationship of these workmen , nature of their work and stand taken by Ist Party about the status of the employ- ees.

(72) The evidence referred above and more precisely evidence ofthe Management clearly shows that , they have no evidence to show and prove that, number of contractors are working there . They have no evidence to show that, supervisor of contractors are visiting the site to supervise the work and he cannot name any supervisor, other than V. Kumar. He admits that these workers are working for 1st Party on the premises of the Management for the contract work of 1st Party. He also admits that, the workers who are involved in the Reference are getting less salary than the salary of the permanent employees who are doing similar type ofwork . Though he named one Contractor V. Kumar but it is pertinent to note that, the Management has not examined any of the Contractor to support that really they are contract workers and they are not concerned with the IstParty.

(70) To prove that, 2nd Party placed reliance on the evidence of D.N. Vidhate , General Secretary of General Emlployees Association, who filed affidavit at Exhibit 35 in lieu ofexamination- in-chiefstating that, the workmen who are involved in the Reference are the members of the Association and are working with the 1st Party. They are discharging the duties as of permanent employees . It is their case that, there is no difference between the work givento permanent employees ofthe 1st Party ofthe cadre ofSweeping , cleaning plants , dusting of the premises and building area , flooring , toilets etc. in the building ofthe 1st Party and the workers involved in the Reference . He contends that, the employees involved in the Reference are getting much less salary than the regular employees who are doing same type of work. In the cross this witness states that he has no idea whether contractor through whom these workers are working have contract licence under the Contract Labour Act . He states that , 1000 contract labours are working with HPCL. He states that , said contract la- bourers are the only members of the Unions . He admits that no any permanent employee is the member of the As- sociation. He states that, Identity Card is issued by the 1st Partyto the workers . He admits that , the concerned work- menare not the members ofthe HP Karamchari Union . He also admits that, the said Union did not support . the claim ofthese workers who are demanding regularizationbeing the contract workers Against that, Management examined its witness Manekar Aravind Digambar by filing his affidavit in lieu of examination - in- chiefat Exhibit 63 and he states that, General Employees Association is repre- senting contract workers . He states that, no appointment letter was given by HPCL to the workers involved in the Reference. He states that, the contractors engaged by Ist Party are governed by Contractors Act and they are not engaged for the purpose or depriving the workers benefits ofpermanency. He states that , all these Contractors have their own statutory records in relation to their workers e.g. attendance registers, wages registers , leave registers , Provi- dent Fund Registers , and ESI Registers etc. He states that, officers of the 1st party is not having control over the employees of these 2 Unions . He states that members of these 2 Unions and permanent employees did not work in one team. In the cross this witness states that workers involved in the Reference of these 2 Unions are working for 1st Party. He admits that , they are attending work for IstParty.He admits that , there is no complaint about work of these workers of these 2 groups . He admits that, these workers are doing work of 1st Party in the premises ofthe 1st Party. He admits that, workmen involved in the refer- ence were working in the same department but doing differentwork. He admits that , these workers are paid less thanpermanent employees . He admits that, work ofHouse keeping is done in two shifts . He admits that, workers work- ing on the post of house keeping are also getting over

(73) Evidence brought on record reveals that , these concerned workers of2 Groups'are working for more than 20 years and the members of the Union i.e. General Employees Association are claiming that they are working for more than 10 years whereas BKKM is claiming that , 1722

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/ CHAITRA 21 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

here evidencediscussed above reveal that, these workers are working on the establishment of the 1st Party. It also reveals that, they are working for 1st Party, and they are working for more than 10 years i.e. the first group of Union and for more than 20 years for second group of Union. This period is not disputed by the 1st Party. The main stand of the 1st Party is that, they are working with the Contractor and said burden which was on 1st Party is not provedby the 1st Party. When 1st Party admits that, they work with the 1st Party or that they are working for 1st Party on the premises of the ist Party under the supervi- sion of the 1st Part, I am of the opinion that, they are em- ployees of the 1st Party as required under section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. So I answer this issue to thateffect.

ISSUE NO.4& 5:

they are working for more than 20 years . As far as this workingperiodofthese two groups ofworkers is concerned, itisnot disputed by the 1st Party. When they are working for such a long period and when they are attending work of permanent and perennial nature which is not disputedby the 1st Party and when management is unable to show theyare contract workers of particular contractor definitely the period claimed by them in working with the 1st Party qualifyto treat them as employees ofthe 1st Party and call these workers or as a employees of the 1st Party under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is not the case ofthe 1st Party that, they are not concerned at allwith the employees involved in the reference. The mere stand ofthe Ist Party is that, they are contract workers and since they are not on the establishment of the 1st Party they cannot be its ' workmen' . But here ' workman' can be called whenhe works for more than 240 days in a calendar year and when they attend permanent and perennial nature of work and when they work on the premises of the employer and when he is paid by the actual/ principal employer in that case , he should be called as ' employee' of the principal employer and can not be excluded from the definition of the workman. All this shows that, there is' employee' and 'employer' relationship between the concerned workmen and the 1st Party and that, the said relationship is proved by both the sections of the workers . Besides citation referred byAssociation's Advocate Mr. Jaiprakash Sawant:

1) published in 1978 II LLJ page 397 SC (Hussainbhai , Calcicut vs. A lath factory Thozhilall Union;

i) published in 1995 1 CLR page 529 ( Kerala State Coir Corporation Ltd. v/s . Industrial Tribunal) ;

iii) published in 2003 II CLR page 418 Management of Angarpathra Colliery ofBharat Cooking Coal Ltd. v/s . , Presiding Officer , Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2.

support the stand of both the groups who are claiming as its employees and permanency or the concerned workmen with the 1st Party.

(76)Boththe groups involved in the reference ofthe workers took stand that, the contract between the 1st Party and the various contractors is sham and bogus and camouflage, we have to see whether contract between the 1st Party and alleged contractors is sham and bogus or camouflage as claimed by the Association and BKKM ? Here 1st Party examined only one witness referred above for all these who unable to point out name of the contrac- tor and name of the supervisor of the contractor who su- pervise the work of these workmen. He unable to point out or able togive names of any supervisor or ofthe contractor other than V. Kumar the contractor. He has given only one name. Even that V. Kumar is not examined by 1st Partyto show that really he is contractor . Besides no other contractor is called or examined by 1st Party to show really there are such and such contractors and they took contract for such and such period . Even copy of single contract is notproduced and no witness on that point examined. When caseof the 2nd party is that, large number of contractors are changed same group of workers are continued and when there is no name of any of the contractor is taken by Ist Party either in the written statements nor in the evidence and no name of such contract is examined and no any such contract is produced to show that really there were such contractors and these workers work for that contractor. In my considered view case made out by the 1st Party that the workers of both the groups are contract workers has no meaning

(74) In view of the discussions made above I con- clude that, the workers involved in the Reference are fall- ing under the definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. They also succeed in showing the relationship of ' employee ' and ' employer ' with the 1st Party So accordingly I answer these issues to that effect.

ISSUENO . 2:

(77) 1st Party admits that, these workers are working for first Party. 1st Party admits that, they are working on the floor of the 1st Party . It is not disputed by the 1st party that, work doneby them is of perennial nature . No specific case is made out by the 1st Party that , work done by these workers is not related with 1st Party .

(78) The stand taken by that , the activities of these worker is not related with the production of the 1st Party so they are not concerned with the 1st Party and for that (75) Ist Party took stand that, Reference is not main- tainable under Section 2(k) of the Industrial DisputesAct , 1947 since workers involved in the reference are not the workers of the 1st Party. It is also contended by the 1st Partythat, the Reference be rejected for want ofjurisdiction as no dispute is raised by the workmen of the employer under section 2(k) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. But 1723 भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 11 , 2009 /चैत्र 21 , 1931

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(81) Besides , Advocate for the 2nd Party, Associa- tion submitted that, by Notification dated 30-1-1996 Government of India, prohibited contract labour in the work specified in the Schedule i.e. in the area of a Refinery of cleaning, sweeping and dusting . This is not disputed by the 1st Party . Even it is not the case of the 1st Party that, there is no such prohibition put by the Government of India, prohibiting contract labour in the area ofRefinery to work as sweeping , doing cleaning and dusting work.

(82) When Government of India by its policy which is reflected from the Notification dated 30-1-1996 where contract workers are prohibited in the area of Refineryto do the work of cleaning , sweeping and dusting in my considered view 1st Party must consider these employees as its permanent employees and must provide and extend thebenefits which they have been giving to its permanent employees of the same cadre and of the same status . So I answer this Issue accordingly .

(83) In view of the above when both 2nd Party suc- ceeds in showing that, workers involved in the Reference are to be treated as permanent employees of the 1st Party , they are doing work of 1st Party which is ofpermanent and perennial nature , I am of the view that, these employees must get benefit as is extended to the permanent employ- ees ofHPCL who are doing same type of work. So I con- clude that, employees involved in the reference of both Unions must be continued by extending benefits includ- ing monetary and others which are given to the permanent employees ofthe Management who are doing similar type ofwork as done by the employees involved in the Refer- ence .

ISSUE NO . 7 :

they cannot be employees of the 1st Party. But according to me work ofcleaning , dusting is equally important. When there are workers working for more than 1000 on the per- manent establishment of the 1st Party, then question will arise who will maintain the premises and with whose help? We know that, Municipality has to do number of things . They are discharging number of important duties and ac- tivities like providing medical facility by opening hospi- tals, by funding such hospitals to enable such hospitals to serve the citizens and to serve poor persons of the city. They are doing work ofcleaning roads . They are also doing work of constructing roads , fly over and providing lights in the city. So when number of things are there, how it can be said that , sweeping or cleaning cannot be part of the work of the Management. Such Municipality though it is doing other work like construction and providing educa- tion, medical facilities . If we apply same anology with the case of the HPCL which is a refinery and that, though admittedly these employees are not directly concerned with theproduction of 1st Party but still they are presently work- ing on the floor of the Ist Party and are doing work of cleaning, dusting , etc. otherwise it will not be possible for theManagement to maintain the area or factory premises neatly and in workable position , When there are more than 1000 permanent employees working on the premises of the 1stParty definitely such services are required for cleaning, dusting and maintaining such premises in proper way. It is not the case of the 1st party that, the said entire work is done by the third party. Some permanent employees are doing same work. It is the case of the 1st Party that, the said work, is done by these workers through contractors but no such contract is produced in any sample form to prove it and has produced on record to accept the case of the 1st Party. Even witness of the 1st Party admits that, though contractors are change group of workers are the same since years together . Even witness admits that, these workers get less salary than the permanent workers ofthe 1stParty and that the permanent workers get the salary of about Rs.2000 per month whereas these workers get sal- ary of Rs.3000 to 4000 per month. They workers are not getting other permanency facilities as are extended to its permanent workers.

(79) So submissions of the both the Unions that , the concernedworkmen are working for the 1st Party , through the Contractors , and they are exploited and compelled to work on a meager salary of Rs.3000 to 4000 per month. Whereas same type of work is get done by the 1st Party from permanent workers by paying them salary of more than Rs . 20000 per month.

(84) SecondGroup ofworkers byApplication at Ex- hibit 35 request to add them as necessary party. It is their case that its members are also to be benefited since some of its members are working with the 1st Party. Be- sides they have taken contentions that, they have submit- ted Charter of Demands with the 1st Party and for that there is separate Reference on failure report of appropriate forum and said Reference is pending which is numbered as 128 of2001 (actually said number is wrongly mentioned as ' 128 of2002' which ought to have been 120 of2001 ) . When Charter ofDemand is the subject matter in one of the Ref- erence i.e, Reference No.CGIT- 2/ 120 of2001 which is pend- ing, in my considered view, this Court is not supposed to consider said here since it affects by principles of resjudicata. Said question of charter of demands is the subject matter in Reference No. 120 of2001 , When it is the subject matter ofRef. No. 120 of2001 admittedly the work- ers involved in these proceedings cannot request to con- sider it here and in my considered view said demand can- notbe considered with this Reference which is for adjudi- cation. So I conclude that, the prayer ofBKKM on " Char- ter Demand" cannot be the subject matter of the reference (80) If we consider all this coupled with the case made out and proved by both the Unions that, the contrac- tors are bogus, sham and camouflage and when no spe- cific case is made out by the 1st Party about contractors , I am ofthe opinion that , workmen of the 2nd Party's , (both) the Unions , involved in the Reference must be regularized.

1234 दीन -17 1724

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAITRA 21 , 1931

at hand and cannot be decided with this Reference. So I answer this Issue in negative .

(85) In view of the discussions made above I am of the considered view that , prayer of both the group of employees require to allow . Hence, the order:

ORDER

(a) Reference is allowed;

(b) Members of both the Unions i.e. Members of General Employees Association, who are included inthe list at Annexed at Exhibit ' A' to the Claims Statement filed at Exhibit 4 and Members of BKKM; whose list is annexed by BKKM at

[PART II- SEC. 3( ii) ] Annexure 'A' of Statement ofClaim at Exhibit 48 are treated as permanent employees ofthe 1st Party withthe directions to the 1st Party to extend all the benefits including monetary benefits which is given to permanent employees who are doing same type ofwork and who are posted on the same post including these employees involved in this Reference.

A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer Bombay, 6thFebruary, 2009.

LIST OF CONTRACT WORKMEN

Department

Designation

Sr. Name ofWorker No.

1. S. Annadurai

OMCC Seapartor

Sweeper

Cleaner Minas II 2. M. Chidambaram

Minas II

Cleaner

3. M. Jaybalan

Minas II

Cleaner

4. K. Appadurai

5. B. S. Mahadik

Seperator

Sweeper

Sweeper Asphalt siteB 6. Ali Asgar Hasan RajaKhan

7. Jitendra Ghodke Sweeper Asphalt siteB 8. Gorekh Rao

Asphalt siteB

Sweeper/ Cleaner

9. Prakash Sawant

Asphalt site B

Sweeper/ Cleaner

10. Jairam L. Rao

Asphalt site B

Sweeper/ Cleaner

Asphalt site B 11. Bappu Gadkari Sweeper/ Cleaner

12. Rambalu M. Rao

Asphalt site B

Sweeper/ Cleaner

13. Chotelal S. Rao

Asphalt siteB

Sweeper/ Cleaner

Asphalt siteB 14. Bechan L.Parsad Sweeper/ Cleaner

Asphalt siteB 15. Purshottam Jaiswal Sweeper/ Cleaner

Asphalt site B 16. Rakesh Gupta Sweeper/ Cleaner

Nature of Work

Present Contractor

Date of Joining

Name of Joining Contractor

ValveOperator

1990

Jaysons Services

H.M. Construction

1993 Sataury Constn . V. Enterprises Housekeeping &Plant area Saburkhan

1993

Sample Carrier

Jaysons Services

1993

V. Enterprises

Satguru Constn.

Housekeeping &Plant area

1989

Valve Operator.

Jaysons Services

H.M. Construction

Feb.92 P.J. Thakkar

ValveOperator

Jaysons Services

P.J. Thakkar

1992

ValveOperator

Jaysons Services

P.J. Thakkar

1991

Valve Operator

Jaysons Services

1991 P.J. Thakkar

Valve Operator

Jaysons Services

P.J. Thakkar

Jul .-1992

ValveOperator

Jaysons Services

ValveOperator Laxmi & Co.

May.-1985

Jaysons Services

1992 P.J. Thakkar

ValveOperator

Jaysons Services

P.J. Thakkar

ValveOperator

Sept- 1993

Jaysons Services

P.J. Thakkar

ValveOperator

Sept - 1991

Jaysons Services

P.J. Thakkar

ValveOperator

Sept- 1991

Jaysons Services

1993 P.J. Thakkar

ValveOperator

Jaysons Services [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

1993

Asphalt SiteB 17. Rajesh Gupta Sweeper/ Cleaner

E.ED. 18. Santosh A. Daivi

Helper (Maint)

19. Anil C. Patil

Light End Unit

1725 P.J. Thakkar

ValveOperator Jaysons Services

Oct. 1992 P.J. Thakkar

Feb. 1992

Helper (Maint)

20. Kishor D. Kamble Plant

Jackson Services

Mar. 1992

Light EndUnit

keeping

House- Sweeper

Jackson Services

Dec. 1992

21. Prakash H. Mhatre Plant House Boiler House

keeping

Sweeper

22. Anil N. Salve

Jackson Services

Sept. 1992

PlantHouse- keeping Sweeper

23. Suresh B.Patel

Jackson Services

Apr. 1992

Combi. Unit

Plant House

keeping

Sweeper

Combi . Unit 24. Shambhu Parsad Plant House-

Jackson Services

Aug. 1992

keeping Sweeper

FRE 25. D. J. Mane

Jackson Services

Aug. 1994

Valve Operator

Jackson Services

Jun. 1994

CombiUnit 26. L. J. Mane

Valve Operator

Combi Unit

Nov. 1993

27. M. Arunkumar Valve Operator

Jackson Services

Jul. 1993

Combi Unit 28. Karapayya Kannan Valve Operator

Combi Unit

Jul, 1993

29. N. Shekhar

Valve Operator

Plant House- L/R Jackson Services

Dattatay Enterprises

Apr. 1993

30. Navnath B. Amberkar

keeping

Sweeper

P.J. Thakkar & Sons

Jun . 1992

Minas I

PlantHouse-

31. Bhuyaram Patel

keeping

Sweeper

OmesArea 32. Namdeo Surve

P.J. Thakkar & Sons

May 1994

Helper (Maint)

Plant House F.RE. 33. C. Manohar

Good House Keeping

May 1994

keeping

Sweeper

F.R.E.

PlantHouse

Good House Keeping

May 1991

34. P.Gopalswamy

keeping Sweeper

Combi. Unit Jackson Services

Jul. 1993

Sweeper

35. V.Thangraj

Jackson Services

Jul. 1993

Combi . Unit 36. G. Kamlakar

Valve Operator

F.RE. 37. S.Armugam

Valve Operator

1234 GI/09-18

Apr. 1993 Jackson Services 1726

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAFTRA 21 , 1931

ANNEXURE A

Reference No .: CGIT 2/48 of2002

List of Workmen:

(1 ) Anil C. Patil

(2) Kishor D. Kamble

(3) Prakash H. Mhatre

(4) Anil N. Salve

(5) Suresh B. Patel

(6) Shambu Prasad

(7) D. J. Mane

(8) L. J. Mane

(9) M.Arun Kumar

( 10) Anand Karupayya Kannan

(11) N.Shekhar

( 12) Bhayyaram Patel

( 13) C.Manokar

(14) Gopal Swamy

(15) V.Thangaraj

(16) S. Aruhugam

नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च , 2009

का.आ. 924.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार आई. बी. पी. कम्पनी लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय - Ⅰ , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 8/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-30012/30/2005-आईआर ( एम) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 19th March, 2009

S.O. 924. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No.8/2008 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court- I , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of I.B.P.Co. Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17-3-2009.

[No. L- 30012/30/2005 - IR (M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. 8/2008

Shri Jagjit Singh, S/ o- Shri Gurudev Singh ,

No. 3270, Phase III A, SAS Nagar,

......Applicant Mohali (Chandigarh)

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

VERSUS

TheDivisionalManager,

IBP Co. Ltd. D.O. ,

1stFloor, Tel Bhawan,

Sector-19-B, Chandigarh.

APPEARANCES

For the workman: None

For the management : Shri N.K. Zakhmi

AWARD

Passed on: 4-2-2009

CentralGovt. videnotification No. L- 30012/30/2005- IR(M) , dated10-12-2008 has referred the following dispute tothisTribunal for adjudication:

" (1) Whether Shri Jagjit Singh was a workman of IBPCo. , Chandigarh w.e.f. 1991 ?

(2) If so, whether termination of the services of workman is unjustified ? If so , what relief he is entitled to ? י

2. The above reference was received in this Tribunal on 16-12-2008 and notice was sent to the workman for6-1-2009 on the address given in the reference. That notice was received back with the report of the postal authorities that no such person is there on the above address . For ends of justice again notice through Regd . Ad was sentto this very address of the workman for 4-2-2009 . Again with the same report of the postal authorities , registered notice received back. The service of the workman is not possible on the address given . Therefore , nopurpose will be served to keep this reference pending. In view of the above , the present reference is returned to the Central Govt. as such . Central Govt . be informed.

Chandigarh 4-2-2009

GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 19 मार्च , 2009

क्त.आ. 925.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दि ए. पी. ग्रामीण विकास बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिकः विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 60/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12014/01/2009- आईआर( बी -1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 19th March , 2009

S.O. 925. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 60/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the 1725 भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

P.J. Thakkar

ValveOperator

1993

Asphalt SiteB

17. RajeshGupta

Jaysons Services

P.J. Thakkar

Oct. 1992

E.ED.

18. Santosh A.

Daivi

Sweeper/ Cleaner Helper (Maint)

Jackson Services

Feb. 1992

Light End Unit

19. Anil C. Patil.

Helper (Maint)

Jackson Services

Mar. 1992

Light EndUnit...

Plant

Kishor D. Kamble

20.

House keeping

Sweeper

Dec. 1992 Jackson Services

Boiler House

Plant House

21. Prakash H. Mhatre

keeping Sweeper

Jackson Services

Sept. 1992

Plant House..

22. Anil N. Salve

keeping

Sweeper

Apr. 1992 Jackson Services

Plant House Combi . Unit

23. Suresh B.Patel

keeping:

Sweeper

Jackson Services

Aug. 1992

Combi, Unit

Plant House

24. Shambhu Parsad

keeping

Sweeper

FRE

Aug. 1994 Jackson Services

25. D. J. Mane ...

Valve Operator

Jackson Services

Jun. 1994

CombiUnit

26. L. J. Mane

Valve Operator

Nov. 1993 Jackson Services

CombiUnit

27. M. Arunkumar.. Valve Operator...

Jackson Services

Jul. 1993

CombiUnit

28. Karapayya Kannan. Valve Operator

Jul. 1993 Jackson Services

CombiUnit

29. N. Shekhar

Valve Operator

Dattatay Enterprises

Apr. 1993

Plant House L/R

30. Navnath B. Amberkar

keeping.

Sweeper.

P.J. Thakkar & Sons

Jun. 1992

Minas I

Plant House

31. Bhuyaram Patel

keeping

Sweeper

OmesArea

P.J. Thakkar & Sons

May 1994

Helper

32. Namdeo Surve

(Maint)

Good House Keeping

May1994

F.R.E.

Plant House

33. C. Manohar

keeping

Sweeper

F.R.E..

Good House Keeping

May1991

Plant House:

34. P.Gopalswamy

keeping

Sweeper

Jackson Services

Jul. 1993

Combi . Unit "

Sweeper

35. V.Thangraj

Jackson Services

Jul. 1993

Combi . Unit

Valve

36. G. Kamlakar

Operator

Jackson Services

F.R.E.

Apr. 1993

37. S.Armugam

Valve Operator

12341/09-18 1726

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAITRA 21 , 1931

ANNEXURE A

Reference No .: CGIT 2/48 of2002 List of Workmen:

(1) Anil C. Patil

(2) Kishor D. Kamble

(3) Prakash H. Mhatre

(4) Anil N. Salve

(5) Suresh B. Patel

(6) Shambu Prasad

(7) D. J. Mane

(8) L. J. Mane

(9) M.Arun Kumar

(10) Anand Karupayya Kannan

( 11) N.Shekhar

(12) Bhayyaram Patel

(13) C.Manokar

( 14) Gopal Swamy

(15) V.Thangaraj

( 16) S. Aruhugam

नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च , 2009

का.आ. 924.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आई. बी. पी. कम्पनी लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 8/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30012/30/2005- आईआर (एम ) ] कमल बाखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 19th March , 2009

S.O. 924. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.8 /2008 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court - 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of I.B.P.Co. Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17-3-2009,

[No. L-30012/30/2005 - IR (M)] KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. 8/2008

Shri Jagjit Singh , S/o Shri Gurudev Singh ,

Mohali (Chandigarh)

No. 3270, Phase III A, SAS Nagar, ......

Applicant

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)]

VERSUS

TheDivisional Manager, IBP Co. Ltd. D.O. , 1st Floor, Tel Bhawan, Sector- 19-B , Chandigarh.

APPEARANCES

For the workman : None

Forthe management : Shri N.K. Zakhmi AWARD Passed on:4-2-2009

Central Govt. vide notification No. L- 30012/30/2005- IR(M),dated 10-12-2008 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"(1) Whether Shri Jagjit Singh was a workman of IBP Co. , Chandigarh w.e.f. 1991 ?

(2) If so , whether termination of the services of workman is unjustified ? If so , what relief he is entitled to ?"

2. The above reference was received in this Tribunal on 16-12-2008 and notice was sent to the workman for6-1-2009 on the address given in the reference . That notice was received back with the report of the postal authorities that no such person is there on the above address. For ends of justice again notice through Regd . Ad was sent to this very address of the workman for 4-2-2009. Again with the same report of the postal authorities , registered notice received back. The service of the workman is not possible on the address given . Therefore , no purpose will be served to keep this reference pending . In view of the above , the present reference is returned to the Central Govt. as such. Central Govt. be informed. Chandigarh 4-2-2009

GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, Presiding Officer नईदिल्ली, 19 मार्च , 2009

का.आ. 925.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दि ए. पी. ग्रामीण विकास बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 60/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12014/01/2009- आईआर( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 19th March , 2009

S.O. 925.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 60/2007 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the 1727

भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

Industrial Dispute between the management of The A.P. Grameena Vikas Bank, and their workmen, receivedby the Central Government on 19-3-2009.

that parties to this case were not attending to the case for last two years, as such, no justification was found to adjourn the case . The case is dismissed in absence of parties . Accordingly a Nil Award is passed. Transmit.

[No. L- 12014/01/2009- IR (B- 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Dictatedto Smt P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 30th day of January, 2009.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, AT HYDERABAD

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Present

Present: Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer Dated, the 30th January , 2009

Witnesses examined for the Respondent: NIL

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner: NIL

Industrial Dispute L.C. I. D. No. 60/2007

Between :

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL

Sri Oruganti Krishna , S/o Narshimha,

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL

R/ o 6-170 , Indira Nagar , Pochampally,

नई दिल्ली , 19 मार्च , 2009 ..... Petitioner

Nalgonda district

AND

1. The Chairman , TheA.P. Grameena Vikas Bank, Hanumkonda , Warangal .

का.आ.926- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार फेडरल बैंक लि, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय इरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 21/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

2. The Branch Manager , The A.P. Grameena Vikas Bank, (Old name Nagarjuna Grameena Bank) Koyyalaguda , Nalgonda district .

[सं. एल-12012/ 114/2003- आईआर( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 19th March, 2009 3. The Branch Manager , The A.P. Grameena Vikas Bank, (Old name Nagarjuna Grameena Bank) Bibinagar , Nalgonda District . .....Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner : M/sV. Narasimha Roud & V. J. Vasundara, Advocates

For the Respondent :

S.O. 926. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.21 /2006 )ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Federal Bank Ltd. , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 19-3-2009 .

M/ s . K. Srinivasa Murthy, V. Umadevi & M.V.L. Narsimlu , Advocates

[No. L- 12012/ 114/2003 - IR (B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer AWARD

ANNEXURE

This is a case taken under Sec . 2A(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM Present : Shri P. L.Norbert , B.A. , LL . B. , Presiding Officer Tuesday the 17th day of February , 2009

I.D. No. 21/2006

Workman:

(I.D. No. 39/2003 of State Labour Court, Ernakulam) Shri K.S. Stephen ,

Kadamangalthan House , Manjapra P.O. ,

2. Petitioner filed this petition against his illegal retrenchment on 3-5-2005 by the 2nd Respondent . He has joined the 1st Respondent organization as Messenger cum Sweeper in 1994 and worked continuously. He prayed to direct the Respondents for reinstatement and such other benefits as this court deems fit .

Via. Kalady, Kalady-683 581 . ByAdv . C. Anil Kumar .

3. Both parties called absent on 30-1-2009 , the date for filing of counter and documents . Order sheet transpired 1728

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRE 11 , 2009/ CHAITRA 21 , 1931

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

Management:

The Chairman, FederalBank Limited, HeadOffice, Alwaye- 683 101 . ByAdv . M/ s . B.S. Krishanan, Associates.

This case coming up for hearing on 10-2-2009, this Tribunal-cum - Labour Court on 17-2-2009 passed the following:

AWARD

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

"Whether the punishment of dismissal imposedto Sri . K. S. Stephen is appropriate and proportionate. to the misconduct of fraudulent transaction as alleged bythe Federal Bank Ltd. ? Ifnot, wlast relief is entitled to the workman ? "

justice.The workman was defended by an Advocate of his choice. The workman fully participated in the enquiry. The management witnesses were cross - examined and on defence side five documents were marked . However no witnesses were examined . On the basis of the materials on record the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the workman stood proved. The disciplinary authority had considered the submissions of the worleman and assessed the materials on record before concurring with the findings of Enquiry Officer . Considering the gravity of the misconduct the disciplinary authority proposed the punishment of dismissal . The workman was heard before imposing the punishment . The appellate authority was not convinced of the submissions of the workman regarding the allegations and hence the appeal was dismissed. The workman had admitted the guilt inhis letterdated 3-2-2000 submitted to the management . The admission was voluntary. The charges are specific and definite . All the necessary particulars were given in the charge sheet . The punishment is proportionate to the gravity of the charges . Therefore , there is no reason to interfere either with the findings or punishment .

5. In the light of the above contentions the points that arise for consideration are :-

1. Are the findings sustainable ?

2. The facts in a nutshell are as follows : - The workman Sri . K. S. Stephen was the Clerk ofFederal Bank, Nileswar Branch. On the allegation that he had committed multiple fraud in different SB/ CP accounts he was suspended from service and charge sheeted . An enquiry was ordered and he was found guilty of the charges . The disciplinary authority dismissed him from service. Though he filed an appeal he did not succeed: Hence the Industrial dispute.

2. Is the punishment proportionate ?

The evidence consists ofExt. M1 Enquiry File alone..

6. Point No.1 :-Ext. E5 is the charge sheet dated. 5-10-2000 . The charges are four fold:

(i) The workman made manipulations in various accounts of customers , committed fraud.and. misappropriated money.

(ii) 11 cheques were got discounted/ purchased at the instance of the workman and the amounts were credited in various customers ' accounts . The drawers ofthecheques are the workman ( in respect of3 cheques ) and his wife (8 cheques) .

3. According to the workman the charges are vague and not precise. The Enquiry Officer was a trusted employee of the management and he acted with a biased mind. The findings are perverse and unsustainable . The disciplinary authority without application ofmind confirmed the findings ofEnquiry Officer and proposed a punishment of dismissal from service. The punishment is highly disproportionate. The disciplinary authority did not take into consideration the clean past record of service of the workman . After the dismissal the workman is out of emloyment . The workman is not able to get alternate employment due to the stigma in the disciplinary action. Thedismissal is illegal and is liable to be set aside .

( iii) Theworkman borrowed Rs . 87,000 from one Sri K. V. Sathyan, but failed to repay the same.

( iv) He issued four choques to 3rd parties without maintaining sufficient balance amounts in his account . As a result all the cheques when presented by the parties were returned unpaid.

4. According to the management the workman committed fraud, manipulation of the accounts of various customers and misappropriated money. Credit and balance entries were inflated by prefixing figures and difference was withdrawn and misappropriated. The workman in connivance with customers influenced the branch manager to purchase cheques and the amounts were credited in the accounts ofvarious customers . All the cheques purchased: were drawnby Smt . Valsa Paulose , wife of workman in her account maintained in Kasargod District Co-operative Bank . The workman had borrowed a sum of Rs . 87,000 from different persons but did not repay. Without maintaining sufficient funds in the account the workman issued several cheques and all of them returned unpaid. On the basis of the charge sheet issued an enquiry was conducted in compliance with the principles of natural

7. The workman sent Ext . E- 9 reply dated 29-11-2000 to the charge sheet. However he did not mention anything about the charges but only requested for four documents from the management . The documents required were furnished to him: It was submitted at the outset by the learned counsel for the workman that the workman did not get an opportunity to submit reply to the charge sheet as he was directed to submit reply to the Enquiry Officer rather than to the Disciplinary Authority . Thus without waiting for a reply from the workman enquiry was ordered . But it is tobe noted that a joint order was issued by the 1727

भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 11, 2009/चैत्र 21, 1931

[ भागII- खण्ड3 (ii) ]

Industrial Dispute between the management of TheA.P. GrameenaVikas Bank, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19-3-2009.

[No. L- 12014/01/2009- IR. (B- 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THECENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT , AT HYDERABAD

Present

Present: Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer Dated, the 30th January , 2009

Industrial Dispute L.C. I. D. No. 60/2007 Between:

SriOruganti Krishna, S/o Narshimha,

.....Petitioner

R/ o 6-170 , Indira Nagar , Pochampally, Nalgondadistrict

AND

1. The Chairman, The A.P. Grameena Vikas Bank, Hanumkonda, Warangal .

2. The Branch Manager , The A.P. Grameena Vikas Bank, (Old name Nagarjuna Grameena Bank) Koyyalaguda, Nalgonda district.

3. The Branch Manager, The A.P. Grameena Vikas Bank, (Old name Nagarjuna Grameena Bank) Bibinagar, Nalgonda District..... Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner : M/sV. Narasimha Roud & V.J. Vasundara , Advocates

For the Respondent: M/s . K. Srinivasa Murthy , V. Umadevi & M.V.L. Narsimlu, Advocates

AWARD

This is a case taken under Sec. 2A ( 2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in view ofthe judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995-between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .

2. Petitioner filed this petition against his illegal retrenchment on 3-5-2005 by the 2nd Respondent. He has joined the 1st Respondent organization as Messenger cum Sweeper in 1994 and worked continuously . He prayed to direct the Respondents for reinstatement and such other benefits as this court deems fit.

3. Both parties called absent on 30-1-2009, the date forfiling of counter and documents . Order sheet transpired that parties to this case were not attending to the case for last two years , as such, no justification was found to adjourn the case. The case is dismissed in absence of parties. Accordingly a Nil Award is passed . Transmit.

Dictated to Smt P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 30th day of January, 2009.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix ofevidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner: NIL

Witnesses examined for the Respondent: NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL

नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2009

का.आ.926-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार फेडरल बैंक लि, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय इरनाकूलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 21/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/ 114/2003 - आईआर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 19th March, 2009

S.O. 926. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.21/ 2006 )ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Federal Bank Ltd. , and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19-3-2009 .

[No. L- 12012/ 114/2003 - IR(B- 1 )] AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM Present: Shri P. L. Norbert, B.A. , LL. B. , Presiding Officer Tuesday the 17th day of February, 2009 I.D. No. 21/2006

(I.D. No. 39/2003 of State Labour Court, Ernakulam) Workman: Shri K.S. Stephen ,

Kadamangalthan House, Manjapra P.O. ,

Via.Kalady, Kalady-683 581 . By Adv . C. Anil Kumar .

1728

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAITRA 21 , 1931

Management:

The Chairman, Federal Bank Limited, Head Office, Alwaye - 683 101 . By Adv . M/ s . B.S. Krishanan , Associates .

This case coming up for hearing on 10-2-2009 , this Tribunal- cum - Labour Court on 17-2-2009 passed the following:

AWARD

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

"Whether the punishment of dismissal imposed to Sri . K. S. Stephen is appropriate and proportionate tothe misconduct of fraudulent transaction as alleged bythe FederalBank Ltd. ? If not, what reliefis entitled to the workman ? "

2. The facts in a nutshell are as follows : - The workman Sri . K. S. Stephen was the Clerk of Federal Bank, Nileswar Branch . On the allegation that he had committed multiple fraud in different SB/CP accounts he was suspended from service and charge sheeted . An enquiry was ordered and he was found guilty of the charges . The disciplinary authority dismissed him from service. Though he filed an appeal he did not succeed . Hence the Industrial dispute.

3. Accordingto the workman the charges are vague and not precise . The Enquiry Officer was a trusted employee of the management and he acted with a biased mind. The findings are perverse and unsustainable . The disciplinary authority without application ofmind confirmed the findings of Enquiry Officer and proposed a punishment of dismissal from service . The punishment is highly disproportionate. The disciplinary authority did not take into consideration the clean past record of service of the workman . After the dismissal the workman is out of emloyment . The workman is not able to get alternate employment due to the stigma in the disciplinary action. The dismissal is illegal and is liable to be set aside.

4. According to the management the workman committed fraud, manipulation of the accounts of various customers and misappropriated money. Credit and balance entries were inflated by prefixing figures and difference was withdrawn and misappropriated. The workman in connivance with customers influenced the branch manager to purchase cheques and the amounts were credited in the accounts of various customers . All the cheques purchased were drawn by Smt. Valsa Paulose , wife of workman in her account maintained in Kasargod District Co- operative Bank. The workman had borrowed a sum of Rs . 87,000 from different persons but did not repay. Without maintaining sufficient funds in the account the workman issued several cheques and all of them returned unpaid. On the basis of the charge sheet issued an enquiry was conducted in compliance with the principles of natural

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] justice .The workman was defended by an Advocate of his choice. The workman fully participated in the enquiry. The management witnesses were cross - examined and on defence side five documents were marked . However no witnesses were examined . On the basis of the materials on record the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the workman stood proved. The disciplinary authority had considered the submissions of the workman and assessed the materials on record before concurring with the findings of Enquiry Officer . Considering the gravity of the misconduct the disciplinary authority proposed the punishment of dismissal . The workman was heard before imposing the punishment. The appellate authority was not convinced of the submissions ofthe workman regarding the allegations and hence the appeal was dismissed . The workman had admitted the guilt inhis letter dated 3-2-2000 submitted to the management . The admission was voluntary . The charges are specific and definite. All the necessary particulars were given in the charge sheet. The punishment is proportionate to the gravity of the charges. Therefore , there is no reason to interfere either with the findings or punishment.

5. In the light of the above contentions the points thatarise for consideration are :-

1. Are the findings sustainable ?

2. Is the punishment proportionate ?

The evidence consists of Ext. M1 Enquiry File alone. 6. Point No. 1 :-Ext. E5 is the charge sheet dated 5-10-2000 . The charges are four fold:

(i) The workman made manipulations in various accounts of customers , committed fraud and misappropriatedmoney.

(ii) 11 cheques were got discounted/purchased at the instance of the workman and the amounts were credited in various customers ' accounts . The drawers ofthe cheques are the workman ( in respect of3 cheques ) and his wife (8 cheques) .

(iii) The workman borrowed Rs . 87,000 from one Sri K. V. Sathyan, but failed to repay the same.

(iv) He issued four cheques to 3rd parties without maintaining sufficient balance amounts in his account. As a result all the cheques when presented by the parties were returned unpaid .

7. The workman sent Ext . E - 9 reply dated 29-11-2000 to the charge sheet . However he did not mention anything about the charges but only requested for four documents from the management. The documents required were furnished to him. It was submitted at the outset by the learned counsel for the workman that the workman did not get an opportunity to submit reply to the charge sheet as he was directed to submit reply to the Enquiry Officer rather than to the Disciplinary Authority. Thus without waiting for a reply from the workman enquiry was ordered. But it is to be noted that a joint order was issued by the 1729 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

disciplinary authority framing charges and ordering enquiry. Thatbeing the situation there is nothing wrong in directing the workman to submit his reply to the charges to the Enquiry Officer . The enquiry was preceded by an investigation by a senior officer of the bank . Since the management was of the opinion that a prima- facie case was made out against the workman a reply to the memo of charges would not have made any difference in disciplinary proceedings. Therefore , the fact that the workman could not submit a reply to the memo ofcharges to the Disciplinary Authority and the latter proceeded with the enquiry without waiting for the reply ofthe former, has caused no prejudice to the workman. It was then submitted by the learned counsel for the workman that none of the officers of the bank has identified the disputed handwriting in the records as that of the workman. The submission does not appear to be correct . That aspect will be dealt with later in course of the discussion.

8. The workman admittedly was in SB section during the relevant period in 1999 when the alleged transacdtions had taken place . The first charge is that the workman had manipulated accounts of five different customers with a view to enrich himself.

workman addressed to the Manager ofNileswar Branch on 2-05-2001 wherein he again admits that to six customers he owes some money and he has no objection in deducting those amounts from his salary arrears and ex - gratia . The learned counsel for the workman submitted that Exts . ME- 12 and 90 letters were not given voluntarily but were obtainedby coercion There is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel . Assuming that Ext . ME- 12 was given at a time when the fraud was detected , Ext. ME - 90 was given after 15 months when domestic enquiry was going on . There was no occasion at that time for threat or force from the side ofmanagement to admit the guilt. IfExt. ME- 12 was not given by free will, he could have mentioned it in Ext. ME-90 . Hence the contention of the workman that Exts . ME- 12 and 90 are not voluntary statements , is unsustainable . MW2(Assistant Manager) was the checking official and he had checked the entries in the ledger of the account ofGopi (Ext. ME3 ) and found that the entries were tampered with . MW4 is the Special Assistant . He had also checked the ledger and other books of account and found the discrepancy. Thus the allegation that the workman in collusion with the customer , had committed fraud and misappropriated money , which was later made good when the fraud was detected, stands proved .

(b) The next allegation is that the workman hai manipulated the SB Account 5064 of PB Musthafa Koya . Accordingto the management the credit of Rs.5,500 was altered by the workman to Rs . 25,500 by prefixing ' 2 ' . Ext. ME- 3 is the account opening form submitted by Musthafa Koya in the bank . Ext . ME- 14 is ledger copy of the account of Musthafa Koya . As per Ext . ME - 14 on 3-12-1999 Rs . 5,500 was credited and the balance was Rs . 11,048 . On the same day the customer withdrew Rs . 3020. So the balance should have been Rs . 8.028 . However , the balance struck is Rs.28,028 . It is seen from the credit entry of 3-12-1999 that Rs . 5,500 initially entered in the credit columnn was altered to Rs . 25,500 by pre - fixing ' 2' and the balance after withdrawing Rs . 3,020 is shown as Rs . 28.028 . The discrepancy is glaring . Had an amount of Rs.25,500 been remitted to the account on 3-12-1999 then the balance should have been Rs.31,048 . But it is Rs . 11,048 . Ext . ME- 17 is pass book ofthe customer . On 11-12-1999 Rs . 20,000 is seen deposited and the same is withdrawn on the same day. This is not reflected in Ext . ME- 14 ledger copy. The balance shown in pass book is also not reflected in the ledger. Ext . ME - 15 is the cheque by which Rs . 20,000 was withdrawn from the account on 13-12-1999 . But as per Ext. ME- 17 pass book Rs.20,000 is seen withdrawn on 11-12-1999. Ext. ME- 1 investigation report contains details of the fraud committed in respect of the account . MW1 and MW4 support the case of the management. Exts . ME- 12 and 90 admission statements of the worker confirms the allegation . The workman by Ext. ME- 16 credit slip had deposited Rs.20,000 in the account of Musthafa Koya to make good the loss sustained by the customer . Thus the evidence prove the allegation against the workman.

(i) (a) According to the management SB account 3550 of Sri . P. K. Gopi was meddled with by the workman during November and December 1999. It is alleged that a cash credit entry of Rs.200 was posted by the workman in the ledger folio of the customer on 5-11-1999 as per Ext . ME-4 pay- in -slip . Later figure ' 40 ' was prefixed to 200 and made it Rs . 40,200 . Ext . ME-3 is the concerned ledger folio. Balance in the account before prefixing '40 ' was Rs . 1791.99 . Thiswas alteredby pre- fixing '40 ' to 1791.99 on 08-11-1999 and thus the balance became Rs . 41,791.99 On the same dayRs . 40,000 was withdrawn . Thereafter Rs.1,000 was deposited on 17-11-1999 through pay- in - slip Ext . ME- 6 . Subsequently ' 4 ' was prefixed to Rs . 1000 and made it 41,000. The balance became Rs . 42,291.99. On 19-11-1999 Rs . 35,000 was withdrawn by Ext. ME-7 cheque. The balance was Rs . 7,291.99. Later the debit amount of Rs . 35,000 was alteredto Rs . 25,000 and consequently the balance became Rs . 17,291.99 instead of Rs . 7,291.99. On 09-12-1999 Rs . 5,000was withdrawn and the balance was Rs . 12,291.99. Later by Ext. ME- 10 and 11 pay in slips Rs . 50,000 and 40,000 were deposited. This was done in February, 2000. Bythat time the fraud was detected and the workman gave an admission letter Ext . ME- 12 to the management on 3-02-2000 . MW1 is the Investigating Officer . Ext . ME 1 is the investigation report . It contains elaborate details of the fraud and irregularities committed by the workman . MW1 has identified the handwriting of the workman in Ext . ME-3 and other books of accounts (pages 24 and 25 of MW1 in Ext . M1 enquiry file ) . MW3 is the Manager (Admn. ) . He has supported the case of the management with regard to this allegation (pages 43 to 47 of MW3 in Ext.M1 ). He has identified the handwriting ofthe workman inledger folio and other records . Ext. ME- 90 is letter ofthe

1234 GI/09-19 1730

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009/CHAITRA 21 , 1931

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii) ]

The aforementioned five accounts were meddled with by altering the figures of entries , inflating the balance and withdrawing the difference by fraudulent methods . No evidence was adduced by the defence to controvert the allegations . The Enquiry Officer is justified in recording a finding against the workman .

(c) The next allegation is that the workman tampered with the SB Account No. 5411 of Smt A. Ramani . Adebit entry of Rs . 60,000 was made in the ledger account on31-01-2000 without a corresponding debit slip. Ext. ME- 19 is the ledger copy. MW1 had verified the account and connected records . But he was not able to find any supportive instrument for the debit entry of Rs.60,000. According to him the entry in the ledger folio was made by the workman . MW3 Branch Manager has also given evidence in tune with the testimony of MW1 . It is for the workman to show that there was an instrument in support of debit entry of Rs . 60,000 as he was in charge of SB section and he had written the ledger folio . In the absence of any contra evidence and convincing explanation from the workman it has to be found that the allegation stands proved.

(d) It is alleged that fraud was committed in respect of SB account No. 6434 of Smt C. Molly Gopi . On 10-11-1999 a credit of Rs . 500 was posted by the workman in the ledger. Later it was altered to Rs .40,500 by prefixing '40' . The balance which was Rs.1,840 was altered to Rs . 41,840 by prefixing ' 4' . On 11-11-1999 Smt C.Molly Gopi withdrew Rs . 40,000 by a cash cheque . The cheque was posted by the workman in the ledger . Ext . ME- 22 is the account opening form submitted by Smt Molly Gopi . Ext . ME-23 is the ledger copy. Ext. ME- 24 is credit slip forRs . 500.MW4 the Special Assistant has identified Ext . ME- 23 and24. He had checked the ledger. According to him at the time of checking the credit entry on 10-11-1999 the credit was only Rs . 500 and the balance was Rs . 1840. According to him the alteration was made thereafter . On 22-12-1999 according to the management a bogus credit entry ofRs. 31,000 was made in the ledger folio of the account ofthe customer on 26-1-2000. That amount was withdrawn by the account holder by self cheque dated 25-01-2000 ( Ext. ME- 26) . MW1 , 2 and 4 have identified the handwriting of the workman in the concerned records . Ext . ME- 12 and 90 letters of admission further support the allegation . When the fraud was detected the workman remitted Rs . 40,000 by Ext . ME-30 pay - in -slip on 2-2-2000 and Rs . 31,000 by Ext. ME- 31 pay- in - slip on 3-02-2000 . Thus there is clinching evidence to prove the allegation.

8. ( ii) The next charge is that the workman got 11cheques discounted at his instance . Out of them three cheques were drawn by the worker and the remaining eight cheques by his wife , on Kasargod District Co- operative Bank Limited . All related entries in records of the bank concerning cheques discounting/ purchasing , were made by the workman. The proceeds of the cheques were then credited to various accounts of customers . All the cheques sent for collection got collected after more than a month. It is alleged that the workman deliberately delayed the transmission of cheques for collection . MWs . 1 and 3 have given evidence in support of this allegation . Exts . ME-35, 36, 37, 48 , 49, 56, 61 , 64, 66, 68, and 69 are copies of covering letters (3C) of CPs . The related credit slips , debit slips , collection books and LCC registers are Exts . ME- 38 , 39,40, 41,42 to46, 50 to 54, 57 , 62, 63 , 67 and 70. Exts . ME-74Ato E are copies of cheques drawn by Smt Valsala Paulose, W/o workman and discounted . Ext. ME-75 is copy of SB account opening form submitted to Kasargod District Co- operative Bankby the workman . Ext . ME-76 is ledger copy ofSB account of the workman in Kasargod District Co- operative Bank. Ext . ME- 77 is current account opening form submittedby Smt Valsala Paulose to Kasargod District Co- operativeBank . Exts . ME-78 A to C is ledger copy of the current account of Valsala Paulose in the Co- operative Bank. The records show that all the cheques were collected lateby more than one month after they were debited in the FederalBank. MW1 has given evidence that Exts . ME-35, 36, 37, 48 ,49, 56, 61 , 64, 66, 68, and 69 covering letters and related credit and debit slips were prepared by the workman. The records are clinching . Since the workman got the cheques discounted it was his concern to get the cheques collected as early as possible . On the contrary there was unusual delay in collection . The beneficiaries of cheque transactions were none other than the workman and his wife. This charge also is supported by enough materials onrecord.

(e) The workman posted a credit of Rs . 6,000 in the ledger of the account of Balakrishnan on 01-11-1999 without a supporting voucher . Ext. ME- 33 is the ledger copy.As perthe ledger on 3-11-1999 this amount was withdrawn by the party. According to MW1 both entries in the ledger were made by the workman . The amount was withdrawn by Ext . ME- 34 cheque . In the cheque in the initial column theworkman has signed . Ext . ME- 32 is the account opening form submitted by the account holder Balakrishnan . It shows that the worker had introduce the account holder . In Ext . ME- 12 the worker admits the guilt. He remitted Rs . 6000 in the account to make good the loss. Thus this allegation also stands proved.

9. ( iii & iv) . The next allegation is that the workman hadborrowedRs . 87,000 from one K. V. Sathyan , but failed to repay the same. Though he issued a cheque for the amount it returned unpaid for want of sufficient fund in the account. Similarly three more cheques were issued to 3rd parties. They too returned on account of insufficient fund. The details of cheques , like the amounts , dates ofcheques , dates of dishonour etc. are given at page 7 of the enquiry report . Exts . ME- 87A & B are copies of relevant pages of cheque return register . Exts . ME- 88A &B are also copies ofcheque return register. Exts . ME- 85 and 86 are ledger copies of SB account of workman in the Federal Bank , 1731 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

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 17th day of February , 2009 .

P.L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer.

Appendix

Witnesses for the workman -Nil

Witnesses for the Management -Nil

Exhibit for the workman -Nil

Exhibit for the Management - M1-Enquiry file.

नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च , 2009

का.आ. 927 - औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 47/2007 ) कोप्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/ 11/2007- आईआर( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी Nileswar. The cheque return register shows that the cheques drawn by the workman returned unpaid. The ledger copies reveal that the workman did not maintain sufficient balance in his accont to honour the cheques . Four cheques were issued in March, April and July of 2000. As per ledger Exts.ME- 85 and 86 from January, 2000 to 30-08-2000 the balance in his account was below Rs . 5,000. On 31-08-2000 the balance was Rs . 6,023 . The cheque amounts are Rs . 87,000, 5,000 , 20,000 and 9884. Naturally none ofthese cheques could be honoured. The reason for return ofcheques as per cheque return register 87A, 87B , 88A and 88B is insufficiency of funds . The registers also show that drawer of the cheque is the worker . Cheque No. 57311 dated 4-07-2000 is the cheque issued to Sri K.V. Sathyan. Sathyan had written to the Regional Manager of the Bank complaining about return of the cheque issued by the workman. Ext.ME- 80A is the complaint . Ext.ME- 80D is cheque return memo . Ext.ME - 80C is copy of the cheque. Ext.ME - 89 is the Bulletin of Federal Bank. As per Clause- III the employees of the bank are instructed to maintain sufficient balance in their accounts for the purpose ofhonouring cheques as and when they are presented for payment .The workman has violated the instructions . There is no contra evidence . The workman has not even denied the charge in his reply to memo ofcharges Ext.ME-9 . There is overwhelming evidence to support the charges . I find no reason to deviate from the findings of the Enquiry Officer.

New Delhi, the 19th March, 2009

10. The Enquiry Officer has properly analysed the evidence on record to reach the conclusion that the workman is guilty of all the charges .

S.O. 927. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 47/2007 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19-3-2009 .

[No. L- 12011/ 11/2007- IR (B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, ATHYDERABAD

Present: SHRI VED PRAKASH GAUR , Presiding Officer Dated the 2nd day of February , 2009 Industrial Disput No. 47/2007

BETWEEN:

TheGeneral secretary,

11. Pont No.2 :- The disciplinary authority had heard the workman after proposing the punishment . All the mitigating circumstances submitted by the workman were taken into account. But considering the gravity of the misconduct the workman was dismissed from service . Though an appeal was filed by the workman he did not succeed.According to the learned counsel for the workman the punishment is harsh and excessive . The mitigating circumstances narrated by the workman before the disciplinary authority is that he had served the bank for 17 years . He had an unblemished past record . His wife and child are sick and his parents are aged. Employment in the bank was the sole source of income to look after his family . There is no chance of getting an alternate employment due to the nature of punishment. In the wake of manifold and multiple fraudulent activities and misappropriation ofmoney these circumstances cannot weigh with the punishing authority in fixing the quantum of punishment. His honesty is shattered and integrity is lost . The bank cannot retain such a person in service. In the circumstances no leniency inthe matter ofpunishment is warranted. Therefore I refrain from interfering with the punishment.

SBI WorkmenUnion, Hyderabad Circle, Regional Office , 308 , Pavani Linganapet Estate , St. No. 8 , Himayathnagar ,

Hyderabad

..... Petitioner AND

In the result an award is passed finding that the action ofthe management in dismissing the workman from service is legal and justified and he is not entitled for any relief.

1732

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 11 , 2009 /CHAITRA 21 , 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]

अधिकरण चण्डीगढ़ नं. -1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 93/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

1. The Dy . General Manager , CircleDevelopment Officer, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Hyderabad.

[सं. एल -41012/214/1995- आई आर ( बी- I ) ]

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 19th March, 2009 2. The Dy . General Manager , StateBank of India, Hyderabad Zonal Office, Module-1 Secunderabad. ..... Respondents

APPEARANCES :

Forthe Petitioner : M/ s. G. Vidya Sagar & P. Sudheer Rao, Advocates

For the Respondent : M/ s . B. G. Ravindra Reddy, P. Srinivasulu & Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocates

S.O. 928-In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.93 / 1997 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court, No. - 1 Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Northern Railway, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19-3-2009.

AWARD

[No. L-41012/214/ 1995 - IR (B- 1) ) AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

TheGovernment of India , Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 12011/1-1 /2007- IR (B- 1 ) dated 18-9-2007 referred the following dispute under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen. The reference is,

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

SCHEDULE

Case No. I.D 93/97

ThePresident Northern Railway Workers Union , 49/69, Harpal Nagar , Ludhiana .

Applicant "Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India , Hyderabad in transferring Sri K. Revinder Reddy , senior assistant who is of 58 years age , from Secunderabad branch is proper and justified ? If not , to what relief he is entitled ?"

VERSUS

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 47/2007 and notices issued to the parties.

The Divisional Railway Manager , Northern Railway , Firozpur (Punjab)

Respondent

APPEARANCES

SriB.N. Sehgal

For the Workman: For the Management: Sri N.K. Zakhmi

2. On 2-2-2009 , Petitioner is absent while Respondent's counsel present . Petitioner has not filed claim statement after appearance . It appears that Petitioner is not interested to pursue the case . As such, this case is closed .Hence , a Nil Award is passed in absence of claim statement . Transmit .

AWARD

Passed on: 18-2-2009

Dictated to Smt.P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 2nd day of February, 2009.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Government of India vide notification No.L -- 41012/ 214/95 - IR (BI ) , dated 21-1-97 referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal : -- Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

NIL

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

Documents Marked for the Petitioner

NIL

"Whether the action of the Management of Northern Railway in stopping three increments of Shri Bakshi Ram , Asstt . Station Master is legal and Justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to? "

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

I have gone through the entire materials on record.

नई दिल्ली , 19 मार्च , 2009

So far as the enquiry part is concerned , it was a minor punishment awarded to the workman and as per the rules of Railway Department a notice was served upon the workman . No doubt, it is the contention of the workman that he was not properly informed, but the circumstances proved that he was having all the information about the का.आ. 928- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नार्थन रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक 1733 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

change of nature of punishment by compelling circumstances that the right of pensionary benefits was also affected . The disciplinary authority overlooked it while awarding the punishment to the workman .

charge sheet served upon him by the management . He has not replied to the notice and charge sheet . No doubt, once again, the workman has stressed that he replied the charge sheet. In his cross -examination dated 17-11-08 , he has stated thathe replied the charge sheet to SS , Ludhiana . He has further stated that he has not attended the proceedings . As he has replied the charge sheet (no doubt the reply is not on record) , it proved that workman was having full knowledge of the proceedings against him. Thus , I am of the view that management has rightly conducted the enquiry as per prescribed rules for minor punishment and there has been no violation of any rules of principle of natural justice of the workman.

Accordingly , I am herewith setting aside the punishment awarded by the management (disciplinary authority) to the workman and substituting the same with thepunishment of warning . The management is directed to do the needful regarding all the pensionary benefits of the workman within one month from the date of publication of the award. The workman will also be entitled for the increments which were stopped by the management in execution of the punishment awarded to the workman. Accordingly, this reference is disposed of. Central Government be approached for publication of award , and thereafter , file be consigned.

G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च , 2009

So far as the punishment part is concerned , I am of the view that punishment awarded by the management was not practically possible to implement and under such circumstances the Tribunal should be cautious on quantum of punishment. It is true that whenever any Tribunal or Court hold that enquiry is legal, valid and there has been no violation of rules of principle of natural justice, there is very limited scope available to the Tribunal/Courtto interfere in the punishment awarded to the workman . In this case , the punishment awarded by the management cannot be Implemented and the fact of impossibility of implementing the punishment gave a rise to the Tribunal to interfere in the punishment awarded by the management.

का. आ. 929-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , चण्डीगढ़ नं. 1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 169/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-3-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/140/1996- आईआर( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 19th March, 2009 The prescribed authority has awarded the punishment of stoppage ofthree increments. The workman retired after two years . Thus , it was not possible to implement the complete punishment awarded to the workman .

S.O. 929. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 169/1997) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court, No. - 1 Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India , and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19-3-2009.

[No. L- 12012/ 140/ 1996- IR(B -I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

On the other hand , stoppage of three increments was to be effected only for three years . It could not have been possible because in second year the workman retired and the punishment awarded to him was automatically changed to the stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect . These compelling circumstances and automatically changed the nature of punishment awarded to the workman also afforded the opportunity to thisTribunal to interfere in the punishment awarded to the workman . This change of punishment has also affected the right of the workman to get the pensionary benefits as perrules of thedepartment.

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

Case No. I.D 169/97

Shri Kuldeep Singh , S/ o Shri Raghubir Singh , V & PO- Jakhara, The: Jawali , Distt . Kangra (H.P)

Applicant

Versus

The Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India ; Zonal Office, Lower Lakkar. Bazar , Cart Road , Shimla ,

Respondent Asstated earlier , this impossibility ofexecuting the punishment awarded by the management gave an opportunity to this Tribunal to interfere in the punishment awarded to the workman . Considering the nature of misconduct , as admitted to the management that it was very minor one, I am of the view that punishment ofwarming should have been an appropriate punishment so that the workman should not suffer to his another statutory right to get the pensionary benefits as per rules of the Railway Department . It was not the intention of the disciplinary authority to interfere in any right of pensionary benefits while awarding the punishment to the workman . It was 1734

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11 , 2009 / CHAITRA 21 , 1931

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

Forthe Workman :

Shri J. P. Singh

I have perused the evidence on record. Full opportunity of being heard was also given to the parties.

Shri Vinod Mahendru

For the Management:

AWARD

Passed on : 17-2-2009

The main issue , as stated earlier , before this Tribunal is whether the bank has rightly presumed the workman voluntarily abandoned his services under the facts and circumstances of this case?

Para 16 of the bipartite settlement reads as under:-

Government of India vide notification No.L-- 12012/ 140/96 - IR ( B - I ) , dated 4-9-97 referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

"Whether the action of the Management of SBI in terminating the service of Shri Kuldeep Singh S/o Shri Ragubir Singh , Ex - Driver- cum- messenger w.e.f. 31-1-92 is just and legal . If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ? "

"Where an employee has not submitted any application for leave and absents himself from work for a period of 90 or more consecutive days without or beyond any leave to his credit or absents himself for 90 or more consecutive days beyond the period of leave originally sanctioned or subsequently extended or where there is satisfactory evidence that he has taken up employment in India or the management is satisfied that he has no present intention ofjoining duties , the management may at any time thereafter give a notice to the employee's last known address calling upon the employee to report for duty within 30 days of the notice , stating , inter alia , the grounds for the management coming to the conclusion that the employee has no intention ofjoining duties and furnishing necessary evidence , where available . Unless the employee reports for dutywithin 30days or unless he gives an explanation for his absence satisfying the management that he has not taken up another employment or avocation and that he has no intention of not joining duties , the employee will be deemed to have voluntarily retired from the bank's service on the expiry of the said notice. In the event of the employee submitting a satisfactory reply, he shall be permitted to report for duty thereafter within 30 days from the date of theexpiry of the aforesaid notice without prejudice to the bank's right to take any action under the law orrules of service ."

Onperusal of the Para 16 , it is evident that on absent of90 days , if a 30 days' notice is given to the employee and the employee is not responding and joining the duties or the respondent on the basis of some cogent evidence is of the view that the workman has no intention to serve the bank , his services will be deemed to be voluntarily abandoned. There is one more requirement in clause 16 of the bipartite settlement that the 30 days ' notice must contain the gounds for the management acting and reaching to the conclusion that the employee has no intention to joinduties and furnishing necessary evidence , ifavailable.

On perusal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the main question for adjudication before this Tribunal is whether the management has rightly presumed the workman voluntarily retired from the services as per Para 16 of the bipartite settlement applicable to both of the parties? It is not disputed that workman was working as a driver with the management of the bank till 31-1-92 . The workman absented himself from the services of the bank w.e.f. 6-4-91 . He submitted his first leave application on 1-8-98 after the four months unauthorized absent without any medical certificate . The workman was asked to provide the medical and fitness certificate as required by rules but the workman did not complied with the direction . He was given a memorandum vide letter no . OMX/ 51 , dated 26-7-91, advising him to join duties within 30 days or to produce medical certificate as desired , but he failed to complied with. The workman was again served with the notice on 28-4-91 , 7-9-91 and 24-9-91 respectively . On 1-10-91 the workman requested for his transfer to Bharmour on health grounds . But he did not reported for duty nor submitted any medical certificate . The workman was again advised on 4-10-91 and 29-10-91 to join duty on or before 9-11-91 . He reported on 9-11-90 but did not produce any medical certificate . Accordingly , in absence ofmedical certificate he was not allowed to join duty and was further asked to get himself medically examined by the Chief Medical Officer , Ripon Hospital , Shimla on 12-11-91 . But he again defied the bank instructions . Management ofthe bank asked the workman on 4-12-91 to submit the medical certificate from the aforesaid hospital but he did not complied with the said directions of the bank. Finał notice was served on 1-1-92 directing him to join the services within 30 days from the date of notice failing which he shall be deemed to have been voluntarily retired from the bank service . As the workman did not reported for the duties he was finally treated to have voluntarily retired from the services of the bank w.e.f. 31-1-92.

The workman raised an industrial dispute and on failure of conciliation proceedings this referenice .

It is also the settled principle of interpretation of statute that whenener the language of any statute is plain and simple , no interpretation is required. If the language of any statute , rules or regulation is capable of giving one meaning only , the same meaning will be adopted by the court . The language of clause 16 of bipartitie settlement is Parties were afforded opportunity for adducing evidence oral and documentray.

1735

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 11 , 2009/चैत्र 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

to conduct a fair , reasonable and proper enquiry for the cause of his absence . The management of the bank is, accordingly, directed to permit the workman to resume his duties within one month from the date of publication of this award. However, management will be at libertyto hold a fair, reasonable and proper departmental enquiry for alleged absence of the workman from duties. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case , I am of the view that workman will not be entitled for any back wages but he will be entitled for continuity in service and pay protection. The reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Government be approached for publication of award, and thereafter , file be consigned.

G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 31 मार्च , 2009 very simple and plain . It is capable ofhaving one meaning only. The one meaning is that if after 30 days notice, the workman is turning up and desires to work and to resume the services of the bank , he will be permitted . If he is not turning up then second condition applies . As per the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced by them, it is clear, and it is the case of the management as well in Para no . 4 of the written statement that on 9-11-91 the workman reported for the duties but he was not permitted to join on account of failure of filing the medical and fitness certificate from a particular hospital . As soon as the workman approached the bank with intention to resume the duties , the management's right to claim benefit of Clause 16 ofbipartite settlement was over. I have gone through all the notices served upon the workman . None of the notice contain any grounds that workman has no intention to serve the bank. Every notice required himto resume the duties with medical certificate . It is not the intention of the Clause 16 of the bipartite settlement. Ifthe workman is turning up and he is not complying with the directions regarding medical certificate , it is a misconduct forwhich any action can be taken after holding the proper, reasonable and fair departmental enquiry.

का.आ. 930-केन्द्र सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 ( यथासंशोधित 1987 ) के नियम 10 के उप - नियम (4 ) के अनुसरण में , श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय के प्रशासकीय नियंत्रणाधीन निम्नलिखित कार्यालय को, जिसके न्यूनतम 80 प्रतिशत कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है :

क्रम संख्या

कार्यालय का नाम

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा निगम , रायपुर

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा निगम, परवाणू

Learned counsel for the management has relied upon acase law'recorded in 2000 LAB. I.C 2326 , Syndicate bank Vs. General Secretary Syndicate Bank Staff Association and another. In this veryjudgment in para no . 15, 17, 18, 19, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that an enquiry would have been necessary if delinquent had submitted his explanation which was not acceptable to the bank or contended that he did report for duty but was not allowed tojoinby the bank .

[सं. ई-11017/1/2006- रा. भा.नी. ] के. एम. गुप्ता , आर्थिक सलाहकार

New Delhi , the 31st March, 2009

S.O. 930- In Pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) ofRule 10 ofthe Official Language (Use for official purposes ofthe Union) , Rules 1976 ( as amended 1987) the Central Government here by notifies following office under the administrative control of the Ministry of Labour & Employment , at least 80 % Staff where of have acquired working knowledge ofHindi:-

Sl . No. Name of the office

Regional Office , ESIC, Raipur Regional Office, ESIC , Parvanoo

[No. E- 11017/1/2006-RBN]

K. M. GUPTA, Economic Advisor Inthis case as admitted to the management that the workman reported for duties on 9-11-1991 , but was not allowed to join the bank and to resume duties on account ofhis failure to provide a proper medical certificate . It was not open for the management of the bank under Clause 16 ofthe bipartite settlement to dispute the cause of absent, if theworkmanhas reported the bank within 30 days ofnotice. Ifthe management was not satisfied with the explanation given by the workman, who ensure his presence within 30days, a fair , reasonable and proper departmental enquiry was required which was not done . Accordingly , the workman cannot be presumed to be retired from the services of the bank as he reported for the duties but was not permitted to join. The workman shall be presumed tobe in the services of the bank , with permission to the management

Printed by the Manager , Govt . of India Press , Ring Road , Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054.