This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

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

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

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 25 ]

No. 25]

नई दिल्ली, जून 14 जून 20, 2009 , शनिवार/ज्येष्ठ 24 ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

NEW DELHI, JUNE 14-JUNE 20, 2009 , SATURDAY/ JYAISTHA 24-JYAISTHA 30, 1931

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 that the Ministry of Defence)

कार्मिक, लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय

(कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 9 जून , 2009

का.आ. 1700.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, असम सरकार , राजनैतिक ( ए) विभाग , दिसपुर की दिनांक 21 अप्रैल , 2009 की अधिसूचना सं. पी.एल.ए. 633/2008/89 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से पुलिस स्टेशन धींग , जिला-नागांव (असम) में पंजीकृत भा.दंड संहिता , 1860 ( 1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45 ) की धारा 120 बी तथा 153 - ए तथा सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी अधिनियम , 2000 ( 2000 का अधिनियम सं. 21 ) की धारा 74 के तहत केस सं. 138/08 जो कि उपर्युक्त अपराध के संबंध में प्रयास , दुष्प्रेरणों तथा षड़यंत्रों और उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्योंसे उद्भूत किन्हीं अन्य अपराधों का अन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण असम राज्य पर करती है ।

[सं. 228/23/ 2009- ए वी डी- II ]

मनीषा सक्सेना , उप सचिव 2137 G1/2009

(3375)

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training) New Delhi , the 9th June , 2009

S.O.1700 .-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent ofthe StateGovernment of Assam , Political (A) Department, Dispur vide Notification No. PLA. 633/2008/89 dated 21st April, 2009, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members ofthe Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Assam for investigation of Case No. 138/08 under Sections 120 -B and 153 - A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( Act No. 45 of 1860) and Section 74 of the InformationTechnology Act, 2000 (Act No. 21 of2000) registered at Police Station Dhing , District Nagoan (Assam) and attempts , abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the offence mentioned above and any other offence or offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .

[No. 228/23/2009-AVD- II]

MANISHA SAXENA , Dy. Secy.

3376

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

the same fact or facts in relation to aforesaid seizure .

नई दिल्ली, 10 जून , 2009

[No. 228/26/2009-AVD - II]

MANISHA SAXENA , Dy. Secy .

वित्त मंत्रालय

(वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 17 जून , 2009

का.आ. 1702.-केन्द्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा(संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम (4) के अनुसरण में , संलग्न अनुबंध में उल्लिखित निम्नलिखित बैंकों की सूचीबद्ध शाखाओं/ कार्यालयों को , जिनके 80 % से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधि- सूचित करती है।

क्रम सं. बैंकों के नाम

शाखाओं/कार्यालयों की संख्या

सिंडिकेट बैंक

भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक

आंध्रा बैंक

कार्पोरेशन बैंक

5. पंजाब नेशनल बैंक

इंडियन बैंक

स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

161 का.आ.1701.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , महाराष्ट्र राज्य सरकार, मंत्रालय , मुम्बई की अधिसूचना संख्या सी II- 0609/सीआर -94/पोल 12 दिनांक 03-06-2009 द्वारा प्राप्त महाराष्ट्र राज्य सरकार की सहमति से राजस्व आसूचना निदेशालय , मुम्बई द्वारा दिनांक 02-02-2009 को खलील मोहम्मद एवं मोहम्मद शब्बीर के कब्जे से मोहम्मद राशिद कुंजूके प्रेरणा से काठमांडू से मुम्बई में परिचालन हेतु 19,79,500/- रूपये के जाली भारतीय मुद्रा नोट जब्त किए गए मामले के अन्वेषण ब्यूरो और इनके विरुद्ध केन्द्रीय अन्वेषण , नई दिल्ली में भारतीय दंड संहिता के अंतर्गत कानूनी कार्रवाई के लिए प्राप्त राजस्व आसूचना निदेशालय , मुम्बई की शिकायत संख्या डीआरआई/एमजेडयू/ सी/आईएनवी-24/2008-09/ 1783 दिनांक 04-03-2009 के तहत भारतीय दंड संहिता , 1860 ( 1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45) की धारा #89-बी 489-सी सपठित 120 - बी के अधीन उपरोक्त अपराधों से संबंधित उनकी धोखाधड़ी और किसी अन्य लोकसेवक या व्यक्ति तथा उपर्युक्त अपराधों से संबंधित अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किसी अन्य अपराध अथवा अपराधों का अन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण महाराष्ट्र राज्य पर करती है ।

ओरियंटल बैंक आफ कामर्स

बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र

[सं. 228/26/2009- ए वी डी- II ] मनीषा सक्सेना , उप सचिव

10. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ मैसूर

New Delhi , the 10th June , 2009

11. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

467

कुल

[फा.सं. 11016/ 1/ 2009 -हिन्दी]

रामेशबाबू अणियेरी , संयुक्त निदेशक ( राजभाषा )

सिंडिकेट बैंक

1. सिंडिकेट बैंक , अमीनगढ़ शाखा , पुलिस स्टेशन के सामने , अमीनगढ़ , तालुक: हुनगुंड, जिला : बागलकोट, राज्य: कर्नाटक , पिनः 587112

2. सिंडिकेट बैंक , बादामी शाखा , होटेल राजसंगम इन्टरनेशनल बिल्डिंग , केएसआरटीसी बस स्टैंड के सामने , मेन रोड , बादामी , जिलाः बागलकोट, राज्य: कर्नाटक, पिनः 587201

3. सिंडिकेट बैंक, बागलकोट शाखा , कलादगी रोड, कोर्ट के सामने , बागलकोट, जिलाः बागलकोट राज्य: कर्नाटक, पिनः 587101

S.O.1701 . In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act , 1946 (Act No. 25 of1946) , the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Maharashtra , Mantralaya , Mumbai videNotification No. CII -0609/CR- 94/Pol 12 dated 3-6- 2009, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Maharashtra for investigation of case relating to seizure of Fake Indian Currency Notes of Rs. 19,79,500/-effected on 2-2-2009 by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence , Mumbai from the possession of Khalil Mohammad and Mohammad Shabbir smuggled at the instance ofMohammad Rashid Kunju from Kathmandu for circulation in Mumbai , against whom Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi received complaint for initiating legal action under Indian Penal Code from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence , Mumbai vide complaint No. DR1/ MZU / C/ INV- 24/2008-09/1783 dated 04-03-2009 , for their fraudulent acts and any other public servants or persons , in relation to said offences under Sections489 -B, 489 - CC r/ w 120-B of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) and any other offences committed in the course of the same transaction or emerging out of

4. सिंडिकेट बैंक , बसवकल्याण शाखा , पहला तल , बसव मैन्शन , मैन रोड , बसवकल्याण , जिलाः बीदर राज्य: कर्नाटक, पिनः 585327 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

5. सिंडिकेट बैंक , बीदर एयर फोर्स स्टेशन शाखा , एलिमेन्टरी फलाइंग स्कूल , एयर फोर्स स्टेशन , बीदर, जिला:बीदर, राज्यः कर्नाटक, पिनः 585 401 6. सिंडिकेट बैंक, बसवेश्रवर रोड शाखा, सर्राफ बाजार , गांधी चौक , बिजापुर, जिलाः बिजापुर , राज्यः कर्नाटक , पिनः 586 101

7. सिंडिकेट बैंक , बिज्जरगी शाखा , बुद्धनगर , बिज्जरगी , जिलाः बिजापुर , राज्यः कर्नाटक , पिन:586 114 8. सिंडिकेट बैंक, चंडकापुर शाखा, हंदराले बिल्डिंग , मेन रोड, एन.एच. 9 , चंडकापुर , जिलाः बीदर, राज्यः कर्नाटक, पिनः: 585 419

9. सिंडिकेट बैंक , देवर हिप्परगी शाखा, एस.वी. देशपाण्डे बिल्डिंग , बस स्टैंड के सामने , देवर हिप्परगी , तालुकः सिंदगी, जिलाः बिजापुर, राज्यः कर्नाटक, पिनः 586 115

10. सिंडिकेट बैंक , गोलसंगी शाखा , एम.ए. दलनाइ बिल्डिंग , बस स्टैंड के सामने , गोलसंगी , तालुकः बसवन बागेवाड़ी, जिलाः बिजापुर , राज्यः कर्नाटक, पिनः 586 231

11. सिंडिकेट बैंक , गुलबर्गा दरगाह शाखा , दर्गा हजरत खाजा, बंदानवाज , खाजाबाजार , गुलबर्गा, जिलाः गुलबर्गा , राज्यः कर्नाटक, पिनः 585 104

12. सिंडिकेट बैंक , गुलबर्गा फोर्ट रोड शाखा, प्लॉट सं. 88/90 पहला तल , खुबा कांप्लेक्स सुपर मार्केट गुलबर्गा, जिलाः गुलबर्गा राज्य: कर्नाटक, पिनः 585 101

13. सिंडिकेट बैंक गुलबर्गा एम. आर. मेडिकल कॉलेज शाखा , सं. 178/19 , आरटीओ क्रॉस , बडेपुर सेडेम रोड गुलबर्गा जिलाः गुलबर्गा राज्यः कर्नाटक, पिनः 585 105

14. सिंडिकेट बैंक , गुलबर्गा स्टेशन बाजार शाखा, तिम्मापुरी चौक स्टेशन बाजार गुलबर्गा, जिलाः गुलबर्गा , राज्यः कर्नाटक , पिन: 585 102

15. सिंडिकेट बैंक , गुलबर्गा एम एस के मिल्स शाखा , वैष्णवी एम एस के मिल रोड, शांतिनगर गुलबर्गा, जिलाः गुलबर्गा , राज्यः कर्नाटक,

पिनः 585 103

16. सिंडिकेट बैंक, गुलेदगुड शाखा, बिल्डिंग सं. 2179 कुम्बारा स्ट्रीट, वार्ड सं. 3 , गुलेदगुड जिला : बागलकोट , राज्य कर्नाटक , पिनः 587 203

3377 17. सिंडिकेट बैंक , हृविन हिप्परगी शाखा , प्लाट सं. 949 , कॉलेज रोड , हूविन हिप्परगी , तालुकः बसवना बागेवाडी, जिला: बिजापुर, राज्यः कर्नाटक, पिनः 586 208

18. सिंडिकेट बैंक , होर्टी शाखा, एन.एस. खेड बिल्डिंग , शोलापुर रोड, होर्टी, तालुकः इंडी, जिलाः बिजापुर , राज्य: कर्नाटक, पिनः 586 117

19. सिंडिकेट बैंक , हुनगुंद शाखा, नगराल बिल्डिंग , बागलकोट रोड, हुनगुंद, जिलाः बागलकोट, राज्यः कर्नाटक, पिनः 587 118

20. सिंडिकेट बैंक , इलकल शाखा , श्री विजय महन्त मठ बिल्डिंग , पोस्ट बाक्स सं. 5 , कांति सर्कल , इलकल , जिलाः बागलकोट, राज्यः कर्नाटक, पिनः 587 125

21. सिंडिकेट बैंक , केरूर शाखा , 1/452, श्री मारुति कृपा , मेन रोड, केरूर, जिलाः बागलकोट, राज्यः कर्नाटक , पिन:587 206

22. सिंडिकेट बैंक , कोरवार शाखा , लक्ष्मी सरस्वती निवास , मेन रोड, कोरवारय , जिलाः बिजापुर , राज्यः कर्नाटक, पिनः 586 120

23. सिंडिकेट बैंक, लच्याण शाखा, लच्याण , जिलाः बिजापुर , राज्यः कर्नाटक, पिनः 586 211

24. सिंडिकेट बैंक , मुददेबिहाल शाखा , 218 , बी.वी. रेशमी बिल्डिंग, अलमटटी रोड, मुद्बिहाल , जिलाः बिजापुर, राज्यः कर्नाटक, पिन: 586 212

25. सिंडिकेट बैंक, मुधोल शाखा , गेविन्दपुर गल्ली, मुधोल , जिलाः बागलकोट, राज्यः कर्नाटक पिन: 587 313

26. सिंडिकेट बैंक , नलतवाड़ शाखा , एस.बी. इलकल बिल्डिंग , बस स्टैंड के पास , नलतवाड़ , जिलाः बिजापुर , राज्यः कर्नाटक, पिनः 586 124

27. सिंडिकेट बैंक , शिरूर शाखा , वेंकटेश निलय पाटील्स बिल्डिंग , शिरूर , जिलाः बागलकोट , राज्यः कर्नाटक, पिन: 587 132

28. सिंडिकेट बैंक, तालीकोटे शाखा, म्युनिसिपैलिटी बिल्डिंग , बस स्टैंड रोड, तालीकोटे , तालुकः मुददेबिहाल , जिलाः बिजापुर , राज्यः कर्नाटक, पिन: 586214 3378

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

29. सिंडिकेट बैंक, तेरदाल शाखा , शिव निलय, गथाई बिल्डिंग , पुराने पुलिस स्टेशन के पास , जिला: बागलकोट , राज्यः कर्नाटक ,

पिन-587315

30. सिंडिकेट बैंक , यादगिरी शाखा, श्री हरी देश पाण्डेबिल्डिंग , 3-7-45 काजगरवाडी, यादगिरी , जिलाः गुलबर्गा , राज्यः कर्नाटक , पिन-585201

31. सिंडिकेट बैंक , यलगूर शाखा , ग्राम पंचायत बिल्डिंग , यलगूर, तालुकः मुददेबिहाल ,

जिला: बागलकोट , राज्यः कर्नाटक, पिन-586213 32. सिंडिकेट बैंक, यद्रामी शाखा , जी. एस. तालिकोटीस बिल्डिंग , सिंदगी रोड, यद्रामी , जिलाः गुलबर्गा , राज्य: कर्नाटक, पिन-585325.

33. सिंडिकेट बैंक, अग्रणी जिला कार्यालय , सुल्ताम मैन्शन, दूसरा तल , एम. बी -45 , के.सी. मार्केट रोड , बिजापुर , जिलाः बिजापुर, राज्य: कर्नाटक , पिन-586 101

34. सिंडिकेट बैंक , अग्रणी जिला कार्यालय , सिंडिकेट बैंक बिल्डिंग , पहला तल , कलादगी रोड, बागलकोट , जिलाः बागलकोट , राज्यः कर्नाटक , पिन-587 101

35. सिंडिकेट बैंक , भिवाडी शाखा , दुकान सं. 3-4 , हरिराम पैलेस, मेन रोड , भिवाड़ी , जिलाः अलवर , राज्यः राजस्थान , पिन -301019

36. सिंडिकेट बैंक , बिलासपुर चौक शाखा , पटौदी रोड , पुलिस स्टेशन, बिलासपुर , जिला गुडगांव , राज्यः हरियाणा,

पिन-122413

37. सिंडिकेट बैंक , दौसा शाखा , डाक बंगजला के सामने , आगरा रोड , जिला: दौसा, राज्यः राजस्थान ,

पिन-303 303

38.: सिडिकोट बैंक, विदिशा शाखा , जी साहेब शापिगं सेन्टर , स्वर्णकार कालोनी , विदिशा , जिलाः विदिशा , राज्यः मध्य प्रदेश ,

पिन-464 001

39. सिंडिकेट बैंक, खजराना शाखा , 113 , ममता कालोनी , चौराहा, मेन रोड , खजराना , जिलाः इंदौर राज्यः मध्य प्रदेश , पिन-452 001

40. सिंडिकेट बैंक, पौड़ी शाखा , माल रोड, होटल मधुबन के पास , जिलाः गढ़वाल , राज्यः उत्तरा खंड, पिन-246 001

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 41. सिंडिकेट बैंक , रूद्रप्रयाग शाखा , सं. 4 , न्यू मार्केट , बदरीनाथ रोड , रूद्रप्रयाग , जिला : रूद्रप्रयाग

राज्यः उत्तरांचल, पिन-246 171

. 42. सिंडिकेट बैंक , केन्द्रीय लेखा कार्यालय , जीवन प्रकाश बिल्डिंग , प्रथम तल , 25 , कस्तूरबा गांधी मार्ग , नई दिल्ली , जिलाः दिल्ली , राज्यः दिल्ली, पिन-110 001

43. सिंडिकेट बैंक, दिल्ली इंटरनेशनल बिजनेश ब्रांच , एफ-40, कनॉट सर्कस , नई दिल्ली, जिला: दिल्ली, राज्यः दिल्ली,

पिन-110 001

44. सिंडिकेट बैंक, दिल्ली आई पी एस्टेट शाखा , केन्द्रीय राजस्व भवन , आई टी ओ , आई. पी. एस्टेट , नई दिल्ली , जिलाः दिल्ली, राज्यः दिल्ली, पिन-110 002

45. सिंडिकेट बैंक , दिल्ली एन ए एम सी शाखा ,

मौलाना आजाद मेडिकल कालेज , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली, जिला: दिल्ली, राज्यः दिल्ली, पिन-110 002

46. सिंडिकेट बैंक, दिल्ली बीएसएफ , ईस्टब्लॉक शाखा , महानिदेशक का कार्यालय , सीमा सुरक्षा बल , आर. के. पुरम , नई दिल्ली, जिला: दिल्ली, राज्यः दिल्ली, पिन-110 066

47. सिंडिकेट बैंक, दिल्ली डीजीएनसीसी वेस्टब्लॉक शाखा , महानिदेशक का कार्यालय एनसीसी रक्षा मंत्रालय , भारत सरकार , वेस्ट ब्लाक, आर.के. पुरम , नई दिल्ली , जिलाः दिल्ली, राज्यः दिल्ली, पिन-110 066

48. सिंडिकेट बैंक , दिल्ली आवास वित्त शाखा , 1 व 1 ए, द्वितीय तल , ओल्ड राजेन्द्र नगर मार्केट , नई दिल्ली , जिलाः दिल्ली,

राज्य: दिल्ली, पिन-110 060

49. सिंडिकेट बैंक , दिल्ली ए जी आईं भवन शाखा, ए जी आई भवन , राव तुला राम मार्ग , नई दिल्ली , जिलाः दिल्ली , राज्यः 'दिल्ली, पिन-110 057

50. सिंडिकेट बैंक , दिल्ली हरि नगर शाखा, डीटीसी डिपो हरि नगर , जेल रोड , नई दिल्ली, जिलाः दिल्ली , राज्यः दिल्ली, पिन-110064 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20 , 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

51. सिंडिकेट बैंक , दिल्ली शादीपुर शाखा

डीटीसी डिपो , शादीपुर , नई दिल्ली,

जिला: दिल्ली , राज्यः दिल्ली,

पिन-110 008

52. सिंडिकेट बैंक , दिल्ली सीबीएसई, पटपड़गंज शाखा , पीएस -1-2 , इन्स्टीट्यूशनल एरिया ,

आई पी एक्सटेंशन , पटपड़गंज,

नई दिल्ली, जिलाः दिल्ली,

राज्य: दिल्ली , पिन-110 092

53. सिंडिकेट बैंक , दिल्ली पीतम पुरा शाखा , अग्रवाल चैम्बर्स, सीडीब्लाक, पीतम पुरा , नई दिल्ली,

जिला: दिल्ली, राज्यः दिल्ली,

पिन-110 088

54. सिंडिकेट बैंक , इटावा शाखा , 762 , हर्ष नगर, कचहरी रोड, इटावा , जिलाः इटावा ,

राज्य: उत्तर प्रदेश , पिन-206 001

55. भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक, पंडित जवाहरलाल

नेहरू मार्ग , पो.बा. सं. 16 ,

भुवनेश्वर-751 001

आन्ध्रा बैंक-चेन्ने अंचल

56 अड्यार

मेट्रो आन्ध्रा बैंक , 30 ,प्रथम मैन रोड,

गांधी नगर , अडयार ,

चेन्नै-600 020

57. अण्णानगर

मेट्रो आन्ध्रा बैंक , 995 -जेए नया नं. 170 ,

11 एवेन्यू, अण्णानगर ,

चेन्नै-600 040

58. आवडी

मेट्रो आन्ध्रा बैंक , 7 , ओ सी एफ रोड,

आवडी,

चेन्नै-600 054

59. बेसन्ट नगर

आन्ध्रा बैंक, 34,36 , 7वां एवेन्यू, मेट्रो बेसन्ट'नगर ,

चेन्नै-600 090

60. चेन्नै एस्प्लनेड

मेट्रो आन्ध्रा बैंक, वाउ मैन्शन, 48/39राजाजी सालै ,

चेन्नै-600 001

61. चेटपट

आन्ध्रा बैंक , नं. 1 , मेयर रामनाथन रोड , मेट्रो चेटपट, चेन्नै -600 031

3379 62. मौब्रेस रोड

मेट्रो आन्ध्रा बैंक, 265 , टी.टी. के. रोड,

मौब्रेस रोड,

चेन्नै-600 018

63. मेडवाक्कम

मेट्रो आन्ध्रा बैंक, पुराना नं. 2/123

पेरूम्बाक्कम मेन रोड , एस नं. 417/3 , उप-डिवीजन

11ए एण्ड 11बी ,

मेडवाक्कम ,

चेन्नै-601 302

64. मैलापूर

मेट्रो आन्ध्रा बैंक, बालाजी हाउस , 6, नार्थ माडा स्ट्रीट , मैलापूर , चेन्नै-600004

65. पुरसवाक्कम

मेट्रो आन्ध्रा बैंक, डा. राजीवी टावर्स , (टैंक मादार्शा के पास ) , 231, पुरसवाक्कम हाई रोड, चेन्नै-600007

66. सैदापेट

मेट्रो आन्ध्रा बैंक , 393 , अण्णा सालै , सौदापेट,

चेन्नै-600 015

67. सालिग्रामम

मेट्रो आन्ध्रा बैंक, 21- सी- अरूणाचलम रोड, सालिग्रामम,

चेन्नै-600 093

68. सौकारपेट

आन्ध्रा बैंक , 40 , अण्णा पिल्लै स्ट्रीट ,

मेट्रो सौकारपेट,

चेन्नै-600 079

69. वेलच्चेरी

आन्ध्रा बैंक, नं. 81 , 100 फीट रोड, मेट्रो राजलक्ष्मी नगर , वेलच्चरी ,

चेन्नै-600042

70. ट्रिप्लिकेन

आन्ध्रा बैंक, नया नं. 50 , सी.एन. के. रोड , मेट्रो ट्रिप्लिकेन ,

चेन्नै-600 005

71. वाशरमेनपेट

आन्ध्रा बैंक, 294 , टी.एच. रोड, पुराना मेट्रो वाशरमेनपेट , चेन्नै-600 021 5380

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

मेट्रो 72. विल्लिवाक्कम आन्ध्रा बैंक , 93 , नार्थ रेड हिल्स रोड , विल्लिवाक्कम, चेम्नै-600 049

73. पम्मल

मेट्रो आन्ध्रा बैंक, नं. 1 , कृष्णा नगर , पम्मल मेन रोड , पम्मल , चेमै-600 075

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 83. आन्ध्रा बैंक,

14-899 , गोशाला रोड, गोशाला रोड शाखा , बोधन, निजामाबाद-503185

84. आन्ध्रा बैंक ,

मंकम्मतोटा शाखा,

मंकम्मतोटा,

करीमनगर-505 002

74.

कार्पोरेशन बैंक

सत्यमूर्ति नगर आन्ध्रा बैंका, मुरूगप्पा पालिटेक्निक कालेज , मेट्रो सत्यमूर्ति नगर , आवडी, चेन्नमै-600062

मेट्रो 75. सेम्दिल नगरे आम्ध्राबैंक, नं. 154 , राजाजी स्ट्रीट , सेदिल नगर , चेन्नै-600062

76. मोगप्पेर

मेट्रो आन्ध्रा बैंक, 12 सी , ई बी आफिस रोड , मोगप्पेर ( पूर्वी ) , चेन्नै-600037

77. नीलंगरै

आन्ध्रा बैंक, नं. 321 करूणानिधि सालै , मेट्रो कपालीश्वरर नगर , नीलंगरै ,

चेन्नै -600 041

78. कीर्तकट्टलै आन्ध्रा बैंक, 85/23 , मेडवाक्कम मेन रोड, मेट्रो कीर्तकट्टलै , चेन्नै-600 117

79. आन्ध्रा बैंक , मास्टर्स जूनियर कालेज परिसर , 2-7-158 , कलेक्टरेट के सामने , कलेक्टरेट रोड शाखा , करीमनगर-505001

80. आन्ध्रा बैंक, मंडल राजस्व कार्यालय रोड, भीमगल शाखा, निजामाबाद-303 301

81. आन्ध्रा बैंक ,

3-1-389 तुकाराम कामप्लेक्स , अम्बेदकर रोड , वाविलालपल्लीशाखा, करीमनगर -505 001

82. आन्ध्रा बैंक ,

श्री ज्ञान सरस्वती मंदिर के पास , बासर शाखा, बासर आदिलाबाद

85. कार्पोरेशन बैंक, नेल्लूर शाखा, डोर नं. 15/196, गुंटूर वारी स्ट्रीट , वृंदावन पोस्ट बाक्स नं. 22, नेल्लूर-524 001

86. कार्पोरेशन बैंक , विजयवाडा मुख्य शाखा , डोर नं. 12-11-67 , हार्परस्क्वयर , आर आर अप्पा राव स्ट्रीट, विजयवाडा-520 001

87. कार्पोरेशन बैंक , गुंटूर शाखा , डोर नं. 4-3-34, हिंदु कालेज के पीछे, ग्रांड ट्रंकरोड, गुंटूर-522003 1

88. कार्पोरेशन बैंक , राजमंड्री शाखा, 8-24-27, मेन रोड , पीबी सं 57, वी. उल्लितोट स्ट्रीट , राजमंड्री-533 101 , पूर्व गोदावरी जिला , आंध्र प्रदेश

89. कार्पोरेशन बैंक , विशाखपटनम शाखा, 26-15-26, भूमि तल , मेन रोड , पी.बी, संख्या 100 , विशाखापट्टनम -530 001

90. कार्पोरेशन बैंक ,

काकिनाडा शाखा, 27-9-52, सावित्री मैन्शन्स , पुलिवर्तीवारी स्ट्रीट, पीबी सं. 8 , काकिनाडा-533 001

आंध्र प्रदेश

91. कार्पोरेशन बैंक , पेदपुलिवरू शाखा,

तेनाली आर एम एस से होकर ,

2-16, कोसराजुवारि स्ट्रीट, पेदपुलिवरू -522 655 तालुक- बट्टिप्रोलु मंडल , जिला- गुंटूर, राज्य- आंध प्रदेश [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

3381

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

92. कार्पोरेशन बैंक, विजयवाडा- स. ना. पुरम शाखा , 23-11-103, भूमि तल, वार्ड संख्या 20/1 एन पी रोड, सत्यनारायणपुरम , विजयवाडा-520 011 आंध्र प्रदेश

93. कार्पोरेशन बैंक, मसूलीपट्नम शाखा, 11/572, राबर्टसनपेट, पी'बी सं. 49 , मसूलीपट्नम -521 001 जिला- कृष्णा , आंध्र प्रदेश

94. कार्पोरेशन बैंक , पाटिबंड्ला शाखा, डोर नं. 2/33 , 4 , II वार्ड , पाटिबंड्ला-522 402 पेदकुरपाडु मंडल तालुक, गुंटूर जिला, आंध्र प्रदेश

95. कार्पोरेशन बैंक , कंकटपालेम शाखा , डोर नं. 3/21 , कंकटपालेम-522 317, गुंटूर जिला , आंध्र प्रदेश

96. कार्पोरेशन बैंक , दुल्ला शाखा , डोर नं. 5/176, दुल्ला-533 234, काडियम तालुक , पूर्व गोदावरी जिला , आंध्र प्रदेश

97. कार्पोरेशन बैंक, ओंगोल शाखा , 23-1-7- (1 ) ,कोर्ट सेंटर , गांधी रोड़, पी बी सं. 29 , ओंगोल-523 001 , प्रकाशम जिला , आंध्र प्रदेश

98. कार्पोरेशन बैंक , दामरामडुगु शाखा , 3/128/1 ,मेन रोड, दामरामडुगु-524 138 , कोवूर मंडल , नेल्लूर जिला, आंध्र प्रदेश

99. कार्पोरेशन बैंक, गंडेपल्ली शाखा , 5-81 , मेन रोड़, गंडेपल्ली-533 294, पूर्वगोदावरी जिला, आंध्र प्रदेश

100. कार्पोरेशन बैंक , तोंन्डंगी शाखा, 4-11 , दानवाइपेट रोड , तोन्डंगी-533 408 , तुनी तालुक, पूर्व गोदावरी जिला , आंध्र प्रदेश

101. कार्पोरेशन बैंक , अराट्लकट्टा शाखा, डोर नं. 6/93 , प्रथम तल , करप्पा मंडल , अराट्लकट्टा-533 016 , करप्पा तालुक, पूर्व गोदावरी जिला , आंध्र प्रदेश

102. कार्पोरेशन बैंक, नगरम् शाखा, 2-33, मेन रोड, नगरम् 533 247, राजोल तालुक, पूर्व जिला, आंध्र प्रदेश

103. कार्पोरेशन बैंक , पी. रायवरम शाखा, 1/74, मेन रोड, पी. रायवरम-533 445, बरास्ता गोल्लप्रोलु , पेद्द्पुरम तालुक, पूर्वगोदावरी जिला, आंध्र प्रदेश

104. कार्पोरेशन बैंक, मल्लावरम शाखा , डोर नं. 1/65 , मेन खेल , लावरम-533 285 , गोकावरम तालुक, पूर्ण गोदावरी जिला, आंध्र प्रदेश

105. कार्पोरेशन बैंक , एलुरू. शाखा, 22-बी-13-19; प्रसाद मान्शन, वी.पी.प्रेस रोड़, पावरपेट, पी बी सं. 283 , एलुरू-534 002, पश्चिमगोदावरी जिला , आंध्र प्रदेश

106. कार्पोरेशन बैंक , विजयनगरम शाखा, 8-1-180 , प्रथम तल , डाबा गार्डन्स , पी बी सं. 55 , एम.जी.रोड़ , विजयनगरम -531 001 , विजयनगरम जिला , आंध्र प्रदेश

107. कार्पोरेशन बैंक , अडविनेक्कलम शाखा, 8-45, विजयवाडा- नुजविद, मेन रोड, नुन्ना से होकर , अडविनेक्कलम-521 212 , कृष्णा जिला, आंध्र प्रदेश

108. कार्पोरेशन बैंक , तिम्मापुरम शाखा , 4-1-ए, मेन रोड़, तिम्मापुरम -533 015 , पूर्वगोदावरी जिला, आंध्र प्रदेश

109. कार्पोरेशन बैंक , भीमवरम्शाखा, 104-1 , भूमि तल , मोहन प्लाजा , पी बी सं. 6 , जे.पी. रोड़,भीमवरम्-534 202 , पश्चिम गोदावरी जिला , आंध्र प्रदेश

110. कार्पोरेशन बैंक, तुनि शाखा, डोर नं. 8-11-11 , बेल्लापु स्ट्रीट , तुनि-533 401 , पूर्व गोदावरी जिला , आंध्र प्रदेश 3382

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009 /JYAISTHA 30, 1931

111. कार्पोिरेशन बैंक , गोट्लम शाखा , गंत्योदयाब्लॉक , गोट्लम-531 203, विजयनगरम जिला , आंध्र प्रदेश

112. कार्पोरेशन बैंक , चीराला शाखा , डोर नं. 13-7-31 , पोलिमेर रोड , चिवला-523 155 , प्रकाशम जिला , आंध्र प्रदेश

113. कापरिशन बैंक , द्वारका नगर- विशाखापटनम शाखा, : पवन टावर्स, डोर नं. 48-9-19, पहला लेन , द्वारका नगर-विशाखापटनम , आंध्र प्रदेश

114. कार्पोरेशन बैंक, बेन्स् सर्कल- विजयवाडा शाखा , डोर नं. 40-9-76-3 , भूमि तल , साई नगर , एन एच -5 , बेन्स् सर्कल , विजयवाडा-520 010 , आंध्र प्रदेश

115. कार्पोरेशन बैंक , तेनाली शाखा, डोर नं. 16-2-8 , भूमि तल , टाउन चर्च के सामने , बोस रोड, तेनाली-522 201 , गुंटूर जिला , आंध्र प्रदेश

116. कार्पोरेशन बैंक , मधुरा नगर - विशाखापट्नम शाखा , 49-12-18, श्री कपिला गोपाल राव श्री कृष्णा विद्या मंदिर, मधुरा नगर , विशाखापट्नम 530 016 , विशाखापट्नम जिला , आंध्र प्रदेश

117. कार्पोरेशन बैंक, काकीनाडा- भानुगुडी शाखा , पुलिस वेलफेयर कांप्लेक्स , भानुगुडी जंक्शन , काकीनाडा-533 033 , पूर्व गोदावरी जिला, आंध्र प्रदेश

118. कार्पोरेशन बैंक, तनुकु शाखा , डोर नं. 26-117 , एन एस सी बोस रोड , तनुकु-534 211 , पश्चिम गोदावरी जिला , आंध्र प्रदेश

119. कार्पोरेशन बैंक, श्रीकाकुलम शाखा, डोर नं. 7-3-18/ 11 , भूमि तल , रामलक्ष्मण थियेटर जंक्शन , श्रीकाकुलम 532 001 , श्रीकाकुलम जिला , आंध्र प्रदेश

120. कार्पोरेशन बैंक, कंदुकूर शाखा , श्रीराम कांप्लेक्स, प्रथम तल , ए पी एस आर टी सी बस अड्डे के समीप , कंदुकूर-523 105 , आंध्र प्रदेश

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 121. कार्पोरेशन बैंक, कंकिपाडु शाखा , लॉक रोड, पंचायत कार्यालय के सामने , कंकिपाडु-521 151 , कृष्णा जिला , आंध्र प्रदेश

122. कार्पोरेशन बैंक , गुंटूर- अरंडलपेटा शाखा, डोर नं.6-4-108, भूमि तल , 4/4, अरंडलपेट, गुंटूर-522 002, आंध्र प्रदेश

123. कार्पोरेशन बैंक , नेल्लूर- दर्गामिट्टा शाखा, डोर नं. 48-9-19 , जी.बी.नि. मंडल कार्यालय , दर्गामिट्टा , नेल्लूर - 524 003 , आंध्र प्रदेश

124. कार्पोरेशन बैंक , अकिवीडु शाखा , 16-115 बी , मुस्लिम वेलफेर असोसिएशन बिल्डिंग, सिद्दापुरम रोड, अकिवीडु- 534 235, पश्चिम गोदावरी जिला, आंध्र प्रदेश

125. कार्पोरेशन बैंक , विजयनगरम- एल. टी. बी. रोड शाखा भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम, टैंक बंड रोड , विजयनगरम - 535003 , आंध्र प्रदेश 126. कार्पोरेशन बैंक , गुड्लवल्लेरू शाखा , मेन रोड , गुड्लवल्लेरू 521 356 , गुड्लवल्लेरू मंडलम , कृष्णा जिला, आंध्र प्रदेश

127. कार्पोरेशन बैंक मिनिकैप्स - विजयवाडा, शिवानी टावर्स, दूसरा तल , गवर्नरपेट, विजयवाडा- 520 002 , आंध्र प्रदेश 128. कार्पोरेशन बैंक, मिनि कैप्स- विशाखापटनम, पवन टावर्स डोर नं. 48-9-19 , प्रथम तल , द्वारका नगर , विशाखापटनम , आंध्र प्रदेश

129. कार्पोरेशन बैंक , मुद्रा तिजोरी- विजयवाडा, 35-25-35, डॉ. बी. रामाराव स्ट्रीट , सूर्यरावपेट, विजयवाडा-520 002

130. कार्पोरेशन बैंक, खुदरा हब विजयवाडा, डोर नं. 12-11-67 , हार्पर स्क्वयर , आर आर अप्पा राव स्ट्रीट , विजयवाडा-520002 , आंध्र प्रदेश [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3383

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

कार्पोरेशन बैंक

131.

खुद्रा हब विजयवाडा, पवन टावर्स डोर नं. 48-9-19 , प्रथम तल , द्वारका नगर , विशाखापटनम , आंध्र प्रदेश

132. कार्पोरेशन बैंक अमलापुरम शाखा 7-2-27/1 मेन रोड, अमलापुरम-533 201 , पूर्व गोदावरी जिला , आंध्र प्रदेश

कार्पोरेशन बैंक

133.

बी. आई. एल. टी. केमिकल्स लिमिटेड बी. आई. एल. टी. शापिंग काम्पलेक्स कारवार-बिनागा , कारवार-581 364 कार्पोरेशन बैंक

134.

मिनी कैप्स - हुबली, प्रथम तल , मुरूसाविरमठ प्रेस बिल्डिंग , एन. सी. एम.- हुबली-580 029

135. कार्पोरेशन बैंक डेराबस्सी शाखा पारस मार्किट , चंडीगढ़ अम्बाला रोड , डेराबस्सी, जिला मोहाली, पंजाब-140 507

136. कार्पोरेशन बैंक

बटाला शाखा, एस. सी. एफ-46-47, लीक वाला तालाब , जालंधर रोड , बटाला पंजाब -143 505

137. कार्पोरेशन बैंक

राजपुरा शाखा प्लॉट नं. 99ए एल. आई. सी. जीवन ज्योति बिल्डिंग गुरू नानक कालोनी , राजपुरा पंजाब 138. कार्पोरेशन बैंक जालंधर- II शाखा एल. आई. सी. डिविजन ऑफिस 'भू-तल, जालंधर , पंजाब -144 001 कार्पोरेशन बैंक

139.

लालबाग सहकारी बैंक के सामने माँजलपुर मेन रोड, माँजलपुर वडोदरा-390 011

कार्पोरेशन बैंक

140.

श्री भक्तिनगर स्वामीनारायण मंदिर , नवात्रास मानकुआ-370 030 (जिला-भुज)

141. शाखाः मोरटा, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक, मेरठ रोड, जिला: गाजियाबाद ( उ.प्र. ) पिन कोड : 201 003

2137 G1/ 09-2

142. शाखा : के. के. इंटर कालेज पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , बघरा , जिला: मुजफ्फरनगर (उ.प्र. ) पिन कोड : 251 306

143. पंजाब नेशनल बैंक

माइकर केन्द्र,

धर्मशाला रोड , जनपद-गोरखपुर (4526 ) उ.प्र. पिन-273 001

144. पंजाब नेशनल बैंक क्षेत्रीय वसूली केन्द्र , बैंक रोड, जनपद -गोरखपुर (4532 ) उ.प्र. पिन-273 001

145. पंजाब नेशनल बैंक

शाखा-विकास भवन , सिविल कोर्ट परिसर, जनपद- गोरखपुर ( 4555 ) उ.प्र. पिन-273 001

146. पंजाब नेशनल बैंक

शाखा-सिविल लाइंस , एमपी इण्टर कालेज परिसर जनपद-गोरखपुर (4756) उ.प्र. -273 001

147. पंजाब नेशनल बैंक शाखा-बेतियाहाता , नजदीक नांगलिया , अस्पताल , जनपद-गोरखपुर ( 4758 ) उ.प्र. पिन-273 001

पंजाब नेशनल बैंक

148.

शाखा फाजिलनगर , महावीर इण्टर कालेज परिसर , जनपद- कुशीनगर ( 4747 ) उ.प्र. पिन -274408

पंजाब नेशनल बैंक

149.

शाखा- बनहरा रोड, तमकुही , जनपद- कुशीनगर ( 4757) उ.प्र. पिन-274406

150. पंजाब नेशनल बैंक शाखा विकास भवन, पड़रौना , जनपद- कुशीनगर (4778 ) उ.प्र.-274 304

इन्दौर विजय नगर , पंजाब नेशनल बैंक

151.

एफ एफ 36 , मेघदूत उपवन के सामने विजय नगर , इन्दौर म.प्र . पिन452010, 0731 2575385

152. इन्दौर गोयल नगर , पंजाब नेशनल बैंक 96/97 , मनभावन नगर, बंगाली चौराहा रिंग रोड, इन्दौर म.प्र. पिन 452016, 0731 2595247 3384

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009 /JYAISTHA 30, 1931

153. पंजाब नेशनल बैंक

शाखा/कार्यलयः मनीष नगर , नागपुर मंडल शाखा : विशिष्ट संख्या : 4841

1. शाखा : मनीष नगर - III ,

जयन्ती मेंशन, मनीष नगर, नागपुर-440-015 (महाराष्ट्र) शाखा विशिष्ट संख्या 4841

154. पंजाब नेशनल बैंक

शाखा : सूर्यानगर शाखा : सूर्यनगर, मिडकार्पोरेट शाखा, 8 - बी, कलमना रोड , सूर्यनगर,

नागपुर-440008 , महाराष्ट्र

विशिष्ट संख्या : 4204

155. पंजाब नेशनल बैंक

कार्यलय : रिटेल हब , महाजन मार्केट , सीताबर्डी नागपुर-440 012, महाराष्ट्र, विशिष्ट संख्या : 5226 156. पंजाब नेशनल बैंक

आंचलिक लेखन सामग्री केंद्र, के. पी. केशवमेनन रोड , कोषिकोड ( केरल ) , पिन -673 001 157. पंजाब नेशनल बैंक

12/853 , ग्राउंड फ्लोर, कल्याणी बिल्डिंग , बस स्टैंड , कुट्टीप्पुरम ( केरल ) , पिन -679 571

158. पंजाब नेशनल बैंक

ग्राउंड फ्लोर विजया बिल्डिंग , नजदीक मीनचन्दा बस स्टैंट , मीनचन्दा , कोषिकोड ( केरल ) , पिन-673 525 159. पंजाब नेशनल बैंक

35/2240 ए , एम.जी. रोड, रविपुरम

एरणाकुलम ( केरल) , पिन-682 016

पंजाब नेशनल बैंक

160.

आस्तिवसूली प्रबंधन शाखा , 40/1461 , मार्किट रोड, एरणाकुलंम ( केरल ) , पिन -682 011

161. पंजाब नेशनल बैंक

एडपल्ली पूकटपाडी रोड, त्रिक्काकरा मंदिर के सामने त्रिक्काकरा, जिला एरणाकुलम ( केरल ) पिन-682 021

162. पंजाब नेशनल बैंक

आंचलिक प्रशिक्षण

$वीं मंजिल , शताब्दी भवन

मिनी बाईपास रोड,

पी.ओ. गोविन्दपुरम

कोषिकोड ( केरल)- 673 016

163. मण्डल कार्यालय , मण्डी

पंजाब नैशनल बैंक

शाखा कार्यालय : भडोल ,

जिला मण्डी ( हिमाचल प्रदेश )

पिन कोड 176 126

[PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 164. मण्डल कार्यालय , धर्मशाला

पंजाब नैशनल बैंक

शाखा कार्यालय : नुरपुर,

जिला कांगड़ा ( हिमाचल प्रदेश )

पिन कोड 176 202

165. मण्डल कार्यालय , करनाल पंजाब नैशनल बैंक

शाखा कार्यालय : कैथल , टिम्बर मार्केट जिला कैथल ( हरियाणा ) पिन कोड 136 027

166. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक

शाखा कार्यालय : ढाण्ड

जिला कैथल ( हरियाणा )

पिन कोड 136 020

167. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक

शाखा कार्यालय : मारकण्डा नैशनल कॉलेज शाहबाद

जिला कुरूक्षेत्र ( हरियाणा ) पिनकोड 136 020

168. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक

शाखा कार्यालय : कलायत ,

जिला कैथल ( हरियाणा )

पिन कोड 136 117

राज्य-दिल्ली , मंडल कार्यालय-दिल्ली

169. इंडियन बैंक

कीर्ति नगर शाखा सी-66, कीर्ति नगर ,

नई दिल्ली 110 015

170. इंडियन बैंक

नयी सराय ,

बिहार शरीफ शाखा

जिला: नालंदा पिन 803 101 , राज्य बिहार इंडियन बैंक

171.

राधिका मार्केट , छपरा सिवान रोड , सिवान शाखा जिला : सिवान पिन 841 226, राज्य बिहार 172. इंडियन बैंक

शारंदा काम्प्लेक्स, डाक बंगला रोड , हाजीपुर शाखा जिला : वैशाली पिन : 844 101 बिहार.

173. इंडियन बैंक

गोलमुरी शाखा , टी के कांप्लेक्स , टीन प्लेट चौक, जमशेदपुर जिला सिंहभूम , पिन-831003 राज्य झारखंड

174. इंडियन बैंक

कडरु शाखा, त्रिकुटा हिल कडरु, मेन रोड, रांची जिला रांची , पिन-834 002 राज्य झारखंड [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

3385

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

175. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

क्षेत्रिय कार्यालय- I ( प. ) , ठाकुर निवास, पटियाला, पंजाब

176. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला,

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय- II ( प. ) , लीला भवन , पटियाला पंजाब

177. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला,

क्षेत्रिय कार्यालय III ( प. ) , ठाकुर निवास , पटियाला, पंजाब

178. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय IV ( प. ) , लीला भवन , पटियाला, पंजाब

179. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

बनूड़, तहसील राजपुरा , पटियाला, पंजाब-140601

180. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

बादशाहपुर , अनाज मण्डी, तहसील समाना, पटियाला, पंजाब-147102

181. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

देवीगढ़ , पटियाला , पंजाब

182. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

गाजेवास , तहसील समाना , पटियाला , पंजाब 183. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

गुलजारपुर , तहसील समाना , पटियाला, पंजाब 184. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

भादसों, पटियाला, पंजाब-147202

185. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

बलबेहरा , पटियाला , पंजाब -147101

186. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

दुदन साधां, पटियाला , पंजाब-147101

187. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

घग्गा, तहसील समाना , पटियाला , पंजाब 188. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

गुरदितपुरा , पोस्ट आफिस गोराया , तहसील नाभा, पटियाला, पंजाब

189. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

जलालपुर, तहसील राजपुरा , पटियाला , पंजाब 190. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

ककराला , तहसील नाभा , पटियाला , पंजाब-145201 191. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

खेड़ागज्जू, पोस्ट आफिस मुराकपुर , तहसील राजपुरा पटियाला, पंजाब-140602

192. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

नाभा अनाज मण्डी, पटियाला , पंजाब

193. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला नाभा प्रमुख , पटियाला, पंजाब

194. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

जंड मंगोली, तहसील राजपुरा , पटियाला, पंजाब 195. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला कमालपुर , तहसील राजपुरा , पटियाला, पंजाब 196. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला मानकपुर , पटियाला, पंजाब

197. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला नाभा एच एम एम , पटियाला, पंजाब

198. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला नाभा नया अनाज मण्डी, पटियाला , पंजाब 199. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला पातड़ा, पटियाला , पंजाब

200. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला राजपुरा के एस एम , पटियाला , पंजाब

201. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला राजपुरा टाऊन, पटियाला , पंजाब

202. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला समाना प्रमुख , पटियाला, पंजाब

203. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला समाना ए डी बी , पटियाला , पंजाब

204. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला शम्भुकलां, पटियाला , पंजाब

205. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला राजपुरा अनाज मण्डी, पटियाला; पंजाब

206. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला राजपुरा प्रमुख , पटियाला , पंजाब

207. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला सनौर , पटियाला , पंजाब

208. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला शुतराना , पृटियाला , पंजाब

209. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला घनौर, पटियाला, पंजाब

210. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला थेड़ी, पटियाला , पंजाब

211. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

क्षेत्रिय कार्यालय II ( प. ) , एस सी ओ 17 , लीला भवन , पटियाला , पंजाब

212. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला ए डी बी, दी माल पटियाला , पटियाला , पंजाब 213. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

आर्य समाज प्रैस रोड , पटियाला , पटियाला , पंजाब 3386

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

214. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

अरविन्दो भवन, पटियाला , पटियाला, पंजाब 215. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

भूपिन्द्रा नगर, पटियाला , पटियाला , पंजाब 216. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

भादसों रोड , पटियाला, पंजाब

217. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

किला चौक, पटियाला , पंजाब

218. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

पटियाला कैंट , कन्टोर्मेंट एरिया , पटियाला , पंजाब 219. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

डीज़ल कम्पोनेंट वर्कस , पटियाला, पंजाब 220. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

धर्मपुरा बाजार, पटियाला , पंजाब

221. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

जिला कचहरी , दी माल , पटियाला, पंजाब 222. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

गुरद्वारा दुख निवारण साहब , पटियाला, पंजाब स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

223.

इण्डियन आयल काम्पलैक्स , नजदीक रेलवे स्टेशन , पटियाला, पंजाब

224. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

औद्योगिक क्षेत्र , न्यू ग्रेन मार्किट , पटियाला , ( पंजाब ) 225. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला मोडल टाऊन , पटियाला ( पंजाब)

226. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

एन आई एस , पुराना मोती बाग , पटियाला, ( पंजाब ) 227. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

ओ पी एल , पुरानी पुलिस लाइन , पटियाला , (पंजाब)

228. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

पी एस ई बी , पटियाला, ( पंजाब)

229. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

पर्सनल बैंकिंग , लीला भवन मार्किट,

पटियाला, ( पंजाब )

230. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

पंजाबी यूनीवर्सिटी , पटियाला , ( पंजाब )

231. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

राजिन्द्रा हास्पिटल , पटियाला , ( पंजाब )

232. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

सांई मार्किट , पटियाला , ( पंजाब )

233. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

सम्नौरी अड्डा, पटियाला, ( पंजाब)

234. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

सेषा शाखा , साईं मार्किट, पटियाला, ( पंजाब ) 1

[PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii )] 235. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला स्टेट कालेज ऑफ एजुकेशन , पटियाला , ( पंजाब ) 236. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला थापर कालेज , पटियाला , ( पंजाब )

237. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

खज़ाना शाखा , एस सी एफ 129 , छोटी बारांदरी मार्किट, पटियाला, ( पंजाब )

238. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला त्रिपड़ी सैदां , पटियाला ( पंजाब )

239. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला वाई पी एस , पटियाला , ( पंजाब )

240. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

बहादुरगढ़ एसकोर्टस , तहसील एवं जिला पटियाला , (पंजाब)

241. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

बखशीवाला, तहसील एवं जिला पटियाला , ( पंजाब ) 242. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

चलैला, तहसील एवं जिला पटियाला , ( पंजाब ) 243. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

दौनकलां , तहसील एवं जिला पटियाला , ( पंजाब ) 244. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

कल्याण , तहसील एवं जिला पटियाला , ( पंजाब ) 245. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला कौली, तहसील एवं जिला पटियाला , ( पंजाब ) स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

246.

अर्बन इस्टेट फेज -11 , पटियाला , ( पंजाब ) 247. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

अहमदगढ़ मुख्य शाखा , दामा मंडी , अहमदगढ़ 248. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

बस्सी पठाना मुख्य शाखा, डाकखाना बस्सी पठाना , जिला फतेहगढ़ साहिब

249. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

पुरानी मंडी, अहमदगढ़ पुरामी मंडी शाखा 250. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

डाकखाना बस्सी पठाना , बस्सी पठान कृषि शाखा , जिला फतेहगढ़ साहिब

251. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

अमरगढ़ शाखा , गांव व डाकखाना अमरगढ़ , तहसीहल मलेरकोटला , जिला संगरूर

252. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

बेनरा शाखा , गांव व डाकखाना बेनरा , तहसील धूरी . जिला संगरूर

253. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

अमलोह शाखा , डाक व तहसील अमलोह , जिला फतेहगढ़ साहिब [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

254. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला भसौर शाखा गांव व डाकखाना भसौर तहसील धूरी जिला संगरूर

255. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला बनबोरा शाखा गांव व डाकखाना बनबोरा तहसील मलेरकोटला जिला संगरूर

256. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला भोगीबाल शाखा गांव व डाकखाना भोगीबाल तहसील मलेरकोटला जिला संगरूर

257. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला बरास शास्त्रा गांव व डाकखाना बरास तहसील सरहिंद जिला फतेहगढ़ साहिब

258. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला चनारथल शाखा गांव व डाकखाना चनारथल तहसील सरहिंद जिला फतेहगढ़ साहिब

259. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला चुन्नी कलां शाखा गांव व डाकखाना चुन्नी जिला फतेहगढ़ साहिब

260. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला धूरी शाखा डाकखाना ब तहसील धूरी जिला संगरूर

261. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला फतेहगढ़ साहिब शाखा जिला प्रशासन परिसर फतेहगढ़ साहिब जिला फतेहगढ़ साहिब

262. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला घनौरी कलां शाखा गांव व डाकखाना घनौरी तहसील धूरी जिला संगरूर

263. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला मंडीगोबिंदगढ़ शाखा

3387

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

डाकखाना गोबिंदगढ़ जिला फतेहगढ़ साहिब

264. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला गुरु की नगरी शाखा डाकखाना गोबिंदगढ़ जिलाफतेहगढ़ साहिब

265. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला जखबाली शाखा गांव व डाकखाना जखवाली जिला फतेहगढ़ साहिब

266. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला हाथन शाखा गांव व डाकखाना हाथन तहसील धूरी जिला संगरूर

267. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला

कांजला शाखा गांव व डाकखाना कांजला तहसील धूरी जिला संगरूर

268. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला

कातरों शाखा गांव व डाकखाना कातरों तहसील धूरी जिला संगरूर

269. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला

खमानों मंडी शाखा गांव व डाकखाना खमानो जिला फतेहगढ़ साहिब

270. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला खानपुर शाखा गांव व डाकखाना खानपुर तहसील मलेरकोटला जिला संगरूर

271. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला कुप्प कलां शाखा गांव व डाकखाना कुप्प तहसील मलेरकोटला जिला संगरूर

'272. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला मलेरकोटला शाखा तालाब बाजार मलेरकोटला जिला संगरूर 3388

273. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला मलेरकोटला एस एस आई शाखा ठंडीसड़क मलेरकोटला

जिला संगरूर

274. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला मलेरकोटला कृषि शाखा कल्ब चौंक मलेरकोटला जिला संगरूर

275. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला मूलोवाल शाखा गांव व डाकखाना मूलोवाल तहसील धूरी

जिला संगरूर

शमशपुर शाखा

276 स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला गांव व डाकखाना शमशपुर जिला फतेहगढ़ साहिब

277. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला

सरहिंद मंडी शाखा

सरहिंद

जिला फतेहगढ़ साहिब

278. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला

सरहिंद शहर शाखा सरहिंद

जिला फतेहगढ़ साहिब

279.। स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला बरनाला एस डी कालेज

(पंजाब )

280. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला

बरनाला मुख्य शाखा

(पंजाब )

281. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला बरनाला खेतीबाड़ी शाखा

(पंजाब )

282. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला

भदौड़

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009 /JYAISTHA 30, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] 285.. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला चाननवाल ( पंजाब )

286. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला चीमा

(पंजाब )

287. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला छाली

(पंजाब )

288. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला धनौला

(पंजाब )

289. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला

धर्मगढ़

(पंजाब )

290. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला धौला

(पंजाब )

291. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला दिरबा

(पंजाब )

292. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला दुग्गन

(पंजाब )

293. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला हंडियाया

(पंजाब )

294. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला जाखेपाल

(पंजाब )

295. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला कालाझार

(पंजाब )

296. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला

खन्नौरी

(पंजाब)

297. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला

लहलकलां

(पंजाब )

283. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला

भट्टीवाले कलां

(पंजाब )

298. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला

लहरागागा

(पंजाब )

284. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला

(पंजाब)

299. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला

लोगोंवाल

भवानीगढ़

(पंजाब )

(पंजाब ) [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

300. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला , माडवी

(पंजाब )

301. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला, महलकलां

(पंजाब )

302. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला, महकलां

(पंजाब )

303. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला,

मूनक

(पंजाब )

304. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला , नदामपुर

(पंजाब )

305. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला, संगरुर एन जी एम

(पंजाब )

306. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला, संगरुर मुख्य शाखा

(पंजाब )

307. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला , सेहना

(पंजाब )

308. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला, सुनाम एच एस एच एस

(पंजाब )

309. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला , सुनाम एन जी एम

(पंजाब )

310. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला , सुनाम

(पंजाब )

311. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला , तपा

(पंजाब )

312. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला, उभौवाल

(पंजाब )

313. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला , उपली

(पंजाब )

314. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला, आंचलिक कार्यालय , बठिंडा गुरुकांशी मार्ग , बठिंडा-151 001

3389

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20 , 2009 /ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

315. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला, मिल्क प्लांट , डबवाली रोड , बठिंडा

316. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला , लहरा मुहब्बत

317. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला , भारतीय मॉडल स्कूल , रामपुरा फूल

318. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला, गुरु गोबिन्द सिंह मैडीकल कॉलेज , फरीदकोट

319. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला, कोट ईसा खान , मक्खू

320. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला, गोलूवाल , जिला हनुमानगढ़

321. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला , जलालाबाद रोड, मुक्तसर

322. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला , जैतसर, जिला श्रीगंगानगर ( रा. )

323. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला , अमरीक सिंह रोड, एस. एस. डी. गर्ल्ड कॉलेज , बठिंडा 324. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला , नेहरु मैमोरियल कॉलेज , मानसा

325. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , ईश निकेतन , नजदीक टिम्बर हाऊस , कार्टरोड शिमला , जिला शिमला ( हि. प्र. ) - 171001 326. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला , साईं मार्ग , बद्दी, जिला सोलन ( हि. प्र. ) - 173205 327. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला, एसडी.ए, कॉम्पलेक्स, कसुम्पटी , जिला शिमला (हि.प्र )-171009 328. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला, नालागढ़ (मुख्य ) , जिला सोलन (हि. प्र. ) - 174 101 329. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला, नौणी ( खालटू) , जिला सोलन ( हि. प्र. ) - 173 230 330. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला, कच्चाटैंक , नाहन , जिला सिरमौर ( हि. प्र. ) - 173 001 331. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला,

दि माल , सोलन , जिला सोलन ( हि. प्र. ) - 173 212 332. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला,

बरोटी ( परवाणू) , जिला सोलन ( हि. प्र. ) - 173 220 333. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला,

शिमला (दिमाल ) , जिला शिमला ( हि. प्र. ) - 171 001 334. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला, नालागढ़ (ए.डी.बी. ) , जिला सोलन ( हि. प्र. ) - 174 101 335. स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला , कसौली , जिला सोलन (हि. प्र. ) - 173 204 3390

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

मुम्बई ( दक्षिण)

336. ओरियन्टल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स , महात्मा गांधी सेवा मंदिर ट्रस्ट बिल्डिंग , एस.वी. रोड , तालाव के सामने , बांद्रा ( पश्चिम) मुम्बई -400 050 337. ओरियन्टल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स , मोती महल, तल माला-195 , जे . टाटा रोड , चर्च गेट , मुम्बई -400 020

338. ओरियन्टल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स , बृहत् निगमित वित्त पोषण शाखा , 181 - ए, मेकर टावर- ई 18वां माला , कफ परेड, मुम्बई -400 020

339. ओरियन्टल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स, 2 , आर्केड, विश्व व्यापार केंद्र , कफ परेड , मुम्बई-400 005

340. ओरियन्टल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स, साल्वेशन स्कूल के पास , आल्फ गोखले रोड ( दक्षिण ) , दादर ( पश्चिम ) , मुम्बई -400 028

341. ओरियन्टल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स , 67, मुम्बई समाचार मार्ग , सोनावाला बिल्डिंग , फोर्ट, मुम्बई -400 001

342. ओरियन्टल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स, जैश चैम्बर्स, अमर बिल्डिंग के पास , सर पी.एम. रोड , फोर्टी, मुम्बई -400 001

343. ओरियन्टल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स , 66, गुरु दर्शन , एन.एस. रोड-1 , बल्लभनगर सोसायटी, जे.वी.पी.डी. स्कीम, विले पार्ले ( पश्चिम ) मुम्बई -400 056 344. ओरियन्टल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स , सेंट्रल बिल्डिंग नं. 17/19 , बोमनजी मास्टरजी रोड, न्यू सिल्क बाजार , कालबादेवी पोस्ट ऑफिस के पास , मुम्बई -400002

345. ओरियन्टल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स , सतकरतार बिल्डिंग , फ्लैट नं. 01,101 , एस.वी. रोड , खार (पश्चिम) , मुम्बई -400 052

346. ओरियन्टल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स, 1 व 2 , दर्वेश चैम्बर्स , पी.डी. हिन्दुजा मार्ग, खार (पश्चिम) मुम्बई-400 052

347. ओरियन्टल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स, 393, सर मंगलदास हाऊस , लेमिंग्टन रोड, मुम्बई-400 004 348. ओरियन्टल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स, ए.जी.एच. चैम्बर्स , 379/382 , नरसी नाथ स्ट्रीट, कत्था बाजार मांडवी , मुम्बई -400 009

349. ओरियन्टल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स , " मातृ आशीष " बी-1 , पहला माला , 29 , नेपियनसी रोड , लक्ष्मीबाई जगमोहनदास मार्ग, मुम्बई-400 036

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] 350. ओरियन्टल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स , यूनिट नं. 2 , माहेश्वरी मेन्शन , 34 , नेपियनसी रोड , लक्ष्मीबाई जगमोहनदास मार्ग , मुम्बई -400 036 351. ओरियन्टल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स, डालामल टावर्स , बी विंग , तल माला , नरीमन प्वाइंट मुम्बई-400 009

352. ओरियन्टल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स , श्रीजी चैम्बर्स, टाटा रोड, नं 2 , ऑपेरा हाऊस, मुम्बई-400 009 353. ओरियन्टल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स,

भागवत निवास , तल माला , पेड्डार रोड , मुम्बई -400 026 354. ओरियन्टल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स, अजय अपार्टमेन्ट, सेंट टेरेसा कॉन्वेन्ट स्कूल के सामने एस.वी. रोड, सांताक्रूज ( पश्चिम ) मुम्बई -400 054 355. ओरियन्टल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स, मुम्बई बाजार बिल्डिंग , प्रथम तल , स्टेशन रोड, सांताक्रूज (पश्चिम) , मुम्बई -400 054

356. ओरियन्टल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स, कमल अपार्टमेन्ट, प्लॉट नं. 68 , लोखंडवाला कॉम्प्लेक्स, वरसोवा , ऑफ जे.पी. रोड, अंधेरी ( पश्चिम ) मुम्बई-400 053 357. ओरियन्टल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स, जानकीदेवी पब्लिक स्कूल , प्लॉट नं. 1 , आर.एस.सी. -6; सरदार वल्लभभाई पटेल नगर , अंधेरी ( पश्चिम ) , मुम्बई-400 053

358. ओरियन्टल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स, स्टर्लिंग को- ऑपरेटिव हाऊसिंग सोसायटी , जे.पी. रोड, 7 , बंगलो गार्डन , अंधेरी ( पश्चिम ) , मुम्बई-400061 359. ओरियन्टल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स, 71 , स्वागत , नेहरु रोड, विले पार्ले ( पूर्व ) , मुम्बई -400 057 360. ओरियन्टल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स , मुद्रा पेटिका, महात्मा गांधी सेवा , मंदिर ट्रस्ट बिल्डिंग , एस. वी . रोड, तालाव के सामने, बांद्रा ( पश्चिम ) , मुम्बई-400 050

361. ओरियन्टल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स , सेवा शाखा, 56-58, मित्तल चैम्बर्स, 5 वां माला , नरीमन प्वाइंट, मुम्बई -400 021 " क" क्षेत्र

362. विद्याधर नगर जयपुर शाखा , बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, : जी-25, 26 , 27 , 2बी-25/ 26/27 उन्नति टॉवर , सेंट्रल स्पाइन , जयपुर-302 203 (दिल्ली क्षेत्र )

363. यमुनाविहार दिल्ली शाखा , बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, सी-4/74 - ए, यमुना विहार , दिल्ली 110 053 ( दिल्ली क्षेत्र ) [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

3391

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

364. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, जोधपुर चोपसानी रोड शाखा , प्लॉट क्र. 2 और 3 , सेकंड पेलिया कॉम्प्लेक्स, चोपसानी रोड, जोधपुर- 342 008 (दिल्ली क्षेत्र )

365. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, जबलपुर अस्पताल शाखा , जबलपुर अस्पताल रिसर्च सेंटर , नेपियर टॉवर रुसे चौक , जबलपुर -482 002 (जबलपुरक्षेत्र ) po men

366. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, प्रतापनगर जयपुर शाखा , 母代 प्लॉट क्र. 68 , पी 9 , सेक्टर 6 , संगनेर टैंक रोड, जयपुर , (दिल्लीक्षेत्र )

367. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, रुद्रपुर शाखा, ए- 3 रिंग रोड, आवास विकास कॉलोनी, रुद्रपुर-263153 (लखनल क्षेत्र )

368. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, गोपालपुर बाईपास जयपुर शाखा , जेडीए दूकान क्र. 14 हंस मार्ग , मानसरोवर लिंक रोड, जयपुर-302 008 (दिल्ली क्षेत्र )

369. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र , जी. एस . कॉलेज जबलपुर शाखा, जी. एस . कॉलेज ऑफ कॉमर्स , साऊथ सिविल लाइन्स, जबलपुर-482 001 ( मध्य प्रदेश )

(जबलपुर क्षेत्र )

370. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, बरेली शाखा , प्लॉट क्र. 2 , सर्वोदयनगर, पिलिभीत रोड , बरैली-243 001 (लखनऊ क्षेत्र)

371. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, द्वाराका पश्चिम नई दिल्ली शाखा, हॉल एफ -1 पहली मंजिल , प्लॉट क्र. 6 , सेक्टर -12 द्वारका, नई दिल्ली 110 075 (दिल्ली क्षेत्र )

2137 G1/09-3

372. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, कटनी शाखा, मकान क्र. 211 , वॉर्ड क्र.22 , हनुमाननगर , घंटाघर , कटनी-483 501 ( मध्य प्रदेश ) (जबलपुर क्षेत्र

373. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, गुडगांव सेक्टर- 56 शाखा, एस. सी. ओ. 86, जिला शॉगिंग सेंटर सेक्टर- 56 गुडगांव - 122001

374. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, इंदौर कनाड़िया रोड,. 1-2शिवशक्ति नगर , इदौर-452-001 (इंदौर क्षेत्र )

375. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, गोविंदगढ़ शाखा , पुराना बस स्टैंड रोड, पोस्ट ऑफिस के पास , गोविंदगढ़ -303 712 जिला-जयपुर (राजस्थान )

376. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, घोडबंदर रोड,ठाणे शाखा , दुकान क्र. 8 और 9 , प्राइड पारेक , लॉ किम्स इंडस्ट्रीज सामने , घोडबंदर रोड, ठाणे ( पश्चिम), पिन- 400 607 (ठाणे क्षेत्र ) (महाराष्ट्र )

377. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, गांधीधाम शाखा, प्लॉट नं. 334 , वॉर्ड 12 -बी, आर्शिवाद कॉम्प्लेक्स, जिला- कच्छ, गांधीधाम-370 201 (अहमदाबाद क्षेत्र)

378. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, सेक्टर 38 डी चंडीगढ़ शाखा , एस. सी. ओ. 307 , चंडीगढ़-160 038 (चंडीगढ क्षेत्र)

379. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, खजाना और अंतरराष्ट्रीय बैंकिंग शाखा, 23 मेकर चेंबर , 12वीं मंजिल , नरीमन पॉइंट , मुबई- 400 021 (महाराष्ट्र) ( मुंबई शहर क्षेत्र ) 3392

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

380. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, सोनई शाखा , डॉ. बी. के. शिरसाट बिल्डिंग , घोडेगांव रोड, डाकघर-सोनई नेवासा , (महाराष्ट्र) ( अहमदनगर क्षेत्र )

381. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, लोअर परेल शाखा, 005/006 अमरी इंडस्ट्रियल इस्टेट , औन मिल कंपाउंड , मुंबई 00013 (महाराष्ट्र) ( अमरावती क्षेत्र )

382. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, शहीद भगत सिंग लुधियाना शाखा , एससीएफ 10 और 11 , मेन मार्केट, एस.बी.एस रोड, लुधियाना 141002 (चंडीगढ क्षेत्र)

383. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, खराड़ी पुणे शाखा , दुकान 25 से 31 , अशोक नगर बिल्डिंग , संव्हें क्र. 43 हिस्सा क्र. 1 +2/1/ 1से 7 , खराड़ी हडपसर रोड , पुणे -411 014 (महाराष्ट्र) ( पुणे शहर क्षेत्र )

384. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, हिंजवड़ी पुणे शाखा , गर क्र. 243, केपीआईटी हिंजवड़ी के पास , तहसील- मुलशी , पुणे-411057 (महाराष्ट्र) ( पुणे शहर क्षेत्र)

385. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, गव्हर्नमेंट बिजनेस शाखा , महाबैंक भवन मुंजे चौक , सिताबर्डी, नागपुर 440 012 (महाराष्ट्र) (नागपुर क्षेत्र )

386. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, अजनाला रोड अमृतसर शाखा , यू.के. अंतरराष्ट्रीय बिल्डिंग , गुरुदास एवेन्यूके नजदीक, एआर पोर्ट रोड, अमृतसर -143 008 ( चण्डीगढ़ क्षेत्र ) 387. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, एचएएल टाउनशिप ओझर शाखा , हलं इन्स्टिट्यूट ऑफ अप्लाइल इलेक्ट्रॉनिक्स , स्टेडियम शॉपिंग कॉम्पलेक्स, ओझर टाउनशिप , जिला नासिक , पिनं-422 206 ( महाराष्ट्र) ( नासिक क्षेत्र)

388. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, वाडिया अस्पताल कैंपस शाखा , वाडिया अस्पताल कैंपस रेलवे लाइन्स, सोलापुर -413 001 (महाराष्ट्र) ( सोलापुर क्षेत्र )

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] 389. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, शिवाजी कॉलेज कैंपस परभणी शाखा , आहुजा कॉम्प्लेक्स , बसमत रोड , परभणी ( महाराष्ट्र) (लातूर क्षेत्र)

390. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, योगेश्वरी अंबेजोगाई शाखा, योगेश्वरी कॉलेज कैम्पस , परले रोड, अंबेजोगाई -431 517 (महाराष्ट्र) ( लातूर क्षेत्र )

391. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, लांजा शाखा , 1389, सहकार संकुल , मुंबई- गोवा हाइवे , लांजा- रत्नागिरी-416 701 ( महाराष्ट्र) ( रत्नागिरी क्षेत्र)

{ 392. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, जयसिंगपुर शाखा, 9वीं गली , घोडावत बिल्डिंग , राम मंदिर के नजदीक , जयसिंगपुर-416 101 तहसील शिरोल , जिला कोल्हापुर (महाराष्ट्र) (कोलापुर क्षेत्र )

393. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र , बावधन पुणे शाखा, श्रेयस एटेरना, एनडीए - पाषाण रोड, श्रीकृष्ण नगर के नजदीक, बावधन पुणे 411021 ( महाराष्ट्र) ( पुणे शहर क्षेत्र)

394. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, बिक्रीनगर भवन माझगांव शाखा , बलवंत सिंग डोढी मार्ग , माझगांव मुंबई 400010 ( महाराष्ट्र) (मुंबई शहर क्षेत्र)

395. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, आर्वी नाका रोड वर्धा शाखा, चिंतामणी भवन , गांधीनगर , वर्धा-442 001 ( महाराष्ट्र) (मुंबई शहर क्षेत्र )

396. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, पाषाण पुणे शाखा, सुतार आइनकॉन पांडव नगर, सूस रोड, पाषाण , पुणे -411 021 ( महाराष्ट्र ) ( पुणे शहर क्षेत्र )

397. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र , सेवाशाखा कोल्हापुर, खटिक समाज बिल्डिंग , 1408 , सी, लक्ष्मीपुरी कोल्हापुर ( महाराष्ट्र) (कोल्हापुर क्षेत्र)

398. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, मंत्रालय मुंबई शाखा, सचिवालय , मुंबई 400 032 ( महाराष्ट्र) ( मुंबई शहर क्षेत्र ) 399. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ मैसूर मुलुंद शाखा, दुकान संख्या एल 3 , समृद्धि एल बी एस मार्ग से आगे मुलुंद टेलिफोन एक्सचेंज के पास मुलुंद ( पश्चिम ) मुंबई -400 080 3393

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20 , 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

400. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ मैसूर

खारघर शाखा , श्री टॉवर्स , प्लाट सं. 16 , सेक्टर 20, खारघर नवी मुम्बई-410 210

401. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ मैसूर

वासाई शाखा दुकान संख्या: 1 , 2 और 3 रिचमण्ड टॉउन फासेल भवन सं. 04 , भाबोला वासाई ( प. ) -401 202 थांने जिला

402. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ मैसूर

करेन्सी प्रबंधन कक्ष -1 खजाना शाखा , लेडी कर्जन मार्ग बेंगलूर-560 001

403. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ मैसूर

करेन्सीप्रबंधन कक्ष -2 सं. 24, " ललिता " , 2 क्रास संपिगे मार्ग , मल्लेश्वरम् बेंगलूर -560 003

404. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ मैसूर

खुदरा आस्ति केन्द्रीय संसाधन कक्ष ( प्रोटोटाईप ) सं. 305 , 4क्रास, 2 मेन , 8 वाँ ब्लॉक , जयनगर , बेंगलूर-560 070 405. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ मैसूर

खुदरा आस्ति केन्द्रीय संसाधन कक्ष (पायलेट) सं. 8/6, 1 मंजिल रंग राव मार्ग , शंकरपुरम् बेंगलूर-560 004 406. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ मैसूर

तनावयुक्त आस्ति समाधान केन्द्र , 1 मंजिल , श्री राम सेवा मंडली भवन 10 वाँ क्रास , विल्सन गार्डन बेंगलूर -560 027 407. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ मैसूर

लघु एवं मध्यम उद्यम नगर ऋण केन्द्र सं. 8/6 , 2 मंजिल रंग राव मार्ग , शंकरपुरम् बेंगलूर-560 004 408. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ मैसूर

व्यापार वित्तीयन ऋण संसाधन केन्द्र , 1 मंजिल , 2 रा क्रास, संपिगे मार्ग , मल्लेश्वरम, बेंगलूर -560 003 409. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ मैसूर

दिल्ली क्षेत्र क्लब मार्ग पंजाबी बाग ( पश्चिम ) नई दिल्ली-110 026

410. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ मैसूर

खुदरा आस्ति एवं लघु उद्यम ऋण केन्द्र 1 मंजिल, जनक सिनेमा कांप्लेक्स, " सी " ब्लॉक पंखा मार्ग, जनकपुरी नई दिल्ली-100 058

411. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ मैसूर

मुम्बई क्षेत्र सं. 9445 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय 2 मंजिल , महाकाली केव्स मार्ग अंधेरी ( पश्चिम ) मुम्बई-400 093 412. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ मैसूर

खुदरा आस्ति एवं लघु उद्यम ऋण केन्द 4 मंजिल , मिठ्ठल कोर्ट " सी " विंग , नरिमन पॉइण्ट मुम्बई-400 021 युनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

413. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया ,

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , भोपाल ,

अरेरा हिल्स शाखा , यूनियन बैंक भवन ,

1513/1/1 , अरेरा हिल्स , भोपाल (म.प्र. ) - 462 011 414. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

होशंगाबाद रोड शाखा , ए-20 , आर्यन टावर , अहमदपुर कलां, भोपाल-462 026

415. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया ,

थाटीपुर शाखा , प्रमिला प्लाजा, गांधी रोड , थाटीपुर , ग्वालियर-474 011

416. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , रीवा ,

सासन शाखा , ग्राम -सासन , गड़हरा पोस्ट तियरा , थाना-वैढ़न , जिला-सिंगरौली , मध्य प्रदेश

417. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

यूनीवर्सिटी रोड शाखा , तीर्थ परिसर , यूनीवर्सिटी रोड, अनन्तपुर, रीवा-486 001- जिला रीवा , मध्य प्रदेश 418. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

उमरिया शाखा , स्टेशन रोड , वार्ड नं. 15 , उमरिया, 484661- जिला उमरिया ( म.प्र. )

419. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , जबलपुर ,

खुरई शाखा, स्टेशन रोड, खुरई ( मध्य प्रदेश ) जिला सागर , पिन-470 117

420. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

पिपरिया शाखा, मोहता प्लॉट , पिपरिया, मध्य प्रदेश ,

जिला होशंगाबाद , पिन-475 661

421. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , लखनऊ

पी ए सी 35 बटालियन शाखा , महानगर ,. लखनऊ

422. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

बलरामपुर शाखा , जानकी वल्लभ कॉम्प्लेक्स, वीर विनय चौक, बलरामपुर

423. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

गोंडाशाखा, निकट जिला

अस्पताल , गोंडा.

424. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

फतेहपुर शाखा , कचहरी रोड, तहसील फतेहपुर 3394

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

425. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया सेक्टर ओ. शाखा , सी. एम. एस. सेक्टर ओ. अलीगंज, लखनऊ

426. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , पटना, पूर्णिया शाखा , आयशर ट्रैक्टर कैम्पस, जेल चौक, एन. एच. 31 , पूर्णिया

427. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया सगुना मोड शाखा, आरपीएस मोड के पास बेली रोड, पटना

428. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , राजकोट, 150 रिंग रोड शाखा, नक्षत्र 1 , अमीन मार्ग क्रोसिंग 150 रिंग रोड, राजकोट , गुजरात

429. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , नागपुर वाशिम शाखा, बालाजी कॉम्प्लेकस , पटनी चौक, वाशिम -444 505 महाराष्ट्र

430. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया बेसा शाखा , नागपुर , प्लॉट नं. 12/13 , तपस्या बिल्डिंग गोंडवाना नगर, मनीष नगर मेन रोड, नागपुर-440 025 (महाराष्ट्र)

431. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया वाडी शाखा , प्लॉट नं. 50 , अमरावती रोड, वाडी जिला नागपुर

432. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया देसाईगंज वडसा शाखा , केजडीवाल कॉम्प्लेक्स , मेन मार्केट , पटेल वाडर , देसाईगंज ( वडसा ) जिला- गडचिरोली, (महाराष्ट्र)

433. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया रिटेल एसेट शाखा , महाराष्ट्र राज्य माध्यमिक एवं उच्च शिक्षण बोर्ड भवन ( इंडियन एयरलाईंस के पास) रविन्द्रनाथ टैगोर मार्ग , सिविल लाईंस , नागपुर 434. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , नासिक दोंडाईचा शाखा, राणीमांसहेब प्लाझा बस स्टैंड के सामने दोंडाईचा , ता. शिंदखेड , जिला धुलिया , पिन-425 408 435. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया शिरपुर शाखा , 1601/01 , लालबाग शिरपुर, जिला धुलिया , महाराष्ट्र

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] 436. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया देवपुर धुलिया शाखा, एसएसव्हीपीएस शॉपिंग कॉम्प्लेक्स देवपुर ( धुलिया ) , पिन-424 001 जिला धुलिया , महाराष्ट्र 437. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , ठाणे तिलकनगर शाखा चेंबूर श्री सिद्धिविनायक सीएचएस लि. रॉप नं. 3 , बिल्डिंग नं. 19 , रोड नं. 12 , तिलकनगर मैदान के सामने चेंबूर , मुबई -400 089

438. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया डोंबिवली ( पूर्व ) शाखा , श्री सिद्धिविनायक दर्शन ए विंग , तल मंजिल , मानपाडा रोड, सागांव , डोंबिवली ( पूर्व ) जिला, ठाणे -421 204

439. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय पुणे, शिरडीशाखा , श्री साईबाबा संस्थान शिरडी, तहसील राहता जिला, अहमदनगर

440. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया बाणेर शाखा, 74/75 पी . के. श्राफ रोड , बाणेर , पुणे-411 045

441. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया : तलेगांव हभाडे शाखा , साई विहार कॉम्प्लेक्स वडगांव चाखण रोड, तलेगांव दाभाडे पुणे-410 507 442. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया डीएसके विश्वशाखा , 6 वसुधा डीएसके विश्व धायरी, पुणे-411 041

443. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया 1 अलंदी शाखा , एमएई कैम्पस , अलंदी , जिला पुणे -412105

444. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया सावेड़ीशाखा , टी . वी. टावर के पास सावेड़ी, जिला, अहमदनगर

445. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया लोणी कालभोर शाखा , एच. पी. गेट , 2 के सामने लोणी कालभोर , जिला पुणे

446. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , कोल्हापुर , सातारा शाखा , दीपलक्ष्मी कॉम्प्लेक्स , सव्र्व्हे नं. 287/1 से 7/6, शॉप नं. 1 से 4 , राधिका रोड, सातारा-416 002 [भाग 11- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3395.

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

447. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

क्रॉस रोड, सोलापुर शाखा , में ए. वी. पांद्ये क्रॉस रोड, कमर्शियल कॉम्प्लेक्स ई . पी. नं. 63 , 67 ए 672 , जुना पुणे रोड, सोलापुर -413 001

448. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया इस्लामपुर शाखा, ओम साई दत्तकृपा सव्हें न. 70/ए/ गणेशनगर , ता. वालवा , जिला सांगली , इस्लामपुर-415:409

449. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया कोडोली शाखा, कोडगुले बिल्डिंग ता. पन्हाला , जिला-कोल्हापुर , कोडोली-416 114

450. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया कराड शाखा , पाटील हेरिटेज, 207/2 सी, शनिवार पेठ, दत्त चौक जिला- सातारा

451. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , मुंबई ( पश्चिम) वोरीवली पूर्व शाखा , " ऑरचिड " , तल मंजिल, शॉप नं. 1 से 5 , कार्टर रोड नं. 7 , बोरीवली ( पूर्व ) मुंबई 452. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

मीरा रोड शाखा , " श्री पार्क " सिल्वर पार्क के निकट , मीरा भायंदर रोड , मीरा रोड ( पूर्व ) जिला-ठाणे , पिन-401 107

453. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , बेलगाम, नवनगर शाखा , 44 , शिवानंद नगर , नवनगर, हुबली-580 025 जिला- धारवाड...

454. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया रायबाग शाखा टीपीएस नं. 1560 , पुलिस स्टेशन के पास , रायबाग -591 317 , जिला- बेलगाम

455. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

बागलकोट शाखा , प्लॉट नं. 21 , 19वां क्रॉस , इंजीनियरिंग कालेज सर्कल, विध्यागिरी , बागलकोट-587 102 जिला-बागलकोट

456. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

हीरेकेरूर शाखा , टीएपी सीएमएस लिमिटेड बिल्डिंग , शिरालाकोप्पा रोड, हीरेकेरूर -581 111 जिला-हावेरी (कर्नाटक)

457. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , गोवा करमोना शाखा, मु. पो. करमोना सॅलसेट , गोवा-403 717

458. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , हैदराबाद, कुकटपल्ली शाखा , प्लॉट नं. 324 , तल मंजिल , रोड नं. 4 , रवीन्द्र भारती स्कूल , के. पी. एम. बी. कॉलोनी कुकटपल्ली , हैदराबाद -500.027 ( आ.प्र. ).

459. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया नकदी प्रबंधन सेवाएं शाखा , तल मंजिल , 6-1-57/ 14 पब्लिक गार्डन रोड, सैफाबाद , हैदराबाद-500004 ( आ.प्र. )

460. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया क्षेत्रीय लेखा परीक्षा कार्यालय 2 री मंजिल , जसबाग , दत्ताकॉम्प्लेक्स, नामपल्ली , हैदराबाद-500 001 461. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , कोलकाता आंदुल रोड शाखा , मुकाम " ज्योतिष आर्केड " प्रथम तल, 71/6, दानेश शेख लैन , आंदुल रोड , पोस्ट-आंदुल , जिला- हावड़ा, पश्चिम बंगाल -711 109

462. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , दुर्गापुर

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , दुर्गापुर यूसीपी-23 , बेंगाल अम्बुजा-उत्तर सिटी सेंटर के पास पोस्ट दुर्गापुर , जिला- बर्दमान दुर्गापुर-713 216 (पश्चिम बंगाल )

463. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, बेंगलूर हासन शाखा 746 , श्री सिध्देश्वर राईस मिल परिसर , बी. एम. रोड, हासन -573 201

464. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया गेलेयरबलगा ( हेसरघट्टा ) शाखा 430 , एजीबी हाउसिंग सोसाइटी III रा स्टेज , चिक्कसंद्रा, हेसरघट्टा, मेन रोड, बेंगलूर-560 090

465. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया राजराजेश्वरीनगर शाखा, #2 , 1 ली मंजिल , बीइएमएल ले आउट, तीसरा स्टेज, बसवेश्वर सर्कल , बीइएल गेट, राजराजेश्वरीनगर , बेंगलूर -560 098

466. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , बेंगलूर सीएमएस शाखा , 116 , 11 वां क्रॉस , मल्लेश्वरम , बेंगलूर-560 003

467. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया विजयनगर मैसूर शाखा , # 333 , रेलवे ले आउट , विजयनगर, मैसूर-570 017 3396

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department ofFinancial Services) New Delhi , the 17th June, 2009

S.O. 1702. In pursuance of sub -rule (4) ofrule 10 of the Official Languages (use for official purpose ofthe union) Rules, 1976 the Central Government, hereby noti- fiesthe listed branches/ offices of the following Banks in the attached annexure , more than 80 % of the staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi .

Serial No.

Nameofthe Banks

Number of Branches/Offices 1.

54 Syndicate Bank

1 ReserveBank of India

3. AndhraBank

29 4.

56 CorporationBank

28 Punjab National Bank

6 IndianBank

7. State Bank ofPatiala

161 8.

26 Oriental Bank ofCommerce

37 Bank ofMaharashtra

10.

14 State Bank ofMysore

55 11. Union Bank of India

467 Total

[F. No. 11016/ 1 /2009 -Hindi ] REMESHBABU ANIYERY, Jt. Director (OL) SYNDICATE BANK

1. Syndicate Bank

Amingad Branch

Opposite Police Station

Amingad

Hungund Tq.

Dist. Bagalkot State: Karnataka Pin: 587 112 2. Syndicate Bank

Badami Branch

Hotel Rajasangam International

Building,

Opp . KSRTC Bus Stand

Main Road

Madami

Dist.: Bagalkot

State : Karnataka

Pin: 587201

3. Syndicate Bank

Bagalkot Branch

Kaladgi Road

Opposite Court

Bagalkot.

Dist: Bagalkot

State : Karnataka

Pin: 587101

[PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 4. Syndicate Bank

Basavakalyan Branch

FirstFloor

Basava Mansions , Main Road

Basavakalyan

Dist. Bidar

State: Karnataka

Pin: 585 327

5. Syndicate Bank

BidarAir Force Station Branch

Elementary Flying School

AirForce Station

BidarDist. Bidar

State : Karnataka

Pin: 585401

6. Syndicate Bank

Basaveshwar Road Branch

SarafBazar

Gandhi Chowk

Bijapur

Dist. Bijapur

State : Karnataka

Pin: 586 101

7. Syndicate Bank

Bijjargi Branch

Budhanagar

Bijjargi Dist. Bijapur

State : Karnataka

Pin: 586114

8. Syndicate Bank

Chandakapur Branch

HandraleBuilding

MainRoad

N.H. 9, Chandakapur

Dist. Bidar

State : Karnataka

Pin: 585419

9. Syndicate Bank

DevarHippargi Branch

S.V. Deshpande Building

Opposite Bus Stand

Devarhippargi

Taluk: Sindgi

Dist.Bijapur

State: Karnataka

Pin: 586 115

10. Syndicate Bank

Golsangi Branch

M.A. Dalanai Building

Near Bus Stand Golsangi

Taluk : Basavana Bagewadi

Dist. Bijapur

State : Karnataka

Pin: 586 231 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

3397

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 20 , 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

11. Syndicate Bank

Gulbarga Dargah Branch

Darga Hazarath Khaja Bandanawaz Khajabazar Gulbarga

Dist. Gulbarga State: Karnataka Pin: 585 104

12. Syndicate Bank

Gulbarga Fort Road Branch

Plot No. 88/90

1 Floor , Khuba Complex

Super Market Gulbarga

Dist. Gulbarga

State : Karnataka

Pin: 585 101

13. Syndicate Bank

Gulbarga M RMedical College Branch No. 178/19 , RTO Cross , Badepur Sadem Road

Gulbarga

Dist.: Gulbarga

State : Karnataka

Pin: 585 105

14. Syndicate Bank

Gulbarga Station Bazar Branch Thimmapuri Chowk

Station Bazar

Gulbarga

Dist.: Gulbarga

State: Karnataka

Pin: 585 102

15. Syndicate Bank

Gulbarga MSK Mills Branch

Vaishnavi

MSK Mill Road, Shanthinagar Gulbarga

Dist.: Gulbarga

State: Karnataka-

Pin: 585 103

16. Syndicate Bank

Guledgud Branch

Building No. 2179

Kumbara Street, Ward No. 3

Guledgud

Dist.: Bagalkote

State: Karnataka

Pin: 585 203

17. Syndicate Bank

HuvinHippargi Branch

Plot No. 949 , College Road

HuvinHippargi

BasawanaBagewadi Taluk

Dist.: Bijapur

State: Karnataka

Pin: 586 208

18. Syndicate Bank

Horti Branch

N.S. Khed Building

Sholapur Road

Horti

Taluk: Indi

Dist.:Bijapur

State: Karnataka

Pin: 586 117

19. Syndicate Bank

Hungund Branch

Nagaral Building

Bagalkot Road

Hungund

Dist.: Bagalkote

State: Karnataka

Pin: 587118

20. Syndicate Bank

Ilkal Branch

Sri Vijaya Mahantesh Mutt Bld. ,

P.B. No. 5, Kanti Circle

Ilkal

Dist.:Bagalkote

State : Karnataka

Pin: 587.125

21. Syndicate Bank

Kerur Branch

1/452, Sri Maruthi Krupa

Main Road

Kerur

Dist.: Bagalkote

State : Karnataka

Pin: 587 206

22. Syndicate Bank

Korwar Branch

Lakshmi Saraswathi Nivas

Main Road, Korwar

Dist.: Bijapur

State : Karnataka

Pin: 586 120

23. Syndicate Bank

Lachyan Branch

Lachyan

Dist.:Bijapur

State : Karnataka

Pin: 586 211

24. Syndicate Bank

Muddebihal Branch

218 B V Reshmi Branch

Almatti Road

Muddebihal

Dist.: Bijapur

State : Karnataka

Pin: 586 212 3398

25. Syndicate Bank

Mudhol Branch

GovindpurGalli

Mudhol

Dist.: Bagalkote

State : Karnataka

Pin : 587313

26. Syndicate Bank

Nalatwad Branch

S.B. Ilkal Building

Near Bus Stand

Nalatwad

Dist.:Bijapur

State:Karnataka

Pin: 586124

27. Syndicate Bank

Shirur Branch

Venkatesh Nilaya

PatilsBuilding

Shirur

Dist.:Bagalkote

State: Karnataka

Pini: 587 132

28. Syndicate Bank

Taikote Branch

Municipality Building Bus Stand Road

Talikote

Taluk : Muddebihal

Dist.:Bijapur

State : Karnataka

Pin: 586 214

29. Syndicate Bank

Terdal Branch

Shiv Nilaya

Gathade Building

Near Old Police Station , Terdal Dist.: Bagalkote

State : Karnataka

Pin: 587315

30. Syndicate Bank

Yadagiri Branch

Srechari Deshpande Building 3-7-45 Kajgarwadi

Yadagiri

Dist.: Gulbarga

State :Karnataka

Pin:585 201

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] 31. Syndicate Bank

Yelaguru Branch

Gram Panchayat Building

Yalagur

Taluk: Muddebihal

Dist.: Bagalkote

State : Karnataka

Pin: 586213

32. Syndicate Bank

Yedrami Branch

G. S. Talikoti's Building ,

Sindgi Road

Yedrami

Dist.: Gulbarga

State : Karnataka

Pin: 585-325

33. Syndicate Bank

Lead District Office

Sultan Mansion , II Floor , MB -45

K.C. Market Road

Bijapur

Dist.:Bijapur

State : Karnataka

Pin: 586-101

34. Syndicate Bank

Lead District Office

Syndicate Bank Building

I Floor , Kaladgi Road

Bagalkot

Dist.: Bagalkot

State: Karnataka

Pin: 587 101

35. Syndicate Bank

Bhiwadi Branch

Shop No. 3-4 , Hariram Palace

Main Road, Bhiwadi

Dist.: Alwar

State : Rajasthan

Pin: 301019

36. Syndicate Bank

Bilaspur Chowk Branch

Pataudi Road

Police Station

Bilaspur

Dist.: Gurgaon

State : Haryana

Pin: 122413

37. Syndicate Bank

Dausa Branch

Opp : Dak Banglow

AgraRoad

Dist.: Dausa

State : Rajasthan

Pin: 303 303 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

38. Syndicate Bank

Vidisha Branch

Jee Saheb Shopping Centre Swarankar Colony

Vidisha

Dist.: Vidisha

State: Madhya Pradesh

Pin:464001

39. Syndicate Bank

Khajrana Branch

113, Mamta Colony Chauraha MainRoado

Khajrana

Dist. Indore

State:Madhya Pradesh

Pin: 452001

40. Syndicate Bank

Pauri Branch

MallRoad

Near HotelMadhuban

Dist.: Garhwal

State: Uttara Khand

Pin: 246001

41. Syndicate Bank

Rudraprayag Branch

No. 4NewMarket

Badrinath Road

Rudraprayag

Dist.: Rudraprayag

State : Uttara Khand

Pin: 246 171

42. Syndicate Bank

Delhi Central Accounts Office Jeevan Prakash Building, 1st Floor 25, KasturbaGandhiMarg

NewDelhi

Dist.: Delhi

State: Delhi

Pin: 110.001

43. Syndicate Bank

Delhi International Business Branch F-40, Connaught Circus

NewDelhi

Dist.: Delhi

State: Delhi

Pin: 110001

44. Syndicate Bank

Delhi I.P. Estate Branch

Central Revenue Building , ITO I.P. Estate

New Delhi

Dist.: Delhi

State: Delhi

Pin: 110002

2137 G1/09--4

3399

भारत का राजपत्र जून 20, 2009 ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

45. Syndicate Bank

Delhi NAMC Branch

Maulana Azad Medical College

Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg

NewDelhi

Dist.: Delhi

State: Delhi

Pin: 110002 ان

46. Syndicate Bank

Delhi BSF, East Block Branch

DirectorateGeneral

Border Security Force

R.K Puram

New Delhi

Dist .: Delhi

State:Delhi

Pin: 110066

47. Syndicate Bank

Delhi DGNCC West Block Branch

DirectorateGeneral NCC

Ministry ofDefence , GO1

West Block, R.K. Puram

NewDelhi

Dist.: Delhi

State: Delhi

Pin: 110066

48. Syndicate Bank

Delhi Housing Finance Branch

1& 1A, IInd Floor

OldRajendra Nagar Market

New Delhi

Dist.: Delhime

State : Delhi

Pin: 110.060

49. Syndicate Bank

Delhi AGI Bhawan Branch

Rao Tula Ram.Marg

NewDelhi

Dist.: Delhi

State: Delhi

Pin: 110057

50. Syndicate Bank

Delhi Hari Nagar Branch

DTCDepotHari Nagar

JailRoad

New Delhi

Dist.: Delhi

State: Delhi

Pin: 110064

51. Syndicate Bank

Delhi Shadipur Branch

DTC Depot Shadipur

New Delhi

Dist.: Delhi

State: Delhi

Pin: 110008 3400

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

52. Syndicate Bank Delhi CBSE, Patparganj Branch PS- 1-2, Institutional Area 1.P. Extension , Patparganj , New Delhi , Dist: Delhi , State: Delhi , Pin : 110092 53. Syndicate Bank Delhi Pitam Pura Branch Aggarwal Chambers CDBlock, Pitam Pura , New Delhi, Dist: Delhi , State Delhi , Pin : 110088

54. Syndicate Bank Etawah Branch 762, Harsh Nagar, Kutcheri Road, Etawah, Dist: Etawah State : Uttar Pradesh , Pin : 206001 55. Reserve Bank of India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Post Box No. 16, Bhubaneshwar- 751001 .

S. No. Branch Name Address of the Branch Cate- gory 56.

Metro Adyar

Andhra Bank 30, First Main Road , Gandhi Nagar , Adyar , Chennai: 600 020.

Metro 57. Annanagar Andhra Bank 995 -JA, New No. 170 II Avenue , Annanagar Chennai : 600040 .

58.1

Metro Avadi

Andhra Bank 7, O.C.F. Road, Avadi , Chennai : 600 054 .

Besantnagar

59. Andhra Bank Metro 34& 36, 7th Avenue BesantNagar Chennai :600090 .

60.

Metro Chennai- Esplanade

Andhra Bank Wawoo Mansion 48/39 Rajaji Salai Chennai : 600001 .

61.

Metro Chetpet

Andhra Bank No. 1,Mayor Ramanathan Rd , Chetpet, Chennai : 600 031 .

Metro 62. Mowbrays Road Andhra Bank 265 , T.T.K. Road, Mowbrays Road, Chennai:600018 .

Medavakam

Metro 63. Andhra Bank OldNo.2/123 Perumbakam MainRoad , S.No. 417/3 , Sub Division 11A & 11B Medavakam Chennai : 601302.

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] 64.

Metro Mylapore Andhra Bank "Balaji House", 6,North Mada Street Mylapore, Chennai : 600 004 .

65. Purasawalkam Andhra Bank Metro Dr.Rajivi Towers (Near TankMadharsha) 231,Purasawalkam High Road, Chennai : 600007 .

66. Saidapet Andhra Bank Metro 393 , Anna Salai ,Saidapet, Chennai : 600015 .

67.

Metro Saligramam AndhraBank 21 -C -Arunachalam Road, Saligramam Chennai :600 093 .

Metro 68. Sowcarpet AndhraBank 40, Anna Pillai Street , Sowcarpet, Chennai : 600 079.

Metro 69. Velacherry Andhra Bank No. 81 , 100 Feet, Road, Rajalakshmi Nagar, Velacherry, Chennai 600042.

Metro Triplicane

70. Andhra Bank New No. 50 , C.N.K. Road, Triplicane, Chennai:600005.

Metro Washermanpet Andhra Bank

71. 294, T. H. Road , Old Washermanpet , Chennai : 600021 .

Metro Villivakkam

72. Andhra Bank 93.North RedHills Road . Villivakkam, Chennai: 600 049.

Metro Pammal

73. Andhra Bank No. 1 , Krsihna Nagar Pammal Main Road , Pammal, Chennai : 600 075.

Metro 74. Satyamurthy Andhra Bank Nagar Murugappa Polytechnic College, Satyamurthy Nagar , Avadi Chennai :600 062

75. Senthil Nagar Andhra Bank , No. 154, Rajaji Street, SenthilNagar, Chennai 600 062 Metro [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

3401

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

76.

Metro Mogappair Andhra Bank, 12C, EB Office Road, Mogappair(East), Chennai : 600 037

77.

Metro Neelangarai Andhra Bank, No. 321 , Karunanidhi Salai , Kapaleeshwarar Nagar, Neelangarai , Chennai :600 041

78. Keelkattalai

Metro

Andhra Bank, 85/23 , Medavakkam MainRoad, Keelkattalai , Chennai : 600 117

79. Andhra Bank , Master'sJunior College Premises , 2-7-158 , Opp . Collectorate , Collectorate Road Branch , Karimnagar- 505001

80. Andhra Bank, Mandal Revenue Office Road, Bheemgal Branch, Nizamabad - 503.301 81 . Andhra Bank, 3-1-389, Tukaram Complex, Ambedkar Road, Vavilalal palli Branch , Karimnagar -505001 82. Andhra Bank, Near Sri Gyan Saraswati Temple , BasarBranch , Basar , Adilabad .

83. Andhra Bank , 14-898 , Goshala Road, Goshala Road Branch , Bodhan, Nizamabad - 503185

84. Andhra Bank , Mankammathota, Mankammathota Branch , Karimnagar- 505 002

85. Corporation Bank, Nellore Branch D.No. 15/196 , Gunturuvari St Brindavan, PostBox No. 22 , Nellore- 524 001

86. Corporation Bank, Vijayawada Main Branch, Door No. 12-12-67, Harper Square R.R. Appa Rao Street , Vijayawada- 520001

87. CorporationBank, GunturBranch , Door No. 4-3-34 , Behind Hindu College, Grand Trunk Road, Guntur- 522003 88. Corporation Bank , Rajahmundry Branch , 8-24-27 , Main Road, P.B. No. 57 , V Ullithora St. , Rajahmundry -533 101 , East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh

89. CorporationBank, Vishakapatnam Branch, 26-15-26 , Ground Floor , Main Road, Post Box No. 100, Vishakhapatnam -530001 Andhra Pradesh

90. CorporationBank, Kakinada Branch , 27-9-52, Savithri Mansions , Pulavarthi Vari Street, Post Box No. 8 , Kakinada- 533 001. Andhra Pradesh

91 . CorporationBank Pedapulivarru Branch 2-16, Kosarajuvari Street , Pedapulivarru -522655. ViaTenali Rms , Taluk:

Bhattiprolu Mandal , District - Guntur , State- Andhra Pradesh 92. CorporationBank, Vijaywada- SN Puram Branch , 23-11-103, Ground Floor,. Ward No. 20/1, NP Road, Satyanarayanapuram , Vijayawada-520011 Andhra Pradesh

93. Corporation Bank, Masulipatnam Branch , 11/572, Robertsonpet, P.B. No. 49 , Masulipatnam - 521 001 , District-Krishna , Andhra Pradesh

94. Corporation Bank, Patibandla Branch , D. No. 2/33 , 4-11 Ward Patibandla-522 402 . Pedakurapadu Mandal Taluk , GunturDistrict, Andhra Pradesh

95. Corporation Bank, Kankatapalem Branch , D. No. 3/21 , Kankatapalem -522317, GunturDistrict, Andhra Pradesh

Corporation Bank , Dulla Branch , D. No. 5/176 , Dulla-533234, 96. KadiamTaluk, EastGodavari Dist . , Andhra Pradesh

97. CorporationBank, Ongole Branch , 23-1-7-( 1 ) , Court Centre, Gandhi Road, P. B. No. 29, Ongole-523 001. Prakasam Distric Andhra Pradesh 3402

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

98. Corporation Bank

Damaramadugu Branch

3/128/1 , Main Road,.

Damaramadugu -524 138 KovurMandal Nellore District Andhra Pradesh

99. Corporation Bank

Gandepally Branch

5-81,Main Road, Gandepalli- 533 294 East Godavari District

Andhra Pradesh

100. Corporation Bank

Thondangi Branch

4-11 , Danavaipet Road,

Thondangi -533 408 Tuni Taluk, East Godavari District .

Andhra Pradesh

Corporation Bank

101

Aratlakatta Branch

D.No. 6/93 ,

First Floor

KarapaMandal

Aralakatta-533016,

KarapaTaluk

EastGodavari District

Andhra Pradesh

102 Corporation Bank

Nagaram Branch

2-33, Main Road , Nagaram-533247

RajoleTaluk

East Godavari District

Andhra Pradesh

103 Corporation Bank

P. Rayavaram Brar h

1/74,MainRoad,

P.Rayavaram-53 . 445

ViaGollaprolu ,

Peddapuram Taluk

East Godavarı District

Andhra Pradesh

104. Corporation Bank

Mallavaram Branch

Door No. 1/65 , Main Road ,

Gokavaram Taluk

Mallavaram -533 285 East Godavari District

Andhra Pradesh

105. Corporation Bank

Eluru Branch

22-B-13-19

Prasad Mansion ,

V.P. Press Road ,

[PART II SEC . 3 ( i) ] Powerpet, Post Box No. 285 ,

Eluru-534002

West Godavari District

Andhra Pradesh

106. Corporation Bank

Vizianagaram Branch

8-1-180 , 1st Floor ,

DabaGardens , Post-Box Np . 55 ,

M.G. Road, Vizianagaram -531001

Vizianagaram District Andhra Pradesh

107. Corporation Bank

Adavinekkalam Branch

8-45 , Vijayawada -Nuzvid

Main Road Via-Nunna,

Adavinekkalam - 521212

Krishna District

Andhra Pradesh

108. Corporation Bank

Thimmapuram Branch

4-1-A, Main Road ,

Thimmapuram - 533015

EastGodavari District

Andhra Pradesh

109. Corporation Bank

Bheemavaram Branch

104-1 , Ground Floor,

Mohan Plaza, P.B. No. 6, J.P. Road

Bheemavaram- 534 202

West Godavari District Andhra Pradesh

110. Corporation Bank

Tuni Branch

D. No. 8-11-11, Bellapu Street , Tuni -533 401.

East Godavari District

Andhra Pradesh

111. Corporation Bank

Gotlam Branch

Gantyodaya Block,

Gotlam-531203

Vizianagram District Andhra Pradesh

Corporation Bank

112.

Chirala Branch

D. No. 13-7-31 , Polimera Road,

Chirala- 523 155 Prakasham District

Andhra Pradesh

113. Corporation Bank

Dwarakanagar -Visakhapatnam Branch PawanTowers,

D. No. 48-9-19,1 Lane ,

DwarakaNagar,

Visakhapatnam,

Andhra Pradesh 3403 100D NOT

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

114. Corporation Bank

Benz Circ. Vijayawada Branch

Door No. 40-9-76-3 , Ground Floor , ырный BenzCircle, Vijayawada-520010

Sai Nagar, NH-5, Andhra Pradesh

115. Corporation Bank

Tenali Branch

D. No. 16-2-8, Ground Floor, Opp . Town Church , BoseRoad, Tenali - 522 201 Guntur District Andhra Pradesh

116. Corporation Bank

Madhura Nagar - Visakhapatnam Branch Sri Krishna Vidya Mandira,

49-12-18, SriKapila Gopal Rao Madhura Nagar, Visakhapatnam -530016 Visakhapatnam District

Andhra Pradesh

117. Corporation Bank

Kakinada-Bhanugudi Branch

Police Welfare Complex,

Bhanugudi Junction ,

Kakinada-533 033 . EastGodavari District .

Andhra Pradesh

118. Corporation Bank

Tanuku Branch

Door No. 26-117 , NSC Bose Road, Tanuku - 534211 West Godavari District Andhra Pradesh

119. Corporation Bank

Srikakulam Branch

Door No. 7-3-18/ 11 ,

Ground Floor, Ramalakshman Theatre Junction, Srikakulam -532 001 Srikakulam District Andhra Pradesh

120. Corporation Bank

Kandukur Branch

1 Floor Near Apsrtc Bus Stand,

Srirama Complex, Kandukuru - 523 105 Andhra Pradesh

121. Corporation Bank

Kankipadu Branches Ne Lock Road, Opp Panchayath Office ,

Kankipadu - 521 151 Krishna District , Andhra Pradesh

122. Corporation Bank

Guntur-Arundalpet Branch

Tha Door No. 6-4-108, Ground Floor , 4/4, Arundalpet, Guntur- 522 00208 Andhra Pradesh

123. Corporation Bank

Nellore-Dargametta Branch

Door No. 48-9-19 ,

LIC Divisional Office , Dargametta, Nellore -524 003 Andhra Pradesh

124. Corporation Bank

Akividu Branch 16-115 B,

Muslim Welfare Association Bldg

Siddapuram Road , Akividu - 534 235 West Godavari District Andhra Pradesh

125. Corporation Bank

Vizianagram L.T. B. Rd. Branch

L.I.C. of India, Tankbund Road ,

Vizianagram -535003 Andhra Pradesh

126. Corporation Bank

Gudlavalleru Branch

MainRoad, Gudlavalleru - 521356 Gudlavalleru Mandal ,

Krishna Andhra Pradesh

127. Corporation Bank

Mini Caps-Vijayawada

Shivani Towers , 2nd Floor, Governorpet ,

Vijayawada -520 002 Andhra Pradesh

128. Corporation Bank

Mini Caps-Vishakhapatanam tr

PawanTowers , D. No. 48-9-19, I Floor, Dwarakanagar ,

Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh

129. Corporation Bank

Cur. Chest Vijayawada

35-25-35, Dr. B.Rama Rao Street

Suryarao Pet ,

Vijayawada-520002 . Andhra Pradesh 3404 |

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

130. Corporation Bank

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] 139. Corporation Bank Opp.Lal Bagh Co -Operative Bank , Manjalpur Main Road Manjalpur Vadodara-390011

140. Corporation Bank

Retail Hub-Vijayawada Door No. 12-11-67 , Harper Square R.R. Appa Rao Street , Vijayawada-520001 . Andhra Pradesh

131. CorporationBank

Shri Bhaktinagar Swaminarayan Mandir NavaVas Mankuva- 370 030 (Distt-Bhuj)

141. BO : Morta

Retail Hub -Visakhapatnam Pawan Towers , D.No 48-9-19 , I Floor, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh

132. Corporation Bank

AmalapuramBranch 7-2-27/ 1 Main Road, Amalapuram - 533 201 . East Godavari District . Andhra Pradesh

133. Corporation Bank

BILT Chemicals Limited

BILT Shopping Complex Karwar -Binaga

Karwar -581 364

134. Corporation Bank

Mini CAPS- Hubli First Floor Moorusaviramath Press Building NCM Hubli -580 029 .

135. Corporation Bank

Derabassi Branch

Punjab National Bank MeerutRoad

Distt. Ghaziabad (U.P. )

PinCode: 201003

142. BO : K.K. Inter College Punjab National Bank

Baghra

Distt. Muzaffarnagar ( U.P. ) PinCode: 251306

143. Punjab National Bank MICR Centre , Dharshala Road, Distt .Gorakhpur (4526 ) U.P. - Pin - 273001

144. Punjab National Bank Regional Clearing Centre , Bank Road , Distt. Gorakhpur(4532)

U.P. - Pin- 273001

145. Punjab National Bank

B.O.- Vikas Bhawan , Civil Court Campus , Distt. Gorakhpur (4755) U.P. - Pin- 273001

146. Punjab National Bank

Paras Market Chandigarh-Ambala Road Derabassi District : Mohali

Punjab- 140 507

136. Corporation Bank

Batala Branch

BO-Civil Lines , MP Inter College Campus , Distt. Gorakhpur (4756) U.P. - Pin- 273001

147. Punjab National Bank

SCF-46-47 Leakwala Talab Jalandhar Road Batala

BO-Betiahata , Near Nanglia Hospital , Distt . Gorakhpur (4758 ) U.P. - Pin- 273001

148. Punjab National Bank

Punjab 143 505

137. Corporation Bank

Rajpura Branch

Plot No. 99 A

BO- Fazil Nagar , Mahavir Inter College Campus, Distt . Kushinagar U.P. - Pin - 274408

149. Punjab National Bank

LIC Jeevan Jyoti Building

Guru Nanak Colony

Kajpura

Punjab

138. Corporation Bank

Jalandhar II Branch LIC Divisional Office Ground Floor Jalandhar Punjab- 144001

B.O. - Banhara Road, Tamkuhi , Distt . Kushinagar (4757)

U.P. - Pin - 274406

150. Punjab National Bank B.O. - Vikas Bhawan , Padrauna, Distt. Kushinagar (4778) U.P. - Pin- 274304

1 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

3405

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

Indore Vijay Nagar

151. Punjab National Bank

FF 36 , Oppo . , Meghdut Upvan , VijayNagar , IndoreM.P.

Pin452010, 07312575385

IndoreGoyal Nagar

152. Punjab National Bank

96/97 , Manbhawan Nagar, Bangali Charuaha , RingRoad Indore M.P.

Pin452016, 07312595247

Branch Distinctive No. 4841

153. Punjab National Bank

1. Branch/Office : Manish Nagar. Jayanti Mansion- III .

Manishnagar , Nagpur - 440015, Tehsil : Nagpur, District : Nagpur (Maharashtra)

154. Punjab National Bank

Branch: Suryanagar, Midcorporate Branch, 8- B Kalamana Road, Suryanagar, Nagpur - 440008 (Maharashtra), Dist . No. 4204

155. Punjab National Bank

Office: Retail Hub, Mahajan Market, Sitabuldi Nagpur-440012

(Maharashtra) , Dist. No. 5226

156. Punjab National Bank

Zonal Stationery Centre , K.P. Kesavamenon Road,

Kozhikode(Kerala)

Pin- 673001

157. Punjab National Bank

12/853 , Ground Floor, Kalyani Building BusStand, Kuttippuram (Kerala)

Pin- 679571

158. Punjab National Bank

Ground Floor, Viaya Building , Near Meenchanda Bus Stand, Meenchanda ( Kerala)

Pin- 673525

159. Punjab National Bank

35/2240 A, M.G. Road, Ravipuram Ernakulam ( Kerala)

Pin- 682016

160. Punjab National Bank

AssetRecovery Managernent Branch, 40/1461 , MarketRoad, Ernakulam (Kerala)

Pin- 682011

161. Punjab National Bank

Edapally Pookatpady Road , Opp . Thrikkakara Temple

Thrikkakara , Distt. Ernakulam (Kerala)

Pin- 682021

162. Punjab National Bank

Zonal Training Centre, 5th . Floor , Shatabdi Bhavan MiniBypassRoad, P. O. Govindapuram Kozhikkode (Kerala) -673016

CircleOffice, Mandi

163. Punjab National Bank

Branch Office: Bharol , District Mandi ( Himachal Pradesh)

Pin-176126

Circle Office, Dharamshala

164. Punjab National Bank

Branch Office:Nurpur, District Kangra, (Himachal Pradesh ) Pin- 176202

Circle Office, Karnal

165. Punjab NationalBank Branch Office: Kaithal , Timber Market, District Kaithal (Haryana)

Pin- 136027

166. Punjab National Bank

Branch Office: Dhand, District Kaithal ( Haryana ) Pin- 136020

167. Punjab National Bank

Branch Office: Markanda National College , Shahbad

District Kurukshetra ( Haryana)

Pin- 136135

168. Punjab National Bank

Branch Office: Kalayat , District Kalayat (Haryana)

Pin- 136117

Indian Bank

State/Union Territory- New Delhi

169. Indian Bank

Keerthi Nagar Branch , C-66, Keerthi Nagar New Delhi - 110015

170. Indian Bank

Nayee Sarai , Bihar Sharees Branch, Dist: Nalanda

Pin: 803101 , State Bihar

171. Indian Bank

Radhika Market , Chapra Sivan Road, Sivan Branch , Dist : Sivan

Pin: 841226 , State Bihar

172. Indian Bank

Sharadha Complex, Dak Bangla Road Hajipur Branch, Dist : Vishali

Pin: 84410i , State Bihar .....

3406

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

173. Indian Bank

Golmuri Branch, T.K. Complex Teen Plate Chowk Jamshedpur,Dist : Sinhabum

Pin: 831003 , State Jharkand

Indian Bank

174.

Kadaru Branch , Trikuta Hill ,

Kadaru Main Road,

Ranchi , Dist: Ranchi

Pin: 834002, State Jharkand

StateBank ofPatiala

175. State Bank of Patiala

Region - I (P) , Thakur Niwas

Patiala

State Bank ofPatiala.

176.

Region- II (P) , Leela Bhawan

Patiala

177. State Bank of Patiala

Region- III (P), Thakur Niwas

Patiala

178. State Bank of Patiala

Region- IV (P), Leela Bhawan

Patiala

179. State Bank of Patiala

Banur, Tehsil - Rajpura, Patiala, Punjab

180. State Bank of Patiala

Badshahpur, Anaj Mandi ; Tehsil - Samana Patiala, Punjab

181. State Bank of Patiala

Devigarh,

Patiala, Punjab

182. State Bank of Patiala

Gajewas, Tehsil - Samana

Patiala, Punjab

183. State Bank of Patiala

Gulzarpur, Tehsil - Samana

Patiala, Punjab

184. State Bank ofPatiala

Bhadson,

Patiala, Punjab

185. State Bank of Patiala

Balbehra

Patiala, Punjab

186. State Bank ofPatiala

Dudansadhan

Patiala, Punjab

187. State Bank of Patiala

Ghagga, Tehsil - Samana

Patiala, Punjab

[PART 11 SEC . 3 (ii) ] 188. State Bank of Patiala

Gurditpura, P.O. Godaya Tehsil - Nabha Patiala, Punjab

189. State Bank of Patiala

Jalalpur, Tehsil - Rajpura

Patiala, Punjab

190. State Bank of Patiala

Kakrala, Tehsil - Nabha

Patiala, Punjab

191. State Bank of Patiala

Kheragajju, P.O. Murakpura ,

Tehsil - Rajpura

Patiala, Punjab

192. State Bank of Patiala

NabhaGrain Market

Patiala, Punjab

193. State Bank of Patiala

NabhaMain

Patiala, Punjab

194. State Bank of Patiala

Jandmangoli , Tehsil - Rajpura

Pațiala, Punjab

195. State Bank of Patiala

Kamalpur

Patiala, Punjab

196. State Bank of Patiala

Manakpur

Patiala, Punjab

197. State Bank of Patiala

Nabha H M M

Patiała, Punjab

198. State Bank of Patiala

Nabha NewGrain Market

Patiala, Punjab

199. State Bank of Patiala

Patran

Patiala, Punjab

200 State Bank of Patiala,

Rajpura K SM

Patiala, Punjab

201. State Bank of Patiala

Rajpura Town

Patiala, Punjab

202. State Bank of Patiala

Samana Main

Patiala, Punjab

203. State Bank of Patiala,

Samana ADB ,

Patiala, Punjab [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

204. State Bank of Patiala, Shambhukalan, Patiala, Punjab

3407

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

220. State Bank of Patiala , Dharampura Bazar - Branch Patiala

221. State Bank of Patiala,

Distt. Court - Branch

Patiala

205 State Bank of Patiala, RajpuraGrainMarket, Patiala, Punjab

206. State Bank of Patiala, RajpuraMain, Patiala, Punjab

207. State Bank of Patiala, Sanaur Patiala, Punjab

208. State Bank of Patiala, Shutrana, Patiala, Punjab

209. State Bank of Patiala, Ghanaur, Patiala, Punjab

210. State Bank of Patiala, Theri , Punjabi University, Patiala,Punjab

211. State Bank of Patiala, Region - II (P) , Leela Bhawan Patiala

222. State Bank of Patiala, G.D.N.S - Branch Patiala

223. State Bank of Patiala LO.C - Branch, Near Railway Station Patiala

224. State Bank of Patiala Industrial Area - Branch Patiala

225. State Bank of Patiala ModelTown - Branch Patiala

226. State Bank of Patiala NIS - Branch , Old Moti Bagh Patiala

227. State Bank of Patiala Old Police Line - Branch Patiala

228. State Bank of Patiala

PSEB - Branch

Patiala

212. State Bank of Patiala, ADB - Branch, The Mall Patiala

213. State Bank of Patiala, Arya Samaj Branch , Press Road , Patiala

214. State Bank of Patiala , Aurobindo Bhawan- Branch , Patiala

215. State Bank of. Patiala; Bhupindra Nagar - Branch Patiala

216. State Bank of Patiala , Bhadson Road - Branch Patiala.

229. State Bank of Patiala PER. BKG . - Branch, Leela Bhawan Market Patiala

230. State Bank of Patiala Punjabi University - Branch Patiala

231. State Bank of Patiala RajinderHospital - Branch Patiala

232. State Bank of Patiala

Sai Market - Branch

Patiala

217. State Bank of Patiala , Chowk Fort - Branch Patiala

218. State Bank of Patiala, Patiala Cantt - Branch, Cantt, Area Patiala

219. State Bank of Patiala , D.C.W- Brarich Patiala

2137 Gl/09-5

233. State Bank of Patiala Sanuri ADDA - Branch Patiala

234. State Bank of Patiala Service Branch - Branch Sai Market, Patiala

235. State Bank of Patiala State College of Education- Branch Patiala 3408

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

State Bank of Patiala

236,

Thappar College - Branch , TIET Patiala

State Bank of Patiala

237,

Treasury- Branch, SCF 129, Chhoti Baradari , Patiala

238 State Bank of Patiala

Tripari Saidan - Branch, Patiala

239 State Bank of Patiala

Y.P.S. - Branch, Patiala

240, State Bank of Patiala

Bhadurgar Escort - Branch, Tehsil and Distt. Patiala

State Bank of Patiala

241

Bhashiwala -Branch, Tehsil and Distt. Patiala

242 State Bank of Patiala

Chalila - Branch, Tehsil and Distt . Patiala

State Bank of Patiala

243

DonKalan- Branch, Tehsil and Distt. Patiala

State Bank of Patiala

244

Kalyan -Branch, Tehsil and Distt. Patiala

245 State Bank of Patiala

Kauli -Branch, Tehsil and Distt. Patiala

246 State Bank of Patiala

Urban Estate - Branch, Phase - II Patiala

247. State Bank of Patiala

Ahmedgarh , Distt. Sangrur

Punjab

248, State Bank of Patiala

Ahmedgarh , (Old Mandi) Distt. Sangrur Punjab

State Bank of Patiala

249.

Amargarh V. & P.O. Amargarh, Tehsil . Malerkotla Distt Sangrur, Punjab

250. State Bank of Patiala

Amloh , P.O. Amloh Tehsil . Amloh, Distt Fatehgarh Sahib , Punjab

251. State Bank of Patiala

Banbhora , V. P.O. Banbhora, Distt Sangrur , Punjab

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii) ] 252. State Bank of Patiala

Bassi Pathana (Main Branch) P.O. Bassi Pathana Distt . Fatehgarh Sahib , Punjab

253. State Bank of Patiala

Bassi Pathana, A.D.B. , P.O. Bassi Pathana Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib , Punjab

254. State Bank of Patiala

Benra, V. P.O.Benra, Tehsil Dhuri

Distt. Sangrur , Punjab

255. State Bank of Patiala

Bhassaur, V. P.O. Bhassaur, Tehsil Dhuri Distt. Sangrur, Punjab

256. State Bank of Patiala BhogiwalV. P.O.Bhogiwal , Tehsil Malerkotla Distt . Sangrur, Punjab

257. State Bank of Patiala Burass, VP.O. Burass , Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib Punjab

258. State Bank of Patiala Chanarthal Kalan, VP.O.Chanarthal Kalan , Tehsil Sirhind Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib , Punjab 259. State Bank of Patiala

Chunni Kalan, V P.O.Cheenni Kalan, Distt . Fatehgarh Sahib , Punjab

260 State Bank of Patiala Dhuri , P.O.Dhuri Teshil & Distt. Dhuri , Punjab

261. State Bank of Patiala .

Fatehgarh Sahib, Distt. Administration Complex , PostOffice Fatehgarh Sahib Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib , Punjab .

262. State Bank of Patiala Ghanauri Kalan, V. P.O.Ghanauri Teshil & Distt. Dhuri , Punjab

263 State Bank of Patiala

Mandi Gobundgarh ( M) , P. O. Gobundgarh Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib Punjab

264. State Bank of Patiala

Gobindgarh (Guru - ki - Nagri ) , P. O.Gobindgarh Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib , Punjab

265. State Bank of Patiala Hathan , V. P.O.Hathan , Tehsil Dhuri Distt. Sangrur, Punjab

266. State Bank of Patiala Jakhwali , V.P. O. Jakhwali , Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab

267. State Bank of Patiala

Kanjla, V.P.O.Kanjla, Tehsil Dhuri Distt. Sangrur, Punjab [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

268. State Bank of Patiala

Katron, V. P.O.Katron , Tehsil Dhuri Distt . Sangrur, Punjab

269. State Bank of Patiala

KhamanoMandi V. P. O. Khamano Distt . Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab .

270. State Bank of Patiala

Khanpur , V. P.O.Khanpur, Tehsil Malerkotla Distt. Sangrur, Punjab

271. State Bank of Patiala

Kup Kalan V. P.O.Kup Kalan,

Tehsil Malerkotla

Distt. Sangrur, Punjab

272. State Bank of Patiala

Malerkotla(Main)

Distt. Sangrur Punjab

273. State Bank ofPatiala

Malerkotla (SSI ) Branch

Distt. Sangrur Punjab

274. State Bank ofPatiala

Malerkotla (ADB Branch)

Distt. Sangrur Punjab

275. State Bank of Patiala

Mullowal, VPO Mullowal , Teh . Dhuri Distt. Sangrur Punjab

276. State Bank ofPatiala

Shamshpur V. P. O. Shamshpur

Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib Punjab

277. StateBank ofPatiala

Sirhind City

Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib Punjab

278. State Bank of Patiala

Sirhind Mandi Branch

Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib Punjab

279. State Bank of Patiala Barnala (S.D. College)

280. State Bank of Patiala

Barnala(Main)

281. State Bank of Patiala

Barnala(ADB)

282. State Elank of Patiala

Bhadaur

283. State Bank of Patiala

Bhattiwal Kalan

284. State Bank of Patiala

Bhawanigarh

285. State Bank of Patiala

Chananwal

286. State Bank of Patiala

Cheerma

3409

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

287. State Bank of Patiala Chhajli

288. State Bank of Patiala Dhanaula

289. State Bank of Patiala Dharamgarh

290. State Bank of Patiala Dhaula

291. State Bank of Patiala Dirba

292. State Bank of Patiala Duggan

293. State Bank of Patiala Handiaya

294. State Bank of Patiala Jakhepal

295. State Bank of Patiala Kalagarh

296. State Bank of Patiala Khanauri

297. State Bank of Patiala LehalKalan

298. State Bank of Patiala Lehragaga

299. State Bank of Patiala Longowal

300. State Bank of Patiala Mandvi

301. State Bank of Patiala Mehal Kalan

302. State Bank of Patiala Mehlan

303. State Bank of Patiala Moonak

304. State Bank of Patiala Nadampur

305. State Bank of Patiala Sangrur (NGM)

306. State Bank of Patiala Sangrur (MAIN)

307. State Bank of Patiala Sehna

308. State Bank of Patiala Sunam (HSHS)

309. State Bank of Patiala Sunam Sme Br . (NGM)

310. State Bank of Patiala Sunam

311. State Bank of Patiala Sangrur Tapa

312. State Bank of Patiala Ubhowal

313. State Bank of Patiala Uppli 3410

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

314 State Bank of Patiala

Zonal OfficeGuru Kanshi Marg Bathinda 315 State Bank of Patiala

Milk Plant Dabwali Road Bathinda

316 State Bank of Patiala

Lehra Mohabbat

317 State Bank of Patiala

Bharti Model School Rampura Phul

318. State Bank of Patiala

GuruGobind Singh Medical College Faridkot 319. State Bank of Patiala

Place Makhu Kotise Khan

320. State Bank of Patiala

Goluwala Distt . Hanumangarh (R)

321. State Bank of Patiala

Jalalabad Road Mukatsar Distt. Mukatsar 322. State Bank of Patiala

Jaitsar Distt. Sri GangaNagar

323. State Bank of Patiala

S.S.D. Girls College Amrik Singh Road Bathinda 324. StateBank of Patiala

Nehru Memorial College Mansa

325. State Bank of Patiala

Regional Office Ish Niketan, Near Timber House , Cart Road, Shimla

Distt - Shimla (H.P . )- 171001

326. State Bank of Patiala

Sai Road, Baddi Distt . - Solan (H. P . ) - 173205 327. State Bank of Patiala

SDA Complex, Kasumpti Distt. - Shimla (H. P.)- 171009

328. State Bank of Patiala

Nalagarh (Main) Distt. - Solan ( H. P. ) - 174101 329. State Bank of Patiala

Nauni (Khaltoo) Distt. - Solan ( H. Ρ . )- 173230 330. State Bank of Patiala

Kachha Tank , Nahan Distt . - Sirmour

(H.P.)- 173001

331. State Bank of Patiala

The Mall , Solan Distt. - Solan (H. P. )- 173212 332. State Bank of Patiala

Baroti (Parwanoo) Distt. - Solan (H. P .) - 173220 333. State Bank of Patiala

Shimla The Mall ) Distt . - Simla (H. P .)- 171001 334. State Bank of Patiala

Nalagarh (ADB ) Solan Distt .- Solan

(Η.Ρ.)- 174101

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 335. State Bank of Patiala

Kasauli Distt . - Solan (H. P.) - 173204

336. Oriental Bank of Commerce

Mahatama Gandhi Sewa Mandir Trust Building S.V. Road , Opp . Talao Bandra ( West) , Mumbai- 400050

337. Oriental Bank of Commerce:

Moti Mahal Ground Floor - 195 J. Tata Road, Churchgate Mumbai-400020

338. Oriental Bank of Commerce

181 -A, Maker Tower ' E' , 18th Floor, Cuff Parade Mumbai-400020

339. Oriental Bank of Commerce

2, Arcade, World Trade Centre Cuff Parade Mumbai-400005

340. Oriental Bank of Commerce

Near Salvation School AlfGokhle Road (South) Dadar (West), Mumbai -400028

341. Oriental Bank of Commerce :

67, Bombay Samachar Marg Sonawala Building, Fort Mumbai -400001

342. Oriental Bank of Commerce

Jash Chambers Near Amar Building, Sir . P.M. Road, Fort Mumbai -400001

343. Oriental Bank of Commerce

66 , Guru Darshan N. S. Road - 1 , Vallabhnagar Society J.V.P.D. Scheme, Ville Parle(West) Mumbai-400056

344. Oriental Bank of Commerce

Central Building No. 17/19 Bomanji Masterji Road New Silk Bazar Near Kalbadevi Post Office Mumbai-400002

345. Oriental Bank of Commerce

Satkartar Building Flat No. 01 , 101 , S. V. Road Khar ( West) , Mumbai -400052

346. Oriental Bank of Commerce

1&2, Darvesh Chambers P.D. Hinduja Marg Khar (West), Mumbai-400052

347. Oriental Bank of Commerce

393, SirMangaldas House Lamington Road Mumbai-400004

348. Oriental Bank of Commerce

A.G.H. Chambers 379/382, Narsi Nath Street Katha Bazar Mandvi , Mumbai -400009

349. Oriental Bank of Commerce

"Matru Ashish", B - 1 , first Floor 29 , Nepeansea Road Laxmi Bai Jagmohan Marg Mumbai -400036 350. Oriental Bank of Commerce

UnitNo. 2, Maheshwari Mansion 34, Laxmi Bai Jagmohan Marg Mumbai -400036 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931.

351. Oriental Bank ofCommerce

Dalamal Towers " B " Wing, Ground Floor Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400009

352. Oriental Bank of Commerce

Shreejee Chambers , Tata Road , No. 2, Opera House, Mumbai- 400009

353. Oriental Bank of Commerce

Bhagvat Niwas , Ground Floor , Peddar Road Mumbai- 400026

354. Oriental Bank of Commerce

AjayApartments , Opp. St. Tressa Convent School S.V. Road Santacruz (West) , Mumbai-400054

355. Oriental Bank of Commerce

Mumbai Bazar Building, First Floor, Station Road Santacruz (West), Mumbai -400054

356. Oriental Bank of Commerce

Kamal Apartments Plot No. 68, Lokhandwala Complex, Versova, Off J.P. Road Andheri (West) , Mumbai 400053

357. Oriental Bank of Commerce

Janki Devi Public School Plot No. 1 , R.S.C. -6 Sardar Ballabh Bhai Patel Nagar , Andheri (West) , Mumbai-400053

358. Oriental Bank of Commerce

Sterling Coop . Housing Society J.P. Road, 7Banglow Garden, Andheri (West), Mumbai -400061

359. Oriental Bank of Commerce

Vile Parle (East) 71 , Swagat, Nehru Road Vile Parle (Eest), Mumbai -400057

360. Oriental Bank of Commerce

Mahatma Gandhi Sewa Mandir Trust Building S.V. Road, Bandra Opp . Talao , Bandra (West), Mumbai-400050

361. Oriental Bank of Commerce

56-58 , Mittal Chambers 5th Floor, Nariman Point Mumbai-400021

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA

"A" Region

362. Vidyadlıarnagar Jaipur Branch ,

Bank of Maharashtra , G-25, 26,27 2B-25/26/27 , Unnati Tower Central Spine, Jaipur 302 023 (Region : New Delhi ) 363. Yamunavihar Delhi Branch,

Bank of Maharashtra , C-4/74 -AYamunavihar, Delhi - 110053 (Region: New Delhi )

3411 364. Jodhpur Chopasani Road Branch,

Bank ofMaharashtra, Plot No. 2 & 3 , Second Pelia Complex, Chopasani Road, Jodhpur-342008 (Region: Delhi)

365. JabalpurHospital Branch,

Bank of Maharashtra, JabalpurHospital Research Centre Napier TowerRusse Chowk, Jabalpur-482002 (Region: Jabalpur )

366. Rudrapur Branch , Bank ofMaharashtra , A-3 Ring Road Awaas Vikar Colony, Rudrapur-263 153 (Region : Lucknow)

367. Gopalpur Byepass Jaipur Branch,

Bank ofMaharashtra, Jda Shop No. 14, Hans Marg, Mansarovar Link Road, Jaipur 302008 (Region: New Delhi )

368. G. S. College, Jabalpur Branch, Bank of Maharashtra, G. S. College of Commerce & Economics , South Civil Lines, Jabalpur-482001 (M.P . ) (Region: New Delhi)

369. Barelly Branch,

Bank ofMaharashtra , Plot No. 2, Sarvodaya Nagar , Pilibhit Road , Barelly-243001 (Region : Lucknow)

370. Pratapnagar Jaipur Branch ,

Bank ofMaharashtra , PlotNo. 68 P 9, Sector 9, Sanganer Tank Road , (Region: Delhi)

371. Katni Branch , Bank ofMaharashtra , House No. 211 , Ward No. 22 , Hanumannagar Ghantaghar, Katni -483 501 ( M.P. ) (Region: Jabalpur)

372. Gurgaon Sector 56 Branch , Bank of Maharashtra , S. Co. 86, Dist . Shoping Centre , Sector 56 Gurgaon- 122001

373. Dwarka West New Delhi Branch, Bank of Maharashtra, Hall F- 1 , First Floor, Plot No. 6, Sector- 12 Dwarka, NewDelhi - 110075 (Region: Delhi)

374. Indore Kanadia Road ,

Bank ofMaharashtra, 1-2, Shivshakti Nagar, Indore-452 001 (Region: Indore) 3412

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

375. Govindgarh Branch , Bank of Maharashtra, OldBus Stand Road, Near Post Office, Govindgarh- 303 712 Dist. Jaipur (Rajasthan ) "B " Region

376. Ghodbunder Road , Thane Branch, Bank ofMaharashtra, Shop No. 8 & 9 Pride Parek, Opp . Law Kims Industries, Ghodhunder Road, Thane (West) , Thane- 400 607, Maharashtra (Region: Thane)

377. Gandhidham Branch , Bank ofMaharashtra, Plot No. 334, Ward No. 12 -B , Ashirwad Complex , Gandhidham -370201 Dist . Kutch, (Region: Ahmedabad)

378. Sector 38 D Chandigarh Branch , Bank ofMaharashtra, SCO -307 Chandigarh - 160038 (Region: Chandigarh )

379. Treasury& International Banking Branch , Bank ofMaharashtra, 23, Maker Chamber , 111 2nd Floor . Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (Region: Mumbai City )

380. Sonai Branch , Bank ofMaharashtra, Dr. B. K. Sirsat Building, Ghodegaon Road, At& Post Sonai Newasa (Region:Ahmednagar )

381. Lower Parel Branch , Bank ofMaharashtra, 005/006 Amir Industrial Estate, Arum Mill Compound,Mumbai -400 013 (Region:Mumbai City )

382. Shahid Bhagat Singh Ludhiyana Branch , Bank ofMaharashtra , SCF- 10 & 11 , Main Market, SBS Road, Ludhiyana- 141002 (Region: Chandigarh )

383. Kharadi Pune Branch, Bank ofMaharashtra , Shop 25 to 31 , Ashok Nagar Bldg . , S. No. 43 , Hissa No. 1+2/ 1 / 1to7 , Kharadi -Hadapsar Road , Pune-411014 (Region: PuneCity )

384. Hinjawadi Pune Branch, Bank of Maharashtra, GatNo. 243, Near KPIT Hinjawadi , Tal .Mulshi, Pune -411057 (Region: Pune Rural )

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] 385. Government Business Branch, Bank ofMaharashtra, Mahabank Bhawan , Murnije Chowk, Sitabuldi , Nagpur-440012 (Region: Nagpur)

386. Ajnala Road Amritsar Branch , Bank of Maharashtra, U. K. International Building , Near GuruDas Avenue, Airport Road, Amritsar - 143008 (Region: Chandigarh )

387. Hol Township Ozar Branch , Bank of Maharashtra, Hal Institute of Applied Electronics, Stadium Shopping Complex , Ozar Township , Dist. Nasik-422 206 (Region: Nasik)

388. Jaysingpur Branch , Bank ofMaharashtra, 9thLane, Ghodawat Building, Near Ram Mandir , Jaysingpur-416 101 Tal. Shirol , Dist . Kolhapur, (Region: Kolhapur)

389. Wadia Hospital Campus Branch , Bank of Maharashtra, WadiaHospital Campus , Railway Lines , Solapur-413 001 (Region: Solapur )

390. Shivaji College Campus Parbhani Branch , Bank ofMaharashtra , Ahuja Complex, Basmat Road , Parbhani (Region : Latur)

391. Yogeshwari Ambejogai Branch , Bank ofMaharashtra, Yogeshwari College Campus, Parel Road, Ambejogai -431 517 (Region: Latur)

392. Lanja Branch, Bank ofMaharashtra, 1389, Sahakar Sankul, Mumbai -Goa Highway, Lanja-Ratnagiri 416701 (Region: Ratnagiri )

393. Pashan Pune Branch , Bank of Maharashtra, Sutar Icon Pandavnagar , $ us Road, Pashan , Pune-411021 (Region: PuneCity) 1

394. Bavdhan Pune Branch , Bank ofMaharashtra , Shreyas Eterna NDA - PASHAN Road, Near Srikrishana Nagar, Bavdhan Pune -411 021 (Region: Pune City).

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20 , 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

395. Vikrinagar Bhawan Mazgaon Branch, Bank of Maharashtra, Balwant Singh dodhi Marg, Mazgaon mumbai-400010

(Region: Mumbai City)

396. Arvi Naka Road Wardha Branch, Bank ofMaharashtra, ChintamaniBhawan Gandhinagar, Wardha-442001 (Region: Amravati )

397. Service Branch Kolhapur , Bank ofMaharashtra, Khatik Samaj Building, 1408 , C , Laxmipuri Kolhapur , (Region : Kolhapur )

398. Mantralaya Mumbai Branch, Bank ofMaharashtra, Sachiwalaya, Mumbai -400 032

(Region:Mumbai City)

399. State Bank OfMysore, Mulund Branch, Shop No. L 3, Samruddhi Off LBS Marg Near Mulund Telephone Exchange Mulund (West) Mumbai -400 080

400. State Bank Of Mysore , Kharghar Branch , Shree Tower Plot No. 16, Sector 20 Kharghar , Navi Mumbai -410210

401. State Bank Of Mysore , Vasai Branch, Shop No. 1 , 2 & 3 , Richmond Town Phasell Building No. 4, Bhabola Vasai ( W) -401 202 Thane District

402. State Bank OfMysore , Currency Administration Cell- 1 Treasury Branch Building, L. C. Road , Bangalore - 560001 403. State Bank Of Mysore , Currency Administration Cell- I # 24, " Lalitha", 2nd Cross Sampige Road, Malleshwaram Bangalore - 56000

404. State Bank Of Mysore, Retail Asset Central Processing Cell (Prototype) No. 305, 4th Cross 2nd Main , 8th Block, Jayanagar Bangalore - 560070

405. State Bank OfMysore , Retail Asset Central Processing Cell (Pilot) No. 8/6 , 1st Floor Ranga Rao Road, Shankarapuram Bangalore- 560004

406. State Bank of Mysore , Stressed Asset resolution Centre 1st Floor, Shri Rama Seva Mandali Building 10th Cross, Wilson Garden, Bangalore - 560027

3413 407. State Bank ofMysore, Small & Medium Entrepreneurs City Credit Centre 8/6, 2nd Floor Ranga rao Road , Shankarapuram Bangalore - 560004

408. State Bank of Mysore , Trade finance Central Processing Cell 1st Floor , 2ndCross Sampige Road , Malleswaram Bangalore - 560003

409. State Bank of Mysore , Delhi region Club Road Punjabi (West ) New Delhi - 110026

410. Retail Asset & Small Entrepreneur Credit Centre State Bank of Mysore , 1st Floor , Janak Cinema Complex 'C'Block Pankha Road Janakpuri , New Delhi - 110058

411. State Bank of Mysore , Mumbai region No. 9445, Regional Office 2nd Floor , Mahakali Caves Road Andheri ( East ) Mumbai -400093

412. Retail Asset & Small Entrepreneur - Credit Centre State Bank of Mysore, IV Floor , Mittal Court ' C ' Wing , Nariman Point Mumbai -400 021

Union Bank of India

Name & Address of Branch /Office

RegionalOffice, Bhopal

413. Union Bank of India, Arera Hills Branch Union Bank Bhavan 1513/1/1 , AreraHillsBhopal (M.P. ) , 462011

414. Union Bank of India, Hoshangabad Road Branch A 20, Aryan Tower, Ahmedpur , Kalan , Bhopal ( M.P. ) , 462026 415. Union Bank of India, Thatipur Branch Primla Plaza, Gandhi Road, Thatipur, Gwaliar-474011

Regional Office, Reewa

416. Union Bank of India, Sasan Branch, village Sasan , (Gadhara) Post: Tiyra, Police Station Waidhan Distt: Singraluti (M.P. )

417. Union Bank of India, University Road Branch Rewa Tirath Parisar University Road, Anantpur, Rewa-486 001 Distt: Rewa (Μ.Ρ. )

418. Union Bank of India , Umariya Branch Station Road,, Ward No. 15. Umariya 484661 Distt . Umariya (M.P. ) 3414

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

Regional Office, Jabalpur

419 Union Bank of India, Khurai Branch Station Road, Hharai (M.P. ) Distt Sagar, Pin- 170117

420, Union Bank of India,

[ PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 433. Union Bank of India, Retail Assets Branch Maharashtra State Middle & Higher Education Board Bhawan , (Near 1A) Rabindranath Tagore Marg, Civil Lines , Nagpur (Maharashtra)

Regional Office, Nasik

Pipariya Branch, Mohata Plot, Pipariya (M.P. ) DisttHoshangabad , Pin 475661

Regional Office, Lucknow

421. Union Bank of India, PAC35 Batalian Branch Mahanagar , Locknow

422. Union Bank of India, BalrampurBranch, Janki Vallabh Complex, VeerVinayChowk, Balrampur

423. Union Bank of India , Gonda Branch , Near District Hospital , Gonda 434. Union Bank of India, Dondaicha Branch Ranimasaheb Piaza OppBus Stand, Dondaicha Tal . Shindkheda , Dist.: Dhule, Pin -425 408

435. Union Bank of India , Shirpur Branch , 1601/01 , Lalbag . Shirpur, Dist.: Dhuliya ( Maharashtra )

436. Union Bank of India , Devpur (Dhuliya) Branch , SSVPS Shopping Complex, Devpur ( Dhuliya) Branch Pin -424 001 . Dist.: Dhuliya (Maharashtra )

Regional Office, Thane

424. Union Bank of India, Fatehpur Branch ,. Kachhari Road, Fatehpur 425. Union Bank of India, Sector O Branch, CMS, Sector O , Aliganj , Lucknow

Regional Office, Patna

426. Union Bank of India, Purnea Branch Eicher , Tractor Campus, Jail Chowk, N. H. 31 , Punrea

427. Union Bank of India , SagunaMoreBranch Near RPS More , BeliRoad, Patna

437. Union Bank of India, Tilak Nagar Branch, Chembur Shri Siddhivinayak CHS . Ltd. Shop No.3 , Building No. 19 , Road No. 12, Opp . Tilak Nagar Ground, Chembur , Mumbai-40089

438. Union Bank of India, Dombivli (East) Branch Siddivinayk Darshan , A - Wing, Ground Floor , Manpada Road, Sagaon , Dombivli (East), Dist-Thane-421 204

Regional Office, Pune

Regional Office, Rajkot

428. Union Bank of India, 150ft. Ring Road Branch , Nakshtra - 1 , AminMarg Crossing , 150 ft Ring Road, Rajkot (Gujarat)

Regional Office, Nagpur

429. Union Bank of India, Washim Branch Balaji Complex, Patni Chowk Washim -444505 (Maharashtra)

430. Union Bank of India, BesaBranch Nagar , Plot No. 12/13 , Tapasya BuildingGondwana Nagar, Manish Nagar Main Road, Nagpur ( (Maharashtra) 431. Union Bank of India, Wadi Branch, Plot No. 50 , Amravati Road, Wadi, Dist. Nagpur

432. Union Bank of India, Desaiganj (Wadsa ) Branch Kejadiwal Complex Main Mit Parel Ward, Desaiganj (Wadsa) Lest. Gudebkoli ( Maharashtra)

439. Union Bank of India, Shirdi Branch Sri Saibaba Sansthan Shirdi , Tahsil Rahta, Dist . Ahmednagar , Pin -423106 440. Union Bank of India, Baner Branch, 74/75 , P. K. Shroff Road, Baner, Pune-411045

441. Union Bank of India , Talegaon Dabhade Branchsai Vihar Complex Vadgaon- Chakan Road , Talegaon Dabhade Pune-410507

442. Union Bank of India, DSK Vishwa Branch 6 , Vasudha, DSK Vishwa Dhyari , Pune-411041

443. Union Bank of India, Alandi Branch MAE Campus Alandi , Dist. Pune-412105

444. Union Bank of India , Savedi Branch Near TV Tower , Savedi-414 003 , Dist. Ahmednagar [ भामः II-खण्ड 3(ii )]

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 20, 2009 /ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

445. Union Bank of India, Loni Kalbhor Branch, Opp HP Gate No. 2 , Loni Kalbhor -412201 , Distt . Pune

Regional Office, Kolhapur

3415 RegionalOffice,Goa

457. Union Bank of India, Carmona Branch , A/P , Carmona Salcete , Goa-403717

RegionalOffice, Hyderabad

446. Union Bank of India, Satara Branch , Deeplaxmi Complex, Serve No. 287/1 to 7/6, Shop Gata Nos . 1 to 4, Radhika Road , Satara - 416002

447. Union Bank of India, CrossRoad Solapur Branch , M/ s . A.V. Pandhe, CrossRoad,Commercial Complex, E.P. Nos . 63, 67 A 672 , Old Pune Road , Solapur-413001 448. Union Bank of India, IslampurBranch , Om Sai Dattakrupa, Serve No. 70/ A/ 171 Ganesh Nagar , Tal . Walawa, Dist. Sangli , Islampur-415409

458. Union Bank of India , Kukatpally Branch , Plot No. 324,Ground Floor, RoadNo. 4 , Opp . Ravindra Bharthi School , K.P.H.B. Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad- 500072 (Andhra Pradesh)

459. Union Bank ofIndia, Cash Management Services Branch, Ground Floor,6-1-57/ 14, Puplic Garden Road, Saifabad Hyderabad -500 004 (A.P.)

460. Union Bank of India , Regional Audit Office 2nd Floor , Jusbagh, Lata Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500 001

Regional Office, Kolkata

449. Union Bank ofIndia, Kodoli Branch, Kodgule Building , Tal . Panhala, Dist . Kolhapur , Kodoli -416 114 450. Union Bank of India, Karad Branch, Patil Heritage, 207/2 C , Shanivar Peth, Datta Chowk, Dist . Satara

Regional Office, Mumbai (West)

461. Union Bank of India, Andul Road Branch At- " Jyotish Arcade" , First Floor , 71/6 , Danesh Shaikh Lane, Andul Road, Post-Andul , Dist.: Howrah, West Bengal Pin-711109

Regional Office, Durgapur

451. Union Bank of India , Borivali (East) Branch "Orchid" , Ground Floor, Shop Nos . 1 to 5 , Carter Road No. 7 , Borivali (East), Mumbai

462. Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Durgapur UCP - 23 , Bengal Ambuja (North), Near City Centre, PO: Durgapur , Distt .: Burdwan, Durgapur- 713 216 (WB)

Regional Office, Bangalore

452. Union Bank of India , Mira Road Branch , " Shri Park" , Near Silver Park, Mira Bhayander Road , Mira Road (East) , Dist.: Thane , Pin : 401107

Regional Office, Belgaum

453. Union Bank of India , Navnagar Branch , 44 , Shivanand Nagar , Navnagar , Hubli -580025, Dist. Dharwad

454. Union Bank of India, Raibaug Branch, TPC No. 1560, Near Police Station , Raibaug- 591317 , Dist. Belgaum

455. Union Bank of India, Bagalkot Branch , Plot No. 21 , 19th Cross , Engineering College Circle , Vidyagiri , Bagalkot - 587102 , Dist .: Bagalkot

456. Union Bank of India, Hirekerur Branch , TAPCMSLtd. , Building Shiralakoppa Road , Hirekerur- 581111 Distt.: Haveri (Karnataka)

2137 G1/09-6

463. Union Bank of India , Hassan Branch , 746, Sri Siddeshwar Rice Mill Premises , B. M. Road, Hassan - 573.201

464. Union Bank of India, Geleyarbalaga (Hesaraghatta) Branch 430, AGB Housing Society 111 Stage , Chikkasandra, Hesaraghatta Main Road, Bangalore-560090 465. Union Bank of India , Rajrajeshwarinagar Branch No.2, 1st floor, BEML Lay -Out , 111 Stage , Basweshwar Circle; BELGate, Rajrajeshwarinagar , Bangalore- 560098 466. Union Bank of India ,. CMS Branch 116, 11th Cross , Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560003

467. Union Bank of India , VijayNagar Mysore Branch , # 333 , Railway Lay Out, VijayNagar, Mysore-570017.

3416

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

अनुसूची

क्र. संशोधित भारतीय

सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय नईदिल्ली, 8 जून , 2009

संशोधन की संख्या संशोधन लागू

और तिथि

होने की तिथि

सं. मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

31मई, 2009

1. आईएस 4021: 1995 2 , मई, 2009

2 मई , 2009 31मई , 2009

2. आईएस 6198 1992

आईएस 10451: 1983 1 , मई , 2009

का.आ. 1703. केंद्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय , प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम (4) के अनुसरण में , आकाशवाणी महानिदेशालय ( सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय ) के निम्नलिखित अधीनस्थ केंद्रों/कार्यालयों , जिनके 80% से अधिक कर्मचारिवृन्द ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , को अधिसूचित करती है:-

31मई, 2009 1. आकाशवाणी , हास्पेट ।

2. आकाशवाणी, बेंगलूर ।

3. आकाशवाणी , बालाघाट ।

4. आकाशवाणी , अगरतला ।

5. उच्च शक्ति प्रेषित्र , आलप्पुषा ( आलप्पी )

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

[संदर्भ: सीईडी/राजपत्र ] 6. आकाशवाणी , कुल्लू ।

ए. के. सैनी, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं 'प्रमुख ( सिविल इंजीनियरी ) 7. आकाशवाणी , सांगली ।

[ फा. सं. ई-11017/6/2007 - हिंदी ] प्रियम्बदा, निदेशक (राजभाषा)

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS , FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION (Department ofConsumer Affairs) MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2009

New Delhi , the 8th June , 2009

S.O.1704. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1)ofRule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the amendment to the Indian Standard, particulars of which is given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued: SCHEDULE

Sl. No. and year of No. and year of

S.O.1703 .-In pursuance of Sub - Rule 4 ofRule 10 ofthe Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes ofthe Union) Rules , 1976, the Central Government hereby noti- fies the following offices under Directorate General ofAll India Radio (Ministry of Information and Broadcasting ), more than 80% of the staffwhereofhave acquired the work- ingknowledge ofHindi :-

No. the Indian Standards the amendment

1.All India Radio (AIR) , Hospet

2.All India Radio ( AIR) , Bangalore

Date from which the amendment shall have effect 3.All India Radio (AIR), Balaghat

(2)

(4)

(1)

(3)

4. All India Radio (AIR), Agartala

1. IS 4021 : 1995

31 May, 2009

2May,2009

5.High Power Transmitter ( HPT), Alappuzha (Allepey)

2. IS 6198 : 1992 2May, 2009 31 May, 2009 6.All India Radio ( AIR) , Kullu

3. IS 10451 : 1983

31 May, 2009

1May, 2009

7.All India Radio ( AIR) , Sangli

[F. No. E- 11017/6/2007-Hindi ]

PRIYAMVADA , Director ( O.L. )

उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग ) भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

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

नईदिल्ली, 3 जून , 2009

[Ref: CED/Gazette ]

A. K. SAINI , Sc . ' F ' & Head (Civil Engg.) नई दिल्ली, 4 जून , 2009

का. आ. 1705.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो का.आ. 1704.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक में संशोधन किया गया है:

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20 , 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गये मानक (को) में संशोधन किया गया है/किये गये हैं :

अनुसूची

क्र. संशोधित भारतीय संशोधन की संख्या संशोधन लागू

और तिथि

सं. मानक की संख्या

होने की तिथि और वर्ष

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

26 मई , 2009 1. आई एस 15500 (भाग 1 से 8 ): 2004

संशोधन नं. 2, मई, 2009

गहराई से पानी निकालने वाले हथबरमे, प्रयुक्त होने वाले पुर्जे और विशेष औजार--विशिष्टि

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

[संदर्भ: एमईडी/जी. - 2 : 1 ] टी. वी. सिंह, वैज्ञानिक ' ई '(यांत्रिक इंजीनियरिंग ) New Delhi , the 4th June , 2009

S.O. 1705.-In pursuance of clause (b) of sub- rule ( 1) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, theBureau ofIndian Standards hereby notifies that amend- ments to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

No. and year of Datefrom Sl. No. and year of

the amendment which the No. the Indian Standards

amendment shall have effect (1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 1. IS 15500

Amendment 26May, 2009

No. 2

(Pt 1 to8):

2004 Deepwell - May, 2009

Handpumps com-

ponents and special

toolsSpecifications

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

3417 Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref. MED/G-2:1] T. V. SINGH, Scientist - ' E' (Mechanical Engineering) नई दिल्ली, 9 जून , 2009

का.आ. 1706.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड (ख) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

क्र. स्थापित भारतीय नये भारतीय मानक स्थापित तिथि सं मानक (कों) की द्वारा अतिक्रमित

संख्या वर्ष और भारतीय मानक,

शीर्षक

अथवामानकों यदि

कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष

(1) ( 2)

(3)

(4) 1. आई एस 2041: 2009 2041 : 1995 1 अगस्त, 2009 मध्यम और अल्प ताप

उपयोग के दाब पात्रों के लिए इस्पात प्लेटें-विशिष्ट (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

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

[संदर्भ : एमटीडी 4/टी. -47 ] श्री पी. घोष , वैज्ञानिक ' ई' एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी ) New Delhi, the 9th June, 2009

S.O. 1706.-In pursuance ofclause (b) ofsub - rule (1 ) ofRule 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 Sched- ule hereto annexed have been established on the date indi- cated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl. No. and year of

Dateof

No. and year of

No. the Indian Standards Indian Standards Established Established

ifany, Superseded

bythe New Indian Standard

(3)

(4) (1) (2)

1. IS2041: 2009- Steel

1 August, 2009

2041: 1995

plates for pressure ves-

sels used at moderate and

lowtemperature -Specifi-

cation (Third Revision)

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the 3418

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

Bangalore, Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur , Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram .

Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhayan , 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai , and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad,

[Ref: MTD 4/T-47] .

SHRI P. GHOSH, Scientist- 'E' & Head (MTD)

कोयला मंत्रालय

नईदिल्ली , 8 जून , 2009

का.आ. 1707.-केंद्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित परिक्षेत्र में की भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्त किए जाने की संभावना है;

वातः अब, केंद्रीय सरकार , कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , क्षेत्र में कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है;

इस अधिसूचना के अन्ततर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक सं. एसईसीएल/ बीएसपी/ जीएम ( पीएलजी) / भूमि/338 तारीख 13 मार्च, 2009 कानिरीक्षण कलक्टर , कोरबा ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , काउंसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता-700001 के कार्यालय में या साऊथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड ( राजस्व अनुभाग ) , सीपत रोड, बिलासपुर- 495006 ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है।

इस अधिसूचना के अन्तर्गत आने वाली भूमि में हितबद्ध सभी व्यक्ति उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) में निर्दिष्ट सभी भषरों, चोटों और अन्य दस्तावेजों को इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिन के भीतर , भारसाधक अधिकारी या विभागाध्यक्ष ( राजस्व) साऊथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, सीपत रोड, बिलासपुर -495006 ( छत्त्तीसगढ़ ) को भेजेंगे।

अनुसूची

जट्राज ब्लाक दूसरा विस्तार , कुसमुण्डा क्षेत्र , जिला कोरबा ( छत्तीसगढ़ )

रेखांक संख्या -एसईसीएल /बीएसपी/जीएम ( पीएलजी )/ भूमि/ 338 तारीख 13 मार्च , 2009

(क) राजस्व भूमि:-

जिला

टिप्पण

तहसील

क्षेत्र हेक्टर में

क्रम ग्राम संख्या

पटवारी हल्का संख्या

ग्राम संख्या

367

कोरबा

1. रिब्दी

कटघोरा

142.249 संपूर्ण 36

364

कोरबा

249.810

कटघोरा

2. पड़निया

संपूर्ण 36

365

कोरबा

131.498

कटघोरा

3. पाली

संपूर्ण 36

369

कोरबा

27.534

कटघोरा

जहूराज

भाग-पूर्वेक्षण रहित $

कोरबा

368

कटघोरा

265.960

भाग

सोमपुरी

कुल क्षेत्रः 817.051 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 2018.938 एकड ( लगभग) (ख) वन भूमि

वन का नाम

चन का प्रकार

खण्ड

टिप्पण

जिला

क्रम संख्या

क्षेत्र हेक्टर में

पडनिया

राजस्व वन

कोरबा

0.051

कटघोरा

संपूर्ण 2.

पाली

राजस्व वन

कोरबा

0.194

कटघोरा

संपूर्ण

कोरबा

राजस्व वन

भाग 3.

कटघोरा

29.186

सोनपुरी

रिस्दी

राजस्व वन

कोरबा

18.518

कटघोरा

संपूर्ण

कुल: 47.949 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 118.48 एकड़ (लगभग ) कुल: योग (कख ) :-817.051 + 47.949 = 865.000 हेक्टर ( लगभग)

या 2018.933 + 118.48 = 2137.413 एकड़ ( लगभग)

3419

भारत का राजपत्र जून 20, 2009 येष्ठ 30, 1931

[ भाग खण्ड 3( ii) ]

सीमा वर्णन:-

क-ख रेखा " क" बिन्दु से आरंभ होती है-और ग्राम रिस्दी-खोडरी, रिस्दी- चुरैल के सम्मिलित सीमा से होती हुई बिन्दु " ख " पर मिलती है । ख -ग रेखा ग्राम दिस्दी- आमगांव के सम्मिलित सीमा से होती हुई बिन्दु " ग " पर मिलती है ।

ग-घ रेखा ग्राम रिस्दी- जपदि के सम्मिलित सीमा से होती हुई बिन्दु " घ " पर मिलती है ।

घ-ङ रेखा ग्राम पडनिया- जपदि के सम्मिलित सीमा से होती हुई बिन्दु " ड " पर मिलती है ।

ङ-च रेखा ग्राम पडनिया खैरमोना के सम्मिलित सीमा से होती हुई " च " बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

च-छ रेखा ग्राम सोनपुरी- खैरभौना के सम्मिलित सीमा से होती हुई हसदेव नदी के पश्चिमी किनारे पर बिन्दु " छ " पर मिलती है । छ-ज रेखा हसदेव नदी के पश्चिमी किनारे से होती हुई बिन्दु " ज " पर मिलती है ।

ज- झ-ञ रेखा ग्राम सोनपुरी के पूर्वी किनारे और बिन्दु " झ" से होकर ग्राम सोनपुरी - जट्राज के भागतः सम्मिलित सीमा से होती हुई बिन्दु "अ " पर मिलती है ।

ज- ट-ठ रेखा हसदेव नदी के पश्चिमी किनारे और बिन्दु " ट" तथा ग्राम जट्राज से होकर ग्राम जट्राज बरकुट के सम्मिलित सीमा में बिन्दु" ठ " पर मिलती है ।

ठ-ड -ढ रेखा ग्राम जट्राज बरकुट के भागतः सम्मिलित सीमा और बिन्दु " ड" से होकर ग्राम पडनिया- बरकुट के सम्मिलित सीमा से होती हुई बिन्दु " ढ " पर मिलती है ।

ढ-ण रेखा ग्राम पाली- बरकुट के सम्मिलित सीमा से होती हुई बिन्दु " ण " परमिलती है ।

ण -क रेखा ग्राम रिस्दी- दुरपा के सम्मिलित सीमा से होती हुई भारम्भिक बिन्दु "क" पर मिलती है ।

कृफा. सं. 43015/12/2009-पी.आर.आई.डब्ल्यू-1 ]

एम. शहाबुद्दीन, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF COAL

NewDelhi , the 8th June, 2009

S.O. 1707.-Whereas it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the lands in the locality mentioned in the Schedule annexed hereto;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferredby sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act , 1957 (20 of 1957 ), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal therein;

The plan bearing Number : SECL/BSP/GM (Pig )/Land/338 dated the 13th March, 2009 ofthe area covered by this notification can be inspected in the office of the Collector, Korba (CG. ) or in the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata -700001 or in the office ofthe South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur -495006 (Chhattisgarh).

All persons interested in the land covered by this notification shall deliver all maps , charts and other documents referred to in sub- section (7) of Section 13 of the said Act to the Officer-in-Charge or Head of the Department (Revenue) , SouthEasternCoalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur-495006 ( Chhattisgarh ) , within ninety days from the date ofpubli- cation ofthis notification in the Official Gazette.

SCHEDULE

Jatraj Block2nd Extension, KusmundaArea

District-Korba (Chhattisgarh)

Plan maumber SECL/BSP/GM (Pig )/Land/338 dated 13th March, 2009

(A) Revenue Land:-

Remarks

District

Tahsil

Village

Area in bectares

Village number

Sl. No.

Ratawari Halka number

Korba

142.249 Full

367

Risdi

Katghora

364

249.810 Full

Konba

Padania

Katghora

365

Korba

Pali

134.498 Full 3.

Katghora

27:334

Korba

369

Part-Unsurveyed Jatraj

Katghora

Part

Korba

265.960

368

Katghora

Sonpuri

Total : 817.051 hectares ( approximately) or 2018.933Acres (approximately) 3420

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii) ] (B) Forest Land:-

Division

District

Name of Forest Type of Forest

Remarks SI . No.

Area in Hectares

7 1 .

Padania

Revenue Forest

Korba

0.051

Full

Katghora

Pali

Revenue Forest

Korba

0.194

Full

Katghora

Revenue Forest

Korba

29.186

Part Sonpuri

Katghora

Risdi

Revenue Forest

Korba

18.518

Full

Katghora

Total : 47.949 hectares ( approximately ) or 118.48 Acres (approximately)

Grand Total ( A+ B) :-- 817.051 +47.949 = 865.000 hectares ( Approximately) OR 2018.933 + 118.482137.413 Acres (Approximately)

BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION :-

A-B Line starts from point ' A' and passes along common boundary of villages Risdi Khodri , Risdi -Churali and meets at point 'B' .

B-C Line passes along common boundary of villages Risdi -Amgaon and meets at point ' C' .

C-D Line passes along common boundary of villages Risdi-Japdi and meets at point 'G' .

D-E Line passes along the common boundary of villages Padania - Japdi and meets at point ' E' .

E -F Line passes along the common boundary of villages Padania - Khairbhanua and meets at point ' F' .

F-G Line passes along the common boundary of villages Sonpuri - Khairbhanua and meets at point ' G' on the western bank of Hasdeo River .

G-H Line passes along with western bank of Hasdeo River and meets at point 'H' .

H-I -J Line passes through eastern part of village Sonpuri , Point ' I' then along partly common boundary of villagesSonpuri - Jatraj and meets at point ' J ' .

J- K-L Line passes along the western bank of Hasdeo River then through Point ' K ' and village Jatraj and meets atpoint ' L' on the common boundary of villages Jatraj -Barkut.

LM-N- Line passes along partly common boundary of villages Jatraj -Barkut , Point " M " then along common bound- ary of villages Padania- Barkut and meets at point ' N' .

N -O Line passes along common boundary of villages Pali - Barkut and meets at point ' O ' .

O-A Line passes along common boundary of villages Risdi - Durpa and meets at starting point ' A' .

[No. 43015/ 12/2009- PRIW -1 ]

M. SHAHABUDEEN, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 9 जून , 2009

का. आ . 1708, केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है , कि इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में से कोयला अभिप्राप्त किए जाने की संभावना है : -

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस भूमि में कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है;

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाले रेखांक सं. सी-1 ( ई ) III/जेजेएमआर/ 773-1208 , तारीख 31 दिसम्बर, 2008 का निरीक्षण , वेस्टर्न कोलफीड्स लिमिटेड ( राजस्व विभाग ) , कोल एस्टेट , सिविल लाईन्स, नागपुर-440001 ( महाराष्ट्र ) के कार्यालय में या मुख्य [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

3421

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

महाप्रबंधक ( एक्सप्लोरेशन ) , केन्द्रीय खान , योजना और डिजाईन संस्थान, गोंडवाना प्लेस , काँके रोड, राँची के कार्यलय में या कोयला नियंत्रक, 1 , काऊंसिल हाऊस स्टीट्र कोलकाता के कार्यालय में या जिला कलेक्टर , चंन्द्रपुर ( महाराष्ट्र) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है;

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाली भूमि में , हितबुद्ध सभी व्यक्ति उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उपधारा ( 7 ) में निर्दिष्ट सभी नक्शों, चारों और अन्य दस्तावेज को इस अधिसूचन्य के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिनों के भीतर , मुख्य महाप्रबंधक, वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, माजरी क्षेत्र , पोस्ट कुचना , तहसील वरोरा , जिला चंद्रपुर -442503 ( महाराष्ट्र) या विशेष कार्याधिकारी (भूमि और राजस्व ) वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , राजस्व विभाग , कोल एस्टेट, सिविल लाईन्स, नागपुर-440001 ( महाराष्ट्र) को भेजेंगे ।

अनुसूची

ढोरवासा ओ. सी. विस्तारण खंड

माजरी क्षेत्र

जिला चंद्रपुर ( महाराष्ट्र)

रेखांक संख्या सी. - 1 ( ई ) 111/जेजेएमआर/ 773-1208 तारीख 31 दिसम्बर , 2008

भाग-1

पटवारी सर्कल

ग्राम का नाम

तहसील क्रम संख्या

संख्या

पीपरी

भद्रावती 2

तेलवासा

भद्रावती भाग-2

तहसील ग्राम का नाम

क्रम संख्या

पटवारी सर्कल संख्या

तेलवासा

भद्रावती

भाग-2 भाग -1

कुल क्षेत्रः

78,80

0,24 सीमा वर्णन:-भाग-1

टिप्पणी जिला

क्षेत्र हेक्टर में

5.12

भाग चंद्रपुर

भाग

73.68

चंद्रपुर

कुल क्षेत्रः 78.80 हेक्टर ( लगभग )

क्षेत्र

टिप्पण जिला

हेक्टर में

भाग

0.24

चंद्रपुर

कुल क्षेत्रः 0.24 हेक्टर ( लगभग )

79.04 हेक्टर ( लगभग) या

195.30 एकड़ ( लगभग ) क-ख रेखा , ग्राम ढोरवासा और ग्राम तेलवासा की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा पर बिन्दु 'क ' से आरंभ होती है , फिर ग्राम तेलवासा में और सड़क से होकर गुजरती है , सड़क पार करती है , फिर ग्राम तेलवासा से होकर गुजरती है , फिर ग्राम तेलवासा तथा ग्राम पीपरी की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा से होकर गुजरती है और ग्राम पीपरी से होकर बिन्दु 'ख ' पर मिलती है ।

ख-गः रेखा ग्राम पीफ्री से होकर गुजरती है , फिर ग्राम पीपरी और ग्राम तेलवासा की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा को पार करती है, फिर ग्राम तेलवासा से होकर गुजरती हुई बिन्दु 'ग ' पर मिलती है । ग-घः रेखा ग्राम तेलवासा से होकर गुजरती है और सड़क पार करती है , फिर सड़क से होकर गुजरती है और ग्राम तेलवासा तथा ग्राम ढोरवासा की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा पर बिन्दु 'घ ' पर मिलती है ।

घ -कः रेखा ग्राम तेलवासा तथा ग्राम ढोरवासा की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा पर आरंभिक बिन्दु 'क' पर मिलती है ।

सीमा वर्णनः भाग-2

ङ-

चः रेखा ग्राम तेलवासा में बिन्दु 'ङ' से आरम्भ होती है और बिन्दु 'च ' पर मिलती है । 3422

च-छः

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

[PART II-SEC: 3 ( ] रेखा ग्राम तेलवासा से गुजरती है, सड़क पार करती है और बिन्दु 'छ' पर मिलती है ।

छ-ङ: रेखा ग्राम तेलवासा से गुजरती है , सड़क पार करती है और आरंभिक बिन्दु 'ङ' पर मिलती है ।

[फा. सं. 43015/6/2009-पी. आर. आई, डब्ल्यू-1 ]

एम. शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 9th June,2009

S.O. 1708. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the lands in the locality mentioned in the Schedule annexed hereto;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act , 1957 (20 of 1957) , ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal therein;

The plan bearing Number : C- 1 ( E ) III/ JJMR/ 773-1208 dated the 31st December, 2008 ofthe area covered by this notification can be inspected in the office of the Western Coalfields Limited (Revenue Department) , Coal Estate , Civil Lines, Nagpur -440001 ( Maharashtra) or at the office of the Chief General Manager , (Exploration Division), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute, Gondwana Place , Kanke Road, Ranchi or at the office of the Coal Controller , 1 , Council House Street, Kolkata or at the office of the District Collector, Chandrapur (Maharashtra);

All persons interested in the lands covered by this notification shall deliver all maps , charts and other documents referred to in sub-section (7) of Section 13 of the said Act to the Office of the Chief General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, Majri Area, Post Kuchna, Tahsil Warora , District Chandrapur, 442503 (@Maharashtra ) or Officer on Special Duty (Land and Revenue) , Western Coalfields Limited , Revenue Department, Coal: Estate, Civil Lines , Nagpur-440 001 (Maharashtra) within ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.

SCHEDULE

Dhorwasa OC Expansion Block

PART-I

Name ofVillage

Sl . No.

Patwari circle Number 1

Pipr

MajriArea

District-Chandrapur (Maharashtra):

(Plannumber C- 1 ( E ) III/ JJMR/ 773-1208 dated 31st December, 2008).

Tahsil

Remarks District

Area in Hectares

5.12

Bhadrawati

Chandrapur

73.68

Part Part Bhadrawati

Telwasa

PART- II

Name ofVillage

Sl . No.

Patwari circle Number

Telwasa

TOTAL : PART- I + PART- II 78.80 + 0.24 .

BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION :-PART-1 Chandrapur

Total area : 78:80 hectares (approximately)

Remarks Tahsil

District

Area in Hectares.

0.24

Part Bhadrawati

Chandrapur

Totalarea : 0.24 hectares (approximately) 79.04Hettares (approximately)

195.30Acres (approximately)

A+B Line starts from point ' A' along the common village boundary of villages Dhorwasasand Telwasa then proceeds in village Telwasa and passes along the Road , crosses Road, and passes through village Telwasa.

3423 [भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20 , 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

Then passes along the common village boundary of villages Telwasa and Pipri , then line proceeds through village Pipri and meets at point ' B ' .

B-C Line passes through village Pipri , crosses common village boundary of villages Pipri and Telwasa , then proceeds in village Telwasa and meets at point ' C' .

C-D Line passes through village Telwasa, crosses Road, then passes along the Road and meets on common village boundary of village Telwasa and Dhorwasa at point ' D' .

D-ALine passes along the common village boundary of villages Telwasa and Dhorwasa and meets at starting point 'A' .

BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION :-PART - II

E-F Line starts from point ' E' in village Telwasa, and passes through village Telwasa and meets at point ' F ' .

F-G Line passes through village Telwasa, crosses Road, and meets at point ' G'

GE Line passes through village Telwasa, crosses Road , and meets at starting point ' E' .

[F. No. 43015/6/2009-PRIW -1 ] M. SHAHABUDEEN, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 9 जून , 2009

का.आ. 1709.- केंद्रीय सरकार , को यह प्रतीत होता है, कि इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्त किए जाने की संभावना है;

अतः अब , केंद्रीय सरकार , कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए, उसमें कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती हैं;

इस अधिसूचना के अन्तर्गत आने वाले रेखांक सं. सी-1 ( ई ) III/ जी.आर./ 780-0309 तारीख 30 मार्च , 2009 का निरीक्षण वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड ( राजस्व विभाग ) , कोल एस्टेट, सिविल लाईन्स , नागपुर 440 001 ( महाराष्ट्र) के कार्यालय में या मुख्य महाप्रबंधक ( खोज प्रभाग ) , सेंट्रल माइन प्लानिंग एंड डिजाईन इंस्टिट्यूट , गोंडवाना प्लेस, काँके रोड, राँची के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक, 1 , काऊंसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता के कार्यालय में या जिला कलक्टर , छिन्दवाडा ( मध्य प्रदेश ) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ।

इस अधिसूचना के अन्तर्गत आने वाली भूमि में हितबद्ध सभी व्यक्ति उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उपधारा ( 7 ) में निर्दिष्ट सभी नक्शों, चारों और अन्य दस्तावेजों को इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिनों के भीतर , मुख्य महाप्रबंधक , वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , पेंच क्षेत्र, डाकखाना परासिया, तहसील परासिया , जिला छिन्दवाडा ( मध्य प्रदेश ) या मुख्य खनन इजिनीयर ( भूमि और राजस्व) वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, राजस्व विभाग , कोल एस्टेट, सिविल लाईन्स नागपुर -440001 ( महाराष्ट्र) को भेजेगें।

अनुसूची

जमुनिया ब्लॉक पेंच क्षेत्र , तहसील परासिया , जिला -छिन्दवाडा ( मध्य प्रदेश )

[रेखांक संख्या-सं. सी -1 (ई ) III/ जी.आर./ 780-0309 तारीख 30 मार्च , 2009 ]

क्रम

तहसील जिला

टिप्पण

बंदोबस्तसंख्या

ग्राम का नाम

संख्या

पटवारी सर्कल संख्या

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टर में

परासिया

192

407.00

भाग

छिन्दवाडा

जमुनिया

कुल क्षेत्र : 407.00 हेक्टर ( लगभग )

या 1005.70 एकड ( लगभग ) सीमा वर्णन: -

क-ख रेखा, ग्राम जमुनिया में बिन्दु 'क ' से आरंभ होती है , और ग्राम जमुनिया से होती हुई ग्राम जमुनिया और ग्राम पायली की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा पर बिन्दु 'ख ' पर मिलती है ।

ख-गः रेखा ग्राम जमुनिया तथा ग्राम पायली की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा के साथ गुजरती है, और ग्राम जमुनिया , ग्राम पायली तथा नेहारिया आरक्षित वन कैम्प सं. 740 के त्रीसंगमीय बिन्दु 'ग' पर मिलती है ।

ग-घः रेखा ग्राम जमुनिया तथा ग्राम नेहारिया आरक्षित वन कैम्प नन्बर 740 की सम्मिलित सीमा के साथ गुजरती है और ग्राम जुमनिया, ग्राम नेहारिया तथा ग्राम उरधन के त्रीसंगमीय बिन्दु 'घ ' पर मिलती है ।

2137 GI/09-7 3424

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009 /JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

[PART I1--SEC . 3( ii) ] घ-ड.: रेखा ग्राम जमुनिया में उरधन खंड की विधमान बाहरी सीमा से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु 'ड. ' पर मिलती है ।

ड.-के: रेखा ग्राम जमुनिया से गुजरती हुई आरम्भिक बिन्दु 'क ' पर मिलती है ।

[फा. सं. 43015/13/2009-पी. आर. आई.डब्ल्यू-1 ] एम. शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 9th June, 2009

S.O. 1709. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the lands in the locality mentioned in the schedule annexed hereto ;

Now, therefore, in excercise of the powers conferred by sub - Section ( 1 ) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquistion and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) , ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act , ) , the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal therein;

The plan bearing number C- 1 ( E) III /GR/ 780-0309 dated the 30th March, 2009 of the area covered by this notification can be inspected in the office of the Western Coalfields Limited (Revenue Department ) , Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur -440 001 ( Maharashtra) or at the office of the Chief General Manager (Exploration Division ), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute, Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1 , Council House Street, Kolkata or at the office of the District Collector, Chhindwara (Madhya Pradesh ) .

All persons interested in the lands covered by this notification shall deliver all maps , charts and other documents referred to in sub -section (7) of Section 13 of the said Act to the Office of the Chief General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, Western Coalfields Limited , Pench Area, Post Parasia, Tahsil Parasia, District Chhindwara ( Madhya Pradesh) or ChiefMining Engineer ( Land and Revenue ) , Western Coalfields Limited, Revenue Department , Coal Estate , Civil Lines , Nagpur- 440 001 ( Maharashtra) within ninety days from the date ofpublication of this notification in the Official Gazette .

SCHEDULE

JAMUNIA BLOCK

PENCH AREA

TAHSIL PARASIA, DISTRICT CHHINDWARA

(MADHYA PRADESH)

(Plan number C- 1 (E ) III/ GR/780-0309 dated the 30th March , 2009)

Sl .

Remarks Nameof

Settlement

District

Tahsil

No.

Patwari circle number

village

Area in Hectares

Part

Parasia

Jamunia

192

Chhindwara 407.00

Total area : 407.00 Hectares ( approximately) or

1005.70 Acres ( approximately) Boubndary Description :-

A-B: Line starts from point ' A ' in village Jamunia and passes through village Jamunia and meets on common village boundary of villages Jamunia and Payali at Point ' B ' .

B-C : Line passes along the common village boundary of villages Jamunia and Payali and meets on trijunction of village Jamunia , village Payali and Neharia Reserve Forest Camp No. 740 at point ' C' .

C-D: Line passes along the common boundary of village Jamunia and Neharia Reserve Forest Camp No. 740 and meets on trijunction of village Jamunia, Neharia and Urdhan at Point ' D' .

D-E: Line passes through village Jamunia along the existing outer boundary of Urdhan Block and meets at Point 'Ε' .

A: Line passes through village Jamunia and meets at starting Point ' A' .

E-

[F. No. 43015/13/2009 - PRIW - I ] M. SHAHABUDEEN, Under Secy.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

3425

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

नई दिल्ली, 15 जून, 2009

का. आ. 1710.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम, 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 7 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी , भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का.आ. 1686 ( अ ) तारीख 30 सितम्बर, 2007 जो भारत सरकार के राजपत्र, भाग 2 , खंड 3 , उपखण्ड ( ii ) तारीख 1 अक्टूबर , 2007 को प्रकाशित की गई थी , द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि और ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकारों के अर्जन के अपने आशय की सूचना दी थी;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 8 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार का, पूर्वोक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और झारखण्ड सरकार से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित 466.73 हेक्टर (लगभग) या 1153.32 एकड़ ( लगभग ) मापवाली भूमि में के सभी अधिकार अर्जित किये जाने चाहिए;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियमए 1957 की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि तृतीय चरण में अनुसूची में यथावर्णित 466.73 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 1153.32 एकड़ (लगभग ) मापवाली भूमिं में या ऐसी भूमि पर के सभी अधिकार अर्जित किये जाते हैं ।

इस अधिसूचना के अधीन आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक सं. एनटीपीसी/सीएम/07/माईनिंग/003 तारीख 10 दिसम्बर, 2008 का निरीक्षण उपायुक्त, हजारीबाग ( झारखण्ड राज्य ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक, 1 , काउंसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता 700001 के कार्यालय में या उप महाप्रबंधक ( मानव संसाधन ) , एनटीपीसी लिमिटेड , पकरी बरवाडीह कोल माईनिंग प्रोजेक्ट , लक्ष्मी पेट्रोल पंप के सामने , नवाबगंज , हजारीबाग -825301 ( झारखण्ड) के कार्यालय में या उप महाप्रबंधक, ( सी.एम. सिविल ) कोल माईनिंग और कोल वाशरीज डिवीजन , एनटीपीसी लिमिटेड, पीडीआईएल भवन , वेस्ट विंग , प्रथम तल , प्लॉट सं. ए-14 , सेक्टर-1, नोएडा-201301 के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ।

अनुसूची

पकरी बरवाडीह कोल माईनिंग प्रोजेक्ट, उत्तरी करनपुरा कोल क्षेत्र ,

हजारीबाग झारखण्ड

रेखांक संख्या:- एनटीपीसी/सीएम/07/माईनिंग/003 तारीख 10 दिसम्बर , 2008

तृतीय चरण सभी अधिकार (क) राजस्व भूमि

ग्राम

जिला

थाना सं.

थाना

क्रम सं

बड़कागांव

हजारीबाग 1. दाड़ीकलां

बड़कागांव

हजारीबाग चेपाखुर्द

बड़कागांव आराहरा

हजारीबाग 3.

बड़कागांव

हजारीबाग पकरी बरवाडीह

बड़कागांव

बड़कागांव 5.

हजारीबाग

बड़कागांव

हजारीबाग 6.

लंगातु

कुल योग ( लगभग ) (ख ) वन भूमि ( अधिसूचित /गैर- अधिसूचित/जंगल - झाड़ी ): -

जिला क्रम ग्राम

थाना

थाना सं.

सं

हजारीबाग

बड़कागांव

1. पकरी बरवाडीह

हजारीबाग

बड़कागांव 2.

लंगातु

कुल योग ( लगभग ) क्षेत्रफल

टिप्पणी हेक्टेयर

एकड़

58.31

144.08

भाग

56.18

138.82

पूर्ण

170.00

68.79

भाग

98.59

भाग

39.90.

51.02

126.07

भाग

111.86

276.41

भाग

386.06

953.97

क्षेत्रफल

टिप्पणी हेक्टेयर

एकड़

51.73

127.82

भाग 28.94

71.53

भाग

199,35

80,67 3426

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE20, 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

[PART II-SEC.3(ii)] सारांश:

(क ) कुल राजस्व भूमि- : 386,06 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) 953.97 एकाड़ ( लगभग )

: 80.67 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) 199.35 एकड़ ( लगभग ) (ख) कुल वन भूमि

: 466.73 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) 1153.32 एकड़ ( लगभग ) ( ग ) सकल योग ( क + ख )

अर्जित किये जाने वाले राजस्व भूमि प्लॉटों की सूची:-

( 1 ) दाड़ीकलां: -1028 , 1088 से 1106 , 1110 से 1142 , 1151 से 1214 , 1216 , 1219 , 1224 से 1226, 1280 से 1305 , 1311 से 1316, 1328 से 1331, 1333 , 1334, 1337 से 1573 , 1593 से 1640 , 1655 से 1671 , 1673 , 1674 , 1707 , 1708 , 1712 से 1927 , 1942 से 1962, 1973 , 1976 |

( 2 ) चेपाखुर्द:- 185 , 186, 211 से 280 , 352 से 356, 359 से668 , 670 , 671 , 681 से 1112 , 1117 से 1119 । (3 ) आराहरा:- 1376 से 1602, 1606 ( भाग ) , 1618 से 1622 , 1626 से 1639 , 1641 से 1987 , 2000 , 2001 , 2005 से 2009 , 2144 से 2165 , 2167 से 2178 , 2180 , 2181 , 2183 , 2184 , 2187 1

(4 ) पकरी बरवाडीह 255 से 302, 310 , 311 , 348 , 350 से 372 , 382, 383 , 385 से 387 , 389 , 390 , 500 से 643 , 647(भाग) , 648 से 884 , 886 से 912 , 914 से 1040, 1433 से 1439, 1441, 1719 से 1740, 1745 से 1899 , 1901 से 1917 , 1934 , 2498 , 25171

( 5 ) बड़कागांव:- 1 से 122 , 155 , 157 से 195 , 288 ( भाग ) , 289 से 431 , 438 , 439, 505 से 527 , 543 से 572, 658 से 660 । ( 6 ) लंगातु: - 5 , 6 , 7, 177 से 179, 196 से 220, 223 से 225 , 239, 240, 283 , 285 से 323 , 324 ( भाग ) , 325 से 494 , 521 से 523, 526 से 537, 539 ( भाग ) , 686 से 689 , 691 , 852 , 867 से 870 , 872 से 912 , 920 से 933 , 1538 , 1674 से 1694 , 1723 से 1773 , 1878 से 1911 , 1913 , 1914 , 1916 से 1921 , 1923 से 2099 , 2129 से 2159 , 2305 , 2379 , 2380, 2389 से 2433 , 2435 से 2438 , 2500 से 2524, 3818 से 3824 , 3831 , 3837 , 3838 ।

अर्जित किये जाने वाले वन प्लॉटों की सूची: -

1. प्रकरी बरवाडीह :-349, 384 , 388 , 391,885 , 913 , 1440 , 1744 , 1900 , 1951

2. लंगातु: -538 , 1912 , 1915 , 1922 , 2173 1

चरण III के अधीन अर्जित किये जाने वाले ब्लाक का सीमा वर्णन

खंड क का सीमा वर्णन

1. रेखा क-क1: -रेखा ग्राम दाड़ीकलां के उत्तरी - पश्चिमी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु ' क ' से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा उत्तर - पूर्व की ओर बढ़ते हुए ग्राम दाड़ीकलां के प्लॉट संख्या 1140 , 1139 , 1028 , 1138 एवं 1137 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में स्थित बिन्दु " का " पर समाप्त होती है ।

2. रेखा क1- क2: -रेखा ग्राम दाड़ीकलां के उत्तरी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " का " से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा।दक्षिण- पूर्व की तरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम दाड़ीकलां के प्लॉट संख्या 1137 , 1136 , 1134 , 1135 , 1127, 1110 , 1109 , 1104 , 1106 , 1105 , 1103 , 1099 , 1098 , 1097 , 1094 , 1093, 1091 , 1089 एवं 1088 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में स्थित बिन्दु " क2 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

3. रेखा क2- क3: -रेखा ग्राम चेपाखुर्द के उत्तरी - पश्चिमी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " क2 " से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा दक्षिण- पूर्व की तरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम दाड़ीकलां के प्लॉट संख्या 222, 220 , 219 , 218 , 216 , 211 , 256 , 186 , 185 , 256 , 260 , 270 , 271 , 272 , 278 , 279 , 280, 372, 362 एवं 361 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में स्थित " क " पर समाप्त होती है ।

4. रेखा क3- क4: -रेखा ग्राम चेपाखुर्द के पश्चिमी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " क " से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा पूर्व की तरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम चेपाकलां के प्लॉट संख्या 359 , 356 , 354 , 353 , 352 , 667 , 670 , 1118 , 671 , 681 एवं 682 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में स्थित बिन्दु " क4 ' पर समाप्त होती है ।

5. रेखा क4 -क5: -रेखा ग्राम आराहरा के पश्चिमी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " क4 " से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा पूर्व की तरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम आराहरा के प्लॉट संख्या 1379 , 1378 , 1377 , 1376 , 1606 , 1599 , 1600 , 1601 , 1602 , 1640 , 1626 , 1627 , 1622 , 1619 , 1618 , 3427 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 20, 2009 ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

1619,1620, 1621 , 1619 , 1622 , 1628 , 1630 , 1631 , 1644 , 1645 , 1646, 1650 , 1651 , 1652, 1653 , 1654 , 1655 , 1656 एवं 1988 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में स्थित बिन्दु " क " पर समाप्त होती है ।

6. रेखा क5- क6:- रेखा ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के पश्चिमी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " कड " से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा दक्षिण-पूर्व की तरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के प्लॉट संख्या 205 , 277 , 273 , 272 , 271 , 270 , 255 , 263 , 256 , 257 , 258 , 262 , 277 , 259 , 277 , 260, 282 , 286 , 289 , 290 , 291 , 292 , 301 , 205 एवं 388 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में स्थित बिन्दु " क6 " पर समाप्त होती है । 7. रेखा क6 का:- रेखा ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के उत्तरी - पश्चिमी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " क 6 " से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा दक्षिण- पूर्व की तरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के प्लॉट संख्या 388 , 310 , 311 , 383 , 382 , 370 , 371 , 372 , 357 , 356, 355 , 356, 357 , 353, 354 , 349 , 348 , से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में स्थित बिन्दु " का " पर समाप्त होती है ।

8. रेखा का क8: रेखा ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के पूर्वी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " का " से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा दक्षिण की तरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के प्लॉट संख्या 391 , 1900 , 647 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में स्थित बिन्दु " क " पर समाप्त होती है । 9. रेखा क४ क१:- रेखा ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के पूर्वी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " क४ " से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा दक्षिण-पूर्व की तरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के प्लॉट संख्या 647 , 649 ,651 , 643 , 641 , 640 , 639 , 638 , 637 , 605 , 604, 603 , 602 , 601 , 596, 595, 594 , 591 , 590 , 581 , 580 , 579 , 577 , 576, 575, 574 एवं 552 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में स्थित बिन्दु " क " पर समाप्त होती है ।

10. रेखा क9- क 10: रेखा ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के पूर्वी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " क " से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा दक्षिण-पूर्व की तरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के प्लॉट संख्या 552 , 553 एवं 552 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में स्थित बिन्दु " क10 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

11. रेखा क 10 क 11:- रेखा ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के पूर्वी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " क10 " से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा दक्षिण- पूर्व की तरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के प्लॉट संख्या 552 , 500 , 502, 509 एवं 885 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में स्थित बिन्दु "क11 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

12. रेखा क 11 - क12: - रेखा ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के पूर्वी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " क11 " से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा दक्षिण की तरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के प्लॉट संख्या 885 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में स्थित बिन्दु " क12 " पर समाप्त होती है । 13. रेखा क12- क13:- रेखा ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के पूर्वी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " क12 " से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा दक्षिण- पूर्व की तरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के प्लॉट संख्या 885 , 913 एवं 912 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में स्थित बिन्दु " क13 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

14. रेखा क13- क14:- रेखा ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के पूर्वी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " क 13 " से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा दक्षिण की तरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम प्रकरी बरवाडीह के प्लॉट संख्या 912 एवं 1440 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में स्थित बिन्दु " क14 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

15. रेखा क 14 - क15:- रेखा ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के दक्षिण- पूर्व किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " क14 " से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा उत्तर- पश्चिम की तरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के प्लॉट संख्या 1440 , 1441 , 1436, 1434 , 1433 , 962 , 969 , 971 , 972 , 973 , 980 , 981 , 982 , 983 , 984 , 985 , 986 , 993, 994 , 1000 , 1002, 1006, 1007 , 1011 , 1020 , 1021 , 1022 , 1023 , 1027 , 1028 , 1029 , 1030 , 1031 , 1032 , 1033 , 1035 , 1036 , 1040, 1038 , 782 , 781 , 780 , 778, 776, 775 एवं 764 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में स्थित बिन्दु " क15 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

16. रेखा क15 - क्र.16: रेखा ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के दक्षिणी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " क 15 " से प्रास्म्भ होती है तथा उत्तर- पश्चिम की तरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम एकरी बरवाडीह के प्लॉट संख्या 763 , 762 , 761 , 760 , 759 , 758 , 701 , 700 , 698 , 697,691 , 690, 689,688, 685,684 एवं 659 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में स्थित बिन्दु " क 16 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

17. रेखा क 16 - क17: - रेखा ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के दक्षिणी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " क16 " से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा दक्षिण-पश्चिम की तरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के प्लॉट संख्या 647 , 1835 , 1828 , 1827 , 1814 , 1813 , 1811 , 1810 , 1778 , 1777 , 1776 , 1775 , 1774 , 1773, 1768, 1772 , 1771 , 1770 , 1769 , 1756 , 1755 , 1726 , 1725 , 1723, 1722 , 1719 एवं 1740 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में स्थित बिन्दु " क 17 " पर समाप्त होती है । 3428

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 18. रेखा क 17- क18: - रेखा ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के दक्षिणी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " क 17 " से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा उत्तर की तरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के प्लॉट संख्या 1740 , 1744, 1788 , 1789 , 1792 , 1793 , 1794 , एवं 1795 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में स्थित बिन्दु " क18 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

19. रेखा क18 क19: - रेखा ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के दक्षिणी- पश्चिमी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " कं18 " से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा पश्चिम की तरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के प्लॉट संख्या 1795 , 1796 , 1798 , 1951 , 1916 , 1917 , 1914 , एवं 1934 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में स्थित बिन्दु " क 19 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

20. रेखा क19- क20:- रेखा ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के पश्चिमी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " क 19 " से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा दक्षिण की बरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के प्लॉट संख्या 1934 एवं ग्राम लंगातु के प्लॉट संख्या 539 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम लंगातु में स्थित बिन्दु " क20 ' पर समाप्त होती है ।

21. रेखा क20- क21: - रेखा ग्राम बड़कागांव के उत्तरी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " क20 " से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा दक्षिण- पूर्व की तरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम बड़कागांव के प्लॉट संख्या 1 , 11 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19, 20 , 359, 360,361 , 364 एवं 365 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में स्थित बिन्दु " क21 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

1 22. रेखा क21 - क22: - रेखा ग्राम बड़कागांव के पूर्वी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " क21 " से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा दक्षिण- पूर्व की तरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम बड़कागांव के प्लॉट संख्या 365 , 366, 367 , 368 , 409 , 411 , 412 , 414 , 415 , 416 , 417 , 659 एवं 660 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में स्थित बिन्दु " क22 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

23. रेखा क22 - क23:- रेखा ग्राम बड़कागांव के पूर्वी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " क22 " से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा पश्चिम की तरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम बड़कागांव के प्लॉट संख्या 660 , 658 , 421 , 429 , 430, 431 , 438 , 439 , 507 , 506 , 505 , 524 , 525 , 526 , 527 , 543 , 572 एवं 360 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में स्थित बिन्दु " क23 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

24. रेखा क23- क24:- रेखा ग्राम बड़कागांव के पश्चिमी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " क23 " से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा उत्तर - पश्चिम की तरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम बड़कागांव के प्लॉट संख्या 360 , 288 , 192, 193 , 194 , 195 , 155 , 157 , 158 , 122 एवं 1 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में स्थित बिन्दु " क24 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

25. रेखा क24- क25:- रेखा ग्राम लंगातु के पूर्वी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " क24 " से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा उत्तर - पश्चिम की तरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम लंगातु के प्लॉट संख्या 539 , 538 , 526 , 523 , 522 , 521 , 522 , 523 , 526 , 527 , 529 , 530 , 534 , 491 , 494 , 474 , 473 , 283, 285, 293 , 324 , 240 , 239 , 225 , 224 , 223 , 326, 220 , 196 , 197 , 3831 , 202 , 203 , 204 , 205 , 179 , 178 , 177 , 7,5 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में स्थित बिन्दु " क25 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

26 रेखा क25- क26: - रेखा ग्राम चेपाखुर्द के दक्षिणी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " क25 " से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा उत्तर- पश्चिम कीतरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम चेपाखुर्द के प्लॉट संख्या 1072 एवं ग्राम दाड़ीकलां के प्लॉट संख्या 1956 , 1955,1954 , 1953 , 1950 , 1949 , 1942 , 1712 , 1708 1707 , 1671 , 1673 , 1674 , 1666 एवं 1655 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम दाड़ीकलां में स्थित बिन्दु " क26 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

27. रेखा क26- क27:- रेखा ग्राम दाड़ीकलां के पश्चिमी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " क26 " से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा उत्तर- पश्चिम की तरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम दाड़ीकलां के प्लॉट संख्या 1639 , 1640 , 1593 , 1573 , 1337 , 1338 , 1334 एवं 1333 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में स्थित बिन्दु " क27 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

28 रेखा क27- क28: - रेखा ग्राम दाड़ीकलां के पश्चिमी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " क27 " से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा उत्तर की तरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम दाड़ीकलां के प्लॉट संख्या 1333 , 1331 , 1330 , 1329 , 1328 , 1316 , 1314 , 1313 , 1311 , 1305 , 1302 , 1301 , 1280 , 1281 , 1282, 1283, 1284 , 1285 , 1286 , 1287 , 1214 , 1213 एवं 1216 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में स्थित बिन्दु " क 28 " पर समाप्त होती है । 29. रेखा क28- क:- रेखा ग्राम दाड़ीकलां के पश्चिमी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " क 28 " से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा उत्तर - पूर्व की तरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम दाड़ीकलां के प्लॉट संख्या 1216, 1219 , 1224 , 1225 , 1226 , 1213 , 1151 , 1152 , 1153 , 1142 एवं 1140 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में स्थित बिन्दु " क " पर समाप्त होती है ।

खंड ख का सीमा वर्णन

1. रेखा ख- खा:- रेखा ग्राम लंगातु के पश्चिमी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " ख " से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा पूर्व की तरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम लंगातु के प्लॉट संख्या 927 , 931 , 930, 933 , 867 , 870 , 872 , 873 , 874 एवं 875 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में स्थित बिन्दु " खा " पर समाप्त होती है । 3429 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

2. रेखा ख1 - ख2: - रेखा ग्राम लंगातु के पश्चिमी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " खा " से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा पूर्व की तरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम लंगातु के प्लॉट संख्या 878 , 852, 880 , 881 , 882 , 885 , 2403 , 2040 , 689 , 688 , 687, 691 , 686 , एवं 2173 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में स्थित बिन्दु " ख2 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

3. रेखा ख2- ख३: - रेखा ग्राम लंगातु के पूर्वी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " ख2 " से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा दक्षिण की तरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम लंगातु के प्लॉट संख्या 2173 , 2305 , 2157 , 2158 , 2159 , 2359 एवं 2389 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में स्थित बिन्दु " खउ " पर समाप्त होती है ।

4. रेखा खउ- खं4:- रेखा ग्राम लंगातु के पूर्वी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " ख " से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा दक्षिण - पश्चिम की तरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम लंगातु के प्लॉट संख्या 2389 , 2380, 2379 , 2403 , 2427 , 2428 , 2429, 2430 , 2433 , 2432 , 2435 , 2436, 2438 , 2500, 2501 , 2520 , 2521 , 2524, 2523 , 2522 एवं 2142 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में स्थित बिन्दु " ख " पर समाप्त होती है ।

5. रेखा ख4- ख5:- रेखा ग्राम लंगातु के दक्षिणी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " ख " से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा उत्तर - पश्चिम की तरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम लंगातु के प्लॉट संख्या 2142 , 2137 , 3136 , 2129 , 2099 , 2097, 2094 , 2093 , 2092 , 2090 , 1880 , 1879 , 1878 , 1771 एवं 1768 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में स्थित बिन्दु " ख5 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

6. रेखा ख 5 - ख6: - रेखा ग्राम लंगातु के दक्षिणी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " खंड " से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा उत्तर - पश्चिम की तरफं बढ़ते हुए ग्राम लंगातु के प्लॉट संख्या 1768 , 1538 , 1751 , 1750 , 1738 , 1723 , 1724, 1725 एवं 1726 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में स्थित बिन्दु " ख 6 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

7. रेखा ख 6 - ख: - रेखा ग्राम लंगातु के पश्चिमी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " ख 6 " से प्रारम्भ होती है तथा उत्तर- पूर्व की तरफ बढ़ते हुए ग्राम लंगातु के प्लॉट संख्या 1692, 1694, 1693 , 1691 , 1689 , 1686 , 1685 , 1674, 912 , 921 , 920, 924, 925, 926 एवं 927 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में स्थित ब्रिन्दु " ख " पर समाप्त होती है ।

[संख्या 43015/7/2005 - पी.आर.आई.डब्ल्यू- I ( जिल्द- IV ) ]

एम. शहाबुद्दीन, अवर सचिव

NewDelhi, the 15th June , 2009

S.O. 1710. Whereas , by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry ofCoal number S.O. 1686 (Ε ) dated the 30th September, 2007 issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in the Gazette of India, Extra Ordinary, Part - II , Section - 3 , sub- section ( ii) dated the Ist October 2007 , the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire the lands and all rights in or over such lands specified in the Schedule appended to that notification;

And, whereas the competent authority in pursuance of Section 8 of the said Act, has made his report to the Central Government;

And, whereas , the Central Government , after considering the report aforesaid and after consulting the Government of Jharkhand, is satisfied that the lands measuring 466.73 hectares (approximately) or 1153.32 acres (approximately ) as described in the Schedule appended hereto , should be acquired;

Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, the Central Government hereby declares that the lands measuring 466.73 hectares (approximately) or 1153.32 acres (approximately) and all rights in or over such lands as described in the Schedule are hereby acquired in phase- III .

The plan bearing number NTPC/CM/07 /MIN /003 dated the 10th December, 2008 of the areas covered by this notification may be inspected in the office of the Deputy Commissioner , Hazaribag ( Jharkhand State ) or in the office ofthe CoalController, 1, Council House Street, Kolkatą - 700001 or in the office of the DGM (HR) Pakri Barwadih Coal Mining Project , NTPC Limited, Opp . Laxmi Petrol Pump, Nawabganj , Hazaribag - 825301 (Jharkhand ) or in the office of the DGM (CM-Civil ) , Coal Mining and Coal Washeries Division , NTPC Limited , PDIL Building, West Wing , First Floor , Plot No. A-14 , Sector- I , Noida - 201301 .

34301

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009 /JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

SCHEDULE

PAKRI BARWADIH COAL MINING BLOCK

NORTH KARANPURA COALFIELDS ,

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii)]

HAZARIBAG , JHARKHAND

Plan number NTPC/CM/07 / MIN /003 dated the 10th December, 2008

PHASE- III ALLRIGHTS

( A) REVENUE LAND

Village

Thana

District SI No.

Thana No.

1. Dadikalan

Barkagaon Hazaribagh

Chepakhurd

Barkagaon Hazaribagh

Arahara

Barkagaon Hazaribagh

Pakri

Hazaribagh

Barkagaon Barwadih

Barkagaon

Hazaribagh

Barkagaon

6. Langatu

Barkagaon Hazaribagh

Total (approximately) (B) FOREST LAND (Notified/Un - Notified/Jungle-Jhadi ): -

Thana

District Village

SI No.

Thana No.

Hazaribagh

Barkagaon Pakri Bawadih

Langatu

Barkagaon

Remark Area in Hectares

Area in Acres

58.31

144.08

Part 56.18

Full

138.82

68.79

170.00

Part 39.90

98.59

Part 51.02

126.071

Part 111.86

276.411

Part 386.06

953.97

Remark Area in Hectares

Areatin Acres

51.73

127.82

Part

Part 28.94

71.53

Hazaribagh

Total(approximately) SUMMARY:

( A) .TOTAL REVENUE LAND:

80.67

199135

386.06 hectares ( approximately )= 953.97 acres ( approximately ) (B) .TOTAL FOREST LAND : 80.67 hectares ( approximately ) = 199: 35 acres (approximately) GRAND TOTAL(A+B)

LISTOF REVENUE PLOTS ACQUIRED:

466.73 hactares (approximately) = 1153.32 acres (approximately)

1.Village Dadikalan:-1028,1088 to 1106, 1110 to1142 , 1151to 1214, 1216,1219,1224 to 1226, 1280 to1305 , 1311 to1316, 1328 to1331 , 1333,1334,1337to1573 , 1593 to1640 , 1655 to1671 , 1673 1674, 1707,1708 , 1712 to1927, 1942 to. 1962, 1973, 1976.

2.Village Chepakhurd :-185, 186, 211 to 280, 352 to 356, 359 to 668, 670,671,681 to 1112, 1117 to 1119 .

3.Village Arahara:-1376 to 1602, 1606 (Part), 1618 to 1622, 1626 to 1639, 1641 to 1987, 2000, 2001 , 2005 to 2009, 2144 to 2165,2167 to 2178,2180,2181,2183,2184, 2187.

4.PakriBarwadih :-255 to 302, 310 , 311 , 348, 350 to372, 382, 383 , 385 , to387, 389, 390 , 500 to 643 , 647 (Part) , 648 to 884 , 886 to912,914 to 1040, 1433 to 1439, 1441 , 1719 to 1740, 1745 to 1899, 1901 to 1917, 1934, 2498, 2517.

5.Barkagaon: - Ito 122 , 155, 157 to 195, 288 (Part) , 289 to431 , 438 439 505 to 527, 543 to 572, 658 to 660 .

6.Village Langatu :-5,6,7,177 to 179, 196 to 220, 223 to 225,239,240,283,285 to 323 , 324 (Part) , 325 to 494, 521 to 523,526 to537, 539 (Part ), 686 to 689 , 691, 852, 867 to 870, 872 to 912, 920 to 933 , 1538 , 1674 to 1694,1723 to1773, 1878 to 1911 , 1913 , 1914, 1916 to1921,1923 to 2099, 2129 to 2159, 2305, 2379, 2380, 2389 to 2433, 2435 to2438 , 2500 to 2524, 3818 to 3824, 3831,3837,3838.

3431 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

LIST OF FOREST PLOTS ACQUIRED:-

1 . Pakri Barwadih: -349, 384,388 , 391 , 885 , 913 , 1440,1744, 1900, 1951 .

2. Village Langatu: - 538 , 1912, 1915, 1922, 2173 .

BoundaryDescription of the area to be notified for Phase- III

BoundaryDescription for " Part -A"

(1) Line A- A1 : The line starts at point ' A ' located on North -West corner ofvillage Dadikalan which moves towards North- East passing through plot nos . 1140,1139,1028,1138,1137 of the village Dadikalan and ends at Point ' A1 ' .

(2) Line A1 -A2: The line starts at point ' Al ' located on North corner ofVillage Dadikalan which moves towards South-East passing through plot nos . 1137, 1136,1134 , 1135 , 1127, 1110, 1109, 1104, 1106, 1105, 1103, 1099, 1098, 1097, 1094, 1093, 1091 , 1089,1088 , of the village Dadikalan and ends at point 'A2' .

(3) Line A2- A3 : The line starts at point ' A2' located on North West corner ofvillage Chepakhurd which moves towards South-East passing through plot nos . 222,220, 219, 218 , 216, 211 , 256, 186, 185, 256, 260, 270,271,272,278,279,280 , 372,362, 361 of the village Chepakhurd and ends at point ' A3 ' .

(4) Line A3 -A4: The line starts at point ' A3 ' located on West corner of village Chepakhurd which moves towards East passing through plot nos . 359, 356, 354, 353, 352, 667, 670, 1118,671,681 , 682 , ofthe village Chepakalan and ends at point ' A4' (5) Line A4- A5 : The line starts at point ' A4 ' located on West corner ofvillage Arahara which moves towards East passing through plot nos . 1379, 1378 , 1377, 1376, 1606 , 1599, 1600, 1601 , 1602 1640, 1626, 1627, 1622, 1619, 1618, 1619, 1620, 1621 , 1619, 1622, 1628 , 1630, 1631 , 1644, 1645,1646, 1650, 1651 , 1652, 1653, 1654, 1655, 1656, 1988 ofthe village Arahara and ends at point 'A5' .

(6) Line A5 - A6 : The line starts at point ' A5 ' located on West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards South- East passing through plot nos . 205,277,273,272, 271 , 270, 255, 263, 256,257,258,262,277,259,277,260,282,286,289, 290, 291 , 292, 301 , 205 , 388 ofthe village Pakri Barwadih and ends at point 'A6 ' .

(7) Line A6-A7 : The line starts at point ' A6 ' located on North- West corner ofvillage Pakri Barwadih which moves towards South-East passing through plot nos . 388, 310, 311 , 383 , 382, 370 , 371,372, 357, 356, 355, 356, 357, 353, 354, 349, 348 , ofthe village Pakri Barwadih and ends at point 'A7' .

(8) Line A7 -A8 : The line starts at point ' A7 ' located on East corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards South- passing through plot nos . 391 , 1900, 647 , of the village Pakri Barwadih and ends at point ' A8 ' .

(9) Line A8 -A9 : The line starts at point ' A8' located on East corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards South- East passing through plot nos . 647, 649,651,643 , 641 , 640, 639, 638,637,605, 604, 603 , 602, 601 , 596, 595, 594, 591 590,581 , 580, 579, 577 , 576 , 575, 574, 552 , ofthe village Pakri Barwadih and ends at point ' A9' .

( 10) Line A9 - A10 : The line starts at point ' A9 ' located on East corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards South-East passing through plot nos . 552, 553, 552, of the village Pakri Barwadih and ends at point ' A10 ' .

(11 ) Line A10-A11 : The line starts at point ' A10 ' located on East corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards South-East passing through plot nos.552 , 500 , 502,509 , 885 of the village Pakri Barwadih and ends at point ' Al1 ' .

( 12) Line A11 - A12: The line starts at point ' Al1 ' located on East comer of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards South passing through plot nos.885 , of the village Pakri Barwadih and ends at point ' A12 ' .

( 13 ) Line A12 -A13 : The line starts at point ' A12 ' located on East corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards South-East passing through plot nos.885 , 913 , 912 , of the village Pakri Barwadih and ends at point 'A13 ' .

(14) Line A13 - A14 : The line starts at point ' A13 ' located on East corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards South passing through plot nos.912, 1440, of the village Pakri Barwadih and ends at point 'A14' .

(15 ) Line A14 - A15 : The line starts at point ' A14 ' located on South- East corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towardsNorth-West passing through plot nos . 1440, 1441 , 1436, 1434, 1433 , 962, 969 , 971 , 972, 973 , 980, 981, 982, 983 , 984, 985, 986, 993 , 994, 1000, 1002, 1006, 1007, 1011 , 1020, 1021 , 1022, 1023, 1027, 1028, 1029, 1030, 1031 , 1032, 1033 , 1035 , 1036, 1040, 1038 , 782, 781 , 780, 778, 776, 775, 764, ofthe village Pakri Barwadih and ends at point 'A15 ' .

( 16) Line A15 - A16 : The line starts at point ' A15 ' located on South corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards North-West passing through plotnos .763 , 762, 761 , 760 , 759,758 , 701 , 700, 698 , 697, 691 , 690 , 689,688,685,684 , 659, of the village Pakri Barwadih and ends at point ' A16 ' .

(17) Line A16 - A17 : The line starts at point ' A16 ' located on South corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards South-West passing through plot nos.647, 1835, 1828 , 1827, 1814, 1813 , 1811 , 1810, 1778, 1777, 1776, 1775 , 1774, 1773 , 1768,1772, 1771 , 1770, 1769, 1756 , 1755, 1726, 1725, 1723 , 1722, 1719 , 1740, ofthe village Pakri Barwadih and ends at point ' A17 ' .

(18) Line A17 -A18 : The line starts at point ' A17 ' located on south corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towardsNorth passingthrough plot nos . 1740, 1744, 1788, 1789 1792, 1793, 1794, 1795, ofthe village Pakri Barwadih and ends atpoint 'A18' .

2137 G1 /098 3432

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] (19) Line A18 -A19 : The line starts at point ' A18 ' located on South West corner of village Pakri Barwadi which moves towards West passing through plot Nos . 1795, 1796, 1798 , 1951 , 1916 , 1917 , 1914 , 1934 , of the village Pakri Barwadih and ends at point'A19' .

(20) Line A19 - A20: The line starts at point ' A19 ' located on West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards South passing through plot Nos . 1934. of Pakri Barwadih, 539 of village Langatu and ends at point 'A20' .

(21 ) Line A20 -A21 : The line starts at point ' A20 ' located on North corner of village Barkagaon which moves towards South-East passing through plot Nos . 1 , 11 , 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 , 359 , 360 , 361 , 364, 365 , ofthe village Barkagaon and ends atpoint 'A21' .

(22) Line A21 -A22: The line starts at point ' A21 ' located on East corner ofvillage Barkagaon which moves towards South- East passing through plot Nos .365, 366, 367, 368 , 409, 410, 411 , 412, 413 , 414, 415 , 416, 417,659, 660, of the village Barkagaon and ends at point ' A22 ' .

(23) Line A22-A23 : The line starts at point ' A22' located on East corner ofVillage Barkagaon which moves towards West passing through plot Nos . 660, 658, 421 , 429, 430, 431 , 438 , 439, 507, 506, 505, 524, 525, 526, 527, 543 , 572, 360 ofthe village Barkagaon and ends at point ' A23 ' .

(24) Line A23 -A24: The line starts at point ' A23 ' located on West corner of Village Barkagaon which moves towards North-West passing through plot Nos . 360, 288, 192, 193, 194, 195,155, 157, 158 , 122, 1 of the village Barkagaon and ends at point'A24'.

(25) Line A24- A25 : The line starts at point ' A24 ' located on East corner of village Langatu which moves towards North- Westpassing through plot Nos . 539, 538, 526, 523, 522, 521 , 522, 523 , 526, 527, 529, 530, 534, 491 , 494,474, 473, 283,285,293 , 324, 240, 239 , 225, 224, 223 , 326, 220, 196, 197, 3831 , 202, 203, 204, 205 , 179, 178 , 177 , 7, 5 of village Langatu and ends at point 'A251.

(26) Line 25 -A26: The line starts at point ' A25 ' located on South comer of village Chepakhurd which moves towards North West passing through plot Nos . 1072 of the village Chepakhurd and 1956 , 1955 , 1954, 1953 , 1950, 1949, 1942, 1712, 17081707, 1671 , 1673 , 1674, 1666, 1655 of the village Dadikalan and ends at point 'A26' .

(27) Line A26 -A27 : The line starts at point ' A26 ' located on West corner of village Dadikalan which moves towards North- West passing through plot Nos. 1639, 1640 , 1593, 1573, 1337, 1338 , 1334 , 1333 ofthe village Dadikalan and ends at point 'A27

(28) Line A27- A28 : The line starts at point ' A27 ' located on West corner of village Dadikalan which moves towards North passing through plot Nos . 1333 , 1331 , 1330, 1329, 1328 , 1316, 1314,1313 , 1311 , 1305 , 1302, 1301 , 1280, 1281 , 1282, 1283, 1284, 1285,1286, 1287, 1214 , 1213, 1216 , of the village Dadikalan and ends at point 'A28' .

(29) Line A28 - A: The line starts at point ' A28 ' located on West corner of village Dadikalan which moves towards North- East passing through plot Nos . 1216 , 1219 , 1224, 1225, 1226 , 1213 , 1151 , 1152, 1153 , 1142, 1140, ofthe village Dadikalan and ends at point 'A' .

Boundary Description for " Part- B "

(1 ) Line B -BI : The line starts at point ' B ' located on West corner of village Langatu which moves towards East passing through plot Nos.927, 931 , 930 , 933, 867, 870, 872, 873, 874 , 875 ofthe village Langatu and ends at point ' BI ' .

(2) Line B1 - B2 : The line starts at point ' BI ' located on West corner of village Langatu which moves towards East passing through plot Nos. 878 , 852, 880 , 881 , 882, 885,2403, 2040, 689, 688, 687, 691 , 686, 2173 , ofthe village Langatu and ends at point 'BI' .

(3) Line B2-B3: The line starts at point ' B2 ' located on East corner of village Langatu which moves towards South passing through plot Nos.2173 , 2305 , 2157 , 2158 , 2159, 2359, 2389 ofthe village Langatu and ends at point 'B3 ' .

(4) Line B3-B4: The line starts at point ' B3 ' located on East corner of village Langatu which moves towards South - West passing through plot Nos . 2389 , 2380,2379,2403,2427,2428,2429,2430,2433, 2432 , 2435,2436,2438,2500,2501,2520,2521 , 2524, 2523, 2522 , 2142, of the village Langatu and ends at point 'B4' .

(5) Line B4- B5 : The line starts at point ' B4 ' located on South corner of village Langatu which moves towards North - West passing through plot Nos . 2142, 2137 , 2136, 2129, 2099, 2097, 2094, 2093 , 2092, 2090, 1880, 1879, 1878 , 1771 , 1768 ofthe village Langatu and ends at point ' B5 ' .

(6) Line B5 -B6 : The line starts at point ' B5 ' located on South corner of village Langatu which moves towards North-West passing through plot Nos . 1768 , 1538 , 1751 , 1750, 1738 , 1723, 1724 , 1725 , 1726 of the village Langatu and ends at point 'B6 ' .

(7) Line B6- B : The line starts at point ' B ' located on West corner of village Langatu which moves towards North- East passing through plot Nos . 1692, 1694, 1693 , 1691 , 1689, 1686, 1685 , 1674 , 912, 921 , 920, 924, 925 , 926, 927 , ofthe village Langatu and ends at point ' B ' .

[No. 43015/7 /2005/PRIW -1 (Vol . IV) ] M. SHAHABUDEEN , Under Secy .

3433 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 15 जून, 2009

का. आ. 1711:- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का.आ. 1141 तारीख 19 मई , 2008 भारत के राजपत्र , भाग II , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) तारीख 24 मई, 2008 में और अधिसूचना संख्यांक का.आ. 3-273 तारीख 28 नवम्बर, 2008 भारत के राजपत्र , भाग 2 , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) तारीख 13 दिसम्बर , 2008 में प्रकाशित तथा उसका शुद्धिपत्र का.आ. 429 तारीख 13 फरवरी , 2009 जो भारत के राजपत्र , भाग II खंड -3 उपखंड ( ii ) तारीख 21 फरवरी , 2000 में प्रकाशित होने 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 उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर , आंत्यतिक रूप में केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित हो गए थे ;

2. और , केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है कि ऊर्जा मंत्रालय के अधीन एक सार्वजनिक लोक उपक्रम एन.टी.पी.सी. लिमिटेड (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् सरकारी कंपनी कहा गया है ) , ऐसे निबंधनों और शर्तों का, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार इस निमित अधिरोपित करना उचित समझे , अनुपालन करने के लिए रजामन्द है;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 की धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निदेश देती है कि इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि और उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकार , अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 1141 तारीख 19 मई , 2008 द्वारा अर्जित भूमि के बाबत 24 मई , 2008 से और अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 3273 तारीख 28 नवम्बर , 2008 द्वारा अर्जित भूमि के बाबत 13 दिसम्बर , 2008 से केन्द्रीय सरकार में इस प्रकार निहित बने रहने के बजाय , 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 के बाबत किए गए सभी संदायों के 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 संदर्भ में उपगत सभी व्यय , सरकारी कंपनी वहन करेगी और 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 वहन करेगी ;

3. सरकारी कंपनी केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों की, ऐसे किसी अन्य व्यय के संबंध में, जो इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस के अधिकारों के बारे में, केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों द्वारा या उनके विरूद्ध किन्हीं कार्यवाहियों के संबंध में आवश्यक हो , क्षतिपूर्ति करेगी;

4. सरकारी कंपनी को , केन्द्रीय सरकार के पूर्व अनुमोदन के बिना उक्त भूमि और अधिकार किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को अन्तरित करने की शक्ति नहीं होगी; और

5. सरकारी कंपनी , ऐसे निर्देशों और शर्तों का, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा , जब कभी आवश्यक हो , उक्त भूमि के विशिष्ट क्षेत्रों के लिए दिए जाएं या अधिरोपित किए जाएं , पालन करेगी ।

[फा. सं. 43015/7/2005- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू- I ( वाल्यूम- V) ]

एम. शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव

ORDER

New Delhi, the 15th June , 2009

S.O. 1711.- Whereas , on publication of the notifications of the Government of India, in the Ministry ofCoal , number S.O. 1141 dated the 19th May , 2008 in the Gazette of India, Part II , section - 3 , Sub- section (ii ) dated 24th May , 2008 and number S.O. 3273 dated the 28th November, 2008 published in the Gazette of India , Part II , Section -3 , Sub-section (ii ) dated the 13th december , 2008 and corrigendum thereof vide number S.O. 429 dated the 13th February, 2009 , published in the Gazette of India, Part - II , Section - 3 , sub- section (ii ) dated the 21st February , 2009 , issued under sub - section ( 1 ) ofSection 9ofthe Coal Bearing Areas ( Acquisition 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 notifications (hereinafter referred to as the said Lands ) vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub- section ( 1 ) ofSection 10 of the said Act ;

3434

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] 2. And, whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the NTPC Ltd. , a Public Sector Undertaking under the Ministry of Power (hereinafter referred to as the Government Company) is willing to comply with terms and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf;

Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section ( 1) of Section 11 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, the Central Government hereby directs that the said lands and rights so vested, shallwith effect from the 24th May, 2008 in respect of land acquired vide notification number S.O. 1141 dated the 19th May, 2008 and with effect from 13th December , 2008 in respect of land acquired vide notification number S.O. 3273 dated the 28th November , 2008 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government , shall vest in the Government Company , subject to the following terms and conditions , namely : -

1. The Government Company shall reimburse to the Central Government all payments made by the Central Government through Ministry of Power in respect ofcompensation, interest, damages and the like , as determined under the provisions ofthe said Act:

2. A Tribunal shall be constituted for the purpose ofdetermining the amount payable to the Central Government by the Government Company under condition ( 1 ) and all expenditure incurred in connection with any such Tribunal and persons appointed to assist the Tribunal shall be borne by the Government Company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals , etc. , for or in connection with the rights , in or over such lands , so vesting, shall also be borne by the Government Company ;

3. The Government Company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other expenditure thatmaybe necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government or its officials , regarding the rights in or over the said lands , so vested;

4. The Government 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

5. The Government Company shall abide by such direction and conditions as may be given or imposed by the Central Government for particular areas of the said lands , as and when necessary.

[F.No.43015 /7/2005/PRIW -1 (Vol . V) ] M. SHAHABUDEEN, Under Secy.

आदेश

नई दिल्ली , 15 जून , 2009

का. आ. 1712. केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम, 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 2192 तारीख 31 जुलाई , 2008 के भारत का राजपत्र , भाग II , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) तारीख 9 अगस्त , 2008 में प्रकाशित होने पर, उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्म अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि और अधिकार ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त भूमि कहा गया है ) उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर, आंत्यतिक रूप से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित हो गए थे ;

और , केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है कि महानदी कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, संबलपुर , ( उड़ीसा ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त सरकारी कंपनी कहा गया है ) , ऐसे निबंधनों और शर्तों का , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार इस निमित अधिरोपित करना उचित समझे , अनुपालन करने के लिए रजामन्द है;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियमन की धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निदेश देती है कि इस प्रकार उक्त भूमि या उसमें निहित अधिकार , तारीख 9 अगस्त, 2008 से केन्द्रीय सरकार में इस प्रकार निहित बने रहने के बजाय , 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 ऐसी ही मदों के बाबत किये गये सभी संदायों की केन्द्रीय सरकार को प्रतिपूर्ति करेगी;

2. शर्त ( 1 ) के अधीन , सरकारी कंपनी द्वारा केन्द्रीय सरकार को संदेय रकम 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 संदर्भ में उपगत सभी व्यय, सरकारी कंपनी वहन करेगी और इसी 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 । 3435 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

3. सरकारी कंपनी केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों की, ऐसे किसी अन्य व्यय के संबंध में , जो इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के बारे में , केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों द्वारा या उनके विरुद्ध किन्हीं कार्यवाहियों के संबंध में आवश्यक हो, क्षतिपूर्ति करेगी ;

4. सरकारी कंपनी को, केन्द्रीय सरकार के पूर्व अनुमोदन के बिना उक्त भूमि और अधिकार किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को अन्तरित करने की शक्ति नहीं होगी; और

5. सरकारी कंपनी , ऐसे निदेशों और शर्तों का, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा , जब कभी आवश्यक हो , उक्त भूमि के विशिष्ट क्षेत्रों के लिए दी जाएं या अधिरोपित की जाएं, पालन करेगी ।

[फा. सं. 43015/4/2005-पीआरआईडब्ल्यू- I ] एम. शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव

ORDER

New Delhi , the 15th June, 2009

S.O. 1712.- Whereas , on the publication of the notifications of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Coal , number S.O. 2192 dated the 31st July , 2008 in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section- 3 , Sub-section (ii) dated the 9th August, 2008 issued under sub-section ( 1 ) ofSection 9 ofthe Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development ) Act, 1957 (20 of1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the lands and the rights described in the Schedule appended to the said notifications (hereinafter referred to as the said Lands) vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the said Act ;

2. And, whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Sambalpur (Odisha) , (hereinafter referred to as the Government Company) is willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf ;

Now, therefore, in the exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 11 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, the Central Government hereby directs that the said lands and rights so vested, shall with effect from the 9th August, 2008 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government , shall vest in the Government Company, subject to the following terms and conditions, namely :--

1. The Government Company shall reimburse to the Central Government all payments made in respect of compensation, interest, damages and the like, as determined under the provisions of the said Act ;

2. A Tribunal shall be constituted for the purpose ofdetermining the amount payable to the Central Government bythe Government Company under condition ( 1 ) and all expenditure in connection with any such Tribunal and persons appointed to assist the Tribunal shall be borne by the Government Company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals , etc. , for or in connection with the rights , in or over the said lands , so vested, shall alsobe borne by the Government Company ;

3. The Government Company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government or its officials, regarding the rights in or over the said lands, so vested ;

4. The Government 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

5. The Government Company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by the Central Government for particular areas of the said lands, as and when necessary.

[F. No.43015/4/2005/PRIW - I] M. SHAHABUDEEN, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 16 जून , 2009

का. आ. 1713. केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत सरकार में कोयला मंत्रालय के द्वारा जारी की गई अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 2761 तारीख 25 सितम्बर , 2008 और पश्चात्वर्ती शुद्धिपत्र संख्या का.आ. 428 तारीख 10 फरवरी , 2009 जो भारत के राजपत्र के भाग II , खंड 3 , उपखड ( ii ) , क्रमशः तारीख 4 अक्तूबर, 2008 और 21 फरवरी , 2009 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, उस अधिसूचना 3436

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii)] से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में जिसका माप 247.23 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 610.905 एकड़ ( लगभग ) है , कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना दी थी;

और , केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची ( अनुसूचियों ) में विहित उक्त भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्य है:-

अतः केन्द्रीय सरकार कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 की धारा 7 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित 236.728 हेक्टर ( लगभग) या 584.95 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप की उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकारों का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है।

टिप्पण 1: - इस अधिसूचना के अधीन आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक सं. एसईसीएल/बी.एस.पी./जी.एम. /पीएलजी/337 तारीख 3 मार्च, 2009का निरीक्षण कलक्टर , जिला रायगढ़ ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , काउंसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता -700001 के कार्यालय में या साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, ( राजस्व अनुभाग ) सीपत रोड , बिलासपुर-495001 ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ।

टिप्पण 2: - उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 8 के उपबंधों की ओर ध्यान आकृष्ट किया जाता है , जिसमें निम्मलिखित उपबंध हैं:-

अर्जन के बाबत आपत्तियां:-

" 8 ( 1 ) कोई व्यक्ति जो किसी भूमि में जिसकी बाबत धारा 7 के अधीन अधिसूचना निकाली गई है , हितबद्ध है , अधिसूचना के निकाले जाने से तीस दिन के भीतर सम्पूर्ण भूमि या उसके किसी भाग या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के किन्हीं अधिकारों का अर्जन किए जाने के बारें में आपत्ति कर सकेगा । "

स्पष्टीकरण: -

( 1 ) इस धारा के अन्तर्गत यह आपत्ति नहीं मानी जाएगी कि कोई व्यक्ति किसी भूमि में कोयला उत्पादन के लिए स्वयं खनन संक्रियाएं करना चाहता है और ऐसी संक्रियाएं केन्द्रीय सरकार या किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को नहीं करनी चाहिए ।

(2) उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 8 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन प्रत्येक आपत्ति सक्षम अधिकारी को लिखित रूप में की जाएगी और सक्षम अधिकारी , आपत्तिकर्ता को स्वयं सुने जाने , विधि व्यवसायी द्वारा सुनवाई का अवसर देगा और ऐसी सभी आपत्तियों को सुनने के पश्चात् और ऐसी अतिरिक्त जांच , यदि कोई हो, करने के पश्चात् जो वह आवश्यक समझता है , वह या तो धारा 7 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचित भूमि का या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के संबंध में एक रिपोर्ट या ऐसी भूमि के विभिन्न दुकड़े या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के संबंध में आपत्तियों पर अपनी सिफारिशों और उसके द्वारा की गई कार्यवाही के अभिलेख सहित विभिन्न रिपोर्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार को उसके विनिश्चय के लिए देगा ।

(3) इस धारा के प्रयोजनों के लिए वह व्यक्ति किसी भूमि में हितबद्ध समझा जाएगा जो प्रतिकर में हित का दावा करने का हकदार होगा , यदि भूमि या किसी ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकार इस अधिनियम के अधीन अर्जित कर लिए जाते हैं ।

टिप्पण 3: - केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , काउंसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता- 700001 को उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र भाग -11 , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) तारीख 4 अप्रैल , 1987 में प्रकाशित अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 905 , तारीख 20 मार्च , 1987 द्वारा सक्षम प्राधिकारी नियुक्त किया है ।

अनुसूची

बिजारी खुली खदान ब्लाक, रायगढ़ क्षेत्र

जिला- रायगढ़ ( छत्तीसगढ़ )

सभी अधिकार: -

(क) राजस्व भूमि:-

जिला

क्षेत्र हेक्टर में

तहसील

टिप्पण ग्राम का नाम

ग्राम का नम्बर

क्रम संख्या

पटवारी हल्का नम्बर

157.604

1 बिजारी

घड़घोड़ा रायगढ़

26 27

67.894

भाग भाग 2 'पोरडा

रायगढ़

228 192 घड़घोड़ा

कुल क्षेत्र: -225.498 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 557.205 एकड़ ( लगभग ) 3437 [भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

(ख) वन भूमि:-

टिप्पण

क्षेत्र हेक्टर में

खण्ड

रेन्ज

क्रम संख्या

वन का नाम

वन का प्रकार

भाग

11.23

पोरडा

रायगढ़

आरेन्ज फिल्ड घड़घोड़ा

कुल क्षेत्रः-11.23 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 27.749 एकड़ ( लगभग)

कुल योग (क + ख ) : 236.728 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 584.95 एकड़ ( लगभग ) भूमि अनुसूची:-

1. ग्राम बिजारी ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लाट संख्या: -

17 , 18 , 19/1 से 19/14, 19/16 ( भाग) , 19/17 ( भाग ) , 19/18 ( भाग ) , 19/19 से 19/21 , 19/23 , 26 से 31 , 32 ( भाग ) , 35 ( भाग ) , 36 ( भाग ) , 37/1 ( भाग ) , 38/1 , 38/18 ( भाग ) , 38/35 , 39/1 से 39/8 , 39/9 ( भाग ) , 39/10 ( भाग ) , 39/11 ( भाग ) , 39/12 ( भाग ) , 39/13 से 39/15, 39/17 , 39/18 ( भाग ) , 39/19 , 39/20 , 40, 41/1 से 41/4 , 42 से 50 , 51/1 , 51/2 , 52 ,53 , 54/1 , 54/2 , 55/1 से 55/3 , 56 से 61 , 62/1से 62/4 , 63 से 68 , 69/1 से 69/12 , 70 , 71/1 से 71/10 , 72/1 से 72/3 , 74/2 , 75 , 76, 105 , 106, 111/1 , से 111/53 , 112 , 113 , 114/1 , 114/2 , 114/4 , 115 , 116/1 से 116/4 , 117 से 127 , 128/1 , 128/2 , 129/1 , से 129/3 , 130 , 131 से 134 , 135/1 से 135/6,135/7-135/18 , 135/8 से 135/17 , 135/19 से 135/35 , 136 से 147, 148/1 , 148/2 , 149/1 , 149/2.

2. ग्राम पोरडा ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लाट संख्या: -

14 ( भाग ) , 15 ( भाग ) , 256/1 ( भाग ) , 256/2 , 257/1 से 257/3 , 257/8 , 270 से 276 , 277/1 से 277/7 , 279/1 से 279/8 , 280 से 291 , 294/1 , 294/2 , 295 से 302, 303/1 , 303/2 , 314/1 से 314/3 , 318 ( भाग ) , 419/1 ( भाग) , 419/12, 419/21 , 420/2 , 420/4 .

सीमा वर्णन: -

क-ख रेखा बिन्दु " क " से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम रूमकेरा बिजारी के सम्मिलित सीमा से गुजरती हुई बिंदु " ख " पर मिलती है ।

ख-ग रेखा ग्राम बिंजारी के प्लाट संख्या 39/11 , 39/10 , 39/12 , 39/18 , 39/9 , से होकर प्लाट संख्या 39/19 के पश्चिमी, 38/1 , 38/35 के दक्षिणी , 38/35 के पूर्वी, दक्षिणी , पश्चिमी एवं उत्तरी और 38/18 , 37/1 , 36 , 35 , 32 , 19/16-19/ 17-19/18 से होकर गुजरती है बाद में 18 , 19/ 16-19/ 17-19/18 के पश्चिमी और उत्तरी सीमा से होती हुई बिन्दु " ग " पर मिलती है। ग-घ रेखा ग्राम बिजारी के प्लाट संख्या 72/1 , 71/4 , 71/6 , 71/7 , 71/10 , 70 , 69/9 , 69/1 , 69/2 , 69/3 , 69/4 , 69/5 , 69/6 , 74/2 , 76, 75 के उत्तरी 74/2 , 105 , 106 , के पूर्वी, 11/1 से 53 के उत्तरी सीमा से होती हुई ग्राम बिजारी - पोरडा के सम्मिलित सीमा में बिन्दु " घ " पर मिलती है ।

घ-ड रेखा ग्राम बिजारी - पोरडा के भागतः सम्मिलित सीमा से होती हुई प्लाट संख्या 15 के उत्तरी और पूर्वी सीमा से गुजरती है। और ग्राम बिजारी - पोरडा के सम्मिलित में बिन्दु " ङ " पर मिलती है ।

ङ- च रेखा ग्राम पोरडा के प्लाट संख्या 256/1 , से होकर 257/1 के उत्तरी और पूर्वी, 257/3 के उत्तरी , पूर्वी तथा दक्षिणी , 257/8 , 282/2 , 277/1 , 277/2 , 277/3 , के पूर्वी 273/1 के उत्तरी तथा पूर्वी, 273/3 , 270 के पूर्वी , 271 के पश्चिमी , उत्तरी तथा पूर्वी 303/1-303 /2 के उत्तरी तथा पूर्वी , 318 , 314/2 , 314/3 के उत्तरी तथा पूर्वी , 314/3 के दक्षिणी और 318 से होकर 318 के पूर्वी सीमा से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु " च " पर मिलती है।

च-छ रेखा ग्राम पोरडा में प्लाट संख्या 318 , के दक्षिणी , तथा 419/1 से होकर और प्लाट संख्या 420/2 , 419/1 के दक्षिणी , 419/12, 420/4 के दक्षिणी तथा पश्चिमी 294/1 , 291 के दक्षिणी सीमा से होती हुई ग्राम रूमकेरा - पोरडा के सम्मिलित सीमा मेंबिन्दु " छ " पर मिलती है ।

छ-क रेखा ग्राम पोरडा- रूमकेरा के सम्मिलित सीमा से गुजरती हुई आरंभिक बिन्दु " क " पर मिलती है ।

[ फा. सं. 43015/8/2008- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-1 ]

एम. शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव 3438

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

New Delhi , the 16th June , 2009

S.O. 1713. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry ofCoal number S.O.2761 dated the 25th September , 2008 and subsequent corrigendum number S.O. 428 dated the 10th February, 2009 issued under sub- section (1 ) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development ) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in the Gazette of India Part - II , Section 3 , Sub- section ( ii) dated the 4th October , 2008 and the 21st February, 2009 respectively, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to prospect for coal in 247.23 hectares (approximately) or 610.905 acres ( approximately) of the lands in the locality specified in the Schedule anneked to that notification;

And whereas the Central Government is satisfied that coal is obtainable in a part of the said lands pescribed in the Schedule(s) appended to this notification.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1 ) ofSection7 ofthe Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 , the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to acquire the land measuring 236.728 hectares (approximately ) or 584.95 acres (approximately) as All Rights in or over the said lands described in Schedule appended hereto.

Note 1.-The plan bearing Number SECL/BSP /GM/PIG/LAND/ 337 dated the 3rd March , 2009 of the area covered by thisnotification may be inspected in the office ofthe Collector , Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) or in the office ofthe Coal Controller , 1, Council House Street, Kolkata- 700001 or in the Office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur, 495006 (Chhattisgarh).

Note 2.-Attention is hereby invited to the provisions of Section 8 of the said Act which provides as follows:-

Objection to Acquisition:

"8( 1) Any person interested in any land in respect of which a notification under section 7 (1 ) has been issued, may within thirty days of the issue of the notification , object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land or any rights in or over such land .

Explanation,-

( 1) I shall not be an objection within the meaning of this section for any person to say that he himself desires to undertake mining operation in the land for the production of coal and that such operation should not be undertaken by the Central Government or by any other person.

(2) Every objection under Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 8 of the said Act shall be made to the competent authority in writing, and the competent authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a legal practitioner and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, ifany, as he thinks necessary, either makes a report in respect ofthe land which has been notified under Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 7 or ofrights in or over such land or make different reports in respect of different parcels ofsuch land or of rights in or over such land, to the Central Government, containing his recommendations on the objections , together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of that Government .

(3 ) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim aninterest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land were acquired under this Act.

Note 3 The Coal Controller, 1 , Council House Street, Kolkata, 700001 , has been appointed by the Central Government asthe competent authority under section 3 of the said Act. vide notification number S.O. 905 , dated the 20th March , 1987 , published in Part II, Section 3 , Sub-section ( ii ) of the Gazette of India, dated the 4th April , 1987 .

3439 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

SCHEDULE

Bijari OCM Block, Raigarh Area

Distt-Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

AllRights:

Revenue Land:

Theplanbearing number SECL/BSP /GM/ PIG/LAND/337 dated the 3rd March, 2009 (A)

Tahsil

District

Remarks

Area in Hectares

Sl . No.

Settlement Number

Nameof Village

Patwari Halka Number

Part 1.

228

157.604

Bijari

Garghoda Raigarh

67.894

Part Porda

192 Garghoda Raigarh

Total :-225.498 hectares (Approximately) or 557.205 Acres (approximately) (B) Forest Land:

Remarks

Division

Range

Type of Forest

SL. No.

Name of Forest

Area in Hectares

11.23

Part

Porda

Gharghoda

Orange fields

Raigarh

Total: 11.230 hectares (Approximately) or 27.749 Acres (Approximately)

Grand Total (A+B) :-236.728 Hectares (Approximately) or 584.95 Acres (Approximately) .

1 Plotnumbers to be acquired in village Bijari (Part):

17, 18 , 19/1 to 19/14 , 19/16 ( P ) , 19/17 ( P ) , 19/18 ( P ) , 19/19 to 19/21 , 19/23 , 26 to 31 , 32 ( P ) , 35 ( P ) , 36 ( P ) , 37/1 ( P ) , 38/1 , 38/18 (P) , 38/35 , 39/1 to 39/8 , 39/9 ( P ) , 39/10 ( P) , 39/11 ( P ) , 39/12( P ) , 39/13 to 39/15 , 39/17 , 39/18 ( P ) , 39/19 , 39/20, 40,41 / 1 to41/4 , 42 to 50, 51/1 , 51/2, 52 , 53 , 54/1 , 54/2 , 55/1 to55/3 , 56 to 61 , 62/1 to 62/4 , 63 to 68 , 69 / 1to 69/12 , 70 , 71 / 1to71 / 10 , 72/1 to72/3 , 74/2 , 75,76 , 105 , 106 , 111/1 , to111/53 , 112 , 113 , 114/1 , 114/2 , 114/4 , 115 , 116/1 to 116/4 , 117 to127 , 128/1 , 128/2 , 129/1 , to 129/3 , 130, 131 to 134 , 135/1 to 135/6 , 135/7 to 135/18 , 135/8 to 135/17 , 135/19 từ 135/35 , 136 tò 147 , 148/1 , 148/2 , 149/1 , 149/2.

2. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Porda (Part) :

14( P ) , 15 (P ) , 256/1 ( P ) , 256/2 , 257/1 to 257/3 , 257/8 , 270 to 276, 277/1 to 277/7 , 279/1 to 279/8 , 280 to 291 , 294/1 , 294/2 , 295 to 302, 303/1 , 303/2 , 314/1 to 314/3 , 318 ( P ) , 419/1 ( P ) , 419/12 , 419/21 , 420/2 ,420/4.

BoundaryDescription:

A-B Line starts from point "A" and passes along the common boundary of villages Rumkera - Bijari and meets at point "B" .

B-C Line passes in village Bijari through plot numbers 39/11 , 39/10 , 39/12 , 39/18 , 39/9 then along western boundary of 39/19 , southern boundary of 38/1 , 38/35 eastern , southern, western & northern boundary of 38/35 after that through 38/18 , 37/1 , 36, 35, 32, 19/16, 19/17 to 19/18 and along western & northern boundary of 18 , 19/16, 19/17 , 19/18 and meets at point ' C' .

C-D Line passes in village Bijari along northern boundary ofplot numbers 72/1 , 71/4 , 71/6 , 71/7 , 71/10, 70 , 69/9, 69/1 , 69/2, 69/3,69/4,69/5 , 69/6, 74/2 , 76, 75 eastern boundary of74/2 , 105, 106 northern boundary of 111/1 to 53 and meets at point ' D ' on the common boundary of villages Bijari -Porda.

DE Line passes along the partly common boundary of villages Porda- Bijari then along northern and eastern boundary of15 and meets at point ' E ' on the common boundary of villages Porda -Bijari ..

E-F Line passes in village Porda through plot number 256/1 then along northern &eastern boundary of 257/1 , northern , eastern& southern boundary of 257/3 , eastern boundary of 257/8 , 282/2 , 277/ 1,277 /2 , 277/3 , northern & eastern boundary of 273/1 , eastern boundary of 273/3 , 270 , western, northern & eastern boundary of 271 , northern boundary of 303/1-303/2, northern & eastern boundary of 318 , 314/2, 314/3, southern boundary of 314/3 and eastern boundary of 318 and meets at point ' F' .

F-G Line passes in village Porda along southern boundary of plot number 318 then through 419/1 and southern boundary of420/2 , 419/1 , southern and western boundary of 419/12, 420/4, southern boundary of294/1 , 291 and meets at point ' G ' on the common boundary of villages Porda- Rumkera.

G-A Line passes along the common boundary of villages Porda- Rumkera and meets at starting point 'A' .

[F. No. 43015/8/2008-PRIW - I ]

M. SHAHABUDEEN, Under Secy.

2137 G1/09-9 3440

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/ JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

[Part II-Sec. 3 (ii) ] पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 17 जून , 2009

का. आ. 1714.-भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मैसर्स रिलाएंस गैस ट्रांसपोर्टेशन एंड इनफ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड की काकीनाड़ा - हैदराबाद- उरान- अहमदाबाद ट्रंक गैस पाइपलाइन के आंध्र प्रदेश में विजयवाडा स्थित टैप आफ प्वाइंट से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इनफ्रास्ट्रक्चर 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 बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है । और जो इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , 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, 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 उक्त अधिनियम की धारा ( 3 ) की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री के . गंगाचलम, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इनफ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड, न . 67-11-21 /2 , साविसुजा, न्यु सेंचुरी पब्लिक स्कूल के सामने , एल बी नगर , काकिनाडा-533003 , पूर्वी गोदावरी जिला, आन्ध्र प्रदेश राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

3441

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

अनुसूची

राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला: पूर्वी गोदावरी

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक:ताल्लारेवु

सर्वे सं. / सब डिविजन सं.

गाँव का नाम

2 1

1 ) पोलेकुरू

गट नंबर 16 में तलाव

112

121

137

141

142

143

146

147

आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

एयर सि एयर हेक्टेयर

96 38

66 00 08

92 08

53 00 57

63 00 22

98 00

00 44

95 00

44 00

63 00 69

30 00 04

55 00

36 00

00 34

95 राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला:पूर्वी गोदावरी

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक:काजुलूरू

170

1) पल्लिपालेम

174

175

176

गट नंबर 176 में नाला

179

180

197

208

209

210

211

212

28 00 01

65 00

11 00 16

08 00

36 00

00 06

98 00 01

30 00

34 00 16

00 3442

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009 /JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

2 1

213

(1 ) पल्लिपालेम (निरंतर)

214

224

225

226

230

231

232

235

242

243

244

460

461

462

463

466

480

481

486

488

492

493

496

2) कोलंका

111

112

117

118

119

124

125

126

127

131

199

200

201

246

250

[Part II-Sec. 3( ii )] 4

22 00

26 00

27 22

00 43

00 19

28 00

00 37

00 05

00 00

00 19

00 34

06 00 30

00 18

46 00

99 00

66 3443

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ण्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

251

2) कोलंका (निरंतर)

253

254

268

269

270

274

275

276

277

278

279

286

287

303

3. ) कुय्येरू

72 14

83 25

77 24

09 00 29

11 06

54 21

21 30

10 00

89 00

13 00 06

90 00

23 00

17 00 03

89 00

2.1 00

02 29

गट नंबर 304 में नाला

309

310

311

315

316

318

323

324

325

326

331

332

359

360

363

364

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

374

375

390

59 00

39 45

50 48

84 00 51

38 00

10 00

31 10

39 06

0.0

49 00

82 46

07 00

82 00

98 00

35 00 45

19 00

91 00

73 00

00 3444

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

391

3) कुय्येरू (निरंतर)

जिला:पूर्वी गोदावरी मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक पामारू

64/5/वी 1) बालान्तरम

65/1

65/2

65/3/ए

65/3/बी

65/3/सी

76/1/ए

159/1/ए

159/1/बी

160/1

160/2

168

169/1

169/2

169/3

169/4

169/5

169/6

169/7/ ए

169/7/बी

178/3

178/4

179/7/ए

179/7/बी

179/8

180/4

180/5

180/6

180/7

180/8/बी

182/1

182/ 2/ए

182/2/बी

182/ 2/सी

182/3

182/4

182/5

182/6

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

राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

00 08

00 04

00 20

00 30

0.9

00 02

00 00

00 09

00 06

00 04

0.0 02

00 03

00 08

00 00

00 03

14 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009 /ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

2 1

182/7 1) बालान्तरम (निरंतर)

182/8

2) गुडिगल्ला

3 ) एरापोतावरम

145

147

149

152

153

154

155

156

4) सिवाला

5) दंगेरू

100

101

102

104/3

जिला पूर्वी गोदावरी मंडल/ नेहमिल/ तालुक रामचन्द्रापुरम

265

1) वेगयम्मपेटा

3445 3

54. 00

66 00

55 00

06 00

07 00

24 00

87 00

60 00

59 00

00 03

29 00 02

10 00

93 00 04

34 00

07 00

00 09

79 00

10 00

95 00

00 02

86 00

07 00

59 00

73 00

06 00

12 00

56 00

राज्य आन्ध्र प्रदेश

64 00 19 3446

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

266

1 ) वेगयम्मपेटा (निरंतर)

267

272

274

275

278

294

295

296

297

गट नंबर 297 में वालराज टैंक

2) वेंकटाबापालेम

गट नंवर 71 में नाला

149/वी

151

गट नंबर 151 में रोड

152

153

155

156

162

163

170

351

352

353

362

303

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

87 00

46 00 22

23 00

00 62

00 44

00 34

62 00

00 38

00 27

00 00

22 00

00 19

00 46

00 24

20 00

00 00

29 00

28 00

00 02

29 01

20 00

00 18

00 01

00 03

00 42

00 28

00 06

00 00

00 11

00 08 भारत का राजपत्र: जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931 .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

364

2) वेंकटायापालेम (निरंतर)

3,65

369

370

371

372

402

403

404

480

481

3) वेलमपालेम

593

गट नंबर 593 में नाला

594

595

596

617

619

620

622

628

629

630

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: रायावरम

जिला:पूर्वी गोदावरी

106

1 ) कुराकल्लापल्ले

107

108

111

112

128

129

130

2137 G1/09-10

3447

00 13 5.9

50 00

0.0 38 29 00

42 00 00

27 00

00 02

75 00

07 00

0.8

16 00 0.1

00 15

86 00

81 00 68

02 00

00 05

85 0.0

99. 00

42 00

10 00

65 00 06

00 66

80 00 40

13 00 32

26 00 62

86 00 26

19 00 40

74 राज्य आन्ध्र प्रदेश

20 00 38

67 00 45

09 00.

00 49

09- 3448

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

131

कुराकलापल्ले (निरंतर)

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

00 02

गट नंबर 132 में नाला

156

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: कपिलेशवरपुरम

प्रदेश

राज्य: आन्ध्र

जिला :पूर्वी गोदावरी

1) टेकी

105

106

118

119

120

121

122

123

125

126

128

165

167

213

214

216

217

218

368

2) नल्लुरू

370

371

372

373

3) पडामटी खंन्द्रीका

93 00 08

00 15

48 00 54

15 00

00 02 40 00

03 ,00

95 00 37

18 00

00 15

19 00 47

76 00

00 37

11 00 25

34 00 15

00 24

81 00

85 00

00 02

10 00 00

00 10

59 00

35 00

38 00 53

10 00 00

00 04

80 00

19 3449 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

5 1

00 49

3) पडामटी खंन्द्रीका (निरंतर)

00 02

गट नंदर 20 में नाला

00 09

00 42

163

34 4) वेदुरूमुडी

164

166

00 67

168

174

00 54

175

00 00

176

00 34

[फा. सं. एल-14014/18/2009-जी.पी.

के.के. शर्मा, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi , the 17th June , 2009

S. O. 1714.-Whereas it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for. transportation of natural gas from tap off point of Kakinada - Hyderabad - Uran - Ahmedabad trunk gas pipeline at Vijayawada in Andhra Pradesh of M/ s Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited to consumers in various parts of the country, a pipeline should be laid by M/ s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited;

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

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) , Government of India 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 the notification as published in the Gazette of India under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of Right of User therein for laying the pipeline under the land to Shri K. Gangachalam , Competent Authority, Relogistics Infrastructure Limited, D.No. 67-11-21 /2 Savisuja, Opp New Centuary Public School , L.B. Nagar , Kakinada - 533003, East Godavari District , Andhra Pradesh State.

3450

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

[Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii) ]

Schedule

District: East Godavari Mandal/Tehsil /Taluk: Tallarevu

Survey No./Sub-Division No.

Village

2 1

1) Polekurru

State: Andhra Pradesh

Area to be acquired for Rou

C-Are Hec

Are

5 3

96 00

66 00

Pond in Gat No.16

112

121

137

141

142

143

146

147

53 00

63 00

73 00

07 00

98 00

90 00

09 00

95 00

30 00

96 00

95 00

State: Andhra Pradesh

District: East Godavari

Mandal / Tehsil /Taluk : Kajuluru

170

Pallinalem

174

175

176

28 00

65 00

Nala in Gat No.176

179

180

197

208

209

210

211

212

17 00

98 00

15 00

29 00

08 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3451

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

2 1

213

1) Pallipalem ( Contd)

214

224

225

226

230

231

232

235

242

243

244

460

461

462

463

466

480

481

486

488

492

493

496

2) Kolanka

111

112

117

118

119.

124

125

126

127

131

199

200

201

246

250

00 00

19-

00 05

64 3452

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

251

2) Kolanka (Contd )

253

254

268

269

270

274

275

276

277

278

279

286

287

303

3) Kuyyeru

Nala in Gat No.304

309

310

311

315

316

318

323

324

325

326

331

332

359

360

363

364

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

374

375

390

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

16 49

55 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii )]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20 , 2009 /ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

2 1

391

3) Kuyyeru ( Contd)

District: East Godavari Mandal/Tehsil / Taluk: Pamarru

64/5/B 1) Balantharam

65/1

65/2

65/3/A

65/3/B

65/3 /C

76/1 /A

159/ 1 /A

159/ 1/B

160/1

160/2

168

169/1

169/2

169/3

169/4

169/5

1696

169 /7/A

169/7/ B

178/3

178/4

179/7 /A

1797/B

1798

1804

180:5

1806

1807

180 8 B

182 1

182-2 A

182-2 B

182-2 C

182/3

182 4

182.5

182 6

3453 3

State: Andhra Pradesh

(09

-19

02 3454

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009 / JYAISTHA 30, 1931

182-7 1) Balantharam ( Contd )

182/8

22 2) Gudigalla

86 3) Yerra Pothavaram

145

147

149

152

153

154

155

156

2 4) Sivala

99 5) Dangeru

100

101

102

104/3

[Part 11- Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] 3

55. 06

State:Andhra Pradesh

District: East Godavari

Mandal/Tehsil /Taluk : Ramachandrapuram

265 1) Vegayammpeta

19 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

266 1) Vegayammpeta (Contd)

267

272

274

275

278

294

295

296

297

Balaraju Tank in Gat No.297

43 2) Venkatayapalem

Nala in Gat No.71

149/B

151

Road in Gat No.151

152

153

155

156

162

163

170

351

352

353

362

363 2137 G1/ 09-11

3455

03 15

78 00

64. 00

21 00

54-2 025

46 27

81 43

47-

08 3456

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

364 2) Venkatayapalem ( Contd)

365

369

370

371

372

402

403

404

480

481

62 3) Velampalem

593

Nala in Gat No.593

594

595

596

617

619

620

622

628

629

630

District: East Godavari

Mandal / Tehsil /Taluk: Rayavaram

106 1) Kurakallapalle

107

108

111

112

128

129

130

[Part II-Sec . 3( ii) ] 4

State: Andhra Pradesh 07

09 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3457

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

2 1

131

1) Kurakallapalle(Contd)

69 33

Nala inGat No.132

156

District: East Godavari

Mandal /Tehsil /Taluk: Kapileswarapuram

1) Teki

105

106

118

119

120

121

122

123

125

126

128

165

167

213

214

216

217

218

368

2) Nalluru

370

371

372

373

3) Padamati Khandrika

State:Andhra Pradesh 00

16 97

00.

12 3458

[Part II-Sec . 3(ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

3) Padarmati Khandrika ( Contd)

Nala in Gat No.20

163

13 34 4) Vedurumudi

164

166

168

174

175

00 00

176

34 03

[F. No. L-14014/18/2009-G.P. K.K.SHARMA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 19 जून , 2009

का. आ. 1715.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोक हित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पंजाव राज्य में रमन मंडी मे हरियाणा राज्य में वहादुरगढ़ तक, पेट्रोलियम तेल के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुग्तान पेट्रोलियम काग्शिन लिमिटेड द्वारा 'जी जो एम आर उत्पाद निप्कमण परियोजना " के कार्यान्वयन हेतु एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन विछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उक्त भूमि में. जो इस अधिसूचना में मंलग्न अनुसूचि में वर्णित है और जिममें पाइपलाइन विछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

अतः अव, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पैट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (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 उक्त भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;

कोई भी व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितवद्ध है, उम तारीख में जिमको भारत के गजपत्र में सथा प्रकाशित इम अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलव्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन विछाने के संबंध में थी प्रहलाद सिंह, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , (हरियाणा ), हिन्दुम्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेंड, गुरू गोविन्द सिंह रिफाइनरी उत्पाद निप्कमण परियोजना, एम मी एफ नं. 29, मैक्टर 6 मार्केट, वहादुरगढ़ 124507, हरियाणा को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भज सकेगा । 3459 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 20, 2009 /ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

अनुसूची

राज्य : हरियाणा

जिला : हिसार

तहसील : बरवाला

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा/ किला

गाँव कानाम

वर्गमीटर

हेक्टेयर

संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

एयर.

हदबस्त संख्या

(6)

(7)

(4)

(5)

(3)

(2)

(1)

194

1. पाबड़ा

195

196

197

198

.00

18/1

18/2

23/1

23/2

25 3460

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

(1)

(2)

(4)

(3)

237

238

239

246

247

14/1

14/2

[Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii)]

(6)

(7) (5)

80 00

36 00

02 00

01 00

25 00

15 00

26 00

54 00

33 00

25 00

62 00

66 00

34 00

75 00

85 00

91 00

84 00

14 00

01 00 [भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii) ]

3461

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

248

283

284

285

298

299

14/1 (5)

(6)

(7) 00

80 00

66 00

25 00

16 00

80 00

59 00

3.1

16 00

81 00

85 00

75 00

63 00

75 00

78 00

90 00

02 00

25 00

37 00

90 00

03 00

39 00

75 00

14 00

60 00

06 00

91 00

31 00

12 00

05 3462

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

299

14/2

16/2

300

21/2

325

326

24/2

25/1

25/2

343

344

368

[Part II Sec. 3 (ii) ]

(6)

(5)

(7) 00

78 00

81 00

59 00

57 00

25 00

86 00

81 00

04 00

38 00

15 00

03 00

50 00

18 00

25 00

50 00

26 00

91 00

63 00

78 00

07 00

86 00

84 00

62 00

02 00

26 00

39 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

(4)

(2)

(3)

368

19/1

5/1

369

5/2

387

5/1

6/1

6/2

15/1

15/2

388

21/2

411

412

8/1

8/2

17 2137 G1/09-12

3463

(6)

(7) (5)

25 00

03 00

54 00

31 00

42 00

86 00

27 00

09 00

25 00

66 00

89 00

51 00

36 00

39 00

78 00

57 00

01 00

30 00

66 00

39 00

00 3464

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

(2)

(3)

(4) (1)

432

456

गग्ना

457

476

10/1

10/2

11/2

500

501

[Part II-Sec. 3 (ii ) ]

(6)

(7) (5)

25 00

91. 00

12 00

37 00

75 00

01 00

78 00

51 00

32 00

31 00

81 00

25 00

00 ′

18 00

01 00

12 00

61.

30 00

26 00

91 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

501

502

523

15/1

00-

15/2

20/1

524

20/2

20/3

22/1

22/3

23/1

543

23/1

3465 (6)

(7 )

60 08

85 00

50 12

90 06

32 01

26 14

42 14

42 05

31 00

97 10

10 09

75 00

81 05

25 12

39 04

80 00

75 09

86 00

75 00

36 05

06 02

27 03

79 06

57 00

25 02

27 03

79 13

91 00

25 12

30 04 3466

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

544

3/1

3/2

14/2

572

11/2

573

गग्ना

22/1

587

588

[Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii) ] (5)

(7)

(6)

27 00

04 00

86 00

01 00

92 00

25 00

10 00

31 00

13 00

25 00

31 00

26 00

25 00

08 00

57 00

16 00

14 00

75 00

86 00

75 00

60 00

31 भारत का राजपत्र: जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

(2)

(5)

(3)

(4)

621

1/1

622

623

20.

631

4/1

4/2

632

810

833

3467 (6)

(7) 00

25 10

12. 12

14 00

25 01

26 00

87 10

26 01

40 13

90 12

57 03

37 10

90 12

01 01

75 00

15 13

28 03

83 00

66 13

28 03

83 07

.33 13

91 03

32 06

25 01

51 01 3468

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

(3)

(1)

(2)

(4)

846

859

862

864

876

1166

1168

1171

1175

1176

1177

1190

1218

1224

1230

1238

1254

3467

3468

3484

3522

3573

3575

3631

3643

3673

3674

126

2. ईश्रहेडी

21/1

17/1

17/2

24/1

24/2

[Part II-Sec. 3 (ii)] (5) (6) (7) 00

03 00

77 00

02 00

75 00

51 00

75 00

79 00

03 00

01 00

75 00

78 00

26 00

51 00

02 00

77 00

51 00

25 00

01 00

03 00

15 00 3469

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(4)

(2)

(3)

(1)

1/1

1/2

9/1

नाला

9/2

10/1

16/1

16/2

23/2

23/3

(7)

(6)

(5)

26 00

12.

60 00

79 00

25 00

03 00

53 00

16 00

12 00

10 3470

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

7/1

7/2

2/1

8/2

9/1/2

9/2

9/3

125

3. भैणी बादशाहपुर

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii) ] (5)

(6)

(7) 00

62 00

26 00

25 00

04 00

25 00

12 00

61 00

90 00

25 00

50 00

36 00

90 00

91 00

08 00

59 00

01 00

77 00

27 00

78 00

38 00

66 00

25 00

27 3471

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20 , 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

49-

11/2

20/1

20/2

7/1

7/2

6/1

6/2 2137 G1/09-13

(7)

(6)

(5)

08 00

07 00

00-

83 00

04 00

09 00

54 00

02.

00 E00,00AESTHA 30, 1931

(2)

(5)

$00

12/1

12/2

100

00%

00.

260

00%

275

128

147

गरता

00:

22/1

148

2/1

गम्ता

00.

00 (6) ) 00

25 04

80 12

06. 90

57 02

53 12

39 DO

50 03

54 04

30 13

99 01

77 08

09 08

09 04

04 01

77 01

51 01

77 09

19:

77 04

30 02

53 60

61 04

30 10

12 01

26 80:

34 00

25 04

55 05

31 100

75 1.6

44 04

30 11

13 1931-

(2)

00%

221

000

2122

4/1

7/1

7/2

1533

00%

000

1980

00 19

12/1

12/2

13/1

00%

19/1

00:

192

6/1

6/2

3473

25 00

30 04

13060

25 00

75 00

61 09

31 05

01 01

42 00

25 04

77 03

79 144

25 000

122

900 056

31 07 80

30 04

33 077

85 08

80 04

51 01.

25 10

87 12

65 00

78 02

12 10

25 00

75 00

66 03

79 3474

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

(4)

(2)

(1)

(3)

204

205

18/2

25/2

239

240

गग्ना

25/1

गग्ना

241

ग्लवे लाईन

[Part II-Sec. 3(ii) ]

(7)

(6)

(5)

08 00

50 00

90 00

12 00

01 00

13 00

12 00

25 00

57 00

91 00

28 00

40 00

89 00

02 00

14 00

01 00

14 00

59 00

90 00

01 00

00 ,

18 3475

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

241

7/1

7/2

गग्ता

242

263

264

265

291

गग्ना

(7) (6)

30 04

37 10

56 05

50 00

77 01

25 00

60 08

25 00

87 10

75 00

13 11、

90 12

07 06

08 07

75 00

38 11

40 13

77 01

89 11

90 12

55 04

09 08

25 00

61 09

14 12

79 03

90 12

65 12

78 02

40 13

77 01

03 03 3476

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

291

23/1

23/2

292

गग्ना

293

324

गग्ना

325

19.

गग्ना

गग्ता

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

(5) (6)

(7) 00

79 00

39 00

85 00

55 00

53. 00

40 00

33 00

03 00

42 00

83 00

81 00

25 00

61 00

75 00

25 00

12 00

25 00

42 00

01 00

67 00

75 00

01 00

75 00

92 00

25 00

90 00

25. 00

26 00

01 00

18 00

01 3477

भारत का राजपत्र : खून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

खण्ड 3(ii)]

(1)

(3)

(4)

(2)

345

346

347

10/1

12/1

12/2

16/1

राग्ता

16/2

348

5/1

5/2

7/1

7/2

15/1

382

3/1

गग्ना

3/2

(7)

(6)

(5)

14 00

31 00

04 00

14 00

01 00

36 00

39 00

25 00

63 00

33 00

87 00

78 00

55 00

01 00

01.

92 00

25 00

42 00

75 00

50 00

25 00

33 00

08 00

54 3478

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

382

383

384

402

9/1

12/1

12/2

17/2

25/2

403

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii) ] (5)

(7)

(6)

38 00

01 00

38 00

65 00

51 00

39 00

61 00

09 00

08 00

63 00

25 00

63 00

79 00

57 00

25 00

91 00

03 00

42 00

25 00

56 00

14 00

03 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(4)

(3)

(2)

437

438

गग्ता

19/1

24/1

24/2

24/3-

25/1

25/2

451

23/2

गग्ना

452

6 2137 GI/09-14

3479

(6)

(5)

(7)

-02

01 00

25 00

66 00

26 00

51 00

92 00

50 00

25 00

75 00

-01

77 00

25 00

15 00

0.1

75 00

00 3480

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009 /JYAISTHA 30, 1931 (1)

(2)

(4)

(3)

(5)

487

गग्ना

488

9/2

496

495

23/1

538

8/1

8/2

8/3

539

00 [Part 11--Sec . 3 (ii) ] (6)

(7) 00

25 11

63 01

26 03

79 03

54 12

90 12

55 04

55 11

89 06

07 00

26 01

85 08

79 12

65 07

08 05

81 13

15 00

25 02

53 10

62 04

04 01

51 06

07 03

28 00

36 09

90 06

83 05

31 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(4)

(2)

(3)

951

963

982

989

1012

1014

1029

1031

1032

1109

1121

1123

1134

2704

2728

2730

2778

2791

2792

2799

2808

5. बधावड़

3481

(6)

(5)

(7)

01 00

31 00

26 00

01 00

75 00

80 00

04 00

27 00

01 00

(04 00

75 00

26 00

57 00

81 00.

65 00

25 00

36 00

25 00

00 3482

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

(1)

(2)

(4)

(3)

[Part II-Sec . 3( ii)] (5) (6)

(7)

25 00

66 00

03 00

62 00

25 00

15 00

77 00

50 00

89 00

90 00

02 00

87 00

25 00

39 00

01 00

75 00

39 00

25 00

65 00

25 00

09 3483

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(il) ]

(5)

(4)

(2)

(3)

(1)

8/1

17/2

(7) (6)

03 03

15 13

37 10

25 00

36 09

40 13

78 03

03 13

66 08

79 03

09 13

61 09

81 11

13 12

75 00

26 01

07 06

15 13

33 07

81 05

01 12

77 01

56 05 3484

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

(3)

(4) (1)

(2)

23/2

24/1

24/2

21/2

3/1

3/2

4/1/1

4/1/2

4/2

7/1

7/2/1

103

गग्ना

[Part II-Sec . 3(ii) ]

(7) (5) (6)

25 00

36 00

77 00

25 00

91 00

28 00

25 00

77 00

08 00

27 00

38 00

01 00

86 00

30 00

33 00

40 00

25 00

00 3485

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(5)

(4)

(2)

(3)

(1)

103

104

128

129

130

209

210

220

230

232

233

234

235

240

243 (6)

(7)

80 04

36 09

30 04

77 01

01 01

40 13

25 00

85 08

07 06

14 12

04 04

75 00

18 15

01 01

38 11

79 03

62 10

83 06

60 08

14 04

06 05

77 01

30 04

02 01

01 02

75 00

26 01 3486

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

(2)

(1)

(4)

(3)

6. दोड

7/1

15/1

1/1

1/2

19/1

7/1

गग्ना

[Part II Sec . 3( ii) ]

(6)

(5)

(7)

03 00

01 00

02 00

30 00

37 00

57 00

40 00

25 00

87 00

06 00

09 00

85 00

75 00

26 00

25 00

40 00

03 00

26 00

01 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

3487

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

10.

17/1

17/2

22 2137 GI/09-15

(6)

(7) (5)

63 00

56 00

16 00

30 00

08 00

84 00

26 00

61 00

40 00

55 00

25 00

57 00

32 00

78 00

14 00

25 3488

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2000 /JVAISTHA 30, 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

6/2

गग्ना

[Part II-Sec. 3(ii) ] (5) (6) (7) 00

36 00

14 00

25 00

91 00

26 00

79 00

67 00

75 00

25 00

14 00

84 00

85 00

03 00

67 00

54 00

67 00

01 00

87 00

26 00

57 00

86 00

31 00

65 00

00 .

25 00

15 00

77 00

08 00

32 34

भारत का राजपत्रः 20, 2000/30 1931

(1)

(2)

(ε)

गम्ना

6/1

नहर

6/2

7. ब्याना खेड़ा

गग्ना

(6)

(5)

(7)

66 00

56 00

54 00

40 00

25 00

75 00

01 001

04 00

75 00

50 00

89 00

65 00

01 00

90 00

26 00

02 00

36 00

66 00

55 00

01 00

40 00

27 00

02 3490

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

(1)

(2)

(4)

(3)

117

20/1

20/2

23/1

23/2

24/1

24/2

118

119

4/1

122

123

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii) ] (5) (6)

(7) 00

86 00

75 00

08 00

51 00

15 00

27 00

50 00

89 00

50 00

02 00

61 00

01 00

37 00

14 '00

51 00

87 00

90 00

27 00

85 00

80 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3491

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30; 1931

(1)

(3)

(4)

(2)

124

135

172

174

197

199 (5) (6) (7)

90 00

27 00

16 00

25 00

19 00

25 00

00 .

25 00

77 00

54 00

02 00

[फा. सं. आर-31015/6/2009-ओ.आर.-II ]

ए. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 19th June, 2009

S. O. 1715. Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Petroleum Products from Raman Mandi in the State of Punjab to Bahadurgarh in the State of Haryana for implementation of " GGSR Products Evacuation Project pipeline from Raman Mandi to Bahadurgarh " , should be laid by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;

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

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

3492

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

[Part II-Sec. 3(ii )] Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one daysfrom 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 Shri Prahlad Singh , Competent Authority ( Haryana ) , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited , Guru Gobind Singh Refinery Product Evacuation Project SCF No.29, Sector - 6 Market, Bahadurgarh - 124507 , Haryana.

SCHEDULE

District : HISAR

State : HARYANA Tehsil : BARWALA

Area

Name of Village

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No.

Khasra / Killa No. Hectare Are

Square Metre

(7)

(5) (6)

(3)

(2)

(4)

(1)

194

1.PABRA

195

196

197

12、

0.0.

198

18/1

18/2

23/1

23/2

25 3493

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20 , 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(4)

(2)

(3)

(1)

237

238

239

246

247

14/1

14/2

(7) (5) (6)

80 00

.65

01 00

31 00

85 00

91 00

14 00

00 3494

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

248

283

284

285

298

299

14/1

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii) ]

(7)

(6)

(5)

66 00

60 00

31 00

16 00

85 00

75 00

63 00

75 00

78 00

90 00

65 00

02 00

25 00

37 00

90 00

39 00

14 00

60 00

06 00

91 00

31 00

81 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

(2)

(3)

(4)

299

14/2

16/2

300

21/2

325

326

24/2

25/1

25/2

343

344

368

10 2137 GI/09-16

3495

(6)

(7) (5)

78 00

59 00

25 00

86 00

81 00

38 00

15 00

03 00

50 00

18 00

61 00

26 00

27 00

91 00

63 00

07 00

62 00

26 00

39 3496

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

368

19/1

5/1

369

5/2

387

5/1

6/1

6/2

15/1

15/2

388

21/2

411

412

8/1

8/2

[Part II-Sec. 3 (ii) ] (5)

(7)

(6)

40 00

25 00

03 00

07 00

31 00

42 00

26 00

27 00

25 00

09 00

66 00

89 00

51 00

87 00

78 00

57 00

08 00

07 00

(04

75 00

39 00

81 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

432

456

Carttrack

457

476

10/1

10/2

11/2

500

501

3497

(7) (6)

25 13

91 00

25 10

12 03

54 10

37 03

87 10

75 00

13 09

10 01

01 11

13 02

78 11

13 11

85 08

13 11

32 06

31 05

81 01

77 00

25 04

18 15

01 10

12 09

61 04

30 01

26 04

80 13

91 3498

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

(1)

(2)

(4)

(3)

501

502

523

15/1

15/2

20/1

524

20/2

20/3

22/1

22/3

23/1

543

23/1

[Part II-Sec . 3( ii) ]

(7) (5) (6)

60 00

50 00

32 00

26 00

42 00

14.

31 00

50 00

66 00

75 00

25 00

36 00

27 00

79 00

25 00

27 00

91 00

25 00

14 00

30 00

04 3499

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

544

3/1

3/2

14/2

572

11/2

573

Carttrack

22/1

587

588

(7) (6)

27 02

04 04

86 09

25 00

01 01

18 15

77 01

01 01

92 14

25 00

37 10

59 07

10 09

60 08

31 05

13 11

25 00

63 11

31 05

26 01

04 04

25 00

08 07

16 14

59 07

16 14

28 03

14 12

75 00

86 09

75 00

66 13

60 08

31 05 3500

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

621

622

1/1

623

631

4/1

4/2

632

810

833

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii )] (5) (6)

(7) 00

25 00

12 00

14 00

25 00

26 00

25 00

87 00

39 00

26 00

40 00

33 00

90 00

57 00

28 00

37 00

90 00

01 00

75 00

15 00

28 00

83 00

25 00

66 00

28 00

83 00

33 00

91 00

03 00

32 00

25 00

77 00

51 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

3501

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

(2)

(1)

(4)

(3)

846

859

862

864

876

1166

1168

1171

1175

1176

1177

1190

1218

1224

1230

1238

1254

3467

3468

3484

3522

3573

3575

3631

3643

3673

3674

21/1 2. ISERHERI

126

17/1

17/2

24/1

24/2

25 (5) (6)

(7)

03 00

77 00

02 00

51 00

75 00

01 00

75 00

78 00

53 00

26 00

51 00

02 00

77 00

01 00

03 00

80 00

15 3502

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

(1)

(4)

(2)

(3)

1/1

1/2

9/1

Nala

9/2

10/1

16/1

16/2

23/2

23/3

[Part II-Sec. 3( ii)]

(6)

(7) (5)

27 00

13 00

04 00

33 00

26 00

31 00

01 00

63 00

65 00.

51 00

32 00

77 00

60 00

25 00

91 00

79 00

13 00

62 00

25 00

03 00

01 00

16 00

04 00

16 00

27 00

12 3503

भारत का राजपत्र : जूम 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(3)

(2)

(4) (1)

7/1

7/2

2/1

8/2

9/1/2

9/2

9/3

125

3. BHAINI BADSHAHPUR

7 2137 G1/09-17

(7) (5) (6)

62 00

04 00

25 00

12 00

61 00

25 00

90 00

25 00

36 00

90 00

91 00

01 00

77 00

78 00

38 00

00 3504

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

(2)

(3)

(5)

(4)

11/2

20/1

20/2

7/1

7/2

6/1

6/2

00 [Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii )] (6)

(7) 07

08 06

07 13

28 03

75 12

39 10

12 00

25 01

51 13

66 07

84 01

26 01

26 00

25 11

63 06

83 03

28 03

03 13

30 04

81 13

04 04

26 08

09 10

62 00

25 03

54 14

16 00

25 00

25 10

12 11

38 02

27 00

25 3505

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

(2)

(3)

(4) (1)

12/1

12/2

Nala

260

275

147

128

4. BARWALA

CartTrack

22/1

148

2/1

CartTrack

(6)

(7) (5)

25 00

90 00

53 00

39 00

50 00

66 00

77 00

09 00

04 00

77 00

51 00

77 00

61 00

12 00

34 00

55 00

75 00

44 00

13 00

11 3506

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

(4)

(2)

(3)

(1)

2/1

152

2/2

4/1

7/1

7/2

153

190

191

12/1

12/2

13/1

19/1

192

6/1

6/2

[Part II-Sec. 3 (ii)]

(6)

(7) (5)

25 00

66 00

75 00

61 00

31 00

01 00

42 00

79 00

25 00

31 00

08 00

30 00

85 00

51 00

87 00

75 00

78 00

90 00

12 00

75 00

66 00

79 3507

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

(5)

(2)

(4)

(3)

204

205

18/2

25/2

239

240

CartTrack 00

25/1

CartTrack 00

241

Railway Line 00 (6) (7) 07

66 13

28 00

50 12

90 10

12. 00

01 01

13 11

25 00

57 13

91 03

28 07

40 13

01 12

39 11

89 02

14 12

01 12

02 02

59 12

90 11

38 01

26 04

55 01

01 12

39 00

18 15 3508

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

(1)

(2)

(4)

(3)

241

7/1

7/2

CartTrack

242

263

264

265

291

CartTrack

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii) ]

(6)

(7) (5)

30 00

37 00

56 00

50 00

60 00

25 00

90 00

75 00

38 00

40 00

90 00

25 00

14 00

79 00

90 00

65 00

03 00 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

(4)

(5)

(3)

(1)

(2)

291

23/1

23/2

292

Cart Track

293

324

CartTrack

325

CartTrack

3509 (6)

(7)

79 03

39 12

85 04

53 02

40 13

33 07

03 03

42 06

81 05

61 09

25 00

12 10

25 00

42 01

01 14

67 00

75 00

75 01

01 00

75 14

25 00

26 01

01 01

18 15

01 3510

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

345

346

347

10/1

12/1

12/2

16/1

CartTrack

16/2

348

5/1

5/2

7/1

7/2

15/1

382

3/1

CartTrack

3/2

[Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii) ]

(7) (5) (6)

14 00

31 00

04 00

14 00

39 00

01 00

36 00

39 00

25 00

63 00

33 00

06 00

87 00

26 00

07 00

78 00

13 00

02 00

92 00

25 00

75 00

50 00

25 00

33 00

08 00

54 [भाग II खण्ड (11) ]

(3)

(2)

(1)

382 SO

01.

3511

THE

भारत का युगपत्र : जूत 20, 2009/ ज्येष्ठ ३0, 1931 BITESED

(6)

(7) (5)

(4)

90 00

38 00

78 00

3838ΕΔ

100

১০

384

MAS 20

321

100

53 6

38 00

65 00

36 00

51 00

39 11

09 00

08 00

25 00

402124

リ

ris

40352 2137 GI/09-18

9/1

54 00

12/1

12/2

25.

25 00

17/2

78 00

25 25/2

56 00

-00-

6 3512

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009 / JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

437

438

CartTrack

19/1

24/1

24/2

24/3

25/1

25/2

451

23/2

CartTrack

452

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii)] (5) (6) (7) 00

27 00

16 00

25 00

66 00

26 00

51 00

92 00

75 00

01 00

26 00

75 00

03 00

1.1

38 00

50 00

25 00

77 00

42 00

25 00

91 00

77 00

78 00

40 00

25 00

15 00

77 00

26 00

75 00

66 00

25 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

3513

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

(3)

(1)

(2)

(4)

487

5 (5) (6) (7) 00

25 00

26 00

CartTrack

488

9/2

496

495

2.2

23/1

538

B/1

8/2

3/3

14 :

539

79 00

03.2

12.8 90 00

65 00

55 00

07 00

75 00

26 00

79 00

25 00

62 00

04 DA 04

0083 01

51 00

257 00

09 36 0012

83 00

31 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009 / JYAISTHA 30, 1931

3514

(2)

(3)

884

ST 888

400

20 5.BADHAWAR

RES 00

22 10

S18

ειε

eca 20

[Part II-Sec. 3 (ii) ] (5) (6)

(4)

(7)

01 951

963

982

989

01 1012

1014

75 1029

01 1031

01 1032

80 1109

03 1121

1123

27 1134

01 2704

01 2728

2730

04 2778

75 2791

2792

26 2799

2808

01 18

66 24

84 1

65 2

25 7

28 8

36 9

00 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

( 2) (2)() (۲) (19 )

3 00

25 10

.00

14 33

3915

भारत को राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 19310

(6) ) (7)

(5)

(4)()

(

(3)

00 .

39 9

60 5

08 3516

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

( 1 )

(2)

(4)

(3)

8/1

17/2

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii ) ]

(6)

(5)

(7) 00

03 00

15 00

37. 00

25 00

40 00

78 00

03 00

66 00

60 00

79 00

09 00

66 00

81 00

13 00

90 00

75 00

14 00

26 00

33 00

07 00

15 00

26 00

33 00

81 00

01 00

90 00

77 00

39 00

56 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

3517

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20 , 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

23/2

24/1

24/2

21/2

3/1

3/2

4/1/1

4/1/2

4/2

7/1

7/2/1

103

(7) (5) (6)

60 00

25 00

36 00

77 00

25 00

91 00

62 00

25 00

85 00

51 00

08 00

06 00

38 00

25 00

01 00

86 00

50 00

66 00

77 00

65 00

08 00

33 00

65 00

40 00

CartTrack

00 3518

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

(1)

(2)

(4)

(3)

103

104

128

129

130

209

210

220

230

232

233

234

235

LOT

240

243

[Part II Sec-3(ii) ] (5)

(7)

(6)

80 00

30 00

77 00

25 00

01 00

40 00

55 00

85 00

07 00

14 00

04 00

75 00

01 00

38 00

79 00

62 00

83 00

14 00

30 00

77 00

30 00

02 00

01 00

27 00

75 00

26 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(1)

(3)

(4)

(2)

6. DHAD

7/1

15/1

1/1

1/2

19/1

7/1

CartTrack 2137 G1 /09-19

3519 (5)

(7)

(6)

42 00

01 00

40 00

02 00

37 00

60 00

40 00

25 00

02 00

87 00

57 00

09 00

39 00

55 00

39 00

25 00

26 00

40 00

28 00

00 3520

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

17/1

17/2

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] (5) (6)

(7) 00

63 00

56 00

36 00

25 00

80 00

16 00

30 00

15 00

84 00

36 00

26 00

61 00

54 00

25 00

89 00

36 00

32 00

78 00

14 00

25 00

36 00

25 00

91 00

26 00

67 00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

3521

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

00 00

6/2

CartTrack

00 00

CartTrack 00

6/1

Canal

6/2

00 (6)

(7) 00

75 00

25 12

14 07

84 08

85 03

67 14

75 03

54 14

01 01

87 01

26 06

57 09

60 08

31 12

65 00

25 13

15 01

77 07

08 06

32 13

56 05

56 03

54 13

40 08

09 00

25 09

36 00

75 02

78 14

67 01

01 03-

79- 04

04 06

07 00

75 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

3522

(4)

(2)

(3)

(1)

7. BIYANA KHERA

CartTrack

117

20/1

20/2

23/1

23/2

24/1

24/2

118

Nala

119

4/1

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii ) ]

(6)

(7) (5)

50 00

65 00

90 00

02 00

25 00

36 00

33 00

66 00

56 00

01 00

27 00

02 00

86 00

81 00

83 00

51 00

27 00

50 00

89 00

50 00

15 00

61 00

03 00

01 00

36 00 [TT 1 भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

3523

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

122

123

124

135

172

174

197

199 (5) (6)

(7)

25 00

87 00

90 00

66 00

80 00

90 00

39 00

16 00

25 00

55 00

02 00

[F. No. R-31015/6/2009- O.R. - II ] A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy 3524

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 28 अप्रैल , 2009

का.आ. 1716.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का (4 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण संख्या I, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 75/1996) की प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-4-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/151/1995- आईआर ( बी -1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi , the 28th April , 2009

S.O. 1716.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 75/1996) oftheCentral Government Industrial Tribunal - Cum -Labour Court, No. I, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of Patiala, and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 28-4-2009 .

[No. L- 12012/ 151 /1995- IR (B -I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT- 1 ,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 75/96

Shri P.C. Singla C/ o Shri L.R. Singla

The President, All India State Bank ofPatiala Staff Federation , 307,

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] "Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Patiala in terminating the services of Shri P.C. Singla , Ex- Clerk/ Cashier w.e.f. 6-6-91 is just , fair , and legal ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

The workman filed the statement of claim with the prayer that the termination order dated 5-7-94 be quashed and the workman be reinstated into the services with continuity of service and full back -wages . The grounds on which the workman has agitated his claim are that he was appointed as clerk- cum- cashier by the management of the bank and remained as such at Hathia Branch during 1990-1994 . He suddenly fall ill and applied for leave from timeto time.No information was given to him about allowing or rejecting his prayer for leave. He approached to the bank on 14-7-94 along with fitness certificate but he was not permitted to join the duties on the ground that he has left the job voluntarily w.e.f. 6-6-91 . The order dated 6-6-91 is illegal, arbitrary and against the punishment and appeal rules and provisions of Bipartite Settlement , Deshai award and Shastri award, applicable to the bank industry. Before 5-7-1994 the workman has not received any letter , hence, the action of the management of the bank is illegal being against the principle of natural justice.

....Applicant

Housing Board , Jind.

Versus

TheGeneral Manager , State Bank ofPatiala, The Mall , Patiala- 147001

The management of State Bank of Patiala contested the claim ofthe workman by filing written statement. It was contended by the management that from 1-3-90 the workman absented from the duties without any leave application . Only once the photocopy of medical certification issued by Civil Surgeon, Jind was sent for two weeks rest w.e.f. 27-3-90 . No intimation prior to 27-3-90 or thereafter , was received by the manageinent . After 90 days of unauthorized absent , the workman was served a notice dated 6-5-91 advising him to report for duties within 30 days failing which he would deemed to be voluntary retired from the services of the bank on expiry of notice period . The workman fails to report for duties , and accordingly , from 6-6-91 he was decmed to be voluntarily retired from the services . It was the notice of the bank for recovery of certain dues dated 5-7-94 that workman approached the bank on 14-7-94 .

...Respondent

APPEARANCES

FortheWorkman

Workman in person

Shri N. K. Zakhmi

For theManagement :

AWARD

Passed on 25-3-2009

The Government of India vide notification No. L-12012/ 151 /95 - IR (B -I ), dated 26-7-96 referred the following industrial dispute for judicial adjudication to this Tribunal:-

Bothof the parties were afforded the opportunity of being heard . The workman filed his affidavit in support of his contention . He was also cross - examined by representative of the management in camp court at Faridabad on 15-1-2009 . On behalf ofthe management one Shri Om Parkash, branch manager Hathia Branch , Palwal , Haryana filed the affidavit and he was also cross - examined bythe workman in Camp Court at Faridabad on 15-1-09. All the letters relied upon by the parties as mentioned in their pleadings are on record.

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

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

3525 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

isnot entitled for any relief. Let the Central Governmentbe informed and thereafter, file be consigned.

G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 18 मई , 2009

The main issue for adjudication before the Tribunal is whether the management of the bank rightly presumed the workman to be retired from the services of the bank on his unauthorized absent vide clause 17 A of fifth bipartite settlement dated 10-4-89 applicable to the parties , or his services were terminated by the bank illegally.

Ihave also gone through the provisions ofpara 17A of fifth bipartite settlement dated 10-4-89 which is regarding the voluntarily cessation of employment on unauthorized absent .

का.आ. 1717.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. यूको बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण कोच्चिन के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 221/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/34/2006- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] राजेन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 18th May, 2009 As per the para 17 A of bipartite settlement, if any workman absented for 90 days unauthorizely , it is open to the management to send him a notice for 30 days asking the workman to report to the duties within 30 days . Ifafter receiving the notice the workman fails to resume the duties or to give reasonable explanation for his absent, he will be deemed to be voluntarily retired from the services . On perusing the cross -examination of the workman it is evident that he failed to file before this Tribunal the copy of any leave application moved to the bank, whereas, he promised to provied the copies of the same within 20 days . The evidence ofthe workman was recorded on 15-1-09 , but yet he has not provided any copy of the leave application.

S.O. 1717.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 221 / 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cochin now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of M/ s . UCO Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 18-5-2009 .

[No. L- 12012/34/2006- IR (B- II) ] RAJINDER 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 (Monday the 4th day of May 2009/ 14th Vaisakha 1931 )

J.D. 221/2006

Workman : M.M. Mathew, H.No. XXII/ 351 Johny Siman Road, Mundamveli P.O. , Kochi-682507 .

In his cross -examination he has not denied the receiving of notices dated 15-9-90, 11-2-91 , 6-5-91 and 5-7-94. It is only stated by the workman that he did not rememeber whether above notices were received by him. It is admitted to him that notice dated 5-7-94 was received by him . This notice was sent to the workman onaddress S.C.F. No. 13 , Sector -6 , Jind, whereas , all the notice dated 15-9-90 , 12-2-91 , 6-5-91 and 5-7-94-were also sent to the workman on the same address . On perusal of the materials on record and on account of ignorance shown by the workman in her cross - examination about receiving of all these notices , it is evidently clear that workman received all the notices send by the bank . Thus notices dated 6-5-91 was received by the workman and he had not reported for duties within 30 days of the notice nor had shown any reasonable cause depriving him for not joining the duties .

By Adv. Sri . Paulson C. Varghese .

Management : The Assistant Gerneral Manager , UCO Bank, Regional Office, Thiruvananthapuram.

By Adv . George Karithanam Varghese

This case coming up for hearing on 30-4-2009, this Tribunal -cum -Labour Court on 4-5-2009 passed the following:

AWARD

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

The circumstances speak themselves . Vide notices dated 5-7-94 and 5-10-94 the workman was asked to deposit an outstanding dues of house loan , scooter loan and festival loan . It was after this notice the workman approach the bank on 14-7-94 . As he has not reported for the duties within 30 days of receiving the notice dated 6-5-91 and has not shown a reasonable cause for his unauthorized absent , he shall be deemed to be voluntarily retired from the services ofthe bank from 6-6-91 under para 17A of fifth bipartite settlement dated 10-4-89 applicable to the parties . It is also made clear that during the proceedings before this Tribunal the workman also failed to prove that he was deprived and prevented by any reasonable cause to join the duties after receiving notice dated 6-5-91 . Accordingly, the workman 3526

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] "Whether the action of the management of Uco Bank, Trivandrum in removing Shri M.M. Mathew, Daftary from the services of the bank is fair and just ? If not, to what reliefthe concerned workman is entitled ? "

is no violation of the principles of natural justice. The punishment is proportionate to the gravity of the charges . Remaining unauthorisedly absent without intimation continuously for a period exceeding 30 days is a gross misconduct . The workman is not entitled to be reinstated .

5. In the light of the above contentions the following points arise for consideration :-

1. Is the enquiry valid ?

2. Are the findings sustainable?

3. Is the punishment proper?

The evidence consists of the oral testimony of MW 1 and documentary evidence of Exts .Ml to M1 © on the side ofthe management and no evidence on the side of workman.

2. Facts of the case in brief are as follows :-The workman Shri . M.M. Mathew was a Daftary ofUco Bank. Hewas charge sheeted in 2005 for unauthorised absence , irregular attendance , remaining continuously absent exceeding 30 days without intimation to bank and incurring debts to an extent considered by the management as excessive . A domestic enquiry was conducted . The workman remained absent and the enquiry proceeded ex- parte. The workman was found guilty of all the charges on the basis of the documents produced in the enquiry. A copy ofthe report was given to the workman . After hearing the workman the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of removal from service . No appeal was filed.

6. Point No. 1 : Since this issue was raised as a preliminary objection it was heard and decided by order dated 15-04-2009 holding that the enquiry was conducted according to the procedure and complying with the principles of natural justice and the enquiry is valid .

7. Point No. 2 :-Since the enquiry is found valid, there is no scope for adducing further evidence in the case . Since the workman did not participate in the domestic enquiry the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry ex-parte . On the side of the management relevant documents ( 15 in number) were produced and marked . The Presenting Officer submitted the , case on the strength of the documents produced.

3. According to the workman the enquiry was conducted violating the principles of natural justice. He was not given adequate opportunity to defend. The workmanhad informed the Enquiry Officer his inability to attend the enquiry . However no chance was given to him. The workman had appeared before the disciplinary authority and explained the reasons for his absence . However the disciplinary authority without considering the contentions of the workman confirmed the finding of Enquiry Officer and imposed the punishment of remvoal from service .At any rate the punishment imposed is harsh and highly disproportionate . The workman is entitled to be reinstated with all the benefits .

The Enquiry Officer perusing the documents and relying on them came to the conclusion that all the charges stood proved. Un- authorised absence and absence without intimation continuously exceeding 30 days is to be ascertained from the records. Eight show- cause notices were issued to the workman regarding un - authorised absence. None of them were replied by him . His absence was at frequent intervals on several occasions . Incurring debts to an extent beyond the means of the workman to repay is self evident from the decrees that were passed against him and order of attachment of salary issued in execution of the decrees in all the four cases . All these documents are unchallenged as nobody appeared in the enquiry on behalf of the workman . Thus the finding is beyond challenge . In fact no lacuna in the finding was pointed out by the learned counsel for the workman and it was not possible also as the evidence on management side remained un - assailed . Hence I find that the Enquiry officer wasjustified in finding that the workman is guilty of all the charges.

8. Point No. 3 :-The penalty imposed is removal from service. The workman contends that the penalty is highly disproportionate . Out of the four charges one is a grave misconduct and the other three charges are minor misconduct . Remaining absent without intimation to the 4. According to the management the workman was in the habit of remaining absent on and off on many occasions. He was given several show-cause notices . None ofthem were replied . He borrowed money from different persons and failed to repay. Hence four suits were filedby the concerned persons and decrees were obtained. They were executed by attaching the salary of the workman in all the four cases . He remained absent continuously for more than 30 days without intimation to the bank . Hence a charge sheet was issued to him . But there was no reply. The workman was subjected to disciplinary action on a previous occasion for manipulating the account of a customer of the bank and withdrawing money without his knowledge . Though he was found guilty considering his plea the disciplinary authority took a lenient view and imposed the purlishment ofbringing down by two stages in the scale of pay and withdrawing his special allowance . The Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the workman is guilty of all the charges on the basis of the evidence on record. He was given two chances by the Enquiry Officer to appear and defend . But he remained absent . Hence the Enquiry Officer proceeded ex - parte . He was given a copy of the report . The disciplinary authority gave the workman a personal hearing. Thereafter the penalty was imposed. There [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

3527

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

employer continuously for a period exceeding 30 days is a gross misconduct within clause 19.5(p) of 6th Bipartite Settlement dated 14-02-1995 . In the claim statement no mitigating circumstances are stated. However from the written statement of the management in para 4 it is stated that in the previous disciplinary action the Disciplinary Authorityhad considered the family circumstances of the workman, that he has to support his wife and two children. No other family circumstances are seen from the records . The fact that the workman has to look after his wife and children is nomitigating circumstance in a charge for gross misconduct. It is not the first time that the workman was found guilty for misconduct . He was found guilty on a previous occasion for gross misconduct but a lenient view was taken in the matter ofpunishment. He was in the habit ofremaining absent quite often and was indifferent to show cause notices issued to him many times. Then he remained absent even without intimation exceeding 30 days . Thus the workman invited disciplinary action by his own indifferent and careless attitude. He never thought of his family and the need to look after them . It is not known whether he has any other source of income . There is neither pleading nor evidence regarding any mitigating circumstance . Therefore there is no justification in reducing the punishment.

In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management in imposing punishment of removal from service is legal and justified and the workman is not entitled for any relief. However the management may offer him one more chance to apply and get the retiral benefits .

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 4thday ofMay, 2009.

P.L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer

Appendix

Witness for the Workman - Nil

Witness for the Management

MW 1- 15-12-2008 - N. Balachandran Exhibitfor the Workman - Nil .

Exhibit for the Management.

M1 (a) Copy of letter No. MIS/26/05-06 dated 04-05-2005 sent by the Enquiry Officer to the workman.

M1 (b) Copy of letter No. MIS/ 05-06 dated 23-05-2005 sent by the Enquiry Officer to the workman .

M 1 (C ) Photostat copy of postal receipt dated 24-05-2005.

2137 G1/09-20

नई दिल्ली, 20 मई, 2009

का.आ. 1718.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. आनन्द ट्रांसपोर्ट विशाखापट्टनम 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 43/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-34011/04/2006-आईआर ( बी -11 ) ] राजेन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 20th May, 2009

S.O. 1718.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 43/2007) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of M/s. Anand Transport, Visakhapatnam and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-05-2009

[No. L-34011/4/2006- IR (B - 11 )]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present : Shri VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Offficer (Dated the 2ndday of February , 2009 Industrial Dispute No. 43/2007 BETWEEN

TheGeneral Secretary,

Visakhapatnam Port and

DockMazdoor Sangh ,

H. No. 53-20-2/ 1 , Chaitanyanagar ,

.... Petitioner Visakhapatnam - 530013 .

And

TheManager,

M/s. Anand Transports ,

G-4, Jayaprada apartments ,

Taj Residency Road, Maharanipeta,

...Respondent Visakhapatnam -530002 .

APPEARANCES

Forthe Petitioner : Nil

For the Respondent : Nil 3528

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its orderNo. L- 34011 /4/2006- IR (B - II) dated 13-8-2007 referred the following dispute under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management ofM/ s . Anand Transports and their workmen. Thereference is ,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the Visakhapatnam Port & DockMazdoor Sangh for payment of retrenchment compensation amount to their member workmen viz . S/Sh. V. Sathi Babu and 7 others , Ex- rowing Boat Workers(As per the list) , according to their eligibility, by the management of M/ s Anand Transports , Visakhapatnam ( engaged in Stevedore Workers at Visakhapatnam Port Area) is legal and/or justified ? Ifso, to what relief the concerned union is entitled?" The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.43/2007 and notices were issued to the parties .

2. For several adjournments including today, i.e. , 2-2-2009, both parties called absent . Petitioner has not filed claim statement even after one and half year of receipt ofhis reference. As such, Nil Award passed .

Award passed accordingly, Transmit.

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 Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent

NIL

NIL Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली , 20 मई , 2009

का.आ. 1719.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का: 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सेंट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , पटना के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 23 ( C )/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुओ था ।

[सं. एल-12011/100/2007- आईआर (बी- II ) ] राजेन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi , the 20th May, 2009

S.O. 1719. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 23 ( C)/ 2008 ) of the Industrial Tribunal , Patna now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in reiation to the management of M/ s. Central Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-5-2009 .

[No. L - 12011 / 100/2007 - IR (B - II ) ]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Reference Case No. 23( C) of 2008 .

Between the Zonal Manager , Central Bank of India, B-Block, 2nd Floor, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna and their workman Sri Suboth Prasad Yadav , represented by the Genereal Ssecretary , Industriai Mazdoor Congress , Rajbanshi Nagar, Patna .

For the Management: Shri Jai Shankar Prasad Representative.

For the Workman :Shri D. Ram, General Secretary ofINTUC , Bihar .

Present : Vasudeo Ram , Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Patna

AWARD

Patna, dated the 12th May , 2009

Byadjudication order No. L- 12011 /100/2007- IR(B- II) , dated 7-1-2008 , the Govt. of India, Ministry ofLabour,New Delhi under clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub-section (2A) of Section- 10 of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act' for brevity) has referred, the following dispute between the management of Central Bank ofIndia, B. Block , 2nd Floor , Maurya Lok Complex , Patna and their workman Shri Suboth Prasad Yadav , represented bythe General Secretary . INTUC , Bihar for adjudication to this Tribunai on following:

"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India Zonal Office Patna in terminating not reinstating and not regularising the service of Shri Suboth Prasad Yadav working as daily wage worker in Class - IV subordinate staff without complying Section 25F of I.D. Act is justified & legal ? If not, whatrelief the workman is entitled to ?"

2. Both the parties appeared on notice and filed statement of claim and the written statement .

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

3. On last several dates neither workman is present nor any steps has been taken . I presume that the workman or his repressntative in not interested to pursue this reference case . Under the circumstances . I hereby pass a "No dispute Award" .

3.And this is my Award.

VASUDEO RAM , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 20 मई , 2009

का.आ. 1720.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सेंट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 301/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/247/99- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] राजेन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 20th May , 2009

S.O. 1720. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 301 / 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal , Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India Nagpur, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-5-2009 .

[No. L- 12012/247 /99 -IR (B -II) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI A. N. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT- CUM - LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR Case No. CGIT/NGP/301/2000

Date: 30-4-2009

Petitioner/ : Shri Yeshwant Chouragade ,

PartyNo. 1 Bhagwan Nagar , Near Floor Mill , Nagpur

Versus

Respondent/ : The Zonal Manager ,

PartyNo. 2 Central Bank of India , Nagpur.

AWARD

Dated: 30thApril, 2009

1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence of dispute beween Shri Yeshwant Chouragade ,

3529 Nagpur (Party No. 1) and the Zonal Manager , Central Bank of India, Nagpur (Party No. 2) referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its letter No.L- 12012/ 247/99/ IR (B - II ) dated 29-9-2000 under clause (d) of sub- section ( 1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 [ 14 of 1947 ] with the following schedule .

2. "Whether it is a fact that Shri Yeshwant Chouragade has been engaged as a sub - staff on temporary/ part-time basis by the management of Central Bank of India during the period from 1990 to 1999 ? If so , whether the action of the management in terminating the services of the disputant is legal and justified ? If not, justified , what relief is the disputant concerned entitled to ? " Whether the action of the management to engage a large number of persons to work for short period of time one after the another, on rotation, instead of filling up the vacancies on regular basis , is legal and justified ? If not, what directions are necessary in the matter ?"

3. It is the contention ofthe Petitioner, Shri Yeshwant Chouragade that he has been working as a sub - staff on daily reted basis w.e.f. 1990 and since then he is in continuous employment with the Respondent Bank. He has been provided the work for 60 days per year for years together . He worked for 90 days in a calendar year and he was paid Rs . 130 per day. He worked in different branches of the Bank continuously . According to him, he was demanding to provide the work throughout the year . He made a written representation also but the Respondent Bank has deliberately refused to provide the work . Therefore , he raised the dispute which later on due to the failure of reconciliation referred to the Tribunal.

4.The Bankby filing his Written Statement resist his claim, it has denied that the Petitioner worked w.e.f. 1990 as a sub- staff on daily rated basis . He has not submitted and not furnished the details as regards the date on which he worked as well as the details regarding the Branch Office of the Bank in which he has worked on daily wages as a sub -staff employee. He has impeded Zonal Office of the Bank and the Zonal Manager is an administrative head of allthe Regional Offices which falls under his jurisdiction . The Regional Offices are situated in Nagpur, Amravati , Akola , Jalgaon and, therefore , it is not possible to locate unless it is closed the place of working. It is denied that he isworking continuously with the Bank as alleged . It has also denied that the Bank has provided work to him for 60 to 90 days in every calendar year right from 1990. He has not given the details and only wild and vague allegations are made about the actual days of working. This indicates that he himself not certain about working in the Bank. It has also denied that he worked like other regular employees from 10.00 am to 5.30 pm. It has denied that it is pursuing an illegal policy. It has also denied that the Bank engaged large number of employees as daily workers in sub -staff cadre on a rotational basis every year as alleged . It is also 35B0

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

denied that the allegation regarding not maintaining seniority list and also a policy to allow the temporary employees who have worked for a particular period in Class- IV cadre were allowed to appear in the sub - staff Recruitment Test . It is also denied that there was any agreement between Bank and the Union as in the absence of specifically sanctioned post in Class - IV cadre , the question of entertaining the demand of Party No.2 to provide continuous work does not arise at all . It is denied that the Bank indulges in any unfair labour practice and it has committed breach of Sections 25F and H of the Act. He cannot claim to be absorbed or regularized in the employment . It has denied that there are vacancies and the regular work is available in various Branches of the Bank fordaily rated employees .

5. It is submitted on behalf of the Bank when the casual or the daily rated employees are engaged by the Bank only for a temporary period during the leave vacancy of a permanent employee , as a need of work when it is available . It engages when the work is available and dis- engages on completion of work. The discontinuation of temporaryfor casual employees engaged as daily wagers doesnot amount to retrenchment or its unfair labour practice. Finally it is prayed to reject the claim of the Petitioner and pass negative Award .

6.Heard the counsel for both the parties and I have perused the paper of the case . Petitioner simply claimed that he had worked sometimes for 60 days and sometimes for 90 days in one calendar year and he was being paid Rs.130 perday from the year 1990. Further , according to him the Bank takes the work of a permanent employee by engaging sub- staff for 60 or 90 days in one year . It indulges unfair labour practice by continuing sub - staff on a temporary basis. This has been continued since last more than 20 years which amounts to an unfair labour practice .

7. Though the Petitioner has stated the above fact in the statement of claim as well as oral evidence , he has nowhere stated the actual working days . He has not adduced any specific evidence showing that he was in a continuous service and he worked for 240 days in one calendar year . Undisputedly he was provided with the work maximum for 90 days . Therefore, there is no evidence that for how many days he worked with the Bank as a sub-staff. Though, the Petitioner claimed that the management is following the practice of taking work of permanent employee through temporary workers on rotation basis and also no proof to substantiate it undisputedly, the engagement of thePetitioner was neither on a permanent post nor following the recruitment rules . The name of the Petitioner undisputedly was sponsored through employment exchange, even assuming that he had worked for 60 or 90 days. How he has satisfied the conditions which are necessary for the permanency ? In fact, his appointment was not at all on permanent post . Though the Petitioner

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] claims that the working of permanent workman is taken through temporary worker on rotation basis , there is no evidence to show that there was any vacancy of the permanent post or the Petitioner had worked continuously for 240 days . It seems that the Petitioner was provided the work whenever his service is necessary i.e. in absence ofany Clerk proceeded on leave or some other reason for which the permanent employee is not attending office . How permanency can be awarded to them when he has not completed any condition necessary for the same. There is no continuity in actual dates of appointment and the required period. In the absence of such evidence , it cannot be presumed that he must be working for 240 days in the absence of evidence . No inference can be drawn against the management .

8. Further it is contended that the Bank has issued the circular for absorbing the sub -staff on the regular post after taking screening test, interview etc. According to him , as he was in continuous service on temporary basis on daily wager in a capacity of sub- staff, he was entitled for appearing in the examination . According to him , it was an agreement which amount to settlement between the Party No.1 and Party No.2 because that has taken place between the management and the recognized union. But the criteria cannot be applied here because the talk might have taken place in a meeting and even there could be the settlement . In such circumstances , it cannot be said that the talk which has taken place between the Secretary of the Union and theManagement has been ended in settlement . Moreover, that talk and further agreement was in respect of the permanent employees . It was a Bipartite Settlement between the Union and the Bank in respect of permanent employees and not at all in respect of the daily wagers . In my view, it will not give any right to the Petitioner and he has not entitled for any relief as claimed. His services are not continuous nor he has completed required working days as he expected under the provision of ID Act for acquiring permanency. 1 pass the negative award. The reference stands as dismissed . The Petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

Date: 30-4-2009 .

A. N. YADAV , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 20 मई , 2009

का.आ. 1721.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सेंट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया , कोच्चि के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , एरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 332/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12025/01/2009- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] राजेन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

NewDelhi , the 20th May, 2009

S.O. 1721.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 332/ 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal , Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India, Kochi , and their workman,which was received by the Central Government on 20-5-2009 .

3531

[No. L- 12025/01/2009- IR(B-II)]

RAJINDER 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 (Monday the 6th day of April , 2009/ 16th Chaitra, 1931 ) I.D. No. 332 of2006

(1.D. No: 35/2003 of Labour Court, Ernakulam) Workman :

P.A.Cleetus ,

Parambiloth House,

Manikkath Cross Road,

Ravipuram, Kochi -682016

By Adovacte Manoj R.Nair .

Management : The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Kochi- 682016

By Adv. Devan Ramachandaran

Thiscase coming up for hearing on 26-03-2009 , this Tribunal-Cum- Labour Court on 06-04-2009 passed the following:

AWARD

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

"Whether the dismissal of service of Shri P.A. Cleetus by the Management of Central Bank of India was legal or not ? If not, what are the benefits the applicant is entitled to ?"

2. The facts in brief are as follows : The workman Shri P.A. Cleetus was Computer Terminal Operator (C.T.O. ) in 1998. While so , on 09-04-1998 he applied for voluntary retirement. He worked till 18-04-1998 and thereafter applied for leave for 45 days from 20-04-1998 and then on its expiry for extension of leave for another 45 days with medical certificate . But the management demanded a medical certificate from a Government doctor not below the rank of a Civil Surgeon. The workman, however, did not produce medical certificates required by the management. The management informed the workman that his voluntary retirement application was not favourably considered by the competent authority and, hence, he should report for dutyimmediately. The workman did not resume duty after 90 days' leave he bad applied for. The bank treated his absence as unauthorised . Besides it was alleged by the bank that the workman had stood guarantee for loan ofhis brother in - law and the loan was defaulted which ended in a decree in a civil suit . In execution ofthe decree attachment ofsalary ofworker was ordered. The management alleges that the worker had gone abroad without informing the management and despite repeated letters and notices the workman did not disclose his whereabouts . On these grounds a charge sheet was issued to him on 20-09-2000 and a domestic enquiry was ordered. In the enquiry the workman remained absent and none represented him and hence the enquiry was proceeded with ex-parte. Three witnesses were examined and 26 documents were marked onthe side ofmanagement. The Enquiry Officer foundthe workman guilty ofall the three charges falling under Clause 19.5 (e) & (j ) of First Bipartite Settlement and 19.5(p ) of6th Bipartite Settlement dated 14-02-1995 . The Disciplinary Authority dismissed him from service. The decision of the management in rejecting the voluntary retirement application was challenged in Writ Petition by the worker. Buthis contention was not accepted and the Writ Petition was dismissed. Against that a Writ Appeal was filed. But he did not succeed. However , the appeal was dismissed without prejudiceto the right of the workman to adjudicate hisclaim,

3. The main contention of the workman is that he was denied adequate opportunity to defend the charges and the enquiry was proceeded with ex-parte. It is alleged that the Enquiry Officer did not give him notice and failed to comply with the principles ofnatural justice . The V.R.S. application was never rejected by the competent authority and no such communication was given to the workman. Onthe expiry ofthe period of three months the application, ifnot rejected, is deemed to have been allowed. There is no unauthorised absence as the workman had applied for leave during the pendency of voluntary retirement application. The loan transaction in which he was a guarantor was settledby his brother- in - law . Therefore , none ofthe charges are sustainable . The punishment is imposed by an incompetent person. The entire disciplinary proceedings are liable to be set aside .

4. According to the management the workman was given sufficient notice by the Enquiry Officer . But he preferred to remain absent . Hence, witnesses were examined on the management side and documents were marked. Based on such materials the charges were found proved. The disciplinary authority taking into consideration the 35321

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

[PART II--- SEC. 3 ( i) ] nature of the misconduct dismissed the workman from service . There is no violation of principles of natural justice. Hisapplication for voluntary retirement was rejected by the competent authority and was communicated to him within time, Despite several show cause notices the workman failed to rejoin duty or send reply to the notices. He stood guarantee for a loan and failed to repay the loan amount. Thus he incurred a debt which was in excess of his means to repay . The findings are based on evidence on record and the punishment is in proportion to the gravity ofthe misconduct .

5. In the light of the above contentions the points that arise for consideration are :

11. Are the findings sustainable?

2. Is the punishment proportionate ?

The evidence consists of the oral testimony of WWs.1 and 2 and documentary evidence of Exts . WI to 22 on the side of the workman and Ext.MI Enquiry File on the side of the management .

6. Point No.1 : At the very outset the learned counsel for the management submitted that unless the propriety of enquiry is assailed the findings cannot be attacked . It is true that though in the claim statement a contention is taken that the workman was not given sufficient opportunity to prove his innocence and he was not given notice of enquiry by the Enquiry Officer at the time of hearing this contention was not pursued . Even if the enquiry was properly conducted following the principles of natural justice still the perversity of the findings can be gone into ina reference under Section 10 ( 1)( d) of I.D.Act . But it is to be noted that this is a case of dismissal from service falling within S - 114 of 1.D.Act . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in a case falling within S - 11A the Industrial Tribunal can differ both on findings and punishment (workmenofFire Stone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India ( 1973 ) J -LL278 ).

amount out of the retiral benefits . Ext . W3 dated 23-05-1998 is a communication from the Chief Manager of the Bank informing the workman that his application for voluntary retirement was not considered favourably by the competent authority. It is further stated that he will not be deemed to have retired on the expiry of the period of three months from the date of application for voluntary retirement unless a specific communication from the management is received inthatregard . Ext . W- 12 is a letter dated 17-06-2000 issued by the management to the worker reminding him to make an undertaking so that his application for V.R.S. could be considered. It is also stated that in case no undertaking is given departmental proceedings will be initiated for unauthorised absence from 18-04-1998 and for incurring debt . It is contended by the learned counsel for the workman that Ext . W - 12 is self explanatory that his application for voluntary retirement was still under consideration of the bank and it was not rejected within three months from the date of application. If so , as per the deeming provision in Regulation 29(2) proviso the application stands allowed on expiry of the period of notice . According to the management Ext. W- 12 was issued in pursuance to repeated request of the workman for considering his application for voluntary retirement . But the learned counsel submits that the application was already rejected and communicated to the workman by Ext . W- 3 (same as Ext.MEX - 7 in Ext.MI Enquiry File) . This question was considered in Writ Petition No.283 16 of 2000 and the Hon'ble High Court found that the rejection of the application for voluntary retirement was communicated by Ext.P2 letter dated 23-05-98 ( same as Ext . W3 ) and it is valid. Though an appeal was filed against the judgment in W.P. it was dismissed . According to the learned counsel for the workman the observation of the single bench in the Writ Petition was reviewed in R.P. 94 of 2003 and the R.P. was allowed on 21-11-2003 . But the order is not produced . It is abundantly clear from Ext. W3 letter of the Chief Manager that the application for voluntary retirement was rejected by the competent authority . It was also made clear in the letter that the workman shall not be in an impression that on expiry ofthe period of three inonths he will be deemed to have retired from service . In the light of Ext . W3 there is no room for anydoubt that his application was rejected well before the expiry of the period of three months . Ext . W- 12 letter dt . 17-06-2000 is only a persuasion to get an undertaking from the workman to recover decree amount out of the retiral benefits .

7. According to the learned counsel for the workman Regulation 29(2 ) of the Central Bank of India (Employees ) Pension Regulations , 1995 stipulates that if the competent authority does not pass an order refusing permission for voluntary retirement within three months from the date of application the retirement will become effective from the date ofexpiry ofthe said period. According to the workman no order rejecting his application was communicated to him by the competent authority within the period of notice (3 months) . Hence the application is deemed to have been allowed. Therefore the learned counsel submits that there is nolunauthorised absence,

9. It is an admitted fact that he had worked in the bank till 18-04-1998 . From 20-04-1998 onwards he remained absent . He applied for leave for 45 days from 20-04-1998 and thereafter for extension of leave for another 45days. Both applications were accompanied by medical certificates . Thereafter he did not apply for leave . Even if 8. Ext. W1 is an applicationdt . 09-04-1998 for voluntary retirement, Ext . W2 is a letter of the management dated 06-05-1998 asking the workman to make an undertaking that he has no objection in recovering the suit [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

his applications were sanctioned the period of leave would have expired by 18-07-1998 . Since there is no leave application for the period subsequent to 18-07-1998 and his application for voluntary retirement stands rejected the period after 18-07-1998 cannot be treated as authorised. According to the enquiry officer absence from 20-04-1998 to 18-07-1998 cannot be strictly treated as unauthorised because the workman had submitted medical certificates and they were accepted and recorded in the leave record book and had treated the period of leave as leave on loss of pay on both occasions . However at page 5 of the report it is mentioned that since no leave application was submitted for the period subsequent to 18-07-1998 the entire period from 20-04-1998 onwards has to be treated as unauthorised . According to the management the workman was asked to produce medical certificate from a government doctor not below the rank of a civil surgeon . This was not complied with by the workman . Hence the absence from 20-04-1998 is unauthorised . It is unnecessary for this court to probe into that aspect of inconsistency in the finding as the absence after 18-07-1998 is clearly unauthorised.

10. It is an admitted fact that the workman had stood guarantee for a loan availed in the name of M/ s . Minerva Studio . It's Proprietor was his brother- in -law . The loan was defaulted and there was a civil suit and a decree . In execution of the decree salary of workman was ordered to be attached. The Proprietor of Minerva Studio agreed to settle the dues only by letter dated 31-10-2000 , one month after the charge sheet was issued . Thus there was already adebt incurred by the workman, which the bank considered, was beyond the means of the workman to repay.

3533 since in the letter nothing against the findings or punishment was stated the Disciplinary Authority passed a final order imposing the punishment of dismissal without notice as per clause 19.6 (a) of First Bipartite Settlement. Ext.W- 19 is the letter . What is stated in the letter is that he had served the bank for 26 years without any blemish , that due to a fire accident in the apartment of his children in USA and the consequent problems he had to leave for USA immediately and this was brought to the notice of bank officers . It is a copy of the letter produced by the worker before this court and it is nil dated. The original is seen among the records of enquiry file , Ext.M 1. All the three charges relate to major misconduct . Though the workman had a power - of- attorney and an authorised representative (mother- in - law) to receive communications from the bank the workman failed to intimate the bank that he was abroad since 20-04-1998 . At any rate there is no written communication to bank . The workman has not been able to point out any mitigating circumstances to reduce the punishment . The charge sheet was issued after more than 2 years on 20-09-2000 . Though the learned counsel for the workman submits that the competent disciplinary authority is the Regional Manager of the bank and not the Chief Manager he has not been able to point out with reference to any record that the Regional . Manager is the Disciplinary Authority. For the reasons stated above I find no ground to interfere with the punishment either .

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.

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 6th day ofApril, 2009 .

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer

Appendix

Witness for the Workman

WWI - 03-09-2008 Shri.P.A. Cleetus .

WW2-02-12-2008

Shri.N.S.Ravindranathan .

Witness for the Management- Nil .

Exhibits for the Workman

11. As per the memo of charges there are three charges . The first charge is unauthorised absence . The 2nd charge is leaving India without intimation to the bank and without furnishing the change of address which according to the bank is an act prejudicial to the interest of the bank. The 3rd charge is that he stood guarantee for a loan but failed to repay and thus incurred a debt beyond his means . Though there was an order of attachment of salary since the workman remained absent continuously from 20-04-1998 and since there was no leave at credit the attachment could not be effected. It is an act prejudicial to the interest of the bank. The enquiry Officer found that all the charges are proved . The finding is based on documentary and oral evidence (MWs . I to 3 ) and I find no reason to differ from the finding .

12. Point No. 2 : The disciplinary authority had given notice proposing punishment and giving an opportunity for personal hearing on 15-05-2001 . But the workman did not avail the opportunity. However as per the direction in Writ Petition to consider a registered letter sent by the workman and received by the bank on 07-08-2001 and pass appropriate orders , the same was considered by the Disciplinary Authority . Accordingto the management WI 09-04-1998- Letter from the workman to the management.

W2 06-05-1998 Letter from the management to the workman.

23-05-1998

Letter No. WIL/98-99/ 174 from the management to the workman .

27-07-1998

Letter No.WIL/98-99/366 from the 3534

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

management to the workman.

W5 07-08-1998 Letter No. WIL/98-99/409 from the management to the workman.

W6 13-10-1998 Memo No.WIL/98-99/601 from the management to the workman.

Copy of O.S.No.490 of 1994 EP 398/96 from Court of the Sub Judge, Ernakulam

W8 19-08-1999 Memo No.WIL/99-2K :306 from the management to the workman.

W9 30-08-1999 Copy of letter from the workman to the management .

W-10 09-03-2000 Memo No.WIL/99-2K: 727 from the management.

W11 20-03-2000 Letter from the workman to the management.

W-12 17-06-2000 Memo No. WIL:2K-01 : 105from the Management .

01-11-2000

W-13

Copy of letter from the workman to the Management .

W-14 20-09-2000 Enquiry Report Sr.No.8 .

31-10-2000

W-15

[PART II SEC. 3(ii) ] ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 302/2000) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

la, y &12012248@1999&vRký (chadi ) ] राजेन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 21st May, 2009

S.O. 1722.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government herebypublishes the award (Ref. No.302/2000) ofthe CentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal Court Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-5-2009 .

[No. L-12012/248/99- IR(B- II) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI A. N. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM- LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR CaseNo. CGIT/NGP/302/2000

Date 30-4-2009 Petitioner/ PartyNo. 1

Copyofletter from Minerva Studio totheManagement.

W-16 11-12-2000 Copy of letter from Central Bank ofIndia Employees ' Union to the management.

Shri Dilip Eknathrao Taklikar , Juni Mangalwari , Mattipura Nagpur-440008

Versus

Respondent/

PartyNo. 2

W-17

Ο.Ρ.Νο.28316 of 2000 of the Hon'ble High Court ofKerala.

W-18

Copy ofO.P.No.28316 of2000 (U) of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.

W-19 19-02-2001 Copy of letter from the workman to the management .

W-20-11-04-2001 Copy of show cause Memo No. WILLIN/01-02/40 from the management .

W-21-15-09-2001

Copy of letter No.CRO: PRS : 01- 02:656 from the management.

W-22 Review petition No.94 of 2003 in O.P.No.28316 of2000 .

Exhibit for the Management

EnquiryFile. नई दिल्ली, 21 मई , 2009

MI का.आ. 1722 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सैन्ट्रल बैंक

The Zonal Manager, Central Bank ofIndia, Nagpur AWARD

(Dated: 30thApril, 2009)

1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence ofdispute between Shri Dilip Eknathrao Taklikar, Nagpur (Party No.1 ) and the Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India, Nagpur (Party No.2) referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its letter No.L- 12012/ 248/99 / IR ( B - II ) dated 29-9-2000 under clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub -section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial DisputeAct, 1947 (14 of 1947) with the following schedule .

2. "Whether it is a fact that Shri Dilip Eknathrao Taklikar has been engaged as a Sub - staff on temporary/ part-time basis by the management of Central Bank of Indiaduring the period from 1991 to 1999 ? Ifso , whether the action of the management in terminating the services of the disputant is legal and justified ? If not , justified, what relief is the disputant concerned entitled to ? Whether the action of the management to engage a large number of persons to work for short period of time one after the another , on rotation , instead of filling up the vacancies on regular basis , is legal and justified? If not, what directions are necessary in the matter ? " [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

3. The Petitioner , Shri Dilip Eknathrao Taklikar contended that he has been working with the Bank respondent w.e.f. 17-9-1991 as a Sub - staff and is being paid Rs . 130 per day . The Bank provides him 60 to 90 days work in every calendar year right from the date ofhis initial appointment and he claims to have worked about on 516 days till 1999. He works as per the regular employee right from 10.30 AM to 5.30 PM in all the branches in the city of Nagpur . The Respondent Bank discontinued him after 60 days and appointed another employee in the same category in his place and the another employee also provided only 60 days work on rotation basis . It does not maintain the seniority list while providing the work to the Subordinate staff. This act of the Bank is in contravention of Section 25F and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

4. Further , according to him, the Bank issued a Circular No. CO :93-94/234 dated 20-9-1993 as it has decided to recruit sub - staff from temporary employees who were working 60 to 90 days from 1-1-1982 to 31-12-1986 and from 1-1-1987 to 24-12-1990 by taking their test before recruitment . This clause ofCircular is part of the agreement between the management and All India Central Bank Employees Federation , the recognized union of the Bank that clause binding on both the parties and the Bank has agreed to allow such employees to appear in the said recruitment test. However, the Petitioner was never allowed or called for the said test and it is against the policy depriving the Petitioner the benefits ofpermanent employee. Despite of the repeated and continuous request of the Petitioner demanding continuous work, the management refused to consider his demand and therefore he has raised thisdispute . It is contended that the act of management of providing work only for 60 days on rotation basis is unfair labour practice as per Item No.10 of Schedule IV to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Petitioner is entitled for regularization and he has prayed to direct the Bank to regularize his services and to direct it to provide continuous work to him.

5. The Bank by filing his Written Statement resist his claim , it has denied that the Petitioner worked w.e.f. 17-9-1991 as a sub- staff on daily rated basis . He has not submitted and not furnished the details as regards the date on which he worked as well as the details regarding the BranchOffice of the Bank in which he has worked on daily wages as a sub - staff employee . He has impeded Zonal Office of the Bank and the Zonal Manager is an administrative head of all the Regional Offices which falls under hisjurisdiction. The Regional Offices are situated in Nagpur, Amravati , Akola , Jalgaon and therefore it is not possible to locate unless it is closed the place of working. It is denied that he is working continuously with the Bank as alleged. It has also denied that the Bank has provided work to him for 60 to 90 days in every calendar year right from 1991. He has not given the details and only wild and vague allegations are made about the actual days of 2137 Gl/09-21

3535

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

working. This indicates that he himself not certain about working in the Bank . It has also denied that he worked like other regular employees from 10.30 am to 5.30 pm . It has denied that it is pursuing an illegal policy. It has also denied that the Bank engaged large number of employees as daily workers in sub -staff cadre on a rotational basis every year as alleged. It has denied that the Petitioner has completed 516 days of work up to 1999. It is also denied that the allegation regarding not maintaining seniority list and also apolicy to allow the temporary employees who have worked for a particular period in Class - IV cadre were allowed to appear in the sub- staff Recruitment Test. It is also denied that there was any agreement between Bank and the Union as in the absence of specifically sanctioned post in Class- IV cadre, the question of entertaining the demand ofParty No.2 to provide continuous work does not arise at all . It is denied that theBank indulges in any unfair labour practice and ithas committed breach of Section 25F and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He cannot claim to be absorbed or regularized in the employment . It has denied thatthere are vacancies and the regular work is available in various Branch of the Bank for daily rated employees .

6. It is submitted on behalf of the Bank when the casual or the daily rated employees are engaged by the Bank only for a temporary period during the leave vacancy of a permanent employee , as a need of work when it is available . It engages when the work is available and disengages the discontinuation of temporary or casual employees engaged as daily wagers does not amount to retrenchment or its unfair labour practice. Finally it is prayed toreject the claim ofthe Petitioner and pass negative Award.

7.Heardthe counsel for both the parties and I have perused the paper of the case . According to the Petitioner Shri Dilip Eknathrao Taklikar , he worked w.e.f. 17-9-1991 in acapacity of the sub-staff @ Rs . 120 per day and till 1997 he worked for 413 days and up to 28-8-2000 total goes up to462 days . He worked in main Branch at Nagpur . However, his services came to be terminated w.e.f. 23-8-2000 . He was provided with the work for 60 to 90 days in every calendar year since the date ofhis initial appointment and on rotation basis with the mala fide intension to deprive him from permanency. Engaging large number of subordinate staff on rotation basis is an unfair labour practice and that practice has been followed by the Bank from last 20 years . The workman has worked for more than 10 years . The policy of engaging casual labour for years together is not allowed. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has in 'Rajkamal - versus- Union of India deprecated the policy of engaging the casual labours for years together . He has submitted that the Petitioner worked in various branches . According to him it is crystal clear that the Bank is indulging in unfair labour practice . However , from the pleading ofthe Respondent Bank as well as submission it seems that the Bank has engaged the Petitioner when the work was available je . particularly during leave vacancy. It is a fact 3536

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]

all . The Safai Karmachari , Office Peon, Part-time Safai Karmachari who are working as regular permanent employees are entitled to the various benefits and privileges under the bipartite settlement at par with other permanent employees of the Bank. However, the daily wagers are not covered in that settlement or an agreement because they are engaged on purely temporary basis for a temporary period and therefore, they cannot be considered for the regularization . It is fact that the Petitioner was not at all sponsored through the Employment Exchange . There is nowritten Order to absorb him even as casual labour . On the contrary, it appears that he was provided with the work as and when it was available . He has also never worked continuously and in such circumstances how the Petitioner can claim vested interest of being permanent or for appearing in a particular test . Similarly, there is nothing on record to show that the management without filling permanent vacant post is taking the work through casual labour for years together. When there is no vacant post, it cannot be said that the management is taking the work of permanent employees through casual workers and in such circumstances , in my opinion the Petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed by him . The reference deserves to be dismissed and he is not entitled for any benefits . Hence I dismiss the reference and pass negative award .

Dated:30-4-2009

A.N. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 21 मई , 2009

का.आ. 1723.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब एण्ड सिंध बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , चंडीगढ़- I को पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 109/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/27/98- आईआर ( बी -11 ) ] राजेन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी that though the Petitioner was engaged at various places buthe was not engaged continuously. Even the statement filed by the Petitioner indicates that he does not work continuously and therefore , the submission of the management that he was provided with the work as and whenrequired appears to be proved. The Petitioner initially hasnot produced the single document showing even exact working days. Later on when the management demanded better particulars he has submitted a list under which he has shown that he worked for 609 days till 24-11-2000. However , the Bank has submitted a separate list showing actual days when he was engaged up to May, 1999. Both the lists show that the Petitioner was never engaged continuously and he has never worked continuously even for 240 days in one calendar year. Accordingly to the Petitioner, the management was deliberately not engaging the Petitioner because it was intending to avoid the permanency and is continuing to take the work from the casual workers by rotation. In fact, there is nothing on record to indicate that the Petitioner was engaged in any permanent post or in clear vacancy as indicated above . He has not even produced an evidence to show that he was given appointment order . On the contrary, his cross- examination goes to show that he has no written document to show that he has worked for 413 days till 1997 as submitted by him . As per Circular, the persons who were working continuously were given an opportunity of appearing in the test for the recruitment on the permanent post.The casual workers are engaged by the Bank only for the temporary period during the leave vacancy of the permanent employees and when the work is not available, the daily wagers are discontinued . This discontinuation cannot be treated as a termination of the service when a particular person was not engaged on a clear vacancy or vacant post . In my view, the Petitioner cannot claim a permanency. For claiming a permanency on a particular post, it is necessary that he should work continuously in a clear vacancy or a vacant post for 240 days . Here, his total working might have gone for more than 240 days but that is not within one calendar year or he has not worked continuously. In such circumstances , in my view, he cannot claimpermanency.

New Delhi , the 21st May, 2009

S.O. 1723 In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 109/98 ) oftheCentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal , Chandigarh -1 now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Punjab & Sind Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 21-5-2009.

[No. L -12012/27/98 - IR (B - II) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer 8. Further it has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that as per the Circulardt.20-9-1993 , the Bank has decided to absorb the temporary employees in subordinate staff and they would be allowed to appear in theSub -staff Recruitment Test who have been working for 90 days from 1-1-1982 to 3-12-1986 and for 60 days from 1-1-1987 to 24-12-1990. This staff is to be given preference for the said test. According to the counsel for the Petitioner, this Circular amount to an agreement and as per the agreement they are entitled to appear for examination . However, the submission cannot be accepted because this agreement has never taken place . It is not an agreement at 3537 [ भाग 11-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,

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

CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 109/98

Shri Surinder Kumar Bhagi S/o Shri Hira Lal Bhagi , EL-94, Sham Gali Bazar Punj Peer, Near Gurudwara,

....Applicant

Jalandhar City

Versus

The Branch Manager, New Sabzi Mandi,

Kaksudan, Jalandhar

....Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman : Sri R.K. Singh.

Sri J.S.Sathi .

For the management :

After affording opportunity for adducing evidence and hearing the parties, I am of the view that issue before this Tribunal is not regarding the regularization of the services of the workman but the issue is regarding the protection ofthe right to work ofthe workman in compliance ofthe provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. It is admitted fact that the workman was engaged by the manager of the bank and the few certificates shows that the process for regularization of his services were also in transit between the manager of the bank and head office of the bank. In calculating the days the management admittedly has not counted Sundays and holidays . If this period is counted the working days became much more than 240 days . The workman has worked continuously with the management and as per the service jurisprudence the interminant minor breaks which include Sundays and holidays shall be countedwhile calculating the working days of the workman . Thus, there is no doubt, that workman has completed 240 days ofwork with the management before his termination .

AWARD

Passed on 23-4-2009

Government of India vide notification No. L- 12012/ 27/98 - IR(B - II ) , dated 4-6-1998 referred the following industrial dispute for judicial adjudication to this Tribunal :

It is also admitted fact that no notice, one month salary in lieu of the notice or retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman before the termination of his services . It is in violation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act . Accordingly , the termination , being inviolative ofthe provisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, isvoid.

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab and Sind Bank represented by the Branch Manager , New Sabzi Mandi , Kaksudan , Jalandhar in terminating the services ofShri Surinder Kumar Bhagi, ex-daily rated peon w.e.f. 14-7-1997 is just and legal . Ifnot, towhat relief the said workman is entitled to ?"

On perusal of the pleadings of both of the parties it isevident that workman has pressed his claim on the ground that he has worked with the management as peon from 22-10-1996 to 13-7-1997 continuously and had completed 240 days of work with the management in the preceding year from thedate ofhis termination . It was also contended bythe workman that no notice , one month wages in lieu of the notice or retrenchment compensation was paid to him before the termination of his services . On this very ground the workman has prayed for declaration his termination as illegal and for an order for his reinstatement into the services with full backwages.

When the termination of the workman is declared void by the Tribunal , there are two possible remedies which can be considered for redressal of the grievances of the workman . The first remedy available is the reinstatement of the workman into the service and another is a reasonable compensation. The Tribunal as per the service jurisprudence should prefer for reinstatement of the workman into the services and in exceptional circumstances where the facts and circumstances of the case so warrants should go for a reasonable compensation . In this care, as stated by the management no vacancy is available . Under such circumstances where vacancies are not availab'e and regularization of services cannot be considered by this Tribunal , 1 am of the view that a reasonable compensation will meets the ends of the justice . Considering the facts and circumstances of the case , wages which were paid to the workman at the time of his termination, tentative amount of retrenchment compensation at the time of his termination from the services, interest their on and depreciation in money, I am of the view that a amount of Rs . 1,00,000 (one lakh) will meets the ends ofjustice . Accordingly, management ofthe bank is directed to pay Rs . 1,00,000 (one lakh) to the workman within one month from the date ofpublication of this award. It is hereby made clear that if the management paythe amount within one month, no interest shall be paid to the workman . In case management failed to pay Rs . 1,00,000 to the workman within one month , the workman will also be entitled for the interest at rate of 8 % per annum from the date of the filing the claim petition ti " the final payment The referene is accordingly answered.

The management of the bank has admitted that the workman worked with the management as daily waged worker at the rate of Rs . 50 per day but contended that from October 1996- to July 1997, he has only worked for 207 days with the manageinent . The bank has further contended that as per the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, no notice or retrenchment compensation was required to be given. The management of the bank has also challenged the legality of initial appointment of the workman and submitted that in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs. UmaDevi and others J.T. 2006 (4), SC, 420 case the service ofthe workman cannot be regularized by this Tribunal .

3538

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

Central Government be infonned and thereafter , file be

consigned

G.K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 21 मई , 2009

ofthe disputant is legal and justified ? If not, justified, whatrelief is the disputant concerned entitled to ? " Whether the action of the management to engage a large number of persons to work for short period of time one after the another , on rotation, instead of filling up the vacancies on regular basis , is legal and justified ? If not , what directions are necessary in the matter ? "

का.ओ. 1724.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का(14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सैन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, नागपुर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 303/2000) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/249/99-आईआर ( बी- II ) ]

राजेन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 21st May, 2009

3. The Petitioner, Shri Rajesh Wankhede contended that he has been working with the Bank respondent w.e.f. 120-10-1990 as a sub - staff and is being paid Rs . 120 per day. The Bank provides him 60 to 90 days work in every calendar year right from the date of his initial appointment and he claims to have worked about 519 days till 1999. He works as per the regular employee right from 10.30 AM to 5.30 PM in all the branches in the city of Nagpur . The Respondent Bank discontinued him after 60 days and appointed another employee in the same category in his place and the another employee also provided only 60 days work on rotation basis . It does not maintain the seniority list while providing the work to the subordinate staff. This act of the Bank is in contravention of Section 25F and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .

S.O. 1724.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 303/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India , Nagpur and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-5-2009.

[No. L- 12012/249/99- IR (B -II) ]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Date30-4-2009

Case No. CGIT/NGP/303/2000

Petitioner/ PartyNo. 1

Shri Rajesh Wankhede, New Godam, Ward No. 30 , Kamptee , Dist. Nagpur

Versus

Respondent/ PartyNo. 2

The Zonal Manager , Central Bank of India,

Nagpur

AWARD

Dated: 30thApril , 2009

4. Further, according to him , the Bank issued a Circular No.CO:93-94/234 dated 20-9-1993 as it has decided to recruit sub - staff from temporary employees who were working 60 to 90 days from 1-1-1982 to 31-12-1986 and from 1-1-1987 to 24-12-1990 by taking their test before recruitment . This clause of Circular is an agreement between the management and All India Central Bank Employees Federation , the recognized union of the Bank that clause binding on both the parties and the Bank has agreed to allow such employees to appear in the said recruitment test . However, the Petitioner was never allowed or called for the said test and it is against the policy depriving the Petitioner the benefits of permanent employee . Despite of the repeated and continuous request of the Petitioner demanding continuous work, the management refused to consider his demand and therefore he has raised thisdispute. It is contended that the act of management of providing work only for 60 days on rotation basis is unfair labour practice as per Item No.10 of Schedule IV to the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. The Petitioner is entitled for regularization and he has prayed to direct the Bank to regularize his services and to direct it to provide continuous workto him.

1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence of dispute between Shri Rajesh Wankhede , Nagpur (Party No.1) and the Zonal Manager , Central Bank of India , Nagpur ( Party No.2 ) referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its letter No.L- 12012/ 249/99 / IR ( B - II ) dated 29-9-2000 under clause (d) of sub- section (1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial DisputeAct, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) with the following schedule.

5. The Bank by filing Written Statement resist his claim, it has denied that the Petitioner worked w.e.f. 21-10-1990 as a sub - staff on daily rated basis . He has not submitted and not furnished the details as regards the date on which he worked as well as the details regarding the Branch Office of the Bank in which he has worked on daily wages as a sub - staff employee . He has impeded Zonal Office of the Bank and the Zonal Manager is an administrative head of all the Regional Offices which falls under his jurisdiction . The Regional Offices are situated in 2. Whether it is a fact that Shri Rajesh Wankhede has been engaged as a sub - staff on temporary/part - time basis by the management of Central Bank of Indiaduring the period from 1990 to 1999 ? If so, whether the action of the management in terminating the services 3539 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

Nagpur, Amravati , Akola, Jalgaon and therefore it is not possible to locate unless it is closed the place of working . It is denied that he is working continuously with the Bank as alleged . It has also denied that the Bank has provided work to him for 60 to 90 days in every calendar year right from 1990. He has not given the details and only wild and vague allegations are made about the actual days of working. This indicates that he himself not certain about working in the Bank, It has also denied that he worked like other regular employees from 10.30 am to 5.30 pm. It has denied that it is pursuing an illegal policy. It has also denied that the Bank engaged large number of employees as daily workers in sub -staff cadre on a rotational basis every year as alleged. It has denied that the Petitioner has completed 516 days of work up to 1999. It is also denied that the allegation regarding not maintaining seniority list and also a policy to allow the temporary employees who have worked for a particular period in Class - IV cadre were allowed to appear in the sub- staff Recruitment Test . It is also denied that there was any agreement between Bank and the Union as in the absence of specifically sanctioned post in Class- IV cadre, the question of entertaining the demand of Party No.2 to provide continuous work does not arise at all . It is denied that the Bank indulges in any unfair labour practice and it has committed breach of Section 25F and 25H ofthe Act . He cannot claim to be absorbed or regularized in the employment . It has denied that there are vacancies and the regular work is available in various Branch of the Bank for daily rated employees .

6. It is submitted on behalf of the Bank when the casual or the daily rated employees are engaged by the Bank only for a temporary period during the leave vacancy of a permanent employee , as a need of work when it is available . It engages when the work is available and disengages the discontinuation of temporary or casual employees engaged as daily wagers does not amount to retrenchment or its unfair labour practice . Finally it is prayed to reject the claim of the Petitioner and pass negative Award .

engaging the casual labours for years together . He has submitted that the Petitioner worked in various branches . According to him it is crystal clear that the Bank is indulging inunfair labour practice . However, from the pleading ofthe Respondent Bank as well as submission it seems that the Bank has engaged the Petitioner when the work was available i.e. particularly during leave vacancy. It is a fact that though the Petitioner was engaged at various places but he was not engaged continuously . Even the statement filed by the Petitioner indicates that he does not work continuously and therefore , the submission of the management that he was provided with the work as and whenrequired appears to be proved. The Petitioner initially has not produced the single document showing even exact working days . Later on when the management demanded better particulars he has submitted a list under which he has shown that he worked for 462 days till 28-8-2000 . However , the Bank has submitted a separate list showing actual days when he was engaged up to August, 1999. Both the lists show that the Petitioner was never engaged continuously and he has never worked continuously even for 240 days in one calendar year . Accordingly to the Petitioner, the management was deliberately not engaging the Petitioner because it was intending to avoid the perma- nency and is continuing to take the work from the casual workers by rotation. In fact, there is nothing on record to indicate that the Petitioner was engaged in any permanent post or in clear vacancy as indicated above. He has not evenproduced an evidence to show that he was given appointment order . On the contrary , his cross-examination goes to show that he has no written document to show that he has worked for 413 days till 1999 as submitted by him . As per Circular, the persons who were working continuously were given an opportunity of appearing in the test for the recruitment on the permanent post . The casual workers are engaged by the Bank only for the temporary period during the leave vacancy of the permanent employees and when the work is not available , the daily wagers are discontinued. This discontinuation cannot be treated as a termination of the service when a particular person was not engaged on a clear vacancy or vacant post . In my view, the Petitioner cannot claim a permanency. For claiming a permanency on a particular post, it is necessary that he should work continuously in a clear vacancy or a vacant post for 240 days . Here , his total working might have gone for more than 240 days but that is not within one calendar year or he has not worked continuously . In such circumstances , in my view, he cannot claim permanency.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii )]

their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 21-5-2009.

[No. L- 12012/250// 1999-IR (B -II) ]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT/NGP/304/2000

Date:30-4-2009

Petitioner/PartyNo. I

Shri Shrikant Manohar Rao Kharat, Nandurkar bada, Siraspeth , Nagpur

Versus

Respondent/Party No. 2 The Zonal Manager , Central Bank of India, Nagpur.

AWARD

Dated the 30th April , 2009

1-1-1987 to 24-12-1990. This staff is to be given preference forthe said test .According to the counsel for the Petitioner, this Circular amount to an agreement and as per the agreement they are entitled to appear for examination . However, the submission cannot be accepted because this agreement has never taken place. It is not an agreement at all . The Safal Karamchari , Office Peon, Part- time Safai Karamchari who are working as regular permanent employees are entitled to the various benefits and privileges under the bipartite settlement at par with other permanent employees ofthe Bank . However, the daily wagers are not covered in that settlement or an agreement because they are engaged on purely temporary basis for a temporary period and therefore, they cannot be considered for the regularization . It is fact that the Petitioner was not at all sponsored through the Employment Exchange . There is nowritten Order to absorb him even as casual labour. On the contrary, it appears that he was provided with the work as and when it was available . He has also never worked continuously and in such circumstances how the Petitioner can claim vested interest of being permanent or for appearing in a particular test . Similarly, there is nothing on record to show that the management without filling permanent vacant post is taking the work through casual labour for years together . When there is no vacant post, it cannot be said that the management is taking the work of permanent employees through casual workers and in such circumstances , in my opinion the Petitioner is not entitled forthe reliefclaimed by him. The reference deserves to be dismissed and he is not entitled for any benefits . Hence I dismiss the reference and pass negative award.

I. The Central Government after satisfying the existence ofdispute between Shri Shrikant Manohar Rao Kharat Nagpur (Party No. I ) and the Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India, Nagpur (Party No.2 ) referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its letter No.L - 12012/ 250/99 /IR (B - II ) dated 29-9-2000 under clause (d) of sub Section (1 ) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) with the following schedule .

Dated 30-4-2009

A. N. YADAV, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली , 21 मई , 2009

का.आ. 1725.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सैन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 304/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

2. " Whether it is a fact that Shri Kant Manohar Rao Kharat has been engaged as a Sub - staff on temporary/ part-time basis by the management of Central Bank of India during the period from 1990 to 1999 ? If so , whether the action of the management in terminating the services of the disputant is legal and justified? If not, justified , what relief is the disputant concerned entitled to ? " Whether the action of the management to engage a large number of persons to work for short period of time one after the another, on rotation , instead of filling up the vacancies on regular basis, is legal and justified ? If not , what directions are necessary in the matter ? "

[सं. एल -12012/250/1999 - आईआर ( बी- II ) ] राजेन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 21st May, 2009

$.O. 1725.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.304/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India, Nagpur and

3. The Petitioner, Shri Shrikant Manohar Rao Kharat contended that he has been working with the Bank respondent w.e.f. 9-10-1992 as a Sub - staff and is being paid Rs . 120 per day. The Bank provides him 60 to 90 days work in every calendar year right from the date of his initial appointment and he claims to have worked about on 563 days till 1999. He works as per the regular employee right from 10 AM to 5.30 PM in all the branches in the city of Nagpur. The Respondent Bank discontinued him after 60 days and appointed another employee in the same category in his place and the another employee also provided only [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

60 days work on rotation basis . It does not maintain the seniority list while providing the work to the Subordinate staff. This act of the Bank is in contravention of Section 25F and 25H of the ID Act, 1947.

4. Further, according to him , the Bank issued a Circular No.CO:93-94/234 dated 20-9-1993 as it has decided to recruit sub - staff from temporary employees who were working 60 to 90 days from 1-1-1982 to 31-12-1986 and from 1-1-1987 to 24-12-1990 by taking their test before recruitment. This clause ofCircular is an agreement between the management and all India Central Bank Employees Federation , the recognized union of the Bank that clause binding on both the parties and the Bank has agreed to allow such employees to appear in the said recruitment test. However, the Petitioner was never allowed or called for the said test and it is against the policy depriving the Petitioner the benefits of permanent employee . Despite of the repeated and continuous request of the Petitioner demanding continuous work , the management refused to consider his demand and therefore he has raised this dispute . It is contended that the act of management of providing work only for 60 days on rotation basis is unfair labour practice as per Item No.10 of Schedule IV to the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Petitioner is entitled for regularization and he has prayed to direct the Bank to regularize his services and to direct it to provide continuous work to him.

5. The Bank by filing his WS resist is claim it has denied that the Petitioner worked w.e.f. 9-10-1992 as a sub- staff on daily rated basis . He has not submitted and not furnished the details as regards the date on which he worked as well as the details regarding the Branch Office of the Bank in which he has worked on daily wages as a sub -staff employee. He has impeded Zonal Office of the Bank and the Zonal Manager is an administrative head of all the Regional Offices which falls under his jurisdiction . The Regional Offices are situated in Nagpur, Amravati , Akola, Jalgaon and therefore it is not possible to locate unless it is closed the place of working . It is denied that he is working continuously with the Bank as alleged. It has also denied that the Bank has provided work to him for 60 to 90 days in every calendar year right from 1992. He has not given the details and only wild and vague allegations are made about the actual days of working . This indicates that he himself not certain about working in the Bank . It has also denied that he worked like other regular employees from 10.30 am to 5.30 pm . It has denied that it is pursuing an illegal policy. It has also denied that the Bank engaged large number of employees as daily workers in sub - staff cadre on a rotational basis every year as alleged. It has denied that the Petitioner has completed 563 days of work upto 1999. It isalso denied that the allegation regarding not maintaining seniority list and also a policy to allow the temporary employees who have worked for a particular period in Class - IV cadre were allowed to appear in the sub -staff

3541

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

Recruitment Test. It is also denied that there was any agreement between Bank and the Union as in the absence of specifically sanctioned post in Class - IV cadre , the question of entertaining the demand of Party No.2 to provide continuous work does not arise at all. It is denied that the Bank indulges in any unfair labour practice and it hascommitted breach of Section 25F and 25H ofthe Act . He cannot claim to be absorbed or regularized in the employment. It has denied that there are vacancies and the regular work is available in various Branch ofthe Bank for daily rated employees .

6. It is submitted on behalf of the Bank when the casual or the daily rated employees are engaged by the Bank only for a temporary period during the leave vacancy of a permanent employee , as a need of work when it is available. It engages when the work is available and dis- engages the discontinuation of temporary or casual employees engaged as daily wagers does not amount to retrenchment or its unfair labour practice . Finally it is prayed to reject the claim of the Petitioner and pass negativeAward.

7. Heard the counsel for both the parties and 1 have perused the paper of the case. According to the Petitioner Shri Shrikant Manohar Rao Kharat , he worked w.e.f. 9-10-1992 in a capacity of the sub- staff@ Rs.120/- per day and till 1997 he worked for 413 days and upto 28-8-2000 total goes upto 462 days . He worked in main Branch at Nagpur. However, his services came to be terminated w.e.f. 23-8-2000. He was provided with the work for 60 to 90 days in every calendar year since the date of his initial appointment and on rotation basis with the malafide intension todeprive him from permanency. Engaging large number of sub ordinate staff on rotation basis is an unfair labour practice and that practice has been followed by the Bank from last 20 years . The workman has worked for more than 10 years . The policy of engaging casual labour for years together is not allowed. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has in ' Rajkamal - versus - Union of India deprecated the policy of engaging the casual - labours for years together. He has submitted that the Petitioner worked in various branches. According to him it is crystal clear that the Bank is indulging in unfair labour practice . However, from the pleading of the Respondent Bank as well as submission it seems that the Bank has engaged the Petitioner when the work was available i.e. particularly during leave vacancy . It is a fact that though the Petitioner was engaged at various places but he was not engaged continuously. Even the statement filed by the Petitioner indicates that he does not work continuously and therefore, the submission of the management that he was provided with the work as and when required appears to be proved . The Petitioner initially has not produced the single document showing even exact working days . Later on when the management demanded better particulars he has submitted a list under which he has shown that he worked for462days till 23-8-2000. However, the Bank has submitted 3542

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009 /JYAISTHA 30, 1931

as and when it was available . He has also never worked continuously and in such circumstances how the Petitioner can claim vested interest of being permanent or for appearing in a particular test. Similarly, there is nothing on record to show that the management without filling permanent vacant post is taking the work through casual labour for years together. When there is no vacant post , it cannot be said that the management is taking the work of permanent employees through casual workers and in such circumstances, in my opinion the Petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed by him . The reference deserves to be dismissed and he is not entitled for any benefits . Hence I dismiss the reference and pass negative award .

Date: 30-04-2009.

A. N. YADAV , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 21 मई , 2009

का.आ. 1726 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सैन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया नागपुर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदेर्भ संख्या 305/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/251/1999- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] राजेन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 21st May, 2009

a separate list showing actual days when he was engaged upto August, 1999. Both the lists show that the Petitioner was never engaged continuously and he has never worked continuously even for 240 days in one calendar year . Accordingly to the Petitioner , the management was deliberately not engaging the Petitioner because it was intending to avoid the permanency and is continuing to take the work from the casual workers by rotation . In fact, there is nothing on record to indicate that the Petitioner was engaged in any permanent post or in clear vacancy as indicated above . He has not even produced an evidence to show that he was given appointment order. On the contrary, his cross- examination goes to show that he has no written documenttoshow that he has worked for 413 days till 1997 as submitted by him . As per Circular , the persons who were working continuously were given an opportunity of appearing in the test for the recruitment on the permanent post. The casual workers are engaged by the Bank only for the temporary period during the leave vacancy of the permanent employees and when the work is not available, the daily wagers are discontinued. This discontinuation cannot be treated as a termination of the service when a particular person was not engaged on a clear vacancy or vacant post. In my view, the Petitioner cannot claim a permanency . For claiming a permanency on a particular post, it is necessary that he should work continuously in a clear vacancy or a vacant post for 240 days . Here , his total working might have gone for more than 240 days but that is not within one calendar year or he has not worked continuously. In such circumstances , in my view , he cannot claim permanency .

S.O. 1726 - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.305/ 2000) of the Central Govemment Industrial Tribunal Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Central Bank of India, Nagpur and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 21-5-2009.

[No. L- 12012 /251 / 1999 - IR ( B - II) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

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

Date: 22-4-2009

Case No. CGIT/NGP/305/2000

Petitioner/

PartyNo.1

Shri Rajesh Maroti Patil , New Khalasi Line , C/o Yuvraj Kamble , Kamptee , Dist. Nagpur Versus

Respondent/

PartyNo.2

The Zonal Manager , Central Bank of India , Nagpur.

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009 /ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

AWARD

Dated the 22nd April , 2009.

providing work only for 60 days on rotation basis is unfair labour practice as per Item No.10 of Schedule IV to the . Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Petitioner is entitled for regularization and he has prayed to direct the Bank to regularize his services and to direct it to provide continuous worktohim.

1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence of dispute between Shri Rajesh Maroti Patil , Nagpur (Party No. 1 ) and the Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India , Nagpur (Party No.2 ) referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its letter No.L- 12012/ 251 /99 /IR (B - II ) dated 29-9-2000 under clause (d) ofsub Section(1 ) and sub Section (2A) ofSection 10 of Industrial DisputeAct, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) with the following schedule .

2. "Whether it is a fact that Shri Rajesh Maroti Patil has been engaged as a Sub - staff on temporary/part -time basisby the management of Central Bank of India during the period from 1990 to 1999 ? If so , whether the action of the management in terminating the services of the disputant is legal and justified ? If not, justified, what relief is the disputant concerned entitled to ? " " Whether the action of the management to engage a large number of persons to work for short period of time one after the another , on rotation, instead of filling up the vacancies on regular basis , is legal andjustified? If not, what directions are necessary inthe matter? "

3. The Petitioner, Shri Rajesh Maroti Patil contended that he has been working with the Bank respondent w.e.f 31-7-1990 as a Sub - staff and is being paid Rs . 120 per day. TheBankprovides him 60 to 90 days work in every calendar year right from the date of his initial appointment and he claimsto have worked about on 413 days till 1997. He works as per the regular employee right from 10 AM to 5.00 PM in all the branches in the city of Nagpur . The Respondent Bank discontinued him after 60 days and appointed another employee in the same category in his place and the another employee also provided only 60 days work on rotation basis. It does not rnaintain the seniority list while providing the work to the Subordinate staff. This act of the Bank is in contravention of Section 25F and 25H ofthe ID Act, 1947 .

5. The Bank by filing his WS resist is claim it has denied that the Petitioner worked w.e.f.31-7-1990 as a sub- staff on daily rated basis . He has not submitted and not furnished the details as regards the date on which he worked as well as the details regarding the Branch Office of the Bank in which he has worked on daily wages as a sub -staff employee. He has impeded Zonal Office of the Bank and the Zonal Manager is an administrative head of all the Regional Offices which falls under his jurisdiction . The Regional Offices are situated in Nagpur, Amravati , Akola, Jalgaon and therefore it is not possible to locate unless it is closed the place ofworking. It is denied that he is working continuously with the Bank as alleged. It has also denied that the Bank has provided work to him for 60 to 90 days in every calendar year right from 1990. He has not given the details andonly wild and vague allegations are made about the actual days of working. This indicates that he himself not certain about working in the Bank. It has also denied that he worked like other regular employees from 10.00 am to 5.30 pm. It has denied that it is pursuing an illegal policy. It has also denied that the Bank engaged large number of employees as daily workers in sub - staff cadre on a rotational basis every year. as alleged. It has denied that the Petitioner has completed 413 days of work upto 1997. It is also denied that the allegation regarding not maintaining seniority list and also a policy to allow the temporary employees who have worked for a particular period in Class- IV cadre were allowed to appear in the sub -staff Recruitment Test . It is also denied that there was any agreement between Bank and the Union as in the absence of specifically sanctioned post in Class - IV cadre , the question of entertaining the demand of Party No.2 to provide continuous work does not arise at all. It is denied that the Bank indulges in any unfair labour practice and it has committed breach of Section 25F and H ofthe Act . He cannot claim to be absorbed or regularized in the employment . It has denied that there are vacancies and the regular work is available in various Branch ofthe Bank for daily rated employees .

6. It is submitted on behalf of the Bank when the casual or the daily rated employees are engaged by the Bank only for a temporary period during the leave vacancy of a permanent employee , as a need of work when it is available . It engages when the work is available and dis- engages the discontinuation of temporary er casual employees engaged as daily wagers does not amount to retrenchment or its unfair labour practice . Finally it is prayed toreject the claim ofthe Petitioner and pass negative Award.

4. Further, according to him, the Bank issued a Circular No.CO:93-94/234 dated 20-9-1993 as it has decided to recruit sub -staff from temporary employees who were working 60 to 90 days from 1-1-1982 to 31-12-1986 and from 1-1-1987 to 24-12-1990 by taking their test before recruitment. This clause of Circular is an agreement between the management and all India Central Bank Employees Federation, the recognized union of the Bank that clause binding on both the parties and the Bank has agreed to allow such employees to appear in the said recruitment test. However , the Petitioner was never allowed or called for the said test and it is against the policy depriving the Petitioner the benefits of permanent employee . Despite of the repeated and continuous request of the Petitioner demanding continuous work, the management refused to consider his dernand and therefore he has raised this dispute. It is contended that the act of management of

2137 G1/09-22 3544

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii) ]

the temporary period during the leave vacancy of the permanent employees and when the work is not available , the daily wagers are discontinued. This discontinuation cannot be treated as a termination of the service when a particular person was not engaged on a clear vacancy or vacant post . In my view, the Petitioner cannot claim a permanency. For claiming a permanency on a particular post, it is necessary that he should work continuously in a clear vacancy or a vacant post for 240 days. Here , his total working might have gone for more than 240 days but that is not within one calendar year or he has not worked continuously. In such circumstances, in my view, he cannot claim permanency

8. Further it has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that as per the Circulardt . 20-9-1993, the Bank has decided to absorb the temporary employees in subordinate staff and they would be allowed to appear in the Sub - staff Recruitment Test who have been working for 90 days from 1-1-1982 to 31-12-1986 and for 60 days from 1-1-1987 to 24-12-1990 . This staff is to be given preference for the said test. According to the counsel for the Petitioner, this Circular amount to an agreement and as per the agreement they are entitled to appear for examination. However, the submission cannot be accepted because this agreement has never taken place . It is not an agreement at all . The Safai Karmachari , Office Peon, Part- time Safai Karmachari who are working as regular permanent employees are entitled to the various benefits and privileges under the bipartite settlement at par with cther permanent employees ofthe Bank . However , the daily wagers are not covered in that settlement or an agreement because they are engaged on purely temporary basis for a temporary period and therefore , they cannot be considered for the regularization . It is fact that the Petitioner was not at all sponsored through the Employment Exchange. There is no written Order to absorb him even as casual labour . On the contrary, it appears that he was provided with the work as and when it was available . He has also never worked continuously and in such circumstances how the Petitioner can claim vested interest of being permanent or for appearing in a particular test . Similarly, there is nothing on record to show that the management without filling permanent vacant post is taking the work through casual labour for years together . When there is no vacant post, it cannot be said that the management is taking the work of permanent employees through casual workers and in such circumstances , in my opinion the Petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed by him. The reference deserves to be dismissed and he is not entitled for any benefits . Hence 1 dismiss the reference and pass negative award .

Date: 22-04-2009

A. N. YADAV, Presiding Officer 7. Heard the counsel for both the parties and I have perused the paper of the case . According to the Petitioner Shri Rajesh Maroti Patil , he worked w.e.f. 31-7-1990 in a dapacity of the sub- staff @Rs . 120 per day and till 1997 he worked for 413 days and upto 28-8-2000 total goes upto 462days .Heworked -in main Branch at Nagpur . However , hisservices came to be terminated w.e.f. 23-8-2000. He was provided with the work for 60 to 90 days in every calendar year since the date of his initial appointment and on rotation basis with the malafide intension to deprive him from permanency. Engaging large number of sub - ordinate staff onrotation basis is an unfair labour practice and that practice has been followed by the Bank from last 20 years . The workman hasworked for more than 10 years . The policy of engaging casual labour for years together is not allowed. Eventhe Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has in Rajkamal- versus -Union of India depreciated the policy of engaging the casual - labours for years together . He has subntitted that the Petitioner worked in various branches . Aocorcingly to him it is crystal clear that the Bank is indulging in unfair labour practice. However, from the pleading of the Respondent Bank as well as submission it seems that the Bank has engaged the Petitioner when the work was available i.e. particularly during leave vacancy. It is a fact that though the Petitioner was engaged at various places but he was not engaged continuously. Even the statement filed by the Petitioner indicates that he does not work continuously and therefore, the submission of the management that he was provided with the work as and whenrequired appears to be proved. The Petitioner initially has not producedthe single document showing even exact workingdays . Later on when the management demanded better particulars he has submitted a list under which he has shown that he worked for 462 days till 23-8-2000. However, the Bank has submitted a separate list showing actual days when he was engaged upto August, 1999. Both the lists show that the Petitioner was never engaged continuously and he has never worked continuously even for 240 days in one calendar year . According to the Petitioner, the management was deliberately not engaging the Petitioner because it was intending to avoid the permanency and is continuing to take the work from the casual workers by rotation. In fact, there is nothing on record to indicate that the Petitioner was engaged in any permanent post or in clear vacancy as indicated above . He has not even produced an evidence to show that he was given appointment order . On the contrary , his cross- examination goes to show that he has no written document to show that he has worked for 413 days till 1999 as submitted by him. As per Circular, the persons who were working continuously were given an opportunity of appearing in the test for the recruitment on the permanent post. The casual workers are engaged by the Bank only for 3545 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009 /ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

AWARD

नई दिल्ली , 22 मई , 2009

By Order No. L - 20012 / 183/99 - IR(C - 1 ) dated 3-8-1999 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub -section ( 2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

का.आ. 1727. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मै . ई. 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 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 163/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-05-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -20012/183/99- आईआर ( सी - Ⅰ ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd May , 2009

"Whether the action of the management of Barakar Engineering and Foundry Works Nirsa of M/ S . E.C.L. in providing employment to Sri Rajendra Prasad as Cat . Mazdoor considering his experience of past service and qualification in the light of award in Ref . No. 21/89 of CGIT No. 3 dated 21-8-91 is proper ? If not , what relief Sri Prasad is entitled to and whether Sri Rajendra Prasad is entitled to wager from the date of award became enforceable ? "

S.O. 1727. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 163/ 1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, No. I Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s E. C. Ltd. and their workman, which, was received by the Central Government on 22-05-2009.

[No. L -20012/183/99 -IR(C-I)] SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I , DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference U/s . 10( 1 ) ( d) (2A) of I.D. Act

Reference No. 163 of 1999

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Barakar Engineering and Foundry Works Nirsa of M/ s . E.C. Ltd.

AND Their Workmen

Present : Shri H. M. Singh , Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES

For the Employers

Shri B. M. Prasad , Advocate .

For the Workmen

Shri G. Prasad, Advocate .

State : Jharkhand .

Industry: Coal .

Dated, the 30th April , 2009 .

2. Written statement has been filed on behalf of the workmen stating that Barakar Engineering and Foundry Works earlier was a part of Badjna Colliery. The colliery alongwith the works was taken over by the Central Government w.e.f. 31-12-1972 and was subsequently nationalised w.e.f. 1-5-1973 . The colliery and the works both then belonged to M/ s . ECL. The concerned workman was earlier employed in Barakar and Foundry Works , now under Mugma Area of M /s . ECL . in moulding & Pouring in the Heavy Foundry Section in the supervisory Grade since March 1972. The workman was falsely implicated in a criminal case by the then management of Foundry Works . Police arrested him. He secured bail . After he was enlarge on bail , he reported for duty, but was not allowed to resume duty either by the erstwhile employer or by the authorities of M/s. E.C. Ltd. even after nationalisation or the Coal Mine w.e.f. 1-5-1973 . Thereafter the concerned workman raised an Industrial Dispute U/ s . 2A read with Section 10 & 12 of the I.D. Act , 1947, before the A.L.C. (C) , Dhanbad. The conciliation proceeding ended in failure and the appropriate Government referred the dispute to thisHon'ble Tribunal for adjudication which was recorded as Reference No. 27 of 1987 between the management of Barakar Engineering & Foundry Works ofM/ s.E.C . Ltd. and their workman , Rajendra Prasad . TheCentral Govt . Industrial Tribunal No. I , after hearing the parties , passed an award on 21-8-91 by directing the employer to employ Rajendra Prasad on such terms and conditions as it may deem fit and proper after considering his experience and qualification . Barakar Engineering & Foundry Works was covered under the Employees State Insurance Act , 1948. Rajendra Prasad was an " insured employee " as defined under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. The employer of M/s. E.C. Ltd. filed a writ petition Under Art . 226 of the 3$46

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

Constitution of India in Patna High Court , Ranchi Bench , Ranchi being CWC No. 279/91 ( R) which was dismissed. The employer filed S.L.P. in the Supreme Court of India, which too was dismissed . The concerned workman is a matriculate long before he was employed by the erstwhile employer of Barakar Engineering & Foundry Works. He had acquired long experience of working in the foundry as a Supervisor in the moulding & pouring in the Heavy Foundry Section . As per direction in the aforementioned award dated 21-8-91 the management offered him the job of Category - I mazdoor without considering his qualification and past experience. Most of his colleagues , who were employed, with him during the relevant period as Supervisors , are in Technical and Supervisory Grade - ' B ' and above Grade-A. The concerned workman is entitled to be placed in Technical and Supervisory Grade ' B ' if not higherGrade, with effect from the date of award became enforceable in the scale of Technical and Supervisory Grade 'B ' . The employer paid him only a sum of Rs . 26,000/- from 26-7-94 to September'96 for 26 months @Rs . 1000/- P.M. as per direction of Hon'ble Patna HighCourt issued U/s . 17B of I.D. Act . The concemed workman is entitled to the difference of wages w.e.f. the date of the award dated 21-8-91 till he was allowed to resume duty on 22-6-97 in Category- l and difference of wages from 21-8-91 till he is placed in proper category, which come to about Rs . 5,00,000/- ( Rupees Five Lakhs) . It has been prayed than an award be passed in favour the concerned workman .

3. Written statement has been filed on behalf of the management stating that the reference is bad in law and not maintainable and that it is liable to be rejected .

The case ofRajendra Prasad before the A.L.C. (C) appears to be recategorisation which was already thrashed by the Hon'ble Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court which have held that the findings of the fact recorded by Tribunal is quiteunexceptionable . The Hon'ble High Court has held that'with regards to the grievance of the workman it is undeniable that no material was brought on records before the Tribunal regarding his qualifications , academic or even the last wages drawn by him . In such view of the matter this present reference becomes redundant and has got no bearing to a stand and would amount to in encroachment upon the Hon'ble High Court'sOrder and liable to be dismissed. The reference isincompetent and unjustified one . Moreover BEFR is a works, under the Factories Act and the appropriate Government is not the Central Government and accordingly in this view of the matter also the reference becomes redundent and not maintainable . This factory was a separate unit and did not form part of the Mines .

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] Badjna colliery and BEFW though belonged to M/s . S.C.C. Ltd. but this works never vested in the Central Government alongwith Badjna Colliery. The previous owner of this works did not hand over to the Central Government during the time of take over , it being not a mine nor the part of Badjna Colliery. This factory was catering to the needs of outsiders parties and was executing a large number of jobs to them. It is also to be noted that E.S.I. Act does not apply to mines and as such his acceptance of being that this factory is covered under the E.S.I. Act goes to show that this works was not a mine . In view of the above , this management has no obligation to entertain any claim of Shri Rajendra Prasad and he has no right to make any such claim against this management . It has been prayed that an award be passed in favour of the management .

4. Both parties have filed their respective rejoinders admitting and denying the contents of some of the paras of each other's written statement .

5. The concerned workman has produced himself as WW- 2 and has proved documents Exts . W- 1 to W-15 . He also produced WW- 1 Parsiauram Yadav.

Management has produced M'W - 1 - Ranjit Kumar Ghosh who has stated in examination-in -chief- "Presently 1 am posted as Staff Officer ( E& M) at Central Workshop , Northern Coalfields Ltd. , Earlier 1 was posted in Barakar Engineering and Foundary Works , Nirsa of M/ s . ECL as Works Manager and then Agent . From there 1 was transferred in the month of February, 2001. The concerned workman had been appointed at Barakar Engineering & Foundry Works as Category - 1 Mazdoor . Willingly he had joined the said post and presently he is placed in Category- lI . It is wrong to say that he was not appointed initially by taking into consideration his experience of past service and qualification . The demand of the concerned workman as raised in the instant case is not justified.

The concerned workman ( WW- 2 ) stated in examination - in - chief- " This is a carbon copy of the Lawers Notice addressed to the C.M.D. of M/ s . E.C.L. The Agent and General Manager ( P) or M/ s . E.C.L. which bears my signature ( Marked Exı W-1 ) . A copy of this was received in the Office of Suptd. andGeneral Manager . This is the carbon copy of a letter under my signature addressed to A.L.C. and a copy of the same was received in the office of A.L.C. ( Marked Ext . W-5 ). This is the letter of the management under signature of Personnal Manager addressed to me ( Marked Ext . W-6) This is another letter of the management date d 21-7-97 under the signature of Dy . Personnal Manager ( Marked Ext. W- 7) . This is my letter dated 19-8-97 and it was received in the office of the Agent of colliery ( Marked 3547 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20 , 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

Ext. W- 8). This is my letter dated 23-5-97 a copy ofwhich was received in the office of the Personnal Manager (Marked Ext . W -9). This is the xerox copy of certificate granted by the Factory Manager , Oriental Coal Co. Ltd. who was the owner of this factory before the nationalisation ( Marked 'X' for identification) . This is the letter addressed to the Secretary, Government of India by the A.L.C. , dated 7-4-99 a copy of which was forwarded to the Vice President , Dhanbad , Colliery Karmachari Sang ( Marked Ext . W - 10) . This is the reply ofthe management before the A.L.C. ( Marked Ext . W- 11 ) . This is the carbon copy of letter sent by me to the Agent of the colliery (Marked Ext. W- 13 ) . This is the carbon copy of letter sent by me to the Agent , which was received on 17-6-97 ( Marked Ext . W- 14) . This is the letter of the management under the signature of Personnal Manager dated 28/29-5-97 ( Marked Ext . W- 15) .There is an award of this Tribunal to give me employment according to my qualification and experience , the management has not given me employment according to my qualification and experience . I was appointed by the earstwhile management of the colliery to supervise the work. The management did not give me employment from the date on which the award became enforceable. I was given employment on 22-5-1997 . The management has not paid me the wages as directed by the High Court under Sec. 17-B of the I.D.Act . They paid me only Rs.1000 (Rupees One Thousand) for 26 months . The Manangement has not paid any wages for the period, the management had challenged the award in the Supreme Court . I am Matric Pass . Since the management did not give me employment in time , therefore , I had suffered loss of wages for a period of 5 years and 9 months . The person who was working under me has become Foreman in the Factory in Technical Grade 'C' . My claim is for the appropriate post according to my qualification and experience and back wages .

WW- 1 -Parshuram Yadav stated in examination- in chief- " I am working at Barakar Engineering & Foundry Works, Nirsa from the year 1971 as Mazdoor but at present I am working as Welder/Asstt . Foreman . I know the concerned workman , Rajendra Prasad . He was appointed as Supervisor and he was supervising our work. But the company removed him from service and after an award of this Tribunal he was reinstated in service. I am only 7th class pass . I have brought my Identity Card , Rajendra Prasad is matriculate . After award of this Tribunal the concerned workman , Rajendra Prasad has been appointed as General Mazdoor.

6. Main argument on behalf of the concerned workman is that he was earlier employed as works

Supervisor, in Barakar Engineering & Foundry Works ofM/ s . Oriental Coal Co. Ltd., Nirsa. The Coal Mines were Nationalised under the provision of the Coal Mines Nationalisation Act, 1973. M/ s . Oriental Coal Co. Ltd. objected to give possesion of the foundry to the authorities concerned . M/s . Oriental Coal Co. Ltd .. filed a writ in the Calcutta High Court . The High Court appointed a Receiver . The factory remained under the Receivership. M/s . Oriental Coal Co. Ltd. filed SLP under Art . 136/32 of the Constitution of India in the Hon'ble Supreme Court . The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Nationalisation Act, 1973 is intravire . Title of the Foundry was left open . The Hon'ble Supreme Court subsequently declared and decided in SLP from the respective Title Suit . He argued that the concerned workman was not allowed to join the foundry. He raised anindustrial dispute U/s . 2A of the I.D. Act, 1947, which was referred to this Tribunal being Reference No. 27/89 . The Tribunal made an elaborate discussion with these matters in the award dated 21-8-1991 . The Tribunal in its award dated21-8-91 issued a direction to the employers to provide employment to Rajendra Prasad considering his educational qualification and experience . The employer challenged the award in the Patna High Court , Ranchi Bench , Ranchi (now Jharkhand) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well taking all the issues as are being raised in the instant reference, but lost throughout . Later on , the Patna High Court, in a petition filed U/s . 17-B of the I.D. Act, 1947 by the workman, directed the employers to pay wages at Rs . 1000 (One thousand) per month . The employer provided employment to Rajendra Prasad as a Category- I on 22nd May , 1947 without considering his qualification and experience . He wasd paid only Rs . 26,000/- at the rate of Rs. 1000 per month for 26 months andwages for rest of the period remained due . NCWA -V came into force w.e.f. 1st July, 1991. The minimum wages for Cat. I Mazdoor was filed @ Rs . 2138.70 p . per month . The NCWA - VI came into force w.e.f. 1-7-1996 . The minimum wages for Cat . I Mazdoor was fixed @ Rs . 3689.23 p . per month . Rajendra Prasad , concerned workman, has been provided even Cat . I job as Mazdoor on 21-9-91 when the award become enforceable , he would have earned , the annual increment, the increased V. D.A. , D.A. , H.R.A. , Bonus , CMPF etc. The total loss even for Cat . 1 Mazdoor since 21-9-91 till 21-5-97 comes to Rs . 1,36, 497.78 . But the management has not considered his past experience and qualification and not paid wages as per NCWA - V & VI . The Tribunal vide its award dated 21-8-91 directed the management to give employment within one month from the date of publication of the award on such terms and conditions as it may deem fit and proper , after considering his experience and qualification .

3548

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

shows that he was appointed as Helper and getting pay as Helper from July, 2002 .

10. The management argued that the concerned workman is not entitled for any appointment . But this cannot be raised by the management which is resjudicata as per award passed by the Tribunal (Ext . W- I ) & writ petition filed by the management (Ext . W-2) and again before Hon'ble Supreme Court as per Ext. W- 3 which has been dismissed . The concerned workman has represented and given application as per Exts . W-4 , W-5 , W- 8 . Ext.'X ' shows that the concerned workman was working in Heavy Foundary Section of Oriental Coal Ltd. on Supervisory work since 1972 for which WW- I has supported . The matter was also raised before A.L.C. as per Ext . W- II .

11. In view of the discussions made above , I come to the conclusion that the concerned workman , Rajendra Prasad to be employed since 21-9-91 according to his experience and qualification as Supervisor with all consequential benefits .

12. Accordingly, I render the following award - the action of the management of Barakar Engineering and Foundary Works , Nirsa of M / s . E.C.L. in providing employment to Sri Rajendra Prasad as Cat . I Mazdoor considering his experience of past service and qualification in the light of award in Ref. No. 27/89 of CGIT No. 1 dated 21-8-91 is not proper . Hence , the concerned workman is entitled for employment in the Suprevisory Grade w.e.f. 21-9-1991 with all consequential benefits .The management is directed to implement the award within 30 days from the date of publication of the award.

H. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 22 मई, 2009

का.आ. 1728-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. नेशनल एविएसन कम्पनी ऑफ इंडिया 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 1999 का 218 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-05-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -11012/54/99- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd May, 2009

8. The management has examined MW- I- Ranjit Kr . Ghosh who has stated in cross -examination that the award which was passed earlier was supposed to be implemented by the higher authorities of the management . It is true that in the said award or the case in connection of which the award was passed , Barakar Engineering & Foundary works was the party. Again he stated at page 2- " I do not know whether in the present case at the instance of the workman any original document was called for from the management or not. I cannot say whether the said award became enforceable w.e.f. 29-10-91 or not and the concerned workman was not assigned any work and was not appointed . I do not recollect the exact date but with effect from the year 1997 the concerned workman in terms of Hon'ble Supreme Court's order was appointed and was assigned the work by the management. He stated as per the operative portion of the award the qualification and experience were to be taken into account by the management at the time of his appointment. I do not know whether the concerned workman pased his Matriculation examination in the year 1966 or not . I cannot say as to what was the reason behind the acceptance of job in Category- I by the concerned workman. I know that National Coal Wage Agreement from time to time have been in force . It is not correct that the concerned workman was not paid his wages as per NCWA- IV, V and VI . I am not in a position to say whether those who were working alongwith the concerned workman during the relevant period are presently in Technical & Supervisory Grade ' B ' . It shows that the management has not considered his qualification and experience as per award dated 21-8-91 and is very calous attitude towards its workman . Moreover, MW- 1 stated that the concerned workman wasworking at Barakar Engineering & Foundary Works , Nirsa from the year 1971 as Mazdoor and he was promoted as Welder/Asstt . Foreman. He stated that the concerned workman was appointed as Supervisor and he(concerned workman) was supervising their jobs . He stated that Rejendra Prasad was matriculate at that time. After passing of the award by the Tribunal , the concerned workman was appointed as General Mazdoor by the management without considering his experience and qualification even after the order passed by Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court . It shows that the management has got no respect to follow the order ofHon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court . This is very much surprising on the part of the

management.

9 Documents which have been filed by the concerned workman shows that he was appointed by the management and pay slip has been filed which

S.O. 1728 -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 2/218 of 1999) of the Central Govemment Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in 3549 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of M/ s National Aviation Company of India Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-05-2009 .

[No. L- 11012/54/99 - IR(C- I) ]

SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2, MUMBAI

Present :

Shri A.A. Lad , Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT -2/218 of 1999

Employers in relation to the Management of National Aviation Company of India Ltd.

The Managing Director , National Aviation Co. of India Ltd. ,

(NACIL) , Air India Building, Nariman Point , Mumbai 400 021 .

IstParty

And

Their workman

Shri L.F. Colaco,

Juliet Villa, Lords Colony , Malad , Mumbai 400 064 .

2nd Party

APPEARANCES

For the Employer : M/ s . M.V. Kini & Co. , Advocates

For the Workmen : Ms. Kunda Samant, Advocate .

Date of reserving the Award : 17-11-2008 .

Date of passing the Award : 16-4-2009.

AWARD PART II

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

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L- 11012 / 54 / 99 ( C - I ) dated 26th November , 1999 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 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

2. To support the subject - matter referred in the Statement of Claim is filed by the 2nd Party at Exhibit 6 making out the case that, the concerned workman was appointed as a Traffic Assistant by the Air India in 1977 andwas confirmed in the year 1978. It is contended by the concerned workman that , he had unblemished record. He had bought a full fare economy ticket to travel to Singapore on AC - 888 Ticket No. 014021038 3450. On 14th July, 1988 he had checked in at the counter with the baggage and proceeded for immigration and customs formalities and averred that, that day, he was suddenly intercepted by Customs Officer in security area and was taken into the room situated in the departure area and was forced to identify the "Accord Suit Case" and thereafter he was taken to another room where he was beaten mercilessly and was made to admit that , the said accord suit case which contained another bag inside as shown to him belonged to him and that his Passport, tickets were seized from him without any reason . It is pleaded that, workman was told by the Customs Officer that he was carrying six lakhs Indian Currency out of India, which he had refuted . However , those officers did not hear him and gave fist blows and when he was completely under their control he was shown an open bag which he was forced to admit as his own and that , the Customs Officers took out some keys which they claimed were from his pocket and tried to establish that the bag was opended with the help of those keys and that they pulled out a couple of bunches of currency notes from the said open suit case and forced him to write as per their dictation and on that count he was suspended on 14th July , 1988. He was arrested by the Police . It is averred that workman retracted all his statement got written under duress , on 5th September , 1988 and that he was charge sheeted by the Customs Authorities on 20th September , 1991 and that , the Additional Commisssioner arbitrarily imposed a fine of Rs . 50,000 and against which he filed an appeal which is pending. It is contended that, he was charge sheeted in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate , 3rd Court , Esplanade , Mumbai for the allegations as above and that , the Court acquitted him on 23rd August, 1996 for the offence under Section 135 (1 ) (a) Bearing Case No. 124/CW/90 . It is contended meanwhile the Company revoked the suspension order on 27th August , 1991 and- the workman joined the duty. It is averred that , Management Company issued him chargesheet on 1-12-1992 for alleged breach of law applicable to the establishment and acts subversive of discipline to which he gave explanation on 9th December , 1992. Company appointed Inquiry Committee and that the Committee held him guilty for the said Whether the action of the Management of Air India Ltd. , Mumbai in dismissing the services of Mr. L.F. Colaco, Ex. Sr. Traffic Assistant w.e.f. 7-10-1997 is legal andjustified? If not , what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ? " 3550

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

[PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii)] charges by the report dated 30th September , 1996. It is pleaded by the workman that, inquiry conducted against him was improper , against the principles of natural justice and the finding were perverse , one side ignoring material evidence and without considering the Judgment ofthe Court. It is pleaded that , workman was not given increments in his salary from 1-1-1991 till 30-3-1996, the Committee was not independent but delegated by the Company. It is averred the MSO (C) do not provide for constitution of inquiry committee but an independent inquiry officer and a Presenting Officer , the committee did not explain the conduct of proceeding . It is averred the workman was charged for misconduct under clause 14(5) (g ) which states that , ' habitual breach of law' is applicable to the establishment and not ' breach of law ' is mentioned in the charge sheet, thereby the Company had no authority of law to change the context of the clause, there was gross delay in issuance of the charge sheet and thereby workman was prejudiced . No signature of workman was obtained on the notes of evidence and that proceedings were adopted later on . It isaverred workman was not given opportunity to cross- examine completely any witnesses and only two witnesses were examined by Management though previously declared to examine four witnesses . Workman's serial number in the manifest was 43 on the date of journey but every where it was shown as 47 and later on changed as 43 , no evidence like bag , tag manifest were produced in the enquiry. It is averred that, the report of the enquiry committee was perverse. The punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate . He had put 20 years of unblemished services. It is contended that, for all these reasons the inquiry vitiates .

openthe suit case which he opened and after examining itwas found contained one maroon coloured suit case and personal belonging and on opening the maroon colour suit case it was found that it contained Indian Currency to the tune of Rs . 6 lacs packed in news paper bundle in addition to USD 50 and SIN $ 77 which were seized along with documents under panchnama. It is averred workman admitted that , he had made trips to Singapore on three occasions earlier and that he had brought gold into Indian and that , he had made profits by selling this gold illegally in the Indian market and that he was carrying the said six lakhs to Singapore to bring gold into India. It is contended that the alleged act committed by him for carrying illegal Indian currency out of India, misusing the Air Canada facilities as well as interline passage facility and smuggling gold with a view to take pecuniary advantage amounts to serious 'misconduct' and therefore , he was suspended which was subsequently revoked and that workman was charge sheeted under clause 14 (3) (g ) and 14 (3 ) (h ) of the Model Standing Orders ( Central ) . It is pleaded that workman was given sufficient opportunity and that his defence counsel cross - examined the management witnesses and that on the basis of the record , evidence and confession , committee held him guilty and thereafter by the show- cause notice dated 14-5-1997 the Disciplinery Authority imposed punishment of dismissal . It is contended that, degree of proof reguired in a criminal trial is not required in departmental inquiry and the findings of the inquiry committee is based on the preponderance of probabilities . In the circumstances the inquiry committee in that context , imposed the punishment . It is contended that , findings based on record are not perverse . Consequently it is contended that inquiry was conducted as per the principles of natural justice and prayer to dismiss the claim of the workman in limine .

4. 2nd Party filed rejoinder at Exhibit 8 contending that, he had purchased ticket from Air Canada as a regular passenger and that , he was forced to admit the currency of six lakhs was belonging to him , it was under duress and that the confession was not voluntary. The workman reiterating the recitals in the Statement of Claim denied the contentions in the written statement .

5. In view of the above pleadings my Ld. Predecessor framed Issues at Exhibit 11 treating issue of enquiry and perversity of findings as preliminary Issues . Award I was passed on 11-9- 2002 holding enquiry fair and proper and finding not perverse .

6. As a result of that , now following Issues remain 3.Management- Company resisted that claim of the workman by filing Written Statement at Exhibit 7 contending that, the workman had planned to travel by AirCanada flight on 14th July, 1988 to Singapore against Air Canada Ticket and accordingly he had checked in one suit case as check in baggage at Air India Counter for the above flight. After flight ckeck in and completing the immigration and custom formalities workman was waiting in the Security Area where he was asked to identify check- in baggage by the customs intelligence officer. It is contended that , workman was identified by Air Canada Staff and on being asked to identify his baggage , identified the " Accord" brand blue colour suit case with zip as his checked baggage and after tallying the tag on the suit case it was taken to the examination counter and the workman was questioned as to whether he was carrying any currency in the suit case to which he replied that it contained only personal belongings and not satisfied with that, he was asked to [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

which are taken for consideration at this stage which I answer the said as under :

FINDING ISSUES

3. Whether the action of the manage- ment of Air India Limited , Mumbai in dismissing the services of workman

Yes Mr. L.F. Colaco is legal and justified ?

Doesnot No relief 4. If not, what relief the workman concerned is arise , entitled ?

REASONS :

ISSUE NO . 3 :

7. This is the second round of litigation on the present proceedings . Initially this Tribunal while passing Part I Award observed, enquiry fair and proper and finding not preverse . Said was challenged where Hon'ble High Court by an order dated 15-9-2003 in the Writ Petition No. 2039 of 2003 stayed the proceedings in this Reference , pending before this Tribunal , till the disposal of the said Writ Petition . Then Hon'ble High Court disposed off the said Writ Petition No. 2039 of 2003 and permitted this Tribunal to proceed with the reference . Thereafter, 2nd Party filed his affidavit at Exhibit 46 in lieu of his examination in chief, making out the story in what way he was arrested , how he was prosecuted and what was the order passed in the enquiry conducted by the Disciplinary authorities and Customs authorities and his acquittal by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for the offences punishable under the Customs Act , 1962. In the cross he admits that, he has given reasons in his affidavit as to why he was terminated and on that , he filed his closing purshis at Exhibit 47. Against that , 1st Party led evidence by filing affidavit of its witness Damian Jack Fernandes, at Exhibit 48, in lieu of his examination - in- chief where he states, how 2nd Party was prosecuted and how punishment of dismissal was inflicted on the 2nd Party and how it is just and proper one . He states that, he has no personal knowledge about the 2nd Party nor he has any idea about the case proceeded against him. He states that, the punishment of dismissal was not harsh one .

8. 2nd Party submitted written arguments at Exhibit 54 with some citations which were replied by 1st Party by filing written arguments at exhibit 57 with some citations .

9. Here charge of carrying Indian currency out of India worth Rs . 6 lakhs without permission of the 2137 GI/09-23

3551 Reserve Bank of India was levelled against the concerned workman . Charge of misconduct was levelled against him . It is alleged that, he was arrested and an amount of Rs . 6 lakhs was recovered from him which was seized by the Customs Authorities after recovery ofthe same from his custody by writing Panchnama . He was prosecuted before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court , Bombay, who acquitted him observing that , the currency allegedly recovered and seized from him has not been produced and the suit case or brief- case in which the alleged currency was found has also not been produced before the Court and proved. Non -production of incriminating articles resulted in the acquittal attracting the benefit of doubt to the concerned workman and in that the concerned workman was acquitted by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate . The Additional Chief MetropolitanMagistrate, 3rd Court , Bombay, relying on the evidence led before him observed :

"to sum up the evidence against the accused consisting ofthe oral testimony of P.W. No. 2 and to a certain extent of P.W. No. 1 , which is not supported by any independent evidence . The incriminating articles which would have advanced the prosecution case and which had been seized for the purpose of production in the Court, have not been produced. In these circumstances , it would be unsafe to convict the accused . "

10. So by these observations of the Court, 2nd Party was acquitted and not acquitted honourably as stated by him in this case. The observations referred above reveal that, since incriminating articles which would have advanced the prosecution case and which had been seized for the purpose of production in the Court were not produced and so the Court concluded that it will not be safe to convict the accused.

11. Besides admittedly 2nd Party was working with the 1st Party and while travelling to Singapore , it isalleged that , he carried that cash Rs . 6,00,000 to bring golden bar which was against the Rules of the Customs authorities . Since charge of misconduct was levelled aganist the concerned workman , which was proved in the domestic enquiry , case of the Ist Party is that , punishment awarded to 2nd Party need not be disturbed. For that Ist Party placed reliance on the citation published in 2005 ( I ) CLR page 533 where Apex Courtwhile deciding the case of Bharat Forge Vs Uttam Manohar Nakate observed that , when in enquiry it is observed that, alleged misconduct is proved in that case it is not proper to disturb the punishment inflicted by the Disciplinary Authority . Besides 1st Party also 3552

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/ JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( i) ]

Second Party. Beside question arises who involved him? From where said amount of Rs . 6 lakhs has come ? Question willbe who will manage such a big amount and there is another question who will invested that amount to involve him in the case ? It is not explained as to why he was involved in such a bogus case ? No reason or probability is given by the 2nd Party as to why said plot was prepared against him.

13. 2nd Party made much capital about his previous record . As far as his case is concerned , said previous record is not only ground to use against the charges proved against the concerned workman . Besides number of judgments are referred by his Advocate including citation published in 2008 II CLR page 909 in the case of Union of India and ors Vs Naman Singh Sekhawat which is on the point of fairness of enquiry and on the principles of natural justice while holding enquiry. He also referred citation published in 2008 ( 11 ) CLR page 836 of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of P. Chandrahas V/ s Presiding Officer , Labour Court II , Hyderabad , and ors . on the point of lack of evidence while observing charges levelled against him as proved. All these case laws are not applicable at this stage and are not on the appropriate stage . My Ld . Predecessor found enquiry fair and finding not perverse and now again said question is raised by the Second Party by these rulings .

placed reliance on the citation published in 2006 (3 ) SCC page 276 in the case of State of U.P. V/ s Shero Shahkarlal Srivastava & ors. and citation published in 2006 ( 1 ) $ CC page 430 in case of Hombe Gowda Educational Trust and anr . Vs State of Karnataka and ors. where it is observed by Apex Court that , where no reasonable person would inflict such a punishment or when relevant facts which would have a direct bearing on the question have not been taken into consideration then in that case , it cannot be called as a discretionary jurisdiction . Here charge of taking Indian currency out of India without permission of Reserve Bank of India waslevelled against the concerned workman . According to list Party said amount was seized by the Customs Officer from the personal of the concerned workman . Even Customs authorities penalized him Rs . 50,000 which was reduced, in appeal , to Rs . 5,000 . Even record and proceedings reveal that, the concerned workman wasprosecuted against the said offence in the Criminal Court. As stated above , since the charges were not proved against the concerned workman , the Ld . Magistrate acquitted the accused i.e. concerned workman, it does not mean that , said thing did not happen in the life of the concerned workman . All this reveals that , charge of carrying Indian currency of Rs .16 lakhs out of India was levelied against the concerned workman which is not a simple charge which can be easily ignored by anybody . Besides in the affidavit 2nd Party repeated all the things about the enquiry and myLd . Predecessor while passing Part I Award has observed finding not perverse . He also observed that, enquiry was fair and proper . So also he discussed how this enquiry concluded and discussed how charges were proved against the concerned workman. On that finding I cannot go into the finding i.e. on the point of the Enquiry i.e. on the point of fairness of the enquiry and finding which is already decided by myLd . Predecessor.

14. As stated above charges levelled against him of misconduct is of a very serious nature . Record and proceedings reveal that , concerned workman was found carrying Rs . 6 lakhs in Indian currency out of india. If we consider all this coupled with the case made out by both , 1 conclude that, the punishment of awarding punishment of dismissal in that premises appears just and proper on the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer observing that, the charges levelled against the concerned workman of misconduct were proved in the enquiry . Here 1 do not find any reason to differ from it . So I answer the above issues to that effect and conclude that punishment of dismissal is just and proper and pass the following order:

ORDER

Reference is rejected With no order as to its costs .

A.A. LAD, Presiding Officer

Bombay,

12. Before me is the question of quantum of punishment inflicted upon the concerned workman . As stated above charge of carrying Indian currency out of India worth Rs . 6 lakhs without the permission of Reserve Bank of India is levelled against the concerned workman . Record and proceedings reveal that , he was found with these articles . Even it reveals that , said articles were recovered from him by drawing Panchnama . Then Customs authorities penalized him by awarding penalty of Rs . 50,000 which was reduced to Rs . 5,000 . Said penalty appears remain final . Besides it is not explained as to how he was victimized by the 1st Party? Whether it is easy to plant Rs . 6,00,000 to involve 16thApril , 2009 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

नई दिल्ली , 22 मई , 2009

का.आ. 1729.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं डब्लू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/ एलसी/आर/99/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/311/2000- आईआर ( सी- II ) ]

3553 Dungaria , Distt . Chhindwara ( MP ) in not promoting Smt . Chandra Sareyam, Mid - Wife in Grade " C " T& S from the year 1983 and T& S Gr. "B " from the year 1988 is legal and justified? If not, what relief Smt . Chandra Sareyam is entitled to?"

2. The workman/ Union did not appear inspite of proper service of the notice . Lastly the case was proceeded exparte against the workman / Union on 16-2-06.

अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd May, 2009

S.O. 1729.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/ LC /R/ 99 /2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 22-5- 2009.

[No. L-22012/311 /2000- IR(C- II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/LC/R/99/2001

Presiding Officer : Shri Mohd . Shakir Hasan 3. The case of the Management in short is that the workman has disputed for promotion to the post of Mid- Wife T&S Grade " C" from the year 1983 and T& S Gr. " B " from the year 1988. It is stated that the dispute is raised after about 13 years and is at a belated stage .

4. The further case of the Management is that the wage structure and other conditions of the services of the employees working in Coal Industries are governed under the recommendation of Central Wage Board for the Coal Mining Ministry acceptable to the Government of India. It is stated that there is National Coal Wage Agreement applicable to the employees and there is a joint committee for the Coal Industry for its implementation . The Promotional Policy Committee under the said agreement finalizing the cadre scheme/ promotional rules for all the category .

....Workman/Union

The General Secretary, Μ.Ρ.Κ.Κ.Μ.Ρ. (HMS) , P. O. Junnardeo Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

Versus

.....Management The General Manager , WCL, Kanhan Area, P. O. Dungaria, Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

AWARD

Passed on this 15th day of May-2009 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No.L - 22012/311 /2000 - IR(C- II ) dated 30-5-2001 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of Kanhan Area Hospital of WCL, Kanhan Area , PO 5. The further case is that the workman Smt. Chandra Sareyam , Staff nurse was entered into the service as Mid- Wife on 26-3-1979 . She was given promotion in the Grade " C" w.e.f. 14-2-87 and in the Grade " B " w.e.f. 10-2-2004 but the National seniority was given to her w.e.f. 01-02-1994. It is stated that Smt . Sareyam having not "A " grade Nursing Diploma or Certificate from the recognized Institution was appointed and absorbed as Mid- Wife and she could not be given the job of Staff Nurse whereas others , who were taken in the job as Staff Nurse , had required Diploma/Certificate . It is stated that the Mid-wife was unfit to be promoted on the job of Staff-Nurse without requisite qualification in the light of Implementation Instruction No.41 . It is submitted that when she acquired required qualification , she is accordingly promoted on the job of Staff- Nurse as has been stated above . On these grounds , the applicant/workman is not entitled to any relief.

6. In order to prove the case , the management has adduced only oral evidence . M.W.I D.K.Goswami is Dy . Chief Personal Manager in Western Coalfields Ltd. , Kanhan Area . He nas supported the case of Management. He has stated that there is National Coal Wage Agreement for implementation of agreement and Promotion Policy etc. He has stated that the Promotion Policy Committee finalise the cadre scheme/Promotional 3554

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

Rules for all the category. In case of Smt.Sareyam, she was initially absorbed as Mid- wife on 26-3-79 as she was not possessing Diploma/Certificate in Nursing from recognized Institution. Subsequently she was given promotion inGrade-" C" and Grade- " B" w.e.f. 14-2-87 and 10-2-94 respectively. There is nothing on the record to rebut the evidence of this witness that at the time of first appointment, she had requisite qualification and had Diploma in Nursing from Recognised Institution . In absence of other evidence, the evidence of the management is to be accepted .

7. Considering the evidence on record , the award is passed exparte in favour of the management and against the workman without costs .

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

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 22 मई , 2009

का.आ. 1730.-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 , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/ एलसी/आर/ 195/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/370/1995- आईआर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 22ndMay, 2009

S.O. 1730. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/ LC/R/195/98 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -curn-Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 22-5-2009 .

[No. L-22012/370/1995 - IR (C- II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/LC/R/ 195/ 98

Presiding Officer : Shri Mohd . Shakir Hasan The President,

Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Mazdoor Sangh ,

H.No. 16 , Chawani , Mamanpura,

Kali Dhoban Ki Gali ,

[PART II-SBC. 3 ( ii)]

....Workman/Union Bhopal

Versus

Sr. Regional Manager ,

FoodCorporation of India,

Chetak Building , Zone- II , M.P. Nagar, Habibganj ,

.....Management Bhopal

AWARD

Passed on this 15th day of May , 2009 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No.L- 22012/370/ 95 - IR(C - II) dated 19-8-98 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-

"Whether termination of employment of workers listed at Annexure by the management of FCI was legal and justified ? If not, to what relief are they entitled andfrom which date ?"

2. The case of the Union/ applicant in short is that the Union earlier raised an Industrial Dispute with regard to the workmen as has been referred alongwith reference before ALC( C) , Bhopal which ultimately the Appropriate Government has declined to refer the same . The Union then filed a Writ Petition No. 2974/97 before the Hon'ble High Court which was allowed and the Appropriate Government was directed to make a reference .

3. The further case is that the said workmen though shown to be a contract labour , infact were doing the job ofperennial nature /permanent nature of loading , unloading of foodgrains in Railway site and FCI Godown site etc. continuously since 1975 to 1989 when suddenly their services were terminated by the management . It is stated that the said workmen were shown as working under Abdul Haffiz , contractor but infact the officers of the Management used to supervise the workmen and used to take disciplinary action against them. It is alleged that the management had not complied the mandatory provision of Sec -25 -F of the LD.Act before terminating these workmen . It is stated that the job , which these workmen were doing , are still available with management and knowingly they have been deprived the right of regularisation. On these grounds , it is submitted that the termination of the employment of the workmen, listed in Annexure by the Management of F.C.I. was illegal and not justified and the Management be directed to reinstate all the concerned workmen to service with all consequential benefits from the date of their termination .

4. The Management/Non -applicant also appeared and filed Written Statement . The case of the management, inter-alia , is that the Food Corporation of India (here- in-after referred as F.C.I ) is a statutory [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

corporation formed under Food Corporation Act, 1964 . It has to act on the directions and instructions issued by the Central Government from time to time . It is stated that the FCI normally appoints handling and Transport Contractors at various depots including Chhola Depot of FC1 , Bhopal . The said contractors used to engage labourer from open market and there was no control over such labourers engaged by the contractors . It is stated that the FCI used to give remuneration to the contractors on the basis of the quantum of work done and agreed schedule rates per bag . The alleged workmen were never appointed by the FCI and therefore there was no relationship of employer and employees between the parties at any point of time.

5.The further case is that there is a Union namely Food Corporation of India Workers Union (hereinafter referred as FCIWU ) which is registered and representative Union . It is stated that on repeated demand by the Union to implement Mate system , an agreement arrived at between the said Union and the management on 26-9-1989 . On the basis of the agreement between the management and the Union , the powers were vested with the Union to nominate few persons as mates out of the workers working under the contractors for each depots . Lastly the General Secretary of FCIWU nominated 9 workers as mates for Food Storage Depot , Chhola, Bhopal vide letter dated 14-2-1990 . The said mates in turn executed agreements dated 1-3-90 and 13-6-90 with the District Manager of Chhola Food Storage Depot and carried out the work as per the agreement. It is stated that in the year 1989 , contract system were prevailing and all these workmen were working under Shri Abdul Hafeez , contractor. It is stated that these workmen had left the work of the contractor in the year 1989 and therefore the question of working of these employees either on perennial nature or permanent nature does not arise . It is also stated that the said issue is also raised at a very belated stage. It is stated that the question of complying the provision of Sec-25 -F of I.D.Act does not arise as there is no relationship of employer and employees . It is stated that the vacancies of the labourers are filled strictly in accordance with the rules and regulations prevailing in FC1 . On these grounds , it is submittedthat the workmen are not entitled to any relief.

6. The Union/ workmen did not appear subsequently inspite of notice and therefore exparte proceeding was started against the Union/workmen on 3-6-08 .

7. The Management/Non- applicant adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in the case. MW -1 JagPrasad is presently Area Manager, FCI , Distt . Office, MP Nagar , Zone II, Bhopal . He has supported the case of the Management. He has stated that the dispute was referred by the Ministry to the Tribunal for adjudication

3555 which is marked as Exhibit M - 1 . He has supported this fact . That the contract system was prevailing in Food Storage Depot, Chhola , Bhopal and the labourers were brought by the contractors from open market . He has further stated that the remuneration was paid by the non-applicant to the contractors on the basis of quantum of work done and also on agreed schedule of rates per bag . His evidence shows that the workmen were not employed by the management rather they were employed by the contractor. His evidence further shows that on repeated demand by the Union , mate system was introduced and an agreement dated 26-9-89 was arrived between the parties which is marked as M/2. His evidence further shows that the General Secretary of the Union vide his letter dated 14-2-90 nominated 9 workers as mate for Food Storage Depot , Chhola. The said letter is marked as M/3 and the said mates executed agreements with the District Manager, Chhola on 1-3-90 and 13-6-90 . The agreements are marked as M/4 and M/5 . He has stated that the Union has admitted that the services of these workmen were terminated in the year 1989 when no mate system was introduced. There is no other evidence to rebut the evidence of the management . The Union has also not adduced any evidence in support of the case. The evidence of the management shows that there was no relationship of employer and employees between the parties , as such the question of termination of the employment of the workers listed at annexure does not arise .

8. In the result , the award is passed exparte in favour of the Non - applicant/ Management and against the Applicant/Union with costs .

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

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 22 मई , 2009

का.आ. 1731. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं नेशनल बिल्डिंग कन्स्ट्रक्शन कापर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/ 2/37/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -42012/218 /2002- आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 22nd May , 2009

S.O. 1731. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/2 / 37of2003) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- 3556

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

cum- Labour Court No. 2 , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management ofNational Building Construction Corporation Ltd , and their workman , received by the Central Government on 22-5-2009 .

[No. L-42012/218/2002- IR(CM - II) ]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI PRESENT : A. A. Lad , Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT- 2/37 of2003 Employers in Relation to the

Management of National Building

Construction Corporation Ltd.

TheDirector,

National Building Construction

Corpn. Ltd., 406 ArunChambers , Tardeo Main Road, Mumbai-400034

....FirstParty V/s.

Their Workman

Sh. Suresh Kumar Mewada ,

NBCC Colony, Bhavara,

NearSalt Office ,

Uran , Distt ., Raigad

..Second Party

APPEARANCE

FortheEmployer : Mr. A. K. Singh , Advocate FortheWorkmen : Mr. V. V. Menon , Advocate Dateof reserving the Award : 14-10-2008 Dateofpassing the Award : 15-4-2009

AWARD

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No.L -42012 /218 / 2002 - IR( CM II ) dated 11th July 2003 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of M/ s . National Building Construction Company Ltd. , Mumbai in terminating the services of Sh . Suresh Kumar Mewada, orally w.e.f. 25-8-1998 is legal and justified? If not , what relief he is entitled to ? " 2. To support the subject matter involved in the reference, 2nd Party filed Statement of Claim- at Exhibit 6 stating and contending that , he joined 1st Party as Office Boyfrom 6th June , 1983 on daily wages basis .

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii ) ] He was drawing his last daily wages @ Rs.27.60 per day. He worked continuously for about five years from 1983 and has completed 240 days with Ist Party . According to 2nd Party , as a result of that , he has become permanent employee of the 1st Party and seek protection of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. However, while retrenching the 2nd Party by letter dated 25th August, 1988 no legal dues nor notice pay was given nor retrenchment compensation offered. He complained to the Labour Commissioner and approached the State Labour Commissioner . State Labour Commissioner decided that " State Government " is not the appropriate Government but it is the " Central Government" . So he approached Labour Commissioner (Central ) who sent his failure report . According to 2nd Party the decision taken by 1st Party is bad in law . So he pray to set aside the same with directions to 1st Party to reinstate him with benefits of back wages and continuity of service.

3. This is disputed by 1st Party by filing reply at Exhibit 8 making out the case that , the 2nd Party was appointed on daily basis that too on temporary basis at the contract project and the said contract has come to an end . It is also contended by the 1st Party that, the concerned workman was not a permanent employee appointed on permanent establishment of Ist Party and was appointed on daily wages and is not entitled for continuation in employment with Ist Party . Even he was asked to collect his dues which he did not collect and did not turn up.Itis denied that , he was appointed on permanent basis in a clear vacancy with the 1st Party . It is stated that , while retrenching him he was informed that , contract work on which he was appointed was no more and there is no option with the Ist Party but to ask him to go . It is denied by the 1st Party that , he worked continuously for five years . It is stated that , the prayer prayed by the 2nd Party to reinstate him with benefits of back wages be rejected .

4. In view of the above pleadings following issues were framed at Exhibit 17 whichil answer as under:

ISSUES

FINDINGS

No 1. Whether employer - employee relationship is established ?

No 2. 1s 2nd Party entitled for protection?

Does not arise .

3. What relief 2nd Party is entitled to get ?

4. What Order ?

Asper Order passed below.

REASONS

ISSUES NOS . 1 TO 3 :

5. By this Reference, 2nd Party claims that , he is a permanent employee of the 1st Party . He served with 3557 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र.: जून 20, 2009 /ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

oral submissions .

1stParty are more than 240 days and it cannot terminate him like this since he worked for five years continuously.

According to him when he was retrenched neither retrenchment compe - nsation was given to him nor legal notice . Whereas case of the 1st Party is that, he was never appointed in permanent vacancy by the 1st Party. There is no employer-employee relationship between the parties . Since he did not work continuously for 5 years and 240 days in each calendar year he is not entitled for any legal dues nor for legal notice and attract such provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, since it is not applicable in this case .

(8 ) Here , 2nd Party is admitting that , no appointment letter was issued to him by Ist Party . He also admits that, he was working on daily wages basis . He also states that , he was admitted in the hospital on account of pain in lungs in June, 1988. Then he states that, he joined 1st Party after discharge from the hospital on 6th August , 1988. As far as his hospitalization and discharge from the hospital is concerned , no evidence is produced by him to show that he intimated the 1st Party about that and 1st Party was aware of his admission in the hospital and treatment taken by him . Even he has not produced any evidence to show that , his absence was regularised by the Party to show that , 1st Party was his direct employer . When 2nd Party was working on daily wages as per his own case and when he himself has admitted in the hospital on his own there is no any order of Ist Party regarding leave granted during his treatment. In that premises question arise , whether this employee can be treated as employee of the 1st Party ?

(9) Here 2nd Party was supposed to establish his relations with the Ist Party when 1st Party is saying that , he was not its regular employer and no appointment letter was given , which fact is admitted by the 2nd Party ? Even other characters of the regular employee are not observed in case of 2nd Party by Ist Party. No evidence is led by 2nd Party to show that , he was treated by Ist Party as its employee . Beside no evidence is lead to show that , he completed 240 days in each calendar year . He only states that , he joined 1st Party in 1983 and worked till 25-8-1988 . Whether it means that, he worked continuously without any leave or break ? No case is made out to that effect .

6. 2nd Party filed his affidavit, in lieu of his examination - in - chief at Exhibit 19 making out the case as stated in the statement of claim regarding his working with 1st Party from 6-6-1983 on daily wages and his daily wages @ Rs.27.60 per day. He also states that , he worked continously for 240 days in à calendar year . He also states that, in 1988 he stated getting acute pain in lungs. He was admitted in the hospital . He was under treatment and after discharge he reported on duty . He further claims that he worked for some time and then he was retrenched by notice dated 25th August, 1988. In the cross he adınits that, he was serving as a Peon in Accounts section and no appointment letter was issued to him by the 1st Party . He also admits that, there was no agreement nor any contract took place between him and 1st Party regarding his employment . He states that, the project on which he was working still subsists . He states that, the retrenchment letter was given to him by Mechanical Engineer . He denies that, he was retrenched since work was not available . He states that , he worked at Tardeo office . He states that , he did not work anywhere after his termination i.e. from 25-8-1988 . He further states that, his wife is running a shop and he is helping her in running the said shop and earning about Rs . 35,000 to 40,000 per year . He states that, he is staying in a Company's house in Uran . He , his wife and 2 sons are with him . He states that , 1st Party is doing work of construction of roads , buildingsetc. Then Management filed affidavit of its witness Shnihani Vishnu Sane , at Exhibit 23 , in lieu of his examination in chief in which he states that, 2nd Party was appointed by 1st Party purely on temporary basis and on contract project work . He states that , he was appointed on daily wages . In the cross he states that , he was not in Bombay at that time . He also admits that , he has no personal knowledge about working of 2nd Party and his relations with 1st Party . He admits that, Company is still in existence having its office at Tardeo . He states that, 10-15 persons are working at Tardeo office .

(7) Written arguments are submitted by 2nd Party at Exhibit 25 which are replied by 1st Party by making

(10) Then about his reporting on duty, after discharge from hospital he states that , he worked for some days . It is not mentioned for how much time he worked after getting discharge from Hospital ? Even in para- 7 of his statement of claim he states like that . However, it is not stated for how many days he was in the hospital ? According to his own case , he was dischargedfrom the hospital on 6-8-1988 . and as per his own case he was retrenched from 25-8-1988 . In fact he has produced a certificate where 1st Party has stated that, since work is not available with 1st Party he was retrenched . Even by the said notice he was asked to collect his dues . As far as the offer made in the said notice by the 1st Party is concerned , nothing is stated by 2nd Party that , he approached the 1st Party and tried to collect the dues but were not paid . Even it is not his case that , he is entitled for protection being an employee of the 1st Party . Here when 1st Partydoes not admit its relations with the 2nd Party and when 1st Party 3558

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

25-8-1988 or of 25-8-1998? Besides both parties accepted the date of termination dated 25-8-1988 and led evidence treating termination as 25-8-1988 .So treating termination as 25-8-1988 this referece is decided. Hence , the order:

ORDER

Reference is rejected with no order as to its costs . Bombay,

15thApril,2009

A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 26 मई , 2009

states that, he was purely a temporary employee and he was not appointed on clear vacancy burden is on 2nd Party to establish that he is the employee of the 1st Party. When he was not appointed in clear vacancy and when he was not permanent employee against which nothing is shown by 2nd Party, I come to theconclusion that, 2nd Party is not a permanent employee of the 1st Party and there is no employer - employee relations between them . When there are no relations of employer- employee between the parties in my considered view provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not apply in case of 2nd Party. When he is not a permanent employee 1st Party is not supposed to give legal notice or supposed to offer retrenchment compensation as expected under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

का.आ. 1732 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार न्यू इंडिया एसोरेन्स कंपनी 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 19/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-17012/9/2004-आईआर ( बी- I ) ]

आंजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 26th May, 2009 (11 ) The nature of work attended by the 1st Party is of construction of roads and buildings . We know that when such work is completed from site the employer has to close its activities from that site and has to move to new locations where work is available . So nature of work itself is not of permanent nature and cannot be stated that , it is of perennial nature . Besides it is not shown , how he can get protection in these premises? When 2nd Party is not sure about his own case and has not made out its case on that point, in my considered view, the prayer prayed by the 2nd Party to reinstate him and give other pecuniary benefits does not arise . So I answer the above points to that effect.

S.O. 1732.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central overnment hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 19/2005) oftheCentral Government Industrial Trbunal -cum -Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the the management of New IndiaAssurance Company and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 26-5-2009 .

[No. L- 17012/9/2004- IR(B-I) ] AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present: Ved Prakash ed Prakash Gaur, PresidingOfficer

Dated the2ndday of Rebruary , 2009 Industrial Dispute No. 19/2005

BETWEEN

Sri T.H.V. V. Satyanarayana, S/o Sri Raja Rao ,

....Petitioner

C/oM. Syam , D. No. 20-6-126/4/A, Ramalingeswara Pet, 4th Lane, Chittavari Street, Vijayawada

AND

(12) In the pleading of the 2nd Party , more precisely in Statement of Claim filed at Exhibit 6 2nd Party reproduced the order of Reference referring date oftermination '25 -8-1988 ' though actually in the original Reference date of termination is referred '25 -8-1998 ' . Besides in para- 5 of the Statement of the Claim Statementas well as in paras - 6 and 7 he talks about termination dated 25-8-1988 and not of 25-8-1998 . Besides in para - 13 and 14 he request to set aside termination dated 25-8-1988 and pray consequential benefits.All this reveals that, he is referring termination dated 25-3-1988 and not 25-8-1998 as referred in the Schedule . Besides in the copy of the Schedule which is filed atExhibit "A " with Claim Statement , 2nd Party has corrected date of termination as 25-8-1988 from 25-8-1998 without any body's notice . In fact 2nd Party ought to have brought that fact to the notice of this Tribunal and on that basis this Tribunal ought to have referred the date of termination as 25-8-1988 to Labour Ministry , Government of India and more precisely to the Desk Officer who made the reference of termination dated 25-8-1998 . However, 2nd Party prayed to set aside the termination dated 25-8-1988 and led evidence accordingly. 1 feel now there is no point in discussing about date of termination whether it is either of [भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii ) ]

3559

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

The Divisional Mariager ,

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. ,

DivisionalOffice , 1st Floor,

Sudarshana Complex,

M.G. Road , Labbipet,

....Respondent Vijayawada.

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner : M/s C. Vijaya Shekar Reddy and S. Vijay Venkatesh , Advocates Forthe Respondent : M/s Vedula Srinivas and G.V.L.N. Murthy, Advocates

AWARD

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 17012/9 /2004 - IR (B.I) dated 30-7-2004 referred the following dispute under section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of The New India Assurance Company Ltd. , and their workman . The reference is ,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management ofThe New India Assurance Company Ltd. , Vijayawada in terminating the services ofSri . T.H.V.V. Satyanaryana Ex-employee is justified ? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled to ?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 19/2005 and notices issued to the parties.

2. Petitioner filed his claim statement stating that he hasjoined the Respondent management as a sub - staff on 20-11-98 in Branch- 2 , Vijayawada . He worked continuously till his termination in July, 2002. Hence , he prays for reinstatement with all consequential benefits .

3.Respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the claim statement . It is submitted that the Petitioner was only a part time casual and need based worker who was paid on hourly basis at weekly intervals , as such, the petition be dismissed.

4. Parties were asked to adduce their respective evidences . On 2-2-2009 , both parties called absent, the case is fixed for filing of workman's evidence . There is no adjournment application as well. Order sheet transpires that petitioner is not attending to this case for more than three years as such, his evidence is closed. Hence , a Nil Award is passed in absence of evidence. Transmit.

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 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

2137 G1/09-24

Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for the the Petitioner Respondent

NIL

NIL.

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL

नई दिल्ली, 26 मई , 2009

का.आ. 1733.-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 सं. 1 चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 120ए/ 1991 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12025/2/2009- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ]

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 26th May , 2009

S.O. 1733. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 120A/ 1991 )of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour-Court, -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 26-5-2009 .

[No. L- 12025/2/2009- IR (B - I)] AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

CASE L.D. NO : 120A/ 1991 and ID 249/99

Registered on: 25-9-1991

Date of Decision : 18-5-2009

MadanMohan Sethi ,

159, Lakhi Bagh, Dehradun

...Applicant Versus

Assistant General Manager , State Bank ofIndia, 3560

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 20, 2009 /JYAISTHA 30, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] Region No. 1 , Zonal Office ,

Dehradun

...Respondent

APPEARANCES

(a) Alter, in regard to any matter not connected with the dispute , the conditions of service applicable to that workman immediately before the commencement of such proceeding ; or For the Workman

Workman in person.

For the Management

Smt. Rekha Curian , LawOfficer

(b) for any misconduct not connected with the dispute, discharge or punish , whether by dismissal or otherwise , that workman :

AWARD

Provided that none such workman shall be discharged or dismissed , unless he has been paid wages for one month and an application has been made by the employer to the authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer .

The essential conditions which are to be complied with by the Management under proviso to Section 33 (2) fare as follows

Onapplication moved by the workman under Section 33 -A of Industrial Disputes Act, this case was registered under the order ofthis Tribunal . The application movedby the workman reveals that while pending an Industrial Dispute before this Tribunal numbered as I.D. No. 99 of 1990, the workman was dismissed from the services on the basis of another departmental enquiry on some charges of theft by the prescribed authority of the Management of theBank.

There has been dismissal or discharge of the workman,

2. The workman has been paid one month's wages ; and the employer has made an application for approval of his action to the authority concerned.

Regarding the nature of proceedings under proviso to section 33(2), Supreme Court of India in Straw Board Manufacturing Company Limited Versus Gobind 1978 (2 ) SCC- 144 has held as under

The Management of the bank objected the application that on the basis of a fair and proper enquiry and after affording full opportunity of being heard a show cause notice was issued to the workman and the workman wasdismissed from the services by disciplinary authority on a separate charge of theft which have no concern and nexuswith the matter in question in I.D. No.99 of 1990. It was contended by the Management of the Bank that he has moved an application under Section 33 (2) (b ) for approval of the punishment awarded to the workman,

That application was separately registered by Tribunal as Miscellaneous Case No.249 of 1999. Common questions oflaw and facts are involved in 1.D. No. 120 -A of 1991 andMiscellaneous Case No.249 of 1999.Both the cases are hereby disposed of by this order . The main question fordetermination for adjudication of both of these cases is whether the Management of Bank has not complied with the proviso to Section 33 (2) on awarding the punishment ofdismissal of the workman from the services of the Bank.

"The proviso to Section 33 (2)(b) contemplates the three things mentioned therein namely; (1) dismissal or discharge ; ( II ) payment of wages , and ( III) making of an application for approval , to be simultaneous and to be part of the same transaction so that the employer when it takes the action under Section 33 ( 2 ) ( b ) by dismissing or discharging an employee , should immediately pay him or offered to pay him wages for one month and also make an application to the Tribunal for approval at the same time .

It was further held by the Supreme Court that Ihave heard the parties in detail . Numerous case laws havebeen filed by both ofthe parties . I have gone through the entire material on record and the case laws referred and relfed upon by both of the parties . I am not mentioning all the case law's referredto by both of the parties to prevent this order to be luminous. I am relying the latest and relevant case laws in which the law relatingating to the proceedings under Section 33 (2 ) has been laid downТ РАЗ

"Theemployer's conduct should show that the three things contemplated under the proviso , are part of same transaction; and the question whether the application was made as part of the same transaction or at the same time when action was taken would be a question of fact and still depends upon the circumstance of each case . " Section 33 (2) protects the interest of the workman from dismissal/discharging from services during the Pendency of any dispute before any Tribunal or court . Section 33 (2) reads as under: -

In Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. , Versus S.N.Modak, IAR- 1966 - SC- 380 , the Supreme Court held as under:

" It is now well settled that the requirements of the proviso have to be specified by the employer on the basis that they form part of the same transaction, and stated generally, the employer must either pay or offer the salary for one month to the employee before passing an order of discharge or dismissal , and must apply to the specified "(2) During the Pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, the employer may, in accordance with standing orders applicable to a workman concerned in such dispute or, where there are no such standing orders, in accordance with the terms of the contract, whether express or implied, between him andthe workman.

[ भाग II- खण्ड: 3(ii) ]

3562 भारत क्रा राजपुत्र: जून 20, 2009 ज्येष्ठ 30, 19340 RETENAD PHY

authority for approval of his action at the same time , or within such reasonable short time thereafter as to form part

of same transaction.totam woát Mainga chit

It is also settled law that if an approval is granted it takes effect from the day of the order passed by the employer for which approval was sought . If an approvallisi not granted, the order of dismissal or discharge passed by the employer is wholly invalid or inoperative and the employee can legitimately claim to continue to be in the f employment of the employer notwithstanding the order passed by any authority in dismissing or discharging him In other words , approval by the prescribed authority makes the order ofdischarge or dismissal effective ; in the absence ofapproval, such an order is invalid and inoperative in law

No doubt in Punjab Beverages Private Ltd .; Versus Suresh Chand ( 1978) 2 -SCC- 144 the different view was taken by the Hon ' ble Apex Court . The matter was referred to the Constitutional Bench and the Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court in Jaipur Zila Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank Ltd. Versus Ram Gopal Sharma 2002 - SCC( L& S) 279, has approved the law laid down in Straw Board Manufacturings Co. Ltd.,Versus Gobind ( supra) and Tata Iron and Steel Company's case (supra). In Jaipur Zila Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank's case ( supra) the Apex Court has, held that if an employer desires to take henefit of the proviso of Section 33 (2)(b) for passing an order of discharge or dismissal of an employee , he has also to take the burden of discharging the statutory application placed on him in the said proviso Taking a contrary view that an order of discharge or... dismissal passed by an employer in contravention of the mandatory conditions, contained in the proviso does not... render such an order inoperative or void, defeats the very purpose of the proviso and it becomes meaningless . It is . weil settied rule of interpretation that no part of statute shall be construed as an unnecessary or superfluous. The proviso cannot be diluted or disapproved by an employer. He cannot dispute the mandatory provisions and then say that his order of discharge or dismissal made in contravention to proviso of 33 (2 ) is not valid, and inoperative . He cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong . The interpretation of statute must be such at the advance the legislative enacted and serve the parties for which it is inade render to consider it. The proviso to Section 33 (2 ) ( b ) affords protection to a workman to safeguard his interest and it is a shield against victimization and enforces labour practice by the employer during the pendency of Industrial Dispute when the relationship " between them is already strained.

In Jaipur Zila Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank's case (supra) it was further held by the Supreme Court that

"Where an application is made under Section 33 (2 ) (b)

oth dismissal or discharge isge is bona fide, whether it wass by way of victimization oror unfair labour practiced whether the conditions contained in the proviso were complied with or notnot etc. If the authority, refuses to grant approval obviously it follows that the emplemployee continues to be inbe in service as if the order of discharge or dismissal, never had been passed, The order of dismissal or discharge passed invoking Section . 33 (2 )(b) dismissing or discharging an employee brings an end of relationship of the employer and employee from the date of his dismissal or discharge but that order remains, incomplete and remains inchoate as it isas it is subject to approvaloval of the authority urier the said provision . In other words , this relationship comes to an end de jure only when the authority grants approval . If approval is not given , nothing more is required to be done by the employee, as it will have to be deemed thatthat the order ofof discharge or dismissal had never been passed . Consequence of it is that the employee is deemed to have continued in service entitling him to all the benefits available. This being the position there is nothere is no need of aof a separate or specific order for his reinstatement . But on the other hand , ifif approval is given by the authoritauthority and ifthe employee is aggrieved by such an approval , he is entitled to make a complaint under Section 33-33 -A challenging the order granting approval on any of the groundsnds available to him. Section 33-33 -A is available only to an employee and is intended to savesave his time ... and trouble in as much as he can straightway make a complaint before the very authority where the industrial dispute is already pending between the parties challenging the order of approval instead of making efforts to raise an industrial dispute , get a reference and thereafter adjudication . In this view, in is not correct to sayto say that even though where the order of discharge or dismissal is inoperative for contravention of the mandatory conditions contained in the proviso orviso or where the approval is refused, a workman should still make a complaint under Section 33 -A and that the order of dismissal or discharge becomes invalid or void only when it iswhen it is set aside under Section 33 - A and that till such time he should suffer misery ofof unenunemployment inin spiteite of thethe statutory protection given to him by the proviso to Section 33 ( 2) (b ) . It is not correcorrect to say that where the order of discharge or dismissal becomes Inoperative because of contravention of proviso to Section 33 (2 )(b) . Section 33 - A would be meaningless and futile . The said section has a definite purpose to serve as already stated above , enabling an employee to make a complaint, if aggrieved by thethe order of the approval granted. " ea

Mitte In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court itis clear that the application filed by the employer , for...

proviso, the authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer has to examine whether the order of

istes terramach από το τεινότητр чой ишончари 3562

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]

Moreover, the way the dismissal order was passed by the Management hastily it shows that it was not bona fide. Against the Show Cause Notice containing the proposed punishment of dismissal dated 6-3-1990, the workman preferred and filed a Writ Petition before Delhi High Court, in which stay was granted to him . Admittedly, the Writ Petition was dismissed on territorial jurisdictional grounds on 12-12-1990 and the Managementjust after the dismissal of the petition confimed the proposed punishment of dismissal of the workman from the services during the pendency of another reference before the Tribunal .

Thus on both of the counts namely that all the three requirements for permitting the application filed for approval oforder of dismissal are not the part of the same transaction and the order for punishment was made hastily just after the dismissal ofWrit Petition by High Court of Delhi, I am of the' view that application has not been moved by the petitioner (Management of the Bank) bonafide . Accordingly, there is no force in the application and the same is dismissed.

Accordingly, the petition moved by the petitioners under Section 33 -A deserved to be allowed. It is hereby made clear that on application moved by the petitioner under Section 33 -A, the nature of the proceedings which were pending adjudication before this Tribunal while passing the order of dismissal of workman from the services cannot be considered. I am also not inclined to accept the contention of the bank that right from the day the workman inducted into the services , he had created nuisance and problems for the bank , because for the purpose of proceedings under Section 33 (2 ) (b) and under Section 33 -A, the Tribunal has to confine whether all the three requirements which are the backbone of the proceedings under Section 33 (2 )( b ) have been complied with . As the Management has not complied with the provisions of Section 33(2)(b), this petition filed by the workmandeserved to be allowed .

Itisnot required to pass the consequential orders as the law laid down in Jaipur Zila Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank's case (supra) is very clear that when the application for approval of dismissal order is rejected the employee shall be considered to be in services for all purposes . On the basis of the above observations , the petition moved by the workman is allowed. Let Central Government be approached for publication of award and, thereafter , file be consigned to record room .

G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 26 मई , 2009

approval of dismissal or discharge should be made bonafidely.The Tribunal or Court, as the case may be has to satisfy that application for approval or dismissal or discharge was made bonafidely . It depends on facts and circumstances of each case . But it became the settled law thatrequirement of bonafide has to be looked into as per the law laiddown by the Apex Court that offers three requirements namely ( I ) dismissal -or discharge, (2) payment ofwages and (3) application for approval are part of the same transaction . In this case , as admitted by the party that theworkman was charge-sheeted on 22-4-1989 on an allegation of theft of Rs . 1,000 from the Bank . The charge was said tobe proved in a departmental proceedings and a notice to Show Cause with proposed punishment of dismissal from services was given to the workman on 6-3-1990. Against this Show Cause Notice, the workman preferred a Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court and theHighCourt of Delhi stayed the operation ofthat Show CauseNotice .But the Writ Petition filed by the workman wasdismissed on 12-12-1990 , on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction, and on the very next day the prescribed authority of the Management of the Bank confirmed the proposed penalty of dismissal of the workman from services . The payment of one month wages were made good on 27-5-1991 and the application for approval of the punishment was moved on 25-2-1992. It shows that the payment of one month wages were made good after 5½ months of passing the order of dismissal of the workman from services and the application was filed under Section 33(2)(b) after one year two months . The cause for filing the application so late shown by the Management is that workman preferred an appeal against the punishment order and Appellate Authority passed the final order on 27-5-1991 . As per the contention of the Management on the very day the payment of one month wages were made good and an application for approval was made on 25-2-1992. It cannot be said that all the three acts done by the Management are part of the same transaction. The payment of one month's wages had to be made good either onthe same day on which the order of dismissal is passed orshortly thereafter so that it seems to be the part of same transaction . Likewise , the application for approval of dismissal from the services under Section 33 (2 ) (b ) has to be made either on the same day or shortly thereafter so that it may also seems to be the part of the same transaction . I am not inclined to accept the contention of the Management that these requirements can be made good under the law after the dismissal order has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority .It is not the intention of the legislation that all the three requirements are to be made good when the order of punishment is approved by the AppellateAuthority. These requirements are to be satisfied on the day or shortly after when the order of dismissal or discharge is passed by the employer. These requirements are lacking in the miscellaneous case filed by the

का.आ. 1734.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ हैदराबाद के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक Management for approval of the dismissal order .

3563 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

SCHEDULE

अधिकरण हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 42/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/12/2006- आईआर ( बी- I ) ]

अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 26thMay, 2009

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank ofHyderabad (A.P. ) in awarding the punishment of termination from employment by way of compulsory retirement w.e.f. 14-9-2002 to Shri Battu Lal Singh , Sub- Staff, Khammam Main Branch ofthe Bank is proper andjustified ? Ifnot, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled ? "

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 42/2006 and notices issued to the parties .

2. On 3-2-2009 , both parties called absent . Petitioner has not filed claim statement even after lapse of two years of receipt of this reference . As such , it appears that Petitioner has nothing to say about subject matter of reference, Hence , a Nil Award is passed.

S.O. 1734.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 42/2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour- Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State BankofHyderabad and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 26-5-2009.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit .

[No. L- 12012/ 12/2006- IR (B-I) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 3rd day of February , 2009.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of Evidence

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

Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for the the Petitioner Respondent

Present: Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer

NIL

Dated the 3rd day of February, 2009

Industrial Dispute No. 42/2006

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL

BETWEEN

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL

नई दिल्ली, 26 मई , 2009

....Petitioner

Sri Battu Lal Singh , Ex Sub- Staff, H. No. 3-160, ZP High School Lane , Kesamudram Station , Warangal .

AND

का.आ. 1735.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सन्ट्रैल बैंक ऑफ हैदराबाद प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 47/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

The Deputry General Manager (Perand HRD), State Bank ofHyderabad, HeadOffice,Gun Foundry, Hyderabad-500001

[सं. एल-12012/24/2006- आई आर ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

Respondent

APPEARANCES

New Delhi , the 26th May, 2009 : NIL

For the Petitioner

For the Respondent : Sri A.V.S. S. Prasad, Advocates

AWARD

S.O. 1735. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.47/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank ofHyderabad and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 26-5-2009 .

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its orderNo. L- 12012/ 12/2006- ID (B.I ) dated 24-7-2006 referred the following dispute under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the 1.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal hetween the management of State Bank of Hyderabad and their workman . The reference is,

[No. L-12012/24/2006- IR (B - I ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 3564

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

ANNEXURE

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

Present: Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer Dated the 2ndday of February, 2009

Industrial Dispute No. 47/2006

BETWEEN

SriMohd. Lateefuddin,

Andhra Pradesh Industrial Employees

Union, House ofLabour , King Kothi Road,

Petitioner Hyderabad.

AND

TheDeputyGeneral Manager (Per & HRD) , StateBank of Hyderabad, Head Office, GunFoundry, Hyderabad- 500001 . ....Respondent .

APPEARANCES

Forthe Petitioner : M/s . N. Meenakshi , C. Lavanya &G. Sailaja, Advocates

NIL

For the Respondent :

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 12012/24 /2006- ID (B- I) dated 10-8-2006 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 Hyderabad and their workinan. The reference is :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Hyderabad, not regularizing the services of SriRajendra Kumar, Casual labour , working since 1990 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is en- titled to?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.47/2006 and notices were issued to the parties .

2. On 2-2-2009 , both parties called absent . Petitioner hasnot filed claim statement even after lapse of two years ofreceipt of this reference . It appears Petitioner is not in- terested to put up his case . As such, in absence of Petitioner'spleadings , Nil Award is passed.

Award passed accordingly . Transmit.

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

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

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

{

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली , 26 मई , 2009

का.आ. 1736.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार श्री आन्नाथा ग्रामीण बैंक प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 24/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[संख्या एल -12012/ 189/2003- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 26th May, 2009

S.O. 1736.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 24/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- Cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Sree Anantha Grameena Bank and their workmen , receivedby the Central Government on 26-5-2009 ,

[No..L- 12012/ 189 /2003 - IR(B - I)

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer Dated the 17th day of February , 2009 Industrial Dispute No. 24/2004

BETWEEN

TheGeneral Secretary,

A.P. RegionalRural Banks Employees Association , B -3 , F - 14 , Amrutha Arcade , Opp: Venkataramana

Theatre, Kachiguda Station Road ,

....Petitioner /Union Hyderabad-500 027 .

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

3565

भारत का राजपत्र जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

AND

The Chairman,

Sree Anantha Gremeena Bank ,

....Respondent

H.O. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Road, Anantpur- 515001.

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner

M/s.B.S.A.Satyanarayana Suresh Kumar & P. V. Rao ,

Advocates

For the Respondent : M/ s . K. Srinivasa Murthy ,

V. Umadevi , C. Vijaya Sekhar

Reddy, S. Vijay Venkatesh, & of the fort if G. Praveen Kumar , Advocates

TAWARD

The Government of India, Ministry ofLabour by its order No. L - 12012/ 189 /2003 - IR (B - I ) dated 23-1-2004 referred the following industrial dispute under section 10 (1) (d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of Sree Anantha Grameena Bank and their workman. The reference is

SCHEDULE 1 Jul "Whether the action of the management of Sree Anantha Grameena Bank , Anantpur in terminating the services ofSri M. Krishnama Naidu, Sweeper is justified? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled to ?"

2. The Petitioner Union filed claim statement stating that the workman was continuously employed as sweeper and his services were terminated w.e.f. 30-4-2002 and confirmed the same vide orders No : 124/32 /PD/C5T/2002 dated6-5-2002 of the respondent bank. The said decision of the bank , said to have been taken in the light of the NABARD/GOI /Sponsor Bank guide lines communicated on the award of NIT is not correct, because the award relates to 1990. The claim of the workman is that the workman was engaged for more than 6 years , for more than 5 to 6 hours a day and was attending to duties of the regular messengers and also duties of sweeping, scavenging and fetching water etc. Therefore , it is submitted that the workman is therefore entitled for reinstatement with all attendant benefits, wages on par with regular staff with effect from the date of initial engagement of the workman and absorption of the workman in regular establishment

3.Acounter was filed by the respondent bank . It is submitted that the Government of India issued instructions to RRBs for implementation of the NIT Award read with Equation committee Report vide their Cir . No. 11-3/90 RRB( 1 ), dated 22-2-1991 . In order to overcome certain operational problems in implementation ofNIT Award, a working group under the chairmanship of Chief General Managers of NABARD, Sri R. C. Guptha was constituted along with other members. In view ofthe Guptha Committee recommendations , NABARD issued guidelines vide Cir . No. C. 4559/ (316 )/ gen / 92-93 , dated 20-3-1993 regarding implementation of NIT Award . The following are the guidelines regarding messengers and sweeper- cum- messengers :

(1) Wherever a full time messenger -cum - sweeper is deployed , no separate sweeper shall be provided and the full time messenger - cum- sweeper shall perform both the duties.

(2) As part of regularization of the sub -ordinate staff, all such employees be redesignated as messenger -cum-sweepers and all subsequent Crecruitments should be for the combined designation ite . , messenger - cum - sweepers , driver - cum - messengers : LAN

4. It is submitted that there is no provision either in the Award or the Guptha Committee report for creating posts of sweepers . As such , the question of regularization of the services of the petitioner workman does not arise. The union has to prove its allegation that the workman was engaged continuously as sweeper from his initial appointment . It is denied that the workman worked 5 to 6 hours daily. The workmans services were dispensed with interms of circular No. 124/34/PD/ CST/2002 dated 6-5-2002. Hence, the workman is not entitled to any relief and have no claim for ariy employment in the bank,

5. Both parties are absent for several adjournments including today i.e. , 17-2-2009 . In absence of parties their evidence is closed. Hence , Nil Award is passed in absence ofevidence . transmit.

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 17th day of February , 2009 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix ofEvidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent .

NIL

NIL 3566

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

Documents marked for the Petioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली , 26 मई , 2009

का.आ. 1737.- 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 , चैन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 90/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/118/2006- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 26th May, 2009

S.O. 1737. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 90/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - Cum- Labour Court, Chennai 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 on26-5-2009.

[No. L- 12012/ 118 /2006- IR (B -I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT CHENNAI

Friday the 15th May, 2009

Present : A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 90/2006

Inthe matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause(d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), between the Management of State Bank of India and their Workman)

BETWEEN

SriM. Gowrishankar

: IstParty/Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Dy. General Manager : Ist Party /Respondent StateBank of India Local HeadOffice CircleTop, House No. 16, CollegeLane, Chennai -600006

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii) ]

: Ilnd Party/Respondent

Manager , State Bank of

2. TheAsstt. General India, Mylapore Branch Chennai-600004

APPEARANCE

Forthe Petitioner

:M/s. Balan Haridas , Kamatchi Sundaresan

: Shri K. S. Sundar

For the Management

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide its Order.No . L- 12012/ 118 /2006 - IR (B - 1 ) dated 4-12-2006 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of India in imposing the punishment ofremoval from the services of Sri M. Gowrishankar with effect from 3-4-2006 for the charges leveled against him is just and proper? " If not to what relief is the applicant entitled to?"

2.After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 90/2006 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearance and filed Claim Statement Counter Statement and reply statement as the case maybe .

3. Brief averments in the Claim Statement necessary for discussion are as follows :

The Petitioner - Daftry under the service of the Respondent for 20 years has had preferred complaints in respect of certain illegal acts of Mahalingam , Asstt. General Manager of the Respondent Bank regarding incurring of irregular expenditure by misuse of public money. He also submitted letter on 23-8-2002 pointing out the irregularities . But no action was taken by the Management . Instead it was booking the petitioner with charges in a vindictive manner. On 15-7-2004 the petitioner under a bonafide belief installed the photograph of Dr. Ambedkar in the Adyar Branch of the bank . The Management called upon him to explain by saying by the act , the ambience of the hall was spoiled. He replied on 21-7-2004 pointing out that he only installed the photograph of Dr. Ambedkar , the founding father of the Constitution . Thereafter the Management started harassing him falsely in many ways . False remarks were rendered in the Attendance Register. On 24-8-2004 under a purported strike of employees to which he was not party, Mr. Arun , Asstt . General Manager left the place with key against which he complained on 25-8-2004 . The petitioner was charge sheeted on 21-9-2004 for the incident

1 3567 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

on his expression of regret. The petitioner's conduct has been blemished and in-disciplined . The petitioner was charge sheeted for certain misconduct. An enquiry was held . The petitioner defended the enquiry with full opportunity and in the enquiry, Charge Nos . 1 , 2, 3 , 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9were proved. Charge No. 7 was partly proved and Charge No. 10 and Charge No. 11 were not at all proved. The Tamil version of the enquiry report was given to him. In the appeal the proposed punishment of dismissal was modified into removal from service . The petitioner kept on falsely complaining against the officials with ulterior motives. It is denied that the petitioner obtained permission for installation of the portrait. The bank has not created false records against the petitioner . The petitioner was represented by a defence representative knowing English . The petitioner admitted that he arraneged the display of the portrait. The allegation of malafides and victimization by the Respondent is rejected by the High Court . The punishment awarded is commensurate with the misconduct. The Management lost confidence in the petitioner and severed him from service . The petitioner is having employment as a Casual Worker with an earning of Rs . 150 per day . Taking into account previous record of service of the petitioner , the punishment is to be found proper.. The reference may be answered against the petitioner.

5. In the Reply Statement it is stated that an Industrial Dispute has been raised against the stoppage of increment . The extreme penalty imposed amounts to legal victimization . Enquiry findings are perverse . The petitioner isnot gainfully engaged presently.

6. Points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the removal service of the peti- tioner by the Management is legal and justified?

(ii) To what relief the petitioner is entitled to?

7. On the side of the petitioner , WWI was cross- examined consequent to filing affidavit in lieu of Chief Examination and Ex. W1 to Ex . W60 were marked . No evidence was adduced on the side of the Respondent.

Point No. 1

on 15-7-2004. The substance of the charges is that the petitioner left the bank on 15-7-2004 without permission and came back after 3.00 PM with outsider which when resisted by the Security Guards, the petitioner shouted at them saying that he has had permission from the Asstt. General Manager (AGM) . The petitioner got hit nails on the wall panel , damaged property and the portrait of Dr. Ambedkar was installed without permission, that on 19-7-2004, the petitioner arranged 25 persons to arrive at the branch and threatened AGM, the petitioner spoiled image ofthe bank by instigating SC/ST Welfare Employees Association, that on 2-8-2004, the petitioner was in possession ofbunch ofpamphlets to arrest DGM and AGM, left the branch premises earlier than regular time without permission on various dates , he made alterations in the Bank'sAttendance Register and that he entering into the cabin ofMr. Prakash , Manager (Accounts) threatened him for rendering remarks in the Attendance Register against the conduct ofthe petitioner. The charges are malafide and aredenied. The complaints filed by Mr. M. Chandran, and S. Maheshwaran, Security Gaurds are false which are not mentioned in the Charge Memo . They are mere signatories to the complaints written in English since they do not have working knowledge of English . Their evidence in the enquiry is tutored . The protrait of Ambedkar was fixed after oral permission of AGM . The portrait was hung in an already existing nail. Posters were pasted to take action against the person who remarked that by hanging the portrait ofAmbedkar , the ambience ofthe bank was spoiled. The enquiry was held in a biased manner and in violation ofthe principles ofnatural justice . The finding is on perverse reasons . The enquiry report in English though was forwarded to him , his request for a Tamil version was not considered and instead the proposed punishment of dismissal from service was being imposed . The same was modified into removal from service with superannuation benefits as per order dated 3-4-2006 . In the guise ofhanging ofportrait ofAmbedkar as a misconduct, various charges were being created against the petitioner in a vindictive manner under an evil design and oblique motive against the petitioner. The punishment imposed is also grossly disproportionate requiring interference under Section - 11A ofthe ID Act . The petitioner is now rendered jobless and is in distress . The punishment is sought to be set aside and he be reinstated .

4. The averments in the Counter Statement bereft of unnecessary details are as follows :

8. The Industrial Dispute is against the removal from serviceof the delinquent petitioner on the ground that the enquiry was held against the principles of natural justice and the finding vis-a- vis the reasons for the finding are perverse.A perusal of the enquiry report, documents, the rival pleadings of the parties and deposition of WW1 goes to show that neither the enquiry nor the finding or the The dispute is barred by resjudicata. The petitioner had threatened the physically challenged woman with pouring ofurine on her face and there was punishment of stoppageof increment for 3 years later reduced to 6 months

2137 G1/09-25 3568

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

reason leading to the finding is perverse. The charges on which the delinquent faced the enquiry were brought to hisnotice vividly and the delinquent faced the enquiry fully with the assistance of a defence representative. On the culmination of the enquiry proceedings , he was provided with report of the enquiry with English version though receipt ofTamil version is denied by the petitioner, but which is denied by the Respondent . The petitioner evidently was also personally heard before he was imposed the punishment of dismissal as well as before the Appellate Authority. It is after having given an opportunity ofbeing heard that the Disciplinary Authority passed the punishment against him . The charges relate to the absence ofthe petitioner, that is by leaving early, coming late and also absenting from the bank without permission of the bank, hanging of portrait of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar without the permission ofthe bank, keeping on complaining against the officials, causing threatening ofAGM , arranging 25 persons to arrive at the bank branch, possession of pamphlets , demanding arrest of DGM. General Manager and Asstt . General Manager , altering the bank's Attendance Register, himself threatening the Manager (Accounts) ,etc. According to the Respondent , dispute is barred by res judicata. The petitioner's conduct has been blemished and in-disciplined . He kept on falsely commplaining against the officials . The installation of portrait ofDr. Ambedkar was not with permission . The allegation of malafides and victimization alleged against the Respondent is found against by the High Court.

9. The petitioner has a further case that the extreme penalty imposed amounts to legal victimization whereas according to the Respondent, the punishment awarded is commensurate with the misconduct and the Management lost confidence in the petitioner and so severed him from service.

10. A perusal of the relevant records would show that the enquiry has been held properly and fairly. There is no bias from the Enquiry Officer against the petitioner . The finding is not perverse or illegal . The reasons for entering the finding are also not perverse . There is no violation of the principles of natural justice . As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the Respondent , the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is not for the hanging of the portrait ofDr. Babasaheb Ambedkar but was for the in- disciplined and defying manner in which it was done . The case of the petitioner that the portrait was hung under the permission of AGM is discernibly not true . That the petitioner has been perennially negligent in attendingto dutjes by arriving late and leaving early as well as by remaining absent during working hours is duly proved. That it was at the instance of the petitioner that 25 persons arrived at the office of the AGM and threatened him is proved . It is also partly proved that the petitioner was in possession of pamphlets containing demand for high- handed actions against the DGM and the AGM and they

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] were in his conscious possession. That the Attendance Registers containing remarks against the petitioner regarding the time of his attendance, leaving etc. from the bank noted by his superiors have been tampered with by him is proved . That the petitioner threatened with pouring urine on the face of a physically challenged female employee and that he has been punished with stoppage of increment forthree years, later reduced to 6 months on his expression ofregret is admitted and proved . This fact holds out as a record of his past misconduct. Though he has a case that an Industrial Dispute has been raised against it, it could be seen to be later in point of time the said incident having been occurred in the year 2000. Thus , an ex- post fact event has been projected by him as a shield to escape from his past misconduct being considered against him in the charges in the present enquiry . There need not be any reluctance to find that all these activities of the petitioner delinquent which were being committed by him deliberately violating the authorities and causing much concern to the officials and the Management do amount to misconducts emanating from the petitioner.

11. The argument of the learned counsel of the petitioner that the mere installation of a photograph , of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar cannot be reckoned as a misconduct, while is not to be rejected, I am also to bestow due importanceto the argument of the learned counsel for the Respondent that what is offending was not the very installation of the portrait Dr. Ambedkar but the very manner of the petitioner getting it done without the permission ofthe Management after causing the arrival of outsiders into the bank without the permission and which. when resisted by the Security Guards , the petitioner's arranging it to be got done telling them that he had got the permission from the AGM . The further conduct of petitioner having arranged to cause the arrival of 25 persons at the bank and threatening the AGM as a consequence is also a most deprecable and unbecoming act on the part of the petitioner which goes against the discipline and smooth manageinent ofthe Respondent/Bank . A remark allegedly made by the AGM which he does not admit to have made in any bad sense by saying that the installation of portrait of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar has damaged the ambience of the bank hall is also seen made use of by the petitioner as a slogan or weapon to be used against the AGM by causing 25 persons to arrive at the bank and cause him to be threatened .

12. The petitioner has a case that the Respondent is moving against him motivated by malafides and with an object of victimizing him . It is pointed out on behalf ofthe Respondent that his contention does not hold good for the reason that High Court has already found in the Writ Petitions filed by the petitioner himselfthat such allegations are not true . Therefore, the case of the Respondent that as regards such allegations , the dispute is barred by res judicata has to be upheld as true .

1- [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009 /ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

13. While I am to hold on the materials before me that the manner of enquiry and the finding in the enquiry are valid and legal , what is further germane for consideration is whether the punishment imposed on the petitioner has been disproportionate inviting interference by this Tribunal under Section - 11A of the Industrial DisputesAct.

14. Generally, no Industrial Tribunal shall interfere with the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority unless it is satisfied that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate or that on the proved facts and circumstances of the case , no reasonable man should have imposed such a serious punishment. In this case , the punishment imposed was removal from service . Though , this is attacked as an instance of legal victimization by the petitioner that cannot be sustained for any reason. Here theManagement was imposing the punishment of removal for reason, inter- alia, that there has been loss of confidence in the employee. In the decision of the Supreme Court in KanhaiyalalAggarwal and Others Vs. Factory Manager, Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. (2001 - II-LLJ- 111) , the Supreme Court held that " what must be pleaded and proved to invoke the aforesaid principle is that ( i) the workman in holding aposition oftrust and confidence; ( ii) by abusing such position, he commits acts which result in forfeiting the same: and (iii) to continue him in service would be embarrassing and inconvenient to the employer or would be detrimental to the discipline or security of the establishment. All these three aspects must be present to refuse reinstatement on ground of loss of confidence cannot be subjective based upon the mind of the Management. Objective facts which would lead to the definite inference of apprehension in the mind of the Management regarding trust worthiness or reliability of the employee must be alleged and proved. Else, the right ofreinstatement ordinarily available to the employee will be lost".

3569 challenging the authorities has thereby caused himself to be a constant menace to the Mariagement rendering it very difficult to manage him . He has thus having become a cause of never ending embarrassment to the Respondent is actually entitled to serious punishment of removal from service . The imposed punishment is only to be found as just proportionate to the gravity of the misconducts committed by the petitioner. The punishment when was imposed after reckoning his past misconduct is only legal andproportionate and the same does not call for interference bythisTribunal .

16. In Colour -Chem. Ltd. and A.L. Alaspurkar and Others (1998 - II- LLN- 84) , the Supreme Court held as above. It further held that when the very misconducts challeged in the ongoing proceedings themselves may not be awardable with the impugned punishment it is again germane for consideration whether coupled with the record of past misconduct such a punishment could be sustained . In this case, the petitioner had already been punished for a misconduct which is not proved set aside . Still discernibly with efflux of time, the petitioner has not shown any trend for change of his blame worthy conduct . So, his punishment by way of removal from service which has rightly been done by the Management is only to be kept intact. Therefore , it is found that the punishment imposed is only just and fair. Point No. 2

17. From the facts mentioned above , the petitioner isnot entitled to any relief.

18. The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the PA, transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 15th May, 2009)

A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined:

Forthe I Party/Petitioner : WW1 , Sri M. Gaurishankar

None

For the II Party/Management

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No. Date

15. Having regard to the defying and impertinent nature ofthe conduct meted out by the petitioner from time to time under a blemished conduct challenging the authorities under whom he is working, a conduct seldom susceptible to discipline and directions of his superiors and unsystematic way of attending duties by attending late and leaving early as he pleases , proved misconduct towards physically challenged female employee are a series ofcontinuous misconduct emanating from the petitioner . They couldwell be found to be matters for loss ofconfidence of the Management upon the workman . These circumstances dispel with the very instance of legal victimization being practiced upon the petitioner as alleged by casting it with a " stigma " of an " unfair labour practice". Then petitioner by his uncompromising and all pervading series of conduct of recalcitrant nature of always

Description

Ex. Wi 17-07-2004 Memo- issued by the respondent .

Ex.W2 21-07-2004 Explanation given by the petitioner .

Ex.W3. 21-07-2004 Representation of the petitioner .

Ex.W4 07-09-2004 Representation of the petitioner .

Ex.W5 21-09-2004 Charge Memo.

Ex.W6

Enquiry Proceedings .

3570

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

Ex.W7 21-09-2004 Memo issued by Respondent (P.Ex.1).

Ex.W8

Çopies of attendance register form 10-07-2004 to 03-09-2004 (P.Ex.2).

Ex.W9 27-07-2004 Letter of S. Maheswaran , Armed Guard (P.Ex. 3).

Ex.W10 27-07-2004 Letter of M. Chandran, Armed Guard (P.Ex. 4).

Ex.W11

Letter ofAdyar Branch (P.Ex.5).

Ex.W12

Copy ofAffidavit in W.P. No. 30029/04 (Ρ.Εχ. 6) .

Copy of LHO Letter (P. Ex. 7) .

Ex.W13 14-08-1997

Ex.W14

Copy of LHO Letter (P. Ex . 8) .

27-07-2004

Ex.W15 16-08-2004 Letter of Petitioner (P.Ex .9) .

20-07-2004 Letter ofAdyar Branch (P.Ex. 10).

Ex.W16

Ex.W17

Copies ofPhotos (P.Ex. 11 ).

Ex.W18

Copy ofNotice ofA. K. Gopalsamy (P.Ex. 12).

Ex.W19

CopyofDisciplinary Proceeding Register (P.Ex. 13) .

Ex.W20

Letter ofAdyar Branch (P.Ex. 14). 07-09-2004

Ex.W21 11-09-2004 Letter ofPetitioner (P. Ex. 15) .

07-09-2004 Letter ofFletitioner (P.Ex. 16) .

Ex. W22

09-09-2004 Letter of Petitioner (P.Ex. 17).

Ex.W23

10-09-2004 Letter of Petitioner (P.Ex. 18) .

Ex.W24

Ex.W25

Copy of Adyar Branch Notice (P.Ex. 19).

Ex.W26

Copy ofAdyar Branch Notice (Ρ. Εx. 20).

Ex.W27

SSLC marksheet ofpetitioner (P. Ex. 21) .

13-01-2004 Letter of Petitioner (P.Ex. 22) .

Ex.W28

Ex.W29 21-07-2004 Letter ofPetitioner (P.Ex. 23 ) .

Ex.W30 14-08-2004 Letter of Manager (P.Ex. 24) .

Ex.W31 25-08-2004 Letter ofPetitioner (P.Ex. 25) .

27-08-2004 Letter ofAdyar Branch (P.Ex. 26) .

Ex.W32

03-08-2004

Ex. W33

Letter ofState Bank of India SC/STAssociation (P.Ex. 27) .

Ex.W/34 04-08-2004 Letter ofAdyar Branch (P.Ex. 28).

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] Ex.W35 04-10-2004 Letter ofPetitioner (P.Ex. 29) .

Ex. W36 06-10-2004 Letter ofAdyar Branch (P.Ex. 30) .

Ex.W37

Letter ofZonal Office (P.Ex. 31 ). 13-05-2000

Ex.W38 16-03-2001 Letter ofPetitioner (D.Ex. 1) .

Ex. W39 23-08-2002 Letter of Petitioner (D.Ex. 2) .

Ex. W40 04-04-2003 Letter of State Bank of India SC/STAssociation (D.Ex. 3) .

17-05-2003

Ex.W41

Letter ofState Bank of India SC/ST Association (D.Ex. 4) .

Ex.W42 03-11-2003 Letter of State Bank of India SC/ST Association (D.Ex.5) .

08-07-2005 Prosecution Brief,

Ex. W43

Ex.W44

Defence Brief.

Ex. W45 24-08-2005 Enquiry Report .

27-10-2005 Letter of Petitioner .

Ex. W46

23-11-2005 Personal Hearing Notice .

Ex.W47

28-11-2005

Ex.W48

Letter given in Personal Hearing and Personal Hearing Proceedings .

02-12-2005 Order of Dismissal .

Ex.W49

Ex.W50

Appeal.

Ex.W51 23-01-2006 Representation given in Personal Hearing.

16-03-2006 Personal Hearing Proceedings .

Ex.W52

22-03-2006 Letter ofDefence Representative .

Ex.W53

03-04-2006

Ex. W54

Order in Appeal (Tamil and EnglishVersion) .

Ex.W55 08-09-2006 Order of Government of India .

Ex.W56

Extract from Sastry Award .

Ex.W57

Photo Album .

Ex. W58

Negatives of Photo Album .

Ex.W59 15-11-2006 Copy of letter from Office ofChief Labour Commissioner (Central ) , Chennai to Dy . Chief Labour Commissioner (Central ) , Chennai .

Ex.W60 04-04-2007 Copy of letter from State Bank of India Ambedkar Trade Union to Asstt . Labour Commissioner (Central) , Chennai.

On the Management's side

Ex. No.

Date Description

Nil 3571 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 26 मई , 2009

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

का.आ. 1738.-औद्योगिक विषाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार, स्टेट बैंक ऑफ ट्रावनकोर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , इर्नाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 161/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

"Whether the action of the management ofState Bank of Travancore , Trivandrum in imposing the punishment of ( i) permanent withdrawal of Special Allowance and ( ii ) bringing down pay to lower stage in the scale of pay by two stages on Shri R. Sudhakaran , Head Cashier , by order dated 26-11-1999 isjustified? Ifnot, what reliefthe workman concerned is entitled? "

[सं. एल-12012/223/2001- आईआर( बी -1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

2. The facts in a nutshell are as follows :-

New Delhi , the 26th May , 2009

S.O. 1738.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.161/ 2006) of CentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank ofTravancore and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 26-5-2009 .

[No. L- 12012/223 //2001 - IR (B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Shri R. Sudhakaran was working in State Bank of Travancore, Kattakada Branch , Trivandrum district as Head Cashier. While so , he was chargesheeted on 17-6-1999 for certainmisconduct of failing to keep proper custody ofthe keysof strong room and cash chest ofthe bank, negligence inbringing keys of the currency chest.on 31-5-1999 thereby causing delay in making payments to customers on time, late attendance, failing to hand -over charge of the section to the successor etc. On the said charges an enquiry was conducted and the workman was found guilty of most of the charges . The disciplinary authority after hearing the workman imposed the punishment ofpermanent withdrawal ofSpecial Allowance and bringing down the workman's pay to lower stage in the scale of pay by two stages . Though the workman filed an appeal before the Deputy GeneralManager he did not succeed. Hence this reference .

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

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

(Tuesday the 28th day of April , 2009/8th Vaisakha , 1931 )

I. D. No. 161/2006

(1. D. No. 83./2001 of Indutrial Tribunal , Kollam)

Union

:The General Secretary,

StateBank ofTravancore Employees' Union, Central Office , Post Box No. 157,

Thiruvananthapuram-695001 .

By Adv . Sri . Lakshmana Iyer

Management : The Managing Director , State Bank of Travancore , Head Office, Poojappura, Trivandrum-695 012

3.According to the union which has espoused the cause ofthe workman the entire disciplinary action against theworkman lacks bona fides and in an act of victimisation. The enquiry was conducted without complying with the rules of natural justice . Reasonable opportunity was not givento the workman to prove his innocence . The findings are not based on evidence on record. The disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have failed to examine the evidence on record and analysis the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The findings are perverse . The punishment imposed is improper and unsustainable . There is no provision in the Bipartite Settlements for imposing permanent withdrawal of special allowance . The 2nd punishment ofbringing down workman's pay to lower stage is causing recurring monetary loss to the tune of Rs . 2,100 per month . The punishments are shockingly disproportionate . The disciplinary authority has not taken into account the unblemished record of service of the workman in the bank for more than 22 years . The order of punishment is liable to be set aside .

By Adv. Sri . P. Ramakrishnan .

This case coming up for hearing on 22-4-2009, this Tribunal- cum-Labour Court on 28-4-2009 passed the following.

4. According to the management a fair and proper enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer with due notice and giving sufficient opportunity to the workman . Afterproperlyanalyzing the evidence the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the workman is guilty of all , 3572

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

[PART II-SBC. 3( ii) ] except two charges . The workman was given opportunity tomake representations regarding the findings of Enquiry Officer as well as regarding proposed punishment suggested by the disciplinary authority. It is thereafter that the findings of Enquiry Officer was confirmed and punishment was imposed by the disciplinary authority. Theappeal filedby the workman was rejected . The charges levelled against the workman are grave in nature . The punishment is commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct . The Enquiry Officer, disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have acted fairly and in good faith . The workman was given sufficient opportunity by the Enquiry Officer as well as the disciplinary authority .

There is no violation of the rules of procedure or principles ofnatural justice . There is no reason to interfere either with the findings or the punishment.

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

1. Are the findings sustainable?

2. Is the punishment proportionate?

The evidence consists ofExt.MI Enquiry File alone.

6. Point No. 1 :--The workman Sri R. Sudhakaran

was Head Cashier at the time of the chargesheet dated 17-6-1999.8 charges were levelled against the workman . Charges 3 and 4 were found not proved and the remaining charges were found proved. Since the validity of enquiry isnot under challenge the scope of interfering with the findings of the Enquiry Officer is limited to the extent of examining their perversity. If there are some materials on record based on which the conclusion is drawn by the Enquiry Officer then it is not for this court to go behind it and strike a different note . According to the learned counsel for the union the findings are perverse as there are no materials to show the guilt of workman.

7. Charges Nos. 1 & 2 go together. They are:-

(i) On 31-5-1999 the workman failed to bring keys of currency chest and hence the chest could not be opened at 10 a.m. thereby disrupting the smooth function of the Branch .

(ii) The keys of currency chest was brought by the workman at 10.25 a.m. only causing delay in commencement of business transactions of the cash department .

Ext.PEX-2 is a reply to memo of charges . It is contained at running page 183 of Ext. MI Enquiry file . His reply is that on31-5-1999 being a pension payment day he had reached the branch early at 9.30 a.m. But realising that he had forgotten to take the keys of currency chest he had to hurry back home and bring it and the chest was opened at 10.10 a.m. PWI is the Branch Manager . He says that he was busy with Assistant General Manager (security) who

was in the cabin of Manager and hence he had not noted regarding the arrival of the workman and return to his house to bring the keys . But he says that the cash counter could not start functioning on 31-5-1999 up to 10.45 a.m. affecting smooth functioning partially (page 99 ofExt . M1 ) . PW2 is the Assistant Manager (Accounts) . He was the joint custodian of currency chest having one set of keys with him. But the chest could be opened only by using both keys. According to him business transactions in the bank at the counters start at 10. a.m. sharp. 10-15 minutes are required after opening the cash chest to record withdrawal in the register and distribute cash to different cash counters . According to him the workman had reached the branch on 31-5-1999 at 9.50 a.m. However he had forgotten to take the keys of the cash chest and hence he returned to bring the keys (page 115 of Ext. M1 ) DWI is Special Assistant . According to him the workman had reached the bank on 31-5-1999 at 9.45 a.m. Since he had forgotten to bring the keys he had gone back to fetch it. He returned with the keys at 10.10 a.m. The cash counters started functioning at 10.15 a.m. There was no disruption in business as cheques and other instruments has reached cash counters for payment only by about 10.30 a.m. There was no complaint of delay (page 139) . DW2 was cashier working in a payment counter . According to him the workman had reached the bank on 31-5-1999 at 9.30 a.m. Buthe had forgotten to bring the keys of the chest and so he had returned home . The cash on that day reached the counter of DW2 at 10.15 am. There was no disruption of business in the branch on that day (pages 132, 133 and 135). It is seen from the testimony of all the above witnesses that there is discrepancy with regard to the time of arrival ofthe workman, opening the chest and distribution ofcash to cash payment counters . Whatever that be , the workman inhis reply to memo ofcharges admits that he had forgotten tobring keys ofthe chest and he returned home and brought the keys . It is also stated that the cash chest was opened at 10.10 a.m. Even the defence witnesses admit that 1/2 an hour is required for onward and return journey from the branch to the house of the workman . Whatever be the discrepancy regarding the time at which workman had reached the bank and opened the currency chest , admittedly the cash chest was opened at 10.10 a.m. only . If that version of the delinquent himself is accepted then the cash could not have been distributed to different counters at 10.10 a.m. He has to enter the withdrawals in the concerned register and then distribute the cash to different counters .According to PW2 this procedure would take 10 to 15 minutes . It is not small sunms that are distributed to cash payment counters every day. The Head Cashier cannot simply pull down some currency bundles and dump them before cashiers at the counters . He has to account before distribution and he must know how much money is sent to each counter . This cannot be done in a hurry . Minimum time is required to complete the procedure. The bankbegins its function at 10 a.m. and there is no querrel [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3573

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

cannot stand .According to PW2 (page 117) the workman was in the habit of keeping the keys in the fold of his dhoti around the waist. Whether that version is true or not, the workman's reply to the show cause memo as well as reply to the chargesheet do not show that there was any accident duringthejourney . In such circumstances it is reasonable to presume that the incident occured due to sheer negligence ofthe workman. He had to pay Rs . 13,300/ to the bank for replacing the lock and key. The Enquiry Officer has rightly found him guilty of charge No. V.

about it . It may not be correct to say that the first cheque presented for payment had reached the concerned counter only by 10.15 a.m. Assuming that the instruments for payment had reached the counters only by 10.15 a.m. , still it maynot be correct to say that the delay has not affected the business of the bank . The officials who pass the cheques can delay the process if they want until the cash reaches the cash counters . Every section and every department of the bank has to commence the work at 10 a.m. Any delay is bound to reverberate in all sections . The evidence thus reveal that there was delay in opening the cash chest and distributing money to different payment counters due to the negligence of workman in bringing the keys of the chest on time . The findings of Enquiry Officer regarding charges ( i) and (ii) are in order and call for no interference.

8. Charges Nos . (iii) and (iv) are found not provedby the Enquiry Officer and hence requires no consideration bythis court.

9. Charge No. (v) is that due to the negligence of the workman on 30-12-1998 the keys of strong room and cupboards were lost . Ext . PEX- 20 is a memo dated 11-1-1999 issued to the workman regarding the incident asking for his explanation (page 251 ). In Ext. PEX- 2 (page 181) reply to the memo aforementioned the workman has stated that he was always careful in discharging his duties withdiligence and that since 1997 July he had been working as Head Cashier in Kattakada Branch and there was no room for any complaint . On 30-12-1998 he had taken all possible precautions for safe custody of the keys of the strong room and cupboards while he was travelling . But due to his misfortune he lost the keys in a crowded bus under circumstances beyond his control . The bank was not satisfied with his explanation and hence a memo dt. 18-1-1999 (pg . 252) was issued to him asking him to remit Rs. 13,300/ for replacing the lock and key . Admittedly the amountwas remitted . Ext . PEX-21 is relevant extract ofbook ofinstructions of the bank (page 253). Instruction No. 63 is regarding custody of keys . The relevant portion reads :

...All officials to whom the Bank's keys are entrusted must ensure that the keys are invariably secured by means of a stout chain at one end and the other end fastened to the dress on person of the official concerned" .

10 Charge No. (vi) is that the workman was not managing the affairs of cash department in a satisfactory manner thereby giving rise to many complaints by customers and the public . Ext.PEX - 18 is a memo issued to the workman by Regional Manager on 21-07-1998 (page 249) . It is regarding non payment of Government bills on 02-05-1998 by the workman . The memo shows that the explanation of the workman was not convincing and he was warned against recurrence of similar misconduct in future . Ext.PEX - 19 (page 251 ) is a letter ofBranch Manager to the Regional Manager dated 02-05-1998 . The Branch Manager informs Regional Manager that the workman was . disobedient and committed gross insubordination . He had not paid the bills received from the Treasury in spite of directionby the Branch Manager . Ext.PEX- 8 (pages 219 to 221) is audit report of Deputy General Manager (Revenue Audit) dated 19-06-1999 . Several discrepancies in the cash department are pointed out in the report . According to the learned counsel for the union Deputy General Manager (Revenue Audit) is not an authorised auditor . The concerned officials of the bank had audited the cash department andthey found that the cash department was functioning smoothly and no irregularities were pointed out. Ext.DEX 3 (a) and (b) are audit reports of Assistant Manager (Cash Verification, Zonal Office , Trivandrum) dated 11-09-1997 and 29-08-1998 (pages 265 to 283 ) . First ofall, the contention of the learned counsel for the union that Deputy General Manager ( Revenue Audit) is not a competent authority or authorised auditor of the bank is not substantiated. Secondly, the Deputy General Manager audited the cash department from 14-06-1999 to 19-06-1999. Whereas Ext.DEX- 3 (a) and (b) is in respect of the period September 1997 and August, 1998. It is after one year from Ext.DEX- 3 (a) & (b) that Deputy General Manager audited and prepared Ext.PEX- 8 audit report . Discrepancy found in the audit are enumerated at page 220 in respect of 20 items. It is also mentioned at page 221 that on 16-06-1999 the branch had witnessed some unruly behaviour from the public who came to receive Government payments . Thus Exts . PEX- 18 , 19 and 8 prove that the functioning of cash department was not smooth as claimed by the workman. The evidence adduced in the enquiry sufficiently to prove the charge.

This instruction is given with a purpose that the keys shall not be lost by any chance. It is relevant to note that in Ext . PEX- 2 reply to the show cause memo the workman does not narrate the manner in which he was carrying the key and whether he had secured the key to his body as instructed in the book of instructions . Had he followed the instructions there was no chance of loosing the keys . The workman has no case that there was any mishap during the travel . Therefore , his contention that incident happened due to reasons beyond his control ,

11. Charge No. (vii) is that he was habitually reaching the bank late causing delay in commencing cash 3574

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/ JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

transactions. The Enquiry Officer has banked on the admission of the workman in his reply to the memo of charges, that on 31-05-1999 he was late to reach bank with keys of cash chest and he was late to open the cash chest and distribute the money , to prove the charge . But it is to benoted that there is a late attendance register maintained by the bank. It is contained at page 263 of Ext.M1 . It is not seen marked. It shows that during the period from 18-12-1996 to 03-06-1999 the workman was never late . It is contended by the learned counsel for the management that a grace time of 10 minutes is permitted by the bank . According to him the workman was availing the grace time alone every day and that is why it is not reflected in the late attendance register. If grace time is not counted for the purpose of late attendance then availing of the grace time cannot be treated as late attendance . Besides when there isa register tonote late attendance it is the primary evidence regarding late arrival and oral evidence cannot stand against the documentary evidence . The finding to the contrary by the Enquiry Officer is perverse and unsustainable .

him to hand over charge to DW2 immediately. Another direction was given on 17-06-1999 by Ext.P.EX- 13 (page 231) stating that the workman had failed to hand over charge as instructed and violated instructions of his superior.He was again asked to hand over charge forthwith and submit explanation. One more instruction was given to the workman on 26-03-1999 by Ext.DEX- 14 (page 233 ) stating that the workman had not complied with the direction . Therefore he was instructed to hand over charge immediately to the next Senior Cashier at the branch Smt.A.K.Sheeba temporarily and submit explanation for violation of instructions . Thus the workman was given extended time on four occasions . Yet he took one month to hand over charge. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the union that large sums ofmoney amounting to Rs.13 crores and large quantity of gold ornaments numbering 500 packets were not easy for verification and had taken much time. The management was quite aware of the quantity of cash and gold and they knew that five days' time was quite sufficient for verification . Notwithstanding, the workman got more time to comply with the direction . But he failedto do- so . To Exts.PEX- 10 to 14 there was no reply from the workman . He neither submitted explanation for the delay and non compliance with the instructions nor sought time to hand over charges nor expressed his difficulty in complying with the direction due to non availability of DW2 or due to any other reason. He took his own sweet time and slowed down the process of handing over the charge . There is disregard and disobedience to the instructions of superior officers . The misconduct alleged stands proved.

13. Thus all the charges except charge No. (vii ) are supported by enough evidence on record and calls for no interference . However finding regarding charge No. (vii) is perverse as observed above . The contention of the union regarding the rest of the charges is unsustainable .

12. Charge No. (viii) is that the workman failedto hand over the charge of Head Cashier to another employee as directed by the management . By Ext.PEX- 10 dated 07-06-1999 (page 225) the Branch Manager had directed the workinan to hand over charge of cash and valuables to the Assistant Head Cashier by 11-06-99 as per the instructions of Zonal Office . But the charge was actually handed over only on 08-07-1999, after one month from Ext. PEX - 10. According to the management the workman disobeyed the direction and caused deliberate delay. It is contended by the union that the person who had to take charge, DW2, the Assistant Head Cashier, was assigned daty ingovernment Payment Counter for three days (page 133) from 07-06-1999 by the manager fully knowing that he had to take charge after verifying large sums of money amounting to 13 crores and 500 packets ofgold ornaments . When he finished his work in the government payment counter he fell sick and was hospitalised till 03-07-1999 . Hence DW2 could verify the money and gold only from 05-07-1999 and charge was taken on 08-07-1999 . It is not disputed that for the first three days after Ext . PEX- 10 order DW2 was assigned another duty and he was not free to take charge of head cashier . But on 10th and 11th he had no other job than his routine duty . He could start verification ofthe money and gold from 10-06-1999 onwards . DW2 admits that he was working on 10-06-1999 and he was hospitalized from 18-06-1999 to 03-07-1999. That means , from 10-06-1999 to 17-06-1999 he was free to verify the cash and gold and take charge . Finding that the process of verification was not progressing Ext.PEX- 11 (page 227) was issued to the workman on 11-06-1999 asking him to complete theprocess ofhanding over charge immediately and submit his explanation for not complying with the instructions to hand over charge within 5 days . Again on 16-06-1999 Ext. PEX- 12transfer order was issued to the workman (page 229) transferring him to Puthukurichy branch and asking

14. Point No.2 : - The punishment imposed are permanent withdrawal of Special Allowance with regard to charge No. (i ), (v) & (vii ) and bringing down the pay to lower stage in the scale of pay by two stages regarding charges (vi ) and (viii ) . Since the punishment do not fall under Section 11 -A of ID Act the court is not competent to interfere with the punishment except when it is shown to be illegal and contrary to the provisions of law . The punishments are imposed under Clause 19.6(c) and (e) of 6th Bipartite Settlement ( amendment to 1st Bipartite Settlement) dated 14-02-1995 (see page 476 of Bipartite Settlements , M/s . H.P.J. Kapoor Publication, 12th Edition) . Itwas contended by the learned counsel for the union that there is no provision in the Bipartite Settlement for permanent withdrawal of special allowance . It is true that what is mentioned in Clause 19.6 (e) is withdrawal ofspecial allowance and not ' permanent ' withdrawal of special allowance . But even without the word ' permanent ' , withdrawal of special allowance is permanent unless it is reviewed by the disciplinary authority. Because of the use [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009 /ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

ofthe word ' permanent ' the order of punishment does not become illegal or go against clause 19.6(e) ofthe settlement . Hence there is no ground to interfere with the order of punishment.

In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management in imposing the punishment mentioned in the reference is legal and justified and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her , corrected and passed by me on this the 28th dayApril, 2009.

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer

Appendix

Nil

Witness for the Union

Nil

Witness for the Management

Nil

Exhibit for the Union

Ext. M1 -Enquiry File.

Exhibit for the Management

नई दिल्ली , 27 मई, 2009

का.आ. 1739.-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 , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 149/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -22012/167/1997- आईआर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th May, 2009

S.O. 1739. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 149/98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court No. I, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 27-5-2009.

[No. L- 22012/ 167// 1997- IR (C- II)]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHIRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT-1, CHANDIGARH

CASE NO . I.D. 149/98

Shri . Chattar Pal, C/o Shri Sarbjeet Singh Gill, 4- D, Kailash Nagar, Fajilka (Punjab).

.....Applicant 2137 G1/09-26

3575

Versus

TheDistrict Manager , Food Corporation of India, 151 , Sant LalRoad, Firozpur.

Respondent APPEARANCES

Forthe workman

: Shri R. P. Rana

: Shri Ravi Kant Sharma Forthe management

AWARD

Passed on: - 19-5-2009

Government of India vide notification No. L- 22012/ 167/97 - IR(C.II ) , dated 24-7-1998 , referred the following industrial dispute for judicial adjudication to this Tribunal :-

"Whether the action of the management of FCI in terminating the services of Shri Chattar Pal w.e.f. 15-8-1989 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled and from which date ?"

After receiving the reference both ofthe parties were informed. Parties appeared and filed their respective pleadings . It is the contention of the workman that he was appointedby the management on 9-5-1986 and was drawing . the salary ofRs . 510 per month. His services were terminated on 15-8-1989 by the management of Food Corporation of India. Juniors to him were retained in service, whereas , his services were terminated . On this contention the workman has prayed for setting aside the termination order and for his reinstatement into the services with full back wages and other consequential benefits .

In written statement the management of Food Corporation of India has raised the preliminary objection that this reference is barred by the principle of resjudicata. Before raising the industrial dispute, as per the contention ofthe management, the workman filed a civil suit which was dismissed by the Civil Court after affording the opportunity ofbeing heard . Against the decree of the Civil Court, theworkman preferred an appeal to the District Judge andtheCourt ofDistrict Judge was kind enough to dismiss the appeal after given the opportunity ofbeing heard. It is also the contention of the management that there is no employer-employee relationship between the workman and the management as the services of the workman were provided by M/ s . Industrial Securities and Allied Services an ex- serviceman organization , Kapurthala . The workman was the employee of this M/ s . Industrial Securities and Allied Services and not of the management .

Both of the parties filed their respective evidence and they were cross- examinedby respective learned counsel. Management of Food Corporation of India also filed certain documents as follows:

3576

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] (1) MWI is the copy of the judgment passed by Civil Court inCivil Suit-No. 230-1 of 1989 ,

beendisposed off by the Court of competent jurisdiction . Ifthe Civil Court was a Court of competent jurisdiction , certainlythis reference will be barred by the principle of resjudicata.

(2) MW2 is the copy of the order passed by the appellate court (Court of District Judge in Civil Appeal No. 83 of 1983 ) .

(3) MW3 is the copy of the agreement entered into and executed in between the Food Corporation of India and M/s . Industrial Securities and Allied Services.

(4) MW 4 is a letter written by the M/ s . Industrial Securities and Allied Services to the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Firozpur.

(5) MW 5 contains three sheets relating to the payment of wages to the workman by the M/ s . Industrial Securities and Allied Services .

(6) MW6 is a certificate given by the Ministry of Labour permitting the Food Corporation of India, Firozpur for employing the contract labour. This certificate is issued under Section 12 ( 1 ) of the Contract Labour(Regulation and Abolishment) Act, 1970.

1 have heard learned counsel for the parties .

The Supreme Court of India laid down the law in PremireAutomobiles Vs. K. S. Wadke AIR 1975 Supreme Court 2238 where in which it has been held that if the industrial dispute relates to the enforcement of a right or an obligation creating under this Act, then the only remedy available to the parties is to get an adjudication under the Act only. It is further held by Hon'ble the Apex court in Premire Automobile's Case ( supra) that if the right which is sought to be enforced is a right created under the Act such as Chapter 5A then the remedy for its enforcement is either Section 33C or the raising of any industrial dispute as the case may be. I have gone through the relevant provisions of Industrial Disputes Act regarding the nature ofthe right claimed by the workman in the industrial dispute . Nature of the right claimed to be enforced is such which canbe enforced under the Industrial Disputes Act only and under such circumstances Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to dispose off the issue . The same principle has been laiddown by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Jitender Nath Vs. M/s. Empire of India and Ceylone Tea Co. , Accordingly, the Civil Court was having no jurisdiction for the enforcement of the rights as alleged and claimed by the workman. So, the principle of resjudicata will not be applicable in the present reference .

Learned counsel for the workman has contended that the services oftheworkman were not provided through acontractor and document M3 is a shame contract. It is also contended that in terms of para 3 of the agreement the services ofthe ex-serviceman could be provided to M/ s . Industrial Securities and Allied Services to Food Corporation of India , whereas , the workman was not an ex-serviceman.

Learned counsel for the management has argued that the reference is barred by the principle of resjudicata. Learned counsel for the management has further argued that theworkman has concealed the fact that M/s. Industrial Securities and Allied Services was a party as defendant No. 4 in the civil suit file by him and the concealment of fact is a fraud with the judicial proceedings.

I have gone through the evidence adduced by the parties oral and documentary and all the materials on record.

The next issue before this Tribunal is whether their existed employer and employee relationship between the workman and the management of Food Corporation of India. On perusing the evidence of the parties, it is evident that no appointment letter was issued by the management to the workman . No doubt, it is denied that the payment was made good to the workman by the Contractor , but the evidence filed bythe management proved that the payment ofwages were made good by the Contractor, M/s . Industrial Securities and Allied Services and not by the management ofrespondent . Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 2008 LLR 801 , GM ONGC, Shilchar Vs. ONGC Contractual Workers Union, has laid down the criteria to establish the direct employee - employer relationship between the workmen and the management of any organization . Ifwe applythe ratio ofGM, ONGC, Shilchar's case (supra) , the workman has to prove the following facts to establish the employee-employer relationship:+

(1 ) That there existed a relationship of master and servant,

(2) That there was no contactor appointed by the management of food Corporation of India.

(3) The management of Food Corporation of India used to supervise the alleged work assigned to individual workers.

First of all I have to decide whether the present reference is barred by the principle of resjudicata ? It is the settled law that the provisions of Section 11 Civil Procedure Code relating to the principle of resjudicata are applicable in this Tribunal . As per the doctrine of resjudicata, ifany issue before any Court or Tribunal has beendisposed off finally after affording the opportunity ofbeing heard to the parties by other Court of competent jurisdiction then the issue will be barred by the principle ofresjudicata. One ofthe essential conditions for applying theprinciple ofresjudicata is that the issue which is issue in question in the present suit or petition should have [भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

(4) That the management ofFood Corporation of India took disciplinary action and called for explanations ofthe workman .

(5) That the workman was paid wages by the management of Food Corporation of India directly and not through the contractor.

(6) At the cost of repetition, the wages were paid directlytothe workman by the management ofFood Corporation of India and the acquaintance rolewere preparedby the management of Food Corporation ofIndia to make the payment to the workman.

Onthe basis ofthe principle laid down byHon'ble the Apex Court in GM ONGC, Shilchar Vs. ONGC Contractual Workers Union ( supra) and on perusing the materials on record, I am of the view that there existed no employer-employee relationship between the workman and the management of Food Corporation of India while workman was working with the management of Food Corporation of India. I am reaching to the conclusion that there was no employer - employee. relationship between the workman and the management ofFood Corporation of India on following grounds:-

(1) In a civil suit filed by the workman before the Civil Court, the workman admitted that he served the management of Food Corporation of India through the contractor M/ s . Industrial Securities and Allied Services. In civil suit he impleaded the contractor as defendant No.4. Without going through the merits of civil suit, it is open,to this Tribunal to. consider the above fact as admission of the workman that he served the Food Corporation of India through a contactor M/s . Industrial Securities and Allied Services.

(2) The evidence adduced by the management proved that payment was made good to the workman by hiscontractor M/s. Industrial Securities and Allied Services . The consolidated amount for the services providedby the contractor of several workmen was made to the contractor by the management and in compliance ofthe relevant law the wages were made good by the contractor to the workman .

(3) The letter written by M/ s . Industrial Securities and Allied Services to the General Manager of Food Corporation of India, Firozpur branch also made clear that workman worked for the management of FoodCorporation of India through contractor and he was not directly engaged by the Food Corporation ofIndia.

(4) Evidence adduced by the management also proved it that the workman was not under the direct administrative control of the management ofFood

3577 Corporation of India. His affairs ofservices were controlled by his contractor M/s . Industrial Securities andAllied Services and not by the Food Corporation ofIndia.

(5) There is awritten contract between the management ofFood Corporation of India and M/s. Industrial Securities and Allied Services for providing the services of the workman to the Food Corporation of India and in compliance of that contract the services ofworkman were provided to the Food Corporation of India.

(6) Onthe contention raised by the workman that in this case there is a violation of clause 3 of the agreement as the workman is not the ex- serviceman, whereas, M/s . Industrial Securities and Allied Services is authorized to provide the services of ex- serviceman only, I am of the view that for such violation of term of a contract there is no occasion for the Tribunal to treat the workman as the direct employee of the Food Corporation of India.

(7) It is also been arguedby the workman that the contract ifany is shame. In this regard, I am ofthe view that the workman is guilty of not disclosing the true factbefore this Tribunal . In his statemerx -ofclaim he has not written a single word about any contract and the services rendered through contractor. He has suddenly raised this contention that the contract, if any, is shame without making the reference in his statement of claim, In Food Corporation of India and others Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court - I, Chandigarh and others 2008 LLR391 Hon'ble the Pb . & Har. High Courthas laid down the principle that if the ground for a contract being shame is not taken in the statement of claim, the workman has no say regarding the nature of the contract thereafter . Accordingly, on this contentionas well, I am ofthe view that neither the contract is shame nor the workman has raised this issue in his statement of claim .

Onthe basis of the above observation , I am of the viewthat their existed no employer-employee relationship between the workman and the management of Food CorporationofIndia, Firozpur . The services ofthe workman were provided to the Food Corporation of India by M/s . Industrial Securities and Allied Services. On the basis of thematerial on record, it is also evidently clear that workman was the employee of ivi/s . Industrial Securities and Allied Services and not of the Food Corporation of India. Accordingly, workman is not entitled for any relief. The reference is accordingly answered.

3578

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

condition of the workman , I am of the view that Food Corporation of India is entitled for Rs . 15,000/- ( Fifteen thousand only) from the workman as costs of litigation. Let Central Govt . be informed and , therafter , file be consigned.

G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नईदिल्ली, 27 माई, 2009

का.आ. 1740.-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 , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 58/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/287/2003- आईआर(सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th May, 2009

S.O. 1740.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.58/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India and their workmen, which was received by the CentralGovernment on 27-5-2009.

[No. L- 22012/287//2003 - IR (CM - II)] AJAY KUMAR, GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present: Shri N. K. Purohit, Presiding Officer I. D. No. 58/2004

Ref. No. L-22012/287 /2003 - IR(CM -II) dated : 23-6-2004 BETWEEN The State Secretary, Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karamchari Sangh, 5-6, Habibullah Estate , Hazratganj , Lucknow -226001 (Espousing cause of Shri Pramod Kumar ) AND

The Sr. Regional Manager , Food Corporation of India 5-6, Habibullah Estate Hazratganj , Lucknow- 226001 AWARD 20-5-2009

One issue, no doubt, not raised and agitated by the parties duringarguments is inspiring me to write something on misuse ofjudicial proceedings . It was in the notice of the workman that his services were provided to the Food Corporation of India through the M/s Industrial Securities andAllied Services. He knew it well that he was not directly engaged by the Food Corporation of India. This fact is clearby filing a civil suit in the Court ofCivil Judge alleging thathis services were provided to the Food Corporation of India, through M/s Industrial Securities and Allied Services bymaking the contractor as defendant No. 4. His suit was dismissed after affording the full opportunity of being heard and the appeal against the decree of civil court was also dismissedby the District Judge . As stated earlier, that at this stage I am not agitating the legality of judgment passedby the Civil Court and the District Judge in appeal , but I am only concerned with the plea raised and admission madebythe workman in the plaint filed in the Court ofCivil Judge that his services were provided to the Food Corporation ofIndia through M/s Industrial Securities and Allied Services. After this unsuccessful attempt he raised an industrial dispute concealing this fact that he has raised this issue before the Civil Court admitting the fact of services provided to the Food Corporation of India through M/s Industrial Securities and Allied Services . He has not only concealedthe factof raising the issue before the Civil court but also the admitted fact that his services were provided to the Food Corporation of India through M/ s Industrial Securities andAllied Services . In the statement ofclaim he has only stated that be was directly engaged with the management of Food Corporation of India and wages were paid directly. He has also filed the affidavit on the same facts. This concealment of fact is nothing but misusing the judicial proceedings by engaging a Government department intounnecessary litigation . It is nothing but ajudicial fraud. Itwas the dutyofthe workman to come before this Tribunal with clean hands and true facts which he has admitted before the Civil Courts . On sucb failure , it is the duty ofthe Tribunal to take notice of it that this act of the workman has put the Government department in long litigation and theGovernment has to incur a lot of money in fighting the case. This Tribunal has limitations and the only remedy which can be provided to FCI , while answering the reference in negative is cost to the management which the management has incurred as the litigation expenses . Accordingly, while answering this reference that no termination was made by the Food Corporation of India and the workman is not entitled to any relief, it will be proper to impose the cost of litigation which the management of Food Corporation of India has incurred.. Afterconsidering the tentative expenses which the management of Food Corporation of India has incurred as litigation expenses and also considering the socio-economic

1.ByOrder No. L- 22012/287 /2003 - IR(CM- II ) dated 23-6-2004, the Central Government in the Ministry of 3579 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

6. The parties submitted documentary evidence in support of their respective cases . The workman's union did not forward any evidence in support of their case in spite of ample opportunity was given to it; accordingly, the case proceeded ex-parte against union, therefore , the management of FCI also did not incline to forward any witness in support of their case and the case was fixed for arguments.

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferredby clause (d) ofsub-section ( 1 ) and sub -section (2A) ofSection 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between The State Secretary, Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karamchari Sangh, 5-6 , Habibullah Estate, Hazartganj , Lucknow (Espousing cause of Shri Pramod Kumar) and the Sr. Regional Manager , Food Corporation ofIndia, 5-6, Habibullah Estate, Hazariganj , Lucknow for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is :

7.Themanagement of FCI filed their written argument insupport of their case , whereas the workman did not file any.Moreover , at this stage the authorized representative of the workman's union filed an application , W- 101 , to withdraw the case .

"Kya Prabandhan , Bhartiya Khadya Nigam , Lucknow dwara karmkaar Shri Pramod Kumar , AO -II (Accounts) ko dinank 27-6-2000 se selection grade nahi diya jana nyayochit evam nyaysangat hai ? Yadi nahi , to sambandhit karmkaar kis anutosh ka hakdaar hai?"

8. The representative of the workman's union in its application dated 18-5-2009 has stated that the opposite party has filed two orders dated 4-2-2008 and 15-7-2008 whereby selection grade has been granted to the workman w.e.f. 16-8-2001 with the name of the workman at serial Nos . 68 and 71 respectively, in the list of selection attached thereto. It has been submitted that the workman is satisfied with the aforesaid orders and do not want to contest the present industrial dispute any more. Accordingly, it has been prayedthat the present dispute be stood withdrawn, as not pressed, and appropriate orders may be passed.

3. The case of the workman's union in brief is that the workman, Shri Pramod Kumar was promoted to AG - II on 22-4-1987 and completed 12 years' service as such on . 21-4-1999 and accordingly he became entitled for grant of selection grade . It has been alleged by the workman's union that the management of FCI granted selection grade up to the seniority of 889 , ignoring the claim of the workman who was at the serial No. 661 of the seniority list dated 27-3-1997 . Further , it has been submitted that the management of FCI issued another order dated 23-12-2002 whereby selection grade was granted to the employees up to seniority No. 1011, but the workman was once again ignored. As per averments of the workman's union the said action of the management of FCI in not granting him the selection grade to the workman is illegal , arbitrary and against the spirit of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, it has prayed that the workman may be granted selection grade w.e.f. 27-6-2004 when his junior was granted selection grade of A.G. - II (A/Cs).

9. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality ofthe order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail . In the instant case the burden was on the workman's union to prove that the action of the management of FCI in not granting selection grade to the workman , Shri Pramod Kumar w.e.f. 27-6-2000 was illegal and unjustified. The workman's union has not submitted any oral evidence in support of their case. Moreover, the representative of the workman's union has requested for leave of the Tribunal to withdraw the case vide application dated 18-5-2009 (W- 101 ) , stating therein that the concerned workman has been granted selection grade w.e.f. 16-8-2001 and being satisfied with thegrant ofselection grade w.e.f. 16-8-2001 , the concerned workman, does not want to contest the case any more as his grievances stands redressed . Accordingly, the representative of the workman's union has prayed to pass suitable orders .

10. In viewofthe submission of the workman's union for withdrawal of the case , there is no grievance left with theworkman and concerned Trade Union. Resultantly, no relief is required to be given to the workman concerned. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

4. Per contra, the management of FCI has disputed the claim of the workman's union by filing its written statement wherein it has submitted that as per Rules the selection grade can be given to 30% of total sanctioned strength and not all persons completing 12 years of service and an employee is either entitled for promotion or , if the promotion is not made , he is entitled for selection grade after completing i 2years ofservice and since the workman has been promoted from AG- II to AG- I (A/cs ) against 2000 panel under Career Progression Scheme dated 27-6-2000, therefore he was not entitled for consideration for grant of selection grade . Accordingly, the management of FCI has prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected without any relief to the workman concerned .

11. Award as above .

Lucknow: 20-5-2009.

N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer 5. The workman has filed rejoinder whereby it has only reiterated his averments in the statement ofclaim and has not introduced any new fact.

3580

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii)] नई दिल्ली , 27 मई , 2009

Act, 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of FCI , Patna in not regularising the services of Sh . Anil Kumar , Hindi Typist is legal and justified ? If not to what relief is the concered workman entitled and from which date?"

का.आ. 1741.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय खाद्य निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय संख्या 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 76/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/96/1996-आई आर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27th May, 2009

S.O. 1741. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.76/ 1997) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of FCI and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-5-2009.

[No. L-22012/96/1996- IR(C-II]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. I, DHANBAD

Inthe matter of a reference U/s . 10( 1)(d) (2A) ofl . D. Act .

Reference No. 76 of1997

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of FCI ,

Patna.

AND

Their Workmen

Present: Shri H. M. Singh, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES

None .

For the Employers :

Forthe Workmen : Shri V. Kumar, Authorised Representative

State Bihar : Industry Food

Dated, the 8th May, 2009

AWARD

2. The case of the concered workman is that he was appointed under the order of Senior Regional Manager , FCI , Patna, as Hindi Typist . He joined at District Office , FCI , Gaya on 4-10-82, but his service was terminated w.e.f. 6-5-84 vide order Senior Regional Mangaer dated 24-4-84, incomplete violation ofSec . 25 -Fof the I.D. Act, 1947. An industrial dispute was raised by the Union and an award was passed by the CGIT No. 2, Dhanbad on 8-8-1990 in Reference No.3 of 1990 wherein the management was directed to reinstate the concerned workman as typist alongwith wages and all the benefits . In that case the Tribunal held that the concerned workman has been illegally retrenched by the managment and as such , as directed above the concerned workman is entitiled to be re - instated in the post of Typist w.e.f. 6-5-84 . The management should have reinstated the concerned workman as regular typist w.e.f. 6-5-84 but he was reinstated as casual typist and he isstill designated as casual typist though he is discharging the job of regular typist . There is no distinction in the work of casual or regular typist . His reinstatement as casual typist is against the award and is exploitation of labour . Though the concerned workman is discharging his duty of regular typist and that too against substantive and vacant post but he is getting less wages than regular typist. A regular typist is getting at about Rs . 4500/- per month besides other benefits like , medical , lunch , LTC, leave etc. butthese facilities are not being extended to the concerned workman which is quite illegal and unjstified on the part of the management . Since there are vacant post of Hindi Typist from 1984, as such keeping the concerned workman as casual typist with a view to pay him less wages and denial of other conseqential benefits and seniority is exploitation of labour and also an unfair labour practice on the part of the management . The concerned workman is getting only Rs . 700/- per month which is unjustified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases has decided that casual or daily rated employee are entitled to get wages and all other benefits of a regular employee. Since there is vacancy against Hindi Typist since 1984 as such he is entitledto forhis regularisation w.e.f. 6-5-84 in terms ofthe Award . Adispute was raised before the A.L.C. (C ), Patna . During conciliation before ALC (C) an officer in writting was given by the management to Union for regularisation ofservice ofthe concerned workman with immediate effect if he is ready to for go back wages, seniority and all other benefits , which was not acceptable to the union/workman . After failure of conciliation the dispute has been referred to this Tribunal for adjudication .

By Order No. L- 22012/96/ 1996- IR ( C - II) dated 14-3-1997 the Central Government in the Ministry ofLabour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1 ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

3581

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

Ithas been prayed that the Tribuanal graciously be pleased to pass an award in favour of the workman by directing the management to regularise the service ofthe concerned workman w.e.f. 6-5-84 along with full wages and other benefits .

distributing to all the District Managers , the Depot Incharges and displaying the same on Notice Board at all the offices of different establishment of F.C.I. Six internal candidates submitted applications in persuance of the circulardated 3-2-95, Md. Iqbal, a workman ofF.S.D. Gaya under the D.M. Gaya submitted his application. The concerned workman who was a co- worker of Md. Iqbal and who was working as Casual Typist at District Office, Gaya, did not submit any application for his selection to the post of regular Hindi Typist. It has been submitted that the concerned workman did not have requiste typing speed and had no confidence to appear before Selection Committee and preferred not to apply and appear in the Selection Test for his selection in the post of regular Typist . Seventy one candidates whose names were sponsored by Employment Exchange were called for typing test and interviewed . Out of the six internal candidates four were found eligible for consideration and were called for appearing in typing test to be conducted by the Selection Committee . Forty seven candidates out of the list of seventy one sponsored by Employment Exchange appeared before the Selection Committee for their typing tests . Four internal candidates including Md . Iqbal, a co-worker of the concerned workman appeared inthe typing test before the Selection Committee . Twelve candidates out of the list submitted by the Employment Exchange got through the typing test and one internal candidate could pass the typing test conducted by Selection Committee . Unfortunately the co- worker ofthe concerned workman , Md. Iqbal could not pass the typing test. There after all the successful candidates were called for interview . On the basis of their performance in the interview only five persons were empanalled in order of merit for their selection and posting. It has been submitted thatthree posts of regular Hindi Typist were filled up as perthe usual procedure of the Corporation after following the provisons of F.C.I. Staff Regulation 1971 and there is no irregulaties in this regard. It has also been submitted that the concerned workman did not avail the opportunity by appearingbefore the Selection Committee for selection as internal candidate and he has adopted the procedure of selection as regular Typist with the help of litigation and demanded that his case should be considered without following the Provisions of the staff Regulation and without caring the constitutional Safeguard and he demands that the management should appoint him as regular Hindi Typist whether he possess the requisite qualification and possesses proper typing test prescribed for such post or not . It has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to pass the Award holding that the concerned workman is not entitled to anyrelief.

4. Both the parties have filed their respective rejoinders admitting and denying the contents of some of the paragraphs of each other's written statement .

3. The management of F.C.I. has filed written statement stating there in that the concerned workman was initially appointed as Casual Hindi Typist on 4-12-1982 and after observing that there was no requirement of Hindi Typist at District Office , Gaya where he was previously working , his service was discontinued w.e.f. 6-5-1984.The concernedworkman raised an industrial dispute alleging that his termination of service was illegal and a reference wasmade to C.G.I.T. No.2 , Dhanbad for adjudication ofthe dispute. The Tribunal registered the dispute as Reference No. 3/90 and after hearing the case passed the Award dated 8-8-90 directing the management for reinstating the concerned workman on the Ground that the provision of Section 25 -F of I.D. Act was not complied with . After publication of the award the concerned workman was allowed to join his duties in his original post of Casual Typist by order dated 27-4-91 and the concerned workman joined as Casual Hindi Typist on 10-5-91 at District Office, Gaya. The management was having sixty one posts of Typist (English) in the entire Bihar Region prior to 1984. In the year 1984 the management decided to have seven Hindi Typist out of above sanctioned strength of sixty one EnglishTypist and the balance 54 posts remained for English Typist only. In the year 1989 nineteen posts of EnglishTypist were abolished and there remained only forty two post for EnglishTypist out of over all sanctioned strength of 61 posts. In order to have seven Hindi Typist as permanent basis , seven posts of Hindi Typist were sanctioned in the year 1990 and thus in the year 1990 there remained forty two posts of English Typist and seven posts for Hindi Typist . There was bar for recruitment from1990 till 1994. In the year 1994 after lifting bar on recruitment of HIndi Typists in the establishment of the Corporation and it was decided to fill up the three vacant posts ofHindi Typist as per the normal procedure in persuit of the communication order dated 18-4-1994 . A letter dated 28-1-95 was sent to the Employment Exchange as per the provision of law for sending the names of the eligible candidates for their consideration for selection to the posts ofHindi Typist to different establishment of F.C.I. in Bihar Region . The minimum qualification prescribed for such candidates was matriculate with typing speed of30 words per minute. The Employment Exchange sent names of seventy one candidates in compliance to there quest made by the management vide their letter dated 28-1-95 . Management also issued a circular dated 3-2-95 inviting application from internal candidates fulfilling the eligibility criteria ofmatriculation with typing speed of30 words per minute for their seclection to the post ofHindi Typist . The copy ofthe Circular were widely circulatedby 3582

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] 5. The management has produced MW- 1 Ashok Kumar Choudhary , MW -2 L.K. Ambastha and MW-3 - Md. Ali Raza, who has proved documents , Exts . M - 1 to M- 10 .

The concerned workman has produced WW- 1 - Anil Kumar, who has proved documents , Exts . W- 1 to W-5/1 .

6. The main argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman is that he was appointed by District Officeofthe management at Gaya on the order of Senior Regional Manager , FCI , Patna as Hindi Typist w.e.f. 7-10-82. Before his appointment typing test was taken and medical certificate has been filed, but he was retrenched w.e.f 6-5-84 . The concerned workman then represented for employment and raised industrial dispute which was referred to CGIT No.2 , Dhanbad . On the basis of the award he was again reinstated by the management in the post of typist . Butthe management reinstated him as causal typist instead ofregular typist. The management after the award allowed him to join in the year 1991. During the period between his retrenchment and pendency of industrial dispute there was regular appointment of regular typist by the FC1 , but he was not informed nor any opportunity was given for appointment as regular typist. Even after his reinstatment the management made regular appointment in the years 1994 1995 and 1996 but the management did not inform him or give him an opportunity for appointment as regular typist. There is no difference between his work and the work of reguar typist . He was getting monthly salary amounting to Rs . 1400 and recently there has been hike in hissalary and at present he is getting Rs . 1896 per month .. Butregular typist who has been appointed in 1984 is getting monthly salary amounting to Rs . 8000, besides regular typists get earned leave, commuted leave, casual leave , lunch subsidy and other benefits . He also argued that Manoj Kumar was appointed as casual typist and he was regularised as typist from year 1989 on the basis of the award passed by the tribunal . There was a circular of Headquarter for regularisation of casual worker who has worked for more than 90 days on or before 2-5-86 , yet he wasnot regularised. Although the vacancy existed in the cadre ofregular typist but the management has de liberately kept him as casual typist . So he has claimed for regularisation w.e.f. 6-5-84.

and existing Hindi Typist including casual one is 7. There is direction as Ext. W- 5 and W - 5/ 1 to regularise the concerned workman from 1995 without back wages . He cannot say whether the concerned workman is getting about Rs . 1300 whereas a regular Hindi Typist is getting about Rs . 8000 per month . MW- 2 , the management's witness L.K. Ambasta , has stated in cross -examination that the notification of vacancy was not served upon Anil Kumar and the union affiliated in FCI . Anil Kumar is working as casual Hindi Typist and there is no difference between the work of casual Hindi Typist or permanent Hindi Typist. MW-3- Md. Ali Raja, stated that in the year 1995 few Hindi Typists were appointed as regular Hindi Typists . He has also stated that there were total sanctiond strength ofHindi Typists 17 , but this was revised by the Headquarters and reduced to 7 only . At that time in Sl . 9 & 10 total working strength of Hindi Typists was 4. As per Ext . W-3/5 the vacancy position of Bihar Region as on 31-1-97 the sanctioned strength was 7 but existing strength was 6 permanent and 1 casual . As per mangement's Ext . W-5, the concerned workman was to be regularised as against the sanctioned post only. The concerned workman was not given notice to apply for regular vacancy for Hindi Typists because the provison of sec . 25 -G and 25 -H are applicable in case of only retrenched worker and not to a casual worker who is already working. This evidence of the management says the concerned workman was not informed about any vacancy, though there was vacancy eventhen the concerned workman was not appointed. The concerned workman has made reference as per Ext . W- 1 which is a award in reference No. 3/90 which was decided on 8-8-1990 and it has been awarded that the action ofthe management of F.C.I. by not reinstating the concerned workman, Anil Kumar , Casual Typist w.e.f. 6-5-84 is illegal and unjstified. The management allowed the concerned workman tojoin his duty on 10-5-91 as per Ext . W- 2 and it has also been mentioned that all arrears from6-5-84 has been paid and he is continuing . As per Ext: 3- there is vacancy of 11 posts of Hindi Typists , all are filled on 30-11-79 and as per Ext . W- 3 / 1 as on 31-8-90 there was Hindi Typist of 17 posts , all are filled and as per Ext . W-3/2 on 31-8-94 there are 17 sanctioned posts of Hindi Typists in which only four have been filled including one Hindi Typists one casual Hindi Typist and as per Ext. W- 3/3 on 31-12-94 there were 17 posts of Hindi Typist , only four have been filled including one casual typist . As per Ext. W-3/4 on 31-10-95 there were Hindi Typists of 17 posts and only 7 have been filled including one casual Typist. As per Ext. W-3 /5 on 31-1-97 there were 7 sanctioned posts of Hindi Typists in which six were filled including one casual Hindi Typist . It shows that there are sanctioned posts of 7 Hindi Typists , but the concerned workman is not appointed as Hindi Typist . He has been appointed as casual Hindi Typist. When there is sanctioned strength and the Tribunal has passed order for reinstatment of the concerned workman in the post of Hindi Typist , the In this respect MW- 1 , management's witness has stated in page 2 that - " I cannot say ifthe vacancy ofHindi Typist was duly notified in theNotice Board of District Office ofF.C.I. where the concerned workman is working . No notice of vacancy was given personally to the concerned workman or to the Union which has sponsored the dispute earlier . I have not gone through any circular dated 6-5-87 inwhich it was directed that any casual worker who had completed more than 90 days before 2-5-86 should be regularised. In Ext . W- 11 / 1 the sanctioned strength of Hindi Typist ismentioned in Sl. 9 & 10 according to which the number of sanctioned post against Hindi Typist is17

A [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

appointment of the concerned workman as casual typist is against the order of the Tribunal dated 8-8-90 . Moreover , as per circular letter of Headquarter , Ext . W- 4 it has been instructed to the Regional Manager that before 2-5-86 who have worked for three months they should be regularised. But this has not been done and this circular of their own has been violated regarding the present concerned workman . Ext . W-4/ 1 is another Circular No. 18/199 dated 9-9-96, it states clearly that E.P. 1 (3) 91 -Vol . II dated 24-8-92 to regularise the services ofall casual/daily rated employees who had continuously worked for more than 3 months on the cut- off date of 2-5-86 . This has been admitted case before 2-5-86 , so he is entitled for regualrisation without any further test or interview . As per Ext. W - 5 it has been mentioned that Sr. Regional Manager wrote to District Manager , F.C.I. , Gaya for regularisation ofthe concerned workman as Hindi Typist . There is no mention ofregularising as casual Hindi Typist . District Manager , Gaya is not following the order ofHeadquarter Ext. W-5 dated 9-11-1995 which also supports as per Ext. W-5 / 1 that the concerned workman is ordered to be regularised as regular Hindi Typist. Eventhen this is not followed by the management .

7. As per papers filed by the management Ext . M - 1 shows that there are vacancy of 7 Hindi Typists as on 11-7-84 and as per Ext . M - 1 / 1 dated 20-4-90 there were 2 posts of Hindi Typists have been sanctioned and as per Ext . M - 1 /2 dated 25-4-90 , 5 posts of Hindi Typists have been sanctioned for conversion and as per Ext . M -3 for Hindi Typist recruitment has been lifted and as per Ext . M- 4 isregarding recruitment and as per Ext . M- 5 there is only application of Hindi Typist on 23-2-95 and educational qualification of matric or equivalent with 30 words per minute in Hindi Typist . There is no mention of long hand dictation or stenographer from Hindi Typist as per circular letter of the management , Ext . M -5 . As per Ext . M-6 , 5 persons had appeared for Hindi Typists for their interview and there were 3 vacant posts even on 3-7-95 as per Ext . M- 6/1 and only 5 posts have been filled. As per Ext . M - 8 there are 7 posts ofHindi Typists in Bihar region and as per Ext. M-9 on5-4-91 7 posts of Hindi Typists have been sanctioned. As per Ext . M- 10 F.C.I. , Regional Office Arunachal Bhawan, Patna had written to District Manager , F.C.I. , Gaya for engagement of casual typist and approval has been given by Regional office on 1-12-82 on which post the concerned workman has been engaged as casual Hindi Typist.

8. When there is regular vacancy with the management there is no reason to keep such person who has served so long time as casual basis . No information has been sent to the concerned workman for appearing in any examination as it has been admitted by MW - 1 , MW- 1 & MW-3 .

9.Documents filed by the management as well as the concerned workman show that there is vacancy of Hindi Typist with the management and the concerned workman 2137 G1/09-27

3583

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009 /ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

is getting less salary i.e. Rs. 1800 per month whereas the regular employee is getting Rs . 8000 per month. It shows discrimination between two persons when they are doing same job as regular Hindi Typist and casual Hindi Typist because there is no difference of work between them which has been stated by MW-2 in his cross - examination . When there is vacancy as per MW - 3 sanctioned strengh of 7 and existing 6 permanent and 1 casual , there is no reason to keep one casualHindi Typist for indefinite period. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the management that the concerned workman is not entitled for regularisation as per Uma Devi's case . In the present case the concerned workmanhas been ordered for regularisation vide Reference No.3/90dated 8-8-90 passed by CGIT No.2 Dhanbad, w.e.f. 6-5-84. Since there was clear vacancy with the management of sanctioned permanent post, the concerned workman was engaged after passing of the award by the Tribunal as casual workman. It shows to deprive the wages and other benefits to the concerned workman which permanent Hindi Typists are getting .

So, in the circumstances the concerned workman is entitled for Hindi Typist on regular basis since 13-12-1991 with full back wages and also entitled for pay protection from 6-5-84 .

10.Accordingly, I rendar the following award-the action ofthe management of FCI , Patna in not regularising the services of Sh . Anil Kumar , Hindi Typist is not legal andjustified, Hence , the concerned workman is entitled for regularisation as Hindi Typist on regular basis since 13-12-91 with full back wages and also entitled for pay protection from 8-5-84 . The management is directed to implement the award within 30 days from the date of publication of the award.

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 मई , 2009

का. आ. 1742, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय खाद्य निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 102/97, 174/97 , 222/98 , 224/98 , 226/98 , 228/98 , 230/98 , 232/98 , 234/98 , 236/98 , 238/98 , 240/98 , 242/98 , 288/00 , 290/00, 361/00 , 367/00 , 34/01 , 338/01 , 180/02 , 184/02 , 200/03, 204/03 , 206/03 , 208/03 , 210/03 18/04, 20/04 , 22/04, 26/04, 28/04 , 30/04 , 32/04 , 36/04, 38/04, 40/04 , 42/04, 44/04, 46/04,48/04 , 50/04 , 56/04 , 58/04 , 60/04 , 62/04 , 64/04, 66/04 , 68/04, 70/04, 72/04 , 74/04 , 76/04 , 78/04 , 82/04, 84/04 , 86/04 , 88/04 , 90/04 , 92/04 , 96/04 , 98/04 , 100/04 , 102/04 , 104/04, 106/04 , 110/04 , 112/04 , 114/04 , 116/04 , 118/04 , 181/04 , 182/04 , 183/04 , 184/04 , 185/04 , 3584

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

आईआर( सी- II ) , एल-22012/ 114/1999- आईआर ( सी- II ) , एल-22012/480/1998-आईआर (सी- II ) , एल-22012/482/ 1998- आईआर ( सी- II ) , एल-22012/ 15/ 1999- आईआर ( सी- II ) , एल-22012/4/1999-आईआर( सी- II ) , एल-22012/7/1999- 186/04 , 187/04 , 188/04 , 194/04 , 255/04, 256/04 , 257/04, 258/04, 259/04, 13/09 , 14/09, 15/09 , 16/09 , 17/09 , 18/09 , 19/09, 20/09 , 21/09 , 22/09 , 23/09 , 24/09, 25/09 , 26/09 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केंद्रीय सरकार को 27-05-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

आईआर( सी- II ) , एल -22012/ 1 /1999- आईआर ( सी- II ) , एल-22012/489/ 1998-आईआर( सी- II ), एल-22012/479/1998- आईआर ( सी- II ) , एल-22012/467/1999- आईआर ( सी- II ) , एल-22012/232/ 1998 -आईआर(सी- II ) , एल-22012/277/ 1999- आईआर( सी- II ) , एल-22012/346/ 1999-आईआर ( सी- II ) , एल-22012/149/1999-आईआर(सी- II ), एल-22012/102/1999- आईआर(सी- II ) , एल-22012/ 13/1999 - आईआर ( सी- II ) , एल-22012/387/1997-आईआर(सी- II) , एल-22012/331/2003- आईआर ( सी-11 ) , एल-22012/332/2003-आईआर (सी- II ) , एल-22012/333/2003- आईआर( सी- II ), एल-22012/329/2003- आईआर ( सी- II ) , एल-22012/330/2003-आईआर ( सी- II ) , एल-22012/66/2004- आईआर ( सी- II ) , एल-22012/64/2004- आईआर ( सी- II ) , एल-22012/65/ 2004- आईआर( सी- II ) , एल-22012/392/2004-आईआर ( सी-II ) , एल-22012/393/2004- आईआर( सी- II ) , एल-22012/395/2004-आईआर( सी- II ) , एल-22012/394/2004- आईआर( सी- II ) , एल -22012/448/2004- आईआर ( सी- II ) , एल-22012/449/2004- आईआर ( सी-11 ) , एल-22012/444/2004-आईआर(सी- II ), एल-22012/446/2004- आईआर( सी- II ) , एल-22012/445/2004- आईआर( सी- II ) , एल-22012/447/2004-आईआर ( सी- II ) , एल-22012/390/2004- आईआर ( सी- II ) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27th May, 2009

S.O. 1742. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.102/97 , 174/97 , 222/98 , 224/98, 226/98, 228/98 , 230/98 , 232/98, 234/98 , 236/98, 238/98 , 240/98 , 242/98 , 288/00, 290/00 , 361/00, 367/00, 34/01 , 338/01 , 180/02, 184/02, 200/03 , 204/03 , 206/03 , 208/03 , 210/03 , 18/04 , 20/04, 22/04, 26/04, 28/04, 30/04, 32/04, 36/04, 38/04,40/04, 42/04, 44/04, 46/04, 48/04,50/04, 56/04, 58/04, 60/04, 62/04, 64/04, 66/04,68/04, 70/04, 72/04, 74/04, 76/04, 78/04, 82/04, 84/04, 86/04, 88/04, 90/04,92/04, 96/04, 98/04 , 100/04, 102/04, 104/04, 106/04, 110/04 , 112/04 , 114/04 , 116/04, 118/04, 181,04, 182/04 , 183/04, 184/04 , 185/04, 186/04, 187/04 , 188/04, 194/04 , 255/04, 156/04, 257/04, 258/04, 259/04, 13/09, 14/09, 15/09, 16/09, 17/09, 18/09 , 19/09, 20/09, 21/09 , 22/09, 23/09, 24/09, 25/09, 26/09) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court No.I, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Food Corporation of India and their workman, which was received bythe Central Government on 27-05-2009.

[में एल-220) 2/437/1996-आईआर( सी- II ) , एल-22012/406/1996- आईआर (सी-11 ) , एल-22012/412/ 1996- आईआर ( सी- II ) , एल-22012/5/13/ 1996-आईआर ( सी- II ) , एल-22012/436/1996- आईआर (सी-11 ) , एल-22012 / 510/ 1996- आईआर ( सी- II ) , एल-22012/528/1996-आईआर (सी- II ) , एल -22012/413 /1996- आईआर (सी -11 ) , एल-22012/435/ 1996 - आईआर( सी- II ) , एल-22012/514/1996- आईआर(सी- II) , एल-22012/440/1996- आईआर (सी-II ) , एल-22012/441/1996-आईआर ( सी- II ) , एल-22012/408/ 1996-आईआर (सी- II ) , एल-22012/5 /2000- आईआर(सी -11 ) , एल -22012/ 7/2000- आईआर( सी- II ) , एल-22012/106/2000- आईआर ( सी- II ) , एल-22012/107/2000- आईआर ( सी -11 ) , एल-22012/230/2000- आईआर ( सी- II ) , एल-22012/153/1999-आईआर( सी- II ) , एल-22012/154/2000- आईआर (सी -11 ) , एल -22012/ 156/2000- आईआर( सी- II ) , एल-22012/70/1999-आईआर ( सी- II ) , एल-22012/471 /1999- आईआर( सी- II ) , एल-22012/344/1999- आईआर ( सी- II ) , एल-22012/281/1999-आईआर( सी- II ) , एल-22012/201/1998- आईआर ( सी -11 ) , एल-22012/341/1998-आईआर ( सी- II ) , एल-22012/317/1998- आईआर ( सी-II ) , एल-22012/310/1998- आईआर ( सी-11 ) , एल-22012/318/ 1998 - आईआर (सी- II ) , एल-22012/334/1998-आईआर(सी- II ) , एल-22012/313/1998- आईआर ( सी-11 ) , एल-22012/337/1998- आईआर ( सी- II ) , एल-22012/342/1998-आईआर ( सी-II ) , एल-22012/488/1998- आईआर (सी -11 ) , एल-22012/336/1998-आईआर( सी- II ) , एल-22012/226/1998-आईआर ( सी- II ) , एल-22012/225/1998- आईआर( सी-11 ) , एल-22012/ 222 / 1998- आईआर ( सी- II ) , एल-22012/228/1998-आईआर( सी- II ) , एल-22012/227/ 1998- आईआर( सी-11 ) , एल-22012/335/1998- आईआर ( सी- II ) , एल-22012/284/1999-आईआर (सी -11 ) , एल-22012/155/1999- आईआर (सी-11 ) , एल-22012/ 151 / 1999-आईआर (सी- II ) , एल-22012/341/1999-आईआर ( सी- II ) , एल-22012/202/1998- आईआर( सी-1Ⅱ ) , एल-22012/69/ 1999-आईआर (सी- II ) , एल-22012/484/1998-आईआर( सी- II ) , एल-22012/75/1999- आईआर( सी -1 ) , एल-22012/485 / 1998 - आईआर (सी- II ) , एल-22012/220/1999-आईआर(सी- II ) , एल-22012/279/1999- आईआर (सी ) , एल-22012/ 215 / 1999 - आईआर ( सी- II ) , एल-22012/228/1999-आईआर( सी- II ) , एल-22012/225/1999- आईआर(सी ) , एल-22012/216/ 1999-आईआर ( सी- II ) , एल-22012/3/1999-आईआर (सी-II ) , एल-22012/481 /1998- आईआर ( सी-1 ) , एल-22012/ 112/ 1999 - आईआर ( सी- II ) ,

एल-22012/113/1999-आईआर ( सी- II ) , एल -22012/2/ 1999-

No. L- 22012/437/ 1996- IR (C- II ) , L- 22012/406/ 1996 -IR (C- II),L-22012/412/1996- IR (C- II), 3585 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

जून 20 , 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

भारत का राजपत्र :

L-22012/332/2003 - IR(C-II),

L- 22012/513/1996- IR (C- II), L- 22012/436/ 1996- IR (C- II),

L-22012/510/ 1996- IR(C-II),

L-22012/333 /2003 -IR (C- II), L-22012/329/2003 - IR (C- II),

L-22012/330/2003- IR(C-II),

L-22012/ 528/ 1996- IR (C- II), L- 22012/413/ 1996- IR (C- II),

L-22012/435/ 1996- IR(C-II),

L-22012/ 66/2004 - IR (C- II) , L-22012/ 64/2004- IR (C- II),

L-22012/65/2004- IR(C-II),

L-22012/514/ 1996- IR (C- II), L- 22012/440/ 1996- IR (C- II) ,

L-22012/441 / 1996- IR(C-II),

L-22012/392/2004- IR (C- II ), L- 22012/393 /2004- IR (C-II), L-22012/408/1996- IR (C- II) , L- 22012/ 5 /2000- IR (C- II) , L-22012/395/2004- IR(C-II),

L-22012/7/2000- IR(C- II),

L-22012/394/2004- IR (C- II), L- 22012/448/2004- IR (C-II),

L-22012/449/2004- IR(C- II),

L- 22012/ 106/2000- IR (C- II) , L- 22012/107/2000- IR (C-II) ,

L-22012/230/2000- IR(C-II),

L-22012/444/2004- IR (C- II) , L- 22012/446/2004- IR (C- II), L- 22012/ 153/1999 - IR (C- II), L- 22012/ 154/2001 - IR (C- II), L-22012/445/2004-IR(C-II),

L- 22012/ 156/2001 - IR(C-II),

L-22012/447/2004- IR (C-II) , L-22012/390/2004- IR (C- II)] L-22012/ 70 / 1999 - IR (C- II ), L- 22012/471 / 1999- IR (C- II ), *

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer L-22012/344/ 1999- IR(C- II),

ANNEXURE

L- 22012/281 / 1999 - IR (C- II), L- 22012/201 / 1998- IR (C- II),

L-22012/341/ 1998 - IR(C- II),

L-22012/317/1998- IR (C- II), L- 22012/310/ 1998 - IR (C- II),

L-22012/318/1998- IR (C- II),

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, L-22012/334/1998- IR (C- II), L- 22012/313/ 1998 - IR(C- II) ,

L-22012/337/1998- IR (C- II),

Case No. I.D. No. 102/97 and 97 others (as mentioned in thelistbelow)

L-22012/342/ 1998 - IR (C- II), L- 22012/488 / 1998 - IR( C- II),

L-22012/336/ 1998-IR(C- II),

Shri JagroopBeniwal and others (as mentioned in the list below)

L -22012/226/1998 - IR (C- II) , L- 22012/225 / 1998 - IR (C- II) ,

...Applicants L-22012/222/ 1998- IR(C- II),

Versus

L-22012/228/1998 - IR (C- II), L- 22012/227/ 1998- IR (C- II),

L-22012/335/1998- IR(C- II) ,

The Distt. Manager , Food Corporation of India, Kurukshetra and Karnal.

L- 22012/284/ 1999 - IR (C- II) , L- 22012/ 155/ 1999 -IR (C- II),

L-22012/ 151/1999-IR (C- II),

...Respondents L-22012/341/ 1999 - IR (C- II), L- 22012/202/ 1998 - IR (C- II),

APPEARANCES

L-22012/ 69/ 1999- IR(C-II),

FortheWorkman:

L-22012/484/1998 - IR (C- II), L- 22012/75/1999-IR (C-II),

L-22012/485/ 1998- IR(C- II),

Sri . Ashwani Bakshi, Deepak Sonak, Aditya Sharma, R P. Rana Amit Sharma.

L-22012/220/1999 - IR (C- II), L-22012/279/ 1999 - IR (C- II),

L-22012/215/ 1999- IR(C-II),

For theManagement : Sri Parmod Jain , N.K. Zakami, Santokh Singh.

L-22012/228/ 1999- IR (C-II), L- 22012/225 / 1999- IR (C- II) ,

AWARD

L-22012/216/ 1999- IR(C-II),

L-22012/ 3 / 1999- IR (C- II ), L-22012/ 481 / 1998 - IR (C- II) ,

Passexl on: 21-5-09

L-22012/112/ 1999- IR(C-II),

L-22012/ 113/1999 - IR (C- II) , L- 22012/2/ 1999 - IR (C- II) ,

L -22012/114/1999-IR(C- II),

L-22012/480/ 1998 - IR (C- II), L- 22012/482/ 1998 - IR (C- II),

This award shall clisposed off 98 references of differentworkman referred by the Central Government by different orders. The references which are being disposed offby this award are as follows:

L-22012/ 15/ 1999- IR (C- II),

PartiesName

Reference: No.

No. I.D.No.

L-22012/4/1999 - IR (C- II ) , L-22012 /7 / 1999- IR (C- II) , L-22012/ 1/ 1999- IR(C- II),

1 2

L-22012/489/1998- IR (C- II), L-22012/479/ 1998 - IR (C- II),

1 102/97

L-22012/467/1999- IR(C- II),

L- 22012/232/ 1998 - IR (C- II) , L- 22012/277/1999 - IR (C-II),

(C- II), dated 31-1-97 L-22012/437/96-IR Jagroop Beniwal Vs. Food Corporation of India

L-22012/346/ 1999- IR(C- II),

2 174/97

Karamveer Singh Vs. L-22012/ 149/1999 - IR (C- II) , L- 22012/ 102/ 1999- IR (C- II),

L-22012/ 13 /1999- IR (C- II),

L-22012/406/96- IR. (C- II), dated 19-9-97 Food Corporation of India

L- 22012/ 387/1997- IR (C- II) , L- 22012/331 /2003 - IR (C- II), 3586

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

3 222/98

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

1 2

20 180/02

L-22012/ 412/ 96- IR (C-II) , dated 19-9-97

Nafe Singh Vs.Food Corporation of India

4 224/98

L- 22012/ 154/01 /IR/ CM-II , dated 21-8-02

Balwan Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India

21 184/02

Raja Vs. Food Corporation of India L-22012/ 513 /96- IR (C- II ) , dated 19-9-97

5 226/98

CM- II , dated 21-8-02 L- 22012/ 156/01 /IR/ Raj kumar Vs. Food Corporation of India

22 200/03

Som/ Sohn Vs. Food Corporation of India L- 22012/ 436/96- IR (C-II) , dated 19-9-97

6 228/98 1-22012/ 510/96- IR

C- II , dated 15-12-03 L- 22012 /70/ 99 / IR/ SatpalVs. Food Corporation of India 23 204/03

Ram Kumar Vs. Food Corporation of India (C-II) , dated 19-9-97

7 230/98 1-22012/528/96- IR Roshan Lal Vs. Food Corporation of India (C- II) , dated 19-9-97

L-22012/ 471 /99/ IR/ C- II , dated 15-12-03

Tara Chand Vs. Food Corporation of India

24 206/03

8 232/98 11-22012/413/96- IR (C- II) , dated 19-9-97

Shamsher Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India

L-22012/344/ 99/IR/ C- II , dated 15-12-03

Balbir Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India

25 208/03

( C - 11 ), dated 19-9-97 9 234/98 -22012/435/ 96- IR. Suresh Kumar Vs. Food Corporation of India

L-22012/281 /99/IR/ C- II , dated 15-12-03

Gambir Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India

26 210/03

10 236/98 Ц -22012/514/96-1R (C - II) , dated 19-9-97

Maharveer Vs. Food Corporation of India

11 238/98 L-22012/440/96-IR (C -II ) , dated 19-9-97

JagjitSingh Vs. Food Corporation of India

12 240/98 L-22012/441/96- IR

(C -II) , dated 19-9-97

Ved Parkash Vs. Food Corporation of India

13 24298 L-22012/408/96- IR (C -II) , dated 19-9-97

Satbir Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India

14 288/00 L-22012/ 5 /00/IR/ CM- II , dated4-8-00

Subhash ChanderVs. Food Corporation of India

15 290/00

SatpalVs. Food Corporation of India L-22012/7 /00/IR/ CM- II , dated 4-8-00

16 361/00

Mulak Raj Vs. Food Corporation of India L-22012/ 106/00/IR/ CM - 11 , dated 18-9-00

17 367.00 L-22012/ 107/00 /IR/ CM - II ,dated 18-9-00

Vinod Kumar Vs. Food Corporation of India

18 34/0 L- 22012/230/00 /IR/ C- II, dated 15-1-01

Sajan Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India

19 338011-22012/ 153/99/IR/ C- 11, dated 5-12-01

Dharambir Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India

L -22012/201 / 98 /IR/ C- II , dated 15-12-03

Mam Chand Vs. Food Corporation of India

27 18/04 L-22012/341 /98 /IR/ C-II , dated 4-6-03

Ram Kumar Vs. FoodCorporation of India

28 20/04 L-22012/317 /98 /IR/ C-II , dated 4-6-03

Raamesh Kumar Vs. Food Corporation of India

29 22/04 L - 22012/310/ 98/JR/ C-II , dated 4-6-03

Kusam Das Vs. Food Corporation of India

3026/04 -22012/318 /98/IR/ C- II , dated 4-6-03

Daya Nand Vs .. Food Corporation of India

31 28/04 L-22012/ 334/98 /IR/ C-II , dated 4-6-03

Joginder Vs. Food Corporation of India

3230/04 L-22012/313/98/IR/ C-II , dated 4-6-03

Krishan Kumar Vs. Food Corporation of India

33 32/04 L-22012/337/98/IR/ C- II , dated 4-6-03

Babu Ram Vs. Food Corporation of India

34 36/04 L-22012/342/ 98 / IR/ C-II , dated 4-6-03

Raj Kumar Vs. Food Corporation of India

35 38/04 L-22012/488/ 98 /IR/ C-II , dated 4-6-03

Raghuvir Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

3587

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

36 40/04 L-22012/336/98/IR/ C- II , dated 15-12-03

Ram Pal Vs. Food Corporation of India

37 42/04 L-22012/226/98/IR/ C- II , dated4-6-03

Amar Singh Vs. FoodCorporation of India

38 44/04 L- 22012/225/98/IR/ C-II , dated 4-6-03

Charan Dass Vs. Food Corporation of India

39 46/04 L-22012/222/98 /IR/ C- II , dated 4-6-03

Sohan Lal Vs. Food Corporation of India

43 48/04 L-22012/228/98 /IR/ C-II , dated4-6-03

Dharam Pal Vs. Food Corporation of India

41 50/04 L-22012/227/98/IR/ C-II , dated 4-6-03

Balbinder Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India

42 56/04 L-22012/335/98/IR/ C-II , dated 4-6-03

Gurmail Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India

43 58/04 L-22012/284/99/IR/ C- II , dated 4-6-03

Rai Singh Vs. FoodCorporation of India

44 60/04 L- 22012/ 155 /99/IR/ C- II , dated 4-6-03

Satpal Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India

45 62/04 L-22012/ 151 /99/IR/ C- II , dated 4-6-03

52 76/04 L- 22012/220/99 /IR/ C- II , dated4-6-03

Rameshwar Dass Vs. Food Corporation of India

53 78/04 L-22012/279 /99/IR/ C- II , dated4-6-03

Satish Kumar Vs. FoodCorporation of India

54 82/04 L-22012/215/99 /IR/ C- II , dated 4-6-03

Satpal Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India

55 84/04 L- 22012/228 /99 /IR/ C-II , dated 4-6-03

Nirmal Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India

56 86/04 L-22012/225/99/IR/ C- II , dated 4-6-03

Jogi Ram Vs. FoodCorporation of India

57 88/04 L-22012/216/99 /IR/ C- II , dated4-6-0

Jeet Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India

58 90/04 L-22012/3 /99/IR/ C-II , dated4-6-03

Joginder Kumar Vs. Food Corporation of India

59 92/04 1-22012/481 /98 /IR/ C- II , dated4-6-03

Krishan Singh Vs. FoodCorporation of India

60 96/04 L-22012/ 112/99 /IR/ C-II , dated15-12-03

Rajinder Kumar Vs. Food Corporation of India

61 98/04 L-22012/ 113/99/IR/ C-II , dated 4-6-03

Ramesh Kumar Vs. Food Corporation of India

62 100/04

Madan Lal Vs. FoodCorporation of India

46 64/04

L- 22012/2/99/IR/ C- II , dated4-6-03

Karambir Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India

63 102/04

L-22012/341 /99/IR/ C-II , dated4-6-03

Banu Ram Vs. Food Corporation of India

47 66/04

L-22012/ 114/99/IR/ C-II ,dated4-6-03

Sunder Lal Vs. Food Corporation of India

64 104/04

L-22012/202/98/IR/ C-II , dated 4-6-03

Ram Kumar Vs. Food Corporation of India

48 68/04

L- 22012/480/98/ IR/ C-II , dated4-6-03

Joginder Singh Vs. FoodCorporation of India`

65 106/04

L - 22012/69/ 99 /IR/ C- II , dated 4-6-03

ParveenKumar Vs. Food Corporation of India

49 70/04

L-22012/482/98/IR/ C-II , dated4-6-03

Ranjeet Singh Vs. FoodCorporation of India

66 110/04

L-22012/484/98 /IR/ C- II , dated 4-6-03

Parveen Kumar Vs. FoodCorporation of India

50 72/04

L- 22012/ 15/99/IR/ C-II , dated4-6-03

Karnail Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India

67 112/04

L- 22012/ 75 / 99/IR/ C- II , dated 4-6-03

Barkha Ram Vs. FoodCorporation of India

L-22012/4/99 /IR/ C-II ,dated4-6-03

Randhir Singh Vs .. Food Corporation of India

68 114/04

51 74/04 L-22012/485/98/IR/ 3/IR/ C- II , dated 4-6-03

Ishwar Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India

L-22012/7/99 /IR/ C-II , dated4-6-03

Satpal Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India 3588

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

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

86 14/09

69 116/04 L- 22012/ 1/99/IR/ C- II , dated4-6-03

Ashok Kumar Vs. FoodCorporation of India

70 118/04 L- 22012/489/98/IR/ C- II , dated4-6-03

Pawan Kumar Vs. Food Corporation of India

71 181/04 L- 22012/479/98 /IR/ C-II , dated 3-6-04

Yatinder Pal Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India

72 182/04

L- 22012/64/04/IR/ CM- II , dated 30-12-04

Ashwani Kumar Vs. Food Corporation of India

87 15/09 L- 22012/65/04/IR/ CM-II , dated 30-12-04

Mahender Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India

88 16/09 L- 22012/392/04/IR/ CM-II , dated 18-8-05 Food Corporation of India Satpal Singh Vs.

89 17/09

L- 22012/467/99/IR/ C-II , dated 3-6-04 .

Devi Dass Vs. Food Corporation of India

L-22012/393/04/ IR/ CM-II , dated 18-8-05

Suraj Bhan Vs. Food Corporation of India

90 18/09

73 183/04 L-22012/232/ 98/IR/ C-II , dated3-6-04

Rajinder Kumar Vs. Food Corporation of India

74 184/04

L- 22012/395 /04/IR/ CM- II , dated 18-8-05

Shiv Charan Vs. Food Corporation of India

91 19/09

L-22012/277/ 99 /IR/ C- II , dated3-6-04

RamGopal Vs. Food Corporation of India

L- 22012/394/04/IR/ CM-II , dated 18-8-05

Dev Raj Vs. Food Corporation of India

92 20/09

75 185/04 L-22012/346/99 /IR/ C-II , dated 3-6-04

Sanjay Kumar Vs. Food Corporation of India

76 186/04

L-22012/448/04/IR/ CM-II , dated29-8-05

Angrej Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India

93 21/09

L- 22012/ 149/ 99 /IR/ C- II , dated 3-6-04

Dharambir Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India

77 187/04 L-22012/ 102/99/ IR/ C- II , dated 3-6-04

Suresh Kumar Vs. FoodCorporation of India

78 188/04

L-22012/449/04/IR/ CM- II , dated 29-8-05

Pardeep Kumar Vs. Food Corporation of India

94 22/09 L- 22012/444/04/IR/ CM- II , dated 29-8-05

Lajja Ram Vs. Food Corporation of India

95 23/09

L-22012/ 13/99/IR/ C-II , dated 3-6-04

Kitab Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India

79 194/04

L- 22012/ 446 /04/IR/ CM-II , dated29-8-05

Dhan Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India

96 24/09

L- 22012/387/97/IR/ C- II , dated 27-5-04

Rampal Vs. Food Corporation of India 255/04

L-22012/445 /04/IR/ CM-II , dated 29-8-05

Jaswant Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India

97 25/09

L- 22012/331 /2003 /IR/ CM- II , dated 29-6-04

Sukhvinder Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India

L-22012/447 /04/IR/ CM-II , dated29-8-05

Pawan Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India

98 26/09

81 256/04 L -22012/ 332/2003 /IR/ CM-II , dated 29-6-04

Sukhvinder Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India

82 257/04 L- 22012/ 333 /2003 /IR/ CM-II , dated 29-6-04

Manjinder Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India

83 258/04 L-22012/329/2003/IR/ CM- II , dated 29-6-04

Tarsen Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India

84 259/04

CM- II , dated29-6-04 L- 22012/330/2003/IR/ Hakkam Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India

85 13/09 L- 22012/66/04/IR/ CM-II , dated 30-12-04

Dharam Chand and other Vs. Food Corporation of India L- 22012/390/04/IR/ CM- II , dated 18-8-05

Mahabir Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India

Common questions of law and facts are involved in all these references which afforded an opportunity to this Tribunal for adjudication of these references by a single award. The main questions for determination in all the references are as follows :-

(1) Whether the workmen are the employees of the management of Food Corporation of India ?

(2) To what relief, if any they are entitled ?

It isalleged by all the workmen that they were engaged by the management of Food Corporation of India on different dates and without notice or retrenchment [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

compensation , their services were terminated. The contention of the management in all the references has been that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the workman and the management of Food Corporation of India because the services of the workmen were provided to the management by the different contractors . The different agencies, as per the contention of the management , provided the services to the management of Food Corporation of India. The payment ofwages was made good to the workman by the contractors and not by the Food Corporation of India and there has been no administrative control ofthe management ofFood Corporation of India for all the workmen.

Parties were afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence . Oral evidence was recorded in some ofthe cases. Management of Food Corporation of India almost in all the cases, and in few cases the workman also preferred to file the documentary evidence which were marked exhibits according to the procedure laid down in Industrial Disputes Act. Parties were also afforded the opportunity of being heard.

It ishereby made clear that these references were pending adjudication in CGIT-cum -Labour Court- II . The CGIT-cum -Labour Court - II was lying vacant and Central Government vide an administrative order transferred all the pending references to this Tribunal. Number of references relating to the references transferred from Tribunal No. - II , were pending adjudication before this Tribunal in which the evidence was recorded by this Tribunal and even arguments were heard. Learned counsel for both ofthe parties contended that question involved in all the references is the same, hence, all the references be disposed offby single award . The statement of workaman and the prescribed authorities of the management was also recorded. All preferred for adjudication of the grievances by a single award along with the references previously pending adjudication before this Tribunal .

Ihave gone through all the files . Itis evidently clear , that the matter involved in all the files is almost similar and the grievances can be redressed by a single award. No doubt, in few of the files there are some additional pleas taken by the workman . The pleas so taken shall be discussed and dealt with separately in this award. So for the purpose of adjudication of all these references , I have consolidated the files and answering all these references bythis award.

Arguments ofboth ofthe paries were heard in length .

The main arguments of learned counsel/representative of theworkmen were that all the workmen were engaged by the management of Food Corporation of India directly by the contractor as shown by the management is illegal, being against the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation andAbolition) Act, 1970. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the workmen that all the workmen were directly under the administrative control ofthe management . They

3589 were paid the wages by the management of Food Corporation of India and in fact they were the employees ofthe management of Food Corporation of India and not ofthe contractor.

On the other hand , learned counsel for the management submitted that there existed no relationship of employer-employee between the workmen and the management ofFood Corporation of India. The services of the workmen were provided by the different contractors. The consolidated contracted amount was paid to the contractors by the management of Food Corporation of India, and thereafter , the wages of the workmen were paid by the contractors and not by the Food Corporation of India. It has further being submitted by the learned counsel for the management that there has been no violation of any provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Ifthere is a violation of the provisions ofthe said Act, the workmen shall not be treated the direct employees ofthe management of Food Corporation of India, but it will resulted into the criminal action against the concerned authorities under the penal provisions of the saidAct.

So far as the relationship between the workman and the management ofFood Corporation of India is concemed, it is a matter of fact and will be adjudicated on perusal of the pleadings filed and evidence adduced by the parties.

In few of the references , it is challenged that contractor rendered the services but the contract was shame and camouflage . In few of the references , it is also challenged by the workmen that the work of Class- 1V employees was taken from them, whereas , they were said to be engaged as security guards through a contractor . It iscontended by learned counsel for the workman that for the working ofClass - IV employee , the workmen became the direct employee of the Food Corporation of India.

Almost in all the references , it is admitted that no appointment letter was issued by the management. No doubt , it is denied by the workmen that payment ofwages were made good by the contractor but the documentary evidence filed by the management proved that payment to theworkmen were made good by the contractor and not by the management of Food Corporation of India. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2008 LLR 801 ,GM, ONGC Shilcher Vs. ONGC Contractual Workers Union , has laid down the criteria to establish the direct employee - employer relationship between the workman and the management of any organization. If we apply the ratio of GM, ONGC Shilcher case (supra) the workmen has to prove the following facts to establish the employee - employer relationship.

(1) That there existed a relationship of master and servant,

(2) That there was no contractor appointed by the management of Food Corporation of India.

3590

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

(3) The management of Food Corporation ofIndia used to supervise the alleged work assigned to individual workers .

(4) That the management of Food Corporation of India took disciplinary action and called for explanations from the workers ,

(5) That the workers were paid wages by the management of Food Corporation of India directly and not through the contractor .

(6) At the cost of repetition , the wages were paid directly to the workers by the management of Food Corporation of India and the acquaintance role were prepared by the management of Food Corporation of India to make the payment to the workers .

Ifabove mentioned ratio of GM, ONGC , Shilchar's case is applied in all the references, it is clear that workmen failed to prove that they were appointed/engaged by the management of Food Corporation of India . There is no iota of evidence on record to prove that they were directly under the administrative control of the management of Food Corporation of India . No doubt, it is contended by the workmenthat their attendance were marked by the officers/ officials ofthe management of Food Corporation of India, but it will not be sufficient to prove the administrative conrtrol over them . They were supposed to file/adduced some cogent evidence like sanction of leave application , disciplinary action taken by the management of Food Corporation of India , if any, etc. The two instances enumerated by the workmen in all the references are not sufficient to constitute the administrative control of the management of Food Corporation of India over all the workmen. Thus , the workmen have failed to prove that they were under the administrative control of the management of Food Corporation of India . On the payment of wages the management of Food Corporation of India has filed the documentary evidence which proved that consolidated amount on the basis of number ofdays worked bytheworkmenwere given to the contractor, and contractor onthe other hand, used to pay the wages to the workmen . The management has filed all the relevent documents such aslattendance sheet signed by the officers of the management of Food Corporation of India, order ofpayment based on the attendance of the workmen to the contractor, and thereafter , the payment of wages by the contactor to theworkmen. Moreover, in few references the contactors appeared as witnesses . They have categorically stated that the services ofthe workmen were provided by them to the management ofFood Corporation of India and the workmen were not the employee of the management of Food Corporation of India .

On perusal of all the evidence oral and documentary given by the workmen , officer of the management of Food Corporation of India and the contactor, I am of the view that payment ofwages to all the workmen were made good

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] by the contactor and not by the management of Food Corporation of India .

The above discussion proved that neither the workmenwere appointed/ engaged by the management of Food Corporation of India nor they were under the administrative control of the management of Food Corporation of India. They were also not paid the wages by the Food Corporation of India. Hence , their existed no master - servant relationship between the management of Food Corporation of India and all the workmen.

In few of the references , as stated earlier , it was contended that the workmen worked as Class - IV employee, whereas , they were shown as the security guards by the so called contract . It was further contended by the workmen that the working as Class - IV employee was against the terms ofthe contract , the workmen shall be treated as the direct employee ofthe Food Carporation of India.

Now the question before this Tribunal is whether the change in the nature of work will be sufficient to make the workmen under the direct administrative control ofthe management of Food Corporation of India. For all purposes except the change in the nature of the work, it is established that the services of the workmen were provided by a contractor to the management as security guards . In my view, itwas a perfect contract and in violation of any term ofcontract by any officer of the Food Corporation of India, itwill not resulted to treat workmen as Class - IV employee under the direct administrative control of the management ofFood Corporation of India as no workmen was appointed asClass -IV employee . There is no such evidence on record to prove the intention of the management to engage the workmen directly as Class - IV employees . There are rules for appointment/ engagement of Class - IV employee . The rules regarding the engagement/appointment of Class - IV employee were not comply with while engaging the present workmen . Moreover , it is contended that previous engagement was made by a contractor as security guard but thereafter , few officers ofthe. Food Corporation of India engage them for Class - IV employee . In few references it is for a day whereas , in some other references it is for 15 or more days . Thus , by engaging the security guards as Class- IV employee, in my view, the officer of the management of Food Corporation of India has committed the wrong for violation of the terms of the contract . But the law cannot permit any officer to violate any rule or procedure by such change ofnature of work . If it is permitted , it will resulted into lawlessness in the organization . Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and others Vs. Banibrata Ghosh and others on 2-2-2009 , has propounded the same principle of law that a teacher appointed against the leave vacancy cannot deemed or directed to be appointed against the permanent vacancy . For the appointment against the permanent vacancy procedure laid down in rules and regulations of the department are to be followed .

Accordingly, if the ratio of Banibrata Ghosh case (supra) is applied to the instant case , the workinen , cannot [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20 , 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

be considered as Class - IV employees working with the management of Food Corporation of India just on the basis of the fact that they, instead ofworking as security guard, worked asClass - IV employee . For their working as Class - IV employee they may claim a reasonable compensation under the appropriate law against the officer who have change nature of work in violation of the terms of the contract, but this change of nature of work cannot create the relationship of employer and employee between the workman and the management of Food Corporation ofIndia.

Likewise, infew of the references as mentioned above the issue before the Tribunal is that the contract was executed on future dated stamp . Meaning thereby, the contract was created with retrospective effect . On this very ground learned counsel for the workman has submitted that this contract is camouflage and shame.

InGM , ONGC , Shilchar's Case ( supra) the conditions under which a contract can be treated a camouflage and shame are mentioned. Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case has relied upon the law laid down in Steal Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National Union Water Workers and others AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3527 (1 ) . The question before this Tribunal is under what circumstances a contract between the management ofFood Corporation of India and the workmen can be held to be shame and camouflage ? In case the contract has been held to be shame or camouflage , the contract labour working in themanagement ofthe principal employment are held tobe employees of principal employer himself. It depends on the facts and circumstances of the each case whether the contract executed in between the management and the contractor is camouflalge and shame . It is also a issue of facts and has to be decided on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case . Whether there is a genuine contactor, and whether there is a proper master- servant relationship in between the management of Food Corporation of India and the workmen also depends on the facts and circumstances of the case . Likewise , whether they were directly under the administrative control ofthe FoodCorporation of India and were paid wages directly by the management of Food Corporation of India also depends on the facts and circumstances of the case . The Court has to look into whether these facts emerged in reality or there was some paper arrangement to make the payment good to the workmen through contractor.

In these references , it is challenged by the workmen thatcontract is shame and camouflage. It is proved beyond doubt that the workmen were not appointed/engaged directly by the management of Food Corporation of India as per its rules and regulations . They were not under the administrative control of the Food Corporation of India nor paid the wages directly by the Food Corporation of India. The only issue raised before this Tribunal to declare this contract camouflage is that the contract was executed with prospective effect. It was back dated contract. The 2137 GI /09-28

3591 execution of such a contract is admitted to the management and no explanation is given how and why it was executed? Butalone on this fact this Court cannot declare or directed thatthe workmen became the employees of the management ofFood Corporation of India . The term contract is defind inthe Indian Contract Act. All the agreements enforceable bylaw are contracts . Agreements are made by two persons when they agree on the same thing in the same sense. The contract may be oral or written . It is also possible that two persons may agree on the same thing in the same sense to do any act, and they may reduce it into the writing after a month or so . It is not prohibited under the law. To declare a contract a camouflage or shame , as stated earlier, it is to be seen whether a paper arrangement was made to made the payment good . On considering the facts and circumstances of the case , I am of the view that this is not case in these references . Merely the contract was reduce in writing, in few references, after one month or so, the workmen cannot be deemed to be in services of the management of Food Corporation of India. Unless and until the terms and conditions as laid down in GM, ONGC Shilchar's case (supra) are not complied with , no workmen can be treated as the direct employee of the Food Corporation of India. Thus , I am of the view that such execution of contract shall not create a relationship of employer and employee between the workmen and the management of the Food Corporation of India.

The next issue for the disposal before this Tribunal iswhether the workmen will be deemed to be in the services ofthemanagement of Food Corporation of India on account of violation of any of the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) , Act 1970. It is issue of law and has limited concern with the facts . On the issue of facts, 1 have already given my view that the workmen or not employees of the management of Food Corporation of India but their services were provided by the different contractors to the management . As this issue of law is also raised by the parties , it is the duty of this Tribunal to decide it as well . On this issue there may be three circumstances: -

(1 ) There may be a case where the practice of contract labour is prohibited by the appropriateGovernment under Section 10 ( 1 ) ofthe Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.

(2) There may be an issue regarding the registration of establishment of principal employer under Section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition ) Act, 1970 .

(3) There may be an issue regarding the license bythe contractor under Section 12 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.

The issue to be decided is whether in the case of violation of any ofthe provisions mentioned under Section 10 ( 1 ) , Section 7 and Section 12 of the Contract Labour 3592

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 , the contract labour shall be deemed tobe an employee ofthe principal employer .

This issue has been settled by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd.'s case (supra) . Moreover Pb . and Har. High Court in Food Corporation of India and others Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum Labour Court- I , Chandigarh and others 2008 LLR 391 , has decided this issue after relying the ratio of Steel Authority of India Ltd. , case (Supra) . Without mentioning the relevant paras of Steel Authority of India Ltd., ease (supra) and Food Corporation of India and others Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government ladustrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court case (supra) , I am relying the ratio of both ofthe judgments, and the ratio of both of the judgment is that if there is any violation of Section 7, Section 10 and Section 12 ofthe Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act , then only penal provisions of Section 23 and Section 25 of the said Act are attracted. Hence, it is nowhere provided that such employees , employed through the contractor wouldbecome employees of the principal employer. I have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case . Almost in all the references the registration and the license have been produced by the management of Food Corporation of India . It may only resulted in penal actions under Section 23 and Section 25 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 , if there is any violation of any provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act .

Accordingly , I am of the view that none of the workmenwas the employee of the management . There was no relationship of master - servant and employer and employee between the workmen and the management of Food Corporation of India . Thus , no question for termination of the services of workmen by Food Corporation of India arise .Allthe references are answered accordingly and the workman are not entitled for any relief. Central Government be informed and thereafter , file be consigned.

G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer नईदिल्ली , 27 मई , 2009

का.आ. 1743.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एच. डी.एफ. सी.बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय । चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या13/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/174/2008- आई.आर. ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th May, 2009

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 13/2008) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum -Labour Court, I Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of H.D.F.C. Bank and their workman , received by the Central Government on 26-05-2009 .

[No. L- 12012/ 174/2008 - IR (B-1) ] AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No , I.D. 13/2008

Shri Ajit Singh S /o Shri Baldev Singh, R/o Vill . Nadha Killi, Tehsil Fazilka, Distt. Ferozepur.

....Applicant

Versus

TheGeneralManager , HDFC Bank Ltd. , Regional Office, SCO 78-79. Madhya Marg , Sector -8, Chandigarh .

....Respondent

APPEARANCES

Forthe workman: None.

For the management: Sri Parveen Gilhotra and Amit Rishi . AWARD

Passed on 23-4-09

Central Government vide notification No. L- 12012/ 174/2008 IR (B -I ) , dated 18-2-2009, has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of HDFC Bank Ltd. , in terminating the services of Shri Ajeet Singh S/ o Shri Baldev Singh , Liability Coex (Clerk) w.e.f. February,2008 without following the provisions ofSection 25F of the ID Act , is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ? "

2. Case repeatedly called . None has put up appearance on behalf of the workman despite notices . On 2-3-09 notice was issued to the workman for 17-3-09 but workman has not put up appearance on that date . Again court notice for today was issued to the workman for his appearance and for filing of claim statement . Today again workman has not ensured his presence . It appears that workman is not interested to pursue the present claim in reference . In view of the above, the present claim in reference is returned to the Central Government for want of prosecution. Central Government be informed. file be consigned.

Chandigarh

S.O. 1743. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central 23-4-09

G.K.SHARMA, Presiding Officer

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

3593 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

नई दिल्ली , 27 मई , 2009

"Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of India In discharging the services of Sri N. Rajasekarappa is legal and justified" Ifnot, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled?"

2. Both sides appeared and filed their Claim Statement and Counter Statement as the case may be:

3.Bereft ofunnecessary details case of petitioner is as follows:

का.आ. 1744. 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 , चैन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 71/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-5-2009 कोप्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/142/2007- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 27th May, 2009

S.O. 1744. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Goverrimenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 71/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 26-5-2009 .

[No. L- 12012/ 142/2007- IR(B- 1 ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Tuesday, 12th May, 2009

Present : Shri A. N. Janardanan , Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 71/2007

(Inthe matter ofthe dispute for adjudication under clause (d) ofsub -section ( 1 ) and sub -section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Management of State Bank of India and their Workman)

BETWEEN

: 1stParty/Petitioner

Sri N. Rajasekarappa

Vis.

The Cheif General Manager State Bank of India Local Head Office, Circle TopHouse , 16 , College Road, Chennai -600006

: 2nd Party/Respondent

APPEARANCE

For the Petitioner

: Sri S. Vaidyanathan

For the Management

: Mr. V.R. Gopalarathnam

AWARD

The petitioner appcinted as a Temporary Messenger under the Respondent on 18-9-1973 , subsequently confirmed w.e.f. 27-12-1980 and thereafter promoted as Clerk from 20-10-1993 while was working as RC/Cashierat Thirukoilur branch of the Respondent Barnk with 21 years of service till then was discharged from service on 23-12-2001 for allieged peeson 01-02-1999. When called upon, he admitted his lapses in his letter dated 29-7-1999. He was thereafter charge sheeted for misappropriation of Rs . 59,837 and for mau horized possession of remitter's copies of government challans . He submitted explanation on 9-3-2000 . An enquiry was ordered and conducted against him. The bank promised orally to let him offwith a minor punishment and in the enquiry Charge Nos.l t04 were held proved. He submitted explanation . The Disciplinary Authority concurred with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and proposed a punishment of dismissal without notice on 13-12-2000, giving a personal hearing, on 26-12-2000. He submitted that the proposca punisinsent tantamount to his economic death. He was discharged under final order date i 23-2-2001 . The appeal preferred before theAppellate Authority only confirmed the finding after his personal hearing. The disciplinary procedure followed is in violation of principles ofnaturaljustice . Even ina case of admission, the charges have to be established legally. No documen's were marked and no material witnesses were examined. The Disciplinary Authority acted in a biased manner. The punishment awarded is disproportionate . A similarly guilty person Valarmathi- nathan was imposed with lesser punishraent by bringing down the scale. While admitting the charges . He never . admitted misappropriation of money. It is under a hope of lesser punishment , he a imitted the charges . By varying to punishment ofdischarge the Disciplinary Authori'y really intended conferment of benefit of portion to h'n . The deprivation of pension for the services already rendered between 18-9-1973 to 200 i is illegal though he has 20 years of pensionable service . It is not stated in the order of punishinent that period of suspension will not be taken into account for pensior . With the deprivation of pension , he is imposed with double punishment . Similarly delinquent employees have been reinstated by the bank on making good the loss . The petitioner has examples ofsuch similarly placeddelinquents as the case of one Mr. Thangavelu and Valarmathinathan . The petitioner prays that the reference maybe answered in his favour .

4. The Respondent ia tunc Counter Statement alleged as follows:

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 12012/ 142/2007 - IR(B - I ) dated 29-10-2007 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

3594

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] For misconduct committed by the petitioner, he was charged as follows:

(a) Misappropriation of remittance of Rs . 59,837 made by customers .

(b) Defrauding bank by stamping remitter's copy ofchallan" cash received" and other copies in his personal custody.

(c) Disposing of remitter's copy of challans exceeding Rs . 3,000/- without getting countersigned to defraud bank and customers .

(d) Failure to account in the branch books a sum ofRs . 572 on 4-1-1999 and misappropriation of the same.

7. The case of both the petitioner and Respondent/ Management is common as to the fact that against the charges levelled against the petitioner the first and second charge have been admitted by the petitioner whereas the third and fourth charge have not been admitted. According to the Respondent, the admission of charges is unconditional whereas according to the petitioner , the Respondent was coercing him to bring about the admission of the charge from him and in fact he has not actually admitted misappropriation of any amount by him . This is emphatically denied by the Respondent . Again according to the petitioner , the Respondent offered to impose lesser punishment in the event of the petitioner admitting the charges but this is also denied by the Respondent according to which the petitioner was voluntarily admitting the charges and he was agreeing to make good the loss occasioned to the bank in two instalments of which the first instalment of Rs . 50,000/- was remitted by him to the credit of the bank leaving the balance to be allowed to be remitted by March, 2000. There was yet an enquiry held by the Management against the petitioner into the charges against him and on the enquiry report, the proposed punishment of dismissal without notice was changed into discharge by the Disciplinary Authority before which the petitioner did have opportunities for personal hearing as well as to file his written submissions and thereby to explain the compelling circumstances under which he committed the misconduct .

The petitioner on 11-3-2002 admitted the four charges.He remitted Rs . 50,000/-on 2-2-2000 and agreed topay the balance within March , 2000. Again in an enquiry held, the petitioner unconditionally accepted the first two charges and denied the other two charges . The copies of enquiry report and proceedings were sent to the petitioner . The petitioner submitted comments. The Disciplinary Authority after a personal hearing of the petitioner on 23-2-2001 imposed the punishment ofdischarge instead of the proposed punishment of dismissal without notice treating the period of suspension as suspension . The appeal preferred was rejected on 14-8-2001 . The enquiry hasbeenheld in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It was not biased against the petitioner . The petitioner admitted the charges voluntarily . It was not under force or on an assurance to impose lesser punishment . The petitioner admitted misappropriation of money . It is denied that double punishment was imposed. It is not correct to saythat eligibility for pension was the persuading criterion for thebank to change " dismissal " to " discharge " . It isdenied that the period of suspension is always treated as duty only for the purpose of pension . It is on the discretion of the Disciplinary Authority in a judicious manner. The manner of similar delinquents being dealt with narrated by the petitioner cannot be equated to the facts of the case pertaining to the petitioner. Each case depended upon the facts of that particular case There is no discrimination against the petitioner . Pension if granted would amount to putting premium on the misconduct of the petitioner. The petitioner has not become eligible for pension under the Pension Fund Rules . The reference may be answered against the petitioner .

5.The points for determination are:

(i) Whether the discharge of the petitioner is legal and justified?

(ii) Ifnot, towhat relief the petitioner is entitled?

PointNo.1

8. Now the petitioner has challenged the enquiry proceedings as being violative of principles of natural justice and procedures in the awards and settlements governing service conditions of bank employees . According to the petitioner, the admission of documents in the enquiry was not proper . No witnesses have been. examined. He also imputes biased conduct towards him by the Disciplinary Authority. He would contend that even in a case of admission of charge , the prosecution has to prove the charge through admissible evidence . According to him, he was forced to admit the charges and he made good the loss sustained by the bank in spite of that an excessive punishment disproportionate to the lapses is imposed. He has also a case of being discriminated against similar delinquents . All these are denied by the Respondent . It is pointed out on behalf of the Respondent that depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case of the delinquents referred to by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority in exercise of its discretion judiciously has treated different case differently . It does not become discriminatory against the petitioner having regard to the particular facts ofeach case. Therefore , the said contention of the petitioner is not sustainable . Even regarding treatment of the period of suspension as period spent on duty, it is for the Pension Sanctioning Authority to exercise hisdiscretion properly and to decide whether or not a certain delinquent is entitled to be extended the benefit of pension treating the period of suspension as a period spent on duty. Against the fact that the imposed punishment of 6. On the side of the petitioner Ex.W 1 to Ex. W 11 and on the side ofthe Respondent Ex.M 1 to Ex.M 10 were marked on mutual consent . No oral evidence was adduced oneither side. Heard both sides .

3595 [ भागे II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009 /ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

him for on par treatment with them. When once a decision is taken on a discretion it has to be in judicious exercise and when that is called in question it is to be proved that the discretion has been exercised judiciously. For the purpose the authority who exercised the discretion has a duty to appear in the box and substantiate that fact.

9. In the industrial adjudicatory process strict rules ofthe Evidence are not of invariable application. It does notmean that hypertechnical rules of Evidence are always tobekept away from the realm invariably in all the cases in an exhaustive manner. Each case is to depend on the facts and circumstances ofthat particular case. What has to be guarded against predominantly are : Perversity in the proceedings or findings , violation of principles of natural justice , illegality etc. consistent with the principles of justice, equity and conscience . In the case on hand while the enquiry proceedings and the finding thereon are only tobe upheld as already mentioned above, I am of the view that on the aspect of the proportionality of punishment rendered the same is not commensurate with justice equity and good conscience . It is again against the principles of natural justice apart from being against the right to equal treatment under the Constitution of India. While the delinquent has voiced a grievance of inequal treatment with his counterparts - similarly placed delinquents in the matter of punishment the authority has not opted to account for such discrimination meted out to the petitioner . Therefore , I am to hold that I must interfere with the punishment awarded to the petitioner for the reason that petitioner is entitled to be treated on par with similar delinquents especially due to the fact that the discriminatory treatment does not stand explained away at the hand of the Respondent . So the punishment imposed is not fair and proper .

10. Hence invoking the power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act , the punishmient is to be modified and reduced appropriately. According to me imposing a punishment of bringing down in the pay - scale by three stages for a period of 3 years with cumulative effect would adequately serve the interest of justice , The punishment already imposed will stand accordingly substituted by the varied punishment as above . The learned counsel for the Respondent invited this Court's attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in CB1 Ltd. Vs.Karunamoy Banerjee ( V-55 -CS-67) wherein it has been held that if the workman admits his guilt to insist upon management to let in evidence about the allegations will onlybe a an empty formality. It further lays down that we are not inclined to agree with the reasoning of the Labour Court that where there has been an admission of guilt by the Respondent himself, it can still be stated that there is a violation of principles of natural justice.

dismissal was varied into one of discharge by the Disciplinary Authority is to be taken as a circumstance with an intent to confer entitlement to the petitioner for thatperiod being treated as pensionable service as claimed by the petitioner, the case of the Respondent is that such an intent was not there while the Disciplinary Authority exercised the discretion to vary the punishment of dismissal to discharge . The contention on behalf of the Respondent is that since petitioner having admitted the charges unconditionally and on consideration of the various factors the Disciplinary Authority having varied the punishment from dismissal to discharge which is commensurate with the gravity of the offence , he cannot further be extended any reduction in the punishment. The admitted charges amount to major misconduct committed by the delinquent. Therefore , the petitioner is not entitled to any further reduction in the punishment . The punishment imposed is not disproportionate and , therefore, it does not call for further downgrade variation to his like . The petitioner though has enumerated a set of instances in which similar delinquents have been meted out with lesser punishment, he has not let out any evidence to show that the facts and circumstances in relation to the incident in this case as similar to that of those delinquents for an on par treatment with them. But in view of the fact that the Respondent has not denied this instance in the Counter Statement but has rather admitted such instances virtually and proceeding to meet the case of the petitioner by pleading that such instances cannot be equated mutually and further has clung to the stand that there is no discrimination against the petitioner , thereby a duty or the burden to prove that the instances quoted by the petitioner are not akin to that ofpetitioner is cast on him . But that duty is not discharged by the Respondent who has shunned the witness box. Discernibly, a similar duty is not on the petitioner for the fact that instances averred by him are admitted by the Respondent . It is good to remember that an admitted fact need not be proved . When it is the case of the Respondent that such instances were appropriately dealt with by the Disciplinary Authorities in exercise of proper discretion judiciously, as to whether it is actually so is a matter which should be within the realm of enquiry before this forum. Here again the enquiry is only limited to the quantum of punishment. Though the admission is not in absolute terms from the couching of the same it could be found that each instance is to the particular knowledge of the Respondent and Respondent is hesitating to admit them wilfully. Since the Respondent is known to identify the instances, the bounden duty is on the Respondent to prove that the case of petitioner does not squarely come under such circumstance for on par treatment, which is not done . As to the fact of inequal treatment to similarly placed delinquents, it is for the Respondent to explain away such disparity, which has not been done . A negation of such right deprives to the petitioner the fundamental right of being treated equally with the like , true not with the unlike. Hence, it is for the Respondent to establish that the case of petitioner was not like that in the instances mentioned by

11. InBank ofBaroda Employees ' Union V/ s . Bank ofBaroda and Another (CDJ - 2008 -MHC- 2321 ) , the Hon'ble High Court of Madras held that if Enquiry Officer held any enquiry that will not render the order of punishment illegal as it is always open to the Disciplinary Authorityto 3596

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009 /JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

punish the delinquent employee if guilt is admitted without taking into consideration the enquiry report . Therefore, none ofthe contentions of the petitioner against the enquiry proceedings or the finding , of guilt is sustainable. Therefore , there need not be any hesitation to hold that the enquiry or the finding is vitiated for any reason . Held so .

Point No. 2

12. Resultantly the punishment of discharge from service imposed on the petitioner is set aside . In lieu of that petitioner will be brought down Below 3 stages in his payscale fona period of 3 years with cumulative effect. He will be reinstated into service forthwith with continuity of service, 50% of full backwages and all attendant benefits No costs .

13. The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 12th May , 2009 )

A. N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :

None

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

None

For the 2nd Party/Management

Documents marked on the side of the Petitioner :

Kiate

Ex. No.

Description

Ex. W 1

Service particulars ofthe petitioner worked as full time messenger duty for the period from 18-9-1973 to 26-12-1980 at Kallakurichi Branch .

Ex. W2 3-1-1981 Order of the Respondent Bank. Kurusilapattu Branch appointing the petitioner as Messenger w.e.f. 27-12-1980.

Ex. W3 19-10-1993 Order of the Respondent Bank . Kallakurichi branch on pronoting the petitioner as Record Keeper- cum -Cashier.

Ex. W 4 1-2-1999 Suspension order of the Respondent Bank served on the petitioner.

16-6-1999

Ex. W5

Letter of the Respondent Bank calling for explanation of the petitioner.

Ex. W 6 29-7-1999 Explanation submitted by the petitioner.

Ex . W7 9-3-2000 Explanation submitted by the petitioner to the Respondent Bank .

Ex. W8 21-10-2000 Letter of the Respondent Bank .

Ex. W9 30-10-2000 Explanation submitted by the petitioner to the Respondent Bank ..

[PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii)] Ex . W 10 3-5-2001 Letter of the Respondent Bank giving personal hearing to the petitioner on 12-5-2001.

Ex. W 11

Extract ofConcise Oxford English Dictionary, 9th edition Page No. 708 -meaning for the word intent .

OntheManagement's side:

Ex. No. date

Description

Ex . M 1 5-1-2000 Charge Sheet

Ex. M2

Minutes of the Enquiry Proceedings .

Ex. M3

EnquiryReport

Ex.M4 30-9-2000 Letter ofthe Disciplinary Authority proposing, punishment to be imposed.!

Ex .M5 26-12-2000 Minutes of personal hearing with order dved 23 00-2001

Ex. M6 26-12-2001 Written submission of the employee.:

Ex. M7 23-2-2001 Order ofthe Disciplinary Authority Ex. M8 13-3-2001 Appeal by the Employee .

Ex. M9 14-8-2001 Order of the Appellate Authotiry.

Ex .M 10 13-10-2001 Submission of the employee on the enquiry report.

नई दिल्ली, 27 मई , 2009

का.आ. 1745. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डैवलपमेंट क्रेडिट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं. !! , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/110/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/418/2000-आईआर( बी-1 ) ]

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th May, 2009

S.O. 1745. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 2/ 110/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court 11 , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Development Credit Bank and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 26-5-2009.

[No. L- 12012/418/2000 - IR(B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 3597 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009 /ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2, MUMBAI

Present : A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT - 2/110 of 2000

Employers in relation to the management of Development CreditBank Ltd.

The Chairman& Managing Director Development Credit Bank Ltd. , 154, S. V. Patel Road, Dongri (E) , Mumbai-400 009

AND Theirworkman

Mr. Ebrahim Abdulhussain Naffer ,

6A/6B , Kasam Manzil , 2nd Floor, Room No. 35 , Byculla Station Road , Mumbai -400011 .

APPEARANCES

: Mr. S. V. Alva, Advocate .

Forthe Employer

key possibility of using another set of key which may be one of the reasons for shortage of Rs.18 lakhs is not considered or thought over by the Inquiry Officer nor by competent authority while targeting and convincing Second Party. EvenEx -Branch Manager is responsible person who played vital role at the time of closing the safe where cash is kept in the end of the day's transaction , under his signature, the safe is closed with his counter signature . On the next day, when it was opened , on working day they found Rs . 18 lakhs missing from the said safe . The another set ofkey of the safe and branch shutters were also kept at Central Administrative Officer with some of the officers . The officer who has opened the branch and safe nobody witnessed it and possibility of participating of that hand in missing the cash cannot be ruled out . Even the objection raised by the Management was upheld by the Inquiry Officer just to oblige the management. The finding given by Inquiry Officer is perverse and not based on facts and evidence before it. Actually Head Cashier and Assistant Manager are equally responsible but without any reason, Second Party is made victim of it and targeted. So it is submitted that, enquiry on which finding is given was not anenquiry conducted following principles of natural justice and finding of it is perverse .

For the Workmen : Mr. M. B. Anchan, Advocate

Mumbai , dated the 8th April , 2009

AWARD PART- I

1.TheGovernment of India, in the Ministry ofLabour by its Order No. L- 12012/418 /2000- IR(B- I) dated 25-10-2000 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub -section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Development Credit Bank Ltd. , Mumbai in dismissing the services of Mr. Ebrahim Naffer , and ex-Head Cashier with effect from 12-11-1999 is justified? If not , what relief the workman concerned is entitled to? "

3. This case of the Second Party is disputed by First Partyby filingWritten Statement at Ex. 8 stating that Second Partywasworking as Head Cashier at Nariman Point Branch from 5-4-1990 to 12-12-1995 . Second Party in his capacity asHead Cashier on 1-12-1995 had carried the cash with receipt and payment register at the close of business hour on 1-12-1995 and kept the same in the safe . Second Party allegedly with Salim Jetha , Assistant Manager reported that fact to Branch Manager and, accordingly, lock was put . Infact Second Party and Assistant Manager , Salim Jetha were the last two persons who had handled the cash kept in the safe on 1-12-1995 . On the next day i.e. on 2-12-1995, when the branch was opened by Ex -Head Cashier he found door of safe unlocked . When said door was opened it revealed that, cash in the safe appears to be less than what it should have been as per the cash summary book of the branch. On immediate physical verification , Rs . 18 lakhs found less . So decision of suspension was taken against Second Party w.e.f. 2-12-1995 and Charge Sheet was served on 16-5-1997 . His reply was considered and enquiry was initiated which convened on 17-3-1998 and conclude on 10-5-1999 . 37 sittings were conducted by Mr. Mulik , Advocate who was Inquiry Officer , Mr. Sivaramakrishnan was Management Representative and Mr. Correia practicing Advocate , defended the Second Party workman. The procedure was adopted after explaining to both . Liberal adjournments were granted to both parties . Bank examined four witnesses and offered to Defence Representative for cross . Second Party fully participated in the enquiry. Enquiry was conducted fairly and properly by following Principle of Natural Justice and after completing enquiry. Enquiry Officer submitted report on 7-6-1999 holding ex- Head Cashier guilty of the charges .

2. The Claim Statement is filed at Ex 7 in support of the demand of the Second Party who claimed to set aside the termination dated 12-11-1999 and request to reinstate inthe employment of First Party stating that, charges served and enquiry conducted as well as finding given was farce. Enquiry was not conducted by following principles of naturaljustice . Opportunity was not given to Second Party. It is alleged that the Inquiry Officer was bias . It did not give scope to the Second Party and considered the evidence properly. Along with Second Party , number of other staff was connected with the shortage of Rs . 18 lakhs which was allegedly found on which chargesheet was served and enquiry was conducted. According to him , he was onlymade scapegoat and others escaped . Other concerned employees were not questioned by First Party and Second Partywas only targeted with prejudiced mind treating him guilty for the said shortage. In fact there is a double set of 3598

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009 /JYAISTHA 30, 1931

The Second party was heard and order of dismissal was given on 12-11-1999 . Since enquiry was conductedby following due process of law and by giving full opportunity to both there is no meaning to say that, enquiry was not doneby following Principle ofNatural Justice . The finding of the Inquiry Officer is based on facts which were put before him . Inquiry Officer discussed the evidence led as well as gave serious thought to the case made by Second Party and his advocate and concluded observing Second Party as committed theft or act dishonestly in connection with employers business . It was also observed that act wassubversive of discipline or good behaviour and acted prejudicial to the interest of Bank. On the basis of that punishment awarded of dismissal is just and proper . So it is submitted that reference made where dismissal of Second Party is challenged required to be rejected.

4. In view of the above pleadings my learned predecessor framed issue at Ex- 9 treating Exs - 1 and 2 as preliminary issues .

5. By passing Part - I award on 9-3-2007, I decided these two issues observing enquiry fair and proper and findings not perverse and direct both parties to lead avidence on the point of quantum of punishment . So now, some issues which remain to answer are answered against it.

Issues

Findings (iii) Whether the action of the management of Development Credit Bank Ltd. Mumbai in dismissing the services ofMr. Ebrahim Naffer , an ex- Head

Yes Cashier with effect from 12-11-1999 is legal and proper ?

(iv) Whatrelief Mr. Ebrahim Naffer is entitled to?

No relief.

Reasons

Issue Nos . 3 and 4 :-

6. The charge of shortage of Rs . 18,00,000 found in safe of the bank on 2-12-1995 was levelled against concerned workman . It was also alleged that concerned workman who was Head Cashier during that time was also charged for criminal conspiracy with the intent to defraud the Bank for disappearance of Rs . 18 lakhs cash from the safe ofNariman Point branch ofDevelopment Credit Bank Ltd. He was also chargesheeted for serious misconduct of theft with charge of subversive of discipline among other charges levelled against him . When concerned workman was Head Cashier in the Nariman Point branch of the bank from 5-4-1990 to 12-12-1995 and on 1-12-95 concerned workman în capacity of Head Cashier had tallied the cash with receipt and payment register and at the close of business hours on 1-12-1995 , said cash was kept in the safe. It was also alleged that concerned workman alongwith Salim Jetha the Assistant Branch Manager reported to the Branch Manager that they have locked gate with respective sets of keys . It was also alleged that concerned workman

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ] and Salim Jetha were the last two persons who had handled the cash on 1-12-95 . It was alleged that on 2-12-95 after opening of the Branch , the Ex-Head Cashier i.e. concerned. workman found that the safe door was unlocked . It was alleged that said door was opened immediately and on verification it was reveled that cash in the safe appeared to be less than what it should be have been as per the register ofthe Branch . On immediate verification of the cash in the safe it was found that, cash in the safe was found short by Rs. 18 lakhs .

7. So this was serious allegation levelled against concerned workman on which charge sheet was served . Enquirywas conducted and number of witnesses examined. Concerned workman Naffer participated in the enquiry with hisrepresentative . After giving full opportunity to both parties i.e. to concerned workman and Management, Inquiry Officer concluded that charge against concerned workman was proved and by passing award Part - I , this Court observed enquiry was fair and proper and findings not perverse .

8. Now issue is on the point of quantum of punishment . We have to see whether punishment of dismissal on said charge is just and proper .

9. In this round of litigation concerned workman filed his affidavit at Ex- 26 making out same story and case about inquiry and findings of Inquiry Officer stating not involving co - staff of first party with whom also duplicate key is available. Even he has made out case that there was no eye witness and states that even criminal case filed against him which ended in acquittal was not taken into consideration by the Inquiry Officer . So it is case of the second party that the punishment of dismissal is harsh . That is the evidence led by concerned workman on the point of quantum of punishment . In the cross he admits that , he was Head Cashier . He admits that, shortage of Rs . 18 lakhs was subject matter of enquiry . He admits that, he was not member of any union nor signatory of any strike notice or any settlements . Even he admits that , he never complained about ill treatment given by the management during his tenure and by filing closing purshis Ex-29 he closed his evidence .

10. So from the evidence bad by the second party workman , it reveals that, there was no enmity between concerned workman and any of office members of management . Besides it reveals that he was not active member ofunion nor even ordinary member of union . It is alleged that , shortage of Rs . 18 lakhs was levelled against concerned workman that too while he was working as Head Cashier and that too in the year 1995. So definitely amount ofRs. 18 lakhs in 1995 was having huge value and definitely it was a serious type of misconduct allegedly levelled against the second party . In the enquiry, Inquiry Officer concluded concerned workman guilty of the charges . The stand of the second party was that , other co - worker with whom duplicate bunch of keys was available were not inquired and he was alone blamed by the management . Here though others may have some role as alleged by the concerned workman, it does not mean that it gives clean [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

chit tohim. It is important to note that he was Head Cashier and he was responsible for closing the safe of Bank on 1- 12-1995 . He was also responsible for informing Branch Manager regarding closing of safe. It is tried to bring on record by concerned workman that, there was another bunch of key i.e. duplicate key and it is kept with officer and the possiblity of using of those keys for shortage of Rs . 18 lakhs cannot be ruled out. According to me , though there is scope to say like that, it was the out look of the management to go towards that suspicion but it does not exempt the concerned workman who was Head Cashier and who was directly responsible for closing the safe of the Bank on 1-12-1995 with Assistant Branch Manager. Salim Jetha. When concerned workman with the help of Salim Jetha closed the safe and informed the Branch Manager and when on the very next day, there was shortage of Rs . 18 lakhs found when it was noted that door of the safe was found open, naturally question arises how then safe was closed as reported by concerned workman to the Branch Manager on 1-12-995 ? Though there was police case and though he was acquitted from it , according to me that is different aspect . There court want eye witness which may connect accuse with the case . But in a Departmental inquiry if any doubt is shown with the help of evidence , then said doubt is sufficient to involve such a person and there benefit of doubt is not at all attributed as happened in criminal cases .

11. Learned advocate for first party in his written arguments cited number of case laws. In citation published in 1993 II CLR page 50 where Hon'ble High Court while deciding case of Raghunath Patil V/s . R.N. Gavande observed " a finding of acquittal by a criminal court cannot be binding on disciplinary authority in as much as the standard of proof in a criminal court is different from the standard of proof in a disciplinary enquiry" . Even he placed reliance on the decision given in Anglo -American Direct TeaTrading Co. published in 1970 II LLJ 481 where it is observed that, when domestic enquiry is concluded and in thatenquiry charges shown proved it , does not affect by the decision of criminal court . He also place reliance on directiongiven in Thenmozh (Mrs. ) V/s . Chairman Neyveli Lignite Corp reported on 2005 II CLR 89 where it is observed that, on the same set of allegations and charges departmental proceeding as well as criminal prosecution canbe initiated independently. He also referred judgement given in case of General Manager V/s . Labour Court, Pondicherry reported in 2005. I CLR 172 where it was observed that law is well settled to the effect that , both criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are two independent parallel proceeding. He also place reliance on the view taken in case of Suresh Kumar V/s . Travancore Devaswom Board reported in 2006 I. LLJ 401 where it was observe that the findings concluded in accordance with principles of nature justice and based on evidence and such findings cannot be set aside because of acquittal in criminal case.

12. Charge of shortage of Rs . 18 lakhs was levelled against concerned workman . It is not a simple charge . According to Advocate for first party, for such charge which is proved, dismissal is the proportionate punishment 2137 GI/09-29

3599 and for that he place reliance on citation published in 1995 I LLJ page 233 incase of Bank of India V/s . Padmanabhadu. He also place reliance on ratio laïd in Mr. Seeralan V/s . LabourCourt. reported in 1987 II LLJ 85 where it is observed that dismissal of workman for proved misconduct is not disproportionate . Even he place reliance on judgement given in Management of T.I. Diamond Chain Ltd. V/s . P. L. Pamanathan and Anr . reported in 2005 III CLR 297 where it is observed that when act is proved though it may for a small or large amount, there is no question of showing uncalled sympathy. He also place reliance on citation published in 1995 - ILLJ 268 where it was observed that, if by action they commit breach of trust or commit theft of misappropriation in that case no leniency is expected. Even decision given in Chandrakant Patil V/ s . Union of India reported in 1995 II CLR 445 , it is observed that if the delinquent is guilty of serious misconduct such may warrant dismissal from the employment .

13. Considering the charge of shortage of Rs . 18 lakhs where concerned workman was working as Head Cashier was levelled and proved and in that case according to me, punishment of dismissal is just and proper which cannot be called disproportionate . Beside it is to be considered that money involved is of public money and Bank is a trustee of public money and employee involved is Head Cashier . He was custodian of said cash but charge levelled against him of shortage of Rs . 18 lakhs found in the safe ofthe Bank where he was directly concerned where hewas also one of the key holder of the said safe then how can be said that he is not responsible for said act? 14. So, ifwe consider all these , coupled with case made out by both and the position of concerned workman asHead cashier in Bank which does not permit me to take any other view than what was taken by the first party Management . Hence I conclude that decision taken by management of dismissal is just and proper and does not require any interference. Hence the order.

ORDER

Reference is rejected with no order as to cost. Dated: 8-4-2009 A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 27 मई , 2009

का.आ. 1746. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक आफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं. 1 चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 145/97 ) कोप्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/83/96- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th May, 2009

S.O. 1746. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 145/97) 3600

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

First of all, the nature of Hav. Guard allowance is to be seen by this Tribunal . Concerned circular letter is on record and para 426 is regarding the payment ofHav . Guard allowance . Para 426 speaks as follows :--

of Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court -I , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on26-5-2009 .

[No. L- 12012/83/96- IR (B- I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

"When the strength of guards at a branch is4, it will have the post ofHav. Guard . The senior most guard at the branch will be appointed as Hav.Guard provided he is otherwise suitable . At centres where the bank has more than one branch , appointment to the cadre of Hav. Guuard will be made on the basis of city seniority. "

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

CASE IL.D. NO . 145/97

Thuson plain reading of clause 426 of the settlement, it is clear that Hav. Guard is to be appointed strictly on the basis of seniority and if the person on the basis of seniority is otherwise suitable .

Shri Nachhattar Singh C/ o Shri J.G. Verma, General Secretary, SBI Staff Congress, 1304, Sector 23/B ,

Chandigarh

Applicant

The management of the bank has contended that Shri Nachhattar Singh was not the senior most and he was by mistake appointed as Hav. Guard and on detection of mistake the payment of Hav. Guard allowance was stopped and it was given to the rightful claimant.

Versus

TheAssistant General Manager , SBI Region VI , ZO Punjab Sector 17, Chandigarh

Respondent

Learned counsel for the workman argued that it was a promotion and a person cannot be deprived of the post given to him on his promotion without conducting a departmental enquiry and affording him the oppportunity ofbeingheard .

FortheWorkman:

Shri Raj Kaushik

For the Management :

Shri V.K. Sharma,

DeputyManager ( IAW)

SBI, Zonal Office

PB.II Ludhiana .

AWARD

Dated: 13-5-2009

The Government of India vide Notification No. L- 12012/83 /96- IR (B- I) dated 10-7-1997 referredthe following Industrialdispute for adjudication of this Tribunal .

I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the workman that appointment of a Hav. Guard is a promotion . It is a post attached with the seniority of the guards , if the strength of guards is 4 or more. If 4 guards are appointed at a branch , then senior most guard will be the Hav. Guard . If any other senior guard is transferred to that branch then this right is conferred to the Hav.Guardwhojoined the bank on transfer on the basis of the seniority. Thus , the appointment of Hav. Guard has no nexus with the promotion . It is an administrative arrangement made by the bank that senior most guard will be appointed as Havaldar Guard. If by mistake this administrative policy is disturbed the management has every right to correct it.

"Whether the management of SBI is justified in stopping payment of Hav . Guard allowance to Shri Nachhattar Singh promoted in the year, 1987 albeit not strictly as per the norms laid down by the management. " If not , to what relief the workman is entitled?"

have gone through the pleadings of the parties and the evidence they have adduced . Opportunity for arguments was also afforded.

The dispute between the workman and the management of SBI is that the workman was promoted as Hav.Guard in the year 1987 and allowance ofHav . Guard was credited to his salary. The payment of Hav . Guard allowance was stoped by the management in the year 1996 without affording any opportunity of being heard.

Original records were summoned before the Tribunal and after considering the 4 guards posted in branch during the period in question I came to know that Shri Sohan Singh was the senior most and guard posted at the branch thereafter Shri Nachhattar Singh and another Nachhattar Singh were working as Guard in the branch during the period in question. It is admitted to the workman . Thus , Nachhattar Singh got the Hav . Guard allowance wrongly in infringement of the right of Sohan Singh to get Hav. Guard allowance as per his seniority. As stated earlier, the management has every right to correct his wrongful act ofappointing Shri Nachhattar Singh as Hav. Guard . Thus , there is no illegality in stopping the Hav . Guard allowance to Shri Nachhattar Singh and Shri Nachhattar Singh is not entitled to any relief. Referenceis accordingly answered. Let the Central Government be informed for publication of the award and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.

G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer The management of the SBI has stated that this Hav.Guard allowance was given to the workman from 1987 to1996, but it is contended that this allowance was given against the norms of the bank. On detection of this mistake , the payment of Hav. Guard allowance was stopped to ShriNachhattar Singh and it was paid to rightful claimant.

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3601

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 20, 2009 /ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

नई दिल्ली, 27 मई , 2009

"Whether the action of the management of Indian Railway in terminating the service of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur LHA w.e.f. 16-9-1999 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?"

का.आ. 1747.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार नार्दन रेलवे हास्पिटल प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 23/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -41012/48/2001-आई आर ( बी-I ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 27th May, 2009

After receiving the reference, both the parties were informed . Parties filed their respective pleadings. Opportunity for filing/adducing evidence was also afforded. Workman Smt . Amarjeet Kaur filed her Affidavit in support of the claim and was cross- examined by learned counsel for Indian Railways . On the other hand , Dr. Mool Narain , Medical Superintendent , Railway Hospital , Jagadhri , filed his affidavit on behalf of the Management of the Railways and he was cross - exarained by the Ld . counsel for the workman. Few documents were filed by the workman whereas , enquiry report along with all enquiry proceedings were filed by the Management .

S.O. 1747. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 23/ 2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management ofNorthen RailwayHospital and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 26-5-2009 .

[No. I-41012/48/2001 - IR (B-I) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

CASE I. D. NO : 306/2k1 New No. 23/2007

The case in nutshell is that the workman Smt . Amarjeet Kaur was appointed on 22-01-1993 as Hospital Attendant under NS JUDW in the Pay Scale ofRs . 750-940 ( RPS) against an existing vacancy vide Assistant Personnel Officer , A/ Cantt order No. 726-E/ 16187/PO dated 22-1-93 . Her services were terminated on 16-9-99 on the basis of a departmental enquiry. It is contended by the workman that the documents attached with the Charge-sheet were not provided to her even after her repeated requests . Material witnesses were not brought before the Enquiry Officer and accordingly, opportunity for cross - examination of these material witnesses namely Shri K. C. Sharına and V. K. Sharma was not afforded.

Smt . Amarjeet Kaur , C/o . H. No. 3369 , Sector 32- D, Chandigarh - 160017 .

.Applicant

Versus

The Medical Superintendent, Northern Railway Hospital , Jagadhri Workshop , District Yamunanagar (Haryana) .

.Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the Workman

: Sh . H. K. Sharma,

For the Management : Sh . N. K. Zakhmi , Advocate .

AWARD

Passed on 04-05-2009 .

Government of India vide Notification No.L-41012/48 /2001-1.R (BI) Dated 16-10-2001 referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication of this Tribunal .

The contention of the Management is that the workman obtained the appointment letter fraudulently in connivance with Shri K.C. Sharma, the then Head Clerk ( Personnel ) . She had not applied for the post nor was she eligible for the same. It was a special recruitment drive for Physically Handicapped persons from Handicapped Vocationally Rehabilitation Centre for Physically Hand capped Ludhiana and Chandigarh. As per the contention of the Management she had not appeared for test and interview and her name was fraudulently included at serial no . 10 in connivance with Shri K.C. Sharma . On discovery of true facts , an enquiry was constituced. Froper opportunity of being, heard during enquiry was given to the workman. After perusing the evidence the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report on charges leveled against her and the disciplinary authority , as zileged by the Management after affording the opportunity of personal hearing, and providing the opportunity to file reply on . A proposed punishment terminated the services of the workman ou 16-9-1999 . It is the order of termination of workman from the services which is a subject matter of this reference .

3602

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

As stated earlier , this Tribunal has also afforded all possible opportunities of being heard to the parties. Learned counsel for the workman has argued that enquiry was not conducted in a proper and fair manner by the Enquiry Officer and the provisions of the Railway Service ( Discipline and Appeal) Rules , 1968 were not complied with by the Enquiry Officer while conducting the enquiry. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the workman that during enquiry proceedings certain specific documents which were relevant for defence of workman were asked but not supplied by the Enquiry Officer. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the workman that there was no connivance of workman with Shri K.C. Sharma and V.K. Sharma . She just received the appointment letter and in compliance ofthe contents of appointment letter joined the services .

Learned counsel for the Management has argued that the workman was not eligible for the post . It was further argued by learned counsel for the Management that the workman had not applied for the post and was never interviewed by the Management of Railways which is the legal requirement for appointment of any person to the post the workman was working .

I have gone through the entire evidence adduced/ produced by both of the parties . The main issues for adjudication in this reference are as follows :-

(1) Whether Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in a fair and proper manner ?

(ii) Whether the workman was eligible for the post she was working and her appointment was as per rules ?

(iii) To what relief, if any , the workman is entitled ?

I am answering all these issues one by one .

On issue number 1 , the workman during her cross- examination has admitted that she was present on all the dates fixed by the Enquiry Officer for conducting the enquiry. She has specifically admitted that She was charge - sheeted for illegal appointment . She answered the charge - sheet and thereafter during enquiry she appeared before the Enquiry Officer . She has shown her ignorance on recording her statement by the Enquiry Officer.

I have also gone through the entire enquiry proceedings . The workman had been present throughout during the enquiry proceedings . Proper opportunity for cross - examination of Management witnesses was afforded by the Enquiry Officer . From the perusal of the enquiry proceedings , it is also clear that opportunity for adducing evidence in defence was also afforded by the Enquiry Officer .

One of the contentions of the workman is that certain documents which were repeatedly asked by her

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ] were not provided by the Enquiry Officer . The workman has referred an application dated 30-7-99 written to the Medical Superintendent , Northern Railway Hospital , for supply of copies of documents referred in this letter and for permission to inspect the enquiry file. It is a well recognized principle of service jurisprudence that whenever any person contended that during departmental enquiry certain documents were not provided to her or him , the Tribunal or Court adjudicating the matter can consider this fact of non -supplying the copies of documents , if it is proved that non - supply of copies has caused prejudice to that person . Non - supply of material document shall be considered violation of principle of natural justice , if it is proved that prejudice has been caused to the workman , meaning thereby non - supply of copy can only be considered violating of principle of natural justice under two circumstances ; namely : -- 1. The documents , copy of which were sought were material one in raising the defence by the workman, and

2. The prejudice has been caused to the workman in her defence for non supplying of such documents .

Theworkman has failed to prove any of the above mentioned conditions . Accordingly , I am of the view that no prejudice was caused by non - supplying the documents prayed by the workman during enquiry . My this view is supported by cross - examination of the workman that she received the charge - sheet and understood the contents of charge- sheet . It means she was well aware of the facts for which she was charged . Thus , non - supplying the copies of certain documents as prayed for by the workman at the time of enquiry through letter dated 30-7-99 will not have any adverse effect on the enquiry proceedings and enquiry report .

It was also contended by the workman that important witnesses like Shri K. C. Sharma and Shri V. K. Sharma were not summoned and examined by the Enquiry Officer . It was for the Management of the Railways to prove the charge levelled against the workman and the Management of the Railways was at liberty to produce and adduce the witnesses /documents of its choice . It is not open to the workman that a particular witness should have been examined by the Enquiry Officer. If the stateinent of a particular person was important for the workman , the opportunity was provided by the Enquiry Officer to summon that witness in defence . The Tribunal has to consider whether the Management has been able to prove the charge in the departmental proceedings before the Enquiry Officer ? Thus on the basis of above discussion , I am of the view that enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner . All possible opportunities of being heard were given to [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

the workman by the Enquiry Officer and there has been no violation of any rule of principle of natural justice .

Conducting the enquiry in a fair and proper manner is a distinct issue than proving the charge against the workman . The Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry on evolution of evidence adduced by the parties came to the conclusion whether the charge levelled against the workman has been proved or not ? Thus , even in cases where conducting of enquiry has been proved in a fair and proper manner , it is open to the workman to challenge the decision making process adopted by the Enquiry Officer . For this purpose as well , I have gone through the entire materials on record . As far as five witnesses were examined by the Enquiry Officer during enquiry and proper opportunity for cross - examination was given . The statement of the workman was also recorded by the Enquiry Officer in which she has categorically stated that she had not applied for the post on which she was working . She was not interviewed . She has also denied in a question the possibility of any favour given to her husband by Shri K. C. Sharma. After going through the entire materials on record, I am also of the view that the Enquiry Officer has rightly held charge levelled against the workman well proved .

For issue number 2 and 3 , I am of the view that the workman was rightly terminated from the services on 16-9-99 by the Disciplinary Authority. Reasons of my findings that the workman was rightly terminated from the services are as follows :--

(1) The post for which the workman applied was to be filled in amongst the handicapped persons and the workman was not handicapped . It is admitted by her in her cross - examination recorded in this Tribunal that she is not handicapped .

(2) The Circular Letter No. 220 -E/ 100/IV /UMB/ P-3 dated 5-2-90 makes it clear that handicapped persons were to be recruited from the Vocational Rehabilitation Centre for Physically Handicapped Ludhiana and Chandigarh . The workman was not the member of any of the vocational handicapped centers situated at Ludhiana and Chandigarh .

(3) Admittedly, as stated by the workman , she had not applied for the post . No doubt there is a contradiction in her evidence on this issue . At one place she had stated that she had not applied for the post , whereas at another place she stated that she hadd applied for the post . But from the totality of the facts and circumstances which are before this Tribunal , it is clear that workman

3603 had not applied for the post for which she claimed to be appointed.

(4) As admitted by the workman , she was not interviewed . Interview was inherent condition of selection processes mentioned in the concerned rules of the department. (5) The workman claimed that her name is included at serial no . 10 of selection list. At serial no . 10 name of Amarjeet/Nikhai is . recorded . The name of the workman is Amarjeet Kaur and her husband's name is Norang Singh. Her father's name is not Nikhai Ram . Thus , there is no force in the contention of the workman that her name is listed at serial no . 10 of the Selection List .

(6) Vigilance Enquiry was conducted against two Railway employees namely; Shri K.C. Sharma and V.K. Sharma for issuing the illegal appointment letter to Amarjeet Kaur for extraneous considerations . No doubt no material is available for conducting the vigilance enquiry against these two persons namely; Shri K. C. Sharma and V. K. Sharma but these extraneous circumstances are part of the statement of workman recorded by the Enquiry Officer . The proceedings before the Tribunal are altogether diffrent than the proceedings before the Civil /Criminal Courts. The same standard of proof as is required in the civil proceedings is not required in departmental proceedings and the proceedings before this Tribunal . In a case Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishna Iyyer had held that in departmental proceedings and proceedings before the Tribunal even hear- say evidence may be considered, if having the close nexus with the material issue . There is no hear- say evidence and direct evidence having close nexus and charge levelled against the workman is available . Thus as per the statement of the workman given to the Enquiry Officer the extraneous circumstances for securing the appointment letter cannot be ignored .

On the basis of above , I am of the view that the above workman has neither applied for the post nor she was selected but she continued to serve for a long time on the basis of an illegal appointment . If any workman continued to serve for a long time on the basis of an illegal appointment , it does not create any right to continue on that post and the workman was rightly tern inated from the services . The workman received a handsome wages from the Government exchequer on the basis of her illegal appointment . No doubt , it is not withit the purview of this Tribunal to pass any order on the wages she received on the basis of illegal 3604

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/ JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

appointment order by defrauding the Railway Department in connivance with two of its employees . The question is open to the Railway Department to take anydecision on the wages she had wrongfully received .

Accordingly, the reference is answered in positive that the action of the Management of the Indian Railway in terminating the services of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur LHA w.e.f. 16-9-99 is justified and the workman is not entitled to any relief. Let Central Government be informed for publication of this Award. Thereafter , the file be consigned to record room.

G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer नईदिल्ली , 27 'मई , 2009

का.आ. 1748.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार अमृतंबर क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण विकास बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं.1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 19/1996) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/14/94-आईआर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 27th May, 2009

S.O. 1748.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 19/1996) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, No. I , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Amritsar Kshetriya Gramin Vikas Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 26-5-2009.

[No. L- 12011/14/94- IR (B -I)

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT-4, CHANDIGARH

CASE I. D. No .: 19/1996

President , Gurdaspur Amritsar Gramin Bank Employees Union, 202 , Shivala Colony , Amritsar, Punjab .

.Appicant

Versus

President Gurdaspur Amritsar Kshetriya Gramin Vikas Bank, Gurdaspur , Punjab .

.........Respondent

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

APPEARANCES

For the Workman

: Sh. N. K. Nagar, Advocate.

For the Management

Sh . R. S. Ahluwalia , Advocate .

AWARD

Passed on 27-04-2009

Central Government vide Notification No. L - 12011 / 14/94 -I.R (B) Dated 27th of February , 1996, has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Gurdaspur Amritsar Kshetriya Gramin Vikas Bank, Gurdaspur in not granting advance to purchase conveyance in accordance with the old scheme as prevailing in sponsored bank in respect of those workmen who joined before 9-9-89 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled and from what date ? " 2. On the basis of pleadings of the parties and the evidence oral and documentary adduced by them, I am of the view that issue for adjudication before this Tribunal is whether employees of the sponsored bank who joined the bank before 9-9-89 are entitled for the advance for the purchase of conveyance as per the old scheme?

3. Only one scheme was in practice in the sponsored bank . Thereafter one more new scheme was introduced and as per the administrative decision of the management the benefits of old scheme were taken away. It was disputed by the workmen on the ground that on merger of the bank they were entitled for all the wages/ perks and benefits which were available in the sponsored bank. The scheme of conveyance was much beneficial to the workmen of sponsored bank which can not be arbitrarily taken away. It is also the contention of the workman that as per the award of National Tribunal cosntituted for the purpose of redressal of grievances of certain workmen relating to certain benefits on merger of the bank , they are also entitled for the benefit of old scheme . As per the award of National Tribunal , the benefits of old scheme were protected to those workmen who joined the sponsored bank before 9-9-89 .

4. The contention of the managenient is that service conditions of the workmen are within the discretionary powers of the management . The management has ensured that no workman is left without any scheme for conveyance . The benefit of old scheme was withdrawn but all the workmen were at liberty to claim advance as per the new scheme . It has further been contended by the managmanagement that it is the administrative decision of the bank which can not be subjected to judicial review before this Tribunal .

[भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

Meaning thereby , the management of the bank has challenged the jurisdiction of this Tribunal on the ground that vires of any administrative scheme can not be challenged before this Tribunal.

5. After hearing both of the parties and pursuing the entire evidence oral and documentary, I am of the view that issue before this Tribunal is not the vires of the administrative scheme but the issue is whether a particular class of employees who joined the sponsored bank before 9-9-89 are still entitled for the benefits of advarice of conveyances as per old scheme . It is also not disputed by the parties that this conveyance benefits existed before the merger and as per the scheme of merger , the benefits which were available in the sponsored bank will be protected. The management is at liberty to launch and initiate so many schemes for the benefits of its workmen but this new scheme can not change the nature of benefits which the workmen were enjoying before the merger . It is optional for the management bank to seek option on both of the schemes and those workmen who goes for the traditional old scheme, they will be entitled for the benefits and they can not be deprived the benefits of the old scheme arbitrarily by the management of the bank.

6. Moreover as per the reference and facts and circumstances of the cases , I am further of the view that by introducing the new scheme, there are two classes of workmen . It is the workmen who joined service of the sponsored bank before 9-9-89 and who joined thereafter . The old scheme is only applicable to those workmen who had joined the sponsored bank before 9-9-89 and have opted, if any, for the old scheme , when the management ofthe bank launched another new scheme of conveyance . Then the right to equality is not violated if benefits of both of the scheme to two different class of the employee are given by the management of the bank.

7. On the basis of the above discussion, I am of the view that the management of Punjab National Bank has illegally stopped the benefits of old scheme to those workmen who joined the services before 9-9-89 prevailing in the sponsored bank . Accordingly the management of the bank is directed to provide the benefit of old scheme to the class of the employees who joined the services before 9-9-89 . Accordingly the reference is disposed off. Central Government be informed . File be consigned.

Chandigarh : 29-4-2009

3605

अधिकरण हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 67/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं.एल-12025/2/2009- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 27th May, 2009

S.O. 1749. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 67/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court, No. I, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank ofHyderabad and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 26-5-2009 .

[No. L- 12025 /2/2009- IR(B- I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer Dated the 27th day of April , 2009 Industrial Dispute LCID No. 67/2005 BETWEEN

Sri K. Santibosh Kumar S/o K. Satyanarayana, C/o A. P. Industrial Employees Union , "House of Labour" , King Kothi Road , Hyderabad -29 .

..... Petitioner

AND

1. The Dy . General Manager , Personal Department , State Bank of Hyderabad, GunfoundryHead Office, Hyderabad .

2. The Branch Manager , State Bank of Hyderabad, Bellavista Branch, Somajiguda Branch, Hyderabad.

Respondents APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner

G.K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 मई , 2009

: M/s . N. Meenakshi , C. Lavanya &G. Sailaja , Advocates .

Forthe Respondent

का.आ. 1749.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक आफ हैदराबाद के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

: Sri Ch . Siva Reddy, Advocate.

3606

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

AWARD

Thisis a petition filed under Sec.2 A (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 by Sri K. Santhosh Kumar challenging the illegality and validity of the order passed by the Respondent dated 6-6-2005 thereby the services were orally terminated by the Respondent.

2. It has been stated by the Petitioner that he was appointed by the Respondent as casual labour in September, 2001 and was posted under 2nd Respondent where the Petitioner worked for more than 240 days continuously without any break in that year on a wage of Rs . 50 per day. The Petitioner has worked in that capacity for more than 14 years but he was not made regular.

When the Petitioner insisted for regularization and asked for the correct payment of wages then the services of the Petitioner were terminated on 6-6-2005 without any written order or following the due procedure . Before that the Petitioner made a representation dated 19-5-2005 to regularize his services and pay arrears of wages as per the wages paid to the casual labourer of Kakatiyanagar branch who raised ID No. 35/2001 which was decided on 24-9-2002 and the casual labour of the Kakatiyanagar branch were given wages as per rules and they were also paid arrears of the wages . The Petitioner moved a petition to follow the procedure procedure of 1 /3rd pay after two years one half of pay after another two years and 3 /4th pay after another two years . The Petitioner further served a reminder on 31-5-2005 but no action was taken by the Respondent management . The action of the management in orally terminating the services of the Petitioner is illegal and against the principles of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 . The Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in WP No. 15555/93 directed the Respondent to consider the cases of the Petitioners of that case . Another WP No. 18436/2004 decided on 11-10-2004 , the Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. , directed the Respondent to pass appropriate order on the observations of the regular employees . But the Respondent has not obeyed that order also . Hence , this petition.

3. The Respondent management has filed counter statement. They have challenged the maintainability of the claim petition. The Respondent has submitted that the Petitioner has not worked for more than 240 days . He was not on the rolls of the bank as such , the question of termination of the services did not arise . The allegation to this effect is baseless and misconceived. The bank has never engaged Petitioner in their employment nor the vacancies were notified, the

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] Petitioner was engaged on casual work when his services were required by the bank . He was never employed as regular or a full day worker . He is not entitled for the benefit Sec . 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , because he was engaged to work as and when the bank required services of the Petitioner he was employed for that date only . The Petition has no force and deserves to be rejected or dismissed . The Petitioner can not claim any advantage from the order passed in WP No. 15555/93 or WP No. 18436/2004 because the Petitioner was not a party to this petition .

4. Parties were directed to produce their respective evidence . Petitioner filed his affidavit as examination in chief and presented himself for cross examination . He has filed 20 documents marked as Ex Wl to W20 . Respondent bank has filed affidavit of Mr. Ch . Surender Raju as MWI, as examination in chief and presented him for cross examination. Respondent has also filed Xerox copy of the award dated 24-9-2004 passed in ID No.35/ 2001. Copy of the order of Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. passed in WP No.15555 /93 between Vishnu Kumar and K. Raju Vs. M.D. , State Bank of Hyderabad. Letter of the Personnel department No. PER.GR. VI /7777 dated 28-3-2005 to Sri N. Rama Krishna and another letter addressed to Sri V. S. Krishna Chary, another letter to Sri K. Vijaya Kumar informing them that the bank is not in a position to absorb them in the bank's services .

5. I have heard counsels for both the parties and have perused the relevant claim and counter statements of the parties ,documentary and oral evidences filed by them . It has been argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has challenged the oral order of termination without following the procedure laiddown u/ s 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 because the Petitioner has already put in more than 240 days of service under the management and control of the Respondent No.1 and 2. Thus , non- observance of the provision of Sec . 25F in this case is fatal and it cut the very root of the termination order . Because the compensation u/ s 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has not been paid in this case . As against this argument of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that the Petitioner of this case has not been able to show and prove that he has worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding the alleged date of termination of his services . Because the Petitioner has not produced any appointment letter to show as to when he was appointed in the bank's services . The Learned Counsel for Respondent has cited the statement of the Petitioner dated 1-3-2006 wherein, during cross examination the Petitioner has admitted that he was not given any appointment order. The Respondent's counsel has further cited the oral statement of the Petitioner dated 1-3-2006 wherein the Petitioner has stated that he was 3607 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 193.1

not assured in the writing for regularization . The Petitioner has stated that he worked on the extension counter of the Respondent bank at RTI office . The Petitioner has stated that Respondent bank has not recruited any body as temporary employee for the last five years . A suggestion has been given to the Petitioner by the Respondent that he has not worked for more than 240 days in a year . As against it , though the Petitioner has denied the suggestion but the Petitioner on his own has not been able to file any documentary or other reliable evidence which may prove that the Petitioner has worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding date of his termination . Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that it is the duty of the Petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal to prove that he has worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding the date of termination of the services then , only the Petitioner's shall be entitled for the benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Petitioner of this case has not been able to prove that he has worked for more than 240 days preceding the date of his termination as such , the provisions of Sec . 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 is not applicable in the present case and non- observance of the procedure of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 does not made the order of disengagement illegal .

Ex. W11 is representation of Santosh Kumar. Ex . W11 and W12 are not concerned with the present case . Ex . W13 is another letter to send a sum of Rs . 1 lakh through Santosh Kumar . Ex . WI6 and W18 are also letters to send Rs . 1 lakh and 50,000 separately through Santosh Kumar . Ex . WI7 is the letter of Respondent to the State President , A.P. Industrial Employees Union informing him that K. Santosh Kumar , P. Srinivas , V.S. Krishnachary, Bhuraram and Sri N. Ramakrishna are not workmen within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 because they are engaged on day to day basis depending upon contingency and they have no right for regularization . On the basis of these documents , the Petitioner's counsel has argued that the Petitioner has worked form 2002 to 2005 regularly and he has completed 240 days . But the Learned Counsel for the Respondent has stated before this court that Ex . W9 is a requisition order dated 30-4-2005 whereas Ex . WI0 is a requisition letter dated 10-5-2005 , Ex.WI3 dated 20-5-2005 , Ex. WI6 dated 6-6-2005 , Ex. WI8 is dated 9-8-2005 . This shows and proves that the Petitioner has been engaged on those dates when there is work available with the Respondent. There is no document to prove that the Petitioner has continuously worked for more than one day at one stretch of a time . This proves the contention of the Respondent that the Petitioner was engaged only on those dates when there was work available with the Respondent and thus the nature of engagement of the Petitioner was for a single day. He was engaged at the beginning of the date and his services were disengaged on the close of the day . Thus there is no proof or evoat of evidence to substance the contention of the Petitioner that he was continuously working for 240 days or even for single week.

7. Learned Counsel for respondent has further argued that , the Petitioner has no right to claim regularization or absorption in the services because he was never appointed as a regular casual labour or daily wage worker . Since the Petitioner was not engaged on the regular basis he can not claim benefit of absorption or regularization . The services of Petitioner were on the day to day basis , thus , he has no legal right to claim regularization or claim the benefit of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .

6. Petitioner has filed Ex . W20 xerox copy of the application for appointment in the bank's sub - ordinate cadre , which is dated 12-4-2002 . This itself is not sufficient to prove that the Petitioner was appointed on that date . Ex. W20 is simply an application for the appointment . When Petitioner was appointed is not clear nor mentioned in this document , The Petitioner has filed EX.WI xerox copy of the Identity card issued to the Petitioner as casual labour . When this I Card was issued is not clear . However , the Petitioner has filed Ex. W2 proposal for sanction of a post of part time employee on consolidated wage . It is a letter written by Branch Manager, Bellavista branch , for absorption of Petitioner K. Santhosh Kumar on consolidated wage of Rs.740 . Ex . W3 is another recommendatory letter of the Bellavista branch , the Manager recommending for the absorption of K. Santhosh Kumar on consolidated wages . But this letter is also does not bear any date or the order passed on this recommendatory letter . Ex . W5 letter dated 11-3-89 for absorption of three employees which is not concerned with this present petition . Ex . W 6 is the list of casual labours whose services were discontinued by the Respondent management . This paper is not relevant for the purpose of the present petition. Ex . W7 is a letter for creation of post of sweeper cum water boy dated 25-10-2004 which prove that a post was created for Vidyut Soudha Extension counter . Ex . W9 is a demand letter for Rs.50000. This paper is also not relevant for the purpose of this petition . Ex . WIO is a letter for remittance of Rs . I lakh through Mr. Santosh Kumar .

8. I have considered the above argument of the Learned Counsels for the parties and have also gone through the documents cited above and the statement of the Petitioner . In his statement , the Petitioner has no where stated that he has continuously worked for more than 240 days . He himself has admitted that no appointment letter was given to him and within last five years no person has been employed by the Respondent bank as temporary employee . This statement was recorded on 1-3-2006 . Thereby the own submission of the Petitioner it is proved that Respondent since 2001 onwards nobody was employed by the Respondent 2137 G1/09-30 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii )] 3608

rate worker , whose employment was terminated at the end of the day and thus he was not entitled to claim even daily wage work from the respondent management . Thus, the disengagement of the Petitioner , who was not appointed following rules of appointment is not fit to be governed by the principles of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, the disengagement can not be questioned before this tribunal becasue Petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947.

10. I have considered the above argument and I have also come to the conclusion that from the evidence on record it is proved that Petitioner was engaged for the day's work and his services or engagement were terminated by the end of the day . As such , the Petitioner can not claim regularization on the basis of such casual engagement . The action of the management in disengaging the services of the Petitioner is neither illegal nor against the principles of Industrial Disputes Act. It can not be questioned before this tribunal , the Petitioner has not been able to prove his case for declaring the action of the management as illegal or arbitrary and Petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

Award passed accordingly . Transmit .

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 27th day of April , 2009 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner WW I : Sri K. Santosh Kumar

Witnesses examined for the Respondent MWI : Sri Ch . Surender Raju

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.WI:

Copy of identity card of WWI

Ex.W2:

bank of recruited by the Respondent bank . Hence , the contention ofthe Petitioner that he is working since 2001 or beyond 2001 is misconceived based on no evidence and not fit to be believed by this tribunal . It is undisputed that the Petitioner has been engaged when the Respondent bank has work to be done on a particular date, thereby the Petitioner was engaged for aday's work as and when required by the Respondent management. The Petitioner was never appointed or recruited as a regular employee of the bank. His services were disengaged on the close of the day as such , he can not claim the benefit of Sec . 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Respondent bank has not committed any illegality in not following the provisions of Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Since the Petitioner was engaged for a day's work after the close ofthe day Petitioner did not remain the employee ofthe bank, therefore , he has not completed more than 240 days in the year preceding the date of his disengagement from the employment . There was no heed to follow the procedure of Sec . 25F , Petitioner's disengagement is neither illegal nor it is in violation of the principles of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and no interference can be done in the action of the management . The Learned Counsel for the Respondent has cited case of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2008 (10 ) pages 1 Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and others wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has quashed the appointment of a company paid staff because they have not come through the proper channel and by their absorption in the service, meritorious persons were not given opportunity or could not avail the opportunity to complete for the best. He has further cited the case law reported in 2006 ( 1 ) Decisions Today (SC ) page 493 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter between the Secretary , State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Umadevi & others , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the public employment should be made in accordance with the rule--- Temporary employees or daily worker or contractual workers have no enforceable legal right to be permanently absorbed into service .

Copy of proposal for sanction consolidate wage to give post of Peon on consolidate wages

Ex.W3:

Copy of proposal for sanction of post of Peon/ Lunch Room Attendant/Water Boy on consolidate wage to the AGM and DGM Dt. 22-5-2003

every book 9.On the basis of above two case laws of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India , the Learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted before this court that if this tribunal may come to a conclusion that the Petitioner was daily rate worker, even though in the light of the judgement of Umadevi , daily wage worker have no enforceable legal right to claim for absorption . More so, in this case the Petitioner has n

Έχ. W5 :

Copy of Lr . No. PER /GR.VI/ F . 22/ 2279 from the Personnel Manager , Admn . to the Regional Manager , for permanent absorption under ID Act dt . 11-3-1989

prove that he was a regular daily wage worker , but from the evidence available on the record it is clear that the Petitioner was engaged by the Respondent management for only those days when there was work lable with the management . Thus , the nature of Petitioner was that of a purely daily bloymens

i [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

Ex.W 6:

Copy of Lr . Dt . 29-12-99 reg . Absorption of temporary employees on consolidate wage Ex.W 7:

Copy of Lr . No.F/Premises/1028 dt . 25-10-2004 to the AGM, to create the post of sweeper cum water boy Ex. W 8 :

Copy of Lr . No. F/Misc:/ 1436 dt. 21-3-2005 to Sub - Post Master , APSEB , Vidyutsoudha to hand over the cheque to WWI EX . W 9:

Copy of Lr . Dt . 30-4 - .2005 By Respondent to the Special Assistant , RTA Extn . , Bellavista to send cash remittance of Rs . 50000 through WW I

EX. W 10:

Copy of Lr . Dt . 20-5-2005 By Respondent to the Special Assistant, RTA Extn . , Bellavista to send cash remittance of Rs . 1,10,000 through WW I

EX.W 11 :

Copy ofdemand notice dt. 19-5-2005 by WWI to the Respondents for his promotion to next grade

EX.W 12:

Receipts of courier of Ex . W II dt. 19-5-2005

Ex.W 13:

Copy of Lr.dt. 28-5-2005 by Respondent to the Special Assistant, RTA Extn . , Bellavista to send cash remittance of Rs . 10000 through WW 1

Ex. W 14:

Copy of circular dt . 5-6-2002 No.PER/2002-2003 / 15 directions by Head Office to pay Bonus Ex. W 15 :

Copy of circular dt. 3-6-2005 No. PER/GR/ IV /Misc . / 1297 issued by Head Office to all the branches to terminate the candidates Ex.W 16:

Copy of Lr . Dt . 6-6-2005 by Respondent to the Special Assistant , RTA Etn. , Bellavista to send cash remittance of Rs . 1,00,000 through WW 1

Ex. W 17:

Copy of Lr.From DGM/ Per . & HRD to the State President , A.P. Industrial Employees Union, that the workman/ Casual Labours are not the workman under ID Act

3609

Ex.W 18:

Copy ofLr . Dt . 9-8-2005 By Respondent to the Special Assistant, RTA Extn . , Bellavista to send cash remittance of Rs . 50000 through WWI

Ex.W 19:

Copy of application of WW I

Ex. W 20:

Copy of application of Sri Srinivas Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex. M 1 :

Copy of award of CGIT - cum - Labour Court, Hyderabaddt . 24-9-2002

Ex. M 2:

Copy of order in WP No. 15555/1993 dt . 28-3-97

Ex.M 3 :

Copy of order in WP No. I 8436/2004 dt. 11-10-2004

Ex.M4:

Copy of Ir . Of State Bank of Hyderabad head office to Sri N. Rama Krishna dt . 28-3-2005

Ex.M 5:

Copy of Lr . Of State Bank of Hyderabad to Sri V.S. Krishnachary dt. 28-3-2005

Ex.M 6:

Copy of Ir . ofState Bank of Hyderabad to Sri K. Vijay Kumardt. 28-3-2005.

नई दिल्ली , 27 मई , 2009

का.आ. 1750.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं. I- चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 85/96 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-12012/180/1995- आईआर( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27thMay, 2009

S.O. 1750.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 85/96 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court, -I 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 26-5-2009 .

[No. L- 12012/ 180/ 1995 - IR (B - I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 3610

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

ANNEXURE

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

I. D. NO : 85/1996

Smt. Vijay Kumar , C/ o . General Secretary, SBI Staff Congress , House No. 1304 , Sector 23 , Chandigarh .

Workman

Versus

Assistant General Manager, Office Administration Department, State Bank of India , Chandigarh Local Head Office .

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] Industrial dispute was raised by the workman and on failure of conciliation report, this reference.

As stated earlier , both of the parties were heard on genuineness of enquiry and this Tribunal vide order dated 27-3-2003 set aside the enquiry report and proceedings and afforded the opportunity to the Management to prove the charge levelled against the workman before this Tribunal .

All possible opportunity was also afforded by this Tribunal . Management of Bank produced as more as three witnesses and other documentary evidence to prove the charge levelled against the workman . Evidence ofworkman in his defence was also recorded. Arguments were heard a fresh , and thereafter , the file was reserved for award .

Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the Workman

Sh . Manjit Dhiman ,

Advocate

For the Management : Sh . S. K. Gupta

Advocate .

AWARD

Passed on 21-05-2009 .

Government of India vide Notification No. L- 12012/ 180/ 1995 - IR (B- 1 ) Dated 4-9-1986 referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication of this Tribunal:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India represented by Assistant General Manager, Office Administration Department , Local Head Office , Chandigarh in dismissing Shri Vijay Kumar , Messenger from services of the bank with effect from 17-2-95 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and for which date?"

After receiving the reference parties appeared and preferred to file their pleadings and evidence . As per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, parties were heard on genuineness of enquiry . Before mentioning the result of the fate of the enquiry, it will be proper to mention that the workman was charge sheeted for stealing two fans from the premises of the bank. It was the contention of the Management that both the fans were recovered from the custody of the workman and he confessedto his act of stealing two fans . The Management called for explanation of the workman and dissatisfied with the explanation appointed and Enquiry Officer to conduct a departmental enquiry against the workman . On the basis of enquiry report , the disciplinary authority provided the punishment of dismissal of the workman from the services of the bank.

As the enquiry report has heen set aside by this Tribunal vide order dated 27-3-2003 , enquiry report and proceedings cannot be the basis for proving the charges against the workman . There is no confusion on the charge-sheet and the workman understood the charges leveled against him . The Management was to prove the charges and after going through materials on record , which includes evidence oral and documentary , I am of the view that the Management has properly discharged his responsibility of proving the charges against: the workman . I am reaching to the conclusion that Management has proved the charges levelled against the workman on the following grounds :-

(i) It is admitted by the workman that on 5-3-93 he was present inthe bank . It is also admitted that he came out from the Gate No. 2 on a scopter driven by Surender Kumar at about 8.45 A.M. So the plea raised by the bank regarding proving of charge that the workman was present in the bank on 5-3-93 is admitted . It is further admitted that at about 8.45 A.M. he came out from the bank on Gate No. 2 on a scooter driven by Surender Kumar.

(ii ) MW - 2 Shri Pratap Chand and MW- 3 Shri Mohender Singh have categorically stated that at about 8.45 A.M. , the workman came out from the bank on a scooter with brief- case . He tried to stop him but in vain . As stated earlier , the prepresence in the bank and coming out of the bank on the day and time in question has been admitted by the workman . On going through the entire material on record and evidence of MW- 2 and MW- 3 , there is no iota of evidence to distrust the evidence given by MW- 2 and MW -3 on the issue of leaving the bank by the workman at 8.45 A.M. along with a brief- case on a scooter driven by another person Surender Kuraar .

( iii) Original complaint written by Shri Pratap Chand and Shri Mohinder Singh have been proved 3611 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

are altogether on different footings . In one case Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishna Iyyer regarding the departmental proceedings and proceedings beofore the Tribunals has held that in the departmental proceedings and proceedings before the Tribunals there should be no elegy even to hearsay evidence, if it has the close nexus with the misconduct of the employee . Before this Tribunal there is no hearsay evidence but cogent and reliable evidence .

before the Tribunal . The workman has certain objections on the genuineness of these documents stating that the complaint does not bear the seal of the bank etc. In this regard I am of the view that the proceedings before the Tribunal are altogether different in nature and standard of proof is also different than in Civil Courts . This Tribunal has not to travel beyond the issue just on the technicalities of procedure . The complaint in original has been proved by the competent witnesses and in my view it cannot be doubted just on the procedural technicalities for not bearing the seal of the bank.

There is a close nexus of the act of committing theft , opportunity to commit theft and recovery of articles subjected to theft . One of the objections raised by learned counsel of the workman has been that by the time of recovery there has been no shortage of article from Store Room of the Bank, but it is after the recovery of fans, it was reported that two fans are short. In my view this circumstances cannot be nullify well proved act of committing theft of two fans from the bank premises proved on the basis of direct and reliable evidence.

(iv) Recovery of two fans is partially admittedby the workman. MW- 3 has categorically stated and proved that brief- case was opened in the presence of the workman before the Manager MW- 1 and two fans were recovered . The fact of opening the brief- case and recovery of two fans is not denied by the workman but he has only stated that these fans he has purchased from the bank in the year 1991. One of the contentions of the learned counsel for the workman was that two fans cannot be kept in the brief- case . There is no occasion to discuss the issue which is admitted. The workman has admitted that the brief- case was opened in the presence of the Manager MW- 1 and two fans were recovered .

On the basis of above , I am of the view that the charges leveled against the workman are well proved by the Management and the workman is liable for the punishment for committing theft of two fans from the bank premises.

(v) The workman has contended that the fans recovered were same purchased by him from the Bank atthe consideration of Rs . 200/- . He has filed the receipt of Rs . 200/- for purchasing the fans in the year 1991 . There is no circumstance before this Tribunal and any evidence as well to show that the fans purchased in the year 1991 were kept as such by the workman upto 1993 without any use . The workman has failed to prove that the fans recovered were the same fans which he purchasedfrom the bank at the consideration of Rs . 200 in the year 1991. In my view filing of the receipt will not be sufficient but there should be close nexus between the purchasing of the fans in the year 1991 and recovery made in the year 1993 .

(vi ) The Management has also filed the documents containing the admission of the workman . The workman has contended that he admitted his act stealing of fans under threat and coercion . The contention as such cannot be believed unless and until the workman had proved the circumstances which resulted into the duress , threat or coercion .. Thus , in absentia of element of duress , threat and coercion , the admission made by the workman before the Manager MW- 1 and the prescibed authority cannot be doubted.

Learned counsel for the workman has prayed that the punishment provided is in disproportionate to the committed misconduct . He has also argued that the nature of act committed by the workman afforded the opportunity to this Tribunal to invoke its jurisdiction under Section 11 -A of Industrial Disputes Actto consider the lesser punishment . The reason for such interference , as stated by the learned counsel for the workman, is that the workman has not indulged in any financial and economic activities of the bank . The activity of the bank is the money transaction with the public and this main activity was not affected with the act of committing theft of two fans from the bank premises . In my view , the act of the workman of committing the theft of two fans from the bank premises shows his mental attitude of committing such an act which is certainly against the interest of the bank. The bank which is a financial institution should not tolerate such type of activity by any of its workmen and in my view the punishment of dismissal given by the prescribed authority was appropriate and proportionate to committing the misconduct . Thus , after enquiry 1 am ofthe view that the workman was rightly and should be punished with the punishment of dismissal from the services of the bank on the basis of his misconduct of committing oftheft of two fans from the bank premises . Left Central Government be informed, and thereafter , filed be consigned to record room.

Thus , if all the above mentioned facts are considered one by one , it constitutes a complete chain of act committed by the workman . The proceedings before this Tribunal and the departmental proceedings

G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer 3612

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 20, 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 27 मई , 2009

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 12012/38 /2002- IR (B -I) dated 29-11-2002 referred the following industrial dispute under section 10( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of Sree Anantha Grameena Bank and their workman . The reference is ,-

SCHEDULE

का.आ. 1751.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार श्री आनन्दा ग्रामीण बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचांट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/38/2002 - आई.आर. ( बी-I ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 27th May , 2009

"Whether the action of the management of Sree AnanthaGrameena Bank, Anantpur in effecting change in the designation of Messenger - cum- Sweeper is justified? If not, what relief the employees are entitled? "

$.O. 1751. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Sree Anantha Grameena Bank and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 26-5-2009 .

2. The Petitioner Union filed claim statement stating that the management has changed the designation of Messenger to that of Messenger- cum-Sweeper which was questioned by the union . It is submitted that the management said about that change happened according to NIT Award and Supreme Court Judgment. It is prayed that the claim ofthe petitioner union be allowed.

[No. L- 12012/38/2002- IR (B -I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present: $ hri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer

Dated the 17th day of February , 2009

Industrial Dispute No. 1/2003

BETWEEN

3. Acounter was filed by the respondent bank. It is submitted that the Government of India issued instructions to RRBs for implementation of the NIT Award read with Equation Committee Report vide their Cir . No. 11-3 /90/RRB (1 ) , dated 22-2-1991 . In order to overcome certain operational problems in implementation of the NIT Award, aworking group under the chairmariship of Chief General Managers ofNABARD , Sri R.C. Gupta was constituted along with other members . In view ofthe Gupta Committee recommendations , NABARD issued guidelines vide Cir . No.C.4559/(316)/gen/92-93 , dated 20-3-1993 regarding implementation of NIT Award. The following are the guidelines regarding messengers and sweeper- cum- messengers:

TheGeneral Secretary ,

(1) Wherever a full time messenger -cum- sweeper is deployed, no separate sweeper shall be provided and the full time messenger-cum- sweeper shall perform both the duties .

.... Petitioner/Union

A.P. Regional Rural Banks , Employees' Association , B- 3 , F- 14, Amrutha Arcade, Opp. Venkataramana Theatre , Kachiguda Station Road, Hyderabad - 500 027

AND

The Chairman ,

(2) As part of regularization of the subordinate staff, all such employees be redesignated as messenger- cum-sweepers and all subsequent recruitments should be for the combined designation i.e. , messenger- cum- sweepers , driver- cum-messengers .

SreeAnantha Grameena Bank, H.O. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Road,

Anantpur- 515001

....Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner : M/ s . B.S.A. Satyanarayana ,

Suresh Kumar & P.V. Rao,

4. It issubmitted that the Gupta Committee as well as the Award passed by the NIT has become a term and condition ofservice for the employees is no provision either in the Award or the Gupta Committee report for creating posts of sweepers . Hence, the workmen are not entitled to anyrelief.

Advocates

Forthe Respondent : M/s . K. Srinivasa Murthy &

5. Parties were asked to produce their respective evidences. Both parties are absent for several adjournments G. Praveen Kumar , Advocates [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

3613

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

including today i.e. , 17-2-2009 . In absence of parties evidence is closed . Hence , Nil Award is passed in absence ofevidence.

Transmit.

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 17th day ofFebruary, 2009.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, PresidingOfficer

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, 27 मई , 2009

का.आ. 1752.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ हैदराबाद 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 13/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था.। [सं. एल-12012/23/2006- आई.आर. ( बी-I ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 27th May, 2009

S.O. 1752. 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, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of Hyderabad and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26-5-2009 .

[No. L- 12012/23/2006- IR(B-I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present: Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, PresidingOfficer Dated the 13th day of February, 2009 Industrial Dispute No.13/2007

BETWEEN

Sri Mohd. Lateefuddin ,

Andhra Pradesh Industrial Employees Union ,

House of Labour,

King Kothi Road,

Petitioner Hyderabad

AND

TheDeputyGeneral Manager (Per & HRD), State Bank of Hyderabad, Head office, GunFoundry, Hyderabad - 500001 . .... Respondent APPEARANCES

NIL

Forthe Petitioner :

Forthe Respondent : Sri A.V. S.S. Prasad, Advocate

ORDER

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order L - 12012/23 /2006 - IR(B - I) dated 18-1-2007 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 Hyderabad, and their workman . The reference is ,-

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Hyderabad, not regularizing the services of Sri K. Rameshwar , Casual Labour , working since 1989 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.13 /2007 and notices were issued to the parties .

2. On 13-2-2009 , the counsel representing the Petitioner filed a memo stating that prayer in LCID No. 119/ 2005 and in I.D. No. 13/2007 is one and the same , and prayed to close the I.D. No. 13/2007 . Hence , this I.D. is closed. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her , corrected and pronounced by me on this the 13th th day of February , 2009 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, PresidingOfficer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

NIL

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL 3614

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

नई दिल्ली , 28 मई, 2009

का.आ. 1753.-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 , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं.-1, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 75/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल -42012/230/98- आई.आर. ( डी.यू.) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 28th May, 2009

S.O. 1753.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No.75/99 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, No.- 1 Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of C.P.W.D. and their workman , which was receivedbythe Central Government on 28-5-2009.

[No. L-42012/230/ 98 - IR (DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA , PRESIDUNG OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT -1 , CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 75/99

Ms. Rekha Khurana, D/ o Shri Manohar Lal, H.No. 669 , New Premnager, Karnal .

Applicant

Versus

TheExecutive Engineer , Karnal Central Division , Central Public Works Department , Karnal .

..Respondent

APPEARANCES

Forthe workman :

Sri D.R. Sharma

Sri G.C. Babbar

For the management :

AWARD

Passed on : 19-5-2009

The Government of India vide notification No. L- 420/ 2/230/ 98 /IR(DU) datted 1-3-1999, referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal : - "Whether the action of the executive Engineer , Karnal Central Division , Central Public Works Department , Karnal in terminating the services of

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] Smt. Rekha Khurana D/ o Sh . Manohar Lal is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

Both of the parties were afforded the opportunity to file their respective pleading and adduce evidence . Both of the parties availed this opportunity . I have gone through the pleadings and evidence of the parties . There is no dispute that workman Smt. Rekha Khurana worked with the management of CPWD, Karmal under the Executive Engineer . The dispute is regarding the nature of work . As per the workman she worked with the management from 7-9-92 to 31-7-97 . Her services were terminated without any notice , one month wages in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation .

On the other hand , the management of CPWD contended that the appointment of workman was purely contractual for fixed term and on fixed payment . It has also been contended by the management that there was no master servant relationship between the workman and the management of respondent , hence , there was no requirement for any notice or retrenchment compensation as required by Industrial Disputes Act. After perusing the pleadings and evidence of the parties the main issues before this Tribunal for adjudication are as follows: -

(1 ) Whether Smt . Rekha worked with the management of CPWD upto 1997 , and her appointment was purely on contract basis for a fixed term and for fixed wages?

(2) Whether the workman is entitled for any relief?

I am answering these issues one by one .

Both of the parties, as stated earlier , have filed evidence oral and documentary. There is no dispute that Smt . Rekha Khurana was engaged by the management of CPWD for clerical work on 7-8-92 for three months . After three months the period was extended and thereafter, by separate instrument the work was provided for three months several times . All the documents filed by the management , which are annexure Ml to M6 on record, have been admitted by the workman in her cross - examination . The contents of these documents have also been admitted . I have gone through these documents filed by the management. Annexure M1 is the work order prepared by the management which is for the period of 24-9-92 to 23-12-92 for three months . It was a contractual appointment for three months and Smt . Rekha Khurana was to be paid a fixed wages as agreed between them. M2 is the extension letter by which this period of work was extended up to 31-12-92.

Annexure M3 is the work order for a fixed term of three months on fixed wages from 1-1-93 to 31-3-93 .

Likewise, M4 is also the work order for a fixed term of three months from 1-4-1993 to 30-6-93 . Under this instrument भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

the workman was to be paid the fixed wages . M5 is another work order providing the work to the workman for a fixed term of three months from 1-7-1993 to 30-9-93 for fixed wages . Annexure M6 is the office order extending this fixed term upto 31-10-93.

Thereafter, no work order for carrying out work on contract was executed between the management and the workman . The workman has contended that she worked upto July 1997. This contention is admitted by the witness ofthe management MW1 in his cross - examination. The opening four lines of MW1 , Shri S.S. Vashistha , Executive Engineer , C.P.W.D. , Karnal are as follows:-

" I am deposing in the present case on the basis of the record. It is correct that the workman was engaged in the year 1992 and was disengaged in 1997 but was not terminated as she was not the employee of the management" .

This statement of MWI justified and proved the contention of the workman Smt . Rekha Khurana that she worked with the management upto 1997. She worked with the management up to 1997 is very well mentioned in the records of the management because MWI had deposed on the basis of the record . Those records reasons known to the management have not been provided to this Tribunal.

Facts admitted need not to be proved . Thus , the contention of the workman that she worked with the management from 7-8-92 to 31-7-92 is well proved .

The management has filed the documents for working on contractual basis up to 31-10-93 . Thus , from 31-10-93 to 31-7-97 the workman worked with the management and the nature of her work with the management after October 1993 was on different footing. The last so called contract expired on 31-10-93 and as admitted by the management Smt . Rekha Khurana worked with the management up to July 1997. Thus , the working of workman after 31-10-1993 to July 1997 was not on contractual basis and for all purpose she will be deemed to be the direct employee of the management .

Industrial Disputes Act came into force for specific purpose to regulate the working conditions of the workman . For all purposes the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are to be construed to ensure the purposive construction. Thus , in absence of any contract between the management and the workman after 31st of October 1993 , as per the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , It cannot be presumed that Smt. Rekha Khurana worked with the management on the basis of the same contract which expired on 31-10-1993 . Thus , Smt. Rekha Khurana worked with the management up to July 1997 and her engagement with the management after 31st of October 1993 was not contractual and she was the direct employee of the management .

2137 G1/09-31

3615

issue Now, I am discussing the issue No.2 which is on relief. It is admitted that for class III appointment a procedure is prescribed and no appointment can be made without adopting and following that procedure . In engagement of the workman to the work of class III employee no such procedure was adopted and followed. But the before this Tribunal is not the regularization of the services ofthe workman . It is the protection of right to work of the workman she was working with the management at the time of her termination . Even the termination is not bared but it is regulated by law , i.e. by Industrial Disputes Act . As per the Industrial Disputes Act , if the workman had worked directly with the management for 240 days or more her termination is regulated by the Act . So, the question before this Tribunal as stated earlier is not the regularization of the services of the workman nor her appointment on substantial vacancy but to protect her illegal termination against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act . It is clear thatshe worked for more than 240 days in every preceding. year before the date of her termination. It is admitted by the witness of the management that she worked up to 1997 but reasons known to the management documents up to October 1993 have been filed . The witness of the management has also deposed on the basis of the documents but the same documents were not provided to the Tribunal . Hence this Tribunal is bound to take adverse inference regarding the working of the workman for 240 days in the preceding year from the date of her termination which make her termination illegal and void .

Ifthetermination from the services of any workman is declared to be illegal , there are two possible remedies available . The first remedy is reinstatement of the working on the same status as she was working before her termination and another is the reasonable compensation. The witness of management has also deposed that all the class III vacancies have been filled in by the management through the procedure established by law . Thus , there is no work available with the management and only remedy left is a reasonable compensation.

The compensation to be provided should be based on reasonable criteria. The criteria for calculating the compensation which I am adopting are the wages which the workman was getting at the time of her termination, amount of retrenchment compensation , depreciation in the amount of money , interest on the amount and the enhancement of wages due to the 6th pay commission of employees and its effect on daily waged workers . Thus , after considering the above mentioned facts , I am of the view that Rs . 70,000 shall be reasonable compensation to be provided to Smt. Rekha Khurana on ground of her illegal termination from the services by the management of CPWD. Accordingly , the management of CPWD is directed to provided/deposited the amount of Rs . 70,000 within one month from the date ofpublication ofthis award. It is hereby made clear that if this amount is deposited/paid within 3616

[PART II ---SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009 / JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

AWARD

Dated: 15-5-2009

one month from the date of publication of the award no interest shall be charged. If the management failed to comply with the order in depositing the amount with in one month from the date of publication of this award the workman shall be entitled for the interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the Rs . 70,000 from the date of filing the statement of claim till final payment. The reference is answered accordingly. Let Central Government be informed for publication of the award and thereafter, file be consigned.

1. By Order No. L- 12012/ 85/2002 - IR( B - I ) dated 10-7-2002 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour , NewDelhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section ( 2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) referred this industrial dispute between Sh . Bal Chander , S/o Shri Arku , Village& Post - Lakhanpura, Distt . Lalitpur (U.P.) and the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India , Regional Office, Region No.4, Mall Road , Kanpur for adjudication .

G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 मई , 2009

2.The reference under adjudication is:

"Kya Assistant General Manager , State Bank of India, Kanpur ke aadesh dinank 2-3-2000 ke dwara Shri Bal Chander Atmaj Shri Arku ke sewa samapt (dismiss) karna nayayochit hai ? Yadi nahi , to sambandhit karmkar kis anutosh ka hakdar hai ?" का.आ. 1754,-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 लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 123/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/85/2002- आई.आर. ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 29th May, 2009

$ .O. 1754.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 123/2002) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court, Lucknow 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 29-5-2009 .

[No. L- 12012/ 85/2002 - IR (B - 1) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present : Shri N.K. Purohit, Presiding Officer I. D. No. 123/2002

3. These basic facts are not disputed that the workman Bal Chander was appointed in the subordinate cadre by the management of the State Bank of India vide appointment order dated 7/11 August 1989. The workman was working in the Babina Branch of the Bank when he was served upon a charge sheet dated 15-1-1996 by the Asstt. General Manager regarding furnishing fake TransferCertificate, mentioning the date of birth of the workman to be 5-3-1962 , which was, later found to be wrong. The management of Bank conducted a domestic enquiry, on getting reply of the workman of the said charge sheet vide his reply dated 30-1-1996 , and dismissed the workman vide order dated 2-3-2000 . The workman , aggrieved from the disınissal order, preferred an appeal to Dy . General Manager, of the bank which was rejected vide order dated 5-3-2001 . The workman filed writ petition in Hon'ble High Court judicature at Allahabad & the said writ petition was dismissed on the ground that alternative remedy is available & the worker was permitted to raise the dispute in the Labour Court . Thus , the workman raised this industrial dispute before the concerned authority . Failure of conciliation proceedings necessitated the appropriate Government to refer the matter for adjudication before thisTribunal .

Ref No. L- 12012 /85/2002 - IR(B - I) dated : 10-7-2002

BETWEEN

4. The workman in his statement of claim has submitted that his date of birth 5-3-1962 mentioned in the FamilyRegister of Gram Panchayat and in the Matriculation Certificate, is correct . He has questioned the validity of domestic enquiry on the ground that it was conducted in an arbitrary manner without following principle of natural justice and giving proper and full opportunity to the workman ofdefence . Also , though the management failed to prove the charges against him still he has been penalized by the impugned order of dismissal. The workman has further alleged that he was not given opportunity of personal hearing by the Disciplinary Authority and Sh . Bal Chander , S/o Shri Arku , Village& Post- Lakhanpura , Distt. Lalitpur (U.P. ) AND The Assistant General Manager , State Bank of India , RegionalOffice, Region No. 4, Mall Road, Kanpur- 208001 3617 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009 /ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

similarly the Appellate Authority also did not provide the opportunity of hearing to the worker . He has alleged that the punsihment of dismissal is harsh and disproporationate . Accordingly the workman has prayed for reinstatement with continuity in service and back wages and other consequential benefits .

10. After hearing arguments of the learned representatives of the parties, the preliminary issues No.2 wasdisposed of in favour of the workman vide order dated 7-2-2005 and the management was called upon to lead fresh evidence to prove its charges against the workman. Accordingly , the management examined Shri Vishal Chandra Shukla , Branch Manager and Shri Kailash Narayan Namdev , Assistant Teacher , Inter College, Bansi in support of their case whereas the workman examined himself and his witnesses viz . Shri Parvat Singh Sahu, Principle , Intermediate Collage , Bansi in support ofhis case. Parties filed their respective written arguments apart from submitting oral submissions in support of their stand.

11.Heard the learned representative ofboth the sides and scanned the relevant material on record .

5. The management of the Bank in its written statement has subrnitted that the workman at the time of his appointment , submitted the transfer certificate , bearing serial No. 1865, with his date of birth to be 5-3-1962 , which was later, on investigation, found to be fake . Accordingly he was served upon charge sheet dated 15-1-1996 for alleged misconduct and a domestic enquiry was conducted to inquire into the charges contained therein . The management has denied the allegations of the workman that the domestic enquiry conducted by it , against the workman with respect to said charge shee violation ofprinciple ofnatural justice or he was full and proper opportunity to defend himseli . it has contended that the domestic inquiry against the workman was fair , proper and just. The management has further submitted that the charges against workman were fully proved and punishment order of dismissal is not excessive ; and the workman himself did not request the Appellate Authority for personal hearing , therefore , the same was not provided to him. Accordingly , the management has prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected as he is not entitled for any relief whatsoever . as in given

6. The workman has filed rejoinder whereby he has only reiterated his averments in the statement of claim and has not introduced any new fact.

7. Following preliminary issues were framed vide order dated 17-4-2003:

( i) whether the date of birth of the workman is 5-3-1962 as alleged by him.

( ii) Whether the worker was not given opportunity of being heard and the departmental enquiry was conducted without observing principle of natural justice? If so, its effects.

(iii) Whether the punishment inflicted was illegal and excessive ? and

(iv) Whether the worker is entitled to any relief?

8. Vide order dated 25-7-2003 the Tribunal ordered that the preliminary issue no.2 is to be decided first therefore parties were directed lead their evidence in respect of the said issue only .

12. The learned representative of the management has argued that the workman has admitted in his reply dtd. 31-1-96 (14/3 ) in respect to charge sheet dtd. 15-1-96 ( 16/3 ), thatthe T.C. issued by the Uchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya , Bansi , Lalitpur was submitted by the workman at the time ofappointment . He has not stated that T.C. bearing no . 1865 wasnotgivenby him . He has further submitted that as per record of the said school scholar register , the disputed documents ( 14/25) said to be the copy of T.C. bearing no. 1865 , is forged as si.no. 1865 is pertaining to Sh . Damru Lal . He has further submitted that as per school record the name of the workman is at sl.no. 1260 & date of birth as mentioned therein is 5-9-62 . He has further argued that workman submitted the forged T.C. bearing no . 1865 to show his eligibility of age required for the job because as per his actual date of birth 5-9-62 at the time of initial appointment, his age was 17 years & 7 months only whereas as per Bipartite Settlement 1987 , required minimum age at the time of initial appointment is to be 18 years . The workman has admitted in his cross - examination that he was having knowledge of eligibility criteria . The workman was directed on 5-12-05 to produce the copy of the certificate said to be submitted by him at the time of appointment in spite of this he did not submit any such copy. The workman has not pleaded that original T.C. was submitted by him . At the time of submitting application for appointment, only copies of the original documents are being submitted, original documents are required to be submitted for perusal only. He has also submitted that copies of the documents i.e. High school certificate , family register and age certificate of primary school and marksheet submitted by the workman to establish his actual date of birth as 5-3-62 , are not relevant as charge of alleged misconduct is regarding submission of forged T.C. bearing no. 1865 showing his date of birth as 5-3-62. He has also argued that in appointment letter dtd . 11-8-89 , it is categorically mentioned that in case of furnishing any false information , the services of the workman would be terminated.

9. Pursuant to said order , the parties submitted documentary evidence in support of their respective cases and worker examined himself whereas opposite party examined Shri R.S. Sainger , officer in support of their respective averments .

3618

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

13. Per contra, the learned representative on behalf ofthe workmanhas submitted that the original T.C. , which is alleged to be forged has not been produced by the management . He has also urged that from the copies of High School certificate , extract of family register and other documents produced by the workman , it is evident that actual date ofbirth of the workman is 5-3-62 . He has further urged that workman had never admitted that disputed documenti.e. photocopy of the T.C. bearing no . 1865 , was ever producedby him .

14.I have given my thoughtful consideration on the argument advanced by both the sides .

15. The workman was charge sheeted on 15-1-96 for the following charge ;

That while seeking appointment in the Bank as Messenger in the year 1989 , you deliberately submitted a forged Transfer Certificate No. 1865 purportedly issued by Uchhatar. Madhyamic Vidyalaya, Bansi , District Lalitpur , in which your date of birth has been shows as Fifth March Nineteen Sixty Two. Later on it transpired that your actual dateofbirth is Fifth September Nineteen Sixty Two . You had thus made false statement.

Your aforesaid act besides casting serious as persions on your integrity and bonafides is highly prejudicial to Bank's interest .

You are, therefore , charged under Para 521 (4) (J) of Sastry Award as retained by the Desai Tribunal in itsAward.

15. Before embarking upon the merit of the case , it is pertinent to mention that in view of the above alleged charge levelled against the workman it is not a matter of enquiry to find out whether the date of birth mention in record of the Uchhatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya , Basi , Lalitpur is correct or the date of birth 5-3-62 as alleged by the workman on the basis of copies of High School Certificate ( 16/4), Family Register ( 16/20) age certificate of Prathmik Vidyalya ( 16/25 ) etc. submitted by him , is correct . For alleged misconduct in charge , the relevant question for consideration is whether as per school record of Uchhatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya , Basi , Lalitpur disputed copy of the T.C. Bearing no . 1865 purported to be issued bythe said school mentioning therein name of the workınan and his age as 5-3-62 , is forged and whether the said disputed document was submitted by the workman .

17.The management has examined Sh . V.C. Shukla , the then Branch Manager of the bank and Sh . K.N. Namdeo , the then Principal who issued certified copy of the T.C. bearing no . 1260 and 1865 as Principal Intermediate College, Basi , Lalitpur , to prove the alleged charge against the workman . Sh . Shukla has stated in his statement on oath that an application for appointment ( 14/19 ) was submitted by the workman and at the time of appointment

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii) ] a forged T.C. bearing no . 1865 ofthe Uchhatar Madhyamic Vidyalaya, Basi , Lalitpur was submitted by him . He has further stated that photo copies of T.C. bearing nos . 1260 and 1865 for verification were sent by the Bank to District Inspector ofSchool , Lalitpur vide its letterdt . 17-2-05 . He has also stated that the workman was not entitled for initial appointment as per his date of birth 5-9-62 as mentioned in TC. bearing no 1260 of the said school . In cross examination Sh Shulkla has stated that photo copy of disputed T.C. bearing no . 1865 (document 14/15) was submitted by the workman . As regard copy of the T.C. bearing no . 1260 (document14/26) he has stated that it was not produced neither at the time of appointment nor with the application submitted by the workman .

18. The above statement ofthe witness Sh . V.C. Shukla also finds corroboration from the statement of Sh. K.N.Namdeo who has stated that certified copies of T.Cbearing no . 1260 (33/16 ) and T.C. bearing 1865 (33/17) were issued by him . He has stated that as per record of the school brought by him at the time of his statement , the date of birth of the workman in T.C. bearing no. 1260 is mentioned as 5-9-62 and T.C. bearing no . 1865 is relating to Sh . Damrúlal . He has also stated in his cross examination that as per the school record , the disputeddocument (14/25) is not the copy of the scholar register and T.C. at serial no . 1865 because the above number is pertaining to Sh . Damarulal whereas document 14/25 is in the name ofBal Chandra workman . He has also stated that as per school record the workman Bal Chandra left school on 30-6-79 and at that time he was student of class 8th and he passed class 8th in the year 1979. He has further stated that as per scholar register Sl . no . 1260 Bal Chander did not pass class 9th and he did not take admission in class 9th in the year 1979-80.

19. In rebuttal , the workman has stated in his examination in chiefthat he was appointed as casual labour in the bank's Sipri Bazar branch at Jhansi on 18-4-80 for 89 days . He has also stated that he submitted application to the Branch Manager alongwith date of birth certificate , mark sheet of class 8th and T.C. of class 5th (C -46/6) . He had also submitted application for appointment as temporary worker and during interview he had submitted mark sheet of class 9th and T.C. of class 9th thereafter appointment letter was issued. He has also stated that at the time ofjoining , he had submitted T.C. and mark sheet of class 9th . He has further stated that the disputed document ( 14/25) is not the copy of the T.C. which he submitted because T.C. of class 9th bearing his signature in back was submitted by him . The workman has also stated thatduring his service period after obtaining permission, he didHigh School in the year 1991 and Intermediate in the year 1995 .

20.But the credibility of the workman's testimony is shaken in his cross - exaniination . He has admitted in his [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 20, 2009 /ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

cross- examination that he had filled a form for appointment of casual worker . He has also admitted that charge sheet was served for T.C. relating to Uchhatar Madhyamic Vidyalaya , Basi , Lalitpur . In charge sheet the name of Primary Pathshala has not been referred . He has also admitted that in his reply to the charge sheet ( 14/3 ), it is stated that he had submitted T.C. issued by Uchhatar Madhyamic Vidyalaya, Basi , Lalitpur at the time of appointment . He has also admitted that he has not mentioned in the reply that T.C. bearing no . 1865 was not submitted by him . He has also admitted that he did not produce copy of T.C. produced at the time of appointment as per direction of the Tribunal . In cross examination he has also admitted that he took admission in class 6th in Uchhatar Madhyamic Vidyalaya, Basi , Lalitpur and as per said school record his date of birth is 5-9-62 . He has further stated that for correction of date of birth an application was moved by his father when he was in class 6 & after death ofhis father he came to know about said application from his Mother . He has stated that an application in the year 1998 for change of his date of birth was submitted by him also but he has not produced copies of the said applications.

21. Thus , it is evident from the aforementioned admitted facts by the workman in his cross examination that as per record of the Uchhatar Madhyamic Vidyalaya , Basi , Lalitpur his date of hirth is 5-9-62 & the T.C. which was submitted by him was relating to the said school .

22. Workman's witness Sh . Parbat Singh Sahu has stated that Uchhatar Madhyamic Vidyalaya, Basi , Lalitpur is now known as Intermediate College, Basi and he is Principal of the said college since 1-7-03 . At the time ofhis deposition , the record of the Uchhatar Madhyamic Vidyalaya , Basi , Lalitpur was also produced and he has stated on the basis of said record that Sl . No. 1260 of the register , the date of birth of the workman Bal Chander is mentioned to be 5-9-62 and as per record the workman Bal Chander left the school on 30-6-79 after passing class 8th . Hehas further stated that at Sl . No. 1638 also pertain to the workman wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 5-9-62 and as per record after taking admission on 18-8-79 in class 9th the workman Bal Chander pass class 9th in the year 1979-80 but his name was deleted on 31-7-80 on account of non payment of fees . He has also stated that sl . No. 1865 is relating to Sh . Damrulal S/o Bhura whose date of birth is mentioned as 1-1-68 & who took admission on 23-7-81 and left the school after passing 10th on 30-6-89 . He has also stated that copies of the T.C. bearing No. 1260 were prepared on 6-2-85 and 24-1-92 and the same were obtained by the workman Bal Chander on 6-2-85 & 30-1-92 respectively . Apart from this Bal Chander also obtained the copy of his T.C. on 11-7-79. He has also stated that copies of T.C. bearing 1865were obtained by the workman on 26-9-80, 29- 9-82 and 17-11-04 . He has further stated that at Sl . No. 1865

3619 there is endorsement that workman has obtained old and new T.C. In his cross- examination he has further stated that on the basis of earlier T.C. and admission form, entries weremade in the school register at the time ofadmission in class 6th.

23. Thus , even the evidence of the workman & his witness Sh . Parvat Singh Sahu and the record of the said school produced by him , Fortifies the version of the management side on these material points that as per record Uchhatar Madhyamic Vidyalaya , Basi , Lalitpur date of birth ofthe workman is 5-9-62 and thedisputed copy bearing No. 1865 in the name of the workman is forged because as per register Sl No. 1865 is pertaining to Sh . Damru Lal S/ o Bhura whose date ofbirth is 1-1-68 .

24. Thus , the following facts have emerged from the aforementioned oral and documentary evidence on record.

1. The workman had studied in the Uchhatar Madhyamic Vidyalaya, Basi , Lalitpur and left the said school on 30-6-79 after passing class 8th .

2.As per scholar Register & T.C. of the said school , the name ofthe workman is at serial No. 1260 and his date birth mentioned therein is 5-9-62 .

3. As per scholar Register & T.C. of the school serial No. 1865 is relating to Sh. Damru Lal whose date of birth mentioned therein is 1-1-68 .

4. The disputed copy of the T.C. Bearing No. 1865 purported to be issued by the Uchhatar Madhyamic Vidyalaya Basi , Lalitpur is forced as per record of the said school .

5. The workman has admitted in his cross examination that the T.C. which he submitted at the time of appointment was issued by the Uchhatar Madhyamic Vidyalaya, Basi, Lalitpur.

6. As per statement of the workman's witness Sh. Parbat Singh Sahu, the date of birth mentioned in the school record at serial No. 1634 is also 5-9-1962.

7. The workman has tried to say in his statement that the copy of the T.C. which was submitted by him was of class IX but neither there is such pleadings nor he has produced any copy of alleged T.C. of class IX. Moreover , in spite of direction of the Tribunal, he did not file copy of the T.C. said to be submitted by him.

8. The minimum age required for initial appointment in the Bank is 18 years and as per date of birth mentioned in the said school record i.e. 5-9-62 the workman's age at the time of initial appointment was 17 years 7 months only and he was not eligible as per eligibility criteria.

3620

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009 /JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii )]

31. Resultantly, the workman is not entitled for any relief. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

Lucknow,

15-5-2009

N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 मई , 2009

का.आ. 1755 ,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नोरदन रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , श्रम न्यायालय लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 22/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को29-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

25.The only conclusion which can be derived from theabove facts & circumstantial evidence is that disputed T.C. bearing No. 1865 purported to be issued by the Uchatar Madhyamic Vidyalaya, Bansi , Lalitpur is forged & the same hasbeen submitted hy the workman . The Strict Rules of the Evidence Act and standard of proof as required in criminal cases is not essential in enquiry proceedings. Charges in such enquiries are to be proved by pre- ponderance of the probability. In view of the aforemention facts& circumstances and probable motive & purpose of the workman behind the submission of alleged forged T.C. , speak of themselves , that the copy of the disputed T.C. bearing No. 1865 showing the age of the workman to be 5-3-62 and purported to be issued by the Uchatar Madhyamik Vidalaya. Bansi , Lalitpur is forged & the said forged T.C. has been deliberately submittedbythe workman for seeking his appointment in the bank . Thus , to this extent the charge levelled against the workman for alleged misconduct stands proved.

[सं. एल -41012/ 103/2004- आई.आर. ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th May, 2009

26. Now survives the question whether the punishment of dismissal from services of the workman is disproportionate.

S.O. 1755.-In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 22/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Northern Railway and their workmen , received by the Central Government on29-5-2009 .

27. In this regard contention of the learned representative of the workman was that in view of alleged misconduct the punishment of dismissal is very harsh & disproportionate whereas the contention of the learned representative on behalf of the management is that in such matter no linient view should be taken . In this respect, he has relied on 2005 LAB IC SCC 4164 Bank of India vs Avinash DMandivikar and 2008 LAB IC SCC 3593 Regional Manager, Central Bank of India vs Madulor Guru Prasad .

[No. L-41012/103/2004- IR (B - I ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present: Shri N.K. Purohit, Presiding Officer I.D. No. 22/2005 Ref. No. L- 41012/ 103/2004- IR (B+ I) dated : 1-6-2005 BETWEEN

28. In 2005 LAB IC 4164 appointment was obtained hy producing false caste certificate and report about the falsity of caste certificate obtained 10 years after appointment in the said order of termination ofservice was considered to be proper. Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that long years of service is no ground to protect employee's service . In 2008 LAB IC 3593 also employment was obtained by false caste certificate and scrutiny of caste certificate after long delay but in the said case Hon'ble Apex Court observed that termination of service is valid. Equity sympathy or generosity has no place where original appointment rest on false caste certificate.

29. In the light of the principle laid down in aforesaid case laws and in view of alleged misconduct of the workman, it cannot be said that punishment of dismissal of the workman by impugned orderdt . 2-3-2000 is disproportionate or harsh.

TheDivisional Secretary, RailwayMazdoorUnion , IInd 50-J , C.P.H. Colony, N. Rly. , Charbagh , Lucknow-0 . (Espousing case of Shri Ajai Singh) AND

1. The General Manager , Northern Railway , BarodaHouse, NewDelhi .

30. therefore, in view of the above discussion and findings regarding charge levelled against the workman, it cannot be said that impugned order dt. 2-3-2000 whereby the services of the workman has been terminated , is unjustified.

3621 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

2. The Chief Factory Manager,. Northern Railway, Charbagh, Lucknow

AWARD

Dated: 13-5-2009

Rules, in the event of surpuls post , the junior most employee ofthe cadre or willing employee only could be transferred, but the wokman was neither junior most nor was willing even then he was transferred to another Zone just because of the fact that the management of Railways was annoyed, displeased and prejudiced with the union activites ofthe workman concerned . As per submission of the trade union transferring an employee by way of victimization due to trade union activities comes under definition of bad labour practice and if any employee does not comply the transfer order, he may be taken up under D & AR but salary cannot be stopped without giving show cause . Accordingly , it has prayed that the action of management intransferring the workman be declaredwrong, unwarranted , illegal and malafide and he be entitled for salary from 11-5-2003 to 23-10-2005 and onward.

1. By order No. L-41012/ 103/2004- IR(B - I) dated 1-6- 2005 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub -section ( 1 ) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between The Divisional Secretary, Railway Mazdoor Union, IInd 50-J , C.P.H. Colony, N. Rly. , Charbagh, Lucknow ( Espousing case of Shri Ajai Singh) and the General Manager , Northern Railway , Baroda House, New Delhi & the Chief Factory Manager, Northern Railway , Charbagh , Lucknow for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is :

"Whether the action of the management ofNorthern Railway, New Delhi & Chief Karkhana Manager , Northern Railway, Lucknow in transferring Shri Ajai Singh, Head Clerk in another zone (Northern Central Railway, Kanpur) is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to ?"

4. The management of the Railways has disputed entire claim ofthe workman except his appointment as clerk under CWM on 27-11-1978 , transfer order dated 29-3-2003 and relieving order dated 10-5-2003 . Denying the allegation of victimization or bad labour practice, the management has submitted that the transfer order had been passed hy the Competent Authority i.e. General Manager (GM) ,Northern Railway , Head Quarters who has got full power to transfer any railway servant in the administrative interest and since the transfer orders were made by the GM, NR it was not in the power and competence of CWM, NR, Lucknow to entertain the representations of the workman regarding this . Moreover , no such representation was ever made before appropriate authority against the order oftransfer or of relieving. Also it has been submitted by the management that when the transfer order was passed, Kanpur station of Allahabad Division was situated in NR and since the workman was transferred along with post, therefore , there does not arise any question of vacancy at Kanpur and the GM had full powers under Rules to make such transfer in the interest of Railway administration and it was quite valid, legal and justified and it has no relation as to indulgence of the workman in thetrade union activities whatsoever . As per averments ofthe management it was workman who abstain himself from Government duties w.e.f. 20-10-99 to 1-4-2003 unauthorizedly and without prior sanctioned leave and permission of the competent authority hence he was not entitled for any salary and no leave application was submitted by him . Accordingly , the management has prayed that since the transfer order was issued by the Competent Authority in the administrative interest therefore, the claim of the workman is liable to be rejected without any relief.

5. The union has filed rejoinder whereby it has only reiterated its averments in the statment of claim and has not introduced any new fact .

3. The case of the union in brief is that Shri Ajai Singh was initially appointed as clerk under Chief Workshop Manager (CWM ), Loco Workshop , Charbagh , NR, Lucknow on 27-11-1978 on compassionate ground and presently he is working on the post of Head Clerk under CWM. The workman was on leave from 20-10-1999 to 29-3-2003 on medical ground due to serious illness and joined the duty on 31-3-2003 (F/N) on being declared fit for duty by the Superintendent of Balrampur Hospital (Government Hospital ) , Lucknow. It has been submitted that the workman was transferred vide order dated 29-3-2003 from Lucknow (NR) to Kanpur Allahabad Division (NCR). However, the said transfer order was made available to him on 1-4-2003 . The CWM, Loco Workshop vide his letter dated 2-4-2003 referred the workman to Senior D.M.O. , NR, Loco Workshop , Lucknow for medical check and thereafter to CMS , NR, Charbagh , Lucknow and finally was declared fit for duty w.e.f. 19-4-2003 (Α/N ) . Accordingly, he resumed his duty on 21-4-2003 and represented against transfer order dated 29-3-2003 and prayed for cancellation of the said transfer order . It has been alleged that the workman was relieved w.e.f. 10-5-2003 (A/N ) to join new posting vide order dated 10-5-2003 with an intention to harass and victimize him . The workman again represented against his relieving vide hisrepresentation dated 12-5-2003 with no results . It has been further alleged hy the trade union that as per Railway 3622

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

6. The parties submitted documentary evidence in support of their respective, cases and the union has examined the workman whereas opposite party examined Shri Nagendera Kumar Srivastava, Establishment Clerk/ NR insupport of their resective cases .

7. Heard learned representives of both the perused relevantmaterial on record.

8. The contentions of the learned representative on behalfof the workman is that the workman has lien in the North Zone and he cannot be transferred from N.R. Zone to another Railway Zone i.e. NCR Zone without his consent. He has further contended that at the time of transfer of the workman by impugned order , Allahabad Divisionwas in NCR Zone . He has also contended that there is no vacant post in kanpur and even as surplus staff, the workman cannot be transferred as he is not junior most in his cadre in the North Zone . He has further more contended that the workman has been transferred at the instance of other reconginzed union with ulterior motive and impugned order is illegal unjustified and against the rules pertainingto transfer . In support of his contentions he has placed reliance on :

(i) Para2011. F.R. 15 of Railway Estt. Code , 1957 V0 . II .

(ii) 2006 ( 109) FLR 926 between S. Sevugan and Chief Educational Officer , Virudhunagar District Virudhunnagar &another.

( iii) 2006 ( 110) FLR 124 between U.P. Raghavendra Acharya & other and State of Karnataka & others .

(iv) 2006 ( 111) FLR 718 between Dr. Ramanand and State or U.P. & other .

(v) 2007 ( 114) FLR 21 between M/s Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. , Allahabad and Presiding Officer , Industrial Tribunal ( 1 ) , Allahabad & others .

9. Par conta, the learned representative on behalf ofthe Railway management has urged that the workman has not been transferred as a measure of punishement or due to displeasure of any senior officer. He has been transferred on administrative ground and at the time of transfer of the workman by impugned order , Kanpur (AllahabadDivision ) was in North Zone and the GM, North Zone, Delhi was having powers to pass said order . He has further urged that the workman has not been transferred as surplus staff. Moreover, for transfer of the staff of the workshop, from one Zone to another Zone , the consent of the concerned employee is not required as per scheme of calling option for transfer. He has also urged that the impugned order was passed by theG.M. , N.R. Zone Delhi but no representation of any kind has ever been made to him The learned representative has urged that neither transfer ofthe workman has been made on account of any

[PART II -SEC. 3(ii) ] trade union activity nor at the instance of any other union and there is no victimization or unfair labour practice in transferring the workman as alleged by the workman. In support of his contentions , he has also place reliance on (2007) 8 SCC 793 , Prabir Banerjee Vs. Uol .

10. I have given my thoughtful considerations on the rival submissions of both the sides .

11. Indisputedly , the workman was posted as Head Clerk in Locomotive Workshop , Charbagh , Lucknow when he was earlier transferred to Bikaner Division in the year 1999 vide order dated 07.10.99 . Admittedly, he did notjoin there . Subsequently in suprecession of the said order, the workman was transferred to Kanpur (Allahabad Division) vide order ofthe G.M. , North Zone, Delhi dated 29.03.2003 andhe was relieved on 10.05.2003, but the workman inspite ofbeing transferred from Bikaner Division to Allahabad Division, has not gone and joined his place of posting till date.

12. In above admitted factual backdrop and in the view of reference under adjudication the question , thus arises for consideration is whether the transfer of the workman from Nroth Zone to another Zone i.e. North Central Railway, Kanpur vide impugned order is justified. ?

13. The workman has deposed in his statement on oath that whatever he has stated in his statement of claim is correct. In cross - examination he stated that he was transferred to Kanpur ( Allahabad Division) along with post . He has also admitted that neither he made any representation to the G.M. , North Zone , Delhi nor he endorsed any copy of the representation to him. He has also admitted that he is not office bearer of any recognized union.

14. In rebuttal, the management of the Railways has examined Shri Nagendra Kumar Srivastava, Establishment Clerk of the Locomotive Workshop , Charbag, Lucknow. He has stated that the workman was earlier transferred from Lucknowto Bikaner Division (NR) as per order ofthe G.M. , NR. Zone vide his confidential letter dated 15.10.1999 , but the workman did not join there . Subsequently in supercession of earlier order he was transferred to Kanpur (Allahabad Division). Both the orders were issued on administrative grounds and the workman was relieved on 10.05.2003, but he did not resume and report at Kanpur. He has further stated that the workman was transferred to Allahabad Division along with post on same salary and after his transfer by said order , he has no lien in Loco Workshop , Lucknow. He has further stated that the G.M. , N.R. Zone. Delhi had power to transfer the workman by said orders as at the relevant time , Bikaner Division & Allahabad Division were in N.R. Zone . In cross - examination he has admitted that when the workman was relieved on 3623 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

Mandal ka sthanantran aadesh ko badalte hue Shri Ajai Singh ka sthanantran Allahabad Mandal ke antargat Kanpur main posting hetu jari kiya hai .

10-05-2003 , Allahabad Division was not in N.R. Zone but he has tried to justify the impugned order on the ground that the matter of transfer of the workman was pending since year 1999 and in the said year Allahabad Division was in N.R. Zone .

Tadanusar es karyalay aadesh sankhaya 373 dinank 15-10-99 ka radd kiya jata hai . Shri Ajai Singh Pradhan/Lipik/samay sangathan ko dinank 29-3-2003 ko [apranh ] se prashashanik aadhar par pad sahit sthanantarit kar Allahabad Mandal ke adhin Kanpur main posting hetu bheja jata hai . "

15. It is pertinent to mention that validity oftransfer ofthe workman in the year 1999 from Lucknow to Bikaner and matter of non-compliance of the said order by the workman is not to be considered in view of question postulated in the reference under adjudication.

16. The workman has been transferred to Allahabad Division at Kanpur vide order dated 11-2-2003 (C-25)which isbeing reproduced hereunder:-

"Headquarters Office BoarodaHouse NewDelhi .

NOTICE

18. The copy of the Board letter dated 19-7-2002 addressed to all G.Ms. of Indian Railway pertainingto calling of option from staff to serve in the HeadQuarter of new five Railway Zones and dand determination ofseniority of staff on transfer to the new Zones, is on the record ( 12/6) and letter ofthe GM. NR Zone dated 29-9-2000 addressed to Chief Work Manager (C-24) is also on the record . It is evident from perusal of the above documents that as per gazette notification No. 98E& R/700/ 1 /Notification dated 10-2-2003 , the Zone of NCR, Allahabad Division came into existence w.e.f. 1-4-2003 .

In supercession of this office notice of even number dated 7-10-99, Shri Ajay Singh , Hd. Clerk working under CWM/ CB /LKO who was transferred alongwith post to BKN Divin , N. Rly (Now N. W. Rly.) in administrative interest is not transferred to ALD Divn. , N. Rly. With posting at Kanpur.

19.Although the impugned order was passed just 3 days prior to the date when gazette notification came into existence i.e. 1-4-2003 and after publication ofthe gazette notification on 10-2-2003, but the workman has been relieved on 10-5-2003 subsequent to the new Zone of NCR came into existence by said notification.

This has the approval ofG.M.

-sd-

11-2-2003

(RAMESH CHAND) forGeneral Manager/P dated: 10-02-2003"

No.939-E/228/Transfer/Confdl ./EIID.

17. Pursuant to and in furtherance of the said directions , the Chief Work Manager , NR, Loco , Charbag, Lucknow has issued impugned order dated 29-3-2003, the relevant portion of the said order is as under:

20. At the time of transfer order it was in the knowledge ofthe management ofthe N.R. Zone that gazette notification had already been published for creation of NCR Zone on 10-2-2003 . It is not the case of the management that the workman opted for transfering him in the NCR ZONE . Even if, obtaining option thewas not applicable on the staff ofworkshop , the circunstmes in which the workman has been relieved on 10-5-2003 ulter NCR Zone came into existence on 1-4-2003 speak themselves that the transfer of the workman without his consent in Allahabad Division at Kanpur sesins to be done malafiedly in the garb of administrative ground for reasons best known to the management of the Railway .

"Dinank : 29-3-2003

Shri Ajay Singh, Pardhan Lipik/Vetan Rs . 5000-8000 samay sangathan ka prashashanik aadhar par may post ke Bikaner Mandal main maha Parabandhak/ Karmik U. Re . Nai Dilli ke gopneeya patra sankhaya- 939E/228/Transfer/Kanif/--/E.11.E./Looj dinank 07-10-99 ke dwara kiya gaya tha tadanantar Shri Ajai Singh ko is karyalay ke karyalay aadesh snakhya 373 dinank 15-10-99 ke madhyam se Bikaner Mandal hetu stanantaranjari kiya gaya tha.

21. To justify the transfer in administrative ground the learned representative on behalf of the management has relied on (2007) 8 SCC 793 , but the fact ofthe sbove case law are different. In said case the matter under consideration was whether it was open to transfer petitionerwho was employee ofthe Central Board ofExcise &Customs, from Indore to Nagpur. Hon'ble Apex Court heldthat thepetitioner has no cause to complain in respect of the transfer order by which he was transferred from Bhopal Zone to the Nagpur Zone, as the same has been passed by the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal, under power vested in him by the Board by its circular dated 16-1-2003 . But in the instant case it was not Punah Maha Prabandhak/ Karmik U.Re. Nai Dilli ke patra sankhye 939./228/Transfer/Vamiadfention/E. 11.D/dinank 10-2-2003 ke madhyam se Bikaner

2137 G1/09-32 3624

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] within the purview of the GM, NR Zone to transfer an employee from North Zone to another newly created Zone , NCR Zone .

24. Now the question survives for consideration is whether the workman is entitled for salary from 11-5-2003 up to 23-10-2005 and onward as claimed by him in statement ofclaim.

22. Incase law2006 ( 109) FLR 926 cited bythe learned representative on behalf of the workman, the transfer order was passed on administrative grounds but the Hon'ble Madras High Court observed that it appears that the order was passed by way of punishment on the basis of complaints received and the petitioner is entitled for proper opportunity to defend himself as to whether the complaints against him by the Public or by the Headmaster is proper or not by way of an enquiry. In 2006 ( 110) FLR 124, the matter was pertaining to grant pensionery benefits to its employees and in this regard Hon'ble Apex Court held that the executive instruction could not be override the provisions of statutory rule . In 2006 ( 111 ) FLR 718 whentransfer order was passed no Government order was available to the concerned CMO at the relevant point of time entrusting with such powers , therefore, in these circumstances Hon'ble Allahabad High Court observed that transfer order cannot be sustained passed earlier prior to date ofgiving effect of G.O. dated 31-7-2006. In 2007 ( 114) FLR 21 the matter under consideration was regarding territorial jurisdiction to refer the industrial dispute. In aforesaid case laws also the question under consideration and facts were different .

25. Back wages or salary cannot be claimed as a matter ofright. In the matter of grant of back wages certain guidelines have been laid down by Hon'ble supreme Court in recent decisions therefore, several factors are required to be considered including conduct of workman, nature his job, interregnum period during which he remained absent from duty during non -compliance of his transfer order and whether during such period the workman remained in any gainful employment etc. In the instant case admittedly the workman has not accepted transfer by impugned order and not reported at the place oftransfer at Kanpur and questioned the validity of the transfer by submitting representations . He has neither made any plea in statement of claim nor stated in his statement on oath that since 10-5-2003 , when he was relieved, he had not remained in any gainful employment. There is nothing on record to indicate that any proceedings for alleged misconduct of non- compliance of impugned transfer order were ever initiated against him . Ordinarily, the workman who has been transferred should, subject tojust exception, joinathis transfer place and in industrial undertakings like Railway indiscipline should not be encourged. While considering før back wages or salary the conduct of the workman in transfer case is very material and he cannot get premium for his disobedience .

26. Keeping in view the fact on one hand that the workman did not join his posting at Kanpur since 10-5-2003 and on the other hand, unjust order of the opposite party in transferring the workman from North Zone to NCR Zone without his consent, the interest ofjustice wouldbe sub- served if during period from 10-5-2003 till be joins his duty, the workman is treated to be on leave , excludingjoining period , subject to his entitlement for the same and the opposite party is directed to pass an appropriate order invoking the Leave Rules in this behalf.

27. Since the transfer of the workman in Allahabad Division at Kanpur (NCR) vide impugned order dated 29-3-2003 is not justified, the same is set aside . The concerned management of Railway is directed to treat the period from 10-5-2003 till he joins his duty as per direction ofthe opposite party , as on leave subject to entitlement of leave . The workman will be entitled for salary for the aforesaid period subject to his sanctioned leave . The reference under adjudication be answered accordingly.

28. Award as above .

Lucknow. 13-5-2009

23. It is settled legal position that an order oftransfer is an administrative order . Transfer which is ordinary Incident of service should not be interfered save in cases where inter alia malafied intention of authority is proved. Transfer of a workman can be challenged if it is shown that It is malafied. The Tribunal can go into foundation of transfer order and set it aside ifthere is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion or malafied. In the present case transfer by impugned order apparently seems to be administrative order but as stated earlier the impugned order has been passed after publication of gazette notification for creation ofnew Railway Zone i.e. NCR and relieved on 10-5-2003 after new NCR Zone came into existence . The management witness Nagendera Kumar Srivastava has stated on oath that GM was empowered to transfer an employee within his zone only . He has also stated that on 10-5-200 , when the workman was relieved . Allahabad Division was not in the North Zone. According to him , the matter was pending since 1999 and at that relevant time Allahabad Division was in North Zone . It is evident from his evidence that when workman was relieved to report at Kanpur, (Allahabad Division ) a new NCR Zone had already came into existence . In view of the entire facts and circumstances ofthe case , the impugned order, transferring theworkman to Allahabad Division at Kanpur seems tobe malafied, thus, the same is liable to be set aside being unjustified.

N. K. PUROHIT , Presiding Officer 3625 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 29 मई , 2009

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

का.आ. 1756.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एम/एस राईस ( इंडिया) लिमिटेड, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण -2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/4/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-41012/ 18 /2004 - IR (B- 1 ) dated 30 September , 2004 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:

[फा. सं. एल-41012/18/2004- आईआर ( बी.1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 29thMay, 2009

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Rites (India) Ltd. , in terminating the services of Shri Sudhakar Suvarna w.e.f. 13-2-2002 is justified ? ifnot, to what relief the workman, Shri Sudhakar Suvarna is entitled to ?"

S.O. 1756.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 2/4/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court -2 , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s . Rites (India) Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29-5-2009 .

[F. No. L-41012/ 18/2004- IR (B- 1 ) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO .-2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : A. A. Lad, Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT- 2/4 of2005

Employers in Relation to the Management of M/ s . Rites (India)Ltd.

TheManagingDirector,

M/s . Rites (India) Ltd. , New Delhi House, 27, BarakhambaRoad, New Delhi 110001 .

...IstParty

AND

TheirWorkmen

Shri Sudhakar Suvarna,

Room No. 12 , Kashibai After Walla Chawl No. 2, Ram Wadi ,Gumpha Road, Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai-400060.

....2nd Party

APPEARANCES

Forthe Employer: Mr. Vinay V. Menon, Advocate

For the Workmen: Manoj M. Gujar, Advocate

Date ofreserving Award: 10-9-2008.

DateofPassing ofAward: 2-4-2009

2. To support the subject matter in the referente the Statement of Claim is filed by the concerned Workirat Exhibit 6making out the case that, he was initially employed bythe 1st Party as a Sweeper in May, 1990 on the application dated 11-5-1990 . He was attending the work of cleaning and sweeping in the 1st Party's premises . He was paid salary of Rs . 350 per month which was later on increased byRs . 200 by the 1st Party. Doing that work for a period of four years continuously thereafter he was asked to apply forthe post ofCasual Helper . Accordingly on 1-1-1994 he gave application to the 1st Party to appoint him as a casual helper on which he was appointed on a consolidated salary ofRs . 700 by letter dated 1-1-1994. Even he worked in that capacity for one year. Thereafter he was appointed on ad hoc basis as a messenger . Looking to his performance and looking that , he was not permanent employee he was recommended to be placed on the list of temporary/daily wage employees . At the relevant time, 1st Party was having a sanctioned strength of 5 posts . Against the said sanctioned strength of5 posts , 4 employees were engaged, and one postwas vacant and for that vacant post name of the concerned workman was recommended by the Additional General Manager. On 17-9-1997 the concerned Workman was appointed as a Messenger. However, he was appointed on contractual basis in September , 1997 as aMessenger. His services as a Messenger were continued from 17-9-1997 for four years . However, he was not confirmed so he made representations but he was not considered. One Shri Navin Punjari who joined services after 2nd Party was confirmed. So he pray that, he be reinstated as the work on which he was working is available. He also requestto confirm him in the employment of the first Party on the post on which he worked . He further states that, though he worked for such a long time no legal notice was given nor legal dues were offered nor even he was considered though he completed more than 240 days in every year . So he pray that , he be continued in the employment of the 1st Party with effect from 13-2-2002 with full backwages.

3626

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

withfirstPartyas stated above . Even in the cross he admits that, he was aware of nature ofhis appointment . He admits that he was taken on contract basis . Even Management in support of its case filed affidavits of its witnesses in lieu of examination in chief at Exhibits 13 and 17 who does not dispute employment of the 2nd Party with Ist Party. But their case is that, the concerned workman was appointed oncontract post.

3. Thisisdisputed by the 1st Party by filing written statement at Exhibit 7 contending and making out the case that, the 2nd Party was appointed purely on contract basis. Hewas never appointed as a regular employee . He was not gettingany benefits of regular employee . There is surplus staff. He was not retrenched by the Ist Party. No work is available and as such 2nd Party cannot be considered for the post and cannot be regularised in the employment of the IstParty. There is no ' employer' employee relationship between the 1st Party and the 2nd Party and the services ofthe 2nd Party came to an end by efflux of time as the concernedworkman was appointed on contract . there was no termination of services of the 2nd Party and as such question of its setting aside and reinstating him does not arise. So it is submitted that, the prayer prayed by the 2nd Party to reinstate him does require to consider .

4. Rejoinder is filed by the 2nd Party at Exhibit 9 stating that, the claim made by him is legal and require to consider for the post on which he worked.

8. Admittedly there is no termination order . Admittedly 2nd Party is appointed on contract basis and by efflux of time his services came to an end . When his services came to an end by efflux of time being appointed on contract basis, said cannot be called as termination. Besideswhen services come to an end by efflux of time , in that case question of paying legal dues does not arise nor question of following provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 like legal notice , payment of wages in lieu of notice and offering legal dues arise.According to me it is not termination and as such it cannot be called as termination. So I answer this issue to that effect .

ISSUE NOS . 2 & 3:

5. In view of the above pleadings following issues were framed atExhibit 10 which I answer as under:

FINDINGS

ISSUES

1.Whether it is termination illegal one?

Yes

2.Whether 2nd Party is entitled to confirm or reinstate in the employment of1stParty?

9. 2ndParty claims that, he worked with 1st Party as a" Sweeper" from 1990. He worked on contract basis . Then heworked asMessenger and then as ' ad hoc Messenger' . Work is available with the 1st Party. There are 5 posts in Group ' D' , 4 were filled in and another one is vacant. According to him his junior was regularized in the employment but he was not considered. As far as this case isconcerned, the Management examined 2 witnesses who are not disputing the said position.

3.Whether any other relief 2nd Party is entitled to get ?

2ndParty is entitled tobe considered as employee of the 1st Party from thedate ofthis order.

4.whatorder?

As per order passed below.

REASONS:

ISSUES NO. 1 :

6. 2nd Party Made out the case that, he was illegally terminated. Whereas case of the Ist Party is that, he was never appointed by 1st Party and as such there is no question oftermination vis-a-vis ' employer' and ' employee' relationship between the parties . 2nd Party being a contract worker his services comes to an end by efflux oftime and it is not by result oftermination .

7. To prove that, 2nd Party examined himself by filinghis affidavit, at Exhibit 11 , in lieu ofhis examination in chief, where he nazantes the story about his employment

10. The case made out by the 2nd Party that, the work on which he worked is available and he was recommmended for the same by number of officers on number ofoccasions is not disputed by the 1st Party. Even case ofthe 2nd Party that, there is a vacancy and 4 posts were filled in out of5 posts in Group ' D ' is also not disputed and that, his junior Shri Navin Pujari is confirmed in the employment is also not disputed by the 1st Party and by the witnesses examined by Management . Besides if we peruse the documents produced by 2nd Party with Exhibit 16we find number of correspondence made by Deputy General Manager, Additional General Manager, Assistant General Manager and Manager (Personnel) reveals that, 2nd Party worked with Ist Party from 1990. He worked satisfactorily . It reveals that, there is vacancy. It reveals that, work is available . It also reveals from the admisssions givenby the office staff ofthe Ist Party that, there is work. Allthis reveals that, his work is recognized and admired by the officers of the Ist Party. It reveals that , he was recommended to regularize in the employment. It is not explained by the Management as to why it has not considered to continue the 2nd Party ? It is not explained as to why Management discontinued him from the employment except the stand taken by it that, by efflux of 3627 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

नई दिल्ली, 29 मई , 2009 contract his services came to an end. Even it is not explained why and how Navin Pujari his junior is continued ?

का.आ. 1757. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947

का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में मिर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/10/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-5-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-41011 /38/2007- आई.आर. ( बी.1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 29thMay,2009 11. When his junior Shri Navin Pujari was regularized then question arises, why 2nd Party could not be regularized ? It is not that, work is not available . It is not that, his service record is not clear. It is not that, he is not a fitperson.When he is working there from 1990 definitely he can claim employment with 1st Party and can claim relationship with 1st Party. It is not that, work was temporary and not of perennial nature . When work is permanent and perennial nature and when he worked continuously to their satisfaction and when there is no complaint about his work and behaviour and attitude with staff and when post is available as well as work is available , I am of the opinion that, interference of this Tribunal is very much neededto direct 1st Party to take him in the employment on the post available with effect from the date of this order as a Messenger and give him allbenefits as of regular employee from the date of this order .

S.O. 1757.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 2/10/ 2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29-5-2009 .

[No. L-41011/38/2007 -IR (B- 1 )] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 12. considering the length of service rendered by the 2nd Party to 1st Party from 1990 which is more than a decade andwhenthere is no specific case for not regularizing the 1st party, I am of the opinion that, 1st Party must regularize 2nd Party and regularize him in the employment as a regular employee on the post of Messenger.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

Present: A. A. Lad, Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT -2/10 of2008 13. In view of the discussions made above I conclude that, since the 2nd Party cannnot be reinstated I am of the opinion, as stated above , when he worked on contract basis , his services came to an end by efflux of contract time and when he worked on contrat basis for a decade and when his services came to an end by efflux of timeyet was not terminated. So I am of the opinion that , he isnot entitled for reinstatement nor even for backwages .

Employers in relation to the Management of Central Railway

TheDivisional Railway Manager ,

CentralRailway MumbaiCST Mumbai-400 001 .

14. However, at the same time considering length of services and looking to his service record and various correspondence made by various officers of the 1st Party, where they recommended, 2nd Party, to the Authority to take him in the employment, I feel that, this is a proper case where one push is required to protect the services of this person. Hence, the order:

And

ORDER

TheirWorkmen

(1) Reference is partly allowed;

(ii) 1st Party is directed to take 2nd Party i.e. Sudhakar Suvarna in its employment as Messenger from the date of this order as its regular employee and givehim allbenefits;

The Zonal Secretary All India Loco Running Staff Association 6, Madhusudan NearJantaSahakari Bank Syndicate Kalyan Distt. Thane .

(iii) Inthe circumstances the prayers of the 2nd Party to reinstate him and give him benefits of back wages is rejected,

APPEARANCES

(iv) No order as to its costs.

FortheEmployer : Mr. Abhay Kulkarni, Advocate A.A. LAD, Presiding Officer

For the Workmen: Noappearance

Bombay,

Mumbai , dated 8th April, 2008 2ndApril, 2009 3628

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

AWARD

The Government of India Ministry ofLabour by its Order No. L-41011 /38/2007 - IR (B- 1) dated 24-1-2008 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- Section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the demand of the All India Loco running Staff Association for continuing the practice ofnon- selection/ Seniority criteria for promotion to the post ofMotormen, in Central Railways , Mumbai Division is legal andjustified ? Ifso , what reliefthe concerned workmen are entitled to ?"

2. Though number of dates were given to second party for filing claim statement, it was not filed. Today also second party found absent when called out which lead me to pass the following order :

ORDER

Reference is disposed of for want of prosecution .

A. A. LAD, PresidingOfficer Date:08-04-2009.

नई दिल्ली, 2 जून , 2009

का.आ. 1758.-कर्मचारी राज्य अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा -1 की उपधारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 1 जुलाई, 2009 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय-4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है) अध्याय -5 और 6 ( धारा -76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धारा-77 , 78, 79 , और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबंध हरियाणा राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:

क्रम सं

जिला

हदबस्त संख्या

राजस्वभाग

146

गुड़गांव बिलासपुर

143

पिथरेड़ी

गुड़गांव 3.

134

गुड़गांव भौड़ाकला

चौमा

गुड़गांव

गुड़गांव धूमसपुर

139

सिधरावली

गुड़गांव [फा. सं. एस-38013/23/2009 - एस.एस. 1 ] एस. डी. जेवियर, अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 2nd June , 2009 5.O. 1758. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st July, 2009 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] Vand VI (except Sub-Section ( 1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) ofthe said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Haryana namely: -

District

Had Bast No.

Sl.No. Revenue Village

146

1. Bilaspur

Gurgaon 2.

Pathrari

143

Gurgaon 3. BahoraKalan

134

Gurgaon 4.

Choma

Gurgaon 5.

Dhumaspur

Gurgaon 6.

139

Sidhrawali

Gurgaon

[F. No. $-38013/23/2008-S.S.I] S.D. XAVIER , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 2 जून, 2009

का.आ. 1759. 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.- 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी -2/1/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -30011 /59/2007- आईआर ( एम ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 2nd June , 2009 S.O. 1759. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT- 2/1/2008) oftheCentral Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of IOCL and their workmen, which was receivedby the Central Government on 2-6-2009 .

[No. L-30011 /59/2007- IR(M)] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO . 2, MUMBAI Present : A. A. Lad, Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT-2/1 of2008

Employers in Relation to the Management of Indian Oil CorporationLtd.

The Chief Manager (P & A) , IndianOil Corporation Ltd.

IBPDivision Sewri Terminal Sewri (E),Mumbai -400015.

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3629

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

And

Their Workmen

TheGeneral Secretary

Petroleum Employees Union

TelRasayan Bhavan

Tilak Road, Dadar Mumbai-400014.

APPEARANCES

For the Employers : Ms. Kaushika M. i/b RMG Law Associates , Advocates.

For the Workmen : No appearance, Advocate .

Mumbai, dated 8th April, 2009

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L-30011/59/2007 - IR (M) dated 3-12-2007 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub -section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the demand of Petroleum Employees Union for Payment of arrears for productivity linked incentive for the year 1997-98 to 1999-2000 and the PLI for the year 2004-2005 for the workers oferstwhile IBP Co. Ltd. , now merged with the IOCL w.e.f. 2-5-2007 is just and legal ? If so , to what reliefthe workers are entitled to ?"

2. Reference was fixed for claim statement. Though number ofdates were given, claim statement is not filed by the second party which led me to conclude that second party is not interested in pursuing with the reference .Hence the order:

ORDER

Reference is disposed of for want of prosecution .

A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer Date:08-04-2009.

नई दिल्ली , 2 जून , 2009

का.आ. 1760.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एयरपोर्ट, ऑथोरिटी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी 2/73/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11011 / 1/2002- आई.आर. ( एम. ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the2nd June, 2009 S.O. 1760. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT 2/ 73/2002) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Airpart Authority of India and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on2-6-2009.

[No. L- 11011 /1 /2002 -IR ()(M) ]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO.2, MUMBAI PRESENT : A. A. Lad, PresidingOfficer Reference No. CGIT-2/73 of2002

Employers in relation to the Management of Air Port Authority of India

TheAirport Director, Airpot Authority of India. , GoaAirport, Dabolim, Goa.

...lstParty V/s.

Their Workmen

....2ndParty TheGereral Secretary, Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh, Shetye Sankul, 3rd floor, Tish Ponda, Goa.

APEARANCES

FortheEmployer: S/Shri M.S. Bandodkar S.K. Manjrekar , and S.S. Desai . Advocates

Forthe Workmen: Mr. P. Gaonkar, Representative .

Date ofreserving the Award: 27-11-2008 .

Date ofpassing the Award: 09-04-2009 .

AWARD

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

TheGovernment of India Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L- 11011 / 1 /2002 - IR (M) dated 22nd October , 2002 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1 ) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the 3630

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30 , 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the persons involved in the dispute are workmen falling under the definition of Section 2(s ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? If yes , to what reljef the persons involved in the dispute are entitled for?"

work of trolley keeping , loading and un - loading etc. at Dabolim Airport on the ground of the 1st Party. It is contended by the Union that , since these workers completed the 240 days working period , required to treat as permanent and they require to treat as permanent employees of the 1st Party as well as entitled to seek protection. So it is prayed by the Union that, it be declared that,the terminations effected on them is illegal , unjustified and 1st Partybe directed to reinstate them with benefit of backwages and continuity of service.

2 Claim Statement is filed by General Secretary of the Union at Exhibit 6 making out the case that, the Air Port Authority of India ( which will be called hereinafter as 'Authority') is a body incorporated by the Central Government under the Air Port Authority Act, 1994. Accordingto2nd Party Union , Air Port of Dabolim, Goa is under the control of Air Port Authority of India. According to Union Authority collect the levy from the passengers towards handling baggage of the passengers and in order to fulfil this commitment Authority, porovide the trolleys at the Air Port . According to Union , these trolleys are owned by the Airport Authority and controlled by it. According to union for the said work of handling the trolleys, and lifting the luggage of the passengers , these workers were engaged by the Authority . According to Union since last several years the twenty workmen connected with the order of Reference were engaged by theAuthority at Dabolim Airport, Goa and were doing work of handling the trolleys at the Airport.

3. Union further contends that in March, 2001 all these 20 workers joined the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh and thereafter the Union raised the dispute for demands for payment ofminium wages vide letter dated 12-3-2001 before Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) Vasco da Gama-Goa. On receipt of the said dispute the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) was pleased to take the dispute in the conciliation and issued notices to attend his office . However, during the pendency of the said preceedings on 19-12-2001 the authority refused to allow these 20 workmen to work at the Airport. It is stated by the Union that, the said termination challenged by it which was illegal and the Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi , sent the Reference for adjudication.

5. This is disputed by the 1st Party by filing written statement at Exhibit 10 making out the case that, the Government of India having held by its order dated 12-8-2002 that, Union could not produce any evidence to show that persons in respect of whom the dispute was raised were appointed by the Authority cannot be considered for the same . It is stated that, in the said dispute itdid not enclose the list of the employees with the Schedule assuch, the prayer prayed by Union regarding employment and reinstatement are not the same employees who were referred by the Government of India in the Reference of this case. It is stated that, the claim of the Union is vague . It is further stated that, workers for whom the Union is fighting are not covered under the provisions of Industrial Diputes Act, 1947. It is stated that , they are not appointed by theAuthority. It is stated that , they did not work for 240 days in a celander year to claim permanency . It is stated that, regarding their regularization , no dispute was raised by Union. It is stated that , since they were not appointed by the ' Authority' , there is no ' employer ' ' employee ' relationship or ' master ' and ' servant' relationship between them. Besides it is stated that, these workers work never paid by the Authority and they are not working under the control and supervision of the Authority. It is denied that, Authority is collecting levy fees from the passengers for handling baggage of the passengers . It is further denied that, for the purpose of handling the baggage of the passengers , Authority engaged its employees for handling trolleys . It is stated that, Authroity is not aware about these 20 employees for whom Union is fighting for permanencyand about their alleged termination. It is stated that , since these workers are not concerned with the Authority, no question arises for termination as alleged by the Union and no question arises to reinstate them or for direction to Ist party to give them benefit of back wages and continuityofservice . It is stated that, the prayer prayed by the Union be rejected .

6. Union filed rejoinder at Exhibit 11 making out the same case as made out in the Claims Statement .

7. In view ofthe above pleadings Issues were framed by may Ld. Predecessor at Exhibit 22 which I answer as under:

4. According to Union , these Workmen were engaged by the Air Port Authority of India and were issued entry- cum -work passes by then Authority. It is stated that since theirappointments from April 2000 till their refusal of employinent on 19-12-2001 , workers worked with 1st Party. It is stated that, they have completed more than 240 days in the said employment with 1st party. It is further stated by the Union that, the workmen mentioned in para 9 of Claim Statement require to treat the employees of the Authority. It is stated by the Union that, they were engaged ascasual labourers and they were issued work permits to carry out said work on trolleys on the premises of the Airport. It is stated that, these workers were doing the 3631 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

FINDINGS

ISSUES

1. Whether the persons involved in the dispute are workers falling under the definition of Section 2(s) ofthe Industrial Dipputes Act, 1947 ? No

Doesnot

2. Ifyes, to what relief the persons involved in the dispute are entitled for ? arise

REASONS

ISSUE No. 1 & 2:

8. 2nd Party Union made out the case that, employees mentioned in para- 9 of the Claims Statement were appointed by the Autyority . They are employees of the Authority. They are illegally terminated . They were doing work ofAuthority and Authority was collecting levy fees from the passengers to handle their luggage and the said work was done by these workers . Whereas Authority says that, these workers were not engaged by it. It is stated that, Authority does not collect levy fees from the passengers to handle their luggage . It is stated that, these trolleys are provided to the contractors who manage the trolleys . The authority is concerned only with supply of trolleys to the contractors . Contractors are inviting advertisements to use trolleys and it is duty of the contractor to handle the trolleys and not duty of the Authority. According to Authority since , these alleged employees were not referred in the reference , the demand ofthe 2nd Party Union is vague'and the employees cannot claim any relief since they are not falling under the definition of workmen.

that, trolleys were owned by the Authority. He claims that, Suresh Babu was recording their attendance. In the cross he states that, every employee has to secure entry pass to enter in the Airport premises. He admits that, said passes are given by Airport Authority for workmen . He states that, these passes are for a particular period to use for entry. He states that, payment was made by the Authority. Headmits that, he has no evidence on that point . He states that , charges of handling baggage are recovered from passenger through ticket fare . Then Union filed affidavit ofone Shamim S/ o Late Ramzand Khan at Exhibit 31 in lieu ofhis examination- in -chief who narrates the same story. In the cross he admits that, no appointment order was issued by Authority. He produces , at Exhibit 32, copy of entry pass issued by the Authority, He admits that, he has no ideawhetherAuthority gets licence fee for arranging trolley services . Then Management filed affidavit of Suresh Babu atExhibit 36, in lieu of his examination, who states that, these employees are not concerned with the Authority.He states that, for handing the trolleys in the Airport lease contract is given to the contractor. He states that, one suchagreement was executed on 23-10-2000 with one Dinesh Dedhia as licensee for providing advertisement on free baggage trolleys for the period from 1-11-2000 to 30-10-2003 . He states that, neither he nor any ofhis officer allot or distribute any work or control or supervise the work ofthese workers . He states that, these employees are not concerned with the Authority. In the cross he states that, he is producing copies of the contracts which took place between the Contractors and Airport Authority regarding displaying the advertisements on the trolleys for handling the trolleys and he admits the contents of the said agreements .

10. So this is the evidence led byboth . Heardboth onthis point.

11. Here, question is whether workers who are mentioned in para 9 of the Claims Statement, come under the definition of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ?As far as evidence led by2nd Party is concerned, it isvague one. Moreover, in the Schedule ofthe Reference no name of any employee is mentioned. Besides story of termination and employment given by the 1st Party is mixed by the Union. It is not proved that, Authority is collecting levy fee from the passengers for handling the baggage . Even we did not experience of collecting levy by the Authority for handling of the luggage of the passengers . Evennothing is pointed out by citing example by the Union. Besides it is not shown that, these workers are under the control ofthe Authority . Even it is not disputed by the Union that appointment and payment is not made by the Authority and they are not controlled by any of the officer ofthe Authority. When appointment and payment is not made by the Authority and when these employees are not working as per the directions of the officers of the Authority, how these workers can be treated as employees ofthe Authority ?

9. To prove that, Union relied on the affidavit filed by Puti Gaonkar, Secretary ofthe Union at Exhibit 24 in lieu ofhis examination- in -chief, who narrates the whole story and states that, that these workmen are entitled to the relief sought in the Claims Statement. In the cross he states that he raised dispute regarding demand of the workers . He also states that, the subject matter of the reference regarding regularization is referred in this reference. He admits that, no documents are produced to show that, employees mentioned in para 9 of the Statement of Claim are members of the Union. He denies that, Authority has entered into agreement with one Dinesh Dedhia for operating the trolleys in the Airport area. He states that, he has no idea whether such licences are given to different agencies for other facilities which are available at the Airport. He denied that, these agencies are regulating and supervising the services of the workers working with them and providing the services to the passengers . He denied that, 1st Party is not concerned with handling ofthe luggage ofthe passengers . Then Union filed one more affidavit of Suresh Wagdhare at Exhibit 28 , in lieu of his Examination- in-Chief, who speaks about refusal by the Authority during the pendency ofthe reference to enter in the premises of the Authority. He also speaks about entry - cum-work passes issued by the Authority to the workers . He states

2137 Gi /09-33 3632.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

12. Besides 1st Party says that , these workers worked only for few months that too on contract basis . When they did not work at the Airport according to Authority, they did not comply with the requirement of working for 240 days in a calendar year to claim permanency. Even on that point , nothing is stated by the Union. On the contraryUnion is silent on working of240 days by each of them in calendar year by the employees mentioned in para 9 ofthe claims statement. Besides no adjudication is asked by the Government regarding names of the employees for whom the protection is prayed by the Union . In fact prayer prayed by Union and the subject matter of the Schedule are vague. No specification is there . No details ofany of the employee is given. It is not shown when they wereappointed and for how many days they worked and who was paying their salary and paid it ? On all these points Union is silent . Besides only working on the premises of the 1st Party does not help Union to claim permanency of the said workers in the absence of the evidence on that point and more precisely evidence of each ofthem. Here they are claiming workmen of the 1st Party. It is denied by the 1st Party. When it is denied by the 1st Party, burden shifts on 2nd Party to show that, the workers referred in para 9 ofthe Statement of Claim are the workwes of the 1st Party.

13. Number of citations are referred by Ist Party viz, citation published in 2008 LLR page 952 ofDelhi High Court in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Jagat Singh, citation published in 2002 LLR page 770 , of our Hon'ble High Court , in the case of Uda Bhura Chavan vs. Dy. Engineer, PWD Chalisgaon. Citation published in 1954 II LLJ page 480 of Apex Court in the case of Hochtief Gammon vs. Industrial Tribunal , Bhubenshwar , Orissa and ors , citation published in 2004 LLR page 351 ofApex Court inthe case ofWorkmen of Nilgiri Co - op . Marketing Society Ltd. vs. State ofTamil Naidu and ors . , citation published in 2006 II CLR page 261 ofApex Court in the case ofSecretary, State of Karnataka and ors . vs Umadevi and ors . , Where as 2nd Part placed reliance on the citation published in 2006 (3) L.L.N. page 202 of Allahabad High Court in the case of Chand Chhap Fertilizer and Chemicals Ltd. Kanpur vs. Labour Commissioner (Uttar Pradesh ), Kanpur and ors . , citationpublished in 2008 II CLR page 414 ofApex Court in the case ofHimmat Singh & ors . vs. ICI India Ltd. and ors . and copy ofdecision of the Division Bench of our Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 1105 of 2006 in the case of Vimanlal Hamal Ekta Sanghathana vs. Union of India and ors.However, these citations are not on the point involved inthe reference.

14. Ifwe consider all discussed above coupled with the case made out by both , I conclude that, the so called employees involved in the Reference cannot be called as 'workmen ofthe 1st Party and employees of it and as such they are not entitled to get any relief. So I answer these points to that effect and pass the following order :

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

ORDER

Reference is rejected with no order as to its costs .

A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer Bombay,

9thApril, 2009.

नईदिल्ली, 2.जून , 2009

का.आ. 1761 , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ.एन.जी.सी. , लिमिटेड 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 क.सं.- सी.जी.आई.टी.- 2/2/2006 इन संदर्भ सं. -सीजीआईटी-2/10/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को2-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।।

[सं. एल-30025/3/2009- आईआर ( एम ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 2nd June, 2009

S.O. 1761. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Comp . No. CGIT- 2/2/2006 in Ref. No. CGIT -2 / 10/2003) 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 ONGC Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 2-6-2009 .

[No. L- 30025/3/2009-IR (M)] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO . II AT MUMBAI Present : A. A. Lad, Presiding Officer Complaint No. CGIT - 2 /2 of2006 In Reference No. CGIT -2/10 of2003 1. Anant Sitaram Bhosale , 2. Santosh Anant Bhosale Both residing at D- 103 , Guruprem Housing Society Complex, Plot 25, Sector 4 , Kalamboli , Navi Mumbai-400 704.

Complainants

V/s.

OilandNatural Gas Corporation Ltd. , NSEBuilding, Bandra Kurla Complex, "Technoplis Knowledge Park , Bandra (East) , Mumbai -400 0511

....Respondents

APPEARANCE

For the Complainants : Mr. J. S. Sawant, Advocate. Forthe Respondents : Mr. G. D. Talreja, Representative.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

3633 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30, 1931

Dateofreserving the Award: 14-11-2008 .

Dateofpassing the Award : 6-4-2009:

Complaint under Section 33 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

AWARD

1. The Complainants Bhosales i.e. Anant Sitaram Bhosale and Santosh Anant Bhosale abovenamed who are father and son respectively state that, they are workmen of the Respondents i.e. , Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Complainants state that, Reference was sent by the Labour Ministry, Government of India, New Delhi which was numbered as CGIT-2/ 10 of2003 and the same is pending before this Tribunal for adjudication regarding demand of Complainants.

2. According to Complainants -Respondents have contravened the provisions made under Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and have altered the service conditions of the Complainants during the pendency of the proceedings by refusing them work , wages and consequential benefits w.e.f. 3-10-2005 and 31-10-2005 respectively. Since they have committed breach of the provisions made under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Respondents are liable to be punished as provided under Section 31 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Even Respondents in utter disregard to the provisions made under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in violation of principles of natural justice , by way of discrimination have deprived the Complainants of their work, wages and consequential reliefs with effect from the above dates . In this situation it is necessary to hold and declare that, the Respondents viz . Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. have contravened the provisions made under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by refusing work, wages and consequential benefits to the Complainants w.e.f. 3-10-2005 and 31-10-2005 respectively. Complainants also pray to direct Respondents to make the payment of wages to the Complainants from the above dates .

3. This is disputed by the Respondents by filing written statement at Exhibit 6 making out the case that, the prayer of the Applicants is not maintainable on facts as well as in law. It is stated that, the Complainants are not 'workmen' within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is contended that, the Respondents are not the employers of these Complainants and there is no relationship between them . It is contended that, the status of the Complainants is yet to be decided in a Reference No. CGIT-2/ 10 of2003 which is pending before this Tribunal . It is stated that, these Complainants cannot seek any relief and cannot get any benefit of it. It is stated that, these Complainants are facing criminal trial since charged for offence of murder under Section 302 r/ w Section 34 and Section 498-A of the IPC. Even they were

arrested on 22-8-2005 by Raigad Police and released on bail on 28-9-2005 and 25-10-2005 respectively. It is contended that, said arrest was not informed by them to the Respondents . It is stated that , the prayer of the Complainant is vague and it cannot be considered. It is stated that, the provisions of Section 33 -A ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not applicable to this Complaint . It is contended that, these Complainants were engaged by an independent Contractor to work in the establishment of the Respondents Company . It is further contended by the Respondents that , the Petroleum Employees Union and General Employees Union filed 2 Writ Petitions viz . Writ Petition No. 401 of 1996 and 1240 of 1996 where they prayed to treat them as regular employees of the Respondent Corporation. While deciding the said Writ Petitions , Hon'ble , Bombay High Court directed Respondents- Company not to engage the Contract Labour in respect of the jobs covered by the Notification dated 8th September , 1994 w.e.f. 1st April , 1997. It was also directed by the Hon'ble High Court to determine the complement of different categories of workmen mentioned in the notification dated 8th September , 1994. It was also directed to absorb those workmen as regular workmen in the employment ofthe Respondents Co. and upon absorption in the service of Respondents Co. the concerned workmen shall be extended all employment and condition of service asare applicable to workmen of corresponding departments ofRespondents Co. and if any workmen from amongst the existing contract labour are found surplus to the requirements in any category, the Respondents Company shall discharge such workmen after complying with the provisions of Chapter V- B of the industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Said was challenged by Respondents -Co. by filing AppealsbeingAppeal No. 1285 of 1996 and 1286 of 1996. 'Even both Unions filed Appeals being Nos . 243 of 1997 and 244 of 1997. Said appeals were admitted and the DivisionBench ofthe Hon'ble Bombay High Court passed Interim Order on 20th January, 1997 directing ONGC to treat the concerned workmen who were in their service on the date of interim order passed by the Learned Single Judge, as their direct employee from the date ofjudgment. It is also contended by the Respondents that, the appeals filed by ONGC were also admitted by the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court, Bombay on 19.6.1997 and the Division Bench also directed ONGC not to terminate the services of any employee except on a ground permissible under the Industrial Disputes Act for misconduct. Meanwhile ONGC was required to terminate the Contracts entered between the ONGC and the concemed contractors under which they were engaged in the purported 13 prohibited categories and treat the said contract workers as direct employees as contemplated in the Interim Order . Appeals filed by ONGC were decided by the Division Bench ofthe Hon'ble Bombay High Court directing there is need to make Reference regarding dispute raised by the Union. Against that, ONGC approached Hon'ble Supreme Court 3634

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20 , 2009/ JYAISTHA 30, 1931

REASONS :

byway of filing two separate SLPs being SLP No. 4354 of 2003 and SLP No. 4355 of2003. In the meanwhile Appeals filedbyUnion came up for hearing before Division Bench and the same were dismissed and all orders including interim order passed was set aside . So against the said decision Union filed SLPbefore Apex Court and while disposing of the said SLP Apex Court observed :

8.Bythis Complaint both Complainants pray todirect Respondents to pay them wages and other benefits with effect from3-10-2005 and 31-10-2005 respectively and treat them as employees of the Respondents . Whereas case of the Respondents is that , they are contract employees . Besides the basic salary of these employees is Rs . 8918 hence they are not workmen . They are not employees of ONGC. They work on the post of Supervisor . Besides remained they absent without Informing reasons oftheir absenteeism .

"Whether the employees were absorbed and as such continued pursuant to the Order of High Court referredto above is a question of fact which cannot be gone into by thisCourt . We, therefore , consider it appropriate to leave the issue open, tobe decided by the Industrial adjudicator , for that purpose we direct the Respondent Corporation to maintain the status quo as of today, for the period of 3months."

9. To prove that, Complainant relied on the affidavit ofAnant Sitaram Bhosale , in lieu of the examination - in- chief, at Exhibit 8 where he states that, the Respondents have contravened the provisions of Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and pray to direct the Respondents to give them wages, payment and consequential benefits thereof with effect from 3-10-2005 and 31-10-2005 respectively. In the cross this Complainant admits that, he wasworking as a Fire Supervisor and his son is working as a Telephone Operator with Respondents . He states that , 5 persons are working under him . He states that , their- service conditions and service conditions of Respondents' employees are different . He admits that, he was arrested by Raigad Police on account of death of his daughter- in - law. He admits that, he had not informed Respondents about his arrest. On that Complainant closed evidence by filing purshis at Exhibit 9A .

4.According to ONGC all the contractors involved in Writ Petition No.401 of 1996 and 1240 of 1996 were independent contractors and employers by themselves , paidwages to their workmen , supervised their work , paid advances against their wages , marked their attendance. TheDivisionBench of Hon'ble Bombay High Court by its order dated 19-11-2005 in Appeal No. 173 of 1997 in Writ Petition No. 2244 of 1997 inter alia held that, order and judgment of Ld. Single Judge dated 31st August, 1996 directing absorption of Contract Workmen has not attained finality since Appeal against the order ofLd. Single Judge waspending . So according to ONGC contracts are genuine and these Complainants - workmen are contract employees .

5. It is further stated that, the concerned workman- . Complainant Santosh A. Bhosale is working as direct employee inElectronics and Telecommunications Department ofONGC and drawing salary ofRs . 8918 per month . Whereas AnantB. Bhosale , his son was working as a direct employee in Fire Section of the Respondents and drawing salary of Rs.8919 per month . They are designated as Supervisor and cannot be called as workmen. Since both remained absent and away from work as a result of their arrest and theywere charge sheeted under Section 302 and 498A r/w Section 34 of IP.C. They are not eligible to be continued in the employment ofONGC and they did not inform about their arrest and the incident in which they were arrested. So it is prayed that, the prayers ofthese Complainants require to reject since theydid not deserve to get it.

6. No rejoinder is filed by the Complainants .

7. Inview of the above pleadings following points arise for my consideration which I reply as under:

FINDINGS

POINTS

10. Against that , Management examined Kandamaprampill Sebastian Xavier, and filed his affidavit atExhibit 9, in lieu ofhis exami nation - in-chief, who narrates all the pleadings taken by the Respondents in reply. In the cross he admits that, these workers were not paid wages when they were terminated. Then another witness Nathu Sakharam Khade is examined by Management and filed his affidavit at Exhibit 10 in lieu of examination - in-chief who states that, Anant Sitaram Bhosale was direct employee of the Respondents . He used to supervise the work of the workmen who were working under him . About Santosh A. Bhosale and Anant S Bhosale he states that, they remained absent from 22-8-2005 as they were arrested and released on bail on 28-9-2005 . They did not inform about their arrest and the cause behind their absenteeism . In the cross this witness states that, these Complainants are getting wages directly from ONGC . He admits that both these Complainants were requesting ONGC to take them in the employment. That means they were working as employees of ONGC . On that ONGC closed its evidence and field closing purshis at Exhibit 11 .

11. Written arguments are submitted by Complainants at Exhibit 14 which were replied orally by the ONGC'sAdvocate .

(1) Whether these Complainants No are entitled for reliefs as sought?

(2) What order?

As per order passed below.

12. In the arguments ONGC made out the case that , these workers are not workmen of ONGC . However, [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

3635

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20, 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30,1931

Reference about their relationship is pending and unless anduntil that isdecided by deciding Reference , they cannot seek any relief by this type of Complaint . It is stated that , the service conditions of the employees of ONGC are different than those of the Complainants . These Complainants are contract workers and relying on that, their services were terminated. Unless and until they are reinstated they cannot claim any relief.

13.Here it is important to note that, Reference CGIR- 2/10 of2003 is pending before this Tribunal. The case made outby the ONGC is that, they are not employers of these Complainants and it is a matter of record that, the said Reference is yet to decide . In the Complaint Complainants say that , ONGC has violated the provisions of Section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, no specific case is made out by the Complainants regarding violation of the provisions of Section 33 ( 2) ( a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is not stated as to why they have filed this Complaint. They state that, they are entitled for work and wages and consequential benefits w.e. f. 3-10-2005 and 31-10-2005 respectively. However , it is not explained as to how they are entitled for work, wages and consequential reliefs unless and until Reference is CGIT - 2/10 of2003 is adjudicated and decided.

14. ONGC's stand that, these Complainants were supervisor and they were not from the category of 'workmen' . Besides ONGC denied these their relations with theseComplainants in the Reference . Unless and until their relations and status is decided and unless and until they establish their relations with ONGC and thereby succeed in showing it, in my considered view, under the provisions ofSection 33 (A) they are not entitled for any relief. Section 33(A) expects:

"Special provision for adjudication as to whether conditions of service etc. changed during pendency of proceedings : Where an employer contravenes the provisions of Section 33 during the pendency of proceedings (before a conciliation officer, Board, an arbitrator , a Labour Court, Tribunal , or National Tribunal ) any employee aggrieved by such contravention , may make a complaint in writing (in the prescribed manner )."

15. No case is made out by these Complainants regarding matter connected with the dispute raised by these Complainants . In fact these workmen were arrested but they did not inform that fact to the Respondents/ONGC . In fact theywere working as Supervisor and moreover it is the case ofthe Respondents that, they are contract employees and not employees of ONGC. It is a matter of record that, Reference is pending and unless and until Complainants establish their relations they cannot get any relief.

16. Besides in the Reference prayer is there for payment ofwages and if these workers succeed in showing their relations with ONGC and succeed in proving their grievance which they have taken in this Complaint, it will be consideredwhile deciding Reference. In my considered view considered view these Complainants at present are not entitled for the reliefs as prayed in this Complaint. So I answer this point to that effect and passing the following order:

ORDER

Complaint is dismissed with no order as to its costs Bombay, 6thApril,2009. A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 3 जून , 2009

का.आ. 1762, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एसजीबी के माईन्सऑफ उड़ीसा माईनिंग का. लि. 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 394/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-29011 /24/2001- आईआर ( एम ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 3rd June , 2009

S.O. 1762. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 394/ 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 SGBK Mines of Orissa Mining Corp. Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 3-6-2009 .

[No. L-29011/24/2001 - IR(M)] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESHWAR

Present : Shri N.K.R. Mohapatra, Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute Case No. 394/2001 Date of Passing Award- 16th April , 2009 BETWEEN

The Management of the General Manager, OrissaMiningCorporation Limited, P.O. Barbil, Distt. Keonjhar . ... 1st party-Management

And Theirworkman Shri Abhiram Behara , represented Through the General Secretary, Keonjhar Mines Mazdoor Union, P.O. Guruda, Distt. Keonjhar - 758034. ... 2nd Party Union.

3636

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 20, 2009/JYAISTHA 30, 1931

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

M/s. $ .L . Pattnaik, Advocate Forthe 1st Party Management

M/s. D. Mahanta, Advocate ... For the 2nd Party Union

AWARD

his attaining superannuation age of 60. It is further contended by the Management that during his service period the disputant had never produced his School leaving certificate in support of his age and that such certificate was only producedduring conciliation proceeding on 19-10-2000 . It is further claimed by the Management that such a claim challenging the retirement age having been made by the workman after receipt of the retirement notice , the same is tainted with ulterior motive and as such not maintainable .

5. On the basis of above pleading on the parties the following issues were made .

TheGovernment of India in the Ministry ofLabour, inexercise ofPowers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial DisputeAct , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L-29011/24/ 2001- IR(M), dated25-5-2001.

ISSUES

1. Whether the action of the Management of S.G.B.K. Mines of Orissa Mining Corporation Limited, Barbil , by non-correcting the date ofbirth ofShri Abhiran Behera as on 19-7-1948 as per the School Leaving Certificate issued by their own managed school is justified?

Whether the action of the Management of SGBK Mines ofOrissa Mining Corporation Limited, Barbil bynon-correcting the date of birth of Shri Abhiram Behara as on 19-7-1948 as per the School Leaving certificate issued by their own managed school is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitled to ?

2. This reference is the outcome of an Industrial Dispute raised by the 2nd Party Union challenging the retirementdate of one Shri Abhiram Behara an employee of ManagementNo. 1.

6. To prove its case the Union examined the disputant as W.W. - 1 by producing his School leaving certificate, Ext.- 1 . The Management on the other hand examined one of its officer as M.W. - 1 and produced documents marked asExts . -A to E.

FINDINGS

ISSUE NOS . 1 & 2

7. These issues are taken up together as they are inter-linked.

3.According to the Union , the workman Shri Behara initially joined as a Mazdoor under earstwhile Management, M/s. Sirajuddin & Co. in SGBK Mines . After the said company was taken over by the present Management of OrissaMining Corporation in 1982 the workman continued under the later company (OMC) as before and he was regularized as a Khalasi against a cadre post in 1987 as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in O.J.C. 1923/93, It is alleged by the Union that at the time of regularisation as a Khalasi the workman produced the School leaving certificate in support of his actual age but theManagement without considering the same issued a retirement notice dated 3-2-2000 to make him retire with effect from 31-7-2000 .As the retirement age was assessed onthe basis ofentries available in the "B" Register which wasmaintained irregularly the workman through its Union raised an Industrial Dispute before the Asst . Labour Commissioner (Central) resulting in the present reference .

Admittedly the disputant was an employee under the erstwhile Management of M/s Sirajuddin & Co. and after it was taken over by the present Management ofOrissa Mining Corporation on 18-6-1982 he used to continue in service under the latter till his alleged date of superannuation on 31-7-2000 at the age of60. Ext .-A is the "B" Register mainained by the Management on the basis ofinformation available in a similar register ofthe erstwhile M/s. Sirajjuddin & Co. [The evidence of the Management shows that necessary entires in that " B " Register (Ext. -A) was made, this shows that the workman was aged 42 years bythe timehe entered the job on 18-6-1982] . The workman admits to have signed in "B" Register (Ext. -A) when it was prepared. He also admits to have signed in the " B" Register maintained by the erstwhile Management. Ext . -B is the medical examination report of the disputant conducted under Rule 29-B of the Standing Order . This also indicates thatby the time the Doctor examined him he was appearing to be aged about 57 by 15-10-1999 . Ext -C the nomination and declaration form submitted by the disputant to the Provident Fund Commissioner shows that he was aged about 57 years by August 1997. It is admitted by the 4. In reply to the above it is contended by the Management that at the time of taking over of the mines fromtheEx-Lessee, M/s . Sirajuddin & Co. in June 1982, the Bio Data of all the employees were recorded in Form-B register as per the entries available in a similar register of the Ex -Lessee and it was authenticated by the disputant through his Union, the Barbil Zone Mining and Transport Workers Union which was operating in the mine at that time.As according to the said entry the workman was aged 42 years by the time he joined under Ex - Lessee on 18-6- 1982his date ofbirth was accordingly fixed in July 1940 as perStandingOrder and was made to retire on 31-7-2000 on 3637 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 20 , 2009/ज्येष्ठ 30 , 1931

10.Accordingly the reference isanswered.

N.K.R. MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

List ofwitnesses examined on behalf of the 2nd party- union

disputantduring trial that the varions particulars furnished inthat form was made as per his own saving. Thus the aforesaid facts show that the disputant was aged about 42 year/by the time he entered in service on 18-6-1982 as recorded in "B" Register (Ext. - A) .

W.W. - 1 Shri Abhiram Behara.

List of Documents exhibited on behalfofthe 2nd party- union

Ext. -I-Xeros copy of school leaving certificate.

List of Documents exhibited on behalf of the 1st party-

Management

M.W.- 1-Shri Subas Chandra Panda .

List of Documents exhibited on behalf of the 1st party- Management

Ext. -A-Xerox copy of Register ofEmployees.

8. It is deposed by the disputant that at the time of his permanency in the non- permanent category in 1987 he had produced his school leaving certificate (Ext . - 1 ) in support of his exact date of birth but the Management in ignorance of the same had recorded his age to be 42 years as on 18-6-1982 in the " B" Register marked as Ext.-A. But such of the evidence of the workman does not inspire any confidence as his purported school leaving certificate (Ext. - 1 ) Appears to have been issued to him in as late on 20-8-1993 . This otherwise gives rise to the inference that thisExt. - 1 is a created document and his claim that he had produced the same before the Management in 1987 in support of the exact date of birth is nothing but a smoke ball .

Ext.-B-Form-O-Report of medical examination underRule 29-B.

Ext. -C-Nomination and Declaration Form Part-A (EPF) .

Ext. -C/ 1- Letter ofthe PFC dated 19-12-2007 .

Ext. -D-Tripartite settlement dated23-5-2000.

9. Thus after going through the evidence adduced by both parties and on perusal of the various documents filed by them I am of the confirmed view that the stand taken by the workman is a deliberate attempt to get illegal benefits .His raising of an Industrial Dispute at the fag end ofhis service carrier further smells fishy and as such he deserves no consideration .

Ext. -E-Copy of letter dated 26-5-2001 ofGeneral Secretary K.M.M.U. (AITUC) .

Printed by the Manager , Govt . of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064. and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054 .